You make an interesting point. I certainly was elated with the results in Massachusetts, but I do worry that many voters are not really voting in response to an understanding of the philosophy behind the Obama/Dem agenda. I think you are right that they are responding more to dissatisfaction with their present circumstances. The problem with this is that people who vote based on whether they personally are better or worse off than they were before are more susceptible to the sorts of ideas that we are being told will form the basis of Obama's SotU address this week. I think Obama's move toward populist positions is transparently political and motivated by desperation, but it has worked so often that we should all be worried. ...

Anne's right; it is, at this moment, snowing in Dallas.

Of course, the Warmers would argue that this fact doesn't in any way cast doubt on the whole global warming pseudo-science. But they realize that events like this are confusing to the masses they are so keen to fool. That is why they are playing their latest language game, which is to stop using "global warming" and adopt a different term: Climate Change. Now there's a term that rings true. It is change we can believe in.

Pistol's comment that your post had exposed the liberal mindset is exactly right. You justify brainwashing the masses with a bogus pseudo-scientific theory until it becomes the basis of a quasi-religion by saying that it doesn't matter at all that it is false if it leads to a cure for what you think ails our world. This is so Maciavellian that it makes me shudder.

But this is the modus operandi of the left. If it requires suppression of the truth and of honest dissent in order to achieve their goals, so be it. The ends justifies the means. The hypocrisy of the left nauseates me.

Props to oldtexgal, JD's Most Handsome Son, codgerelle, Happy Jake...there are others...for great posts.

Leaving aside for the moment the fact that your post is nothing more than a huge tu quoque fallacy, would you mind providing your sources for your "data"?

Mike R, I thought that the title of Dr. Adams' piece was related to this whole idea: That the professor demonstrated two conflicting sides to his nature (and we all have multiple "sides" to our nature) but that in this case what one might have expected based on one set of behaviors was belied by what ultimately happened.

Mike R, I am not at all sure you understand what the meaning of the word "hypocrisy" is. I cannot for the life of me see how what Dr. Adams did constitutes hypocrisy.

My reading of his article was that he did exactly what you said he did not do: He recognized that a person can have both admirable qualities (agreeing to sponsor an organization simply because no one else would agree to do it) and less admirable qualities (in the case of Professor Cramer, too numerous to list here).

Maybe you meant to accuse Dr. Adams of inconsistency. But in my mind, the fact that he acknowledged Professor Cramer's more admirable side simply demonstrates that Dr. Adams does not paint people people with a broad brush.

Phylo,
For someone who is so concerned about people who try to know what is in the minds of others, you are pretty quick to assume that you know what is in the minds of conservatives. No, we are not against Obama because he is trying to return power to the working people. We are against Obama because he is trying to take power away from individuals and give it to the state so that they can make decisions for us while at the same time having their programs funded by working people.

I love Townhall because I always learn something from the better columnists, of whom Dr. Krauthammer stands as one of the best. I also sometimes learn interesting things from the commenters.

BETWyan, your earlier comment about Sharia law...

Give Hugh Hewitt a try as well. He is someone who always teaches me something.

I was thinking the same thing. Most of the time in these thread, by the 15th or 20th comment someone will have done exactly what Dr. Adams so amusingly referred to in his column: They would have "used the argument 'kiss my aff.'" (That was interesting. I couldn't do the actual quote in this comment, depsite the fact that it's in the article! Oh well; I chose to use "f" instead of "s.")

Thanks everyone, for engaging in good debate.

Obama did not say what L said he said. See comment #50 and go to the links. You will probably have to copy and paste them into your browser.

Bottom line: the quotation L gave us was a piece of satire written by John Semmens. You can google it.

That having been said, there was a valid reason for the satire, but the quote itself is not anything Obama said.