Your utterly unearned proclamations of self-righteousness weary me.

Particularly I tire of your typical modern American socialist liberal bitching about honesty and truth, as if you would recognize it if it came up and bit you in the ass. You simply label anyone who dares disagree with you to be a liar or, of course, a racist.

It takes more than smug pronouncements of moral superiority to establish such facts, however.

Actual facts in reality do not at all support your claims of superior honesty, and indeed cut distinctly the other way. I'm no big defender of President Bush, and have never voted for a Bush after a dozen or so chances.

Nonetheless, Bush is well above average in Presidential honesty- if only because he's been so harshly scrutinized. Especially, it's absolutely a knowingly false claim (ie an actual lie) to accuse W of "lying" about WMDs in Iraq. However little a pile of scraps we've actually found, he had every reason to think there was a bunch of stuff.

But none of the facts are going to make a difference to you, as you regard your mere proclamations of condemnation as evidence. This is some seriously solipsistic epistemology on your part.

Then there are the other specifically dishonest proclamations that you're making here. For example, this ridiculous sentence: Women are welcome as long as they give up any thought of an abortion for any reason at all.

How many kinds of dishonesty on your part, Prometheus, are reflected in that sentence? For starters, you'd be hard pressed to find ANY Republican who wouldn't support a right to abortion for rape or incest victims, for example.

Moreover, the Republican Party has plenty of pro-choice members, prominent ones. They are certainly much more willing to accept pro-choice members than the Democrats are to accept pro-life members. You already knew this, though.

I could go on analyzing the pure dishonesty of your little essay, but why bother? You already know better than the untruthful things you're saying.

you'd be hard pressed to find ANY Republican who wouldn't support a right to abortion for rape or incest victims, for example.

What kind of childish personality dysfunction would cause one to invoke "Alan Keyes" here as if it somehow disproved not even just my argument, but my "nice life" worldview? Do you really expect ANYONE to find this persuasive?

To state the blindingly obvious, Keyes is not even vaguely representative of the Republican Party. He has NEVER held an elected office, and the Republicans regret having trucked him in to Illinois.

Now granted, the Republicans totally deserve the embarassment they ended up with for bringing in the carpetbagger. Nonetheless, he does not represent the party when he's, for example, going off about Mary Cheney. At this point, this guy would have trouble getting nominated by the Republicans to run for dog catcher.

But you already knew that.

What kind of childish personality dysfunction would cause one to invoke "Alan Keyes" here as if it somehow disproved not even just my argument, but my "nice life" worldview?

By the way, Alan Keyes got 21% of the vote against a guy that looks like Colin Powell Jr. That's at least two thirds of the Republicans in Illinois, I'm sure. So you assertion that he doesn't represent Republican values is pretty strange.

Big Al sez:

"...Bush is well above average in Presidential honesty..."

"...the Republican Party has plenty of pro-choice members..."

The adjusted count on Alan Keyes battle royale with Obama is 26 or 27 percent. So, the Christian Right Republicans did support him, just as I predicted in several blog entries. So did a significant number of those who vote a straight Republican ticket. BTW, Keyes did set a record -- he has run for the U.S Senate in two states and lost in both.

Keyes has paid himself from campaign funds in the past. So, running for the Senate may have been remumerative for him.

With the campaign over, I hope he will free Maya.

P6, one good thing about having low expectations of people is that it is difficult for them to disappoint you.

That's true, Mac.

By the way, Alan Keyes was also the guy that equated anti-abortion legislation with Dred Scott. There's more proof that his positions are typically Republican.

And if his opinions aren't typically Republican, it's proof that typical Republicans aren't hearing what's being said in their name.

Alan Keyes was a joke. Republicans, Democrats, Independents, etc. all knew that.

Equating him with the national GOP is insane.

But, please continue...

I've equated nothing. The voters have spoken. His values are typically Republican enough that over 25% of Illinois voters selected him over Colin Powell Jr. The odds of even one of those voters being a Democrat are likely smaller than the odds of winning the lottery twice and being struck by lightning both times.

RJ:

Alan Keyes was a joke. Republicans, Democrats, Independents, etc. all knew that.

Equating him with the national GOP is insane.

Though I know who and what the two individuals trying to protect the 'virtue' of the GOP are, their denial that Keyes is supported by Republicans is disingenuous even for them. Who else could the more than 25 percent of the voters who supported him have consisted of? Democrats? (Bah wah ha ha ha!) Independents? (Not enough of'em. And they went Green, Nader, Libertarian or Constitution.) Extraterrestials landing in Illinois soley to alter the vote and embarass the GOP? (Nah. They would have checked out the blues clubs, instead.) The only rational answer is that Republicans voted for Alan Keyes.

Your utterly unearned proclamations of self-righteousness weary me.

Particularly I tire of your typical modern American socialist liberal bitching about honesty and truth, as if you would recognize it if it came up and bit you in the ass. You simply label anyone who dares disagree with you to be a liar or, of course, a racist.

A very succinct and apt way to describe people like P6. Your patience in dealing with them is admirable, but your efforts will be fruitless.

Desiree:

What have I written that was racist? What have I written that was incorrect? Specifically, please…I take no responsibility for your interpretations, only my words can be used.

You don't know me at all.

Thanks, Desiree. I try to be fair minded and to go out of my way to see where people who disagree with me might have a reasonable point, though I'm sure I have blind spots.

And why even talk if all you have is invective?

thanks P6, glad to see you back. It seems personal history, of which I am vaguely aware, lies behind Al's rather overheated response to this. I see the post fro what it is: a statement of personal response to the election.

I agree, however, that there are a lot of generalizations here, and assumptions about what is and what is not "truth" without many specifics to back up the general assumptions.

What "truth," exactly, is the country missing?

Eric, why does anyone believe liberals want to take away their bibles? Why would John McCain work with someone that smeared his family? And why would people believe those smears? How does my cousin having an abortion threaten anyone else's immortal soul but hers…which choice God Himself empowered her to make?

It's a pattern I see. Maybe it's a bit metaphysical. I keep seeing people react to moral explanations instead of amoral…sometimes immoral…events.

Keyes...

Before assuming that every voter who caste their lot with Keyes was behind him 100% on every issue, I would remind you of the political system in which we live. We usually have two options: Dem or Repub. I'm no fan of the two party system; in fact I'd prefer a no party system (for much the same reason Washington & Adams were against the idea of political parties) but the reality of our situation is either a Dem or Repub will win.

Know anyone that voted for Kerry not because they agreed with him but because they disagreed so strongly with Bush? I do. I'd even wager that the majority of people who voted for Kerry did so in opposition to Bush rather than in support of Kerry. I assume the same applied to Keyes & Obama.

Obama has many qualities that made his election almost uncontestable, but some of those qualities are not in line with what those who voted for Keyes would prefer. Without going in to too much detail I would have boted for Keyes not because I support him on every position (though on a few issues he is dead on for me) but because I couldn't condone Obama's views with my vote.

So it's not that all people who vote for Keyes back him, it's that most people who voted for Keyes did so because they couldn't back Obama.

& people believe liberals want to stifle their religious expression because in part it's true. Not most liberals perhaps, but the far left wing of the left wing of the liberal side of the fence has done a few things (such as pushing for prohibition on voluntary prayer in certain public places) that becomes associated with all liberals, just as a lot of people on the left think the right would eliminate all abortions because of the position of a few (like Keyes).

In reality there is no truth in politics as such. There's facts & there's perspective. Truth, in this case, is simply a matter of how the two are blended. Don't take that to mean that I think all truth is relative, or that moral relativism is auniversally valid idea, but in politics the most you can hope for is an absence of lies.

But I will agree that we have problems in the body politic. Image over substance seems to be the norm, & sadly it's very effective. Many people vote based on presentation rather than issues. & patly this is being corrected, as the internet has made it easier for many to delve deeper into a candidates platform & record. But still we'd typicaly elect a person with a birght smile rather than one with bright ideas.

& Shark, I couldn't disagree more: I'm a Libertarian & I have a damn strong grounding in reality. Perhaps you equate a lack of principles to reality & acting on principles with a detachment from reality? If you wish to elaborate on how you reached your conclusion & attempt to defend it then I'm your huckleberry.

Hello, Publicola. It's been a while.

But I will agree that we have problems in the body politic. Image over substance seems to be the norm, & sadly it's very effective. Many people vote based on presentation rather than issues. & patly this is being corrected, as the internet has made it easier for many to delve deeper into a candidates platform & record. But still we'd typicaly elect a person with a birght smile rather than one with bright ideas.

Obama has many qualities that made his election almost uncontestable, but some of those qualities are not in line with what those who voted for Keyes would prefer.

Without going in to too much detail I would have boted for Keyes not because I support him on every position (though on a few issues he is dead on for me) but because I couldn't condone Obama's views with my vote.

Sorry, forgot:

& people believe liberals want to stifle their religious expression because in part it's true. Not most liberals perhaps, but the far left wing of the left wing of the liberal side of the fence has done a few things (such as pushing for prohibition on voluntary prayer in certain public places) that becomes associated with all liberals, just as a lot of people on the left think the right would eliminate all abortions because of the position of a few (like Keyes).

in politics the most you can hope for is an absence of lies.

"Did you just call over 25% of Illinois voters...all Republican...insane?"

No. Please read for context next time...

Hello.

I have read this, and noticed that the arugument got sidetracked onto the subject of Alan Keyes. What is being discussed is no longer clear. Please clarify, someone.

Thanks.

Alright then Red, let me bring you up to speed on the point of this thread: anybody who would vote Republican is an Evil Liar. The end.

I'm to understand that in the hood, this would be called "dropping knowledge." In my hood, this would be called "pinching a loaf," but whatever works for you.

Thank you, Al. Reviewing the thread with your explanation in mind, everything made much more sense. I'm not sure I agree with this idea that Republican is synonymous with hateful, evil, and narrow-minded, but I'm not a huge "one party or the other" person, as I get the feeling most people aren't.

But your point is well taken. For those who posted this thread, I get the impression that your words are fueled by a hatred that is beyond reasonable levels. Moderation in all things. Thanks, Al.

Thanks. I like to just cut to the chase where I can.

I figured it was too metaphysical for you all.

What I've said is, truth is irrelevant in the political process. That people are not rational actors, that there seems to be things more important that facts in the political process. That morality is NOT what convinces.

If you squeeze all that down to "whoever votes Republican is an evil liar," it's no wonder there's no communication going on because I have neither said nor implied any such thing and I take no responsibility for anything I haven't said.

Red, you're right, there's an irrational hatred being expressed here. And if anyone can point out where any of it came from anything I've written please, feel free to enlighten.

And if anyone can point out anything I've written that is factually incorrect, please elucidate. Because if we not going react intelligently to what we're ACTUALLY saying there's no hope for the nation.

Publicola -

A lecture mocking a "typical modern American socialist liberal" re. "truth & reality" coming from a friggin' Libertarian is a laugh: You and Big Al are members of the only party more out-of-touch, irrelevant, and marginalized than the Democrats.

Congrats!

Most parties are more marginalized than the Democrats.

The Green Party, the Constitution Party, the Natural Law Party, the Reform Party, the several flavors of Socialist Parties, the Communist Party, and any others I may have neglected to mention, are all far more "out-of-touch, irrelevant, and marginalized" than the Democratic Party.

The Libertarian Party is not much different from any of these, in terms of its chances to win major elections any time soon. But, Libertarians think they have better chances than any of the other marginalized parties, and that may be why they don't spend much time working for reforms that would give all minor parties a better chance at representation.

P6, perhaps what you are saying is it's about priorities and the facts on the ground aren't always as important as some other considerations to all players. That's true, of course, but I am not sure what it indicates other than that people are complicated and not governed by logic at all times.

Again true, but that's why we have Spock.

I am not sure what it indictes other than that people are complicated and not governed by logic at all times.

recognizing that people don't always act rationally would probably be a rational thing to do