Obama's march to the middle continues!!!

Non-lacrosse specific topics.

Postby jayjaciv on Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:35 pm

It seems as though those who continue to unflinchingly support the GOP are vilifying Obama for taking more moderate positions (I'm sorry, I mean flip-flopping) and lauding McCain for taking insincere extreme right-wing positions. Does this seem intelligent to anyone who isn't blinded by American flag pins and rage against gay marriage? Why would a man who is lurching to the extreme, either left or right, be preferable to a man who is "marching to the center?" Does anybody besides Osama bin Laden think extremism is actually a GOOD thing?

If we want to take down a man for being sensible and doing things to get elected (I mean flip-flopping. Damn, I always forget to use the Approved Rhetoric), let's take a look at Mr. McCain. From the Economist:
In a world short of conviction politicians, Mr McCain’s Straight Talk Express has its charms.

But not when the straight talker starts saying things it is very hard to imagine that he remotely believes in. It was a bad omen last year when this freewheeling western conservative in the Reagan mould went off to court the intolerant Christian right. And recently, the flip-flops have come rapidly. Once a vigorous opponent of Mr Bush’s tax cuts, he says he wants not only to continue but also to extend them. Once a champion of greenery, he has called not only for an expensive petrol-tax holiday (something Mr Obama cleverly resisted) but also for a resumption of drilling off America’s coast. Once a supporter of closing down Guantánamo Bay, he recently criticised the Supreme Court for daring to suggest that inmates deserve the right of habeas corpus. He has edged to the right on two other areas where he used to be hated by his party’s conservatives as a dangerous maverick: on torture (he won’t rule out water-boarding) and immigration reform (he says fix the border first, which will take an eternity).

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displa ... d=11670343
From the same article:
American elections classically involve a two-step: the candidate runs to the extreme in the primary, then back to the centre for the general. Mr Obama is doing that. Mr McCain seems to be doing precisely the opposite. It is a mistake.


Yes, I am mad at Obama for supporting FISA (why are the conservatives on here mad at him for that? It's a heinous bill to me but I thought chopping up our civil rights "cause a da terists" was sort of the GOP bread and butter). But I would rather have a man in the White House who can recognize the intelligent course of action and take it than the man who is too old or dumb to do so.
"The Internet: Where awful people meet."
User avatar
jayjaciv
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:04 am


Postby StrykerFSU on Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:17 pm

Doesn't the Washington Post article state that it is the conservative (I guess that means extreme right wing to you) side of the Republican Party that are the ones preparing to battle McCain? Is supporting offshore oil drilling really an extreme right wing position? No one better tell that to Senate Democrats...

A top U.S. Democratic senator said in a newspaper interview published Wednesday that he would consider supporting opening up new areas for offshore oil and gas drilling.

"I'm open to drilling and responsible production," Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin told The Wall Street Journal, adding that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could also support the move.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0930217120080709?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true

As for Obama, it's not only the evil GOP that are upset by his policy reversals:

Mr. Obama has faced a wave of complaints from his followers in recent weeks that he is tacking hard toward the political center and moving away from his liberal base now that he is in a general election campaign. His critics note that he recently applauded a Supreme Court decision overturning a District of Columbia ban on handguns, supported a proposed wiretap law that he once promised to oppose and, in response to another Supreme Court ruling, spoke in favor of the death penalty for child rapists.

He has also endorsed a role for religious organizations in delivering social services, which many critics, including some who support him, fear would blur the line between church and state.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/us/politics/09campaign.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin

If Obama is elected, which politician will we get? Ultra-liberal Sen. Obama of the primary season or "moderate" Nominee Obama?

A short list of position changes:
• He says he believes in a Second Amendment right to bear arms.
• He now opposes late-term abortion.
• He suddenly is a devotee of using faith-based institutions to deliver public services.
• He now says that he won't raise Social Security taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. In the primary, he said he'd eliminate the threshold entirely, including on people making as little as $100,000.
• He recently opposed the Fairness Doctrine for talk radio.
• Now he says he's going to consult with the military before pulling out of Iraq.


Will the Democrat controlled Congress allow him to stay at the center? They didn't allow Bill Clinton.

Faced with the same situation in 1993, as he took office as president, Bill Clinton found no alternative but to move dramatically to the left, shelving for the moment his promises of a middle-class tax cut and welfare reform. He had no choice. The Democratic majorities in both Houses served him with notice: Either you stay within the caucus and not cross the aisle in search of support for centrist policies, or we will do unto you what we did to Jimmy Carter when Tip O'Neill turned on him and made his life miserable. Clinton was forced to emphasize healthcare reform over welfare changes and to go with a liberal economic stimulus package capped by big tax increases. The liberal stain sank so deeply into the fabric of his presidency that it caused him to lose Congress in 1994, and almost to lose the 1996 election.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/obama_would_in_fact_govern_fro.html
Cliff Stryker Buck, Ph.D.
Department of Oceanography
Florida State University
User avatar
StrykerFSU
Premium
Premium
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:37 pm
Location: Tallahassee, Fl

Postby OAKS on Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:49 pm

Just to remind everyone, U.S. Politics, when you consider the rest of the world, is made of:

Democrats: just right of center
Republicans: halfway from the center to the fringe of the right.

There really aren't that many differences between the two parties.
Will Oakley
Assistant Coach, Glen Allen High School
User avatar
OAKS
Bumblebee Tuna!
Bumblebee Tuna!
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 9:57 am

Postby dgr01002 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:51 pm

OAKS wrote:Just to remind everyone, U.S. Politics, when you consider the rest of the world, is made of:

Democrats: just right of center
Republicans: halfway from the center to the fringe of the right.

There really aren't that many differences between the two parties.


This is the problem...stated above. There are NOT many differences between parties? This is why Congress/Senate has a 9% approval rating. This is why true conservatives are NOT getting behind McCain and never were. McCain is a RINO and absolutely cannot win without his conservative base energetically behind him. Every true conservative recognizes and resents his lack of moral strength to support what the Republican party was supposed to be about...individual liberty, small and limited governenment, strong defense (check!), and letting the free market of products, speech and ideas take its course. So, McCain now needs to move from left of center to the right but conservatives mostly aren't buying it. Obama on the other hand started as far-left as Soros could get him. He cannot win sticking to Marxist rhetoric that worked in the Dem primaries, preaching to the choir. He needs to leave his true values behind and head to the middle, hence his current moderate rhetoric.

McCain is picking up votes from the moderate Dems while losing his conservative base.

Obama is alienating his far-left base trying to reclaim Dems that are leaning towards McCain somewhere in the middle.
dgr01002
Rookie
Rookie
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:13 pm

Postby jayjaciv on Wed Jul 09, 2008 6:32 pm

conservative (I guess that means extreme right wing to you)

Seeing as how I think of the Dems in Congress as being conservative, yes, I guess what you consider to be conservative I consider to be extremist right wing.
Yes, the extreme right wing is "preparing to battle" with McCain, which is exactly why he's lurching to the right so suddenly. Republicans absolutely need their base (evangelicals, the ultra-rich, big pharma and big oil etc) in order to get elected; see GWB 2000 and 2004.
You are correct that the far left is mad at Obama. They have been mad for weeks, and especially so since FISA (with good reason). This is old news. Arriana Huffington and her ilk can huff and puff all they want, but unless they want to go hang themselves and vote for Nader they're still going to vote for Obama.
Likewise, the conservative pundits can run around like chickens with their heads cut off yelling "flip-flop, flip-flop!" but I don't think anyone's buying it this time.
Obama is alienating his far-left base trying to reclaim Dems that are leaning towards McCain somewhere in the middle.

Keep in mind that independents far outnumber either Republicans or Democrats.
I want the smarter man in office. Going by the numbers, the smart thing to do is to court the philosophical center. McCain can flip-flop (yay! rhetoric!) his way all the way to fascism if he wants; it's just going to make it easier for Obama.
I'm not sure what the fuss is about exactly. Are we mad because Obama's flip-flopping? Then why aren't we mad at McCain too? He's doing the same thing, only in the wrong direction.
Or are we mad about his new, more moderate positions? Certainly the conservatives on this board can't be mad about those; they're basically Republican talking points. I'm pretty mad about the new positions but frankly if it helps Obama beat McCain, I can get over it.
"The Internet: Where awful people meet."
User avatar
jayjaciv
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:04 am

Postby FLALAX on Wed Jul 09, 2008 6:49 pm

Do you really think that GW got elected because of the limited demographic groups you mentioned (evangelicals, the ultra-rich, big pharma and big oil etc) ?

He received 62,040,610 votes, the most ever.

McCain can easily win and the Obama camp knows it, thus his redifinition of his positions. When you break down the electoral map, the math begins to look very favorable for McCain. Remember Obama lost the following states to Hillary; California, New York, New Jersey, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee.

Your facts are incorrect and like other uneducated voters you make horrible generalizations. Here is the demographic breakdown of who voted in 2004.

Voter Demographics
The following data is based on exit polls.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/ ... lls.0.html
FLALAX
Veteran
Veteran
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:38 pm
Location: Florida

Postby jayjaciv on Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:17 pm

Your facts are incorrect and like other uneducated voters you make horrible generalizations. Here is the demographic breakdown of who voted in 2004.


Personal attacks and diversion of the argument to something totally nonsensical...from a conservative? Me confused (and no, the irony of making another "horrible generalization" is not lost on me. I'm not that..."uneducated").

Thanks for proving me wrong on my minor ill-conceived tangent. I should have written that Republicans absolutely need their far right base for MONEY, not votes. Thanks also for providing evidence that McCain is an even dumber political tactician than I had previously thought! Clearly the far right base is not necessary to winning an election, making his doddering flip-flop to the right even more nonsensical and inane.


Edited for grammar and clarity.
Last edited by jayjaciv on Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The Internet: Where awful people meet."
User avatar
jayjaciv
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:04 am

Postby FLALAX on Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:20 pm

I am not a far right winger, just a poster that knows my facts. No personal attacks in the post, just pointing out the absolute lack of reality in your post and views.
FLALAX
Veteran
Veteran
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:38 pm
Location: Florida

Postby Sonny on Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:54 pm

jayjaciv wrote: Keep in mind that independents far outnumber either Republicans or Democrats.


Source?
Webmaster
Image
Image
User avatar
Sonny
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8183
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:18 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby Dan Wishengrad on Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:16 pm

FLALAX wrote: Remember Obama lost the following states to Hillary; California, New York, New Jersey, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee.


So what? Obama will win huge in California, New York and New Jersey in the general. McCain will win just as handily in Arizona, Oklahoma and Tennessee. New Mexico is a swing state that is trending towards Obama.

The 2008 electoral map is pretty interesting, with The "Big Four" of Michigan, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania again likely to hold the key to which candidate will win. But if Obama can turn some other "red states" to the blue column -- Virginia, Maine, New Hampshire, Nebraska and Colorado to name just five that went to Bush last time -- he can conceivably reach 270 electoral votes even if he loses three of the "Big Four".

Conventional wisdom has been that the VP choice really doesn't matter, but in this election the Veep candidates could swing a state or two. Romney could help McCain win Michigan, as could Ridge in Pennsylvania. Of course putting the pro-choice Ridge on the ticket would outrage conservatives, and Mac has said he won't do that. Sam Nunn could help Obama actually win Georgia, which otherwise should be a lock for McCain. Hillary could help turn Arkansas back into the Dems column.

It's going to be a fascinating next four months, no matter what...
PNCLL Board Member 1997-Present
MCLA Fan
User avatar
Dan Wishengrad
Premium
Premium
 
Posts: 1683
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 1:47 am

Postby laxfan25 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:45 pm

An interesting article from the June 30th issue of the New Yorker on the de-linking of the terms right-wing and evangelical. In light of Barack's recently announce support for faith-based inititatives, it is apparent that he looks to make inroads into the evangelical community, and I think he will have a good measure of success.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/06/30/080630fa_fact_fitzgerald
User avatar
laxfan25
Scoop, Cradle, & Rock!
Scoop, Cradle, & Rock!
 
Posts: 1952
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:06 pm

Postby StrykerFSU on Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:18 pm

It's nice that some Evangelicals have taken up the fight against climate change and I am not the least bit surprised that Christian activists put pressure on Bush to increase foreign aid to poor nations. But to think that somehow Evangelicals are going to all of a sudden get swept into the Democratic Party is reee-donku-lous. One word...abortion. I don't see how any Evangelical could in good faith vote for a pro-choice candidate. It's sweet that Obama is now against late-term abortions (or is he, I can't remember anymore) but that is not enough. Maybe I'm wrong but if I was Obama I don't think that I would cut the MoveOn crowd in favor of the Christian Coalition just yet.

Dan, I think McCain takes Pennsylvania and Florida without Ridge or the newly engaged Charlie Crist. Florida because of our elder population as well as the enormous military presence and Pennsylvania because of three words: bitter, religion, guns.

jayjaciv and Dan...you guys confuse me. Is Sen. McCain moving to the right extreme or is he tacking to the center ala Politics 101? Regardless the man is not dumb.
Cliff Stryker Buck, Ph.D.
Department of Oceanography
Florida State University
User avatar
StrykerFSU
Premium
Premium
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:37 pm
Location: Tallahassee, Fl

Postby Jac Coyne on Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:14 am

Don't count out the importance of the African-American vote. Obama has nearly universal support in that community...

Image
Jac Coyne
Premium
Premium
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:53 pm

Postby dgr01002 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:10 am

jayjaciv wrote:Yes, the extreme right wing is "preparing to battle" with McCain, which is exactly why he's lurching to the right so suddenly. Republicans absolutely need their base (evangelicals, the ultra-rich, big pharma and big oil etc) in order to get elected; see GWB 2000 and 2004.


Wow! look out for that HUGE "ultra-rich" voting block! (Last I heard, the Kennedy family, George Soros, all of Hollywood, Bill Gates, Heinz family,Richard Branson (Virgin), Mark Cuban, (shall I go on and on and on?) voted Democrat). I also didn't know Big Oil and Big Pharma voted as a group. Thanks for that ridiculously simplistic talking point. Um, how many American based "big oil" companies are left that haven't moved overseas? What are the consolodated numbers of this remaining voting block? Apparently there is an EXXON voting block that needs a caucus that I'm unaware of. I'm sure their numbers are staggering. Who is "etc" in this voting block you mention. I can't wait to hear these stereotypical chiches?

And "Big Pharma"...Michael Moore, anyone? Let's see, "Big Pharma" in your mind needing to be replaced by Big Government Pharmacy? Geez, now that will make things better. You make conspiracy theories on cliche "Big this" and "Big that" all to be replaced under one HUGE umbrella of "Big Government". Or, Communisim? Do you think Big Pharmacy will just disappear in this Star Trek utopian world? I can't wait for the day of handing the reigns of free-market innovation in medicine over to our ever failing Big Government because we all know, when you need something to get done correctly, you just add more government. I find it hilarious to hear people with wild conspiracies about "Big" business failing to recognize that government has become the "Biggest" corrupt entity there is.

And those evil snake charming evangelicals. Seems a man can't walk down the street without being attacked by one getting in his face these days. Evangelicals don't vote primarily as a block or for a party. They vote based on their values and beliefs. Evangelicals aren't "ultra rich" or from oil or pharmacy. They are primarily made up of lower to middleclass Americans who proudly follow a value system. And hence, why even they are finding it hard to energetically get behind McCain.
dgr01002
Rookie
Rookie
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:13 pm

Postby Dr. Jason Stockton on Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:30 pm

dgr01002 wrote:And "Big Pharma"...Michael Moore, anyone?


I'm all for free enterprise, but I don't like it when the government gets involved. Big Pharma isn't the only industry getting a governmental "free ride," but they are probably the biggest culprit. There are more lobbyists on the Pharmaceutical Companies payroll in Washington than there are Congressional representatives. This buys "Big Pharma" protectionist regulations and a ridiculous amount of tax-payer funded R&D money. . .for which the drug companies reap all of the profits.

And on top of all of the financial mess, the number of people (including babies) that die in the US every year due to the side effects of pharmaceuticals is one of the biggest scandals in our country today. . . in my opinion.

I certainly am not saying I want government to control medicine in our country. . .I just wish the people voted to protect us (Dems & Reps) were not so deep in the wallets of the drug comanies that they can't see straight.
Dr. Jason Stockton
PNCLL President
PLU Head Coach 1999-2005
User avatar
Dr. Jason Stockton
My bum is on the snow
My bum is on the snow
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 12:18 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Water Cooler

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest


cron