Bricker is a lawyer. The repubs hammer lawyers as being part of the problem. They want to end frivolous law suits for every one who is not rich. They define such suits as anything that may cost money for the powerful. They are not the friends of lawyers. Read up on tort reform for starters.
And he did. And a great many have been. And many who have engaged in the familial attacks have regretted it. But blaming anything about it on Obama is silly.
I’m sorry if you’re feeling piled on, but when you start a thread you generally need to define the terms involved, or at least start the conversation on what those terms mean. That’s all the more true in a thread where you’ve started saying you’re disappointed in everybody. If you say people haven’t lived up to the standard you like, it’s more than fair for them to ask what that standard is. “Politics as usual” has a general meaning, but mostly it’s used by politicians to mean “whatever it is about politics you don’t like.” It’s pretty much all things to all people. The thing that really sucks about politics as usual is that, while nobody likes it except the people who use it, people do respond to it.
But it’s also true that voting for Obama is not the mark of a better person. There are people here, and elsewhere, who are just looking for any available implement to attack Palin with, and in the process it’s not surprising that they’ve latched on to some ridiculous stuff.
Okay, I’ll take on that as a proposition.
Your statement is false. It would be true only if two things were true:
[ol]
[li]Ignoring questions of character and judgment are signs of being a better person.[/li][li]There were no other ways in which Obama inspires people to be better people.[/li][/ol]
The latter is outside the scope of this thread (perhaps you’d care to start a new one) but I believe that Obama has inspired many people to become “better.” Entire demographics are now engaged in what they believe is working for the betterment of this country, getting in the habit of working for a cause greater than their own self-interests. That alone is something.
The former is more to the point of this thread. And obviously I think that your assumption is off-base. Attacking her family would be wrong. Attacking her judgment regarding issues that have involved her family is not. Most here (true not all) have avoided the easy cheap shots (and it is so hard to hold back as they are sooo easy) and stayed pertinent. Perhaps Obama’s request helped some refrain from some cheap shots, perhaps not. But our not questioning her actions as being evidence of our being better people. Nope. Disagree.
Knorf, I’ll try. I like and respect Bricker, Obama and McCain. I do not like Biden or Palin. My reason for not liking them is based on their records, their speeches and their policy positions. I plan to vote for Obama, but I have never considered McCain a terrible choice. I thought for 2 years back he was one of only 2 Republicans that stood a chance of beating the Dems this time. The other was Rudy, but it turned out he was a terrible campaigner.
I think that is what is important in a campaign. I dislike much of Palin positions. I don’t really find her family life to be a worthwhile issue. I do find her stance on Drill in wildlife areas and anywhere else problematic, especially with her husband working for BP. I find her Creationist beliefs to be scary for a politician, but at least it sounds like she is not pushing of ID in Science classes. Her original stance on the bridge to nowhere and her falsely claiming she fought this boondoggle is very disturbing. Etc. I think there is no shortage of real reasons for this independent (ex-Republican) to dislike Palin as a candidate for VP.
But **Bricker **does not work as a lawyer at this point does he? I thought he had a non-law related job as a contractor with the Feds.
I think Marley23 has said it well: if you’re going to say that people here have gone over the line of what arguments are appropriate and which ones aren’t, and you want them to pledge to stay on this side of the line, then while you don’t need to get to a nitpicky level of detail, you still need to give a reasonably clear idea of where you think the line is.
You can’t tell - or at least, I sure can’t tell how you can tell. AFAICT, your yardstick is too blurry to distinguish ‘better’ from ‘no better.’ (How can Bricker tell, either?)
I’ve listed some arguments in post #57 of this thread that I believe to be clearly within bounds. Do you agree? Disagree? If the latter, why?
I’ll try to do this better in the future.
All too true. People will have to decide for themselves. I set up Bricker as the archetype for whom to persuade, but people can set up something else if they reject that.
This is more like it. This is an example of an approach to better political discourse I was hoping to see. Thank you.
However, right now I have to teach, but when I get a chance later this afternoon, I will try to address your point.
Several of the last several posts seem to be headed in the more positive, Obama-does-inspire direction. Perhaps I cast in the towel too hastily.
(I must point out that several of the boundaries I had hoped for were quite clear in the OP, such as keeping Bricker-bashing in the pit.)
And he has.
But he is not the Messiah (and for what that’s worth, there are plenty of alleged followers of Jesus who have no problem slaughtering the unbelievers). He cannot effect a fundamental change in men’s hearts and many people are just mean.
You forget that there is a huge boatload of people out there who are now “Obama supporters” only because they are anti-Republicans, and he is the one they got. People who, if the situations turned out a little different, you would say are Hillary supporters smearing VP-nominee Romney. Same as the swiftboaters on the other side. And we who believe in decent debate can censure them and repudiate them until we pass out, but at the end of the day, those hurt by their words are **not **going to believe they acted on their own and w/o our acquiescence.
Our best hope is that either Obama or McCain will choose, in assembling their vision of the future in actual positions of trust and power, those supporters of theirs who behaved honorably, and not these others.
Surprising no.
But that doesnt preclude hoping for something better, as Bricker (and I) did, does it?
I didn’t blame it on Obama. I’m planning on voting for him, and nothing anyone says around here is ikely to change my mind, unless they reveal a serious flaw in Obama the candidate.
However, I had hoped (and am still hoping) that Obama does represent an improvement in the quality of political discourse, as Bricker also hoped, and that his followers–in some signficant way that I cannot define precisely–will be inspired to do likewise. Obviously many won’t. But maybe some will? Maybe most?
Sure, I agree that if the only reason Bricker wanted to vote for Obama as too see an improved political dialogue among his followers, that’s pretty flimsy. But I think it is a substantial reason among many as something one might hope to see.
What I think many conservatives don’t see, or refuse to acknowledge is that (most) liberals are shouting ‘hypocrite’ not ‘sinner’. What makes homosexual trysts in airport bathrooms so damming isn’t the homosexual part, it’s the part where that person earlier denounced the same. Politicians exposed with hookers is so much worse if that politician is also the family values preacher. Governor Palin asking the public to accept her daughter’s personal choice while pushing for legislation to deny that choice to other families is hypocritical.
For conservatives to denounce the entire subject as nothing more than muck raking is disingenuous.
Where in “Obama Country” do you live? Go step into a campaign office and ask what the campaign is doing. After that, you’ll be better able to say that “Obama does not inspire his followers to be better people”.
Everybody hopes for something better. But how much can you reasonably expect, and if your expectations aren’t met, where does the responsibility lie? That’s what I’m saying.
Now I’m going to have that Muppet Movie song in my head all day. I could do worse.
As long as you brought this up, did she actually request the choice of an abortion or was it a choice to get married and raise the child as opposed to putting it up for adoption?
I ask as someone that thinks Palin being chosen was a bad idea by McCain and is pro-choice with some personnel reservations but I am extremely pro birth control and teaching about birth control.
I will be voting for Obama.
But I don’t think badly of McCain. I think he is a genuine hero and would be a better president than Bush has been. I think he is an honorable man.
I am embarrassed by the venom I see from both sides.
I would like a more civil society and I see Obama as a great example in this regard.
So if I have this right, you can’t say what you’ve seen here that you think goes over the line. you don’t know where the line is or should be, but you are disappointed that Obama’s own level of calmer political discourse has not uniformly trickled down to the entire roughly 50% of the population who plans on voting for him?
Have some been less partisan? Who knows? I think so. Certainly the campaign has. Some are afraid that taking the high road may be the road less traveled but only because experience has shown that it doesn’t take you to the White House. And that is not the all the difference they had in mind.
Obama’s high minded posture doesn’t change a basic fact that politics is a tough game. He has no control of all of those who support him. He stayed out of public financing so that he could have more control over his message, but that does not give him absolute power to stop any one else from fighting back just a nasty as its been given. To expect that it would otherwise, or to expect that you could somehow quantify what people are not doing when you can’t even define what it is that are talking about, is a bit unrealistic, don’t you think?
wow. I left the board before because the the ridiculous semantic word games and pseudo-parody crap that people like Bricker and Scylla would pull, and returned to see the same shit being pulled.
the more things change…
Every Obama supporter is a tool. Humans are tools. When we parse and peer and inspect every aspect of any person, we’ll find ugly, stupid things said and done and believed. The more we want to find them, the harder we’ll look, and the bigger every small thing appears.
I refuse to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Can I be a hammer?
It pains me to say this, and I’ve alluded to it before, but I’ll just say it outright: I have long come to expect that from the Ridiculous Right (a phrase necessary to duplicate the nice alliteration that Looney Left has, you see). There are many reasons I’m a conservative, but I’ve long been aware of, and hated, the idiocies that many on my side spew up.
It’s just always been pretty much balanced by the Looney Left, leaving no net gain for either side.
I know I’ve done a piss-poor job of explaining why I’ve been so upset, and it’s left many concluding that this is all a sham, an excuse to slam Obama. (A slam sham, if you will). But that’s absolutely not the case.
Let me try again.
Why would I even have considered voting for Obama, who is not likely to be friendly to gun control issues, who is likely to appoint “Living Constitution” justices to the Supreme Court, who is in favor of some variety of universal health care?
Because Obama created ANOTHER issue, one that had never before come up in my lifetime. He promised a campaign about the issues, and about integrity. Now, everyone promises that. But he delivered. He delivered when Hilary started attacking him, and I thought, “Hey, it’s just that he doesn’t want to trash a fellow Democrat.” But then, when he was clearly the presumptive nominee, he didn’t return McCain’s attacks with his own. The only time he fell off his bandwagon was with respect to campaign finance, and it was in my view a minor ding to the armor.
I started to think – naive in the extreme, I admit now – that if Obama held to this position, and he won, it would transform the way campaigns are done. Down the line, it would become reprehensible, or the mark of desperation, to launch personal attacks or lying ads.
Then Palin erupted. There are plenty of things to criticize about Sarah Palin. She’s advocated the teaching of Creationism in public school. She has very little elected office experience relevant to her proposed job as VP, including effectively no foreign policy experience.
And what did I read here?
The first thing that got major play here was the serious discussion of whther she faked her pregnancy to conceal her daughter’s pregnancy. Then when that was debunked by news of her daughter’s pregnancy, the attacks (seldom acknowledging their first error) shifted smoothly to her choices about where to deliver her baby, and how poor a mother she is because her teen daughter was pregnant. Those got more play in discussion here than Creationism, foreign policy experience, or time in office.
So I read all these… and I began to think that I had been nuts. Even if Obama insisted on a clean campaign, no one else (on either side) was going to care. Nothing Obama did, even if he won, was going to make any changes in this area.
So that essentially took the one issue that had me supporting Obama off the table. It was an impossible standard to hold anyone to, I now see.
Again, it’s not exactly “who has the meanest supporters.” It’s “I now see that mean supporters can’t ever be stopped.”
I wish you would. I’m ready an interested to debate some of those, and to concede that others are indefensible. Example: I have no problems with her environmental positions (as far as I understand them) and I’m ready to defend them in debate. But I won’t say her advocating the teaching of Creationism in school is anything but nutty.
So let’s have THOSE debates.