once again the jokes write themselves...

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by callat703:
  Some other conservatives have said different things - and I think this is the crux of the argument.  To me, the hope/change argument is not about a different type of campaigning, or trying to get elected - which is what the criticism of Obama has largely been about in this respect.  I see it as about restoring a sense of pragmatism to government - discussing issues openly and thoughtfully to arrive at the best conclusions, and governing accordingly towards the middle to achieve given results.
 
 I have many reasons for believing Barack Obama will do this as president (his answers on abortion, his reaction to the economic crisis, his coalition of advisers, his broad bipartisan support) - and that is what the change argument is about for me.
 

that is fair enough. . .personally, i think we have a fundamental difference about "best conclusions", but that's simply our own philosophy.  but that also means that he has to work harder to get my vote, and, frankly, i see him as just another politician willing to say anything to get elected (oh, and i don't support his tax policy).
 
 sometimes, and i came to this conclusion shortly after my previous post, i feel like ed rooney trying to catch ferris. . .and nov. 4 will be whether the public is jennifer grey and covers for him.

[manimtired]

its ok to bomb government buildings if you dont kill anyone...are you serious??  you are clearly the one who has no clue what youre talking about

[sweetcell]

Originally posted by manimtired:
 i guess obama would have to lie about the drug thing too huh?

you missed the point: they wouldn't have to lie.  say "yes" to the drug question, and you'll be asked about your drug use.  if it's deemed to not be an issue, the interview moves on.

[manimtired]

no...if you just say yes you most likely do not "pass go"...but then again you have no idea what youre talking about.

[kosmo vinyl]

in response to bebe...
 
 i'm behind obama because i support his energy plan and because he will bring into the White House the best qualified people to serve with him, regardless ofparty affiliation.  no more partisan hacks in top positions along the lines of ashcroft, gonzales and brownie...

[sweetcell]

Originally posted by manimtired:
  no...if you just say yes you most likely do not "pass go"...but then again you have no idea what youre talking about.

that is simply not true.

[manimtired]

i know many people, i look at these, that answer yes and they are dismissed right away...then again they arent applying for receptionist jobs.  yes, it is possible, but its getting harder and harder to get a "pass" by answering yes to the "drug" question.

[godsshoeshine]

nm

[sweetcell]

Originally posted by very sonick:
   

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
   
 
 my frustration in talking about all of this is that on one hand, people are drawn to him because of his message of hope and change, and "i can bring people together" and "i'm a different type of politician" yet, when things are brought up showing that he is in fact no different than any other politician, it's explained away by, but he's a politician.  
 

he's a politician, running against another politician for a political office.
 
   and more people think that Obama the politician is better than McCain the politician.  Its very simple and i think way more people see it that way than you are making it out to be.  
 
    but i guess its no fun when you look at it that way. [/b]

many people level the criticism that obama is too much of a "politician's politician", that he's too slick, that he'll do anything to get elected... as sonick pointed out, getting elected is what politicians do.  and if you have the patience, read this story: Seeing White House From a Cell in Hanoi.  it's long.  it paints mccain as someone who couldn't make it to the top ranks of the navy like the other men in his family, so his desire and family's expectation of leadership led him into politics - elected office is easier than earning stars.  why is he a senator for arizona, a state he never lived in until he sought public office?    

But where should McCain run? "We discussed Florida, because he'd been a resident there," Cohen remembers. "But the thinking became that he should run in Arizona. . . . His wife was from there. And Arizona was conservative."
 
 Arizona also appeared attractive for reasons that had nothing to do with ideology: Its population was booming, which meant it would receive one new congressional seat in time for the 1982 elections. Equally important, its explosive growth rate -- behind only Nevada's and Alaska's -- meant that more than 950,000 residents would be moving to Arizona during the 1980s, a whole new bloc of voters that McCain and his allies believed would be unmoved by charges that a political upstart from out of state was a carpetbagger.
 (...)
 Four years later, enjoying a big lead in the polls on the eve of that Senate election, McCain turned to an aide who had asked whether, all things being equal, he'd rather be the commander of a naval fleet squadron than a senator. "Well, all things aren't equal," McCain began. "But if I keep this lead, win and become senator, maybe my mother will finally get off my back for leaving the Navy."

seems kinda cynical to me.  personally, i don't think it really matters that much, but people who criticize obama the politician should be aware that the same criticisms can be leveled against mcccain the politician.

[Herr Professor Doktor Doom]

It's interesting that as far as I can tell, nobody here has much positive to say about McCain and especially Palin.  
 
 In fact, it seems like the McCain/Palin types are entirely fixated on Obama.  And it's not even on what Obama says he would do as President, it's on personality characteristics and fuzzy mostly-disproven rumors.  
 
 Seems like rather insubstantive reasoning, to me.
 
 Fact is, you can't be a true conservative and support today's Republican party.  Conservatism is about limited government, whether in people's private lives or international adventurism.  The Republican party either needs to reform its ways (which is why I am hoping they get severely spanked in this election, beyond merely losing) or a new party needs to form.  The current fetus-fetishizing, religious superstition-based fringe GOP is not going to last.
 
 You guys are gonna lose in November -- might as well start thinking about why, and restoring some intelligence and integrity to American conservatism.

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by kosmo:
  in response to bebe...
 
 i'm behind obama because i support his energy plan and because he will bring into the White House the best qualified people to serve with him, regardless ofparty affiliation.  no more partisan hacks in top positions along the lines of ashcroft, gonzales and brownie...

energy plan?  how is it any different than mccain's?  they both want renewables, they both support efficiency measures. . .mccain is more pro-nuclear than obama (which is truly the only way to meet our growing energy needs if you want to talk about carbon), and mccain wants to let states decide if they want to drill off their shore.  if anything, mccain's energy policy is more robust than obama's.....

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
 
 Fact is, you can't be a true conservative and support today's Republican party.  Conservatism is about limited government, whether in people's private lives or international adventurism.  The Republican party either needs to reform its ways (which is why I am hoping they get severely spanked in this election, beyond merely losing) or a new party needs to form.  The current fetus-fetishizing, religious superstition-based fringe GOP is not going to last.

and that is the promise that i see in mccain. . .regardless of his statements to satisfy the religious right, i know that he is fundamentally an economic conservative and federalist...that certain decisions should be left to the states, which is why, fundamentally, i am still a republican, smaller government, states rights and free trade (i'm not a Libertarian because i disagree with the Libertarian party's view of foreign policy).  the reluctant acceptance between libertarian/federalists and religious conservatives should be questioned and hopefully broken. . .
 
 btw, even though i am far from religious, i am offended by people calling religion a superstition....religion brings comfort and joy to billions of people around the world.  i hope that you didn't mean it that way, but that you instead mean the moralizing aspect of the religious "right," the "you're gonna burn in hell" part.

[sweetcell]

doomie, i agree with you on the right's obama fixation and the need for conservative reform.  i don't agree, however, that this election is in the bag for the dems.  i have two fears.
 
 one is that rove & co drop a dirty bomb in the days leading up to nov 4 - a rumor, an insinuation, a cheap shot below the belt  - something that will cause damage with the undecided and that the dems won't have time to defend themselves against in the last days.  this is the conspiracy theorist in me talking.  should this turn out to be true: ironically, this was what killed mccain's campaign in north carolina in 2000.  
 
 the other is the Bradley effect (it frustrates me to no end that race is such an issue in this country... but it is).  between this effect and the error margin of opinion polls, i cringe a little whenever a blue gloats about polling results favorable for obama.  some say there might be a reverse Bradley effect at play, but i fear that this is already reflected in the poll numbers.  the previously-mentioned effect isn't.

[sweetcell]

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
 btw, even though i am far from religious, i am offended by people calling religion a superstition....religion brings comfort and joy to billions of people around the world.  i hope that you didn't mean it that way, but that you instead mean the moralizing aspect of the religious "right," the "you're gonna burn in hell" part.

i think that's an expressions of frustration against the pervasiveness of religion in today's supposedly modern, secular society.  a religious extremists minority has, in several instances, successfully imposed its views on the rest of society.  the problem is that to many, "bringing comfort and joy to billions of people around the world" isn't a solid foundation for public policy.  religion is due respect, but not power.
 
 like yourself, a lot of republicans don't kowtow to the religious minority.  however, it's kinda gross how the current GOP party does.  the GOP has a lock on that vote and won't relinquish it in favor of a return to its true values.  boo.

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by sweetcell:
   

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
 btw, even though i am far from religious, i am offended by people calling religion a superstition....religion brings comfort and joy to billions of people around the world.  i hope that you didn't mean it that way, but that you instead mean the moralizing aspect of the religious "right," the "you're gonna burn in hell" part.

i think that's an expressions of frustration against the pervasiveness of religion in today's supposedly modern, secular society.  a religious extremists minority has, in several instances, successfully imposed its views on the rest of society.  the problem is that to many, "bringing comfort and joy to billions of people around the world" isn't a solid foundation for public policy.  religion is due respect, but not power.[/b]

see, i don't have a problem with the "pervasiveness" of religion. . .the u.s., for all intents and purposes, is NOT a secular country, it is a Christian country.  i disagree with the attempts by secularists to rid this country of any and all of its religious identities.  i don't see why there can't be a christmas tree on city owned property. . .these are not only symbols of christianity, they are also symbols of our history as a people.