I don’t want to derail an otherwise interesting thread, but…really, Sam?
There’s a word for someone who is “personally pro-life” but who wouldn’t take away someone else’s right to make that decision for themselves. That word is “pro-choice”. It’s the exact reason why McCain’s preferred VP candidates Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge were passed over.
Yes, she tries to downplay it as something she wouldn’t make a priority, but it’s clear that she doesn’t think anyone should have the right to an abortion for anything less than the mother’s health. Where it falls on her list doesn’t matter–the President doesn’t always get to decide which of his issues comes to the forefront.
I think you’re trying like hell to see the libertarian in Palin, and there might even be a little of it there, but not on this issue. Heck, I’d love to hear her say that she wouldn’t work to take away anyone’s right to an abortion; it would end any hope McCain has of winning in a heartbeat.
I am no expert on feminism, but I would argue that governments eveyrwhere, US included, already tell women and men all kinds of things they can’t do with their bodies. Drug use by men and women is illegal, driving without a seatbelt is illegal, even killing yourself is illegal in many places. By that measure feminist should be trying to change all kinds of laws, not just anti-abortion laws.
Just a small point, but being across the Atlantic, I don’t get to see the attack ads broadcast by either side. I know I can look them up on Youtube, but that’s different. But just to pick the one about sex education for juniors - there’s a pit thread to which I posted - I simply don’t see how people go from that ad to child molesters.
Its weirder than that, Quartz. Oftimes, the ads don’t even run, they don’t spend the money to run the ads (a “major buy”, in the parlance), but simply make the ads and leak them to the tedia, who then trumpet the ads to an audience much larger than the ad would ever reach.
The tactic is to “get it out there”. Of course Obama is not pro-child molestor, but now he gets to deny it.
I completely agree that in order to win the Democrats need to stay out of the mud.
The problem is, it is fairly easy for one side to drag everyone into the mud.
The reason the Democrats lose is that they are the ones who are more likely to be so turned off by the process that they stay home.
I support Obama in this election, but I am so grossed out by the entire process recently that I can’t stand to watch. It makes me want to stay home and vomit instead of voting. And it isn’t because of anything Obama has done.
This is exactly the Republican strategy. It works.
It is just like the saying:
Never wrestle with a pig… you’ll both get dirty, but only the pig will enjoy it.
So how do you deal with the pig?
While technically correct, you completely miss the point. I can only assume you are a Democrat.
The point is, if you can paint someone as an outsider, it goes a long way to rendering any argument they might have as irrelevant.
Uh, the New Deal, the concept that Americans can pull themselves out of poverty as long as they work hard, that we can all do it together if we get a second chance, does that seem familiar to you? This is exactly the kind of stuff that Sam Stone is talking about that he mentioned worked so well for Obama. FDR didn’t say, “I’ll kick Hoover and all those Republicans out and hopefully Congress can fix this godawful mess they’ve made.” He said that all Americans needed was a little boost to get them started on a new career path for themselves. You’re the one advocating that Democrats should focus on economic populism; this is what populism is.
Nevermind that creating jobs for the sake of jobs didn’t really work, it inspired a lot of people, and now he’s considered one of the greatest presidents because he gave them hope that they could fix their own lives. Sam’s not saying you can’t mention that there are problems, you just have to couch them in a positive framework. If you don’t, you sound like a loser (like the way this election began for the Republicans when Obama was dominating the fractured Republican candidates, or like the 2004 election for Democrats) saying how we’re going to lose if you don’t help, and, oh, isn’t it terrible, and look at what *those *people are going to do if they win; it sure will suck. No one wants to vote for that; the dedicated base will if they think they must, but you’re not going to draw a huge crowd of your supporters (which is much more important in American politics than actually trying to change people’s minds).
I don’t see how anyone who takes the time to look at Obama’s positions and record could possibly construe that he’s pro-child molester. The idea is ridiculous.
Pro-infanticide on the other hand…
I took myself out of the running years ago when I was young and stupid and did many stupid things.
I think I might retype this and send it though. Thanks for the encouragement. I really want Obama to win but I’m concerned they’ll screw it up. They need the right combination of a strong hopeful, looking forward to tomorrow, message, some details form the thinkers, but not to much for the gut reaction folks. Too often he talks too much and nut of a positive message gets lost. The more he talks about all the programs he wants to establish the more it sounds like tax and spend. He can stress service by encouraging volunteerism and thanking the masses who already volunteer their time. The more the private sector steps up the less government programs we need.
Abortion’s the only one of those to apply solely to women; the rest’d fall under general libertarianism, and there isn’t a one there I don’t agree with. Anti-abortion legislation also legislates that you must do something (carry a child to term), not that you must not do something. The only comparable law I can see to that is anti-suicide/assisted suicide laws. . .which I also strongly disagree with.
It isn’t. You made a claim that a substantial majority of the citizens of Alaska would dispute - that Palin’s experience was brief and showed that she was a fuck up.
Unless you would like to argue that Bush’s approval ratings do not necessarily show that he is a total fuck up. Or else “the majority is always right” must be part of the liberal worldview.
If “it isn’t,” then why is the majority sentiment relevant? (Should I step into the next room and relax with a book or something while you argue this one out with yourself? :))
That is in fact what I would like to argue. While I may have expressed relief that the vast majority of Americans have caught on to what a fuckup Bush is, I would not regard their opinions as evidence to that effect. At any rate, genuine evidence to that effect is too abundant to need to reach for bogus evidence.
Well, of course not. We’re a bunch of elitists, don’t you know?
If “Americans” hate to be told that there’s bad stuff going on, then “Americans” need to get their freaking heads out of the sand and look around. There’s always a lot of bad stuff happening; it doesn’t mean things can’t get better, but I don’t believe you fix problems just by positive thinking. The popular lesson of Jimmy Carter’s infamous “malaise” speech is just what you say–that people want the President to be a motivational speaker who tells them how great they are. I have no use for that. The President should be an administrator, not a cheerleader.
It’s not true that Republicans don’t send a negative message. Bush & Co. relied heavily on the “SAVE ME FROM THE EVIL TERRORISTS, DADDY!” message in 2004 and it seemed to work. Republicans have also been stressing the “decline of America’s moral fiber” message for decades.
There is nothing wrong with a MCcain and Palin ticket as long as he steps up. He has given her way too much of the spotlight. I agree that he needed all of the spotlight that Palin could give him but it is time for her to campaign on her own.
If MCcain can’t hold the lead then he doesn’t deserve to win. Palin should be allowed to swim on her own at this point.
I took myself out of the running years ago when I was young and stupid and did many stupid things.