Iowa and the road to the Whitehouse

[example1]

Originally Posted by a700hitter

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.

I thought this was a discussion about character. If Obama was actively lobbying neo-nazi's for support would you give him a pass? I don't think so.

[One Red Seat]

Originally Posted by example1

I thought this was a discussion about character. If Obama was actively lobbying neo-nazi's for support would you give him a pass? I don't think so.

Assumption, again, and this time based on an irrelevant hypothetical. Stick to the issue.

[example1]

Originally Posted by One Red Seat

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.

Ah, so Obama could court anyone on Earth, as long as it was for a vote and that would be fine with you. You would be fine if Obama sought out Farrakahan's vote, as long as he denounced it once that voting block had already voted. But having an individual relationship with a nationally revered pastor and not backing away or downplaying those associationes when the shit hits the fan, THAT is a political and moral sin. Gottcha.

You're looking for reasons to put Obama in the shitter ORS. You have been from day one with your "how can we trust a Wahabbist?" comment. I'm not shocked, given that your 'political test' in another thread identified you most closely with the views of Guiliani and Thompson (IIRC).

I believed that the whole point was that NONE of the politicians should be courting the crackpot vote, and that comments like Hagee's or Wright's should be denounced by either side.

I guess it's okay to accept Hagee's endorsement when you need the conservative vote, but when you need the independent vote distancing yourself is fine. It's all about political convenience.

[example1]

Originally Posted by One Red Seat

Assumption, again, and this time based on an irrelevant hypothetical. Stick to the issue.

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? 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?

Please cite.

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"? 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.

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

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

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.

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

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

It doesn't matter how well either of them will do the job of president, the goal is to avoid offending conservatives at every turn. BS.

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.

[One Red Seat]

Still avoiding the issue, but I'll play. What's worse? Some face time with a political time bomb who has strong influence over his congregation, or, you know, being a member of said flock.

[example1]

Originally Posted by One Red Seat

Still avoiding the issue, but I'll play. What's worse? Some face time with a political time bomb who has strong influence over his congregation, or, you know, being a member of said flock.

You would probably be quite shocked to find out
a) not all sermons by Rev Wright were that inflamatory
b) most black churches have some level of rhetoric about underlying race relations that would make you uncomfortable
c) yes, actually being part of something you believe in (the cause of inner city african americans, a community activist church) is a better association to have than courting neo-nazi votes just to get into office, or standing proudly with a very popular pastor just so you can win the homophobic conservative vote.

I feel just as strongly about the character of someone who panders to views that they claim are absolutely 100% contradictory to their own, as you do about someone who is of mixed-race trying to understand the worldview of a black pastor on being black in this country.

I'm not avoiding anything, but remember, it isn't ME that we're talking about here. I think I've discussed Obama's position sufficiently, and I think his 40 minute speech addressed it also.

I'm waiting for your citation about McCain distancing himself from Parsley. Instead, he called him a "spiritual guide"... hmmm. Maybe all of his supporters are just spiritual guides.

[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.

[example1]

Originally Posted by One Red Seat

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.


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".


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.


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.


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

[qoute=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?


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.


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.

Someone like JHB can genuinely claim to have switched sides due to the race discussion, you cannot. [/e1]
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.


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.


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.

These are all issues topics. I think we should also vote on issues. I think its fine if someone doesn't like obama because of his policy stances, and I have no doubt that you judge him accordingly.

That's why I get a bit miffed at the stuff about him being muslim, or about what his wife says about the first time she's been REALLY proud of her country, or about what his pastor says 5 days after 9/11.

It's all clap trap intended to take the issues off the table and to make people vote based on a visceral reaction based on someone's background, associations etc.,

Just as I don't assume that McCain is a homophobic bigot when Pastors Hagee and Parsley shake his hand, calling him a good conservative and then back him unequovically, I don't believe Obama is an ignorant racist for ONLY denouncing and repudiating the comments made by his now-retired and never-seen-on-the-campaign-trail preacher.

We've been over the policy differences and will agree to disagree. You're all about individualism and strong national defense and that's fine. I just wonder what strong national defense has gotten us? Preemptive attacks got us a leader without WMDs and then 12b a month in Iraq. Is that the individualism and low-federal spending you were looking for?

Given that McCain has "misstated" multiple times that Iran is training Al Qaeda--despite the fact that this isn't true and he has corrected himself--and given that he has been supporting a war with Iraq even long before 9/11 because he was absolutely sure that Saddam had enough biological weapons to destroy the world multiple times over, I don't have as much faith in his judgement as you do.

That said, it's a tough job and one where sometimes judgement is the best--and only--tool one has at their disposal.

PS: I wouldn't call it politically convenient for Obama to have been against the war when he ran for Senate in 2002. Given that most of the country supported it... just sayin'.

Otherwise, yeah, if you don't want to get into a spitting match about whose reverand or ardent supporter or sought after supporter said what, then let's stick to the issues. Otherwise, it is perfectly legitimate to show that McCain--and many consesrvatives in general--regularly court out the reactionary anti-islam, anti-gay, anti-evolution crowd. It's part of their "base".

I know you're not most of these things, but you have to admit that conservatives seek them out like the liberals seek out fringe left-leaning groups with some radical ideas.

And yes, the pencil comment was in good fun, but it wasn't respectful. You have a sharp tongue ORS (or finger tips??) and sometimes you--like myself--can come off as being condecending when you don't mean to. I still think you're a good guy, even if we disagree on just about any non-baseball related issue under the sun.

Thanks for sticking through this discussion all the way!

[CrespoBlows]

Originally Posted by example1

These are all issues topics. I think we should also vote on issues. I think its fine if someone doesn't like obama because of his policy stances, and I have no doubt that you judge him accordingly.

That's why I get a bit miffed at the stuff about him being muslim, or about what his wife says about the first time she's been REALLY proud of her country, or about what his pastor says 5 days after 9/11.

It's all clap trap intended to take the issues off the table and to make people vote based on a visceral reaction based on someone's background, associations etc.,

Just as I don't assume that McCain is a homophobic bigot when Pastors Hagee and Parsley shake his hand, calling him a good conservative and then back him unequovically, I don't believe Obama is an ignorant racist for ONLY denouncing and repudiating the comments made by his now-retired and never-seen-on-the-campaign-trail preacher.

We've been over the policy differences and will agree to disagree. You're all about individualism and strong national defense and that's fine. I just wonder what strong national defense has gotten us? Preemptive attacks got us a leader without WMDs and then 12b a month in Iraq. Is that the individualism and low-federal spending you were looking for?

Given that McCain has "misstated" multiple times that Iran is training Al Qaeda--despite the fact that this isn't true and he has corrected himself--and given that he has been supporting a war with Iraq even long before 9/11 because he was absolutely sure that Saddam had enough biological weapons to destroy the world multiple times over, I don't have as much faith in his judgement as you do.

That said, it's a tough job and one where sometimes judgement is the best--and only--tool one has at their disposal.

PS: I wouldn't call it politically convenient for Obama to have been against the war when he ran for Senate in 2002. Given that most of the country supported it... just sayin'.

Otherwise, yeah, if you don't want to get into a spitting match about whose reverand or ardent supporter or sought after supporter said what, then let's stick to the issues. Otherwise, it is perfectly legitimate to show that McCain--and many consesrvatives in general--regularly court out the reactionary anti-islam, anti-gay, anti-evolution crowd. It's part of their "base".

I know you're not most of these things, but you have to admit that conservatives seek them out like the liberals seek out fringe left-leaning groups with some radical ideas.

And yes, the pencil comment was in good fun, but it wasn't respectful. You have a sharp tongue ORS (or finger tips??) and sometimes you--like myself--can come off as being condecending when you don't mean to. I still think you're a good guy, even if we disagree on just about any non-baseball related issue under the sun.

Thanks for sticking through this discussion all the way!

Originally Posted by Crespo Blows

So typical white person = unremarkable white person?

[example1]

Originally Posted by CrespoBlows

So typical white person = unremarkable white person

If you don't like my explanation of it, then find another one.

I think that leaping to the assumption that he's a racist bigot like his pastor is absurd.

Obama is as white as he is black, which means he is only insulting himself and his mother and grandmother if by "typical" he means "evil" or "stupid" or "naive".

What's naive is to assume the worst when words get used like this.

ORS and others will constantly point out that Obama is supposed to be a great orrator and this is not reflective of that. It's true. Not a good choice of words.

Do I cringe when he starts talking about race? Nope. I feel pretty comfortable that, even if he offends people, it is with the intention of opening people's eyes and conversations to a still very real and very prevalent problem in our country--as evidenced by JHB it is a problem on both sides and something that we should feel more comfortable discussing like adults.

The fact that we've been discussing it for a few days and that it has been in opinion pages and on the news day after day, I would say that Obama--unlike McCain or Clinton--has been able to start this as a conversation.

It may come back to bite him, but I still respect the man for not avoiding the issue that is so obviously a big part of his life.

[example1]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...c_n_92757.html


"You know who their biggest fans must be, that must be the Klu Klux Klan, because the woman who founded this organization detested black people.... African Americans were number one on Margaret Sanger's list. So this 'Lady MacDeath,' as I like to call her, studied the works of Englishman Thomas Robert Malthus, and embraced his plan of eugenics."

McCain once said Rev. Jerry Falwell and the Rev. Pat Robertson were "agents of intolerance." when running against GWB. Now he takes back the "spiritual advisor" comment about Parsley, even though he is quoted as clearly having said it in Ohio when he needed the votes.

According to Parsley, our government is leading the way in black genocide, due to the 1500 african american kids a day who are aborted. McCain's spiritual advisor is WAY more polished and pristene than Obama's. It's not "god damn America" though... so I guess it's okay.

I know now that ORS and JHB are looking on either issues, or personal involvement with the racial ideas described and they make their determination based on that. Legit, I say. A700, I assume you're disgusted with these comments--whether or not you agree with abortion do you think the government is partaking in genocide against the black race?

I'm sure both would admit that African Americans have every right to vote against McCain because of his continued association with this guy... even though the media is much more comfortable with white pastors flinging crap than they are with black ones doing the same.

Can we all admit that NONE of these fools actually represent the views of their various campaignees? I sure hope so.

[CrespoBlows]

Originally Posted by example1

If you don't like my explanation of it, then find another one.

The only thing absurd being said, is your interpertation of what the word typical means.

Originally Posted by Example1

I think that leaping to the assumption that he's a racist bigot like his pastor is absurd.

Who the fuck is saying that Obama is a racist bigot?

[example1]

Originally Posted by CrespoBlows

The only thing absurd being said, is your interpertation of what the word typical means.

So what is your interpretation then?


Who the fuck is saying that Obama is a racist bigot?[/quote]

Not you, but those who are demanding that he throw this guy under the bus are basically saying that if he doesn't he condones that type of racism. It isn't true. Just as if McCain doesn't throw Hagee under the bus (and everyone who attends his weekly sermons) he isn't condoning that type of bigotry either. THAT is my point CB. Sorry if it sounded like you were saying that.

[a700hitter]

Originally Posted by example1

I thought this was a discussion about character. If Obama was actively lobbying neo-nazi's for support would you give him a pass? I don't think so.

I would not give him a pass, but I would be much more concerned if he had been a devoted follower of such a person for 25 years.