What does he need to do to close the deal?
IN THE COMMENTS:
1. Some people want me to answer the question for myself, but have you forgotten that I've taken a vow of cruel neutrality? Obama is not the one to close the deal with me. The grand force of time will close it. One way of the other.
2. Ricpic says something that makes me propose a "Waiting for Godot" parody contest.
१८ ऑगस्ट, २००८
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१०१ टिप्पण्या:
Blogger heal thyself. What does Obama need to do to get you to vote for him? Or conversely, what could he do to lose your vote?
What does he need to do to close the deal?
Aquire integrity.
Work in the Senate for another term, and show that he can actually move major legislation.
Accomplish something more than polished teleprompter reading.
So many things, so little space on your comment page.
“But I'm tetchy. I keep digging into his biography, and finding places where what he says doesn't line up with what he did.”
Maybe he used Hillary’s ghost writer!
“…are reliable Democrats (except for one or two!!), people who volunteer for campaigns put bumper stickers on their cars, sometimes hand out leaflets in front of the local grocery store.”
Is Kumbayah their national anthem too? They are only reliable if they vote. All the rest is just fluff.
“…a woman wearing peace symbol earrings who grimly said "I really don't think he's going to win."
Of course he is not going to win. Hillary is. He gave the nomination and the convention over to her. He lost through his own gullibility.
“What's the deal? And what should the Democrats do?”
Hmm, stop living their Sixties college protest days and start acting like responsible adults? Stop talking about raising taxes, as if punishing the population is the balm that will heal collectivist sins? Stop being whiners? Maybe they could have done the right thing- told Hillary and Obama to piss up a rope and provided a real, solid, leader to run. But, they will always live in the age of Aquarius and not the real world.
O provided a great first date for the committed, policy oriented Dems -- so cool, they really swooned -- but O hasn't shown anything new or interesting to keep that feeling alive. His campaign is still all about biography, and as it turns out, there's not much to that either. These are the voters who want O to show them the Promised Land, after all these years wandering in the desert. Instead, he's showing them nuance, as he tries to cozy up to the other side. (What's he doing with Pastor Rick, for heavens sake?) To the committed Dems, it all comes across as confusion, bordering on betrayal.
Why did they like him in the first place? Oh, yeah, and they remember. But it's not enough, even for them.
It turns out that they've had enough of cool, and are looking for something hot. O is not delivering.
It's been recently reported that Amway is changing back it's name back to "Amway" from "Quixtar". It was thought previously that changing the name and packaging would help negate some of the negative buzz about Amway.
I have no opinion on the value of Amway. I'm only saying that the same product was in a "new" package, and people bought it.
Obama is an exciting "new" brand name and package with buzz words like "Change!" and "Together!".
But inside, it's the same Democrat products they've been selling for 50 years.
I think the doubt started as HRC started clicking at the end of the primary season, and it became obvious to the non nutroots crowd that Obama was all show. And he has been unable to triangulate like Bill Clinton could. Part of that could be that the far left has become increasingly polarized and may hold him to his Senatorial and primary promises. Finally, all of this assumes that the democratic party is one coherent body that shares the same view--IMO the old two party structure is fracturing into far left, middle left, middle right and far right blocs that party leaders can no longer hold together.
Why are so many Republicans still doubting McCain? I think either question can be asked.
It'll be an interesting two weeks, between now and the end of the Conventions.
This is off topic -- but can anyone explain to me the Olympic ad where the guy is making reservations for the 6-mo anniversary -- while ironing a dress for a 3-year-old? And what's he doing at the end of that ad?
Professor A, you need more posts about the Olympics! Poor Nastia!
More estrogen!
What does he need to do to close the deal?
Grow a pair.
(Someone had to state the obvious.)
i would say it was pretty self evident in his last debate with hillary. remember his lackluster performance which the netroots and media blamed on the cone of silen...err, abc moderators?
"but can anyone explain to me the Olympic ad where the guy is making reservations for the 6-mo anniversary -- while ironing a dress for a 3-year-old? And what's he doing at the end of that ad"
He's supposed to be too-good-to-be-true, because he's a good looking guy planning a celebration of his anniversary while taking care of stereotypically girly chores. Just like the car they are advertising is too-good-to-be-true, except that it exists.
I think he is cleaning a toilet at the end.
To paraphrase a column that I read earlier this summer – it’s our (dems) own fault. We have no one to blame but ourselves. We ignored the realities of what his inclusiveness, from-the-ground-up message meant. We ignored his fairly centrist voting record. We projected a 60’s type of coming together. Where exactly did we think this gathering was going to take place – left field? And now we’re whining that it’s not.
Republicans doubted McCain, because they weren't sure of his priorities.
After last Saturday, he's assuaged many/most of those doubts.
Re the Dems -- well, he does kinda look like the other candidates nominated by the left wing of the party. They tend to lose big.
Is Obama the transformational guy, or is he another spectacular flameout?
wanderlust747 said...
remember his lackluster performance which the netroots and media blamed on the cone of silen...err, abc moderators?
He continues to underwhelm everybody once they wake up from the spechifying. Obama's main meme seems to be that somebody else is always responsible for his underperforming.
I think he's going to lose, then we're going to hear about how racist the voters are and how the election was stolen from the annointed one.
PS: Growing a pair as big as Hillary's would satisfy a lot of people. I for one really dislike Hillary's policies but I thought she was tough enough to be President. Ultimately the Public wants a guy/gal as President that is going to keep us safe and stand up to interests, inside and outside the country. Obama looks limp wristed...
Well, McCain supporters, we should all enjoy this small respite of joy in the "McCain won glow" while we can.
Because today, all the debates and all the Obama imagery will be controlled by the Main Strem media, where any McCain "attack" on Obama will be immediately questioned or countered by the media themselves. And where in any article on McCain, Obama's people will always get the last word.
What does he need to do to close the deal?
Because it's August and there isn't anything to close yet?
Why can't McCain "close the deal" then? If Obama is so horrible and McCain has all this experience he should be up double digits.
Why are so many Republicans still doubting McCain? I think either question can be asked.
But they're nowhere near the same thing. Republicans doubt McCain because his bona fides as a conservative are in doubt. There's no doubting Obama's liberal bona fides, so doubts about him from his fellows comes from something else. My guess is that there are doubts about whether he (1) can win, and (2) has what it takes to do the job.
If Obama quickly underwent a sex change, then the women would vote with him, and get over the Hillary thing?
More estragon!
100% wrong.
If, on the other hand, rh had posted, More testosterone! he'd have been on to something.
Obama has to capture, or at least not put off, blue collar white skin Democrats, Reagan Democrats, to win. Projecting unapologetic manliness would go a long way toward corralling them. But he doesn't have it in him to do that, not by temperament and decidedly not by the feminized campus culture that has formed him. So he's going to lose.
Unless...unless the Dems can orchestrate a massive enough turnout of dead people and illegal aliens at the polls come November. ;^)
BTW: Palladian, that limp wristed comment was not intended as gay basjing in your direction, but rather toward the latte sipping, World Government, anti-american wing of the Democrat party. The Heinz Kerry wing if you prefer :)
Oops. Estrogen not estragon. Estragon would make Obama vinegary, which would be good.
I believe that government exists in no small part to counterbalance the powerful and wealthy.
Too bad that often means by taking power and wealth from people like me, neither powerful or wealthy.
But MM is right, many republicans doubt McCain and so this comes down to turn out moreso than persuading undecideds.
Re: The All New Chevy Traverse Crossover ad.
It's the perfect meeting of beauty and function. Get it? He's a beautiful guy [objectively gorgeous, but also emotionally lovely because, he's planning a 6 month 'anniversary' which is usually the domain of high school young women...tracking anniversaries before you've even gotten married, but are only dating for six months] AND he functions [making reservations while ironing, followed by the oh-my-gosh-I'm-having-an-orgasm scrubbing of toilets.]
I laughed out loud. My husband didn't get it. I must be Chevy's demographic.
An estragon is a geometric figure made with female curves.
Why are so many Democrats still doubting Obama?
Cruel neutrality, of course.
Grow a pair.
Maybe he could ask for his back from Jesse?
I was a tepid Clinton supporter, not a fan by any means. But I thought that out of the very weak field of candidates she'd do the best job in the office (and still do as unlikely as that seems now).
For a long time I thought that if Obama ended up winning then I'd switch to him the way I switched to Kerry in 04 (though he wasn't even a top three choice for me early on IIRC).
Well Obama has all but been named candidate and a strange thing happened - I'm not on board. I'm not a McCain supporter by any means and have _no_ intention of voting for him. Unless something drastic happens I'll probably abstain from the presidential election (as in 1988 where I couldn't muster up enough enthusiasm or distaste for either candidate to actually vote for or against them) or go with a third party candidate (as in 1980 when I went Libertarian - before they went completely nuts).
I'm not entirely sure why and have spent some time trying to analyze it to no firm conclusions.
One thing I absolutely _hated_ was his "they're gonna tell you" remarks. By mixing in legitimate and racist arguments, the legitimate arguments against him suddenly take on racial undercurrents so that someone who points out that his resume is thin is suddenly tarred as a racist.
"More estragon"? Now, I want to see a parody of "Waiting for Godot"... Here's the text to work with.
Obviously, Obama is Estragon, and McCain is Vladimir.
I'll wait... hoping for some frontpageable stuff.
See, I couldn't even tell it was a toilet, and why's he ironing a little girl's dress if it's a 6-month anniversary? (FTR, the son and daughter were as mystified as I).
But the explanations here make a twisted kind of sense, I guess, but I gotta question an ad that perplexes a viewer.
MM, I put up a post for you.
Winds of Change wrote:
I'm feeling it as well. I'm still a solid vote for Obama, but when I sit down and write checks, somehow I just never bring myself to write one for him.
"Eloquent" = check
"Experienced" = check
"Not like other politicians" = check (removed check after FISA vote)
"African-American" = check
If I'm a Democrat, I'm looking at this guy and see way too many scare quotes.
He's not eloquent. He's not experienced, turns out he's like any politician and is a double-talker, and even his race is problematic.
Maybe they're still willing to vote for him because he excites a primordial part of Democrats. After all, he is ideologically-sound.
But then they look around and see they're not the only ones voting this November.
He fails in the most important category for a Presidential candidate. Does he inspire enough confidence for swing voters to swing definitively to him?
No.
His background is cloudy. His associates are messed up and anti-American. He and his wife have a Billary Part Deux air to them. He's not the guy you want to have a beer with.
They can't see a guy like this winning, and that's why they can't go over the top into No Man's Land for him.
Cheers,
Victoria
Oh, and since the guy is too good to be true, obviously the ad is relevant to a discussion on why Candidate x can't close the deal: Because he's too good to be true.
I think it more likely that Obama (vs. McCain) has cleaned the toilets in his house. By virtue of his naval service -- and age, McCain may have cleaned more toilets in his life, but I think Obama is more likely to have cleaned a toilet in the immediate past.
I don't think that will influence my vote decision, however.
I'm not a McCain supporter by any means and have _no_ intention of voting for him. Unless something drastic happens I'll probably abstain from the presidential election
Well, we're on opposite sides of the fence, but I would remind you to not sit out the election - your local candidates need your vote.
Meanwhile precious few Republican politicians and their voters "doubt" any of the following:
1)The United States' global economic and political interests, at least as determined by Republicans, are to be held as interchangable with the global good. Trust Republicans when they call for War. What they say is worth dying and killing for, is.
2)The only Americans who do not thrive in the concrete jungle of laissez faire capitalism, fail to thrive because they are lazy.
3)There was once a 'before time' when America was properly godly and moral. That golden 'before time' was reflected by objective documentaries like "Happy Days" and "Father Knows Best."
4)When government attempts to enforce 'before time' morality on people, well dang it, it's about time.
When government levies taxes on industry, it is being invasive.
Nice distinction.
I reach across the aisle to encourage an "enemy" to at least go out and vote for his local candidates.
Harrogate follows up with some partisan rant about conservative strawman.
Strawmen? Are you kidding?
You, friend, might benefit from reading Conservative bloggers & columnists and listening to Talk Radio. Start with Townhall.com.
Oh and then of course by listening to the politicians themselves. Bush and McCain being great places to start.
The correct phrase is 'my friend', not just 'friend'.
We're not Quakers here, after all.
Madison Man wrote:
I think it more likely that Obama (vs. McCain) has cleaned the toilets in his house. By virtue of his naval service -- and age, McCain may have cleaned more toilets in his life, but I think Obama is more likely to have cleaned a toilet in the immediate past.
Given what I know of the military and its officer corps, I would say that McCain did a lot of toilet scrubbing as a midshipman. After his commission? Not so much. He might have at the Hanoi Hilton if they didn't just shit in a dirt hole there. But that would have been laughable hazing compared to the real torture he actually suffered.
The thing about the ad is that it's meant to be a flirty fantasy...you know...the perfect man fantasy. The only thing they left out was Mr. Perfect stopping and asking for directions while fetching chocolate and People magazine for his infirmed beloved.
I am not horny today.
My parents went to an Alheimers meeting with Tammy Baldwin and loved her.
She's pretty for a lesbian.
My parents love Feingold.
I could totally see Althouse and Feingold as a couple.
They would be Madison's power couple. Or is it Middleton?
The deal closes November 4. Mid-August -- the silly season -- is no time to close the deal. This is time to go to the beach, visit Grandma, read a few mindless novels, eat some hot dogs, throw the Frisbee around.
Besides, "closing the deal" too early leads to buyers' remorse. His luster and sheen will wear off for even the most devout Obamahead. For now, Obama can remain safely bland and unpolarizing. He shouldn't rise to McCain's bait -- dancing to your opponent's tune makes you look weakest of all. And Obama needs to delay trotting out McCain's negatives till closer to the election, so they're fresh in the voters' minds when they go in the booth. McCain won't be able to suppress his choleric personality indefinitely -- his blowing up will contrast nicely with Obama's Mr. Cool.
Has Ann discussed four-humour theory here? Obama is phlegmatic; McCain is choleric. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_humours
What does he need to do to close the deal?
Bathe in bleach.
Mort--is that before or after the convention? Are you suggesting democrats are racist? I only thought republicans hear the whistle.
Mortimer Brezny said...
"What does he need to do to close the deal? Bathe in bleach."
Ah, a preview of coming attractions... Remember, if you're against Obama, it's only because you're a racist. If Obama loses it's only because we're a racist country. This meme is going to be repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, because Obama and his supporters think that white guilt is good for a handful of votes. By casting opposition to Obama as racism, they want to scare a handful of voters into voting for Obama just to prove to themselves that they aren't racists. And if the strategy doesn't work, it also provides a neat excuse to pre-delegitimize the McCain administration.
"We're not Quakers here, after all."
Wait a minute. JohnK is here and a valued commenter and he is a Quaker. I mean I am a good mackerel snapper and am waiting for the pope to tell me who to vote for but let's not shun our Quaker buddies.
Who else is going to bring the oatmeal?
It's true: Obama is Estragon to McCain's Vladimir.
Ergo: no matter how long the Luckyless voters wait
ImPozzoble that these bums will make Godot appear.
He wants to dramatically reduce spending on new weapons systems that are needed to fight the war on terror and deter potential enemies such as Russia and China.
Obama wants to dramatically increase taxes and government spending. In Obama-land every problem can be solved with new taxes and government checks.
He wants to negotiate, with no preconditions, with every terrorist, thug, and tin-pot dictator on the planet.
His energy policy amounts to telling people to properly inflate their tires.
Obama and his wife have made several comments that would lead a reasonable person to believe that he holds our country and people in contempt. His poor choice of associates strongly reinforces this image.
He has two Ivy League degrees, has served as a state legislator and a US Senator but has accomplished almost nothing concrete.
If he and his cult-like gaggle of supporters weren't so creepy I would say he was just like those kids we all knew in high school who couldn't really do anything except pad their resumes by getting themselves elected class president and joining the model UN. Unfortunately, he seems much, much worse. His crap about "change" doesn't fool me. I sniff a distinct odor or crypto-socialism in the air.
I doubt that voters will be fooled either.
"What does he need to do to close the deal?
Bathe in bleach."
You should try it first, Mort. Make sure you put your head under and try to drink a little as well.
Nobody who reads your pro-McCain blog could possibly take that "cruel neutrality" business seriously. Many Republicans cant' stand McCain, but you'd never post about that.
Anyway, nobody takes your fake vow seriously, professor. Just wanted to clue you in.
Why are people with pseudonyms like "impartial observer" and "integrity" always complete and total douche-bags?
50 overs would have been much more elegant than the ungainly 61 overs you insisted on piling up, Simon.
It is, like it or not, a race thing. To close the deal, Obama must do better with white voters.
He can, if (1) he stops insinuating that he may be disadvantaged in the contest because he is black, (2) he stops talking gobbeldy-gook whenever asked a question that might require questioning liberal orthodoxy,(3) he somehow drops the implication that he is doing mankind a favor by running for president, (4) he makes it clear that he understands that people's everyday concerns of taxes, education, prices, etc. In short, more humility, less self pity, more clarity.
This guy has nearly 100% of 11% of the electorate locked up! If he can't close the deal with that head start, he doesn't deserve to be president.
"he stops talking gobbeldy-gook"
You're a racist!!!
Simon:
Did you individually type all those 'and over's or did you have a shortcut?
No, if I had said "mumbo-jumbo" I'd be a racist.
J.K. Rowling, rascist:
"J.K. Rowling makes "Gobbledegook" the language of goblins in the Harry Potter novels, specifically Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, in which Albus Dumbledore and Bartemius Crouch can speak gobbledegook fluently. Ludo Bagman knows one word: Bladvak ("pickaxe")."
From Wikipedia
"It is, like it or not, a race thing"
It may be for you and a small minority of those who will vote against and FOR Obama merely based on his skin color.....but for most people I know it has to do with ideology and political positions. His are completely opposite of everything I believe in.
I don't give a big rat's ass if my not voting for Obama makes me a racist in your or anyone else's eyes.
By the warped standards of today's overly politically correct fascist left. Gobbledy GOOK can be just as racists as Mumbo Jumbo or Shuck and Jive. If you actively seek to find racism in innocuous expressions you will find it. The issue is that if you do that too many times, like the boy who cried wolf, you will be ignored to your peril when true racism occurs.
JohnK is here and a valued commenter and he is a Quaker.
You know I wrote that and then remembered a thread a while back that brought this fact out. Only I couldn't remember who it was.
My inner light must be dimming.
Thank thee, Friend York.
Ruth Anne Adams said...
"Simon: Did you individually type all those 'and over's or did you have a shortcut?"
I typed "over and " then copied it and held down command-V until it looks suitably silly.
Palladian said...
Why are people with pseudonyms like "impartial observer" and "integrity" always complete and total douche-bags?
They are the products of interbreeding between the Mortimer Snerd family.
former law student said...
The deal closes November 4. Mid-August -- the silly season -- is no time to close the deal. This is time to go to the beach, visit Grandma, read a few mindless novels, eat some hot dogs, throw the Frisbee around.
fls gets the most intelligent comment of the day award.
Dust Bunny--
Stop sweeping under the bed and read more carefully, if you can.
First, I didn't bring up the supposed "racist" implication of gobbeldy-gook. Another commenter did and I think that person was kidding. As to the possible racist implication of mumbo-jumbo (which I deliberately did not use), my source is Henry Louis Gates
Second, I was actually trying to answer the question Ann posed, a rarity in the comments sometimes.
The question was "what does Obama need to do to close the deal."
I answered that question, and I think a lot of the answer is that he has to do better with whites. My answer has nothing to do with whether I base my own voting decisions on race.
You will understand what is going around you better if you stop looking for opportunities to show how righteous you are.
"First, I didn't bring up the supposed "racist" implication of gobbeldy-gook. Another commenter did and I think that person was kidding."
Yes and no on the kidding part. It seemed to me that he was pointing out how ridiculous the charges of racism have been lately. Your innoncent use of a term 'gobbeldy good' is just about as much of a racist remark as calling an office where paperwork is routinely lost 'a black hole'. The same moron who objected to black hole as a racist slur also took on the racism inherent in cake. He was serious.
The mere idea that if Obama loses it MUST be because all us typical white folks have to be racists is just as ridiculous. It won't be because people just didn't want to vote for him or disagreed with his policies. Oh no!! It absolutlely must be racism. I'm so sick of this whole thing.
It isn't that he has to do better with "whites". White, black, brown, yellow..... He needs to be more centrist where more people are coming from politically, and he needs to really mean it. Not just fake it as he is now. People can sniff out a phony.
"gobbledy gook" Proof reading a lost art on my part. /sigh
Dust Bunny-
Easy, Dusty. You are getting all worked up.
I ask you to read my original post again and find the part where I say that people who vote against Obama are racists.
The fact that white voters are tired of the Jesse Jackson style of race politics doesn't make them racists. Obama himself has said that he knows he has to make the case to white voters--that he has to overcome the race centered image that other black politicians have embraced.
Obama still hasn't made that case fully, partly because while his rhetoric is different, his policies don't seem to be. Even if Jessee Jackson wants to cut his nuts off.
There are clearly some voters who will not vote for Obama because he is black. How many, we will never know. There were voters who were not inclined to vote for Kennedy because he was Roman Catholic. Kennedy confronted that both directly, and with humor, charm and a largely centrist policy. (Watch the Kennedy-Nixon debates and see how many times they say they agree on policy. That would not happen today.)
Obama must know that he has to do the same.If his advisers are not reminding him of that, they are not serving him well.
"The mere idea that if Obama loses it MUST be because all us typical white folks have to be racists is just as ridiculous. It won't be because people just didn't want to vote for him or disagreed with his policies. Oh no!! It absolutlely must be racism. I'm so sick of this whole thing."
Dust Bunny, the thing is, after eight years of Republicans doing damage in multiple fronts. All the incompetence. The unaccountability. The quagmires, at home and abroad.
After all this, those who will vote McCain this time around will either be seen as Racist, or they will cede to your wish, and say that you voted how you did for ideological reasons: i.e., you think things have been going great,
Don't be so sure that "racist" is the least flattering of the two explanations for voting McCain '08.
After all this, those who will vote McCain -
You've confused your strawmen again. McCain is viewed by the GOP as an enemy of the current administration. Not a repeat of it.
If Mort were awake he would tell you that "gobbley gook" is only racist if you were referring to the Japanese guy in the hot dog eating contest in Coney Island.
Don't be so sure that "racist" is the least flattering of the two explanations for voting McCain '08.
I've already stated that I'm not voting for McCain. I wouldn't vote for Obama, ever. I'm just not voting for President at all this year because my vote doesn't count and never has counted in the State that I live in. I refuse to vote for someone that I don't agree with their policies. I may write in a name.
To say that if people don't vote for Obama they're racist is offensive. A vote against Obama no matter who is running is a wise thing IMNSHO. There couldn't be worse economic policies than those proposed by Obama. If you want to think the economy has been bad under Bush (and it hasn't until the last 6 months) just wait until you see the debacle that Obama will cause. Recession if not a downright depression.
Pro McCain Godot:
MCCAIN: Did you ever read the Bible?
OBAMA: The Bible . . . (He reflects.) I must have taken a look at it.
MCCAIN: Do you remember the Gospels?
OBAMA: I remember the maps of the Holy Land. Coloured they were. Very pretty. The Dead Sea was pale blue. The very look of it made me thirsty. That's where we'll go, I used to say, that's where we'll go for our honeymoon. We'll swim. We'll be happy.
MCCAIN: You should have been a poet.
OBAMA: I was. (Gesture towards his rags.) Isn't that obvious?
I wish I had the chutzbah to call myself integrity. Of course, it goes without saying that I am integrity, but it's much classier to let that realization sneak up on people rather than declare it outright like...integrity.
Since by definition, being just a typical white person, I am already racist, I see no point in voting for Obama.
Racism cannot be redeemed merely by voting for a non-white. For as Rev. Jeremiah Wright said: “Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary would never know that. Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger. Hillary has never had a people defined as a non-person.”
Louis Farrakhan advised that "White people are potential humans - they haven't evolved yet.", so merely voting for Senator Obama achieves nothing.
So why bother?
3)There was once a 'before time' when America was properly godly and moral.
Check it. Isn't that what Barack is saying?
Haven't heard McCain say that...ever.
And, MM, I do think it's different with McCain than Obama, in the sense that Reps like DBQ don't doubt McCain.
On the contrary, they think they have a perfectly good bead on him and don't like what they see.
"McCain is viewed by the GOP as an enemy of the current administration. Not a repeat of it."
If he is viewed this way, it is an excercise in obfuscation. He's on board with the foreign policy, on board with Bush's tax code, on board with his social agenda.
True, he hasn't been as zealous as far as gay bashing or even on abortion. But his votes and positions are identical. Spin it however you want, a vote for McCain is a vote of confidence for the politics of the last eight years. Which isn't necessarily better than being an out and out racist.
"3)There was once a 'before time' when America was properly godly and moral.
Check it. Isn't that what Barack is saying?
Haven't heard McCain say that...ever."
There IS a lot of that to Obama. Which is deeply, deeply unfortunate, to say the least.
But to say there's none of it to McCain is specious at best. They just slightly differ in terms of how they define the 'Before Time.'
harrogate: he hasn't been as zealous as far as gay bashing or even on abortion.
Zealous on abortion? Gay bashing?
a vote for McCain... isn't necessarily better than being an out and out racist.
[...]
Racist too. oh I see. My bad for presuming you weren't just another BDS-infected Moonbat. Thanks for destroying your credibility so in only a few short days. Saves the rest of us alot of time.
Fen:
You either misunderstand or willfully misrepresent. Only you know which.
Several on this thread have bithced that it isn't right that someone who would vote against Obama would be called racist, when after all, their votes are ideological.
Which is true, point ceded. You guys and perhaps a plurality of the nation are gonna go vote for McCain not because you are racists, but because you wish to extend (and in some cases intensify) the current policies stateside and abroad.
Which considering what the last eight years have wrought, to a reasonable person would quite arguably be far far worse, then being a garden variety racist. That is the point.
harrowgate: what a crock of shit--don't give me the false choice argument; that failed as a ploy in 9th grade debate--grow up son. You're playing in the big leagues here and you already have three unforced errors. In your feeble calculus you are either a racist if you dont vote for Obama or your are ratifying the current administration and are thus a fool for so doing.
Pretty stupid argument if you ask me.
Christ on a crumb heap I never called anyone a racist. I am only responding to all the cavetching going on here, by you included, about the CHARGE of racism. Which I am saying is a straw man.
Whether or not to "ratify," as you eloquently put it, the current Administration. Now that is indeed a choice that people will be making by voting for McCain. Which makes all the whining about "we're voting our beliefs" pretty funny.
If only you had the same contempt for ideological bankruptcy that you have for racism, then you'd be getting somwhere.
Oh. And "grow up son, you're in the big leagues now." How priceless.
The big leagues.
Harrogate: It thinks it's cute, and oh so much more sophisticated than the rest of us. Just another troll.
you do understand harrow that you have deployed the false choice argument? come on--give me a substantive critique rather than a snivelling sneer
you ought to do better--"priceless" is an admission that you know you have nothing except snark
and if this isnt the big leagues how come you are posting here?
you havent dazzled us with the caliber of your mental skills which seem to be quite juvenile
roger:
No, the "false choice" you're speaking of is Racism/Ratification of What We've Had, and all along I've agreed that's a false choice. That it is neither fair nor productive to accuse people of racism on the basis of who they vote for.
But it is most certainly NOT a false choice to say, when it comes to voting for or against McCain, you are indeed either voting For or Against continuing what we have had. That aint a false choice. That's reality.
"Priceless" was in reference to your oh-so-macho "grow up son" and "this is the big leagues." It reminded me of the more base elements on the NBA message boards.
harrowgate said: "Several on this thread have bithced that it isn't right that someone who would vote against Obama would be called racist, when after all, their votes are ideological"
Do speak with a lithp?
chickenlittle:
Ahh, they typo schtick. Whelp of a beaten cur and all that.
But look. Lisp or not, these threads of late have been marked by a lot of bitching.
When you're finished amusing yourself with typos. Why people don't just come clean and say they like what we've got here with this government, and want more of the same, instead of fighting straw men with a righteous anger, is a question you might ask yourself.
OK I promise never to make fun of a typo, so long as I never hear the term "straw man" again.
harrow: you are still positing the false choice. Bush will be gone; this election is not as you suggest a referendum on Bush policies--it is for many thinking people a referendum on who will take the country in some new direction. And for many it centers on the new president's view of the threat facing the US.
I will accept your first paragraph; but in the second paragraph you lapse into the false choice argument once again. you assume, wrongly, that voting for McCain is a ratification vote on Bush policies--not so. A vote for McCain may be a vote for continuing the current president's policies or it may be a vote against Obama--the world is much more complex than your simplistic views about for whom people vote and why. The only thing that I see is that McCain will take a harder line against terrorism than Obama will. so if thats the continuation you are talking about yeah--but mccain disagrees with many of the current president's policy positions--we choose presidents for many reasons. do not assume that they are chosen to continue policies of the current administration.
Personally I don't like either one of the candidates--but I like Obama less and so I will hold my nose and vote for McCain.
I don't really don't care if you liked my reference, but you were the one that trotted out the false choice argument in the first place, and when I called you on it, you responded with silly snark. you employed juvenile debate tactics. that is bush league stuff. So with that said, I will cede the field to you. Carry on.
I always learn new words here. Tonight it was "cavetching". Which, if I dissect it correctly, means Chinese cave dwellers jewelry.
Here in the deep south we are mighty particular about our Yiddish - we would spell it "kvetching" and excoriate anyone who didn't spell it that way and assume that person was provincial, maybe even a bit backwards. Certainly not from around here.
We cling to our religion, our guns and our spelling. But we are less bitter than menthol suckers.
In re Harrowgate:
"If you don't feed him, he will go away."
DBQ said:
Your innoncent use of a term 'gobbeldy good' is just about as much of a racist remark as calling an office where paperwork is routinely lost 'a black hole'. The same moron who objected to black hole as a racist slur also took on the racism inherent in cake. He was serious.
I don't know if you're a fellow Dallasite, DBQ, but that story certainly made the rounds here at home.
And normally, I would ask why in the world the people of his district keep electing this guy county commissioner again and again...except for the fact that, when he's not on a racial rant, Price is remarkably effective in every other aspect of his job.
Yet for all of his good work, he'll probably be remembered not for that, but for the "black hole" debacle instead. Just another reason to hitch one's wagon to something more substantive than "identity politics."
harrogate: You either misunderstand or willfully misrepresent. Only you know which.
Yay. Another false dilemma. Alex, I'll take choice #3.
considering what the last eight years have wrought, to a reasonable person would quite arguably be far far worse, then being a garden variety racist. That is the point.
And an appeal to authority: "reasonable people" agree with me.
With an added dash of false equivalence. You may think the last 8 years have been a disaster, but equating that to racism just makes you look dumb.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा