Sunday Editorial Round-Up
October 26th, 2008Inside look at the McCain campaign and its narrative attempts:
John McCain - The Making (and Remaking and Remaking) of the Candidate - NYTimes.com
This election cycle was supposed to be about “the story”. Unfortunately for McCain, his ever-changing direction has been completely transparent. Normally, that wouldn’t be such a big deal. But with the economy tanking, ever-changing isn’t what people are looking for in a candidate.
The bigger issue facing the GOP is that it is starting to look more and more like the party of yesterday. Nothing has accelerated this more than the selection of Palin as a VP candidate. The GOP looks as if it’s not the solid block (from David Frum, no less) that it has been over the past 25 years. Moderates are turned off by the current GOP tactics of name-calling and appeals to an increasingly fringe base.
The latest scare tactic from the GOP? The language of the dangers of one-party rule, which ring empty, given that the GOP has had it’s chance during its years of one-party rule to move the country forward and failed. One-party rule under the GOP gave us the massive failed response to Katrina, Tom Delay, Karl Rove, extreme fringe politics (manifest in the ridiculous Terry Schiavo case), partisan divisiveness and no end of voting district gerrymandering to ensure it stays in power.
Barack Obama has represented a surprising calm in the face of disaster. His demeanor in the face of relentless character attacks (which haven’t stuck) shows a presidential character we haven’t seen in a long while.
There have been gaffes on both sides, to be sure, but on substance alone, Obama shows an approach to problem-solving and has ideas to move the U.S. away from the apocalyptic, New Testament informed end of days chaos we’ve seen from the Bush/Cheney cabal.
Biden’s remarks about Obama being tested in the first six months isn’t quite the homerun for the GOP that it’s been made out to be. Both Clinton and Bush were tested in their first years as president with attacks on the United States. Joe Lieberman said the same thing on June 29,2008. I don’t think it’s reckless to assume that no matter who is president, the United States will have to be vigilant and aware. o
I think that is one of my biggest problems with McCain. He used to be very moderate, so much so that I can remember thinking if we had to have a Republican in office, at least let it be McCain. But now, in trying to appeal to the fringe, he’s alienated far more. It’s not a trait I am looking for in our president.
If anything is going to test Obama’s presidency it’s going to be the slug ratfucking Republican sore losers who aren’t going away any time soon. Not only will Obama be inheriting the colossal mess Bush has made of a war and the American economy, thanks to Bush and McCain, there are now terrorists within the country determined to bring Democrats down using any means possible. Death threats and the insane rage about Obama come from inside the country, not Iran. Furthermore, Palin has deep ties to a violent secessionist movement in her own state and she recently gave her blessing to neo nazis, white supremacists and advocates of bombing abortion clinics.
http://tinyurl.com/6lxgv3
She’s just getting warmed up.
There is also this nugget.
http://tinyurl.com/5oga6g
Palin is going rogue. (She wants the presidency, remember. And when asked to describe the VP role, she mentions “controlling the senate” among other ludicrous things ala Cheney).
The Republicans are trying to steal the election–again. At what point did they decide that power was more important than democracy?
“Confusing N. Carolina Ballot: 100,000 Votes For President Could Be Lost”
“A report in the New York Times found that in some states, including battleground states, for every new voter registered two other voters have been removed. Colorado, a state experiencing rapid and huge population increases, has seen more than 100,000 voters erased from its rolls. Reports from other states show suppression and fraud involving computerized voting systems, voter purges, and unreasonable demands for voter documentation.”
Thank the gods Obama will have an army of lawyers ready in every state on election day to contest any and all voting irregularities. We Dems have finally learned the lessons of 2000 and 2004.
Also, I thought you would be interested in this Mormon’s view on Utah’s Proposition 8. I didn’t have the heart to read the comments after the article because he used the dreaded word that brought a trainload of shit down on Heather’s head–”re-consider”. {shudder}
“So to my fellow Mormons: I ask you to please re-consider. Take the time you would spend fighting this errant cause with your family. Go to a movie. Take a drive together. Watch the World Series.
Maybe you don’t completely understand homosexuality. Maybe you think it’s a sin. But shouldn’t we leave that to God and allow others to make their own choices? As followers of Christ, isn’t it always better to err on the side of compassion and love? ”
http://tinyurl.com/6cfoe6
I think the comments left for this post pretty much sum up just how nasty this election has become. Let’s take a look at a couple of excerpts, since I always get called out for being so nasty and mean when I comment:
from Lesley:
“the slug ratfucking Republican sore losers.”
And I got “yelled” at for calling someone a tree hugging, hacky sack player. Nothing said about this lovely caveat? Oh and the suggestion she’s a supporter of white supremacists and neo nazis…because someone had the nerve to say Obama was a socialist. Well to that, you might read and listen to these things:
http://gregransom.com/prestopundit/2008/04/gregs-guide-to-barack-obamas-d.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck
I read your link, so I would think it fair if you read mine. I thought yours was ridiculous, as I’m sure you’ll think mine is.
from Southerngirl:
“Thank the gods Obama will have an army of lawyers ready in every state…”
Yes, that is the answer to less power hungry politicians, isn’t it?
You all keep talking about the extreme right wing…
What in the world would you call yourselves with these kinds of statements?
Faydean, would you just take your whining somewhere else, like the Drudge Report, please. You promised once you would leave. Please don’t go back on your word.
It would be one thing if you would talk politics, but all you do is whine and attack other posters. Although you _can_ be funny. I laughed until tears came out of my eyes at your attack on Jon and Heather for having money, therefore they must be elitists, therefore they are not allowed to have a political opinion. This from a doctor’s wife. Let’s see, doctor’s wife equals rich which equals elitist in your book, doesn’t it? So isn’t the pot calling the kettle black?
As for your attack on me, I will not honor you with a response because I have no respect for you or your opinion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2JPbQOHEkY
Here’s a link for you Faydean! Your good ole boy John back in 2000. Making the point of this point very clear - he keeps remaking himself over and over and over again!
Who’s the Socialist now?
Correction to read:
point of this post very clear!
Faydean, “ratfucking” is a Republican strategy of undermining opponents that dates back to Nixon. Look it up.
I am not using it as an adjective to describe my hostile feelings. It’s an actual technique used by the Republican Party. (Most of the ratfucking they do is illegal and some operatives have served time for it.)
In response to your other criticism, I do not believe you read the article I linked to. Ridiculous? No. Palin’s husband is a member of a secessionist party that advocates separation by any means to the US and Palin did give her blessing to those who advocate killing abortion doctors. What part of extreme don’t you get? (In fact, recently Palin was asked if she thought bombing abortion clinics was terrorism and she equivocated.)
http://tizona.wordpress.com/2008/10/28/holy-shit-uber-feminist-elaine-lafferty-likes-sarah-palin/
Another feminist bites the dust…or so I’m sure the Liberals feel that way at least.
I for one am rejoining the feminist agenda if more smart women learn to open up their definition of the word, for the first time in their lives.
Love how you totally side-stepped my link of John McCain admitting exactly what he’s condemning Obama for right now in every stump speech he’s giving, Faydean.
So what if some feminist likes Sarah Palin. This was about John McCain changing his stripes repeatedly - and he so obviously has.
Just another example of you popping by to stir up shit rather than discuss the topic at hand.
What the hell is your point Kari-Mel?
Was this directed to me because I’m the wife of a doctor? Probably.
Well, McCain is considered a moderate under most situations. He answered how I would think he would answer. Comparing that answer to one he’d give today, when considering Obama’s sweeping increase in taxes on the “rich” is just silly.
Both candidate give tax cuts to the middle class in their plan…you can look this up online easily. Obama might give a couple of hundred dollars more. I personally won’t be effected by his increases, so my feelings don’t stem from a personal issue with what his plan will do. I’ll actually get a tax cut on both plans, somewhat, though with Obama’s payroll cutoff we’ll be hosed, but what’s new there.
The point is, that in a time of econmic crisis NO ONE should be taxed higher. The richies you love to chastise provide JOBS to those middle class people you want to help. If you tax them, they will a) just offset the cost by raising their prices, which will hit us all b) decrease their expenditures by eliminating jobs (jobs go first). No business person will just absorb the hit and be ok with it…they are in business to stay in business. So a tax hike on anyone right now will hurt everyone. History has proven this economically…you could look that up too if you cared.
McCain’s stance has been his stance as a moderate Republican for decades. No new thing for those who knew that. It’s the reason most true conservatives weren’t too thrilled with him as a candidate. And, for us who support him despite our misgivings because the alternative is just plain NOT AN OPTION, we are GLAD he’s becoming more right on this particular subject.
There is no reason you could argue with me that would ever make it ok for a government to take money from any group of people to give to others. NONE. It’s a matter of principle. People must pay taxes, but to have one group pay the majority for the rest is simply immoral, unconstitutional and outright crazy.
I know you hate Joe the Plumber, but I must refer to him because he said what I KNOW most Americans (the ones you don’t know obviously) feel…when asked why he wouldn’t like Obama’s plan if it indeed gave him more tax relief/money he said that he wouldn’t want it because it wouldn’t be right…to paraphrase, he said, “If it meant I’d be taking money from someone else who worked for that money or was just luckier than me, I wouldn’t want it. I don’t want a handout. I want to work for myself and earn my own way…to each his own.”
Exactly. Those people you see booing socialist principles talked about in the McCain rallies are not rich people. I’d say 90 percent of them will never see an income of $250,000. But they know, in their hearts, that redistribution of wealth via taxation is wrong…that it doesn’t work and only breeds class warfare and keeping people down in an underclass situation.
Just today, I heard just a plain ole citizen sum it up perfectly. They said it’s like this…if you think dollar for dollar, the money that the government takes from one to give to another is a good thing and works you’d be wrong. The government takes the dollar, keeps about 75 percent of it for itself, tied up in bureaucracy, and gives the rest to those “in need”, making their life no more prosperous and requiring them to continue to need the help the government so “lovingly” provides. It keeps them like mice in a cage running on a wheel.
Why can’t you see that? Welfare does not help, it suppresses. Sure, it might help in the short term, much like those stupid ass stimulus checks, but long term…it doesn’t and never has.
That is the distinct difference between my views and possibly yours. A helping hand, in the hands of a government is more like a hammer…beating the people back down to where they “belong” socially. I don’t say this because I think that, I say that because I feel it is true in terms of the real agenda behind welfare and entitlements. In terms of the black community, there are many black leaders, Bill Cosby inparticular, that feel certain laws and programs intended to help poor African Americans, have, in fact, just repressed them more.
If you look outside the typical “liberal” thoughts of many black voters, you will find those who don’t agree…those who are more conservative and feel the government isn’t and never has been on their side. And, for that matter, any under class in this country would say the same thing…many would I feel.
There is good intent from the people in this country. But the government is not the instrument that should be used. That is my firm belief, and I won’t waiver from that.
In terms of what someone said about me being a rich doctor’s wife. Give me an effin’ break. I could go on and on about what doctors do for people and how they earn every frigin’ dime they make (and it would never be enough honestly). But then again, that’s just the pop culture’s and media’s personification of doctors, one we hear all the time and just roll our eyes over.
And that is why I apologized to Jon for being harsh with him in another post. I realized I was being just as guilty of class judgement as I’d felt he’d been. I don’t fault anyone making money…I try my hardest anyway. My husband is way more understanding of basketball players making $20 million dollars and such.
My FIRM belief, again, is that one deserves what one works for. To each his own. Charity comes from within and shouldn’t be mandated by any government or church even, period.
I think most, good, hard working Americans feel that too. They don’t want to be “helped” or patronized by the governments view that they must because they can’t do for themselves. Those who feel otherwise have a different agenda, one born of perhaps selfishness or just plain ignorance. Getting help once is fine…a couple of times, perhaps. But to be rewarded for making bad choices and stupid decisions…which if you listened to talk show host Dave Ramsey, you’d find people are often very guilt of in today’s world, you’d think otherwise.
Once you listen to the stories…find out the truth…well, it’s much different than you might perceive. Those foreclosed loans and people losing jobs or being in such debt they can’t buy food. Sounds so horrible, until you get the specifics. Then, well, it sounds like “OMG, why would anyone do such a thing to themselves?” Because they could…because it was easy to. Because some bank, goverment program or just plain conman offered it right up as an option…same as cash, no interest for two years, low rate for the first three years (small print on how it will inflate to impossible amounts), fast cash, title loans, school loans, furniture loans, car loans, hell…you can even finance your kids braces.
Responsiblity. It’s all I want. Self-responsibility.
And that’s all I will say. This is a fruitless endeavor. YOu wall won’t even remotely consider another side. Having once been on your side and fleeing it with all I have, I now know I was totally right in that decision. There is no such thing I fear as a moderate Democrate any longer. Well, Lieberman.
There is no such thing as a feminist who supports Palin. Not by any stretch, though there are plenty of people who support Palin who claim to be feminists (and aren’t). Just as there are many who claim to be Hillary supporters who are voting for McCain. Anyone who genuinely supports Hillary will be voting for Obama, period. These folks who claim they support Hillary and like Palin; these folks who claim to be feminists who support Palin, are Republicans pretending to be something they aren’t.
This is also a “ratfucking” technique.
Everything Palin stands for is antithetical to feminism and all genuine feminists know it. Palin is an anti-feminist.
Faydean, your characterizations of McCain as a moderate are completely false. Perhaps he used to be, but since the start of his campaign he’s been anything but.
A moderate 72 year old presidential candidate does not pick Palin to be his running mate. Come on, try and be reasonable here.
Moderate republicans have already dumped him. The only people supporting him now are the extreme right wing - the neo nazis, village idiots, and uneducated half wits living in Hillbilly Acres.
McCain is such a hoser he hired the same firm Bush hired to smear McCain in 2000 to smear Obama. http://tinyurl.com/5mvxj8
The man has demonstrated no ethics in his campaign.
The only thing going for McCain is his POW history and he’s milked it for all it’s worth. Unfortunately, his true character has emerged and people are beginning to realize that not only is McCain a loose cannon eager to start more wars and risk more lives, he’s got no ethics, morals or sense. And he’s a very poor judge of character for picking Palin. He didn’t even vet the woman before offering her the job.
Faydean, “that’s all” you have to say? Goodness, that was enough. You claim that welfare suppresses, but show me one, just one person who got back on their feet due to welfare, and that’s good enough for me. You can’t condemn the entire institution because there’s exceptions to the rule.
I chuckled when it was clear that McCain had wrapped up the nomination. I had hated many of his “moderate” positions that made him the left’s favorite Republican, but I knew that before it was over, he would be branded as extreme right wing. He’s always been socially conservative, but economically he’s been a lot more big government than I liked. He’s my least favorite type of conservative - he wants to be involved in my sex life and my business life. I want the government out of both. Anyway, like the Clintons discovered, the left will turn on you in an instant when you go against the Party. To that extent, McCain is getting what he deserves.
Why is Palin not a feminist? Does it finally just boil down to abortion? If that’s the only important test, why not abandon the word feminist?
Reading what’s written here allows me to see the how much the left and the Christian right are alike. You both start with the knowledge of your righteousness on a given issue, and then you accept the facts that support your position, and reject the ones that don’t. I’ve had some conversations with a woman I work with who’s a strong supporter of Obama and an admitted socialist, who btw, thinks that Obama is the most socialist mainstream candidate she’s ever seen. Anyway, months ago one of her big reasons for supporting Obama was his position of immediate withdrawal from Iraq. When he had the nomination pretty much wrapped up and began to modify his rhetoric on Iraq, I asked her if his shift bothered her. Nope, it didn’t. She calmly explained to me that of course you can’t withdraw immediately, though that had been her position just a few weeks before.
When Obama gets in and begins to pass much more left wing policies than he’s currently claiming, I expect all his supporters to fall in line. Just like they did when Clinton had his unilateral war, and when he committed sexual harassment, and when he dropped the middle class tax cut he ran on almost immediately after he got elected.
There’s one operating principle here: Democrats good, Republicans bad.
Lesley,
As a woman I am highly offended (not that you’d care) that you claim a woman is not a feminist unless she meets some certain “standard” under the cause.
That is absolutely fucking ridiculous. Women run the gammut on how they live their lives and what they believe. And that is how it should be. I for one have not ever, nor will I ever, be a woman who criticizes another woman for how she thinks, feels or lives her life. That IS the true nature of feminism. If I pigeonhole a woman on how I think she must be, in order for her to be considered legitimate in the eyes of society, then I do nothing but keep her “in her place”. It is the same with racism. As in this race, a person voting for Obama JUST BECAUSE he is a black man, doesn’t help the cause AT ALL! Why can’t you see that?
It’s like trying to talk to someone who has been completely brainwashed.
Women are allowed, imagine, to think and live however they want in this country. Your constant paranoia about them losing one “freedom”, abortion, can not be the sole basis for the feminist movement. Why? Because that is just insane. There are plenty of women in the world who aren’t affected by that issue…older women, married women, hell, young girls! What about the rights they have in other areas of their lives…like being able to live in a free society and keep what they earn and not be mandated by a government on how to live their lives and spend their income?! There are more issues that affect women, affect us ALL, that are more pressing than Roe v. Wade.
Palin is a woman who made herself in a man’s world. She’s never lived a life where a girl wasn’t supposed to or allowed to do things a boy or man could do…sports, hunting, fishing, owning a business, being a politician. She’s lived in a world where she never knew a limitation in her life…never felt one. And if she did, she fought againist it. That IS feminism to it’s core. And that is why I admire her and feel she is a role model to every girl and woman out there, or should be.
And to call Elaine Lafferty NOT a feminist is just laughable. As former editor of Ms. (the bible of the feminist cause), under her head the magazine won critical acclaim. She’s been a respected feminist, author and lecturer for years. But I guess, now that she differs in her views, you hate her too. Yes, equal hate from woman to woman. That is the true baracade of the feminist cause, still…women’s on intolerance of each other!
Help us, is all I have to say to that.
mmc…
yes I can can condemn and entire institution based on a few exceptions…
Just as you do an entire war…
an entire economic downturn…
an entire political movement
Every person, apparently, is allowed to pick and choose what he/she feels is the crux of the matter to make an entire sweeping assertion on nowadays. At least, that’s what I keep getting from my liberal friends.
from my gay friends…why are you voting for Obama? Because he supports gay marriage.
from my female liberal friends…why are you voting for Obama? Because he is for Roe v. Wade
from my hippie/peace liberal friends…why are you voting for Obama? Because he’ll end the war in Iraq
and
from me…
why did you NOT vote for Obama?
Because he’s a socialist.
@dross, your recap of Clinton is laughable.
While you are correct in the self-righteousness among political sides, your notions of what Clinton did in office are incorrect. You said:
Clinton did not run on tax cuts in 1992. He said that we were going to have to “make some sacrifices” which is code for “I won’t be cutting your taxes.”
He did not sexually harass Monica Lewinski. What they did was consensual. He misled the public about it and then got off on a legal technicality. Ironically, it was the rabid nature with which the right pursued Clinton than ended Newt Gingrich’s career and delivered the very wonderful Tom Delay to the forefront.
What unilateral war are you referring to?
Palin is post-feminist. She puts value on the unborn and rapist over that of the living female who has done no wrong. She values rapists more than average women.
And that’s not a sweeping assertion? “Because he’s a socialist.”
Obama believes that those making over $250K should pay more in taxes than those who don’t. McCain said the exact same thing in 2000, and yet Obama is a socialist and McCain isn’t?
Guess what? There are already socialist programs at play in our country today and Obama didn’t put them there…
@faydean, you are pushing a double standard. You claim Obama is a socialist, with little evidence, and then whine that the definition to be a feminist is wide open. Which is it? narrow defining traits to name call or a wide spectrum?
You are not arguing with your mind. You are arguing with your heart. And it’s not making a lot of sense.
Feminism: has to be open enough to include a woman running for VP who values criminals (rapists) over women.
Socialism: has to be closed enough to include, without a lick of evidence, a man running for President.
Your notions: all over the logical map.
The name calling is a sign of a weak argument and desperation.
Carrie…
I was being sarcastic.
The first examples I gave are just as ludicrous.
But I hear it ALL the time. I have many reasons for not voting for Obama. The fact that he pushes a socialist agenda is just one of them.
And the fact that socialist programs are already in this country does nothing for me. I didn’t support those either. I won’t any in the future.
The reason McCain is not a socialist is because his overall view of what government should do, really, isn’t like Obamas. But then again, if you’d read what I wrote, you’d see that McCain is really too moderate…or was…for me.
Like I said, saying he’s become more right wing isn’t bad for me. I wanted him to go more to that side of things anyway. And he is, finally.
Blurb,
Clinton promised to raise taxes on people making over 200,000 and use the money to cut taxes for the middle class. It’s in so many articles from 1992 the info can be found very easily.
The unilateral war, waged without Congress’ or U.N. approval through executive order, was the left’s favorite, the war in former Yugoslavia.
No, he didn’t sexually harass Monica Lewinsky, and let me go on the record that I never cared one bit about that relationship, though I have heard prominent feminists say (before the whole scandal) that a workplace relationship between such different levels of authority can never be completely consensual. Clinton has been accused of sexual harassment or sexual assault over ten times, starting in his college days. He’s been accused of rape by what I consider to be a credible woman.
Your comment on abortion is an example of why it’s impossible to have a reasonable discussion of the subject in this country. You don’t have to be an extremist to believe that an unborn child, or a fetus, or whatever term you want to use, is a human life. Maybe you don’t agree that it’s a human life with rights, but (I have a moderate position on the subject which gets me labeled pro-abortion on one side and anti-abortion by the other) can’t you at least acknowledge that there’s room to believe the other way without something being wrong with you? If you believe that the unborn child is a human being the same as a child that’s already born, it’s not inconsistent to also believe that abortion shouldn’t be allowed to the child of a rapist. The point isn’t whether you agree, the point is that the position isn’t so crazy and extreme that it shouldn’t even be given a hearing. If you think that abortion is murder, rape doesn’t enter into the equation.
As for Obama being a socialist, it’s not name calling, any more than calling McCain a conservative or right wing is name calling. Socialism isn’t an on/off switch, it’s a linear progression. Do I think Obama wants to turn the U.S. into Cuba? No. Into Sweden? Maybe. He’s a lot further down the socialism trail than I’m comfortable with. From where I sit, I think it’s reasonable to say he’s a socialist. Calling him a socialist isn’t name calling, it’s an opinion. Calling Sarah Palin Caribou Barbie, or Cunt, is.
Jon,
I could give you plenty of evidence to support the Obama socialist notion. I started to give you all kinds of examples on such things before, but decided that there is no way that it would matter to you.
Even if the evidence (not to mention him saying it himself more than a few times…in his books several times he addresses the issue and his personal leanings), you don’t want to hear it…or you support those views.
So what argument would change that for you? I don’t think any.
I have concluded, unfortunately, that there is a huge segment of this country that supports socialism and marxism. It’s like the nifty new fad among liberals of a certain age it seems. And with that, all I can say is that those people deserve exactly what they vote into office. If these people want it…let em have it.
But, like someone pointed out just yesterday, the socialism of Europe that is so popular today isn’t what this country will get. And, in fact, those socialist societies are nervous about us joining them…Canada and France are talking about trade agreements in light of Obama’s NAFTA talks. Capitalism has offset all the socialist idealism in Europe for years. As they have stagnated economically to support the masses, we’ve offered them trade options. Oh yes, we’re global all right. You see just how much lately…we falter…they falter. Hmm, I wonder what will happen when we tank our economy as half our population goes on the doll and businesses crash and burn right and left and the government continues to tread water trying to get itself out of the mess it created?
I forget who is credited with this quote and I don’t know if I’m saying it verbatim, but it goes something like, “When voters realize they can vote themselves money the Republic will die.” Benjamin Franklin, I believe.
If that’s where we’re headed then so be it. We deserve it if the majority chooses that path. Though, those of us who do not believe in this idealogy will try and fight against it as long as we can.
I listed, on a comment, just yesterday a few examples, that give evidence for Obama’s true intent with this country. Besides him actually saying it himself, I don’t know what more you would need.
And, Jon, as a voter and a citizen in this great land of ours, my argument must come from my heart. This is my life and country we’re talking about…not just yours.
faydean,
I would imagine that you do, in fact, support some of the programs in this country that are socialist in nature. You probably just aren’t willing to stipulate that’s what they are.
Carrie,
I know you challenged faydean with your statement, but I’ll take your challenge. To what programs are you referring?
dross,
I’m not challenging anyone. Just trying to point out that McCain said in 2000 about taxes what Obama is saying now. Obama also wants to make health care available to everyone and people cry socialist! Can’t allow the government to run health care! But it’s okay to let the government run the military and the public school system. Children have the right to an education, but not to health care? It just doesn’t make sense to me. And you can call Social Security a “retirement” fund, but isn’t it basically paying into a pool that gets redistributed?
I just believe that in order to call ourselves a great nation, we need to start taking a little better care of our citizens. And if I get labeled a socialist for that, well, so be it.
Carrie,
Yes, McCain changed on taxes. In my mind, to the better position. I understand you disagree.
Government-run health care is by definition, socialist health care. The government runs the military because our Constitution set it up that way, and I think that defense and police are a proper use of government. Wanting limited government isn’t the same as wanting no government. And wanting the government involved in some areas doesn’t make you a hypocrite if you want government to stay out of other areas.
The school system is socialized, and I am against the way it operates. I think better alternatives are available, and the socialization of the function inhibits those alternatives.
Social Security is socialization of retirement, yes. I think we’d be better off without it, on the whole. Obama wants to socialize it further. Right now, the top earners stop paying at a certain income level, because they can only draw out a certain amount of benefits. Obama’s plan proposes to require them to continue to pay past the current income cutoff, yet not allow them to receive the benefits of those payments. That is wealth redistribution, and is a socialist tenet.
Rather than “take care of our citizens,” how about we just get out of the way of our fellow citizens and encourage them to take care of themselves. I don’t like the way the government “takes care” of me now.
The government does everything with less efficiency than the private sector. Sometimes there’s a good tradeoff, like for police and military, because it’s vital these services remain under public control for accountability purposes. Most other areas run better and benefit more people when left to the private sector. No system is perfect, all require tradeoffs.
I believe the government asks us to pay in freedom for security it delivers poorly at best. I’d rather take my chances on my own merits.
Dross…
you basically summed up EXACTLY how I feel.
and, my husband says you’re awesome!
Thanks for the support.
I’d really be interested in the reactions from Dems/Liberals on this editorial. When I saw it I nearly passed out, as I’m sure Dross will.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWU3ZDIwNGFlMDI4ZWNlZjU4NmQ2ZTZjOTdiMGU0ZmE=
I can’t for the life of me see how anyone could support this guy’s platform.
Just an FYI, anyone from Jon’s site who comes to my blog and leaves nasty comments will be blocked. I have an open blog, but I do not comment on politics on my blog…just my family… and will not allow people who are just pissed over over my political views to come to my family journal and leave negative comments.
You can visit if you want, but if you decide to attack me or my family, you won’t be coming back.
And yes, you can call me a hypocrite if you choose. I won’t waiver on this issue AT ALL.
faydean,
Interesting…I never would have gotten that dross’s comment summed up exactly how you feel by reading all of your other posts. Perhaps if you were better able to express your thoughts without name calling and personal attacks, you wouldn’t find yourself on the other end of such attacks.
dross,
I appreciate your thoughts, but I’m going to have to respectfully disagree on some of your points. I do agree that no system is perfect.
The public school system does need some work. No Child Left Behind has been a disaster, but I do believe that a public school system that everyone has access to is a good thing. And I while I don’t want the government making every health care decision for me, I do believe that it’s possible to find a way to make health care accessible to those who need it. I think there is a gray area to explore.
Faydean, you complain about how no one seems to be able to see your side; well, pot and the kettle and all that. You say that you can’t “for the life of” you see how anyone can support Obama. There are just as many things about McCain’s platform that make me want to “pass out.”
From fivethirtyeight.com:
Electoral vote: Obama- 348.2 McCain-189.8
Win percentage: Obama- 96.2% McCain- 3.8%
Popular vote: Obama - 52.1% McCain- 46.5%
Winning this election is the only argument I have to make on who’s the best person to lead our great nation. Americans all across the country are voting for Barack Obama in droves.
President Barack Obama! Woo Hoo!
Party at my house on Nov. 4th!
I, myself, would never go to someone’s web site and leave negative comments about them or their family.
But YOU would….and did….right here.
So yes, Faydean, you are a hypocrite.
Carrie…
I have never personally attacked any poster on this site. I don’t know anyone personally, so how could I attack them personally? (I admit the post to Jon…you can go look for yourself).
Any “name calling,” as you call it, was either in sarcasm or purely how I felt, ie “socialist” regarding Obama.
Dross and I are very similiar in our views, hence the reason we agree. I have no idea how you’d not get that in reading us both. Perhaps he’s more level headed than I am in his writing. Either way, we agree and that rocks.
Southerngirl…
If you would actually take the time to go back and read the post comments you keep referring to, you will see that I apologized to Jon. I have been a reader of both Dooce and Blurb for several years and have been a big supporter and defender of them both. Politics tend to bring out the side of people that makes them lose their shit. I’m as guilty of it as anyone. But, then again, I can easily admit it. Many of you fail to see that you have been rather callus in your remarks, but that’s neither here nor there.
I’ve been offended by some things both Jon and Heather have written. I have posted my opinion to both. When they open up comments, it’s sort of expected they will get people who don’t necessarily always agree with them. If I didn’t appreciate them as people, their views and the like, I wouldn’t visit their sites. Disagreeing heatedly isn’t insulting someone personally. I wrote to Jon that I felt bad about attacking him as I did and explained why his comment had brought about that response. I’m aware that I can get hotheaded regarding these topics. I will apologize when necessary. As you are just reading my comments and don’t know me, you can’t really make an assessment of my personality. What you see as a negative, many friends of mine find endearing. I’m known as fiery, but kind and giving. Mixed bag. So be it. Aren’t we all.
The difference, Faydean, is that the majority of the posters on this site who make callous remarks are aiming them at the GOP, or the policies of McCain, or the like. Your insulting remarks are actually aimed at US. Your remarks are worded in a way to insinuate that we are intellectually inferior to you because we have different opinions. I’m not claiming to know your intentions, but like Carrie said, perhaps if you actually took the time to read your comments and how they come across to others, you would be less likely to post them.
Mmc…
all I can say is that I’m truly at a loss. I address people who address me first. And that’s how this started, in comments. I addressed Jon…and then someone decided to address my comment, directly. I responded and there ya go.
My comments, in general, unless I put a name to it, are not directed at anyone inparticular…any more than yours, as you said, are aimed at the GOP. I’ve read all kinds of smears towards Republicans on here. I took them personally, sure. But I didn’t think they were necessarily aimed at me directly, until someone said, “Hey, you, faydean…”.
I’ve been literally told I’m ignorant by commenters on here…and can show you where. I’d like to see where I have said such a thing directly to someone. To the best of my recollection, I never have.
Anyway, as I stated before…if someone chooses to come to my site and leave nasty comments just because of differing political views, they will be blocked. Simple as that. I haven’t even gone to anyone’s blog that is a commenter on here. And if I did, I do think one commenter had some cool photos on Flickr, which I commented about favorably, I just looked at it and that was it.
If I am impressed with someone’s skill or whatever, I will tell them so, even if I disagree with them. I don’t think that is impossible…to appreciate someone at some level or many levels, yet not agree with them about certain things. Hell, I’ve lived with someone like that for 18 years!
Anyway, despite what you might feel, I have not malcontent for anyone that posts here…unless they are purposefully insulting to me. And even then, I try to give them the benefit of the doubt of just being overheated due to the nature of the discussion…politics and religion are good that way.
Carrie,
Health care IS currently available to those who need it right now. The system just isn’t very efficient. I’d rather work on the relatively small areas where it’s not working, than start over from scratch, wrecking the best system that exists and replacing it with a model that has some well known and large drawbacks. My argument with the left is that the solutions are always rooted in the use of force, and not in voluntary actions.
As to Faydean’s alleged personal attacks, after reading this blog for a few weeks, I don’t think some of the posters here realize how they’ve referred to people who vote Republican. For example, I happen to like Sarah Palin and I don’t think that she’s an obviously unsuitable candidate. Read some of the posts about her, and not only will you see attacks on her, but by implication, the attacks on anyone who could possibly think she’s a reasonable choice for VP. We’re all stupid or evil, it’s continuously implied. Faydean’s posts to me are nothing outside what’s commonly posted here, in fact I would say she’s pretty respectful until attacked.
I’d like to convince everyone who disagrees with me to see things my way. I don’t think what they believe about taxes, or the war, or the proper role of government, or guns reveals much about their intelligence or character. I wish those on the left would give me the same benefit of the doubt. On the Supreme Court, Scalia and Ginsberg are each other’s closest friends on the court and are close personal friends. They should be an example to us all, two people steeped in their own ideology, as far apart as is possible in their opinions, each one demonized by many of the others’ supporters, yet they still see the value of the other as human beings.
dross,
I guess I should have clarified…Decent, affordable health care is most certainly not available to everyone who needs it now. If it were, I would imagine there wouldn’t be 45 million uninsured Americans in this country today. I don’t think either proposal is perfect, but I’m not sure that Obama’s health care proposal calls for starting from scratch…no more than McCain’s does. Given my family’s situation, we will benefit more from Obama’s plan. And so will most people I know.
I know the debate around here gets pretty spirited. Sometimes the line between attacking the politics and attacking the person becomes a little blurred. Politics tends to bring out that beast in people. But faydean seems to give just as good as she gets. If she really felt attacked, I doubt she would keep coming back.
Faydean wasn’t provoked when she launched her personal attack on Jon in another post (and that was most definitely personal). Yes, I know she apologized for it. I wasn’t attacking her, and I don’t think I said anything that would have implied someone needed to defend her…simply pointing out that given some of the things she’s said on this website, it’s not surprising she’s getting comments. If I didn’t want people coming to my personal website and leaving nasty comments, I wouldn’t link to my website.
What we reveal to others in these comments doesn’t even scratch the surface of who we are as people. I think it’s important to remember that.
Carrie,
Thank you for your respectful post.
I said healthcare is available to everyone, and you countered with the number of uninsured. It’s a myth that the uninsured can’t get healthcare in this country. They can and do. It’s just not very efficient.
The numbers of uninsured alone don’t tell us very much. Some are uninsured by choice. It’s a snapshot in time, so some are uninsured at any given moment who have been insured in the past and will be again.
Every system to deliver any type of service, including healthcare, will have tradeoffs. A universal system covers everyone, yes, and that’s a benefit. To me, the costs of a system, and the tradeoffs required, including the tradeoffs in freedom, are not worth it. I understand that for some they are worth it. Many I see making the argument, however, refuse to acknowledge there’s any real tradeoff at all. That’s trying to win the argument with deception.
Dross- mmc is correct. No one here has attacked faydean personally. We have attacked the words and actions of the sorry-ass McCain/Palin campaign and she has chosen to take those attacks personally. Why I have no idea. When someone attacks Obama, I will defend him if I can, but I do not take those attacks personally. He is not me.
Now you say, “not only will you see attacks on her, but by implication, the attacks on anyone who could possibly think she’s a reasonable choice for VP.” Why do you think that? Why can’t we just have the opinion that Palin is way out of her league and a very stupid choice for VP (notice I did not call Palin or you stupid, I said it was a stupid choice), but still believe that you have every right to support her if you want. It’s called democracy.
You and faydean need to just be yourselves and stop trying to be McCain and Palin. Maybe you will feel better.
Fayden- I know you apologized and I appreciate that. But that does not change the fact that you made a personal attack on someone else on this blog and then spent a lot of follow-up comments whining about how people were now attacking you. When you sling mud, some of it will land on you.
@dross, “They can and do”.
What? Why are the uninsured numbers so high if “they can and do”?
There are tradeoffs for any system. No matter who wins the White House, the days of employer subsidized healthcare are numbered and that has nothing to do with socialism. It has to do with costs. When large companies spend more for health insurance for their employees than they do on their actual products, it’s only a matter of time.
What about Romney’s plan in MA? Does anyone have experience with that plan? Is it more or less expensive? I believe that Obama is going to look to a country like Germany (as it exists today) where there is private insurance, employer subsidized insurance and public assistance (by the state). I also believe that Obama’s plan will look a lot like what Romney did in MA. I could be mistaken.
Some are uninsured by choice? I don’t understand that. Are these people not seeking health care at all? Or is it because if they are making a choice between paying for insurance and putting food on the table or gas in the car, so they choose not to buy insurance?
dross–
I am self-employed and I have a “huge-deductible-major-medical-only-health-insurance-plan” whose monthly dividends skyrocket every year, even though I have never had a claim. Right now I am at the tipping point of being able to make the monthly payments which currently equal the monthly payments of buying a Lamborgini. When I can no longer afford to pay the premiums, does that mean I choose not to buy insurance?
I know you all hate it when I pull the my husband is a doctor thing, but I gotta weigh in here only because he actually works in medicine and sees the insurance thing on a daily basis.
All I can do is go point by point:
1) The 45 million number you often hear, and is confirmed through AMA research is, not completely uninsurable, which is different than uninsured. There are many people who opt to not spend the money on insurance simply because they don’t think they need it (they believe since they are well, young, whatever it’s a uselss expenditure) or are not purchasing it because it is too expensive perhaps.
2) Those who don’t have insurance (and many people can get on state programs if they are uninsured already…or Medicare…we have Tenncare in TN, that has not done well, but that’s another story) DO get care when they go to the hospital. It is illegal for anyone seeking medical treatment to be turned away, and also highly unethical. There are rules and law regarding this…it simply isn’t done and if it is then a hospital or doctor is liable.
Those costs are absorbed by a hospital typically. Most hospitals are in the red budgetarily speaking. Profits are hard to come by, especially in non-profit facilities like the one my husband works at. But the cost is spread to the other “consumers” because it has to be. These facilities are not just be greedy monsters. They must spread out the absorbed cost to people with insurance because otherwise they’d go out of business.
3) There are, in most mid to large cities, countless free and low income clinics that provide traditional, non emergent care and preventive medicine (well baby checks, test for older people like stress tests etc). We have one in our town and it’s completely non-pay (or by donation for those who choose). It’s private and subsidized by charities. They are part of a network of such places across the country…you can look them up.
4) No child would ever be turned away from medical treatment in any form who didn’t have insurance…again, mandated by law and ethically. If it happens then it’s wrong and illegal. But it’s not the norm. I lived for eight years in Memphis where St. Judes Children’s Hospital is located. It is run by donations and grants ONLY and provides 100 percent free treatment for children suffering from the most horrible/terminal cancers around. They don’t even process insurance there.
5) Most pharmacies now have either free or extremely reduced cost on many (as many as a few hundred) common medications. I, for instance, went to my local Publix not too long ago and go three prescriptions for all of us for an antibiotic for strep throat because we were going on vacation and my youngest child and come down with it (I just knew we’d all get sick since we were going to the beach so I tried to be prepared). All free. We have insurance…and good insurance.
6) My oldest daughter is a Type 1 diabetic. Her medications are unbelievably expensive. And even out of pocket with our good insurance, we pay quite a bit…but MUCH less than we would if we didn’t have insurance. I realize we’re in a good position. But being devil’s advocate here, I must ask you all…how would you feel if someone told you that your insurance might be mandated…that you might be restricted (yes, the government would restrict costs too…they must or else bankrupt the program) or your provider access limited with a child who has a life threatening illness???
Coming from the other side, as a wife of a doctor and of this child, I totally realize that once she’s an adult she is uninsurable under today’s system. And of course that frightens me and worries me. But for now, she has excellent coverage and goes to one of the top children’s hospitals in the world. No, I can’t say that I’d want anything to even remotely hinder that.
So, that’s pretty much all I can offer on these issues for now.
Blurb, my husband has looked at the MA plan and says he’s intrigued by it. He’s just not sure how you can mandate such a thing…what would be (or is) the punishment for not participating? He’s very mixed on the socialization thing. Having worked in the VA system quite a bit, the idea of the government being in control of healthcare across the board worries him. Me too for that matter, but like I said, I have a huge stake in this issue regarding my child. I’m very pleased with where I am and don’t want to lose the options I have now. If it could be a mixed bag of both private and public then I’d be ok perhaps.