The new science of Obamology

Douglas Steinshouer, Denver

Published February 28, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Letters to the Editor

Comments

February 28, 2008

5:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

samsmargolis writes:

The media has not held Obama accountable for his spotty voting records or lack of clear policy guidance. Of course, when this is pointed out, the media rolls into the denial fetal position. Look at the debate the other night as an example. You had moderators that are supposedly on top of the news game for the mass media and the best they could come up with for Obama was softballs pitched ever-so-lovingly as has been the case this entire campaign. The media in the US denounces the uninformed voter in special after special, but needs only to slide in front of the mirror to see where the true fault lies in the spin and rhetoric game.
February 28, 2008

7:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Guys, I'm not even an Obama fan and I'm offended. Since when is having an unusual name a point of importance in something as critical as a national debate ....and his ears? Give me a break! You guys are grasping at straws, are you that fearful of the upcoming election?

If you are proud Republicans why don't you talk up your candidate? Tell us why we should elect him. I suspect it's because you don't even like your own candidate! I'm an independent, but I am tired of the mean spirited, mindless drivel some of you are shovelling for our consumption.

And Earl: the only one "ranting" here is you buddy!

Can't you do any better than that?
February 28, 2008

7:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

T1anda writes:

Isn't Baracks middle name HUSSEIN??? Yeah, that is correct!! Obama's middle name is Hussein. As American as apple pie!!

Of course his Muslim name doesn't make him less of an American. It just identifies him as an American with a Muslim name! Whatever........
February 28, 2008

8:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

davis_x_machina writes:

I'm given to wonder just who else's middle name we should highlight. Mitt Romney's in that Mitt is really his middle name, and his given first name is Willard the same as that of a famous movie rat, or John Mcinane's Sydney a contraction from the French for St. Denis, sounds quite gay to me.Or to get away from politicians how about Rush Hudson Limbaugh whose middle name is the same as the given name of a famous Hollywood actor later to come out as homosexual.It's got to be a sure indicator of the wingnut's realization of the paucity of their candidates that this has come up so far before the real campaign for the general election has even begun and without a well-formed swiftboat organization to push it.
February 28, 2008

8:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

That's correct T1anda, his name is Barack Hussein Obama as we will hear many times from the wingnuts and talking heads in an effort to associate him with evil.

Tell me should we confuse you with the actress in Fried Green Tomato's because of you online name.
February 28, 2008

9:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

You guys on the right kill me. Every time I hear someone talk about the evil taxes hikes the democrats are going to lay on the country, I have to shake my head in complete disbelief.

I still can't believe that you folks haven't come to terms with the fact that the country is going to have to raise taxes to pay for 8 years of republican reign. Period. No getting around it.

What is more unbelieveable still is that you're actually trying to blame the next guys in line for it.

wow
February 28, 2008

9:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

samsmargolis writes:

leftside - I could care less what his name is. Or that his ears are so big they have their own gravitational pull. You're the one focusing on those portions of the blogs. Here is the question the Bama Lama Ding Dong supporters fail to answer: do you think the media has treated, or is treating, him differently than other candidates? You don't believe there's fodder for critical questioning or comments in his voting record - if you can even call it that? No questions or comments to be had regarding his social policy and proposed spending to support it? Are you going to argue now that those questions are best saved for the main race between 'Bama and McCain after the media railroaded all the other candidates out for a feel-good, say nothing, has done nothing, minister-at-a-pulpit, cult leader? Or maybe you're just a big Oprah fan and if she says he's OK, then you're OK, too? Independent, critical thinking people look at Obama and see a used car salesman at this point. The emotionally guided and thinking people of the nation are hopelessly duped into supporting an all hat - no cattle, empty pockets, hollow, shallow, devious, maybe patriotic, critical of others-but has done nothing himself, hologram of a candidate. But, hey - he's charismatic and that's all that seems to matter to some.
February 28, 2008

9:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

Furthermore, can we please do away with the predictable right wing talking point that obama has no plan (just like kerry had no plan and gore had no plan)?

Go to his website. He has downloadable PDF docs that clearly outline his stances on the major issues with precise specificity.

We're seeing the same willful ignorance on this "issue" from the far right that we unfortunately see on so many others.

Just because you haven't taken the time to educate yourself on something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
February 28, 2008

9:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

samsmorgolis, First of all I'm a Clinton supporter. Second, I'm a realist who understands that Clinton is all but done. That being the case I will support Obama because McCain is nothing but 4 more years of Bush which is why the conservatives are happy blasting Obama rather than pointing out why they feel McCain would be better. They know they would get killed in that argument and choose to damage Obama reputation instead.

Where your coming from I don't know. But I can tell you this, name calling is nothing more than a sign of weaknes in ones ability to argue the issues. We all do it but you've done to excess in your last post. Is that the best you can do?
February 28, 2008

9:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Konyok writes:

Jay, the problem is not so much that Obama hasn't detailed talking points. The pdf is full of stuff, most of it out of the president's ability to deliver. What concerns me is that I can't discern a coherent philosophy either on his website or in the speeches that I've listened to. Very surprising, considering that he has been a law professor.
Hillary and McCain both have public careers with enough statements and actions to reveal what they believe in.

Neither the senator's ears or name should be an issue in this debate.
February 28, 2008

10:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

farmboy writes:

jay wrote, "...the country is going to have to raise taxes to pay for 8 years of republican reign."

But that's not why BO wants to raise taxes. He wants to do it for *his* vision of the world.
February 28, 2008

10:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

so we can only raise taxes for failed nation building, making the country less safe and padding the pockets of republican friends, farmboy?

if we're going to raise taxes for that stuff...why shouldn't we raise taxes for stuff that will actually help the middle class?
February 28, 2008

10:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Konyok,

I agree totally: any reference to name and physical appearance are totally irrelevant!
February 28, 2008

10:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Gene, Once again, I invite you to engage in the conversation in a meaningful way. Your comments so far on this post are extremely shallow. Try to influence the debate! There are far better things than being a troll! Make a difference and say something (anything) meaningful. Please!
February 28, 2008

10:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

jvb writes:

That despicable loon named gene should not be provoked: Despicable because he places so much value on his opinion that he is willing to kill those whose opinion does not agree with his. His posts evidence his ignorance. How stupid can one be to gauge a person's ability by the size of his ears: What an idiot. I prefer not to vote for Obama but not because of his ears. Listen up Gene: You are !@#$%^&* and further: I can't go on. "Ears:" Go fact yourself. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
February 28, 2008

10:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

well what's your solution to the social security instability, bigfoot? we are either going to have to raise taxes, cut benefits or raise the retirement age.

those are the options.

which do you pick?
February 28, 2008

11:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

jvb writes:

A 4th option (if big ear, moron, Gene) does not object: Raise the bar. Pay SS on total gross income; therefore, the rich who gross a $million will pay SS on that amount. A lot of billionaires will be paying quite a bit into SS and still have enough left over to buy yachts. Hey Gene! I have an ugly pimple on my posterior that looks like you: Should I be banned from the political process?
February 28, 2008

11:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Konyok writes:

jvb: That is one of Obama's proposals.
The problem is that from the beginning SS was intended to operate like a retirement account - what you receive is based on what you pay in. Your billionaires would have every right to demand millions per year in benefits. The cap on SS benefits is directly tied to the cap on payroll taxes. To get around this dilemma would require a fundamental change in the rationale of the SS program. It would then become a means tested welfare program.
This is similar to many of Obama's bullet points in his pdf. He suggests what seem to be merely pragmatic proposals that have enormous political and social ramifications. We are to infer the senator's philosophy from that.
Because he is a former law professor, I have to believe that he is probably a lot smarter than I am. So, why does he choose not to discuss the reasoning behind his proposals?
February 28, 2008

11:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

Obama has clearly stated what he will do to bring about change. Here is his top ten list of actions....

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Now get out there like good little lemmings and vote for his kind of change!!!
February 28, 2008

11:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

jibbons writes:

This couldn't be easier.

You can't vote for McCain because he wants to keep up the ridiculis tax cuts bush instated, for a list please view Sasquatch's list of supposed tax hikes (the list is predominately a record of repealing tax breaks for the rich, not a record of voting for a tax hike (the words death tax are very misleading)). On top of that he will refuse to leave the hopeless Iraq conflict.

You can't vote for Hillary because she is one of the top 10 worst earmarkin' corporate friendlies in the Congress, if that isn't enough, don't forget that she was also on WalMart's board when they were crafting some of the most hostile labor relations in the country.

So far you can vote for Obama because he hasn't bowed down to kiss corporate americas boots, he has said he will pull out of the corporate robbery that is Iraq, and he hasn't been in Washington long enough to be turned into the pond scum that sticks to the walls of the capital.

That being said, he is a politician, and the chances of him being the perfect candidate are pretty small. However, thanks to the American 2 party system we are left to choose the candidate who will hopefully be less crappy than the others. That prize goes to Ralph Nader, unfortunately everyone is so rapped up in the parties that in order to vote for someone who has a chance you must choose the least bad of the major parties. That individual is at this point, Barack Hussein Obama.

Go Obama, or anybody better.
February 28, 2008

12:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

jvb writes:

Leave it to idiot Gene to come up with Peter Sellers. Konyok comes up with intelligence. You take the opposite ground. Sack your computer if you can't say something worthwhile. "Ears," what a jerk. You'll have to vote for "ears" or stay home because even though you lack intellect you can't vote to occupy Iraq for a hundred years, though I wouldn't put it past you. Ends before its too late: I may say something objectionable to the moderator.
February 28, 2008

12:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

KW writes:

jay - If OB gets elected POTUS, does that mean you'll quit making fun of people who have religous beliefs?

You know, those cute little insults you use calling Christians people who believe in "ghosts and magic" and all that?

I'm just wondering how you can support and vote for a person who has religous beliefs you usually take delight in making fun of.

And what if he ever let his spiritual beliefs guide his decision making while in office? Would you still admit that you helped put him in office?
February 28, 2008

12:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

jvb,

I've tried with Gene today and in the past. Apparently his intent is to be a troll and waste other people's time rather than to offer anything of substance. It's ultimately his loss! I suggest that if he is determined to be a troll that we all stop feeding him.

Even SASQUATCH and Earl occasionally (not often) show some glimmers of logic and reasoning!
February 28, 2008

12:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

samsmargolis writes:

leftside et al - FYI, I'm a Clinton supporter. I'm not railing on Obama because of my republican leanings - that's not me. I'm just pointing out the obvious media leanings and support for Obama versus other candidates - republican or democrat. Charles_B - Barack Hussein Obama (there, I used his name) is viewed very skeptically by many in arenas and you don't have to look hard to find critical commentary about how easy BHO has had it on this campaign trail. So, yeah - I can factually back up everything in my post. And no, it's not emotionally based. I'm not "moved," "inspired," "drawn," or otherwise impressed with Obama in any way, shape or form. The man is an otherwise goofy caricuture of a being that isn't deserving of all the accolades being heaped on him. I can neither see, hear or read anything about this man or his past (or his twittering wife for that matter) that should qualify him for office over Clinton.
February 28, 2008

12:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

JYP3500 writes:

I agree with Rosen that Obama doesn't have an ounce of substance, and even less accomplishments. Any informed voter who takes the time to do the proper due diligence will see this. Given his voting record, Sen Obama has also shown no sign of "change" or "comprimise" that is required to get things done in Washington. If elected, we will see 4 years of Jimmy Carter like dis-functional government and incompetence, and you won't be able to find anyone who will admit they voted for Obama. Given his current popularity, I can only attribute it to BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). People hate Bush (and for that matter, Hillary) so much, they want change....at any cost.
February 28, 2008

12:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

jaymoveonorg writes:

Obama says he want to reach across the aisle and work with both sides of the political spectrum. Maybe he will, maybe he won't. I do know that he has been name the most liberal senator by the National Journal, which is a non-biased organization.

McCain is willing to work with both sides of the aisle. He has many bills that have been co-sponsered by both Republicans and Democrats (that is why he sometimes disapoints me). How many bills has Obama co-sponsored with Republicans since 2004? ZERO!

I have heard many of you say that you want someone in office that will represent the American people. So who would you vote for? The most liberal Senator or a Senator that has a proven track record that works both sides of the aisle?
February 28, 2008

1:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

KW writes:

mwanecek - A better and more direct question for either OB or Hillary is how many bills have they introduced "ever" without regards to reaching across the aisle.

The answer is still ZERO. The majority of their time in office has been spent campaigning for higher office.

This is definitely a point in McCains favor as far as experience and commitment to their jobs goes.
February 28, 2008

2:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

jvb writes:

Just go away, Gene, just go away. There is general consensus that you are an undesireable.
February 28, 2008

2:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

And undesirable speech must be SILENCED!!!!!!!
February 28, 2008

3:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Spencer writes:

Gene, what impressed you about Bush's resume? The bankrupt businesses, the legacy admission, the questionable service record, maybe it was the things Ann Richards did as governor of Texas.
February 28, 2008

5:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

SASSY and Gene.

You guys are pretty sad. You simply don't have any viable arguments do you? It's as I said the other day SAS: "You can lead a mythological hairy ape to logic, but you can't make him think!".

It's really a shame that you two are so shallow. I wonder what you would have said about Abraham Lincoln who was considered to be our greatest president by many ( Even BETTER than "W"! ). In John Brown's Body, Stephen Vincent Benet described Lincoln as being "... as homely as a plowed field...".

He would probably be proud to see an eloquent African American take the stage in national debates. He would probably wonder why it took so long!

I'm sure you two would have had no mercy as you pointed out superficial flaws in his appearance when you couldn't find them in his arguments or his character.

Oh, wait, he was a Republican, and you two can't find any faults with Republicans.
February 28, 2008

6:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Ahh Gene, at least I have you interacting rather than making hit and run statements that don't move the discussion forward. Calling someone a troll in these forums is about as insulting as I get. I simply don't understand why, when we have such huge issues in this country, people choose to muddy the waters rather than engage in the debate.

I am asking you to try to influence me: give me your reasons, concerns and solutions but don't insult me with straw man statements about ears and names when there are real issues to examine. It's as I have told you before, I know that you are capable of doing more! If you do it without insult, I promise to listen respectfully. Can you do the same?
February 28, 2008

7:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Gene, by way of starting over, how about your reaction to a theory I have about Obama. I think he is being deliberately vague so as to give McCain as little as possible to attack while he is still in the process of beating Clinton. He is instead concentrating on dazzling us with oratory and distracting us with rhetoric until he is the official candidate.

What do you think ? Is it plausible, simplistic unlikely or...?
February 28, 2008

7:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

kw, i can't believe you're still confused about my position. no need to dust off the ol' strawman. i'll lay it out for you again just so you can stop misrepresenting (attacking) me.

i could care less what supernatural beliefs in which you choose to put your faith. i really could care less....and you're right....it's all a magic show to me...whether it be islam, christianity, buddhism, taoism, magik, dungeons and dragons, nintendo or the golf gods. i'm not insulting you by believing your beliefs are supernatural. they are. whatever you want to do on your own time, with your own money, to your own children, is fine with me. knock yourself out. unlike the religious fundamentalists...i really don't care what you do in your living room, bedroom or lab. just don't attempt to indocrinate me or my family. don't make me pay for it. don't make decisions based upon the shaman's influence that negatively affect the rest of us. i don't care if you want to teach your kids that there's a monster living in the ground underneath them that will torture them forever if they are gay or have an abortion or do research with stem cells. it's your party...just don't don't push it into me or my family's life. clear enough?

as far as the predictable cries of "no plan!!" from the far right, what can you do...they're predictable.

they did the same thing to kerry and the same thing to gore. they'll do it to the next batch of candidates. it's a simple issue of choice. they've chosen to ignore that obama has outlined his plan with as much specificity has mccain has. there's nothing you can do about willful ignorance.

that said, i'm all for more details from both major candidates. i think they should have to show the math and the granular details well before the election. i think they should have to travel together every week until halloween and debate each other over and over and have real, meaningful dialogue about our nation's problems in front of as many americans as they can...taking real, unplanted questions from the crowd. i think they should have to appear before a panel of regular americans at least three times....fully expecting to be grilled heavily about the intricacies of their platforms.

more relevant to this thread, i think that they should stick to their policy stances and stick to their own candidate's strengths and skip the swiftboating this cycle. they should have to run on their track records, instead of doing everything in their power to divert attention from them by firing up the footsoldiers with the kind of crap we've seen posted here.

just say no to defending, rationalizing and spreading this kind of campaign tactic.

cut the strings. think for yourselves. stop listening to the hacks. stop hacking.
February 29, 2008

9:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

jvb writes:

I never click on "Suggest Removel," because of the free speech guarantee; however, it is clear that repugnant Gene is incubated in the conservative establishment and hatched by Rev. Phelps, the radical that believes those born left-handed should be burned at the stake; nonetheless, Gene has his defenders: Why haven't they come to his rescue. Gene: You are alone in your wretchedneas. Your site aligns you with the most pernicious of "trolls." You and your big ear sentiment should force Larry Craig into retirement, yet, you suck up to Craig, family values man like Hagard, the homosexual who condemned gays from the pulpit but frequented Mike. To each his own, but when preaching family values, Gene should stay out of toilet stalls where his hand signals give him away. Gene: You are a person non grata.
February 29, 2008

9:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

KW writes:

Not attacking you jay, you just have a habit of walking on both sides of the same street depending on the weather of the day. I was looking for clarification of your well known views on religion and how that figures into your support for OB

He is a devout Christian you know. And a member of a church that advances racist philosophies.

I'm still wondering how you will react if OB uses devine guidence when setting policies since you call religion "ghosts and magic." Especially if those policies reflect the mission statements of his church.

And "supernatural" isn't the word(s) you normally have used to desribed your attitude towards Christians. It is however a refreshing change.
February 29, 2008

10:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Hey Gene, I'm very glad you came back. You are proving me wrong about the "troll" comment, and I apologize for having made it! Maybe we can have a conversation after all.

I am truly an independent: I have voted for state level moderate(fiscally conservative) Republicans, Independent and Democratic presidential candidates and Democrats for environmental reasons. I am a botanist and a businessman. These two concepts bring me to both sides of the divide over political matters. I don't like over regulation, excessive entitlements, unbalanced budgets or policies that unfairly impact the poor or the environment in favor of the rich and connected. I think I can call myself an independent. Don't you?

As for my "haughtiness", It's a last resort to get someone's attention. I didn't vote for Kerry, I voted against Bush and there's a world of difference in that. If I had it to do over again Gene, I would have voted twice:>)

Now, for what it's worth, I have always liked McCain and had he been the Republican candidate in the last election, I probably would have voted for him over Kerry.

As for Obama, I appreciate his eloquence after 7 years of "W" but I'm not dazzled by it! I would like to see more of what the man is actually about. When the election starts in earnest he better get down to specifics or it will work in McCain's favor. I don't think it would be a tragedy if McCain wins. Although my Democratic acquaintances probably would.

I don't know what to make of your last statement. If the " Islamo_Fashists" are getting "goosey" over the name and ear talk, then why would anyone be doing it?

At any rate, thanks for coming back. The only way we as Americans are going to solve our problems is by speaking to each other, yelling at each other, while good for pressure release, is a conversation killer. Conservatives and liberals alike are both guilty of bringing insult to the debate. I believe that it doesn't belong there.
February 29, 2008

10:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

rg writes:

I'm not Jay; however, if Obama resorts to divine guidance as Bush does; impeach and convict early in his reign. I despise all gods and will slay them as a member of the sword of time, the deicide: Richard Grimes:

“God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem of the Middle East . If you will help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.” Source: Ha’aretz (Israeli periodical), June 24, 2003 FT 8/03 (George Walker Bush, America's bushwhacker)

Deicide Corner: “Man is certainly stark mad. He cannot make a flea, and yet he will be making gods by the dozen.” -- Michel de Montaigne
February 29, 2008

10:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Konyok writes:

Obama is the "none of the above" candidate.
So were Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and, to some extent, George W. Bush.
The trendline seems to be pointing to a vanishing point of minimal experience and public exposure as qualification for the presidency.
February 29, 2008

11:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

kw...as i've said many times over....supernatural beliefs should have no place in our schools, policy decisions and labs....no matter who is at the helm.

furthermore, instead of attacking me, please provide some actual quotes that you find disagreeable instead of making stuff up.
February 29, 2008

11:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Konyok writes:

Gene,
The enemy considers our entire political process to be vain and blasphemous.
But, it can't be denied that promises of a quick withdrawal from Iraq and a willingness to talk are music to the ears of a struggling Al Qaeda. Indeed, a miracle from Allah.
February 29, 2008

11:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Gene,

OK, I get you now and I agree.

My question is, that if you believe that, why would you have several postings yesterday that were all about ears and names? Can you see my confusion and frustration? It seems contradictory.

I accept that national security an important consideration, although I might not agree that it is the most important for me. I agree that illegal immigration is important too, but, again, not the most important for me.

My major sticking point so far is the environmental stand of the Democrats versus the Republicans For Republicans it's apparently a non issue, which leaves me disenfranchised on that issue. The Democrats at least give it lip service. Has McCain said anything recently about environmental issues that could change my mind?
February 29, 2008

12:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

jvb writes:

Perhaps after reading greenleaf's lament Gene will modify his behavior. He sounds like Keith who was bounced from the blog by the moderator before the format was changed several months ago. May Gene opine without castigating others. Perhaps Gene will engage in civil discourse. Perhaps; however, with his big ear mentality and his "Islamo-Fascists are rubbing their hands together WATCHING US GET GOOSEY about middle names and ears," and "Obamology = nothing," and "jvb = rg," he will chill out; however, I won't take that to the bank.
February 29, 2008

1:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

jvb,

I am beginning to think Gene has something to share. Maybe we should give him a chance? I don't know what it is that makes these guys so angry, but I would like to find out( in a civil, not venting way from them of course!).

You have to admit jvb, that some of the more liberal among us can get a little condescending. Maybe that's how WE INSULT.

I really don't want to insult anyone on either side, I just want to keep people talking. If we talk, we can begin finding middle ground and maybe rediscover that we are ALL Americans and NOT enemies. I'd like to think that it isn't a pipe dream. What do you out there think?
February 29, 2008

1:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Konyok writes:

I agree with Greenleaf.
Always talking past each other achieves nothing.
I'd like to humbly present an instance of condescending rhetoric, if I may.
When McCain's position of standing firmly in Iraq is dismissed as "more the same failed Bush policies," it leaves us with a false duality. Either we must withdraw or we must continue the Bush strategy. This is why Lieberman is now an independent.
I understand Gene. After banging his head against this kind of rhetoric he resorts to slap stick.
I'm sure that labeling every liberal as a "socialist" is the same kind of thing, if a bit more blatant and in your face.
February 29, 2008

2:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

jvb writes:

It will be tough Greenleaf. I listen to The Great One, Mark Levin, Gunny Bob, Cunningham, Michael Savage, Dr. Bennett, and all the conservatives do is namecall, especially The Great One. As an Independent I listen to the liberal side and there is no namecalling. Conservatives are kind of like the religious folks who resort to hate mail when their dogma is challenged or let an atheist announce he is running for public office and 85 percent of Americans will vote against him: This is what happened to Romney, a much more qualified man for the presidency.

Mainstream Christianity considers Romney in league with Satan because he is Mormon. I don't have any clue as to Republicanism vs Democraticism as to who rejects Romney the most because of his dogma.

Obama's thrust is to bring the red and the blue together or turn both of them purple. I like Greenleaf: "rediscover that we are ALL Americans and NOT enemies;" however, it will be like arranging for Christians to love Muslims, and Pat Robertson, the Graham boys, Falwell's son, mouthpieces for god will never permit peace amongst religious dogma. 85% of America being religious means perpetual animosity towards each other. I have to end my discourse or see it go on and on and on.
February 29, 2008

2:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

jvb writes:

I am glad Gene is paying attention; I don't have big ears; I just detest the castigation bloggers have to endure by the likes of Gene (aka maybe Keith). I have quoted Gene on what he has written. Dispense with your name-calling, Gene, and align yourself with civil discourse. I'm off to kick ass at the chess table.
February 29, 2008

3:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Konyok writes:

I'm not a christian, I don't even play one on TV.
But, I have NO idea what jvb is talking about.
It seems like another false dilemma to me. Either we must uncritically subscribe to the progressive project or be dismissed as religous fanatics. There really is a third, fourth, ... n possibility.
Meanwhile, the Obama juggernaut marches forward with the enthusiasm and spirit of a tent revival meeting ...
February 29, 2008

3:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Well I guess we can call this a form of progress. At least communication hasn't totally shut down.

Gene, I ask this with respect. What, not who, in the argument makes you this angry. What is it specifically about liberals that leads you to being this upset?

My theory is that conservatives hate being spoken down to, as if they are stupid for supporting or believing what they do. Is that right?

I don't enjoy being insulted, either directly with names or indirectly with what we refer to as "straw man" arguments and misdirection.

I think that I understand jvb better( that doesn't mean I totally agree with him or his methods). I would like to try to understand you Gene, If I can understand you, then I can communicate better with other conservatives who feel as you do. The last thing I want is to offend, although I'm sure I do sometimes ( I have a temper too!). So how about it Gene? Do we keep trying, for the sake of the discussion, if not for the good of our country?
February 29, 2008

3:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

KW writes:

So jay, we'll just mark your answer down as a "no comment" then, hmm?

I just wish at least once in awhile you'd give a straight answer to a direct question. I'm not even trying to corner you into limited, multiple choice answers. You can use your own words. What would you do if Obama's religion entered into his policy decisions? Are you uncapable of facing the fact that your choice for pres will pray for answers to worldly and domestic problems?

I guess you could still be in denial just as you sit here denying you've ever used insulting words belittling anyone who belives in God or Christ.

Stradling the fence with your finger in the air, tiptoeing around inconvenient questions and being a far, far leftwing liberal in denial is not a good way to go thru life my boy.

BTW - The above is a statement from me you can accurately label as an "attack" on you AND your character. Save it for future reference.
February 29, 2008

4:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

jay, Gene, KW and everybody: At the risk of pissing everybody off, consider what is happening here. This is a microcosm of what is happening in our country and the rest of the world.

Many people feel disenfranchised, belittled and not listened to . I think we all do at one time or another. Sometimes we just hope that the other guy will listen, that's all, just listen. It takes a risk taker to post on these blogs. It seems that there is always someone waiting, just waiting to pounce on any perceived weakness in argument or a person's religion,and even misspellings and grammatical errors.

Look what all this acrimony has done to what should have been a straight forward discussion of Obama's rhetoric. This would be valuable from a left or right perspective. It's part of the national discussion that leads to a tremendously important decision, that of deciding who is going to lead OUR country for the next 4 years. If we can't be civil among ourselves how can we expect it of our leaders?

William F. Buckley died this week. He was the early voice of the modern conservative movement. Did I agree with his views. Yes, some of them. I also disagreed with him on many matters. But I always listened to him with respect. He was a gentleman. Because he was a gentleman, people listened to him.

His were the strategies of gentle influence, not confrontation. He had friends from all parts of the political world. He influenced the debate.

The strategies of insult, condescension, jingoism, and misdirection all kill the debate and get us worse than nowhere. They put us farther and farther apart. Consider this when you make your own contributions as I will with mine. Shame on us all if we continue to do this to ourselves!
February 29, 2008

6:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Gene,

Thanks for the complement. I wish that I could write 1/10th as well as Mr. Buckley, then I could really communicate!

Gene, do you see what happened? We communicated enough to learn we actually agreed on something! There's a little magic in that. If you and I can do that, so can others. A little here and a little there and we can change this country for the better.

By the way, I also dislike the discussions that have "my link is better than your link" debates.

I know that we might not agree on much, but maybe we can both agree that I was a troll to call you one. See you on the net buddy!
March 1, 2008

10:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

jvb writes:

I kicked ass at the chess table last night and pretended it was Gene. I did not show any mercy. He won’t be able to sit down for a week. He has insulted every liberal in America: “I do like to point out the frivolity of liberalism. If we all just need to get along here, that is fine with me,” says Gene and now he begs like Rodney King: “Can’t we just get along?” Gene complains: “THEY (Islamo-Fascists are) are watching us,” referring to Obama as “Chance Obama,” with “big ears,” and providing a malicious site claiming “Obamology = nothing.” Gene attacks rg: “His hostile comments toward me seem to have no bearing on what I have written. Exceot maybe he has big ears and didn't like that. I don't know.
- Cheers;”

Gene takes a pot shot at Ross Perot: “How about a Ross Perot quote?” He bad- mouths a person for the way he was born: “Better be careful with that play on words with his name. He is very sensitive about how one uses his full given name. Ditto his ears,” slurring Obama whom I will vote for as the lesser evil.
No baby can change with what defect he is born or the name given to him by his parents. He slams Barry: “It was Barry before he got involved with the radical black church.” There is none more radical than Gene. I credit Greenleaf for attempting to bring a change in him; however, it is an exercise in futility.

Gene puts me in mind of Adolf Hitler who hates Jews and Gene hates liberals. Gene is like religion: Religion sees no evidence and believes; Gene sees evidence and does not believe. He continues to support Bush’s “two billion dollar war,” says W. Bush that is now in excess of trillions of dollars and Gene does not believe.
Gene will vote for McCain. I can’t vote for a one hundred year occupation of Iraq; I can’t vote for one more day of Iraq.

Greenleaf: You are nice to take back your “troll” description of Gene. I’ll apologize also if Gene will stop denouncing others which are evidenced in other blogs. It is Keith all over again.
March 1, 2008

11:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

jvb,

if you look at Gene's recent responses to me, they were decidedly untroll- like. He even complimented me!

The way I look at it, he gave me another chance after I lost it and insulted him.

Why not try to engage him in conversation rather than attack him when he's trying? You believe in rewarding good behavior don't you? I know I do. I think that's vital to meaningful conversation and what are we doing here if we don't want a conversation?

Please consider it. We need to get past insults and innuendo or we will continue to accomplish far too little in this country.

Gene, keep trying, it's a start!
March 1, 2008

1:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

jvb writes:

Obama wants to talk to Chavez in Venequela whom Pat Robertson wants to assassinate; Obama wants to talk to Iran; Obama wants to talk to North Korea; the Right Wing makes fun of him. I align myself with Greenleaf. Talk can't hurt; appeasement can. No world leader could have talked to Hitler. After watching The War on Channel 6 I re-watched on Channel 12: Hitler had planned to occupy America long before he declared war. The Right wing fanatics hate the left wing fanatics; the Christian fanatics hate the Muslim fanatics and vice versa; Rev. Hague hates the Catholic Church; the Church hates the Jews; my only concern is that I have only one life to live and there is little to gain by hating. Greenleaf: You may have prevailed over Gene. As I said earlier to him: "Opine but don't whine." Humans, as well as animals, can't help the way they are born whether it is physical or mental disability. Don't make fun of a disability.
March 1, 2008

2:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

jvb writes:

An augment on topic: I heard a woman on talk radio articulate concerning Obama's "How is the voter to discern whether the promised change is for the best?" asked by Douglas the letter writer in which her answer was that it didn't matter because the over-powering promise of getting out of Iraq was enough to elect him: To this, I am of the same mind. America must get out of Iraq and concentrate on Afghanistan where the evil originated. McCain takes the opposite ground: Stay mired in Iraq; neglect Afghanistan where the Taliban is making a come-back. America cannot fight a two front war unless it re-starts the draft and adds to the "seven trillion dollar" debt Bush has generated for America. I'm off to the chess table; I'll take all challengers except for (there are plenty). Go forth and hate no more.

Post your comment

Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Home › Opinion › Letters to the Editor

The new science of Obamology

Douglas Steinshouer, Denver

Published February 28, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More Letters to the Editor

Share

Comments

Post your comment

Featured

Columns & Blogs

News Tip

Know about something we should be reporting? Tell us about it.

Calendar

Upcoming events

Sponsored links