USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Depends on the issue. Obama's 180 on campaign financing was an outright lie, both to his party and to his opponent. His reversal on FISA, while I do not agree with it, reflects a more nuanced reversal/consession of sorts and I would not classify it as a lie/betrayal, rather a politically expedient center move.

McCain's lies on the campaign trail also give cause for alarm. It's one thing to stretch the truth of your own voting record, quite another to deliberately misrepresent the record of your opponent with smarmy advertising. But then again, the entire ad game is just a sophisticated version of lying to the public.

I am beginning to think that both of them should just admit that the only stances they actually take seriously are ones which will help them get elected.

In fact Steve seems to be doing an excellent job of talking me out of voting for Obama. Since he seems to be saying that every stance Obama takes is negotiable with the Republican opposition.

[tmc]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

I am beginning to think that both of them should just admit that the only stances they actually take seriously are ones which will help them get elected.

I can't believe it! I whole-heartedly agree with you on this; quick, get the digitalis!

In fact Steve seems to be doing an excellent job of talking me out of voting for Obama. Since he seems to be saying that every stance Obama takes is negotiable with the Republican opposition.

[tmc]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Depends on the issue. Obama's 180 on campaign financing was an outright lie, both to his party and to his opponent. His reversal on FISA, while I do not agree with it, reflects a more nuanced reversal/consession of sorts and I would not classify it as a lie/betrayal, rather a politically expedient center move.

Isn't that at least a "white" lie, perhaps (was that not PC?)?

McCain's lies on the campaign trail also give cause for alarm. It's one thing to stretch the truth of your own voting record, quite another to deliberately misrepresent the record of your opponent with smarmy advertising. But then again, the entire ad game is just a sophisticated version of lying to the public.

Exactly, don't try to read too much into it (the ad game); all I get from it is McCain is not really good at his lies, or spreads it on too thick.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by tmc

Earlier, you included in a post about McCain's lies one item in which he stated Obama voted against the troops; you claimed it was a lie because Obama only did so one time. Yet days after locking up the nomination, after running for months on a certain platform, promising your supporters you would take certain actions, you come to a position 180 degrees from the one your spouted the previous 6 months, that's not a lie!

Here again is the report:

[The McCain campaign] says he "voted against funding our troops." He did – exactly once. Obama cast at least 10 votes for war-funding bills before voting against one last year, after Bush vetoed a version that contained a date for withdrawal from Iraq...

It says he "never held a single hearing on Afghanistan." It was the full Senate Foreign Relations Committee, not Obama's subcommittee, that had the hearings on this global hot spot, and Obama attended one of those. Over the same time period, McCain himself attended none of the Afghanistan hearings held by the Armed Services Committee on which he serves. [source]

You yourself have said that moving to the middle is par for the course for politicians, especially at this juncture, and what you're referring to on Obama's part can clearly qualify for that.

By contrast, McCain is repeatedly presenting to the public information that is known to be false about his opponent and his opponent's views. It is unquestionably lying, whether his followers recognize it as such or not. Obama has never put forth anything about taxing electricity. Again as even The Wall Street Journal in its reporting (not even opining, and not written by Goolsbee & Furman!) has reported, Obama is not proposing raising taxes on people making $32,000 or $42,000 or for that matter on families making $242,000 a year. McCain is running precisely the sort of sleaze, BS campaign that helps make our political system the object of scorn on the part of so many Americans.

You guys want to say he's not lying, or that Obama is not better, but you conveniently can't be bothered to look at or respond to these reports that show that even if Obama has exaggerated the number of jobs he worked as a college student to pay his way through or overstated the amount of money McCain was getting from lobbyists by rounding 1.3 million up to 2 million (or whatever it was), he is not on a concerted and consistent campaign full of repeated lies about his opponent that is clearly well beyond anything you can pull up against Obama along these lines. You prefer to say "a pox on both their houses" or to take a "see no evil" approach by saying these ads don't mean anything.

That's your choice, of course. I just sure as hell don't want to hear complaints about our crappy negative, bickering politics and stagnant government after voting for more of the same with McCain.

Steve

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

In fact Steve seems to be doing an excellent job of talking me out of voting for Obama. Since he seems to be saying that every stance Obama takes is negotiable with the Republican opposition.

But this is a different point. Again I see Obama as recognizing the need for compromise in order to get out of this constant bickering and fighting, and appreciate the fact that he is trying not to "make the perfect the enemy of the good" and not above all just presenting the same old party line over and over again like so many have before him and like so many do on the other side, as well. I don't think the kind of intransigence you seem to prefer is the solution, I think it's a good part of the problem.

And by your own estimation, you say the solution may be to win, and win big, taking both the White House and a clearly majority in Congress. Yet you reference voting for some other fringe candidate as a possibility. This is not a European parliamentary-style system. A vote for a fringe or 3rd party candidate is not only a wasted vote, it is moreover quite likely more like a vote for the opponent of the views you hold, in the math. If you want to win and win big, you're precisely going to have to compromise your views in the direction of the other side of the political spectrum.

But anyway, what you're talking about doesn't have to do with the question of lying about your opponent's views or record, doing so repeatedly, and doing so on objectively verifiable points widely reported in the press, even by publications of high repute basically on your own side. You can argue about the validity of some of Obama's policy changes or modifications, and you can even call them lies (or white lies, if you prefer), or whatever (though for me that's a misuse of the word lie). But people do change their minds, sometimes for the better, and there's no telling what legitimacy may have been involved in that process, as opposed to intentional misleading. That is not in question with McCain: he is intentionally misleading people, over and over again, and doing so about his opponent's views and proposals. It's inexcusable.

Steve

[tmc]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Here again is the report:

You yourself have said that moving to the middle is par for the course for politicians, especially at this juncture, and what you're referring to on Obama's part can clearly qualify for that.

I did say that about moving to the middle, and it is par for the course, and it is lying. But since it all is part of the campaign, I don't pay it no nevermind.

By contrast, McCain is repeatedly presenting to the public information that is known to be false about his opponent and his opponent's views. It is unquestionably lying, whether his followers recognize it as such or not. Obama has never put forth anything about taxing electricity. Again as even The Wall Street Journal in its reporting (not even opining, and not written by Goolsbee & Furman!) has reported, Obama is not proposing raising taxes on people making $32,000 or $42,000 or for that matter on families making $242,000 a year. McCain is running precisely the sort of sleaze, BS campaign that helps make our political system the object of scorn on the part of so many Americans.

I don't think most people's concerns are about what is said and done in the campaign, it has more to do with the things they do once they are elected that angers the people I talk to.

You guys want to say he's not lying, or that Obama is not better, but you conveniently can't be bothered to look at or respond to these reports that show that even if Obama has exaggerated the number of jobs he worked as a college student to pay his way through or overstated the amount of money McCain was getting from lobbyists by rounding 1.3 million up to 2 million (or whatever it was), he is not on a concerted and consistent campaign full of repeated lies about his opponent that is clearly well beyond anything you can pull up against Obama along these lines. You prefer to say "a pox on both their houses" or to take a "see no evil" approach by saying these ads don't mean anything.

That's your choice, of course. I just sure as hell don't want to hear complaints about our crappy negative, bickering politics and stagnant government after voting for more of the same with McCain.

The crappy, negative, and bickering politics and stagnant government will happen independent of what is said in the campaign, so that's why I look to see what's been done by the candidate in his attempts to legislate, or govern, as a precursor to how they will react in their new role, and ignore the campaign fluff. I liken the election process to the making of sausage, something that has to get done, but that I don't want to witness; the problem being that sausage is much easier to swallow than the politicians enactments.

Steve

[diogeron]

Watch the video and send it to everyone you know.

Originally Posted by diogeron

Is he still alive? He wasn't in the GOP debate I saw in the primary

[See Turtle]

Originally Posted by tmc

I can't believe it! I whole-heartedly agree with you on this; quick, get the digitalis!

Make that three of us.

[See Turtle]

Originally Posted by ryberg

If you want to win and win big, you're precisely going to have to compromise your views in the direction of the other side of the political spectrum.
Steve

Yeah, I know. But I don't have to be happy about it, do I? I was excited and energized by Obama -- enough to work hard for him here in Indiana during the primaries. Now? Not so much. And that's way more disappointing than the usual disappointment I feel during presidential elections.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by tmc

I did say that about moving to the middle, and it is par for the course, and it is lying...

Well, OK, if you want to define it that way, then yes, Obama has also been lying, as he's obviously been changing some of his positions while moving to the middle.

In this case, could someone suggest a word to distinguish that "change your mind" type of lying, I guess, from the "intentional misleading of people by putting forth false claims about easily verifiable objective points" type of lying that McCain is doing? Because I really need a word for that, as that's what I've been trying to describe here all this time, myself.

Also going the other direction, I guess I'll need a new, non-pejorative word for "change your mind," as that is now equated with the word lie, it seems.

Originally Posted by diogeron

Watch the video and send it to everyone you know.

This guy is acquiring houses by the day, here! First it was 6, then it was 8, and now it's 10?!?

Anyway, seems like you might as well just include the video here, if you want more folks to see it.

Personally I think that woman is a better "spokesperson" than what's-his-name, the angry guy, from MSNBC.

Steve

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Well, OK, if you want to define it that way, then yes, Obama has also been lying, as he's obviously been changing some of his positions while moving to the middle.

In this case, could someone suggest a word to distinguish that "change your mind" type of lying, I guess, from the "intentional misleading of people by putting forth false claims about easily verifiable objective points" type of lying that McCain is doing? Because I really need a word for that, as that's what I've been trying to describe here all this time, myself.

Also going the other direction, I guess I'll need a new, non-pejorative word for "change your mind," as that is now equated with the word lie, it seems.


Steve

Strategery?

I've no problem with a candidate changing his mind of the refining/compromise variety. An actual flip flop, the one done so solely for political gain, is to me worse than lying.

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by ryberg

But this is a different point. Again I see Obama as recognizing the need for compromise in order to get out of this constant bickering and fighting, and appreciate the fact that he is trying not to "make the perfect the enemy of the good" and not above all just presenting the same old party line over and over again like so many have before him and like so many do on the other side, as well. I don't think the kind of intransigence you seem to prefer is the solution, I think it's a good part of the problem.

And by your own estimation, you say the solution may be to win, and win big, taking both the White House and a clearly majority in Congress. Yet you reference voting for some other fringe candidate as a possibility. This is not a European parliamentary-style system. A vote for a fringe or 3rd party candidate is not only a wasted vote, it is moreover quite likely more like a vote for the opponent of the views you hold, in the math. If you want to win and win big, you're precisely going to have to compromise your views in the direction of the other side of the political spectrum.

But anyway, what you're talking about doesn't have to do with the question of lying about your opponent's views or record, doing so repeatedly, and doing so on objectively verifiable points widely reported in the press, even by publications of high repute basically on your own side. You can argue about the validity of some of Obama's policy changes or modifications, and you can even call them lies (or white lies, if you prefer), or whatever (though for me that's a misuse of the word lie). But people do change their minds, sometimes for the better, and there's no telling what legitimacy may have been involved in that process, as opposed to intentional misleading. That is not in question with McCain: he is intentionally misleading people, over and over again, and doing so about his opponent's views and proposals. It's inexcusable.

Steve

Do you remember a fellow who used to post here who didn't register as a Democrat because he felt there were machinations afoot to deprive Obama of the nomination.

I didn't say you'd talked me out of voting for Obama , just that you are doing a good job of it.

While I am quite ware of what might happen if I should choose a third party candidate. I am also aware of the Electoral College and which state I vote in. I even read about it in what is left of the Constitution. The last time I looked it was my vote to give or not. That's the way I heard it worked in "free countries".

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

While I am quite ware of what might happen if I should choose a third party candidate. I am also aware of the Electoral College and which state I vote in. I even read about it in what is left of the Constitution. The last time I looked it was my vote to give or not. That's the way I heard it worked in "free countries".

Oh, definitely! I would never want to take that away from you. I'm just saying that voting for someone not in one of the major 2 parties in the American electoral system as it is today seems to be the precisely the wrong tack to take if at the same time your goal is (as you have said) to win and win big! I think you pretty much have to choose which one of those you prefer, as they are not mutually compatible in any realistic sense, not at all.

You don't have to think like me at all. But me, I'm going for the compromise in order to get something better done for us -- again think health care that is not universal, for example, but covers even just 85-90% of Americans -- rather than to vote the 3rd party or otherwise demand the strict ideals be maintained and end up getting nothing in place.

Originally Posted by melliedee

Strategery?

I've no problem with a candidate changing his mind of the refining/compromise variety. An actual flip flop, the one done so solely for political gain, is to me worse than lying.

I like the word. Thanks. Definitely has that truthiness feel to it.

Well that's a hard point to argue theoretically, for me. Again I think here there's a significant difference perhaps well taken into account between these 2 candidates. McCain seems to be consistently claiming he's (still) a maverick while in reality he's been selling out the views that challenge those on his end of the political spectrum, in order to mollify them and play it safe and regain their support. So giving up his independent views and accepting the party line being pushed on him. Obama's moves to the middle may very well be for some sort of overall political gain, of course, but he's doing the opposite, often bucking the party line in favor of independent thinking, taking a risk in adopting the new views in terms of potential weakening or loss of support from his own party (witness ST & JL, just for example, here) and challenging those in his own party to consider those views.

And apart from that, whereas McCain continues to claim he's "the original maverick," as one of his current ads puts it, trying to cover up his moves back to the conservative fold, Obama has all along focused on reaching across the aisle and compromise and that tack, precisely what he's living up to now with these changes. The problem again is that (as he has also noted) people seem to project what they want to think onto him, and I think they're unfairly complaining now about some of this move to the middle, as if he'd never talked about the need for that in our political system. He's all about that, and has made no secret of it all along.

FWIW.

Steve

[tmc]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Oh, definitely! I would never want to take that away from you. I'm just saying that voting for someone not in one of the major 2 parties in the American electoral system as it is today seems to be the precisely the wrong tack to take if at the same time your goal is (as you have said) to win and win big! I think you pretty much have to choose which one of those you prefer, as they are not mutually compatible in any realistic sense, not at all.

You don't have to think like me at all. But me, I'm going for the compromise in order to get something better done for us -- again think health care that is not universal, for example, but covers even just 85-90% of Americans -- rather than to vote the 3rd party or otherwise demand the strict ideals be maintained and end up getting nothing in place.

I like the word. Thanks. Definitely has that truthiness feel to it.

Well that's a hard point to argue theoretically, for me. Again I think here there's a significant difference perhaps well taken into account between these 2 candidates. McCain seems to be consistently claiming he's (still) a maverick while in reality he's been selling out the views that challenge those on his end of the political spectrum, in order to mollify them and play it safe and regain their support. So giving up his independent views and accepting the party line being pushed on him. Obama's moves to the middle may very well be for some sort of overall political gain, of course, but he's doing the opposite, often bucking the party line in favor of independent thinking, taking a risk in adopting the new views in terms of potential weakening or loss of support from his own party (witness ST & JL, just for example, here) and challenging those in his own party to consider those views.

And apart from that, whereas McCain continues to claim he's "the original maverick," as one of his current ads puts it, trying to cover up his moves back to the conservative fold, Obama has all along focused on reaching across the aisle and compromise and that tack, precisely what he's living up to now with these changes. The problem again is that (as he has also noted) people seem to project what they want to think onto him, and I think they're unfairly complaining now about some of this move to the middle, as if he'd never talked about the need for that in our political system. He's all about that, and has made no secret of it all along.

FWIW.

Steve

Now, looking at the deeds of the two candidates, which has shown that he is willing to buck his party when it comes to proffering bills, or voting in meaningful votes (not set-ups) a particular way, or reached across the aisle to sponsor or successfully execute law? To me, that is more important than what they are saying now.

That being said, I not really inclined to vote for either one of them, yet.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by tmc

Now, looking at the deeds of the two candidates, which has shown that he is willing to buck his party when it comes to proffering bills, or voting in meaningful votes (not set-ups) a particular way...

Well I think that's where I came in, with McCain's deeds on this DHL thing, but I get your point.

Now, could we get some VPs, please, candidates?

Steve