Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
May 15, 2008
POLITICS: I'd Like To Make A Request

Let's lock this guy and this guy in a room together somewhere and tell them not to come out until they know what "perspective" means.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:07 PM | Politics 2008 | Comments (11) | TrackBack (0)
Comments

As for Obama, since his name wasn't spoken, why is he taking offense? It has been my experience that if someone is offended by something that wasn't directed at them, it has struck a nerve. As for McCain, couldn't agree more.

Posted by: maddirishman at May 16, 2008 12:22 AM

What's so out of line about the 2nd link attacking McCain? He did everything in his power to pass an amnesty immigration bill, let's call it what it was (Romney was right about that). He's gone on record as being concerned about the "humanitarian" element of deporting illegals, but gives no lip at all to the "humanitarian" problem of Americans losing their jobs to the cheap immigrant labor. His current call for conservative judicial appointments can't be trusted given how hard he worked with the "gang of 12" to stall/defeat Bush's appointments. Like a moron he wants to pick a fight with Russia who we now have friendly relations with by kicking them out of the G8. He voted against Bush (yes I believe Huffpo and her two witnesses; even scumbag McNamee was capable of telling truths about Clemens) and basically became a baby after losing out in 2000, openly courting Kerry and considering a party switch. I mean c'mon, at least if Obama wins we can attack him as a Democrat in Democrat's clothing. Ann Coulter is right, its more dangerous to have a Democrat in Republican's clothing in the White House. No bloody way that guy gets my vote.

Posted by: robert at May 16, 2008 12:37 AM

robert,
Are you really expecting a Republican to side with American citizens over his base (Corporate America)?
Republicans will always side with their base, who loves cheap labor.
The fact that you thought for even one second that a Republican would be on the side of American citizens over corporations is hilarious to anyone who has paid a modicum of attention to the GOP since Reagan.
Of course, they told you they support the working class.
But really, how gullible could you possibly be?
Hilarious!
BTW, the GOP hates terrorists too--as far as you know.
Ha ah ha ha ha ha.
You kids crack me up with your naivte.

Posted by: Robert in BA at May 16, 2008 1:15 AM

The second line of attack is out of line because it represents another cartoon caricature of McCain as someone who is basically to the left of Obama. Much of what robert (the coherent one) wrote above has some merit, and yesterday's speech is troubling on many levels, but the treatment of McCain as some sort of leftist is getting to be a tad absurd.

Actually, there is a part of robert's (the coherent one) argument that needs to be rebutted:

His current call for conservative judicial appointments can't be trusted given how hard he worked with the "gang of 12" to stall/defeat Bush's appointments.

First of all, it was the gang of 14. Second, the idea was not to stall Bush's appointments, but actually to work to get them confirmed. Now, one can certainly blame McCain for being politically naive, but this was not an act of ideological treachery. The gang of 14 deal reflects more on McCain's questionable political instincts rather than on him being some sort of duplicitous leftist. Moreover, some argue that the gang of 14 did in fact help Bush's appointments get confirmed, though I still remain skeptical of that claim myself.

Posted by: crankycon at May 16, 2008 9:13 AM

The first piece was right on target. W is a freakin' moron, and equating negotiation with Iran to Nazi appeasement is like saying, well - like saying a whole lot of the retarded drivel that comes out of his mouth. If you want more proof, just buy one of those "Out of Office" calendars which chronicles countless clueless utterances that would make the average ten year-old ashamed to be represented on the world stage by such a pathetic fool. Let the lame duck posturing to save face for his party's sake begin.

The second bit is certainly a lot more extreme, but I do agree with others on this thread that McCain is as spineless a chameleon as Hillary. Either one of them will do nearly anything to get elected. Sounds like the writer of this piece might wind up on the news one night with as many wives as guns, however.

And, oh yeah - Crank, I have to tell ya, I'm still loving your baseball coverage but I'm fresh out of patience with the election year offensive against sanity. I really can't read any of your political stuff anymore. Hopefully you'll be released from the looney bin after the election.

Posted by: macsonix at May 16, 2008 11:27 AM

I really can't read any of your political stuff anymore.

So don't. Believe us, no one's going to miss hearing your perspective.

Posted by: crankycon at May 16, 2008 11:31 AM

President Bush did not, of course, mention Obama. The Senator he referred to, Sen Borah of Idaho, was a Republican, as a few lefty commentators have gleefully pointed out. This amounts to a statement against interest by President Bush, the GOP standard bearer, and thus enhances the credibility of what he said. A commenter above, and many beside him on the web, on TV etc, assert that equating Hitler's Germany to the mullah/A'jad's Iran is irresponsible and ahistorical. I've yet to see anything more than assertion. This never made argument hinges on, wonder of wonders, Obama's skills as a diplomat and negotiator. Proof of this is, of course since he simply has no experience in foreign affairs, non-existent.

Their argument MUST be: Negotiation w/ Iran is not tantamount to appeasement of Hitler because Obama will not be the dupe Chamberlain was. This is the argument. Why won't Obama supporters make it? Why won't they say that negotiation is a process but appeasement is a result? Why won't they point out that Chamnerlain negotiating w/ Hitler wasn't a problem, but the deal he cut was, and Obama would never ever make such a bad deal.

Let me hazard a guess: deep in their heart of hearts Obama supporters know that sitting down to negotiate with the leader of a regime forthrightly and fundamentally dedicated to the eradication of the Jewish people in a particular place at a particular time in history is simply a bad idea. No good can come of it at all, and the bad results that came from Chamberlain in Munich were predictable, and by Churchill anyway, predicted.

Our man's better than Chamberlain is the only argument Obama supporters can logically make in this regard, but they won't make it. They know better. Or-- what's worse-- perhaps they don't.

Posted by: seamus at May 16, 2008 2:28 PM

Here's a surprise. Bush (and his cult of wing nuts who post here) does not understand history. Chamberlain's appeasement was talking to Hitler, but in agreeing to the split of Czechoslovakia. As Churchill once said, "better jaw/jaw, than war/war."

As to Crank's post, agreed. Those two guys are boobs. Speaking of boobs, how about getting Malkin and Coulter in a room until they get perspective.

Posted by: Magrooder at May 16, 2008 5:10 PM

Obama may not be the perfect candidate, but his response (he'll take on McCain and Bush in a debate about keeping Americans safer) is the perfect response.

I'll take "the appeaser" over the nitwits any day.

Posted by: Robert in BA at May 16, 2008 6:07 PM

I love how crankycon takes it upon himself to speak for the lot of Crank's readers. It's precisely this kind of overblown chest-beating which I've come to expect not only from this administration, but also from certain individuals who've christened themselves the official spokesperson for a whole group of people who are perfectly capable of expressing themselves. Although I am super-duper disappointed that apparently I'm not invited to join the really nifty club you think you are leading.

Hope you don't injure yourself should you need to dismount that high horse.

Posted by: macsonix at May 17, 2008 7:23 PM

What high horse, mac? There is a baseball only option at the top of the page. You said "I'm still loving your baseball coverage but I'm fresh out of patience with the election year offensive against sanity. I really can't read any of your political stuff anymore."
So stop reading and commenting on political posts. Problem solved, you are welcome.

Posted by: abe at May 17, 2008 9:17 PM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg