Political & Elections

geeps20 · Senior Member

RE: SOU review on morning tv

Cartera · Guru

Well isn't it obvious that if we libs are whining about Obama not being liberal enough, we sure as heck aren't going to vote for a Republican? If Obama isn't pushing us forward fast enough, we're not going to vote someone who is walking backwards.

CelticClan07 · Senior Member

No matter what Obama does, he will never in a million years lose the left, especially the hard core left; enviromentalists, abortion rights, etc..... never, never in a million years. The liberals will whine and cry over what he's doing/not doing, <check out lib forums for examples> but when push comes to vote, they will not pull the lever for the candidate with an R next to their name. From my POV, Obama has himself in a very sweet spot with the libs, regardless his actions, they'll still support him. Now the Indies are an entirely different story and that's exactly who he has to please.

Bogney · Senior Member

Samurai:

Throughout history, wars have been started for ignoble reasons. Why should we believe that our leaders are immune from the foibles of other current and past leaders? One of the primary arguments in the Federalist Papers in favor of ratifying the Constitution to make one nation was the legitimate fear of neighboring sovereign states that will go to war against each other for economic reasons benefitting the leaders, as was the case historically in Europe.

Again, I doubt that the calculation is so crude. I doubt that any leader consciously decides solely on the basis that he or she will make more money by going to war. However, on a tough call between peace and war, where war benefits you and your family financially, it could lead to stronger arguments, or a bias, toward war.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

I disagree - vehemently - that Dick Cheney or any other member of any previous or current administration is looking to get rich or richer by starting or continuing a war that will lead to the loss of life of young men and women. It's such a bizarre statement that is so oft repeated that I am in disbelief that anyone could fathom it, or continue to believe it.

I know it's popular to romanticize Dick Cheney as Darth Vadar. Go ahead, it's up to you. I think it's absolutely silly, bordering on the absurd, that you could believe Cheney to be motivated by greed, first, more than protecting our country.

Our leaders understand that behind every step in any war or armed conflict there are humans that may perish as a result. I believe this is why our Presidents often go gray so quickly - because even when we aren't at battle, the risk is there. It's an awesome responsibility that is not taken lightly.

The military industrial complex is a force to be reckoned with, this is true. In my area, there are dozens of large and small defense contractors who make their livings on building systems that protect us and help us in time of war, but also in time of peace. Many of these applications are built with the idea of a military application that are then put into place for civilian applications - ie, GPS.

Bogney · Senior Member

Geeps, at least we agree that Palin is wrong. That is a start.

Bogney · Senior Member

Busdriver, I can believe that Cheney's policies were "for the good of the country" given his desire to protect the country after 9/11. That is an awesome responsibility, which is probably why it is not as easy to leave a war when one is president as it is to advocate pulling out when one is not president. However, Wallstreeters convince themselves that their schemes for obscene profit are good for the economy too until it crashes. Cheney is part of the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned the Country about, a civilian rushing other people to war while companies he has an interest in benefit from the war. That does not mean that he does not believe what he is doing is correct. I don't believe that Cheney directly chose to kill soldiers to profit Haliburton - the corruption is more subtle than that. If war is a potential option, and Haliburton will kick butt if there is a war, then war may become a more attractive option than it otherwise would have been had there been no connection with the MIC.

geeps20 · Senior Member

Palin is as wrong as Obama Bogney, neither are qualified to be President....Mr O. is leading this country to disaster.

busdriver11 · Guru

"Hindoo expressed Cheney's issues well. I would only add that his connection to Haliburton and its role in profiting from the Iraq war, and Cheney's secret meetings with the oil industry at the beginning of the Bush administration to set oil policy cause me to suspect that personal profit motive may influence his political policies as much as the welfare of the nation. These connections hardly fit the libertarian mode of keeping government out of businesses way since they rely on government geopolitical strategy - doesn't Haliburton contract with the government for rebuilding Iraq? "

That's funny. You posted right after I addressed it. One of our friends told me that he personally knew that Cheney got $50 every time we dropped a bomb in Iraq, and that's why were were doing it. So we have a VP who has had several heart attacks, is living on borrowed time, feeling the massive responsibility of protecting this country....and he cares about making a couple of extra bucks, even at the expense of killing our soldiers and costing us billions. Sure, yeah, that could be it. Fifty bucks a bomb can go a long way, and you see that lavish lifestyle Cheney is known for. Such a snappy dresser, got to pay for all those suits!

The reason why Haliburton is in there, is there are very few companies that currently have such capabilities for that sort of large scale reconstruction.

Bogney · Senior Member

Woodwork:

Palin and Cheney rile liberals greatly, but not for the reasons you suggest. IMHO, Palin simply doesn't deserve the fame and attention she has received. While conservatives could carp about Obama's lack of experience to become president, Palin's credentials to become vice- president, and therefore potentially the president, was her governorship of one of the least populous states and great cheekbones. That is fine for local celebrity, but McCain had the poor judgment to put her on a national stage, and she has been a good capitalist and milked that cash cow for all it has been worth.

She has lowered the level of political discourse through her ignorance and gift for snarky one-liners, her only true talent. Seriously, not being able to name one Supreme Court Case which you most admire? I expect, hope, that our political leaders at the national level are intelligent and educated. I expect less of a congressperson than I do of a Senator, and less of a Senator than I do of a Vice President, or President. The framers intended that persons of greater gravitas would be selected for Senators and president because of the higher age requirement,longer terms, responsibility for foreign affairs, and their selection by the political elites of the states, rather than "the People" according to the original Constitution. The framers were right, and Palin was, and remains, wrong for a posiiton of national leadership.

Hindoo expressed Cheney's issues well. I would only add that his connection to Haliburton and its role in profiting from the Iraq war, and Cheney's secret meetings with the oil industry at the beginning of the Bush administration to set oil policy cause me to suspect that personal profit motive may influence his political policies as much as the welfare of the nation. These connections hardly fit the libertarian mode of keeping government out of business's way since they rely on government geopolitical strategy - doesn't Haliburton contract with the government for rebuilding Iraq?

-- Edited by Bogney on Saturday 29th of January 2011 08:40:45 AM

busdriver11 · Guru

'did you hear the national media gushing over Obama's speech and calling him "Reaganesque". It wasn't just one outlet, it was 4 different ones. The media hated Reagan, but now Obama is Reaganesque."

I know, it was interesting how they were completely in sync over that one. It's as if they got together and decided that they were going to paint the president as the new Reagan. All of a sudden. I was wondering if maybe they thought if they said it often enough, we would all believe it, or if perhaps we were just that dumb.

As far as Cheney goes, I watched his evolution into the ultra hawkish VP he became. He used to be considered quite moderate. He took 9/11 very hard, feeling the weight of protecting America to fall upon him, and feeling that he had failed. leading him to take extreme measures to protect the country. I guarantee you, if anything devastating happens to the US during the current administrations term, you will not see a person there feeling such responsibility. Everyone will be ducking blame and passing it off like crazy (how long can we keep blaming Bush, anyways). People have short memories and are easily led by the press. It makes a difference in your opinion of someone when you realize the actions they took were not due to being an evil, selfish man whose main goal was to get business for Haliburton, but because of an overwhelming desire to make sure we were not attacked again.

john doe · Guru

Its about time that Obama projects optimism. He should have done this from the beginning. Positive "animal spirits" are required for the economy to accelerate its trajectory upwards.

Hindoo · Senior Member

It leaves me cold and bitter, too. Very much so.

BigG · Guru

The whole "chickenhawk" thing leaves me cold and bitter.

Another sign of the senescence of our society...

Hindoo · Senior Member

Speaking of Cheney, has anyone seen him lately? He looks like he's lost half of his former body weight--like a totally different person. ... My biggest problem with Cheney was his war stance. He was pretty damned hawkish for someone who received multiple deferments back in the day and never had to set foot in a battle zone. Not that a war record is a requirement for leadership. It's not. But, there was something supremely hypocritical IMHO about Cheney's eagerness to avoid military service in his own right, only to become a major cheerleader in sending young people abroad to kill and die. Especially in Iraq, which I'll forever see as a war not of necessity, but of choice. That, plus the fact that Cheney seems permanently enshrined in my feeble brain, fairly or not, as "Mr. Water-Boarder," makes him one of my least favorite political figures of all time.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

Non-sequitur, Geeps. The media may have hated Reagan, but everyone agrees on his considerable political skill and charisma. They agree he projected a feeling of sunny optimism. The media is saying that Obama's speech was the same kind of uplifting, can-do, feelgood speech Reagan delivered.

geeps20 · Senior Member

did you hear the national media gushing over Obama's speech and calling him "Reaganesque". It wasn't just one outlet, it was 4 different ones. The media hated Reagan, but now Obama is Reaganesque.

busdriver11 · Guru

"There is, I find, a direct relation between liberal outrage and how well they have been morally tweaked by a right-winger. It's as if they have been caught leaving the restroom with toilet paper on their shoe. Palin and abortion/down syndrome and having it all as a woman, riles them greatly; Cheny with a gay daughter that he is very proud of won't fit there image of Darth Cheny and they are whipped-up...etc."

It is amazing how you manage to peg exactly what I am attempting to say.

Hayden, do you really remember Dick Cheney being an outspoken social conservative? Or even talking about social issues? I would imagine not, because he is far more of a libertarian.

It might make me ask myself why I would allow the talking heads to control what I think so completely....if it is that is how you came upon your point of view. How is it, that they were able to demonize and categorize someone who was definitely more of a moderate/libertarian, who had very little impact upon any social discussion?

Woodwork · Senior Member

hayden wrote:

"So apparently none of the others had any friends or family members who are gay? Perhaps the others are judging the world based not upon personal empathy, but upon political positioning. Is that better somehow?"

I don't have any doubt that most of the Democrats who are against same sex marriage, take that position for political reasons. Is that better? Frankly, busdriver, I don't know. But I can understand it. Politics, at its best, is not the story of martyrs. By its nature, politics entails a level of compromise to be successful. Politicians don't typically lead the charge for change in society. MLK would not have been elected to the senate. However, many of the politicians do have a set of beliefs that guide their political views.

Cheney has a set of principles which tends to be like the old Brit phrase during WWII: I've got mine, Jack. The fact is that his views on homosexuality deviate from all his other views, in the sense that his expressed values are all on one side, with this sole exception.

First, let me congratuate you on a very well thought out and expressed post. I agree with most of it.

I differ on your view of Cheny.

Cheny, unlike GWB, leaned libertarian. For that reason, I think libertarians, generally liked him. Lassize faire capitalism and also lassieze faire romantic lives and loves not overly informed by a religious perspective. GWB was a deeply religious man that felt the inner workings of salvation in his own life and thus the difference between the two.

There is, I find, a direct relation between liberal outrage and how well they have been morally tweaked by a right-winger. It's as if they have been caught leaving the restroom with toilet paper on their shoe. Palin and abortion/down syndrome and having it all as a woman, riles them greatly; Cheny with a gay daughter that he is very proud of won't fit there image of Darth Cheny and they are whipped-up...etc.

Then inner complications of our natural enemies can be rhetorically debilitating to those with a not unreasonable desire to keep it simple and stay on point.

I don't much care for Cheny, but I think he was a patriot that felt he was advancing the American tradition and interests at home and abroad. I feel the same way about Barack Obama. Though, as I say, wrongly.

hayden · Senior Member

"So apparently none of the others had any friends or family members who are gay? Perhaps the others are judging the world based not upon personal empathy, but upon political positioning. Is that better somehow?"

I don't have any doubt that most of the Democrats who are against same sex marriage, take that position for political reasons. Is that better? Frankly, busdriver, I don't know. But I can understand it. Politics, at its best, is not the story of martyrs. By its nature, politics entails a level of compromise to be successful. Politicians don't typically lead the charge for change in society. MLK would not have been elected to the senate. However, many of the politicians do have a set of beliefs that guide their political views.

Cheney has a set of principles which tends to be like the old Brit phrase during WWII: I've got mine, Jack. The fact is that his views on homosexuality deviate from all his other views, in the sense that his expressed values are all on one side, with this sole exception.

busdriver11 · Guru

"I don't find it strange at all that Cheney supports gay marriage. Like many people, he judges the world exclusively by his own experience, not by imagining himself in others' shoes. His stance on gays is just the perfect example of his having sympathy only if it fits his own experience."

That's a very weak rebuttal, you know. He takes a position that is different from all the other pres/vp in recent history, and you find a way to denigrate that. So apparently none of the others had any friends or family members who are gay? Perhaps the others are judging the world based not upon personal empathy, but upon political positioning. Is that better somehow?

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

You are correct that I voted for Obama, though I didn't, and don't, think he is any more liberal than Hillary Clinton; I didn't see much difference between their political positions during the campaign.

I definitely don't consider myself a superduperliberal. I think Dennis Kucinich's ideas are mostly airy-fairy nonsense (Department of Peace, give me a break). I think the economic ideas of a lot of liberals are naive and unworkable.

Woodwork · Senior Member

Hayden seems to believe that Cheney is an honest empiricist...I believe he is being too kind.

-- Edited by Woodwork on Thursday 27th of January 2011 08:37:42 PM

Woodwork · Senior Member

Cardinal,

I rarely get into super and never super conjugated with duper when discribing any politician...fair to middling is about the furthest I can go with these fame monsters.

But let me say merely this: Barack Obama is the most liberal President we have had in most of our lifetimes (I'm 51). And as I said, in the last election he was the overwhelming choice of the most liberal voters. For instance, I feel pretty certain that you voted for him, over Hillary or McCain...and I am beginning to think that you consider yourself something of a super, if not duper, liberal. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Am I right?

...well, I'd throw good money at that one.

Woodwork · Senior Member

Cartera wrote:

So, I got the pat down. The agent was very respectful and I didn't feel in any way violated. When she checked her gloves, they tested for some sort of banned substance so I had to go through another level. Everything I had with me was checked with the "wand" and then the "wand" was tested. They didn't find anything else. I didn't even ask what showed up, but by the time I was done, I was ready to confess to being a suicide bomber. I would not hold up well under serious questioning.

Great story...and well told. Gave me a chuckle!

hayden · Senior Member

I don't find it strange at all that Cheney supports gay marriage. Like many people, he judges the world exclusively by his own experience, not by imagining himself in others' shoes. His stance on gays is just the perfect example of his having sympathy only if it fits his own experience.

busdriver11 · Guru

Funny, no matter what it is he says he supports, I believe it is purely political posturing. Besides the fact that he truly loves his daughters, I don't know what else to believe is real. To make a great speech and then do the exact opposite leaves many questions in my mind.

And remember during the debates, with all the venom directed at Palin and her supposed anti-gay stance....while her position on gay marriage was EXACTLY the same as Obama/Biden. Come to think of it, the only person I can think of in the top 2 spots to actually support gay marriage was the evil, selfish, hate mongering Dick Cheney. How strange, wouldn't you just assume he'd want gays to be waterboarded into heterosexuality?

Sarcasm of course. I really like the man. Actually, I like both men.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

Obama supported the FISA law. He supports the death penalty for some cases. He opposes gay marriage. He supported the Patriot Act. He's been a huge disappointment in the civil liberties area. These are not liberal positions.

In what respect was Senator Barack Obama more liberal than Senator Hillary Clinton?

poetgrl · Senior Member

BigG wrote:

People who think they know what is best for society irritate those of us who do.

so true!

BigG · Guru

People who think they know what is best for society irritate those of us who do.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

I believe most conservatives want to adhere to the will of the people.

Hmmm. Conservatives didn't want to adhere to the will of the 77% of Americans who wanted to get rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell. Conservatives don't want to adhere to the will of the substantial majority of Americans who want higher marginal tax rates for millionaires.

I guess conservatives just want to adhere to the will of the people when the people agree with the conservative position. By the greatest coincidence, liberals feel the same way.

BigG · Guru

OMG! Now you are on "the list" so you will get patted down every time!

Cartera · Guru

Speaking of those searches, I have a hip replacement so I set off the alarms when I flew recently. I should have gone right to the body scanner thingy but, to tell the truth, I completely fogot about the hip.

So, I got the pat down. The agent was very respectful and I didn't feel in any way violated. When she checked her gloves, they tested for some sort of banned substance so I had to go through another level. Everything I had with me was checked with the "wand" and then the "wand" was tested. They didn't find anything else. I didn't even ask what showed up, but by the time I was done, I was ready to confess to being a suicide bomber. I would not hold up well under serious questioning.

The airport I flew home from doesn't have a scanner so I got the patdown again coming home.

poetgrl · Senior Member

Yep, the democrats want to tell me what to eat and the republicans want to tell me who I can marry. The democrats want to force me to buy health insurance and the republicans want to tell my doctor and me what I can or cannot do with my body, if I get pregnant. The democrats want me to go through an illegal search every time I get on an airplane and the republicans want to be allowed to illegally tap my phone.
The democrats want to make sure the unions are protected and the republicans want to make sure the financial industry isn't regulated, and every single one of them wants to raise my taxes, one way or the other.

Cartera · Guru

Ha geeps - I hope you're wearing your boots and have a shovel 'cause you're in deep.

geeps20 · Senior Member

I don't think most do. I believe most conservatives want to adhere to the will of the people. Liberals want there way regardless of what mainstream America wants....because apparently they "know better". what iss good for the folks.

BigG · Guru

And Conservatives don't feel the same way?

geeps20 · Senior Member

the far left doesn't think someone is a liberal unless they try to enact into law everything the far left agrees with..no matter how far off from mainstream America...apparently. They want it all.

Woodwork · Senior Member

Cardinal,
Perhaps you miss my point. Barack is a Democrat. A liberal Democrat. He did not caucus with blue dogs or even get involved with the DLC. His associates were always liberal, those he worked with and that backed him in the Illinois senate were liberal. And in the US senate he was a favorite of liberals. In the Presidential election, people that thought of themselves as very liberal were far more likely to vote for Barack, not Hillary. Those are facts. No one disputes them...unless you do.

So, if we must dig deeper (I don't see that we do, but I like to be accommodating), I ask, what votes did he take (not including the "present" votes) in either the Illinois senate or US senate that offend you sense of liberalism? Where did he break orthodoxy?

As for his record as president, I believe I have already answered your question...he is a new 50 year high for liberals. You should be ecstatic, I'd think. Or is this simply the response from the radical left to the new Thermidor working its way into the Obama administration, predictably, in its second year?

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

And what, specifically, were his so very liberal votes in the Senate? I know that some crazy conservative group rated him the most liberal Senator in Congress one year, but I didn't and don't believe that, in a Senate that includes Bernie Sanders.

Woodwork · Senior Member

No cardinal...I am going by his votes in congress, before he was President. That's where Occam's razor comes in. His votes were his votes.

Tell me, when he was in the Illinois senate and then the US senate, which of his votes was not liberal? In which votes did he fail the liberal litmus test?

Now, he is President. He wants to remain president...and even then, he has passed through congress the most liberal agenda since LBJ. No one disputes this...unless you happen to. Occam's razor again.

Meaning, you have to go back to the 60's to even begin to make liberal comparrisons to President Obama...then to FDR. Occam's razor, indeed.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

Woodwork, your argument that Obama is a superduperliberal is that you know in your heart he's a superduperliberal? Use Occam's razor. When someone throughout his career has been a pragmatic centrist, and then he becomes President and acts like a pragmatic centrist, the Occam's razor tells us the best assumption is that he's a pragmatic centrist.

Exhibit A against Obama's liberalism: civil liberties. He's been terrible. Exhibit B: the wars, what are Americans doing still dying in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Abyss, libertarians don't usually take a restrictive line on immigration AFAIK. Nor is a big expensive government-run health care system what libertarians generally say they favor. So I find your collection of political beliefs unusual and unexpected. Just an observation.

Woodwork · Senior Member

Cardinal Fang wrote:

If Obama is a liberal, what do you call the person who wants single-payer health care, a fossil-fuels tax, cutting the Defense Department budget and an immediate withdrawal from the two wars? Single-payer, a gas tax, defense cuts and ending the wars are policy positions that I identify with liberal Democrats. Universal health care is a policy Democrats of all stripes have advocated for decades.

A socialist? ...a European ... a community activist?

Of course, it does no good to talk about what this liberal commentator or that politician wants to do, if that person has either no ambition to be president or, more likely, no chance of being president.

In the end, ideologues from both sides are left to bemoan the ineluctable fact that we live in a vibrant democracy, albeit a representative democracy (see Cartera's comment above, the last thing she need is the populace to vote on her issue) and if you need to be elected by all the people you will likely need to reflect their views as you are only there to execute their business, not to institute utopia, your idea of a perfect society or Sweden.

Obama, liberal as he is --and at heart, I'd guess he is to the left of everyone on this thread, wanted to be the American President, not doctor feel-good. But you do not defeat all of your opponents (often underhandedly by having them disqualified...Rahm is getting a good come-upance getting disqualified in the Chicago mayoral race, all things considered) including the best politician out there (Hillary) in record time by playing it by heart. Obama, like all true leaders will put his ambition before his ideology wherein they conflict. Still and all, he is almost certainly the most liberal amongst serious candidates for president in close to a century.

poetgrl · Senior Member

I have to say I agree with Abyss on these things. I'm for all of those things, and affirmative action, pro-choice, AND much, much lower taxation. I could enumerate a long list of both liberal and conservative postions I agree with. Actually, a ton of the positions MOST parties take are incredibly logically inconsistent.

If you are "really" for freedom in all of it's guises, you actually can't be a member of either party, not at all.

Abyss · Senior Member

Cardinal Fang wrote:

Abyss, you're for single-payer? And a Pigouvian tax on gas? And ending the wars? Wow. Those are not usually policy positions associated with people who want to kick out illegal aliens (how?) and eliminate birthright citizenship.

Really? A gas tax and ending the two wars is quite a Ron Paul position. Single payer simply makes sense from a 'healthcare spending as a % of GDP' standpoint.

It's uncommon but can easily be incorporated into a single idealogical framework.

-- Edited by Abyss on Thursday 27th of January 2011 12:30:29 AM

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

Abyss, you're for single-payer? And a Pigouvian tax on gas? And ending the wars? Wow. Those are not usually policy positions associated with people who want to kick out illegal aliens (how?) and eliminate birthright citizenship.

Woodwork, opposing gay marriage may have gotten Obama votes, but it also lost him votes, especially in the primaries.

Abyss · Senior Member

Cardinal Fang wrote:

Which liberal positions does Obama hold that Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and John (Dead to Me) Edwards do not hold? Which liberal positions does Obama hold that Al Gore does not hold?

If Obama is a liberal, what do you call the person who wants single-payer health care, a fossil-fuels tax, cutting the Defense Department budget and an immediate withdrawal from the two wars? Single-payer, a gas tax, defense cuts and ending the wars are policy positions that I identify with liberal Democrats. Universal health care is a policy Democrats of all stripes have advocated for decades.

Honestly, I support virtually all of what you said - but I also support gutting of public sector unions, kicking out all illegals, and eliminating birthright citizenship.

I hardly think people would call me Democrat or liberal.

-- Edited by Abyss on Wednesday 26th of January 2011 08:53:18 PM

poetgrl · Senior Member

Well, what's going on in Egypt is relatively newer, and more sticky for "us," given our historic relationship with Mubarek. It's an interesting development.

Lots of strange, unsung revolutions going on all around the world right now.

soccerguy315 · Guru

Why did Obama trumpet the current events in Tunisia while ignoring what is going on in Egypt? that is awkward.

Cartera · Guru

I live in Maryland and we have a gay marriage bill being considered now. I think it will pass - hoping it doesn't make it to referendum.