[One Red Seat]

Originally Posted by example1

What's the issue? Obama's a racist? He's incapable of being a good thinker or leader because he associated himself with a very popular pastor in a large black church in Chicago?

I'm amazed. You actually are on topic. Given his long term association, these are valid topics of discussion. Instead, earlier, you tried the old political trick of avoiding this discussion all-together by falsely painting the other candidate as no different.

Originally Posted by e1

Has he been secretly killing white people? Have angry blacks from Rev Wright's church done ANYTHING against whites because of the Rev's views?

Sadly, the rationality didn't last long. Although that second sentence brings a question to mind. Is racism / bigotry OK as long as it doesn't preclude action? I hope the answer is "no".

Originally Posted by e1

Or is the issue "ORS likes to take down anyone with a liberal view, and will do so by trying to make those who support him feel stupid"?

Perhaps the issue was to counterweight your fluff and dither about how special Obama is, how transcendent he is, how intelligent he is, etc? That's all. Vote for the man if you agree with his politics. Don't get caught up in the cult of personality, which is what you were imploring people to do.

Originally Posted by e1

You claim to respect me, but them say I would vote for a pencil. Talking out of both sides doesn't convince me that you're trying to be objective or respectful.

And, the original pencil comment was an obvious joke when you were trying to sell yourself as bipartisan. Given the language you use when describing liberal vs. conservative ideology, it's outright comedy to suggest such a thing. I thought a follow up joke was appropriate.

Originally Posted by e1

Has Obama's relationship with a pastor actually changed your view about him? No.

No, because he hasn't change his stance on issues, a stance that rated him the most liberal member of the Senate in '07.

Originally Posted by e1

Would ANY McCain association make you vote for Obama? No.

No, because of Obama's stance on the issues. The more relevant question is, would a McCain association make me not vote for McCain? The answer is, yes. I'd find a third party candidate, most likely the libertarian party. I'm not afraid to vote third party, I did in '92 when I was 18 and I fell for a populist candidate. And I've voted for Democrats before, Clinton in '96. Have you ever voted for a Republican?

Originally Posted by e1

So do you in any way represent the middle group of people who may have had your views changed by the "pastorgate" scandal? No. You're like corresponding with Karl Rove. He pretends to be morally outraged when it is politically convenient, but you were morally outraged by his initial POLITICAL POLICIES, so why should your faux outrage now come as any surprise or be seen as anything objective.

The weight I assign to issues has a lot to do with what's going on at the time. The #1 issue to me right now is national security, and I have little doubt that McCain will make the hard choices that he feels are the appropriate course of action despite party or public pressure to do the opposite. And, I trust his judgement on national security. I see Obama as an appeaser to public sentiment. The number #2 issue is the state of the economy. Obama's policies mirror those of Carter, and with a trend toward stagflation already occuring, the last thing I think we should be doing is implementing the policies of the last President to experience them. No, I think it makes far more sense to do what the President who pulled us out of it did. Perhaps thats just me though.

However, as I noted above, I'm not all about voting the party ticket. I've voted mixed ticket more than anything in the past. In '96, when I voted for Clinton, national security wasn't the issue that it was now. I agreed with downsizing the military while upgrading the equipment. I agreed with welfare reforms (although I think we need more), and the economy was in good shape. Those issues carried greater weight at the time, so they guided my decision.

Originally Posted by e1

You will claim that he's being hypocritical, but you've been claiming that since we started this discussion.

What, the discussion about Wright and his reaction speech? Well, you know, it was hypocritical given his comments about his daughters post Imus. Unfortunately, we haven't had a chance to discuss that because someone was trying to tell us how Hagee / McCain was no different.

Originally Posted by e1

Someone like JHB can genuinely claim to have switched sides due to the race discussion, you cannot.

Funny. So, my claim that this would hurt him with swing voters, proven by JHB switching his vote, is invalid because I wasn't going to vote for him in the first place? I swear, I couldn't make this stuff up. That was rich.

Originally Posted by e1

You dislike Obama as much, if not more than you dislike the Yankees. My guess is that you weren't going to vote for him if he paid for your kids college loans and bought you a new car.

You are right, I wouldn't vote for him because of that. You see, I have this notion that if I want those things I should work for them instead of being beholden to some politician for them. And it is a bad thing that I feel more strongly about what I believe to be bad for the country than what baseball team I don't like? Weird tack you took there.

Originally Posted by e1

There are a whole lot of white and african american jouranlists and citizens who see Obama's speech last week and his approach to the Rev. Wright deal as very brave and important. You dismiss it out of hand.

This is meaningless. There were people from both sides who either expected to be impressed or expected to be disappointed. I don't care what they think. I have my issues for the reasons I've communicated. Reasons that were, subsequently, dismissed out of hand.