lies.com » Jon Shoots, Scores…

Jon Shoots, Scores…

Summing up the latest spin from the McCain campaign and its supporters, Jon Stewart gives us this:

This entry was posted by jbc on Friday, September 5th, 2008 at 12:51 pm and is filed under lies.com. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

36 Responses to “Jon Shoots, Scores…”

NorthernLite Says:
September 5th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
And that, my friends, is why the current leaders of the conservative movement will never have an inch of my respect.

They do not care for their country, only winning the next election and tearing their opponent down. It’s not about offering new policy ideas for a new world, it’s about smearing the other side, truth be damned, and winning.

What I can’t get is how people can still support these assholes? All they do is lie, attack people, contradict themselves on a daily basis, create deep divisions among the population, and then they have the audacity to call themselves patriotic. It simply blows my mind.
Sven Says:
September 5th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Your Pocket Guide To Speaking Palinguage (Vol. 1)

Up in the Twin Cities, folks are speaking a new language. Or, should I say Palinguage. It sounds sorta familiar because it’s Latin based. But different from the plain English we’re used to speaking, in Palinguage recognizable words take on new meanings.

Won’t you take a moment to learn some Palinguage? Here are some of my helpful tips, a version of which appeared here earlier today.

REPEAT THE FOLLOWING:

If you’re a minority and you’re selected for a job over more qualified candidates you’re a “token hire.”

If you’re a conservative and you’re selected for a job over more qualified candidates you’re a “game changer.”

If you live in an urban area and you get a girl pregnant you’re a “baby daddy.”

If you’re the same in Alaska you’re a “teen father.” (Actually, according to your own MySpace page you’re an F’n redneck that don’t want any kids, but that’s too long a phrase for the evil liberal media to take out of context and flog morning, noon and night.)

Black teen pregnancies? A “crisis” in black America.

White teen pregnancies? A “blessed event.”

If you grow up in Hawaii you’re “exotic.”

Grow up in Alaska eating moose burgers, you’re the quintessential “American story.”

Similarly, if you name your kid Barack, you’re “unpatriotic.”

Name your kid Track, you’re “colorful.”

If you’re a Democrat and you make a VP pick without fully vetting the individual, you’re “reckless.”

A Republican who doesn’t fully vet is a “maverick.”

If you say that for the “first time in my adult lifetime I’m really proud of my country,” it makes you “unfit” to be first lady.

If you are a registered member of a fringe political group that advocates secession, that makes you the governor’s “first dude.”

A DUI from 20 years ago is “old news.”

A speech given without proper citation from 20 years ago is “relevant information.”

And, finally, if you’re a man and you decide to run for office despite your wife’s recurrence of cancer, you’re a “questionable spouse.”

If you’re a woman and you decide to run for office despite having five kids including a newborn, and a pregnant teen… Well, we don’t know what that is ’cause THAT’S NOT A FAIR QUESTION TO ASK.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/visibleman/2008/09/your_pocket_guide_to_speaking_1.html
knarlyknight Says:
September 5th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
NL,
I couldn’t have said it any better than the way you did above. Absoluely blows my mind that anyone could be so dumb as to support these people (then again I am starting to shake my head at the support for the wannabe neo-con Stephen Harper.)

I absolutely hate the way decent Americans are treated by absolutely disengenuous A$$holes as exemplified by the Karl Rove segment. To think that is how the Bush administration treats their own people! It is hard to imagine anything more distaseful, but I can imagine how people who are subject to the heavy hands of American “foreign policy” can be treated even worse, if that is even possible, and unfortunately it is.
shcb Says:
September 6th, 2008 at 5:46 am
There is something precious about listening to someone who gets so much of his information from 911blogger lecture folks that get theirs from KOS, Media Matters and Greenwald talk about how stupid people are that get their information from the “unscrupulous” people shown in a sound bite comedy sketch.
NorthernLite Says:
September 6th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
You need to watch the video again. The comedy is oming from the people you claim as hero’s. John Stewart just presents it to everyone, quite masterfully I’d say. But it pertty much write’s itself.
knarlyknight Says:
September 6th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
NL,
I highly doubt he watched it the first time.

shcb is like that, on the previous thread he showed us extreme ignorant behaviour by repeatedly posting inane and condescending comments about a link, and he never even read the original link! Similar to what we see in the Rove segment of the video: a breath-takingly ignorant mouthpiece whose main purpose is to twist any current situation to score partisan points.

So, NL, does that help answer your question: “What I don’t get is why people still support these assholes?”

It does for me: mostly they are mindless hero worshippers who sometimes also emulate the bully tactics that Rove and the others exhibit, because their twisted egos mispercieve such behaviour as being tough or strong; a few are just stupid morans or sadists; and the rest are part of the 1% who benefit financially from what these assholes have done and continue to do (reduce America from its incredible potential to just another fucked up country that the rest of the world has to keep an eye on over their shoulder.)
shcb Says:
September 7th, 2008 at 5:41 am
It’s a very funny skit, Stewart is quite comical, his delivery of a facial expression and timing of a pause are impeccable. He is almost as masterful at the art of telling a joke with his face as much as his words as an early Bill Cosby, and in all good comedy is a degree of truth. Of course you can make many similar films of liberals doing exactly the same thing, Limbaugh has made a career out of doing just that.

Absoluely blows my mind that anyone could be so dumb as to support these people

That’s the money quote. If Obama loses this election, and that’s a big if, it will be, in part, because of that sentiment. Liberals have this elitist attitude that conservatism is so wrong that people that espouse that viewpoint must be stupid, no thinking man could possibly believe that tripe. Before Matt jumps on me about that statement, I’m generalizing, JBC obviously understands this is true, read his last article. Now I don’t know if you can help yourselves, it may be that being condescending is as much a part of the makeup of being a liberal as being aggressive is a part of being conservative. Chicken and egg thing. This is why it was so natural for Obama to make the “cling to guns and religion” comment and why it took a while for the liberally dominated mass media to even realize it was a gaff.

Since the end of the Democratic convention the McCain campaign has outplayed the Obama camp. Period. From McCain’s magnanimous ad congratulating Obama the night of his acceptance speech, the Palin pick, and now his co-opting of the change message. Obama’s a smart seasoned politician, you don’t make it through the Chicago machine if you’re not, he has played his cards right. Unfortunately for him those that are out to help him are hurting him. From the elite media;

“Please, media, keep it up.” So begged Tom DeLay, speaking at a press panel on Tuesday at the Republican National Convention. According to Politico.com, DeLay said that “The media has done more for John McCain in the last two days than he’s done for himself in the last year and a half.”

to the “useful idiots” on the left wing blogs, the helpers have been attacking Palin, she doesn’t remind us of ourselves, she is us. Toss in Obama’s remarks, Michelle’s remarks, and you have a re energized base and some crossover voters, is it enough, probably not, I doubt that “An American Carol” will even be enough (can’t wait to hear your review or that movie) but it might. We are certainly closer than we were 3 months ago. Thanks guys.

P.S. I watched about half of of the Stewart piece “to realize the saltiness of the sea, one needs only a gulp”
shcb Says:
September 7th, 2008 at 6:14 am
By the way Knarly, I couldn’t read the link you provided, it had been deleted.
J.A.Y.S.O.N. Says:
September 7th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
shcb, I think some of the issue is that you can say that you have the ideological notion of conservatism, as you agree with its ideals, then you have the self-proclaimed proponents of it, which in that clip look like complete jerks that have zero respect for the voting public. I know people have a lot on their minds, but that really comes across as a ‘fuck you’ to the American public. Of course, half the time I wonder if we are all idiots anyway. Of course you can find this on both sides, and examples of the for it until I was against it position from I would hazard to guess would be every single elected official. I get angry anytime I see any clip like this from either political party, if you’re looking for consistency in a pundit, you’re not going to find it, its about saying what you need to say now and denying everything else. It’s really Orwellian when you think about it.

One thing I’m going to call for here, locally on lies is to stop using the elite media or the elite of either party. Nearly all of these elected officials fall into this category. They’re nearly all wealthy, all went ot the best schools, etc. On the major level, say the Senate reps, President, major Cabinet officials, etc thats just who they are. Same with the media. I have absolutely no idea who the elite media are. In any other walk of life we’d be talking about people who have some kind of better education or training than the rank and file, special forces or research physicians. Is this a self proclaimed elite media that think they know whats better for everyone else? If so then I’ve seen it on Fox News, I’ve seen it on MSNBC, seen it in the big city papers, etc. That’s why I pretty much have stopped listening to American news sources and started listening to the BBC, they don’t do commentary. The concept of the elite in the political party or the elite media is simply just another pejorative that both sides like to fling at each other.
J.A.Y.S.O.N. Says:
September 7th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
One other thing I will say, is that I’m not sure the McCain campaign has really outmaneuvered the Obama until Palin, even then I’m not entirely sure.

From what I’ve seen she did energize the base. I watched the whole RNC and it was pound on Obama and nothing else until McCain’s speech, parts of which I really agreed with. A lot of people liked her speech, but I just saw another attack speech, firing up the crowd with it didn’t seem very hard. I compare it to going to a concert and hearing the ‘Who wants to rock?!’ ‘Hello Cleveland!” type remarks from the band. The crowd goes nuts, but its a crowd that’s there to see the act and knows what they’re seeing going in. I’m not entirely sure how she is going to do with the independents, although no one has told me exactly who they are. The demographics in Ohio that they’re saying she’ll appeal to I’m already 100% certain were voting for McCain. Not that this is in anyway statistically valid but I was talking to a good buddy about the election this weekend. He really really likes McCain but tone of the RNC and the Palin choice have put him off. He’s not in the Obama camp, but its a closer thing that it was say, a month ago for him.

The best thing I can see about this from the McCain camp’s point of view is that now we’re doing all these Obama/Palin comparisons, which while I can see being an actually valid comparison I feel are going to hurt the Obama campaign. At the same time I’m not sure how much hurt or for how long, debates might cement things one way or the other, if the Obama camp keeps pushing the issue of McCain’s voting record then it may or may not matter.
shcb Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 5:07 am
Jayson,

To see if these clips were taken in or out of context you would have to see more of the segment of course I’m guessing the Rove section was in context and the O’Reiley not, for instance. The comment about Spears by O’Reiley is because the family is screwed up, both girls, the mom was the typical Hollywood mom, the dad and Britney try and get her money on and on. In the case of the Palin family they seem pretty normal except for a teenage pregnancy. If the only thing in the Spears’ family that was amiss was the pregnant teenager Bill would be defending their family as much as he is Palin’s.

The reason the elite media is elite is because they have a special set of gifts the rest of us don’t, they like to travel, they are good looking, articulate, quick on their feet, smart you know the list. Just like the rest of have our special gifts, you’re a graphics artist, I can’t draw a circle and get the two ends to meet with a gun pointed at my head. You probably wouldn’t know where to begin setting up a multimillion dollar production line. Their gift just happens to be one that we see on TV every night. And remember there are very talented people on the other side of the IFB that fill in the blanks but are missing that one thing that keeps them from being on camera. There are plenty of elected officials that didn’t grow up with a silver spoon in their mouth. Also remember we want successful people running our government wouldn’t you rather have an accomplished college grad as a senator than a drunk that can’t hold a dishwashing job?

By the way, everything I said above applies to both sides of the isle.

I thought the conventions showed who everyone was as well as you could in that format, sure it wasn’t a biography but you only have 5 or 10 minute segments to tell a story at a show like this. Palin’s speech was about a third who she is and the rest attack, but that is who the campaign wants her to be, and who she has been in Alaska, she’s a pit bull with lipstick. Rudy’s speech before her was an attack speech. The evening before Lieberman gave the unity address to independent voters and McCain finished the convention with a speech that was largely meant to separate himself from the current administration as well as an appeal to independents. He ended with ra ra ra to invigorate the crowd. Go back and read the transcript without the POW part and the ending. If you look at the convention as individual components it was one thing, look at it as a whole it is something else, it’s just salesmanship.

What was it about the Palin pick that is bothering your friend?
Sven Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 6:31 am
I’m not sure what you find “normal” about the Palin family shcb. Perhaps her fondness for the Alaska Independence Party? The party motto: “Alaska First”, who’s founding member Joe Vogler once said: “I’m an Alaskan, not an American. I’ve got no use for America or her damned institutions.”

Or perhaps, shcb, you like the way she mocks community organizers? Or the way she lies and claims she opposed the famous “bridge to nowhere”, or claims she sold a plane on eBay when she knows she did not? What are you basing your approval of Sarah Palin on schb? One speech, which was condescending and untruthful?
shcb Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 8:14 am
One speech is about all we have but from that and a few articles and interviews with people like Jack Kemp I got the feeling she is gutsy, arrogant, confident, patriotic, pro second amendment, and pro drilling. She also seem to favor limited government and lower taxes. That’s more than enough for me.

By the way, what you guys consider lies doesn’t impress me anymore, that is price you pay when you minimalize the meaning of a word.
knarlyknight Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 8:42 am
and we don’t give much credence to what you say shcb, that is the price you pay when you rationalize lies and make excuses for liars.

On a related topic, I note in this news short from CNN that:

‘ John McCain tells convention he accepts the GOP presidential nomination with “humility and confidence.” ‘

That’s oxymoronic doublespeak, well almost anyway, George Orwell probably could have used more lines like that.

Besides, I highly doubt there was any “humility” whatsoever in McSame’s mind, given his priviledged past.
J.A.Y.S.O.N. Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 8:46 am
shcb,

I’ll give you the thing about O’Reilly there, but while I can totally agree with calling the Spears family pinheads I feel if you site this teenage pregnancy as a symptom of pinheadedness then you’re at least partially open to the comparison made on the Daily Show. The rest of it’d I’d say was in context and I still stand by my earlier comments there.

The point I was trying to make about the use of the ‘elite’ media is that I only hear the term when it’s used in a way that connotates being isolated and out of touch. In that these people have no idea what is going on with the working American and as such, their comments represent a viewpoint that’s invalid or foolish as a result. I agree with your comments above about the nature of our media personalities, but I feel that reinforces my point of saying that saying ‘the elite media’ actually doesn’t mean anything since they’re all elite.

Regarding politicians in this regard, of course I want to have people I think can do the job. Sure there are elected officials who worked harder for it than others, but again we in America seem to have this notion of the politician who is a person of the people and the one that’s an out of touch elite. I still believe that aside from the State level and down, and the House that when we’re talking about Sentators, Presidential candidates etc, that all of these people are elite. That isn’t to say they’re not hard working or anything, but I hear ‘elite and out of touch’ fired back and forth across both sides often. My assertion was it’s pretty meaningless as it certainly describes the majority of high level elected officials.

Talking about the conventions… I still think the DNC on the whole was more about ‘why you should elect our guy’ and the RNC was more about ‘why you shouldn’t elect their guy’ I like the DNC approach better. Lieberman’s I didn’t catch all off. Palin’s I really didn’t like, McCain’s I thought was quite good. I thought the part about his former POW status was fine, I didn’t hear it so much as RAH-RAH, its part of who the man is, especially when you compare it to Guiliani’s use of 9/11 during his campaign.

For my friend I really don’t know, I’ll have to ask him.

One last thing though. Is arrogance really a positive trait? I personally find it despicable, but I may be outside the consensus. There’s a great divide between arrogance and confidence in my eyes.
shcb Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Jayson,

I think arrogance is a combination of confidence and knowing you can do the job because you’ve done it before, and you did it well. We have come to regard it as a vice because it causes others to feel inferior, but if it is done in such a way as to inspire others it can be a virtue, but to be sure it’s on the virtue vice edge. Elite is also a term that has been turned into a negative in this age of not keeping score at kid’s soccer games. Being in the elite just means you are better than everyone else at something. There is a degree of arrogance that just naturally goes with that confidence and the feeling that not only have I been there done that, I did it better than everyone else. Then it’s just a matter of degree. I don’t think Palin came across as overly arrogant, just enough to let her opponents know she thinks she is better than them. And I like that.

Quickly on congress, the Senate was set up to be manned by more of an elite, thoughtful group of people, professional politicians. With the House being more common people that went to Washington, served their country and went home. For what that’s worth
knarlyknight Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Arrogance is a despicable trait, especially in a leader. It is not so much an issue when the path is clear, or when the minions will not think for themselves or are too timid to point to better paths.

Wherever there is dissent, as in any free society, arrogance is a recipe for discord, strife, discontentment and ultimately mistakes in following a wayward path are far more painful than had they been made without arrogance (i.e with humility) and hence revised in a timely manner.

McSame said he accepted the party’s nomination with “humility”, then negated much of that statement by adding “and confidence.” Yes, confidence and humility can go together, but I’d give that about a zero percent chance of occuring in McSame’s brain given his temper tantrums.

The hot-headedness for which McSame has been known all his life are hallmarks of arrrogance, not confidence. McSame’s hot headedness clearly indicates an absence of humility when it counts: under pressure.
knarlyknight Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 9:37 am
… when it counts most: under pressure.
knarlyknight Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 9:49 am
One can have confidence, know they have done a job before and did it well and also be either arrogant or humble.

The confident person who is arrogant stifles the people around them and think they are superior and are more knowledgable. Thus they fail to properly consider other viewpoints and thus are prone to mistakes.

The confident person who is humble is still proud, but they also realize perfection is an ideal to strive for, not something manifest in their own being or plans of action. The confident humble person truly listens to what people around them think and feel. Thus, where others have something to add or change about a planned path, it is given due consideration and the people giving that advice know that their voices have been heard because they sense the humility. Intuitively, people around the leaders know that their thoughts will be considered and plans adjusted accordingly in the best judgement of their leader, and thus a sense of teamwork and cooperation naturally evolves.
knarlyknight Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Speaking in generalities here….

Arrogant people tend to humiliate others (hence the attack mode of speeches at the Republican convention) tell people what should be done and assure the people that they can go back to shopping, driving the SUVs and watching t.v. because they know best and will take care of things.

Humble people tend to invite others to participate in the kinds of change or the planned direction they want to lead, and keep the doors open for never-ending dialogue as they progress along the path. (Hence the DNC focus on what they have to offer and where they want to take the country.)
knarlyknight Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
shcb,

You suggested that “arrogance” is a combination of “confidence” and the knowledge that you can do something because you’ve done it well before.

I reject that suggestion entirely.

The knowledge that you can do something because you’ve done it well before is something that lends itself to a greater feeling of confidence. It has nothing to do with arrogance.

Arrogance is projecting the appearance that you know best and viewing other views as being more of a waste of time than anything else.

I’ve observed that many, if not the majority of arrogant people (that I have personally come into contact with and subsequently got to know quite well) are, really, under it all, quite insecure (i.e. not truly confident.)

Their arrogance is an act to appear confident to others, and they don’t realize that a lot of people see right through the act. Sometimes it is also an attempt to intimidate others from questioning or second guessing the path they have chosen.
J.A.Y.S.O.N. Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
I have a definition of arrogance that coincides more with knarly’s.

To me it’s a really negative quality representing a lack of self awareness. It’s extrapolating experience and accomplishment in a particular field of endeavor to them all. Thinking that one knows it all, so that one isn’t receptive to any additional information. Not knowing one’s limitations and not ever learning from one’s mistakes, because one doesn’t acknowledge they have them.

It makes me think of how doctors have the most general aviation accidents because they don’t respect the weather or how Haseem Rachman knocked Lennox Lewis out because Lewis just didn’t take him seriously and didn’t train for the fight.
knarlyknight Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
or the Bush admin invading Iraq with “certainty” and “full confidence” about WMD /al Qaeda ties when the rest of the world disagreed.
enkidu Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Arrogance is OK by shcb if it is his guy doing it see?
But B Hussein is arrogant and “uppity” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt1s0Qx0_h8 for thinking he has all the answers!
Shame on you! Shame! Community organizer…

Any rational examination of the whole Sarah Barracuda thing has the R base rev’d up (she’s as reactionary as me! swoon). She delivered a bunch of slurs and outright lies all the while looking perky and she’s gonna be a Grandma! wooo!

But, I am not so sure the INDs will break for her. The cougar vote won’t amount to anything. Social conservatives voting for Clinton because she’s a woman? near zero.

It’ll all come down to how many votes the thugs can cage and how many millions of pissed of Americans can actually cast their vote. That and the debates. I expect a draw in the VP debate, while Obama will dominate the pres debates (except when McBush goes on about his POW days). Yes, I know McBush is all about ‘change’ (riiiiiight)
shcb Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
I have to say it was fun watching Knarly flail around all afternoon on this problem. At one point I was reminded of the old saying “when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging”.

The correct answer here is that arrogance, like most other human traits is fine in moderation. The mistake you are making is you are redefining the word to only include one small symptom of arrogance, not taking peoples advice seems to be Knarly’s common theme throughout the afternoon. There also seems to be some personal history but we’ll leave that for Knarly’s therapist. Greed can be a good thing if it is used to encourage productivity. Kindness is a good thing, right? But even kindness can be not so good, Andy Olmstead is dead because of his kindness, and so is the brave soldier that tried to rescue him. Was Andy too kind? His dad thinks so, after his death his dad said he wished this one time Andy would have shot first and asked questions later.

Let me give you an example, the type of person Knarly is referring to would be someone like the Major Major character in Catch 22, or maybe Custer. Patton and Montgomery were both arrogant, I think everyone would agree with that statement, yet they listened to their subordinates, they took orders well and were great leaders. Bradley on the other hand was probably the most humble general in history and he was a great leader as well. It was simply their personalities. Patton and Monty would listen to their men, make their decision and then by god KNOW they were the best generals in their respective armies. They were arrogant but as Dizzy Dean would later say “it ain’t braggin’ if you can do it”
knarlyknight Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
In general, arrogance turns people off and lessens their support. Animosity results. The kind that led to the end of Patton’s glory.

A leader who exhibits confidence (without arrogance) is superior because reasonable detractors are often brought onside and unreasonable detractors are normally exposed for what they are. The greater the arrogance the more animosity that detractors feel towards a leader and the harder they work to erode the leader’s base.

What’s the Dizzy quote got to do with anything? Bragging is different than arrogance. Are you saying “it ain’t arrogance if you can do it”, because if you are then my friend you are wrong yet again. Arrogance is arrogance, regardless of whether you can do something or not.
knarlyknight Says:
September 8th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
ar·ro·gant Audio Help /ˈærəgənt/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[ar-uh-guhnt] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud: an arrogant public official.
2. characterized by or proceeding from arrogance: arrogant claims.

——————————————————————————–

[Origin: 1350–1400; ME < L arrogant- (s. of arrogāns) presuming, prp. of arrogāre. See arrogate, -ant]

—Related forms
ar·ro·gant·ly, adverb

—Synonyms 1. presumptuous, haughty, imperious, brazen. See proud.
—Antonyms 1. meek. 2. modest, humble.
shcb Says:
September 9th, 2008 at 4:43 am
Of course we’ve never met personally but I’ve met many people like you and I think you probably respond to more humble leadership. I’ll bet a person I call confident, you call arrogant, if I’m confident I can jump a motorcycle farther than you, and I do, then I get in your face a little and taunt you, that would be arrogant in your world, in mine it would just be a challenge for you to do better next time. In my world we both get better, in yours we both go skipping home arm in arm happy we are still friends.

I want to go back a little;

Humble people tend to invite others to participate in the kinds of change or the planned direction they want to lead, and keep the doors open for never-ending dialogue as they progress along the path. (Hence the DNC focus on what they have to offer and where they want to take the country.)

That’s not leadership, that is leading by committee, the only thing that gets accomplished is never ending talk. This is the classic liberal formula for accomplishing a goal, let’s have a meeting. This is why the founders in their wisdom gave the president the power of commander and chief and the power of treaties with approval from the Senate only, they left the House out of treaties with other countries completely because they knew if too many people started debating the moment would pass before anything was done.

I watched just a little of the O’Reilly interview of Obama the other night, when pressed on defending the country, Obama said of course he would protect the country but not until all the talking in the world failed to result in a peaceful solution. And then you get upset when I compare you to Neville Chamberlain.
J.A.Y.S.O.N. Says:
September 9th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Addressing a few points:

It’s arrogant to think you’ve got this much of a feel for the people here based on their posts ; )

All kidding aside, I’ve never really seen much in the way of the taunt based motivation actually working unless the person insulting you is someone you really looked up to in the first place or a friend. If not, say just some random stranger at an event, I think you’d come off as a prick, and no one likes a prick. In that particular type of scenario, I’ve more frequently seen really hostile reactions in stead of better performance as a result. Actually, in my world, that kinda thing maybe gets you popped in the mouth. I’m not that kind of guy, but I’ve known plenty who are.

Still, you’re right in saying that I respond better to a more humble leader. The presence of humility, which doesn’t exclude confidence, because it indicates a lot of positive things to me. I’ve never met anyone who really was superior in a given field who was also arrogant about it. Humility always demonstrates wisdom and intelligence. Arrogance always seems to stem from being pretty good at something, but not being smart or experienced enough to recognize (and keeping this a level of speaking of a skill) that someone is always going to be better than you and luck is going to play some part in your success or survival. Maybe thats why Jimmy Doolittle titled his autobiography “I Could Never Be So Lucky Again” Arrogance is not being smart enough to realize that you don’t know everything.

Everyone likes a confident leader though, but you know, I’m not going to argue with the dictionary there. Greed is good? Not ever. Greed is want without restraint, never leads anywhere positive. Not to be a prick myself, but I’m sure most parents of dead children in a conflict situation wish it had been the other guy.

In all honesty Knarly’s quote reminds me more of what you were saying about Patton and Monty than not. Participate in the planned direction, to paraphrase. So that’s really, despite having an arrogant personality perhaps, just actually listening because you realize someone might know something you don’t. I’m speculating because I think knarly’s repeated postings are born from frustration at what can easily be seen as the arrogance of the current American leadership.

Which segues nicely into my comment on diplomacy. I think the appeal of Obama on this front is that we see a guy who isn’t going to resort to so-called cowboy diplomacy, doing things like invading countries with no thought in mind after what to do when you’re there. I feel the shcb characterization of diplomacy is logically invalid at its core. shcb continues to bring up Chamberlin whenever anyone speaks of diplomacy. This is ridiculous, as this is one particularly bad example that’s brought up every single time, but cannot be extrapolated to the whole of diplomatic processws. The idea of seeing if things can be worked out at the table instead of on the battlefield first is not the same thing as giving your opponent everything they want and hoping they’ll go away.

For instance the surge in Iraq. It’s working right? It’s seems to be on some levels, but why is that, more troops killing more bad guys right? Not entirely. One of the things thats really been disingenuous in discussing the surge is characterizing it in terms of ‘We put boots on the ground and got things are under control’ One of the main reason’s the surge is working is we’ve wised up and let the theater commander actually lead and he’s running the campaign now as a classic counterinsurgency operation. That includes interfacing with and winning over the local population, so they’ll help you instead of the bad guys. Diplomacy in action! Now you have the Sunni Awakening groups fighting with the USA and Iraqi government forces instead of against them.

Again I think this is where some of Obama’s appeal lies, in that he seems to want to see if there is a diplomatic solution to a given international issue. He’s called repeatedly that the real war is in Afganistan. I don’t think he just wants to find him and see what his needs are either.
knarlyknight Says:
September 9th, 2008 at 8:39 am
never-ending dialogue as they progress along the path.

Not never-ending dialogue as they sit around in a room doing nothing.

Getting in my face and taunting me over jumping a motorcycle further would be bragging, and that is different than arrogance. Try a dictionary, they are useful (although it might be a grade 6 skill.)

Arrogance is presuming that because you beat me once you will certainly beat me the next time. And if you are acting like an over the top asshole with your bragging, then in the next contest there’s a 50/50 chance that one of my friends will fix it so that your front tire blows out as you leave the launch ramp. Or if you are so arrogant that you think you are the only one who can beat me, and in the process belittle your friends in the pit crew who want a chance to jump in the contest too, well maybe they will loosen the bolts on your front shocks before your next jump.

Arrogance brings defeat, on a personal level and even more so on a national / Empire level. Confidence and bragging are different issues.
J.A.Y.S.O.N. Says:
September 9th, 2008 at 9:11 am
See, crazy people will let the air out of your tires. Politeness is always free.
shcb Says:
September 9th, 2008 at 10:29 am
I think we’re all edging towards a consensus here, my point is that being a little arrogant doesn’t disqualify you from being a good leader any more than being a little humble. And being arrogant doesn’t mean you don’t listen to your advisors, you won’t be a good leader if you are humble and don’t listen to anyone else either.

The surge, as far as I can tell you are exactly right Jayson, diplomacy is breeding success as much as troop deployment. In his latest book Bing West says exactly that. He says that we were essentially losing the war in Iraq until General Petraeus came up with the surge, the only thing that kept us in the fight to that point was the professionalism and kindness of our troops. A big component of that strategy was to look around Iraq and see what was working and what wasn’t, what he found was that in one area, I think it was Anbar, the commanders on the ground were actively helping the few tribal leaders that were fighting the terrorists and they were helping them hold areas after they were taken. He commanded that this strategy be used country wide. The name of West’s book is “The Strongest Tribe” the name came from a conversation Bing had with one of the tribal leaders where he asked the old man why they had decided to join with the Americans. The leader pointed to a group of Marines on patrol across the street and said “because you have the strongest tribe”. What we as conservatives fear is someone like Obama won’t give the strongest tribe the chance to do what they do best so diplomacy can have a chance. Hence the Chamberlain analogy. And I’ve seen nothing from Obama to make me feel differently.
knarlyknight Says:
September 9th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Of course a little arrogance does not disqualify someone from being a good leader, the point is that a little arrogance makes that someone less “good of a leader” as they would have been without their arrogance.

And I am not saying that Bush, McCain and Palin are just “a little” arrogant; the level of Republican arrogance is astronomical.

As arrogance increases, traits of good leadership (such as listening to others) and the willingness (of those not totally in the fold) to follow that leader diminishes.

In contrast, humbleness has very little direct relationship to good leadership (e.g. making decisions and giving orders), except perhaps in the extremes. There is not much humbleness in American politics, so that is not much of an issue here.

SURGE –

As I heard somewhere: Republicans talking about the surge is like that bratty kid who has being running around the dining room for the last hour disturbing everyone and making various messes. He spills a big glass of grape juice on the carpet and after stepping in it a few times he finally picks up a napkin to sop some up the mess and then expects lavish praise for his cleverness and helpfulness in dealing with the spill.

Final comment: it is strange (in a disturbing way) that shcb still calls the Iraqis “terrorists”.
shcb Says:
September 9th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
The Sadam loyalists and the imports, al Qaeda types are terrorists, I’m not talking about the folks that are helping us win the war, the Iraqi citizens.
enkidu Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 8:32 am
A big part of the surge is that we are now paying the Sunni Awakening folks big bucks not to fight. Our country spends as much on military means as the rest of the world combined. We have the biggest baddest army in country right now, and they are doing their job brilliantly. Now when can we leave? The Obama/Maliki timetable or a hundred years of not acknowledging we made a mistake by going IN, compounded by not getting OUT.

Terrorism is a technique. The Others would surely say the US was perpetrating terrorist acts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Witness the string of drone launched civilian deaths there… of course we label any dead Other as a terrorist and wash our hands morally and intellectually. Only thing is those Others get more and more pissed off with each innocent killed.

I don’t see much difference between the right wing nutjobs and their KILL KILL KILL! (and drill drill drill) and the Islamic Extremist nutjobs and their KILL KILL KILL (and by coinkydink they also do a lot of drill, drill, drill).
knarlyknight Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Republican claims about the success of the surge is like all their other claims about Iraq. It is only a “success” if you accept, like most of myopic media, the Republican’s re-written goals for the surge which are dratically different than what they stated as being the purpose of the surge as it commenced.

In other words, more LIES from Bush and McSame.

The greatest myth promoted by Bush in his speech was found in this line: “Political reconciliation is moving forward, and the Iraqi government has passed several major pieces of legislation.” By overstating the meagre steps taken by Iraq’s leaders in barely passing a few relatively insignificant laws in their parliament, Bush’s statement ranks right up there with his 2003 “mission accomplished” speech and vice-president Dick Cheney’s assertion that the insurgency was in its “last throes” in 2005.

A more honest look at the balance sheet on Iraq’s political transition yields an inconvenient conclusion: The surge has frozen into place the accelerated fragmentation that Iraq underwent in 2006 and

“more honest” – what a wimp, he should have said: “a truthful” to highlight the fact that in this case less honest = ANOTHER REPUBLICAN LIE. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/10/iraq.usforeignpolicy

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Jon Shoots, Scores…

36 Responses to “Jon Shoots, Scores…”

Leave a Reply

Misc

Pages

Archives

Categories