Comments from an Obama voter (not trolling ) You've had your fun, ZOT!

Traviswf

[Traviswf]

Hi there. I voted for Obama, but have been reading a lot of Freerepublic lately to see how the other side is reacting. I'm not trying to troll here - honestly - but if you feel I am, that's understandable. I just wanted to offer a perspective on this that I think may be interesting to some of you. Oh, and this is much longer than I intended. And I'm fairly certain I'm not posting this the right way...for which I apologize.

When Bush was elected in 2000, I was upset. And yes, I whined about him "stealing" the election. I don't really think that's true anymore - it was just a painful way to lose. Sure, we can whine about the popular vote vs. the electoral vote, but you can't change the rules in the middle of the game. Then I watched the movie Recount and realized just how awful the democrats were at trying to win the damn thing. Gore seemed like he didn't really want it.

When Bush won in 2004, I was absolutely devastated. I thought the world was going to end. I didn't think we should be in Iraq, I agreed with Kerry that we had to finish the fight in Afganistan. I was worried about the courts. And frankly - I just didn't like Bush. I didn't like the way he governed, the way he spoke, and the way he talked as if we on the left were less American.

On 9/11 I happened to be in Toronto on business. When the towers fell, I knew I had to get home. A colleague and I wanted to go to New York, to help in some way. But we were told nobody was getting anywhere close. Our next instinct was to get home - to California. We didn't just want to be with our families, we desperately wanted to be in our country. That day was rough because my colleague thought his wife might have been on one of the planes - her travel plans were very similar. It took hours of agony before we, thank God, found out she was safe.

So we rented a car in Toronto and drove across the country. It took a couple hours to get across the border in the middle of the night. We stopped in Omaha, and then Colorado. I can't even tell you how much I loved my country driving across its beauty in those days after the attacks. And there were no jokes about "we're in enemy territory" because we were in "red states." We were in America. Everywhere we went people said "How are you? Is everyone safe?"

I know everyone has similar stories of those days. And certainly many, many people have stories of real loss - not just "we thought we lost someone, but it was a happy ending." Then, fairly quickly, I felt my patriotism coming under attack because I had a difference of opinion about how to fight back. I didn't think Iraq was the right choice - it made no sense to me, and I certainly wasn't alone. But people questioned my love of my country. And that was very, very hard to forgive.

When 2008 came up, more than anything, I wanted to win the White House back. I wanted to punish the Bush administration for what I felt was not just a failure to be competent, but a failure to keep the country united. I inititally supported Hilary, but I had this feeling in my gut that she was just going to be Bush - but for our side. She'd be a partisan warrior, a polarizing figure (which Bush wasn't when he started, but Hilary already was...). It made me sick to my stomach.

I wanted to go back to feeling like an American in those days after the attack - where our disagreements were things we laughed about over a beer and the real threat was far, far more serious.

I'd written Obama's candidacy off as a dry run for 2016 or later. Or maybe he was running for VP. I thought - hey, dude, at least finish a term in the Senate. Then when he said "we're not a collection of red states and blue states, we're the United States of America" it hit me like lightning. It had nothing to do with him - it had to do with the country, and my love for it and this feeling deep down in my gut that we were fighting over the placement of the deck chairs while the ship was sinking.

Wow, this got really rambly. Sorry about that. Here's why I posted initially. I saw this thing on here about Obama's "national defense force" and some posters commenting about the coming civil war or some such. I'm pretty sure Obama was just talking about funding for police. I mean - are you guys really worried he's going to do this? There was a rumor on the left that Bush was bringing a military brigade trained in "riot control" home from Iraq before the elections. People were convinced Bush was going to take over the country in a military coup. I'm sure you think that's laughable - as do I. Obama is not going to raise a civilian force of brown coats. First of all there's no money for it, nobody would go for it, and he'd be laughed out of the White House.

He's also not a socialist. And he's not coming for your guns. If he did either of this things, he can basically just go home now. Those are not realistic positions for any president to have. He will likely appoint liberals - at least too liberal for you guys - to the courts.

But here's the thing. He's going to try and be a good president. I think they all do. And Obama ran on uniting the country, on being bipartisan. That's sort of ALL he ran on. It's how he won 60% of independent and brought home so many of the Clinton voters. So if he doesn't deliver on this - I imagine he'll be fairly easy to beat in 2012.

So that's my two cents. Obama was always going to get my vote as the nominee because I'm a lifelong democrat and a liberal. But I'm not a socialist or a pacifist. I believe in the 2nd amendment and favor the idea of most issues being decided by the states. I'm not a religious man, but I respect those who are and I think the Dems over reach in pushing religion out of the public square. I believe global warming is a serious problem, but I also think Al Gore enjoys it WAY too much.

And here's another caveat. I know it's easier to be bipartisan and talk about "togetherness" when my guy won. I was where you guys are now in 2000 and 2004. I mean, my party ALMOST ran Howard Dean and then said "No wait! John Kerry is a much better idea!" Or in this election to have a friend say "You've GOT to read Alec Baldwin's latest piece on HuffPo." I mean...really? He doesn't count as an "Obamacon" you know, he only plays a republican on TV...(you guys ever notice that our most annoying Hollywood liberals end up playing republicans? what's with that?)

So yeah - we've all spent some time in the woods. I just hope we can all agree that we're just as American as the other, and we're passionate about what we believe to be the right path to take. There are real problems with the economy, and Islamic Terrorists aren't going to take a vacation for four years.

That's about it I guess. Sorry you guys lost.

[Traviswf]

I don’t think “minimizing what he did” and “defending” are the same thing. I’m saying you’re giving him too much credit as some sort of diabolical figure.

And Prairie Fire is not Ayers new book. That was a self-published pamphlet written in 1974.

And I’m not sure why giving someone a grant to educate children is a bad thing. Unless someone is aware of radical teachings Ayers has been exposing these children to.

I’m pretty sure the grant did not include the language “Children must finish program loving Marxism.”

[jwalsh07]

But, honestly, I don’t find it a completely terrible idea. I roomed with a couple of Israeli grad students one year, and they both had served in the military - as all Israelis do. And they just had more investment - more of a tangible sense of service to their country and a vested interest in the policies of their government.

Well, you certainly won't mind then if the government drafts you and your fellow travelers when the need arises. Like now for instance. Wouldn't you agree that instead of a military that votes 70-30 for the Republican candidate we should have a military that votes 52.5 to 46.5 with the liberals reprenting the 52.5? Wouldn't it be nice to have the Army reflect socitey at large?

[jwalsh07]

Is there something else that Obama is doing that is an egregious escalation of socialist philosophy that stands in direct conflict with American capitalism?

This is silly. When the government takes money from one group of people to specifically give it to another group of people that is socialism whether it's done by a Republican or a Democrat. In other words the wealth of Americans is a collective and the government takes ownership of parts of that wealth to redistribute. Classic definition of socialism.

And when the government takes ownership stakes in American auto manufacturers that is socialism writ large.

Hey, it's America. You can support socialism if you prefer. Hell almost 53% of Americans just did. Time to come out of the closet with the big S stamped on it Travis. :-}

[jwalsh07]

I don’t think “minimizing what he did” and “defending” are the same thing. I’m saying you’re giving him too much credit as some sort of diabolical figure.

I give Ayers no credit. He committed treason among numerous and sundry other crimes. He should be in jail.

And Prairie Fire is not Ayers new book. That was a self-published pamphlet written in 1974.

Yes I meant to say old book. Sorry for the confusion but nice to see you're on the ball.

And I’m not sure why giving someone a grant to educate children is a bad thing. Unless someone is aware of radical teachings Ayers has been exposing these children to.

"President Hugo Chavez, … invited guests, comrades. I’m honored and humbled to be here with you this morning. I bring greetings and support from your brothers and sisters throughout Northamerica [sic]! Welcome to the World Education Forum. Amamos la revolucion Bolivariana! ...

[M]y comrade and friend Luis Bonilla, a brilliant educator and inspiring fighter for justice … has taught me a great deal about the Bolivarian Revolution [i.e., Chavez's movement] and about the profound educational reforms underway here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution, and I’ve come to appreciate Luis as a major asset in both the Venezuelan and the international struggle—I look forward to seeing how he and all of you continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane…. [For more information on the Venezuelan socialist Luis Bonilla-Montoya, see here.]

I began teaching when I was 20 yeas old in a small freedom school affiliated with the Civil Rights Movement in the United States. The year was 1965, and I’d been arrested in a demonstration. Jailed for ten days, I met several activists who were finding ways to link teaching and education with deep and fundamental social change. They were following Dewey and DuBois, King and Helen Keller who wrote: “We can’t have education without revolution. We have tried peace education for 1,900 years and it has failed. Let us try revolution and see what it will do now.”

I walked out of jail and into my first teaching position—and from that day until this I’ve thought of myself as a teacher, but I’ve also understood teaching as a project intimately connected with social justice. After all, the fundamental message of the teacher is this: you can change your life—whoever you are, wherever you’ve been, whatever you’ve done, another world is possible. As students and teachers begin to see themselves as linked to one another, as tied to history and capable of collective action, the fundamental message of teaching shifts slightly, and becomes broader, more generous: we must change ourselves as we come together to change the world. Teaching invites transformations, it urges revolutions small and large. La educacion es revolucion!

… [I’ve] learned that education is never neutral. It always has a value, a position, a politics. Education either reinforces or challenges the existing social order, and school is always a contested space—what should be taught? In what way? Toward what end? By and for whom? At bottom, it involves a struggle over the essential questions: what does it mean to be a human being living in a human society?

Totalitarianism demands obedience and conformity, hierarchy, command and control. Royalty requires allegiance. Capitalism promotes racism and materialism—turning people into consumers, not citizens. Participatory democracy, by contrast, requires free people coming together, voluntarily as equals who are capable of both self-realization and, at the same time, full participation in a shared political and economic life.

… Venezuelans have shown the world that with full participation, full inclusion, and popular empowerment, the failing of capitalist schooling can be resisted and overcome. Venezuela is a beacon to the world in its accomplishment of eliminating illiteracy in record time, and engaging virtually the entire population in the ongoing project of education.

… [W]e, too, must build a project of radical imagination and fundamental change. Venezuela is poised to offer the world a new model of education—a humanizing and revolutionary model whose twin missions are enlightenment and liberation.

Viva Mission Sucre!

Viva Presidente Chavez!

Viva La Revolucion Bolivariana!

Hasta La Victroria Siempre!

Bill Ayers 2006

I’m pretty sure the grant did not include the language “Children must finish program loving Marxism.”

Think again Travis.

Or perhaps Hugo Chavez is just another misunderstood educator?

[Traviswf]

But what you’re describing here has such a broad definition that it means the U.S, has been, in one way or another, socialist since the inception of an income tax.

Do I need to back up my assumption of what you guys are talking about and realize that Freerepublic favors a full abolishing of the income tax? Or taxes of any kind?

Because pretty much since the 20th century, the government has been taking money from one group of people and giving it to another group of people in one way or another.

If you pay taxes in Maine, and the government builds a highway that runs across the Southern part of the country - that’s socialist?

Is using taxpayer money to fund the space program - which primarily benefits those living in and around Cape Canaveral and other space centers socialism?

An argument could be made that money spent on every weapons system ever, was socialist - because it benefits one sector of the population and not others. You can make a broader argument that the weapon system will contribute to the national security - but you can, and many economists have, make the argument that middle class tax cut benefits the economy as a whole because the driving engine of the economy is the sale and purchase of consumer goods and without a tax cut - the consumer index goes down which - matched with the credit crunch and mortgage meltdown - leads to a seizing up of our economy’s gears and then...I dunno. Maybe Thunderdome.

I think we’re all just trying to avoid Thunderdome.

And the government is not coming in to take over industry in a hostile manner. They’re not even taking over, they’re buying up bad debt and keeping them solvent. These industries were asking for help. The way the airline industry was when it basically collapsed after 9/11. I don’t think anyone is looking for a scenario in which the government owns everything - these were drastic measures that a Republican president took to - hopefully - prevent a massive, and likely global, financial meltdown.

So if that’s supporting socialism - then fine. Give me the big S. I think what is happening now was necessary - and there are guys with Nobel prizes, decades of experience and very high placed jobs in corporations who agree with that. There’s lots of disagreement over the specifics and the balance being struck between “The Big S” and maintaining the integrity of our private markets - but there was a near consensus all over the financial world that without intervention - we were facing an economic calamity of unspeakable proportions.

There are some who say that is still coming, and we maybe only softened the blow a bit. I hope they’re wrong.

But I don’t think just because something fits the definition of socialism, it is evil. I mean...isn’t the post office, technically, a “socialist” program? I think the Union has done okay since its inception.

Do I think that American democracy is so fragile that adopting any kind of socialist policy will somehow lead us down the path to communism or autocracy? No, I don’t.

The Left believed that The Patriot Act was going to do this, and that the Bush administration was power grabbing or overstepping - and in some cases, they were. The courts stepped in, we had an election, things have come to light - it was never as bad as some feared - and the country came through okay.

[Traviswf]

That still doesn’t mean Ayers was getting money to indoctrinate children. If you have evidence of that - then fine.

And I’m not trying to defend Ayers. I don’t care about Ayers. To me he’s a “legend in his own mind” as one other Chicago political organizer put it. He’s a mainstream part of Chicago politics now - no matter what he was in the past.

The links between Obama and Ayers are tenuous at best. The guy is a non entity.

I’m confused as to why you guys are still hung up on this. This was blasted from the rooftops during the campaign and almost nobody cared. It certainly wasn’t a winning strategy for McCain and Palin.

[jwalsh07]

But what you’re describing here has such a broad definition that it means the U.S, has been, in one way or another, socialist since the inception of an income tax.

No, I was very specific. I stated that taking money from one group of people and giving it to another group of people is socialist. This is a far cry from all contributing a portion of their earnings to build and maintain things that benefit all. But that said America has been on a slow slide to socialism for some time. It's now accelerating.

Senator Obama speaks constantly about sacrifice. Of course Senator Obama and Senator Biden have sacrificed nothing, a casual look at their military service or charitable donations over the years before Senator Obama hit it big with his book is a fine testament to that fact. But if Senator Obama has his way a majority of the electorate will pay NO federal income tax. So my question to you is, where is the sacrifice Travis? What have you sacrificed?

I'm not opposed to taxes. We need to all contribute to infrastructure, the military etc. I am opposed to unlimited government and I'll tell you why.

I witnessed close and in person Lyndon Johnson's Great Society which ravaged the urban family, left young men without fathers and filled up prisons. That was all predictable. When the state becomes the Daddy there is no reason for the Daddy to be at home with the youngsters. When the state offers incentives to move the Daddy out of the house, guess what, the Daddy leaves. Liberalism, the democrat kind that is, is a failure. One need only look at what Johnson wrought to understand that.

So now we have another liberal POTUS with large majorities in each chamber. History tells me this is not going to turn out well. Individual responsibility, freedom and strong families are not fed by Daddy Government and that's exactly where we are once again heading.

And by the way, since you favor Senator Obama's plan to mandate community service do you also favor being drafted for the common good? I am quite interested in your response to that question I posed above.

[jwalsh07]

That still doesn’t mean Ayers was getting money to indoctrinate children. If you have evidence of that - then fine.

LOL, you're a smart guy, don't jump off the deep end into supercilious nonsense.

As for Ayers, like I said he means nothing to me except he's just one more scumbag that beat the system. Crap happens. I'm just disabusing you of the notion that Ayers is a just a happy go lucky patriotic American going about his days teaching children about all the good America has brought to this world we live in.

And Obama funded Ayers, there is no debate there. Why he funded Ayers is the debate and we will probably never know so we are both left to form our own opinions there. The American way, right Travis?

[Traviswf]

Obama doesn’t have a plan to mandate community service.

And I didn’t support the idea, I said I found it interesting. Which was an offhanded comment based on a couple of Israelis I knew, and their experience with mandatory service.

[jwalsh07]

Obama doesn’t have a plan to mandate community service.

This is false. His plan is to rescind education funds to schools that don't join in the Obama youth movement. That Travis is a mandate.

And I didn’t support the idea, I said I found it interesting. Which was an offhanded comment based on a couple of Israelis I knew, and their experience with mandatory service.

LOL, good for thee but not for me.

Have to go now. Perhaps you can take a shot at the economic questions I posed sometime. I'll check back.

While I doubt we agree on much of anything policy wise I admire your willingness to engage in debate. I used to do that at the New York Times with the liberals many years ago. I was banished permanently, not for crassness or language, but because I had strong views. Such is life. I hope you don't get banished.

Adios Travis.

[JamesP81]

Interesting post with an interesting perspective. There's one thing you said that really got my attention:

I believe in the 2nd amendment and favor the idea of most issues being decided by the states.

As do I. More than anything else, I think this is the model our country should go to. It would solve the lion's share of problems we're having. The problem is that I don't think Obama wants this. His support for universal healthcare is among the chief examples of taking power away from the states or the people and transferring it to the federal government. I would be the first to support Obama if he turned out to be a federalist, but that's just not part of his political makeup. Unless he's a closet conservative and he's been pulling a fast one on the entire liberal voting public, an idea which I think is moving fairly close to tin foil hat territory.

[Traviswf]

“Well, read up on it from our perspective. I’m not typing up the dissertation tonight, too much to go in to. Yes, Air America sucks and Liberal radio doesn’t sell which is validation that the nation is Center-Right.”

I somehow missed this before, but I thought I’d refute this point. Just because conservative talk radio does better than liberal talk radio doesn’t prove it’s a center-right country. After all, the mainstream media is far, far more successful than talk radio, which is more of a niche market.

When you add up television and film, which I would guess you guys feel has, overall, a liberal slant - as well as cable news (except Fox), network news, and then news magazines and so forth - I think you’re looking at an argument that the country is center left.

The difference is, much of the national media is just that - national. Whereas talk radio is more targeted in its markets - and thus thrives in the deeper red parts of the country.

[FTL]

Ok, so let’s assume what you say is true. If the media dominates the message, and it slants left as you claim that it proves the nation is Left, then why do the Democrats want to take it one step further and silence the Conservative voice of opposition and free speech via radio?

The Liberal message should be able to stand on its own, on radio, or not at all. The real question is why can’t it stand on its own?

Cmon, we all know the deal here. Truth is, they want to completely shut us up. And that’s just plain unAmerican, and could trigger major civil unrest which could evolve into something massive.

Don’t think that only blacks are capable of rioting and mayhem. Only difference is blacks make up only 13% of the populace and of that amount only a fraction cause civil unrest. Conservatives number roughly half of the evenly divided nation. The vote never represents the actual demographics, it only represents those that made it to the polls or decided to vote in this election.

Fact is, in ever election the MAJORITY of the population simply doesn’t vote.

The popular vote was very close. The Democrats committed the largest vote fraud in history and its still going on as we speak. Subtract the cheater votes, and I’d say we are about divided down the middle.

I don’t think anyone is real eager to test those odds. They take away our free speech, and that will be about as close to a declaration of war on us, as trying to infringe on our rights to KABA.

[Traviswf]

The democrats actually didn’t commit voter fraud (that we know of, so far). There were no significant charges or reports of voter fraud. There was much sturmundrang about voter fraud from the right, just as there was breathless cries about “voter suppression” from the left. Both charges have become par for the course of the legal strategies built into both sides since 2000.

I actually attended a Kerry legal fundraiser in 2004 to prepare for potential legal battles surrounding that election and was told by someone who works on the legal side of these things that armies of lawyers being employed and deployed on election day has become the norm on both sides of the fence. It’s just a fact of our process now, thanks to Florida. If you’ve seen the movie Recount - or read about what happened surrounding it - you’ll see that the Republicans got there first, thanks to James Baker.

In the movie, there’s a great exchange - which was fictional - but I think properly captured the two mindsets of that fight.

Warren Christopher, representing Gore says “We’re going to do this in full accordance with the election laws, and in an orderly fashion...”

And then it cuts to Baker who says “Make no mistake about it ladies and gentlemen, this is a street fight for the presidency of the United States.”

Clearly, Baker had the right idea - since we’re not finishing up Gore’s first term. If you look at the count in Missouri right now, it’s easy to imagine a scenario where we could still be awaiting the outcome of the election - with armies of lawyers arguing all over the map.

While there WERE charges of voter registration fraud from low wage ACORN people who cheated on their registration forms to get paid. But voter registration fraud is very different - and far more common - than voter fraud.

You can register “Mickey Mouse” in order to collect the $8, but getting Mickey to actually show up to vote is another thing entirely. Clearly ACORN needs to do things differently, but I believe it’s far more difficult to perpetrate voter fraud, which carries very serious penalties - then voter registration fraud - which does not.

And the “fairness doctrine” isn’t really a cause celebre on the left. Obama doesn’t support it, nobody even proposed anything in the last session. I think the left feels slandered by the right, which is just a constant and steady stream of unchallenged, and often false, information.

Also - the “fairness doctrine” as I understand it in a historical context, means that stations that air conservative programs would have to, in some way, present the opposing side in some fashion - and not even in equal time. I don’t think this is something that is really being pursued aggressively - again, it’s not even supported by President Elect Obama - but at the end of the day, it seems far more benign than some on the right have presented it.

While I agree that the Pelosis of the world would love for conservative radio to shut up, she likely harbors no delusions that she has the ability to shut them up. It’s just not something that passes even the briefest of constitutional smell tests.

You really think conservatives would riot over talk radio? I mean...really?

And if you want MY take on why the liberal message can’t stand on its own on radio - it’s because the left isn’t taken to the same kind of ideological rigidity as the right. There’s just no figure on the left that has ever risen to the status of having “ditto heads” like a Rush Limbaugh. The democratic party doesn’t have this sort of unity either. But that’s just MY take, based on wholly unscientific anecdotal evidence.

I’ve never gone in for liberal talk radio or the like because I think it’s intellectually shallow and favors ideological purity over reason and honest argument. I find no value in an echo chamber. I once listened to - I believe it was Randi Rhodes? - who was just laying into Bush for something benign. Now, I agreed with her politics on the subject, the premise of what she was saying - but it was SOO clear that she was stretching the truth and feigning outrage in order to fill air time. She had to talk about SOMETHING for the 4 hours she was on. I just remember getting mad that an intellectually dishonest liberal was making me mentally defend Bush - even if it was on a technicality.

Wow...this post was long. I’m overcompensating because so few others are still posting on this thread...

[RetiredArmy]

Pal, you speak of driving across the red states and how you felt about being back in your country, yet you vote for an unadulterated America hating Marxist. Go back to DU you bum. I am a retired military man, and I would not give you the stinking time of day. People like you who hide behind the freedom that men and women have given their lives for, all in the name of whining, wanting free stuff, save the stinking trees when we have more acres of trees now in this country than when Columbus came here. Don't just go away, GO AWAY NOW! Stay away. We don't need you or the likes of you to survive as a nation. This Republic has enough losers in it. You and Obama are just two of millions of them.

[strider44]

That was a nice thoguhtful post. thanks for being so sensitive and understanding. As I get ready for another year-long tour of Iraq I will take your words to heart and know that you obama guys are actually swell. One more thing...Go F*ck yourself.

[PsyOp]

Boy are you going to be disappointed. Should have done your homework on this guy. He is, fact a socialist. He has, in fact, been part and parcel of every gun ban in Chicago and ILL. And if he does even half of the things he has promised, he's going to crash what is left of the economy.

Speaking of the economy, don't you think (do Dems think? or do they only feel?), it ironic that someone who, as a community organizer, helped train Acorn people in the bully tactics they used to force Chicago banks to make bad loans points the finger at Bush, who several times tried, with McCain, to get legislative action going to reign in Fanny and Freddy, only to blocked by the Senate committee Obama sat on? Look it up. Its in the congressional record.

Its like calling in the fox to patrol the hen house. Democrats are such colossal idiots.

[nuf said]

I never assume a lib to be rational. They are emotionally driven and manipulated as such.