Posted on 11/07/2008 10:40:35 AM PST by Traviswf
Kerry wasn’t an accident at all - there were many in the party who had liked John Kerry for a long time. He’d had a widely well regarded campaign against Bill Weld in 1996, and was well known for his Vietnam service. Howard Dean, however, had been deferred from service - and (I’m fuzzy on the details) - I believe he was skiing or something after being deferred due to his back.
After 9/11, the Dems believed they needed someone who could challenge Bush’s Commander in Chief status, and figured that getting Kerry would be a path towards that. So after Dean’s poor showing in Iowa, the party leadership and establishment flooded to Kerry.
It worked out great.
Does anyone think some sort of hippy dippy Chief of Staff would be effective? Emmanuel is widely regarded as a world class a-hole, but one who gets things done. He has both congressional and White House experience, and is someone Obama knows and trusts. Those are all the ingredients for a good Chief of Staff.
One of Clinton’s structural failings in his first administration was his inability to get the democrats in congress on board his initiatives. Obama is seeking to avoid such problems - problems he can easily have because he was only a first term senator with very few long relationships among the power brokers in the House and Senate.
I don’t believe that Emmanuel was hired to ram a liberal agenda down the throats of conservatives in Congress. That’s just not how that would work anyway...
And “my party” is not waging war against the Mormon Church on prop 8. My governor, a Republican, did not support Prop. 8. Obama never said boo about it, and has stated on numerous occasions he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. Prop. 8 was not clear cut along party lines. And I believe it’s a fight worth waging, unless you’re talking about something that crosses the line that I’m not aware of.
And I drove to Southern California because that’s where I live...(I was confused by that part of your post)
What I was trying to do was figure out exactly what the acceptable evidence was in this argument. I’m coming to understand that Freeper’s definition of “socialism” is more broad and loose than mine, and more objectionable in even small doses. I happen to think universal health care is a good idea, albeit one that everyone pays for - which is what Obama supports.
And I’m sure my folly has been refuted by everyone who already disagrees with me.
I also think “your folly has been refuted” is something you should say while wielding a sword...and possibly a mask.
Actually I completely agree with you on Emmanuel - a pretty good choice. Doesn’t really go with the whole “change” meme, but - like Joe Biden, he went with experience and competence over symbolism or any kind of narrative. Good stuff.
(sorry, nobody else is posting and I just wanted to see what it would look like if someone on the board agreed with me...)
“I’m coming to understand that Freeper’s definition of “socialism” is more broad and loose than mine, and more objectionable in even small doses.” [excerpt]Socialism...
“I also think “your folly has been refuted” is something you should say while wielding a sword...and possibly a mask.” [excerpt]Did you say Sword?
I somehow missed this post before.
You really think Obama is as bad as Mao, or Hitler, or Castro?
Aren’t we getting a LITTLE carried away with this? It doesn’t matter how charismatic a President is - he’s still only one part of 1/3 of the Government. There’s always the mid term elections, the Supreme Court, impeachment, re-election, the Washington Post, etc.
I think the belief that a President could tear apart the fabric of American democracy shows a stunning lack of faith in the American people and our system of government.
He will be, after all, JUST a President.
Not hit and run, I just can't post as frequently as some people because of life stuff. I'll try and post as long as anyone is at all interested in anything I have to say (I know many are not, which is why I'm sticking to this thread for now - since it's easy enough to avoid).
My wife won’t let me get a sword because of my daughter. My argument is that, if I get a BIG enough sword, the kid won’t even be able to lift it.
That still doesn’t fly.
And I happen to know that UHC is a bad idea.
Hawaii hospitals report losses of $150 million
Hawaii Health Care Is Called a Model for U.S.
Hawaii Abandons “Universal Healthcare”
Hawaii ending universal child health care
Long story short, it has failed to make anyone healthier.
Ayers WAS a deluded, idiot radical who was so distraught over the deaths of soldiers in Vietnam he started bombing buildings. Dumb, yes. "most violent, sociopathic left wing Raidal extremist" - I think you're inflating Ayers impact on the world by an order of magnitude.
Ayers is, now, a community activist and educator. He doesn't live in a cave or a fortress of doom. The guy doesn't even have a criminal record, unlike other members of the Underground. Ayers is just another 60s radical who flirted with socialism and communism and now participates in his community. In the suburbs.
If you think there's more nefariousness there, then by all means keep digging - but I don't think there's any there, there. And the press has been looking.
And a coffee at Ayers house was one of several that Obama had at the beginning of his campaign for State office. Unless you find more connections, I don't believe this is ever going to be an issue - as was proven when it had almost no affect when Palin and McCain hammered away at it in the final weeks of the campaign.
But - let's say Ayers was more diabolical and nefarious. Still planning some kind of insurgent action against the U.S. Having a coffee at his house and serving on some sort of planning committee with him would place Obama on the level of Mao and Hitler?
You don't have to stop dogging us over this, but I just don't think it's working.
“.....as if we on the left were less American.”
You are.
You are civil and deserve to be treated with respect. I disagree with you, but appreciate your point of view.
FBI files on Ayers...stunning really that an Ayers associate has taken over the US government.
Soon, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Syria, etc....will have moles in our gov...and have our intell.
Is that a short joke?
But of course, this is your purpose here. Downplay, attempt to diffuse.
I just don’t think its working.
If Obama rules from the center, he’ll probably survive this, politically speaking. Its up to him to prove to us we can trust him after all his lifelong associations with the radical Left. If there was a Republican in the White House who had even a tenth of the radical associations that Obama had - you guys would be doing the same thing - preparing - just in case.
If he attempts to go far Left and crush us - no American will want to see the results of such a blunder and it would be the end of America as we know it. You guys already think we’re nuts. I can assure you we’re perfectly sane, we just won’t be trampled over. We have seen it happen too many times under Marxism and we’ll not go to the box cars quietly.
Two things will radicalize your opposition and set them aflame in a way that will never restore order.
1). Any attempt at infringing on our gun ownership rights, and that includes further attempts at restriction or attempting to make them economically unattainable.
2). Any attempt to silence us by imposing a Censorship Doctrine.
Seems to me, that he can give those two items up when in reality whatever he tried to impose along those lines wouldn’t work anyway. So why even go there? Why inflame and radicalize further? Give further proof and justification? It just pushes things into more political instability.
There is really no further line he can cross with abortion, so nothing will change there on that front that would inflame this side any further than it already stays at any given time.
Attempting to put gays in the military - he will probably do that and it will cause a mass exodus out of the military. And thus ends our professional military. Still, that probably would just enrage the military. I was in when Clinton tried that - and it enraged and caused radicalization. Big blunder and he backed down. The policy in place is the best possible policy. No, you guys won’t get open gays in the military. You just need to pick middle of the road economic policies.
Don’t tread on our guns or free speech and maybe things will stabilize. I’m not holding my breath and the radicals on the Left will push him to overreach and then it will be on. In the end, they’ll regret it.
All this of course, is presuming that we don’t get to the bottom of this birthplace origin question. You know if its there - we will find it.
Thanks for that. Over the course of this ever-expanding thread, I've come to realize one of the essential problems of the far-right (FP) talking to the far-ish left (me). It's sort of like trying a court case where the prosecution and the defense have entirely different sets of evidence.
There are things that Freepers believe and conclusions you've come to based on sources and core ideology that I don't subscribe to. There is a massive disconnect between the two perceptions of what the political realities are.
And of course it doesn't help that both sides tend to scream at one another because they perceive the other as either dangerously ignorant or intentionally villainous.
There should be some sort of middle ground website between FP and Daily Kos or Democratic Underground, where only an agreed upon set of conclusions are allowed as admissible evidence.
Unfortunately, I think that site would end up having a single post that would read something like:
Michael Phelps swims good.
I think Obama absolutely HAS to govern from the center. It’s what he promised to do in his campaign, and why many independents and moderates voted for him. If he doesn’t do that in some demonstrable way - I don’t think he stands a chance at being re-elected.
I really don’t think Obama is after guns. I’m not sure why ANYONE is after guns. Is it really on anyone’s to-do list? I don’t think there’s a shred of evidence anywhere that tighter gun laws - beyond the simple enforcement of what’s on the books now - does anything to benefit anyone anywhere. It would also mean Obama would lose the support of many democrats who are pro-gun, and NEED to be pro-gun in order to get re-elected.
So I don’t think that’s going to happen. I might be wrong - but I don’t think that is on the top of anyone’s priority list.
As for the Censorship Doctrine, I have no real idea what that is. I know it has something to do with talk radio, but I don’t listen to talk radio. I tried to listen to Air America once - thinking “Hey! Talk Radio for the left, that’s awesome!” It was not awesome. It was very, very far from awesome.
See with you, all your defenses so far are along the lines of “I don’t think Obama will do this or that”.
OK, well - we do think he’ll do that. As I mentioned, its up to Obama to gain our trust and cooperation by showing he can govern from the center. Obama is the only one. He talks a good talk. Walking the walk is far harder and much different.
Most of us think he will fail that test based on the fact that he has never been center, he has never worked across the aisle, he has always been radical and always associated with the far left. We have nothing else to judge him on other than his record.
Words and soaring rhetoric are meaningless. Hitler and Stalin were both gifted, dramatic and dynamic speakers. So was Mussolini.
In a way, you are wasting your breath cause its not YOU who needs to convince us or diffuse the situation. Its Obama.
You know how to fly under the radar here. So who sent you over here? Kos? DU? How the daily reports back to HQ? I sense a promotion in your future.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.