-
Website
http://thedistrictweekly.com/ -
Original page
http://thedistrictweekly.com/daily/staff-infection/how-racism-works-mccain-v-obama/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
has nearly thrice the government experience as the slimmed down version of former
Los Angeles Police Chief Willy Williams.
To do otherwise is as disgusting as would be the diseased notion of electing the
ill prepared Obama because people want to be fair and elect a man because he is
black and counts among his friends the man who lamented in the New York Times
that his bombs did not kill more police.
We do not need an editor of the "Havad" Law Review.Hell even the twit George Bush
had the guts to serve in the military.Obama could have served his country in the military
but instead hid behind the walls of ivy.Let Obama sign up for the military;serve his country,
then stand before the American people and tell them what is wrong with this country!!!!
We need a change.That is for sure.Send Obama,Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed back from
whence they came so we can begin to undo the damage they have done.
they are blind to the obvious.In the instant case-it was not suggested that serving in the
military is enough to qualify one to run for president.However,when said services is combined with a solid record in Congress and compared with someone that hid behind the
walls of ivy and in the pews of the Reverend Wright-only a diseased or undeveloped mind
would select the latter
VOTE OBAMA!!
http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan08/mccain_military_r...
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/01/mccain-v-cl...
That said, I don’t believe I have seen anyone assert “that merely serving in the military is enough to qualify (McCain) for president”, not even Laurence B. Goodhue, above. I, myself, have so served and I can assure you that I am certainly not qualified. I firmly believe that a person who would presume to serve us as Commander in Chief should, indeed, have served some time in some branch of our military…but, then again, I think, just as in Israel, most adult citizens should have to serve at least a couple of years in our National Guard if nothing else.
Absent personal military service a Presidential Candidate should possess other extremely rare qualities that otherwise qualify him or her. Obama, in my admittedly amateur view, does not.
Here are the qualities I look for in my Chief Executives:
Education: Obama passes with flying colors. http://obamasresume.org/
Experience: Obama fails the test. http://townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2008/0...
Leadership: Obama fails the test. http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?ca...
Judgment: Obama fails the test. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVIl-yrfmpU (There are several parts to this video expose’. I encourage you to view all of them)
Fiscal Responsibility: Obama fails the test. http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=97
We could get into a link war back and forth--Mr. Goodhue's illterate screed and Mr. John_B's right-wing report card (Cal "Angry Black Women" Thomas?) aside--but there are few "must-haves" other than broad life experience in and out of government, world-class level education, and temperament for leading, negotiating, and stating and standing for your convictions that qualifies a person to be president.
Do I agree with Mr. Obama on every issue? No. (Gun control, for example). Do I think he's compromised some of his principles to get elected? Yes. It comes down to a fundamental gut feeling based on words and deeds that delivers the vote. I believe that Mr. Obama will be best able to build an organization that wisely addresses the issues facing us.
Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden clearly outshine Mr. McCain in these areas for me, and Ms. Palin is still trying to figure out how to do expense reports.
So, factual information from Obama’s own resume; or from votesmart; or from the bi-partisan National Taxpayers Union is to be considered part of a “right-wing report card” now?
Factual information about Obama’s own words and deeds and those of his chosen associates, as accurately reported by Sean Hannity, is to be thus dismissed as right wing?
Factual information about Obama’s own actions as accurately analyzed by a man who characterized (also accurately) Michelle Obama and others during a round-table discussion about a completely different topic is therefore to be ignored as right wing?
So, the *facts* don’t matter; let’s allow ourselves to be distracted by who is presenting them instead! Ok, Got it!
Aside from Obama’s world-class education, I’m not seeing evidence that he meets any of your remaining criteria. Where’s his “leadership”? Where’s his “ability to negotiate”? Whence resides his ability to “state and stand by his convictions”? Where’s the evidence that he has the ability to “build an organization that wisely addresses the issues facing us”?
Obama’s never built *ANY* organization, Andy.
So what gives you the impression that he is capable of building what is arguably the most important sort of organization possible? Words are exceedingly cheap, Andy. Show me Obama’s *deeds* in this area.
I submit there are none.
Your “gut” notwithstanding, Obama is a lot of show and very little go. He’s literate, charismatic and helps people to fell good about themselves (and envious of others) when he speaks, but his words have no real substance.
I believe the most important issues for a Chief Executive are: to work to assure a strong national defense, a strong military and a strong national security. There are many important issues, of course, but without these none of the others are possible.
When we review Obama’s *actual voting records* (these would be what we generally refer to as “facts”, Andy, you might want to pay attention here) we find that he either was excused, was absent, voted “present” or didn’t bother to vote at all, in 26 of the 81 Senate votes held on these extremely critical issues.
So I ask you: Do you truly want a Chief Executive who can’t seem to muster the “leadership” or the “conviction” necessary to simply make a decision, up or down on these crucial issues, nearly 1/3rd of the time?
If so, then I'd say you're not exactly qualified to tell me that my gut feeling is wrong because, so far, it hasn't been.
And I guess you feel "right-wing" is a slur, because that's the only epithet I used in addressing your post.
As for the NTU, I don't share their fundamental philosophy on taxation, so a "0" rating is, in fact, irrelevant to me from their organization. Your *facts* are rather subjective, after all.
Concerning insults: I was not referring to myself. That you jumped to that erroneous conclusion is, I believe, very telling in and of itself.
Concerning the NTU: I suppose one could find fault with a nonprofit, non-partisan citizen group whose members work every day for lower taxes and smaller government at all levels but I really don't see why one would.
You may very well disagree with their stated goals of achieving a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to keep Congress from spending beyond our means and a Tax Limitation Amendment that would prevent our elected representatives from raising our taxes so that they can raise their spending but, again, I don't really see anything to object to there either.
I understand that you don't share their fundamental philosophy that our U.S. Tax Code is a complicated mess, far too complex for average taxpayers to understand, that we need sweeping tax reform designed to make this system both fair and comprehensible for the folks who actually pay those taxes and that real reform would also mean an end to the dreaded Internal Revenue Service but you're fully entitled to your opinion on those.
Personally those are precisely the values concerning taxation that I ascribe to and so, when a truly non-partisan group grades one candidate highly in these areas and another candidate lowly, I do, indeed,tend to pay attention. I would encourage you to as well, because if Obama is elected I can all but guarantee that you will be paying attention to your taxes then, and I do not think you will like what you will see.
Concerning Facts: Facts are neither objective nor subjective, Andy. They're simply facts. Deny them if you must, ignore them if it's convenient for you to do so, but they will remain facts all the same.
That speaks louder than any of your extended diatribes.
It's far more entertaining to watch you make assumptions about that and then judge me based on those assumptions.
Yet again you resort to insult. Are you able to point out any instance in my postings or responses where I have been either bitter or abusive?
Perhaps you re-read one of your own postings and became confused?
Again, how did I insult you? (sorry if that's another question you won't answer)
Watching the stump speeches between the two major party candidates, it pretty much looks and sounds like a contest between and educated man and a clown.
It's up to you to choose between those. Some opt for a clown who served in the military more than three decades ago [whose experience may or may not be relevant to today's military needs]. Some prefer to describe people who go to college as "hiding" and that is surely one interesting perspective. Some prefer candidates who associate themselves with angry language from angry preachers like Falwell as opposed to Wright and that is also an interesting perspective given the history of this country. Every four years there is an oscillating debate over whether somebody's military service does or does not disqualify (or qualify) a candidate and whether somebody's executive service (or lack thereof) qualifies or disqualifies a candidate. The answers to those questions are consistently a moving target for the rabid right and the answers to those questions are, well, less fluid for those of us on the left. Some would like a candidate merely to show good judgement but it also seems clear that there are folks who want to see such judgements adhered to in the face of new and changing information.
So since I have pretty much disagreed with nearly everything McCain has said --- when I can understand what he is trying to say --- there's zero chance that I (and many of us) would pull the lever for him or any other Republican, ever. Too often people make the election about the candidate when, in fact, after the dust settles Congress makes the laws [e.g. you will see neither candidate's health care plan enacted but you will see some sausage come out of Congress based on how all the lobbying shakes down]. Elections are, 100%, always about the party platform and the folks who have been more-or-less announced to become cabinet level associates of the Executive.
And since a good part of the Republican party platform is actually reprehensible, my preference would be to never see any one hold office who would subscribe to that platform.
Thanks very much for confirming my point that by harping on Hannity, some are simply trying to deflect attention away from their candidate.
Hannity is simply a member of the popular media after all. The people that Obama surrounds himself with, however, are far closer to him and, thus, far more potentially influential on the Chief Executive that Obama's supporters hope that he becomes.
I appreciate that you claim to be watching both candidates closely and I'm very glad if you are. But restricting your information to only what you see during stump speeches does you a grave disservice. Good communication skills is important, but not exclusively so. I think it's equally important to look at the legislative records and personal backgrounds of both candidates also.
"The rabid right"...nice. So when "those of you on the left" attempt to analyze pertinent data you are being thoughtful and circumspect. But when those on the right do so, they are being "rabid".
Got it.
Concerning the Republican Party Platform: Here are just the bullets of that platform...
Supporting Our Heroes, Securing the Peace; Reforming Government to Serve the People; Expanding Opportunity to Promote Prosperity; Energy Independence and Security; Environmental Protection; Health Care Reform: Putting Patients First; Education Means a More Competitive America; Protecting Our Families and Preserving Our Values.
Would you be willing to explain what, precisely, it is about that platform you find to be "reprehensible"?
Hannity has long since attempted to defend his resorting to Martin in that interview but I personally feel his explanation to be weak and far from sufficient.
Would that many on the left would be even half as critical of their own media source preferences when they make such mistakes!
Does that in any way negate or minimize the factual information provided by Hannity in the "Obama and Friends" series? Not at all. I believe that those facts all speak for themselves and stand firmly on their own merits and that they would, in fact, do so no matter who presented them.
But, really, howardx, your juxtaposition of the fact of Obama's associations with many on the radical fringes and the fact of who I sometimes rely upon for news and information is quite a stretch...even for you.
Your painfully obvious attempt to change the subject, however, is duly noted.
this new comment system sucks ass.
I believe the facts presented in the "Obama and Friends" series to be just that, facts, not "smears". Can you cite a single fact presented in the series that is not, indeed, factual?
By the way, polls are all very nice. I suspect that in the 50's you might have found that about 95% or more of those polled in the South would have agreed that blacks shouldn't have been allowed to use the same bathroom as whites.
So much for the ultimate value of polls.
Mr. Hannity’s executive producer, John Finley, said that the program was clearly opinion and that the audience — on average 1.5 million to 2 million — knew to take it as such. “ ‘Hannity’s America’ is an opinion show — it’s a show from Sean’s perspective, which is obviously conservative,” Mr. Finley said.
Speaking of Mr. Martin, he added, “It’s one man’s opinion, one of many that was expressed on the show.”
Mr. Martin said he was careful not to present his theories about Mr. Obama as proven fact.
“That is my opinion — expert opinion — if you will,” Mr. Martin said of his commentary "
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/us/politics/0...
even fox doesnt claim they are "facts" john.
heres something else you might ponder on about andy martin,
"For good measure, Mr. Martin, who made a failed bid to run on the Republican line in the 2004 race for a Senate seat from Illinois that Mr. Obama won"
i can smell the credibility from here.
Nothing you have presented negates or minimize the factual information provided by Hannity in the "Obama and Friends" series.
So I'll ask just once more: "Can you cite a single fact presented in the series that is not, indeed, factual?"
"Mr. Hannity’s executive producer, John Finley, said that the program was clearly opinion and that the audience — on average 1.5 million to 2 million — knew to take it as such. “ ‘Hannity’s America’ is an opinion show — it’s a show from Sean’s perspective, which is obviously conservative,” Mr. Finley said. "
there are no "facts" there, its opinion.
just to reinforce
"Mr. Martin said he was careful not to present his theories about Mr. Obama as proven fact. "
i think the producer of the show and the main source of the information both claiming that the information is merely "opinion" negates it quite well.
Where facts are presented to support one's opinion, both can readily exist in the same program and, in this case, clearly do so.
Many facts were, in fact, presented and you still have not proven able to refute any of them.
But I asked you "just once more", the last time, so I won't ask yet again. It's clear that you prefer to continue to hide behind what I can only *hope* is your artificially assumed ignorance.
You're a gentleman and a scholar, even if we can't agree on all matters.
The careful reader will observe, that in fact, it is The District Weekly that cited McCain's military education as his only qualification for President. Mr. Goodhue would've been wise to take offense at this immediately.
And isn't this the point of the article? If a black man were to step forward with military education being his only qualification for running for president, would someone like Mr. Goodhue endorse him? My guess is no.
... US Naval Academy class rank 894. (only 5 above the bottom) Scary. A black man would never get this far in US politics with a record like that.
What I find intriguing about this entire "racism" issue, especially in the context of this discussion, is that no one, to my knowledge, has made an issue of Obama's race except his supporters who...through some strange twist of logic...insist upon accusing his detractors of racism.
I do not believe it is racism that drives the many, very valid,questions concerning Obama's qualifications. Anymore than I believe it is racism that drives the many, very valid, questions concerning McCain's.
With the exception of a very few certifiable kooks on either side of this debate, these questions, for both candidates, stem from a desire to better understand both and to ultimately bring out as much truth as possible so the electorate might make a better informed decision come next month.
I believe that most of those on the left who are screaming "racism" related to these very valid questions concerning Obama are doing so more out of a need to distract from the true issues than to call attention to a legitimate injustice.
Questions about Obama's lack of judgment, leadership, experience and fiscal responsibility are not borne out of racism, but legitimate concern about his qualification.
I have reviewed, in considerable detail, what I believe to be the pertinent aspects of Senator Obama's public adult life to date and find that he has exhibited extremely poor judgment, little leadership and still less responsibility.
Senator McCain is not perfect...by any stretch...and, in fact, he was not my preference during the Primaries. But Senator McCain has for more experience and stability in his little finger than does Senator Obama overall and McCain has exhibited far more leadership and responsibility in the past week than Obama has in most of his entire public adult life.
That's what I seek in a President…someone who isn't perfect but who, at least by comparison to the alternative, can lead our great nation well and faithfully through the next four years.
Also: I'd feel better if (a) we didn't attack each other personally, but assumed that we're all struggling for the truth (even when it looks like we aren't struggling very hard); and (b) if you sense that someone's really dicking you personally, here's my advice: see (a) above and assume that they were typing without thinking for just that moment, and then you handle their claims.
I know this runs totally counter to most of the animating impulses of the web, but I'd seriously feel like a failure if something I helped set up with honest intentions (to create a place where we can all talk about profound, serious stuff) turned out to be, I don't know, like a firing range. And look at it this way: with a few exceptions on the far, far fringes, we're all people who represent a tiny fraction of the country: people who read and think seriously about the future of the country. We have that in common, right?
Having said that, can I just say that, Laurence, you scare me. Don't know if that was your intention. But that's what happened. Your lead response here is so nearly devoid of (what's that called?) fact that there's just nothing to respond to but the nightmare you've created for yourself, which, seriously, yikes. I get this, though: if you really believed half of what you write about military and political service, you'd have voted for Al Gore and John Kerry.
What I find intriguing about this entire "racism" issue, especially in the context of this discussion, is that no one, to my knowledge, has made an issue of Obama's race except his supporters who...through some strange twist of logic...insist upon accusing his detractors of racism.
I do not believe it is racism that drives the many, very valid,questions concerning Obama's qualifications. Anymore than I believe it is racism that drives the many, very valid, questions concerning McCain's.
With the exception of a very few certifiable kooks on either side of this debate, these questions, for both candidates, stem from a desire to better understand both and to ultimately bring out as much truth as possible so the electorate might make a better informed decision come next month.
I believe that most of those on the left who are screaming "racism" related to these very valid questions concerning Obama are doing so more out of a need to distract from the true issues than to call attention to a legitimate injustice.
Questions about Obama's lack of judgment, leadership, experience and fiscal responsibility are not borne out of racism, but legitimate concern about his qualification.
In an October 27 article, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz reported that Fox News Channel "now expresses regret for booking [Andy] Martin" -- who, as Media Matters for America has noted, has, among other things, referred to a judge as a "crooked, slimy Jew" and accused African-Americans of being "willing to corrupt and abuse their public offices" -- on the October 5 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America. As Media Matters documented, Sean Hannity hosted Martin -- identified by Hannity as an "Internet journalist" -- to make what Hannity called "the explosive claim that [Sen. Barack] Obama's role as a community organizer was a political staging ground perpetuated by the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers." Kurtz wrote: "[Fox News Senior Vice President Bill] Shine says Hannity disagrees with some of Martin's past comments. 'Having that guy on was a mistake,' Shine says. 'We obviously didn't do enough research on who the guest was.' " But according to searches of the Nexis and Factiva databases, Hannity himself has not expressed regret or acknowledged having made a mistake regarding Martin on either Hannity's America or Hannity & Colmes, both Fox News shows.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/29/fox-ne...
If everyone who practices racism would immediately stop doing so the world would be a far better place.
I too applaud "District Reader" for his/her article. Would that it had been a better balanced presentation. Because, Passion, I hope you will agree that racism exists at both ends of the ideological spectrum and that regardless of its origin, racism is wrong.
Unfortunately, many who falsely allege racism on the part of others in fact do nothing to contribute to the fight against racism and everything to erode and to undermine that noble struggle.
Sadly.