Presidential Race

Parent Cafe
1021

<p>kluge, ID and Conyat, I think it’s time to get out of the gutter, don’t you think? Kludge’s quote from me had nothing at all to do with Obama’s race or character. I personally find him to be a very compelling figure and have never disparaged the man - I have a lot of admiration for him. I was trying to raise an honest question about how he is viewed by our real enemies - the radical Islamists. If I was disparaging anyone it would be OBL and his crew of radicals. I would be genuinely concerned for him if he is targeted by these crazies because of his change in religions. </p>

<p>As to the rest of your comments … well I guess you are all living proof that you will see the worst in anyone that may disagree with you and will stoop as low as possible to smear anyone with different views. You’re a real credit to your party. I think sjmom has the best way of dealing with the likes of you. Enjoy.</p>

1022

<p>Sjmom–“I think that many liberal Democrats will do anything to win or stay in office, including misinterpreting anything that suits their goals.”</p>

<p>The sad thing is that both liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans can be pretty ruthless–and deceitful–when it comes to campaigning. It sickens me every time a big election season comes around. In the primaries, we must endure the spectacle of Democrats eviscerating other Democrats, while Republicans disembowel their Republican opponents. Then, when that hideous process has worked itself out, the last man/woman standing in each party gets to start the mud-slinging across party lines. I’m wondering why the political machine is such that candidates can’t simply discuss issues, but have to make things so savagely personal. Sad, but when you think about it, this has been going on since our democracy was born. In the 1800 presidential election, Adams blasted Jefferson as an unfeeling athiest; Jefferson returned the compliment by accusing Adams of wanting to set up a monarchy and diminish the common man.</p>

1023

<p>FundingFather, the people in the gutter to be the ones making the outrageous smears, not the people who point them out. </p>

<p>This is what sickened me about the Republican response to the Foley scandal. Blaming the kids, blaming the people who reported Foley to the FBI, blaming anyone but Foley and the Republican leadership who tried to hang on to his seat by hiding his behavior from public and the Democrats on the page board.</p>

<p>What’s worse is that your party and its supporters seem to have learned nothing from this or from the Dumond episode. Distorting intelligence in Iraq in order to convince the American people to go to war wasn’t an aberration; it’s part and parcel of your party’s standard operating procedure.</p>

1024

<p>FundingFather, might I add that this whole rehash of Republican smear tactics was kicked off by VoxDei’s outrageous claim that Democrats weren’t getting smeared by Republicans while the minority party in Congress. </p>

<p>I don’t think you get to act like a victim because someone challenges one of your fellow travellers’ untruths.</p>

<p>BTW, I think you totally missed Kluge’s point about the “admit/claim” rhetoric. That in itself is pretty telling.</p>

1025

<p>

</p>

<p>What party is that? </p>

<p>I’m a registered independent and have, at various times over the last eight years voted for Ted Kennedy, Mitt Romney, Al Gore, and George W Bush. I take each election on its own merits. My vote may be based on the candidates, may be based on strategic considerations (balance of power issues), or may be based on holding my nose and being forced to vote for somebody because my daughter says it’s my civic duty.</p>

1026

<p>Funding Father: If what you just wrote was also directed at me, please don’t read anything I wrote as a smear on you. I just wanted to get your response on this “cooking of intelligence books” with regards to the Iraq War, especially now that the Pentagon has released the report on Feith’s Office of Special Plans. See my earlier post.</p>

<p>Why it is of importance now is that suddenly a lot of attention is being paid to the involvement of Iran in Iraq, the danger of which was one of the key reasons many were against this war in the first place? This involvement by Iran has been going on from the first 6 months of the war at which point Israel’s Mossad said that border integrity (Iran-Iraq) had been completely compromised. And a friend who returned from serving the Army from Iraq more than half a year ago told me the South of Iraq was widely acknowledged to be crawling with Iranians. </p>

<p>What do you think the motivation might be for the Administration to beat the drums so loudly about Iran now? This is after all an Administration that is certified by the Administration itself as having cited dubious intelligence to justify going into Iraq. When Iran’s involvement has been obvious for so long, why are we hearing about it just now?</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/world/middleeast/10weapons.html?_r=1&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/world/middleeast/10weapons.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

1027

<p>So how about Edwards; do you think this will hurt him?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Be sure to check out the links - though <a href=“http://www.catholicleague.org/07pres...06_Edwards.htm[/url]”>www.catholicleague.org/07pres…06_Edwards.htm</a> is the only one with the real anti-Catholic stuff included. The mainstream media is not reporting the ladies’ most egregious remarks for some reason (slipped their mind, I guess).</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MaryKatharineHam/2007/02/09/vote_for_edwards,_godbag_Christofascists![/url]”>http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MaryKatharineHam/2007/02/09/vote_for_edwards,_godbag_Christofascists!&lt;/a&gt;!&lt;/p&gt;

1028

<p>Correction: <a href=“http://www.catholicleague.org/07press_releases/quarter_1/070206_Edwards.htm[/url]”>http://www.catholicleague.org/07press_releases/quarter_1/070206_Edwards.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>As for Obama, I won’t vote for him because in his 45 years he has accomplished: 1. Becoming a one-term senator and 2. Writing two books. I do not feel this qualifies him to be President of the United States. I also do not trust the judgment of a person who thinks he is ready to take on this job based on this resume. No doubt I will be called a racist for this view.</p>

1029

<p>I see that no one is interested in Edwards’ netroots management. Surprise, surprise.</p>

1030

<p>Why are you surprised? I’ve already said that I’m not interested in Edwards, period.</p>

1031

<p>Silence from the choir on cc other than you, however.
Even Chris Matthews last night was not pleased.</p>

1032

<p>HH–I must say I’m not particularly happy with Edwards at this moment. … As for Barak Obama, I think I’d be willing to give him a chance–the fact that he hasn’t spent years wallowing around in the political mud actually appeals to me. And the fact that he thinks he’s ready to take on the job shouldn’t be surprising. Anyone who runs for president, regardless of gender, race, or political persuasion, likely has an outsized ego.</p>

1033

<p>Hey, look at the bright side. It may be Edward’s only chance to get any coverage at all.</p>

<p>Clinton and Obama are going to suck all the oxygen out of the room. Those two are going to make for one of the more interesting primary battles in a long time…and I don’t think either of them can afford to go negative on the other.</p>

1034

<p>

</p>

<p>No kidding. Hell, GW probably thinks he’s qualified to be President… Baaaaawaaaahhhhhaaaaa…</p>

1035

<p>Well, have a laugh on me (dedicated to our ultra-feminists):</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw2G2OIal2c[/url]”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw2G2OIal2c&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

1036

<p>Interesteddad–I don’t agree with you that Clinton and Obama will play nice, although I hope that you’re right and I’m not. I predict the negativity will begin on the Clinton side. … I also think McCain and Giuliani will be ripping into each other before too long, with some nasty side swipes at Romney.</p>

1037

<p>HH–That youtube video was one of the strangest things I’ve ever seen. But for some weird reason, I could relate to the angry German boy.</p>

1038

<p>By that logic, Abraham Lincoln was supremely unqualified too. Only 8 years in the Illinois legislature and one two-year term in the US House, for a total of 10 years by the time he was elected president.</p>

<p>Barak will have had 8 years in the Illinois legislature and four years in the Senate by the next Presidential election, for a total of 12 years by 2008.</p>

<p>Tom Delay served 22 years in the House of Representatives. By your logic, he is more qualified to serve than Lincoln or Obama.</p>

<p>I’ll take an honest politician, one who has worked hard for transparency in government, over a Tom Delay anyday.</p>

1039

<p>HH: I tried to respond earlier, but came to realize that I am truly a behind-the-times fuddy duddy still getting my news and opinion from MSM (newspapers and magazines) and I am a babe in the woods with regards to these blogs.</p>

<p>The quotes attributed to these women on their respective blogs are indeed offensive. If I was a practicing Catholic, I would find the remarks sickening and it would certainly make me think less of Edwards if he continued to pay them to blog on his behalf.</p>

<p>Since I am not, I can say that while those comments and language were over the top, I would not refuse to consider Edwards as a candidate because of them. First, because I think there are bigger issues that I would/will judge his candidacy against. Second, because I can’t quite come to grips with whether I do think it is appalling for him to have these two bloggers on his payroll. They wrote these things before they were hired, right? They were expressing attitudes/viewpoints of their own at that point and not views that could be tied to Edwards. </p>

<p>Personally, I don’t like the foam-at-the-mouth, nasty hyperbole found in these types of blogs whether on the left or right side of the political spectrum. Lies, distortion, inflammatory word choice, opinions based on rage…it turns me off and I don’t read them. But this aggressive word play and deliberate offensiveness seems to be the nature of this new (to me, the FD) medium. The shotgun blast , spit in your face rhetoric seems to be what bloggers in the political realm feel they have to do to build their… I don’t even know the vocabulary …build their circulation or viewers or number of hits whatever.
I wonder if they even have that much circulation. The more shock value the better it seems. </p>

<p>To answer your question: Will it hurt Edwards? It’s probably most upsetting to people that weren’t going to be voting for him anyway. As I said, personally, this is not something that would change my vote if I had decided to support him, which I haven’t.</p>

<p>FWIW: My preferred Dem ticket would be Gore-Obama. </p>

<p>IMO, Gore should have been president in 2000, he’s been way out front on global warming, he’s served in the military and in high office, and while he comes in for a lot of sophomoric ridicule, there’s no hideous skeletons in the closet. I find Obama to be magnetic as a personality, but I would like to see more seasoning and experience in government before taking on the presidency. That’s why this ticket would resonate for me. Gore-Obama in '08.</p>

1040

<p>

</p>

<p>Plus eight years as Vice-President.</p>