I think Mr. Obama is pretty hard-nosed, actually. Looking back over the past months, from the beginning of the primaries to now, he has run his own race. He has gone steadily ahead, with his eyes evidently clearly on the prize - and has not allowed panic or fear or scurrilous attacks to rattle him. He has a kind of “inexorability” about him. He strikes me as a man who will take his time making up his mind, which is not a bad thing. “Be sure you’re right, then go ahead”, I used to read in The Little House books. Was it Lincoln who was famous for saying that, or was it Charles Ingalls? Either way, it’s good advice.
I don’t understand the attacks on Obama’s ambition. Don’t we want a president to be ambitious and thoroughly desire the job? There’s a reason the Fred Thompson campaign was a disaster. I’d be concerned if someone were running for president on the grounds they had nothing better to do (I think this was actually Thompson’s campaign slogan).
Even in McCain’s own memoir he describes his 2000 run saying “I didn’t decide to run for president to start a national crusade for the political reforms I believed in or to run a campaign as if it were some grand act of patriotism. In truth, I wanted to be president because it had become my ambition to be president. . . . In truth, I’d had the ambition for a long time.”
Seriously, this line of attack makes no sense. Do people honestly think he’s going to get tired of being president 2 years in and decide to try to be the GM of a baseball team or something?
Ditto. More of the same, which is all the Republicans seem to be able to accomplish…re-hashing
And by the way…it IS punishment to both the child and the parents to saddle them with an unwanted baby. If your situation is such that you’re seeking an abortion rather than giving birth, I would think that fact would be apparent.
But the characterization is misleading in intent. This is what you leave out and in doing so, you undercut your own credibility. In the context of that article, such a statement, while factually true, is not designed to only share facts, but to incur doubt and disapproval.
Not only that, such a statement does not speak to the effectiveness of Obama (or anyone so referred to) while he held the positions that he did.
The implication is one of instability and irresponsibility. It’s more of the same crap that (to me) defines the conservative position in this country: point fingers, smear shit and no matter what, never have a positive thing to say about your opponent/ opposing party. Demonize, denigrate and divide. There is no “going negative” for the GOP–they are negative.
Thank you, Snickers. I don’t come into GD much.
It’s an opinion piece. It isn’t supposed to put him in the best possible light.
You think Democrats don’t do this?
Obviously not, or you wouldn’t say anything that naive.
Regards,
Shodan
But you left that little pertinent fact out of your post. The piece is designed to show Obama in the worst light (to those who swallow this kind of thing).
And so if they do it, it’s all right? We are discussing two GOP supporters’ piece on Obama. We are not talking about possible slant in Democratic supporters’ pieces re McCain. That they do that is irrelevant to this discussion. I refuse to discuss what the Dems may or may not have done–the thread is about this piece.
Why is the conversation always devolve into " So, you guys do it, too" or the “I’m rubber and you’re glue” level here when it comes to attempting to discuss the weaknesses or questionable ethics of political campaigning by the GOP?
Query: Do any of the conservatives have any thoughts on McCain’s platform that they could post to add to this thread in reference to the article in question? Or shall we continue to pick away at Obama and his supporters, and parse words like this “well thought of” article did? I am left thinking that this IS the GOP platform–picayune cavils about minutiae and misrepresentations instead of real content.
Dishonesty is a human condition, not a political one.
Here’s the thing that honestly confuses me. You talk about the “GOP hate machine” as the reason you lost respect for the Republican party. What about the liberal hate machine? Have you not noticed it over the last 8 years? It seems to me that people of either stripe consider the opposing party’s criticisms to be a hate machine and their own to righteous wrath.
He actually didn’t get much done second term. Can’t think of anything, really. Not a criticism, because he really didn’t screw anything up, either. For me, that’s beating expectations of any President.
In all honesty, I resent that an awful lot. I reached a point of sexual maturity at about age 20 when I was no longer thinking with my dick. I’m married and I wouldn’t cheat on my wife. I do not objectify women. Nevertheless, some women see fit to treat me as if I had no control over my desires. If I am having a one on one meeting with a female employee it is unwise for me to close the door of my office. My friend, a respected Doctor must have a female nurse in the examination room while he examines a female patient. Some women will seek to flirt or act suggestively in a business situation in an attempt to manipulate me. There is currently a double standard. Women can do it. For men, it’s harrassment if they respond or instigate it.
Bill Clinton did not do many any favors with his behavior. I can keep my dick in my pants. I have nothing but contempt for dishonest scum, male or female who make life uncomfortable for the rest of us with their innapropriate behavior.
So, I think your characterization is an unfairly prejudiced one.
He also got the FNMA/FHLMC crisis right. I largely agree with his foreign policy. I don’t really give a shit about our “reputation.” Other people can think as they wish. It’s not a weapon I would let them use to manipulate our behavior.
Change? Not so much. Progress? Absolutely. If we have to pay more, we have to pay more. I’m not against it if we’re getting value. I don’t think we are. I think we need to extract value from what we are paying before we offer more. Philosophically I think that overrall individuals can make better decisions concerning their lives and disposition of assets than governments.
I don’t. Would I be forced to participate and fund it for you?
I don’t know about where you live, but where I live the public schools have a budget of $65,542,460 and 6951 students. That’s $9,429 per student. The class size for a third grader is currently over 40. The education for such a student is so abominable that I send my daughter to a private school. The tuition for this school is graded based on my income. I am in the highest bracket which means that I am funding some less fortunate students. I pay less than $5,000 per year.
Public schools do not suck necessarily because they don’t have enough money. They suck because they don’t spend what they do have well. You can throw all the money at public education you want, but in many ways it’s like sending aid to Myanmar. It doesn’t matter how much you spend if it doesn’t reach the kids in the classroom. The answer is not necessarily to spend more, but to spend well. Spend well, and if it’s not enough get more.
I am on the board as the Treasurer of my daughter’s private school. They accomplish far more with far less than public schools do.
Throwing money at problems is not necessarily the answer.
Again, you seem to be focussed on spending money on certain things. I am more interested in spending it well.
Who did that? Bush? I don’t think so.
Been there, done that 
Frankly, I don’t see Mccain or Obama being all that different.
I actually think the Clintons were pretty rare with the depth of their scandals. I don’t imagine Obama would get himself into that kind of mess.
You should attack it in your own party where you have credibility. As for “Swift boat,” it ain’t a good example. O’neil who founded the Swiftvets has emnity for Kerry going back to Vietnam. He took over the boat Kerry left. He debated Kerry back in the early 70s on Cavett. There’s a lot of veterans that have a real bug up their ass about how Kerry threw them under the bus when he came back from Vietnam.
I believe and have beleived going back to '99 that the Clinton Whitewater thing was a disgrace to the GOP. I’m voting for Obama unless something changes dramatically in the next two weeks. I am not a knee jerk hack who beleives everything just because my party is saying it. I make up my own mind. I think Kerry was a scumbag who had it coming for what he did.
Hopefully you would agree that their are some liberals here for whom “monkeys flinging poo,” is an accurate description. I don’t paint the liberals here with such a broad brush, why are you painting us that way. But, I agree with you. There is nothing unpatriotic with sincere criticism.
A moment ago you were complaining that it was wrong to object to criticism. Now you are saying it’s wrong to criticize. You can’t have it both ways.
In all fairness, I have not heard them for Obama, either. As far as I can tell their Iraq strategies going forward are very similar and both of their economic plans are somewhat unrealistic. I think MCCain wants to use a “hatchet and a scalpel,” while Obama just wants a “scalpel.”
You’re doubting it is hardly germaine. Here’s his economic plan:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/jobsforamerica/
Here’s the Iraq plan:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm
Maybe you need to inform yourself on the issues of what both candidates are proposing. Obama has similar plans. Fact is they are more alike then different, IMO. I’ve looked at them both.
I guess the Obama attack attack attack has faded to the background as well. I assure you it’s there.
Here’s a link to a recent ad on factcheck.org where Obama makes false claims against McCain:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_false_medicare_claim.html
Have you not noticed the liberal hate machine going after Palin?
Do you think it’s righteous when liberals do it, but wrong when Republicans do it?
Wake up and smell the coffee. There is precious little difference in content and methodology between either campaign.
Gah–this is what I’m talking about: “dishonesty is a human condition, not a political one.” Well, no shit. So is decency. Stop making it about everyone–we are talking here about ONE political party, ONE article that uses disingenuous techniques and distortions to build a credible argument (that apparently is well received by conservatives). Let’s talk about that–not that such things are common or expected or effective or whathaveyou. This is what the liberals here mean when they say the conservatives sidestep issues.
I disagree with you re the liberal “hate” machine–but I do agree that it is out there. Thing is (and here is where I think I lose you), the crazies of the Dem party are marginalized–they are not going on national TV and asking for investigations of “anti-Americans” in congress ala Michelle Bachman from MN. The Dems do not have a network devoted to trumping the liberal cause like Fox News does for the conservatives. I know, I know, I’ve heard about the liberal media conspiracy to keep conservatives marginalized in this country. I didn’t buy it then and I don’t buy it now. There is shoddy reporting, but no grand scale of bias–there is bias on Fox “News”.
I used the word criticize when I should have said denigrate re the “flinging poo” response. I’d rather listen to someone who might be wrong on how to solve X rather than someone who just sits back and Monday morning quarterbacks that person re issue X. Seems to me the conservatives here (and in the article) do more of the latter and none of the former.
There are shrill voices on both sides, to be sure. No contest there. And I think because the conservatives are outnumbered here, they try to make up for it in vociferousness. I still don’t like the tone or the silly level most of the “debates” sink to and I try not to join in. Fuck you! No, Fuck YOU! is not scintillating conversation for here or the Pit. (these are just general remarks addressing the atmosphere here in recent weeks–they’re not directed at any one poster).
I see differences in the parties in terms of decency. I see more hypocrisy on the part of the GOP because it touts itself as somehow having the moral high ground. To my mind, if you’re going to claim the moral high ground, you’d better be able to withstand some harsh scrutiny–and it does not. If anything, it lost sight of the high ground many years ago (Reagan comes to mind) and has been sinking ever since. Win at any cost seems to be their motto. Both sides want to win; but both sides don’t fight the same, IMO. We’ve heard plenty from Palin and McCain re Ayers, but AFAIk, Obama has not brought up Liddy–which he well could (and should) or the Alaska Secessionist Party that Todd and Sarah participated in.
Why shouldn’t you have to fund something you find distasteful or wasteful? I have to put up with the “right to bear arms” as well as other laws and such I don’t agree with. Not everyone can be happy with all laws. My tax dollars are not always spent in the ways I’d like to see them–so what else is new? NCLB wouldn’t be such a bad thing, IF it were funded. I agree that just throwing money at anything is not the best solution–and I’d take it further: building more prisons does not solve the crime problem. Fighting a “war” on drugs or terrorism does not make these problems go away or end. I’ve said enough–I’m not good at debates. I don’t like finding cites and scoring points off people.
Re the keeping his dick in his pants. Sorry to be so crude. I said IME–which is in my experience. I don’t mean this in a bitchy way, but I cannot give kudos to you for staying faithful to your wife (I’m reminded of Chris Rock: “you’re not supposed to go to jail!”), but in my life, the men in it have not been able to do as you have, so yes, I am prejudiced in this respect. I thought I made that clear with my “IME”. I also don’t flirt to “get my way” in my job and have contempt for women who do so (one woman who does is Sarah Palin. Hmm…). So, we have common ground there.
But I do want to thank you, Scylla, for your patience with me here. I will look at those links re McCain’s positions another time (RL is interfering tonight). I am curious to know more about them–all I’ve picked up from what he’s said in the debates is “I know how to do X” or “I have a plan”, so it will be good to see more substance. I doubt it will change my mind, but it will be good to read up on it.
This sentence: In fact, if Obama wins on November 4th—and serves one full term in the Oval Office—the Presidency of the United States would be the longest consecutively held full-time job he has ever held without seeking another. is what lead me to my interpretation.
When taken in the context of the article, that sentence implies that Sen. Obama cannot hold down a full time job. It implies he’s flitted from one position to another with no real goal or direction. In other words, he’s lazy. Add to that the Senator’s skin color and I feel the implication is there that they’re implying he’s a lazy nigger.
As I stated before, it’s subtle innuendo, but I feel that is what they’re ultimately trying to say. You may not agree and that’s your perogative. That’s my interpretation on that part of their article.
It is described as an opinion piece in the very first sentence of the OP. How many times should it be repeated?
You made a claim about the GOP, that negativity and innuendo were their distinguishing mark. This is incorrect.
Because if you are going to claim that the GOP is the only party who uses propaganda that does not present their opponents in the most flattering light possible, you are going to be refuted with counter-examples. Both sides do it. If you are going to take offense at only the other side, and claim that the other side is the only one who does it, you are going to be refuted. That’s how debates happen.
The OP asked for discussion of the opinion piece. The opinion piece is about Obama. If you want to discuss something else, feel free to start a thread or participate in one of the others.
Regards,
Shodan
:checks forum: Uh, ok, whatever.
Here’s my counter to the Ayers argument, might be useful when arguing w/people elsewhere:
Have we all forgotten about the 1960’s? I remember Hippies - the teenagers with their long hair and bell-bottoms were walking home from high school along the same path as me in 1972. I couldn’t wait to be a teenager myself and wear tie-dye (little did I know that the Preppy look would take over, oy).
The 1960’s were love beads and peace-ins and also protests. Lots of protests. Because American college students were being drafted to Vietnam and dying.
58,217 Americans died in Vietnam
More than 10 times the number of casualties in Iraq, and we’re having fits about that (as well we should).
But as students died in Vietnam, their parents didn’t protest - poll after poll showed that the public supported the Vietnam War. it took years for public opinion to shift to opposition of the war, probably (in part) because the typical adults’ frame of reference was WWII, when citizens did their duty and it was the right thing to do, it all worked out. So they assumed the same thing applied to Vietnam. But it wasn’t the same.
Just like “bombing in the U.S.” has a completely different meaning now, in today’s world, compared to the 1960’s.
My Dad talks about watching the evening news in the late 60’s and thinking it was the end of the world - riots, fires and clashes with the police were common. Two Americans set themselves on fire to protest the Vietnam War. There were riots at Berkeley College, Abbie Hoffman and some other students interrupted the NY Stock Exchange; in 1965, president Lyndon Johnson was burned in effigy and in 1967 30,000 people marched on the Pentagon for a rally and all-night vigil.
Dozens of protests were held, tens of thousands of people marched.
Can you imagine that happening today?
So, during this time of great unrest and civil disobedience and violence (I didn’t even touch on the assassinations or the Civil Rights marches, that’s a whole other set of conflicts that filled the evening news with riots and police clashes), Bill Ayers was a leader of the Weather Underground.
Here’s what Wikipedia says he did:
I don’t see Obama as being bedfellows with Ayers, they served on committees together and have a professional association. Big whoop. I don’t think Obama addressed this as a Big Issue with a Big Disclosure because it’s so silly, Bill Ayers is not a threat to our country.
Bill Ayers made mistakes during a time when a LOT of people were making mistakes; he was trying to stop a war. He is still opposed to war.