I thought these were more typical Muslim ties.
Admittedly I haven’t been following along in this discussion to well (I’m working atm…looks like another long night), but maybe someone could answer why people consider him a Muslim when he is a self professed Christian (I don’t hold that against him…not TOO much :))? If you are born a Muslim you are always a Muslim…or something?
Not that it makes much diff to me personally. I’m not big on religion so I don’t hold being religious (well, depending on the level of fervor they have) against people. Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Hottentot…it’s all the same to me.
-XT
I don’t consider him a Muslim. I just said he had Muslim ties, which I think is a fair statement considering his hereditari paternal background, his upbringing and exposure to Islamic culture during his formative years.
I think a self-professed Christian (although I think of him as being closer to agnostic according to what he wrote about himself in Audacity of Hope) with a hereditary and cultural background that affords him a credibility with Islamic nations to be a huge advantage in a President in this particular environment.
Agreed. I actually meant my question as a general one btw Scylla…wasn’t meant as an attack or anything on you or anyone else in the thread. It’s just curious to me how people tend to associate one with the religion of their birth instead of the religion they self identify. It would be like calling me a Catholic…though even less accurate as I don’t identify with religion at all anymore where as Obama definitely self identifies as a Christian.
-XT
I think you’re talking about Jews. Jon Stewart, for instance, is not a religious man but thinks of himself as a jew anyways.
Since he lived in indonesia between ages 6 and 10, even if Obama had behaved as a muslim for a certain time and then moved on to christianity afterwards, he would not be considered an apostate in the eyes of muslims because he was too young to know better. I’m sure this is something the Obama campaign considered even before Fox’s shenanigans began a while back.
If Obama is not a complete idiot, and I don’t think he is, he will be sure to proclaim loudly and often how wonderful his childhood was and how touched he was by muslims for their warm hospitality, pepper in few flattering anecdotes for muslim listeners and basically just be nice and friendly. It would be a major coup for Obama if he could get the sympathy of arabs and muslims and repair the damage done by previous administrations. He could also make it harder for other leaders to blame america for all their woes, capitalizing on the existing sentiment.
His name is Barack Hussein Obama. That may be a small liability here, in other places, it’s an advantage. I believe this is what Scylla meant when he spoke of ties.
Btw, Scylla: have you any idea of how much smugness was generated in the dem’s camp following your endorsement?*
*It was of cyclopean proportions. You’ll never hear the end of it.
Maybe - would you agree that muslims living in the US or England have their formative years at the same ages? Christian ties, anyone?
U. Minor
Sadly, as a Canadian, all I can do is watch.
But, on the other hand, since the gladiator contests were banned, watching the US election is the most fun anyone can have.
Yes, actually, I can see that “ties” phrase applying to such Muslims in terms of enduring friendships with Christians formed then, as well as understanding gained of the Christian culture in which they spent those formative years.
I feel for you Scylla. If I were American, I’d have a lot of trouble fitting into any party these days. The Republicans have become nothing more than social conservatives - actual small government principles don’t seem to be part of the deal any more.
On the other hand, Democrats have outright destructive and dangerous economic ideas. And they tend to be squishy on national security.
The Libertarians have morphed into a strange anti-war party.
That doesn’t leave any space for someone who is economically conservative, a believer in smaller government and lower regulations, while being socially liberal and in favor of a strong military. I wouldn’t know what to do.
Obama is intriguing because he seems to be one of those ‘3rd way’ politicians who tries to adopt the best ideas of the right and left and make them work. One of his economic advisors, Austan Goolsbee, is a highly regarded free market economist. So that gives one hope that he’ll be willing to listen to both sides of the argument.
However… His voting record in the Senate is about as liberal as it gets. He favors increases in taxes and socialized medicine. His trade policy is suprisingly protectionist. He wants ‘fair’ trade, and wants to push 1st world environmental and labor standards on 3rd world industries (thus shutting them out of the market). He wants to re-evaluate NAFTA and ‘make it work for American workers’.
He wants to subsidize the auto industry, and engage in industrial policy in other areas. He wants government to pick the ‘right’ environmental technologies and then pay people to train in them.
He wants to ‘create jobs’ by putting unfunded mandates on businesses that force them to hire people. For instance, he wants to mandate that 25% of America’s energy come from renwable resources in 2025, and he says 'this will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs on its own." No it won’t. It will destroy jobs by diverting resources away from where the market thinks it does the most good and force it into R&D for energy - and it may not even be possible to do it.
He wants to protect the ‘openness’ of the internet by prohibiting ISPs to charge exrtra for premium content, thus preventing prices from working to help allocate resources.
He wants to ‘invest in rural businesses’ and wants government to fund wifi internet access and next-gen broadband.
He wants to prevent businesses from hiring replacements if their union goes on strike. So unions now have the power to shut you down.
He wants to raise the minimum wage more.
He wants to give a ‘mortgage credit’ of $500 to 10 million homeowners. I guess because if you own a house you deserve more money than the sucker who rents.
He’s got a very large plan for interfering with the credit and banking industries. He’s got all kinds of regulations planned for payday loans, credit cards, and mortgages.
And the list goes on. Oh, and somewhere in all of the tax credits, training programs, mortgage payouts, after school care, universal health care, and middle class tax relief, he’s going to pay down the deficit.
Obama sure sounds more moderate and palatable when he speaks. But if you actually read what he wants to do, it’s shockingly interventionist. Further to the left than any politician who has run for president in my lifetime.
Makes you think twice. If I were American, I’d probably vote for McCain. Or if I was sure Republicans were going to hold the house or Senate, I might vote for Obama as a vote for gridlock. But with Democrats looking to build on their majorities in Congress, if Obama is elected and the Democrats get more than 60 seats, watch out.
Islam is not an ethnicity (it’s not like Judaism) and both of his parents were atheists, so there are no hereditary ties. He did live in a Muslim country when he was a small chld and attended school with some Muslim kids on occasion. He also had a stepfather for a time who was a non-practicing Muslim, but the bulk of his upbringing was in the secular household of his grandparents in Hawaii.
I know you meant it as a positive but “Muslim ties” is probably too strong a word. He has Muslims in his recent Kenyan ancestry, but he was not raised by them and has never been a Muslim himself.
I think his words came off as more ecuminical – almost pantheistic, than agnostic. He’s definitely a theist, he just uses language about all religions being routes to the same truth.
This is an excerpt from his "Call to renewal" speech. The whole speech is worth reading and is all about his faith (in part, he’s defending himself against accusations by Alan Keys that he’s not a real Christian), but the following lines are a pretty explicit statement of specifically Christian faith:
No one asked, but there are a number of Libertarians crossing the line as well. It may become a more significant number than you might think because the majority of Libs don’t even bother to vote, reasoning that their vote won’t matter anyway. But lending strength to Obama is not quite the waste of time that voting for John Q Libertarian would be. And the reason is because Obama is more than a good speaker; he is a rousing, inspirational speaker. The nation needs inspiration and confidence now more than it needs anything else. Obama is the Reagan of our time — someone who can make Americans feel better about themselves, and the world feel better about America. The world is better off when America is both strong and good hearted.
He does have the support of some of the old guard for now, [pre election]
I like Obama and I think he is smart enough to really put the pressure on Congress over certain issues. The question is , will he do that once he is in office, or will he back off to support key figures in the party. So far I’m hoping he will actually be able to make some needed changes. The whole fix Washington thing has been preached before. The right kind of leader can do it with the support of a few Washington insiders and {this is crucial} a voting public who is paying attention and active. I think in the past people have made attempts to get some reform done and when Washington insiders blocked their efforts it died because either they did not appeal to the general public for support or the public just couldn’t be bothered. I hope eight years of the Bush and cronies have taught us that we need to pay attention all year long and not just a few months prior to election time.
We have to clearly demand certain changes from our elected officials and let them know in no uncertain terms, that they either make an effort to support these changes or we will actively campaign to remove them from office. Let them know they are being watched and are expected to do the job they were elected to do.**Liberal ** we often disagree on much, but we appear to agree 100% on Obama. You expressed very well something that has been building in me since early January.
I have tried in several posts to say what you just did so beautifully.
Here was one attempt yesterday. The key line was …
Jim
I’d call that “dragging them into the market” – a lot of his interventionist ideas are Pigovian, in that they create an artificial cost to make an artificially cheap resource more realistically priced. Things like adding tax penalties for polluting (because the state pays to clean up pollution) or penalties for off-shoring jobs (because the state pays unemployment benefits) are fine by me as long as they incentivize behavior that eventually benefits the state and/or the people.
I generally disagree with this kind of intervention; I can only hope that the Congress will stop these ideas from going through, or that he will listen to advisors who caution against it.
This sounds to me like lowering the barriers of entry and jump-starting a technology. If the mandate is wildly unpopular, it can be reversed at worst in 2017… but I bet that by 2017 we’ll need other sources so badly that abandoning the mandate will be dumb. I’m willing to take a chance on this with my tax dollars (although I understand your concern).
Premium content is one thing, but in many cases ISPs are local monopolies or duopolies owned by one or two giant national corporations. Once Verizon cuts all the copper and installs FiOS, other DSL providers will be shut out of local markets, and we’ll pay out the nose for any access. I don’t think we necessarily need to do a Ma Bell style breakup, but the state of ISP regulation is deeply screwed. Currently all content is free once you pay for the pipe – declaring anything “premium” turns a freeway into a toll road that charges you twice (and perhaps also charges the sender twice).
I’m in.
So perhaps we’ll start to see wages creep upwards again to keep pace with inflation?
It’s about damn time.
I don’t think we’re in a position for the gov’t to be giving away three-digit checks anymore. We weren’t in any position for it when Bush did it the first or second times, either.
I imagine most of them will be focused towards getting rid of the de facto indentured servitude state that predatory lending causes. And maybe if there wer a few more regulations about how the risk-reward balance works on mortgage lenders, the housing market wouldn’t be totally effed to pieces right now. Because you know it’s going to take a bailout (just like Bush 41 did for the S&Ls) but this bailout will be “Librul” and bad.
Well, maybe he plans to raise taxes on the rich, cut defense spending, and try to get us back to a budget surplus again. You know we were only a decade or two away from paying down the debt when Clinton left office, right?
I am (despite my arguments above!) generally in favor of small government, but I don’t think McCain has it in him to cut Defense spending or raise taxes on the wealthy, and I fear that once he sits down in that nice chair in that Oval Office, he’ll lose some of his fervor for the power of the Congress and let the Bush-Cheney executive power precedents stay in place. For what it’s worth I think Hillary would do the same.
It’s a trick. They’re up to something. To Serve Man is a cookbook. Treachery.
Just out of curiosity, does the Canadian Conservative Party represent your principles more consistently?
This discussion is fascinating to me. My oldest friend, we’ve been buds for 30 years (since we were 10) is very conservative. I am pretty liberal. He phoned me after the SC primary and told me that he is rooting for Obama, and would vote for him in the general election. I don’t recall seeing people willing to change parties for a person since Reagan.
For those Republicans who are pro-Obama or thinking about it, I direct you to this webpage.
Small-L libertarian here for Obama. I think he’s just begun to get the people behind him. When he hits his stride, he could have enough popular support to get congress in line behind pragmatic solutions to our problems. Comparing Obama to Carter is silly. Obama is much more like Reagan.
Yep, same here.
The thing about Obama that is catching on with Dems and Republicans alike is that he gives the impression that America is Coming Clean and feeling good about it. And, yeah, that’s like Reagan in a way. This, I think, would do worlds of good WRT world opinion, whether you value it or not.
I disagree with the assertion that he’d be Carter all over again. I think he’s similar in that he’s a nice guy and a relative outsider and all, but I think that the more salient point is that Democrats have learned their lesson and will not pull the crap that the Congress did with Carter. Back then, they thought they had a permamajority and could do whatever they wanted, even screw up a sitting president of their own party. They know now that a majority is a transient privilege, not something to be squandered. That’s the difference.
At the very least, I hope that conservative vs. liberal ideas can be rationally discussed and each one used where appropriate, instead of the all-or-nothing partisan gridlock that’s been hamstringing us for the past couple of decades.
I feel like we can get a break from the logjam here, and that’s something that Americans of all stripes would like to see happen.