OT: Election/Politics thread, Part 6

[GTHobbes]

If this was a story about McCain,would the LA Times have sat on it for 6 months and refuse to release the tape of it?

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... full.story

And yet the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor's going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.

They mean to suggest that Obama's centrist rhetoric is not an accurate portrayal of the man's views and his likely policy. This can't be!!! Next thing you know someone is going to tell me Santa Clause doesn't really exist.

So is it wrong to hear the Palestinian side of things?

I read the article Jackdog linked to, and I really tried to see the problem. It's not like Obama was at a Hamas birthday party. He just clearly feels that the Palestinians have some legitimate grievances. Many people from all over the political spectrum feel the same way. It doesn't mean he's anti-Israel.

My thoughts exactly.

"Barack's belief is that it's important to understand other points of view, even if you can't agree with them," said his longtime political strategist, David Axelrod.

Obama "can disagree without shunning or demonizing those with other views," he said. "That's far different than the suggestion that he somehow tailors his view."

After the last 8 years, it's going to be awfully refreshing having someone like this in office.

[Naples39]

So is it wrong to hear the Palestinian side of things?

I read the article Jackdog linked to, and I really tried to see the problem. It's not like Obama was at a Hamas birthday party. He just clearly feels that the Palestinians have some legitimate grievances. Many people from all over the political spectrum feel the same way. It doesn't mean he's anti-Israel.

Also, I do love the irony that the mainstream media can't be trusted until they say something negative about a Democrat Since this came from the LA Times, shouldn't this whole article be nothing but a lie?

The point I was making wasn't about the Palestinian issues individually. It's more about the clear pattern of the Obama campaign to frame things in centrist terms that sound safe and reassuring to a majority of American voters, though when you look under the surface Obama will likely act in a way that makes many Americans don't agree with.

As to your latter point, I think there's some element of thinking that says "if the media, who are totally in the bag for Obama, thinks this is troublesome or misleading, then we should all take note because there is probably something to it."

[Brando70]

In addition to the ACORN nonsense, we've had the the belated realization that Obama's website had intentionally disabled security measures which match donors to their billing addresses.

Let's be clear. In addition to abetting fraud by any donor that's interested, this has also quite intentionally left the door open to a deep-pocketed individual (say, someone with a name that rhymes with "Goros") to funnel money into the campaign using micro-transactions. It's also a backdoor for illegal contributions from overseas, something that the Democrats have had a history with just recently.

Now they couldn't have pulled off such an audacious scam if it weren't for the inadequacy of the legislation regulating donations. The campaign assures us that they are complying with the post-donation scrutiny as required by the law, but that only accounts for the obviously improper donors. And given the fact that the campaign won't release info on small donors because they aren't required to, we have to take their word for it.

So in addition to the appearance of a voter-registrationg groundswell which was created in part by ACORN, you have repeated news stories of record breaking fundraising with a historically low average level of donation. This combination was clearly a contributing factor in Obama's primary victory...at the very least.

It's absolutely brilliant. Chicago games on a scale appropriate to the Presidency.

So the Obama campaign should be following laws that don't exist? Is that your official legal advice?

I agree some of these things should be changed -- the legislation is behind the technology (no surprise there). Prepaid cards in particular should probably be disallowed. But he is complying with existing election and donation laws.

[RobVarak]

After the last 8 years, it's going to be awfully refreshing having someone like this in office.

I'd choose a word different than "refreshing" to describe anyone without the courage of conviction to stand up and leave any table with Bill Ayers sitting at it. And yes, I'm including the totality of the Annenberg board and all of those weak-kneed douches who signed that petition on his behalf.

Injured athletes are rehabilitated, not terrorists.

As for "seeing the Palestinian" side of things, it's more complicated than that. Khalidi is himself a very polarizing and controversial figure. Moreover this tape reinforces the farcical nature of Obama's casual dismissal of Ayers...unless he's now just a guy in his neighborhood who I happened to be toasting with at this dinner

Politically speaking there wouldn't be such a shitstorm if Obama's pro-Israel bona fides weren't already dubious.

As for Axelrod's dodge, that's brilliance in verbal form. Barack can work with, socialize with and espouse the beliefs of anyone that he wants without ever having to concede that it has anything whatsoever to do with his politics! Brilliant! Just keep watching the spinning coin of my rhetoric and my detailed web site, pay no attention to what's going on over there.

This was brough home particularly well in the campaign's repsonse to the 2001 NPR interview. They called it a "distraction." Well, yeah! It's a distraction in the sense that it puts the lie to your candidate's moderate rhetoric...again. Distracting indeed.

[Naples39]

My thoughts exactly.

"Barack's belief is that it's important to understand other points of view, even if you can't agree with them," said his longtime political strategist, David Axelrod.

Obama "can disagree without shunning or demonizing those with other views," he said. "That's far different than the suggestion that he somehow tailors his view."

After the last 8 years, it's going to be awfully refreshing having someone like this in office.

You see it as refreshing, I see it as troubling.

The Georgian crisis is an absolutely perfect example of how Obama thinks and why this is troubling for Americans.

After Russia rolled tanks into a sovereign state, Obama said both sides should “show restraint” in this “outbreak of violence.”

McCain’s initial response was “Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory.”

By the end of the week, Obama was backtracking, essentially reiterating McCain’s original statement. I quote Obama: "I condemn Russia's aggressive actions and reiterate my call for an immediate ceasefire... Russia must stop its bombing campaign, cease flights of Russian aircraft in Georgian airspace, and withdraw its ground forces from Georgia."

Obama is a total noob in foreign policy matters, and seeing every situation as a moral equivalency is not a policy, nor will it serve American interests or secure our safety.

If you can remember back to the Dem primaries, Hillary called Obama's foreign policy approach "irresponsible and frankly naive" to the approval of most democrats.

There is a thin line indeed between 'refreshing' viewpoints that see both sides of the coin, and plain old naivete.

[RobVarak]

So the Obama campaign should be following laws that don't exist? Is that your official legal advice?

I was clear in saying that they were taking advantage of the system.

[RobVarak]

Obama is a total noob in foreign policy matters, and seeing every situation as a moral equivalency is not a policy, nor will it serve American interests or secure our safety.

If you can remember back to the Dem primaries, Hillary called Obama's foreign policy approach "irresponsible and frankly naive" to the approval of most democrats.

There is a thin line indeed between 'refreshing' viewpoints that see both sides of the coin, and plain old naivete.

Welcome the new Jimmy Carter, the same as the old. Cut defense spending and approach international affairs with a "modern" viewpoint that is divorced from the "stone-age" rhetoric of the past.

It's funny that Hillary's sentiments were echoed almost exactly by Sarkozy this week with respect to Iran. Something tells me that if Obama is elected, this outpouring of affection from our allies may be short-lived.

[Brando70]

The point I was making wasn't about the Palestinian issues individually. It's more about the clear pattern of the Obama campaign to frame things in centrist terms that sound safe and reassuring to a majority of American voters, though when you look under the surface Obama will likely act in a way that makes many Americans don't agree with.

But how is listening to the Palestinian side of things not "centrist"? That would imply that anything remotely pro-Palestinian or critical of Israel is away from the center, when both of those impulses exist all over the political spectrum. Unless one wants to imply that all Palestinian activists are complicit in terrorism.

I agree that Israel has a right to exist and to defend itself. That doesn't mean there should not be limits. For instance, they were 100% dead wrong about the settler issue in my opinion. They have done plenty of things to humiliate and provoke the Palestinians over the years. That does not at all justify the indiscriminate killing of Israeli civilians, but it explains some of that anger. If the government bulldozed your house because you had a cousin on a terrorist list, even if it was perfectly legal, think of how that would make you feel.

There are two sides to this story. Israel is understandably nervous given Arab hostility toward their state. But the Palestinians have a lot to be pissed about. I don't see how considering both of those things is inherently leftist.

[Naples39]

The point I was making wasn't about the Palestinian issues individually. It's more about the clear pattern of the Obama campaign to frame things in centrist terms that sound safe and reassuring to a majority of American voters, though when you look under the surface Obama will likely act in a way that makes many Americans don't agree with.

But how is listening to the Palestinian side of things not "centrist"? That would imply that anything remotely pro-Palestinian or critical of Israel is away from the center, when both of those impulses exist all over the political spectrum. Unless one wants to imply that all Palestinian activists are complicit in terrorism.

I agree that Israel has a right to exist and to defend itself. That doesn't mean there should not be limits. For instance, they were 100% dead wrong about the settler issue in my opinion. They have done plenty of things to humiliate and provoke the Palestinians over the years. That does not at all justify the indiscriminate killing of Israeli civilians, but it explains some of that anger. If the government bulldozed your house because you had a cousin on a terrorist list, even if it was perfectly legal, think of how that would make you feel.

There are two sides to this story. Israel is understandably nervous given Arab hostility toward their state. But the Palestinians have a lot to be pissed about. I don't see how considering both of those things is leftist.

I should've been more clear. When I say centrist, I don't mean on some absolute scale. I mean solely within the scope of American politics, where centrist = firmly on Israel's side.

Whether or not this is a good approach, or if a change from an Obama presidency might be positive is irrelevant to my point.

[matthewk]

I just can't stay away from this one, as it has been bugging me for months now.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/28/ ... index.html

So with 7 days left, someone in the media finally brings this up!?! Obama flat out lied about this. Not only that, he dared McCain to meet him and agree to accept the public financing. yet another red flag of what Obama's true character is. He will go back on his word if it is in his own personal best interests.

If the majority of his donations are really from the "grassroots" level, why doesn't he give some of that wealth back to them? Since he wants to spread the wealth around, why take it from the poor? Why not accept the public financing instead of milking his poor followers? Or, since he has so much money now, why not give some of it back to those in need (if that's even legally possible, given that we're talking about campaign donations)?

I think he's a fraud. Once in office he'll go back on a bunch of other promises he's made on his way to the White House. His true character will show through once he's finally in the position he's been angling for since around 2001.

[RobVarak]

This is why Ramirez has won a Pulitzer. I've spilled 50k+ words to make the same point without anything near this clarity LOL

[Brando70]

It's funny that Hillary's sentiments were echoed almost exactly by Sarkozy this week with respect to Iran. Something tells me that if Obama is elected, this outpouring of affection from our allies may be short-lived.

I assume that's from this story:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... y-sar.html

The respected Israeli newspaper Ha'artez reports that according to a "senior Israeli government source, the reports reaching Israel indicate that Sarkozy views the Democratic candidate's stance on Iran as 'utterly immature' and comprised of 'formulations empty of all content.'"

So an anonymous Israeli source -- completely unbiased, of course -- reports that Sarkozy has problems with Obama's foreign policy regarding Iran.

You can't trust the media, you can't trust anonymous sources, oh, except when someone on the Israeli payroll reports something the French said, which we would normally ignore except when it supports something we agree with.

And to add some meat to the snark, McCain's foreign policy matches the same blundering approach we've seen for eight years. I don't think he's ever really criticized the process that led to Iraq, which makes me wonder if he could be duped by his advisors the way Bush was. His comments on Pakistan also reflect an antiquated way of thinking about the war on terror. He calls Pakistan our friend, which is like calling one of the Heathers a friend -- sure, they are nice to your face, but they will stab you in the back if they have to. Pakistan was more responsible for the rise of Al Qaeda as a terrorist force than anyone else. The Pakistani ISI trained them (with money provided by the CIA) in many of the techniques used to kill our troops. The Pakistani military is riddled with AQ supporters and sympathizers. Even Musharraf could not purge them all, which is why he couldn't control the northern tribal areas of his country.

So shorter John McCain: We will invade countries that have little to do with the terrorists that directly threaten us. But we will support leaders of countries who let terrorists run amok in their borders.

[matthewk]

No matter what the results come November 5th, there is hope for our future. My son's school held a mock election yesterday. McCain won.

[RobVarak]

It's funny that Hillary's sentiments were echoed almost exactly by Sarkozy this week with respect to Iran. Something tells me that if Obama is elected, this outpouring of affection from our allies may be short-lived.

I assume that's from this story:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... y-sar.html

The respected Israeli newspaper Ha'artez reports that according to a "senior Israeli government source, the reports reaching Israel indicate that Sarkozy views the Democratic candidate's stance on Iran as 'utterly immature' and comprised of 'formulations empty of all content.'"

So an anonymous Israeli source -- completely unbiased, of course -- reports that Sarkozy has problems with Obama's foreign policy regarding Iran.

You can't trust the media, you can't trust anonymous sources, oh, except when someone on the Israeli payroll reports something the French said, which we would normally ignore except when it supports something we agree with.

And to add some meat to the snark, McCain's foreign policy matches the same blundering approach we've seen for eight years. I don't think he's ever really criticized the process that led to Iraq, which makes me wonder if he could be duped by his advisors the way Bush was. His comments on Pakistan also reflect an antiquated way of thinking about the war on terror. He calls Pakistan our friend, which is like calling one of the Heathers a friend -- sure, they are nice to your face, but they will stab you in the back if they have to. Pakistan was more responsible for the rise of Al Qaeda as a terrorist force than anyone else. The Pakistani ISI trained them (with money provided by the CIA) in many of the techniques used to kill our troops. The Pakistani military is riddled with AQ supporters and sympathizers. Even Musharraf could not purge them all, which is why he couldn't control the northern tribal areas of his country.

So shorter John McCain: We will invade countries that have little to do with the terrorists that directly threaten us. But we will support leaders of countries who let terrorists run amok in their borders.

That's a brutally oversimplified summation of the Pakistani government's situation. Believe me, there's enough money, prestige and protection from the US that if they could do so the Pakistani military would pacify the tribal regions. The fact is that we have to make do with an ally that in this case can't generate the military force necessary to subdue the terrorists and their hosts. Granted, this is in large part to Pakistan's unwillingness to stand down vis a vis India, but negotiating that problem away is no mean feat.

And you know you're being disingenuous with that characterization about countries that have "little to do" witht the terrorists. Afghanistan was the right move. And if you have a beef with the Iraq/WMD arguments, talk to the Clinton administration that started us down that road. I'm sure that Madeline Albright can squeeze you in between media events backing up perennial foreign policy buffoon Joe Biden

[XXXIV]

Chicago is #1. In spite of or because of its zero tolerance gun laws?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/2 ... 37488.html


Less were killed in Iraq. Which begs the question...

Maybe its time the United States pulls out of Chicago?

[webdanzer]

EDIT: Lather, rinse, repeat.

EDIT: Eh, to hell with it. I'm tired of all this crap.

What the

Didn't you spend a lot of words in an effort to get this thread re-opened before the elections? The tenor of the thread is certainly no worse than it was when it was locked.

[Brando70]

That's a brutally oversimplified summation of the Pakistani government's situation. Believe me, there's enough money, prestige and protection from the US that if they could do so the Pakistani military would pacify the tribal regions. The fact is that we have to make do with an ally that in this case can't generate the military force necessary to subdue the terrorists and their hosts. Granted, this is in large part to Pakistan's unwillingness to stand down vis a vis India, but negotiating that problem away is no mean feat.

The problem is that the Pakistani military is rife with officials sympathetic to Islamic terrorism. It's been a problem since the days of General Zia if not before. The focus was to use jihad to cause India problems in Kashmir, but it turned into a Frankenstein that got out of control. If Pakistan has the material and manpower to pacify the tribal regions, why don't they? Pakistan is very much like Saudia Arabia -- an ally, but also one that will sell us out when politically expedient.

And you know you're being disingenuous with that characterization about countries that have "little to do" witht the terrorists. Afghanistan was the right move. And if you have a beef with the Iraq/WMD arguments, talk to the Clinton administration that started us down that road. I'm sure that Madeline Albright can squeeze you in between media events backing up perennial foreign policy buffoon Joe Biden

I should have made it clear that I was talking about Iraq. I've never had an issue with the Afghanistan invasion.

And Clinton, really? Who started the war? Obviously a lot of people believed Iraq had WMD, because Hussein wanted to give off the impression he was stronger than he was. Yet there was never much convincing evidence that he had an active WMD program, and certainly very little to convince us that he should have been the #1 target in the war on terror. It's well documented that the Bush administration had a hard-on for Hussein and used 9/11 to justify a war they were already pre-disposed toward starting. McCain has done little to convince the public he's learned anything from that.

The worst thing about this thread is that I would rather debate this stuff than work, but duty calls today. I will have to take a time out from undermining American security and supporting terrorism.

[RobVarak]

The worst thing about this thread is that I would rather debate this stuff than work, but duty calls today. I will have to take a time out from undermining American security and supporting terrorism.

Hey, if Barry ok's your taking off work to vote I'm sure he'll have no problem with you spending otherwise productive time defending his policies on the internet

PS Not to rub it in or anything, but I'm going to play Fallout now

[JRod]

I watched Frontline's War Briefing last night. Fascinating look at the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

What was shocking to learn was that some on the Pakistani government view America's invovlement in Afghanistan as a US-India movement to squeeze Pakistan. The attitude is one the reasons why some in Pakistan are also sympethetic to Al Queda and Taliban forces.

Kudos again to PBS for doing something the regular news media will never do. Cover an issue for an hour in an understanding way.

[Feanor]

Scary stuff from the ever-ignorant Palin, sneering at "fruit fly research in Paris, France" during a speech on special-needs children:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCXqKEs68Xk

The common fruit fly is one of the most widely used model organisms in biology, and a recent study of them showed that a protein called neurexin is essential for proper neurological function. But who really cares about a disocvery like that which has clear implications for research on autism? Special-needs children perhaps.

http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2008/1 ... uit_flies/

[Naples39]

Scary stuff from the ever-ignorant Palin, sneering at "fruit fly research in Paris, France" during a speech on special-needs children:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCXqKEs68Xk

The common fruit fly is one of the most widely used model organisms in biology, and a recent study of them showed that a protein called neurexin is essential for proper neurological function. But who really cares about a disocvery like that which has clear implications for research on autism? Special-needs children perhaps.

http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2008/1 ... uit_flies/

Yes. Clearly any decision by the US government to fund fruit fly research abroad is beyond reproach. Any suggestion otherwise could only possibly be made by a total idiot, and lack of respect for the fruit fly should disqualify anyone from the oval office.


Oh, and the research in question has nothing to do with special needs children, but is to aid California olive growers.

[Feanor]

If you can't see the obvious anti-science agenda behind Palin's prepared speech and the importance of it to the country, then I genuinely feel sorry for you.

I know all about the California olive growers - it's covered in the salon article I linked to.

[Naples39]

If you can't see the obvious anti-science agenda behind Palin's prepared speech and the importance of it to the country, then I genuinely feel sorry for you.

I guess you will have to continue to feel sorry for me, because no, I don't see an "obvious anti-science agenda." Perhaps I am being fooled by McCain's career-long struggle against pork-barreled spending and his repeated comments in debates to the same effect, but I take such remarks from the McCain campaign as against government spending rather than "anti-science."

[Jared]

I'm obviously all for gov't spending for science. However, I should also note that the earmark process is not the best way to fund science, as I believe they tend to be non-competitive. Much better are competitive grant mechanisms, where the best proposals get the money.

Though regardless of that point, her comments were pretty anti funding of science. To say “Sometimes these dollars they go to projects having little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not!” is basically saying that agricultural research, or scientific research on fruit flies doesn't have much to do with the public good.

[Feanor]

If the whopping $211,000 (out of a $748,000 total grant) that will be spent on fruit fly research in Paris is justification for sneering & mocking fruit fly research in general during a policy speech on special-needs children, then I'm a Drosophila melanogaster.

It's not just me thinking she was attacking fruit fly research in general, it's these guys too:

http://unchealthcare.wordpress.com/2008 ... -research/

You really think Sarah ""people-walked-with-dinos" Palin knows that fruit fly research is integral to trying to understand the Down Syndrome her own son has? I don't.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ruit-flies