Barack Obama for President

[sdnativeson]

I respect the opinion you stated in your last paragraph zk,
I just don’t agree with it. Still, I can’t find any particular time where he “has reached across the isle” gave way much less compromised as politics is “the art of compromise” (correct me if I’m wrong) then he isn’t practicing that particularly well as I can tell.

I also disagree with you if you’re saying Karl Rove started this “bash the other” side mentality. It was practiced way before he came along. I can’t help but think about the way Dan Quayle was attacked off the top of my head. Both sides are guilty.

[PerryChase]

Both sides are guilty.. But I think that the right is more guilty. I think that conservative talk shows made it worse. The talk shows are well-suited for the one-liners that malign intellectual discourse. Carl Rove is a master of divide and conquer and took partisanship to a new level.

Personally, I read conservative papers/commentaries all the time (Christian Science Monitor, WSJ, Business Week, George Will, William Safire, etc… ). I’m a fiscal conservative and social liberal and I just can’t stand Bush. He’s for a religious theocracy that I find disgusting.

I’m voting Democratic because the right needs a message that their politics is not acceptable. I guess you could say that I’m a Jim Webb Republican who turned Democrat.

The most fanatical Republican elements are like gung-ho crusaders. They only understand force and they despise reason. To beat them, it has to be an eye for an eye. They need to be beaten into submission.

I like Obama because he’s from a different generation, a different class and different race. That’s enough for me. I’m willing to give him a chance.

[Mark Holmes]

Perry, ZK, I couldn’t agree more. The reasons I support Barack are simple; he’s intelligent, well-educated, well-spoken and of a different generation than the leaders who have made such a mess of things. It seems that it is time for new blood in Washington, at least. But more than any of those reasons is his approach to partisanship. He repeatedly reminds us that we are not Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, black, white, Jewish or Christian only. First of all, we are Amnericans, and we are all in this together, like it or not. This country faces enormous challenges in the coming years, and a divide and conquer strategy is not appropriate in governing a country. Should we divide and conquer the terrorists? Yes. Should we divide and conquer in Iraq? If it will work. But divide and conquer,when you are talking about the citizens of this country, is not only counterproductive to good governance, it is morally wrong. Wedge issue politics need to be left behind if we are to tackle the coming housing collapse, the SSI / Medicare crisis, immigration and many more issues that are currently being pushed to the side. We can only tackle these problems together, in a civilized and sensible way; through reasoned debate. I hope Obama is sincere in his wish to do this.

[sdnativeson]

I kind of thought some of the wedge political issues were the SSI/Medicare/immigration/security issues. I really don’t believe Obama will be much different than any other politician who is affilated with either party, if he was they wouldn’t be backing him, it isn’t in their best interest and that is how both function. Obamas voting record is partisan, look it up, he might espouse this we are all americans, we are in this together but as his voting record would indicate, I am a democrat and I toe the party line.

I guess one could argue that the Republicans have acted in an obstructionist way – in the manner that they persued their own agenda, but the logic is invalid. I have seen failures on both sides of the aisle but overall, I have seen the Democratic party bring the government to a near standstill with their filibusters and other stalling tactics. So, the question is can he put aside his liberal leanings? I doubt it. So, his agenda is questionable, as is every politicians.

Both parties have failed their country.

From my own observations he is not ready at this time. I see little in his actions and persona that show me true leadership characteristics at this stage of his career.

Again, I hold to my opinion, I see very little that supports many of the statements/opinions bandied about on these off topic threads.

[sdnativeson]

“The most fanatical Republican elements are like gung-ho crusaders. They only understand force and they despise reason. To beat them, it has to be an eye for an eye. They need to be beaten into submission.”

Only Republicans? You sound like the fanatic. This is what
you bring to the table? You are not open, You have no interest in dialogue, you espouse what has been the liberals (failing) mantra for too long; Do as I say, not as I do.

You remind me of the peace protestors with their violent demonstrations, those who preach love, but scream down and even physically attack those who have differing values and opinions. Yet in their minds they are open-minded, intellectual and progressive.

[poorgradstudent]

Insider running as an outsider… coke sniffing… why am I getting 2000 flashbacks? 🙂

[jztz]

Obama has both intelligence (being elected the president of Harvard Review), and humulity (he worked as a community organizer in south Chicago, I don’t remember for how many years. Anyone who knows about south Chicago can appreciate that choice!) that’s so lacking in this administration; and the country is taking a beating because of it.

Occassionally, I think that his charistma may hide inexperience, and that’s a slight concern. But he showed good judgement (voting against the war prior to the war!!!) and independence in thinking.

I actually hope to see that Hillary and Obama team up to bring the country back. Hillary has the rationality and deep intellect (Robert Rubin spoke well of her understanding of issues in his book; and many military leaders who initially doubted her said that they were impressed by how deeply she understood all the issues), and experiences. But she doesn’t connect with people as well as Obama. I’d rather to see the two teaming up. Otherwise it’s hard to know which one I’d vote for.

Note: for anyone who think that voting for Hillary is crazy, well, nothing is crazy since George Bush was “elected” – The lowest bar was set!

[Anonymous]

Hey, public school graduates, partisanship in politics has been with us in America forever.

Dueling between Hamilton and Burr. Brooks beating Sumner over the head with a stick in Congress. Papers calling Jackson’s wife, Rachel, a harlot.

You have your knickers in a wad over imagined slights from Rove? Toughen up, ladies.

Read some of the old newspapers from this country’s founding. You’ll be amazed at the wit and sharpness of the attacks.

[North County Jim]

But he showed good judgement (voting against the war prior to the war!!!)

Indeed, he did not vote for the war. As far as I know, the Illinois Legislature had no say in the matter.

[PerryChase]

When I say an eye for an eye, I meant it in the context of Republicans not being afraid to get the big guns out to squash opposition to their policies. Democrats need to learn from that and give the Republicans some of their medicine. That’s called deterrence.

I see the Republican party as a strict father able get his teenage children to toe the line through disciplinary measures. The Democractic father, on the other hand, would try to talk and reason with his kids who are running amok.

Imagine that Republican father and that Democratic father having a fight at a football game. If I were the Democratic father, I’d workout and take up Karate to give that husky Republican dad the fight he was itching for. After that, I’m sure that he won’t mess with me again. There, problem solved. Sometimes in life, you have to bring out the big guns because reason doesn’t always work.

[sdnativeson]

soooo, well, again, you make my point, I read your last paragraph and I see the implied moral validation, predisposed attitude and expectancy of conflict, the subsequent physical preparation for violence and then it’s initiation. And you rant about Bush and the “neocons”? LOL.

“Sometimes in life you have to bring out the big guns because reason doesn’t always work.” I take it you’re referring to Cheney, Rumsfield et al? =) to quote cow-tipper, “cool”

[PerryChase]

I wouldn’t strike pre-emptively but I would certainly be ready to strike back if one were to “mess” with me. Plus if you iniate the attack you’re liable for “damages.” Not so if you’re just defending yourself.

[sdnativeson]

jg, excellent point and post, poorgradstudent, it’s deja-vu all over again ;).
I was supposed to graduate?

[zk]

jg, your last post is just more of the same. Your “sense of parody” is right along the lines of Rovian debate philosophy. Which is to say, not very well reasoned, not really making any logical points, not doing anything other than attempting to make others look silly and (if observers are intelligent and rational) only making yourself look silly in the process. Unfortunately, too many people in this country have been trained to act in an unintelligent and irrational fashion since Karl Rove masterminded the divide-and-conquer strategy that the Republicans have used over the last decade.

Sure, partisanship has been around for centuries. Millenia, really. Sure, Brooks beat Sumner over the head with a stick. The idea is to progress beyond that sort of simple, irrational, foolish behavior. The idea is to conduct ourselves in the civilized manner and discuss ideas in a way that is conducive to hearing each others’ ideas and (in the case of politicians) making policy (based on those civilized discussions) that is best for our country. The idea that you can say, “You have your knickers in a wad over imagined slights from Rove? Toughen up, ladies” and be thought of as anything other than distracing from reasonable discourse should be an idea that fell out of favor hundreds of years ago. And maybe that idea was fading out of favor as the last century ended. But it’s back with a vengeance. It’s become part of our culture. I say it’s time to change that.

[sdnativeson]

I appreciated jg’s pointing out that partisan goes way back as you (zk) also agreed with, mainly since so many here state it started with the Republicans and Bush, (those who are more benevolent chronologically go back to Reagan) I believe you have used that even in this last post. As to the rest of his post well, it’s the analogy he chooses to use, it doesn’t bother me. One thing to consider, if you get such a charge from jg’s post or jg for that matter you might consider the underlying issue is yours, not his.

I don’t really get the Rovian Debate philosophy comment though. Tactic? Maybe, Strategy? Possibly. Philosophy? No.

If “Rovian debate philosophy” is structured in the manner you say then why do you get so charged up over it? IMHO, it’s mostly a figment of your imagination and I think you are giving Rove and the Republicans way too much credit. Sometimes it’s easier to blame others. My experience is on the surface it’s others, underneath it’s oneself.

I also disregard your comment of “too many people in this country….. and irrational fashion”, I find that an extremely arrogant statement. You are saying/calling a large percentage of our population unitelligent and irrational – due to the fact they have/hold an opinion/ thoughts differing from those that you hold on to so vehemently.
It’s a contradiction from your second paragraph (in which I think you could make a good point)but still a contradiction which calls your whole argument into question.

[Author]

Posts