McCain’s “Obama love” ad yanked due to … copyright claim?
posted at 12:55 pm on July 26, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Looks like it. Here’s the YouTube page where the clip used to be; the campaign webpage showcasing the two alternate versions now redirects. To quote my favorite liberal vis-a-vis Team Barry, “Is Team McCain even playing the same game?”
The video, set to Frankie Valli’s “Can’t Take My Eyes Off You,” had the makings of a rare viral hit for McCain. It had been viewed more than 200,000 times in its first three day on the Web, and helped McCain beat Obama in total views on YouTube over the past week.
“Obama Love” was the top promoted video on McCain’s YouTube channel, but more significantly, it was fodder for news coverage and bloggers and reposted across the Web.
A fitting end to a week whose big photo op was at the Sausage Haus. Even dumber than them evidently not buying the rights to the song is the fact that they haven’t reposted the video yet with the music stripped out or some piece of generic romantic classical music in the public domain swapped in. Exit question: Is it time for an intervention yet? And if so, who wants to host it? Given MM’s rather public disagreement with Maverick on immigration, I doubt we can lure his web people to the top secret Hot Air batcave…
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Those people need to consider it a little further. And “what people think” does not determine what is.
And yeah, Fred voted for it too. But it’s just one of the really awful, can’t-be-reconciled-with-conservatism bills that McSquish has sponsored.
See, e.g., McCain-Kennedy. Leave aside the fact that any bill the Swimmer would sponsor is by definition a bad bill. McCain_kennedy was a slap in the face of all citizens and legal immigrants. (Spare us your incomplete and misleading Hostettler story, wouldja?)
The BCRA is just one piece of the McSquish puzzle.
misterpeasea on July 26, 2008 at 5:50 PM
I think there are 3 groups here (well, if you exclude the few outright lefties, trolls and false-flags). 1) Those who think McCain is the best possible Republican candidate and cheer everything he does 2) Those who don’t like him, but are going to vote for him because we believe the US simply cannot afford an Obama presidency and 3) those who hate him so much, they would rather see Obama in the Whitehouse.
Since I’m in group 2…so my criticisms stem from my desire that he do everything possible to be an effective candidate and beat Obama…and when we drops the ball and confirms my reminds me of the reasons I never wanted him to be the nominee in the first place…I vent here, hoping that someone on his campaign is reading this blog and get’s a clue…so far, it’s not helping much.
You seem to be in group 3. Am I wrong?
AUINSC on July 26, 2008 at 5:50 PM
my apologies for the horrible grammar and typos…need to step away from the computer for a while.
AUINSC on July 26, 2008 at 5:51 PM
Jetboy, what are you talking about? Unless by dead you mean an active force in every aspect of campaigning.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2008 at 5:53 PM
Oh, I’m Spirit of 1776 and I approve this post (CFR is dead though) :)
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2008 at 5:55 PM
Alright…sorry, more specifically, McCain/Feingold is dead.
JetBoy on July 26, 2008 at 5:59 PM
Okay, I’ll tell all the 527s. You know what, you do it, because I don’t know where you are coming from.
Anyway, your question was evidence. I gave it, your counter-argument is to say it’s dead (I wholly disagree), but either way, your question is answered.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2008 at 6:05 PM
I think we’re on two different wavelengths…we don’t seem to be following each other.
Anyhoo, bottom line is McCain is no “liberal”, and won’t be a liberal Prez. Give the man credit for his conservative stances on the important issues. That’s all I’m saying.
JetBoy on July 26, 2008 at 6:19 PM
Can do. He is pro-life and he is pro-security.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2008 at 6:21 PM
Oh, and he’s a budget hawk.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2008 at 6:21 PM
I never expect any candidate to agree with me on everything. I always assume that there will be something I will have to tolerate, overlook, prioritize whatever.
I think McCain and Thompson both put that bill through, not because they wanted to attack freedom of speech, but because they were trying to deal with the growing resentment towards money in politics. It was challenged, and part of the bill was actually struck down I believe.
My point is that the bill did not destroy freedom of speech, it is alive and well and when it was being debated not even a well respected conservative like Fred Thompson thought it hampered free speech. Was he wrong? A lot of conservatives think so. But that does not mean that Thompson and McCain did not do what they thought was right at the time and it does not mean they are liberals. McCain has voted conservative on hundreds of bills over the years. Surely the hundreds of conservative votes should offer some balance to CFR.
Terrye on July 26, 2008 at 6:22 PM
It mutes it before elections, which is the most important time.
I made love to my wife hundreds of times, that should balance out me cheating on her. Hang on, let me see how that goes over.
Seriously though, let’s just cut to the chase because we understand each other’s motivations. McCain writes unConsitutional laws. I will say that it is a big deal, and you will say you don’t feel it matters that much. So we’ll never reach consensus.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2008 at 6:28 PM
I’m back. It didn’t go over well. Before you say the comparison is false, both are vows/commitments. McCain swore to uphold the Constitution, not thumb his nose at it. But let’s give him all credit and just say instead of ill intent, he lacks foresight and trust his judgment over the judgment of the founding fathers. So maybe he’s just arrogant and shortsighted. Fair enough.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2008 at 6:32 PM
There’s evidence strongly indicative of more sinister intentions, though. For example the smoke-filled-room and shove-down-throat tactics employed for shamnesty.
FloatingRock on July 26, 2008 at 6:43 PM
Yes, I full well remember that. Not only on the Hill, but in public, like the McCain surrogate’s degradation of people who believe in rule-of-law. So insulting. But I’m just saying best-case scenario we’ve got an arrogant shortsighted Senator who writes unConstitutional laws. I’m so excited. Sigh.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2008 at 6:48 PM
Honestly Spirit…you really believe that? You believe that McCain would really be a horrible POTUS?
Look…I’m as conservative a guy I know. (Of course, I know tons of liberals!) And not everything McCain has done I agree with. Is there anyone in Washington that you can say you agree with 100%?
I was a “Fred Head” before there were Fred Heads. All my hopes and dreams rested with Thompson getting the nod. Didn’t happen. My immediate second choice…McCain.
I just admire the guy. And totally respect him. I just get annoyed at all the “McShamnesty” baloney that gets tossed on him regularly. He doesn’t deserve it. And it gives the conservative movement a bad name.
JetBoy on July 26, 2008 at 6:58 PM
Hey Allahpundit, question for you. What’s your policy regarding people who troll others on this website?
Oh, I see. You don’t see the people who lie about McCain and advocate the same things that democrats are right now – not voting for McCain so that Obama wins, that they do this in virtually every post about McCain …
You are more pissed off at people who go to a page that has McCain as it’s subject, and confront these same trolls who coincidentally go to virtually every post about McCain and then trash him and anyone who doesn’t march in lock step with them.
Well, that’s good to know. Thanks for the insight as to what makes you angry, people who defend McCain.
Thanks again.
wise_man on July 26, 2008 at 7:03 PM
Truth:
I don’t know. I don’t know what he would be like as an executive. I only know what he is like as legislator (unless I extrapolate from his Navy days and I don’t think I can accurately do that). But I do know he wants to take his signature legislative issue and make it a “Day 1″ executive issue.
But I do know that he has shown done a series of things that show poor foresight and he has shown he trusts his judgment over others. Does that mean he will be a bad executive? No, not necessarily. His foresight isn’t as big a problem if he has smarter people around him. But if his arrogance overrides a willingness to listen, it’d be horrible. Carter II.
Well, I’ve never called him a name, I don’t think, but he deserves to have his feet held to the fire on this issue because of his duplicity.
No. But some are a lot closer then JM.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2008 at 7:06 PM
Some people think that Obama would be CarterII.
Others, think that McCain would be CarterII.
amusing.
wise_man on July 26, 2008 at 7:12 PM
True…but they’re not in place to be the next President. I keep trying to reiterate that either McCain or Obama WILL be the next POTUS. And I keep saying, go ahead and drill McCain on whatever issues…when he’s prez. He’s the nominee…the primaries are done. We need to remember that.
Bashing McCain now only serves to help Obama between now and November.
JetBoy on July 26, 2008 at 7:14 PM
No surprise, seeing as both are non-executives with over-inflated views of their own judgment. Both could be disasters in a similar way.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2008 at 7:14 PM
wise, you know I’m on your side when it comes to McCain, and I get angry with the bashing on him too. But let’s not bring ourselves to a level of letting anger co-mingle with our posts.
You just can’t “anger” someone into agreeing with you. Just sayin’
JetBoy on July 26, 2008 at 7:16 PM
Certainly true.
You asked the question, I just answered.
(I don’t agree with that point btw, what’s been said on the street will affect vp pick for consolidation reasons)
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2008 at 7:16 PM
Hmm… kinds describes one other person running for president this year as well. Actually, it almost totally describes them. But who … who could that be … Can’t quite place it though.
wise_man on July 26, 2008 at 7:18 PM
FIFY
It’s not your perspective that’s the problem, it’s how you express it. Cease your efforts to establish your own opinion as groupthink and you’ll do fine. Abandon your tactic of facetiously calling established conservative members here liberal Obama supporters and rhetorically banishing them to Daily KOS and Huffington Post. You’ve repeatedly confused pragmatism with conservatism and they aren’t the same at all. Just because somebody hasn’t made the same pragmatic decision as you to support McCain doesn’t mean they’re liberal Obama supporters instead of conservatives, it just means they’re not as pragmatic.
FloatingRock on July 26, 2008 at 7:57 PM
Maybe he used to be a budget hawk. Maybe he used to be a conservative.
But there is no way in the world you can simultaneously be a budget hawk AND be for amnesty. Entitlement spending is our biggest problem. We have how many boomers heading for retirement? 65 million? And McSquish wants to add 20 million, plus their families, to the welfare rolls. Hell, he wanted to let the ILlegals into Social Security.
Doesn’t sound like a budget hawk to me.
Oh, and he wants to preside over a huuuuuge expansion of the federal gummint to keep a close eye on the myth of global warming.
Amnesty is irreversible. It looks to me like we have a better chance of defeating amnesty with President Bambi than President McSquish. And then there’s the question of who gets the blame. I want it to be Democrats.
misterpeasea on July 26, 2008 at 8:05 PM
Good point, I yield it uncontested.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2008 at 8:07 PM
And now he’s talking trash to one of the guys that runs the site. I’m surprised he didn’t tell AP to just go on over to Kos or HuffPoo with the rest of the trash.
I think he’s a few pompoms short of a complete cheerleader outfit. IYKWIMAITYD.
misterpeasea on July 26, 2008 at 8:08 PM
Bashing McCain now only serves to help Obama between now and November, since the republican primaries are over. And I am powerless to prevent anyone from commenting here. Quite the opposite, I was threatened by the person who runs this site. That should make you and your friends who despise McCain very happy.
wise_man on July 26, 2008 at 8:09 PM
I am not talking trash. I am pointing out the obvious.
wise_man on July 26, 2008 at 8:10 PM
Emotionally, I assume.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2008 at 8:13 PM
If he mentioned that he was thinking about removing your posting privileges, Spirit of 1776? How would you react?
wise_man on July 26, 2008 at 8:15 PM
How would I react? I’d take it as a warning. I’ve been here a looooong time and I know how patient AP is and how sparingly he closes accounts, so I’d re-evaluate what he warned me over instead of knee-jerkingly defend my behavior. But that’s just me.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2008 at 8:18 PM
Well said. Many of the threads where he ‘defends McCain’ are stories about positions McCain has taken that are not defensible by a Republican. Pandering to La Raza; environmental gobble goo about ANWR; these type of issues infuriate the pragmatists that are trying to hold their nose and vote for McCain and amuse those who have already given up. Wiseman is reduced to shrieking and name calling because there is nothing intellectually honest he can say to ‘defend McCain.’ He is simply engaged in a leftwing tactic in trying to silence the opposition through name calling and hysterical accusations. Given the past quality of comments on this site, it’s embarrassing and annoying. Nobody has a problem defending their ideas; but it’s not the ideas he attacks. It’s the simple fact that they are being expressed out loud. Given that he’s now trying to ban people for that reason, I would say a case could be made that wiseman is a wannabe Stalinist. Should I throw in a crack about McCain and the 1st amendment? Or would that be a cheap shot?
Yes he does. Dead of night legislation that would have had a massive impact and they try to squeak it through with no hearings and only special interest groups having a say? It was a filthy trick. Take that and the arrogance of putting Juan Hernandez on his staff after that mess and hiding him from the media? And let’s not forget silencing dissent before an election with McCain/Feingold. This is why I call him ‘Backdoor John’. Underhanded, arrogant, and doesn’t want to be questioned about any of it. No, I wouldn’t trust him with executive power. And the amnesty screwing he tried to give the American people should have disqualified him from even running for the GOP. That’s why he doesn’t have my vote. I’d hate to see Obama win; but McCain and the GOP won’t see a dime or a vote from me while McCain holds any kind of elected office.
austinnelly on July 26, 2008 at 8:18 PM
And if you disagreed that their definition of your behavior is not correct?
wise_man on July 26, 2008 at 8:19 PM
I have no power to do anything of the sort. I can only mention that there are people here who want the same thing that the democrats want. For McCain to loose.
That these same people here are lying about McCain in the same manner that democrats on liberal blogs are lying and slandering McCain.
This has nothing to do with people disagreeing with McCain and everything to do with people who want the same things as democrats, and are using the same tactics as democrats. I take issue with this. I express this, and they troll me in response.
wise_man on July 26, 2008 at 8:22 PM
Well, that’s a hypothetical that can’t be answered. But I don’t image I will ever have to because the rules around here are pretty simple.
But regardless, good job casting yourself as a victim. You call for people to be banned, tell them they should post on kos and huffpo, snark at AP and you are the victim. Impressive. Indeed, compelling performance.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2008 at 8:23 PM
Gosh, if my posting privileges were threatened, I might stop doing whatever it was that was pissing everybody, even the folks that agreed with me (like JetBoy), off. I might start defending my guy with something besides “LYING LIAR WHO LIES ABOUT JOHN MCCAIN!!!!!!!” Heck, I might even respond substantively to people who address my comments.
I WOULDN’T call out the guy who runs the site. Because that would be excruciatingly stupid. Oh, and after threatening and calling names and telling folks to get lost and trying to act like a virtual bad-ass, I wouldn’t start whining like a little girl when it turned out that nobody agreed with me.
But that’s just me.
misterpeasea on July 26, 2008 at 8:23 PM
image = imagine. That’s a month’s quota of typos today
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2008 at 8:24 PM
Heh. I swear I didn’t read your post until after I posted.
misterpeasea on July 26, 2008 at 8:24 PM
“I WOULDN’T call out the guy who runs the site.”
I am not allowed to express an opinion? Isn’t this what you are accusing me of doing?
wise_man on July 26, 2008 at 8:24 PM
That’s what he said he would do. You go ahead and keep on keeping on! Don’t let the man get you down!
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2008 at 8:27 PM
I have a problem with people acting like liberals on a conservative site. Behaving as they do. Advocating the things that they also advocate. This appears to me as an outsider looking in as a successful “operation chaos” on us perpetuated from within.
You and others have a problem with McCain “acting like a liberal” when he should be a more staunch conservative. You should know exactly what I am talking about.
wise_man on July 26, 2008 at 8:27 PM
Yet over the past few days you’ve been hoping to.
Threatened? Hardly. If you make an effort AP isn’t likely to ban you on your first offense…. He usually gives a few warnings depending upon the circumstances. It’s his site. Follow his advice and you won’t have anything to worry about. And it wouldn’t make me happy if you were banned unless you continue along your present course after having been warned. I’d rather see you employ more reasonable tactics instead.
FloatingRock on July 26, 2008 at 8:28 PM
“You go ahead and keep on keeping on!”
What am I ‘keeping on?’ By posting comments?
wise_man on July 26, 2008 at 8:28 PM
It’s Michelle’s site. She employs him.
wise_man on July 26, 2008 at 8:29 PM
That does certainly true (not the acting like liberals part) but that you do genuinely get upset when people discuss politics. It’s a self-inflicted wound obviously because you don’t have to read/participate/bully, but a curious one none the less.
Yeah, true too. We used to be able to converse about varying opinions without hyperbolic emotionalism. Save cs and bk on fred of course, but even they didn’t use the tactics you use.
I do know what you are talking about. I’ve seen people try to intimidate others before.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2008 at 8:34 PM
Is anything penetrating?
Here’s how you deal with LYING LIARS WHO LIE ABOUT JOHN MCCAIN!!!!!!
You point out their lies, preferably with a link. You don’t merely call them LYING LIARS WHO LIE ABOUT AND SLANDER JOHN MCCAIN!!!!! That’s part of the “substantive response” thing I mentioned earlier.
Oh, and this might be hard to comprehend, but when people say McCain is a liberal, that’s not a statement of fact that can be definitively proven or disproven. So don’t bother. It is an opinion that can only be debated. And debate does not consist of calling names, and convincing, compelling arguments do not consist of using ALL CAPS!!!
And when you’re trying to refute the LYING LIARS WHO LIE ABOUT JOHN MCCAIN!!!!!, being dishonest yourself doesn’t help. Like touting his ACU rating of 82.6, good for about 40th of the 49 Republican Senators. That’s misleading with the truth, and it’s just as bad as lying.
Ultimately, the other people on this site judge the merits of the arguments. You can only persuade, not compel, as much as you’d prefer compulsion. And like I told you before, they’re smarter than you give them credit for.
misterpeasea on July 26, 2008 at 8:35 PM
That’s another thing. Quit calling every dissenting opinion about McCain lies. It’s tiresome. Instead, try countering their opinion on the matter with your own and leave out the diatribe.
FloatingRock on July 26, 2008 at 8:44 PM
Ok, fair enough. It was a one time mistake; he sponsored it in 2003 but has let it go since then, and that was a long time ago.
Oh, and he sued the FEC to try to have it regulate internet communications in 2006 under CFR… But it was a simple two time mistake, and 2006 is still some time back.
And in 2007 he filed an amicus brief to clarify that the Wisconsin Pro-Life group should not be allowed to run an ad, but that was last year.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11783.html
A news article from July 2008 reporting on a McCain ad from this month?
You may think McCain has given up on this, but McCain seems to think differently.
Or at least he did three weeks ago. If you have more recent information, please provide it. I actually hope you do have a link showing otherwise.
gekkobear on July 26, 2008 at 8:50 PM
“Quit calling every dissenting opinion about McCain lies.”
There are plenty of people here who dissent and I do not call them a liar. People often mention his mistakes and failings. They are absolutely correct, in their opinions as I often agree with them. What I have done is call out the people who lie about McCain.
As I said, this is the same lame tactic that democrats use for McCain and other republicans. They lie about them, and a lie not responded to is a lie that will become the truth in the mind of the observer if it is not corrected. Calling him a liberal is a lie. He is not. It’s not even an opinion. He is not as conservative as others. When you look at his voting record, he is no where near being liberal. Any organizations that track politician’s voting record will show that. I’ve used the example posted on hotair by ed morrissey. Others show pretty much the same.
I’ve never called dissenting opinions, lies.
wise_man on July 26, 2008 at 9:10 PM
Whatever it is you think you’re doing: stop.
Of course it’s an opinion. The measurement of political ideology has always been and always will be a subjective, relative comparison. Compared to many of us here, McCain is a liberal.
So just stop it.
FloatingRock on July 26, 2008 at 9:15 PM
So you want me to stop … responding to incorrect opinions about McCain that are without merit as well as outright falsehoods?
You want me to stop.
wise_man on July 26, 2008 at 9:18 PM
By George, I think you’ve got it.
Stop calling subjective opinions lies.
FloatingRock on July 26, 2008 at 9:19 PM
So Lieberman is a republican, when compared relatively to Obama? In your opinion.
And as compared to Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush is a liberal, as compared to Ronald Reagan. Relatively.
wise_man on July 26, 2008 at 9:20 PM
“Stop calling subjective opinions lies.”
I’ve never called subjective opinions lies. Ans opinion that McCain is a jerk has never been called by me a lie. That McCain is a liberal which is not true by the definition of what a liberal is, is not the truth. Therefore, it is a lie. Maybe someone’s opinion that the earth is flat is for them, subjective. But it is not the truth.
wise_man on July 26, 2008 at 9:22 PM
I admit I laughed at this one: “So Lieberman is a republican, when compared relatively to Obama? In your opinion.”
Floating Rock, open your mouth so I can shove some words into them. Um-kay? Thanks.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2008 at 9:23 PM
What the hell is wrong with you?
That was a question. A question.
Can you not read?
Do you not understand what this symbol ” ? ” means?
wise_man on July 26, 2008 at 9:26 PM
You are. I am an honest critic of McCain, not a hater. I am vocal because I don’t see the value in not liking much about McCain but staying silent as some sort of nod that Obama is the option. Face it, McCain’s administration isn’t going to be fundamentally different than McCain’s when it comes to the important social issues. McCain will be nominating a Souter not a Scalia so any pretense that we need McCain to protect the SCOTUS is mere propaganda from McCain’s apologists. The only place McCain is clearly the better candidate is in international affairs and I simply don’t know if that is enough to make the difference. America is screwed no matter what.
I would suggest you missed an important aspect of group one (McCain’s staunchest supporters). They largely are Democrats who hate social conservatives and evangelicals more than they oppose the Democrat agenda (which they largely support). Like McCain they are out for revenge for the last two election cycles and would gladly allow Obama to win if it means getting rid of the base GOP constituency. These are the fools that think McCain can win by courting Democrats.
highhopes on July 26, 2008 at 9:28 PM
If you dont’ know what leading the witness is, then I can’t help you. You do now what leading the witness is don’t you, wise_man? (note the ? giveaway!!!)
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2008 at 9:29 PM
He made a statement, and I challenged his statement with a question to – “question” his definition of that statement.
Did you really misunderstand that comment, or do I need to constantly mention in every question that I make that this is a question, Spirit of 1776? (
wise_man on July 26, 2008 at 9:29 PM
Example of an opinion: “McCain is an idiot.”
Example of a statement that purports to be a true fact, when it is actually i falsehood: “McCain is a liberal.”
Example of an opinion: “I think that, based on my opinion that has no merit whatsoever, that McCain is a liberal.”
Do you understand that, Spirit of 1776? ( that was a question. )
wise_man on July 26, 2008 at 9:33 PM
No, Republican is a political party, but he’s more conservative than Obama, at least on national security issues. How much more conservative? It depends upon your perspective.
Some might say that and honestly believe it, sure. But conventionally it would be more accurate to say that Bush wasn’t as conservative as Reagan.
And the classifications that people use have changed over time. Many people who call themselves conservative today, or at least Republican for this example, have more in common with the Democrats of not too many decades ago.
But this is just one example. You need to stop acting like you are the arbiter of truth in general not just on this one issue. We don’t care about your determination of truth anyway; we all understand this concept already.
FloatingRock on July 26, 2008 at 9:38 PM
Given up on the debate already have you? Resorting to ole personal attacks, are we? Suit yourself.
Sure. I actually think liberality is more tangible because it is an ideology so one can measure, sort of, how closely some is to it. But it have variability, so it has both objective and subjective parts to it.
No, no, no. I didn’t misunderstand it. Everyone can see what you were attempting to do. Which is what makes if funny – you leading the witness there. Hence my comment. Without respect to the argument itself, the style made me actually laugh. That’s is all.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2008 at 9:39 PM
“You need to stop acting like you are the arbiter of truth in general”
I am only offering commentary as I see it. I have never made any statement that I know best. And if you think that it’s because of my login name, it’s my last name, “Wiseman.” Sorry if you think that I want to be the arbiter of truth or something like that. Wasn’t my intention.
wise_man on July 26, 2008 at 9:40 PM
Look, I’m not your teacher. You should have learned this stuff in school or picked it up on your own. Just trust me that the measurement of political ideology is not math, it’s subjective. And again, you are not the arbiter of truth and are clearly inadequate to the task, so stop acting like one.
FloatingRock on July 26, 2008 at 9:41 PM
I asked a question of him and you claimed I tried to put some words in his mouth I did nothing of the sort. It seems like you have a problem reading, or a problem reading what I write.
In my opinion, I am not leading the witness, and no one but you saw it that way. FloatingRock (July 26, 2008 at 9:38 PM) answered my question as I posed it.
wise_man on July 26, 2008 at 9:43 PM
I respectfully disagree. If you look at the dictionary definition of liberal, it doesn’t say “what ever the individual thinks it is, or in comparison to others.”
wise_man on July 26, 2008 at 9:44 PM
Then do it without calling or even insinuating that people are liars in every thread.
FloatingRock on July 26, 2008 at 9:45 PM
As I said, when people make claims about McCain that are not true, I don’t let it go, I respond. When people offer opinions about McCain, I do not call them liars.
wise_man on July 26, 2008 at 9:48 PM
We will simply have to agree to disagree. I regret the mess.
wise_man on July 26, 2008 at 9:48 PM
He corrected your question. But it doesn’t matter, but I don’t claim others to be amused. I was.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2008 at 9:49 PM
Oh, and I think that this guy’s opinion/observation was very interesting.
I am in group 2. I haven’t read anyone here who is in group 1. And there are a boat load of people from group 3.
And more than our share of (outright lefties, trolls and false-flags) which is not productive to this site at all. THe question is how do you identify the people who are from group 3 who are conservatives and the (outright lefties, trolls and false-flags). We may never know.
wise_man on July 26, 2008 at 9:51 PM
What group are you in, Spirit of 1776?
wise_man on July 26, 2008 at 9:53 PM
OK, but if I were AP, and I’m not obviously, I would ban you if you continue calling everybody liars all the time.
That’s a much more effective argument than if you’d have called me a liar.
FloatingRock on July 26, 2008 at 9:55 PM
I don’t think he is the best. I don’t he is conservative, actually. And I don’t want Obama in the WH, so you do the math. Good luck.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2008 at 9:57 PM
Obviously I don’t call people liars all the time.
This is an example of your “subjective” definition. You think this, therefore in your mind it it true. And it is not. I have been speaking with you, and I haven’t called you a liar for expressing your opinion.
wise_man on July 26, 2008 at 10:02 PM
Sounds like you are in group two.
But I wouldn’t dare put any words in your mouth, or anything like that.
wise_man on July 26, 2008 at 10:04 PM
Man oh man. You just can’t make this stuff up.
And there is at least one more group, _man. The group I’m in: we think that the positives from a McCain presidency will be outweighed by the long term negatives he inflicts on the country and the party and the ideology of conservatism.
Maybe if McCain was going to advance conservatism it’d be worth the risk. But then, if he was going to advance conservatism, there’d BE no risk.
We think the negatives (and they’re big, we understand) of an Obama presidency will be outweighed by the positives: he will discredit Democrats and liberalism, he will swing the tide of the Congress back to Republicans, and he will be blamed for the stupid and costly policies that he and John McCain agree on (like global warmism and amnesty), rather than John McCain.
Obama will advance conservatism by discrediting liberalism. I’d rather that than McCain advancing liberalism by both advancing liberalism and discrediting conservatism. So you and your fellow-travelers are actually contributing to the damage a President McCain will inflict by insisting that he’s a conservative. Because people will think, oh, the conservative gave amnesty and crippled our economy? Screw conservatives.
Don’t worry, I don’t expect you to either understand or respond substantively.
misterpeasea on July 26, 2008 at 10:07 PM
I agree that there are conventional classifications of political ideology at a given time and place, but it’s subjective, IMO, because it depends upon the time and place. For example, the left and right in this country doesn’t precisely correspond to other nations, such as the UK, where the right is much like our left. And the left and right of today doesn’t precisely correspond with where they were during the founding of America. There are also people who hold divergent views that to some extent spread across the gamut of political ideology.
There is also the aspect that in addition to broad societal classifications of political ideology, there is also a personal classification element. People on the far right probably often conclude that most of society is more liberal than somebody in the center or far left might determine for themselves, and vice versa.
FloatingRock on July 26, 2008 at 10:09 PM
That would be wise.
I really don’t have an argument with that because the term is broadly used for various meanings. But I do think there is an actually ideological center for conservative and liberal values. But those, as you suggest, aren’t referred to as much as the subjective ones. It’s like right now, pro-war is considered Republican and conservative view. But that’s only by context or the current situation. So I follow you.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2008 at 10:13 PM
Well, _peasea, you seem to be in group three.
But I wouldn’t want to put words in your mouth or anything like that, as much as what you claim, falls into the definition of group three. (or someone from the other group)
wise_man on July 26, 2008 at 10:16 PM
And by the way, when you say..
..it’s okay. But when I said it yesterday, it was wrong, right?
I mean, if what I did yesterday was so bad of me to do, then it should be bad for you to do it as well.
wise_man on July 26, 2008 at 10:19 PM
“And while you’re at it, do you have anything on misterpeasea? I’d love to take that goddamned troll off of this website as well. It would be more than worth it.”
Not remotely the same. Especially considering today’s conversation stemmed from a hypothetical question about what others would do. But you know that of course.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2008 at 10:23 PM
AHHHHH!!!!
But you didn’t consider the measurement of ‘the same’ as it has always been and always will be a subjective, relative comparison.
Did you?
I don’t think you did.
But you knew that of course.
wise_man on July 26, 2008 at 10:27 PM
wise_man on July 26, 2008 at 10:27 PM
Okay, that was funny too. But I didn’t say that.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Yeah, yeah, okay, my bad.
wise_man on July 26, 2008 at 10:31 PM
There is, but it’s still transitory, IMO, for example the modern conservative movement is largely based on classical liberalism, is it not? It’s an honest question because I’m not as well read in history as some here.
FloatingRock on July 26, 2008 at 10:44 PM
I haven’t heard that before, can you help me find any writings that mention this, or where you heard of that previously?
wise_man on July 26, 2008 at 10:53 PM
Classical Liberalism
FloatingRock on July 26, 2008 at 10:56 PM
Yes, absolutely. I would just contribute the thought that in certain places absolute values are markers for those places. In England, for example, the Magna Carta, for US DoI and Constitution. Those expression of classical liberalism, and how close we remain to those, to me define the difference between conservationism and liberal.
To apply for example, anything that alters separation of powers, or minimizes personal liberty or the rights of the citizenry (like CFR does, for ex) it is measurably not conservative.
Liberals move toward government as the answer, so in almost everything that is expansion of government for non preamble reasons, to me is measurable liberality.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2008 at 10:58 PM
I agree in general as it pertains to the present. Adherence to the Constitution and DoI is my basic measure of conservatism but I’m sure some would disagree, and others might claim that adherence to those same principles amounts to libertarianism and adding an additional layer of ideology on top of that amounts to conservatism…. although in either case, adherence to those principles still applies, which is why McCain isn’t a conservative, IMO.
FloatingRock on July 26, 2008 at 11:11 PM
I would argue that is not quite correct. Libertarianism is rooted in personal liberty, which is to say it’s founding documents are really the bill of Rights. I think Conservatives consider the Preamble as the real source of definition on government. A slight difference, you might, but an important one nontheless I think.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2008 at 11:22 PM
Well, I don’t have a dog in this comment-fight…but I disagree. An Obama presidency with a complicit media means he will control the message…and the message will be that every F**k up he is responsible for will be the fault of the Neo-Cons, Jews, Convervatives and Republicans…and if you doubt that, just look at the message they are sending out now…and observe that how it is resonating with a large (yes, large idiot, but large) portion of the voting public.
AUINSC on July 26, 2008 at 11:40 PM
Thank you for understanding and responding substantively.
It’s another nail in the coffin of people in group 3.
wise_man on July 26, 2008 at 11:57 PM
Sounds plausible to me, but I’m not up on the finer points.
On a related note, there are the ACU ratings; in which McCain scores poorly relative to most other Republicans, although better than Obama, certainly. To the best of my knowledge those scores aren’t weighted by the importance a given issue has with the base, and can’t be custom weighted by an individual by going to their web site and submitting a form. So while McCain might score in the 70’s or 80’s, (or whatever), on any given year, if illegal immigration and the 1st amendment were given their proper weight, he would actually score much, much lower. So again, the ACU ratings are a subjective measurement, especially when you take into account that an otherwise conservative voting politician who hypothetically voted to repeal the 2nd amendment might still receive a strong ACU rating in spite of the fact that they’ve voted against a prominent conservative principle which would be a deal killer for many.
Also, the measurement is relative because it is based upon, I presume, bills that go through the process and actually receive a vote. If the “conservatives” in congress aren’t particularly conservative and don’t submit principled conservative legislation yet vote for every bill, they probably get a strong conservative rating despite the fact that they aren’t submitting or voting on sound conservative bills.
However, I’m not familiar enough with the ACU ratings process to know for certain how they score, so I may be wrong on the last point.
FloatingRock on July 27, 2008 at 12:10 AM
You could go to the site and read about how they scored the votes that they tabulated the results.
And by “better than Obama,” you do realize that Obama scored a “7″ and McCain, an “80.” That is a little more than just “better.”
wise_man on July 27, 2008 at 12:19 AM
I think the ACU ratings are a waste honestly. If you don’t vote on a bill, it doesn’t factor in. It’s unreliable.
I think the better measurement is legislation written or sponsored by individuals. I mean generally people vote down party lines, but their own legislation illuminates their thinking, imho.
Spirit of 1776 on July 27, 2008 at 12:23 AM
If I were to prioritize the issues that most concern me and used that to weight the score accordingly, McCain would probably score well below 50.
FloatingRock on July 27, 2008 at 12:25 AM
Good point.
FloatingRock on July 27, 2008 at 12:27 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »