posted
So, are you all looking forward to tomorrow's coronation? Excuse me, I mean inauguration, of course.
I'm trying to remember the last time there was this kind of media orgy. I mean, Lincoln and Kennedy weren't deified until after they died. Obama has a huge head start over them.
Have any of you ever read Interface? When I first read it, it was by Stephen Bury, but that was a pen name for Neal Stephenson and his father-in-law J. Frederick George. It's about this amazing presidential candidate from Illinois. The perfect populist.
I'm not suggesting that the President-elect has electrodes in his brain. That isn't really necessary. But His Slickness has been making me think of that book for a couple of years now.
And now Representative Jose Serrano has introduced H.J. 5, a proposed amendment repealing the two-term limit for presidents.
Remember four years ago, when people were bashing Bush for spending so much on an inauguration? Obama is spending four times that. One hundred and sixty million dollars ($160,000,000) for a party. But then, coronations aren't the same thing as simple inaugurations.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it a bad thing for people to be enthusiastic about a political candidate for once?
It's a very good thing for America to have this sort of excitement, assuming Obama isn't going to turn out to be a crazy guy - and so far, there hasn't really been any sign of that. And there's no sign that America would keep loving him if he did start acting like a deity.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There were lots of people who were devoted to GWB in a similar way as "God's candidate".
The big difference, it seems to me, is that with GWB, the media rolled their eyes with scorn at that sort of attitude.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Arguably, this is no new thing. Americans have long imbued their Presidents with "deification" of a sort few other nations do, currently anyways. Just look at monuments, Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial, Mount Rushmore, and so forth. A visit to the history museum at the National Mall was pretty amusing.
And its a good point that at one time, even GWB had approval ratings on par with Obama now, while Canadians were quite puzzled.
A big difference for me personally is that this time there is less of a disjoint between Canadian and American perceptions of Obama as compared to Bush. (i.e. while we thought you guys were nuts for electing Bush ... which turned out to be right, we're at least optimistic about Obama, a judgement which only history can prove right or wrong) Whether this is because Obama is truly promising or only because practically anyone would look amazing after Bush is debatable.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reagan and GWB inspired similar levels of adulation and mindless support during their presidencies (and in the former case, long afterward). You just didn't notice, because it was your side doing it.
Really, the only recent Presidents *not* to be "deified," as you put it, by their supporters, were George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
It should also be pointed out that, if anything, it's liberal Democrats that have been most strongly criticizing Obama in the past few months. He's made a number of moves towards the center that have made him more a little unpopular with the left wing.
As far as the money being spent - yeah, it's a lot. But it always is. Maybe it'd help to think of it as Stimulus Package: the Prequel. Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The government spending exorbitant money on junk?!? Say it isn't so!
The inauguration parties, parades, fireworks and so forth are paid for by private donations and not the government.
What exactly do you find objectionable about private individuals spending money to celebrate Obama's inauguration? Funny that people who have so frequently defended peoples right to spend their money as they see fit, would get all bent out of shape when people freely choose to spend their money celebrating an historic event.
MPH, I think the big difference is that some people who supported GWB actually used the phrase "God's candidate". I haven't heard any on who is devoted to Obama use the words "Messiah" or any of its synonyms.
"Deification" is nothing more than a slur Obama haters are using to demean Obama supporters. You may think that slur is justified, but certainly you must recognize the differences between rolling your eyes in scorn at a claim GWB supporters actually made and rolling your eyes in scorn at a claim Obama opponents think Obama supporters think but have never said.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: So, are you all looking forward to tomorrow's coronation? Excuse me, I mean inauguration, of course.
When I saw the thread, I thought "the president's defecation? WHAAAA?"
Now I see that it's yours. Well excuse me, but can I bring you some french cries to go with those Waaaamburgers?
By the way, as we ALL are aware, tenuous similarities between fictional novels and actual events is the basis of a really solid argument. Not *about* anything, but still firmly unshakable.
quote: And now Representative Jose Serrano has introduced H.J. 5, a proposed amendment repealing the two-term limit for presidents.
Uhuh. And that goes so well with Obama's track record as a constitutional scholar.
Oh and Arny will be President. Because everything you dislike happens Lisa... one way or the other.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is it when a Republican is a great public speaker like Regan he is "The great communicator". When a Democrat is good at it he is "slick"?
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: The big difference, it seems to me, is that with GWB, the media rolled their eyes with scorn at that sort of attitude.
Possibly because GWB was the one actually helping to reinforce that belief? I'm not saying you weren't making that connection, but I see a difference between GWB claiming to be commanded by God, and whatever* is going on here.
*I think it's at least difficult to disentangle the anti-Obama "deification" sentiment from the pro-Obama sentiment that is being portrayed as, at least by many, as worship. I think, but am not absolutely sure, that generally religiously involved sentiments are more strongly felt in either situation by Republicans, or at least made more public by them.
So, essentially, I'm saying that the idea that either GWB or Obama are involved with or representative of religious symbols seems to come most strongly from the right. The same people who *would* entangle a political leader with religious beliefs would also probably be willing to entangle ideas of false idol-worship with another leader, because they don't like him, or don't find him representative of their beliefs. Tell me if you don't agree with my general premise.
quote: I have no doubt he'll do great in the office, but some are expecting almost instant change as soon as he walks in the door of the Oval Office.
And of course not all personal devotion to symbols is religious in nature- I think religious people don't appreciate that about the non-religious- we are as sentimental, just in different ways.
David Weber had an interesting philosophy in one of his books series (he's an epic sci-fi writer for those not aware of him). In the Empire of Man series (Prince Roger Series), there is a prominent church of Satanism. The followers are essentially indistinguishable from liberal modern Christians, except that they believe that Satan has defeated God, and now must act exactly as God would act, in all things- it's an interesting aspect of the books. Although I wouldn't call them really "literary," they can be fascinating.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
160 *million* dollars? Man. If it's private money, I guess I don't care (that much private money can get spent to make a pretty crummy movie in Hollywood). If that's campaign contributions "left over" I'd have a problem...
The thing is though... Obama isn't going make everything magically better. I mean, he ran on "Change" and now Clinton is going to be SoS? How is that change? Seems like business as usual to me.
He's a politician. He's not Bush. That doesn't make him wonderful. He'll still lie, he'll still take your money to spend it on stuff you'd rather not, do you really think he'll give back the power Bush took for the Presidency? Man I hope I'm wrong about all this... but he's a politician. I mean, a politician. Politicians are a group where 99.99999% of them give the other 0.00001% (that'd be Ron Paul) a bad name.
Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I mean, he ran on "Change" and now Clinton is going to be SoS? How is that change?
This is what I'm waiting to see. I've refrained from commenting on this because I think the person at the top can make a lot of difference, even if he doesn't change many of the people in the middle; the president can set the tone of the organization quite effectively. But I will be very, very disappointed if it's business as usual, and I'm afraid it will be.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: ... So, essentially, I'm saying that the idea that either GWB or Obama are involved with or representative of religious symbols seems to come most strongly from the right. The same people who *would* entangle a political leader with religious beliefs would also probably be willing to entangle ideas of false idol-worship with another leader, because they don't like him, or don't find him representative of their beliefs. Tell me if you don't agree with my general premise.
Echoes an older post that I made:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: As a side note, I find it curious how many things that OSC disagrees with that he has compared to religion.
Doing a quick Google search confined to Orney, I've got slams against the religion of "money spent on science", the religion of "political correctness", the religion of "global warming", the religion that "Bush's presidency has been a disaster", the religion of the "extreme left establishment" (i.e. academia and the liberal tendencies), the religion that the US is losing the Iraq war (the religion of "smart people"), and a whole lot of slams including this one on the religion of "environmentalism." ...
It is not just opposing political leaders, its a whole wide range of things, which is odd since these people from the right (and OSC in particular) are much more likely to think of religion as a good thing in the first place.
In other words, why call something a religion or religious-related if you yourself in fact think of religion as a positive thing? *shrug*
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No matter where you stand politically*, it shouldn't be hard to recognize the enormous historical significance of Obama's election, particularly for those people of African decent who for generations were denied the most basic of human rights solely because of the color of their skin.
Legally enforced racial discrimination isn't ancient history in this country. It is something in living human memory, Obama's memory, my memory. Even if you don't care for Obama's politics, I hope you can recognize the significance of the moment. I hope you can put aside the issues for one day to recognize how much progress we as a society have made and respect the people who want to celebrate this moment, even if you disagree with their politics.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*After saying "no matter where you stand politically", I realized that I was totally discounting the possibility that anyone here was a white supremacist or gave political support for racial discrimination. If I'm mistaken, please don't point it out. I'm content to remain blissfully ignorant of anyone here who actually thinks racial discrimination is a good thing.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The $160 million cost is apparently made up. I've read other places that the amount of private money raised is slightly less more than Bush raised for his record-setting 2004 inaugural, which makes sense as each one tends to be a little more than the last, and that the government is paying somewhat more than last time, as well, due to increased security concerns. (As I understand it, the givernment pays for the security and administrative costs and the donations pay for the "party" aspects.)
Anyway, I wouldn't believe that it's really costing $160 million without a reliable source, which also breaks down the donations and the government contribution. It's been widely reported that Bush raised $42 million in private donations for 2004, but not as widely reported what the government contribution was. I saw one report that it was $115 million, but I am not linking it as I do not consider it a reliable source. If it's true, though, that would make the total. . . $157 million. Gee.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read a source that claimed that claimed congress had allocated only $1 million for security for Bush's 2005 inauguration. I tend to doubt the reliability of that particular source but thought I'd post an unreliable contrasting to ElJay's unreliable source.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I heard one news commentator refer to the Inauguration bash as "Obamastock"--reference to Woodstock, for the young whipper-snappers among you.
You could bail out a major corporation with 160 million dollars.
President Obama may have a lot of trouble with Nancy Pelosi, who seems to think SHE is the leader of the Democratic Party, and that Obama better not get too "uppity."
I admit, I have to crack up at the idea of an Obama bobble-head doll being put on sale. The ears!
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Putting uppity in quotes, Ron, makes it look like you're saying Pelosi actually used the word in reference to Obama. I would lay money that she didn't, so I would question both why you chose that particular work, which is racially loaded, and why you felt the need to put it in quotes. Perhaps so you didn't have to take responsibility for it yourself?
----
And look at the $160 million this way, if it is, in fact, the right number. Instead of bailing out a major corporation, the money is going to support many smaller ones, which do more to create jobs and business in the US than the large ones anyway. Just consider it an early part of the stimulas package, if it makes you feel better. Funded by private donations, even, instead of our tax dollars. How many people do you think would voluntarily and individually donate extra money above and beyond their taxes for a corporate bailout? I'm guessing that number would be zero. So it's money being spent that would not otherwise flow into the economy.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I mean, he ran on "Change" and now Clinton is going to be SoS? How is that change?
This is what I'm waiting to see. I've refrained from commenting on this because I think the person at the top can make a lot of difference, even if he doesn't change many of the people in the middle; the president can set the tone of the organization quite effectively. But I will be very, very disappointed if it's business as usual, and I'm afraid it will be.
Right, because Obama clearly ran on a platform of "change from anything that has happened before, ever," not "change from the failed policies of the Bush Administration."
In any case, it's a little myopic to focus on Clinton alone, even within the Cabinet. Steven Chu is inarguably change from the status quo. Tim Geithner is change from the status quo. Eric Shinseki was forced into retirement by the status quo. Tom Daschle is change from the status quo.
Robert Gates isn't change from the staus quo, but is considered one of the few competent, non-political appointees the Bush administration made. I would argue that his selection is an attempt to move away from the hyper-partisanship of the past decade - a major change from the status quo.
I'm not happy with all of the choices Obama has made as president-elect. Clinton herself wasn't anywhere near my personal favorite for SecState. But the evidence just doesn't support the idea that Obama has abandoned his promises of change. He's just doing it in a way that his liberal base didn't quite expect - promoting competence over ideology, unity and bipartisanship over ramming an agenda through Congress.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: Why is it when a Republican is a great public speaker like Regan he is "The great communicator". When a Democrat is good at it he is "slick"?
Why is it that when Reagan gets away with stuff, he's The Teflon President, and when Obama gets away with stuff, it's because he was unjustly criticized?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Why is it that when Reagan gets away with stuff, he's The Teflon President, and when Obama gets away with stuff, it's because he was unjustly criticized?
Maybe because Obama hasn't been implicated in selling arms to Iran yet.
Honestly, the amount of spite shot at someone who hasn't even become president yet from some corners... Tiny, seething corners ... Is kind of ridiculous.
He's charming and well spoken. After the last eight years, whatever else he may bring to the table, the United States desperately needs that. We have some significant fences to mend.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, that's just scary. Because the charming and well-spoken is really the extent of his qualifications for the presidency.
I know adolescents go through a phase where being liked is so much more important than doing the right thing. It's a shame to see the USA acting like an adolescent.
And btw, when I mentioned Geithner, I didn't mean to be snarky (much). It's refreshing. I mean, hearing excuses like, "Anyone could forget to pay taxes several years running" demonstrates the kind of creative ingenuity that made this country what it is today.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa: Look I understand you don't like Obama, and the fact he has such a strongly positive image in the news these days does nothing to make you feel better about him. I get it, lots of terrible people are constantly lauded in the press and amidst the noise you can miss what is really going on.
Maybe your worries are justified, and in a few months God forbid we will all be admitting that you were right and we were wrong. But maybe, just maybe Obama really is intent on being a good president, and maybe even more astonishingly he will actually prove able to lead. Maybe he really will use the citizens briefing book, maybe he really will set the right people in the right place to get us out of this economic recession, maybe he really will offer college tuition for all in exchange for an equal amount of service in the community.
Maybe, maybe not. I'm willing to believe in my president, I'm going to let him prove me wrong before I withdraw that endorsement. So far in light of his mistakes and triumphs I highly approve of Mr. Obama. You disagree, that's fine, but believe me, once he is in office, there will be plenty ready to open the mouth and criticize. He will suffer from the exact phenomenon that Bush suffers from. While you are in office everything you do makes somebody mad, and after making decisions for four to eight years, you've made everybody mad at least once.
Why shouldn't we give president elect Obama all the encouragement we can muster as he steps into the office? He has a huge load of work ahead of him. We have plenty of time to point out his mistakes, giving him a day to celebrate the incredible achievement of being elected after a very long struggle seems to be a very American thing to do.
quote:And now Representative Jose Serrano has introduced H.J. 5, a proposed amendment repealing the two-term limit for presidents.
There are plenty of reasons to be against two terms or even term limits without being an Obama fanatic. Perhaps Serrano thinks Obama is charismatic enough that enough people would be willing to pass such a measure. It's pretty obvious that if Bush were seeking a third term nobody* would support such a bill.
*I didn't mean literally nobody, but it those in favor of Bush third term would be very much in the minority, I do not think even George himself would endorse it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The inauguration parties, parades, fireworks and so forth are paid for by private donations and not the government.
Yep.
However, on Thursday last (I think), Bush declared a state of emergency in the District in order to help fund the police, fire, rescue, etc efforts.
So it's not like the public won't be paying for the inauguration. It's just that we'll be paying for Joe Fireman's salary, rather than a party for Swanky Lefties. I'm fine with that.
quote:"Deification" is nothing more than a slur Obama haters are using to demean Obama supporters.
Well, I don't disagree that there seems to be a level of disdain in the tone of the original post. That said, I'm still a little dismayed at the amount of devotion that seems to be pouring into Obama's election.
posted
This thread keeps asking for a "defecation" dobie. Let's hope we can all continue to control ourselves.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why is it that when Reagan gets away with stuff, he's The Teflon President, and when Obama gets away with stuff, it's because he was unjustly criticized?
What, exactly, has he gotten away with?
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why is it that when Reagan gets away with stuff, he's The Teflon President, and when Obama gets away with stuff, it's because he was unjustly criticized?
What, exactly, has he gotten away with?
Being charismatic. Winning an election. Raising money. Getting people to like him. All kinds of hideous stuff like that.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why is it that when Reagan gets away with stuff, he's The Teflon President, and when Obama gets away with stuff, it's because he was unjustly criticized?
What, exactly, has he gotten away with?
Being charismatic. Winning an election. Raising money. Getting people to like him. All kinds of hideous stuff like that.
quote:Why is it that when Reagan gets away with stuff, he's The Teflon President, and when Obama gets away with stuff, it's because he was unjustly criticized?
What, exactly, has he gotten away with?
Being charismatic. Winning an election. Raising money. Getting people to like him. All kinds of hideous stuff like that.
Don't forget being smart.
I don't think he's gotten away with that. We're on to him.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why is it that when Reagan gets away with stuff, he's The Teflon President, and when Obama gets away with stuff, it's because he was unjustly criticized?
What, exactly, has he gotten away with?
Being charismatic. Winning an election. Raising money. Getting people to like him. All kinds of hideous stuff like that.
Don't forget being smart.
The whole 'obama's only qualification is charisma' line has gotten pretty old, seeing as it is pretty easy to counter. At this point, it's a canard.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: *After saying "no matter where you stand politically", I realized that I was totally discounting the possibility that anyone here was a white supremacist or gave political support for racial discrimination. If I'm mistaken, please don't point it out. I'm content to remain blissfully ignorant of anyone here who actually thinks racial discrimination is a good thing.
:trying to think of a joke:
:FAILING... :
:recovering...:
Rabbit, why do you always have to pick on the little guy?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: I mean, a politician. Politicians are a group where 99.99999% of them give the other 0.00001% (that'd be Ron Paul) a bad name.
I feel obliged to point out that according to your figures, there would have to be about 1 billion politicians for Ron Paul to be the oppressed 0.00001%.
unless I have my figures screwed up... I'm no statistician.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frankly I don't think Ron Paul is that unique.
I'd say he's a genuine, wants to help, and rarely speaks through much of a filter. But I also think that a lot of the time he's not a very good communicator (not always mind you), and judging from the campaign for president that he was a guest of, I don't want him running anything important.
But I think there are a lot of genuine politicians out there that really want to help.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: I mean, a politician. Politicians are a group where 99.99999% of them give the other 0.00001% (that'd be Ron Paul) a bad name.
I feel obliged to point out that according to your figures, there would have to be about 1 billion politicians for Ron Paul to be the oppressed 0.00001%.
unless I have my figures screwed up... I'm no statistician.
I think there going with the everyone is a politician, and there is roughly 7 people named Ron Paul, all of whom are being oppressed.
Posts: 549 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: See, that's just scary. Because the charming and well-spoken is really the extent of his qualifications for the presidency.
I know adolescents go through a phase where being liked is so much more important than doing the right thing. It's a shame to see the USA acting like an adolescent.
Oh, please.
Graduating magma cum laude from Harvard law school and teaching at Chicago Law School? Working as a community organizer? Winning his Senate seat by the widest electoral margin in Illinois history?
The only thing significantly missing from his resume is an extended period of executive government experience. But he also doesn't have an extended string of business failures, personal crises, scandals, and major errors in judgement, unlike certain others who have held or sought the presidential seat.
I'm sure he'll have his share of errors and questionable compromises in his time and his honeymoon period will come to an end. But he's perfectly qualified to hold the presidency if actually judged by the recent standard. And someone who isn't willing to give him the chance to succeed or fail, having fairly won, might want to consider that the problem isn't with the so-called "adolescents" who elected him but with their own narrow mindset.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
ElJay, you are trying to build a federal case based on your own ignorance of the various uses of quote marks. If I had left out the quote marks, I might have been implying I thought he was uppity. By putting it in quote marks I was saying that the word is not necessarily true, it just describes Pelosi's evident attitude.
Mr. Potato head, 160 million may not seem like much money to you. But it sure does to me.
I think most major corporations could be bailed out with 160 million dollars. Corporations that require billions of dollars are in the "super" category. There are not that many super corporations.
Of course, all that money is being paid to provide security, etc. But the money has to come from somewhere. Is the U.S. treasury printing still more treasury notes to cover it (that will be purchased by foreign investors, like China)?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Graduating magma cum laude from Harvard law school and teaching at Chicago Law School? Working as a community organizer? Winning his Senate seat by the widest electoral margin in Illinois history?
All of those are impressive except for maybe the very last one. Jack and Jeri Ryan's divorce documents becoming unsealed and the subsequent revelation of possible spousal abuse blew apart Ryan's chances for the senate seat. For goodness sakes Alan Keyes had to be fielded at the last minute just so the Republican party would have a candidate on the ballot.
You could substitute in "raising more money in his presidential campaign than any other in American history."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
... Is kind of ridiculous.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
:
