Iowa and the road to the Whitehouse

[One Red Seat]

Originally Posted by example1

Read the speech.

I've read the speech, and this right here, along with select examples I'll highlight, is the reason I refuse to continue discourse with you any further. You will not refrain from assuming (a) that your position is more informed and (b) that you have some insight into my thoughts and can assign intent to what I've posted. I don't think you do it intentionally, but that doesn't make it any more agreeable. I'm out.

Originally Posted by e1

I forget, what do you propose instead? I remember you singing the praises of reaganomics until JHB jumped in to talk about how very few gains have been made by anyone below the top 10% of earners or so...

I've not redacted my support of lower taxes and their impact on economic growth (for everyone). Again, assumption on your part.

Originally Posted by e1

You attempted to undermine the quality of his character ...

Assumption. It was an honest question. At the time I asked it, I had not been aware that the previous article I'd read had been corrected. I even redacted that comment once I found out it the truth.

Originally Posted by e1

Like he says, you can retreat to your corner and call it the views of a completely wacked out person representing the general feeling of nobody, or you can try to integrate his view as an alienated and extremist, but REAL view. It's our country man, why do we have to be so adversarial?

And that's where I disagree with him. There's another option, one that I'd call the most presidential. That option is to confront the problem head on. Confront the minister / pastor / senator / other head of state (see the importance here) about such insane views. Attempt to get them to see the light. If they fail, then marginalize them. They have no place in the future. He proposes to keep the source of those thoughts part of the dialogue. Unacceptable.

[example1]

I won't respond to all of the frustration that this discussion as evoked. We won't find common agreement, and it's apparently a waste of time--since nobody agrees with me. Here.

EJ Dionne put it well today:

"Let's ask the hard question about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.: Is he as far outside the African American mainstream as many of us would like to think?

"Because Barack Obama's speech on race in America was so candid about both the legitimacy of black and white grievances--and the flaws in those grievances--it carries the risk of offending almost everyone

"The man who, by percentage, is half black and half white took it upon himself to explain each side's story to the other. Obama resembled no one so much as te conciliatory sibling in a large and boisterous family shouting: "Please, please, will you listen to each other for a sec?...

"Yes, black people say things about our country and its injustices to each other that they don't say to those of us who are white. Whites also say things about blacks privately that they don't say in front of their black friends or associates.

"One black leader who was capable of getting very angry indeed is one now being invoked against Wright. His name is the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

"Listen to what King said about the Vietnam War at his own Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta on Feb 4, 1968: "God didn't call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war.... And we are criminals in that war. We've committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I'm going to continue to say it. And we won't stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation. But God has a way of even putting nations in their place." King then predicted tis response from the Almighty: "And if you don't stop your reckless course, I'll rise up and break the backbone of your power.

"If today's tecnology had existed back then, I would imagine the media playing quotations of that sort over and over. Right-wing commentators would use the material to argue tat King was anti-American and to discredit his call for racial and class justice. King certainly angered a lot of people at that time.

"I cite King not to justify Wright's damnation of America or his lunatic and pernicious theories, but to suggest that Obama's pastor and his curch are not so far outside the African American mainstream as many would now suggest. I would also ask my conservative friends who praise King so lavisly to search their consciences and wonder if they would have stood up for him back in 1968.

"These are realities that Obama has forced us to confront, and they are painful. Wright was operating within a long tradition of African American outrage, which is one reason Obama could not walk away from his old pastor in the name of political survival. Obama's personal closeness to Wright would ave made such a move craven in any event...

"Obama understands the anger of whites as well as blacks, but he's placed a bet on the other side of King's legacy that converted rage into the search for a beloved community. This does not prove that Obama deserves to be president. It does mean that he deserves to be judged on his own terms and not by the ravings of an angry preacer"


This is just about what I believe too. You can pick it apart, dismantle it, but I too feel through with this conversation.

[RedSoxRooter]

Political fights are so gay. I'm voting Democrat this time and nobody can stop me.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Originally Posted by RedSoxRooter

Political fights are so gay. I'm voting Democrat this time and nobody can stop me.

Given that you're voting Democrat, by "Political fights are so gay" do you mean that we should take pride in our political fights?

I mean, the Republican platform generally avoids gay rights issues but the Democratic platform holds them as fundamental human rights...

...or was your post just an attempted homophobic insult?

[RedSoxRooter]

Not really. I vote regardless of party lines (the way a non-retarded person should vote) and choose the best candidate overall. And the best 2 of the 3 candidates are Dems. One of the two will win the nomination and I'll vote for that person.

[One Red Seat]

Out of curiosity, what standard determines the "best"?

[RedSoxRooter]

Originally Posted by One Red Seat

Out of curiosity, what standard determines the "best"?

I think that's up to the voter, such as yourself. But I personally think it has to do with who you think best represents you. But it should have nothing to do with party.

[example1]

Originally Posted by CrespoBlows

What in the fuck does he mean by this statement?

My take on it was he meant "unremarkable" or "unprivliged" or "not blessed with any remarkable insight" white person.

[example1]

One of John McCain's "spiritual guides":

"In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore."

http://www.motherjones.com/washingto...ual-guide.html

He has to completely throw this guy out, right? Again, "silly season" in politics is here. He seeks this guys support because he helped Bush get elected in Ohio.

[a700hitter]

Originally Posted by example1

One of John McCain's "spiritual guides":

"In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore."

http://www.motherjones.com/washingto...ual-guide.html

He has to completely throw this guy out, right? Again, "silly season" in politics is here. He seeks this guys support because he helped Bush get elected in Ohio.

Seeking support and votes to get elected is very different from being a devoted follower and member of a bigot's flock. You are really missing the whole point.

[CrespoBlows]

Originally Posted by example1

My take on it was he meant "unremarkable" or "unprivliged" or "not blessed with any remarkable insight" white person.

So typical white person = unremarkable white person?

[kreinbihl34]

Originally Posted by RedSoxRooter

Not really. I vote regardless of party lines (the way a non-retarded person should vote) and choose the best candidate overall. And the best 2 of the 3 candidates are Dems. One of the two will win the nomination and I'll vote for that person.

So I guess I'm now a retarted person.

In my mind the best candidate overall will always be a Democrat.
I relate with most Democratic policies, so why should I vote Republician?
Because of the threat a guy might suck in office? As much as we hate our president, it's not like he was a terrible leader. You can't be anymore, you can't rule America with money now, those times are over. To think a candidate of either the Democratic or Republician party is not quailifed anymore is nonsense.

I'll agree with one candidate might be slightly better than another. But I'll raise the other is still quailified to run. So even if my candidate might be as great as the other, I'm still voting for him, because he still stands for what I believe for.

[One Red Seat]

Originally Posted by example1

One of John McCain's "spiritual guides":

"In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore."

http://www.motherjones.com/washingto...ual-guide.html

He has to completely throw this guy out, right? Again, "silly season" in politics is here. He seeks this guys support because he helped Bush get elected in Ohio.

He has thrown this guy out. He's on the record stating he categorically dissociates his campaign from any offensive remarks, similar to what Obama did. The difference being, of course, McCain has no other relationship beyond politics. Obama does, and that is what we all want Obama to explain. He did explain it, but it only brought up more questions - at least to those not looking to excuse him at the first opportunity.

For this to be apples / apples, you need to get McCain's 20 year pastor saying something offensive. Anything short of that is an attempt to diffuse scrutiny through false claims of identical behavior on the other side. This is politics 101, which works on the masses, but don't try and sell it here.

[One Red Seat]

Originally Posted by CrespoBlows

So typical white person = unremarkable white person?

You know what's funny? This master of academic achievement. The pillar of reasoned and educated thought. The ayatolla of oratory. The incredibly impressive and learned man has a hard time with simple English. According to the dictionary....

typical = representative specimen, or conforming to type, or characteristic, emblematic, symbolic

...in laymans terms, the usual, or what you'd expect from every. Of course, I don't think Obama has any problems with his command of the English language. I read his comment, in context, to be in accordance with one of the above definitions. No, I suspect his supporter here may require a dosage of dramamine to help with all the spin that's going on.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Originally Posted by kreinbihl34

So I guess I'm now a retarted person.

In my mind the best candidate overall will always be a Democrat.

Here we have a paradox.

Yes, you might be retarded to think that way, but your recognition of how that perspective makes you retarded means that you can't possibly be that stupid.

I relate with most Democratic policies, so why should I vote Republician?

...

To think a candidate of either the Democratic or Republician party is not quailifed anymore is nonsense.

I'll agree with one candidate might be slightly better than another. But I'll raise the other is still quailified to run. So even if my candidate might be as great as the other, I'm still voting for him, because he still stands for what I believe for.

"Unqualified" candidates are, indeed, rare. The only truly unqualified major candidate in recent Presidential contests might have been retired Admiral Stockdale, Perot's running mate in 1992. Ralph Nader's qualifications are marginal; that didn't stop me from considering voting for him in 2004, though. Frankly, Perot's qualifications, like Nader's, were a tad short.

One almost-forgotten "unqualified" candidate was FDR in 1944--his nominating party knew that he was near death, but they nominated him anyway.

By contemporary standards, both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton are underqualified for the Presidency. They have little time in the Senate, and neither has Executive experience as a Governor or a Cabinet Secretary (or as a Vice President). McCain himself lacks Executive experience. The best-qualified actual candidate of either party, Governor Richardson, didn't thrive in the primaries; the best-qualified possible candidate, Al Gore, is off tilting at a Global Warming windmill.

But all three remaining major-party candidates are, at the least, minimally qualified. Yes, the party of the President makes a HUGE difference in how the government is run: it's not just the Cabinet Secretaries, it's every "Plum Book" position and every Judicial nominee.

Your position is rational. If you strongly favor a Party's platform, any qualified candidate can suffice. The paradox is proven: whether or not we agree, you cannot be as stupid as you initially alleged.