All I can say in response is, if even half of this were either true, not deliberately misinterpreted or relevant (not wearing a flag pin - you’ve got to be kidding), you’d have a point.
We know irrelevant issues are exploited in elections all the time – by both parties – but on a message board in a forum called “Great Debates,” we should at least try to be honest about what are the facts and what is relevant when it comes to qualificatins for POTUS.
And, as a an African-American (using your words), I can agree with that last bit.
I love that the refrain against Obama is that these things “raise questions”. Hey there TV jackass- If you want me to take you seriously, you can’t just say that something “raises questions”. You have to say what those questions might be, ok?
Here’s an example:
"Obama’s refusal to wear a flag pin raises some tough questions… like:
How can a man as stupid as me get through an hour-long television program without becoming entagled in my microphone cord and choking to death?"
I find this hilarious. Republicans face these kinds of gotcha questions all the time, to the general cheering of the left. Then when it happens to their own, suddenly they are sputtering mad about how unfair it all is.
How long did we spend on George Bush’s alleged cocaine use 30 years ago, which was never proven? How many tedious questions did we have to listen to regarding his national guard service? Obama’s supposed to get a free pass on the Reverend Wright and William Ayers relationships, but it’s fair game to sift through any Republican’s background to see if they ever knew anyone who might be a white supremacist, or who might be a religious zealot, or who was involved in any kind of corrupt business dealing.
Let’s face it - this is just pure partisanship. There were debates early on that were so lopsided for Obama that Saturday Night Live was writing skits mocking them - but the debates received general approval here.
In any event, you guys should realize that this is GOOD for you. What, you don’t think the McCain campaign will raise these issues? That they won’t come up in actual Presidential debates, when the whole nation is watching? It’s a lot better if Obama hears them now. And if he stumbles answering them, far better to do it now when hardly anyone is paying attention than to do it in September with the nation watching. And hearing them now gives him and his campaign a chance to develop strategies and answers to counter them.
Plus, if it actually turns out that something really damaging is uncovered, or exposes a weakness of your candidate that only comes out when the heat is really on, it’s happening early enough that you always have the opportunity to choose someone else. The last thing you want is a candidate who spends the primary season answering softball questions like, “Senator, how do you handle the tremendous crowds you seem to draw?”, then gets hit with the hard stuff with the nation watching.
And the national guard service is something Bush himself actually did (or didn’t do) as opposed to something someone else did that he was associated with in some ways. This is more akin to the stuff brought up about Laura Bush’s car accident that killed someone. But still, that was never a debate topic, AFAICT.
I don’t remember jabs about Bush’s alleged fondness for the white pony or even his national guard record in the 1999-2000 debates- Republican primary debates or the ones with Al Gore. Or later the ones with John Kerry. Either would have been kind of a ridiculous and scandalous debate subject, right?
But I think we can all agree that allegations about George Bush’s penchant for the powder raise serious questions.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
That’s a giant, grasping leap. All politicians meet and shake hands with peopl all the time. It doesn’t mean shit. The Ayers thing is as fatuous as the flag pin. He has a neighbor that used to bbe a hippie 40 years ago. That’s all it adds up to.
As well they should be, he was dealing with some pretty frivolous questions.
Obama will win in a walk if the other side focuses on patriotism with McCain in the general election? Okay.
The flag pin doesn’t concern me as an issue of patriotism, but I do think there are people who may have been open to voting for Obama in the first place (like the lady who asked the question) that were turned off by that. And by his answer.
I don’t think the country – and folks in general – are as fair-minded as SDMB folks.
Giving a Lifetime Achievement Award to Farrakhan who called Judaism a gutter religion, saying the government created AIDS to kill black people, god damn America…you’re right, I don’t know why anyone could find anything objectionable with Wright. Sorry.
As for cites that Obama did or didn’t know of Wright’s 9/11 remarks, I don’t need any; I didn’t say he did or didn’t; I said his CLAIM that he didn’t will sound suspect in the minds of many in the general election. They suspect such things even without cites, you see.
There is no equivalence between “patriotism” and a stupid jingoistic trinket. You know how I can tell? McCain doesn’t wear a flag pin and he is made of 100% pure uncut patriotism that nobody dares question.
Let’s face it- McCain is going to get the votes of people who are constantly beset by flag-induced erections. The Patriophiles. They’re locked in. Obama may as well kiss them voters goodbye. All other voters are up for grabs.
The “Great Debate” that I’m exploring – and being honest about – is how his issues will be read in a general election which is what they are competing for the right to compete in. Those ‘distractions’ will become relevant as to who will win.
Whether or not, in an ideal world, they SHOULD become relevant is another matter.
Irrelevant issues are, indeed, exploited all the time by both parties. And in this forum I am stating that those same issues will be at play in the general election and could cost the Dems the win. That’s what I’m debating.
Did any member of the major media ever even directly ask George Bush if he had used cocaine, either in a debate or an interview or even shouted it at him as he was leaving an event?
Let’s recall indeed. I wrote a bit before the quote you posted - you seemed to leave that part out.
Let’s go to the tape:
Conservatives and liberals. I was speaking in general and then talked about my own posts on the subject. I think there were more, but they are archived away.
Called on this, I produced evidence that the conversation involved was indeed a broader one - the AP article indicated that lots of conservatives had doubts about Stephanopoulos at the time. And I want to point out that for the most part he runs his show reasonably well - but he does fall victim to his blind spots at times.
So sure, I was talking about people here - but certainly my comments weren’t limited to just them.
Don’t tell me I don’t have a right to possess a flamethrower. And the anti-aircraft missile launcher in my backyard…those are both “arms,” and I want to bear them.
lead me to think that, despite your acknowledgement that Republicans will exploit these issues and the “questions they raise,” you also believed and held them against Obama too.
Correct me if I’m wrong (and apologies if I am), but do you yourself believe, “Obama was introduced to Ayers and his wife in their home when first running in Illinois. That’s direct, that’s personal, that’s relevant.” (a verbatim copy & paste from your post), as well as the other “issues” regarding Obama in your post?
I find that to be a disingenuous interpretation of what you wrote, but I guess we’ll have to leave it at that.
I would note that you continue to say you’re talking about people here, when in fact you are only talking about ElvisL1ves, whose opinion on the debate is not yet known and likely to be quite positive.
I wouldn’t go that far. I was also talking about people passing from politics into reporting (not commentary) and proceeding as if their former associations had no effect on their views or colored their coverage in any way.
There were examples I cited besides Stephanopoulos - and these were similarly dismissed.
Since you’ve made clear what your actual opinion is, I see no need to debate what the fair meaning of your original post was. So we can leave it there.
Having learned that virtually no one on the SDMB previously defended Stephanopoulos–and certainly no one in this thread did so–do you retract your implication that the members of this thread are showing some kind of hypocrisy or should have learned some kind of lesson?
Capital Gains of 30% would essentially eliminate the ability of the middle-class to engage in the market. I wouldn’t be able to make any money at all in a market that is designed around me as the consumer losing. If I didn’t join in the market then there wouldn’t be a market for those traders to trade in. 30% capital gains would hurt those of use with our $ 2000 Ameritrade accounts far more than it would hurt the hypothetical stock traders you’re referring to.
