Sorry Crin,

I didn't have your post in mind at all when I wrote the above. Rather, it was the entire thread that provided the motivation.

K

Posted at June 23, 2008 4:16 AM in response to Stop Nickel and Diming Obama: He Should say Whatever It Takes

The argument seems to be: Democrats (and, by extension, those opposed to another Republican admin) should not oppose or publicly express their opposition to the currently submitted bills which offer telecoms immunity. Those who do so risk the appearance of a split in the party. Or worse, if the bill is blocked, the whole bunch of us will wear the mark of being "soft on terror".

This is asserted. But, no compelling case is made on why this must be so. We are then challenged to provide substantive arguments as to why this may not be the case.

On the matter of the fourth amendment being trashed, we are told that it is really a good deal more complicated that this. After all, who could be so simple as to think the fourth amendment means pretty much what it seems to mean. How very lawyerly. Again, we are challenged to disprove another unsupported assertion.

You mere mortals are all so silly to challenge Koz's assertions. He supports his! He did this by rephrasing his simply pronouncements several different ways. You all should take a lesson.

Furthermore, let's have no dissent (NONE, I say!) among party followers prior to the election. We must all think alike, or at least say we do, lest we become losers in elections and softies when it comes to the nation's security.

Well, I'm sorry to say, I do not find any of Koz's "arguments" very compelling. But, then it is probably because I am, in some way, a troll, dweeb, or something on that order. (Hmmm, I must not have challenged the "arguments" substantively? And just maybe, just maybe, I should be more willing to tirelessly salt these pages with unkind remarks and tiresome repetitions.)

Posted at June 23, 2008 2:31 AM in response to Stop Nickel and Diming Obama: He Should say Whatever It Takes

I don't believe Cokie really aims for analysis.
She is a pure propagandist, forever passing off her own version of how things should be as explanations about how things actually are. She frequently employs toxic but really clever little techniques to get away with this.

The trouble is, she is very good at presenting her own limited and very conservative and Catholic points of view as though they were the common sense outlooks of just about all right thinking people, which they surely are not.

Consequently, her observations, as reportage, are badly flawed. As a critic of public policy she is a shallow thinker. But, as a tongue- clucking propagandist she is world class.

But most annoying, is the fact that her work is presented to us as astute political analysis.

Posted at April 21, 2008 12:09 AM in response to So Cokie Roberts, Why Do They Pay You?

I don't believe Cokie attempts analysis at all. She in a pure propagandist, forever passing off her own version of how things should be as explanations about how things actually are. She frequently employs toxic but really clever little techniques to get this end.

The trouble is, she is very good at presenting her own limited and very conservative and Catholic points of view as though they were the common sense outlooks of just about all right thinking people, which they surely are not.

Consequently, her observations, as reportage, are badly flawed. As a critic of public policy she is a shallow thinker. But, as a tongue- clucking propagandist, in that she is world class.

But most annoying, is the fact that her work is presented to us as astute political analysis.

Posted at April 21, 2008 12:02 AM in response to So Cokie Roberts, Why Do They Pay You?

Let's all try to really use our imaginations here and suppose the MSM really doesn't like Hillary. What does that say about her chances to go toe to toe with McCain with whom the MSM seems absolutely in love?

Deserved or not, we've all got baggage to carry around. Our wish that it not be a handicap should not get in the way of our realization that it is exactly that.

Posted at February 26, 2008 8:16 PM in response to New Camp Hillary Claim: The Media Want Her To Lose

Seriously, I think Jim Webb would be a good choice...

Seriously, and By the Time I Get to Phoenix is a great tune, too!

Kevin Russell Cook

Posted at January 4, 2008 4:36 PM in response to Premature Speculation Time

Great. Great up until the last sentence.

What I do know is that all the rational and clearheaded discussions in the world will do nothing to solve the problem of the American conservatives.

Rational and clearheaded discussions alone can't do much. But, heck, they absolutely gotta be part of the solution.

Kevin Russell Cook

Posted at December 27, 2007 9:12 AM in response to Closing Thoughts from Stevenson

A lot of comments here indicate a belief that some favorite candidate could win the nomination and start in to set things right in this country. Nobody that actually might win the nomination (the "top tier" candidates) really fills this bill.

Top tier politicos are always running. Take off the mask? Ha! They are the mask! The best we can hope for is a president who can steer us away from where we are headed, which is the abyss. If we get that person plus a heavy majority in congress, activists at the grass roots might be in a position to force some change.

Looking for a savior? Think it over.

Kevin Russell Cook

Posted at December 26, 2007 8:46 AM in response to Am I a Hillary Cheerleader?

Hope so. But, that's what we all thought just before the admiral finally took the dive for Ronnie during the Contragate thing.

Kevin Russell Cook

Posted at December 26, 2007 7:56 AM in response to Who Obstructed Justice?

My bad. I was talking about what you might do after you got out of High School.

Where on earth did I ever get the wrong impression?

Kevin Russell Cook

Posted at November 12, 2007 11:55 AM in response to Thank You, and Farewell