Barack Obama for President

[gold_dredger_phd]

He’s just a creation of the liberal media. The liberals like his pigmentation and the fact that he’s likely to get all the minority vote. All he has to do is claim that Republicans are racists and going to bring back slavery.

If he wins, he’ll probably just be another Jimmy Carter. But, if we’re going to have a depression soon, I’d like to have a Democrat fall guy in the White House.

This posting, the Barack Obama thread, is just spam.

[PerryChase]

I admire Jimmy Carter. Unfortunately, he was too philosophical, too intellectual for the American public. People want a cow-boy who can ride into town and kill all the bad guys, then go have a good time at the saloon.

Clinton was popular because he knew how to use the vernacular and communicate with the public.

George HW Bush was promptly voted out of office because he was too aloof.

Personality counts.

[zk]

sdnativeson, twice in your post you say I’m “charged up” by jg. I’m not quite sure where you get that from. What I said was that he was not really making any logical points, that he was making himself look silly, and that that type of comment distracts from rational discourse, Nothing charged there. No excitement. Just counterpoints to his manner of debate.

“As to the rest of his post well, it’s the analogy he chooses to use, it doesn’t bother me.”

Calling people “public school graduates” and “ladies” and implying that they’re not tough are not analogies. They’re attempts to insult. Or, if you want to give jg the benefit of the doubt, you can call them what he calls them, which is parody. And insults from jg don’t bother me except for the fact that they distract from the discussion. And that’s the point: insults and parody have no place in a calm, rational discussion. Humor is fine. But attempting to parody or insult the other side generally ends up leading to division.

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

You are correct. I should have said tactic or strategy.

If “Rovian debate philosophy” is structured in the manner you say then why do you get so charged up over it?

Again, I’m not charged up. And I don’t know what you mean by “is structured in the manner you say.” But the reason that I think it’s bad for the country is that it distracts from discussion of what is best for our country.

I think you are giving Rove and the Republicans way too much credit.

It’s possible. But I don’t think so. Having watched the republicans in action over the last decade, their contempt for and ridicule of people who don’t agree with them has been consistent and strong. Don’t get me wrong; I think the democrats would do it just as much if they were any good at it. But they don’t seem to be. And I think a big part of the reason for that is Karl Rove. I may be giving him too much credit, as I do give him tons of credit. It is my opinion that the man is quite a genius at what he does.

“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.”

You are correct about that being an arrogant opinion, but wrong about it being due to the fact that they have different opinions from me. I feel the same way about anyone who debates in that fashion, whether I agree with them or not. As far as the arrogance… I have no excuse for that. I do believe that a large percentage of our population acts in an unintelligent and irrational fashion. And is subject to the type of influence that Karl Rove and his minions provide. Note that I didn’t say that they were unintelligent, just that they act that way sometimes. And I also believe that if they can be taught to act that way, then they can be taught to use reason and logic and calm discussion rather than insults and emotional manipulation.

[no_such_reality]

My cult of personality comment is as another said I’m kind of putout by the idea that party pushers can put a guys face all over magazines and speak at conventions and all of a sudden he is qualified to run the country.

To be completely honest, I see the Democratic Party handling Obama the way a record exec handles the lead singer of the next big boy band with the public. That’s cult of personality. That’s image and spin. That’s really all Obama is at this point.

[Anonymous]

“…Truman’s victory, Karabell believes, owed much to…underhanded tactics…His tactics, Karabell charges, featured negative campaigning and unrepentant demagoguery before live audiences…” Yeah, I know, Rove probably ghost wrote the book for Karabell.

zk, politics is rough business, because it’s really important business: go to war, or not; raise taxes, or not; integrate schools, or not; build a wall along the Mexican border, or not, etc.

Geez, I guess you must be really unhappy about Britain’s ‘Questions to the Prime Minister’ sessions. Ugly, but hilarious and enlightening they are.

Life’s tough, zk. Even near-pacifists like Perry are ready to karate chop at a moment’s notice.

[PD]

Obama has no where near enough experience to be president.
But hey, he looks good without his shirt on, he is talking the right smack (like I’m not partisan even though he is), and gee, people like him.
So I guess he’s in.

[PerryChase]

I agree with zk what we could use more civility. It’s true that hard hitting one-liners that demonize and riducule are part of our culture. That’s the environment so we need to live with it, even as we work to improve the discourse.

jg has a point that politics is tough and that you need to play tough to win. If Democrats want to win, they’d better learn the tactics real quick.

There’s a reason why people think that Democrats are somewhat elitist. Republicans portrayed Jimmy Carter as a wimp and that stuck even if it’s not true. Democrats need to learn to portray Bush as a trigger happy idiot and make it stick. There’s no time to explain the nuances because the voters don’t have the time or inclination to listen. Carl Rove is a genius because he understands that and knows how to make it work for his side.

I favor the Michael Moore tactics because they work. If Democrats could get more young people riled up enough to vote, they’d have a permanent majority. In some ways, Democrats deserved to loose in the past because they failed to manage and expand their base. I hope they learned their lesson.

[sdnativeson]

zk, I get a sense he hits a nerve with you. Maybe I am wrong, it certainly won’t be the first nor the last time.

What I took for the analogy is “You have your knickers in a wad over imagined slights from Rove? Toughen up, ladies.” I should have been more specific as I implied the whole post.

I take no offense at his “name-calling”, I found the “public school graduates” somewhat funny even if it was directed toward me. Calling me a lady and not being tough? well, I don’t really care, I assume we are big/old enough to know that just because someone says something about us doesn’t make it true.

IMO, I don’t think there is anything mean-spirited behind it, that could simply be jg’s sense of humor. I took it in the context of “get up and walk it off” still, as I don’t know jg, I could be wrong and obviously, we see it in a different manner.

But aren’t you being somewhat of a fraud? You called people unintelligent and irrational you don’t see that as name calling?

“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.” That is what I meant in the structure for the RDP.

I saw honesty with “Don’t get me wrong; I think the democrats would do it just as much if they were any good at it.” Too bad you toss it aside with the qualifier “But” immediately after, still, there was a brief acknowledgement.
Rove, you give him a lop-sided compliment, I don’t see it your way So, as to Rove, we agree to disagree.

I appreciate your candor saying you have no excuse for your arrogance.
Your first two sentences in the last paragraph…. are you speaking about jg or the large amount of unintelligent, irrational americans? If you are speaking to jg then you have a valid argument, in the second sentence
if you are speaking about the “large amount etc.” then you are indeed prejudiced toward those who differ in opinion and thought.

“large percentage of our population acts in an unintelligent and irrational fashion. And is subject to the type of influence that Karl Rove and his minions provide. Note that I didn’t say that they were unintelligent, just that they act that way sometimes”. It must be my public school education but I don’t find the “sometimes” in the first part of that statement. Possibly just a typo.

All in all, I concur with your call toward about calm, rational discussion and debate based upon reason and logic albeit with some empathy for the emotional variable and definitely laced with both humor and humility.(leave the arrogance at the door).

One more thing! I assume that when you said “that if they can be taught to act that way, then they can be taught to use reason and logic and calm discussion” you aren’t implying any sort of degradation of free will are you? Just give them the knowledge and let them run with it?

[sdnativeson]

soooo, democrats are poorly versed in tough political tactics? Just poor little victims? LOL.

The reason that a lot of people IMO think the Democrats are elitist is because that is what they see PC. I also find it unsurprising that the republicans are following that path.

As to Carter, I have my own thoughts about him, I’ll say he was the wrong man at the wrong time and go no further.

Michael Moore….. well, so you favor deceit to “educate” people. That somewhat surprises me about you. I guess that it’s ok as it furthers your agenda(s)? MM is “good” CR is “evil”.

[zk]

I take no offense at his “name-calling”

Neither do I, but that’s not the point. The point is that, at best, it doesn’t do anything for a rational exchange of ideas.

“But aren’t you being somewhat of a fraud? You called people unintelligent and irrational you don’t see that as name calling?”

Just so we’re clear, I didn’t say they were unintelligent and irrational, I said that they were acting that way. There’s a difference. That said, I see the point you’re trying to make. The main difference is that I’m not doing it for the purposes of attacking or manipulating people’s emotions. I’m doing it for the purposes of trying to get to the root of the problem. Example: Say I’m trying to talk to my boss about something I’d like changed, and I’m yelling and screaming, and a colleague says, “Zeke, you’re yelling and screaming, and it’s making your boss angry. He’s not hearing what you’re saying, he only sees that you’re yelling and screaming. You need to calm down.” That’s different from someone saying, “Ha ha, look at that blithering fool! Only a jackass (insert occupation or political affiliation here) would act like that to his boss. They’re all idiots. No wonder they can’t get anything done. Morons!” One seeks to improve the situation while the other seeks to make the other side look bad.

“Too bad you toss it aside with the qualifier “But” immediately after”

It’s a small point, but I don’t consider saying that they aren’t good at it lessening at all the fact that they would do it if they were good at it.

“I don’t find the “sometimes” in the first part of that statement.”

It wasn’t in the first part. But I certainly didn’t mean to say I acted that way all the time. Shoulda been more clear.

“One more thing! I assume that when you said “that if they can be taught to act that way, then they can be taught to use reason and logic and calm discussion” you aren’t implying any sort of degradation of free will are you? Just give them the knowledge and let them run with it?”

I was suggesting education, not degradation of free will. Actually, what I was suggesting was leadership by example. Our politicians have set an example of partisan bickering. I think republicans over the last 10 years have taken that to new heights. I’m certainly willing to agree to disagree on that point. It doesn’t really matter whether it was the republicans or Karl Rove or not. What matters is that it is the way it is, and it should be changed. And I think Obama is the kind of leader who can set an example of cooperation and communication rather than fighting and manipulating.

[sdnativeson]

good post zk

[zk]

Thank you sdnativeson.

Now, to acknowledge some other people’s concerns about Obama. His voting record is liberal. More liberal than I would like. Contrary to the prevailing opinion on this website, my political opinions are fairly evenly divided between conservative and liberal ideas. My biggest disagreement with Obama’s positions is his stance on affirmative action. And he is lacking in experience, which is a concern. He’s far from perfect. However, it’s my opinion he’s the best option. And I’m glad we live in a country where I can hold that opinion and you can hold yours. Let’s all vote in November ’08.

[North County Jim]

And I think Obama is the kind of leader who can set an example of cooperation and communication rather than fighting and manipulating.

I’m very curious about the justification for that statement. Can you provide an example of Obama bucking his party or the ineterst groups that support it? I can’t.

Talk is very, very cheap. Anyone can say they’ll work together and find common ground.

Maybe I’m a little more cynical than you but until I see the Senator from Illinois defy the plaintiff’s bar on tort reform or NARAL on partial-birth abortion, I’m afraid it’s nothing to me except talk.

Thanks to Bill Clinton, there’s even a term for it. It’s called a “Sister Souljah moment”.

[PerryChase]

sdnativeson, I wonder how you feel about Bush saying “it’s hard for the American people to undersand” the situation in Iraq.

What do you feel about his role as the educator-in-chief? Sounds to me like he’s saying that we are too dense to understand what he understands.

In any case, he’s been “educating” us all those years and we still don’t understand. It looks like he’s a really bad teacher. One can learn a foreign language in 2 years; but despite Bush’s teachings, and by his own admission, the American people still don’t undertand Iraq.

[zk]

“Talk is very, very cheap. Anyone can say they’ll work together and find common ground.

Well, here’s a few quotes from one article on Forbes.com, mostly from other politicians:

Even when he was in the political minority, Obama sometimes played a critical role. He helped write one of the rare ethics laws in a state known for government corruption and worked on welfare reform with Republicans.

Although police groups opposed the legislation, they say Obama listened to their concerns and accepted some of their suggestions to improve the bill.

even Obama’s allies say he refused to become a rubber stamp for their legislation.

“He always wants to understand an issue and think it through,” said Roberta Lynch, deputy director for Council 31 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. “You have to make your case no matter who you are.”

Allies and opponents alike say he listened to those who disagreed, cooperated with Republicans and incorporated other people’s suggestions for improving legislation.

[Author]

Posts