posted
Good Lord, McCain still can't remember al Qaida is Sunni? Even after recently publicly embarassing himself on the topic? It's a mystery to me where his national security chops come from.
quote: Meanwhile, even those who have signed on to the AQI myth can't keep it straight. Is it Shiite? Sunni? Oh, whatever:
quote: MCCAIN: There are numerous threats to security in Iraq and the future of Iraq. Do you still view Al Qaida in Iraq as a major threat?
PETRAEUS: It is still a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was, say, 15 months ago.
MCCAIN: Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shiites overall...
edit to add: Look, I mean this is Day One stuff here, and McCain keeps making the same simple yet crucial mistake? I hadn't realized it, but he's now done it 5 times since November, and 4 times just since March!
quote: The following is a fact sheet prepared by the DNC Research Department on McCain's failed leadership onIraq:
McCain Repeatedly Gets Facts Wrong On Iraq
IRAQ/IRAN, SUNNI/SHIA: WHO'S WHO?
At least five times as a candidate, three times in March 2008 alone, McCain said publicly thatIran (a Shiite nation) was supporting Al-Qaeda (a Sunni group) inIraq. Despite being corrected by the press and his colleagues, McCain continued to repeat the assertion.
quote: But I'm sure you have some sort of expectation that someone (who?) will manage to pull a rabbit out of a hat and supply that money eventually.
No. I think I'm paying in now so other people can eat. I don't expect it to be there when I retire; I'm putting money into my 401(k) and an IRA. I'm taking another retirement seminar later this month to make sure I don't need to change my retirement plan from what I came up with a couple years ago at the company 401(k) class.
I'm guessing I didn't make my point well. We can phase out Social Security all we want, but we still have to pay it for the duration of the current users' lives. Otherwise we'll kill them. Therefore, not paying taxes would infringe on their right to life.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not a lein on the life and liberty of others.
I'm just wondering why you're using the Declaration of Independence as a source for the laws of our country, what they were and what they should be.
The US Constitution is a much more valid document in that area, both on what was intended to be, what is, and what should be the laws of our land.
You do realize that I used the phrase because I was responding to a post in which the phrase was used, right? Or were you just grabbing a quote out of context for rhetorical purposes?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aw, geez, I really wish McCain would figure out how to get that straightened out. This goes way beyond the "same enemey" problem that has Shiites and Al-Qaeda coincidentally cooperating for the moment, and it's not deliberate warmongering against Iran. It really appears that he has his wires crossed somehow. He may have "Shiite" encoded in his mind as "violent extremist" or something. I guess I'll have to start paying more attention and seeing if this is predominant for him, or if he is literally misspeaking.
I don't know, there was an incident March 18, and now this one April 8. I'd be surprised if he hasn't talked about the Middle East in between those dates.
quote: I'm just wondering why you're using the Declaration of Independence as a source...
I used it because it's one of the more basic building blocks of other recognized rights. Wiki lists a handful of folks who borrowed from Locke's original "life, liberty, and property".
In other words, it seemed like a good idea at the time. Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah but, it has the same legal significance as "Common Sense" or "On the Necessity of Taking Up Arms," or "The Federalist Papers."
It's great historically for getting an idea on what the Founders and others were thinking at the time, but there are no actual guarantees or rights there.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yeah but, it has the same legal significance as "Common Sense" or "On the Necessity of Taking Up Arms," or "The Federalist Papers."
It's great historically for getting an idea on what the Founders and others were thinking at the time, but there are no actual guarantees or rights there.
Do you understand that rights are rights? That the issue of whether a right is guaranteed is not the same thing as whether it exists?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well gee Lisa, no, I'd never heard that before. Maybe you could suggest some literature for me to read on the subject.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you understand that rights are rights? That the issue of whether a right is guaranteed is not the same thing as whether it exists?
Do you understand that there is no universal agreement as to what those rights are and no logical objective way to ascertain what is a right and what is not?
When you boldly assert that "A" is a right and therefore "X" which violates that right is unethical, you are begging the real question.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hush, Rabbit. Lisa's almost got Lyrhawn tricked into reading The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Let's see if he falls for it.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:About a quarter of Obama supporters say they'll vote for McCain if Clinton is the Democratic nominee. About a third of Clinton supporters say they would vote for McCain if it's Obama.
While I think a lot of these people will wind up voting democrat anyway, I think it's interesting that more Clintonites would defect than Obamacans.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:While I think a lot of these people will wind up voting democrat anyway, I think it's interesting that more Clintonites would defect than Obamacans.
I think that most likely reflects the passions of the moment. Obama is in the lead I think most of his supporters are feeling pretty confident that he will win.
On the other hand, Clinton's supporters are starting to feel desperation. A lot of them feel like she hasn't been treated fairly by the media or the DNC (Florida and Michigan). At this point it doesn't surprise me that there are more hard feelings among the Clinton supporters than among Obama supporters.
It's a lot easier to believe you will be a gracious looser when you don't think you are likely to loose.
I think those numbers will likely flip if the nomination turns into a floor fight at the convention and Clinton wins the nomination without winning the popular vote. If that happens, I think a large number of Obama supporters will choose to either not vote or the equivalent -- vote third party.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:About a quarter of Obama supporters say they'll vote for McCain if Clinton is the Democratic nominee. About a third of Clinton supporters say they would vote for McCain if it's Obama.
Talk about a way to bias a poll. Imbedded in that article you linked reporting that McCain has erased Obama's lead, there is a poll asking "Who do you think will win the Presidential election?"
Not surprisingly, McCain is getting a bit over 50% of the vote.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The embedded poll is, I'm sure, just a crappy internet poll for entertainment purposes only. The poll being reported is not that surprising, if one goes to pollster.com, for instance. This has been building for a while.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Personally, I think he was right, or at least he was on to something, but he worded it pretty awfully. I'm surprised that he'd word it in a way that he'd have to know probably wouldn't be taken very well by a lot of people.
And of course, it's no surprise that McCain and Clinton would cease on it, but come on, like EITHER one of them is really in tune with what the people are thinking and feeling? The main reason I hate cycles like this, is the two of them will blow this thing up, the media will give them the microphone to do it, and at the end of the day, most people won't know what Obama actually said, all they will hear is the rancor and that Obama is out of touch, and if the media hammers it enough, they'll believe it. The process is dishonest. McCain and Clinton taking issue with it is fair game, I just wish it was more honestly debated.
For my part, I think he made a very poor choice of words, but I don't think he was way off base.
Edit to add: Whilst posting this, the ad banner at the bottom was for "Vietnamcupid.com - Find your Vietnamese beauty today!" And the only thing that I could think of that'd connect the ad to this thread is McCain...unless someone actually typed "Vietnam."
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The wording did not bother me all that much. People complain that Obama sounds too optimistic and idealistic, I'm glad he is willing to talk about spades and use the word spade to do so. Time magazine just polled what Americans are most concerned about and 80% said the economy. People are worried about losing their homes and being unable to pay for health care when they need it. If that isn't a bitter situation, I'm not sure what is.
I'm glad Obama clarified, but stuck to his words, because apologizing would have done nothing for him. I do wish he had stopped short of resoundingly criticizing the other two candidates. He has managed in the past to point out the flaws in their comments without sounding put off.
It also does not surprise me that both the Clinton and McCain camps had snide remarks designed to capitalize on an exploitable sound byte, rather then some sort of better statement.
Personally, I'm glad Clinton has the guts not to quit in the face of all this pressure. Too bad she doesn't have the decency to finish with grace rather then trying to scuttle her opponents chances of entering the next competition without unnecessary injuries.
Another hatracker made the comparison of this being like a basketball game with Hillary trying to fowl for the last few minutes. It's the best comparison I've heard. I hope she is never our president.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to wonder if any of the people he was referring to were seriously thinking of voting for Hillary anyway. If you're a person clinging to your guns and hating immigrants, you're not a Hillary voter. If I'm a white Union member in Pittsburgh, would I really see Hillary's anger over these comments as relevant to me? I supposed I might hear that Obama is elitist.
The question is whether Obama will be able to maintain any semblance of not going negative, when he's gone negative against the voters here. He's weakened any barriers of decency that may have made rednecks hesitant to cross over and vote for him... if they still can. I'm not sure what the registration process is like there.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just don't see where he went negative against any voters. He said that economic promises have not been kept, and that voters in those areas, after being lied to in the past, have given up on anything besides what's important to them locally. He did not say that those things are not important, or that they shouldn't be. He said he understood why people would become bitter and look inward when for 25 years there has been no reason to do otherwise.
I think the voters who would become offended at this are the ones who really are focused on religion, guns, and xenophobia to the exclusion of all else, and that just proives his point. Voters who are in that situation but want to get out should appreciate his understanding. And actual elitists - like, say, Clinton and FOX News - will miss the point entirely and misinterpret him to get a sound bite in the next news cycle.
The biggest strength and greatest weakness of Obama is that his speeches are powerful in their entirety, but difficult to chop up and therefore easy to take out of context.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What confuses me is the charge that Obama was 'elitist' or that he was 'out of touch'. It sounds to me like he has more of a handle on America than either of the other two candidates. They will tell you what you want to hear, and lull and dull you into complacency. At least Obama tells it like it is.
Most Americans do feel totally detach from and betrayed by the government, and while they would hope for help and reform in that area, they know they are VERY unlikely to get it. For the average voter every election is a choice between Satan and the Devil...damned if you do and damed if you don't.
And, is it any surprise that citizen are bitter when you can buy any thing you want from Congress if you'll slip enough cash under the table. As a consequence, the average citizen is continually screwed. The level of corruption and mismanagement in government is astronomically high. Countless billions of our hard earned money is flushed down the toilet on backdoor good-old-boy hand outs.
Under Bush's administration, this level of corruption and malfeasance has radiated into all branches of government. The FDA, FCC, FTC, BATF, DofA, and every other agency mandated with a public trust, mandated to act in the best interest of the people, has become a shill and advocate of big business.
BITTER, you damn right I'm bitter. And, as long as the public can be lulled into complacency, as long as we can be convinced that we don't have to give up anything, quite the contrary, as long as we consume consume consume and waste waste waste everything will be OK. I'm here to tell you everything WILL NOT be OK. As Ron Paul has said repeatedly, the USA is in for a big and painful fall from grace. A fall that is going to have world wide consequences. Look at how the Mortgage Crisis has affected the rest of the world. Banks in the UK failed because they were too heavily invested in ill-conceived USA mortgages.
If we don't rein government in, get them under control and hold them full accountable for their actions, then the USA is heading for DOOM of world wide proportions. BITTER, YOU DAMN RIGHT I'M BITTER.
My personal belief is that the next President should create a new Constitutional branch of government. A branch that has the same power over Congress that the IRS has over the average citizen. The General Accounting Office should have full police powers over Congress. The should have the power to investigate, subpoena, and arrest members of Congress for corruption and malfeasance. I'm convinced Congress can not keep its own house in order, we need a full independent outside force with full independent legal authority to hold Congressional member toes to the fire, and hold them fully criminally responsible for their actions.
I think that most Americans who are at a minimum cynical about government and a large fraction of those are bitter of at least some aspects. I hope they are cynical enough to the spin media puts on things to see Clinton's and McCain's responses as an indication of who is really out of touch with the American people.
Bitter? You bet I'm bitter.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: My personal belief is that the next President should create a new Constitutional branch of government. A branch that has the same power over Congress that the IRS has over the average citizen. The General Accounting Office should have full police powers over Congress. The should have the power to investigate, subpoena, and arrest members of Congress for corruption and malfeasance. I'm convinced Congress can not keep its own house in order, we need a full independent outside force with full independent legal authority to hold Congressional member toes to the fire, and hold them fully criminally responsible for their actions.
I don't know if that is the proper method but I fully agree that Congress needs to be held accountable to the American people. And while we are at it, lets not stop at the legislative branch. This administration has demonstrated time and again that they have no respect for the people or the laws they were elected to execute. The American people have a right to know whether or not our President is obeying the laws. We have a right to know who is advising the President and Vice President. We should be able to expect that our rights to privacy will be respected. We should be able to expect that the American ideals of justice, freedom and human rights won't be thrown aside willy nilly at the first sign of danger.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: My personal belief is that the next President should create a new Constitutional branch of government. A branch that has the same power over Congress that the IRS has over the average citizen.
That sounds like a good idea. Except:
Why only Congress? Why not over the Executive as well. God knows they can't seem to be trusted either.
It wouldn't be a Constitutional branch of government unless it's in the Constitution. Which means an amendment. Which isn't to say it it's not a good idea. The more I think about it, the more I think it's a great idea. But it would have to be an amendment to the Constitution. Maybe we here at Hatrack could put our heads together and come up with appropriate language. And then send it to our Representatives and try and get it passed.
A branch with powers like that is would be a recipe for tyranny unless there were checks and balances on it as well. I'm not backtracking on saying that it's a nifty idea, but it would definitely require there to be some weakness in it to make it safe. Maybe let the judiciary appoint and unappoint members?
posted
CNN came out and defended Obama pretty well. It was nice to see some mainstream media do that. granted, i don't watch tv at all, so I don't know if any other news media defended him also. I just stumbled across this on youtube.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure when asked, Clinton will have an explanation about how ALL that has changed since Bill said that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure Clinton supporters will view that clip as undeniable proof that the media is biased against her and loves Obama or whatever, Strider. Those comments do sound closer to the truth for me though. Clinton and McCain are just enjoying some free ammunition courtesy of a controversial, but evidenced and true statement. Even if there are many people in this country thinking what Obama said, there's that group that believes that you're not supposed to say it out loud. People don't want to hear their leaders admit that some Americans are bitter and thus turn toward issues more directly affecting them or issues that allow them to take out frustration on things they CAN control, after watching their efforts change nothing.
This is why Obama is one of the few politicans I respect right now. He's telling us how he really believes the world is, and I can hear it in his words. That's what I think we need to solve some problems; honesty even when it's most difficult. I just do not picture Clinton coming up with any real solutions in the Oval Office. In my mind I see her leading us on detours with her political machine and applying bandaids to broken limbs, when what's really needed is to go to the hospital for once and do what the doctor tells you needs to be done.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
This is a great example, IMO, of missing the point. The problem isn't that Obama insinuated people in economically depressed small towns were bitter, or insecure (in Bill Clinton's "comparable" quote above). It's that he connected that with "cling[ing] to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
The insinuation is that a belief in gun rights, or religion, or tighter immigration control or economic isolationism is born out of bitterness rather than a rational, thoughtful process. Which is exactly the sort of urban, educated elitism that I find so irritating in progressives in general.
<edit>Here's a Slate blog piece that gets at the same point. I especially like the phrase "cultural condescension." That is exactly the sentiment I was trying to explain.</edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clinton's statement didn't characterize people by their religious beliefs. Hard as it may be for some of you to understand, there is a line between religion and all the other crap rednecks love.
And there's a problem here too in the guy who wants us to forgive him for his crabby "old uncle" saying a few ill-considered things.
Now, I don't think this is anywhere near as bad as the sort of wrong-headed thing Hillary says every day. This is on the same level as "punished with a baby" which conservatives totally missed the point of, since he meant condoms and not abortion.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The insinuation is that a belief in gun rights, or religion, or tighter immigration control or economic isolationism is born out of bitterness rather than a rational, thoughtful process.
I think it's occasionally a rational, thoughtful process that's nonetheless born out of bitterness. I don't think we do ourselves any favors by pretending otherwise.
quote:Hard as it may be for some of you to understand, there is a line between religion and all the other crap rednecks love.
No, there's not. They just want to think there is.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice. [edit: Too bad Obama is one of your religious hypocrites]
quote:Laughing, the Illinois senator noted Clinton seemed much more interested in guns since he made his comments than she had been in the past. On Saturday, the former first lady reminisced about learning to shoot on summer vacations in Scranton, where her father grew up.
"She is running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the Second Amendment. She's talking like she's Annie Oakley," Obama said.
Clinton has told campaign audiences that she supports the rights of hunters. She's also said she once shot a duck in Arkansas, where she served as first lady.
quote:Nice. Edit: Too bad Obama is one of your religious hypocrites
I'd like to think Obama would a) not claim that all religious sentiment is a direct result of bitterness (which is certainly not what he said, by the way); b) admit that there was a component of bitterness in what drove him, personally, to religion.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I suppose that could solve it. But how many of these philosophical landmark speeches is he going to give?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think it's occasionally a rational, thoughtful process that's nonetheless born out of bitterness. I don't think we do ourselves any favors by pretending otherwise.
Which is exactly the type of urban, educated elitism that I find so irritating about progressives.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's another quote from Bill Clinton from his book My Life:
quote:If [Republicans] could cut funding for Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment, middle-class Americans would see fewer benefits from their tax dollars, feel more resentful paying taxes, and become even more receptive to their appeals for tax cuts and their strategy of waging campaigns on divisive social and cultural issues like abortion, gay rights, and guns.
posted
In addition to being a set of beliefs, religion is, often, a celebration of one's culture. I think that religion becomes more strident, more isolationist, more "us vs them" in times when people are threatened and powerless. I believe that kind of rigidity is too often what we mean when we talk about religion in public discourse. My problem with Senator Obama's statement is that, I believe that he fell into that trap. I also don't think that he could have, given the context, made that distinction or that it would have done him any good.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What was the context? Why did he have to drag people's religion into it? If he's lucky, conservatives don't draw the connection between this remark and "religion is the opiate of the people". Maybe it will all blow over and he'll have learned from this.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I sense he's trying his hardest not to speak his mind about her, and it's probably a good idea. If there's one kind of "lie" I will tolerate, it's how you feel about your opponent. How else can you get elected after all Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who do we really think has more disdain for the American people, one who tries to address complicated issues honestly and sometimes awkwardly, or the one who is consistantly trying to fool us?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Who do we really think has more disdain for the American people, one who tries to address complicated issues honestly and sometimes awkwardly, or the one who is consistantly trying to fool us?
If he saw the complexity of the issue and simply addressed it awkwardly, he could have clarified when given the opportunity. But the fact that when offered the opportunity he chose to say "Sorry if I offended anyone" rather than "I understand people come to these beliefs out of more than bitterness, but I believe people's bitterness contributes to the stridency of these beliefs," leads me to believe that rather than seeing rural poverty, and Main Street America issues in general, as a complex issue, he sees it all too simply. As, I think, most progressives do (cf, TomD).
That's not to say he isn't chock full of wisdom and insight on other complicated issues (like race relations, or community building, or ...); but in this case he seems much more Cambridge than Kansas (rather than balanced between), and I see that as a problem.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
Wow.
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
