Educating William Kristol

In today’s NY Times (Monday, May 19), the Republican flack, who the Times claims is a conservative commentator William Kristol wrote the following

On Tuesday night, while the G.O.P. Congressional candidate was losing in a Mississippi district George Bush carried in 2004 by 25 points, Barack Obama was being trounced in the West Virginia Democratic primary — by 41 points. I can’t find a single recent instance of a candidate who ultimately became his party’s nominee losing a primary by this kind of margin

It took me all of 2 minutes to find what Kristol couldn’t find -

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#UT

Utah Updated 11:02 a.m. EST, Feb 14, 2008

Romney 255,218 90%

McCain 15,264 5%

Paul 8,295 3%

Huckabee 4,054 2%



Rock Hackshaw's picture
Submitted by Rock Hackshaw on Mon, 05/19/2008 - 11:46am.
If you read my column posted here yesterday ("Clinton/ Muhammad"), you will find that Obama has beaten HRC by even a wider spread more than a few times. Kristol needs to be debunked. In six contests so far (4 states) BO has beaten HRC by more than that 41 point WV spread. He has beaten her by more than 50 points five times.

Submitted by Henry (not verified) on Mon, 05/19/2008 - 6:22pm.
Congratulations; your correction of Kristol has been reported by Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Greenwald (at Salon.com). Henry, your former Queens College classmate.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 05/20/2008 - 12:22am.

Cool Site  -  Check it out

 

http://www.nyassemblydemocrats.com/


Submitted by Jerry Skurnik on Tue, 05/20/2008 - 8:40am.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/24716416#24716416
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 05/20/2008 - 2:13pm.
What search terms did you use?
Submitted by Jerry Skurnik on Tue, 05/20/2008 - 3:46pm.
I went to CNN Election Center and looked at the early Primary results.
Submitted by truth machine (not verified) on Tue, 05/20/2008 - 5:59pm.
William Krystol is one of the most stupid and dishonest of men, and yet he has considerable influence, simply because he says what the corporate elite want said.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 05/21/2008 - 12:19am.

Your comparing apples and oranges.

1. Mormon Utah voted en masse for Romney? How shocking! How embarrasing for McCain! How will he ever recover from such a defeat? This tells you a lot about mormons - not the political standing of McCain.

2. McCain was not the undisputed republican champ at that time. Hussein is the undisputed democratic chosen one. He has by far more money, more campaign resources, and the MSM as well as loonatic leftists like Olbermann and terrorists like Hamas campaigning for him. Despite this massive machine working in his favor he loses big. In addition, in WV and Kentucky the demo voters knew that he would be the lefty candidate for pres and their comment on that fact was to dis him - BIG TIME! Now that tells you a lot about about Barry's political standing.

It is amazing to me that you supposed nuance left wing types don't get the difference. Not a bright bunch. 


Submitted by DCX2 (not verified) on Wed, 05/21/2008 - 12:50pm.

1) McCain lost to Huckabee by 40 points in Arkansas.

2) Obama is not the undisputed nominee, only the likely nominee.

3) Obama has beaten Clinton by large margins in other states.

4) Referring to Obama by his middle name is a childish attempt to smear him by association.

5) When you have an underground whisper campaign that calls Obama a Muslim, then it's no surprise that in some places with predominantly uneducated, low-income folk, they will vote their prejudices. I think Clinton could have done more to dispel the rumors about her opponent, but why would she when it works in her favor?


Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 05/22/2008 - 12:32am.


1. McCain lost by 40 points to the populist governor of arkansas?! Holy crap - he is doomed! Was he the undisputed republican nominee at that time? Ah no. Do you get the differences here?? Apples vs oranges?? Is obama going to beat McCain in Arkansas in November? In Utah? Ah no.

2. If you think it is only "likely" that obama will be going for the pres in Nov, you are truly dense. Not surprising.

3. Good for him. Kristol's point had nothing to do with the fact that Obama had beaten Clinton by wide margins in all of those states with relatively large proportions of blacks. His point was that the liberal messiah had lost  BIGTIME in states like WV even with the voters knowing that he is the dems candidate for president. Again, if you dispute the fact that he is the dem candidate you are a fool.

4. Hussein. It's just a name. It doesn't bother me. Does it bother you? Does it bother him?

5. Amazingly, I have found that so called "educated" individuals, such as yourself apparently, are some of the stupidest people I have ever met. How educated does someone need to be to understand the obvious differences in comparing the undisputed dem candidate's recent major losses in WV and Kentucky to McCain's early major losses to a mormon in Utah and a populist Arkansas governor in Arkansas?

 

What you need is less ideology training (what you call education) and more wisdom.

 


Rock Hackshaw's picture
Submitted by Rock Hackshaw on Thu, 05/22/2008 - 8:53am.
Go re-think the points you are trying to make. You MUST know that there is a reason why the "right wing" forces harp on the middle name: HUSSEIN. Surely you jest if you say you don't understand what that is about. Barack obama is not yet the nomineee (there is a difference)no matter how it looks today. Mc Cain is the republican nominee: all others have thrown in the towel. Your hate for Obama is palpable in your writing. If you are a decent human being you will examine that. Ask yourself why? Is it his mixed race that bothers you so much? Just asking a question that i think you need to re-examine.

Submitted by Jerry Skurnik on Thu, 05/22/2008 - 12:38pm.
Arguing that McCain's losses were not as significant as Obama's in West Virginia does not affect the fact that a highly paid pundit get an easily checked fact wrong!
Submitted by Mary (not verified) on Thu, 05/22/2008 - 4:07pm.
Wow yet another unintelligent post from a right winger. WOW what a suprise, what a shock. You can tell the level of critical thinking of this posters by their use of words like looney amd their use of Obama's middle name, once again trying to ignorantly imply that Obama is Muslim. Give it up your days of glorious stupidity are over. Noone buys your crap anymore.
Submitted by Mary (not verified) on Thu, 05/22/2008 - 4:09pm.
Amen I agree
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 05/22/2008 - 9:22pm.

Rock, I could care less about Obama's middle name. I only use it to get a reaction out of liberals such as yourself. If I thought he was a muslim or if I wanted to imply that he is a muslim, I would state it directly. He is clearly not a muslim. Actually his 20 year association with black liberation theology will be the issue, not whether he is muslim.

Obama is not the dem candidate for president presently the same as the earth's axis has not presently reached the summer solstice position. Both are inevitable and will occur soon, very soon.

No where in my argument did I express hate for obama. True, I have little to no respect for him, but this is far from hatred. Why would I hate him? If he became president I would root for him to be the best leader in the history of our nation. I think this is unlikely but I would root for him because I am an American. You must be transferring. Just because you leftist ideologues hate republican presidents (e.g., Bush derangement syndrome) and republicans in general no matter what, and wish for them to fail and be ridiculed, to feed that hate, does not mean that others have that same illness. To suggest that I hate Obama because he is half black is more transference on your part. You are black - get over your paranoia that all who disagree are racists. How do you know I am not black? Perhaps because you know that 95% of blacks will vote for no other but Obama - no matter what. I don't care if Obama is black. What matters to me is that he is a radical liberal ideologue who believes in black liberation theology and would move the U.S. toward the socialism that is currently destroying Europe.

Mary, I am not a right winger, a republican, or a democratic. I am independent to the core and do not need to join your little facist clubs. My allegiance is to science and reason. You did not seem to use your superior critical thinking to obect to Kristol being called a republican "flack" and "one of the most stupid and dishonest of men". Are these examples of your critical thinking to simply claim that I am untillegent, my glorious days of stupidity are over, and no one buys my crap? You could not even muster up some of that critical thinking to challenge any of my arguments or propose your own arguments?

Jerry, your telling me that all of this critical thinking about Kristol being a "republican flack", someone who needs to be "debunked", and "one of the most stupid and dishonest of men", was because he missed the fact that super mormon, Romney, squashed McCain in an early contest in mormon Utah? Weak.

My argument has been and remains that there is no comparison here - Obama is the dem candidate and despite that fact, the voting dems in WV and Kentucky have made a clear statement about him as their candidate. The mormons certainly made their statement that they will vote for a fellow mormon no matter what. A similar statement will be made in November when 95 plus percent of blacks vote for Obama.


Rock Hackshaw's picture
Submitted by Rock Hackshaw on Thu, 05/22/2008 - 10:29pm.
Ok; fine; then just tell me where did Obama say that he subscribes to LIBERATION THEOLOGY. Give me dates, time(s) and places please. TYVM.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 05/22/2008 - 11:09pm.

So if it was known that McCain spent 20 years going to KKK meetings, and that the KKK leader was his spiritual adviser, mentor, and close friend,  but he never publically stated that he actually subscribed to their philosophy/beliefs, then to you he is good to go for the presidency?  OK. We will see if that holds up for Obama. I am done here.


Rock Hackshaw's picture
Submitted by Rock Hackshaw on Thu, 05/22/2008 - 11:26pm.
OBAMA has never written or said anything about liberation theology,so I must be from another planet. Here is a man of letters and a man who articulates his point(s) of view quite succintly, and yet he never- anywhere in his speeches or writings- talks or writes about Liberation theology. Why? SIMPLE: he doesn't subscribe to it. He went to the church for the fellowiship, the community and all the other good things the church did. He didn't go there for Rev. Wright. He said openly that he did not agree with many things Wright said. Look, truth be told: Rev. Wright is just the excuse many whites need (and use)in order not to vote for a mulatto (black and white/mixed man). THAT'S MY BELIEF. There is absolutely no evidence that Barack subscribes to Wright's beliefs. HE IS HALF-WHITE for Christ's sake.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.