Obama's redistribution of wealth

Excellent. In this age, there is no excuse for not knowing all there is to know about Presidential candidates. (Except for the willingly ignorant, from whom we've heard so much over the years--including watching one of their own throw our country's values away over the last 8 years.) The internet and 24/7 cable coverage have seen to that.

As Abner notes, McCain had nothing--NOTHING--to offer. So he attempted instead to slime his opponent. Even in the last days of the campaign, he and his running mate were still trying that old "what do we know?" stuff regarding Obama, appealing to those voters who are either too stupid or too lazy to check for themselves. Well, guess what? America is filled with a lot more people who ARE willing to look and make judgments based on their observations, not insinuations.

We're taking America back, folks. Back to freedom, democracy, protection of our Bill of Rights, the rule of law, openness in government, and our place as a world leader once again. American values are back!

 

Democrats have tried with all their might to turn Sarah Palin into a caricature. Religious fanatic, trailer trash, ignorant, incompetent... You've done it yourself.

You were criticizing Republican rhetoric, accusing it of trafficking in "phoney archtypes". That's a defect that Democratic rhetoric has been guilty of for years. Reminding us of that fact undercut your assertion.

 

Palin was a poor choice, and the McCain camp paid for it. They did not vet her, which goes to show they were simply not capable of running the country, a sentiment felt by many Republicans as well. The McCain camp themselves have painted Palin as ignorant caricature, to use your phrase. This turned out just the way I expected. Thanks Sarah.

Abner

 

I believe that McCain could have presented some strong messages. For example, he is a great American hero. IMHO, he should have focused more on pushing that message and differentiating himself from George Bush. He made it clear that he disagreed with torture and Guantanamo. He never really differentiated himself from Bush's financial policies and he never should have tried to sell that "the fundamentals of the economy is sound". The smear campaign was nonsense. McCain did his best to make it happen but there wasn't anything there.

That nonsense about Obama being a terrorist, I consider it to be the same kind of nonsense that was attempted in the George H. W. Bush campaign where they said that Bill Clinton was a communist spie. It didn't fly. It was recognized as nonsense by most people. Blaming it on the media for not reporting it really doesn't make sense to me. Obama being a terrorist or palling around with terrorists is so outlandish that only the Republican base bought it. Having a campaign target one's base is the wrong focus, at least the wrong focus in the last half of the campaign.

Here's what George W. Bush himself said about the "terrorist" Obama, "It was interesting to watch him go upstairs," Bush said. "He wanted to see where his little girls were going to sleep. Clearly, this guy is going to bring a sense of family to the White House, and I hope Laura and I did the same thing. But I believe he will, and I know his girls are on his mind and he wants to make sure that first and foremost, he is a good dad. And I think that's going to be an important part of his presidency." "The election of Barack Obama is an historic moment for our country. There are a lot of people in America who did not believe they would ever see this day. It is good for our country that people have hope in the system and feel vested in the future and President-elect Obama has a great opportunity," Bush said. "I really do wish him all the best. I am just as American as he is American, and it is good for our country that the president succeeds."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/11/bush.post.presidency/index.html

Perhaps the bottom line regarding the McCain campaign is that due to current rating of our current President, there was perhaps nothing that anyone could have done to enable a Republican to win in 2008.

To my politically disappointed friends on this forum, remember 2012 and I suggest that you hope that Palin doesn't win the nomination 2012. In the meantime, Barack Obama will be our President and only history can really tell us whether or not he was a good choice.

 

I realize that it's at least semi tongue-in-cheek but Palin is DONE. On the other hand, there is another young intelligent candidate with a funny name - Bobby Jindal. He will be the next one to watch, and the way is cleared for him to run in the future.

 

No, you haven't come close to supporting your assertion. Sarah Palin is quite real and quite subject to examination, criticism, and characterization. She isn't made up like "Joe the Plumber" and Reagan's fake example of a welfare cheat. (Takes a $20 food stamp coupon, buys a 50-cents orange, takes the change and buys vodka. None of it actually happened, of course.)

You still traffic in personal attacks when none were visited upon you. And you can't support your claim, anyway.

 

Maybe it did not happen in Reagan's example but where I grew up in NJ, it happened at times. Most of times the food stamps were just sold for 50-65 cents on the dollar depending on how desperate they were. It was easier and faster then making purchases to get change. I can also tell you some stories about old friends that did the AMEX travelers checks scam. So I knew some shady people 20 years ago...so what.

 

When you launch angry insults at an entire group of people, then just logically, you are launching your attacks at all of the individuals that make up that class. When you go off on Republicans in general, individual Republicans are certainly justified in thinking that they are among your targets.

So don't be surprised if individual members of the groups that you trash sometimes choose to return your fire and engage you.

 

SAY WHAT???

The only media outlet that even came close to holding him accountable was Fox News, and when pressed about how he could possibly sit in a church pew for 20 years and not realize Jeremiah Wright is a vicious anti-white racist, the best Obama could come up with is "What can I tell you?" to Bill O'Reilly.

1:54 of this clip;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrcuzpSTFQ0

As for his associations with terrorist Bill Ayers, who contributed to the MURDER of police officers (something especially personal to me), and convicted felon Tony Rezko, Obama has NEVER had to answer the tough questions.

That's a bit surprising for me to see, considering I believe you benefitted from both the (relatively) big military pay raise and the skyrocketing morale in the armed forces that resulted from President Ronald Reagan's policies. Life was pretty damn good for me in the 1980's.

I'm also interested in your take on Obama's proposed "Civilian National Security Force"?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=69601

That doesn't concern you at all? A civilian security force that's "just as well funded, just as powerful" as the armed forces (Barack Obama's exact words)? Being someone aware of history, that doesn't remind you of something else?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung

My offer of a gentlemen's bet is still out there, Rich, if you really think this country is going to be better off in 4 years than it is now.

Excuse me, you're right. Fox News reported on it, and no one else.

 

Which elected government official made the following statement: Socialization and the government running all of your companies.

 

In return: whenever you stray from DL, you act like this.

 

Sometimes I frustrate you by arguing with you, right. If you didn't attack your opponents so aggressively and so angrily, then you might receive less return fire.

Once again, you wrote: "The Republicans have trafficked for years in phoney archtypes. Whether they slur Democrats with them or, like Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin, create them out of whole cloth, they can't seem to break away from this practice."

I pointed out that the Democrats have done exactly that for many years. Their aggressive attempts to redefine Alaska Governor Sarah Palin with the insulting archtypes of "trailer trash", "religious fanatic" and "ignorant hillbilly" are only the most recent examples of a long established and very ugly practice.

And I said that your own rhetorical attempt to criticize Republican political rhetoric would have been more effective if your very next sentence hadn't reminded everyone of those sins.

 

The Bill Ayers association nonsense was reported on ALL new agencies. It was even covered on Saturday Night Live. Bill Ayers did horrible things 40 years ago when Obama was eight years old. It had no more meaning to non-Republicans than the silly accusations that Bill Clinton was a communist spy. You guys can believe what you want but I suggest that you flush that political rhetoric nonsense from your minds. (Like the media is out to get the Republicans.) McCain is a great man and a great American hero. He probably would have made a good president. He'd have to be better than Bush. Obama is a great man and I believe that he will probably make a better president than McCain. Of course, we will probably never really know that for sure but he is the president-elect. He's not a terrorist. He doesn't pal around with terrorists. He's not a socialist. The media is not out to get the Republicans. Yesterday I even heard about some Georgia Republican that was comparing Obama to Hitler. I think the Republicans got spanked on November 4 because you apparently believe this political rhetoric that has been spewed is actually true. Perhaps it might do you good to listen again to McCain's concession speech?

 

I seriously suggest that anyone still having issues with the way the election turned out might benefit from listening to McCain's wise words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bss6lTP8BJ8

Peace,
Bill

 

Good advice Bill. Mccain, Palin and several high profile Republicans now support Obama. Are we to believe they are anti American? Wake up folks.

Abner

P.S. To those who follow the right wing talk shows. Make sure and buy up as many uzis as you can because Obama is going to take your guns away! Did Clinton take your guns? Ay dios mio.

 

Time heals all wounds, right?

Here are two of the police officers murdered by Ayers' group; perhaps you can explain to their families that it was a long time ago and they should get over it?

http://odmp.org/officer/2372-police-officer-waverly-l.-brown

http://odmp.org/officer/10136-sergeant-edward-j.-ogrady-jr.

Call me crazy, but I don't want a President who couldn't even pass the background check required of his Secret Service Agents. Associating with domestic terrorists would get a Secret Service application flushed in about a nanosecond.

Hey, I just realized that next August is going to be the 40 year anniversary of the Manson murders. I guess California should free Charlie, Tex, Sadie, Katie, and Leslie. After all, it was 40 years ago!!!!

 

The timing of this murders seems strange - were they shot in 1981? If so I'm not sure Ayers was active at this point.

For me, the biggest issue is not that Ayers was a terrorist 40 years ago, but that he's an unrepentant terrorist today. That is where I feel the President-elect's character flaw lies. Had Ayers, at some point in the late 70's or 80's said "it was a crazy time, we did stupid things and I deeply regret them" I could probably swallow it. Obama may have been 8 when it happened, but he wasn't 8 when he met and associated with Ayers.

 

Anyone who does business in Ayers town must deal with him. Let's not forget Republicans helped raise him to the position of a major political player. Republicans and Democrats do business with him if they want to accomplish anything major. Obama has never said he agrees with the horrific acts Ayers commited 40 years ago.

Abner

 

Actually, Obama has gone further and stated that he deplores the acts that Ayers committed. Nonetheless, the big question mark in my mind - and many other people's - about what makes up Obama is exactly around your point: doing business in Chitown. Is Obama above the Chicago political machine, just using it to accomplish his own goals, or is he indebted to them?

My personal belief, after doing much more reading, is that he isn't some sort of socialist-anarchist looking to end free elections, etc. He's a smart, somewhat narcissistic, opportunist. In other words, like most Presidents If so, I can comfortably live through 4 or even 8 years under his leadership, and if his mantra of "change" makes the US a better place then that's great.

However, I suspect that unless he is a fantastic President, OR caters to all of the minorities and groups who voted for him, there will be much less buzz in 4 years to get out the vote, leaving the door open for a Republican to come in. The Repubs have less than 2 years to regroup and recraft their message.

What I don't like, and what frankly scares me, is this concept of "deliverance" that many people internalized...that Obama is somehow the "Messiah" (see numerous YouTube videos about how "it's our time", etc.). If people place too much faith in an elected leader they are bound to be disappointed when that leader doesn't perform to all of their expectations. He IS human after all, and subject to the same failings that we all are.

 

Only to dismiss it as insignificant. Can you imagine the media uproar had John McCain been associating with an unrepentent neo-Nazi?

How did they find room for it between all their sketches ridiculing Sarah Palin?

The problem for me is that Barack Obama appeared suddenly from out of nowhere, running as the champion of the Democratic party's ideological base, attacking the more moderate Hillary Clinton from her left. Then after he won the Democraic nomination he swerved to the middle, and with the media's willing help rebranded himself in the guise of a non-threatening moderate. He's made lots of not-always-consistent speeches, basically saying what his listeners want to hear, but where his own heart and soul are is still something of a mystery. Now he's President-elect and I still don't think that most voters know very much about him.

Election issues and position papers are nice. But events rarely go as anticipated once new Presidents are elected. Presidents are called upon to react to events as they unfold, to make policy on the fly. That's why knowing about a candidate's philosophy, understanding his tendencies, is so important.

And that's why I'm worried by Barack Obama. Who is he? Is he the smooth-talking moderate in the expensive suit? Or is he the man whose self-acknowledged 20-year spiritual mentor is a ranting fire-breathing radical? A community-organizer for groups like Acorn? That's why I think that Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn (Ayers' wife and another bigtime 70's Weather Underground terrorist) are important. They are more puzzle-pieces, parts of a pattern.

True, maybe it's nothing, right-wing paranoia. But on the other hand, we may have just seen the final victory of the 60's radical "movement", as they take over control of the United States and leadership of the world.

What reason is there to believe that Barack Obama is a "great man"? True, he has just been elected President, a not-insignificant accomplishment. But other than that, he's a first-term junior Senator with few legislative accomplishments, who happens to be black, (probably) politically left, and good at delivering prepared speeches.

I'd like to think that true greatness consists of something more than that. We need to see how he performs once he's in office, before we annoit him. We need to see how he responds to the unforseen events that we all know that he will face. Even then, it's probably the task of history to decide from the vantage point of broader future context on whether he really turned out to be great or not.

I have to admit, the rally in Berlin reminded me of that. There's already a cult of personality growing up around this man before he's even taken office that's troubling. There's all the talk from Obama supporters (though not from Obama himself) of revolution, of moving the United States and the whole world in a new historical direction. (We've even seen some of that talk right here on this board.) It really is faintly reminiscent of European politics in the first half of the 20'th century.

But yes, that's still pretty far fetched at this point, more of a remote simularity in style than a close historical analogy. It's probably best for politicians to avoid that kind of talk. If Obama's Presidency subsequently evolves in that direction, then there will be time for it later. If it doesn't, then its just inflammatory rhetoric and out of place.

I think that's a non-sequitur. Obama didn't win because Republicans are uneasy with him. Obama won in part because of Bush's unpopularity. But even then, the race was still neck-and-neck. What put Obama decisively over the top was the financial meltdown. Many people are scared for their homes, their jobs and their retirements. The Democrats are traditionally the more socially-paternalistic party. When people are scared, they look for protection, they demand government programs, they dream of sheltering in the care of a surrogate parent.