Christopher Hitchens Endorses Obama

[Cleon]

So if supporting Republican policies and a Republican president doesn't make you a Republican, what does? Is there a secret handshake or something? Maybe a patch and a jacket, like the 1%er biker clubs?

 

[EGarrett]

I wish Christopher Hitchins would shut the up. He is undoubtedly brilliant, but he comes across as so annoying and arrogant that he is bound to hurt Obama more than help him. Plus, it's rumored he's an atheist.

I also supported the war, and I now support Obama. You don't have to be a republican Bush supporter to think removing insane dictators is a good idea. You also don't have to be a complete insane liberal hater of everything republican to think Obama is obviously running a better campaign and has an ideology that is better for the country right now.

Lastly, I hate the word "brilliant," and I always nitpick when someone brings it up. Hitchens is an intelligent guy, but having listened to some of his rambling, inarticulate speeches and debates and his ignorant literary criticism, I wouldn't go further than that.

 

[KingMerv00]

I thought I was being pretty clear:

Hitchens is certainly not a full blown Republican, but his hawkish nature is more common on that side of the aisle.

Hitchens doesn't fit neatly into any one party.

Not exclusively a Republican trait (Hell, what is?), but isn't he opposed to abortion?

This, of course, doesn't not make him a Republican but abortion opposition common in that party.

Support any single issue does not make you Republican or Democrat. Support of many issues makes labels much easier. Hitchens is not what I would decribe as Republican or Democrat.

 

[KingMerv00]

So if supporting Republican policies and a Republican president doesn't make you a Republican, what does? Is there a secret handshake or something? Maybe a patch and a jacket, like the 1%er biker clubs?

Other than the Iraq war, what do Bush and Hitchens agree on? No, I'm not being a smart. I really can't think of anything.

Abortion maybe? Thing is, I haven't heard him call for overturning Roe v. Wade. His position seems to be a moral/philosophical one and not a political one.

Supporting Obama undermines his Republican-ness.

 

[Cicero]

So if supporting Republican policies and a Republican president doesn't make you a Republican, what does? Is there a secret handshake or something? Maybe a patch and a jacket, like the 1%er biker clubs?

If the Hells Angels ever caught "1%er" wannabes wearing their colors, a plea that "I like Harley's" is not gonna keep you from them unleashing a can of whup-ass on you. While being a Rino, or even supporting the Iraq War and therefore, being labeled a Republican, may not invoke the same consequences, only an outsider would confuse Hitchens as a Republican.

 

[Ausmerican]

If the Hells Angels ever caught "1%er" wannabes wearing their colors, a plea that "I like Harley's" is not gonna keep you from them unleashing a can of whup-ass on you. While being a Rino, or even supporting the Iraq War and therefore, being labeled a Republican, may not invoke the same consequences, only an outsider would confuse Hitchens as a Republican.

You do realize that 'Rino' and 'Dino' on the other side, are no true scotsman fallacies right? As is your 'outsider' usage. Unless of course you are saying there IS a secret handshake or something. You ever think that someone you label Rino may say you are the Rino only in the opposite direction than them?

 

[Cleon]

If the Hells Angels ever caught "1%er" wannabes wearing their colors, a plea that "I like Harley's" is not gonna keep you from them unleashing a can of whup-ass on you. While being a Rino, or even supporting the Iraq War and therefore, being labeled a Republican, may not invoke the same consequences, only an outsider would confuse Hitchens as a Republican.

OK, so there is some sort of "sooper sekrit" club thing going on.

What are the initiation ceremonies like? (If it involves standing in a circle around a picture of Anne Coulter, forget it. I'd rather not know.)

 

[KingMerv00]

What are the initiation ceremonies like? (If it involves standing in a circle around a picture of Anne Coulter, forget it. I'd rather not know.)

That's how both ceremonies start...they end with different fluids.

 

[davefoc]

Plus, it's rumored he's an atheist.

Whoa, is that right? Who knew?

On "the issues" in these closing weeks, there really isn't a very sharp or highly noticeable distinction to be made between the two nominees, and their "debates" have been cramped and boring affairs as a result. But the difference in character and temperament has become plainer by the day, and there is no decent way of avoiding the fact. Last week's so-called town-hall event showed Sen. John McCain to be someone suffering from an increasingly obvious and embarrassing deficit, both cognitive and physical. And the only public events that have so far featured his absurd choice of running mate have shown her to be a deceiving and unscrupulous woman utterly unversed in any of the needful political discourses but easily trained to utter preposterous lies and to appeal to the basest element of her audience. McCain occasionally remembers to stress matters like honor and to disown innuendoes and slanders, but this only makes him look both more senile and more cynical, since it cannot (can it?) be other than his wish and design that he has engaged a deputy who does the innuendoes and slanders for him.

So what effect will this have on the election? Tricky's estimate of the effect of Palin's little troopergate kerfuffle was a one point swing to Obama.

Does a scathiing McCain attack plus an Obama endorsement from Hitchens equal a .1% swing? Judging by the comments on the Slate page this endorsement wasn't winning over any of the strongly committed McCain spupporters but it might change a few minds. But how many?

 

[KingMerv00]

Whoa, is that right? Who knew?



So what effect will this have on the election? Tricky's estimate of the effect of Palin's little troopergate kerfuffle was a one point swing to Obama.

Does a scathiing McCain attack plus an Obama endorsement from Hitchens equal a .1% swing? Judging by the comments on the Slate page this endorsement wasn't winning over any of the strongly committed McCain spupporters but it might change a few minds. But how many?

I won't venture a guess but consider that Hitchens has been on Fox News many times. He is one of their go to guys when they need someone to decribe how much Saddam/terrorism/radical Islam sucks.

I wonder if they will invite him back to comment on his endorsement.

If there is any impact, it will be from his absence in the media.

 

[Cicero]

I He is one of their go to guys when they need someone to decribe how much Saddam/terrorism/radical Islam sucks.

What is astounding is that MSNBC prefers to argue this point.

 

[Ziggurat]

So if supporting Republican policies and a Republican president doesn't make you a Republican, what does? Is there a secret handshake or something? Maybe a patch and a jacket, like the 1%er biker clubs?

What makes one a Republican is registering to vote as a Republican. Same thing that makes a Democrat a Democrat. Really, why was this not obvious?

 

[Tricky]

What makes one a Republican is registering to vote as a Republican. Same thing that makes a Democrat a Democrat. Really, why was this not obvious?

Technically, yes. Ideologically, no. I've registered as a Republican in the past because for many years in Texas, the only way to have a chance of good state government was to register as a Republican and vote in the primaries for the better of the Republican candidates. The Democrats had no more chance than the Socialist party.

So I still get lots of GOP fund-raising mail. I usually send back their postage-paid envelope with a sarcastic note inside. I guess you'd have to call me a RINO.

 

[Ziggurat]

Technically, yes. Ideologically, no.

That's all party affiliation really is: a technicality. Party ideologies drift over time, and they're not monolithic to begin with. If someone wants to indicate an ideology and not a party affiliation, then they should use the name of the ideology and not the name of the party.

And Hitchens is not conservative either.

 

[Cicero]

OK, so there is some sort of "sooper sekrit" club thing going on.

What are the initiation ceremonies like? (If it involves standing in a circle around a picture of Anne Coulter, forget it. I'd rather not know.)

If the liberal initiation ceremonies involved standing in a circle around Joy Beyhar, Whoopi, Rosie and Barbara, then Clooney, Pitt and Baldwin would be Republicans.

Can't wait to hear your prosaic explanation for Reagan Democrats

 

[Tricky]

That's all party affiliation really is: a technicality. Party ideologies drift over time, and they're not monolithic to begin with. If someone wants to indicate an ideology and not a party affiliation, then they should use the name of the ideology and not the name of the party.

True, but turning your party affiliation into a technical label pretty much removes the value of the labels. What use is it to call a gun-hating, pro-choice, soak-the-rich, peacenik person a Republican because that's what it says on a piece of paper somewhere?

Sure, party ideologies drift, but they are still identifiable.

And Hitchens is not conservative either.

Like almost all people, including you and I, he is conservative on some issues and liberal on others. He's pretty hard to classify because he is so very "all over the place". You and I tend to fit the molds of "conservative" and "liberal" more closely, but not perfectly. You don't want religion in government. I am in favor of the death penalty. Go figure.

 

[Cleon]

If the liberal initiation ceremonies

Is "liberal" now a political party?

involved standing in a circle around Joy Beyhar, Whoopi, Rosie and Barbara, then Clooney, Pitt and Baldwin would be Republicans.

As would any heterosexual male.

Can't wait to hear your prosaic explanation for Reagan Democrats

My explanation? You're the one going on about "outsiders."

 

[Ziggurat]

What use is it to call a gun-hating, pro-choice, soak-the-rich, peacenik person a Republican because that's what it says on a piece of paper somewhere?

Not much use at all. But the mistake is not devaluing the label, but thinking that label had all that much value to begin with. A gun-loving, bible-thumping, screw-the-poor, homophobic warmonger may fit the stereotype, but if that's what you automatically picture when you hear "Republican", then you need to adjust your reception (and by "you" I mean figuratively).

 

[corplinx]

Hitchens joins Chris Buckley and others in "im pulling the level for obama because i dont like Palin".

I'm not sure why they would actively vote for a protectionist who so pandered so protectionism that they helped defeat Cafta (which actually gave _more_ to the US than Colombia would have gotten) instead of just sitting it out.

Waaah, I don't like your VP pick so I am going to spite vote for the other guy who almost 180 of me foreign policy wise to spite you.

I like the Hitch, but the parade of whiners is getting deafening.

 

[Tricky]

Not much use at all. But the mistake is not devaluing the label, but thinking that label had all that much value to begin with. A gun-loving, bible-thumping, screw-the-poor, homophobic warmonger may fit the stereotype, but if that's what you automatically picture when you hear "Republican", then you need to adjust your reception (and by "you" I mean figuratively).

I'm on the boat with ya about not making assumptions about people's beliefs because of their labels, but unless the label says something about the belief, then you're just going to wind up choosing something else to characterize the belief. You really don't want to have to call someone a A "gun-loving, bible-thumping, screw-the-poor, homophobic warmonger" or a "gun-hating, pro-choice, soak-the-rich, peacenik" each time you discuss politics with them. Labels are shortcuts, it is true, and they are often inaccurate shortcuts, but they are very useful shortcut.

I think we may have had this same conversation in discussing the concept of "race". Sure the labels are inaccurate, but they don't have areas on the census form for "blond, straight-haired, blue-eyed, ivory-skinned, thin-lipped person" and every variation of those traits. You can be kinky-haired and still be legitimately classified as "caucasian". You can be anti-abortion and still be legitamately classified as a "liberal."