The US political debacle

heywood on 19/9/2008 at 16:18

Quote Posted by Stitch

Having said all that, I do want to stress that I'm not arguing that anyone who buys into the Ayers/Wright controversy is racist, or that anyone who doesn't support Obama is racist. There are plenty of legitimate reasons why someone might feel like Obama isn't up for the job, an opinion which I'll respect as long as it's informed. Even concerns about Obama that are racially motivated are understandable, if unfortunate. Race relations are a complex thing and you can't expect everything to smooth out overnight.

I can't speak for others, but my concern is not about Obama being a closet bigot or a closet Muslim. I don't think he's either. For me, the concern raised by his associations is whether Obama has or sympathizes with radical liberal views. He's gone straight to the center for the election campaign, but is that the real Obama?

Quote Posted by irving_forbush

I believe that John McCain can do this better than Barack Obama, and offer these as evidence:

1. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCain-Feingold) McCain-Feingold and (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCain-Kennedy) McCain-Kennedy
2. It seems to me that with the present political climate, the best hope to break the gridlock in Washington is to elect a centrist to the Presidency. You can define a centrist as someone who pisses off both parties. And no national political figure has done that more in recent memory than John McCain.

Comments, please.

I'd be there with you except that:
1. He's no longer the independent he once was. He's pandering to right wing of the party now. Will that continue as President?
2. He picked Sarah Palin, who I think is an irresponsible choice.
3. He's had way too many senior moments in the last year. It makes me wonder whether he's mentally fit enough to deal with the stress of full term as President.

Stitch on 19/9/2008 at 16:22

Quote Posted by heywood

I can't speak for others, but my concern is not about Obama being a closet bigot or a closet Muslim. I don't think he's either.

Yeah, I never would have thought that of you. I disagree with a lot of what you've said in this thread, but your opinions have generally been informed and largely fair.

irving_forbush on 19/9/2008 at 16:27

Quote Posted by Starrfall

Only one of the bills you cite actually became law, and the one that did become law did so before McCain did his astonishing about-face on pretty much every single issue. Democrats are going to win congress this time around, and many of them despise what John McCain has become. Not just his ideas, but the fact that his ideas are new to him and the shift represents a fundamental change in his character.

What is your assurance that the John McCain of today (as opposed to old John McCain, who I dearly miss) will be able to get anything done?

1. You're right, so by my examples John McCain is 1-for-2 on getting major bipartisan legislation passed. Since you haven't cited any such legislation by Obama, I'm led to conclude that he is 0-for-0 in such attempts. As I've already stated, I prefer someone who tries.
2. "Democrats are going to win Congress"???? Hello - they already are in control of Congress. However, recent polls are suggesting that Democrats may actually lose a couple of seats this election (but still retain control).

But let me try this: I've stated, in what I hope was a reasoned way, why I prefer McCain to Obama. Sounds like I haven't convinced you. Now you try it on me: why do you prefer Obama to McCain? Present a reasonable case - I'm willing to listen.

Starrfall on 19/9/2008 at 16:38

There's at least three, at least two of which have been cited in this thread. You asked for comments about your opinions on McCain, and so I was trying to not turn it into a notch-counting contest.

But if you want to, this (http://www.usaspending.gov/) is the result of one of Obama's. It gives every american the ability to see where their money is actually going. I'd argue that this is the biggest victory for government transparency so far in this century, and probably for the last 30 years.

I'll note that one of the scary things about this is that I already knew about McCain-Feingold and the doomed immigration bill, but you haven't heard of anything Obama has done despite the information being readily available.

You're very observant to note that democrats are currently in control of congress, but the point is that they will be again and McCain is going to have to deal with that so I question the confidence in his ability to accomplish anything.

I think this entire thread probably shows why I support Obama, but here's the summary: McCain would be a terrible president and Obama would be a good one.

heywood on 19/9/2008 at 17:05

Quote Posted by LittleFlower

Of course it isn't simple. And of course there are different streams inside each party. But when the internationalists get chosen, what will the others do ? Take a vacation for 4 or 8 years ?

Now that they have been discredited, they'll go back to the think tanks they came from and write reports until another opportunity like 9/11 comes along. Also, the Democrats have interventionists among their ranks too. The editorial staff of the NY Times, for example.

But anyway, your argument seems to be:
McCain is a Republican
Bush is a Republican
Therefore, McCain = Bush

I guess if your view on the different streams within the Republican party is that they range from very bad to truly evil, then I can see where that's coming from. But I don't agree with it and I can't argue with somebody who only sees party.

heywood on 19/9/2008 at 17:14

Quote Posted by Stitch

Yeah, I never would have thought that of you. I disagree with a lot of what you've said in this thread, but your opinions have generally been informed and largely fair.

Thanks, and I'll say the same of you, and for that matter, most of the posters in this thread.

I get frustrated with political threads on most forums I visit because they are either one-sided "me too" fests or flame wars with people throwing dirt and talking past each other. This has been neither and turned out to be a really good political thread.

Starrfall on 19/9/2008 at 17:42

By the way Obama's "ties" to Fannie Mae turn out to be lies.

(http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/09/obamas_fannie_mae_connection.html)

Matthew on 19/9/2008 at 18:14

Quote Posted by irving_forbush

1. I doubt that Ted Stevens or Frank Murkowski would agree with your implication that Gov. Palin toes the party line.

I'm sorry, who are these two people again? I don't think I've heard of them before.

Quote:

2. One of her first acts as Governor was to veto a bill that would have blocked gays and lesbians from health and other benefits provided to state workers's domestic partners. Cynics will say she did so because the bill was unconstitutional, and they may be right. However, that simple fact does not stop politicians from signing such bills (numerous states have passed similar bills only to see them overturned as unconstitutional). If she had been pandering, she would have signed & told her AG to fight it in the courts.

So I don't see how your assertions are defensible.

I wasn't making any assertions, I don't have enough information to do so - that's kinda why I was asking you, you know? Certainly the papers in the UK here are giving the impression that Palin has very effectively rallied the Republican base. Do you think she has not and will not?

irving_forbush on 19/9/2008 at 18:18

Quote Posted by Starrfall

So Obama is responsible for that website? Interesting if true, and a good idea nonetheless (in fact, if I was him, I would tout it as an accomplishment esp. since the Rep's keep saying he hasn't done anything). But not a reason to vote for him, especially since Gov. Sarah Palin put the State of Alaska's "checkbook" on line when she took office and she & Sen. McCain have pledged to do the same if elected in January.

Quote Posted by Starrfall

I'll note that one of the scary things about this is that I already knew about McCain-Feingold and the doomed immigration bill, but you haven't heard of anything Obama has done despite the information being readily available.

You're right, it IS scary. It's real scary that in - how many? - months he's managed to give speeches (I've listened to his major ones I think) and said nothing but banalities and generalities and pandering to his base. It's also scary that (except for one debate) Obama has not had his feet held to the fire & been asked hard questions. It's also scary that the Obamas get invited on talk shows and get asked fluff questions, and McCain gets much harsher treatment on these same shows. It is also scary that the media bias is so blatantly pro-Obama that SNL makes fun of them.

Silly me - I thought the media was supposed to report the news, not be the unpaid spin outlet for the political parties. (Side question: is such behavior grounds for revoking their FCC broadcast licenses? And does it exempt them from First Amendment protection? IANAL, so I would like an opinion here.)

Quote Posted by Starrfall

You're very observant to note that democrats are currently in control of congress, but the point is that they will be again and McCain is going to have to deal with that so I question the confidence in his ability to accomplish anything.

I think this entire thread probably shows why I support Obama, but here's the summary: McCain would be a terrible president and Obama would be a good one.

As I've said, I believe a politician should not be afraid in crossing the aisle to get things done. You seem to state that if McCain gets elected he can't possibly get things done. This of course means that you believe if Obama gets elected, things will get done. And you're probably right. So if you value partisanship over bipartisanship, I believe a vote for Obama is the right one for you.

Stitch on 19/9/2008 at 18:26

Or if you value the good guy over the bad guy, that works too.