Filed under: General News — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on January 30, 2008 @ 8:33 pm CET
I’m not sure whether I should feel flattered or annoyed with all the attention Justin Gardner of Donklephant has given me recently. Donklephant turning into Michael Van Der Galiën Watch? It’s great that Justin has moved from Ron Paul to Barack Obama - good decision - but it’s getting a bit much, really. As an aside, you’re free to become a co-blogger here Justin, you’re welcome.
Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments
policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or
willfully misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid use of vulgar language as well as racial, ethnic, or religious slurs.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email.
1 Rudi666
January 30, 2008 @ 8:54 pm CETBe nice Michael, at least JG didn’t slam you like this:
http://donklephant.com/2008/01/30/why-doesnt-michael-van-der-galien-support-obama/#comment-390062
2 Michael Cathcart
January 30, 2008 @ 8:58 pm CETSo he’s gone from an Anti-Interventionist Capitalist to a intervening globalist socialist. Yea that seems to make sense?
3 Kevin Sullivan
January 30, 2008 @ 9:04 pm CETWhat a disappointing title–I was hoping an actual MvdG site had been founded.
4 C Stanley
January 30, 2008 @ 9:06 pm CETLOL, yes, someone needs to keep an eye on that dangerous Dutchman!
5 Michael van der Galien
January 30, 2008 @ 9:23 pm CETKevin: that would’ve been awesome, wouldn’t it?
Close enough though
6 Tap
January 30, 2008 @ 9:34 pm CETYou’re just so fascinating!
Oh, by the way…can I be your frenemy too?
7 Jimmie
January 30, 2008 @ 9:36 pm CETMichael, I’d be checking the bushes outside your house for signs of his presence. Look for footprints, an empty Doritos bag, and the imprint of a warm laptop in the grass.
8 Tap
January 30, 2008 @ 9:47 pm CETMvdG Watch: Day Two
For those looking for further proof of MvdG ’s fascist tendencies, source say MvdG had cereal for breakfast. The question remains:
Cheerio’s or Cap’n Crunch?
9 Michael van der Galien
January 30, 2008 @ 9:51 pm CETFound that! Darn: that’s the bag i just finished.
10 Michael van der Galien
January 30, 2008 @ 9:54 pm CETI like the commenters there though. They seem a bit, um, anti-MvdG. What d’ya think, some disgruntled readers of a blog I used to write for?
11 Claudia
January 30, 2008 @ 10:04 pm CETThat college drop-out meme is one that I remember seeing in the Ron Paul threads. It’s like calling me a high-school drop out, because I did drop out of high school in the US. Of course I later entered school elsewhere and went to college, but what’s a few facts between friends?
12 Tap
January 30, 2008 @ 10:06 pm CETDisgruntled readers?
Is there another kind? Imean, wouldn’t all of your readers just naturally be..
Okay, I’m running for my life….
13 Rudi666
January 30, 2008 @ 10:18 pm CETThis disgruntled reader at least has the cajones to use a real name, not the ANON tag. At least the Pinko writers from TMV don’t do a neo-concern troll rant over here.
14 Tap
January 30, 2008 @ 10:26 pm CET?
15 Michael van der Galien
January 30, 2008 @ 10:27 pm CETLOL yeah.
16 Justin Gardner
January 30, 2008 @ 10:36 pm CETSo you’re honestly not going to answer any of my questions? And instead you’re trying to characterize me as being preoccupied with you? That’s REALLY weak Michael. My further thoughts here: http://donklephant.com/2008/01/30/michael-van-der-galien-still-dodging-questions/
17 Ron Paul » Michael Van Der Galiën Watch
January 30, 2008 @ 10:37 pm CET[…] Volunteer Voters wrote an interesting post today on Michael Van Der Galiën WatchHere’s a quick excerptIt’s great that Justin has moved from Ron Paul to Barack Obama - good decision - but it’s getting a bit much, really. […]
18 Michael van der Galien
January 30, 2008 @ 10:40 pm CETJustin, a minor joke among friends should be possible, no?
And how do you prove me wrong:
Ironic alright.
Don’t take it too seriously though Justin, just joking around (by the way, when you ask people for an opinion you get an opinion, not ‘facts’).
19 Rich Horton
January 30, 2008 @ 10:43 pm CETMichael, maybe its because you are dreamy…..Obama dreamy!!
Heh.
20 Michael van der Galien
January 30, 2008 @ 10:53 pm CETThat’s it!
21 Rich Horton
January 30, 2008 @ 10:58 pm CETIts funny…the whole Obama thing reminds me of a song by the great John Wesley Harding called "The talking return of the great folk scare". There is a line in it that sums up Obamamania:
Referring to music in the 1980’s he sings:
"preferring image over substance;
a hairstyle as a musical influence."
Or as I wrote some time ago:
In many ways the "Obama experience" is Zelig in reverse. It isn’t Obama that is changing chameleon like to suit various interests, but people themselves who view Obama through various lenses. (Such as young people who see in Obama someone they can vote for AND someone who allows them to pat themselves on the back about what good and moral young people they are.)
Obama can be seen in any number of ways exactly because he is so vacuous and content-less. He is the presidential candidate version of abstract art, spouting platitudes about "the future" and "hope" that would have the New York Times set laughing up their sleeves if they had come from the mouth of George Bush.
Justin seem to want to assume that there is something really there in Obama…where I would actually want to see him prove that there is something there…and not just chant the words "hope" "future" and "unity" in a seemingly random order. For example, Justin touts Obama’s work on Nuclear Proliferation as an example of how he can "unite" us. I forget…which party is for Nuclear Proliferation? Who is for people freezing to death because they cannot pay their heating bills??
Thank God Obama is here to unite us.
22 Callimachus
January 30, 2008 @ 11:01 pm CETOooh, a moderate catfight.
23 Ron Paul » Michael Van Der Galiën Watch
January 30, 2008 @ 11:06 pm CET[…] MyThoughtWorld.com: All Things Relevant To Your World wrote an interesting post today on Michael Van Der Galiën WatchHere’s a quick excerptIt’s great that Justin has moved from Ron Paul to Barack Obama - good decision - but it’s getting a bit much, really. […]
24 Michael van der Galien
January 30, 2008 @ 11:09 pm CETNah, just having fun
Exactly.
25 Justin Gardner
January 30, 2008 @ 11:48 pm CETCome on Michael, I’m asking you to back up your opinions with something substantive, not more opinions. You know that.
26 Justin Gardner
January 31, 2008 @ 12:03 am CETRich, you’re twisting my point there. I didn’t say Obama’s legislative record was necessarily a sign that he could unite us, but Michael’s asserted that he thinks Obama’s record shows that he couldn’t work with conservatives to pass moderate legislation. However, he provided no evidence that Hillary could either. I then went on to cite four examples of bipartisan bills Obama has passed in his short time in the Senate. The point being is that Michael’s assertion that he couldn’t work with conservatives was easily contradicted by Obama’s record. But yes, if you want to take that to its logical conclusion, his record shows that he could work with conservatives and thus unite us.Also, is something labelled as moderate JUST because people oppose it or is it moderate because people from both sides of the aisle respect each other, find some common ground and work together to get it passed? I’d like to think we can all agree it’s the latter and not the former. But yes, some people voted against the bills I cited, but I don’t think they’d agree with your reasoning as to why they opposed it (for freezing to death? Come on Rich…)Again, I wish we could have an earnest conversation about this and that Michael would support opinions with facts. I leave the invitation open ended to anybody in this thread.
27 abrisaham
January 31, 2008 @ 12:28 am CETHeres a pretty good blunder by Barak Obama due to his inexperience and his thinking that he can just talk and charm his way thru the political process.
He saw no harm in engaging in talks with the Iranian regime. "Diplomacy is not just talking with your friends, but talking to our enemies," (So Iran is our enemy then?)Obama said. "We want to send a signal to the Iranian people that we are reasonable. (We are reasonable by calling them our enemy?)We are not looking to impede Iran’s legitimate national aspirations, but they have to change their behavior."(Why do they have to change? They dont seem to think they have to change and for sure now that we have called them the enemy they will most certainly want to change so as to be our buddies.)
Well of course I would agree that Iran has to change their behavior. Obama however has said that he wants to have a reasonable dialogue with them after calling them the enemy and saying in advance they have to change. This is Moderate diplomacy in action?
28 Jason
January 31, 2008 @ 12:33 am CETI wish Justin had made his point less personally about Michael (repeatedly referencing Michael’s name instead of making the discussion primarily about the underlying argument has the unintended side effect of making it appear purely personal). I also wish that Justin had avoided characterizing all of PoliGazette as being the same on this issue, since there are at least two contributors who have repeatedly disagreed with Michael regarding Obama’s moderation.
Aside from problems with how it is presented, however, I agree with Justin’s argument about what defines moderation. Micheal’s argument has been to focus on the content of the issue positions, but I think that test is a poor one since almost no viable candidate of either party could ever be truly "moderate". Even the supposedly "maverick" McCain is 95% conventional conservative when you look at his issue positions. And there is no evidence that Hillary Clinton’s issue positions are in any way more "centrist" than Obama’s.
I think moderation is best measured through a combination of issue positions and style resulting in a composite metric that we might call "probable outcomes". Is Obama or Clinton likely to lead to more moderate policy outcomes in the give-and-take of actual governance? I think that Obama’s less confrontational and less intentionally polarizing political style (demonstrated by his use of gestures to the opposition in his issue positions on immigration, globalization, and other issues) makes it inevitable that an Obama administration would wind up producing more moderate outcomes than a Clinton administration. Historically, the Clinton approach (especially Hillary) has been to stake out a position, establish a "war room", refuse to compromise on anything, and demonize all opposition. I think that would result in intractable partisan battles that would force policy options towards the extremes sustained by a narrow partisan majority.
So, basically, I think that in spite of all the blustering about what Obama supporters should supposedly "admit", the underlying definition of what actually lies at the core of moderate politics (pragmatism) is missing in Michael’s critiques. Obama appears to value pragmatism and conciliation while Hillary has a record of abhorring it.
29 abrisaham
January 31, 2008 @ 12:39 am CETbut Michael’s asserted that he thinks Obama’s record shows that he couldn’t work with conservatives to pass moderate legislation. However, he provided no evidence that Hillary could either.
Hillary voted for the war. Hillary voted for the resolution condemning the Iranian guard. Hillary snubbed her nose at Michael Moore in the 2006 election. Hillary watched her husband as he worked with The GOP to pass the welfare reform act against the protestations of the democratic party.
And this.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who voted to authorize the Iraq war in 2001, was among the 25 liberal senators voting no. In other words, she refused to support Gen. Petraeus or condemn the personal attacks on him. So did Democratic presidential hopeful Chris Dodd of Connecticut.
Sens. Joseph Biden and Barack Obama — who also are running for the Democratic presidential nomination — did not vote on the amendment, which was sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn.
At least Hillary is not afraid to stand up and be counted. Mr. Obama just goes and hides. He can sure talk the talk but he’s got to work on that walk a bit more.
30 Justin Gardner
January 31, 2008 @ 1:14 am CET"I also wish that Justin had avoided characterizing all of PoliGazette as being the same on this issue."…….You’re right. I should have just said Michael’s name in the first post, not all of PoliGazette. My apologies for that. As for repeating Michael’s name, I was using both Obama and Michael’s name frequently in the same post and in close proximity, so I felt I had to actually say who I was talking about or the pronouns could have been mixed up…..one last note, and this is for abrisaham, a) I think something got mixed up when you wrote the comment because some of it reads pro-Hill and some of it doesn’t, and b) respectfully, you’re not Michael, and I asked him to explain his opinions. I’m still waiting.
31 Justin Gardner
January 31, 2008 @ 1:22 am CETBy the way Jason, well said. You definitely summed it all up much more succinctly than I did. Thanks for posting that comment over at Donklephant too.
32 abrisaham
January 31, 2008 @ 1:23 am CETIn his speech, Obama depicted Clinton as a calculating, poll-tested divisive figure who will only inspire greater partisan divisions as she sides with Republicans on issues such as trade, the role of lobbyists in politics and national security. At the same time, he elevated McCain, fresh off victory in Florida’s crucial primary, as the likely Republican nominee.
Heh. Even Barak Obama supports Michaels view that Hillary will be more supportive of the GOP then he will.
33 C Stanley
January 31, 2008 @ 1:41 am CETJustin- it seems to me that you’re asking Michael to provide facts on which his opinion is based, and he’s responded by saying it is what it is: an opinion. He’s also explained why he feels the way he does.
Shouldn’t it be that those who are supporting Obama or contemplating it should also admit that their opinions are just opinions, not really based on fact? I see a few instances that come close to those admissions, like when Jason says that he sees reason to hope that Obama will be more moderate and pragmatic because of the type of rhetoric he uses when speaking about a few issues on which there’s room for bipartisanship. He contrasts that with the known quantity of Hillary, who obviously doesn’t have the reputation or the current rhetoric that would lead anyone to believe there’s room for compromise. That’s fine, but on the Obama side it’s all speculation and his words- not proof.
I’m not as firmly opposed to Obama as Michael is, but I lean more toward his position because I feel that the burden of proof is on a person who says he’s going to bring change to a new, more moderate and pragmatic type of politics. Obama just doesn’t have a track record yet that would convince me of that.
34 Justin Gardner
January 31, 2008 @ 4:06 am CETC Stanley, I respect what you’re saying but Michael is a blogger who makes money by posting his views in a public forum…so he should be ready to defend them. He hasn’t. That’s telling. And especially in the moderate blogosphere, we need to offer our readers more than rhetoric, especially when we seek to attack somebody and tell people why we don’t like them. If all he’s able to offer is just an opinion not backed up by any facts, then I hope his readers realize that and judge it accordingly. To your last point that the burden of proof is on Obama, I agree. But let me offer that here’s a guy who has risen through the ranks, passed bipartisan bills in Illinois and the Senate, treated people with respect and gained the endorsements of a lot of fairly moderate Dem politicians, like Claire McCaskill, Janet Napolitano and Kathleen Sebelius. But let’s not forget Hillary here, because the burden is also just as much on her to prove her claim that she has that much more knowledge and experience than Obama. I think that the facts prove that to be a dubious assertion at best. In fact, she has three years less collective legislative experience than Obama, but in the meantime she’s actually counting her time as first lady? That’s something I don’t accept because she didn’t have access to daily intelligence briefings and the only substantive piece of legislation she tried to spearhead famously went down in flames. That’s why I’m convinced that Obama can back up what he’s saying and Hillary can’t. Thanks for the response.
35 Rich Horton
January 31, 2008 @ 5:52 am CETRich, you’re twisting my point there. I didn’t say Obama’s legislative record was necessarily a sign that he could unite us, but Michael’s asserted that he thinks Obama’s record shows that he couldn’t work with conservatives to pass moderate legislation.
Yeah, but your examples seem to show legislation that you wouldn’t expect there to be huge differences in the first place. Theoretically ANY senator should be able to get their names on such legislation. So it doesn’t really prove much. If you could point to a more hotly contested issue where Obama sought some sort of middle ground you’d have a stronger point. But I’m not sure such a thing exists. And for good reason. Look at McCain. A lot of the trouble he is having is exactly because he did that sort of thing. I personally cannot support McCain because of McCain/Feingold which I believe shows McCain is not a big supporter of the First Amendment…which makes the senator a non-starter for me and plenty of others. Obama doesn’t have that type of record for two reasons A) He hasn’t been a part of much important legislation (in an absolute sense), and B) He’s been playing it safe during his time in Washington with an eye to this presidential run. It’s not an inspiring record as far as I’m concerned.
But yes, some people voted against the bills I cited, but I don’t think they’d agree with your reasoning as to why they opposed it (for freezing to death? Come on Rich…)
I’ll say c’mon Justin. Are you really arguing that anyone was "taking a risk" or going "out on a limb" by supporting that legislation? Or that Obama was courting disfavor with his own constituency by sponsoring that legislation? (I dont think JFK is adding a new chapter to "Profiles In Courage" in the great publishing house in the sky.)
This is how it is with Obama. Middling performance is praised to high heaven…and I just don’t get it. Maybe, as a result, folks are harder on Obama….after all who isn’t middling in one sense or the other…but given the scrutiny common in Presidential elections I dont think it is that unusual.
36 Michael van der Galien
January 31, 2008 @ 10:16 am CETExactly.
JUstin, I do get tired of the debate. You’re not paying me to defend my views at all, and if I’m not willing to expand on them, that’s my choice. As it is, I’ve said enough about Obama and my opinion, which it is, isn’t less "factual" than your opinion, which is merely filled with hope. You hope, I’m cynical. That’s the difference.
As an aside, I’ve pointed to his record in Illinois - very liberal indeed - and to his lack of experience (on a national level). Although you might find that uncomfortable, those are still very real issues.
What’s more, you base your opinion on the "hope" that he will do this and that, whereas I say I don’t think he will. His goal is to talk moderately while pushing through a liberal agenda. Can you imagine? "The conservatives are trying to de-unite the country, they don’t agree with Obama!"
I’ve "defended" my views on Obama enough. My opinion is based on facts, expectations and cynicism. You may not like that, but I couldn’t care less about that, nor do I feel obliged to please you. As it is, I for one find your posts to be empty, filled with rhetoric and not based in reality. O, and mere "opinion" (which is what you get when you ask someone for an opinion).
As an aside: my readers will judge my posts by themselves just fine I think. Weren’t you the guy who supported Ron Paul only 2 weeks ago? How did your readers react to your
flip-flopchange? There’s also no need for you to tell me how to run my blog. I’m doing quite well as you can see.37 Michael van der Galien
January 31, 2008 @ 10:19 am CETAnd combine that with the fact that MSM have elected him already and seldom publish anything critical of the good liberal Senator.
38 C Stanley
January 31, 2008 @ 2:32 pm CETJustin: You miss my point- it’s that opinions are opinions, and Michael has defended his with fact. You just don’t agree with his interpretation of the facts of the matter- and that’s fine, people can agree to disagree. I’ve said before- opinions will differ depending on how you connect dots- two people will look at the same set of facts and see two different constellations. You see a series of dots in Obama’s record which in your view supports the idea that he’s sincere about bipartisanship- Michael doesn’t. Personally I’m somewhere in between- I think he’s sincere about it, but he’s either being naive or he’s overstating the reality of how much of that can be done- because as Rich seems to be arguing, there are some issues on which a consensus can be reached fairly easily (without great political risk of angering the base on either side) and others where it cannot because each side really does fundamentally disagree with the other- the proof is in the pudding on those tougher issues, not the easier ones.
I think that some people who consider themselves moderates and/or centrists want politicians to focus on the easier issues where consensus really can be reached more easily- and from that process, they feel there will be a greater sense of unity and less partisan rancor. If that’s your view, then I think supporting Obama and seeing some evidence that he’s that kind of politician makes sense. But for some people who reside a bit more to the right or left either in general or on specific important issues, there’s a sense that this isn’t a great way to govern because the important issues don’t go away, they just fester. So you can’t just use a St. Francis of Assisi approach (worry about what you can change and pray for serenity regarding the things that you can’t) because serenity and unity won’t come until those serious issues get resolved one way or another.
39 C Stanley
January 31, 2008 @ 2:38 pm CETOh, I forgot to mention the one area where I’m more in agreement with you, Justin- on Hillary’s experience. I do actually think she has the right to claim more national experience than Obama, but I think she overstates it.
It might be worth pointing out to you that I’m a conservative and a Republican and don’t support either Obama or Hillary- so my partial agreement with Michael about Obama isn’t based on a desire to promote Hillary’s candidacy; I’m strictly calling it like I see it.
40 abrisaham
January 31, 2008 @ 5:36 pm CETBut let’s not forget Hillary here, because the burden is also just as much on her to prove her claim that she has that much more knowledge and experience than Obama. I think that the facts prove that to be a dubious assertion at best.
Hillary Clinton’s resume.
http://www.edwardsly.com/clinton.htm
Barak Obama’s resume.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930136.html
When you compare the two the world experiences are mindboggling. Those claiming that Hillary has less experience or worldly lifes events are just trying to find reasons to trust in Obama.
The experience factor is not only huge but it is mindboggling. While Obama was advocating for the poor in the south side of Chicago Hillary was confronting the leaders of China as First lady. While Obama was voting on gas station leases Hillary was doing battle in congress trying to get universal health care for all.
When Obama was The president of the Harvard Law Review, Hillary was sitting on the board of Walmart advising the corporation on how to make money and treat its employees fairly.
The far left progressives are trying the same old song and dance they used on Bush. Scream it loud enough and long enough then eventually a distorted version of the truth replaces the actual truth.
The experience factor between these two is uncomparable because Obama quite simply has almost none. Their resumes speak for themselves.
41 Jason
January 31, 2008 @ 5:40 pm CETDisagree on the issues all you want, but please stop trying to state what others’ motives are. I consider such claims to be personal attacks and will edit/ban accordingly if it persists despite warnings.
42 Michael van der Galien Still Dodging Questions · Donklephant
February 17, 2008 @ 12:25 am CET[…] snarky response to an earnest question: I’m not sure whether I should feel flattered or annoyed with all the […]