[clue-talk] Wow, Card's a little political...

[Nate Duehr]

On Nov 1, 2008, at 5:28 PM, Sean LeBlanc wrote:

> On 11-01 17:13, Nate Duehr wrote:
>
> Deleted a bunch of stuff...getting too nested.
>
> First of all, let me preface this by me reiterating that I am NOT a  
> liberal,
> although I wouldn't apologize if I was. I'm cynical enough to not be
> enthused very much by either candidate. But watching McCain's  
> campaign,
> culminating in selecting what, by all appearances so far, seems to  
> be one of
> the dumbest people in politics. Then watching the appeal to the RWAs  
> utterly
> sickened me.

Many are sickened by the campaigns of both sides.  They're just  
campaigns.  Look at the candidates and their real agendas.

If you don't, you're voting on emotion, not rational thought.

> That tore it for me. I tacitly supported Obama before that, but as I  
> learned
> more about Palin and learned more about McCain's health issues, the  
> more I
> wanted McCain to lose.

Okay, but it's based on an opinion of how campaigns are run?  That's  
not the right reason (or anti-reason?) to vote (or not vote) for a  
candidate.  What they're going to do in the real job is.

> When it comes to examples, no, we don't have video, but we do have  
> reports.
> I also seem to remember that the Secret Service did look into them.

I'm sure the Secret Service looks into a lot of things.  And if we  
don't have video, we have words.  Where are they published and who  
wrote them?

> Are there even reports of people yelling this sort of stuff at Obama
> rallies?

There is no reason for them to.  McCain's not talking about taking  
their money away and giving it to others in "wealth redistribution".   
There's no reports ANYWHERE of a McCain person INCITING people to say  
these things.   Really.  The people are frustrated, not the candidate.

Obama says he wants "Change", but won't elaborate other than his  
published plan.

That plan pretty much means you and I will be quite a bit poorer, if  
you read it.  He gets throngs of people all excited about this  
"Change" because he won't get into details.  How about if he stood up  
there and said he's definitely raising your taxes, he's going to  
expand programs to give money to people not willing to work for their  
pay, and he's going to make sure anyone who does make more than  
$250,000 a year (pretty much all small business owners) are  
effectively going to be punished for their prosperity.

He doesn't say those things very loudly, but they're in his plan.  He  
knows the average person would look at him like he's crazy and vote  
for *anyone* other than that.

The difference between McCain and Obama in this election is a  
Constitutional one.  The President CAN'T do any of this stuff.  Only  
the Congress can.  But with Obama in office, the Congress gets a  
permanent green light to do whatever they want.  With McCain in the  
office, the Congress has to try harder to come up with things we all  
agree on.


> When it comes to stealing elections, I suggest reading _Loser Take  
> All_.
> Interestingly enough, he mentions how Republicans are trying to kill  
> two
> birds with one stone by attacking groups like ACORN, while also  
> rolling up
> their sleeves to do the real dirty deeds. It also contains essays  
> dealing
> with past elections stolen by Republicans, and how even though  
> people seemed
> to breathe a sigh of relief in 2006, they shouldn't have, as data  
> shows
> there were probably elections stolen then, too.

Elections aren't "stolen" - what a cry-baby view of the world.   
Elections are won.  If people voted against Republicans (which I will  
admit, is likely this year) they would have their candidate in office  
for the last 4 years.  (How the hell GWB got a second term, is beyond  
me if there's so much angst in the Democratic Party about the war, the  
job he's doing, yadda yadda.  All they had to do was convince the  
country to vote him out.  Now they use their failure to win as a  
campaign strategy and say, "A vote for McCain is a vote for 8 more  
years of the same"?  Amazing that they don't just say, "We couldn't  
get our shit together four years ago, but now we're back and claiming  
that loss as a victory!"  Win or lose.  That's the game.  The  
Democrats lost four years ago.  Fact.)

> I've also heard a recent podcast in which a conservative computer  
> guy was
> discussing the problems with e-voting. Not that it's any secret  
> anymore.

The spotlights on it now finally.  I have been concerned with e-voting  
for a long time now, clear back to GWB's first election.  I think the  
spotlight and the public outcry is high enough that fraud caused by  
computers will be kept relatively in check.  (There's always someone  
attempting to cheat in every endeavor.  The trick is to highlight it  
and put in safeguards.)

> And lastly, I don't want ANYONE's vote to be disenfranchised. I  
> cannot be
> clear enough about that.

Amen.  I may be a McCain "fan" this time around, but I want a fair win  
or lose either way.  Dragging crap on in the courts for years and  
years after elections is both something we should all be ashamed we  
let happen (whatever brings the lawsuit) and also shameful to all of  
us.  Voting in this country is a right this gun-totin' right of center  
suburbanite would pick up a gun and fight for, even if I knew everyone  
I was fighting for would vote for a Liberal.  Seriously.  I also feel  
the right to NOT vote is just as sacred.  Groups dragging old folks  
who don't care out of their homes by offering them cookies, or company  
and comfort, is sickening too.  How about we offer them comfort,  
cookies, and conversation when there's NOT an election on and not from  
some group who's job it is to drag voters to the polls?  (This  
requires knowing one's neighbors, something that we're continually  
losing in this country... a very bad thing long-term.)

> I'll agree that all politicians do some pandering, but this  
> pandering to the
> worst elements of anti-intellectualism by McCain makes me vomit a  
> little in
> my mouth. Calling straight-ahead questions aimed at Palin who was  
> kept in
> hiding for so long "gotcha journalism"? You have GOT to be kidding me.

Pandering to those who like platitudes without substance is what  
Obama's campaign practices, big rallies, no real answers -- and that  
makes me a little physically ill also, although I can't say I remember  
being so emotionally involved in it that I actually vomited.  That's  
kinda a sign you're a little too engaged, man... I'd worry about that  
a little bit if I were you.  :-)  Seriously, I'd rather you not feel  
that badly over something as inevitable as a Presidential election  
going back and forth between Parties.  That's going to keep happening  
long after both of us are dead.

Palin's not the sharpest tool in the shed, I'll readily admit that.    
But she's not "dangerous", even if she were to end up President for a  
few years.  History has shown that people thrust into the Presidency  
rarely do well, but in their memoirs, they all try a hell of a lot  
harder than the "anointed" ones.  She'd do fine, and she's tough  
enough to stand up to whatever would hit her.  You put that with  
McCain who's definitely capable to do the job, and it's good.

Obama's naive statements that he's going to sit down with nations that  
want nothing more than to kill us, is not a good sign that he'll  
handle foreign policy very well.  He'll have his ass handed to him by  
the evil likes of Putin within those we call "allies" too.   
Domestically, I've already pointed out that he can't stop the tidal  
wave of entitlements and taxes his Party will pass with him in office.

> I guess that's what Palin was selected FOR, but good grief...if they  
> didn't
> select her for this reason, I'd like to know what she was selected  
> for,
> because I can think of quite a few VP candidates that would have been
> smarter, less ignorant, and more experienced than Palin.

Think about it.  She was selected as a virtual unknown so she couldn't  
be tied to this "a vote for McCain is a vote for Bush" garbage.  Any  
competent Republican woman who'd been anywhere near Washington D.C. in  
the last 8 years would have been smeared with that by the Obama  
campaign the second she was announced.  They also chose her to  
highlight the whole "Maverick" thing but way over-did it.  (Botched  
it, if you ask me...) They wanted someone who was a Washington  
outsider, a woman, who wasn't part of the Ivy League, and could get  
votes in the heartland.  It wasn't a "bad" strategy obviously, since  
it's working.  They also knew that anyone (no offense, like yourself)  
who was already leaning Obama wouldn't be swayed by her.  You weren't  
the voter they were looking to win.  If that's offensive, realize that  
by your own admission they had already lost you.  They just "clinched"  
that in many light Obama supporters and went after a different crowd.

The part that's amazing to me is that the confused, disorganized  
Democratic Party (yes, they did LOSE four years ago) didn't see it  
coming.  They have a LOT of people who lean their way, but for a very  
wide number of reasons, and their "base" really doesn't exist.  When  
your "base" is both the poorest of the poor, and also the BMW  
"greenies" in the burbs, things are going to be difficult when the  
other party goes after the solidly boring, religious, middle-class who  
doesn't like either of those groups.

Just kinda segwaying into strategy here now, since I think I've  
explained enough about why I can't/won't vote for Obama.  The  
strategies of BOTH sides are fascinating to me.  I don't let it get me  
too riled up though... they're only strategies.  I'm voting for the  
person.  Vote against the Party strategists if you like... it doesn't  
seem a good way to choose a President to me.

--
Nate Duehr
nate at natetech.com