So at this point I’ve seen I don’t know how many people complaining about liberal this, new Muslim president that, he’s an illegal alien, Barack HUSSEIN Obama is going to ruin the country, etc, etc, etc. And I can’t help but think; how do you call yourself a patriot? Do you really care about our country? There comes a point after an election where you have to take a step back and say well, we lost; I don’t agree with the principles that the candidate who won has set forth but for the sake of our country I hope I am wrong and he is right. It is realistic to be worried but to pander to the lowest common denominator falls right into what people who think opposite to you love to see while they gloat. Its amazing the people that come out of the wood work when they are up and you are down; to add kindling to their fire, lighted by your ignorance, is not only self defeating but makes anyone else who is from a “red state” or sees things a certain way appear as “backwards” as the garbage that you put forth. As President Bush said today no matter how Americans cast their ballots, they should be proud of the history that was made yesterday and the progress the vast majority of our country has made. If anyone chases their dreams they can accomplish anything in this great country, no more excuses. It is beautiful that people can freely disagree with a peaceful transfer of power at the end of a democratic election where hopefully (at least on my end there’s not) any ill will towards the other side. As someone once said, “The American eagle has a left wing and a right wing, so let that eagle soar.”
Not horribly long ago there was a situation similar to this one. Besides being a sleazy horn dog, Bill Clinton did a good job of soon realizing (well three years into his presidency) that he had to move to the center to run the country; being too far to the left would not work. Hopefully a new President-Elect Obama will figure that out sooner; although his past associations, possible choice of Chief of Staff (Rham Emanuel could not be more partisan), state voting record, and senate voting record would point against that (97% record of voting w/ his party in the Senate); his campaign, one of the best managed probably in the history of our country all respects to Karl Rove seemed to have moved more to the center in at least foreign affairs the last few days and weeks. Is that a sign of more moderate views to come? Obama will hopefully go in and like Clinton say well I campaigned to lower taxes and raise them for the rich but we are in a recession and we can’t do that right now; likewise with his other campaign promises that in this current environment are doomed to fail. He is an intelligent man and I am sure he is aware of a backlash now just like then should he scorn the middle road to become Pelosi and Reed’s right hand.
Now let me explain. I am a conservative in a way that is not new although lately the word has been twisted to mean republican just as liberal is now a democrat; which is not a true definition of either really. Reagan, in attempting to define conservativism, said: “If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.” This was even earlier articulated by Edmund Burke, who in his ‘Reflections on the Revolution in France’ wrote,…”It is to the property of the citizen, and not to the demands of the creditor of the state, that the first and original faith of civil society is pledged. The claim of the citizen is prior in time, paramount in title, superior in equity. The fortunes of individuals, whether possessed by acquisition or by descent or in virtue of a participation in the goods of some community, were no part of the creditor’s security, expressed or implied…The public, whether represented by a monarch or by a senate, can pledge nothing but the public estate; and it can have no public estate except in what it derives from a just and proportioned imposition upon the citizens at large.”
That is to say it’s not the right of the government to take on pet projects and pass the burden of the cost of the deficit created to the tax payer; likewise with many other forms of unnecessary government intervention. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger probably articulated it best when he mentioned he was a republican because having come from a socialist nation, he loved the idea of small government. Government obviously has its role in our lives, there must be some regulation and so on, but a line of course has to be drawn. Just like Barry Goldwater advocated many years ago this line should be drawn and applied to social values as well.
This election was lost because republicans turned away from what defines them. It isn’t because Obama turned around and reneged on his promise to stick with public financing and vastly outspent the republicans. It wasn’t because of a reverse Bradley effect or white liberal guilt. It wasn’t because of media bias. It wasn’t because of the failings of McCain or Palin. While these may have helped Mr. Obama, the Republican Party alienated both its base and independents by essentially becoming an intolerant version of the Democratic Party. For the good that Bush did, he has greatly increased the size, power, and spending of the federal government, and the size of the national debt, both of which are against general conservatism. Our party needs to sit back, recompose itself to something more resembling the party of Reagan, and even takes steps as the party of Lincoln to embrace equality for all and as part of a new platform. In regards to racism and sexism it has done a great job of this, but it will soon need to realize that in today’s society in a true ideology of small government and separation of church and state there is no reason for why it espouses outdated beliefs that, even if shared by democrats, we can be the ones that take this next great step in American society when both parties have up until now dropped the ball.
The world is a dangerous place. Russia already is challenging President-Elect Obama, with other countries that don’t like us very much likely soon to follow (Mr. Biden was almost right; although it wasn’t six months it was six hours). Hopefully Mr. Obama is able to establish a global order quickly and is able to, despite his wishes, move to the center and push a good economic plan. Hopefully he realizes that a strong military and a strong America is in the best interests of the planet. Hopefully he figures out a way to make it so that our educational system ranks among the best in the world. Maybe he will even create this utopia he painted a beautiful picture of with his words although he may have set expectations too high even for himself. He has written poetry of change that now has to become something substantial. I want nothing more than for our country to prosper, our President-Elect to succeed. If not? That there is a revamped Republican party to take charge and guide the country, lest this be the death rattle for the GOP. Is this something that we can accomplish? To borrow the slogan of a man who ran quite an impressive campaign and as the first minority leader of the free world has already inspired millions, “Yes we can.”
“Do you honestly think that such a retort, putting someone in the position to defend themselves personally, is really a great way to persuade them to see your point of view?”
After 8 years of this tactic by the Left, the Democrats and the mass media, why not? Demonizing, smearing, hateful vitriol worked to achieve big majorities in Congress and to achieve the White House, so it must be the best way to treat people.
On a serious note, (if you were responding to what I stated) I have determined when I am talking with someone who can be pursuaded to my point of view and when I am talking with someone who is just a blind partisan. I choose my responses to those people appropriately. I don’t bother to use pursuasive debate with people I know have no intention of looking at things objectively. When I probed my coworkers for reasons why they were supporting Obama, I knew I had an opening to pursuade them. When I probed my pen pal for her reasons, I knew she was a lost cause. I treated them in the appropriate manner, respectively.
As you’ve done right here?
(Damn, it’s like an addiction! Gotta quit cold turkey or I’ll just dizzy myself reading repetitive arguments which were already responded to! Keep this up, I’ll lose my Queen!)
@Cary:
Yes, as I have done here. What I meant by this sentence, “I treated them in the appropriate manner, respectively,” is that my response to those who are clearly objective is that I treat them as such, and my response to those who are clearly blind partisan hacks is I treat them as such. The respectively did not mean *respectfully*, it was a literary term. (ie “I gave Mary and Matt an apple and orange, respectively. Meaning the apple was related to Mary and the orange was related to Matt. That was my intended use of the word “respectively” when referring to treating people in the appropriate manner. I’m guessing you thought I meant I treat all people respectfully and wanted to get in a pot shot at me saying that I wasn’t treating people here respectfully. Well, you are right, I don’t treat everyone with respect when they don’t deserve it, and I never stated I did such.)
No, I knew exactly what you meant, which is why I responded the way I did. You clearly aren’t reading the entire comments section, as your response indicates that you have no idea that there are those on this thread who have honestly stated an openness to see your point of view.
Now, since I can’t seem to resist this futile temptation, I’m giving up my Chess game and getting off my computer entirely. Have a good night!
@Cary:
And if you noticed, I did not respond to certain people on this thread, because I am not working to pursuade them. I responded to two posts with my opinions. Others have already responded to Obama voters/supporters on the thread to pursuade them. I analyzed the Obama supporters’ comments and determined they were not worth my time. Anyone who rationalizes away all of Obama’s decades long relationships with Black Supremacists, communists, socialists, Marxists and terrorists is not someone with whom I can have a rational discussion of issues. Because that just shows me that they will discount inconvenient facts in order to hold onto – of because of – their partisan biases.
A starting point for me with discussing with anyone is to find out if/how they dismiss Obama’s background. If they are ignorant of it, then I know there is a chance for discussion. If they are completely aware of it and dismiss it out of hand as irrelevant, I know there is no chance for discussion.
Well, here’s a non-partisan view, in which your type of rhetoric is addressed:
And yes, I expect you’ll find a way to disparage this great man, so this’ll be my final word.
@Cary:
Nah, I have nothing to say about Colin Powell or his political views.
But I will continue to disparage those who smeared Colin Powell as an Uncle Tom and worse when he was a part of the Bush Administration, but now hail him as a “great man”, because he endorsed Barack Obama for President.
Again, I ask you to find just one instance where I am personally guilty of your charge. Let me know when you do. There are many great people in the Republican party – I’ve always counted Colin Powell AND John McCain as among them. So, go ahead and look around – tell me when you find something.
@Cary:
Right after you find just one instance where I personally accused you of anything.
Fair enough. Then you are free to address his points rather than attack the kind of people who aren’t present here.
Cary
58
Are you really so dense as to insist that conversations here are about what you personally have said or done? The characterization offered to you is in relation to the arguments you’ve made, which are the same tired crap we’ve all heard here and everywhere else.
If you’ve come here for personal absolution, you’ve come to the wrong place. Look for the nearest Catholic church find a priest and make your case. We don’t know you, we only know your arguments and that is the focus of our replies.
Reasic
45
Actually, guilt by association does in fact hinge on when the event in question occurred. That is the ONLY thing is hinges on. The point is that Obama’s associations with Ayers do make him guilty of condoning what Ayers did in the past. What is your purpose of stressing over and pretending the extent of this relationship was nothing when everything proves that to be a lie? Do you really think that Obama is not sympathetic to the ideals of terrorist since those are the ONLY people he has chosen as close friends and confidants? Are you really so blind as to not see that he’s going to try to ruin this country by turning our polices to indulge and appease those who use such tactics? The insinuation that follows your logical fallacy is ludicrous. If you really think that Obama or his supporters are just as patriotic and just as concerned about the direction of this country, then YOU are the one who is misinformed.
Well Bill, you must think I’m dense if you think I’m falling for the rhetorical cat and mouse game in which you expect me to believe that assumptive generalizations in response to a comment I made aren’t actually directed towards me. The fact is, I did not make those arguments nor have I ever. Neither were the points made by Gen. Powell, obviously not partisan, addressed in the same or any response. Maybe your gaslight tactics have worked in other discussions, but I don’t fall for them. But I’m glad you got my point that you don’t know me.
Furthermore, my family converted from Catholicism when I was nine. So any of my numerous imperfections that need to be worked out with God will be done so directly, and certainly not here. I’ve not come here to persuade you to my views, I know that will never happen, and it doesn’t matter right now, as I’ve pretty much gotten what I wanted with my vote. I’ve also not come here to gloat or rub the current Democratic victory in your face, as is evident in my posts. I’ve come here out of good will, in an effort to help both sides understand where each is coming from, even if we don’t agree on much. There have been a very small few who have understood this and reciprocated, and for them I am appreciative. I just don’t know what anyone would expect to gain by responding to something that wasn’t actually brought up in the discussion, unless it were to avoid addressing something that was. So, until someone can respond to what both Gen. Powell and I agree on, I’ll accept it as a concession to these particular points. Thanks very much.
@ Michael in MI:
Michael, you’re generalizing here. I was not asking you to never take part in these activities — although it would be nice. I was asking you, or anyone else here, to have an intelligent conversation with ME. I am not the entire Democratic Party, the “Left”, or the media. Sure, politics happens, but I’m asking for a reasonable discussion, so what other people have done is of no consequence in this case.
@ Michael again:
I won’t say 60 million plus were 100% informed, because I’m sure there were people out there who voted for him for other reasons. However, I will say that I am one of many who voted for Obama because we understood both candidates’ policies and preferred Obama’s to McCain’s. I’ve heard all of the smears about Obama, and have come to the conclusion that the claims are exaggerated — classic partisan mud slinging. Now, if you’d like to discuss these smears in detail, instead of just drinking the Hannity/Limbaugh kool-aid, I’d be glad to do that. Something tells me you’d rather believe that Obama is the devil, though. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Bill C,
I’m STILL waiting for an intelligent conversation. I’ve offered to discuss any number of issues in detail, including the smears that you are so concerned about, and have yet to see anyone come even close. However, I’m still willing, should you decide to discuss Obama’s background or policies in detail. So far, you’ve talked only in generalities about Obama’s past, assuming the worst and demonizing everyone in your path.
Sheesh, enough already. This thread reminds me of a couple of little spiders attempting to lure prey into their web.
In case you have wondered, doubtful, but, we *have* had intelligent debates about the Ayres/Obama relationship, policies, background, etc. for months, check the archives. FA hosts have provided a vast assortment of source material, wishing you two would study up, lose the attitude and come back. You also might want to consider the fact that few are bothering with this thread, could be because your cyber personalities aren’t attractive. Whew! I appreciate the libs we have in here that can state their opinions and sources without the whining and demanding.
Now, this is an opinion of a cyber great-granny with children older than you, not the foot-stomping demanding kind I’m witnessing in here. This is my opinion and it is *not* debatable.
Cheers.
Well, obviously we are both fairly new to this site. So, perhaps rather than attacking our characters, you could have spent the same amount of time providing us with links to the posts which address these issues. We are simply asking you, nicely, to back up your statements. Seems you cannot do that or even give a civil or even polite welcome. Still more character attacks, and you still don’t really know either of us – who came in polite, courteous and respectful good faith. So, sorry you don’t like my “cyber personality”, but I did come civil. I have plenty of friends who agree with you more than me on politics, and they are never as rude as what I’ve encountered here. So, my biggest flaw, as the moment, seems to be masochism. And please don’t tell me I’d get worse treatment elsewhere, that’s like telling the woman whose husband backhanded her in the face that at least he didn’t punch her in the stomach. Such reasoning is dangerously unsound.
As I’ve said already, I’ve no reason reason to “lure”, whine, demand, or stomp – I already got what I wanted. Perhaps, in time, you’ll be able to cleanse your palate of the sour grapes and actually offer a discussion we both might benefit from. Until then, best of luck to you all.
.
Cary,
I for one welcome you here. I don’t believe Reasic is new.
I think I drive my side nuts for civility and the perception that I am a wishy-washy CINO. Whatever.
Partisanly-speaking but doing so as objectively as I can, there are some really great stuff here. If hardball rudeness isn’t your cup of tea, simply bypass those comment responses and address what you perceive as the substance.
I tell you what I did get out of this is an appreciate for the other Conservative sites which I’ve been visiting for the past four years, who were always open for a discussion and even took the time to get to know me. We rarely agreed, but there was always a mutual respect. I regret I didn’t value that more until now. So thank you.
Wordsmith, your welcome is very much appreciated and I have noticed your civility and generous openness to hearing another perspective. I thank you for that. Your advice is quite sound, and I shall do my best to follow it. Thank you again.