... that McPalin continues the mud-slinging?
Why would any voter be swayed by such nonsense?
Why is it ...
About this entry
Youre currently reading Why is it ....
- Published:
- at 2:26 PM on Tuesday, October 14, 2008
- Previous:
- Older Post
- Next:
- Newer Post
- 3:11 PM
- 3:17 PM
- 5:25 PM
- 6:11 PM
- 6:12 PM
-
7:02 PM
I realize I am probably talking to the wall here, but you realize at least 40+% of the population (according to the recent polls) is saying the same thing about your candidate, right, Lyman?
Man, I wish I could understand what gets you so excited about Obama because I am starting to feel like I am really missing out. Given the way the two major parties talk about/to each other, I do not want to be a part of either one. This election sucks.
--patrick -
5:24 AM
Patrick, I'll volunteer an answer re: my enthusiasm for Obama:
1. he is a candidate committed to advancing the issues I care most about in the direction I wish for them to go.
2. He is more likely to appoint Supreme Court justices that would give that body more balance.
3. He isn't a white man and its long past time for some diversity.
4. He is "fresh" but not uninitiated--that is, not yet indoctrinated in a particular way of deal-making.
In the end, its about the direction of the issues and Supreme Court, always. - 6:00 AM
- 6:20 AM
- 8:59 AM
- 9:30 AM
-
11:19 AM
Patrick: that is interesting, I'd love to see/hear about some negative ads that Obama has been running. We don't see many presidential ads here in CA as you could imagine. If you have a link to a story or ad I'd appreciate it.
Don:https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11126109&postID=5925938762514251564
This is of course from the same post where you said I would "celebrate if America fell" then claimed you never called me un-patriotic, so I'm sure you'll twist your words "This is my last comment and I will leave you all in peace" around too.
I never asked you to leave but since it is your "life mission to change the world one misinformed liberal at a time" your time would be better suited elsewhere. If you can't respect me or anyone else enough to make an educated and informed decision on why we vote liberal then you are obviously not interested in conversation, only getting others to think like you. -
1:22 PM
I'm sure I said that I would never respond again, but if it's enough for Patrick to come out of the woodwork, I'll break my own personal pact and join in too.
First: It's not because I'm related, but "This is my last comment and I will leave you all in peace" doesn't to me necessarily imply that he will NEVER be back. Just that he was finished with that discussion.
Second: KHM, are you really suggesting that one of your main reasons for choosing Obama is because he isn't a white man?
Third: KHM, what is wrong with capitalism?
Fourth: Lyman, I can only assume that you are referring to the recent "palling around with terrorists" comments and maybe this just shows how we view the world differently. You call that mudslinging. I call that bringing attention to a candidate's multiple questionable associations. With that in mind and if that constitutes mudslinging, then couldn't the constant reference to McCain's connection to Bush ("which history will show to be the most inept president of all time" ...that could be slightly paraphrased from something that KHM said) be construed as mudslinging too? I would argue yes. They are both questioning the other's associations, and that has been going on for weeks. One is using a terrorist, the other an inept president.
This article describes some of both of their negative ads. It hasn't been completely all high road.
Again, sorry to get long winded and I'm sure you won't see me around much again. You don't argue on mine and I'm tired of arguing on yours. -
2:28 PM
Drew:
I'm saying that given two equally qualified candidates, one white male and one something else, I'd go for the something else at this juncture, you bet.
As for the anti-capitalism silliness, you all know exactly how I feel about it: unfettered capitalism as practiced in this country poses a great many risks. And I think we all have a great many examples of what I mean. -
4:39 PM
I don't remember saying that it was my "life mission to change the world one misinformed liberal at a time", but if I did and I am not saying that I didn't, it was a joke, an attempt at humor.
"If you can't respect me or anyone else enough to make an educated and informed decision on why we vote liberal then you are obviously not interested in conversation, only getting others to think like you."
How is having a difference of opinion disrespectful. Do I have to agree with everything you say to be respectful, and how is what I do or say, different from what you or Kathy or others say? I have been beaten up pretty good here a time or two for having a differing opinion. Do you not express your opinion in the hope that you might persuade someone to change their mind and think as you do, which is all I am trying to do.
Just so you know, I never leave anonymous comments here or anywhere else. -
4:44 PM
I think there is a distinct difference between connecting to a president and former terrorist. For instance, one is the highest position in our national government, the other will get you arrested. Not too hard to tell the two apart.
Obama has always answered questions about Ayers with direct sincerity. He was 8 years old when Ayers committed any sort of terrorist acts, their kids went to the same school, etc. Bringing it up is childish especially since the Obama campaign has steered away from questions about Palin forcing women to pay for their own rape kits, her excessive pork barrel spending, McCain's double-talk, etc.
It just reeks of political manipulation. Obama continues to talk about the issues before us and ever since McCain started taking a dump in the polls this unabashed mud-slinging has surfaced. Its too bad.
And I don't know why you're tired of arguing, you don't do much of it. You just stop by, post one comment, and don't engage in a response. That shouldn't be too tiresome. -
4:52 PM
Don: You commented that you were trying to change my mind. You now say you were joking, fine. There was no humor in the connotation but whatever.
I still can't get across to you how bad your rhetoric is. Patrick jumped in and commented with a well-put and unoffensive statement and he got engaging responses. You however made another brash, untrue, sarcastic statement about Obama being "anti-capitalist" with ellipses before it implying that Kathy likes Obama because he's anti-capitalist. There's no reason to do that. Can't you just comment that you fear he might limit the amount of free-reign corporate America has? Do you really have to be insulting.
So for the last time, nobody has ever thought that your differing opinion was disrespectful, quite trying to play the victim. Your rhetoric on the other hand is quite disrespectful and so is the need to change other people's minds. -
6:32 PM
Patrick: that is interesting, I'd love to see/hear about some negative ads that Obama has been running. We don't see many presidential ads here in CA as you could imagine. If you have a link to a story or ad I'd appreciate it.
I did not get that your original post was referring to ads--you simply said "mud-slinging". With a DVR and limited time, I do not watch the ads during the few hours of TV that I do have time to watch.
Most of what I know comes from NPR. And from what I hear during my commute, I would argue that neither candidate or their supporters should claim to be above the fray.
Consider the thoughts of a colleague of mine with whom I was discussing the election today. He is a little bit older than I am; he describes himself as a Democratic-leaning centrist; he was born and spent his youth in a communist country in eastern Europe. He says it turns his stomach to see the campaign that Obama is running because the tactics remind him of those that the communists employed in his home country. If you dare to question the dear leader, you are labelled--a racist, an idiot, or a backwater dolt that clings to guns and religion.
Again, I am not supporting the other guy either. I am not saying they are any better. But please forgive me if I do not share the great anticipation of the change on which our country is about to embark. It looks like more of the same to me.
--patrick -
7:27 PM
Once again Lyman, you're right. It shouldn't be too tiresome, but for some reason it is. It's probably because I write responses and realize that it really doesn't matter what I write, the response will be the same and I delete it and move on. So I will keep this short because I do have a couple questions and comments.
Kathy, just so I'm clear, are you really saying what I think you are saying? All things being equal, you would vote for someone based entirely on their race? While it may not take the historical perspective, if that is really what you are saying, I'm surprised that I would hear such a racist comment come from someone I consider an intelligent person and an informed voter.
I haven't seen what I consider a completely true statement come out of the mouth of any of the four of these clowns in months. Do you really think that Obama is being completely honest on the full extent of his relationship with Ayers, despite evidence that would seem to indicate otherwise?
If a mass group of people think that Bush is evil (or a "fucktard") and another group think that Ayers is evil, tying one person to either of them is the same tactic regardless of their title. That's my point. You believe that Obama has maintained the high road, I believe they are both playing the same game.
While Don's "...anti-capitalism" comment may have been sarcastic, Kathy went on to confirm that Don's assumption was true. So maybe he has been listening to her and her opinions. -
8:48 PM
Patrick: that's funny, we've heard for so long that if you don't agree with Bush or war then you support terrorism and I find that same sort of logic being applied by the McCain campaign. Obama chose a VP candidate who had directly debated and challenged him in the past, and even though I am a staunch Obama supporter I'm disappointed he doesn't want to support gay marriage or social medicine. Its too bad that there are those who think disagreeing with him is wrong.
Drew: You missed Jeff's point. My post was about mud-slinging ads, he was responding that only a 'fucktard' would be swayed by those. I agree. -
4:28 AM
Lyman: that's funny, we've heard for so long that if you don't agree with Bush or war then you support terrorism...
You are saying that the Bush administration has labeled opponents to squash dissent? No disagreement there.
Lyman: ...and I find that same sort of logic being applied by the McCain campaign.
And the McCain campaign is using the same tactic? Again, no disagreement there.
But I hear that Obama is about "hope" and "change". Maybe "change" just means 4 or 8 years where the other half of the population is the winning side. Or maybe Obama will really be able to bring people together and build consensus for reasonable changes, but since he has even struggled to build a bridge to the H. Clinton supports, I am skeptical. It all looks like politics as usual to me.
--patrick -
6:15 AM
Last comment before I head out of town:
I'm NOT anti-capitalism nor do I believe Mr. Obama is. I've stated my position on the matter ad nauseum here. No change lately.
"Given two equally qualified candidates, one white male and the other something else, I'd go for the something else..." if you consider that racism, OK. I don't. I call it a solid interest in injecting some diversity in our government. How else might I make the choice if both are otherwise equal? Your question suggests that any way I'd make the choice would be discriminatory in some way.
I'm not at all racist (which, I'm aware, is what many racists say). But was I excited to see both a woman and an African-American-ish candidate as major players in this campaign cycle? Absolutely. My point is, my intellect remains unchanged regardless of what you think of my decision making on this as does my personal integrity.
Live and let live. Kumbaya. Work to understand the concerns and fears of people who think differently. Find common ground---this divisiveness is problemmatic. -
2:47 PM
Patrick: I don't see how Obama would be ahead in the polls if he hasn't rallied Hillary voters. Where did that come from?
As far as change goes I think Obama has put forth some ideas that are drastically different from the past 8 years: raising taxes on the wealthy, $1,000 tax credit to working class, more gov't regulation on big business, a finite timetable for withdrawal in Iraq, a foreign policy of diplomacy as opposed to war ... really, how much more different does the man's platform need to be? -
2:26 AM
"... really, how much more different does the man's platform need to be?"
I'd like to take this chance to point out a man I think a fantastic candidate, Ralph Nader. He supports National Initiatives, ballot & debate reform, he's anti-nuclear power and drilling (and heavily pro-solar), and I think he'd spearhead the biggest crackdown on white collar crime we've ever had. Feel free to click that link, and then click on any of his main issues if you're bored/curious. :D
Yes, I know he won't win. I completely understand most people vote 'against' people, rather than for, but anyone in a state that's not in serious 'dead het' contention for Obama/McCain should consider looking at a third party candidate (Barr, Nader, anyone,) to see if there are any other options that more closely matches your values. (Admittedly, probably not with most of you guys, but it never hurts to try.) Getting 5% for someone that more closely matches your feelings on the issues is a much bigger victory than having your guy winning for four years. -
5:18 AM
> I don't see how Obama would be ahead in the polls if he hasn't rallied Hillary voters. Where did that come from?
I really do not have the time to do the research for you. You can use google as well as I can. It has been widely reported that Clinton supporters are not exactly thrilled with Obama. In the end, sure, they will probably vote for him because they consider him the lesser of two evils. But voting for and supporting are drastically different things. I am sure that I will not be too thrilled with who I end up voting for either.
> As far as change goes...
This looks like rearranging the deck chairs. There is not a whole lot that is different than the traditional Democratic platform. Sure, it is different than the last eight years, but any candidate that can garner ~55% of the popular vote cannot be thinking that far out of the box. People talk about wanting change, but few have the stomach for it. To Jeff's point, look at some of the third party candidates if you want a real stretch vision for this country.
--patrick - 8:25 AM
-
10:01 AM
Patrick-I didn't know you'd get so testy about asking where you heard your facts, sorry. As far as 'Change' I'm looking for change from Bush politics and Obama is pretty far from that, I'm not sure he ever claimed his 'change' was one that is entirely different from traditional American politics.
Third party candidates are a great idea and all but what if a Socialist got elected and put gov't in control of most of our affairs? What if a Libertarian got elected and took gov't out of corporate business entirely? What if a Green Partiest got elected and as a result could get nothing done with a Dem/Republican congress? Its easy to say "nobody talks about real change!" but radical change could bring a drastic turn for the worse. I'm as optimistic as the next guy but you have to be realistic about the workings of American politics. Both candidates have an expansive platform and with a little exploration of your own ideology you could certainly find which one best fits the way you think this country should be run. If you have faith in a third-party candidate that's an option as well.
This brings up a great point I'll blog about later. -
3:50 AM
Heh, I often call myself a "batshit-crazy liberal," so that's pretty funny khm. :D And I know he's entering kooky-old-man territory, but I'm okay with voting for him in the vein of raising issues that matter to me.
And I think Patrick's really dead-on about someone garnering 55% of the vote not really being 'outside the box'. Now, this isn't any kind of reality, just my own perception, but the fact that 'any' Republican candidate is polling in the double digits after Bush is mind-boggling to me.
(This election should've been Democrats versus Libertarians with a hint of Nader. At least, if 'far-right conservatives' were smart about it, but more on that later.)
I also think this election is a perfect example of how single-issue voters have destroyed politics. Far too many people who pick politics look at the candidates and only see these things, and vote for the single one that matters to them:
McCain: Christian, conservative, military, self-reliance, anti-abortion, small government.
Obama: Peace, liberal, good economy, technologically savvy, pro-choice, smart government.
Nevermind the idea that those things may not necessarily correlate to the candidate they're assigned to, it's just the thought of them relating is enough.
And let's not even get into the silly talk about what it would be like with a third party candidate in office. I'm not dumb. I'm just aiming for 5% for a candidate who represents multiple ideas I agree with in a state that's going to go McCain anyway. If 'far-left liberals' actually wanted to cultivate more 'far-left liberals' I think they'd do exactly what I'm doing. (Likewise with 'far-right conservatives'.)
So, I've been meandering while writing this, but I guess I've come to the decision that despite all the accusations of far-reaching insanity by each party toward the other... Damn near the entire country is a buncha lightweight wusses that don't want to really get anything done, one way or the other. ;) -
4:54 AM
Patrick-I didn't know you'd get so testy about asking where you heard your facts, sorry.
I did not not intend to be testy or realize that trying to bow out of the discussion would be labeled as such. I was merely trying to give you the courtesy of explaining why I could not continue the thread. Perhaps our exchange is a good illustration of what so many people find so unpleasant about political discussion these days.
--patrick -
9:40 AM
Patrick: "Perhaps our exchange is a good illustration of what so many people find so unpleasant about political discussion these days."
WORD. And this reluctance to engage in political discussion, to understand the continuum of concerns and attempt to form tenable policy that meets the needs of both conservatives and liberals--I think, perpetuates the differences and polarizes.
Jeffool---ah...the world would love to believe that very left-leaning (or left-l(a)ying, as I usually say) liberals are batshit crazy, I firmly avow my sanity...
while I would love to see a third party emerge and flourish, its the kind of change that takes time, like decades or even a century if it is to be successful in the absence of armed conflict. Membership, support and presence have to be grown to ensure the viability of such candidates in the big governmental forums.
We have to live in the world we have while we carefully build the one we wish for and we have to do that without causing more regression from the desired outcome in the process. So that means in an election where the popular vote appears to be close, a liberal minded person giving their vote to a third party candidate who has NO chance of winning could be giving an edge the conservative candidate which is not the direction the liberal voter is heading. -
4:53 PM
Just so I'm clear Patrick and I'm in no way trying to be argumentative because I thought we were having a good back-and-forth; asking for some sort of article saying that Obama hs yet to build a bridge to Hillary supporters is an unpleasant exchange?
As far as third-party candidacy goes my position is this: if we did have multiple candidates, let's say 5, who were all viable candidates in regards to winning that means that we could have a president who only garnered 21% of voters. Is that what we want?
31 comments: