New Yorker Magazine Cover…Too Much?

I said I thought it might be over the top, but I am not offended by it because I understand the satire.

Both the Obama and the McCain campaigns spoke out against it, so they thought it was offensive.

The news media is jumping on it because they like to create controversy, so it’s the flavor of the moment (when they’re not ooh-ing over the Brangelina twins).

Obama’s campaign denounced the cover due to a really interesting concern: They said that not many people would be willing to pay $4.50 a pop to actually read the article and would be left with the image of Obama in muslim dress. These folks, of course, are probably the same crowd of people that cling to their guns and religion to get by in tough economic times.
Maybe “those people” are too stupid to read….or too lazy…..maybe those are the same type of people that Obama is counting on to vote for him….people that rely on symbolism over substance. Kind of ironic that Obama is worried about the very thing that he throws out on a daily basis. Seems kind of hypocritical to be against symbolism when it negates your message, yet use that same symbolism for your own political gain.

It was obviously intended as satirical humor but it was miscalculated (and therefore probably “over the top”).

The “miscalculation” is the overestimation of how familiar the general public is with these political issues (often referred to as “low information voters”). Interest level aside, there are a lot of people who work long hours and/or taking care of kids/family where seeing such a cover publicized may be one of the few exposures to a candidate they have.

The best satire usually has a prerequisite of some knowledge/background of the issue being satirized. In this case, even though the magazine is obviously directed at its specific audience, when the national media picks it up, there’s a whole new audience.

The preface to Mr Bumpy’s earlier comment #5 is this link: http://www.slate.com/id/2195317/?GT1=38001
Worth a look.
As for bluenotes comment, good point. However, that’s the problem with the National (drive-by) media, they blow the littlest things out of proportion on a daily basis and it’s unfortunate that your average Billy D. Public still doesn’t realize this.
I also think bluenotes miscalculation is a sort of miscalculation in stating that because some people “work late or have family’s to take care of” that this is only one of a few “exposures to a candidate they have”. If this is truely the case, (which imo thankfully isn’t) than I’m glad we have our electoral college put our President into office instead of a popular vote. I think people are a little smarter than to base their decision (or one of their decisions) on a “cartoon” in passing.
As always, just my opinion FWIW.

Leave me out of this. I was just adding a link to the phrase you left. I was in no way “assuming” anything about your comment.
But thanks for your concern.

No problem Mr Bumpy.
Regarding the links, all I do is highlight the address and then cut and paste it into my comment. (usually works for me)

Anytime! Nice to have you posting here. I enjoy reading your comments.

Uncle Bumpy: “My short time here on this site would certainly come to an end should I comment like I want to comment concerning this fine piece of ignorance disguised as a comment.”

Hi Uncle Bumpy…what did I assume about that? It sounded to me as if you were attributing the Obama quote referenced by Bundy to Bundy’ and not Obama…if not, can you tell us what you were so upset by in Bundy’s post?

Moreover, why would you want to link to the Slate piece that CR67 provided, as you sarcastically indicated to me that you didn’t get it from a “Slate story”? I’m a little puzzled by your being annoyed with me and then thanking CR67 for providing the link to your quote (comment 14 and 16)

Sorry if you misunderstood my questions . . . I just don’t understand why you got so upset. I wasn’t trying to put you down, I was honestly trying to clarify where Bundy’s “guns and religion” language came from.

Comment # 19 by easterner on July 15, 2008 @ 11:29 pm

Uncle Bumpy: “My short time here on this site would certainly come to an end should I comment like I want to comment concerning this fine piece of ignorance disguised as a comment.”

[quote] Hi Uncle Bumpy…what did I assume about that? It sounded to me as if you were attributing the Obama quote referenced by Bundy to Bundy’ and not Obama…if not, can you tell us what you were so upset by in Bundy’s post? [end quote] Because something SOUNDS like something to you, does not make it so, easterner. As I stated in a previous post, I feel I am aware of what Bundy was pointing out. I have read quite a bit of this sites stories and a large portion of comments on those stories, and it is my opinion that the site admins and moderators are less than tolerant when it comes to free speech. favoring instead a more politically correct approach. I will stop short of expressing my opinion on what Bundy was saying. I certainly hope that Bundy was stating that Obama was being show as a symbol and stereotype, and my attack would have been against Obama and NOT Bundy.

[quote] Moreover, why would you want to link to the Slate piece that CR67 provided, as you sarcastically indicated to me that you didn’t get it from a “Slate story”?[ end quote]

Please, do tell where i was wanting to link to a Slate story? I clearly stated that the words came from the web that littered with the phrase these days. You once again choose to assume rather than ask for clarification.

[quote]Sorry if you misunderstood my questions . . . I just don’t understand why you got so upset. I wasn’t trying to put you down, I was honestly trying to clarify where Bundy’s “guns and religion” language came from. [end quote]

Again, you assume that I am upset, which I am not. Sarcastic, yes. Upset, no. As we roll along here you and other contributors will find that I will leave some ambiguity and open ended phrasing into my comments. The intent is simple – those on one side of the fence will make assumptions, those on another will ask for sake of discussion for clarification.

Thanks for your comments easterner.

easterner- I tried to respond to your #19, but the site went wonky and error messages popped up. I tried once more and then got a duplicate content message.

Short version of my lenghty reply is that you are taking the liberty of assuming far too much; and also that any comments I might have regarding Bundy’s comment are not for Bundy but rather candidate Obama himself.

I will attempt a couple more time to post my original reply.

To restate the obvious: I am saying that Obama is more symbolism than substance. My earlier comment was revealing the irony in how he has profited from symbolism for so long and is now experiencing the double edged sword of negative symbolism attacking him (albeit unfairly).

As for Idahoagie’s comment in #20 about being unfair to Obama, while I partially agree, it is interesting to note that Idahoagie labels folks that disagree with Obama and circulate e-mails against him as being racist. I certainly hope that Idahoagie, like most intelligent liberals can ferret out real racism from that of political distain for a politician that flips and flops.
Just because people disagree with Obama does not make them racist, nor does the fact that people who support Obama should be called unpatriotic…..yet, both sides get drug down that path. Don’t fall for Idahoagie’s baloney (sorry Ida, couldn’t resist that linkage with baloney and the hoagie)!

So, Idahoagie, if Obama is doing so great then why is the race tied?

After almost two months of a constant Obama lead, generally in the six to seven-point range, Scott Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll records two consecutive days of a tie race (July 12-13) and a one-point Obama lead on July 14. What happened to the Democrat’s lead?

Part of the slide is Obama’s fault and part is McCain’s gain.

Obama has managed to take flip-flopping to new heights. In the time of a month and a half, this candidate – who we don’t really yet know very well – reversed or sharply modified his positions on at least eight key issues:

• After vowing to not engage in private fundraising and take public financing, he has now refused public money.

• Once he threatened to filibuster a bill to protect telecoms from liability for their cooperation with national security wiretaps; now he has gladly voted for the legislation. (And raked in campaign cash from AT&T)

• He backslid on a lifetime of support for gun control, he now recognizes a Second Amendment right to bear arms in the wake of the Supreme Court decision. Yet, he maintained the District of Columbia’s gun ban WAS constitutional and refused to sign on a friend of the court brief to uphold 2nd Amendment rights. (McCain did sign on)

• He told the Israeli lobby that he favored an undivided Jerusalem. Now he says he didn’t mean it.

• From a 100% pro-choice position, he now has migrated to expressing doubts about allowing partial-birth abortions.

• For the very first time, he now speaks highly of using church-based institutions to deliver public services to the poor. (Trying to co-opt McCain’s position)

• Having based his entire campaign on withdrawal from Iraq, he now pledges to consult with the military first. On July 2nd, he told two different audiences different messages about Iraq. One version was absolute pullout on his first day in office, version two was consult with the military.

• During the primary season, he backed merit pay for teachers – but before the union a few weeks ago, he opposed it.

• After specifically saying in the primaries that he disagreed with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) proposal to impose Social Security taxes on income over $200,000 and wanted to tax all income, he has now adopted the Clinton position.

Obama’s major flip-flopping is materially different from McCain’s. While McCain had opposed offshore oil drilling and now supports it, the facts have obviously changed. Obama’s shifts have nothing to do with altered circumstances, just a change in the political season….can you spell expediency?

As a candidate who was nominated to be a different kind of politician with all the trappings of “Change”, Obama has set the bar pretty high. And, with his flipping and flopping, he is falling short, to the disgust of his more naïve supporters.

McCain and the Republicans have finally found an issue – oil drilling – exposing how Democrats oppose drilling virtually anywhere that there might be recoverable oil. Not in Alaska. Not offshore. Not in shale deposits in the West. The Democratic claim that we “cannot drill our way out of the crisis in gas prices” begets the question of whether, had we drilled five years ago, we would be a lot less dependent on foreign market fluctuations.

The truth is that the Democrats put the need to mitigate climate change ahead of the imperative of holding down gasoline prices at the pump. Al Gore rears his ugly head again. If there was ever a fracture between elitist and populist approaches to problems, this is it.

In fact, liberals basically don’t see much wrong with $5 gas. Many liberals have been urging a tax to achieve precisely this level, just like Europe has done for decades. They say the tax is useful to curb demand, conserve and lower prices. This is only partly true, the real agenda is climate change.

Obama said that he was unhappy that there was not a period of “gradual adjustment” to the high prices, but seems to shed few tears over the current levels of gas prices. After all, if your imperative is climate change, a high gas price is worth 10 times a ratified Kyoto treaty in bringing about change.

Republicans can drive a truck through the gap between this elite opinion and the need for us ordinary folk to afford the journey to work in the morning.

If Obama softens his aversion to drilling, it may be the final straw for some of his liberal supporters, maybe even Idahoagie would come around if he/she were intellectually honest.

Overall, it seems that Obama is trying to move closer to many of McCain’s positions. I realize that many people accused McCain of being too liberal on certain stances like waterboarding, but it seems that Obama is trying to come closer to being McCain than McCain is coming to being Obama. This is why the race is tied. Many people don’t trust Obama and are starting to see him as an opportunist rather than a committed believer in pol icies that will improve the lives of the American people. It doesn’t take a New Yorker magazine cover to get people to see that.

wow this reads like point/counterpoint.

I believe both pols (and every one that I’ve known so far) end up reversing their positions or modifying them along the way, and these two are no different. People who decide that only one party does it for expediency’s sake rather than accepting that all pols do this, are fooling themselves using their mental filters.

I also believe that off shore drilling is not the answer. My understanding is that we don’t have the refinery capacity to handle more oil domestically, and there are thousands of sites to be drilled that they already have the permission/rights to drill…but don’t need to expend more money to do this as right now they are having windfall profits and have no incentive to go get the oil they could get (even if they could refine it when they got it). (WHEW! long run on sentence but I’m too lazy to go back to fix it.)

That probably didn’t belong here but it was a thought I had while reading two very well detailed comments!

Hi Idahogie:

I saw your posts on the whole PZ Meyers’ debacle on Scienceblogs; unfortunate that we can’t have a discussion here about Meyers’ stated intent to desecrate a communion host online, as that would violate the “no religion” rule…..

would make for a great discussion over here, I bet!

So, let me get this straight….if people think Michelle Obama hates America they are racist? It has nothing to do with race, it has to do with her views on America being a “mean country” (her words) and being proud of her country for the first time in recent memory. She invited scrutiny by injecting them into the campaign.

I don’t know what polls you are citing, but Congressional Quarterly has many of the states you cited as a statistical dead heat.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/polltracker/2008/07/latest-statebystate-general-el-18.html#more

I can’t believe you can call Obama a centrist! Do you call gun control, needle exchange, abortion on demand, raising taxes (including gasoline taxes and social security) by returning income taxes to the Clinton rate of 39%, talking to Iran, having a second economic stimulus, corportate welfare for Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac……oh man, The National Journal (which by the way is NOT a republican leaning publication and is well respected by both sides) said the following about Obama:

“Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal’s 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., the other front-runner in the Democratic presidential race, also shifted to the left last year. She ranked as the 16th-most-liberal senator in the 2007 ratings, a computer-assisted analysis that used 99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale in each of three issue categories. In 2006, Clinton was the 32nd-most-liberal senator.”

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

It is amazing that the real talking points (which IMO are bogus) aren’t even correct:

McCain has never supported torture. He stood on principle and recognized this was not a postion America should have to be involved in. Read the Washington Post below to confirm his vote. The Post is not a Republican mouth piece either.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/05/AR2005100502062.html

It is amazing that the facts don’t seem to matter much here to certain folks. It is also amazing that Idahoagie can blatantly label McCain supporters racist and stupid. When the best a candidate’s supporters have got is to label opponents racist and stupid, perhaps they should look at themselves in the mirror and realize that perhaps they are describing their own behavior and beliefs more accurately than that of their opponents.

#35, Cal, you made a great point in your second paragraph, and then pointed out that Idahogie was inflammatory and rude…and you lost me. Your last sentence seems to say that those kinds of people are the kind of people that Obama has or wants as his supporters.

Dang, folks. If you think someone is being rude (and we do tend to get over the top on this site at times) wouldn’t that be enough to point it out?

Adding to the fire afterwards is unnecessary. IMO

Idahogie,

I’m puzzled: why did you quote yourself and respond to it in your last post?

In your quote by quote response to Bundy, you state: “Yes. Anyone sending around emails saying “Obama is a Muslim” and “Michelle hates America” is covering for racism”. Later in that post, you italicize this same sentence, ostensibly yours, and then respond to it (kinda nastily, IMO).

Did I misread the quote? Wasn’t that what you said in response to Bundy?

You want me to apologize to you? For what? For questioning your assertion that anyone who questions anything about Obama is racist, or a stupid McCain supporter?

The point is that the New Yorker cover wasn’t even meant as a slap to Obama, yet many of his hyper-sensitive supporters take it that way and pull out the race card when it didn’t need to be taken out of the “deck”. Does anybody else get tired of the race card being pulled in the 10th hour of the campaigns? Both sides do it. It is a old and tired trick.

I am not going to apologize one bit for questioning Obama and pointing out the irony of this situation. If people choose to start disrespecting people because of a disagreement then perhaps it it the Hoagster that should voluntarily decide not to partake here. Exchange of opinion is what this is all about–if you don’t like it too bad–and too bad that people choose to get nasty when there is no reason to.

Now the circle is complete. Hoagie has become just like the other Obama supporters and gotten upset and rude when he/she didn’t have to do so.

This thread, like many before it were good when they stayed on topic and stuck with issues and not so much about the poster(s). I can read, and I am not a liar. I would prefer to debate the merits of the various campaigns with out being called stupid, racist, or a liar. What do y’all think about the irony both here and the New Yorker cover?

One sentence in each of the last two comments before mine (#41) makes me want to respond specifically:

#39 Idahogie “I think he deserves to be treated with disrespect.”. …….I disagree with you on this. If you feel he is being a jerk, responding by also being a jerk may feel better to you but does not resolve the issue, and in fact, just puts you there in Jerkville with him, to other readers. Please don’t confuse what I’m saying, here…you have the right to explain why you think he is wrong and you are right. But you really should maintain a respectful position and not sink to his level.

#40 Bundy “Hoagie has become just like the other Obama supporters and gotten upset and rude when he/she didn’t have to do so.” ………If you’re not Cal the Humble Idiot, (see #35) you probably get your news/views from the same source. I am (at this time) an Obama supporter, and I’m not usually upset or rude when I don’t have to be…it’s very argumentative and not conducive to good discussion when you throw out those sweeping generalizations about everyone who doesn’t agree with you.

Now, I’ll come down off my high horse (for a little while). Everyone, have a great day!

Idahogie #43, thanks for the respectful comment and question.

I understand that you are upset and believe that your position was misrepresented. That is certainly valid to point out. When he denies it, and goes on to make his case by way of explanation, it seems we now have a difference of opinion about what you meant vs what he meant.

But instead of stopping there, both of you continued to deploy the “I said/You said” comments. However, it’s clear that neither of you are really convincing to the other, and the rest of us are left out here reading all the reruns. (We’ve mostly already made up our minds, too).

As far as me thinking that you were being rude, I was commenting upon your statement that you were being nasty because you felt Bundy deserved to be treated with disrepect.

Regarding your question at the end. If I felt that someone was attacking me and repeatedly misrepresenting what I said even after I attempted a correction, I don’t know if I would have the presence of mind to be civil (I’d like to think I would but who knows, I’m human too).

I’ve been bashed and grown tired of the bashing (and pondered leaving this website several times) in the last 7 months since I started commenting heavily. Each time I think I’ve had enough, things calm down a bit and I decide to stick around.

I try to hold my tongue and modify how I respond to people to try to create safe areas where people can disagree with me without fear of being bashed in return, (but I’m not afraid to indicate when I think things have gone over the line).

I don’t know if that is what has helped but I’ve noticed the derogatory remarks aimed toward me have lessened. I’ve tried to tone down the inflammatory rhetoric in my comments (although someone told me recently that I went too far because I was now too wishy-washy to be taken seriously). I guess they LIKED it when I was upset and fought back.

You know that column about Tim Russert that you felt was less glowing than others but more accurate? I really liked Tim Russert, and I may be more like him in that way, in that I appear to be less critical of “the opposition” in my efforts to prove that I’m open minded and fair. I don’t mean to play favorites in that way, so you’re certainly welcome to call me on it every time you think I’m doing that.

I value your opinion, and I want to be able to read lots and lots of comments (and posts, too!) by you in the future.

Oh, Idahogie, I’ve marveled at your ability to have that sharply argued debate and maybe one day I will surprise you!

Oh, Hoagster, I forgot to add to the tennis match in #48, you said, “Again, though, I’m not trying to convince Bundy of anything. I haven’t addressed him since last Thursday, and I won’t unless he corrects his record of misrepresentation. But he still seems to be stubbornly asserting his lie. I don’t expect any reversal.

In fact, he comes off as somebody who has forwarded his share of “Obama is a Muslim” and “Michelle hates America” emails.”

For the record, and as gracefully as I can state it, I have never forwarded an Obama is a Muslim e-mail. I also have never forwarded a Michelle hates America e-mail….although I admit that I believe she does hate parts of America and kept Barack at the church with the good ole Rev. Wright for 20 years because she believed the drivel coming out of his pulpit. Now, the fact that I believe that does not make me racist or stupid.

And by the way I read the piece that Senator McCain submitted to the Times that was rejected. Seems to me that the Times should let the voters decide whose argument is best….isn’t that what journalists are supposed to do, report the news, not make it (or in this case suppres it)?

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/21/the-mccain-op-ed-the-new-york-times-wouldnt-publish/

Well it’s late and all I can say is that I enjoy reading Idahogie’s comments and appreciate his articulate and well thought responses to issues that concern him.

I’m more than willing to hear both sides of any issue right up until someone twists another’s written statements. Then, I tune out and the other wins regardless of whether I think they are right, wrong or half way inbetween on the actual debate.

That’s the plan Idahogie, and you’re quite welcome.

great post, Bundy…….

Easterner just an FYI; I was responding to the post where Bundy suggested Idahogie leave. I don’t appreciate comments like that. Just because someone disagrees, doesn’t mean they have to leave. And yes, I think his posts are articulate and well thought out. So? And I certainly don’t think Idahogie needs to continue defending himself if all posts are read. He has stated his case, you either read it or you don’t. It made sense to me!

Hence, I agree, we can all agree to disagree.

My apologies, you said, “Post 40 – If people choose to start disrespecting people because of a disagreement then perhaps it it the Hoagster that should voluntarily decide not to partake here.”

Which is why I responded. I want him to continue. Thanks.

……except that the link was to “The Carpetbagger Report” which has advertisements for pro-Obama shirts, etc.

How unbiased can this “report” be? Has anyone found this story on a real news site rather than an opinion site like Carpetbagger?

Oh, that’s a blanket statement which I wish were true, Idahogie #77. Opinions are opinions and some on the left are just as liable to make some factual mistakes as those on the right.

My experience is that when that happens, the folks on the left at least are willing to take their lumps and move on. That has some cachet to me…

Thanks for the links Idahogie. I get so tired of hearing how we’re the cause of global warming. It gets real old.

McCain pushed back on Democratic criticism that he misstated the troop buildup ordered by Bush began, saying elements were put in place before Bush announced the strategy in early 2007.

Mcain said, what the Bush administration calls “the surge” was actually “made up of a number of components,” some of which began before the president’s order for more troops.

McCain said Army Col. Sean MacFarland started carrying out elements of a new counterinsurgency strategy as early as December 2006.

McCain even told reporters today, “A surge is really a counterinsurgency made up of a number of components. … I’m not sure people understand that `surge’ is part of a counterinsurgency.”

Speaking on CBS Tuesday of a Sunni sheik who approached Col. MacFarland, McCain said, “Because of the surge, we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening.”

McCain said he had been briefed by Col. MacFarland, commander of 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division, in December 2006 to discuss the strategy that remains in force today. Bush announced the surge in January 2007 and the first of the new troops began arriving in Iraq in mid-February 2007. So, how does that garner a “Breaking News Alert” on Keith olberman last night? It’s pure politics that lacks any meat. Is this the best the Dems could dig up on Tuesday?

If you want a real gaffe how about Obama’s insistence that the surge would not work and would make things worse. He said it over and over again…….and he was proven wrong. But I guess we should ignore that little tidbit and focus on a timeline of when the Anbar Awakening supposedly began, right? Right………………

Idahogie,

Your sarcasm is a bit misplaced….I am not ignoring anything, as you state; merely heeding your own statement that you were not going to address the topic of Bundy’s alleged dishonesty again: “I rest my case, and will leave this particular topic (Bundy’s lack of integrity) for good.” (your quote, post #70 above).

Moreover, let me just say that your perception of what went on between you and Bundy is a bit skewed: look at post #34, in which you acknowledge, with a “yes” what Bundy has been saying all along: your stated opinion that if people believe (not just those who sent emails to that effect–read Bundy’s question and your answer carefully–but all of the people) that Michelle Obama hates America, that those people must be racist. That is truly the crux of the issue, not your attempts to prove “Bundy is a liar, liar, pants on fire!” and your endless cut and paste of earlier posts. Re-read your own responses to Bundy to see what I mean.

Your analogy doesn’t require the answer you are seeking from me in #77, as it isn’t relevant to the current issue. It is apples and oranges, unless you mispoke in post #34.

Have a good night all!

As stated, however, I was simply honoring your request, in comment 70, to avoid this issue.

Okay, let’s follow Cal’s statement in #89 a bit further. The idea is that per the right wing, the surge has worked. Now what?

Obama says to get out. The Iraqi government agrees, the country is more stable (for whatever reason, and I’m not so sure the surge was the catalyst as much as part of the overall changes) so we should be looking at a strategy to get out…their government wants a timeline, and apparently Obama has given them one that they like better than what they’re hearing from McCain.

Has McCain given them a timeline for withdrawal? If the surge worked, why are we looking at staying there forever and ever amen?

re: #92: because Bundy didn’t say, in #34, that you said all McCain supporters are racist, that’s why.

Idahogie, I sense that you believe everyone must agree with your arguments or risk being called names……the insulting “question” you asked me was not a question at all…….and thus, as I have stated already, deserves no answer. Demanding that I answer your rhetorical question is a “power play” that really rankles.

let’s at least be honest and civil here, okay?

we disagree on what Bundy’s statement was; I have explained what was said in number #34.

thanks!

Nemesis: I am not “right wing” but I am taken aback at your blanket statement about “right wing” “fantastical nonsense”.

Wow. Didn’t expect that from you!

“Hoagster”?? LOL You guys are too much!
Perhaps we should bring back the BOP alerts?

Its touching moments like this that make this a great site.

Are you really this talented in real life? Oh wait, don’t answer that…..I wouldn’t want you to have to call me a turdblossom in need of some ‘lesson’.

Idahogie…yes, I’m aware where the name for Rove comes from, and that those who are offended by that need to remember it’s their President who calls him by that name. I don’t like it much (nor do I like most of the nicknames the President uses) so I don’t use it myself. I see this name as derogatory when used by anyone else but the President (and who knows why he uses it.)

What I also see is some commenters calling you names, derogatorily altering your screen name, including adding the second “a” to make it “clever” to then call you things such as a sandwich maker, as if that attempt to belittle and denigrate you is now genuine humor. It’s a tactic commonly used by radio talk show hosts. I really dislike this pit bull attitude.

To the other commenters on this thread…using “Hoagster” “the Hoag” “Idahoagie” and “sandwich maker” are all attempts to belittle/denigrate Idahogie using the name and not using the content of the argument. In fact, Bundy used the phrase “colorful adjectives to demean people” as something he said Idahogie does, while doing it himself (to Idahogie) in the same comment.

To Easterner: I am aware that some of the words used by Idahogie are inflammatory, such as “absurd”. Your pointing out about his typo of “new” vs “knew” was not helpful to the discussion, either, and served only to rub in something (very minor elitist something) that Idahogie did “wong”.

In addition, only one of many comments in the same vein from Bundy is the “and for the record, I will not blatantly attack what I believe to be your lack of character” which was in itself a personal attack, while pretending to be something high minded.

Politics is SUCH great fun! Does anyone feel better after reading and participating in the more than 100 comments on this issue? Can anyone honestly say they’ve contributed anything edifying to this debate? If so, I applaud your efforts and encourage more of the same. If not, can you try harder with your next comment to contribute to the discussion and not make personal attacks?

Passionate debate and even mean-spirited invective can happen on the same thread and by the same people. There’s a place for each of our opinions, imo, but it just seems to get out of hand sometimes.

How weird. I was just finishing up my most recent Rolling Stone magazine, which had an Obama interview (for the record, they are supporting Obama).

Rolling Stone: “There is little doubt that you are going to be ‘Swift-boated’ in some way during the campaign and that we are all once again going to be hit with the politics of fear. How do you deal with that? In the past, Democrats have cowered in front of that.”

Barack: “Yeah, I don’t do cowering. You have to respond forcefully, quickly and truthfully to attacks. So far, we’ve held up pretty well.”

Boomer,

Well-put. Especially your last paragraph. Wonderful.

There’s been a lot of this disappear/must repost type of thing happening, to many posters…wonder what’s going on? Joe E ?

Bundy,

Actually, considering the small difference the new domestic drilling initiatives are expected to make and the ~6% average increase in gas millage increased tire inflation can make, it’s only seems like a ridiculous statement to those who need to hear it the most.

You’re just simply not used to hearing such things because it is not usually politically helpful to tell people ways in which they could have a little more personal responsibility instead of solely relying the the government to provide cheap oil.

It reminds me of a guy that went the M.D. for back pain and the doctor said he needs to lose 50 lbs. His reply of course is “My mother in law tells me that but doesn’t charge me $125.”

Grady does have a good point. I’m not sure it’s the answer to all of our energy woes either, but the reality is that there are simple measures we can take to help out. And Grady’s comparison to medical aches and ills certainly brings it together. How often have we heard that one anyway?

Personally I don’t believe in global warming, at least not the “man made” kind, so I’m not real worried about that aspect. The fact is, the sooner we start drilling for our own oil (no matter how long it takes to reap the benefits) the better off this country will be. Period. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out!