I plan on voting for Obama in November, but I am kind of a tool. Sorry, I can’t help.
Why do (some) of us Dems do this? The Republicans play the victim card all the time.
They are going to take your guns.
Those elitist look down on us.
and on and on and on and some people raise to the bait.
Well I’m not, and I’m not afraid of a fight. I will call Palin and McCain as I see them. They are Unfit to be President and Vice President. They are liars, and scumbags.
and I don’t care if I hurt some poor Repulican’s feelings over my vicious, sexist, angry left attack.
Damn you! I was going to suggest that we change the title to: Convince Obama supporters that Bricker isn’t being a tool.
knorf you may be disappointed. In so far as her actions help any of us learn about her judgment they are fair game. In so far as she may have lied regarding family issues they are fair game. If wanting to know more about those things upsets some then so be it. The “game” of getting those few votes is less important than all of us finding out important information about her judgment and character.
Are her actions regarding family issues the most important data points? No, of course not.
And they should not be a feature of any campaign action against her. But among people who I talk with, they are bits of her story that I will talk about…
Along with her being a far Right hard line extremist who wants to criminalize abortion even in cases of rape and incest, who believes that Creationism should be taught along side of Evolution in school science classes as part of “teaching the controversy”, who (when she has thought about foreign policy at all) thinks of issues in terms of America being on a messianic “task that is from God”, and who thinks of energy policy in the same Christian fundamentalist light. And along with her ethical impairments, the fact that she has been pork barrel operator a cut above even the normal fat, the fact that she has lied about her record, the fact that she has a long record firing any one in any capacity that she has any suspicion may not be completely “loyal to her” or who has dared to disagree with her requests no matter how inappropriate they may be.
More important than aspects of her judgment and character illustrated by her actions regarding her family matters is the simple fact that these extremist Right positions are exactly consistent with what Bush has always run on and what McCain has been promising more of (if not just a hairs breadth more so), that her worldview is completely consistent with Bush’s “Crusade” and McCain’s simplistic worldview in which he doesn’t know or care about who is a Sunni and who is a Shi’ite (they are all heathen to him, the fact they do not share Judeao-Christian values alone enough to make them suspect), consistent with McCain’s misrepresenting what he’s done and his tendency to not tolerate hearing from those with other points of view. Her extremism, her poor judgment, her poor character, her dangerous worldview, her partisan nastiness are significant most of all because they are just the same as Bush’s and McCain’s, the same cloth for all three - just a bit more militantly so. I guess if a hammer doesn’t work you use a bigger hammer.
Nope. Sorry, OP. I think every single thing about Palin, her family, her friends, her grocer, whatever are fair game. The Republicans don’t follow any rules of civilized behavior. Why should we? Screw 'em.
If that makes this independent a “tool” then so be it.
Evidently the answer is no.
My intention was to start debate whether Obama’s supporters really can follow his lead and rise to a higher level of political discourse, without stupid slime-ball attacks on someone’s family. Bricker says that Obama’s supporters use the same awful tactics that everyone uses, that in fact Obama is not worth voting for because he does not actually inspire anyone to be better. I’m used his rant as a point of departure. I wanted SMDB Obama supporters to show how wrong Bricker (as an archetype) is.
But, evidently, Bricker is right. Totally correct. So far most of Obama’s supporters, on SDMB as evidenced in this thread, are not interested in following Obama’s example. At all.
They also are apparently unable to read an OP. I said quite clearly in my OP that it’s not really about Bricker the person in the first place. It is an excuse to show that Obama does inspire his followers (or so I had hoped). Bricker himself is merely an archetype to spur discussion. I really don’t see how that is so hard to understand.
I’m very disappointed so far. Politics as usual. I hate it when people like Shodan and Starving Artist are right.
Resolved: Obama apparently does not inspire his followers to be better people. Bricker’s reason for no longer voting for Obama is valid.
The thing is, we should be better than them. All the slimy, weaselly, truth deficient crap they’ve said about Obama and his family should be on them. I’m with Obama. Take the high road. Leave families out of it. When they lie, mislead, and sling mud, respond to them. But don’t let them drag us down into the mud with them.
We’re better than them.
Pit thread?
Can’t people keep Bricker bashing in there?
Oh quit with the melodrama. It’s unbecoming. If you expected one man to change the way campaigning has been done for the last 20 years, I fear your expectations are unrealistic.
Obama has condemned Kos for the crap about Palin’s youngest. He’s said families should be left out of it. He’s done his best. Yet, as is reality, there are going to be some mudslingers out there. Don’t blame Obama for that. It’s patently ridiculous.
And Shodan and Starving artist and Bricker are only “right”, if they admitted that some members of the left have joined the great majority of talking heads on the right in the gutter. Woo fucking Hoo. Some on the left are as bad as the right. Big fucking victory right there.
Hamlet, that is too close to the insult line for this Forum. Back off.
John Mace, I realize that you were just playing on the quoted post, but I would hope you would know better, as well.
[ /Modding ]
The fact that people aren’t interested in taking a loyalty oath doesn’t prove anything one way or another about their level of discourse. What did you want them to do, exactly? Perhaps most importantly you didn’t define what an “attack” on Palin was.
While there are many things to like about Obama, I think it’s completely fair game to point out that, while he himself has generally refrained from certain kinds of attacks, his surrogates and spokespeople often have not. You can choose to assume that his campaign has nothing to do with any of those statements, but I think this is unlikely. Basically you are holding Obama to the same kind of unfair standard that Bricker did: Obama has to be perfect, or else he’s no good at all. What if, on average, he’s just a little better? Does that count for something, or nothing?
I think it’s inarguable that he does. But not everybody is inspired the same way.
Another vague term.
Typically “Resolved” is what comes at the start of a debate.
I’m with Dio on this one: just about any reason for voting is valid.
I for one am tired of unilateral disarmament. As long as what we say is factual, fuck em if the right wing doesn’t like it.
I actually believed that Obama did inspire people to a higher level of political discourse, because he has so inspired me. I had hoped more of Obama’s supporters on the SDMB felt the same.
and so what?
One, we are going to hire someone to be president of the United States.
What is that job?
Is the president supposed to make up want to be better people? Should we get Helen Hunt?
No, to me the president is not a moral leader. If I want moral leadership, I can look to any number of people. Like my pastor, minister, priest, rabbi. My yoga instructor, my doctor, (like I can afford one).
I don’t look to political leaders for moral leadership, nor do I look to sport stars, music stars or movie stars for moral leadershipl.
I also don’t have a problem with fighting for what I believe and I don’t believe it is better to lose with you ‘morals’ than to not sink to their level and win.
Uncle.
I was wrong. I should have known I would be wrong. Politics as usual.
What does making their followers better people have to do with being president? The president is supposed to run this country, not be our pope and spiritual/moral adviser. We need someone who is best able to secure a peacful and prosperous America. Maybe McCain is better at that than Obama, maybe vice versa. That should be the only subject of debate.
Political campaigns are noisy ugly things that we put up with because they’re the only way of transferring power between factions that doesn’t involve bloodshed. Candidates behave as they do because that’s how they win. Both Obama and McCain have compromised their ideals. It’s regrettable, but if they didn’t do that they would lose. I have a suspicion that people who say “I was really hoping Candidate X would rise above politics as usual” really mean “I was hoping Candidate X would lose, but lose in a particularly noble and inspiring way.”
I am.
However:
Arguments concerning Palin’s lack of character due to having repeatedly played Russian roulette with the life of her unborn child on April 18 of this year are well within bounds. I don’t see how that’s anything but a very serious, and very public (by dint of Palin’s having publicized it) character issue.
Arguments that Palin wasn’t actually pregnant at the time, but was covering up her daughter’s pregnancy, are legitimate as far as I’m concerned - if nothing else, due to their exculpatory nature concerning her hazarding the life of the unborn child. If no Sarah Palin pregnancy, then no hazard, no foul.
Plus Palin turned ‘babygate’ into a public issue by revealing Bristol’s current pregnancy in order to quash what was, at the time, no more than an Internet rumor, with no support from the MSM or even from big-name lefty bloggers.
Needless to say, the wisdom of her decision to quash said rumor by putting her underage, unwed daughter’s pregnancy in the spotlight, rather than simply opening up her medical records, is completely fair game.
Arguments to the contrary are welcomed.
Did you honestly expect that, because of Obama, nobody in the blogosphere would point out the hypocrisy of the right over the issue of teen pregnancy? Did you really think that, just because of Obama, political attacks would stop? Was that you honestly believed? Did you expect every single person on the left would avoid slinging mud? Really?
Then, yes, you were wrong. And incredibly unrealistic in your expectations.
One problem here is that there are Palin family issues that are clearly within bounds, and Palin family issues that are, or at least should be, out of bounds. Your OP makes no attempt to acknowledge the existence of the former, let alone distinguish between one and the other.
As a result, your OP can easily be confused with an attempt to place all issues related to the Palin family out of bounds. Such a position is rightfully rejected - and it may be that that’s what most of the posters in this thread are rejecting, rather than the more limited and nuanced position I hope you intended.
No. I believed that most Obama supporters were already being better, and would demonstrate such when called upon. That in fact Obama did inspire a significant number of his supporters to be better in their political discourse.
Indeed. Apparently, you have to think of everything. Sheesh, you’d think I was trying to submit article to a peer-reviewed journal.
I didn’t want this thread to be about nitpicking what is or is not off-limits. Just generally sound arguments regarding the notion that certain familial details that have been used to attack Palin (pregnancies) are unwarranted, cheapen political discourse, and prove that people like Bricker are correct.
Bricker himself acknowledged that the GOP are no better. But he, like myself, had hoped that Obama’s supporters would be.