KCRW's Left Right & Center 10.24.08
JOIN US @KCRW.COM--LIVE LRC BROADCAST, AUDIO/VIDEO WEBCAST AND PODCAST ON SUNDAY, NOV. 9 at 6pm PACIFIC TIME (*we may start some of the behind-the-scenes stuff on our videocast at 5:45 pm PT*) FROM THE BROAD STAGE IN SANTA MONICA!
Obama's Lead; Which Way GOP; Greenspan’s Goof?
A heckuva show today, Tony’s a trifle testy over unfair allegations he says are being made against Republicans, the McCain campaign and Sarah Palin. And what about that wardrobe budget? Tony predicts the next conservative revolution will be populist, not intellectual. Plus: is “socialism” code for racism? Is “family values”? Who’s really using the race card and how? And a big discussion about capitalism, the (so-called?) free market, concentration of capital, corporate fascism and Euro-Socialism. And did Greenspan undermine the theory of capitalism by admitting his surprise about how little oversight was being exercised at top financial institutions? (Sorry to say, Arianna was unavailable today.)
LINKS
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/10/23/updated-report/
UPDATED REPORT: McCain’s Tax Plan Would Have Saved The McCains $730,000
An updated analysis of the Obama and McCain tax plans by the Center for American Progress Action Fund finds that John and Cindy McCain would have saved $730,000 over 2006 and 2007 under McCain’s tax plan. Under Obama’s proposed plan, the McCains would have saved $62,000 over the same two years. Read the full analysis here.
***************************************************************************************************EJ Dionne
Civil War on the Right 10.24.08
WASHINGTON — Conservatives are at each other’s throats, and here’s what’s revealing about how divided they are: The critics of John McCain and the critics of Sarah Palin represent entirely different camps.
Skeptical social conservatives are precisely the people McCain was trying to mollify by picking Palin as his running mate. These include the faithful of the religious right who remember McCain as their enemy in 2000, and parts of the gun crowd who always saw McCain as soft on their issues.
That McCain felt a need to
make such an outlandishly risky choice speaks to how insecure his hold was on
the core Republican vote. A candidate is supposed to rally the base during the
primaries and reach out to the middle at election time. McCain got it backward,
and it’s hurting him.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/opinions/?nid=top_opinions
*******************************************************************************************************************
NYTimes Magazine Preview,
The Making (and Remaking) of McCain
By ROBERT DRAPER
Published: October 22, 2008
On the morning of Wednesday, Sept. 24, John McCain convened a meeting in his suite at the Hilton hotel in Midtown Manhattan. Among the handful of campaign officials in attendance were McCain’s chief campaign strategist, Steve Schmidt, and his other two top advisers: Rick Davis, the campaign manager; and Mark Salter, McCain’s longtime speechwriter. The senator’s ears were already throbbing with bad news from economic advisers and from House Republican leaders who had told him that only a small handful in their ranks were willing to support the $700 billion bailout of the banking industry proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. The meeting was to focus on how McCain should respond to the crisis — but also, as one participant later told me, “to try to see this as a big-picture, leadership thing.”
************************************************************************
October 24, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Contrarian that I am, I'm voting
for John McCain. I'm not talking about bucking the polls or the media consensus
that it's over before it's over. I'm talking about bucking the rush of
wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama before they're left out in
the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/security_first_why_im_voting_f.html
*******************************************************************
October 22, 2008
The Birth of the Me-Too Conservative By Tony Blankley
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/the_birth_of_the_metoo_conserv.html
With the rise to enduring power of President
Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal in 1933, a new type of Republican emerged in
reaction to FDR's attractive and overawing power: the me-too Republican. Until
the election of President Reagan five decades later, these me-too Republicans
supported, rather than opposed, Democratic Party policies but claimed they
would administer them better. Of course, this led to a half-century of
Democratic dominance of American government and politics.
My Groups
-
KCRW's Good Food Updated: Yesterday
-
Music News from KCRW.com Updated: 2 days ago
-
The Global Gig Guide on KCRW Updated: Dec 24, 2009
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
Comments
DManson is correct.
I've long felt that people like Bill Kristol (and, apparently, Tony Blankley) have made Palin their little hope chest for the ultimate conservative because, like the rest of America, they don't know what she really thinks either. They're all imposing their own doctrinal wish list on her and saying she's the true conservative. But because she's avoided every chance to tell anyone what she thinks (except to whine about how the media won't let her say what she thinks -- a truly stunning circular argument), once she does start having to hold some positions, I think a lot of softened conservative hearts are going to be broken.
One interesting thing Tony said was that the recovery of the conservative movement will be likely to be populist rather than "over-intellectualized." This framing is just the latest buzzword to connote ignorance as good and education as bad. This framing is clearly in the Republican Party's best interest because their policies really have consistently favored the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. Does this mean we can expect more incurious GOP candidates like George W. Bush and Sarah Palin?
The claim that reports of Sarah Palin's clothes budget is a "smear" is pretty ridiculous. It's commonly reported as $150K, but Tony complains that this is an unfair exaggeration. Okay, then how much is it? $75K? $50K? Anything on that scale is still so high that it invalidates Sarah Palin's persona of being a populist candidate.
This is a shockingly dumb thing to say for a politician, because it's a bald-faced revival of the HUAC witch-hunts of the 1950's. Not surprisingly, her Democratic opponent El Tinklenberg received a huge surge of donations since then, and it appears Bachmann's once-certain reelection is now likely to fail.
I'd like to put the Bachmann gaffe in context of the constant fear-based propaganda the Republicans have been using ever since 9/11/2001, and which they have really cranked up in the last two months. It has become clear that the American voters have had enough of it, and the more they generate FUD, the more they lose ground.
Mr. Scheer, you appear to be very petty and mean
Mr. Scheer, you appear to be a very petty and mean spirited person.
I doubt that you would have the courage to speak about Sarah Palin to her face in the way you denigrate her behind the protection of the radio wall. It is cowardly and lacking integrity for any public person (such as yourself) to ridicule a woman. Even if you don't like her, and plan to vote for Obama, ridiculing a governor is cheap.
She has after all, served her state for at least as long as Obama has served his. And I don't think that is a "nothing."
Yes, and if Sarah Palin were to see you in person, she would show to you the same graciousness she showed to Alec Baldwin last week when he made a fool of himself on Saturday Night live.
I've noticed that the more anonymous and disconnected people get the more the vitriol increases. When the hosts are in different cities it's a little less civilized than when they're together in studio.
By the time you get to the disconnected extreme of anonymous blog comments you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
It is a shame because I'm certain the LRC broader audience is more intelligent / civilized than the blog belies, but I'm afraid the blog/community will probably flounder because of all the negative attacks.
Thanks-
Sarah, LRC producer/blog moderator
At the time that you felt Governor Palin was lying to you, did you call her a liar to her face?
I don't know you, but I really doubt that you or anyone else would look Sarah Palin in the face and tell her what you just wrote and what Mr Scheer said about her in the same tone using the same words. It just goes against civilized communication to speak in such a fashion directly to someone that way. That's why you didn't call her a liar to her face when you saw her and that's why I believe it is wrong to speak about Palin the way many bloggers and most media personnel do. It's just wrong. That's why Alec Baldwin was slightly embarrassed last Saturday night. As he well should be.
By the way, the Secret Service found no evidence to support a reporter's claim that someone yelled "kill him (Obama)" at McCain's rally.
I'm not saying it's right to call Senator Obama names or to yell threats It isn't. Obama appears to be an intelligent and nice man. But his values are different than mine and he won't be getting my vote.
So many people accuse the Republican campaign of creating hostilities. I have listened to NPR, all of the major networks, CNN, several liberal web newsletters, as well as reading many of the more conservative newsletters. Infrequently, I watch Fox News, rarely do I listen to the Limbaugh show. Primarily, I watch C-Span, and try to read the non-partisan web reports.
After listening and viewing many reports, I can tell you, the majority of people who speak against McCain and Palin are merely parroting what they hear on the news, and the news is only reporting the negatives about McCain. They don't report the negatives about Obama.
Do people really believe that Obama can spend twice as much on advertising and not speak at least an equal amount of negative speels as McCain? The assumption defies reason and positions the news media exactly as they are being portrayed--as biased liberals. They also assume the American public to be fools when they report biased information. Why not report both sides equally and let the public decide?
Perfect example: Left Right and Center. How many Republicans are usually on the program? One. How many liberals or liberal leaning voices do you hear? Two-Matt and Bob, and three when Huffington is on. What kind of balance is that? The Diane Rehms and Neil Conan shows are the same. There are always two or three anti conservative voices to one conservative voice-if there are any conservatives at all! Oh, and those are tax dollars paying for a large part of the NPR airwaves.
The media is running this campaign. Palin has stated her beliefs and who she is with conviction. She has twice the courage as Obama and isn't afraid to take a stand. The only stand Obama ever takes is when it is politically expedient for him. Just read his record in the State of Illinois and over the first 18 months of his time in the senate. One can hardly count the last 18 months since he has spent more time campaigning than working.
I am not at all offended by Sarah Palin. As a well-educated female professional, I would look forward to Palin as vice president.
And McCain's record may speak of heavy military support, but if you check the records, you'll see the financial crisis was more a result of Clinton deregulation and Democratic support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with subprime mortgage lending that caused this economic crisis, rather than President Bush or John McCain.
McCain-Palin 2008
"I assume you refer to The Fed Housing Regulatory Reform Act '95, McCain co-sponsored the 96 amendment. It passed the banking committee but stalled with Conference Chair Rick Santorum, (R- Penn). It never came to a vote in the republican Senate as neither side fully supported it. Dems & Repubs opposed because it would privatize regulatory agencies for Fannie & Fred (vs Federal oversight). Some speculate that McCain attached himself to the stagnant bill, not to get it passed, but to have "reform" on his record. Regardless, he couldn't get it to a vote.
To be fair, House Repub Mike Oxley (OH) had a reform bill passed in 95 (Fed Housing Finance Reform Act). He reached out to Barney Frank (co-sponsor) and it passed by a wide margin. Unfortunately, it never found a champion in the Senate and encountered "hostility" from the exec office. He said that the admin. gave them "the one-finger salute". http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1230703 Bottom line, the financial crisis was fathered by Phil Gramm, author of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act which shielded credit derivatives and swaps from Federal regulation. Subsequent restrictions were lowered or abolished under a republican administration and congress, creating today's mess. Phil Gramm is often referred to as McCain's "economic brain"- he is credited with most of McCain's economic policies."
Tony's comment about Alan Greenspan's confession undermining capitalism struck a chord.
I might suggest that Matt, Robert, and Arianna read Gus Speth's book, "The Bridge at the Edge of the World" (I woulldn't recommend it to Tony because he would surely have a conniption fit!). Gus actually calls for a major revision of capitalism as it is currently practiced. He argues that it is western capitalism that is at the heart of our energy and environmental problems.
I argue further that these and the current financial mess and economic decline are also related in a deep way (c.f. my Oct. 23 blog entry at: http://questioneverything.typepad.com/ ).
Capitalism has run amok in this country and in much of the developed and would-be developed world. It requires a constant depletion of natural resources that simply cannot be sustained as the world approaches 9+ billion people.
George
A great program – 5 stars
I would like to comment on Bob’s suggestion that the term “family values” is code for racism. In a way I agree with this statement in that I have always felt that these 2 words are certainly code.
Firstly, it’s an odd choice of words in that it is meaningless without further clarification. What exactly are these family values? Are they ideals such as sharing and giving back to the community, helping those less fortunate than ourselves? Well not exactly.
When the term “family values” is used in the American public arena it has come to stand for a very specific set of positions (i.e. anti-abortion, anti euthanasia etc). These positions are understood to support a structure of white, male (Christian) power and dominance - dominance over life itself. If a woman can choose not to bare a child, how can a man maintain his power over her? If a person that is in pain – either physical or physic – chooses to end their own life, male power is some how diminished. Maintaining capital punishment is a last bastion in the male power society – determining that a person must die because they are deemed somehow less than human supports feelings of dominance.
This power has been eroded slowly over the past 30 or 40 years with the women’s movement in the 60’s and 70’s as well as the civil rights movement and hopefully it will continue to erode. Although those that hold this power will never give it up without a fight, I see desperation creeping in.
McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate is one sign of this desperation.
Ms Palin is not to be taken seriously as a world leader. She is a white male’s ideal of the perfect women. She’s attractive and charming, willing to sit quietly at the side of her partner, smiling and winking. She can say something foolish or without depth, but it doesn’t matter because she is not considered an equal. She is that pretty girl in high school that all the boys had a crush on and not because of her intellectual capabilities.
The McCain / Palin story is integral to the myth of family values - Brave War Hero - Fertile Mother and Beauty queen. These two are intended to represent the power elite’s perfect mommy and daddy. They will take care of us. We only need to vote for them and then go on about our business, safe and secure once again.
Frickup,
Obama came out against Iraq after many other politicians were doing so. He had no power to make a difference with a vote in the Senate until 2006. Any opposition before that time was simply that of another protesting citizen. Obama also attended Occidental before transferring to Columbia, but the relevance of the number of colleges one attends escapes me.
The fundamental differences are clear-we have different world views. You can offer your sources and I could rebut them easily. I do have the patience but not the time. Suffice it to say, you can believe what you want and I certainly have a foundation for what I believe. In spite of the fact that many Americans are agreeing with our enemies about how terrible America is, this is what makes America the greatest country in the world--we can agree to disagree and not be hanged, shot, imprisoned, or deported.
McCain's comment that Obama 'would rather lose a war than lose a campaign'.
This comment is in response to Obama voting against the surge, voting against troop funding, and refusing to acknowledge the surge success. He chose the politically expedient path with each.
Palin's comment that Obama was 'pallin' around with terrorists.' Note the plural form.
It is now documented that Obama has a long standing relationship with Ayres AND his wife Dohrn. Both are unrepentant domestic terrorists (note the plural). Obama’s relationship included working on the same board for ten years, Michelle Obama working in the same law firm as Dohrn, their children attending the same school, and Ayres/Dohrn held a fund raiser in their home to kick off Obama’s political career. Again, the question is not why was Obama associating with these people, but why did these people choose to associate with him. It is easy to assume that Ayres/Dohrn, Wright and Pflager would not support someone who did not share their political convictions.
Palin's selective citation of an Obama quote about his concerns about too few coalition troops in Afghanistan: 'so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing innocent civilians'. Her interpretation? The comment should disqualify him from being Commander in Chief. Didn't seem to matter that McCain had said something similar about his concerns about not having ground troops in Kosovo.
Palin was quoting Obama comment about air-raiding villages and killing innocent civilians. Great way for a Commander-in-Chief to support his troops who are on the ground fighting at the time and risking their lives.
Michelle Bachman's (a McCain surrogate) despicable assertion that Obama 'may have anti-American views'.
If he was associated with Ayres, Wright, Pflager, etc, there’s a good chance that his real views are anti-American. Obama’s assertation that he was not in the pews when Wright was ranting directly opposes Obama’s quote of one of the very sermons in his book “Dreams of My Father.”
Cindy McCain's comment that 'the day that Sen. Obama cast a vote to not fund my son when he was serving sent a cold chill through my body'. I guess it the fact that her husband cast a similar 'vote against the troops' because the funding bill had a timeline for withdrawal in it isn't relevant.
Voting against bills in the senate is always difficult to criticize without knowing all the details. Cindy McCain's view is Obama voted against the bill because he was trying to subvert the war effort to cut it short, even if it meant putting the troops in danger. McCain voted against the time line because it would have provided information that would put the troops in danger.
The gentlemen who warmed up crowds at McCain events by referring to Obama as Barack Hussein Obama. Without rebuke by the good Senator McCain.
What is Barack Obama’s middle name anyway? Why should he be ashamed of it?
I continue to be surprised by Tony's continuing spiral into defending Sarah Palin and the Republican Party line. What happened to reasoned reflection?
Re: Tony's outrage over the race comments. I hope you will hold your party as accountable for labeling those of us who disagree with their stances on national security as "anti-American" or "unpatriotic." It's as despicable as labeling those who choose not to vote for Obama as "racist."
I am confused why being a "multiculturalist" could be considered by *anyone* from any perspective - other than racist and egotistical - as a negative quality.
My views are more to the left, but I hope all people from every opinion hope for a less xenophobic, inclusive country that does not tolerate racism.
Hello Ocean Girl: I think the entire reference was “Euro socialist, multiculturalists”. Tony kind of flung the 2 things together as if they were one in the same.
First term Euro socialist, which for some is like saying communist.
This was followed by multiculturalists. According to the dictionary, multiculturalism simply, encourages interest in many cultures within a society rather than in only a mainstream culture. This sounds like where we should be.
As a note, I don’t understand the fear of Socialism. Yes it is the opposite of capitalism. How has that been working out for us recently?
“Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society”. Sound familiar?
My opinion is that you need to combine the two ideologies. Other countries such as Canada have been very successful merging the 2 concepts.
Barack Obama's middle name Hussein is no more an indication of any commonality with an Iraqi dictator as John McCain's middle name Sidney is any indication of commonality with a gay man in his 50's living in New York, played by Tony Randall.
Please don't pretend that you don't understand this.
My views are pretty far left, but I was confused why I consider someone who is intelligent, even if don't share his views, would use "multiculturalist" as criticism.
I don't believe in legislating my beliefs on people (ie the separation of church/mosque/temple and state which people seem to have forgotten), but I do think there are certain things that universal human rights truths. Favoring one culture and excluding others is not one of them.
ie: Muslim is a religion and value set. Terrorism is a political extremism that is practiced by Muslims and Christians alike. (think: bombing abortion clinics, KKK etc)
I disagree that conservatives use Obama's middle name unrelentingly. The democratic politicians and Obama refer to McCain as erratic and Palin as a horrible mistake much more often than Hussein is bated around by conservative nutjobs. Right now PewResearch found that 70% of people feel the media favors Obama as opposed to 9% for McCain. Most people can see what's going on.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Leaked_Pro_McCain_527_Negative_Ad_Small_Town_Fear_Itself/
Larry, as the only poster I know who has been repeatedly chastised by the moderator, I'd like the record to reflect that I am one of the few who is not posting anonymously. I would say everything I've said on this board directly to Sarah Palin or anyone else if given the opportunity. I decided to wait a couple of days before posting, this time, only to be surprised how negative the blog is this time. So, let the record reflect, i've had nothing to do with that.
I think you are being kind of an elitist to suggest you are one of the few good ones.
This election has been McCain's to lose. It's not over yet, but here are his three major mistakes, in baseball terms:
STRIKE ONE: In the primaries, he was smart to embrace rightwing conservative ideology. His mistake was using his Bush voting record to reinforce his new image as a hardcore conservative. Bush himself knew this was a mistake, but McCain's ego required that Bush glad-hand him. This was a tactical mistake.
STRIKE TWO: His mistake was not nominating Sarah Palin, as most moderates and many conservatives want to believe. The misake was nominating a rightwinger. This showed weakness on McCain's part--an admission he couldn't turnout the base on his own. The reality, however, is that rightwinges would have voted for him anyway. (any rightwinger McCain nominated would have become the same type of instant superstar as Palin became). All McCain needed to do was nominate a moderate conservative like Tom Ridge or Olympia Snowe and he'd be 10 points up right now.
STRIKE THREE: Beginning with the third debate, McCain's best election chance was to go positive. Go with image. Go with his biography. Once again, though, his lack of self-confidence and his rightwing advisers convinced him to go to the "surefire" route, which so far as backfired.
The election's not over, but if Obama wins, these are the reasons McCain struck out.
McCain, the new “know it all”
My friends, if McCain wins, it will the beginning of the new “know-it-all” movement in politics. No longer will citizens need to question their leaders. We can relax with the knowledge that McCain and Palin know everything (this rhetoric seems to have begun shortly after McCain was called out by Tim Russert for saying he didn't know much about the economy).
How to catch bin Laden: “I know how to improve our capabilities so that we will capture Osama bin Laden -- or put it this way, bring him to justice... We will do it, I know how to do it."
What Iraqis Want: “I have been there too many times. I've met too many times with him, and I know what they want.”
What the Southwest is: "I know them,' he said. "I know what the Southwest is, I know strength and the culture and our Hispanic culture and the strength of our great states."
Latin America: “I have traveled extensively, I know the leadership, I know the issues. I come from a border state. I know Latinos in America.”
Rightwing Deathsquads: "I know how to eliminate programs."
How to win War: "Look, I know the area, I've been there, I know wars, I know how to win wars.”
New energy policy: “I know how to do that and I will do it.”
World leaders: “I know them all.”
Big Brother: “I know the world.”
Economic Crisis: “I know how to fix the economy.”
Wall Street Crisis: “I have always opposed greed of Wall Street and I know how we can fix this.”
Housing Crisis: I don’t know how many houses I own. (oops!)
Analysis of Leno/Letterman over five weeks showed nearly 300 jokes about McCain/Palin compared to 42 for Obama.
SNL has done Palin so many times it's getting stale. They even plan to come out with a special pre-election skit to trash her.
The front page hit piece on Cindy McCain by the NY Times was just delightful.
Why are people talking about Palin's $150 thousand wardrobe? It's just plain stupid. In the same issue of US magazine that trashed Palin with the frontpage of Lies, deceit, etc, there was a two page spread of Michelle Obama's wardrobe. Michelle was also named one of the ten best dressed women by another magazine. Let's not forget Obama's $500 shoes. At the same Obama was chastising the rich folk in the Alfred Smith dinner about the starving people out on the streets of New York, Michelle was upstairs in a suit of the Waldorf ordering plates of steamed lobster and IRANIAN cavier.
For God's sake, in a campaign where Obama breaks his word on taking public funds and receives more than a half-billion dollars (60-75% of which came from bundled large donors) do we need to spend anytime of the meesly 150 thousand spent on Palin's dresses?
For more information on John Stumbling Bumbling McCain and his Shopping Sidekick Sarah 666 Palin visit http://www.ibelievethis.us
He admits that his only executive experience is running a campaign for president which I means his only executive experience comes from self promotion.
The serious issues of the campaign, for me, weren't mentioned during this program. If we want the economy to do well, if we want peace in the world, if we want a prosperous country, we have to follow God's will and stop flagrant injustice.
Every time the United States votes pro-choice, a disaster takes place. The week Roe v. Wade was decided, the U.S. signed the surrender with Viet Nam. In January 1993 pro-choice President Bill Clinton took office, in February the WTC was attacked for the first time. When bills banning partial birth abortion were defeated in the late 1990s, two American Embassys in Africa were destroyed.
How do I say this respectfully? You just revealed a lot about yourself. I better shut up before I get in trouble with the moderator. I'm done debating silliness.
Here is the silver lining for this election:
Once McCain wins the election, he will realise the kind of supporters he has and how they've destroyed his reputation.
Right now, all McCain cares about is winning. In February, all he will care about is his legacy. So, he will have a Democratic Congress. Do you think he will want to spend his four years in office fighting rightwing causes? Cowtowing to his VP?
If anybody thinks that, you are deluded.
He will do what he has always done--he will reach across the aisle to find what he can get accomplished with a Democratic congress. And he won't be pushing any given ideology. He will be looking to get the most bang for his buck. He will find the most historical type venture possible.
So, as I come to this epiphany I am less worried about who wins the presidency. As much as I would prefer Obama, in reality he will be less able to accomplish some of the things McCain will be able to do.
He plans to run for one term. And he's going to make the most of it. He will want to be the next Roosevelt, and either Roosevelt will do.
So keep fighting rightwingers, because we've already won. No matter who wins the presidency. Sure, you will have your initial victory and your gloat parade. But it will be a hollow victory. By the time you realise what you've done, it will be too late.
I respect your passion on the pro-life/pro-choice issue. But those connections you mention are coincidental. America has faced many challenges and tragedies over the years. So of course some of them occur close to the pro-choice milestones you mention. You imply a cause-and-effect relationship for which there is no evidence.
It's okay to oppose abortion on its own. That's a perfectly valid position. But attributing tragic American events to some kind of retributive strikes from God is simply superstition.
Barry, I'm not sure if you think my comments were aimed at you, but if you do they were not. And, no, I don't think I am the only 'good commenter'.
I thought this comment was interesting. I've come to a similar conclusion, albeit from a different direction. I don't think it is obvious who to vote for solely based on their positions on the 'issues'. You have to consider how much power they will have to get things done, what their 'real' positions/values are, and how desperate they will be to get re-elected.
Who would have thought Clinton would have brought us NAFTA and welfare reform, while Bush brought us education reform and a huge expansion of Medicare?
Why they did these things is debatable. I think it's part triangulation, part wanting to be liked, part divided congress. If the Democrats pull off a filibuster proof majority in the senate I think it changes this game. . .but if they don't it's worth thinking about how the candidates will govern versus how they campaign.
But that's not the purpose conservatives have for emphasizing Barack Obama's middle name. It's an appeal to the bigotry that some Americans have, that Muslim is equivalent to terrorist.
Some conservatives have used Obama's middle name Hussein as an epithet, voicing it with a tone of derision, accusation, and spite. You would not be likely to hear the same tone of voice used when referring to "William JEFFERSON Clinton".
It seemed to gain legs back in January, when radio personality Bob Cunningham repeatedly referred to Obama with his full name in a clear attempt to cast him as foreign. Cunningham has even tried to enhance the effect, calling Obama "Barack Mohammed Hussein Obama" even though Mohammed is not part of Obama's name.
John McCain's campaign has condemned this form of non-verbal rhetoric. The RNC has denounced it too. Even Karl Rove cautioned GOP state executive directors against this kind of demogoguery. But as recently as October, there are still a few instances of Republican leaders continuing to use "Hussein" as an epithet in public rallies -- at which John McCain and Sarah Palin were present.
But plain and simple... this country is NOT a theocracy. That is plain and simple, no-arguments, part of the constitution. SEPARATION of CHURCH (sic - because there are many religions here) and STATE!!!!! It is so simple that it just confounds me why we are still talking about this. I am Buddhist. I believe that I don't have everyone else's right answers. In Buddhism the emphasis is on self-growth.... finding what you believe, not someone telling you what to believe. There are Muslims and Jews here who believe the head should be covered. Do we legislate that too? To me the folks who stick with the "pro-life" (who conincidentally seem to be the same ones who have no problems going to war) argument I ask them to consider whether they would prefer to live in a theocratic society like that regulated by the Taliban. Where ONE person's interpretation of "Truth" (sic) is legislated on all. Where do you draw the line???? There are many Christians who are "pro-choice."
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! Geez.
Just to take my comments a little more negative, I think it's funny how hard rightwingers are fighting for McCain. They're pulling out all of their dirty tricks and smears.
McCain just dangles Palin in front of them and they go all goo-goo eyes. When McCain's elected Palin will be marginalized from a policy/power perspective.
Meanwhile, McCain will pursue a centrist agenda with his friends like Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Finegold.
I will still vote for Obama, but I think as moderates and liberals, we can get a lot accomplished with McCain.
Before you got side tracked by a detail, the issue was that the media (with the exception of conservative talk radio) has favored Obama throughout the primaries and current campaign.
Whether the media is for Obama is certainly debatible. I don't know the exact numbers, but the newspaper endorsements favor Obama 3-1. That's the editorial side, though. Remember, though, that the AP has been very slanted against Obama, and their news and commentary is printed in every newspaper, even those endorsing Obama. But, what also cannot be denied is that the rightwing media sets the news agenda. When the rightwing media decides to hammer a particular issue, they do it in unison. This is not as common in the center-left media.
The real issue, though, is whether America is Center-Left or Center-Right. That, too is debatible, but what most people sometimes forget in this argument is that whichever side wins, they are saying America is a Centrist country, a moderate country.
I don't see anything substantive in your response to Frickup about Obama making the right judgement in coming out against the Iraq war. Courageous or not is a sub-argument and a matter of ideological perspective.
What is more interesting is how the Rightwing is fighting its heart out for McCain, God bless them.
Think about it. George Bush campaigned as a "Compassionate Conservative" and won two elections (sort of). But he governed as a "Rightwing Conservative." And look at his poll numbers. The American people (excluding rightwingers) have rejected his policies, though many still like him personally.
So, is McCain going to be happy with a rightwing agenda that garners him a 23% popularity rating? As a lifelong celebrity whose historical base has been the media, I think not.
McCain is campaigning on a "rightwing agenda." He has said repeatedly he will not govern like George Bush. That means he will govern as a "Compassionate Conservative."
We already have a name for "compassionate conservativism". It's called a Moderate Democrat. So, either way, rightwingers lose this election and centrists like me win.
I agree with the spirit of what you and Gen. Powell said about Muslims. And the 'hussein thing' with Obama is out of bounds.
But let's not go too far in letting Muslims off the hook here. Just as we Americans are all responsible for rightwing extremism taking power in our country, Muslims are just a culpable for their rightwing extremists and terrorists.
Everyone wants to be an archaeologist when it comes to comparing religions. God knows Christianity as an organized religion has a lot to answer for. But this horrible history pales in comparison to the bigotry, racism, sexism and brutality that been committed in the name of Islam.
I am not making a statement on which religion is better or worse. But let's not bend over backwards defending a group of people who need to do a much better job policing themselves and improving their religion, both image wise and human-rights-wise.
At the same time, Christianity needs to take a hard look at itself and make sure rightwingers in our own country don't become even more extreme. I mean can you believe their's actually a debate in this country about whether bombing an abortion clinic is terrorism or not? Of course it is.
This is just sad. Palin has achieved what should be a feminist dream. She has had a family and been successful in her own right but because she doesn't follow the ideology of the feminist movement (that would be left wing ideology) she is "not to be taken seriously" and it is assumed she is "without depth."
The republicans in congress went on a spending binge (not even counting the war) and didn't lift a finger to stop it. Larded up farm bills, energy bills, new departments, new permanent entitlements, more, more, more. Everyone wanted something and he never would veto jack (didn't veto anything for 6 years or so). He just didn't have the guts to stand up to his own party which had abandoned limited government conservatism in favor of trying to give every member plenty of pork.
Bush has a low approval rating precisely because he governed as a party man rather than a "righting conservative" or even just as a regular conservative.
I guess when people go out and abuse others in the name of the Lord, if us other Christians don't oppose them then we will loose our moral authority, maybe even our heritage.
The social right has made some progress: a few years ago acceptance of domestic partnerships with all the rights of marriage with the exception of the term was unthinkable for most republicans but now it is widely accepted. We still have ass hats like Pat Robertson and his ilk who like to think God sends disasters down upon beds of sin or whatever but they are getting to be more and more a curiosity then the norm.
Nice try, Mr. X. The rightwingers were right there passing the legislation and cashing in the pork checks like all the rest of the republicans.
It may be smart politics to distance yourselves from Bush, but unlike McCain you guys have been in lock-step with Bush. There was only one issue where Bush tried to go all maverick--immigration--and you guys successfully slapped him down.
Try that with McCain. See who far it gets you. He's old and he's rich and he only wants one term...what are you going to do to him?
The maverick is coming to town and Palin will be buried. Look at the signature issue he's foisted on her---IDEA. Not exactly a part of the Contract with America is it?
I understand you skepticism, Frickup, but fact is the liberal elite--and atheists in particular--are anti-Christian, there's little doubt about that. They think Christianity has caused all or most of the world's problems. But if you dare try to compare Christian history with that of other religions, those same liberals get all "we can't judge other cultures" on you. It's a double standard.
I, on the other hand, am skeptical of all organized religion. I believe in religion, but when it begins to be an organized, political force, that's when the problems happen.
I hate to admit it, but I'm one of those independents who probably wouldn't vote for an Atheist or a Rightwinger. I love atheists, though, because they are skeptics and i think skepticism is good. But organized atheisms as a political force has been just as brutal historically as the organized religions.
All of these groups make the same mistake--they intellectualize their ideology. They look at historical trends and "the broader good" instead of how their policies affect everyday people.
That's why I support Obama. Because of the two candidates, his personal religious philosophy as described in his books is the most moderate.
You're scaring me, Mr. X. Please stop talking like this. You're messing with my worldview that there are no reasonable rightwingers. Tony on this show was the last remaining one, but even he's turned to the darkside--at least for the next two weeks. Seriously, though, sounds like we have a lot of common ground aside from who we think would be the better president.
Let me be clear. If Obama loses this election, it will be a sad day for America.
I wonder why we don't hear more about moderate Muslims in American media? Actually, I don't wonder why. It serves none of the power elite's goals to show that we can work with the Islamic world peacefully. There must be another Cold War to keep Americans terrified.
And the reason more Muslims don't speak out against extremists is because if they do, somebody cuts their heads off.
So, I'm not equating our American rightwingers with Muslim extremists. Our guys are cubscouts compared to theirs. And the prejudice that our rightwing Christians punish society with is nothing compared to the type of violence inflicted upon Muslims who "say the wrong thing."
The fact is, the extremes of any conviction are the loudest voices and the loudest voices are heard. It's not an American right-wing plot as our own Bob Scheer suggested when Russian invaded Georgia. Somehow he turned the invasion into a plot by Bush and McCain to use as a political ploy to get McCain elected.
The fact is, extremists cannot silenced by someone outside of their group, it must come from within. Groups that do not silence their extremists are condemned to be identified with those extremists. As such, it is silly to believe that the "War on Terror" will end terror. Sending American troops into Pakistan to "go after bin Laden is counterproductive. Today, Pakistan is eradicating Al Queda, because they will no longer tolerate the terrorists in their midst and we should support them. That's the way to win the war on terror.
To all of those who are questioning the media's bias in favor of Senator Obama, go to the McGlaughlin Group website and view the media report John M showed on his program Sunday 10/26/08.
I'm not a math whiz, but the numbers show a much higher number of negative ads for McCain than Obama, and McGlauglin has been anything but supportive of the Republicans during this campaign.
Derek McGuinty on the M Group said the Investor Business Daily poll couldn't be trusted. Well, what is that? Can we really trust the ABC/CBS/CNN polls? The Rassmussen and Zogby both had the numbers closer than CBS/CNN. At one point last week, Rassmussen showed a 50%-46% Obama lead. That's 4 points but at the same time the more liberal outlets were showing a 10 point difference.
The one thing I cannot let pass with some of you is that "righwing conservative" is used by some as another term for "ignorant religious fanatics" as if conservatism were a dirty word. If you think that, then I suppose you are just as bad as those who call you "liberal leftwing baby killing socialists." Is it really necessary to badmouth those who disagree with your political views?
Frick up seems to be caught up in degrading people who disagree with his views. But like I said, there are any number of websites that will confirm the conservative comments those few voices have raised on this blog. Try, Pew, Heritage, and the McGlaughlinGroup, or ProCon.org for starters. For more accuracy in the polls, go to usaelectionpoll.com; ontheissues.org .
I am still waiting for someone on the left to explain to me why the media offers one conservative voice to every two or three liberal voices. Common sense would say that if two liberal voices are heard on the same program where only one conservative voice is heard, the message is going to be unbalanced.
Truth is sometimes quite simple.
McCain-Palin 2008
I expect your defense of Palin's wardrobe would extend to Jon Edward's haircut four years ago.
I didn't mean to equate America with the people who ignore moderates in the Islamic world. I mean the defense hawks, the sabre rattlers, the specific politicians who use fear to secure their own power. These people gained advantage from a decades-long Cold War and now they benefit from the War on Terror. This is not what I would call America.
You say that people must drive out the loud-voiced extremists or else be condemned to be identified with them. To share their crimes. Well, that's what I am doing. I'm speaking out against the injustice of the Bush administration and his ilk over the past eight years, and of similar episodes in history. I'm speaking out against the fact that John McCain and Sarah Palin represent more of the same politics of ignorance and fear. I will criticize the leaders, but this is not the same thing as "blaming America."
It is not anti-American to work for an America led by understanding, hope, and strength.
It brings to mind the intellectual dishonesty of the Right; the way the Right nitpicks every offensive by the Left while squealing when the are caught in the mud
The more I listen to and read about this campaign, the more convinced I become that if Obama didn't have President Bush to sling at John McCain, Obama would have nothing. Absolutely nothing. His entire campaign rests on linking McCain to Bush. I'm just sorry that Senator McCain has not had the foresight to bash Obama with his own affiliation with the worst do-nothing Democratic Congress since before the last Depression.
Many are ridiculing Governor Palin and wax fearful that she would be next in line. Quite frankly, I'm sick of people bashing Palin. She may not be as polished as Obama, but she has more common sense and courage in one of her Naughty Monkey high-heeled feet than Obama has in his entire entourage.
I also agree that some of the criticism against Sarah Palin has been sexist, mean-spirited, inarticulate, and tasteless. That part of the election has been disappointing. Nevertheless, from what I've heard of her views, I disagree with her strongly on virtually everything, and I would not trust her to represent me. But it's a pity that people can't disagree without demonizing. There's plenty of actual issues to disagree on, there's no need to treat her as sub-human.
Thanks Bill, keep it real.
You're right about McCain being a part of the same Congress, but even that is a little off because he was in the minority party-and with Pelosi and Reid leading both the Senate and the House, whew...
There are many facets of this election that have been ugly, this is true. People say they don't agree with Palin and that's ok too. I, however, do agree with Palin-on many of her positions regarding family and work. Issues that I cannot compromise on. It makes me wonder at the women who have been Palin- bashing. If Sarah Palin were ugly as sin and approved of abortions, I'll bet a lot of women would view her differently. Kathleen Parker and Peggy Noonan have been Sarah bashing. Funny they didn't start until their husbands mentioned they were attracted to Sarah Palin. (Ha!)
CreekProf,
By referencing the McLaughlin Group you are cannibalizing your centrist message. McLaughlin has been relentless race-baiting for 6 months now. When I say race-baiting, I mean trying to get an argument started over race in hopes this "conversation" will backfire on Democrats. Frankly, he's one of the few prominent rightwing conservatives doing this. It's like he's trapped in an old generational boomarang. Most rightwingers have actually been pretty self-restrained about the race issue. Not John.
Frickup, I applaud your gusto but I have a suggestion on tactics. Rather than point out the fraud and abuse committed by "conservatives" over the past 8+ years, it might be better to use the term "rightwingers." The word conservative, like it or not, still has a positive connotation in most people's minds. I think a battle of "liberals vs. rightwingers" has the proper aura of doom.
As for rightwingers condoning religious fanatics, you are quite right. This goes back to the 3-legged Stool metaphor. Like I mentioned earlier, the coalition between fiscal conservatives and rightwing evangelicals makes perfect sense. You have one group good at selling things allied with another group of gullible people willing to buy anything if couched in the correct syntax and semantics.
Do a survey in any conservative churck in America and ask what their professions are. Especially the professions of the elders, etc. You will find at least 75% are in sales or marketing professions (or selling Amway or cosmetics or something on the side). They need to network of customers and contacts. Hence church.
To oversimplify, this makes for an easy sell. Simply say Jesus loves Product A and despises Product B. Hate the sin, love the sinner! Product sold.
But the neocons don't fit with the religious rightwingers anymore. The Iraq war has totally obliterated their ideology and credibility.
Of course, the fiscal conservatives also love the necons, because there's also a lot of money to be made in making war and distabilizing governments. So the fat cat fiscal conservatives will stick with them, but continue to give lip service about abortion, etc., in hopes they just keep drinking the Koolaide and not look critically at the fiscal conservatives' self-serving economic policies favoring the rich over the middle class.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/27/out-of-the-closet-inside_n_138246.html
It seems Sarah Palin declared yesterday that she's going to go "back to wearing my own clothes from my favorite consignment shop in Anchorage, Alaska" after the race is over.
Her favorite consignment store in Anchorage is "Out of the Closet" -- which happens to be the trademarked name of a chain of charity thrift stores run by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) to raise funds for free HIV testing, and treatment of AIDS patients. AHF, now aware of the Anchorage clothing consignment shop, has issued a cease and desist order, citing violation of their 18-year-old trademark on using "Out of the Closet" as the name of clothing stores.
In AHF's statement:
I agree with other folks that the GarmentGate saga is ridiculous, and hardly the thing that ought to be occupying news cycles this close to the election... but you've got to admit, given Sarah Palin's socially conservative positions, this is pretty funny.
I bet the Anchorage shop is going to be sooo glad to see Sarah Palin next time she walks in. Of course it's not her fault they violated a trademark with their shop name, but she certainly thrust them into the national spotlight.
Talk about not "keeping it real." The simple fact is that the Democrats, though in charge, did not have a filibuster proof majority of 60 votes that could override presidential veto. That still gives the president the upper hand in negotiations. He also has the bully-pulpit to slander Democrats with reasonable objections to his positions.
Add to that the sexism practiced against Pelosi! Talk about a double standard. All this whining about being unfair to PALIN? Give me a freaking break. I have never heard anyone, right or left, stand up for Nacy Pelosi. It's been disgraceful and sickening and shameful.
It's been the rightwing control of government, even the last two years, that have made progress unsatisfying. Let's put the blame where it belongs.
BUT.
When it comes to Pork projects they are almost all members of the of the "get along gang".
I wish we had term limits and more than the pitiful handfull of competitive districts in the US House. There are 435 seats and only 30 or so that are really competitive. The Gerrymanders are so bad here in NC that my neighborhood is cut in half by two House districts and I can walk into a third just by crossing a nearby main road. All are safe seats.
The founders meant for the house to be more responsive to the people but it's in the senate where usually half the seats that are up for re-election are competitive.
I wish more people would simply take the view that the people with whom they disagree are wrong on an issue. Too many people decide that that person is not only wrong, but rather bad.
Here's the inescapable bad news for rightwingers 8 days from now.
If McCain wins, it will be the death of rightwing conservative rule. Because McCain isn't really an ideologue. He's doing anything to win now, but when it's time to rule he will reach across the aisle to Ted Kennedy.
But the real problem will be that those conservatives who have been honest and correct about Palin will be ostracized. Meanwhile the conservatives who have been dishonest or wrong about Palin will feel vindicated and empowered. THis will cause a civil war within the party.
Secondly, the conservative republican agenda will be ignored by McCain. He will feel he has fulfilled his debt to you by picking Palin, the leading candidate for 2012.
Finally, all this heated rhetoric over the Bush Tax Cuts will be for naught. McCain, if he wins, won't be able to pass his agenda through a Democratic Congress. The tax cuts for the wealthy will expire and the $700,000 in tax savings McCain will have received will go to Iraq. Since he has son there, I don't think he'll mind or even notice.
BUT IF OBAMA WINS, the rightwing will have a common enemy once again. At least two parts of the stool will unite, but one will be sacrificed on the alter of blame. It's hard to say which stool leg will fall, but my best guess is that the neocons will be the big losers here, because Palin is from the evangelical rightwing of the party.
The good news for your Rightguy is that despite your ideology, you will benefit under the Obama tax policies.
Frickup, I agree with you. Your efforts are futile. You keep talking at me as if what you have to say is going to change my mind. Why do you try? I already told you I can list as many sources and examples to support my view as you can to support yours.
Barry, FYI, I am a female, is it sexism to say what I did about ugly women? Ok. call me sexist.
As for the MGroup, I have watched it every Sunday for the past year. Initially I assumed John Mc was conservative. After a while, it looked like he supported Obama. His views have only recently swung back toward the right.
As for your sweeping generalizations about the intelligence of church people - You probably visited church a few times looking for God to meet your needs. He didn't respond in your time frame and Instead you discovered church was full of sinners. What can I say? Church is the best place for a sinner to be, maybe the sinner will learn to look past human nature to find the nature of God. As for the basic values of faith, and believing in the sanctity of life and marriage, many people retain those values, whether they are Christians or not.
Oh, and by the way, I know a good many Christians who attend church-and have advanced degrees. Some have even gone to law school- you know, like Senator Obama- who also claims to be a Christian-and went to church for twenty years. Although he hasn't said much about his church attendance since the Rev Wright situation.
Ok guys, you may now fight it out amongst yourselves. I'm through. Work calls me.Have a good evening!
You seemd to have got my point and missed it at the same time. I blame myself. It's all about messaging. Yes, conservatives and rightwingers are the same thing. But by you attacting "conservatives" you are playing into the genius of this rightwinger messaging trick.
When you hear them vilify "liberal" you want to attach the semantic opposite, which is "conservative." But, apart from politics, conservative has a positive meaning and liberal often doesn't. That's why you should not allow "conservatives" to brand themselves..they are happy to be called conservative by you are anyone else. But they don't much like being called "rightwing" because that sounds extreme, which is actually more accurate. And, as you rightly pointed out, rightwingers fear accuracy.
Left or Right, a one-winged bird cannot fly.
New York Times - 1 hour ago
Aljazeera.net - 1 hour ago
All great points, Frickup. By the way, I also try to mix it up a bit by using rightwing as an adjective, such as rightwing conservative, rightwing evangelical, etc. And sometimes I use "conservative" when I'm playing nice. Ironically, when conservatives are playing nice they refer to liberals as "leftwing" or "Democrat" or just "Dems".
Coincidentally, I just heard on another podcast that Bill O'Reilly complained to the Washington Post for referring to him as a rightwing commentator or something like that. They had to print a retraction and say he "represents" himself as an independent. Which is weird, because I consider myself and independent and disagree with him on most economic and neocon policies.
So, as Rush Limbaugh says, "Words mean things."
I got so carried away that someone on this board was actually agreeing with me that I may have overstated things when I said:
conservative=rightwinger
What I really should have said is:
Republican=rightwinger
It's just so hard since the rightwingers and Bush took over to separate the two. The case in point is the recent New Yorker article about Chuck Hegel, a conservative Republican who was ostracized from the Republican party for failing to march in lockstep with Republican rightwing neocon electioneering: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/03/081103fa_fact_bruck?printable=true
It's humorous to watch you two try to best categorize your bias..."Gee, why don't we just paint stripes on us and call us zebras?"
More you try to condemn others opinions the more you characterize your own narrow-mindedness and prejudice. Why don't you stick to the topics and avoid the temptation of ridiculing yourself and you try to ridicule others?
By-the-way, Ms. Frickup, my point about sabre rattlers concerns Bill's original comment about "American sabre rattlers." The point, since you missed it is, before you condemn others judge yourself first.
Mr. Blankley,
Party of "moral values" not racial code words?!!! Me think your protest to much in regards to the racial leaning of your party. I would not be surprised at all to hear you say slavery and Jim Crow where myths.!!!
There's a reason we liberals and moderates aren't very good at this type of politics. As soon as I write things like above, I feel guilty and start seeing all the holes in my labels. Rightwingers aren't burdened by this type of internal conflict or self-criticism as evidenced by your response.
Give me some evidence where I am narrow-minded or prejudiced and I will appologize. And please don't give me any of that patented reverse-discrimination mumbo jumbo.
Because I am so tired of the ranting on about the "war on terrorisim" and McCain's insistance that he can win this "war" with not one single bit of evidence, I was very interested to read the below article in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/opinion/26kristof.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin
I've pasted a vew paragraphs here to give you idea:
Quote
Yet the endorsement of Mr. McCain by a Qaeda-affiliated Web site isn't a surprise to security specialists. Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism director, and Joseph Nye, the former chairman of the National Intelligence Council, have both suggested that Al Qaeda prefers Mr. McCain and might even try to use terror attacks in the coming days to tip the election to him.
"From their perspective, a continuation of Bush policies is best for recruiting," said Professor Nye, adding that Mr. McCain is far more likely to continue those policies.
An American president who keeps troops in Iraq indefinitely, fulminates about Islamic terrorism, inclines toward military solutions and antagonizes other nations is an excellent recruiting tool. In contrast, an African-American president with a Muslim grandfather and a penchant for building bridges rather than blowing them up would give Al Qaeda recruiters fits
End Quote
.
That is, I was referring to the neo-con set, aka Bush, Cheney, Condi Rice, Rumsfeld, Doug Feith, Wolfowitz, and the rest of their gang. Please stop mischaracterizing my words.
By-the-way, Ms. Frickup, my point..."
Neither
Sorry- did not post the first time for some reason...
Perhaps LR&C should do a show describing McCain's legislative achievements versus those of Obama's. I have yet to hear in the media any serious discussion of what McCain has achieved in the Senate versus what Obama has achieved in the Senate in the best interests of the American people (ie. besides him getting the Democratic nomination).
Neither McCain nor Obama (nor any politician) can be trusted for what they say in the campaign. McCain has flipped positions on taxes and Supreme Court nominees. Obama has flipped positions on offshore drilling, free trade, gun control, Israel, Cuban embargo, Iraq troop withdrawal, public funding of his campaign and that has just been in the past 6 months. You can't trust what either say in a campaign, you can only look at what they have done.
Instead of trying to tear him down, should Democrats not be thanking McCain for campaign finance reform (along with Feingold), Donald Rumsfeld's resignation, opposition to Gitmo, cessation of the Republican talk of a constitutional ban on gay marriage, 911 commission, investigation of Jack Ambramhoff, introduction (along with Lieberman) of the first climate control legislation in Congress, the creation of the Group of 12 and the avoidance of the "nuclear option" and Democrats potential loss of ability to filibuster in the Senate/Bush's inability to put an anti-abortion zealot on the Supreme Court (which cost McCain the support of the religious right, for which he is still paying). All of these (and I am sure more I cannot think of right now) were achieved despite the strenuous objection of the White House. To cast McCain as a Bush clone is to prove nothing but amnesia.
What are Obama's legislative achievements in the Senate that have benefited Democrats?
I fail to see why the media and fellow Democrats continue to try to destroy McCain when he was the only one who provided them with any sane leadership during the Bush years, at great political risk to himself. Democrats certainly did not get any achievements or leadership from our own party leaders, including our current Presidential nominee.
I'm reading the concerns regarding potential voter fraud together with the suggestion that the Republicans have been working consistently to disenfranchise minority voters. Below is one of many articles on the subject.
http://washingtonindependent.com/15217/voter-fraud
My question is this; are we the only country in the industrialized world that obliges its citizens to register with the government as voting for a specific party and what is the reason for this? Why is it necessary to register? The right to vote should come with my citizenship as it does in other countries. How can each state have its own rules and why is the voting process not controlled by a completely non partisan group?
Seems to me if that this system is severely broken.
Factually, some of your questions are answered by a podcast at www.myhistorycanbeatupyourpolitics.com
The moderator is a very professional sounding guy who is actually an amateur
historian but a very moderate and thorough one.
As for my opinion, I agree with you.
The only alternative to registration that I can think of is for people to use their SSN to vote. With modern technology and networking, I'm not sure if/why this would be a problem. It works for taxes and social security.
The only way that would ever be approved, of course, is with a Democratic controled congress and a moderate president. Because, as we all know, voter suppression used primarily by the rightwing and the wealthy.
I'm still not convinced McCain is going to lose this election, but assuming he does, the blame game is pretty simple in my opinion.
At the top of the list are obviously the two candidates themselves (McCain, Palin), their two predecessors (Bush, Cheney) and the guy who history will judge as the man who destroyed the Republican Party, i.e. "the Archetect", karl rove.
Beyond that, though, THESE ARE THE ADVISORS who should be blamed:
Whoever had the following horrible ideas:
1. "Hey, let's pick an unknown maverick from the most socialist state in the country." (and give away our argument that experience trumps charisma)
2. "Hey, let's suspend the campaign and go to Washington!" (and give away the perception that our guy is the old wise man, steady and measured during a crisis)
3. "Hey, let's paint Obama a celebrity! (and give away our biggest asset--McCain's celebrity as a war hero and maverick and darling of the press)
There have been lots of other tactical errors, such as McCain deciding to go negative instead of positive the final month of the campaign, but these 3 I think were the worst of the worst.
I think this is the case in most countries but I am not certain. You don't have to register as "voting for a specific party" and you do not even have to register affiliated with a party. In fact in some states with open primaries, there isn't a point and in other states only Independents can vote in any primary (only one per primary) so there is an incentive to register Independent.
To make sure you are a citizen, only register in one place and vote at the right precinct and only vote one time.
There is no explicit guarantee to the "right to vote" in the US Constitution. Suffrage can't be denied based on certain criteria. If a US State decided that it was going to have it's legislature pick it's electors for President then they could do that.(That's not going to happen but it could)
And, to the point of my post, Obama's legislative accomplishments which have benefited Democrat's causes compared to McCain's are what?
http://obama.senate.gov/news/060926-obamas_first_la/
Yes, I remember this being hugely controversial. Right up there with McCain-Feingold. Obama showed real leadership taking on his party by sponsoring legislation that puts on the internet what is already available under access to information laws.
You are correct that Obama is too junior to be a leader in the Senate. Somehow, though, most Democrats seem to think that qualifies him for the White House.
The quote was "Barack Obama is a junior Senator"
Not
"Obama is too junior to be a leader in the Senate".
You are correct. Sorry.
Why would LR&C do a campaign ad for McCain?
Since you are a McCain supporter, I'll take your word that McCain can't be trusted, but as an Obama supporter I disagree with your opinion of Obama. Maybe this lack of trust is a part of McCain's problem. I would argue that the mistrust comes not from flip-flops (which have mostly gone from left to right) but by all of McCain's outright lies. (go here for a partial list http://barrydalton.vox.com/)
Wasn't this legislation overturned by the Supreme Court? Correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to remember hearing this.
This is an example of one of the lies I was talking about.
These are all on the flip-flop list referenced earlier.
investigation of Jack Ambramhoff, introduction (along with Lieberman) of the first climate control legislation in Congress, the creation of the Group of 12
All of these are either flip flops or totally invented as well.
Well, this is not the tune McCain was singing when he was running in the Republican primary, now was it? So, with all the distortions and flip-flops is there any wonder why fewer and fewer people take McCain's "maverick' record seriously anymore?
Seems to me he cherry-picked a few issues to be a maverick as the "show horse" senator from Arizona.
Bill, you walked right into that one. See how he lured you in by his seemingly centrist and reasonable tone? And then when you fell for it, he used your comments against you. When you called him on it, he appologized.
But he did mention Leiberman, so I thought it relevant to post what his Congressional colleague had to say about McCain a couple of days ago:
You are giving me far too much credit if you think I was trying to lure anyone in with my "centrist and reasonable" positions. I am just trying to seriously look beyond the media bias and campaign rhetoric (which I maintain cannot be trusted on either side, since they both have changed multiple positions in the past 6 months) to see who has really worked within the interests of the center. Obama is for revamping NAFTA when he is running for the primaries, then he tells Fortune that it was overheated campaign rhetoric, then when the economy blows up, he is in favor of revamping (and, seriously, do you think the US has *anything* to tell Canada about environmental and labor standards?!). He tells AIPAC that he believes in an undivided Jerusalem, controlled by Israel (which is more inflammatory than anything Bush has ever said about the Mideast). And, seriously, do you agree with him in respect of the Supreme Court decision that struck down the Washington gun control laws? This from a "community organizer" who states that he worked to lower poverty and violence in Chicago? And you agre with his support of Bush's wiretapping legislation? McCain has flipped on taxes as well in this campaign. So, I maintain my assertion that you cannot listen to the campaign rhetoric, and have to look at what their record shows.
If I could see that Obama has a demonstrated record of achievements, then he would get my vote (and I am trying hard to get there, as the last thing this country needs is another Republican administration). However, would you seriously trade Obama's achievements for McCain's achievements (as a Democrat) over the past 8 years (or to be more fair to the junior Senator, the past 4 years?). If so, you would be dealing with much greater zealots on the Supreme Court than Roberts and Alito. So, far, the only accomplishments I have seen Obama achieve is writing 2 books about himself and attaining the Democratic nomination. There are even complaints now in the Democratic camp that all of the money he has raised (and I have not even gone into Obama's reversal on campaign financing- which will have a serious negative impact on future campaigns), he is not using any to help in any tight Congressional seats.
And, seriously, you think McCain's campaign is any more negative than Obama's? Are the ads criticizing McCain for being old and erratic not the same ones that Karl Rove used against McCain in 2000? Which candidate has spent more money on negative ads?
Try to look beyond the obvious media love-in of Obama (which even SNL and The Daily Show used to make fun of until the campaign looked close) and look at the records of each candidate. It is better to be surprised before the election than after.
You are giving me far too much credit if you think I was trying to lure anyone in with my "centrist and reasonable" positions. I am just trying to seriously look beyond the media bias and campaign rhetoric (which I maintain cannot be trusted on either side, since they both have changed multiple positions in the past 6 months) to see who has really worked within the interests of the center. Obama is for revamping NAFTA when he is running for the primaries, then he tells Fortune that it was overheated campaign rhetoric, then when the economy blows up, he is in favor of revamping (and, seriously, do you think the US has *anything* to tell Canada about environmental and labor standards?!). He tells AIPAC that he believes in an undivided Jerusalem, controlled by Israel (which is more inflammatory than anything Bush has ever said about the Mideast). And, seriously, do you agree with him in respect of the Supreme Court decision that struck down the Washington gun control laws? This from a "community organizer" who states that he worked to lower poverty and violence in Chicago? And you agre with his support of Bush's wiretapping legislation? McCain has flipped on taxes as well in this campaign. So, I maintain my assertion that you cannot listen to the campaign rhetoric, and have to look at what their record shows.
If I could see that Obama has a demonstrated record of achievements, then he would get my vote (and I am trying hard to get there, as the last thing this country needs is another Republican administration). However, would you seriously trade Obama's achievements for McCain's achievements (as a Democrat) over the past 8 years (or to be more fair to the junior Senator, the past 4 years?). If so, you would be dealing with much greater zealots on the Supreme Court than Roberts and Alito. So, far, the only accomplishments I have seen Obama achieve is writing 2 books about himself and attaining the Democratic nomination. There are even complaints now in the Democratic camp that all of the money he has raised (and I have not even gone into Obama's reversal on campaign financing- which will have a serious negative impact on future campaigns), he is not using any to help in any tight Congressional seats.
And, seriously, you think McCain's campaign is any more negative than Obama's? Are the ads criticizing McCain for being old and erratic not the same ones that Karl Rove used against McCain in 2000? Which candidate has spent more money on negative ads?
Try to look beyond the obvious media love-in of Obama (which even SNL and The Daily Show used to make fun of until the campaign looked close) and look at the records of each candidate. It is better to be surprised before the election than after.
Why would LR&C do a campaign ad for McCain?"
------------------------------------
So, you admit that is the media objectively looked at both of their records (which I thought the media was supposed to do) would show McCain is the better candidate? Thanks for proving my point.
Oh, and sorry for the double post above.
It depends on which week you're talking about. For instance, October 8, the AP reported, "Nearly every TV ad Republican John McCain ran last week was negative, compared to just 34 percent of those by Democrat Barack Obama, according to an analysis released Wednesday."
But there was another study during one particular week in September, Obama had more negative ads.
There is negative and then there is negative. Negative ads have their place, and they can be done without being unfair. That is, you can call out things your opponent did or said, without making up falsehoods or introducing baseless fear and doubt.
Bill Moyers did an interesting interview on Oct 10 with Kathleen Hall Jamieson on the negativity in the campaign. It was a fair, even-handed analysis of the negative ads of both candidates, and comparison to historical negative campaign ads. Very worthwhile!
Ms. Jamieson was examining the campaign rhetoric, using juxtaposition as evidence that the candidate is responsible for past wrong-doing.
McCain's campaign says Obama worked on a project with Bill Ayers and extrapolates that Obama supports Bill Ayers' violent methods, heedless of Obama clear repudiation of Bill Ayers' crimes in the 1960's.
Obama's campaign says McCain was involved in the Keating Five scandal, and extrapolates that McCain has supported the Wall Street corruption that led to the current economic meltdown, heedless of McCain's subsequent contrition and work on ethics reform.
Ms. Jamieson's point is that this propaganda technique used by both campaigns is comparable, even if the nature of each candidate's past associations is not.
Obama's campaign says McCain was involved in the Keating Five scandal, and extrapolates that McCain has supported the Wall Street corruption that led to the current economic meltdown, heedless of McCain's subsequent contrition and work on ethics reform."
I have not heard McCain or his surrogates say that Obama supported bombing the homes of innocent people.
I'm a huge fan of the show, and wanted to share my humble short film about the election with you, Matt, Tony, Arianna, and Bob- as well as the rest of the Left RIght and Center blogosphere.
I would like LR&C to do a show comparing each candidate's moral character and judgement. For example,
Which candidate has committed adultery multiple times?
Which candidate has been tried by his colleagues for ethical violations?
Which candidate has crashed 5 airplanes and never been disciplined for it?
Which candidate has been accused of killing another person in an automobile accident and then having the Navy cover it up?
Which candidate is a big-time gambler?
Which candidate has won and lost thousands of dollars at casinos and never reporting it on his income tax forms?
All of it IS true. Mr. X has all the answer lately. Maybe he can clear up any of these questions that aren't true.
But that's an awfully convenient position that none of it matter because legislative accomplishments trump everything. Well, tell me this. If McCain is a maverick for fighting for legislation Republican's don't like, why should we vote for any Republican other than McCain? If Republicans are so wrong on everything, why is McCain still a Republican? Why hasn't he changed to the Democratic Party, who have been on the right side of the maverick's issues? And why, in the primaries did McCain flip flop on all of these maverick positions?
Accepting that both candidates flip flop, is it really fair for McCain to get credit for both sides of every issue? He gets credit for being a maverick in teh past on a given issue but now also gets credit for changing his position?
1) You are correct- you should not vote for any Republican than McCain. I have never seriously considered any Republican except for him.
Isn't it a pain when politics is more complicated than blindly following whoever attains the your party's nomination....
2) McCain probably has not converted to the Democratic party because they are completely incompetent (although that did not stop Democrats from trying to recruit him to run with Kerry in 2004- remember when you loved him then?). Gore should never have lost in 2000 and Kerry should never have lost in 2004. Despite it being the Dems signature issue, after 2 years controlling Congress, there are more troops in Iraq than ever and more money has been spent this year in Iraq than before the Dems took Congress. It has taken 8 years of Bush's incompetence for the Democrats to finally have a serious chance of taking the White House.
3) Again, to get into an argument over who has flipped positions more is an endless, no-win argument, since both have flipped on issues, many of which I am sure are important to you. Obama has proven that he will say contradictory things, depending upon whether he is speaking to his delegates in the primaries, the general electorate, the NRA, or AIPAC, or Fortune magazine. McCain has flipped as well on multiple positions (many of which you ably documented). This is an election campaign- what they say goes out the window as soon as they are in the White House. So, you can't go by what Obama says anymore than McCain.
However, I won't use that against Obama, because, here in the real world, you have to look at what they do, not what they say. McCain's record is one that has him being on the right side of the issues (most of which I am sure you agree with) and aligning himself with whomever is on that side, regardless of political consequences. When has Obama ever done this for you? When has Obama ever alienated a constituency for something he thought was right the way McCain alienated the religious right when he organized the Gang of 14 and thwarted Bush's nuclear option (and please don't make me go into all of the other examples again)?
I hope you are right and I am wrong, because it looks like Obama will win in a landslide; however, I don't think you (nor any other Democrat) have any idea of which Obama they will get, For example, will they get the guy who is in against offshore drilling, the one who is in favor of it, or the one who is MANDATING it?. McCain has a record to go on, which has largely been friendly to Democrats. Obama does not- even when he had lots of opportunities to do so over the past four years. I realize we are in an uncomfortable position when the Republican nominee has far greater record working in the Democrat's interests than the Democratic nominee (which, by the way, none of you have been able to refute), but alas, here we are.
Usually, I call out rightwingers posing as centrists. I think you may be a leftwing posing as a Centrist. Your arguments just are not logically consistent. So, I'm done responding to you. When someone says something negative about McCain you accept their statement and then pose a "but.." If you're not practicing a deception, you are either supporting McCain blindly for his celebrity or you are being intellectually dishonest.
I do wish Mr. X would weigh in on my serious list of questions about McCain's moral character and actions. I don't undestand why the media does not ask McCain about the gambling? That seems a legit issue to me for a presidential candidate.
Well, Frickup you aren't showing a very good temperment yourself lately. I don't think we should begrudge people for supporting McCain. Some people honestly agree with him on evangelical social issues, tax policy for the wealthy, or hawkish foreign policies. That's their right and they have chosen the correct candidate, so that is intellectually honet even if not correct in our judgement.
I am more concerned by low-information voters who get distracted by smears and side issues and vote against their own person interests, whether those are financial, privacy or other freedom-issues that the rightwing threatens or doesn't care about.
Well, I'm sure the moderator will tell you that I'm not exactly the right guy to put you in your place, as you say. But I don't think I've ever gotten quite as carried away as you have. My guess is your recent posts will be deleted, and appropriately so, making this message of mine seem strange.
Looks like this is the end of a beautiful friendship.
My hope is that you have made me look good in comparison! Take care.
Sorry if Tony had an off day/week (missing from McLaughlin also), but I have to comment on the republican "claim of ownership to patriotism". It is these debate suffocating monikers like "patriot act", "national security" and "country first" that were purposefully crafted and exploited to label anyone who might question them as unpatriotic.
Thankfully Sen. Ted Kennedy showed leadership on the first one.
When Bush/McCain spoke to armed forces crowds, VFW, NYC etc. the implied "national security" was all about 911/terrorism. The lesser known facts that Bremmer tried to privatize Iraq's oil, pressure to force Iraq to adopt a PSA giving oil companies 50% of oil extracted, and the ongoing attempt to pressure a SOFA of continued US oversight/occupation to control the coveted resources, implies the more significant reason for Iraq's invasion - the west's national oil insecurity. Vilifying Iran, Venezuela, Russia, divide from Soviet block and tap Caspian oil via Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan is all at the fore front of reasons intertwined with the west's disproportionate use of resources.
Finally, "country first" is most appropriate for a smaller nation under military occupation being pressured by a larger power to sign away vast amounts or wealth. It is appropriate for Afghanistan to consider when acquiescing sovereignty of airspace and land. When the largest superpower invades, occupies and controls 2 foreign countries, tries to find cause into the 3rd (Iran), there comes a time when one has to step back "from the trees to see the forest". A military man debating a IVAW person, said "harsh interrogation was allowed, because congress approved it and bush could not be faulted as it was then legal. So, if within a country they approve it, so long as the "country is put first", as long as you are patriotic and it is in your own national security interests, then we see the exact same arguments by which a 3rd Reich can/did rise to power - that is the danger repeated again.
Have you not been banned yet?
So, I am just curious- when Obama flips positions, as he has with gun control, Jerusalem's role in Israel/Palestine, free trade, views of his own preacher after 20 years, views of his land dealings with Tony Rezko, Cuban embargo, offshore drilling, and campaign financing (all within the last year), has he also "sold his soul to try to gain power"? Or, do you follow the mainstream media's line that he is just "being flexible"?