Watching the far right react...

[elfs]

Man, the crazy is just beginning. Let's start at The Corner, where K-Lo always delivers: Kathryn Lopez: "Normal Americans are telling me it was 'mean' speech."

Johan Goldberg: "I think his shots at McCain were ill-advised. Who the hell is Obama to try to out-hawk McCain on Bin Laden? Please. Not plausible." (Really, Jonah? Then why did we go to Iraq? It wasn't about out-hawking. It was about using the military correctly.)

Andy McCarthy: "LAME. This is a very weak candidate. As I'll argue in a piece for tomorrow, there's no question Hillary would be a far more formidable candidate." (Because, dammit, we had all this ammo to use on her!)

Jim Geraghty: "Obama's speech was predictable, it was implausible, and it was strikingly, inexplicably, angry." (Translation: You really don't want an angry uppity black man in your White House)

Yuval Levin: "Given his considerable talent, he could have done much better. But it wasn't bad." (Translation: the bump won't be 15%, and you should therefore interpret the poll shift as indicating Obama is a loser!)

Jay Redding: "Negative. Shrill. Lacking in vision. This is not the Obama that inspires. This speech is flopping, and I can't see independents going for this. What was the Obama team thinking?"

Towhall: "Obama changed his strategy, attacked back, made decisions to avoid being attacked. This turned him in a typical politician." (Translation: Please, dear God, let us find a way to recast Obama the way Obama's team has successfuly recast McCain.)

Say Anything: "'This is not about me.' I hope nobody had their mouth full when he said that."

Save The GOP: "Is that the theme to Saving Private Ryan they're playing now? Just get off the stage, jackass."

Rightwing News: "Maybe that this is the pinnacle? Maybe, that this is going to be the top moment? The last top moment? Yes, I think that's it. This show doesn't feel like the beginning of anything, but the end."

Redstate: "The atmospherics were impressive, if more than a little bit imperial... Once the harsh shots are finished, it is more than a little bit disingenuous to suddenly and self-righteously pronounce that we ought to put aside the old politics of imputing bad motives and ill intent to our political opponents. Republicans didn't just get politely disagreed with in that speech. Republicans got accused of every nasty thing under the sun and merely because Obama stopped every once in a while to assure us that Brutus John McCain is an honorable man, doesn't mean that he meant it." (Translation: Look, a monkey!)

AnchorRising: (subject) "Quick Thoughts on the Five Minutes of the Speech I Could Actually Endure." (Translation: I'm not really serious about being a responsible, thoughtful voter.)

And for the real craziness, we have to turn to:

Stormfront: "Do you really want a gay black man for president?"

World Net Daily: "I didn't need to listen to him. I've read the Communist Manifest."

Comments

[doodlesthegreat.livejournal.com]

Yep, that's the desperate pile of feces being flung in an effort to distract. Even Pat Freakin' Buchannan said Obama hit it out of the park. I don't think I've EVER seen him gush about a Democrat like that.

[ewhac.livejournal.com]

Jim Geraghty: "Obama's speech was predictable, it was implausible, and it was strikingly, inexplicably, angry."

"Inexplicably?" If you can look at 4100 dead American soldiers, 100,000 dead Iraqis, a $5 trillion national debt, a still-at-large Osama bin Laden, the wasteland that was once New Orleans...

If you can look at any of that and not feel anger, there is something desperately, clinically wrong with you.

[(Anonymous)]

Not to mention how the public in other countries now sees the United States. Even Doctor Who joined in, and when Doctor Who puts the boot in you know it has to be bad.

[tagryn]

At the risk of breaking up the echo chamber, even Chris Matthews on MSNBC brought up that it seemed a little...inconsistent for Obama to continue to harp on how he's going to be the great unifier who'll bring both sides together and who'll rise above "politics as usual" while engaging in the usual attacks on McCain and the other party we see at these things. Can't have it both ways...well, not without some fancy hand-waving, anyway.

I thought the speech was excellent, but did solidify that Obama is just another politician, albeit one extremely gifted at oration. Promise everyone the moon and stars, tell them it won't cost them a thing extra, and bash your opponent. Nothing new there. I don't expect much different from McCain next week - he knows how the game works as well - but McC's not presenting himself as something totally shiny, either.

[heofmanynames.livejournal.com]

Telling the plain truth is NOT an attack.

If you'd like to know the difference, watch pretty much ANY video from the McShame campaign.

[tagryn]

Quid est veritas?

[heofmanynames.livejournal.com]

So pussyfoots the ideologue, talking-points clutched firmly in hand.

Skipping over the disingenuous evasion and bland insincerity of your "question", the answer is contained in your bit of Latin: Truth is what can be verified. If an assertion can't be verified by physical evidence, direct observation or common experience, then one must resort to argument - that is, a supportive context for one's assertions woven from evidence, experience, observation, and rational consideration.

In short, 'truth' is based in reality: the demonstrable reality of history, experience and reason. Absent such a real-world foundation, assertions are nothing more than noise.

Thanks for the noise.

[tagryn]

The question stands. Expecting to get anything approaching truth from politicians is naive. Its not their job to tell the truth; quite the opposite, actually, which is why there's such a high proportion of lawyers in that profession. If you think you're getting "plain truth" from Obama, McCain, or any politician, I suggest you need to be more critical about what you're hearing, since they're *all* spinning and distorting. If you think otherwise, pay a visit to Factcheck.org and spend some time going through their records.

[heofmanynames.livejournal.com]

I wasn't talking about them, and I wasn't talking to them: I was talking to YOU about YOUR remarks.

Thanks for the extra spin, but I'm already doing laundry.

[codeamazon.livejournal.com]

He can't plausibly unify himself with McCain or the entrenched R party. What point would that be?

He's trying to unify himself with voters across party and independent lines. If you listen to Mrs. Clinton's speech you'll hear the difference loud and clear. She's very very partisan. He is not. I'm sure that was intentional, and well considered, but it also underscores why he won the candidacy.

[doodlesthegreat.livejournal.com]

By the way, I also read the Communist Manifest:

Two thousand cases of Havana cigars
Four thousand cases vodka.
One hundred barrels borscht
two tons Beluga caviar

You have to make your own blinis, but it sounds like one helluva party!