Karl Rove reads Barack Obama's mind!

It turns out Karl Rove isn't just an evil strategic genius. He's an evil telepathic strategic genius, as he demonstrates in an Obama-bashing WSJ column today:

Mr. Obama has not been a leader on big causes in Congress. He has been manifestly unwilling to expend his political capital on urgent issues. He has been only an observer, watching the action from a distance, thinking wry and sardonic and cynical thoughts to himself about his colleagues, mildly amused at their to-ing and fro-ing.

He knows how to deceive the electorate, debase public discourse, win elections, and read minds. Is there anything Karl Rove can't do?

P.S. If you're looking for a less mendacious take on the Clinton-Obama race, Time's Joe Klein has a comprehensive -- and depressing -- look at what Pennsylvania hath wrought.

Comments

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Karl "I've Got the Math" Rove is such a friggin' genius that he couldn't see the Republicans were going to lose the Congress in 2006. Let's be honest. If it weren't for 9/11 and Rove playing on Americans' fears, does anyone think Bush would have had a second term? Really.

[Sandy Underpants]

I use to detest Karl Rove, but admire his brilliant political mind. Now that time has passed, as has his relevance, I can look back on his career and humbly thank him for bringing a permanent Democratic majority to Washington.

and Rove playing on Americans' fears

Isn't that kind of the point, genius?

[Andrew]

It's nice of you to zero in on that particular paragraph, in a rather pathetic attempt to dismiss Rove's overall analysis. I guess the rest of his argument was just too accurate to chip away at, eh?

[Mad Max, Esquire]

No, that's not the point, genius. Americans shouldn't be choosing their leaders out of fear. That's how democracies become dictatorships.

[Andrew]

I'm sorry Mad Max, are you afraid of something? The point of Rove's article is that Obama is a weaker candidate than thought, and that he's going to have to change his message to be more successful in November. If that message scares you for some reason, that's a "you" problem.

[copndor]

Karl Rove watches Obama from a distance, thinking now and then about how to beat Obama in the general election, but mostly just sitting back, sipping his coffee, and visualizing animal pornography.

seems like plenty of idiots have been pretending to read Karl Rove's mind for quite a while now

[Brendan Loy]

It's nice of you to zero in on that particular paragraph, in a rather pathetic attempt to dismiss Rove's overall analysis. I guess the rest of his argument was just too accurate to chip away at, eh?

Andrew, I must have missed the passage of the Irish Trojan Blog Bylaw decreeing that I'm required to comment on every substantive point made in every column written about the election.

Overall, I found Rove's column mildly interesting, if entirely one-sided (duh). It might crack the Top 20 most insightful columns I've read about the primary this week, and I'm sure I've read at least 25. But, overall, there wasn't anything I felt compelled to comment upon specifically, beyond the psychic part, because it's really mostly a rehash of right-wing talking points about Obama's vulnerabilities that I've heard a bunch of times before. Some of them have merit, some don't, and some, the jury's still out. As an analysis, it certainly doesn't have much in the way of nuance, nor does it anticipate any of the obvious counterarguments. If it wasn't for the psychic quote, I almost certainly wouldn't have linked to it at all.

[Brendan Loy]

P.S. His rote repetition of Hillary's "popular vote" talking point, with no reference whatsoever to the four excluded states, is the main reason I labeled it mendacious. Rove surely knows better than that, so he's clearly in the tank for Hillary (for his own selfish reasons, of course, not out of admiration for the Clintons).

You asking me to take this article seriously as "analysis" is like me asking you to take seriously an "analysis" of the GOP race by some uber-liberal strategist who is actively plotting to produce the worst possible result for the Republicans. Come on, Andrew. This is propaganda and you know it. Like most propaganda, it's a mixture of truths and falsehoods. But the presence of some true facts and some other arguably true ones doesn't mean it isn't still propaganda, as opposed to journalism. (And yes, I know it's an opinion piece, and I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it ethically or whatever -- just that it's silly for you to insist that I take it seriously as analysis.)

[Brendan Loy]

"propaganda, as opposed to journalism" should read "propaganda, as opposed to analysis." I suppose it's still "journalism," it's just super-biased, agenda-driven, partisan-hack journalism. And, as Stuart Smalley would say, "that's... OK." Just not terribly interesting.

[Sandy Underpants]

I read and re-read the article and never noticed the psychic quote in question as my mind wandered after the first dozen banal paragraphs. To summarize for Karl-- Hillary was fatally flawed before the election started and now she's worse off and Obama isn't as good as he was before either and maybe he's a liar. Even if I accept everything Rove says to be the truth, the only other person running for president enthusiastically embraces 100 more years in Iraq and continuing the Iraq war as we have been, and the alternatives don't (or at least say they don't).

When 80% of Americans think the country is going in the wrong direction, they aren't going to vote for a 71 year old man who says he's going to 'stay the course'. That's a fatal flaw that will kill Dole/McSame '08, and it really doesn't matter what Hillarack Clintoma says or does henceforth.

[B. Minich]

Sandy - McCain didn't say he enthusiastically EMBRACED 100 more years in Iraq. He said he'd be open to it. Now, whether we should be open to it is a good debate to have, but don't distort McCain's position. He thinks that if we are there 100 years from now, it should be in the same way we have been in Germany for years.

[copndor]

Hopefully in 40 more years we'll be able to pull out of Germany.

[Sandy Underpants]

I'm not distorting what McCain said. Here's the transcript and the videolink:

http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2008/01/mccain-on-iraq1.html

Seems like an enthusiastic opinion to me. He said, as long as Americans aren't being hurt, which seems to void the whole premise of staying in Iraq, since more than one American soldier dies there every day.

If Iraq were Germany... and cars were dogs... and Bush was Lincoln. But none of that is true, so how can it be okay to stay in a country forever if you are basically trading One American soldier's life per day to do it? Not only is that high rent, it's a sick thing to do to American families.

Facts over fantasy-- Dole/McSame '08

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Andrew-

Please read what I wrote before. The "fear" wasn't in reference to Karl Rove. I'm saying Karl Rove isn't the genius he claims to be.

[Casey]

Rove is just part of a Repulican culture of deception that has developed over the last 30 years or so, a culture that leverages trust in the government to produce counterfactual perceptions in the public mind on huge issues, from cigarette induced lung cancer to global warming to the Iraq war. That last one really gets me. There's something so morally wrong to me in deliberately misleading someone who you want to fight and die on your behalf. At least Rove makes no effort to puff himself up as something more than an evil scumbag. So many Republicans (and particularly the conservative commentariat) invoke God's name as they do the devil's work.

Of course, I guess if your typical day consists of buggering Senate pages and Minneapolis airport patrons before speaking on family values, lying about why noble men should go to their deaths is a bit ho-hum.

[Alasdair]

Hmmm ... so we have a second Casey commenter ... fascinating ...

Especially so since the former-octopus-owning Casey is way too smart to try to pin the Cult of Global Warming on the GOP ... or is this all a nuanced subterfuge to paint Saint Al Gore as a secret Republican operative ?

And since when is diddling the help a GOP prerogative ? If there is *any* "effort" that has been bi-partisan, then help-diddling is at the head of that party line ...

Damme, but that Karl Rove feller sure is good, ain't he ?

[David K.]

Alasdair, its the absolute denial of global warming that the GOP is guilty of, thats the real "Cult"

[Alasdair]

David - if you would care to listen outside the echo-chamber, even McCain has said that we - the US - should sign the Kyoto Accords as soon as *EVERYONE* including China and India agree to play by the same rules and restrictions ... what more can you ask ?

Oh - and it seems that the planet, Earth itself, is a denier, since it has had the temerity NOT to get any warmer since 2000 ... I know, I know, David - that just means that the GOP's VWRC has managed to suborn our very planet ! Is there no depth to which they will not sink ?

Damme, but that Karl Rove feller sure is good, ain't he ?

[Roy Cone]

Rove hits the nail on the head; the column criticizes the Democratic candidates, and mentions McCain's name only once. It's easy for one to dismiss his opinions by claiming he plays on people's fears or following old GOP strategy. A few of the posters above appear to attack Rove personally. I'd like to see some Hillary and Barack supporters defend their candidates as to Rove's analysis. Go ahead, please.

[Andrew]

Shit Casey, you found us conservatives out -- our grand conspiracy of deception and secretive theocracy has been exposed!

Really Casey, it does not reflet well to hear someone of your intellectual capacity and academic achievement spew such outrageously silly, unrealistic, and dare I say, "mendacious" comments. I know the closer you get to the academic elite inner circle, the more taken for granted these beliefs are, but it's always a major disappointment to see still-budding talent hamstrung by self-imposed limitations of thought and perception.

Sandy, I actually don't disagree with anything you said in your comment @ Apr 24, 2008 3:37:45 PM -- I just think it's important to make clear that McCain's own flaws, weaknesses, and the odds stacked against him this November are a completely different subject unrelated to Rove's analysis, which is simply that HRC is a weak candidate, and Pennsylvania has shown Obama to be weaker than previously thought as well.

Andrew, I must have missed the passage of the Irish Trojan Blog Bylaw decreeing that I'm required to comment on every substantive point made in every column written about the election.

You're probably right it's not in the bylaws, but when you seemingly do post about "every substantive point made ... about the election", it's easy to make that mistaken assumption. Really, I just thought it appropriate to point out that you also are being "mendacious" and that you're cherry-picking comments because you apparently don't seem interested in hearing negative feedback about your beloved Democratic messiah.

As an analysis, it certainly doesn't have much in the way of nuance, nor does it anticipate any of the obvious counterarguments.

I'm certainly interested in the "obvious counterarguments" to my spurious "right-wing talking points". Mind sharing what they are? That might have actually been a more useful post than what you left us with above....

You asking me to take this article seriously as "analysis" is like me asking you to take seriously an "analysis" of the GOP race by some uber-liberal strategist who is actively plotting to produce the worst possible result for the Republicans. Come on, Andrew. This is propaganda and you know it.

I've never been above directly addressing left-wing criticisms and analysis of [McCain/Romney/Bush]. Whether the analysis comes from some "uber-liberal strategist who is actively plotting to produce the worst possible result for the Republicans" or just an average media pundit (but I repeat myself!), I'll gladly dig in and explain why their analysis is more crack-based than fact-based. In some cases, I'll even give them credit. As a recent example, I spent twenty minutes last night constructing a nuanced response to one of your posts yesterday before my comment got wiped out and I gave up. Even "propaganda" and "talking points" can be addressed on their own merits.

[Ricardo]

In the few times I comment on this blog, I typically write it in Word then copy and paste it to the comments window so that it is not lost if the upload fails. I recommend it for the more wordy comments you like to make Andrew.

[Andrew]

I've done that before, but what I typically do now is periodically I hit Ctrl-A and then Ctrl-C. However, in this case, I made the mistake of clicking on a link in Brendan's post to copy a quote from one of the linked articles, and when I realized my mistake and hit the Back button, my words were all gone. It also doesn't help that I am using a computer at work, which doesn't have the same settings and latest browsers that I prefer to use.

[David K.]

avid - if you would care to listen outside the echo-chamber, even McCain has said that we - the US - should sign the Kyoto Accords as soon as *EVERYONE* including China and India agree to play by the same rules and restrictions ... what more can you ask ?

Oh - and it seems that the planet, Earth itself, is a denier, since it has had the temerity NOT to get any warmer since 2000 ... I know, I know, David - that just means that the GOP's VWRC has managed to suborn our very planet ! Is there no depth to which they will not sink ?

Why wait for China and India, why not do it NOW? Surely we are clever enough to be able to do it? And i'd love to see you cite material showing that the earth hasn't gotten warmer in the past decade. Would be funny since nearly all the peer reviewed science articles support human influence in global warming.

You are unbelievably myopic Alasdair, you simply refuse to acknowledge the vast body of evidence against your position, because apparently scientists are part of the vast left wing conspiracy.

[Braylon]

Why wait for China and India, why not do it NOW? Surely we are clever enough to be able to do it?

Oh gee, I don't know, maybe because India and China are totally exempt from the current limits put in place by Kyoto? If the US signs this agreement, manufacturing companies we have left in this country will be taxed to hell by having to purchase carbon-credits or move their process offshore to either China or India resulting in huge losses for the US in jobs and taxes.

[Braylon]

Oh, and I seem to recall a vote of 95-0 in the Senate against the treaty. Must have been those jedi-mind tricks Karl Rove used against the Democrats to vote No.

[gahrie]

As for myself, I'm just glad no one on the left has every speculated about the thoughts and motivations of someone on the right.

[wolfwalker]

I saw the headline on this post and immediately wondered, "Obama has a mind to read?"

[kcatnd]

No, wolfwalker, he sleepwalked through Columbia and Harvard Law.

[Brendan Loy]

Note to self: if wolfwalker ever complains about liberals calling George W. Bush stupid, slam head against wall repeatedly.

[Brendan Loy]

(My head, I mean. Violence is not the answer.)

[wolfwalker]

Heh.

kcatnd, I have very little respect left for upper-crust colleges like Harvard and Columbia anymore. My own college experience convinced me that success in college has little relationship to either intelligence or the ability to succeed in real life.

Anyway, I judge more by what I see than by things like college degrees. What I see from Obama these days does not suggest he's making much use of whatever brains he does have. In fact he reminds me a lot of Dan Quayle -- who I saw make a campaign appearance once in 1988, and the vacancy behind his eyes frightened me.

Oh, and Brendan: George W. Bush is demonstrably not stupid. In over his head as president, yes. Seriously mistaken in a lot of his choices, yes. Stupid, no. Stupid people generally do not learn how to fly fighter jets or to speak multiple languages fluently.

[Brendan Loy]

Wolfwalker, I completely agree with you that George W. Bush is obviously, demonstrably not stupid. Similarly, Barack Obama is obviously, demonstrably not stupid. That was my point. Conservatives are always complaining about how Dubya is wrongfully called "stupid," and my point was that you're doing the exact same thing to Obama. What's good for the good is good for the gander.

[Brendan Loy]

LOL, and I just committed a Bushism. What's good for the goose, that should say, obviously. Heh.

[Angrier and Angrier]

"Stupid people generally do not learn how to fly fighter jets or to speak multiple languages fluently."

I don't believe Bush is stupid. Willfully ignorant at times? Yes.

That said, using these two examples is not a good way to demonstrate his intelligence. First, Bush missed his physical while in the service, so I'm not sure he was ever certified to fly beyond what he did in training. Second, I have heard Bush is not fluent in Spanish, but knows a few phrases he uses here and there.

Also keep in mind, a few nut cases who were dumb enough to fall for Osama bin Laden's line figured out how to fly. They also learned how to speak another language.

[Brendan Loy]

a few nut cases who were dumb enough to fall for Osama bin Laden's line figured out how to fly. They also learned how to speak another language.

Personally, I don't think Mohammad Atta and the others were either "dumb" or, strictly speaking, "nuts." They were (willingly) brainwashed by a perverted, evil ideology that inspired them to do unspeakable things and honestly believe those things were for the greater good. Perhaps that's a form of mental illness, though certainly not a conventional one; i.e., they weren't stark raving mad, like some lunatic walking down the street talking to himself. And in any event, they certainly weren't stupid. Just evil.

[kcatnd]

"kcatnd, I have very little respect left for upper-crust colleges like Harvard and Columbia anymore. My own college experience convinced me that success in college has little relationship to either intelligence or the ability to succeed in real life."

Which type of college do you have respect for then? Do you regret your college education? Which politicians would have minds to read? Did they go to any "upper-crust" colleges like Harvard or Columbia?

[Joe Mama]

Mohammed Atta studied engineering at Cairo University, was admitted into the architecture program, and graduated with an architecture degree. He studied and spoke both English and German. He was by all accounts very intelligent.

[wolfwalker]

Brendan,

"Similarly, Barack Obama is obviously, demonstrably not stupid. That was my point."

It isn't obvious to me. I haven't seen him actually do anything demonstrably not-stupid yet.

I know a little about how hard it was to fly the F-104 Starfighter, the plane that GW Bush flew in his Air National Guard service. It's a pipe with wings -- small wings. Aerodynamically it's a beast. It had a tendency to kill less-than-competent pilots. Even competent pilots often had trouble with it. Bush flew it so well that he never damaged one. That alone is enough to demonstrate he's not stupid. What has Obama done that's in any way a comparable demonstration of intelligence and competence?

kcatnd: The colleges I respect are the ones that turn out intelligent, competent, well-educated, well-rounded, honest, honorable graduates with high levels of skill in their chosen professions. What used to be called "a liberal arts education."

You asked: "Which politicians would have minds to read?"

My personal opinion is that career politicians (as opposed to a person who holds a political office at some point in his or her life) generally suffer rapid and irreversible loss of intelligence soon after choosing that as their career. In most cases I neither know nor care where they went to college. I care about what they do with their educations much more than I care about where they got it or how overinflated the price was.

[Brendan Loy]

Wolfwalker, your reverse-elitist protestations to the contrary, his success at top-notch universities clearly demonstrates his intelligence. It may not prove that he has wisdom, or good judgment, or a worldview that you find acceptable, but stupid people do not graduate from Harvard and Columbia, let alone rise to be the editor of the Harvard Law Review.

Well, let me modify that statement slightly: I suppose the occasional stupid person might fall through the cracks and somehow graduate from those schools. But it's overwhelmingly unlikely, and the burden would be on you to demonstrate that Obama is such an unusual person. At the very least, his impressive educational record creates a rebuttable presumption of intelligence. As you haven't rebutted it, you lose the argument.

As I said, your position that a Harvard/Columbia education demonstrates nothing about intelligence is simply elitism in reverse, an irrational scorn for anything related to mainstream intellectualism. It's one thing to argue that a top-notch education isn't the be-all, end-all of intelligence, or that Ivy League-type institutions only reward a certain kind of intelligence (e.g., only intelligent liberals need apply). It's another thing entirely to argue that, therefore, education at such institutions is utterly devoid of any intellectual content or worth. Such a position is the height of ignorant boobery, and is just as ridiculous, if not moreso, as an ivory-tower type arguing that being a fighter pilot requires no intelligence and demonstrates nothing about intelligence. You're doing exactly what you detest, just in reverse. Sadly, this reverse-elitism is all too common on the Right. But despite being common, it is not intellectually legitimate or defensible in any way, shape or form.

[Aaron]

60 seconds of Googling and... Bush does not speak fluent Spanish - according to Vicente Fox, Scott McClellan, and anyone who's ever heard him speak Spanish.

Also, he flew f-102s.

[Sandy Underpants]

Bush doesn't even speak english, and that's not a joke, if it isn't written for him to memorize or read he can't construct sentences. That's pretty stupid, but in spite of that fact, I still don't think he's stupid.

[George W. Bush]

You are all poopyheads.

[Copndor]

I vote for a thread on anti-intellectualism in America. The problem with this issue, as I see it, is that the only time it's ever raised is in the op-eds by the New York Times, and there I always leave feeling a little anti-intellectual due to the fact that its always so didactic.
I think a related question is what it means to be a man in America, and is being an intellectual compatible with this notion.

[Brendan Loy]

I vote for a thread on how Condor became Copndor, and relatedly, what it means to be a misspelled vulture in America.

[wolfwalker]

"Wolfwalker, your reverse-elitist protestations to the contrary, his success at top-notch universities clearly demonstrates his intelligence."

[chuckle.wav]

Not as far as I can tell.

Consider this, Brendan: I have a college degree myself -- graduated with honors and Phi Beta Kappa, if such things matter to you. One of my professors in college was probably the smartest man I've ever met in my life. But he had absolutely no idea how to use it effectively. The next office down the hall was occupied by a professor who wasn't nearly as brilliant, but used what he had with the efficiency of a master swordsman.

I know a lot of people with degrees, from a lot of different colleges and universities at a lot of different levels of difficulty. I've seen very little evidence that simply having a degree actually matters a whit. Some people get a degree because they earned it. Others get a degree because they knew which posteriors to kiss. Either way, it isn't until they get out and start doing something with that degree that anyone can tell whether the degree was legitimately earned or not. What has Obama done that indicates his degree was legitimately earned?

[Brendan Loy]

One of my professors in college was probably the smartest man I've ever met in my life. But he had absolutely no idea how to use it effectively. The next office down the hall was occupied by a professor who wasn't nearly as brilliant, but used what he had with the efficiency of a master swordsman.

I think you just changed the subject. Which man are you comparing Barack Obama to? Are we arguing about whether he's intelligent, or whether he knows how to use his intelligence effectively? I thought it was the former, but I think you are no claiming the latter. They're very different concepts, as your own analogy points out.

Regardless, you're wrong. I stand by what I said before: "At the very least, his impressive educational record creates a rebuttable presumption of intelligence. As you haven't rebutted it, you lose the argument."

[wolfwalker]

Oh, and Aaron, thanks for the correction on the F-102 vs F-104. I remembered it as the F-104. My mistake.

Though a bit _more_ searching finds several pages that suggest the F-102 Delta Dagger was nearly as difficult an aircraft to fly as the Starfighter was. For example:

"ANG members of the period who we've been able to locate indicate that only highly qualified pilot candidates were accepted for Delta Dagger training because it was such a challenging aircraft to fly and left little room for mistakes."

The same page reports that over the aircraft's operational service life, thirty percent of all F-102A aircraft were lost in operational accidents -- and one in four of those accidents killed the pilot.

[wolfwalker]

Brendan,

My point was that there are all kinds of intelligence. One can be very "smart" in an academic setting, yet abysmally stupid by any real-world measurement. My example Professor Brilliant was just that -- brilliant, by academic standards. But by real-world standards, he was an idiot. If he hadn't found an academic job he'd probably be doing manual labor somewhere and hating it.

'I stand by what I said before: "At the very least, his impressive educational record creates a rebuttable presumption of intelligence."'

I don't agree. I can think of at least four different reasons he might have gotten high grades, and only one of them is "he really is that smart." I repeat: what evidence is there that the "intelligence" explanation is the correct one?

[Brendan Loy]

If we're going to start judging intelligence by shifting standards (e.g., "all kinds of intelligence," "real-world" intelligence, etc.), then we're getting away from the core concept of raw intelligence, and into a much murkier world where I would agree that you might be able to call Obama "stupid" -- but, by the same token, you could also call Bush "stupid."

Personally, I don't think you can call Obama or Bush or Professor Brilliant "stupid." I think it's a perversion of the word "stupid" to do so. If you think they lack common sense, or street smarts, or wisdom, or judgment, say that. Those are all distinct analytical concepts from "intelligence."

[copndor]

"I vote for a thread on how Condor became Copndor, and relatedly, what it means to be a misspelled vulture in America."

Heh. The great oppression began one fateful day in April when what appeared to be nothing more than a simple mispelling churned out one of the greatest naming revolutions in blog history. The artist formerly known as "Condor" reappropriated the mispelling of his name by the overseas oppressor Alasdair, and turned it into a badge of courage, and a symbol of triumph over the bird oppressors:

http://blog.brendanloy.com/2008/04/ive-gotten-more.html#comments

[copndor]

More precisely, here:
http://blog.brendanloy.com/2008/04/ive-gotten-more.html#comment-111290512

[Aaron]

...the F-102 Delta Dagger was nearly as difficult an aircraft to fly as the Starfighter was

I never suggested otherwise. I was merely correcting a couple of easily checkable factual errors from your comments. You ought to avoid those, you know, in a thread where you go on about intelligence. You might also try, in discussions of this particular type, to resist the temptation to trumpet your own credentials.

[Alasdair]

"Wolfwalker, your reverse-elitist protestations to the contrary"

I hereby offer all and sundry the birth of Bloy's Law - a localised variant upon Godwin's Law, whereby, when The Bloy, Himself, descends to ad hominem in the first phrase of a comment, Himself has just admitted that Himself lacks a rational argument (as is the case with those who trigger Godwin's Law generally) ...

Ad the subsequent verbiage attempting to justify the ad hominem merely confirms it ...

Whaddya think, Elder Loy ?

[Alasdair]

copndor - ya got me ROTFLMFOWEST !

I had forgotten that typo I had made ... (blush) ... for which I unreservedly apologise, even if you *have* chosen to embrace the "oppression" ...

I came across this, credited to Cullen Hightower, today ... remarkably wise words ... it has been one of those days ...

"Laughing at our mistakes can lengthen our own life. Laughing at someone else's can shorten it."

Then there is "Alasdair's Law" wherein any comment made by Alasdair is assumed to be just plain wrong.

[kcatnd]

wolfwalker wrote: "The colleges I respect are the ones that turn out intelligent, competent, well-educated, well-rounded, honest, honorable graduates with high levels of skill in their chosen professions. What used to be called "a liberal arts education."

Again, which colleges do you have in mind? How did you graduate with honors? Was it your intelligence or posterior kissing?

[Brendan]

Alasdair, it is not an "ad hominem attack" to characterize another person's remarks as "reverse elitism." That's a legitimate criticism of the remarks in question. It's no more "ad hominem" than saying, "What you just said is wrong" -- in fact, it's merely a more specific way of saying just that. I didn't call Wolfwalker, personally, anything; I only characterized what he said as "reverse elitism."

Ad hominem attack is when you attack the person speaking rather than what they said. For example, when you dismiss anything that certain commenters say because you regard them as on the "D-list," that is a true ad hominem attack.

[Brendan]

P.S. By "legitimate criticism," I don't necessarily mean that it's right. Obviously, you (and Wolfwalker) are free to disagree with me about whether my line of criticism is accurate. However, you can't dismiss it as a logical fallacy, which is what you're doing. Right or wrong, my criticism is well within the realm of acceptable, non-fallacious discourse.

[Brendan]

P.P.S. When a Democrat says something you regard as elitist, and you say, "That was an elitist remark," are you making an "ad hominem attack"?

I didn't think so.

Now, mind you, I sometimes engage in ad hominem attacks. I think almost everyone on this blog has, at one time or another. You, Alasdair, are both a frequent perpetrator and a frequent victim of such remarks -- occasionally even from me, in the latter case. So I'm certainly not claiming to be innocent of ever engage in ad hominem. But I certainly didn't do so here.

[Brendan]

P.P.P.S. On second thought, I suppose "such a position is the height of ignorant boobery" straddles the line between ad hominem and non-ad-hominem. :) But that isn't the statement you quoted. What you quoted was totally unobjectionable.

[Mike]

Outside of a purely Economic argument of why it would be a bad idea to sign onto the Kyoto treaty without it covering China and India, there's the pragmatic issue: the Kyoto treaty, as currently written, will have zero long term impact on atmospheric levels of CO2. If we make it expensive for the 1st world to burn petrochemicals, but do not regulate India and China, the world will still burn all the oil we can find, it will merely be burned in India and China, not in Europe or North America or in the handful of other countries governed by the treaty. There is undoubtedly some cost associated with embracing the terms of the treaty, though individuals debate exactly what that cost would be. But why would our country want to take on any cost for environmental regulation which wouldn't actually do anything to accomplish its stated goals?

[Alasdair]

Brendan - did you win or lose your discussion with yourself ? (grin)

When David K or dcl type something classcally "D-list", and I respond tot hat something, and then also point out that they are Charter members of the D-list, how is that ad hominem, since it is accurately descriptive ? Similarly to your 8:00:06 rebuttal (or was it counter-rebuttal) ?

Still, it's noce to know that you agree (at least at the Freudian level) that "D-list" is a pejorative as well as a descriptive ... (grin) ...

[Brendan]

The ad hominem nature of the "D-list" thing is self-evident, Alasdair. "Accuracy" has nothing to do with the analysis. Sometimes ad hominem attacks are accurate; that doesn't mean they aren't ad hominem.

It's mind-boggling that you would claim I'm engaging in ad hominem attacks merely by calling another person's argument "reverse elitism," but then claim that you aren't engaging in ad hominem attacks when you attack the person speaking as being on the "D-list." That's ad hominem by definition!

[kcatnd]

"Brendan - did you win or lose your discussion with yourself ? (grin)"

I'm pretty sure Brendan won that argument.

(grin)

[Alasdair]

kcatnd - at the truism level, yup, he did unless it was a draw ...

My question, however, was about how *Brendan* felt about the discussion, whether *he* felt he had won it or lost it ?

[Alasdair]

Brendan - let me see if I understand what you are saying ...

"it is not an "ad hominem attack" to characterize another person's remarks as "reverse elitism." - this is what you believe ?

"When David K or dcl type something classically "D-list", ..." - yet it *is* ad hominem to characterise another person's remarks as "classically "D-list" " ?

So them typing something is not equivalent to them making remarks ?

Brendan - you are definitely starting to sound like a lawyer ...

{Or is that ad hominem ? (grin)}

{Yes, I did correct at least one typo in my quote ...}

[Brendan]

Alasdair, the "D-list" refers to a list of people, yes? Not a list of arguments, but a list of people who (according to you) make a certain type of argument?

Let's review the definition of ad hominem:

An ad hominem argument...consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

The key distinction, again, is between attacking the argument on the one hand (which my comment about "reverse elitism" was clearly doing) and attacking the person making the argument, which is the only sensible understanding of your "D-list" comments.

You are being obfuscatory when you try to escape the ad hominem nature of your "D-list" comments by saying that you are merely attacking "remarks" when you say "David K or dcl type something classically 'D-list'." Yes, typed comments are obviously "remarks." But the basis for your criticism of those remarks is a "list" that is devoid of meaning absent its ad hominem context. Again, "D-list" is a list of people that you have invented, which explicitly includes David K and dcl. So, when you say they are making remarks in line with the personal characteristics that you've assigned them, it's completely circular if viewed purely as an attack on their remarks, and only has any meaning if viewed as an attack on them personally. It's essentially like saying, "Your remarks are consistent with your general tendency to be an idiot." That's nothing but an ad hominem attack cloaked (poorly) in the language of a legitimate attack on the argument.

Now, if you said, for instance, "David K. and dcl type something that is classical closed-minded liberalism," that wouldn't be an ad hominem attack, because "classical closed-minded liberalism" has some independent meaning that can be applied to their "remarks" without reference to them personally. But your references to the "D-list" are ad hominem by their very nature.

[Alasdair]

Brendan - your response, unfortunately, is classically anti-semantic ...

"classically 'D-list'" and "reverse elitism" are equivalently objective or subjective ...

From its origins, the term "D-list" was a play on the commonly-understood and accepted "A-list" - which isn't an actual list of names, but is instead a loose description of some form of elitism ... similarly, the "D-list" sprang forth as a shorthand to describe a certain looseness of disputational rigour as exemplified by David K and dcl (and I don't remember the other 1 or two actual Ds) as well as Leahy and Mad Max Esq ... and it fitted well with the fact that the "D-list" folk tended to have a D after their names, politically ... and it fitted well with the opposing Rationalists whose names/nicknames happened to start with A (and who could conceivably, if eligible to vote, have an R after their names, politically too) ...

An accusation of "reverse elitism" is just as precise or just as subjective, absent a tight context ...

Now, if you had said that my references to the "D-list" were not meant to be flattering, that is indeed a factual assertion ... and I am happy to see that you agree with me on that ... it does not, however, make them ad hominem since, by your own quote (skilfully not presented in bold by you) - "or producing evidence against the claim." - you support my usage ...

By the definition of "D-list", with which you apparently agree (or you would not try to cast it as ad hominem), producing evidence of the low level of rigour and logic historically used by those who earned a place on the D-list speaks to their credibility, does it not ?

Or does a challenge to credibility automatically get classified as ad hominem in your experience and training ?

I submit to you that, just as "reverse elitist" challenges the credibility of one person's comment(s), so "classically 'D-list'" challenges the credibility of another person's comment(s) ...

[David K.]

Alasdair, just because you have it in your head that not agreeing with you politically is somehow demonstrative of a lack of logic, does not make it true.

Furthermore you use "D-List" membership as the basis of your argument as to WHY people's arguments are wrong. Do you not understand how illogical that is? You claim our arguments are wrong as demonstrated by our being on the D-List, which in your world means we qualify for the D-List, its a self fullfilling prophecy in essence.

Beyond that, other than yourself, as you have admitted, the only others who agree with your classification of people like myself are those who share incredibly similar political beliefs as yours. The list has nothing to do with logic or lack of logic but its an entirely partisan catagorization, the only reason logic comes in to it is because you are of the mistaken assumption that your political views are rock solidly logically and Right and those who dissagree with you are 100% Wrong and illogical.

[David K.]

Or does a challenge to credibility automatically get classified as ad hominem in your experience and training ?

Not to speak for Brendan, but in my book, when that challange to credibility is made by someone who has demonstrated little to no crediblity of being able to see behind their partisan blinders, and bases their arguments on that challange rather than on a solid argument, yeah its an ad-hominem.

[Brendan]

Alasdair, this is silly. "Reverse elitism" is an intellectual concept. The "D-list" is a list of people. I'm not going to waste my time repeating why that distinction is dispositive. I will rest on my previous remarks. You haven't actually rebutted them, you're just continuing to stubbornly obfuscate the issue.