Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

Butrflynet wrote:

Unfortunately, I can't afford to pay for both broadband and telephone service and have to choose one so I am still on a dial-up connection and streaming just doesn't work well on it.

Ooh, that sucks...

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
I agree, they have indeed altered their rhetoric and now dance gingerly on the edge of saying anything potentially contentious or even disagreeable about each other. It is a bit wierd as the three leading Democrats now say all the same things while straining to subliminally suggest that there are important differences among them. I don't think that the spectacle does any of them any good. Indeed it reinforces several things about Democrats that independent voters are lkely to find a bit repelllant. Omens of a dogmatism that could be imposed on us all.

Oh yeah. As if yourself and the conservative movement are dogma-free. Gad.

And as if what you've just written has no reflection in the aforementioned Reagan additional ammendment.

Fair point about George's selective perception and the equivalents on the Republican side.

Nevertheless, this bit of George's description seems completely spot-on to me, after watching last night's debate:

"It is a bit weird as the three leading Democrats now say all the same things while straining to subliminally suggest that there are important differences among them."

That's pretty much how it came across to me. And like George, I don't think it's a good thing for them, but more importantly, not for wavering Democratic primary voters trying to make an informed decision either.

But I'm sure it's good in terms of the greater struggle against the Republican enemy..

0 Replies

Quote:

nimh wrote:
blatham wrote:
There's no damage done, or very little damage done, to a real democratic process or to principles of speech liberty where we are re-directed away from discussion of hair styles, how a voice lands on someone's ears, or on three-thousand-mile distant intutions on the deepmost parts of someone's character.

Yeah, on that I think we all agree; it's close to a 'duh' point.

It's also a rather disingenuous point however, because you've gone a lot further than that in your posts here, which is why you've met so much disagreement from fellow liberals.

You've repeatedly exhorted us to not say things that could provide ammunition to the 'other side', including, for example, discussions about our impressions of how trustworthy Hillary is, or discussions of what we perceived to be dirty tactics from the Hillary camp. Here in this very instance, the thing you urged us all to "shut the phuck up" about was hardly just about someone's hair style, so to fall back on that line seems less than honest.

Nothing to do with honesty or its opposite. What I might have written here by way of clarification I have already written many times before.

Quote:
My take on this is that first of all, I think that anyone who seriously believes that what we pen here in posts on a2k can 'provide the enemy with ammunition' takes himself way too seriously. It's a2k, guys. Whatever any one of us rants on about here has pretty much zero impact on the outcome of the elections or the way the candidates conduct their campaign. Get over yourselves already.

A fair and realistic point. However it applies to anything and everything any of us bother with here in terms of research, argumentation, graph construction, etc. There's a self-education benefit, there's the aspect of simple challenge to our own assumptions, etc of course. But that's not all of it for people like you or I who have written so many words in these political forums. We each care and we each talk or, sometimes, shout. We do it because we wish to cause effects regardless of whether that hope is delusional or not.

But secondly, something a little more substantive really bothers me about this line. I was joking with my parody, of course, but it does come from a real place.

Quote:
On the one hand, for one, you have insisted that the enemy is so despicable that you can freely dismiss any notion of civility, respect or politeness when talking to its footsoldiers- not just its leaders and politicians, but random partisan conservatives who post here on the forum as well. See the whole discussion in the Bush Supporters thread a couple of years back.

Yup. Though you make an absolute where that is false, it's clearly the case that I commonly go beyond normal conventions of 'civility'. I'm not bothered by this for a lot of reasons, though you and others may be.

Quote:
On the other hand you repeatedly exhort everyone in 'our' party to be careful in what criticisms we utter about 'our own' and how we frame them - because we should always be aware of our responsibility to not add in any targeting of our candidates in attacks.

Have you ever seen such an argument (or request or demand or whatever word you find appropriate) prior to about six months ago? You haven't. I deem this period and this election possibly the most important in US history. And the consequences for the entire world are enormous and critical.

Quote:
The enemy, basically, is much worse, and we should always keep this greater struggle against them and the lengths to which they will go to destroy us in mind, when discussing amongst ourselves - and self-censor accordingly.

Yes, it is much worse. You too understand that. As to 'self-censorship'...you'll note I've never suggested that criticism of anyone and everyone's policies are anything but desireable. What I have yelled about is the myopic and unreflective parroting of character slurs which have their origins in character-assassination projects.

Quote:
You have a mindset here that dismisses the enemy as not deserving of basic conventions of civility;

Depends on who you refer to here as 'enemy'. I have no idea how many conservative sources I've posted here as laudatory or emplerary sources of information or thought but there's zero chance that you, nimh, have posted more of them.

Quote:
that exhorts unity, a disciplined message, and avoidance of any 'unnecessary' criticisms within our party,

Right now, you bet. Except on policy disagreements or on matters of electability where I have said nothing at all to suggest such discussion ought to be vebotten.

Quote:
and does so in the name of an ever invoked context of the greater struggle against this truly evil enemy and the lengths to which it will go to exploit our internal differences; that dismisses much of the internal criticism of the personality and strategies of our party's leaders

The thing is nimh, you have very little real access to information on what these peoples' personalities are really like. I'll pass on the reflections of someone imminently credible and balanced (as I did with David Gergen, a very smart, educated and savvy long time observer of the species inhabiting this political world, and a Republican) and you ain't gonna swallow it because it conflicts with your preferred notions from thousands of miles distant from the subject. I mean, what is it with you?

Quote:
as mere manifestations of how strong the enemy's propaganda is, and how weak we can all be to this, or as mere reminders of the need to always be aware of and steel ourselves against the enemy's talking points;

Like I said earlier, right now is important.

Quote:
that calls on us to put aside all criticisms you deem too trivial or too much informed by that 'enemy propaganda'

If I deem it too trivial or too informed by propaganda vectors, of course I'll call on you to put it aside.

Quote:
as long as the greater struggle against the enemy calls for it

I suppose it's clear now that I think it does call for what I called for.

Quote:
-- all of this -- it does evoke some clear, unpleasant connotations to me.

I'll resist the obvious Goldwater quote here.

Of course it evokes some clear and unpleasant connotations. I'm arguing something that, to my mind, has justification only in certain circumstances. If you've seen a group of firefighters playing football suddenly alter their behavior and organizational structure at the sound of a fire alarm, then you'll have a parallel for how situations can make unusual demands on all of us. If a family's house has a flood fast approaching, a family discussion with balloting is probably unwise where something more 'totalitarian' must fall into place.

And that's what you object to. And that's what, I confess, makes me feel rather awkward in this position. But yeah, I think things are that dire.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

What I have yelled about is the myopic and unreflective parroting of character slurs which have their origins in character-assassination projects

Except where it gets a little 1984 is that EVERYTHING critical of Hillary becomes a "myopic and unreflecting parroting of character slurs which have their origins in character-assassination projects"!

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

blatham wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
I agree, they have indeed altered their rhetoric and now dance gingerly on the edge of saying anything potentially contentious or even disagreeable about each other. It is a bit wierd as the three leading Democrats now say all the same things while straining to subliminally suggest that there are important differences among them. I don't think that the spectacle does any of them any good. Indeed it reinforces several things about Democrats that independent voters are lkely to find a bit repelllant. Omens of a dogmatism that could be imposed on us all.

Oh yeah. As if yourself and the conservative movement are dogma-free. Gad.

And as if what you've just written has no reflection in the aforementioned Reagan additional ammendment.

Fair point about George's selective perception and the equivalents on the Republican side.

Nevertheless, this bit of George's description seems completely spot-on to me, after watching last night's debate:

"It is a bit weird as the three leading Democrats now say all the same things while straining to subliminally suggest that there are important differences among them."

That's pretty much how it came across to me. And like George, I don't think it's a good thing for them, but more importantly, not for wavering Democratic primary voters trying to make an informed decision either.

But I'm sure it's good in terms of the greater struggle against the Republican enemy..

Well, thank you (I think) for the agreement. However, I do note your willingness to rationalize any evil in the "greater struggle against the Republican enemy".

I don't think there is anything equivalent going on today among the Republican candidates. While there is no shortage of narrow dogmatism among sectors of the Republican party, just as there is among the various sectors of the democrat Party, there is a good deal less of an inclination among Republicans to suppress real debate among these sectors - at least for the somewhat strange reasons that appear to motivate the Democrat candidates today.

0 Replies

George, by virtue to the fact that Democrats / liberals are more socialistic in their views, they are "groupees" instead of individuals. They tend to appeal to groups, races, unions, whatever, while Republicans tend to appeal to the individual, the entrepenuer, etc. Democrats want to socialize all aspects of the country. Just as communist countries cannot tolerate anyone that doesn't buy into their party line, Democrats tend to do the same here. We saw this when Clinton was president, it mattered little what he did, they circled the wagons and defended him. Anytime a Republican commits a crime, their fellow republicans tend to dump him or her overboard, which is the way it should be of course.

Most people that love to demonstrate as sort of a mob mentality, are Democrats. Remember the hippie movement of the 60's, and many of them are now dressed up in suits and residing in Washington.

One of the problems Republicans have is to pull together a coalition in congress to do anything because they tend more to think and vote as individuals.

And alot of us individuals out here, including Republicans, that simply make little noise, go to work everyday and support our families out here can be called the silent majority, although I worry we aren't the majority as much anymore. The groupees make the most noise and by virtue of demagoguery every day throughout the country, they have managed to convince alot of people to join their ranks.

0 Replies

Christian religion is an organized one and not an indiviudal non-entity.
Capitalism is a counterpart of communism( well organized)
Under communism you follow the dictate of a few higer-ups.
Under capitalism you work,earn, relax and work without any VOICE or NOISE
Collective voice had changed the world.
As an individual we all are nice.
Collectively we are the best.
Rama Fuchs

0 Replies

Ramafuchs wrote:

Christian religion is an organized one and not an indiviudal non-entity.

Christians live as individuals and are accountable as individuals. This is basic.

Quote:

Capitalism is a counterpart of communism( well organized)

The principles of capitalism depend upon individual achievement as a basis, while communism depends upon group achievement. The reason communism fails is because it runs counter to the basic way human nature works for our self interests. By helping ourselves, we end up helping everyone. The success of the whole relies upon the success of each part, not the other way around.

Quote:

Under communism you follow the dictate of a few higer-ups.
Under capitalism you work,earn, relax and work without any VOICE or NOISE

Yes, the latter works better, and under communism, force is required, which breeds violence.

Quote:

Collective voice had changed the world.
As an individual we all are nice.
Collectively we are the best.
Rama Fuchs

Forcing everyone to be a part of a group requires the sacrifice of the rights of individuals, as given by God. Not good.

0 Replies

Okie,
I don't think that anyone is immune from the tendency to form issue & support groups and to indulge in some of the 'group thinking' that too often goes with it. Some sectors of the Republican party indulge in this just as much as Democrats - here I would include some evangelicals & right to life groups united in emotional support of single issues or clusters of them. A difference though is that there appears to be a bit less of it among Republicans, perhaps because in general they want the government to do less, not more in managing our lives.

I also believe that Democrats are just as sincere and well intentioned in their views and beliefs as are Republicans. Individual variation is probably equally high in both groups, and reasoned, reasonable disagreements do really occur - despite all the name-calling and sweeping castigations that too often pollute the political debate -- and these threads.

I find all the pseudo-psychological "analysis" of what might be the inner motivations or thoughts of the opposing side in these debates & threads very sophomoric and indeed a bit depressing. That crap more than anything stands in the way of understanding and resolution of the objective issues themselves.

0 Replies

George, I agree my analysis was a generalization, and that is why I used the word "tend." Obviously, republicans organize in groups, but I do think those groups tend to be organized more along the lines of a collection of individuals engaged in a similar activity, from the bottom up, vs from the top down. There are exceptions, I would not argue with that, but there is no denying the fact that Democrats tend toward socialist causes and Republicans tend the other way.

As an example, the free market works from the bottom up, the consumer, from the demand end of the spectrum, while communism works from the top down, from the supply end of things. The socialistic or communistic form of management have the central planners making decisions about supply, which ends up being inefficient because it does not respond to demand very efficiently. In the free market, you have a collection of individuals making individual decisions which works its way up the economic tree, while in socialism or communism, you have a group at the top making decisions for all of the individuals.

0 Replies

I do agree with you there. Much of the real evil in the world has been done by various groups, religious and secular, that were bent on reforming humanity - making us better than we were or are, creating true believers, "socialist man", or merely right thinking, modern folks who treasure tidiness, diversity, & equality (as they define it) and who are willing to force us to do so.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

However, I do note your willingness to rationalize any evil in the "greater struggle against the Republican enemy".

Once more you missed my sarcasm.

Did you read my post to Blatham above? It would probably clarify a lot of what we're reacting to in each others post, and would help avoid missing my next use of sarcasm when responding to his posts...

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
However, I do note your willingness to rationalize any evil in the "greater struggle against the Republican enemy".

Once more you missed my sarcasm.
.

I had an inkling of that when I wrote it. Indeed, I was being a bit sarcastic myself. However, I am getting to understand you better - particularly these kindred expressions of yours. I promise to do better. :wink:

0 Replies

OK

0 Replies

okie wrote:

George, by virtue to the fact that Democrats / liberals are more socialistic in their views, they are "groupees" instead of individuals. [..] Just as communist countries cannot tolerate anyone that doesn't buy into their party line, Democrats tend to do the same here.

Okie, how do you reconcile this assertion with the fact that Blatham's exhortations of party unity and message discipline here have met with pretty much unanimous disapproval and annoyance among other liberals? Just from the top of my head I can recall Soz, Snood, Butrflynet, Freeduck and me as disagreeing with those posts of his. So what, Blatham alone represents what Democrats are like, and all the rest of us are exceptions to the rule?

If anything I would have thought that this whole argument, as it has come up again and again over the past couple of months, should be reason to revise your assumptions here. As an indication that real life liberals apparently do not match your prejudices of what Democrats/liberals are like.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Watching this debate is nothing but listenting to platitudes. I have yet to hear anything specific in terms of policy.

okie wrote:

They are trying to get the candidates to take a stand on something, anything, please. They don't want to. They would rather ride the fence. [..] None of the candidates have any answers.

okie wrote:

The debate was pretty much a flop in my opinion, big on platitudes, weak on details.

I've got to take issue with you here Okie.

First off, for sure, I too thought that the debate was rather boring - and I thought George's description was apt. Out of fear of escalating tensions, the candidates were so cautious and eager to underline all their commonalities that they made little headway in actually making clear what their differences were, beyond one or two specific issues (like nuclear energy). If this is what responsible debating by Blatham's prescription is like, then it's of little benefit to the actual primary voter trying to make an informed decision.

But what you said here several times about there not being anything concrete, specific or substantive in the debate is just plain wrong. It was right there for those who wanted to hear. Lots of specifics. The positions the candidates took often differed only in nuance and often overlapped, but each candidate brought a long list of specific, concrete and substantive ideas and proposals.

Here, let me go by the transcript Butrflynet provided. Of course, you will starkly disagree with most of these policy proposals, as a committed conservative. But you can not say that there just wasnt anything specific present in terms of policy. In fact, I dare say you'd be hard-fetched to extract a similar amount of concrete proposals from any one Republican debate. Or from earlier Democratic debates where there were still seven, eight candidates jockeying for speaking time, for that matter.

On the mortgages crisis:

Hillary Clinton

"a moratorium on foreclosures for 90 days"
"freezing interest rates for five years"
The foreclosures are also starting to cause "a slowdown in property tax receipts" for local governments, which "means police services and other services start to deteriorate". Therefore there should be "a fund of about $30 billion that communities and states could go to work [with] in order to prevent foreclosures and the consequences of foreclosures."

Barack Obama

provisions for the mortgage industry that he already proposed a year ago but that "the mortgage industry spen[t] $185 million lobbying" to defeat, would force them to "disclose properly what kinds of loans [they're] giving to people on mortgages." "You've got to disclose [it] if you've got a teaser rate and suddenly their mortgage payments are going to jack up and they can't pay for them."

John Edwards

"we have to release people who are in bankruptcy as a consequence of health care"
"a $10 billion housing fund that can help bridge people who have been responsible in making their payments."
"a national law cracking down on predatory and payday lenders"

Minimum wage / Unemployment

John Edwards

"The national minimum wage should be at least nine and a half dollars an hour. It ought to be indexed to go up on its own."

Hillary Clinton

"make sure the unemployment compensation system is there for people as they begin to get laid off"
"have about $5 billion put to work right now to employ people in green-collar jobs", for example with "electrical workers being trained to put in solar panels."

Education

John Edwards

"Any young person in America who's willing to work when they're in college, at least 10 hours a week, we'll pay for their tuition and books at a state university or community college. And that can be paid for by getting rid of big banks as the intermediary in student loans. They make $4 billion or $5 billion a year. That money ought to be going to sending kids to college."

Taxes

Barack Obama

Right now, a CEO of a Fortune 500 company pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. "[P]art of the reason is because he primarily gets his income from dividends and capital gains, and he's taxed at a lower rate." That would change in the "shift that I'm proposing in our tax rates".
Tax relief, on the other hand, will be provided to lower and middle income people. "If you're making less than $75,000 a year, we are proposing that we offset the payroll tax to give you relief, $1,000 for the average family."
If you're "a senior citizen who is making less than $50,000 a year, or getting less than $50,000 in Social Security benefits, then you shouldn't have to pay taxes on that Social Security income."
"Homeowners who do not itemize their deductions [will get] a mortgage deduction credit"
potentially "exempt middle income folks [..] from increases in capital gains and dividends"
"we're going to pay for that by closing loopholes, closing tax havens, and yes, rolling back some of these [tax] breaks that have gone disproportionately to the wealthiest Americans."

Hillary Clinton

"tax rebates for middle class and working families, not for the wealthy who've already done very well under George Bush."

Campaign finance

Barack Obama

"Part of the reason that you know who's bundling money for various candidates is because of a law I passed this year, which says: Lobbyists, if you are taking money from anybody and putting it together and then giving it to a member of Congress, that has to be disclosed."
"I'm a cosponsor of [a] proposal that's in the Senate [for] a system of public financing of campaigns"

War in Iraq

Hillary Clinton

"I've introduced legislation that clearly requires President Bush to come to the United States Congress" before "entering] into an agreement with the Iraqi government" about "continu[ing] America's presence in Iraq, long after [he] leaves office". He has "to come to the United States Congress to get anything that he's trying to do, including permanent bases, numbers of troops, all the other commitments he's talking about as he's traveling in that region."
"[When] I become president, we will start withdrawing within 60 days [..], one to two brigades a month, [..] and we'll have nearly all the troops out by the end of the year"

John Edwards

"I will have all combat troops out in the first year that I'm president".
"I will end combat missions."
"while I'm president, there will be no permanent military bases in Iraq."
"as long as you keep combat troops in Iraq, you continue the occupation. If you keep military bases in Iraq, you're continuing the occupation. The occupation must end."
But "I would keep a quick reaction force in Kuwait in case it became necessary" to strike at Al Qaida.

Barack Obama

"get our troops out by the end of 2009."
"My first job as president [..] is going to be to call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff and say, "You've got a new mission," and that is to responsibly, carefully, but deliberately start to phase out our involvement there"
no "permanent bases" in Iraq
"But [..] we are going to have to protect our embassy. We're going to have to protect our civilians. We're engaged in humanitarian activity there."
"We are [also] going to have to have some presence that allows us to strike if Al Qaida is creating bases inside of Iraq" [..] in which case there would potentially be a combat aspect" [..]

The US Military

Hillary Clinton

"a new, 21st-century G.I. Bill of Rights [that will give] our young veterans [..] the money to get to college and to buy a home and start a business."
"the Bush administration [had] the Pentagon trying to take away the signing bonuses when a soldier gets wounded and ends up in the hospital, something that I'm working with a Republican senator to try to make sure never can happen again."
"expand civilian national service"

Barack Obama

"increase [..] our force structure, particularly around the Army and the Marines, [so that we can] put an end to people going on three, four, five tours of duty"
"I've put forward a national service program that is tied to my tuition credit for students who want to go to college. You get $4000 every year to help you go to college. In return, you have to engage in some form of national service. Military service has to be an option."
Under the Bush administration, "the wounded warriors who [came] back" were "still paying for their meals and their phone calls while in Walter Reed, while rehabbing". "I was able to gain the cooperation of a Republican-controlled Senate at the time and pass a bill that would eliminate that."

John Edwards

"narrow [the] gap between civilian pay and military pay, and help [military] families with their child care."
"a guaranteed stream of funding for the Veterans Administration so we don't have veterans waiting six months or a year to get the health care that they deserve."
"Every man and woman who comes back from Iraq or Afghanistan deserves to have a thorough comprehensive evaluation of their medical needs, including mental health needs and physical health needs. Every one of them ought to get job training if they need it, and additional education if they need it."

All candidates

Answered "yes" to Russert's question whether they would "vigorously enforce the statute to cut off federal funding [to] a college or university [that] does not provide space for military recruiters or provide a ROTC program for its students".

(Only Hillary, when questioned about "the top 10 rated schools, Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Stanford, [who] do not have ROTC programs on campus" suggested more ambiguously that "there are ways they can work out fulfilling that obligation".)

-------------------------------------------

And on it goes.. I'm tired of typing now, but here's the other issues that individual candidates had concrete and specific things to say about:

Energy policy, Yucca Mountain, nuclear energy, alternative energy resources
Immigration policy, English as an official language, problems of African-Americans and Latinos
More on Education policy
Gun control
Pakistan

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

okie wrote:
George, by virtue to the fact that Democrats / liberals are more socialistic in their views, they are "groupees" instead of individuals. [..] Just as communist countries cannot tolerate anyone that doesn't buy into their party line, Democrats tend to do the same here.

Okie, how do you reconcile this assertion with the fact that Blatham's exhortations of party unity and message discipline here have met with pretty much unanimous disapproval and annoyance among other liberals? Just from the top of my head I can recall Soz, Snood, Butrflynet, Freeduck and me as disagreeing with those posts of his. So what, Blatham alone represents what Democrats are like, and all the rest of us are exceptions to the rule?

If anything I would have thought that this whole argument, as it has come up again and again over the past couple of months, should be reason to revise your assumptions here. As an indication that real life liberals apparently do not match your prejudices of what Democrats/liberals are like.

Well, I'm pleased that I've managed to provide a contrast such that your real life liberalness stands revealed, nimh. Is it a pleasant emotion you experience?

0 Replies

It appears the contrast has revealed not only Nimh's but also my own authentic and enlightened liberal qualities - liberal, that is compared to your surly authoritarianism.

However, we still like you.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

blatham wrote:
What I have yelled about is the myopic and unreflective parroting of character slurs which have their origins in character-assassination projects

Except where it gets a little 1984 is that EVERYTHING critical of Hillary becomes a "myopic and unreflecting parroting of character slurs which have their origins in character-assassination projects"!

Well, except you've added in the 'everything' there, haven't you? And you know it isn't so, don't you?

0 Replies

george said

Quote:

I don't think there is anything equivalent going on today among the Republican candidates. While there is no shortage of narrow dogmatism among sectors of the Republican party, just as there is among the various sectors of the democrat Party, there is a good deal less of an inclination among Republicans to suppress real debate among these sectors - at least for the somewhat strange reasons that appear to motivate the Democrat candidates today.

You've managed for several consecutive posts now to avoid address to the relevant counter to what you argue or imply above...that is, the Reagan 'ammendment' I've noted twice earlier of "never speak ill of another republican". Perhaps you'd like to take this on in an honest/forthright manner?

Adding, you know, for accuracy, that the commissar blatham 'amendment' is rather less inclusive than that one.

0 Replies

Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know