Classical Values :: unraveling unhinged segments

unraveling unhinged segments

Quite lamely (in my view), Glenn Greenwald charges Glenn Reynolds with racism based on the latter's link to Jonah Goldberg in this post. Whether Greenwald read the rest of the post or the links I do not know. But I think Glenn (Reynolds) made it abundantly clear that he was not talking about race.

While I hesitate to put words in people's mouths, I'm not even sure Jonah Goldberg was referring to or limiting his thoughts to race. Here's the "damning" Goldberg quote:

Imagine the media invests as heavily in him as I think we all know they will if he's the nominee -- and then imagine he loses. I seriously think certain segments of American political life will become completely unhinged. I can imagine the fear of this social unraveling actually aiding Obama enormously in 2008. Forget Hillary's inevitability. Obama has a rendezvous with destiny, or so we will be told. And if he's denied it, teeth shall be gnashed, clothes rent and prices paid.

When I read that I didn't see it as especially race oriented. For starters, Obama is having a tough time lining up the black vote (Philadelphia Mayors Nutter and Street are perfect examples of the knee-jerk support for Hillary Clinton by many black political leaders).

Maybe I lived in riot-torn Berkeley, California too long, but the first image that entered my mind when I read the phrase "social unraveling" was not black skin, but black clothing. The type worn by the spoiled white brats who imagine themselves to be virtuous as they break windows, throw rocks, attack SUV drivers, assault police, key cars, fight against civilization, and in general show the world their infinite moral superiority.

Never mind any of that. Greenwald, having made a "connection" that isn't there, works himself into a frenzy, and throws in Rush Limbaugh's race-based Obama parody titled "Barack the Magic Negro."

What, pray tell, is the connection to Glenn Reynolds?

Why, none at all. But to a true demagogue, any connection can be made by the tried and true method of simply throwing people together in a list:

The kind of subtle bile pouring forth from Limbaugh, and from Goldberg and Reynolds last night, is just a tiny preview of what is to come.

You see? It's not just Goldberg and Reynolds; it's now Limbaugh, Goldberg, and Reynolds!

Had Greenwald read the allegedly "racist" post in question, it might have occurred to him that among the "unhinged segments" was a clear reference to Bush Derangement Syndrome:

UPDATE: Bill Quick: "If Huckabee beats Obama, everything you've seen during the past eight years of Bush Derangement Syndrome will become nothing more than a mild neurosis. Bottom line, though, is that the real threat of a Huckabee candidacy is not that he'll defeat Obama, but that he'll destroy the GOP coalition in trying."

I agree. Does that mean I'm a racist too? Odd, because all these years I've been witnessing BDS, I never made the association with black people. Or is there a Limbaugh, Goldberg, Reynolds, Quick Axis of Imputed Racism lurking even in the phrase "Bush Derangement Syndrome"?

But even if Greenwald assumed BDS has now become sneaky racist code language, I'm wondering how he managed to ignore this:

ANOTHER UPDATE: Ryan Hartman thinks this is about urban riots. I'm thinking more an extended chattering-class hissy fit. Yes, it's hard to believe that people could get more deranged than they've been since the 2000 elections, but I think they've got it in them.

When I read that, I could have sworn that Glenn specifically meant to distinguish "urban riots" from "extended chattering-class hissy fit."

But to Greenwald, it's all Reynolds racism. The "extended chattering-class hissy fit" must somehow be Rush Limbaugh's way of condemning.... I don't know. The NAACP leadership, perhaps? Help me out. There must be some way to make this fit the Limbaugh Reynolds Axis of Racism.

What I find most remarkable of all, is that for support of his Reynolds-is-racist thesis, Greenwald quotes from this racially-obsessed post which speculates about how ugly things will become if Obama is the nominee:

[EMPHASIS IN ORIGINAL]

If Obama continues and becomes the presumptive Democratic nominee (and his chances got a lot better last night) it is going to get ugly. Real ugly. Racism is alive and well in America. We are ready to elect a black man President and if Obama wins the nomination we will elect him but his campaign, and everyone else on the Democratic side, is going to have to be ready to win a race war. Us white folks are mean sons of bitches when someone threatens OUR power.

I'm not talking about the KKK or Stormfront obvious nutcases but mainstream Mom and Pop white folks that don't think of themselves as racist but really don't want those people living in their neighborhoods or dating their daughters. The ones that live in towns across America that are 88% white and 12% other and really don't have much if any association with black society.

And make no mistake, electing a black man threatens white power, control, and dominance. Note also that Obama is a black man despite being 50% white. We have never claimed half-whites as white. They are black. We don't claim them as even half white. They are black.

He even uses the phrase "race war":

The Obama campaign itself needs to steel itself... and I do mean steel... and be prepared for the attacks. The have to respond and they have to respond well. They cannot ignore it. At the same time they need to stay above them and keep their campaign about a positive vision for Americas future. They can't allow themselves to get bogged down and lost in a race war.

The rest of the Democratic community needs to be prepared to do the ugly, trench work on this one. We need to talk race and we need to talk it openly and honestly. Preferably not angrily. I'm thinking a passive-aggressive approach may well be best....

I guess I should be grateful to him for thinking that a passive aggressive approach may be best.

Wouldn't want the certain segments to become completely unhinged, would we?

UPDATE: Thank you, Glenn Reynolds for linking this post!

"a dirty job, but someone's got to do it?"

Well yes, but then, I am pleasantly reminded of a famous Texas saying:

"There's just some things you gotta do. Don't mean you have to like it."

Welcome all!

UPDATE: Via Glenn Reynolds, Tom Maguire says "it was perfectly plain to me, and to Bill Quick, that the topic of discussion was the Nutroots, parts of the media, and the Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers (yes, those groups overlap extensively.)"

Maguire also thinks Greenwald missed Glenn's subtlety:

Glenn quite sensibly distinguished between "Obama supporters" and "black voters", since polls indicate the two groups don't strongly overlap. Too subtle for Greenwald.

Either that or he's just determined to call Glenn a racist no matter what.

Comments

This is par for the course for Greenwald.

The left's obsession with Obama's biracial status is pretty stunning; I recall a TIME article a while ago entitled, "Is Obama Black Enough?" It rather reminds me of the old Apartheid policy of conferring "honorary white" status on certain half-whites, only now the role of racial gatekeeper is reversed and people are deciding whether or not Obama gets to be an "honorary black."

Meanwhile, on the mainstream right, no one seems to care. If Greenwald had read anything else Goldberg posted on the Corner (if, indeed, Greenwald reads often), he'd have seen Goldberg's fawning over Obama's victory, which he regards as a milestone of progress in race relations, a sentiment shared by most of the other regulars there. (I tried to Google it to find the entry in the Corner, but all I got was a page full of references all with the same title: "Jonah Goldberg and Glenn warn of 'social unraveling'...").

Sean Wisnieski · January 7, 2008 10:23 AM

Just my opinion, but the REAL racists are those who first and foremost parse everyone and everything on the basis of race.

Mark Alger · January 7, 2008 10:41 AM

Eric, you and your fellow travelers are the ones who have come completely inhinged. Jonah Goldberg's comment WAS racist, and laughably ignorant.He said Blacks would probably riot if Obama doesn't win. Now if rightwingers pull the same crap they pulled in the last three elections, it won't just be the Blacks who will take to the streets, it will be the 70% majority of Americans who want to restore democracy and uphold our Constitution.
This blogger taking on an intellectual giant like Glenn Greenwald is like a flea biting the ass of a Great Dane.

YogiBarrister · January 7, 2008 12:08 PM

The most compelling image Glenn Greenwald gave us in his brilliant commentary was the contrast between how calmly the Black community responded to events in Florida, 2000, even after being disenfranchised, as opposed to the despicable behavior of those Republicans who stormed the election offices and shut down the vote counting process.
Obama WILL be elected president and 25% of this country are going to go ballistic. Thanks to the rightwingers like Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Reynolds, we are becoming Pakistan.

YogiBarrister · January 7, 2008 12:24 PM

Glenn, is that you?

Lovernios · January 7, 2008 03:47 PM

If I was Glenn Greenwald my comments wouldn't have the typo or the grammatical error.

YogiBarrister · January 7, 2008 04:39 PM

He said Blacks would probably riot if Obama doesn't win.

Really? He did? Would you be kind enough to give me the direct quote, then?

Thanks.

Bill Quick · January 7, 2008 06:10 PM

If there are any riots after an Obama loss, they'll be in the whitest city in Alameda County, not the blackest.

Anthony · January 7, 2008 06:15 PM

I'm new here, so I have to ask: Is Yogi doing that deadpan irony thing? It's so hard to tell these days, but the whole "putting words that Goldberg didn't say in Goldberg's mouth because one just knows that was what he was really saying" is a little off the form.

lex · January 7, 2008 06:18 PM

He said Blacks would probably riot if Obama doesn't win

My monitor is acting up because I just read the quote and the word "Blacks" appears nowhere. At least on my screen.

Missing pixels? (hmm, nice name for a rock group).

Damned. How much are monitors nowadays?

Steve · January 7, 2008 06:18 PM

Ya been 'lanched.

M. Simon · January 7, 2008 06:19 PM

It seems obvious to me he was referring to rascist, bigoted nuts like Yogibarrister.

I will save an extra tear gas grenade for him and his dirty neohippie ilk.

Mike Puckett · January 7, 2008 06:28 PM

So, if I couldn't vote for Obama because of his policies, then I'm racists? Right!

Greenwald and his ilk need some timeout.

joated · January 7, 2008 06:29 PM

FYI Rush got the idea of the parody from an LA Times op-ed called "Obama the 'Magic Negro'". If the parody is to be condemned as racist then David Ehrenstein, the black op-ed writer, should be the first one condemned.

Here is a transcript from his show:

Rush: We have been playing it for months, maybe weeks. It might be a month or a month and a half. Look, folks, here it is from March 19th -- I'm holding it in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers -- "Obama the 'Magic Negro' -- The Illinois senator lends himself to white America's idealized, less-than-real black man." This is the third piece in the LA Times that dealt with Obama not being "black enough." It's the left that's the racists. It's the left that looks at people's skin color and doesn't see it for what it should be or what it is. They notice it. They're the ones that are racists out there. The guy that wrote this is a black man. His name is David Ehrenstein. He "writes about Hollywood and politics," it says here, and the whole point of his piece here is: Who is this Obama guy? He's been around for two years in the Senate. Nobody can possibly know him well enough to be giving him all this idolatry. So he's the "magic negro." He fits white racists' need to assuage their guilt.

So we see stuff like this, and it's a gold mine...

Laurence · January 7, 2008 06:31 PM

Yogi, could you please point out for me where Goldberg says blacks will probably riot. I don't see it in the quote Eric posts.

As for Florida, that's a nifty bit of historical revisionism. A handful of professional complainers claimed blacks were disuaded from voting in certian precincts. There was no evidence provided to support their claims.

And in your hands, the foiling of an attempt by Democratic activists to steal the vote becomes "Republicans who stormed the election offices and shut down the vote counting process." Cute. The sad fact of the matter is that there was nothing unusual about the Florida election process. It was no more flawed there than anywhere else and until the recount fiasco, voter fraud by Democrats and Republicans alike was about the same as everywhere else.

tim maguire · January 7, 2008 06:36 PM

Yogi is serious. He has a mind set and rarely lets facts get in the way of what he "knows".

My take on Yogi's visits here could be summed up as "The Reality Based community vs. the fact based community".

He rarely lets facts get in the way of his reality.

M. Simon · January 7, 2008 06:36 PM

Has Greenwald seen a picture of Reynolds' sister-in-law? Who is from Nigeria?

Steven Den Beste · January 7, 2008 06:47 PM

You know, I wouldn't ge surprised if Gleen(s), or Ellers McEllerson, or Rick Ellersburg, or however it is he multiply-styles himself today, does a lit bit of race-baiting sock-puppetry himselves.

Good DAY, sir!

Patrick Carroll · January 7, 2008 06:48 PM

Um. Speaking of the chattering classes unhinged insanity...Does anyone recall thi,s of nattering nabob Lyn Lear, about the 06 elections:

When I asked Gore Vidal at dinner why the White House seemed so serene and at ease about the vote, he replied that, this time around, the Bush-Cheney henchmen could simply call on martial law. He glumly noted that we are so far down the road toward totalitarianism that, even if Democrats do win back the Congress, it would take at least two generations before the last six years of damage to the nation could be reversed. Gore frankly despaired that any amount of time could ever return the country to where and what it previously was. This prediction left me reaching for some Fernet Branca...If for whatever reason we don't win back Congress in November the only real answer will be to take to the streets.

I do believe this is what the rational Glenn and Jonah were referring to. The sockpuppet Glenn hears helicopters with 3,590 updates every time.

Cool Kitty · January 7, 2008 06:48 PM

"how calmly the Black community responded to events in Florida, 2000, even after being disenfranchised"

That's as delusional as Ellers Wilson Greenwald's claim of Brazilians following him around praising him from his home computer.

They weren't disenfranchised. Not a single case of blacks being intimidated or prevented from voting because of their race was found; the closest thing anyone's ginned up is higher urban error rates and barring felons from voting, which are hardly racist.

TallDave · January 7, 2008 06:48 PM

Yogi sounds like Mona bootlicking Socks, esq. to me.

Cool Kitty · January 7, 2008 06:55 PM

Nothing more racist than a chattering class liberal, I swear.

As for Rush's "Barack the Magic Negro" parody, Rush has made abundantly clear that the parody is based on the article by David Ehrenstein in the LAT calling Barack such. Further, that article makes clear this is not new phraseology.

I'd happily vote for a black man or woman and wanted to -- as long as he/she is conservative. Period.

Peg C. · January 7, 2008 06:57 PM

This is the way I see things...Obama has crossed the Clintons #1 (that alone should get the guy triple secret service detail) He has also snubbed the "black establishment" by running against the first black couple, the Clintons. The way these folks play the game is, bump off Obama. By doing that you get rid on "that" problem (Bill & Hill will cry at the service) and then get to tell Amerika that the mean racist Republicans did it and take them out of the political picture for years to come with the bonus of the race baitors still being gainfully employed. It's all about power and control. Remember folks, it wasn't the Republicans who were against Civil Rights, it was the Dems, until they saw a "power" opportunity for themselves.

RJS2 · January 7, 2008 06:57 PM

Why does anyone care what the various incarnations of Glenn Greewald say? Hasn't he damaged his reputation enough that people simply ignore him?

Ed Minchau · January 7, 2008 07:00 PM

"Republicans who stormed the election offices and shut down the vote counting process."

I remember this incident, actually. It wasn't a mass uprising of Republicans storming vote counts in a bloody riot, it was an organized protest of one vote-counting station where it was discovered that the Dem vote-counters were going back and assigning some "unassigned" ballots to Gore in contravention of FL election law. Republicans naturally demanded they stop, yelling and shouting but generally being less disruptive than Dems were at the 2004 RNC convention (where Dems were apparently angry that Republicans dared have a convention). The "Brooks Brothers Riot" succeeded in creating enough public embarassment to halt the illegal count, and Bush rightfully won the election.

TallDave · January 7, 2008 07:05 PM

Ed,

Eric has had a running feud with him for some time. It provides vast amounts of entertainment.

M. Simon · January 7, 2008 07:06 PM

Seriously, I really hope the Dems do not follow this guy's advice.

So far, Obama is appealing in a certain way even to a middle aged white Republican like me BECAUSE he has not made any significant hay about his race. He is what and who he is, with no special pleading at all. And I'm not the only ofay NE Repub who thinks that way.

The time of the race-hustlers is over. If Obama follows that worn-out crap, he's done.

urthshu · January 7, 2008 07:08 PM

Yogi, come out, come out, wherever you are. Or are you still looking for the word 'Black' in Jonah's post?

Gregory Taggart · January 7, 2008 07:10 PM

Steve Sailer (in 2002):

And this is typical, in my experience: whites who proclaim their anti-white feelings don't really care much about blacks or other minorities, pro or con. What they care about is achieving social superiority over other whites by demonstrating their exquisite racial sensitivity and their aristocratic insouciance about any competitive threats posed by racial preferences.

To these whites, minorities are just useful pawns in the great game of clawing your way to the top of the white status heap. Which, when you come right down to it, is the only game in town.

Brendan · January 7, 2008 07:13 PM

Glenn was commenting about the Nutroots anger at Bush, if anything, that was held over from the Goron's attempt to steal Florida in 2000. There was no rioting to speak of. Only Katherine Harris' tragic attempt at breast augmentation.

But the 2000 Election did give birth to that expression of White Liberal Protestant Angst known as the Netroots.

Hey, wait a minute. I was only nine years old when Mayor Daley's cops waded into the Hippies in Chicago in '68. When the Netroots riot this time, can we like, pass the baton around?

section9 · January 7, 2008 07:31 PM

Surely Greenwald could not be upset if we hold him to the same standards that he has demanded Bush be held to? All you have to check the archives of Greenwald's writings or the Daily Kos to find the standards that they demand the President should be held to.

Sauce for the goose and all that.

John D · January 7, 2008 08:02 PM

Everyone is talking about nut-rooters like Greenwald rioting... not black people...
This is typical Greenwald... and it is a good example of the closed intellectual loop 'people like him' live in that make us think that...

Again, nutroot or 'his people' are not metaphors for black people. To sum them up, they're usually pasty overweight old white guys who can't get over their glory days back in the 60s.

Thomass · January 7, 2008 08:11 PM

I thought he meant something like this. Apparently I didn't get the Sekrit Nutroots Dekoder Ring that allows me to see racism everywhere.

HeatherRadish · January 7, 2008 08:37 PM

Aw, crap. I meant this: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28055

HeatherRadish · January 7, 2008 08:39 PM

Yogi is serious? It is hard to believe when he/she writes this self-parody: " This blogger taking on an intellectual giant like Glenn Greenwald is like a flea biting the ass of a Great Dane."

That's what I would have written to parody Yogi, but he/she beat me to it.

That's what is so annoying about the Ellers MacEllerson sock puppets - you can't tell them apart from the parodies.

SPQR · January 7, 2008 09:20 PM

Greenwald is the very proof of Goldberg's pudding.

I suggest we add the verb "shaheen" to the political lexicon. Shaheen outlines an imaginary Republican sliming of Obama and the Greenwald's shout, "How dare you? You racist bastards!" You've been shaheened.

JM Hanes · January 7, 2008 10:07 PM

If Mr. Greenwald wants to do this, we can turn the exercise around.

Suppose for a moment Dr. Condi Rice was running for President. Suppose she'd just finished first in the Iowa Republican Caucus with ~ 38% of the total vote, and had a 6 point lead going into New Hampshire tomorrow.

Anyone want to bet on Mr. Greenwald's response?

Steve White · January 7, 2008 10:25 PM

SPQR,

Yogi is serious.

M. Simon · January 7, 2008 10:27 PM

Come now people. Black Americans do riot sometimes when things don't go our way (though I don't think that this will happen if Obama loses). The Goldberg comment could have been interpreted either way, and while I do think that he was talking about nutroots, if he *had* been talking about blacks, it would not have been racist, but a prediction based on observation of past occurences.

BTW, it will be nice when certain white people give black people credit for being adults; that includes all the no-so-fun things about adulthood, like enduring criticism.

baldilocks · January 7, 2008 11:18 PM

Note also that Obama is a black man despite being 50% white. We have never claimed half-whites as white. They are black. We don't claim them as even half white. They are black.

Someone is unfamiliar with the history of how racial identity has been assigned in this country wrt those of African descent.

baldilocks · January 7, 2008 11:22 PM

The thrust of Goldberg's commentary was that white people will vote for Obama because they are afraid Blacks will riot if he loses. It's an ignorant comment intended for ignoramuses.

YogiBarrister · January 7, 2008 11:58 PM

TallDave � January 7, 2008 06:48 PM
>
You are wrong. It was vote caging, pure and simple. They only dropped felons from certain zip codes and they dropped people who weren't felons at all. Because Bush was popular in the Cuban community, felons with Spanish surnames were not dropped. Please defend that one.

YogiBarrister · January 8, 2008 12:05 AM

" This blogger taking on an intellectual giant like Glenn Greenwald is like a flea biting the ass of a Great Dane."

That's what I would have written to parody Yogi, but he/she beat me to it.

SPQR � January 7, 2008 09:20 PM
>
With witty repartee like this, how can I possibly win? Why didn't this dim bulb just say, "I'm rubber, you're glue"?
This site is funny, not ha ha funny, because God knows rightwingers are witless and lack a sense of humor, just peculiar.

YogiBarrister · January 8, 2008 01:21 AM

Here is a bit on Obama's Church:

The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan received the "Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright,Jr. Lifetime Achievement Trumpeteer" Award at the 2007 Trumpet Gala at the the United Church of Christ.

More at:

Trinity United Church of Christ

M. Simon · January 8, 2008 02:26 AM

M. Simon, next you're going to tell us Obama fathered a black child. Classical values huh? No class, nothing of value. If it weren't for my comments, this tree would fall without making a sound.

YogiBarrister · January 8, 2008 02:35 AM

I agree that Dr Wright is a touch hole, but are there any Republican candidates who are not associated with similar religious bigots?

YogiBarrister · January 8, 2008 02:39 AM

Goldberg was obviously talking about the Nutroots -- that is, the readers of DailyKos, MyDD, Atrios, and the Huffington Post, and people like Code Pink and International ANSWER. One notable aspect of this slice of humanity is that they are almost all white.

CJ · January 8, 2008 02:56 AM

What a perfect illustration of how the Limbaugh song was a perfect parody and criticism. The race obsessed Left are incapable of getting past it because idenity politics is integtral to them.

Oh and by the way science has shown that mankind originated in Africa so we are ALL African.

Sam · January 8, 2008 04:01 AM

No Yogi,

I'm not going to say anything about Obama except facts.

His minister's church gave Farrakhan the Award. His minister and Farrakhan went to Libya in 1994.

Obama speaks highly of his minister.

If you can dispute the facts I'd be glad to see the links.

Or are you a member of the Reality based community?

"The Reality Based community vs. the fact based community"

They rarely let facts get in the way of their reality.

If you think Obama picked the wrong Church tell him. I'm no more interested in a Black Huckabee than a White one.

How about we get together and repudiate racism where ever it originates. That would be the liberal thing to do. I mean we are both against the drug war. Can we agree that Black racism is just as bad as the White version?

M. Simon · January 8, 2008 04:10 AM

BTW Yogi my guy is Thompson. If you have some dirt on him I'd like to see it.

It might change my mind.

Leave the info on any of my posts. I'll get a notification.

M. Simon · January 8, 2008 04:19 AM

Greenwald's stuff is showing up in some fascinating places of late. You know space is folding in on itself when the name of Gleen appears practically alongside the likes of Pat Buchanan and Steve Sailer.

I'm guessing it's because he's a RACIST!!!!!1!

Slartibartfast · January 8, 2008 07:12 AM

Glenn "a flea biting the ass of a Great Dane" sock-puppet Greenwald........has to say whatever it takes to get noticed.
Paternalistic racism, thy name is Glenn.

George Dixon · January 8, 2008 08:28 AM

I am so happy that you folks keep up with these nutcases so I do not have to!
;-)

Al Fin · January 8, 2008 10:46 AM

I posted a comment to Greenwald's column on solon.com, trying to explain to them that Jonah Goldberg had linked to a comment made by a white writer, and was predicting liberals bursting into flame, not black urban riots.

I got called a racist for trying. It was hilarious.

Feel free to view my discussion of this entire incident on my blog site. It's here: http://www.plumbbobblog.com/?p=149. I linked to the comments, too. Enjoy.

Plumb Bob · January 8, 2008 01:14 PM

Plumber, the commenters at Salon are way out of your league. They are informed and educated. You best stick to the rightwing blogs.

YogiBarrister · January 8, 2008 02:34 PM

it was an organized protest of one vote-counting station where it was discovered that the Dem vote-counters were going back and assigning some "unassigned" ballots to Gore in contravention of FL election law.

It was worse than that. The three Dems were trying to relocate behind closed doors, to tally votes [for Gore] in secret.

It amazing. We catch the Left cheating, stop them from stealing the election, and they label us fascists. No shame.

Fen · January 8, 2008 02:56 PM

Fen, you didn't catch anything. The way neutral observers determine if there has been voter fraud is to conduct exit polls. Exit polls in 2000 had Gore winning by more than 20,000 votes. Your side committed fraud, plain and simple. Funny how whenever there is a huge discrepancy betwen the exit polls and the results of electronic voting, it always favors the Republicans. Stop cheating! Pull your heads out of your rectums and take a good look what's going on. The 2000 election is the greatest disaster ever to befall our great country.
Aren't rightwingers the least bit ashamed of the fact that the only way they can win in 2008 is by supressing the vote?

YogiBarrister · January 8, 2008 03:23 PM

The way neutral observers determine if there has been voter fraud is to conduct exit polls.

When have exit polls ever been accurate, Yogi?

Anonymous · January 8, 2008 04:26 PM

Anonymous, exit polls used to be extremely accurate until the advent of electronic voting machines. I wonder if there is a correlation. BTW the two greatest discrepancies in 2006 occurred in the Senate races in Virginia and Montana. It makes a reasonable person wonder.
Oh and thanks for the recession. That reality based community, AKA Wall Street, is weighing in on the irresponsible Republican fiscal policies. It's getting really ugly. Why are the middle-class commenters here betraying their country, fellow workers, neighbors, and the troops by voting Republican?

YogiBarrister · January 8, 2008 04:44 PM

Anonymous, exit polls used to be extremely accurate until the advent of electronic voting machines.

Cite, please.

Oh and thanks for the recession.

Cite, please.

Anonymous · January 8, 2008 06:32 PM

Anonymous, here is a link you should read. The bottom line is that it is statistically improbable, neary impossible for there to be such high discrepancies between the exit polls and electronic vote tallies. Since 2000, exit polls are more accurate in precincts that don't use electronic voting machines. I can forgive you for being tricked into voting for Bush, but I can't forgive you for tolerating and advocating vote fraud.
>
http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/exit_polls

YogiBarrister · January 9, 2008 01:10 PM

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Goldman Sachs on Wednesday said it expects the U.S. economy to drop into recession this year, prompting the Federal Reserve to slash benchmark lending rates to 2.5 percent by the third quarter.

In a note to clients, Goldman said real gross domestic product would contract by 1 percent on an annualized basis in both the second and third quarters. For all of 2008, the investment bank said GDP would rise by 0.8 percent.

The unemployment rate will rise to 6.5 percent in 2009 from the current 5 percent, it said.

YogiBarrister · January 9, 2008 01:12 PM

Your link doesn't do anything at all to substantiate that exit polls were ever an accurate way to represent the actual vote, Yogi.

And, you're giving thanks in advance of a recession? Kewl. What are you going to do if one fails to materialize? Who are you thanking?

I was really hoping for the picanic basket, but all I'm getting are the ants.

Anonymous · January 9, 2008 04:57 PM

YogiBarrister wrote:

Anonymous, exit polls used to be extremely accurate until the advent of electronic voting machines.

And then he posted a link to the 2004 elections.

Yogi drew a remarkable conclusion: because one election had distorted exit polls, and that was the election during which electronic voting was introduced, it must be the electronic voting that distorted the exit polls.

Of course, the only connection between electronic voting and exit polls is in Yogi's mind -- and the minds (loosely so called) of the conspiracy fools who believe Diebold's Republican CEO is sufficient proof to support a charge of voter fraud (even though no Diebold machines were used in Ohio, where they claim the fraud took place.)

In fact, their claim is that a massive Republican fraud effort distorted every major race -- leaving no trace other than the vote itself. Hundreds, even thousands of participants in the fraud. Zero evidence.

My question is, how could a party so thorough and powerful ever lose an election?

Of course, Occam's Razor supplies a simpler explanation. Yogi should read this article by Dick Morris, which requires, not thousands of participants, but two or three.

Yogi, the election wasn't stolen, nor were the voting machines fixed. The exit polls were tampered with. By DEMOCRATS, who are nearly always to blame when an election has been defrauded.

Get a clue.

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)

Plumb Bob · January 9, 2008 05:57 PM

Plumber, the commenters at Salon are way out of your league. They are informed and educated. You best stick to the rightwing blogs.

Yogi, since they're way out of my league, maybe you can help me. Go read the post, and the response, and then tell me:

Which part of my accurate claim that Jonah Goldberg was talking about nutroots exploding, not blacks rioting, did that highly sophisticated commenter at solon.com use to reason that I was using "Jim Crow attitudes?"

I mean, since they're so much better informed than I am...

I'm truly embarrassed by my lack of sophistication. Their sophisticated, highly-informed approach looked like infantile name-calling to my unsophisticated eyes.

Plumb Bob · January 9, 2008 06:01 PM

Anonymous, you should stop questioning Yogi about the accuracy of exit polls. Follow the link to this article by Dick Morris, and you'll see that he agrees with Yogi that exit polls are seldom wrong.

However, unlike Yogi, his explanation doesn't require thousands of poll workers in 6 states to have been in on a massive fix.

His explanation requires only that one or two exit poll organizations collaborated with the Democrats in an attempt to suppress Republican voter turnout. It's a much simpler explanation. Occam's Razor gives us good reason to suspect Democrat fixing of exit polls, rather than massive, state-wide Republican machine jimmying.

Plumb Bob · January 9, 2008 06:09 PM

Plumb Bob, do you use the same screen name? Glenn Greenwald gets hundreds and hundreds of comments everyday, I couldn't find yours. What page was it on?

YogiBarrister · January 9, 2008 11:14 PM

Plumb Bob, I'm of the opinion that only bipartisan Election officials should be allowed to conduct exit polls and they should not be released before all the polls are closed. I find it hilarious that the line being floated by the rightwing spin machine, trying to explain why since 2000, the discrepancies between the exit polls and results always favor Republicans is because they are much more likely to lie about who they voted for. Don't you find that funny?

YogiBarrister · January 9, 2008 11:19 PM

I guess it's easy to accuse the other guy when you get your facts exactly backwards, Yogi. The exit polls don't all favor the Republicans; they favor the Democrats.

In the 2004 election, six states -- six -- were called for Kerry on the basis of exit polls, that eventually fell for Bush when the actual vote was counted. Calling the state early for the Democrat has the effect of suppressing the remaining vote, both in the state in question and in others where polling has not finished. You know this as well as I do -- which makes your 180 degree error unforgiveable.

And you keep talking about these discrepancies as though it was a pattern since 2000. It isn't. It took place in one election, the 2004 election, and it affected six states. The only other instance I can recall is Florida in 2000, when the network called the state for Gore before the polls closed, and cost Bush several thousand votes in the panhandle.

I don't see any long-term pattern here; just one, vicious, lame attempt by Democrats to steal an election, after learning in the previous election how it could be done.

The other post I'm talking about is on this page. Just search by "Plumb" and you'll find it, link and all.

Plumb Bob · January 10, 2008 08:35 AM

Plumb Bob, it is you that have your facts exactly backwards. The "discrepancies", DISCREPANCIES, remember that word,, the significant discrepancies between the exit polls and the results always favor the Republicans. Not all exit polls indicate a Democrat is going to win. Not all exit polls favor the Democrats within the margin of error. But in every single case since 2000, when the DISCREPANCY is out of the margin of error it favors the Republican. And these DISCREPAMCIES occur in battleground states or closely contested Congressional races at a statistically highly improbable rate.

YogiBarrister · January 10, 2008 01:15 PM