View Full Version : U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Pages :
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
[
13]
14
15
16
17
18
It tends to get under my skin when things the Reps do on a much more overt or organized level somehow winds up getting blamed as a Dem issue. Such as coded hate rhetoric, voter suppression or misconduct.
Organization has always been a weakness of the Democrats. ~;)
Crazed Rabbit
10-11-2008, 00:03
3004th reply! :wall:
Oh, and um, go Rossi! Because I'm disheartened by McCain.
CR
Koga No Goshi
10-11-2008, 00:04
3000th reply!
Oh, and um, go Rossi! Because I'm disheartened by McCain.
CR
How come?
Koga No Goshi
10-11-2008, 00:10
I've been trying to find any news websites covering it, but this just happened and it might be awhile before something is up. Heard it on the radio and then on TV news. Apparently Obama called McCain directly and told him that if he believes that he is a terrorist, to say so to his face. And McCain has now backed down on the rhetoric issue and stopped a few people yelling hate crap in the crowd and said that Obama would make a fine President and is a decent man.
Louis VI the Fat
10-11-2008, 00:21
A democracy. A political rally. Members in the audience shout 'traitor' and 'kill him' to the oppossing party's candidate. And this is not followed by an immediate and unconditional call for respect? Not even afterwards either?
What's more, it seems to be, if not orchestrated, at least condoned and gleefully welcomed?
What am I watching here? Political rallies in Pakistan? Uzbekistan?
Shame. Shame on McCain. This is a bloody disgrace.
I thought McCain was the candidate who does not agree with the GOP making a mockery of everything America stands for. The Republican who does not condone torture, kidnapping, spying on citizens, mercenanies, whipping the population into a frenzy and making them believe they are in perennial war.
Really, the Republican party has sinister, proto-fascist tendencies. Unbelievable, this.
Edit: Ah, just read Koga's post above. Good for McCain.
PanzerJaeger
10-11-2008, 00:27
Calm down Louis. Lemur is simply copy/pasting the latest leftist narrative despite the McCain campaign's consistent disapproval of these racist nuts.
John McCain incites racism and hatred... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxyYTGhk5l8)
Looks like McCain is finally taking steps (http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/10/mccain_denounces_pitchforkwave.html), which is very good news. Not popular with true believers, however.
Indeed, he just snatched the microphone out the hands of a woman who began her question with, "I'm scared of Barack Obama... he's an Arab terrorist..."
"No, no ma'am," he interrupted. "He's a decent family man with whom I happen to have some disagreements."
PJ's comments are, as usual, below the partisan noise threshold.
Louis VI the Fat
10-11-2008, 00:33
Calm down Louis. Yes, yes, I know. Got carried away there. ~;)
Even Hillary - back in the day - covertly but gleefully welcomed her supporters spreading hate speech about Obama.
The correct answer to this is given by McCain in your video: incitement to hatred is not acceptable in a democracy.
PanzerJaeger
10-11-2008, 00:52
Yes, yes, I know. Got carried away there. ~;)
Even Hillary - back in the day - covertly but gleefully welcomed her supporters spreading hate speech about Obama.
The correct answer to this is given by McCain in your video: incitement to hatred is not acceptable in a democracy.
The truly sad thing for McCain is that the Lemurites of the world will have no qualms about sliming him for inciting racism – even invoking the assassination of MLK (:dizzy2:) – when in reality the questions over Ayers and Obama’s other dubious connections have always centered on his judgment. An entire story has been created over a few rabid supporters, while no one deigns the invective pointed towards Bush at Obama rallies newsworthy. I can guarantee you that the President has definitely been refered to as a terrorist more than a few times in such environments. :shrug:
A more objective story would be headlined: "People Shout Crazy Things at Political Rallies - more at 10!"
Calm down Louis. Lemur is simply copy/pasting the latest leftist narrative despite the McCain campaign's consistent disapproval of these racist nuts.
John McCain incites racism and hatred... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxyYTGhk5l8)There was what? One alleged incidence of "kill him"? That's easily trackable since the Secret Service has to investigate anything even remotely suggesting assassination. Here's a Secret Service spokesman (http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=2&ContentID=102035) on the subject:
“We take every threat very seriously. Every time we receive or are reported information like that, we follow up,” said Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan.
However, he cautioned that at the McCain rally, “no Secret Service agent overheard any threatening statement and no threatening statements were reported by law enforcement or the general public.”
“We did make some inquiries after the Washington Post reported on Tuesday that a someone had yelled ’kill him’,” he added.Apparently, this is all based on a single WaPo account. More responsible reporting. ~:handball:
You'd think I'm past being surprised by it now, but it still gets me on occasion to see how thoroughly in the tank much of the news media is for Obama.....
m52nickerson
10-11-2008, 00:56
Looks like McCain is finally taking steps (http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/10/mccain_denounces_pitchforkwave.html), which is very good news. Not popular with true believers, however.
Indeed, he just snatched the microphone out the hands of a woman who began her question with, "I'm scared of Barack Obama... he's an Arab terrorist..."
"No, no ma'am," he interrupted. "He's a decent family man with whom I happen to have some disagreements."
PJ's comments are, as usual, below the partisan noise threshold.
I'm glad McCain knows when enough is enough. I would have liked to see the look on the woman's face.
Louis VI the Fat
10-11-2008, 01:04
A more objective story would be headlined: "People Shout Crazy Things at Political Rallies - more at 10!"
There was what? One alleged incidence of "kill him"? Then again, if this was all a non-story, McCain wouldn't have felt the need to clamp down on it today. ~;)
Then again, if this was all a non-story, McCain wouldn't have felt the need to clamp down on it today. ~;)Two points:
1) You must not know McCain very well.
2) Overblown or not, it's been all over the news and he's been getting blame for not doing anything to stop it. News and especially blogs would have you thinking every McCain rally is only a couple steps short of a lynch mob. McCain had to go on record as doing something to calm people down.
Also, hyperbolic, red faced charges of "traitor", "coward", "murderer" and so on aren't really new to this election cycle and can be found coming from both sides. I would expect McCain, from what I know of him, to speak up against things like that at his rallies though. His problem is that when you compare that to the ads that his campaign is running, he seems almost schizophrenic....
Koga No Goshi
10-11-2008, 01:17
I love it.
Footage, as we speak, on the news, of McCain appearing at a rally, and getting universal boo's when saying things like "Obama is a decent man", and a woman getting up and saying "We can't trust him because he's an Arab", and the audience silent when McCain says "No, no." And a guy saying he's very afraid of an Obama Presidency, and the crowd booing when McCain says there is no reason to be afraid of Obama.
Yet, we are just imagining things. The race-baiting and hate vitriol is all just one exaggerated, possibly biased article from Washington Post. These are people you guys vote with. And you try to backpedal and say no no, Republicans aren't like that, this is just leftie papers trying to make us look bad.
Not to mention the ad campaign implying Obama is a terrorist... do any of you guys really believe that? Or are you just sticking up for it because it helps your side?
You make yourselves look bad. You need no help from biased coverage.
PanzerJaeger
10-11-2008, 01:22
These are people you guys vote with.
:laugh4:
Would you like some examples of the people you vote with?
Judging supporters by the lowest common denominator makes both sides look bad.
Gregoshi
10-11-2008, 01:26
Judging supporters by the lowest common denominator makes both sides look bad.
Divided we fall. :shame:
Koga No Goshi
10-11-2008, 01:31
:laugh4:
Would you like some examples of the people you vote with?
Judging supporters by the lowest common denominator makes both sides look bad.
The lowest common denominator is your base. Sure, go to downtown San Fran or Eugene Oregon and dig up some left wing crazies. You can go almost ANYWHERE in a red state to dig up this kind of b.s. that we're seeing on the news from Republican crowds. The rally where people were saying they were afraid of Obama or that he's an Arab who can't be trusted was in MINNESOTA. Not exactly rural Arkansas.
But yes, I know, race-baiting and letting the campaign get this bad-- in fact, ENCOURAGING it with Palin accusing Obama of palling around with terrorists and an ad campaign saying the same thing, and only backing down when called out.... we're just talking about some fringe here. Naturally.
You know who else is in the tank for Obama? General David Petraeus (http://washingtonindependent.com/11381/petraeus).
Petraeus also came out unambiguously in his talk at Heritage for opening communications with America’s adversaries, a position McCain is attacking Obama for endorsing. Citing his Iraq experience, Petraeus said, “You have to talk to enemies.” He added that it was necessary to have a particular goal for discussion and to perform advance work to understand the motivations of his interlocutors.
Big_John
10-11-2008, 02:22
do any of you guys really believe that? Or are you just sticking up for it because it helps your side?haven't been in the backroom long, i take it?
You know who else is in the tank for Obama? General David Petraeus (http://washingtonindependent.com/11381/petraeus).
Petraeus also came out unambiguously in his talk at Heritage for opening communications with America’s adversaries, a position McCain is attacking Obama for endorsing. Citing his Iraq experience, Petraeus said, “You have to talk to enemies.” He added that it was necessary to have a particular goal for discussion and to perform advance work to understand the motivations of his interlocutors.
That article is spinning the BS like a top and you know it. McCain never said he would refuse to communicate with Iran or similar states. He said he would never use the Presidency to validate factions or states that sponsor terrorism and openly threaten the destruction of our allies by sitting down to deal with them directly. That was in direct response to Obama's statement that he would sit down with Ahmadinejad and 'work it out' or something to that extent. McCain said that having an ambassador, Secretary of State or general to do the talking for you was perfectly acceptable. He also mentioned that in dealing with states like Iran it was preferable to resort to communications via 'back channel' methods than that of the official variety.
Askthepizzaguy
10-11-2008, 02:40
The Cassus Belli for the Second Civil War of the United States of America (http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard?name=Tie2008|content=111101000110101011101000111110010110100011111010101) (unlikely though it may be...)
My predection of the election result: What will really happen, or close to it (http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard?name=ATPG-D2008|content=111100000010101011100000111100000010100011111000101)
And finally, Yahoo's current polling data (http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard)
That was in direct response to Obama's statement that he would sit down with Ahmadinejad and 'work it out' or something to that extent.
Having trouble finding the place where Obama said he would "use the Presidency to validate factions or states that sponsor terrorism and openly threaten the destruction of our allies"? Who's spinning like a top now?
m52nickerson
10-11-2008, 02:45
The report from Alaska is in:
Palin abused power in trooper case! (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/10/palin.investigation/index.html)
The Anchorage Daily News (http://www.adn.com/palin/story/552393.html) coverage is much more in-depth. Lots of sub-links to original documents and such stuff.
Finding Number One
For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.
Finding Number Two
I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.
Finding Number Three
Harbor Adjustment Service of Anchorage, and its owner Ms. Murleen Wilkes, handled Trooper Michael Wooten's workers' compensation claim property and in the normal course of business like any other claim processed by Harbor Adjustment Service and Ms. Wilkes. Further, Trooper Wooten received all the workers' compensation benefits to which he was entitled.
Finding Number Four
The Attorney General's office has failed to substantially comply with my August 6, 2008 written request to Governor Sarah Palin for information about the case in the form of emails.
Crazed Rabbit
10-11-2008, 02:50
McCain's actions, shutting up the haters, have gladdened me. He'll get no sympathy from the press, even if Obama started selling the journalists following him into slavery and using the proceeds to build orphan labor sweatshops.
I think it marks a return to McCain's decency that he seems to have lost recently. He did good.
...
Spino does a good job of shutting down Lemur's silly post.
Not to mention the ad campaign implying Obama is a terrorist... do any of you guys really believe that? Or are you just sticking up for it because it helps your side?
Do we believe the straw man you made up? Hmmm, no.
The lowest common denominator is your base. Sure, go to downtown San Fran or Eugene Oregon and dig up some left wing crazies.
Or any college, or any big city, or Bellingham, WA, or Madison, etc., etc.
You can go almost ANYWHERE in a red state to dig up this kind of b.s. that we're seeing on the news from Republican crowds. The rally where people were saying they were afraid of Obama or that he's an Arab who can't be trusted was in MINNESOTA. Not exactly rural Arkansas.
Aw, you're such a darling, lapping up what the media presents.
CR
I take it you're got first hand visual confirmation.
In fairness, CR, PJ trolls me regularly and with intent. I think he rather enjoys it as a game. Best thing to do with trolls is not to feed them.
I'm happy to engage in back-and-forth with you, Spino, TuffStuff, Xiahou, and any of our host of colorful characters and Backroom Patrons. But I ain't gonna feed a troll.
And frankly, you ought to be embarrassed to have him on your side. But shame is perhaps a slow flower to bloom, eh?
As for Spino "shutting down" my silly post, I think he did no such thing. You have to accept, at face value, that Obama intends to waltz personally into Teheran and beg for an audience with Imadinnerjacket, something he has never claimed he was going to do, and you have to accept that McCain has never mischaracterized what Obama said. So I guess if you're utterly and completely following the Johnny Mac version of reality, then yeah, whoah, I sure took a spanking there. But if you're interested in any sort of reality, I did not.
Askthepizzaguy
10-11-2008, 02:56
@ m52nickerson-
I saw the news story. An abuse of power by an elected member of our government? Not entirely earth-shattering.
Of more interest to me is Palin's inability to discuss anything besides drilling for more oil, and almost, nearly, but not quite, staying on message when supporting McCain's Iraq policies. Of particular interest is her mortal fear of any newsperson or pundit outside of Sean Hannity, without McCain by her side pulling her strings. She doesn't even know what the Bush doctrine is, nor can she muddle through a sentence regarding the bailout.
Frankly, an abuse of power allegation is actually points in her favor... she's competent enough to be a criminal. That's at least something. Competence is not a quality I would have associated with Palin before the story broke. Then again, she got caught really easily, and at the most inoppurtune time... so yet again, points against her.
Having trouble finding the place where Obama said he would "use the Presidency to validate factions or states that sponsor terrorism and openly threaten the destruction of our allies"? Who's spinning like a top now?
No spin. Re-read my post. I gave you McCain's reasoning for why he wouldn't use the office of the Presidency to validate those states. A position shared by... Hillary Clinton!
Here you go... straight from Barack's own mouth!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1dSPrb5w_k
I rather prefer Hillary's answer... don't you?
From Barack's web page!
http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/foreign_policy/
Diplomacy: Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama and Biden would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.
Direct presidential diplomacy... What a nice, carefully worded phrase! It's awfully hard to spin it as anything but diplomacy involving the President himself. Were it to say... 'direct diplomacy' it might get a pass. But since Barack already flapped his gums about it on the debate...
Oh, and I love how he'll use the stick and carrot routine to get Iran to abandon it's WMD program. Because that tactic worked so well when employed by the Clinton & Bush administrations (see N. Korea).
McCain's official position...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYQ6P5SViVs
m52nickerson
10-11-2008, 03:00
@ m52nickerson-
I saw the news story. An abuse of power by an elected member of our government? Not entirely earth-shattering.
Of more interest to me is Palin's inability to discuss anything besides drilling for more oil, and almost, nearly, but not quite, staying on message when supporting McCain's Iraq policies. Of particular interest is her mortal fear of any newsperson or pundit outside of Sean Hannity, without McCain by her side pulling her strings. She doesn't even know what the Bush doctrine is, nor can she muddle through a sentence regarding the bailout.
Frankly, an abuse of power allegation is actually points in her favor... she's competent enough to be a criminal. That's at least something. Competence is not a quality I would have associated with Palin before the story broke. Then again, she got caught really easily, and at the most inoppurtune time... so yet again, points against her.That is why it is so important, the timing. Plus McCain and his crew should have seen this coming while vetting her.
Overall, not good for the McCain/Palin ticket.
Direct presidential diplomacy... What a nice, carefully worded phrase! It's awfully hard to spin it as anything but diplomacy involving the President himself. Were it to say... 'direct diplomacy' it might get a pass. But since Barack already flapped his gums about it on the debate...
Yup, I guess Barack is a traitor in the model of Richard Nixion going to China, Ronald Reagan talking to Gorbachev, etc. Talking to your enemies -- what kinda nut does that?
Did Richard Nixon "validate" China, as you put it? DId Rinald Reagan "validate" Gorbachev? What kind of middle-school reality do you need to be in to believe that talking to someone "validates" them?
Your original post hinges on this whole concept of "validating," something which is entirely unclear and frankly weird. So yeah, I think there's some spin going on, friend.
Crazed Rabbit
10-11-2008, 03:08
In fairness, CR, PJ trolls me regularly and with intent. I think he rather enjoys it as a game. Best thing to do with trolls is not to feed them.
I'm happy to engage in back-and-forth with you, Spino, TuffStuff, Xiahou, and any of our host of colorful characters and Backroom Patrons. But I ain't gonna feed a troll.
Fair enough. I can't argue with that. Disregard my prior comment.
And frankly, you ought to be embarrassed to have him on your side. But shame is perhaps a slow flower to bloom, eh?
Do I need to say in every post I don't like racists and fascists?
As for Spino "shutting down" my silly post, I think he did no such thing. You have to accept, at face value, that Obama intends to waltz personally into Teheran and beg for an audience with Imadinnerjacket, something he has never claimed he was going to do, and you have to accept that McCain has never mischaracterized what Obama said. So I guess if you're utterly and completely following the Johnny Mac version of reality, then yeah, whoah, I sure took a spanking there. But if you're interested in any sort of reality, I did not.
Obama said he'd sit down with no preconditions. I believe he's changed his position on that, something McCain hasn't really represented in what I saw in the last debate. McCain has said we need to talk, but not a presidential level talk at first. That seems to be similar to what Petraeus has been saying, so I think you saying he's in the tank for Obama, hyperbole I know, is not correct even when reduced. McCain is not attacking Obama for merely wanting to open lines of communication - which the article stated. He's attacking based on Obama's really old debate answer that he'd sit down without precondition.
On the Troopergate thing:
()@$&@)@($&@#$()&@$*&(@)#!@)$^@$_*@#@&)$(*&@$@{
McCain's really screwed now.
I noticed this one comment on the ADN website:
In reading the Branchflower report, I see that he concentrates on the Wooten affair and pretty much glosses over any detail of the other major factors that led to Monegan's reassignment. If his job was to determine if the Monegan reassignment was legitimate or if it was revenge for failing to fire Wooten, I believe Branchflower has failed to do an unbiased job.
I expected to find lengthy discussions of the "reasons" for Monegan's reassignment. This should be all of the reasons, so that the various reasons could be weighed to determine how much the Wooten affair influenced the reassignment.
Branchflower's report does not discuss and evaluate any of the reasons beyond the Wooten affair. This makes me consider the Branchflower report to be highly biased toward finding the Governor in violation of ethics statutes.
And can only hope it's true, but even if it is McCain's screwed anyways.
CR
Askthepizzaguy
10-11-2008, 03:10
@ m52nickerson-
Yes, the timing is unfortunate. But look at the polls... the way this is going, Obama would really have to stand up in front of the American people and start screaming filthy words at the top of his lungs, while McCain suddenly formulates an Iraq exit strategy and a sane economic plan, before Obama would lose the election.
I'm waiting for the October Surprise. I am guessing the best they can do is start playing those Reverend Wright clips over and over again while chanting "Obama is a terrorist! KILL HIM!" in order to sway the rightest of the right-wing lunatics, or at least, the most susceptible to suggestion, to vote McCain.
The only thing that would be good for the McCain-Palin ticket is for Palin to be at the top of the ticket. Palin-McCain would at the very least get some of the less rational women around the country to vote for Palin as President, for the sole purpose of having the first woman president. Of course, I may just be offering this suggestion because I want the R's to lose this year.
When McCain has lost Virginia and North Carolina, they really need to rethink their strategy.
As for Spino "shutting down" my silly post, I think he did no such thing. You have to accept, at face value, that Obama intends to waltz personally into Teheran and beg for an audience with Imadinnerjacket, something he has never claimed he was going to do, and you have to accept that McCain has never mischaracterized what Obama said. So I guess if you're utterly and completely following the Johnny Mac version of reality, then yeah, whoah, I sure took a spanking there. But if you're interested in any sort of reality, I did not.Did you forget the Youtube debate (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1dSPrb5w_k)?
Here's some analysis from the right-wing hacks at the Nation: An Obama Flub at the YouTube Debate? (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=217102)
Obama had suggested he would sit down with these leaders willy-nilly, no preconditions. Clinton and Edwards explained that that they would use diplomacy to try to improve relations with these nations and that such an effort could lead to a one-on-one with these heads of state.
Further, here is the direct quote for those that don't want to watch the video clip:
Q: Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration -- in Washington or anywhere else -- with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?
A: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous. Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.
The way Hillary pounced on that question and gave a much more sensible answer to it is a good example of why I think she would've been a far better president than Obama. :yes:
Edit: Damn, Spino beat me to it by a longshot. :shrug:
Big_John
10-11-2008, 03:18
And frankly, you ought to be embarrassed to have him on your side.frankly, this forum, and its moderators, ought to be embarrassed that he's allowed to post his garbage here.
Askthepizzaguy
10-11-2008, 03:21
I'd be willing to cede that Obama misspoke, or changed his position, or even deliberately and intentionally said that he would in fact meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, and every other two-bit thug personally in the white house.
I'd cede that entire point to the opposing side, and then say, what's your point? How many years of not speaking to Castro have we endured, and how have the Cuban people fared? How many years of not talking to Iran and North Korea have we endured, and how has that helped at all?
I wouldn't back down, I'd stand up and applaud. I'd love to have Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over to the White House for tea. That's where I'd have secret service assassinate him after diplomacy failed.
:laugh2:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081010/ts_nm/us_bush_cuba
"It's so sad that right off the shores of our great nation that believes in human rights and human dignity exists this, this dungeon," Bush said.
Perhaps he is thinking about closing Guantanamo Bay? Dare I hope?
"But some day Cuba will be free."
President George W. Bush: Where hope goes to die.
ICantSpellDawg
10-11-2008, 03:34
frankly, this forum, and its moderators, ought to be embarrassed that he's allowed to post his garbage here.
Take it easy. All of this filibuster is because he is saying that Obama isn't in any worse danger of assassination than Bush has been - or that MLK was an accused (and seemingly likely) adulterer? I don't see that as overt racism. Lay off the guy.
I would also recommend that Panzer self-censors if there is the possibility that he is painting with too broad a brush.
Jeez.
Yup, I guess Barack is a traitor in the model of Richard Nixion going to China, Ronald Reagan talking to Gorbachev, etc. Talking to your enemies -- what kinda nut does that?
Did Richard Nixon "validate" China, as you put it? DId Rinald Reagan "validate" Gorbachev? What kind of middle-school reality do you need to be in to believe that talking to someone "validates" them?
Your original post hinges on this whole concept of "validating," something which is entirely unclear and frankly weird. So yeah, I think there's some spin going on, friend.
Because talking directly with a regime that openly froths at the mouth about annihilating its regional neighbors & dehumanizes a specific ethnic group has the unfortunate side effect of 'validating' it. It's about setting a bar... any bar of official civility & statesmanship that both parties are expected to meet. So having Iran officially retract its threats to annihilate Israel as well as having its leaders & mullahs officially cease the dehumanizing and racist tirade against Jews and other targeted groups is a good place to start.
To my knowledge during the Vietnam War China never openly called for the annihilation of the US and our allies nor did its leaders dehumanize or target a specific ethnic group (although Mao had his own 'colorful' views of the Vietnamese which he never shared with the world). Nixon going to China was a clever way of exploiting the long history of animosity between China & Vietnam and it helped to drive a diplomatic rift between the Soviet Union & China which, despite their Communist ties, have had a long history of territorial disputes.
The Soviet Union also never adopted the official position that it would annihilate the US or any of its allies (Kruschev's 'we will bury you' quote is often mistranslated and taken out of context, he was attacking 'inferior' western production). The Soviet Union also never dehumanized or targeted a specific ethnic group.
True, both China and the Soviet Union were guilty of funding & supporting our enemies but at least they had the decency of doing so in a more conventional, 'civilized' fashion that we could tolerate (and readily practiced ourselves). Funding a bunch of religious fanatics that deliberately attack civilian populations by say, strapping remotely triggered bombs to retarded women who are then instructed to wander into crowded whereupon they are blown into a million pieces, simply wasn't in their playbook.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-11-2008, 03:43
I imagine the validation effect would have to be taken into account when they were doing the cost/benefit analysis. What are the historical examples of the negative effects of such a meeting?
Big_John
10-11-2008, 03:44
Take it easy. All of this filibuster is because he is saying that Obama isn't in any worse danger of assassination than Bush has been - or that MLK was an accused (and seemingly likely) adulterer? I don't see that as overt racism. Lay off the guy.
I would also recommend that Panzer self-censors if there is the possibility that he is painting with too broad a brush.
Jeez.actually, that has nothing to do with it. i've felt this way about him for a long time. i've had him on ignore for just as long (not that it matters since ignore doesn't affect quoting). he is a racist. he is a bigot. he contributes nothing to the forums. i once thought that the org was a better forum that.
I imagine the validation effect would have to be taken into account when they were doing the cost/benefit analysis. What are the historical examples of the negative effects of such a meeting?
Good point. Depends on the size of the threat. I cannot think of a negative example off hand but I can think of an example from ancient history where any kind of meaningful talks were necessary to prevent disaster. Pope Leopold simply had to go out and speak with Attila the Hun because Rome was defenseless and out of options. However troublesome a nation Iran may be it's still small change compared to the former Soviet Union & China (or the Huns for that matter). It simply doesn't make sense to be reactive to Iran by granting it official access to the leaders of the top industrialized nations who clearly have the economic, political & military advantage. It is the rest of the civilized world that should maintain the initiative and be dictating terms to Iran.
actually, that has nothing to do with it. i've felt this way about him for a long time. i've had him on ignore for just as long (not that it matters since ignore doesn't affect quoting). he is a racist. he is a bigot. he contributes nothing to the forums. i once thought that the org was a better forum that.I think this is out of line. I don't agree with broad generalizations in regards to race no matter who they come from- but I don't think lumping entire ethnic groups together and assigning views en masse is something unique to PJ.
And as for 'nothing to contribute', I've enjoyed many of his posts in the various "economic" threads that have been popping up lately.
And frankly, you ought to be embarrassed to have him on your side. But shame is perhaps a slow flower to bloom, eh? I'll take ownership of PJs statements as soon as you take ownership of Koga's or Tribesman's. Or we can agree that people can speak for themselves and just because you occasionally agree with someone you don't need to denounce them every time they say something you don't agree with. :idea2:
Sasaki Kojiro
10-11-2008, 04:00
Not to step in where I'm not a moderator or anything, but it seems to me the "us elections 2008" thread isn't the place to discuss whether a certain member should be allowed to post or not :sweatdrop:
Big_John
10-11-2008, 04:01
I think this is out of line. I don't agree with broad generalizations in regards to race no matter who they come from- but I don't think lumping entire ethnic groups together and assigning views en masse is something unique to PJ.i never said his racism and bigotry were unique, nor that he's the only user here that shames the org and its mods, in my eyes.
Askthepizzaguy
10-11-2008, 04:03
@Spino-
I am quite serious when I say this: I do not see how speaking to someone gives them an advantage they did not have before. Speaking to someone does provide benefits and options that are not provided to those who remain silent.
Speaking to madmen who committed horrible crimes, who are on death row or are now deceased, allowed civilized society to learn more about the criminal or psychotic mind. Speaking to the Soviet Union resolved many crises which could have triggered a nuclear war. Speaking to a dictator to personally deliver the demands/conditions of the United States to normalize relations gives a world stage to our reasonable demands, and highlights just how psychotic the enemy is. Speaking to Iran, Syria, or North Korea shows our allies that we are not a nation that shoots first and never talks. Speaking to our enemies shows the world that we seek a peaceful solution, before a military one. I do not see how we lose. If the talks are non-productive it shows the opposition as being unreasonable. That helps us, too.
We don't need to trust or believe a word from our enemies, or alter strategies in any way. Speaking to one's enemies is not only a form of civilized, rational response to a problem, but also a tactic in war. With great respect for your ability to debate and reason, I simply ask for an explanation as to why speaking to your enemy is always a negative, when your enemy is unreasonable.
We have hostage negotiators speak with criminals holding civilians prisoner. We have diplomats in back door sessions resolving things that "proper" politicians cannot resolve publicly. We have doctors speak to lunatics in an insane asylum, so that we may be better prepared to handle the next psychopath. In every single case, talking does not hurt.'
I simply am not swayed by the assertion that speaking to someone automatically legitimizes their actions. In fact, if you speak to someone the right way, you can thoroughly discredit them.
I think this is out of line. I don't agree with broad generalizations in regards to race no matter who they come from- but I don't think lumping entire ethnic groups together and assigning views en masse is something unique to PJ.
And as for 'nothing to contribute', I've enjoyed many of his posts in the various "economic" threads that have been popping up lately.
I'll take ownership of PJs statements as soon as you take ownership of Koga's or Tribesman's. Or we can agree that people can speak for themselves and just because you occasionally agree with someone you don't need to denounce them every time they say something you don't agree with. :idea2:
I agree with Xiahou; people speak for themselves. I don't think that just because a crazy person agrees with you on a thing, or even many things, that somehow you must apologize for their ignorance. Guilt by association is a logical fallacy.
Big_John
10-11-2008, 04:05
Not to step in where I'm not a moderator or anything, but it seems to me the "us elections 2008" thread isn't the place to discuss whether a certain member should be allowed to post or not :sweatdrop:that's fine, spin these posts off into a thread in the watchtower. or just delete them, i've no illusions about panzer being allowed to continue posting his offal.
Koga No Goshi
10-11-2008, 04:22
McCain's actions, shutting up the haters, have gladdened me. He'll get no sympathy from the press, even if Obama started selling the journalists following him into slavery and using the proceeds to build orphan labor sweatshops.
What bull. The first thing out of the media's lips was that this might be a return to "honorable campaigning" and that McCain did the right thing. Rightfully so--- but we'll see if this is just him saying this, while the attack ads and Palin's rhetoric continues unchanged.
Spino does a good job of shutting down Lemur's silly post.
I'm yet to see Lemur make a silly post.
Or any college, or any big city, or Bellingham, WA, or Madison, etc., etc.
You'll get no argument from me that critical thinkers tend to not vote Republican. However if you think that finding people against the Iraq War in Bellingham and Madison constitutes an equal and proportionate opposite partisan extreme from playing up race baiting and playing to The Stupid out there in your base, you are using a pretty whacked out standard of proportion. When you can go to any blue neighborhood and find seething easily stoked hatred of white people in the same way you can do in red communities with Mexicans and blacks and Arabs, come back and we'll talk about equal loonie fringes.
Q: Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration -- in Washington or anywhere else -- with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?
A: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous. Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.
OMG!!!! I can't vote for him now! No preconditions!
Do you agree we should talk to our enemies, or no? I failed and continue to fail to see why McCain and his online supporters focus so obsessively over the preconditions thing. I don't care if Obama meets with them on Ash Wednesday and misses an episode of CSI. We should be talking to everyone, most especially regimes that might be a threat. The McCain temper tantrum over preconditions seems to have come off like a petty nitpick over procedural details and the pendulum was not swing an inch by him bringing it up and obsessing over it on both debates so far, and Palin bringing it up as well.
I'm yet to see Lemur make a silly post.
That just means you haven't actually read anything I've posted. I'm silly quite often.
Koga No Goshi
10-11-2008, 04:31
That just means you haven't actually read anything I've posted. I'm silly quite often.
Well, you're tongue-in-cheek quite a bit, but your posts typically are a link with a very minimal commentary from you. I see nothing silly about you in a political sense. When people like Panzer think you and are I like, way far out there, in a decaying orbit around a communist planet left-wing lunatics, I wonder what would happen if they ever actually met a for-real Socialist or something. Their heads would implode, I expect. :)
KukriKhan
10-11-2008, 04:32
Having read through the three pages of posts made today in this thread since I left for work, I almost despair.
Let me be clear about one thing: if you name another member, and hurl an insult at him/her, your entire post - however insightful or accurate you may deem it to be - will be deleted as non-contributive, off-topic, and a personal attack. Warning points will be awarded, in accord with normal org procedure. Posting privileges in the backroom may be suspended.
In this thread, feel free to criticise the candidates, their positions, the electoral process in general. But do not attack each other.
m52nickerson
10-11-2008, 04:33
OMG!!!! I can't vote for him now! No preconditions!
Do you agree we should talk to our enemies, or no? I failed and continue to fail to see why McCain and his online supporters focus so obsessively over the preconditions thing. I don't care if Obama meets with them on Ash Wednesday and misses an episode of CSI. We should be talking to everyone, most especially regimes that might be a threat. The McCain temper tantrum over preconditions seems to have come off like a petty nitpick over procedural details and the pendulum was not swing an inch by him bringing it up and obsessing over it on both debates so far, and Palin bringing it up as well.
The best way to know some one is to speak with them face to face. Let us not forget Sun Tzu:
One who knows the enemy and knows himself will not be in danger in a hundred battles.
One who does not know the enemy but knows himself will sometimes win, sometimes lose.
One who does not know the enemy and does not know himself will be in danger in every battle.
Askthepizzaguy
10-11-2008, 04:38
Having read through the three pages of posts made today in this thread since I left for work, I almost despair.
Let me be clear about one thing: if you name another member, and hurl an insult at him/her, your entire post - however insightful or accurate you may deem it to be - will be deleted as non-contributive, off-topic, and a personal attack. Warning points will be awarded, in accord with normal org procedure. Posting privileges in the backroom may be suspended.
In this thread, feel free to criticise the candidates, their positions, the electoral process in general. But do not attack each other.
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
I've yet to see an instance where ad-hominem attacks ever produced anything worthwhile anyway. It's not just Org policy, it's better for your argument to leave that stuff at the door.
PanzerJaeger
10-11-2008, 05:12
Well the panel delivered and the democrats have their October Surprise.
There's no arguing that the Palin story is bad news - or at least the headlines it will get. If people read further, it really isn't that bad, especially if you know the backstory about the abusive ex. Most people don't read much further than the headlines though...
I did like this little snippet from the chairman of the council..
"I believe that these findings may help people come to a conclusion on how they should vote" in the presidential election, Elton said.
It seems like she's got her priorties in order. :shame:
Koga No Goshi
10-11-2008, 05:13
Well the panel delivered and the democrats have their October Surprise.
There's no arguing that the Palin story is bad news - or at least the headlines it will get. If people read further, it really isn't that bad, especially if you know the backstory about the abusive ex. Most people don't read much further than the headlines though...
I did like this little snippet from the chairman of the council..
It seems like she's got her priorties in order. :shame:
ps. lots of love to my biggest fan... you know who you are! <3
Abuse of power is not a relevant issue in how citizens of a democracy should cast their vote?
Askthepizzaguy
10-11-2008, 05:18
This is good news; when you have an opposition party arguing that their scandals are "not that bad", rather than why they are the better choice, you've already won the election.
Interesting read from Chris Buckly, a columnist with National Review (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama/):
My colleague, the superb and very dishy Kathleen Parker, recently wrote in National Review Online a column stating what John Cleese as Basil Fawlty would call “the bleeding obvious”: namely, that Sarah Palin is an embarrassment, and a dangerous one at that. She’s not exactly alone. New York Times columnist David Brooks, who began his career at NR, just called Governor Palin “a cancer on the Republican Party.”
As for Kathleen, she has to date received 12,000 (quite literally) foam-at-the-mouth hate-emails. One correspondent, if that’s quite the right word, suggested that Kathleen’s mother should have aborted her and tossed the fetus into a Dumpster. There’s Socratic dialogue for you. Dear Pup once said to me sighfully after a right-winger who fancied himself a WFB protégé had said something transcendently and provocatively cretinous, “You know, I’ve spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks.” Well, the dear man did his best. At any rate, I don’t have the kidney at the moment for 12,000 emails saying how good it is he’s no longer alive to see his Judas of a son endorse for the presidency a covert Muslim who pals around with the Weather Underground. So, you’re reading it here first.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-11-2008, 05:24
My view on the election has fluctuated so much over the past few months to a year that I don't even know where to begin. I started out as a staunch Obama supporter, then moved to McCain after Obama won the primary, I supported the candidacy of Sarah Palin and everything.
Now I wouldn't vote for either of them. :whip:
PanzerJaeger
10-11-2008, 05:29
Abuse of power is not a relevant issue in how citizens of a democracy should cast their vote?
The implications this decision has on the presidential contest should not have been a relevant issue to the panel.
This is good news; when you have an opposition party arguing that their scandals are "not that bad", rather than why they are the better choice, you've already won the election.
That was predetermined a long time ago.
KukriKhan
10-11-2008, 05:31
My view on the election has fluctuated so much over the past few months to a year that I don't even know where to begin. I started out as a staunch Obama supporter, then moved to McCain after Obama won the primary, I supported the candidacy of Sarah Palin and everything.
Now I wouldn't vote for either of them. :whip:
Funny, I think you've wrapped up the dilemma for the 20% of US non-party-affiliated voters who will actually decide this election.
Hence all the bombast you see and hear (and read).
Well the panel delivered and the democrats have their October Surprise.
There's no arguing that the Palin story is bad news - or at least the headlines it will get. If people read further, it really isn't that bad, especially if you know the backstory about the abusive ex. Most people don't read much further than the headlines though...
I did like this little snippet from the chairman of the council..
It seems like she's got her priorties in order. :shame:
ps. lots of love to my biggest fan... you know who you are! <3
Hollis French- the Democrat in charge of the investigation really gave it an unbiased/unpoliticized start when he said:
"If they had done their job they never would have picked her," said French. "Now they may have to deal with an October surprise," he said, referring to the scheduled release Oct. 31 of the committee's final report. :dizzy2:
Frankly, I don't understand why it's a big deal if she did push for Wooten's firing. An internal State Police investigation found that Wooten had drank beer in his patrol car, tazered his stepson, threatened to shoot Palin's father in the head, and more. She had firsthand knowledge of how unfit the man is to be on the force- why would it be wrong for her to want to know why he isn't being fired?
Troopers eventually investigated 13 issues and found four in which Wooten violated policy or broke the law or both:
• Wooten used a Taser on his stepson.
• He illegally shot a moose.
• He drank beer in his patrol car on one occasion.
• He told others his father-in-law would "eat a :daisy:ing lead bullet" if he helped his daughter get an attorney for the divorce.
Beyond the investigation sparked by the family, trooper commanders saw cause to discipline or give written instructions to correct Wooten seven times since he joined the force, according to Grimes' letter to Wooten.link (http://www.adn.com/politics/story/476430.html)
It's almost like saying if a PA state trooper punched Ed Rendell in the mouth, that it would be an abuse of power to want him fired since it involved him personally. :dizzy2:
Now I'm all confused. Does this mean she is qualified to be VP? :inquisitive:
:bounce:
seireikhaan
10-11-2008, 05:41
Funny, I think you've wrapped up the dilemma for the 20% of US non-party-affiliated voters who will actually decide this election.
Hence all the bombast you see and hear (and read).
Bombast doesn't even begin to describe what's been going on the last few pages, sans some quality posting yet again by ATPG and one or two others.:thumbsdown:
Askthepizzaguy
10-11-2008, 06:00
Hollis French- the Democrat in charge of the investigation really gave it an unbiased/unpoliticized start when he said: :dizzy2:
Frankly, I don't understand why it's a big deal if she did push for Wooten's firing. An internal State Police investigation found that Wooten had drank beer in his patrol car, tazered his stepson, threatened to shoot Palin's father in the head, and more. She had firsthand knowledge of how unfit the man is to be on the force- why would it be wrong for her to want to know why he isn't being fired?link (http://www.adn.com/politics/story/476430.html)
It's almost like saying if a PA state trooper punched Ed Rendell in the mouth, that it would be an abuse of power to want him fired since it involved him personally. :dizzy2:
I tend to discredit any kind of news or analysis that is slanted one way or another in an overt fashion. I wish there was some really apathetic nihilistic person we could hire to give us unbiased reporting.
I find it hard to believe that through all of this, Palin had a halo and was untouchable, just based on her shoddy performance and disingenuous methods to-date. That being said, I don't drink any kool-aid regarding how evil the republicans are and how great the democrats are, because I think both parties are corrupt and evil.
When the Dems spin this story one way, Palin is evil, and when the Reps spin it the other way, she's a heroine. Anyone interested in the facts? Not republican facts or democrat facts, but FACT facts?
Gregoshi
10-11-2008, 06:14
Anyone interested in the facts? Not republican facts or democrat facts, but FACT facts?
Ooooh! Oooooh! Sign me up!
Koga No Goshi
10-11-2008, 07:34
The implications this decision has on the presidential contest should not have been a relevant issue to the panel.
So... questions of abuse of power should be politically hushed up until after an election, when it's too late for voters to rethink their decision?
This is a really cynical mindset. Like.. "well, it's not a question of corruption, or character, or abuse of power, or integrity in following the law. It's all just spin about if the timing is convenient for us to damage control it." I think there are voters to whom issues like this do actually matter. Granted they're probably not a majority, but still.
When the Dems spin this story one way, Palin is evil, and when the Reps spin it the other way, she's a heroine. Anyone interested in the facts? Not republican facts or democrat facts, but FACT facts?
What would those be exactly? Share.
Gregoshi
10-11-2008, 07:50
So... questions of abuse of power should be politically hushed up until after an election, when it's too late for voters to rethink their decision?
Koga, that is not what PJ said. He said:
The implications this decision has on the presidential contest should not have been a relevant issue to the panel.
The panel should concern itself with the facts of the case, not the implications of the case to Palin as a VP candidate. The implications are for others, like the voters, to decide.
Koga No Goshi
10-11-2008, 08:00
The panel should concern itself with the facts of the case, not the implications of the case to Palin as a VP candidate. The implications are for others, like the voters, to decide.
And there is some reason to believe a mass conspiracy to keep Palin out of the White House prompted this entire investigation? As far as I can tell, this investigation has been going on since before she was picked.
ICantSpellDawg
10-11-2008, 08:09
And there is some reason to believe a mass conspiracy to keep Palin out of the White House prompted this entire investigation? As far as I can tell, this investigation has been going on since before she was picked.
You don't remember when the Obama campaign dumped 25 lawyers into Anchorage to investigate Palin and dig up stories about Troopergate?
Koga No Goshi
10-11-2008, 08:12
You don't remember when the Obama campaign dumped 25 lawyers into Anchorage to investigate Palin and dig up stories about Troopergate?
I remember the GOP also dumping lawyers into Anchorage to help do damage control or even delay the investigation, as they did successfully with the subpoena on Todd Palin.
Gregoshi
10-11-2008, 08:35
And there is some reason to believe a mass conspiracy to keep Palin out of the White House prompted this entire investigation? As far as I can tell, this investigation has been going on since before she was picked.
Yes Koga, you are right, it started in July - but that is not what PJ was commenting on. From the CNN article cited earlier:
The state senator managing the probe, Sen. Hollis French, fueled those complaints with a September 2 interview in which he warned the inquiry could yield an "October Surprise" for the GOP.
The senator managing the probe talking (after Palin selected as VP) about election implications of his investigation is in bad form. He should be focused on the investigation, not speculating publicly on a possible "October Surprise" impact of the investigation on the presidential race. It puts into question his impartiality. Don't you agree?
Koga No Goshi
10-11-2008, 08:51
Yes Koga, you are right, it started in July - but that is not what PJ was commenting on. From the CNN article cited earlier:
The senator managing the probe talking (after Palin selected as VP) about election implications of his investigation is in bad form. He should be focused on the investigation, not speculating publicly on a possible "October Surprise" impact of the investigation on the presidential race. It puts into question his impartiality. Don't you agree?
It most certainly could be interpreted that way. But I don't know the guy. Maybe he was giving them a heads up? The GOP tried to do its best to get all the investigations shelved or delayed till after November, and succeeded at least 50% with the Todd Palin thing. At any rate, him warning of a possible October Surprise doesn't exactly sound like "MWA HA HA HA HA! NOW OBAMA SHALL WIN, PUNY REPUBLICANS!" It could be taken as a conflict of interests, or a fair warning in advance.
Askthepizzaguy
10-11-2008, 11:10
What would those be exactly? Share.
I was hoping you had some. Anyone, really. Anyone have the real facts, or is all journalism hopelessly slanted?
CountArach
10-11-2008, 13:01
I was hoping you had some. Anyone, really. Anyone have the real facts, or is all journalism hopelessly slanted?
Haha :laugh4: ... you think there is a chance that it isn't hopelessly biased...
I'll be absent from this thread until Tuesday (My time) because my intertubes are clogged (ie - I'm in danger of being capped)...
m52nickerson
10-11-2008, 13:32
You don't remember when the Obama campaign dumped 25 lawyers into Anchorage to investigate Palin and dig up stories about Troopergate?
I remember some people making that story up.
Tribesman
10-11-2008, 13:49
Frankly, I don't understand why it's a big deal if she did push for Wooten's firing.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
CountArach
10-11-2008, 13:53
You don't remember when the Obama campaign dumped 25 lawyers into Anchorage to investigate Palin and dig up stories about Troopergate?
You don't remember when the Republican party tried to dely the investigation until after the campaign?
No one is innocent. Especially not Palin.
Anyone have the real facts, or is all journalism hopelessly slanted?
If you arrive at the idea that "There is no good reporting, it's all advocacy in sheep's clothing," then you've arrived at a fallacy. I can think of many, many sources of news that are good more often than not:
The Economist (http://www.economist.com/)
The Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/)
To name just two that I don't think anyone is stupid/partisan enough to argue. And there are many more good sources, so long as you're willing to understand the difference between editorials and reporting. For all the slime that gets slung at it, the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/) does more original reporting than any other two newspapers put together, and their archives are free, searchable, and extend back to the 1800s, which is extremely cool.
Factcheck (http://www.factcheck.org/) and Snopes (http://www.snopes.com) are also good places for factish facts. Even though it should not be accurate, since anyone can edit it, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) is shockingly on the mark most of the time.
There is an objective reality where things are true or false. Don't let the partisan bickering fool you into thinking otherwise.
Louis VI the Fat
10-11-2008, 14:09
Frankly, I don't understand why it's a big deal if she did push for Wooten's firing.
Troopers eventually investigated 13 issues and found four in which Wooten violated policy or broke the law or both:
• Wooten used a Taser on his stepson.
• He illegally shot a moose.
• He drank beer in his patrol car on one occasion.
• He told others his father-in-law would "eat a ing lead bullet" if he helped his daughter get an attorney for the divorce. The real question is: Why was Palin palling around with the likes of Wooten? :beam:
My quick thoughts:
The bipartisan investigation was already well underway before Palin was picked as running mate. Persons involved with the investigation should not have taken the bait by answereing questions about October surprises after Palin's pick.
Whether or not Wooten was rightfully, or at least deservedly, dismissed is not the issue. (I say he was) The issue is whether Palin abused her power by dismissing Moneghan.
The report concludes that Sarah Palin abused her power. And also that Palin nevertheless acted within her rights as Governor of Alaska. Poor show by Palin, but not good enough to disqualify her outright.
On a hunch, I think the report's findings are a bipartisan compromise. The investigators did not want this powder keg, and simply defused it.
'Abuse of power, yet within her rights?' 'A family grudge was not the sole reason for the dismissal, but was a likely contributing factor'? 'In order to violate the ethics law, there has to be some personal gain. And personal gain can not be identified'?
Meh, weak.
Palin and Alaska make me wish I knew some Fargo quotes. Because that's what this all reminds me of.
KukriKhan
10-11-2008, 14:20
The issue is whether Palin abused her power by dismissing Moneghan.
They didn't "get" her on that even; they decided firing Moneghan was within her prerogative.
"She had the authority and power to require Mr. Palin to cease contacting subordinates, but she failed to act," the report said. Article (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10692757?source=most_viewed)
So they're dinging her for failing to rein in her hubby, who was not a public official.
BTW, the trooper is still on-duty.
Tribesman
10-11-2008, 14:36
The report concludes that Sarah Palin abused her power. And also that Palin nevertheless acted within her rights as Governor of Alaska.
Thats two seperate issues Louis , the abuse of power was the interference and pressure over Wootens job , the within her rights bit is about her following the correct proceedures to remove Moneghan . Though of course her ever changing reasons about why she exercised that power to remove Moneghan just don't add up at all . So while the proceedure was correct if she cannot make up a credible story as to why she did it and stick to it then it raises a whole new can of worms on her ethics in office and abuse of office .
McCain really picked a muppet for a running mate didn't he :yes:
'In order to violate the ethics law, there has to be some personal gain. And personal gain can not be identified'?
The personal gain was of a domestic nature , interfering in the process for the benefit of her family .
Once there is a conflict of interests then under the ethics guide you have to remove yourself from the topic .
Like if you take Xiahous rather funny example ......
It's almost like saying if a PA state trooper punched Ed Rendell in the mouth, that it would be an abuse of power to want him fired since it involved him personally...what would Rendell have to do to ensure that he did not abuse his office in that case ?
Hosakawa Tito
10-11-2008, 14:45
Whoever coined the phrase, "Familiarity breeds contempt" had to be talking about politics, politicians, and the political process.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-11-2008, 15:01
• Wooten used a Taser on his stepson.
• He illegally shot a moose.
• He drank beer in his patrol car on one occasion.
• He told others his father-in-law would "eat a ing lead bullet" if he helped his daughter get an attorney for the divorce.
After his stepson begged him to show him how the tazer worked, wooten (who trains people to use tazers) taped (not shot) the electrode thingies to him and zapped him.
He shot a moose while on a hunting trip with his wife (who did have a permit), a common practice in alaska that the police don't bother with.
I guess the spin machine at the rnc has been working overtime on this one ~:handball:
Don Corleone
10-11-2008, 16:21
I think there's enough conflicts of interest in this whole thing to make Solomon wince.
-If Wooten was threatening his father-in-law, charges should have been filed.
-If Wooten was snowmobiling and hunting while out on disability, that should have been forwarded to the labor bureau.
-If Wooten was tasering his minor stepson, he should have been reported to the authorities.
None of the above required Palin's direct involvement, or even for Moneghan to fire him for that matter.
All that being said, when the chairman of the panel goes on national television licking his chops saying he's going to get her right in the middle of October, one has to scratch their head over how impartial the findings can possibly be.
But what I do know, I'm a proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy, right Koga? :laugh4:
Strike For The South
10-11-2008, 16:39
Rape Threat to Sarah Palin (http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/09/19/2008-09-19_sandra_bernhard_issues_gang_rape_warning-2.html)
Just thought we should show some of Obamas crazies to.
Don Corleone
10-11-2008, 16:44
Berhnhard since claimed she never actually said that, and she wasn't remembering her own monologue properly in the post-performance interview she's quoted in that you posted.
Strike For The South
10-11-2008, 16:58
Berhnhard since claimed she never actually said that, and she wasn't remembering her own monologue properly in the post-performance interview she's quoted in that you posted.
Really? Wouldn't surprise me
ICantSpellDawg
10-11-2008, 17:18
After his stepson begged him to show him how the tazer worked, wooten (who trains people to use tazers) taped (not shot) the electrode thingies to him and zapped him.
He shot a moose while on a hunting trip with his wife (who did have a permit), a common practice in alaska that the police don't bother with.
I guess the spin machine at the rnc has been working overtime on this one ~:handball:
Phew. Thanks for clearing it up for us. It's good to have someone on the forums that was actually there to witness all of this. The Palin family must have just not liked him because their dark powers were training them for attacking the messiah. While we are at it lets canonize Wooten!
Louis VI the Fat
10-11-2008, 17:45
Turning a blind eye to some of your party's lesser moments is natural. But by golly, what a load of partisan emo and victimisation in this election. Gah!
Phew. Thanks for clearing it up for us. It's good to have someone on the forums that was actually there to witness all of this. The Palin family must have just not liked him because their dark powers were training them for attacking the messiah. While we are at it lets canonize Wooten!Were any of us in Vietnam? Does that disqualify us from establishing whether McCain ever actually was in Vietnam?
Maybe Sasaki is right, maybe not. Show me where he's wrong if you take issue whit his points. Sources and criticism of the sources are the ay to move a debate forward.
Just thought we should show some of Obamas crazies to. Plenty of whacko's out there, on both sides. That is not important. Bringing them to the fore only leads to back-and-forth partisan hackery.
What matters is not what happens in the gutter, but what happens at the top. Show me where Biden stooped as low as Palin in their roles of attack dog. Or where Obama / Biden whip their crowd into a frenzy of rage.
Crazed Rabbit
10-11-2008, 17:57
A possible, though improbable, October surprise for the other side:
Tony Rezko is talking. (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081011/D93O5M100.html)
The Wooten thing is the Palins trying to fight the blue line of brotherhood to get a bad cop fired. They did unethical things, it appears. But to me, that's just fighting fire with fire.
Look at it this way; the cop threatened to shoot and kill an in-law. And he's still on the force. If that in-law was your father, you wouldn't be tempted to use your power to get the trooper fired?
CR
I think there's enough conflicts of interest in this whole thing to make Solomon wince.
-If Wooten was threatening his father-in-law, charges should have been filed.
-If Wooten was snowmobiling and hunting while out on disability, that should have been forwarded to the labor bureau.
-If Wooten was tasering his minor stepson, he should have been reported to the authorities.Don, he was reported for tasering his stepson and for threatening the life of his father in law and for drinking in his patrol car. The state police investigation found the charges to be true and gave Wooten.... wait for it.... a five day suspension as punishment. Apparently the Alaskan troopers have a really good union.
After his stepson begged him to show him how the tazer worked, wooten (who trains people to use tazers) taped (not shot) the electrode thingies to him and zapped him.Yes, clearly a responsible police officer who would use his weapon on his own stepson (over the mother's objections) because the son wanted to show his cousin how tough he was. Very professional behavior.
He shot a moose while on a hunting trip with his wife (who did have a permit), a common practice in alaska that the police don't bother with.A common practice in Alaska? Who's spinning now? Let's see what Wooten's superior Colonel Grimes (http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/07/21/16/Wooten_suspend_letter.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf), had to say on the issue:
The issue of the wildlife violation has even deeper ramifications. As a hunter, and certainly a law enforcement officer you knew or should have known the conditions for the drawing permit and the hunt. The fact that you are currently assigned as a wildlife crimes investigator exponentially exacerbates this violation it is absolutely contrary to your current assignment
Then there is still the issue of his drinking beer in his patrol car, and threatening the life of his father-in-law. Plus the numerous other complaints and reprimands against him. Are those spin too? I don't see where anyone can argue that Wooten is a good trooper- I think any reasonable person would be amazed to learn Wooten is still working. The contention is whether or not Palin used her office to push for his firing and if she fired Monegan because he refused to cooperate.
Gregoshi
10-11-2008, 18:48
This thread has ceased being informative. It is like listening to the blind argue over who's the ugliest. Time for a vacation from this thread.
ICantSpellDawg
10-11-2008, 18:50
This thread has ceased being informative. It is like listening to the blind argue over who's the ugliest. Time for a vacation from this thread.
Didn't you used to be a moderator?
I'm not all that interested in the election right now. It's just a bunch of gloating democrats kicking the McCain/Palin campaign while it's down.
Gregoshi
10-11-2008, 20:51
Didn't you used to be a moderator?
Yes, and? My comment was directed at the pointless level to which the discussion sunk. If I "played the person" rather than the ball, it was the collective persons as the discussion (as it currently stands) is not worthy of your good names. Emotion has taken over and logic lies murdered, face down in the gutter. I've this vision of at least some of you re-reading this thread a few months from now, smacking your forehead and saying "what was I thinking when I posted that?"
It's just a bunch of gloating democrats kicking the McCain/Palin campaign while it's down.
Yes, but it is also distraught republicans frantically kicking back.
Sorry for disrupting the thread and any offense taken by the participants. My intentions were good if my method was less so. :bow:
ICantSpellDawg
10-11-2008, 20:53
Yes, and? My comment was directed at the pointless level to which the discussion sunk. If I "played the person" rather than the ball, it was the collective persons as the discussion (as it currently stands) is not worthy of your good names. Emotion has taken over and logic lies murdered, face down in the gutter. I've this vision of at least some of you re-reading this thread a few months from now, smacking your forehead and saying "what was I thinking when I posted that?"
Yes, but it is also distraught republicans frantically kicking back.
Sorry for disrupting the thread and any offense taken by the participants. My intentions were good if my method was less so. :bow:
Oh no - I appreciated the step in - I was just suprised to see that "moderator" was not under your title. What happened, you were moderator for years?
Big_John
10-11-2008, 22:53
I've this vision of at least some of you re-reading this thread a few months from now, smacking your forehead and saying "what was I thinking when I posted that?"didn't you used to be a moderator?
Hey Greg, didn't you used to be a moderator?
:2thumbsup:
Gregoshi
10-12-2008, 00:16
Okay gentlemen, let's not get carried away. Everything in moderation. To answer the question, I retired in from moderating in Oct 2006 to an Org life of pun and ninnery.
Oh look, there's an election in the US...
Koga No Goshi
10-12-2008, 00:35
If you arrive at the idea that "There is no good reporting, it's all advocacy in sheep's clothing," then you've arrived at a fallacy. I can think of many, many sources of news that are good more often than not:
The Economist (http://www.economist.com/)
The Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/)
To name just two that I don't think anyone is stupid/partisan enough to argue. And there are many more good sources, so long as you're willing to understand the difference between editorials and reporting. For all the slime that gets slung at it, the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/) does more original reporting than any other two newspapers put together, and their archives are free, searchable, and extend back to the 1800s, which is extremely cool.
Factcheck (http://www.factcheck.org/) and Snopes (http://www.snopes.com) are also good places for factish facts. Even though it should not be accurate, since anyone can edit it, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) is shockingly on the mark most of the time.
There is an objective reality where things are true or false. Don't let the partisan bickering fool you into thinking otherwise.
I read and agree that all those sources tend to be relatively exhaustive in the sense that they try to cover everything. Even Wikipedia, which has become, to the right wing, hardly better than Pravda, is full of contrasting viewpoints and if you click on the "disputed" area and view what sections people are disputing for neutrality, you get an even broader perspective.
But, maybe my endorsing those sources makes them left-wing by default? I agree this "everything's partisan advocacy, it's just a question of left or right" is crap, there ARE facts, and not everything is spin. I've mentioned before that I think this is two things, the rise of ideology and the drop in critical thought in America, and a not at all accidental attempt to erode the notion of any form of reliable fact, just "subjective facts." The NY Times had this great editorial.. I read it maybe two weeks ago, so I don't have the link onhand. But basically it was about how, ideologically speaking, the right in America pretty much since the 60's has been engaged in combat with the left's embrace of "moral relativism", in the sense that (paraphrasing of course) there is no one truth, one correct answer, one correct religion or moral system, etc. But that, in the process of attempting to discredit this concept, they attack journalism, media, academia, books, authors, and attempt to undermine their credibility with constant accusations of "bias" and "political agendas/leanings." And, according to the author of the editorial, this is self-defeating since it creates the very same scenario the ideological right rails against, a context where there is no true set of facts, no mutually agreed middle ground, no hard evidence, just spin for one side or the other, and no single truth or universal truth.
But what I do know, I'm a proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy, right Koga?
What I think is that this investigation has been going on since before the election, was initiated and carried out in Alaska's primarily Republican legislature, and a cry that Palin's abuse of power (which no one seems to deny here... the two main responses seem to be "I don't see what's so bad about it" or "the investigation had a biased guy in it") is all just political theater by the left or should be written off entirely because of one guy seems thin, at best. And this is not even getting into the inappropriate conducting of state business and other funny business that Todd Palin will be investigated for after the election, making calls from the Governor's office and basically blurring the line about whether or not he was using the weight of the office for personal business, and/or conducting official state business on his wife's behalf when he was not elected to any form of office.
I think to look at the total Palin story and for the one thing to pull out of it is "the investigation was biased!" is a thin deflection attempt.
It's just a bunch of gloating democrats kicking the McCain/Palin campaign while it's down.
Yes, but it is also distraught republicans frantically kicking back.
How are we either gloating or kicking in a way that is at all inappropriate or disproportionate to the sore winner syndrome of the last 8 years, especially right after 2004? We haven't made Republicans hold their subcommittee meetings in subbasements yet. And we haven't won the election, nor would I presume to say we're certain to.
RE: Moderatorship, never judge a book by its cover, not only do these guys have a rough job, but also, I used to be a moderator too. Which a lot of you would laugh at, I'm sure. As I said to Kukri when I came back, I am thoroughly enjoying just being a "regular poster", because as mod, I stayed well clear of personal involvement in political discussions and controversial topics, and sincerely did the best job I could of being impartial. (Which meant that both left and right insisted I was biased for the other side when I would have to step in during flame wars or when things got out of hand.... I took that as a sign I must be doing the job right.)
ICantSpellDawg
10-12-2008, 00:41
Koga, What is wrong with you?
Now you are saying that "conservatives" believe Wikipedia to be like Pravda? Do you honestly believe that one party or one ideology corners the market on truth? How deluded can you be?
Koga No Goshi
10-12-2008, 00:54
Koga, What is wrong with you?
Now you are saying that "conservatives" believe Wikipedia to be like Pravda? Do you honestly believe that one party or one ideology corners the market on truth? How deluded can you be?
I believe that conservatives have much more of an issue with Wikipedia, yes, because I believe that a complete and thorough inclusion of all facts about particularly the last 8 years will appear "bad" for conservatives. So their response to that has been to attack its credibility. That's their response to anything which reports facts without backwards-bent attempts to talk about the last 8 years in a gray, not positive, not negative light.
My list of what I consider overtly biased is far shorter than most conservatives who wind up in arguments over credibility and bias. Fox is one. MOST things with an overt religious or patriotic slogan as part of their name (we're usually talking small online blogs or news sites) would be another. So yes, I do think the cries of bias are not equal. Look at the myth that "the media is liberally biased." I've never had a prob with anything but Fox news. But your side claims the whole of the entire media is biased for the left. Such a grandiose claim with so little evidence ever provided except thorough reporting of things which perhaps made conservatives look "bad", isn't really mirrored by me or anyone I know on the left in reverse.
ICantSpellDawg
10-12-2008, 01:23
I believe that conservatives have much more of an issue with Wikipedia, yes, because I believe that a complete and thorough inclusion of all facts about particularly the last 8 years will appear "bad" for conservatives. So their response to that has been to attack its credibility. That's their response to anything which reports facts without backwards-bent attempts to talk about the last 8 years in a gray, not positive, not negative light.
My list of what I consider overtly biased is far shorter than most conservatives who wind up in arguments over credibility and bias. Fox is one. MOST things with an overt religious or patriotic slogan as part of their name (we're usually talking small online blogs or news sites) would be another. So yes, I do think the cries of bias are not equal. Look at the myth that "the media is liberally biased." I've never had a prob with anything but Fox news. But your side claims the whole of the entire media is biased for the left. Such a grandiose claim with so little evidence ever provided except thorough reporting of things which perhaps made conservatives look "bad", isn't really mirrored by me or anyone I know on the left in reverse.
I love Wikipedia.
Is MSNBC on your list?
Askthepizzaguy
10-12-2008, 01:27
Regarding Wikipedia; (long winded prologue)
In spite of my radical independent/moderate/nonpartisan stance, and in spite of the way I am going to vote in November, I still consider myself conservative.
That being said, I suppose my definition of conservative is different from others. I'm more of a "think before you shoot" and "take care of the poor" kind of conservative. And I am also non-theistic, so I can't say that God condemns certain social behaviors, and that most of them are none of my business. I really just want a slim, sleek, streamlined government that stays out of most private things and only steps in to help those who need it the very most, i.e. national disasters, healthcare, and education, defense, etc. The government needs to stop much of this discretionary spending and cut lots of other unnecessary programs.
Not being Republican or Democrat, and not supporting most of the current Republican platform, I can see why some may no longer consider me conservative, but from my perspective the Republicans aren't actually conservative, they are reactionary, radical, and they have very liberal economic policies and very authoritarian foreign policies and stances on civil liberties. The Republicans have gone a place where actual conservative ideals would never go. That's my silly viewpoint.
But... as a "conservative" I see wikipedia as a flawed but very useful source of quick information. You need to cross-check it with a real source, and not take anything there as proven fact, but it serves a great purpose.
This is leading somewhere... hold on... here it is.
"Conservapedia"
This is the embarrassment of the human race. Have you seen this crazy bogus nonsense?
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
Just browse the entire thing, one random page after another.
Here's one:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Sulfates
The sulfates are compounds of one or more metallic elements with the sulfate ion. This is a large class of minerals, whose members have few properties in common. In general they are light in color and transparent to translucent. None are hard, and most are fragile.
Ripped directly from The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Rocks and Minerals, this is the entirety of the article on sulfates. This was an article I could swallow as just a sad mistake, when Wikipedia has, you know, useful data in it. Now read the horrible articles about liberal/conservative politicians, and especially about religious/social issues. This thing is a travesty, just like Ann Coulter or Michael Savage or Sean Hannity. None of this is conservative. None of this is moderate or liberal or socialist or anarchist. It's absolute nonsense, and it's hateful, partisan, and divisive, and it also by the way serves no useful purpose.
Conservapedia; the worst excuse for an "encyclopedia" ever. From a former Republican, and a conservative. This is why we need Wikipedia. There is no such thing as a useful, extremely biased encyclopedia of supposed knowledge.
ICantSpellDawg
10-12-2008, 01:49
Why are you a conservative? What are you trying to conserve?
Why would you even call yourself that?
Koga No Goshi
10-12-2008, 03:20
Why are you a conservative? What are you trying to conserve?
Why would you even call yourself that?
His post though is the reason I don't believe I'm being "partisan" regarding parties and Wikipedia. There are a lot of people out there insisting it's left-wing. To my knowledge there is no Liberalopedia to counter the "right wing bias" of Wikipedia. ;)
And, as I have already stated 20 times Tuff.... MSNBC has a progressive lineup now, in the last year or two it's headed more that way and I believe it's a balancing out of the fact that there were so few progressive viewpoints on mainstream TV and certainly nothing to counter Fox. So the short answer, yes, it has a slant. But you focus so much on MSNBC, the cry of "liberal media" has been around for years, even when Fox was the only overtly biased thing on mainstream network news. So I wish you guys would stop trying to reframe the picture like bias started with MSNBC.
ICantSpellDawg
10-12-2008, 03:43
His post though is the reason I don't believe I'm being "partisan" regarding parties and Wikipedia. There are a lot of people out there insisting it's left-wing. To my knowledge there is no Liberalopedia to counter the "right wing bias" of Wikipedia. ;)
And, as I have already stated 20 times Tuff.... MSNBC has a progressive lineup now, in the last year or two it's headed more that way and I believe it's a balancing out of the fact that there were so few progressive viewpoints on mainstream TV and certainly nothing to counter Fox. So the short answer, yes, it has a slant. But you focus so much on MSNBC, the cry of "liberal media" has been around for years, even when Fox was the only overtly biased thing on mainstream network news. So I wish you guys would stop trying to reframe the picture like bias started with MSNBC.
I used to never watch Fox for the reasons you cite - I do now and MSNBC makes me feel better about it.
My point is that I've never heard a Conservative utter the words that Wikipedia is biased. I've never read it on this board either. I have, though, heard Stephen Colbert rail against it saying
that "everyone is entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts" and "if enough people decide that something is true it is true according to Wiki" - the second one is a paraphrase. Colbert is a "progressive". Other than him and a number of college professors I have never heard anyone else show the same concern for partiality and accuracy.
I guess that by my personal experiences and in-depth use of Wikipedia - I could make the generalization that progressives dismiss Wikipedia?
Koga No Goshi
10-12-2008, 03:48
I used to never watch Fox for the reasons you cite - I do now and MSNBC makes me feel better about it.
It would be interesting if there were any reliable stats out there for how many people are single network, vs. multiple source news viewers. Because what has always bothered me about Fox is the cultiness about it... I can only go off what I've observed, Tuff, so I'm not going to stretch and say this applies to you or anyone else... but I've run into a LOT of people who get their back REALLY up, and a big chip on their shoulder, and get really vocal about how they won't watch anthing but Fox because the rest of the newsmedia is b.s. and liberal. Like borderline hostile over it. And when I've seen that attitude I always am a bit afraid if people are pulling info only from Fox--- and from arguing with people over the years, I haven't seen a ton of reason to believe that most of them pull from anywhere else.
I catch MSNBC "when I can", but it's not like "OMG THEY WENT LIB, I LIVE THERE NOW." I tune into it about as much or little as I did before.... I've always watched a mix of everything, even Fox, plus gone online to look at BBC and such. I would LIKE to think Fox viewers generally do the same but... I doubt it. Correct me if that's hugely off. Was it Cheney? Or Rove? I can't remember which one, who bragged about how they made sure the TV was never on anything but Fox.
ICantSpellDawg
10-12-2008, 03:55
It would be interesting if there were any reliable stats out there for how many people are single network, vs. multiple source news viewers. Because what has always bothered me about Fox is the cultiness about it... I can only go off what I've observed, Tuff, so I'm not going to stretch and say this applies to you or anyone else... but I've run into a LOT of people who get their back REALLY up, and a big chip on their shoulder, and get really vocal about how they won't watch anthing but Fox because the rest of the newsmedia is b.s. and liberal. Like borderline hostile over it. And when I've seen that attitude I always am a bit afraid if people are pulling info only from Fox--- and from arguing with people over the years, I haven't seen a ton of reason to believe that most of them pull from anywhere else.
I catch MSNBC "when I can", but it's not like "OMG THEY WENT LIB, I LIVE THERE NOW." I tune into it about as much or little as I did before.... I've always watched a mix of everything, even Fox, plus gone online to look at BBC and such. I would LIKE to think Fox viewers generally do the same but... I doubt it. Correct me if that's hugely off. Was it Cheney? Or Rove? I can't remember which one, who bragged about how they made sure the TV was never on anything but Fox.
I just converted my girlfriend to a generic form of conservatism. She has become so in the bag for McCain that I have to talk her out of it and remind her that our guy already lost (Romney). I remember telling her to only go to Fox news when you want Republican talking points and to focus on internet news, descriptive e-articles and professional blogs for real news.
Smart people can sniff out bias. I do love fox news because I think that they are better people and more entertaining to watch, but that doesn't mean I buy into their talking points. I go to MSNBC when my blood pressure is too low and can't seem to get the energy to punch a kitten - it usually does the trick. CNN is like the Times, but at least they try.
Koga No Goshi
10-12-2008, 04:01
I just converted my girlfriend to a generic form of conservatism. She has become so in the bag for McCain that I have to talk her out of it and remind her that our guy already lost (Romney). I remember telling her to only go to Fox news when you want Republican talking points and to focus on internet news, descriptive e-articles and professional blogs for real news.
Smart people can sniff out bias. I do love fox news because I think that they are better people and more entertaining to watch, but that doesn't mean I buy into their talking points. I go to MSNBC when my blood pressure is too low and can't seem to get the energy to punch a kitten - it usually does the trick. CNN is like the Times, but at least they try.
That's my problem with it in short. I don't think they aim for the smart people who can sniff bias. They aim for the people still meaning to get their GED's who won't know the difference. Sorry if that sounds very nasty, it's not meant to be, I'm just in a bit of horror that people treat it as a "totally serious Fair and Balanced" news source. In fact that's the argument I get a lot. "No, Fox isn't biased, I actually think they're pretty balanced, but the rest of the damn media is liberal." I have no idea what that means generally except that media journalists tend to play P.C.--- racism is bad, education is good, after school programs are good, the rest of the world is not inferior just different, etc. Beyond that I'm not sure, specifically, what people mean when they make the claim that the whole rest of the media is lib.
Stay classy (http://www.news-leader.com/article/20081010/NEWS06/810100354/1015), Missouri!
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/racistbf5.png
OverKnight
10-12-2008, 14:35
Free speech in all its glory.
I'd like to back track a bit. At the end of the Democratic Primaries, the emerging theme seemed to be that a long drawn out campaign for the nomination would hurt Barack Obama in the General Election. Did this turn out to be true or not and why?
Personally, while the Primaries were very messy, I think that they may have served to innoculate the Obama campaign from certain charges and strategies: The Ayers and Wright associations were originially raised by the Clinton campaign, so they are now less effective when brought out by McCain and Palin.
Thoughts?
ICantSpellDawg
10-12-2008, 14:41
Personally, while the Primaries were very messy, I think that they may have served to innoculate the Obama campaign from certain charges and strategies: The Ayers and Wright associations were originially raised by the Clinton campaign, so they are now less effective when brought out by McCain and Palin.
Thoughts?
I don't know. They proved ineffective to convince Democrats. Republicans and Independents are a bunch of Race-bating morons, so maybe it will fly this time?:beam:
Most people were not paying much attention in the primaries.
Personally, while the Primaries were very messy, I think that they may have served to innoculate the Obama campaign from certain charges and strategies: The Ayers and Wright associations were originially raised by the Clinton campaign, so they are now less effective when brought out by McCain and Palin.
This is the classic argument for a long primary. The notion being that a protracted contest will bring up all the dirt, test the campaigns and toughen the candidates. And that's more or less what happened, so I guess it's a good argument. Clinton didn't hold back in the primary, so a lot of mud got flung, and just about every valid line of attack was explored.
The Ayers attack doesn't sound like news anymore; it feels like a re-heated leftover. It certainly lacks the quality of an argument that resonates with voters and will sway indies. If it were surfacing now for the first time, and being carefully packaged for maximum impact, who knows? So yeah, maybe the long primary insulated the Obama campaign somewhat.
-edit-
Stay classy (http://www.digtriad.com/news/features/article.aspx?storyid=112097&catid=216), North Carolina! (Video (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/10/10/bagg.parking.politics.wfmy))
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/6567dl.jpg
Gibsonville, NC -- Parking lot politics in central North Carolina have some people crying foul.
A lot owner put up "no parking" signs targeting Barack Obama supporters.
"I was surprised because I couldn't believe anybody would do anything like that," says Shirley Pearson, an Obama supporter who lives near the lot.
Parking lot owner Tim Henderson is quite clear about the message he's sending from two identical signs he posted, warning "no parking" for Obama supporters or people with Obama bumper stickers.
"I don't know how many ways you can interpret it. If you're an Obama supporter, you've got an Obama sticker on your car, you're not welcome to park here," says Henderson.
-edit of the edit-
I think I just figured out why TuffStuff is so grumpy (http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/nation/ny-uspoll125880537oct12,0,3581643.story) ...
ICantSpellDawg
10-12-2008, 15:46
I think I just figured out why TuffStuff is so grumpy (http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/nation/ny-uspoll125880537oct12,0,3581643.story) ...
C'mon. 42% of my Island is non-white minority - 12% of the white population is Jewish. This election is a big deal to them. Couple that fact with the fact that the White vote is split and you have a tremendous lead for Obama, My little black 9 year old sister wants Obama, even thought he is a baby-murdering psychopath and wan't everyone to be married to gays while he bombs the Capitol and defecates on the Constitution.:clown:
It is to be expected.
Gore won by big numbers here. Kerry won by a small margin. I'd expect Obama to win big.
woad&fangs
10-12-2008, 15:52
Does anyone know the reliability of the "American Research Group"? They're saying obama has an 8 point lead in West Virginia. http://smileys.sur-la-toile.com/repository/Confus/hypnose.png
ICantSpellDawg
10-12-2008, 15:54
Does anyone know the reliability of the "American Research Group"? They're saying obama has an 8 point lead in West Virginia. http://smileys.sur-la-toile.com/repository/Confus/hypnose.png
That's un-possible. I thought they were billed as insane hillbilly racists during the primary?...
m52nickerson
10-12-2008, 16:03
Does anyone know the reliability of the "American Research Group"? They're saying obama has an 8 point lead in West Virginia. http://smileys.sur-la-toile.com/repository/Confus/hypnose.png
I believe that is one of the groups that RCP does not include.
Crazed Rabbit
10-12-2008, 17:40
Lemur, you sure you want to play the "Your wacky supporters are crazier than our wacky supporters" game?
It just leads to insanity. (http://www.osforobama.com/in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9&Itemid=8)
CR
Koga No Goshi
10-12-2008, 21:21
Lemur, you sure you want to play the "Your wacky supporters are crazier than our wacky supporters" game?
It just leads to insanity. (http://www.osforobama.com/in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9&Itemid=8)
CR
Um.. okay, some wierd new age health group, vs. people refusing people services or pastors telling people they'll go to hell for voting for our guy.
Yeah, it's balanced. We're just as bad, please excuse us CR.
Does anyone know the reliability of the "American Research Group"? They're saying obama has an 8 point lead in West Virginia.
This site (http://www.electoral-vote.com/) also shows an 8-point lead in West Virginia. But I have no idea if this is "reliable", I was shocked when I first saw that, myself. Polling methodology is pretty far outside my area of expertise so I try to just get general impressions instead of counting the outliers, but we have two sources now saying the same thing about WV.
woad&fangs
10-12-2008, 22:06
That site got their WV information from the ARG. I've been looking at electoral-vote.com for a while now.
This is the classic argument for a long primary. The notion being that a protracted contest will bring up all the dirt, test the campaigns and toughen the candidates. And that's more or less what happened, so I guess it's a good argument. Clinton didn't hold back in the primary, so a lot of mud got flung, and just about every valid line of attack was explored.
The Ayers attack doesn't sound like news anymore; it feels like a re-heated leftover. It certainly lacks the quality of an argument that resonates with voters and will sway indies. If it were surfacing now for the first time, and being carefully packaged for maximum impact, who knows? So yeah, maybe the long primary insulated the Obama campaign somewhat.
-edit-
Stay classy (http://www.digtriad.com/news/features/article.aspx?storyid=112097&catid=216), North Carolina! (Video (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/10/10/bagg.parking.politics.wfmy))
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/6567dl.jpg
Gibsonville, NC -- Parking lot politics in central North Carolina have some people crying foul.
A lot owner put up "no parking" signs targeting Barack Obama supporters.
"I was surprised because I couldn't believe anybody would do anything like that," says Shirley Pearson, an Obama supporter who lives near the lot.
Parking lot owner Tim Henderson is quite clear about the message he's sending from two identical signs he posted, warning "no parking" for Obama supporters or people with Obama bumper stickers.
"I don't know how many ways you can interpret it. If you're an Obama supporter, you've got an Obama sticker on your car, you're not welcome to park here," says Henderson.
-edit of the edit-
I think I just figured out why TuffStuff is so grumpy (http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/nation/ny-uspoll125880537oct12,0,3581643.story) ...
I am afraid that the answer to this question might make my head hurt...but I´m gonna ask it anyway..
you guys do have anti-discrimination legislation?....right??...anyone??
:surrender2:
ICantSpellDawg
10-12-2008, 22:19
I am afraid that the answer to this question might make my head hurt...but I´m gonna ask it anyway..
you guys do have anti-discrimination legislation?....right??...anyone??
:surrender2:
It depends on what you are discriminating against.
Um.. okay, some wierd new age health group, vs. people refusing people services or pastors telling people they'll go to hell for voting for our guy.
I thought CR's link was brilliant. I so totally want this guy in the voting booth next to me:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/-6-1.jpg
Ronin, the situation for the parking guy is even worse, as it seems he has long-term parking contracts with the county and city. So now he's claiming it was an attempt at humor. I dare you to spot the clear and obvious humor in that sign.
I doubt anyone will bother suing the dude. He doesn't look like he's worth it.
m52nickerson
10-12-2008, 22:33
Tonight on TV the Candidates may face some of there toughest question.......Nickelodeon viewers!
In all seriousness Nick does have a show tonight were Obama and McCain will be answering questions from kids. It will be interesting to see how they explain their plans to children.
Louis VI the Fat
10-12-2008, 22:45
It's the battle of the worst supporters!
The Republicans have bitter partisan parking attendents. The Democrats have orgasm lessons with this girl:
https://img257.imageshack.us/img257/6585/megobamawebky7.jpg
This election is over. :knight:
KukriKhan
10-12-2008, 23:24
Tonight on TV the Candidates may face some of there toughest question.......Nickelodeon viewers!
In all seriousness Nick does have a show tonight were Obama and McCain will be answering questions from kids. It will be interesting to see how they explain their plans to children.
Totally agree; and what questions the kids ask. The Oct 20th show, where they tally up the kid-vote should be interesting too.
Crazed Rabbit
10-13-2008, 01:05
Oh this is lovely:
Many convicted felons remain on voter rolls, according to Sun Sentinel investigation (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-flbfelons1012sboct12,0,3762352.story)
More than 30,000 Florida felons who by law should have been stripped of their right to vote remain registered to cast ballots in this presidential battleground state, a Sun Sentinel investigation has found.
Many are faithful voters, with at least 4,900 turning out in past elections.
Another 5,600 are not likely to vote Nov. 4 — they're still in prison.
Of the felons who registered with a party, Democrats outnumber Republicans more than two to one.
:wall::wall:
Of course, those republicans are racists and bigots because they want measures so this can't happen.
Um.. okay, some wierd new age health group, vs. people refusing people services or pastors telling people they'll go to hell for voting for our guy.
Yeah, it's balanced. We're just as bad, please excuse us CR.
Koga, as I said, the path you want to go down will just lead to insanity. You go on believing that data is the plural of anecdotes if you want, but I think Lemur understands that the posting of this stuff is not to add evidence to a 'Your side is truly worse than our side' file, but as a diversion.
I could unload all sorts of crazy leftist actions, but that'd just hurt the thread (more).
CR
Askthepizzaguy
10-13-2008, 01:25
Why are you a conservative? What are you trying to conserve?
Why would you even call yourself that?
Pull up a chair and stay a while. Here is why I am a conservative.
1. I believe in mostly capitalism over mostly state-run everything. I'd prefer an employer-based healthcare plan, but I don't see one, and McCain's plan does not solve the problem to my satisfaction.
2. I believe the government is too large as it is.
3. I am baffled by the spending by George W. Bush
4. I do believe liberals go too far, too often, because many of them have lost touch with any sense of morality or values, and insist on forgiving or accepting all kinds of wrong behaviors,
5. And they insist on legalizing the most destructive, vile, addictive drugs. I have personally witnessed what cocaine did to my father. Legalizing that, or any other viciously addictive drug, is a step in the wrong direction. And even though some medications are addictive, they serve a purpose, and are regulated by a doctor. Using hard drugs is a wholly negative thing.
6. Some wackos insist on having the state pay for sex change operations for felons. Hello???
7. I demand troops on our southern border, the drug and human trafficking is out of control.
8. I demand better control of our ports. 9-11 taught us nothing, apparently.
9. I demand an end to out of control spending. Period.
10. I believe Bill Clinton got far too much credit for fixing the budget... I believe a Republican-controlled congress, newly voted in, actually got most of the reforms and budgetary concerns passed. All slick Willy did was stamp his approval.
11. Nancy Pelosi is an abomination. What a terrible speaker. I was excited, a woman speaker, but... she is horrific.
12. Hillary Clinton as president? I'd rather shoot myself. She is more disingenuous than Sarah Palin.
I am not a far right-winger, but that does not mean I can't call myself a conservative. I hold MANY positions consistent with conservative values, and under the definition of conservative, the current administration is not conservative. It's not liberal. It's authoritarian, wasteful, and corrupt, but it tells so many lies that I don't believe there is an ideology behind it at all, except greed and lust for power.
I voted for Bush, and supported him up until the Iraq war. I don't believe the Republican party has a values system or a truly conservative ideology anymore, and I believe they will do anything or say anything to stay in power. I hate the Democrats, as a political party, almost as much, because they were supposed to save us from this mess and they LIED.
So you see, my friend... the Republican party abandoned me, and every other person with a values system.
They were supposed to rein in spending, THEY DIDNT
They were supposed to bring honor and dignity to the white house, THEY DIDNT
They promised not to engage in nation building, THEY DID
They promised to keep the budget balanced, THEY DIDNT
They were supposed to fix the gaping holes in our security from 9-11, THEY DIDNT
They were supposed to care enough about our troops to give them the tools they needed to fight. These are the people who supposedly "get it" more than the democrats on matters of war. THEY DIDNT, and THEY DONT!
The Republican party has turned its back on everything a conservative could ever stand for, and to make up for their knife in our collective backs, they wrap themselves in the flag, pretend to stand up for the troops, call the Democrats traitors and terrorists, and NEVER admit they were wrong about anything or practice a thing called accountability. They spend more time and energy spinning, attacking, lying, grabbing pork barrel money, and everything else I find despicable about washington insiders, and then they accuse the democrats, as if they were without sin.
They propose no new ideas, no new plans, no significant changes, no real reforms, nothing, nothing, NOTHING, and they make 100% negative ads. They talk about Obama and that's all they talk about. They don't have a plan, and they know it. Now, the American people, the moderates at least, are convinced that the Republicans don't have a plan. And the polls show it.
I am against many of the policies of an Obama administration. But quite frankly, IF we are going to spend ourselves to death, I would rather it be on healthcare than on occupying Iraq. I would rather see social security continue. I would rather see health insurance and medicare and student loans than corn subsidies, bridges to nowhere, and tax breaks for the wealthiest of them all, including the freaking oil companies that everyone is complaining make TOO MUCH money.
I'm a conservative. But there is no party for conservatives, and I'm done drinking Red or Blue Kool-Aid. I may not agree with Obama all of the time, but he's shown he's actually focused on the issues and he has a plan. Any plan is better than no plan, and McCain has no plan, and the Republicans' plan is to smear Obama as a Muslim, which he is not, tie him to Ayers, who committed crimes when Obama was 9 years old and is now a professor which McCain himself has worked with before, they appeal to the worst fears and prejudices in people and paint this guy, who has worked in government his whole life and is now nearly 50 years old, who has been a senator, a lawyer, and a state senator, and has proposed new ideas and opposed bad ideas, as some kind of lunatic un-American Terrorist Commie Nazi Muslim who will spend (more than George W Bush?) and spend and spend and tax the poor, poor rich people the same as under the evil Clinton administration, while providing "dangerous" new ideas that are too risky, yet have been proven to work in other states and countries, while current policies are failing.
I should end this before it becomes a diatribe, (too late) but I've made my point. I AM a conservative, and I'm also a rational human being, a moderate, a listener, and a thinker, and I've had it with the Republican party and I've had it with partisan bickering and I've had it with the black and white blue state versus red state divisive fearmongering, the hate-based attacks, the right-and-left wing nutjobs spewing garbage into our collective eye sockets and eardrums, and the lack of leadership and the reliance on ad hominem attacks, argumentum ad populum, argument from authority, and argument from emotion based political discourse.
The Republicans had their chance, for 8 years. They failed. They betrayed real conservative ideals and they destroyed much of the greatness of America, with thousands of troops needlessly killed, huge deficits, wide open borders, out of control spending, nation-building other countries, funding nations who hate us and kill each other with the American dollar or American weapons, the lack of progress on Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, or Iran...
Failure. Time to vote out the incumbents. It's over. I may not always agree with the Democrats, but this year, they do not look exactly like the Republicans, and they provide some solutions to the current crises I can stomach, even if it isn't in the form of limiting government. Regulating it sounds like a good idea at this point.
So yes, I am a conservative. And I am allowed to disagree with the Republicans.
Koga No Goshi
10-13-2008, 01:50
Oh this is lovely:
Many convicted felons remain on voter rolls, according to Sun Sentinel investigation (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-flbfelons1012sboct12,0,3762352.story)
:wall::wall:
Of course, those republicans are racists and bigots because they want measures so this can't happen.
People who are felons should be bumped from rolls, CR. My problem with Florida particularly when it comes to purging felons is what they did last time around was purge anyone with the same name as a felon, and so a lot of totally innocent people showed up on election day thinking they were registered and were told they weren't on the voter list. And given the vast numbers of people who were purged or not counted for various reasons, 4,900 felons voting is a damn drop in the bucket. I don't think purging 30 or 50,000 people to make sure that 4,900 felon votes aren't slipping through is very good for democracy, and it's even more suspect when the people being purged are heavily from Democratic voting districts.
Koga, as I said, the path you want to go down will just lead to insanity. You go on believing that data is the plural of anecdotes if you want, but I think Lemur understands that the posting of this stuff is not to add evidence to a 'Your side is truly worse than our side' file, but as a diversion.
I could unload all sorts of crazy leftist actions, but that'd just hurt the thread (more).
CR
What data? You linked to a group that practices something called "orgasmic breathing." What the heck was your point? How was that an "answer" to the nutjobs on your side of the aisle who start telling people they're going to hell, aren't welcome in a congregation, aren't allowed to use a parking lot, aren't allowed into meetings or public events, because they vote Democrat? Something tells me that if a Church told people they'd go to hell if they voted Republican you'd be all over that and demanding the IRS remove their tax-exempt status and the Feds step in and how this is proof of the liberal conspiracy to fix the vote.
seireikhaan
10-13-2008, 02:17
ATPG- Hear, hear. :applause:
Not that I expect much of a response from others, but that was nice post to read, and summarized much of my own current animosity towards the Republican party.
Koga No Goshi
10-13-2008, 02:20
ATPG- Hear, hear. :applause:
Not that I expect much of a response from others, but that was nice post to read, and summarized much of my own current animosity towards the Republican party.
There's only one way to really force the Rep party to stop .... not being conservative. (Wasn't sure what phrase to use, but I very much recognize that the current "incarnation" of Conservativism, which pretty much started with Reagan, in no way reflects traditional conservativism of like the Goldwater type.) And that's to make them hurt in elections. The Republican Party has no shortage of people who prefer to distance themselves and call themselves Independent, or make sure to make special note that they have problems with the Republican Party. What it does have a shortage of, are people who actually translate that into voting differently in major elections to show their discontent, IMHO.
Crazed Rabbit
10-13-2008, 02:28
People who are felons should be bumped from rolls, CR. My problem with Florida particularly when it comes to purging felons is what they did last time around was purge anyone with the same name as a felon, and so a lot of totally innocent people showed up on election day thinking they were registered and were told they weren't on the voter list. And given the vast numbers of people who were purged or not counted for various reasons, 4,900 felons voting is a damn drop in the bucket. I don't think purging 30 or 50,000 people to make sure that 4,900 felon votes aren't slipping through is very good for democracy, and it's even more suspect when the people being purged are heavily from Democratic voting districts.
Well perhaps instead of doing nothing, they could learn from their mistakes and do it correctly this time.
And are you saying 4900 active, illegal voters, isn't large enough to make a difference?
What data? You linked to a group that practices something called "orgasmic breathing." What the heck was your point? How was that an "answer" to the nutjobs on your side of the aisle who start telling people they're going to hell, aren't welcome in a congregation, aren't allowed to use a parking lot, aren't allowed into meetings or public events, because they vote Democrat? Something tells me that if a Church told people they'd go to hell if they voted Republican you'd be all over that and demanding the IRS remove their tax-exempt status and the Feds step in and how this is proof of the liberal conspiracy to fix the vote.
Oh, right. The democrats can do no wrong and would never ever do anything like that, because they're just fundamentally good people unlike those republicans. :rolleyes:
I posted the link just as a diversion, not as some comparison to what Lemur's posted. Go on and ignore the vandalism and attacks that have happened on GOP office buildings and vehicles in the past if it doesn't fit with your reality.
CR
Koga No Goshi
10-13-2008, 02:34
Well perhaps instead of doing nothing, they could learn from their mistakes and do it correctly this time.
And are you saying 4900 active, illegal voters, isn't large enough to make a difference?
It's statistically insignificant. As I said yes, purge them, but don't blanket purge 300,000 people to make sure you got the 5,000 felons. That's ridiculous overkill and gross incompetence, at best. Planned, at worst.
Oh, right. The democrats can do no wrong and would never ever do anything like that, because they're just fundamentally good people unlike those republicans. :rolleyes:
I posted the link just as a diversion, not as some comparison to what Lemur's posted. Go on and ignore the vandalism and attacks that have happened on GOP office buildings and vehicles in the past if it doesn't fit with your reality.
CR
Your problem, CR, is that you think I think Dems are saints. I don't. I do, however, think you are way off on a shaky limb acting like Reps have reason to fear vandalism, exclusion, assasination or use of force brought to bear against them for their political beliefs as Dems do. Looking over the last couple decades there is simply no reason to believe that unless you're running around downtown Philadelphia with a KKK sign or something.
You want me to agree people of any stripe can be crazy? Okay, I'll meet you there. But Dems closing shop doors or bullying votes from the pulpit and in various other questionably legal ways trying to get petty vindictive payback on Reps each election cycle isn't such a normal part of the headlines as Reps doing it to Dems. That's fact.
m52nickerson
10-13-2008, 02:35
Totally agree; and what questions the kids ask. The Oct 20th show, where they tally up the kid-vote should be interesting too.
I just finished watching it. (Nickelodeon's you pick the president)
I think it was the best political show I've seen yet. Both McCain and Obama answered the question, nothing new, but there was no arguments. There was no, my opponents plan is wrong. No talking heads getting the way. Just question, answer, you decide who is better.
I thing that struck me is how similar these men are in many things.
When you just stop and think about this race it is amazing. A war hero, with a women running mate, is going up against a Black senator whose running mate lost most family in an accident, but kept going.
Askthepizzaguy
10-13-2008, 02:56
There's only one way to really force the Rep party to stop .... not being conservative. (Wasn't sure what phrase to use, but I very much recognize that the current "incarnation" of Conservativism, which pretty much started with Reagan, in no way reflects traditional conservativism of like the Goldwater type.) And that's to make them hurt in elections. The Republican Party has no shortage of people who prefer to distance themselves and call themselves Independent, or make sure to make special note that they have problems with the Republican Party. What it does have a shortage of, are people who actually translate that into voting differently in major elections to show their discontent, IMHO.
My vote is Obama. Like you said, the only way to hurt the republicans for this awful war and the runaway spending is to vote against them. My discontent is very, very obvious.
That, plus Obama plans to spend the money on stuff that helps the people who are in dire straits. I'd prefer we not bankrupt the country further, but since both parties insist on doing so, I'd like the money back as part of healthcare and education.
If you must tax and spend, spend it on people who need it, not people who don't.
Koga No Goshi
10-13-2008, 03:04
My vote is Obama. Like you said, the only way to hurt the republicans for this awful war and the runaway spending is to vote against them. My discontent is very, very obvious.
That, plus Obama plans to spend the money on stuff that helps the people who are in dire straits. I'd prefer we not bankrupt the country further, but since both parties insist on doing so, I'd like the money back as part of healthcare and education.
If you must tax and spend, spend it on people who need it, not people who don't.
I agree 100% with you. The talk of fiscal responsibility hard pitched on the right at this time is bunk, there's no reason to believe a Rep in office is going to do anything but massively spend on things questionably in our interests. I agree that if the gov't is going to spend so many billion or trillion, spend it on things that are investments in us.. infrastructure, education, colleges, healthcare, new industries. Not on private contractors overseas. And those are the two only real choices right now.
I would submit, however, that you are a minority really sticking to your guns, from what I can see. So many Reps just hate the Dems so much that they wind up either rationalizing a way to vote Rep and just grumble about change, or maybe an obscure third party. Neither of which sends a clear message to the GOP about its course, IMHO.
Askthepizzaguy
10-13-2008, 03:28
Hate should have no place in an election.
Whoever has the best plan for the direction of the country should win, or at least the plan itself should be executed. Ideas are the reason for elections. McCain's latest rallying call is "this election is about character".
Character? Both Senator Obama and McCain obviously have enough character in the eyes of the people of the United States to serve in elected office. Making this about "character" is more like a rationalization for the decision to attack Obama in an ad hominem fashion, rather than challenge his ideas with better ones. From the McCain ads, which are 100% negative anti-Obama screeds, after his promise to run a clean, respectful election, to the tactic of using Sarah Palin as the one who gets her hands dirty and appeals to the basest of the Republican base, to the lies and distortions told, to McCain's record of being in the Senate this long and watching the failure happen, unable to stop it...
McCain is not the one to be talking about his record, his experience, or his character. It should be about ideas, but it's not. It's about Obama being a black son of an African Muslim, who votes Democratic, which has nothing to do with the issues. And this latest nonsense has not persuaded me. Palin's Troopergate, Biden's past gaffes, McCain's shameful rallies and belated response, Obama's former ties to a questionable character, none of that matters. I concluded Palin was nothing but an empty skirt the instant she started screeching about the glass ceiling, trying to get Clinton supporters on her side, the ideological polar opposite, merely because they are both women.
Two can play that game. Huckabee supporters, vote Obama... he's a man!
Palin only ever talks about energy and oil, and attacking the opposition. She doesn't even fully understand or agree with all of McCain's positions or the Bush doctrine, yet she is in the position of arguing in their favor. She wasn't vetted properly, and she's become an embarrassing noise machine bereft of ideas. McCain has basically abandoned his legacy, which was a bipartisan maverick who cared about the issues and respected his opponents... he's abandoned the issues, is now lockstep with the worst ideas of the Republican party, demonizes Democrats, and has smeared Obama in the most shameful ways. His lack of respect, eye contact, or politeness in the debates was shameful.
I could go on and on about scandals and misrepresentations and poor voting records and everything, to assassinate Palin's character and McCain's character... but that is the politics of ad hominem arguments, fearmongering, and avoids the real issues. Troopergate, to me, is a non-issue. Palin simply doesn't know what she's talking about and has no business being the VP. Even so, if she supported a PLAN or an IDEA I could possibly agree with... if McCain had new ideas and wasn't lockstep with George Bush 90% of the time... if the message coming from the Republicans wasn't something besides an anti-Obama hate screed, there might be a way to swing me back to the Republican side.
Convince me with IDEAS, not smears.
In the land of ideas, partisan fearmongering, hate and prejudice, and smear campaigns do not convince me that the purveyors of this nonsense are ready to lead. It just tells me they are ready to host a talk show on Fox News, one that makes Bill O'Reilly seem level-headed, fair, and unbiased.
Koga No Goshi
10-13-2008, 03:38
:inquisitive: Uh um.... yes. Quite right. You said it.
Just surprised.
If I had made exactly that post, it'd be OH CMON KOGA YOU JUST THINK DEMS ARE SAINTS. What the hell is wrong with you, you're such a partisan. ;)
My impressions, exact.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-13-2008, 03:52
Weird, in Ohio felons can vote legally as long as they aren't in prison.
Koga No Goshi
10-13-2008, 03:55
Weird, in Ohio felons can vote legally as long as they aren't in prison.
It's a state by state decision. It's not Federally mandated that felons can't vote.
Askthepizzaguy
10-13-2008, 04:06
Rest assured, once Obama is the president, I won't be pulling any punches criticizing him, should he break a single one of his promises.
I would remind everyone that we could vote for Santa Claus for president and nothing would change. Either Obama or McCain gets elected, and nothing will change. Not unless there is a clear, consistent majority in the House and Senate who agrees on the president's plan of action. Congress has done nothing impressive in the past 10 years, except passed some impressively bad legislation and spent the country into 5 trillion more dollars of debt.
You want to fix the country? The presidential election decides nothing. You need to vote out all the incumbents, yes, all of them, during the congressional election. And you might have to cross party lines in order to do it. The only way to stop the festering cesspool of corruption that is the rancid swamp of the District of Columbia, is to fire the Republicans who betrayed their conservative principles, the Democrats who supported this porkfest and this terrible war, and anyone who has had more than two terms as a Senator or Congressperson; they are all obviously ineffective as legislators and elected officials when attempting to bring about change.
The current Congress is nearly tied along party lines, and the only legislation that gets passed is the kind that has what McCain calls "Christmas tree ornaments" strewn about, sugar and fat and frosting and cocaine laced within, and just a little bit of vote-buying pork projects for both parties to remain in office.
End corruption, vote out all incumbents, institute term limits of 2 terms. Parties are meaningless when they work together to spend more on the economic bailout than they did on the entire Iraq war to date, in one lightning fast motion... see your tax dollars disappear, it's the AMAZING CONGRESSO! Where does your money go, and why is it any business of yours what they do with it?
Vote out all incumbents, and then put your congressperson and senator on speed dial. When the president presents a plan of action you agree with, get on the phone and tell them to vote on it. If they don't, vote them out next election cycle, or let term limits do their thing. If worst comes to worse, run for office yourself.
Destroy both political parties, and rig the system so that there's no money in being a Senator, and it's impossible to hold power for more than a decade. You get in, you fix the system so it works, or you get thrown out. Later, you go home, Mission Actually Accomplished. Make it so that private campaign contributions or fundraising is illegal, and that all candidates get equal airtime, limited publicly funded budgets, and none of them owe their success to businesses or lobbyists or media support.
At this point I'd consider a lottery. Your Social Security Number is pulled, and you have to go serve as a Senator for 6 months. It's your civic duty, now go do it. Anything to destroy party politics and reinstate civilian government of the people, by the people, and for the people. You have to admit, a random cross-section of our society could probably do a better job than these career partisan hacks.
It's a bad idea, one I wouldn't realistically support, but at least it would change the system and get rid of the people we have in office now. That could clean up Washington and get people like you and me in charge. The downside is that people like you and me would be in charge, and you really wouldn't want me in charge. I'd never shut up.
Marshal Murat
10-13-2008, 04:09
ATPG - You should be a political pundit.
I've agreed with almost everything you've said. :charge:
Koga No Goshi
10-13-2008, 04:14
I do too. Well said on both counts Pizza.
PanzerJaeger
10-13-2008, 06:14
I know I'm a little late to the "who's supporters are more insane" party, but I thought this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQalRPQ8stI) was hilarious. The party of tolerance, indeed. :yes:
Alexander the Pretty Good
10-13-2008, 06:19
Holy crap, I was reading this and saw there was a second ATPG.:book:
Koga No Goshi
10-13-2008, 06:26
I know I'm a little late to the "who's supporters are more insane" party, but I thought this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQalRPQ8stI) was hilarious. The party of tolerance, indeed. :yes:
That actually wasn't the argument, CR kinda morphed it into that. Originally it was whose party acts more like unpatriotic little jerks when it comes to acting unprofessoinally towards someone who doesn't vote the way you think they should. ;)
If I acted like the parking lot guy to any Republican who came through at work, I'd do nothing but be nasty to clients all day.
PanzerJaeger
10-13-2008, 06:31
That actually wasn't the argument, CR kinda morphed it into that. Originally it was whose party acts more like unpatriotic little jerks when it comes to acting unprofessoinally towards someone who doesn't vote the way you think they should. ;)
If I acted like the parking lot guy to any Republican who came through at work, I'd do nothing but be nasty to clients all day.
Either way, I think that video tops some dude who chooses to make a living standing around a parking lot all day. I was actually pretty surprised at the animosity. I see people with Obama shirts all day at school, and could care less. . .
Koga No Goshi
10-13-2008, 06:36
Either way, I think that video tops some dude who chooses to make a living standing around a parking lot all day. I was actually pretty surprised at the animosity. I see people with Obama shirts all day at school, and could care less. . .
When those people get together and decide to not offer you services because of how you vote, come back and claim it as a counterpoint.
Askthepizzaguy
10-13-2008, 07:20
Holy crap, I was reading this and saw there was a second ATPG.:book:
I'm just kidding. That's really me. I've been Alexander the Pretty Good for years, but frankly I thought Askthepizzaguy was just sooooo much cooler.
I recommend the moderators delete my old Alexander the Pretty Good account. Please. It's old and no one likes it anymore.
Kidding! I joke! :laugh2:
CountArach
10-13-2008, 09:33
Does anyone know the reliability of the "American Research Group"? They're saying obama has an 8 point lead in West Virginia. http://smileys.sur-la-toile.com/repository/Confus/hypnose.png
They are notoriously unreliable and their polls should be taken with a grain of salt. Obama +8 in WV doesn't feel right - he performed horribly there in the primaries and I doubt that will change too much.
Tribesman
10-13-2008, 11:45
Either way, I think that video tops some dude who chooses to make a living standing around a parking lot all day. I was actually pretty surprised at the animosity.
Why would you be surprised at the animosity ? You have people from a city that was attacked by al-Qaida and supporters of a party that completely screwed up the hunt for Al-Qaida .
On balance I thought the locals reaction was very polite .
KukriKhan
10-13-2008, 12:44
institute term limits of 2 terms
If I were in charge, this would be my first order of business. Two terms max for Rep's, Senators, and Prez, staggered (2 three-year terms for Rep's; 2 Six-year terms for Sen's, 2 four-year terms for Prez). An ambitious politician could still cobble together a 26 year career as a Fed poli, but not many, which is a good thing. Everybody else return to your civvy job after "service".
It'd be a hard sell in the house and senate, but I'm confident the states would ratify this constitutional amendment overwhelmingly, and quickly. We tire of gridlock, but can't find another way to build-in some kinda check and balance.
On the money side: unlimited contributions to campaigns (ala 'donations = free speech' doctrine) but limit spending, with all excess money returned to the donors after the election(s). Reported, in detail, to the FEC, and IRS.
CountArach
10-13-2008, 12:51
Interesting idea Kukri, but I'm afraid it would lead to a very inexperienced House and Senate, not to mention the President. If the Rep fits the District perfectly then I don't see why they shouldn't be constantly re-elected.
EDIT: Something to keep in mind (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/tracking_poll_house_effects.php) next time you see the latest Tracking poll result. The second graph shows the average bias of each poll (Compared to the average of all tracking polls). Conclusion:
DailyKos/R2K - Obama +4
Gallup - Obama +1
Diageo/Hotline - Obama +1
Rasmussen - The most balanced. Very little bias.
Battleground - McCain +3
Zogby - McCain +4
KukriKhan
10-13-2008, 13:15
Interesting idea Kukri, but I'm afraid it would lead to a very inexperienced House and Senate, not to mention the President.
True. But "time-in-service" in fed elected office over here, doesn't fare well, generally. Ref: my own string of CongressCritters starting with Duke Cunningham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Cunningham), and extending back 60 years.
After a second term, they tend to start thinking they're powerful, and rarely do much for the folks back home, except send pork, to appease. They get in trouble in that cesspool called D.C. after about 4-6 years. If they didn't have to spend 60% of their time in office getting ready for the next election, they might actually start doing "the people's business".
CountArach
10-13-2008, 13:26
After a second term, they tend to start thinking they're powerful, and rarely do much for the folks back home, except send pork, to appease. They get in trouble in that cesspool called D.C. after about 4-6 years. If they didn't have to spend 60% of their time in office getting ready for the next election, they might actually start doing "the people's business".
I think there may be a deeper problem regarding political apathy and the fact that there is no third party in politics, ie - it is one group of corrupt pollies vs the other group of corrupt pollies.
Banquo's Ghost
10-13-2008, 14:34
I think there may be a deeper problem regarding political apathy and the fact that there is no third party in politics, ie - it is one group of corrupt pollies vs the other group of corrupt pollies.
Those problems exist, but I'm with Kukri. The lack of experience you reference is, in my opinion, only experience vis-a-vis political chicanery. With term limits, many more people would bring "real-life" experience to the legislature - much more valuable than being able to cut a deal. The legislature would be refreshed by constant new ideas.
The president would also have to work with a new Congress to understand the new intake rather than take seventy per cent of it for granted.
The strength of this would be enhanced by the way administrations are constructed. A president chooses the brightest and best (in principle) and these are not required to hold elected office. Thus, the administration would comprise an "experienced" body, overseen and regulated by Congress with much less of an eye on how to gain favours.
The Supreme Court, as the most experienced of all branches, continues to interpret and protect the Constitution.
Of course, if you could ban Representatives to Congress from having a party political affiliation as well (at least overtly) and stand on their merits, this would be ideal - and return to the State appointment of Senators so you had a state-oriented house to counterbalance the popular house, then I think you might have a system.
Mailman653
10-13-2008, 18:12
I just hope that no one has the foolish idea that because we will have a new president soon, he will magically fix the economy. Things like that take time to fix and impelment. I might go so far as to say the country won't see real change untill the next election and then people can decide if President M or President O did something positive for the economy while in office.
Koga No Goshi
10-13-2008, 18:55
I agree in general theory with the idea of term limits, although I think just limiting consecutive term limits would be better. My reasoning is that I think if Congress was primarily made up of one-termers, there is more incentive, not less, to simply try to get personal gain and connections out of it. I mean, who cares right? You're out in 2 or 4 years and probably for good. So what do you care about your political voting record or long-term reputation?
Christopher Hitchens (http://www.slate.com/id/2202163/) endorses Obama. Glad to see the drunk saw the light.
A candidate may well change his or her position on, say, universal health care or Bosnia. But he or she cannot change the fact—if it happens to be a fact—that he or she is a pathological liar, or a dimwit, or a proud ignoramus. And even in the short run, this must and will tell.
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. [...]
Obama is greatly overrated in my opinion, but the Obama-Biden ticket is not a capitulationist one, even if it does accept the support of the surrender faction, and it does show some signs of being able and willing to profit from experience. With McCain, the "experience" is subject to sharply diminishing returns, as is the rest of him, and with Palin the very word itself is a sick joke. One only wishes that the election could be over now and a proper and dignified verdict rendered, so as to spare democracy and civility the degradation to which they look like being subjected in the remaining days of a low, dishonest campaign.
CountArach
10-13-2008, 20:24
I hate Hitchens...
Of course, if you could ban Representatives to Congress from having a party political affiliation as well (at least overtly) and stand on their merits, this would be ideal - and return to the State appointment of Senators so you had a state-oriented house to counterbalance the popular house, then I think you might have a system.
I've thought about this before, but I think what has worked here and in other Westminster countries is that a strong party means the governemtn is willing and able to make tough choices. The individual congressman/representative becomes less important and instead they will willingly vote for unpopular legislation because they know they have the backing of the entire party establishment to keep themselves in power.
Crazed Rabbit
10-13-2008, 20:55
You want me to agree people of any stripe can be crazy? Okay, I'll meet you there. But Dems closing shop doors or bullying votes from the pulpit and in various other questionably legal ways trying to get petty vindictive payback on Reps each election cycle isn't such a normal part of the headlines as Reps doing it to Dems. That's fact.
You're right; the democrats usually just do outright illegal stuff (http://www.thebeenews.com/news/story.php?story_id=122376701181256200).
The presidential campaign got a little too hot for two Portland men who were arrested early Saturday morning, Oct. 11, and charged with burning a large John McCain campaign sign outside a Southeast Portland home.
Portland Fire and Rescue investigators said the two men made a Molotov cocktail and threw it at the sign in the 7900 block of Southeast 17th Avenue.
That's not being a jerk and not letting people park somewhere, that's dangerous and criminal activity. The thinking of a person who would throw a gas bomb at a political sign they disagree with is incomprehensible.
You're right, CNN doesn't have bits on people throwing bombs over politics, they're too busy with GOP jerks doing some trivial crap. The only reason the headlines show the republicans as more crazy is because that's what the 90% democrat national media publishes.
Do you remember the democrats who slashed tires on 20 vans and cars (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=294326) being used by the GOP party in Wisconsin in 2004? No, you don't, because the media didn't make a big deal of it.
Did you see the story on the vandals who sprayed ignorant graffiti (http://www.heraldonline.com/109/story/877049.html) on a GOP office in South Carolina, and stealing property?
Then there's the democrat who tried to run over a GOP congresswoman with his car (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1027042harris1.html), the democrat who got a case of road rage against a mother and her young children (http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/10/news_pf/Hillsborough/Bumper_sticker_evokes.shtml) and tried to run them off the road.
And then there's the crowd shouting how they wanted to kill Palin. (http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20081012_Palin_hears_plenty_of_boos.html)
At times, Republicans attending the event and protesters confronted one another.
"They are hooligans," said Bucks County restaurateur and McCain supporter Andrew Abruzzese, after he flashed a peace sign at protesters, who responded with raised middle fingers. Another Republican complained of being jostled.
Of Palin's rise from PTA activist to City Council to mayor to governor to vice presidential candidate, Abruzzese said: "You couldn't get a more natural progression than that."
Several Republican attendees complained of the protesters' vulgarity, especially in light of recent criticism of the behavior of people at McCain-Palin rallies.
Outside on Broad Street, waiting for Palin to leave, one man was heard saying: "Let's stone her, old school."
Another protester shouted at someone entering the hotel, "Wait till your daughter wants an abortion, you hypocrite."
But does that make the news? No, because it doesn't fit the narrative the media wants to sell and you accept as truth.
You see the pattern here? All those links are to local papers, because the national media mostly ignores such incidents so they can create a narrative that McCain supporters are crazy, by magnifying a few incidents over and over, then doing stories on all the criticism from prominent democrats.
They certainly didn't make a big deal out of allegations Obama was trying to deal behind the back of the current Administration.
You notice another thing about my links? All the actions taken by the democrats were flat out illegal. They were attempts to subvert the democratic process, which is much worse than some jerk not letting people park for a day or something before he relented.
So, please, cut this 'democrats are more holier than republicans' ******** out.
CR
KukriKhan
10-13-2008, 21:49
Crazed Rabbit, is your complaint that the Dem party somehow owns all the TV and major print media, except Fox? Or that they've (the media) decided who their favorite candidate is, and it's not the same as yours?
Koga No Goshi
10-13-2008, 22:01
So, please, cut this 'democrats are more holier than republicans' ******** out.
CR
You know CR, for as much as a big fence post you have lodged inside you most of the time over this issue, you are the one always turning things around and trying to repaint the political environment as "it's really the democrats doing everything nasty, and their lapdog media making it look like it's us." And if you want to discuss illegal... let's return to what Katherine Harris did to the voter rolls in Florida, a state that SWUNG THE ELECTION for the entire country, with voter purges. Oh yes you whined it up really good about 5,000 voters who are felons but that's nothing compared to the tens of thousands of legitimate voters who got purged off just because they were likely Democratic voters who could be tossed off on some technicality like sharing a name (but not an address or SS# or anything else) with a felon. Or some of the lovely tactics your party has done this time around like send out registration verification letters to people known to be in foreclosure, and when response is not received, bumping them off the voter lists.
If you want the "partisan battle" to stop, stop all your incessant whining about how the Republicans are such oppressed victims in every topic. It is YOU constantly asserting that it's the Dems always up to something nefarious, the Dems much worse in every respect than the Reps, the Dems who are more power hungry and bent and corrupt, the Dems who rely more on propaganda and biased media to win and shape public opinion. And when anyone responds you revert to reactive kneejerk victim complex about how the whole media is out to get you and a bunch of evil partisans who have absolutely no brain in their heads thinks maybe, just maybe, some of the bad rap your party has is self-deserved and self-created. I'm sure if we all knew Palin a little better, we'd all switch our vote to McCain right? It's just that evil media covering unpleasant things about her record that is swaying everyone over to Obama, and it's on purpose. Please.
You want to be CONSTANTLY mired in tit for tat partisan battles, then keep up your whining about how anything bad the Reps do, the Dems were there first and five times more to the point where the Reps are completely innocent by comparison.
PanzerJaeger
10-13-2008, 22:16
The Coming Liberal Thugocracy (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/13/the-coming-thugocracy/print/)..
COMMENTARY:
"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors," Barack Obama told a crowd in Elko, Nev. "I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face." Actually, Obama supporters are doing a lot more than getting into people's faces. They seem determined to shut people up.
That's what Obama supporters, alerted by campaign e-mails, did when conservative Stanley Kurtz appeared on Milt Rosenberg's WGN radio program in Chicago. Mr. Kurtz had been researching Mr. Obama's relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers in Chicago Annenberg Challenge papers in the Richard J. Daley Library in Chicago - papers that were closed off to him for some days, apparently at the behest of Obama supporters.
Obama fans jammed WGN's phone lines and sent in hundreds of protest e-mails. The message was clear to anyone who would follow Mr. Rosenberg's example. We will make trouble for you if you let anyone make the case against The One.
Other Obama supporters have threatened critics with criminal prosecution. In September, St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce warned citizens that they would bring criminal libel prosecutions against anyone who made statements against Mr. Obama that were "false." I had been under the impression that the Alien and Sedition Acts had gone out of existence in 1801-'02. Not so, apparently, in metropolitan St. Louis. Similarly, the Obama campaign called for a criminal investigation of the American Issues Project when it ran ads highlighting Mr. Obama's ties to Mr. Ayers.
These attempts to shut down political speech have become routine for liberals. Congressional Democrats sought to reimpose the "fairness doctrine" on broadcasters, which until it was repealed in the 1980s required equal time for different points of view. The motive was plain: to shut down the one conservative-leaning communications medium, talk radio. Liberal talk-show hosts have mostly failed to draw audiences, and many liberals can't abide having citizens hear contrary views.
To their credit, some liberal old-timers - like House Appropriations Chairman David Obey - voted against the "fairness doctrine," in line with their longstanding support of free speech. But you can expect the "fairness doctrine" to get another vote if Barack Obama wins and Democrats increase their congressional majorities.
Corporate liberals have done their share in shutting down anti-liberal speech, too. "Saturday Night Live" ran a spoof of the financial crisis that skewered Democrats like House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank and liberal contributors Herbert and Marion Sandler, who sold toxic-waste-filled Golden West to Wachovia Bank for $24 billion. Kind of surprising, but not for long. The tape of the broadcast disappeared from NBC's Web site and was replaced with another that omitted the references to Mr. Frank and the Sandlers. Evidently NBC and its parent, General Electric, don't want people to hear speech that attacks liberals.
Then there's the Democrats' "card check" legislation that would abolish secret ballot elections in determining whether employees are represented by unions. The unions' strategy is obvious: Send a few thugs over to employees' homes - we know where you live - and get them to sign cards that will trigger a union victory without giving employers a chance to be heard.
Once upon a time, liberals prided themselves, with considerable reason, as the staunchest defenders of free speech. Union organizers in the 1930s and 1940s made the case that they should have access to employees to speak freely to them, and union leaders like George Meany and Walter Reuther were ardent defenders of the First Amendment.
Today's liberals seem to be taking their marching orders from other quarters. Specifically, from the college and university campuses where administrators, armed with speech codes, have for years been disciplining and subjecting to sensitivity training any students who dare to utter thoughts that liberals find offensive. The campuses that once prided themselves as zones of free expression are now the least free part of our society.
Obama supporters who found the campuses congenial and Mr. Obama himself, who has chosen to live all his adult life in university communities, seem to find it entirely natural to suppress speech they don't like and seem utterly oblivious to claims this violates the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. In this campaign, we have seen the coming of the Obama thugocracy, suppressing free speech, and we may see its flourishing in the four or eight years ahead.
• Michael Barone is a nationally syndicated columnist.
Strike For The South
10-13-2008, 22:21
I've said it before and I will say it again. Sheeple are no good for the republic. Soon America will be an oligarchy with plenty of bread and circuses to keep us complacent. Then as the Chinese and Russians rise we will be to impotent and fat to do much of anything. I blame the demasculaztion of the American male but that is another thread for another time.
Koga No Goshi
10-13-2008, 22:31
I've said it before and I will say it again. Sheeple are no good for the republic. Soon America will be an oligarchy with plenty of bread and circuses to keep us complacent.
This is dangerously close to already being the case. What people who just vote on one issue or from a couple headlines or "the way my family always voted" seem not to care about, is that the framers were pretty clear this little experiment wouldn't work without suspicious watchdogging from an informed electorate. But these days questioning authority is returned with accusations of being unpatriotic, not supporting the troops and sympathizing with terrorists. Or hating America. ;)
Then as the Chinese and Russians rise we will be to impotent and fat to do much of anything. I blame the demasculaztion of the American male but that is another thread for another time.
:skull:
Crazed Rabbit
10-13-2008, 22:32
Crazed Rabbit, is your complaint that the Dem party somehow owns all the TV and major print media, except Fox? Or that they've (the media) decided who their favorite candidate is, and it's not the same as yours?
I believe a poll of journalists showed that 90% of them are democrats. It's hard to remain objective on an issue, especially when everyone is thinking the same way.
I don't think the dems own the media, but the journalists are happy to shape their reports to reflect the truth as they, and everyone they work with, sees it. It can be subtle, almost unconscious, or active decisions to covertly abandon objectivism, from individual reporters doing stories to editors deciding what stories the paper is going to run.
It's those journalists that have said they feel chills running down their legs when listening to Obama, or that it's hard to remain objective when covering him.
You know CR, for as much as a big fence post you have blah blah blah
I do, however, think you are way off on a shaky limb acting like Reps have reason to fear vandalism, exclusion, assasination or use of force brought to bear against them for their political beliefs as Dems do. Looking over the last couple decades there is simply no reason to believe that unless you're running around downtown Philadelphia with a KKK sign or something.
Okay, I'll meet you there. But Dems closing shop doors or bullying votes from the pulpit and in various other questionably legal ways trying to get petty vindictive payback on Reps each election cycle isn't such a normal part of the headlines as Reps doing it to Dems. That's fact.
Don't even start with that dodge. You said republicans were worse, and when confronted with evidence that you're wrong, you engage in straw man and ad hominem fallacies by distorting my positions.
I think you're engaging in projection. You make all these wild claims and seek to falsely betray me as some rabid partisan because I didn't agree with the democratic talking points on topics like Fannie and Freddie that you take for truth.
But you are the one who simply couldn't let my post about the absurd 'Os for Obama' group go. You pushed and insisted republicans use much more underhanded tactics.
And then, when all your arguments are exposed as bunk, you turn around and tell me I'm being overly partisan. You cease your attempts to say republicans are just immoral people and start attacking me personally.
CR
It's those journalists that have said they feel chills running down their legs when listening to Obama ...
As opposed to those who see "little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living room" when they watch Governor Palin speak (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDYzMGFiNjQ0MWRjNmI0ZTlkYjgwZTExMjA3MWNiZTk=)? I have to say, in my book "little starbursts" score much higher on the Pretty Pony Scale than leg thrills (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/13/chris-matthews-i-felt-t_n_86449.html).
But you are the one who simply couldn't let my post about the absurd 'Os for Obama' group go.
Neither can I — that was brilliant stuff. Gave me some very heartfelt guffaws. Danke!
You think if you can prove one Dem took a bribe, the Dems are irredeemably corrupt, even if 20 Republicans took bribes during the same year.
I'm not sure how easy it would be to objectively measure the corruption of one group over another. Sounds like a bit of a slog. Can't we go by gut instinct and nonsensical feelings instead?
Koga No Goshi
10-13-2008, 23:01
LoL. I'd be happy if Koga could just admit democrats are as bad as republicans, but he just can't and then calls me the partisan troll. :laugh4:
CR
They aren't. You found a couple small paper cases of smalltime vandalism. Big whup. I could give you more personal accounts of people being accosted or having property or signs vandalized or their cars keyed for displaying Dem paraphanelia without having to scour small papers all over the country to find the stories. (Though there are plenty of those, too.) And churches telling people how to vote... Palin getting up in her church and mixing faith, oil pipelines and politics, the guy shot for wearing an Obama t-shirt. Democrats pretty much know, especially outside of big cities, you have to be careful about your politics. Republicans like Tuff I'm sure have plenty of stories of being ganged up on or verbally engaged over politics.... I would bet he has few stories about blue-voting New York rednecks shooting at his vehicle.
Your party's problem is that you have a victim complex. You feel attacked and oppressed. So members of your party lash out in every way they can against what they perceive to be a big bully Daddy Democrat all around them, even in their living rooms on any channel but Fox. And of course this mindset has been cultivated and encouraged by your pundits and radio talkshow hosts. Look at what the McCain camp has had to ... "correct" in recent news. Should it be any shock to them that their campaign style led to a lot of hate rhetoric and their crowds getting riled up and yelling epithets and vague threats? Let's just, for the sake of fun, blame all the hate rhetoric on Clinton. Well, who went and courted those supporters after the primary and fed them the same crap about Obama being a Muslim, Obama being an Arab, etc. etc.? Where did all that stuff come from? Liberal media making it up just to make McCain look bad?
It's hard to quantify something like an under-broil of hate right under the surface of a political ideology. But if there isn't such an undercurrent with the Rep party, one would wonder why it's always so easy to tease up hate and anger rhetoric towards liberals and minorities and Mexicans and Muslims and San Francisco people that has become staple for Rep rallies and appearances.
But if there isn't such an undercurrent with the Rep party, one would wonder why it's always so easy to tease up hate and anger rhetoric towards liberals and minorities and Mexicans and Muslims and San Francisco people that has become staple for Rep rallies and appearances.
As much as it pains me to agree with Crazed Rabbit in this thread, I have to point out that both parties have their loonie fringes. You could make an argument that McCain has irresponsibly encouraged his loonies this week, as many have, but you can't say that nutballs are an exclusive or predominant property of the Republicans.
Everybody's got their nuts. And screwballs always make time to go to political events, while the rest of us are, you know, working. So my understanding is that you are always going to see nuttier people at a political event than you would elsewhere.
ICantSpellDawg
10-13-2008, 23:08
I'm sure you've all seen this garbage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQalRPQ8stI). I'm sure many of you can rationalize it as an understanding dialogue between a cave-man conservative mob and an enlgihtened and stoic band of accepting liberals.
No wait. Scratch that - reverse it.
Crazed Rabbit
10-13-2008, 23:13
They aren't. You found a couple small paper cases of smalltime vandalism.
And attempted vehicular assault, and road rage attacks, and death threats, and molotov cocktails...
Big whup. I could give you more personal accounts of people being accosted or having property or signs vandalized or their cars keyed for displaying Dem paraphanelia without having to scour small papers all over the country to find the stories.
So what I said about the media basically went in one ear and out the other then?
blahblahblah
It's hard to quantify something like an under-broil of hate right under the surface of a political ideology. But if there isn't such an undercurrent with the Rep party, one would wonder why it's always so easy to tease up hate and anger rhetoric towards liberals and minorities and Mexicans and Muslims and San Francisco people that has become staple for Rep rallies and appearances.
:laugh4::laugh4:
You ever seen a big anti-war, anti-republican, anti-theme of the week protest/rally?
No one denied there are nuts on both sides. But I think it's very kind to the people who blew up abortion clinics, pharmacists who refused to do their jobs, people who firebomb black churches, and people who physically attack gay people with no provocation to say the nuts are same same tit tat on both sides of the aisle.
I specifically chose just incidents related to politics and elections. You sure you want to open the grab bag of left-wing-whackos and right-wing-whackos? Didn't turn our so well when we opened the democratic and republican crazies grab big, did it?
CR
Koga No Goshi
10-13-2008, 23:14
And attempted vehicular assault, and road rage attacks, and death threats, and molotov cocktails...
So what I said about the media basically went in one ear and out the other then?
:laugh4::laugh4:
You ever seen a big anti-war, anti-republican, anti-theme of the week protest/rally?
CR
Hate the war/policies, strong disgust with Bush =/= KILL THEM!!!
Strike For The South
10-13-2008, 23:16
I'm sure you've all seen this garbage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQalRPQ8stI). I'm sure many of you can rationalize it as an understanding dialogue between a cave-man conservative mob and an enlgihtened and stoic band of accepting liberals.
No wait. Scratch that - reverse it.
The cult of personality.
CrossLOPER
10-13-2008, 23:17
Everybody's got their nuts. And screwballs always make time to go to political events, while the rest of us are, you know, working. So my understanding is that you are always going to see nuttier people at a political event than you would elsewhere.
Three minutes later...
I'm sure you've all seen this garbage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQalRPQ8stI). I'm sure many of you can rationalize it as an understanding dialogue between a cave-man conservative mob and an enlgihtened and stoic band of accepting liberals.
No wait. Scratch that - reverse it.
Poor Lemur. At least you try.
Crazed Rabbit
10-13-2008, 23:22
Hate the war/policies, strong disgust with Bush =/= KILL THEM!!!
What about saying "Let's stone her, old school."?
Or, lynching Bush in effigy? (http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/120-2044_IMG.JPG)
But I'm sure they aren't trying to convey the impression they want to kill Bush. :rolleyes:
CR
PanzerJaeger
10-13-2008, 23:23
I'm sure you've all seen this garbage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQalRPQ8stI). I'm sure many of you can rationalize it as an understanding dialogue between a cave-man conservative mob and an enlgihtened and stoic band of accepting liberals.
No wait. Scratch that - reverse it.
Beat you to it, bud. :beam:
It demonstrates your rank and file lib is just as mindless as their portrayal of conservatives. I couldn't imagine getting so agitated over a political parade.
The scary thing is that the video doesn't portray some lone nut the media dredged up, its just a walk through a seemingly normal neighborhood.
seireikhaan
10-13-2008, 23:24
A man decided one day to climb the highest, tallest mountain in his area. The rest of the villagers gathered around and congratulated him for his efforts as he departed from the base of the mountain, promising he would do his best. Slowly but surely, he made his way higher and higher, gaining more and more momentum the higher he got. His lower body gave him a strong push and helped catapult him with its great force; his upper body guiding him carefully around jagged points and crevices with its keen senses of sight and feel.
Though he could see the summit ahead of him, he decided to take a short break, as he was quite tired, and felt that a bit of rest would ensure his success the next day. He had a great night's sleep, and woke the next morning with vigor. As he started out again, a viper snuck up on him, and bit both his legs; the toxin surged through his body, and he stumbled. In a striking example of coincidence, whilst stumbling around, he aggravated a spitting cobra, which reared its head, and spat its deadly venom into his eyes. The man collapsed to the ground, clutching in agony, his body on fire.
Inside, his brain began sending neural impulses out, desperately seeking aid. However, when the impulses reached the eyes and upper body, the eyes and upper body sent an immediate response for the calamity, blaming the lower body for not propelling the body away from the snakes. When impulses reached the lower body, the lower body sent back a response blaming the upper body for not sensing the snakes and evading them. The brain, unable to apparently infer that neither the upper or lower body would help it, continued sending the same neural impulses, over and over again, as the body lay collapsed upon the ground, slowly dying.
I know it's not, but that video reminded me of a Klan march. :inquisitive: People walking down the street with signs and flags, and everybody on the street yelling at them. Not a good visual. :no:
Strike For The South
10-13-2008, 23:27
A man decided one day to climb the highest, tallest mountain in his area. The rest of the villagers gathered around and congratulated him for his efforts as he departed from the base of the mountain, promising he would do his best. Slowly but surely, he made his way higher and higher, gaining more and more momentum the higher he got. His lower body gave him a strong push and helped catapult him with its great force; his upper body guiding him carefully around jagged points and crevices with its keen senses of sight and feel.
Though he could see the summit ahead of him, he decided to take a short break, as he was quite tired, and felt that a bit of rest would ensure his success the next day. He had a great night's sleep, and woke the next morning with vigor. As he started out again, a viper snuck up on him, and bit both his legs; the toxin surged through his body, and he stumbled. In a striking example of coincidence, whilst stumbling around, he aggravated a spitting cobra, which reared its head, and spat its deadly venom into his eyes. The man collapsed to the ground, clutching in agony, his body on fire.
Inside, his brain began sending neural impulses out, desperately seeking aid. However, when the impulses reached the eyes and upper body, the eyes and upper body sent an immediate response for the calamity, blaming the lower body for not propelling the body away from the snakes. When impulses reached the lower body, the lower body sent back a response blaming the upper body for not sensing the snakes and evading them. The brain, unable to apparently infer that neither the upper or lower body would help it, continued sending the same neural impulses, over and over again, as the body lay collapsed upon the ground, slowly dying.
Together we stand Divided we fall.
Askthepizzaguy
10-14-2008, 00:42
Ok,
I'm not naming names, but I think the overtly partisan smearing of the character of both campaigns, conservatives and liberals in general, with the cherry-picking of news events and stories to support the assertion that conservatives are stupid or liberals or crazy, is counterproductive, hateful, disingenuous, immature, and dangerous for our country. I don't care what political views you have, but the latest back and forth right here on this forum, which is supposed to be filled with smart people who at least understand how to read a newspaper and use a computer... it's been shameful.
My "side" has been just as guilty as the other, and I'd call on my "side" to not respond in kind when an entire segment of the population, with a certain political view, gets smeared. A neutral observer with intelligence will note the tone, character, and maturity level of the debate, and understand that you could assemble enough "evidence" through news stories and youtube videos to convince anyone of anything. For example, that aliens caused 9/11.
If some members continue pointing fingers at "conservatives", "liberals", republicans or democrats in general, I'm probably going to bow out of this discussion. Over-generalizing like that is prejudiced, ignorant, inaccurate, extremely biased, and shameful to an intelligent debate.
When I've criticized either party, I've given reasons why I don't support their candidate, or their current plans, or why I feel someone is unqualified. Never have I characterized "red" or "blue"-state people as all being ignorant, crazy, psychotic, or dangerous. Never have I built a case based on partisan fearmongering, character attacks, smears, or any of this stuff.
I suppose it's a matter of free speech, but just because you can blindly assassinate the character of half of the population of the united states, that doesn't mean you should. Can we bring a little dignity back to this discussion, and focus on the issues and candidates of the election, rather than continue to smear individual voters and cherry pick the occasional partisan wacko (or group of wackos) and then claim the opposition is all exactly like that?
I can't pick on just one side here, because they are both guilty of this, since the last time I posted. Civility, gentlemen? Anyone?
:2cents:
ICantSpellDawg
10-14-2008, 01:06
If some members continue pointing fingers at "conservatives", "liberals", republicans or democrats in general, I'm probably going to bow out of this discussion. Over-generalizing like that is prejudiced, ignorant, inaccurate, extremely biased, and shameful to an intelligent debate.
:2cents:
Maybe you should. You have all this time to debate stupid politics, but not enough to do a 5 minute England turn in PBM??!!! Priorities, sir...
Askthepizzaguy
10-14-2008, 01:14
Actually, I can't access the save since I got a new computer and a new operating system. The versions are incompatible.
I would, of course, if I could.
I offered half my empire to you, France. :smash:
ICantSpellDawg
10-14-2008, 01:24
Actually, I can't access the save since I got a new computer and a new operating system. The versions are incompatible.
I would, of course, if I could.
I offered half my empire to you, France. :smash:
Hey thanks!
Askthepizzaguy
10-14-2008, 01:26
Back on topic;
TuffStuff, I really understand your point of view. I used to hold almost exactly the same positions on everything.
Because I've seen both sides of the aisle, I realize that we really need to respect one another.
ICantSpellDawg
10-14-2008, 01:35
Back on topic;
TuffStuff, I really understand your point of view. I used to hold almost exactly the same positions on everything.
Because I've seen both sides of the aisle, I realize that we really need to respect one another.
What a coincidence! I used to hold almost the exact same positions that I hold now too.
KukriKhan
10-14-2008, 01:35
Amen. Ad hominems and irrelevances have been deleted. Further violations of disrespect will receive further sanction.
Thank you. Please carry on. :bow:
PanzerJaeger
10-14-2008, 01:51
Why are the democrats trying to steal (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/13/cleveland-election-officials-launch-probe-acorn/) the election with their poll numbers?
If some members continue pointing fingers at "conservatives", "liberals", republicans or democrats in general, I'm probably going to bow out of this discussion. Over-generalizing like that is prejudiced, ignorant, inaccurate, extremely biased, and shameful to an intelligent debate.
Were you with us four years ago? This year has been incredibly tame by comparison, thanks to some good moves by the mods.
Askthepizzaguy
10-14-2008, 01:52
Amen. Ad hominems and irrelevances have been deleted. Further violations of disrespect will receive further sanction.
Thank you. Please carry on. :bow:
There's still more. :whip:
uh oh, some of those irrelevances are mine!
hides behind a wall
:surrender:
____________________
[humor]See? I used the surrender smiley. This proves anyone who supports Obama is a white-flag waving surrender-crat. [/self-deprecating humor]
Koga No Goshi
10-14-2008, 02:49
Amen. Ad hominems and irrelevances have been deleted. Further violations of disrespect will receive further sanction.
Thank you. Please carry on. :bow:
I was going to research a huge old link list for CR but yeah... what's the point. I agree with Ask the Pizza Guy, it doesn't get us anywhere.
Askthepizzaguy
10-14-2008, 03:00
And it doesn't get us anywhere, for good reason.
Can I ask everyone a quick question? Has the long list of partisan attacks ever really changed anyone's mind? Perhaps when we were young, naive, and impressionable... but when people grow up, they get offended by that nonsense, because it is unfairly one-sided, it is cherry-picking and highlighting extremes. It's wingnut politics; where only the loudest, most shrill, most profane, most exaggerating, and most unbelievable get attention.
It's like Jerry Springer, Girls Gone Wild, or the television show "Jackass". It contains no useful facts, no reliable data, no reasonable argument, no exchange of information, and no accountability. Because it's full of extremes and superlatives and oddities or eye-catching material, it attracts attention.
It's nothing but noise. It's all a distraction, and it has nothing to do with ideas, issues, or solutions to problems.
How exactly will America recover from it's problems when all we do is slap each other in the face with pies? That's about as reasonable a metaphor as I can find for the mudslinging we've seen in this very thread. At least there are moderators here.
But we must learn to self-censor. Just because we may not like the opposition, that doesn't mean we have a right to slander. And if we do contribute to the discussion, it would be great if we had something useful to contribute.
Just some more of my "nobody asked for my opinion" opinion.
Koga No Goshi
10-14-2008, 03:04
And it doesn't get us anywhere, for good reason.
Can I ask everyone a quick question? Has the long list of partisan attacks ever really changed anyone's mind? Perhaps when we were young, naive, and impressionable... but when people grow up, they get offended by that nonsense, because it is unfairly one-sided, it is cherry-picking and highlighting extremes. It's wingnut politics; where only the loudest, most shrill, most profane, most exaggerating, and most unbelievable get attention.
It's like Jerry Springer, Girls Gone Wild, or the television show "Jackass". It contains no useful facts, no reliable data, no reasonable argument, no exchange of information, and no accountability. Because it's full of extremes and superlatives and oddities or eye-catching material, it attracts attention.
It's nothing but noise. It's all a distraction, and it has nothing to do with ideas, issues, or solutions to problems.
How exactly will America recover from it's problems when all we do is slap each other in the face with pies? That's about as reasonable a metaphor as I can find for the mudslinging we've seen in this very thread. At least there are moderators here.
But we must learn to self-censor. Just because we may not like the opposition, that doesn't mean we have a right to slander. And if we do contribute to the discussion, it would be great if we had something useful to contribute.
Just some more of my "nobody asked for my opinion" opinion.
Well if you flip back even through the last 3 pages or so, ATPG.... there's an awful lot of baiting with people acting like one side or the other is doing all the insidious evil plotting to swing the election or corrupt media. Although useless, it is difficult not to respond to people bringing one incident out of the vaccuum as if this is the first and only case of questionable politics which defines the "other side", when their own is fairly guilty as well. ;) Even moreso when their political side's strategies are even more infamous for the tactic in question.
(Sorry edited out a paragraph here that was meant for "America's Greatest Strength", ahhaha.)
Askthepizzaguy
10-14-2008, 03:11
Indeed. It is very, very difficult.
Doing the right thing is always difficult. I have been personally offended by much of what was said. However, if I may be immodest, my reaction was not to return fire with the same level of discourse.
I also realize my "side" does it too. Some of that was displayed by the very material shoved in my face. I may not like it, but there is a level of hypocrisy on my team. If we intend to hold our opponents to a high standard, we must hold ourselves to that standard, or better.
We can begin by debating the issues. Even if you disagree with Obama, for example, you at least know where he stands on the issues, because he's talking about them. The debates did not go well for the opposition because they were mostly negative. The polls seem to indicate that the almost wholly negative ads haven't made them more popular.
It's counterproductive. That's another very good reason not to engage in it... you make yourself look dirty and cheap. For the sake of the country, lets us both sides agree to stop this bull.
Don't react negatively when wingnuts shout their screed in shrill tones. React calmly, politely, and with good, positive ideas.
Koga No Goshi
10-14-2008, 03:14
Indeed. It is very, very difficult.
Doing the right thing is always difficult. I have been personally offended by much of what was said. However, if I may be immodest, my reaction was not to return fire with the same level of discourse.
I also realize my "side" does it too. Some of that was displayed by the very material shoved in my face. I may not like it, but there is a level of hypocrisy on my team. If we intend to hold our opponents to a high standard, we must hold ourselves to that standard, or better.
We can begin by debating the issues. Even if you disagree with Obama, for example, you at least know where he stands on the issues, because he's talking about them. The debates did not go well for the opposition because they were mostly negative. The polls seem to indicate that the almost wholly negative ads haven't made them more popular.
It's counterproductive. That's another very good reason not to engage in it... you make yourself look dirty and cheap. For the sake of the country, lets us both sides agree to stop this bull.
Don't react when wingnuts shout their screed in shrill tones. React calmly, politely, and with good, positive ideas.
I'm quite willing to accept this call you've made. But I would expect you to be the first one to speak up about trollish baiting. ;)
Askthepizzaguy
10-14-2008, 03:15
One down. 300 million to go. :wink:
As for trollish baiting... we do have moderators. They can force people to tone stuff down. That's why I love this forum... it's better than discussing things in public, where trolls in real life can foam at the mouth and you have to deal with it. Here, you can point out that their contributions seem mostly negative, and that you find it offensive (say this calmly and with respect, always), and then, if they refuse to be civil, use ye olde reporting button.
I hate reporting people, and I've only done it... like, 3 times in the past 18 months? I don't like censorship. The people I report truly, truly deserve it. I don't lean on it when I disagree, or someone phrases something in a bull-headed way. It's more of a last resort against truly unproductive, disruptive, asinine people.
So far, no one here has warranted such a reaction, but the tone has gotten more bitter as of late, and the contributions to the thread have been getting more and more negative. I'm just trying to remind everyone... it's ok to disagree, and you can do it with civility. And we don't need to resort to dirty tactics to debate. That's all.
KukriKhan
10-14-2008, 03:30
And I remind all about the "Report Bad Post" button at the bottom left of every post (red triangle with "!" inside). Using this alerts staff to content you think crosses the line. We investigate every instance/report. You may not get direct feedback, given our Privacy policies, but rest assured, it gets scrutinized.
CrossLOPER
10-14-2008, 04:37
And I remind all about the "Report Bad Post" button at the bottom left of every post (red triangle with "!" inside). Using this alerts staff to content you think crosses the line. We investigate every instance/report. You may not get direct feedback, given our Privacy policies, but rest assured, it gets scrutinized.
Do you really want to reread this entire thread?
Askthepizzaguy
10-14-2008, 04:45
Let the past be. Let's focus on the future. It's the only thing that matters anyway.
Interesting — Obama is already reaching out to moderate/conservative Dems (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/13/AR2008101302377.html). These are not the guys he needs to win in November; these are the guys he needs to govern in January.
Whatever your opinion of the Junior Senator from Illinois, you gotta admit he always has a plan, and he's grinding away at it. If elected, I think he will be the most methodical President we've ever seen.
Obama took a break from campaigning last week to call each of them, among the leaders of the "Blue Dog Coalition," a group of conservative-leaning Democrats who are committed to balancing the federal budget. The group's 49 members already wield significant power in the House, and their ranks are expected to expand in the next Congress.
"He said he planned to be the next president and he wanted to work with us," Ross said in recounting his conversation with Obama before the House approved a $700 billion economic rescue package. "He also recognized that we had the numbers to block or clear" legislation coming from the White House if he is elected.
Obama's outreach to the Democratic centrists is part of a broader effort by his campaign to prepare for a possible transition.
Askthepizzaguy
10-14-2008, 17:49
Lemur, I would call that evidence of "bapartisanship", or at least a reach out to moderates and conservatives.
:yes:
McCain has charged that he has a track record of working with Democrats, and will unite this country. Meanwhile, he's blaming everything on quote "Congressional liberals" "Risky Democrats" and Obama himself, using some very disingenuous and outrageous attacks. McCain is running an even more divisive campaign than the one aimed at John Kerry and Al Gore, with as much substance.
Obama has an ideology and a clear, consistent position, yet he's not insulting conservatives or laying all the blame on Republicans, nor is he tearing into McCain's character. McCain had a clear bipartisan position, but he's changed positions on many things to support the Republicans, and Bush's policies, he may have a track record of being bipartisan but this campaign is bitter, hostile, and divisive. Should McCain win, moderates, liberals, and democrats will feel governed by someone who blames them for everything, someone who has betrayed his legacy of civility and respect for his opponents, someone who promised change but delivered the same policies as the Bush administration.
If Obama wins, die-hard Republicans may not like it, but Obama's tone, rhetoric, and track record shows him to at least be true to his word, and respectful of his opponents. In this divisive time, we need unity and respect for one another. irrespective of the issues, which I believe also matter, the nation needs unity. More partisanship and ad hominem attacks from the Grand Ole Party will keep the country divided.
Democrats do have a history of being vicious and partisan as well, but this year, much of that seems to be reined in, and Obama has kept a clear, level head and denounced the worst of the wingnuts. John McCain is late to the party on that point, I respectfully submit.
Interesting — Obama is already reaching out to moderate/conservative Dems (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/13/AR2008101302377.html). These are not the guys he needs to win in November; these are the guys he needs to govern in January.
Whatever your opinion of the Junior Senator from Illinois, you gotta admit he always has a plan, and he's grinding away at it. If elected, I think he will be the most methodical President we've ever seen.
Obama took a break from campaigning last week to call each of them, among the leaders of the "Blue Dog Coalition," a group of conservative-leaning Democrats who are committed to balancing the federal budget. The group's 49 members already wield significant power in the House, and their ranks are expected to expand in the next Congress.
"He said he planned to be the next president and he wanted to work with us," Ross said in recounting his conversation with Obama before the House approved a $700 billion economic rescue package. "He also recognized that we had the numbers to block or clear" legislation coming from the White House if he is elected.
Obama's outreach to the Democratic centrists is part of a broader effort by his campaign to prepare for a possible transition.
Sends a shiver up your spine doesn't it? According to this passage...
"They recognize that they've sort of committed themselves to a rather inflexible standard of fiscal discipline," said Scott Lilly, a longtime senior House aide and now a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. Obama, he said, "is looking at the Blue Dogs and realizing their position is not in line with what he needs. It's a very good sign. He's counting votes already, and he's got a pretty good sense of where the issues are going to be."
Whatever the outcome next month, the worsening economic crisis will place tremendous pressure on Congress to help stimulate a recovery.
Earlier in the presidential campaign, Obama had been reluctant to commit to the substantial tax increases and spending cuts that would be required to make his proposals budget-neutral. But as the economic picture grows more bleak, he has increasingly acknowledged the need for trade-offs, and Furman said he would be committed to establishing an overall budget framework that makes room for new programs but also requires meaningful cuts, along with tax increases on the wealthy.
Lovely passage. Let's play read between the lines! So the Blue Dog Democrat position, being more in line with the desires of the American people (balanced budget, curtailed spending, etc.) is viewed as being a considerable obstacle for President Obama (*shudders*) and the more liberal bloc of Senate & House Democrats. Now we're talking!
Furthermore we are led to believe "Obama had been reluctant to commit to the substantial tax increases and spending cuts that would be required to make his proposals budget-neutral" would have prevented him from winning winning the Presidency. Forgive my creative editing but the underlined text seems more relevant in an election year, no? And note that Furman was quoted as saying, "...he would be committed to establishing an overall budget framework that makes room for new programs but also requires meaningful cuts, along with tax increases on the wealthy." A poorly worded response but it speaks volumes as to their real intent. So this budget framework commits to making room for new programs along with tax increases on the wealthy but only mentions that it 'requires meaningful cuts'... Golly, which part of that sentence actually commits to a specific plan of action? Stating that something 'requires meaningful cuts' but never actually commiting to deliver on it... very careful use of language, no? Since Obama's budget framework "requires meaningful cuts" is it safe to say that it doesn't actually include any?
Once Obama achieves the ends he was aiming for he can then abandon the platform of means that allowed him to win and return to the ideological principles he held prior to this election year.... raising taxes & increasing spending. Obama knows that once elected there are considerable roadblocks in his own party that would prevent him and more liberal House Democrats & Senators from railroading spending bills through Congress so they're laying the groundwork now as opposed to waiting until after he's sworn in and Congress returns from vacation. Gosh, right now I'm just awash in warm fuzzy feelings.
But is Obama really that methodical or is he simply reacting to the direction of his Party's leadership? I might be able to buy it were it not for the fact that this news comes on the coattails of Pelosi's move to prep the House for an early return from vacation so they can begin passing legislation as soon as Obama is sworn in...
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081011/D93OHKO80.html
Tax rebate, food stamp money possible in aid plan
Oct 11, 5:24 PM (ET)
By DAVID ESPO
WASHINGTON (AP) - After consulting with Barack Obama, Democratic leaders are likely to call Congress back to work after the election in hopes of passing legislation that would include extended jobless benefits, money for food stamps and possibly a tax rebate, officials said Saturday.
The bill's total cost could reach $150 billion, these officials said.
The officials stressed that no final decisions have been made. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they did not want to pre-empt a formal announcement. House Democrats have announced plans for an economic forum on Monday "to help Congress develop an economic recovery plan that focuses on creating jobs and strengthening our economy."
Democrats said Obama's campaign has been involved in discussions on a possible stimulus package. The party's presidential candidate, running ahead in the polls, has outlined his own proposals for stimulating the economy.
Democrats are increasingly confident of capturing the White House and increasing their majorities in the House and Senate on Nov. 4.
If they are successful, a lame-duck session of Congress two weeks later would allow them to start work on a response to the credit crunch that has sent stock prices plummeting and also threatens to trigger a deep recession. It often takes two or three months for a new Congress to begin turning out legislation, particularly when a new president is settling into the White House.
On the other hand, by attempting to pass legislation next month, Democrats would have to negotiate with President Bush, whose term runs until Jan. 20, 2009. Additionally, Senate Republicans, with 49 seats, could block any measure they opposed.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters in Denver last Wednesday a $150 billion stimulus package is necessary and she may call the House back into session after the election. Her spokesman, Brendan Daly, added, "Congress just worked in a bipartisan way with the Administration to pass an economic rescue plan to help stabilize our financial markets, and we must now work together to pass a jobs creation and economic recovery stimulus package."
In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has announced a post-election session beginning Nov. 17 to consider public lands legislation. His spokesman, Jim Manley, issued a written statement that said "recent developments only reinforce the need for additional action to reinvigorate the economy." He added, "no decisions have yet been made on how to proceed."
An Obama spokesman, Bill Burton, said the campaign is monitoring the situation.
The candidate has said previously he favors $25 billion to help states meet their own needs, another $25 billion for roads, bridges and other infrastructure, and $65 billion for tax rebates paid for by a windfall profits tax on oil.
Speaking in Ohio on Friday, the Illinois Democrat also said, "we should extend expiring unemployment benefits to those Americans who've lost their jobs and can't find new ones."
The House passed a $61 billion economic stimulus bill before lawmakers adjourned for the elections, but it was largely symbolic since Senate Republicans had already thwarted efforts to pass a companion measure.
It called for up to 13 additional weeks of jobless benefits in states with the highest unemployment, at a cost of $6 billion. Another $14.7 billion was ticketed to help states cover Medicaid costs. Enrollment in the federal-state health care program for the poor and disabled often rises with unemployment.
The measure also included money for road and bridge construction, a relatively easy way to create jobs and pump money into the economy.
With that bill's passage blocked, Pelosi then sought to have it added to the financial bailout legislation making its way to Bush's desk, according to officials in both parties. They said the White House signaled it would accept an extension of unemployment benefits, but the speaker refused to allow the stimulus package to be broken up.
As a result, Congress adjourned without providing additional benefits for the unemployed as increasing numbers of people are losing their jobs.
Congress enacted an earlier stimulus legislation with unusual speed last winter. It provided tax rebate checks of $600 to individuals and $1,200 to couples and included tax breaks to businesses investing in new plants and equipment.
So the Democratic House & Senate leaders 'consulted' Obama as to the course of action. Try to keep in mind despite his being the Democratic nominee Obama is still a junior senator and a relative n00b to the establishment running Congress & his Party. He also came dangerously close to being the man to split his party in two when he decided to skip his turn in line and run against Hillary Clinton & John Edwards so there had to be some back room dealings with the Party's higher ups to smooth out the wrinkles caused by this election year. I'm inclined to believe that they reached out to Obama first and told him to expect to keep his rubber stamp handy the day he's sworn in (ok, I'm fairly certain they didn't use that 'exact' language). Around the same time Obama 'reaches out' to Blue Dog Democrats, most of whom are probably aware of this plan to some degree, to demonstrate his leadership qualities... and butter them up in preparation for the spending binge to come. Keep in mind that Obama's economic plan doesn't call for a single cut to an existing social program and not once during this election year has he even mentioned cutting an existing program in order to curtail spending. These are the kinds of things that Blue Dog Democrats are supposedly mindful of. But no worries! You can guarantee that these Blue Dog Democrats will be bought out with generous earmarks as they and some of their Republican counterparts were when the Mortgage Bailout Bill came before the House for a second time... laden with a whopping $100 billion in earmarks.
Call me a pessimist but the only thing I can glean from this article is that Obama & the more liberal Democratic Senators & Representatives of Congress are working on a plan to remove any semblance of resistance to raising taxes, increasing spending and not balancing the budget in the House & Senate. Not too far fetched when you consider the last time anyone even entertained the idea of balancing the budget was when there was a budget surplus... back when Clinton was President and the Republicans ran Congress.
So if crossing ideological lines and working together for the greater good the purpose of worsening an already horrendous situation is good news then I'd hate to think what people would consider bad news... :sweatdrop:
Askthepizzaguy
10-14-2008, 18:47
Interesting, Spino.
Since both candidates' budget proposals do not balance the budget or fix the economy, why don't we at least spend the money on healthcare and education, and bring the Iraq war to a close? Obama and McCain both seem to want larger government, but Obama wants accountability and oversight and regulation, and McCain just seems to want to break the bank giving the rich their tax breaks.
How respond you?
Koga No Goshi
10-14-2008, 19:06
Interesting, Spino.
Since both candidates' budget proposals do not balance the budget or fix the economy, why don't we at least spend the money on healthcare and education, and bring the Iraq war to a close? Obama and McCain both seem to want larger government, but Obama wants accountability and oversight and regulation, and McCain just seems to want to break the bank giving the rich their tax breaks.
How respond you?
My thoughts exact. Nothing you just cheesegrated Obama's sincerity for is anything that can't be spun around on McCain and moreso, Spino. Since you can't even get McCain to budge on the huge sums being spent on Iraq, a war which he apparently feels we should fight for as long as obtaining an unquestionable "victory status" requires. (That remains unresolved as to what would qualify unquestionable victory after near 6 years of this.) And he proposes keeping the Bush tax cuts, despite today being a fairly good bit of proof that the philosophy of always cutting taxes on the rich will return as an investment in our domestic economic growth is not unconditionally true.
Both gave vague answers to the "in light of the economic crisis, how will your budgets/plans change", although Obama gave at least a more realistic answer that he would have to examine the budget when it comes in and scale back or piecemeal implementation of plans accordingly. McCain sorta bluffed through it and said "I don't see why I can't do everything I've laid out" without really addressing what, if anything, the economic crisis would change. (Palin did precisely the same thing at the VP debate when asked a nearly identical question about budgets.) So, one-sided attacks on either candidate for how he hasn't given you details of how his budgeting would work is quite unfair in terms of painting some doomsday scenario if Obama wins, Spino.
Askthepizzaguy
10-14-2008, 19:15
I concur, Koga.
If we are to criticize a candidate or a platform, that criticism apply as well to the opposing viewpoint if they are also guilty of it.
In summary, Spino, you may in fact be correct, but you haven't shown us why McCain is not guilty of the same thing you charge Obama with. Given the options, I'd prefer spending money on the sick, rather than prolonging a war.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-14-2008, 20:48
Gentlemen:
Stop your whining about issues and positions. Useless claptrap. This election will be settled the old-fashioned way: innuendo, current generalized mood, mud-slinging and weather issues on election day.
Generalized nausea and damaged eye muscles (from too much rolling of the eyes) are, of course, acceptable responses.
KukriKhan
10-14-2008, 20:55
Gentlemen:
Stop your whining about issues and positions. Useless claptrap. This election will be settled the old-fashioned way: innuendo, current generalized mood, mud-slinging and weather issues on election day.
Generalized nausea and damaged eye muscles (from too much rolling of the eyes) are, of course, acceptable responses.
With respect, it's obviously slipped your mind the ultimate predictor of the POTUS contest winner, wrong only once since 1948:
the winner of the Washington Redskins football game immediately prior to the election; if the 'Skins win, the incumbent party stays; if they lose, the opposing party moves into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
November 3rd 2008, Redskins vs Pittsburgh Steelers. You pick 'em.
John Cleese on Sarah Palin - Monty Phyton could have written this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMyNk8J1c8g)
:2thumbsup:
Koga No Goshi
10-14-2008, 21:04
With respect, it's obviously slipped your mind the ultimate predictor of the POTUS contest winner, wrong only once since 1948:
the winner of the Washington Redskins football game immediately prior to the election; if the 'Skins win, the incumbent party stays; if they lose, the opposing party moves into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
November 3rd 2008, Redskins vs Pittsburgh Steelers. You pick 'em.
You are wrong AGAIN.
The true predictor of POTUS is whose Halloween mask sells better. (http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/10/05/if-sales-of-halloween-masks-could-predict-the-election-obama-would-be-president/)
PanzerJaeger
10-14-2008, 21:51
If Obama wins, die-hard Republicans may not like it, but Obama's tone, rhetoric, and track record shows him to at least be true to his word, and respectful of his opponents. In this divisive time, we need unity and respect for one another. irrespective of the issues, which I believe also matter, the nation needs unity. More partisanship and ad hominem attacks from the Grand Ole Party will keep the country divided.
Wow. I would be surprised if you wrote that without even a little bit of chuckle.
Interesting, Spino.
Since both candidates' budget proposals do not balance the budget or fix the economy, why don't we at least spend the money on healthcare and education, and bring the Iraq war to a close? Obama and McCain both seem to want larger government, but Obama wants accountability and oversight and regulation, and McCain just seems to want to break the bank giving the rich their tax breaks.
How respond you?
You're operating on the assumption that McCain/Obama will deliver on their campaign promises & economic plans. Fat chance. The bulk of what these candidates promise in an election year means nothing. Zip. Nada. Jack. Squat. They can spin and respin and unspin their plans all they like but once the election is decided the bulk of whatever they promised in said plans is rarely delivered when they sit down in the Oval office.
I firmly believe the biggest mistake a voter can make is to base their decision whom to vote for based upon what the candidates say and do during an election year. The things a politician does prior to an election year speaks volumes as to what their real positions are on the issues and what they'll do when elected. Non-political endeavors and personal associations aside why do I feel more confident in McCain than Obama? If you recall back when the decision was made to invade Iraq McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts, not because he was opposed to tax cuts in principle but because he railed against the lack of spending cuts that accompanied the tax cuts. I also like the fact that McCain doesn't take earmarks for the State of Arizona, a stark contrast to Obama who has taken roughly one hundred million for Illinois (this is not including anything he may have added to the Bailout Bill). For me this is tangible proof as to what McCain actually stands for. In contrast I see no such thing from Obama who, prior to running for President, was voted as being the most liberal senator in Congress by the National Journal.
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
You may choose to believe every moderate, bi-partisan word, speech or promise coming out of Obama's mouth but his actual track record says otherwise.
I have no problem with McCain giving the rich their tax breaks (which in reality is not a question of giving anything but simply keeping the existing tax cuts in place) because that along with broader tax cuts is what helped bring this country out of a recession back in the early 80s. When the people who pay the lion's share of the nation's tax revenue get to keep more of their money (within reason) they have a strange habit of putting it back into the market by investing as opposed to stuffing it in their mattresses. When more money is put into the economy via investment there is a marked increase in venture capitalism, increased R&D, etc., all of which which translates into the creation of new industries and jobs which in turn increases tax revenues. So if you eliminate the existing tax breaks for the wealthy where will the money go? Into the hands of an ineffective, self serving institution called government (and one run by a particularly corrupt & greedy generation). The same institution that makes every tax dollar highly susceptible to earmark programs, special interest groups, lobbyists, etc. For example... for every $700 billion mortgage bailout bill you get $100 billion worth of earmarks, nice system eh?
Despite the fact that we have already spent a king's ransom on our education system it continues to get worse. The problem with America's education system is a direct result of the current generation of parents, teachers, adminstrators & managers. All the money in the world isn't going to improve America's education system one bit if parents continue to send spoiled, unattentive, undisciplined children to school who proceed to disrupt class & slow everyone else down by taking up the precious time of teachers. Nor does it help matters when we put more money into programs for children who cannot keep up instead of programs for children who are a cut above. Furthermore this same generation has worsened the situation by lowering standards in order to cater to children it cannot bear to give a bad grade to. Throwing more money at people running the institutions who caused the problem in the first place is hardly a solution. What is the solution? I have no idea. Whatever form it takes it needs to have a profound and widespread change in the culture responsible for the decline in the first place... and that is not going to happen by passing wasteful spending bills. Since sweeping cultural changes aren't on the radar then people will continue to scream for more money to throw onto the fire.
As to healthcare, even if you pulled everyone out of Iraq cold turkey & slashed the defense budget to bare bones levels you'd still be left with Medicare & Medicaid hogging up a nice chunk of every tax dollar. Obama can scream all day about how much the Iraq campaign is costing us but notice how he fails to mention all the other crap the government has been wasting money on for the last few decades. If a system such as Medicare/Medicaid which only covers senior citizens and select few Americans has contributed (along with Social Security) to an additional $40 trillion in unfunded debt on top of the $11 trillion already owed for our internal/external debt what in blazes do you think a universal healthcare system would cost this country?!? Socializing our healthcare system will prove to be disastrous. We need to get rid of HMO's and privatize the system. Switzerland has the best solution; strictly regulated, privatized healthcare that maximizes the quality and maintains high standards while controlling the costs. Provide tax credits to low income families to help get them coverage. Eliminate the government wastage, graft & lobbyist influences and let the market work out a solution.
Koga No Goshi
10-14-2008, 22:37
You're operating on the assumption that McCain/Obama will deliver on their campaign promises & economic plans. Fat chance. The bulk of what these candidates promise in an election year means nothing. Zip. Nada. Jack. Squat. They can spin and respin and unspin their plans all they like but once the election is decided the bulk of whatever they promised in said plans is rarely delivered when they sit down in the Oval office.
Okay, if you believe this, then there is no reason to trust or believe either candidate will be better than anything. And there is very little point in discussing it, dissuading someone from voting a certain way, or encouraging them to vote another way. So according to you, we are taking a total stab in the dark, and I fail to see why you would be so convinced, given such a dark uncallable shot, that Obama will be the worse of the two.
Okay, if you believe this, then there is no reason to trust or believe either candidate will be better than anything. And there is very little point in discussing it, dissuading someone from voting a certain way, or encouraging them to vote another way. So according to you, we are taking a total stab in the dark, and I fail to see why you would be so convinced, given such a dark uncallable shot, that Obama will be the worse of the two.
Try reading the rest of his post. :yes:
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/I posted that survey months ago, only to be informed that the National Journal is a partisan, right-wing rag. ....I know.... :shame:
Even still, excellent post. :2thumbsup:
You summed up, as succinctly as possible, the conservative viewpoint on this election.
Koga No Goshi
10-14-2008, 22:52
Try reading the rest of his post. :yes:
There was absolutely no point unless we assume he was lying in the first paragraph.
Okay, if you believe this, then there is no reason to trust or believe either candidate will be better than anything. And there is very little point in discussing it, dissuading someone from voting a certain way, or encouraging them to vote another way. So according to you, we are taking a total stab in the dark, and I fail to see why you would be so convinced, given such a dark uncallable shot, that Obama will be the worse of the two.
Did you read my entire post or did you simply zone in on the select passage that offended you the most and ignored the rest?
What I'm saying is that believing everything a candidate is selling you in an election year is a sucker's bet. These campaigns count on the ignorance and apathy of the average voter when it comes to putting together an election strategy. This is why they constantly change their positions and economic plans, they're in the hunt for those ignorant voters who are taking stock in them for the first time. I believe that in order to make a truly educated decision all one need do is examine everything the candidates did prior to an election year and base your vote on that.
Think of this as a horse race. Are you really prepared to bet everything based on what the jockey or trainer tells you in pre-race interviews? Would it not be wiser to base your bet on the horse's previous races, performance on a variety of turf & track conditions, diet, medical records, etc.?
Koga No Goshi
10-14-2008, 23:02
Did you read my entire post or did you simply zone in on the select passage that offended you the most and ignored the rest?
What I'm saying is that believing everything a candidate is selling you in an election year is a sucker's bet.
That may be so, but that's not what you said.
You're operating on the assumption that McCain/Obama will deliver on their campaign promises & economic plans. Fat chance. The bulk of what these candidates promise in an election year means nothing. Zip. Nada. Jack. Squat.
Which leaves us with the voting record. Which shows McCain voting lockstep with Bush, and none of the "maverick" or "reformer" he is promising in the campaign. So so far, you seem to be correct.
The difference between the two candidates at this point is that Obama is not the one promising to vote the reverse of almost every single vote he's ever made, to make good on a promise of "change." Although you guys scoff and drag it through the mud, Obama's one vote against the war, which was undoubtedly controversial at the time, is why he beat out another competitor claiming that she, too, was a "figure of change", while having to rely on the voters' faith that she was going to break with her history of voting in order to make that change rhetoric into reality.
I agree you can't believe every detail of every promise made. And a lot of it will fall by the wayside as practical considerations or funding dictates. But to look at these two candidates and declare Obama the least sincere or the most likely to flip flop, is ridiculous. Who was the one saying the fundamentals of the economy were strong, 4 hours before cancelling his campaign to go work on a bailout package for Wall Street? Who was the one that voted for the war and supported virtually every single bad judgment call the Bush admin made about foreign policy? But, yes, all of that is going to "change" once he's President. The 90% voting record with the Bush rubberstamp congress will "change." He'll suddenly be a butterfly from the caterpillar.
I believe McCain has only been truly consistent and honest about one thing. He'll cut taxes on the rich. That is the only thing I feel secure he will carry through with.
ICantSpellDawg
10-15-2008, 02:36
Here is an interesting blarticle by my favorite U.S. Naval blogger, Galrahn. I'm not sure if it is a good thing or a bad thing.
[
http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/
Pondering the Navy of the Future (http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/10/pondering-navy-of-future.html)
I am giving thought to writing a book, and have been given an amazing opportunity to do so. Nothing is definite yet, and if it falls through then lesson learned. The idea is one that was actually promoted by the publisher in the comments a couple weeks ago, The US Navy in the Age of Obama (or McCain). I do expect Obama to win though.
As I have made clear on the blog, I'm not very political, so the book will attempt to take a politically neutral look at what the US Navy under an Obama presidency would look like. In thinking about it, I've been taking a look at articles like this LA Times article (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-mccainmil13-2008oct13,0,1915662.story), that focuses in on what the Pentagon is saying about the two presidential candidates.
Perhaps unlike other civilian leaders, McCain would be able to draw on his experience and knowledge of the military to reject the advice of generals and admirals.
"He is more feared in the Pentagon because he is impervious to the usual methods the military uses to roll the civilian leadership," a senior Defense official said.
Past presidential hopefuls have pledged to reorder military spending and alter war preparations. But McCain "knows where the bodies are buried," the senior official said, referring to the Republican nominee's understanding of weapons programs.
The range of views within the Pentagon about the GOP candidate is surprising and shows a complex culture struggling with the effects of waging two protracted wars while grappling with rivalries among the military branches.There is a lot of truth to this, and I do believe the Pentagon is more worried about what a McCain presidency than an Obama presidency. I don't think that means large voter turn out in the military for Obama, but it does reflect that in almost every agency in government there is a look forward taking place.
For the Navy there isn't as much difference between the two as one might assume. Both will probably look to cut the DDG-1000, and neither is going to be very happy about the Littoral Combat Ship. Both men will take the shipbuilding problems seriously, and neither man is going to be in a hurry to make China enemy #1. McCain, as a member of the SASC, will understand the politics of the services better than Obama, but Obama will have advisers with that knowledge, and there are plenty of scores to settle regardless of what camp you are in.
The question therefore becomes, how will core philosophy guide either man as president on naval issues? If we use the last 16 years as a guide, both parties have gutted the Navy, bringing about 16 straight years of the lowest shipbuilding numbers for the Navy since the early 19th century, and this has brought us to a fleet struggling to stay above 280 ships.
I think pondering what the Navy will look like under Obama is an interesting question when given serious consideration, because one can easily be trapped by a partisan view based on a conventional wisdom theory. George Bush walked into the White House with a proclamation that the DoD would not be doing nation building on his watch, and thus transformation was born. The reality is, we have done nothing but nation building on the George Bush watch, and transformation has largely been a bridge to nowhere.
Will Barak Obama walk in with his own preconceived notions based heavily on the opinions of advisers to guide him? Repeating George Bush mistakes doesn't seem to be the Obama template. There is barely anything written from a liberal think tank regarding naval power, and yet, in many ways I find myself thinking that much of the strategic thinking coming from the Navy today would fit very well into a liberal core view of how naval forces should be postured, deployed, and operated. Ultimately, the progressive political view regarding the nations seapower will have to be developed. As one who has no idea what that would be, I'll stick to sound strategic thought and history as a guide, after all, one could hardly accuse that approach as being the Republican view today.
With a lack of information, I intend to use the 2008 National Defense Strategy (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/2008%20national%20defense%20strategy.pdf) (PDF) developed by Robert Gates, the 2007 Maritime Strategy (http://www.navy.mil/maritime/), and some older research produced during the 1997 QDR that was ignored by Rumsfeld to develop what I think would be a wise US Navy in the Age of Obama.
I tend to think of Obama as a president who will enter office with low expectations but high potential for the Navy, mostly because his core values on maritime issues remain an enigma. I'm still developing my ideas, but my ultimate intent is to align the book as a guide for the Navy for America in a World After Bush (http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/).
In the end, we'll see what happens. I've never written a book before, but I figure it has to be easier than writing ~25,000 words a week for this blog.
Posted by Galrahn at 6:15 PM (http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/10/pondering-navy-of-future.html) Comments (15) (http://www.haloscan.com/comments/galrahn/5177396735740204323/) | Trackback (http://www.haloscan.com/tb/galrahn/5177396735740204323/)
CountArach
10-15-2008, 08:57
A very fair and even-handed analysis there TuffStuff. An interesting view indeed.
The most interesting graph I have seen recently is this one, which shows McCain's result in the Gallup tracker vs the S&P500 Index:
https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r44/CountArach/marketsoct14.png
That's a good indication of how much the economy is hurting McCain.
KukriKhan
10-15-2008, 13:00
Is there a similar product going the other way, i.e. S&P down - Obama up? I often hear the TV talking Heads say things like: "A floundering economy always benefits Dem's (or the opposition)".
CountArach
10-15-2008, 13:10
Is there a similar product going the other way, i.e. S&P down - Obama up? I often hear the TV talking Heads say things like: "A floundering economy always benefits Dem's (or the opposition)".
I haven't seen a graph for it, but generally as McCain went down Obama went up or held steady.
Is there a similar product going the other way, i.e. S&P down - Obama up? I often hear the TV talking Heads say things like: "A floundering economy always benefits Dem's (or the opposition)".
One man's take on the economic crisis vs McCain:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/14/AR2008101402563.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
The diverging political fortunes of Barack Obama and McCain can be traced to a single moment. In the middle of September, the net favorable rating for each candidate was about the same. By Oct. 7, Obama was ahead on this measure by about 16 points. Did McCain suddenly become a stumbling failure? No, the world suddenly went into an economic slide. Americans blamed the party with executive power, which is also the party most closely tied in the public mind to bankers and Wall Street. None of this was fair to McCain, who has never been the Wall Street type. But party images are vivid, durable and almost impossible to shift on short notice.
Previous to this economic free fall -- and after his transformative vice-presidential choice -- McCain was about tied in a race he should have been losing by a large margin. The public clearly had questions about Obama's leadership qualities. But the McCain campaign also proved itself capable of constructing an effective narrative: Obama as lightweight celebrity, McCain as maverick reformer. Until history intervened.
OverKnight
10-15-2008, 15:55
Drone, essentially Bush has screwed over McCain twice, once in the 2000 primaries, the sleazy illegetimate black baby smear, and now by being in charge when the economy tanked. He put so much effort to appease the Republican base and this is the thanks he gets?
Personally, I think Obama was pulling ahead when the crisis hit, but it has certainly hurt McCain's numbers.
Barack Obama campaign pays for ads in online videogame
Obama campaigns in Paradise City (http://gigaom.com/2008/10/13/confirmed-obama-is-campaigning-on-xbox-360/)
Stay classy, Sacramento (http://www.sacbee.com/812/story/1314854.html)!
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/400-websitegrab-republicanpagestand.jpg
Sacramento County Republican leaders Tuesday took down offensive material on their official party Web site that sought to link Sen. Barack Obama to Osama bin Laden and encouraged people to "Waterboard Barack Obama" – material that offended even state GOP leaders. [...]
Taking credit for the site (sacramentorepublicans.org) and its content was county party chairman Craig MacGlashan – husband of Sacramento County Supervisor Roberta MacGlashan. [...]
But he defended his Web site. "I'm aware of the content," he said. "Some people find it offensive, others do not. I cannot comment on how people interpret things."
Koga No Goshi
10-15-2008, 18:11
*Shakes his head, walks away and say nothing*
Strike For The South
10-15-2008, 18:15
This is disgusting. If these two men were talking to an educated populace there polices could be better and we could make better decisions and probably have better candidates. Instead the masses now believe these men hold the keys to all of Americas success. What kind of country do we live in where people believe one man has so much control that they must vilify him. Both Obama and McCain have zealots who memorized a few talking points and go out and spew them. There is no debate merely hate and then even people who know anything about the issues are usually to bull headed to change there mind because they are well informed.
The American people want this as its much easier to blame those with power for your shortcomings than yourself. All hail the elected!
Koga No Goshi
10-15-2008, 18:17
This is disgusting. If these two men were talking to an educated populace there polices could be better and we could make better decisions and probably have better candidates. Instead the masses now believe these men hold the keys to all of Americas success. What kind of country do we live in where people believe one man has so much control that they must vilify him. Both Obama and McCain have zealots who memorized a few talking points and go out and spew them. There is no debate merely hate and then even people who know anything about the issues are usually to bull headed to change there mind because they are well informed.
The American people want this as its much easier to blame those with power for your shortcomings than yourself. All hail the elected!
Hey, at the very least this time they didn't give Michelle Obama an added Afro and assault rifle.
Strike For The South
10-15-2008, 18:18
Hey, at the very least this time they didn't give Michelle Obama an added Afro and assault rifle.
that was sarcasm by the New Yorker...you realize this right?
It's pointless and counter-productive. McCain is not going to win California, with or without tactics like this. And when reported at the national level, things like this make Republicans seem even crazier than they really are and alienate independents.
Strike For The South
10-15-2008, 18:21
Im surprised Obamas campaign hasn't come back tit for tat on these.
Kralizec
10-15-2008, 18:22
Which leaves us with the voting record. Which shows McCain voting lockstep with Bush, and none of the "maverick" or "reformer" he is promising in the campaign.
How is this is different from Obama styling himself as a outsider and a uniter? :shrug:
Im surprised Obamas campaign hasn't come back tit for tat on these.
They don't need to. At this point, Obama just needs to sit back, wait for Nov 4th, and watch McCain's campaign and assorted unaffiliated nuts do his job for him. Unless someone can come out with a credible scandal, it's pretty much over.
Strike For The South
10-15-2008, 18:37
They don't need to. At this point, Obama just needs to sit back, wait for Nov 4th, and watch McCain's campaign and assorted unaffiliated nuts do his job for him. Unless someone can come out with a credible scandal, it's pretty much over.
This is true
Im surprised Obamas campaign hasn't come back tit for tat on these.
To elaborate on what drone said, Obama appears to be a master of the rope-a-dope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rope-a-dope).
"Rope-a-dope" is also used in political contexts, to describe situations in which a contender allows his or her opponent to think the contender is politically weaker than he or she actually is. For example, commentator Andrew Sullivan has described Barack Obama's strategies against Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries, and against John McCain in the Presidential election as "classic rope-a-dope".
Askthepizzaguy
10-15-2008, 18:46
Okay, if you believe this, then there is no reason to trust or believe either candidate will be better than anything. And there is very little point in discussing it, dissuading someone from voting a certain way, or encouraging them to vote another way. So according to you, we are taking a total stab in the dark, and I fail to see why you would be so convinced, given such a dark uncallable shot, that Obama will be the worse of the two.
Sorry I'm late everyone.
Point of fact, if Spino believes neither candidate will deliver, then he's wasting his time trying to convince anyone that McCain is better.
Koga No Goshi
10-15-2008, 18:47
that was sarcasm by the New Yorker...you realize this right?
It was satire of real-life scare portrayals of the Obamas, you realize this right? You just saw one of them, a style of thinly veiled racebaiting and Muslim fearmongering and exaggerating Obama's "exotic-ness" to scare people or make ridiculous false claims about his religion or background. The reason no one "laughed" at the New Yorker Satire was because it wasn't showing off how ridiculous these tactics against Obama are--- because so many damn people have been taking it SERIOUSLY! That Rep rally in Minnesota, just the other day, a woman saying Obama's an Arab and can't be trusted.
That's how stupid people are. If people believe it literally, it's hard to make satire of it.
Koga No Goshi
10-15-2008, 18:53
Sorry I'm late everyone.
Point of fact, if Spino believes neither candidate will deliver, then he's wasting his time trying to convince anyone that McCain is better.
That's what gets me about the "no no no, I'm not partisan, I'm Independent... now here's why McCain is better than Obama" angle. If supposedly you're disgusted with both parties and believe both of them to be dishonest and uncredible, constant endorsements of just one party erodes your credibility as an "independent." There've been a lot of "Independents" of that variety since W took office.
It was satire of real-life scare portrayals of the Obamas, you realize this right? You just saw one of them, a style of thinly veiled racebaiting and Muslim fearmongering and exaggerating Obama's "exotic-ness" to scare people or make ridiculous false claims about his religion or background. The reason no one "laughed" at the New Yorker Satire was because it wasn't showing off how ridiculous these tactics against Obama are--- because so many damn people have been taking it SERIOUSLY! That Rep rally in Minnesota, just the other day, a woman saying Obama's an Arab and can't be trusted.
That's how stupid people are. If people believe it literally, it's hard to make satire of it.
in a way it´s funny to watch....
the republican party has been throwing red meat out to the fringe base for so long that it´s come back to bite it in it´s collective ass.
these dimwits have been catered to in the party rhetoric for so long and have been driven up to such a frenzy that they have become a liability....
hey guess what....when you have a television broadcasted rally and people are shouting "kill him" about the opposition candidate....that´s not the way to attract the moderates you need to win.
Tribesman
10-15-2008, 19:24
things like this make Republicans seem even crazier than they really are
Do you mean it makes them seem like frothing at the mouth and spouting crap crazy rather than just the usual spouting crap crazy ?
Do you mean it makes them seem like frothing at the mouth and spouting crap crazy rather than just the usual spouting crap crazy ?
Indeed. ~;)
That's what gets me about the "no no no, I'm not partisan, I'm Independent... now here's why McCain is better than Obama" angle. If supposedly you're disgusted with both parties and believe both of them to be dishonest and uncredible, constant endorsements of just one party erodes your credibility as an "independent." There've been a lot of "Independents" of that variety since W took office.
Just to clarify. I don't think I've ever really said McCain is better than Obama. I don't like either choice. I just believe that McCain as president, handcuffed by the inevitable Democrat majority in Congress, would be better for the country than Obama with a mandate. It's the party dynamics, not the candidates.
Koga No Goshi
10-15-2008, 20:25
Indeed. ~;)
Just to clarify. I don't think I've ever really said McCain is better than Obama. I don't like either choice. I just believe that McCain as president, handcuffed by the inevitable Democrat majority in Congress, would be better for the country than Obama with a mandate. It's the party dynamics, not the candidates.
::Bow:: Not you, Drone. I was speaking in general.
ICantSpellDawg
10-15-2008, 20:31
Indeed. ~;)
Just to clarify. I don't think I've ever really said McCain is better than Obama. I don't like either choice. I just believe that McCain as president, handcuffed by the inevitable Democrat majority in Congress, would be better for the country than Obama with a mandate. It's the party dynamics, not the candidates.
I agree to a large extent.
Askthepizzaguy
10-15-2008, 21:18
So, the argument is now "4-8 years of deadlocked/vetoed congressional actions" instead of an administration who can actually affect change?
We'd rather have 4-8 years of no solutions, instead of a solution conservatives don't like?
This is why I'm non-partisan, and will support my opponent when they have better ideas.
Koga No Goshi
10-15-2008, 21:30
So, the argument is now "4-8 years of deadlocked/vetoed congressional actions" instead of an administration who can actually affect change?
We'd rather have 4-8 years of no solutions, instead of a solution conservatives don't like?
This is why I'm non-partisan, and will support my opponent when they have better ideas.
And no one better run off at the mouth and say "it's the same thing Dems do." You guys spend the rest of the time gloating that the Dems are as bad as the Reps for going along with most of the things Bush wanted since the Congressional election. Can't have it both ways. :)
I think only people who are in some form of denial about a) what's wrong and b) how to fix it would advocate trying to make the next administration as neutered as possible. Lame ducking 2008-2012 is not going to make things better. It's the political equivalent of putting one's head in the sand during a hurricane.
Ironside
10-15-2008, 21:51
So, the argument is now "4-8 years of deadlocked/vetoed congressional actions" instead of an administration who can actually affect change?
We'd rather have 4-8 years of no solutions, instead of a solution conservatives don't like?
This is why I'm non-partisan, and will support my opponent when they have better ideas.
It's more of "if the reps or dems control everything, they will pass a lot of stupid stuff, so we need to keep things gridlocked so only the somewhat sane stuff will pass", if I understood that mentality correctly.
Personally I would try to find another system, than using one that's works best while not really working.
Askthepizzaguy
10-15-2008, 22:03
I see what youre saying Ironside, but...
when the grid is locked, all that passes is insane amounts of pork barrel spending to keep both sides happy, and nothing productive gets done.
CrossLOPER
10-15-2008, 22:14
What about just suspending government and not doing squat? How's that sound?
It's more of "if the reps or dems control everything, they will pass a lot of stupid stuff, so we need to keep things gridlocked so only the somewhat sane stuff will pass", if I understood that mentality correctly.
That's the one. Things will only get done when they really need to be done. Usually, government causes more problems than they solve.
Lame-duck refers to a president in his last legal term. If a president can work with his opposition in Congress, there is a real good possibility he will get re-elected (Reagan 1984, Clinton 1996). Gridlock ensures nothing insane gets passed, forces civility, and keeps the checks and balances in place. With both branches controlled by one party, we may as well be the UK.
Koga No Goshi
10-15-2008, 23:13
What about just suspending government and not doing squat? How's that sound?
This sounds like "I hate America and I want to see it collapse in on itself like the USSR did", to me.
In other words, why does he hate freedom? I think your post needs some smilies, Koga.
I was a supported of McCain during the primaries, and I didn't become an Obama fanatic until Johnny Mac chose Sarah Palin. Seems I'm not alone. The first article (http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/10/the-surge-of-the-whitebread-pr.html) suggests that Palin drove away many mainstream ("whitebread") Protestants:
The Mainline shift to Sen. Obama may be partly an unintended consequence of Sen. McCain's efforts to energize evangelical Christians, including through the selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Though fiscally conservative, mainline Protestants are socially liberal - so they would be unimpressed by the Republican Party adopting the most antiabortion platform ever. Mainliners may be irritated or scared by Gov. Palin's religious language and beliefs - including her attendance at a Pentecostal church espousing "End Times" theology (that we're approaching the end of the world and Christ's return).
In general, Mainliners have grown increasingly uncomfortable with the role the "religious right" has played in the Republican Party. According to a new survey by a progressive group called Faith in Public Life, Mainliners - by a margin of two to one -- believe public officials are too close to religious leaders. Evangelicals, by a two to one margin, think politicians should pay more attention to religion.
The second item (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/dannywestneat/2008267851_danny15.html) argues that Palin cost McCain dearly among white women in the Pacific Northwest (Crazed Rabbit's territory):
After traveling around [Washington] state these past two weeks, I think I can pinpoint the precise day McCain lost it.
August 29, 2008. The day he picked Sarah Palin.
It seemed like a smart choice at the time. There are 200,000 more female voters here than male. It's nearly impossible to win this state without carrying the female vote. Especially independent women.
What an irony Palin turned out to be. Nothing seems to be driving women to Barack Obama faster than the first female on a national ticket in 24 years.
I guess that's the problem with Hail Mary plays; you don't really know how they're going to work out.
GeneralHankerchief
10-16-2008, 00:21
white women in the Pacific Northwest (Crazed Rabbit's territory)
This quote can look horrible taken out of context. :grin:
Rep. Murtha, calls his constituents racists (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j0q0L6_tj5OkoqKqBgOieU39awQAD93R6OJ00).
"There is no question that western Pennsylvania is a racist area."
That guy is such a class act. Not too long ago, he also pronounced US Marines to be murderers during an investigation- which later cleared them. :no:
In other news, the Obama campaign has bought a bunch of billboard ad space.... in your video games (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/15/uselections2008-barackobama-technology). That's EA and their "dynamic" ads for you...
Rep. Murtha, calls his constituents racists (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j0q0L6_tj5OkoqKqBgOieU39awQAD93R6OJ00).
That guy is such a class act. Not too long ago, he also pronounced US Marines to be murderers during an investigation- which later cleared them. :no:
In other news, the Obama campaign has bought a bunch of billboard ad space.... in your video games (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/15/uselections2008-barackobama-technology). That's EA and their "dynamic" ads for you...
re-post....I put that up about a page back
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.