The US political debacle

pavlovscat on 19/9/2008 at 03:11

Quote Posted by Starrfall

Why do you ascribe ulterior motives to Obama? What exactly is it about him that makes you so persistent in your conviction that he must have been on the take or whatever it is? I mean you're saying you're not ascribing these to Obama specifically, but your writing makes it look like they're pretty strongly associated in your mind, so I'm curious as to what's making you uncomfortable here.

I distrust Obama largely because of his past associations. I have a very hard time believing his claims not to be close to his past associates (i.e. Rev Wright, Bill Ayers). When he says he hasn't been in close contact with Ayers for many years, that doesn't excuse him for his past associations, especially when he has never (to my knowledge) denounced the despicable things done by that man and others. How do you spend 20 yrs in a congregation (since his 20's) and not be affected by the attitudes of the reverend? If my Catholic priest found out that I hadn't been paying attention for 20 yrs (20 YEARS!! WTF?!? That alone makes him disingenuous.), I'd still be doing penance for it. (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/21/why-the-obama-ayers-connection-matters/) Why this is important. I can respect that he didn't want to denouce his spiritual advisor of 20 yrs. If he truly didn't agree with Rev Wright, then I cannot respect either his continuing attendance - with his children no less!! - or his continued pretension of being a member in good standing of this chuch. Nor do I trust his final change-of-heart when it became apparent that said association was detrimental to his political advancement.

Quote:

And for a follow up, do you distinguish those who use community service for political gain from those who use military service for political gain?

My trick question detector is screaming. If I say no, I am lying. If I say yes, then I am a hypocrite. However, this is not a simple yes/no question. In the past, there have been political figures who were suspected of token service in the military for political reasons. I feel these people are as dishonest as community servants whose service is based in personal gains rather than a pure desire to help others or serve their country.

Though you didn't specifically mention McCain, I will address what I feel was the true intent of your question. McCain joined the military for family reasons. After his injuries, imprisonment, and rehab, he was recognized as a capable leader and promoted accordingly. His interest in politics was sparked after his return from Viet Nam when, due to his injuries, it was clear he could never become a 4 Star Admiral like his father & grandfather before him. With connections he acquired during his assignment to the Senate Liason Committee, politics became an obvious route for him to fulfill his desire to serve his country. McCain is no angel, nor is he the perfect candidate, but, due to his past conduct, I believe that McCain will do his best for the people as he sees it. I feel that he is the better choice for president. I just don't have the same faith in Obama given his sordid background.

Quote:

And actually (as has been noted) my father was also in the air force during the Vietnam war. And one of the things he told me regarding the military was to think long and hard before ever giving someone else that much control over my life. And so I thought and decided not to join up.

In this country, we have the freedom to make that decision. You and I have different opinions. I regret being turned down for service.

Quote:

However while finishing up law school I'm helping abused prisoners vindicate their civil rights through the magic of the law. Do you suspect me of seeking pay-offs?

I don't know. Are you planning to seek public office? LOL Seriously, I don't know you well enough to judge that. You may be doing this because you feel it is the right thing to do. In that case, I applaud you. I just don't know enough to have an opinion on your motives. What I know about Obama makes me very wary of his motives.

BEAR on 19/9/2008 at 03:24

Quote Posted by heretic

If you feel that my post reaffirms anything that you may have meant in regards to the moral ownership of veterans or simple neocon politicking then you didn't understand it at all.

Oh, I understand just fine. How would you know whether or not I did when you had no idea what I was talking about? Jay caught right on.

Reading your post again, your knee jerk response going directly to the SUPPORT OUR TROOPS mindset (while, admittedly more sophisticated than the typical rabid drooling style I'm accustomed to seeing) just convinces me that I was even more right than I initially thought. Do you not see what I mean at this point? Read her post and then mine responding, do you not see what I mean? So many have a fucking chip on their shoulders about anything military, it becomes a school-yard jaunt of who has the credentials to argue with whom. You try and speak against how the military gets used and then immediately you are on the defensive about not supporting the troops (even if you never use the words 'support' and 'troops', the tone is the same).

I'll admit you are significantly more intelligent than pavlovscat though, that much is clear so perhaps we can find some common ground there. You at least tried to reason through it, I think her mind was on autopilot responding to star.

Starrfall on 19/9/2008 at 04:13

Quote Posted by pavlovscat

Though you didn't specifically mention McCain, I will address what I feel was the true intent of your question.

Of course that was the intent of my question. Just this week McCain used his status as a veteran as proof that he can defeat our economic woes. It's the worst sort of insulting nonsense.

And if you're going to mention "sordid pasts," I'm going to ask how you feel about the fact that McCain cheated on and then left his injured wife to marry multi-millionaire heiress Cindy.

(ps I think my political ambitions max out at maybe school board at best, but then I wonder how you know Obama had political ambitions when he was organizing)

Stitch on 19/9/2008 at 04:24

Quote Posted by pavlovscat

The fact that you recited the right wing talking points above reveal at best a black and white interpretation of situations that exist in shades of gray and at worst utter ignorance of the facts (Obama did in fact denounce Ayer's radicalism, for example). You don't like Obama and don't plan to vote for him, fine. But let's at least keep this grounded in some semblance of reality.

The odd thing is there are far worse specific, on-the-record sins in John McCain's past, and yet you contrast him favorably to a guy who had two questionable associations?

heretic on 19/9/2008 at 05:29

Quote Posted by BEAR

Oh, I understand just fine. How would you know whether or not I did when you had no idea what I was talking about? Jay caught right on.

I caught on after jay's reply set me straight, and I see where you are coming from now. It appears that I am indeed guilty of a kneejerk response since I didn't take the time to undertstand what you meant before I began my reply.

I'd really like to blame that on yet more drunken posting, but I'm dry as a bone atm.

Oh well, I still hate you...and I sincerely hope that you get drafted. ;)

Turtle on 19/9/2008 at 05:58

Quote Posted by pavlovscat

I don't know. Are you planning to seek public office? LOL Seriously, I don't know you well enough to judge that. You may be doing this because you feel it is the right thing to do.

Where do you come from that every situation is either/or?
Do people never have more than one motivation?

SlyFoxx on 19/9/2008 at 11:34

Quote:

Sly........Perhaps they made enough money to live a comfortable life while acting but then decided to go into public service and do something that's really worthwhile?

Quote Posted by Ko0K

There are many politicians on both sides who used to be in business and other non-political career origins, but actors seem to flock towards the Republicans. What I was alluding to was that many Republican voters rely on their observation of how presidential a candidate looks, talks, and acts (i.e., apparent character) to decide who they are going to vote for than knowing anything about their policies. That's not to say that character doesn't count, but it's pretty pathetic when that is the *only* thing that matters to them.

Trust me. I knew exactly what you were alluding too. I was trying to point out what might have been another reason.;)

heywood on 19/9/2008 at 13:07

Quote Posted by pavlovscat

Quote:

And for a follow up, do you distinguish those who use community service for political gain from those who use military service for political gain?

Personally, I think we should be happy for their service either way.

Quote Posted by Stitch

Obama wishes to move on, but it's still a legitimate issue. He didn't denounce Ayers or Wright until they became political liabilities. If he was sincere in his disdain for their views, why did he start out trying to defend them? Why did it take the media spotlight of a Presidential campaign and a backlash in the polls to force him into denouncing them?

This is still a huge reason why I haven't been able to get behind Obama. Just because he's saying the right things now, that doesn't erase history. Either Obama held more radical political views in the past, in which case I'd like him to explain how and why he changed his views. Or he has very poor judgment about who he associates with, which is a quality I don't want in a President.

I hold McCain's Keating association and Biden's plagiarism against them too, but since they have come clean fully it's less of a liability. I don't think that Obama has come clean yet. And neither has Sarah Palin.

Gryzemuis on 19/9/2008 at 13:24

Unbelievable how most Americans look at these elections. Someone is tricking you to look into the wrong direction.

This is not about McCain and not about Obama. This is not about who they are, or what they've done in the past.

This is about what they will do in the next four years.

And what they will do is not influenced by who they are, or what they have done in the past. What they will do is determined by the party they represent. No man alone can win an election. No man alone can run a country. They both have a huge election team. They will both have a goverment with ministers. And advisors. And they will appoint people in important positions. This will be a huge team. This team will run your country. This team will be full of either Democrats or Republicans. Obama and McCain will only be a small part of that team. They will be mostly the PR guy in the team.

So you are voting for either a Republican or a Democrat goverment. You are not voting for a single person.

Do you think GW Bush runs your country ? Hell no, he doesn't even have the capacity to read a book or a news paper article. The guy's a moron. He is just the muppet in front of the audience. The real power is with other people, people in the Republican party. They ran your country into the ground. And they will keep running it into the ground in the future. Because there is money to be made in war. Because there is money to be made if oil prices roar. Because there is money to be made if the stockmarket is fluctuating.

If you vote for McCain, you vote for the Republican party. You vote for 4 more years of goverment like the 8 years of Bush. It ruins your country. It fucks up the world. Only so that a small group of people can get richer. It's disgusting.

heywood on 19/9/2008 at 14:33

LittleFlower -

Republican or Democratic government? It's nowhere near that simple because neither party is homogeneous. For example, consider Republican foreign policy. There are 3 major alternative foreign policy views within the party:

There is a group of moderate internationalists such as Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell, James Baker, George Schultz, Jean Kirkpatrick, Larry Eagleburger, Brent Scowcroft, Bob Gates, Dick Lugar, Chuck Hagel, to name a few you might recognize. This group is now being called the "realists". They were mostly against the Iraq war, support international organizations like the UN, and favor more diplomacy and cooperation with allies. Then there are the neo-conservative unilateralists like Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol, David Frum, John Bolton, etc. This group is responsible for the GWB foreign policy. Last, there are the neo-isolationists like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul.

The internationalists/realists dominated the party for years. Under their reign, there was some consensus among voters that the Republicans were the better party on foreign policy issues. But when GWB took office, he brought in the neo-cons and allowed them to define his foreign policy. Only in the last year or two have the internationalists started to gain some influence back. McCain has straddled both sides of the fence, but right now he is mostly advised by internationalists (one exception being John Bolton). So there is some hope that he would bring back the old Republican internationalist foreign policy of Kissinger.

I could go on about the differing foreign policy views within the Democratic Party as well, but I trust that you get the point. Neither party is homogeneous on economic and social policy issues either. So it matters a lot what the views of the candidates for President are, because they will choose the people who are going to set and implement policy.

Bill Clinton's administration was economically conservative, socially moderate, and his foreign policy was mostly a continuation of his predecessor (the first Bush). Lyndon Johnson's administration was socially liberal, economically very liberal, but its foreign policy was almost neo-con. And in between there was Carter, who was incapable of being an effective President.

So I'm sorry but I totally disagree with you. The President matters a lot.