The new COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

[ClericJohnPreston]

Back in the day, when I first went political in 2004 on the Randi Rhodes Message Board, I used to comment on the cognitive dissonance of the idiotic RETHUGS who voted against their own interests and pocketbooks for Dumbya.

Those idiotic hicks suffered severe COGNITIVE DISSONANCE and like a two year old with hands clasped over their ears, could not listen to, or accept, any REALITY in preference to the UNREALITY they had fostered around their belief system.

Georgie was good.

If they accepted otherwise, their whole world would collapse.

I mused at their Matrix-like existence and swore I would never fall prey to acceptance without proof. Like someone from Missouri, SHOW ME.

Obama supporters push his HOPE and CHANGE. The facts are pretty threadbare given his voting record, his performance Saturday Night when he called Pakistan a "Democracy", and the fact his campaign takes more Big Pharma payola $$$ than any Republican. THAN ANY REPUBLICAN.

Tell that to an Obama supporter and what do you get? HOPE AND CHANGE.

So, since they have had the audacity to compare him to JFK, I will rerun the YOUTUBE site linking the real JFK and challenge Obama supporters to say that is more Obama, than John Edwards.

JFK was a FIGHTER.
He hated REPUBLICANS and wouldn't reach across the aisle to include them.
Forgive me, but I have spent 8 years under a Corporatist Authoritarian Government that demonized LIBERALS and I'm REAL SCARED when my candidate reaches out with OPEN ARMS, just for the expediency of votes.
If he really wants to include Rethugs, I'm worried.
There can be no quarter given these dogs. I HATE REPIGS, THOROUGHLY AND COMPLETELY.

Does JFK let them off the hook?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAGyT-z9SlA&eurl=http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011671.php

You may be surprised, but Obama is my second choice AFTER EDWARDS. There is nothing worse than Corporatist Hillary.

If I can admit that, can I get Obamites to watch the REAL JFK?

Or, would that create too much COGNITIVE DISSONANCE?

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. It used to be just Hope & Despair

but now we have "present" too.

[billbuckhead]

2. In the media, Republicans seem to be his biggest fans

Will, Sullivan, Brooks, Kurtz and even Krystal. Democrats are walking into the greatest media ambush in history.

[Fearless]

4. Or is it the other way around?

I submit his voting record as evidence.

[jackson_dem]

6. His voting record is as liberal or centrist as Hillary's

The labeling is in the eye of the beholder. :)

[Occam Bandage]

9. Both seem to be very good, with only a few bad votes.

[Fearless]

15. As it is for your assessment too.

:)

[Fearless]

16. Deleted... repeat...

[99th_Monkey]

31. I just heard on BBC that Obama's being "praised" by Colin Powell & Condie

that should tell you something .. not about race either. I didn't see them praising Jesse
or Sharpton.

[jackson_dem]

50. The Powell part is true

There is a thread of Obama supporters congratulating themselves on the Powell praise. I don't know about Condie but I bet she likes Obama too, just many rethugs.

[Fearless]

3. What everyone keeps forgetting...

The idea isn't to compromise with rethugs, it's to get them to think that we are so that we can get our way. That is what political compromise means on both sides of the aisle! It's politics. No one is seriously trying to compromise. Obama is trying to get votes. He is going to say and do things now that make it look like he believes what they do. Look to his voting record. I am NOT voting for Obama, but I can't just stand by when people decide to misrepresent the truth. Congitive dissonance can be what it is, but what Obama is doing is stumping for votes. That's all.

[ClericJohnPreston]

8. So, as I said...

he is being POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT. Which you just agreed.

So, what can you believe?

[Fearless]

20. The past. His voting record.

[Pastiche423]

59. But not as bad as johnnyboy

[jackson_dem]

10. They aren't that stupid

And their leaders are a lot more shrewd than this neophyte.

[Fearless]

13. Were dems not fooled into voting for a war? Even some of the shrewdest?

[LWolf]

42. Speaking of cognitive dissonance:

Why are you disturbed by "people misrepresenting the truth," but not disturbed by candidates "misrepresenting the truth" in order to get votes?

Either Obama is telling the truth, which makes his stances unacceptable to this voter, or he's "misrepresenting the truth" to get votes, which makes him untrustworthy.

Why is it bad for voters to "misrepresent the truth" by suggesting that a candidate is telling the truth, but it is ok for candidates to be dishonest?

[Mr_Monday]

5. No wonder the CIA killed him.

He wasn't very good at building bridges.

[ClericJohnPreston]

11. THATS NOT FUNNY!

And it proves a point. You got the QUISLING traitor Johnson who gave the Military-Industrial-Complex their stranglehold on this Country.

Who do you think runs things, George?

He is the puppet enabler.

CORPORATIONS are the boss.

The CIA work for the defense Corporations.

I want somone who will tear them apart.

Yes, it takes COURAGE to name the devil.

That is why Edwards is dangerous.

[Fire Walk With Me]

17. Dennis will do it.

And if not elected President, will continue to work against the corporations and their lackeys.

[Mr_Monday]

23. That's why I support anything

that gives Kucinich a voice in these elections. He will bring up the subjects that no other candidate will touch. Even though I support Obama, I want Dennis in these debates and elections.

[Fearless]

26. K&R if I could!

[Fire Walk With Me]

27. .

:thumbsup:

[Occam Bandage]

7. I can tell you that NOTHING scares OBAMA SUPPORTERS more

than RANDOMLY CAPITALIZING words.

Also, LOTS OF RANDOM PARAGRA

PH breaks.

[ClericJohnPreston]

12. All form , no substance

Right down to critique. Too funny and I know you don't have the courage to watch the real JFK.

[Occam Bandage]

18. If you think it takes "courage" to watch JFK give a nice stump speech about not electing Nixon,

you have a very strange definition of the term.

[ClericJohnPreston]

21. Not nearly as ridiculous as voting for a slogan...

[Occam Bandage]

22. "We need a fighter!"

[Fearless]

25. Tippecanoe and Tyler too!

[lostnotforgotten]

33. All Hat, No Cattle - Just Like .....

eom

[Occam Bandage]

53. John "The Fortress Fighter" Edwards?

[Pastiche423]

60. I like that

May I borrow it?

[chascarrillo]

14. Hate breeds hate

I am so goddamn tired of the politics of payback and "fuck you". I've been there and done that, and it just eats you up inside.

In Obama, we have a candidate who, as a rock solid Democrat, is elevating the national discussion. Instead of an endless cycle of "my turn now", I think he's leading the way towards a renewed sense of "we're all in this together", and I think that's what we all need right now.

[ClericJohnPreston]

19. Kumbayah

Doesn't work.

You are so politically naive if you think the true powers of authority in this Country care one bit about Obama.

They already own him.

[Fearless]

24. I think what he was saying was exactly what you were saying actually...

You want someone that will be accountable to the rule of law. He was talking about bringing the level of political discourse back out of the mud. I thought that was what you said you wanted too? Can't we all get along? Guess not.

[chascarrillo]

28. The true powers of authority in this country are the people of this country

... and it looks like a lot of them have decided that enough is enough. They've had it up to here with politics as usual. They want, well, hope. And change.

[Cronus Protagonist]

45. Hahaha, that made me laugh out loud :)

The Obama thing is getting like a fucking prayer camp. It's shocking and futile. Like Jesus Camp.

[femrap]

58. If these naive Dems don't

wake up, we're going to end up with McCain. And then all of those young Obama supporters can be drafted for sure.

[silverojo]

29. I agree with you

I find it disappointing that Obama takes so much money from Big Pharma, too. But HRC is so much worse, that I (like you) support Edwards first, then Obama, to make damned sure HRC gets nowhere near the White House again.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

30. I understand what you're saying but bear with me here

Don't get me wrong, the only "reaching across" I want to do to Republicans is to punch them in the jaw. However, Obama's "bi-partisan" or "post-partisan" whatever you want to call it message looks like it's resonating. And that's a good thing. Because you see, as infuriating as this is, when Democrats attack Republican or conservative leadership or policies, it's interpreted as an attack on Republican or conservative voters themselves. It is. Numerous examples, from John Kerry's "botched joke" to MoveOn's Betray Us ad kerfluffle demostrate this.

Yet conservatives can always attack Democrats and liberals with seeming impunity. Why? Because many years ago they created an easily attacked proxy, a Strawliberal if you will. The Strawliberal is pretentious, overeducated, cheese eating, effete, snobby, intellectual, pot smoking, criminal coddling, troop hating, etc. etc. (Not that there's anything wrong with any of those things! ;) ) Strawliberal became a convenient scapegoat for the conservatives to project the resentments of ordinary Americans upon. Strawliberal bears little to no resemblence to most Democratic voters, or the American public in general, which overwhelmingly supports progressive policies. This is why they get away with the insulting characterization, while we don't.

For our part, we liberals have been unable to create an equivalent Strawconservative. It may be because we are just too darned reasonable. Admittedly, it's tricky for a Democrat to speak of reaching out to Republicans, because of the way they turn it against us. But it's consistent with our value of tolerance and cooperation, and thus far Obama seems to be getting away with it. He's attracting a wide breadth of support, without appearing to compromise his core progressive values.

You contrast him with JFK, and that's fair enough because that comparison has certainly been made quite a bit. For my part, I am hoping he is more similar to FDR. Roosevelt ran in 1932 as a business-friendly moderate during a very difficult economic time in America. He won and went on to revolutionize the role of government in terms of creating economic opportunity and a social safety net. We need another New Deal and Obama may be the person to bring it about, if my intuition about him is right.

Just my $.02

[zalinda]

39. Fair enough, you want to "play" well with repubs

But, I ask you, if you are to go up against a corporation (or Republican or country)do you want some one who will be reasonable, or someone who knows how to negotiate. Edwards didn't only do trial work, he also did settlement work, which means negotiation, and he came out on top. Pretty words with nothing behind them, means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. I want someone who KNOWS how to negotiate from a view point of winning.

zalinda

[mrreowwr_kittty]

43. I want to win the election. That will require winning more than Democratic voters

Obama says those things to appeal to voters, not to signal to Republicans and corporations that he will lie down for them.

BTW, Edwards didn't go into those settlements screaming "Fuck corporations!" or "Republicans suck!" at the top of his lungs. That line Edwards used against Obama made for a good sound bite but you don't win negotiations by being antagonistic and unwilling to compromise with the other side. Edwards knows that. I'd be ecstatic if Edwards won the election but I'm afraid people like you would be very disappointed when you found that he wasn't going to be as steadfast as you expected him to be.

[zalinda]

44. No, I don't expect him to work miracles

But, I expect him to go into negotiations from a position of power, not in a position of let's play nice.

And, btw when an opposing lawyer goes into a negotiation, he goes in for the kill not to make nice. If your lawyer wants to play nice, you better fire him, because you're going to get screwed. He gets the fee no matter how you come out.

zalinda

[mrreowwr_kittty]

47. We are electing a President, not an attorney.

And America has already suffered through 8 years of a chief executive who is an obstinate, pigheaded tyrant. Independents and moderate Rs are not going to vote for the Democratic version of that, no matter how much you want them to. Again, that was a good zinger he made against Obama but the reality is he WILL work nicely with corporations. Case in point: His healthcare plan. Not exactly a good example of someone telling corporations to sod off, is it? Why didn't Edwards propose a single-payer like Kucinich did?

[zalinda]

51. Edwards' plan works toward single-payer

The insurance companies wouldn't give up their power, so we would get more Harry & Louise commercials. Krugman (an economist, if you don't know) says that Edwards plan is the best. He also has 20 leading economists that endorse him.

And you do need someone with lawyer skills when you are negotiating.

zalinda

[mojowork_n]

32. This came up in another thread...

...and the dynamic was pretty similar. Personally, I've been flipping back and forth between Edwards and Obama like the proverbial windmill in a hurricane.

Anyway, in that thread, somebody said, 'I want a Fighter, not an Appeaser'. And I said:

Hard not to agree with that one.

(Does anyone else ever wonder if Alan Colmes has to shave in the shower, to avoid private time confrontations with mirrors? Will it eventually turn him into a vampire?)

And yet, for me, that's also getting a little uncomfortably close to that classic Karl Rove/Leo Strauss Republican frame. The one that says "standing up to terrorism/evil/outsiders/illegal minorities/people-not-like-us" justifies *everything*, including throwing out the Bill of Rights and Constitution, for the sake of defending the security of the Heimat (that's "Homeland", in the original German, I think), and expanding the effectiveness of executive power.

You know, you sort of hear Obi Wan reminding you to "stay away from the Dark Side" if you pause a minute...

Hesitate for too long and Yeats (Eliot? Chinua Achebe?) is whispering in your ear, "...The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity..."

And the trap springs shut.

All of a sudden you're sharing a world view with Hobbes, Malthus, and Dumbya's "Base", the perspective that holds human existance to be (necessarily, a priori, for the majority of poor slobs), "nasty, brutish and short."

Because "the Best" are always a minority, aren't they? Keepers of the True Flame: The Few, The Chosen, The Brave.

Defending Byzantium, or manning Hadrian's Wall in the waning days of the Empire (with crosses instead of eagles on their standards), what were the soldiers of the last Imperial centuries asking themselves, as they turned to face the hordes of pagan barbarians/people-not-like-them?

Trick question, ancient history.

(Oh, a quick postscript, on all thos Pharma $$'s going Barack's way, how can anyone really know for sure? Sen. Clinton was getting serial traveler's checks, two grand a pop (the max), from 'individuals', through that guy they just sent up the river, Hsu. Of course, as soon as the campaign was alerted to the discovery, *all* of those funds were immediately returned. But questions lingered, and if she's going to be the nominee, you can bet they'll be re-surfacing.)

[tavalon]

34. What you saw in 2004 was typical unthoughtful human behavior

I've chosen this one so he must be good in all things. Our side does it too.

[Perry Logan]

35. FACT CHECK: You can't believe anything these folks say about Hillary...

Is Hillary Clinton a "Corporate Democrat"? - Part 1

the evidence suggests that Sen. Clinton's voting patterns are substantially and surprisingly progressive (ranging typically from 90-100%), including on corporate or labor issues....The data reviewed here suggests that overall, she is far more progressive than corporatist. In the absence of additional or new data, I have to conclude that the label "Corporate Democrat", as applied to her, is inappropriate and extraordinarily misleading.
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011131.php

[JTFrog]

36. Too bad all that powder she kept dry was spent on IWR, Kyl-Lieberman, Patriot Act, etc.

Kinda makes the rest fairly irrelevant.

[Perry Logan]

37. If her record is not corporate, it won't do to keep calling her corporate. That's pretty relevant.

[H2O Man]

38. Wrong.

JFK did not "hate" republicans. He was able to work well with republicans. You might want to take a closer look at his political career, including his administration. Or, perhaps, you are hoping to distract others, so they do not look. But you are absolutely wrong.

[ClericJohnPreston]

40. He could talk the talk, and walk the walk.

He proved his mettle, to be both form and substance.

His rhetoric was fiery, and he fought the military.

I see only conciliatory words and actions from Obama.

[H2O Man]

41. Again, your OP is wrong.

Attempting to change the focus doesn't change that. You said that JFK "hated republicans." That is wrong. It is either evidence that you are sadly misinformed, or that you are purposefully misrepresenting the truth. Thus, the issue at hand is neither JFK nor Barack Obama, but your inaccurate statement.

[ClericJohnPreston]

48. Wha, wha, what?

First, this is my thread, so I should know what my point is. And you missed it.

I challenged OBAMITES to watch the JFK video and respond as to whether or not the JFK comparisons are accurate.

I said JFK was a fighter, not a peacemaker.

You state I'm wrong about JFK. Were you around in 1960, as an adult, and witness to the "bi-partisanship" of his era?

Stylistically, JFK was never , EVER, CONCILIATORY...or perhaps you forget him against the Soviet Union over the Cuban Missile Crisis. One dash of Obama Kumbayah, and there would be missiles in Cuba, if we still existed. Why?

Because, as Edwards says, you can't show weakness!!!

[H2O Man]

52. Wrong, yet again.

Let's look at the first sentence of your 9th paragraph:

"He hated REPUBLICANS and wouldn't reach across the aisle to include them."

I assume that you are willing to take ownership of this sentence. If not, I look forward to your explanation of how it ended up in your OP.

It is incorrect. No one who worked with JFK would consider that an accurate statement. It is simply a display of one of two things: an ignorance of JFK's political career, or an attempt to willingly tell a whooper.

If you would like, we could take a look at the historical record. Two obvious places to begin would be "Profiles in Courage" and "A Thousand Days." I'll be happy to debate you on the sentence quoted above, if you would like.

[ClericJohnPreston]

55. There are two statements in that sentence...

A) JFK hated Republicans
B) He wouldn't reach across the aisle

Now, since this is sublimely ridiculous, as you ignored the forest for one tree, that is, ignored the point of the post, that STYLISTICALLY, Obama is no JFK ( or do I have to go and quote Lloyd Bentson? )it really isn't germane that I even respond. You're taking issue with the historical JFK versus a BOOK, is already absurd. Unless you were directly privy to his musings or have speeches ( we have plenty of those from Obama ), then make your point.

Otherwise, please note only the FIERY rhetoric and COMBATIVE style of JFK. Is that conciliatory to you, or is it a warrior.

JFK was a Cold War warrior.

Obama is warm and fuzzy and conciliatory at every turn.

He works with insurance carriers, takes their money (payola as Michael Moore says) and wants as many RETHUGS in the mix as possible, watering down and diluting the Democratic liberal.

Sorry. I'm ultra-left and I don't want a conciliatory President after getting our collective butts handed to us for 8 years. I want some vengeance, not a peacemaker. I want a sherrif, not a welcoming committee.

Next time, watch the video, as difficult as that may be, for the difference between JFK and Obama is like that between hot and cold. They are opposites.

[H2O Man]

57. Well, I guess

you can try to distract from your error again. But you wrote the sentence. It's wrong. And it has nothing to do with if you fantasize about being "ultra-left" ..... it's just that you are ultra-wrong on the sentence in question. You can try to bluff -- "unless you have speeches" -- but that merely exposes you -- because "Profiles in Courage" is John Kennedy's book about the politicians he admired who rose above party identification, risked their career, and worked with those "across the aisle" for the sake of the country.

Speeches? I have lots of them. I'll bet that my collection of JFK, MLK, and Malcolm X's speeches is as large as anyone that you will meet in your life. So, if you want to debate me, it will be my pleasure.

Now, just one or two little things to warm up. Then you can take your best shot, and show me the depth of your "ultra-left" knowledge of JFK. Okay?

I'm not sure if you would know the author of "A Thouand Days," Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. But I think most objective people would venture that his experience with JFK was at least equal to your's. If we look to page 125 of his book, he describes the conversation where he talks to his people about selecting his administration. "Now, on the key jobs, I don't care if a man's a Democrat or an Igorot. I want the best fellow I can get for the particular job."

Now, maybe you knew that. (grin) If you did, than could you name the republicans he picked for his administration? If you can, how do you justify your incorrect statement that he didn't cross the aisle? And if you don't know, perhaps that would be reason to not spout off about something you don't know anything about.

Okay, because you are an expert, maybe you can tell me the object of the joke that JFK and Nixon shared the day after the 1960 election? Or, maybe not.

Or this: tell me about JFK's famous call to Nixon in '61; Nixon's to JFK in '62; and what JFK advised Goldwater on in regard to career choices?

Okay. Your turn.

[Ninga]

46. Right on with a terrific OP !

[redqueen]

49. I'm with you on that.

I want a fighter. We can't afford to move even one more inch rightward.

[Joe Chi Minh]

54. Obama's performance so far means that the power of the MSM is even

scarier than in our worst nightmares. Is the power of the Republicans, with the media at their service, never-ending, infinite? Very, very scary. When undergraduates on a college campus are unable to cite a single policy of Obama that might given a modicum of substance to his invocations of hope and change, the Republicans' ruses to dumb down the public education system must have borne fruit beyond their wildest dreams. So successful, I think even the Diebold machines might have been rendered redundant.

[krkaufman]

56. "reach across the aisle to include them"

Yeah, that's one of the bits I've enjoyed through this campaign... the critique of whether Democratic candidates would reach across the aisle to include Republicans in their Administration. Why is it that Democrats are expected to do this, and foolishly do, while Republicans adhere to nearly purist requirements?

My current favorite quote, from Frederick Douglass... "Power concedes nothing without a demand." Starting from a compromised position is a losing proposition.

[Pastiche423]

61. So, you are saying you would not support a candidate that will work

w/republics?

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071204/NEWS09/712040382/0/NEWS09
Source: DesMoinesRegister.com

Waterloo, Ia. - John Edwards vowed Monday to include Republicans in his Cabinet if he's elected president.

"Here's why: because I'm looking for the strongest, most capable, most independent-minded people I can find. I want people around me who will say, 'You're wrong about this, and you could do grave damage if you do it. Mr. President, you need to change your mind,' " he said. "Because I'm not perfect, I'm capable of making mistakes."

[StefanX]

62. Brilliant OP

I totally agree with everything you said.

K & R.