2008 U.S. Presidential Campaign Discussion Thread-Part 10.

[VintagePunk]

Originally Posted by anitram

How many people in here "associate" themselves with churches that hate gays and lesbians, that promise hell for murderous women who have had abortions, and secularism in general?

The things I have heard from the pulpit of churches on these matters are no less offensive to me than the things you mention. And that is talking about your mainstream churches, where a cancerous homophobia runs rampant.

I don't judge Obama any more than people who walk into those places every Sunday and support institutions that are inherently bigoted.

Rev. Wright is far less offensive, IMO. Not that I'm overly knowledgeable about black culture or anything, but a preacher momentarily speaking out against a nation that has oppressed and practiced racism against African Americans for so long, using a tactic like that to inspire, strengthen, empower and instill pride in his congregation? Completely understandable to me. Others might not agree, I know, but that's how I view it.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Dreadsox

My point is that any group, party, ect can be tarnished with their own form of bigotry and racism.

i don't see Obama using a campaign filled with code words about John McCain being a secret white supremacist in order to drive up the african-american vote.

i just think it's mindless to equate what the GOP has done on a national level, and what they will continue to do over these next two weeks -- really, the only reason they're sticking with Ayers is so they can use the words "terrorist" and "Obama" in the same sentence -- with the fact that Obama was a member of a massive church and had a close personal relationship (that he has now denounced) with a man who said incendiary things and gives sermons that i do think are understood differently by white people than by black people.

and as has been said, what Rev. Wright has said about America in the infamous "chickens come home to roost" sermon is far less offensive to me than what The Pope says about homosexuality. how else am i to understand being called "objectively disordered"?

i view Rev. Wright as a showman, probably a bit of a racist, but really not all that problematic in my overall view of Obama. the Ayers thing is nonsense. but the whole point of this is to continue to paint a black man named Barack Hussein Obama as a foreigner, as too "Other" to vote for, and this is reflected in many of Palin's comments -- not from real america, sees the world differently from you and i -- and these comments are effectively whipping up the racist, xenophobic Republican base.

McCain is complicit, and Powell knows it. and the GOP is complicit, and Powell knows it.

randomly, where was Wright's anti-semetic comments? i don't think that criticizing Israel's actions should engender instant labeling of being anti-semetic. was there something else? an equivalent of Rev. Jackson's "hymietown"? i might have missed that.

[Diemen]

Wow. I'm behind in the thread, but I just finished watching Powell's endorsement. Now that is an endorsement. A few of my favorite parts.

"[Obama] is taking the approach that all villages have values, all towns have have values, not just small towns have values."

"...It is permitted to be said such things as "well you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well the correct answer is "he is not a Muslim. He's a Christian, he's always been a Christian." But the really right answer is "well what if he is?" Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some 7 year old Muslim American kid believing he or she could be President? Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop this suggestion he's a Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

Absolutely perfect.

Powell 2012!

[deep]

Originally Posted by JOFO

Good for Colin Powell.
I like the reasons he gave.
.

Where was Colin in 2004 ?

U.S. Sen. John Kerry emphatically defended his 2002 vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq Tuesday, pointing the finger at then Secretary of State Colin Powell for providing faulty evidence in the run up to the war. Sen. John Kerry (D-Boston)

In a phone interview with conservative talk show host Ken Pittman on WBSM Tuesday afternoon, Pittman asked Kerry (D-Boston) to explain how he at one time voted for the use of force in Iraq and then came to vehemently oppose the U.S. operation there. Kerry welcomed the opportunity.

"Absolutely, I'd be delighted to do that," he said. "I spent a long time on the telephone with Colin Powell on the Sunday before the vote and Colin Powell assured me they were going to do all of the planning necessary, they were not going to rush to war. He assured me that they were going to do all the inspections and exhaust the remedies of the United Nations and finish the diplomacy."

Kerry based his vote "largely on the conversations with Colin Powell," believing that the administration would not rush into war. Kerry didn't place all of the blame on Powell, however, saying that he too was given faulty information.

[Vincent Vega]

Originally Posted by diamond

Do you think the McCain campaign will send back Powell's earlier campaign contribution?



<>

I don't think so. Taking out a loan would be too expensive.



Or do they have money now?


These robo calls I don't get. What they try to imply is shameful and disgusting, but the fact that it is robotic calls alone is weird enough. Don't they have volunteers to do these calls? Are not enough volunteers willing to spout this appalling crap themselves? Is it just too expensive? Or do they just fear some of those being called could start counter-arguing?
Seriously, I cannot believe how they think being called by a pre-recorded message can be nearly as effective as being called by a real person.

[yolland]

^ That's a pretty standard tactic in American campaign politics; lots of Congressmen and state-level politicians of both parties do it too. They're not always scurrilous calls by any means, but the tactic itself is common.

[anitram]

Barack Obama's stop at Cape Fear BBQ and Chicken in Fayetteville, N.C., this afternoon underscored the continued resistance of some voters to his candidacy — and his identity. The trip, according to a pool report, offered “some powerful and at times ugly interaction.”

...

Obama arrived at the barbecue joint around 12:30 p.m., where an older and majority white clientele of several dozen were eating lunch after church services. Many patrons applauded as he walked into the diner, but Diane Fanning, 54, began yelling “Socialist, socialist, socialist — get out of here!”

Obama did not look directly at her, as she was across the diner, but it was loud enough that he most likely heard her.

...

Later, Obama came to the long table where Fanning and other members of a local First Presbyterian church were gathered. He held out his hand to her and asked, “How are you, ma’am?” but she declined to shake his hand.

...

In an interview, Fanning said, “I still think he’s a closet Muslim.”

Nice churchgoing woman. She should be proud of herself.

[martha]

Are these people getting these calls on the do not call list? Or are politicians exempt from consulting that list?

[yolland]

They're exempt from no-call lists, though they're supposed to always provide a callback number which you can then use to request removal from that particular campaign's list.

[Vincent Vega]

Ok, seems it's cultural differences. I would hang up immediately if any party called me with a pre-recorded message. Even more, in Germany it's totally unheard of to receive calls from political parties trying to get you to vote for them. We don't have door knockers as well, nobody would take up a sign and stand at the road and no one has yard signs.


On the other hand, we don't have any party, or single politician for that matter, people would get so passionate about.

[indra]

Originally Posted by anitram

Nice churchgoing woman. She should be proud of herself.

The sad thing is I imagine she probably is proud of herself.

[Irvine511]

i came across a blurp today that said that Powell's endorsement was the most profound 7-8 minutes of the 2008 campaign, so i went back and read the transcript, and i think i agree.

here it is. my personal favorite parts highlighted:

MR. BROKAW: General Powell, actually you gave a campaign contribution to Senator McCain. You have met twice at least with Barack Obama. Are you prepared to make a public declaration of which of these two candidates that you're prepared to support?

GEN. POWELL: Yes, but let me lead into it this way. I know both of these individuals very well now. I've known John for 25 years as your setup said. And I've gotten to know Mr. Obama quite well over the past two years. Both of them are distinguished Americans who are patriotic, who are dedicated to the welfare of our country. Either one of them, I think, would be a good president. I have said to Mr. McCain that I admire all he has done. I have some concerns about the direction that the party has taken in recent years. It has moved more to the right than I would like to see it, but that's a choice the party makes. And I've said to Mr. Obama, "You have to pass a test of do you have enough experience, and do you bring the judgment to the table that would give us confidence that you would be a good president."

And I've watched him over the past two years, frankly, and I've had this conversation with him. I have especially watched over the last six of seven weeks as both of them have really taken a final exam with respect to this economic crisis that we are in and coming out of the conventions. And I must say that I've gotten a good measure of both. In the case of Mr. McCain, I found that he was a little unsure as to deal with the economic problems that we were having and almost every day there was a different approach to the problem. And that concerned me, sensing that he didn't have a complete grasp of the economic problems that we had. And I was also concerned at the selection of Governor Palin. She's a very distinguished woman, and she's to be admired; but at the same time, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don't believe she's ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president. And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made.

On the Obama side, I watched Mr. Obama and I watched him during this seven-week period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this and picking a vice president that, I think, is ready to be president on day one. And also, in not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor. I think that he has a, a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well. I also believe that on the Republican side over the last seven weeks, the approach of the Republican Party and Mr. McCain has become narrower and narrower. Mr. Obama, at the same time, has given us a more inclusive, broader reach into the needs and aspirations of our people. He's crossing lines--ethnic lines, racial lines, generational lines. He's thinking about all villages have values, all towns have values, not just small towns have values.

And I've also been disappointed, frankly, by some of the approaches that Senator McCain has taken recently, or his campaign ads, on issues that are not really central to the problems that the American people are worried about. This Bill Ayers situation that's been going on for weeks became something of a central point of the campaign. But Mr. McCain says that he's a washed-out terrorist. Well, then, why do we keep talking about him? And why do we have these robocalls going on around the country trying to suggest that, because of this very, very limited relationship that Senator Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, somehow, Mr. Obama is tainted. What they're trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings. And I think that's inappropriate.

Now, I understand what politics is all about. I know how you can go after one another, and that's good. But I think this goes too far. And I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It's not what the American people are looking for. And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign and they trouble me. And the party has moved even further to the right, and Governor Palin has indicated a further rightward shift. I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that's what we'd be looking at in a McCain administration. I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. [B]And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way.[/B} And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.

So, when I look at all of this and I think back to my Army career, we've got two individuals, either one of them could be a good president. But which is the president that we need now? Which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time? And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities--and we have to take that into account--as well as his substance--he has both style and substance--he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president. I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation coming into the world--onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I'll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.

[U2democrat]

Originally Posted by martha

Are these people getting these calls on the do not call list? Or are politicians exempt from consulting that list?

Yolland is right.

As a campaign intern who spent all summer calling people on the phone, it's frustrating to have to explain to people who yell in my ear "I'M ON THE DO NOT CALL LIST!" and say, in a non-condescending way, that politicians are exempt, and really, would congress pass legislature that would hinder their campaigning in that way? Heck no.

Robo-calls do get annoying though, people tend to just hang up, whether the message is positive or negative.

[indra]

I just don't pick up my landline unless it's very late at night because then it's almost always one of two people I've told to call me then -- everything else goes to the answering machine. If it's someone I know and want to talk to I pick up if I'm here, or I call back. Does wonders for my irritation level during political campaigns.

I only give my cell phone number to people I actually want to talk to. I think the only business that has it is my vet.

[indra]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

i came across a blurp today that said that Powell's endorsement was the most profound 7-8 minutes of the 2008 campaign, so i went back and read the transcript, and i think i agree.

here it is. my personal favorite parts highlighted:

Wow. That was a pretty thorough blasting of McCain/Palin. T he true beauty is that he wasn't snarky about either of them, which actually made it more of a smackdown.

[anitram]

I don't have a land line and haven't had a land line in many years so I never get unwanted calls except a genuine wrong number. It's fabulous.

[U2democrat]

Originally Posted by indra

I just don't pick up my landline unless it's very late at night because then it's almost always one of two people I've told to call me then -- everything else goes to the answering machine. If it's someone I know and want to talk to I pick up if I'm here, or I call back. Does wonders for my irritation level during political campaigns.

I only give my cell phone number to people I actually want to talk to. I think the only business that has it is my vet.

That's the way to go if you don't want to be bothered by us


Also, if you (the general you) could be as polite as possible when on the phone, because it's probably just someone like me just doing their job or volunteering on the other side, and it's never fun to get rude people when all I've said is "Hello"

[BVS]

Originally Posted by anitram

I don't have a land line and haven't had a land line in many years so I never get unwanted calls except a genuine wrong number. It's fabulous.

This is one reason that polling will have to change in the future...

[martha]

Originally Posted by U2democrat

As a campaign intern who spent all summer calling people on the phone, it's frustrating to have to explain to people who yell in my ear "I'M ON THE DO NOT CALL LIST!" and say, in a non-condescending way, that politicians are exempt, and really, would congress pass legislature that would hinder their campaigning in that way? Heck no.

I did some calling once, way before the do not call list. It takes a special kind of nerve to do that (I mean that in a good way). I mustered up the nerve one election cycle, working for a Republican, of all people. She was a pro-choice Republican trying to beat that asshole Bob Dornan in the primary. She actually took 40% of the vote! I spoke to at least two women on the phone who were registered voters who told me that their husbands told them how to vote. I do not lie. That was the election that generated the legendary soundbite about "lesbian spearchuckers." I've always been proud to be a "lesbian spearchucker." That's what B-1 Bob called the supporters of his pro-choice opponent, and I still wear that badge with pride.

[Earnie Shavers]

I thought it was interesting, the Powell endorsement happened overnight our time here, so I switched on the TV this morning when I was getting ready to see if he actually did it (I was half expecting a diplomatic, non-specific, tip of the hat type endorsement or none at all). CNN were showing some of their international business programming, so over to Fox I went. For half an hour they were talking about it, showing clips of responses to it, but did not once actually quote Powell, let alone show a clip of him actually on Meet the Press. That might have just been the half hour or so that I caught, but I thought it was maybe a funny ‘typical Fox’ moment. They get a good Republican/far right soundbite and they’ll play it every 5 minutes so it is absolutely drilled in, anyone watching will know it off by heart pretty quickly, but probably the most eloquent soundbite loaded pro-Obama message yet? Haha, no way. Especially considering what Powell is really skewering is essentially the Fox Message of the Week as well.