2008 election: paradigm shift?

[bradleym]

Can you not consider or acknowledge that we might have more nuclear weapons than we could possibly need? I didn't call you any name in my prior post but referred to your same question about Obama. On the other hand, you certainly are some kind of extremist (you pick the flavor) if you cannot fathom the possibility that we could cut our nuclear weapons arsenal even a tiny bit of if you suggest that any talk of pursuing disarmament is the path of a moron.

 

Once again: do you see in this election ANY shift in American politics or is it just politics as usual? The fact that Obama won overwhelmingly with young voters and hispanics, two growing populations, any cause for concern?

 

Sorry Matt, but I'm more interested in exchanging ideas with folks like Ivan who are actually interested in exchange. Go ahead and put me on ignore. Meanwhile, here is an article you may find interesting:

 

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/09/healthscience/09agin.php

 

Good Lord! will you just grow up! take your b12, or whatever, and drop the insults.

 

you consistently demonstrate a desire to talk about things that don't matter, and in the most extreme and partisan way possible.

 

guns, socialism, nukes and your blessed right-wing radio's right to spew hatred is irrelevant just now. oh, and I doubt the officer corps is about to be 'purged'. where in hell did that come from?

 

may we just focus on something that matters? say, for example, discussing what the electorate just voted for, in this time of financial collapse, horrendous deficits and recession?

[mattp]

I think that Obama's strongest constituencies have signaled their desire to end the tired issues and labels of the past (guns, socialism, left/right, pro-choice/pro-life (gag!), 'welfare-queens', 'deficit-hawks', etc.) that are near meaningless in the current context. In short, to minimize ideology and to focus on pragmatism, intelligence, sober and far-reaching evaluations of where we stand and what might work, and to broaden the perspective beyond our shores. To be sure, those old categories and labels still mobilize a lot of people, and many hot-button, litmus-test issues will remain in the future, but they have less hold than they once did, and generational change is helping with that.

 

Will generational change bring new "hot button issues?" If there is a new electorate out there aren't they going to gravitate toward simplistic views of politics and litmus test thinking just out of a practical need to keep it simple?

[tomtom]

There has been a lot of talk about whether or not Obama's election represents a mandate. My distinct impression is that the American public has voted FOR healthcare and AGAINST character-attack campaign tactics, but I'm less clear on how we've voted on taxes, foreign policy, and "social" issues. Thoughts?

 

AGAINST character-attack campaign tactics?

 

What?

 

Are you saying the Democrats didn't attack McCain's or Palin's character during the campaign?

 

What rock have you been living under for the past year?

[tvashtarkatena]

Reduction/elimination of nukes was not an issue during the election the blatantly obvious reason that our national house was burning down so we had other more pressing issues to worry about.

 

The idea that Obama supports or supported unilateral nuclear disarmament is as moronic as the poster who tried to float it here.

 

The idea that worldwide nuclear disarmament would not be a good idea is as moronic as the poster who floated it here.

 

From a deterrence standpoint, our nuclear arsenal constitutes ridiculous overkill. A huge majority of that arsenal is legacy inventory; we built it, oh well, let's just keep it around, necessary or not.

 

From a budgetary standpoint, nuclear disarmament, while an excellent idea to trim some waste while promoting good will in the world, will probably not save us that much. We need to mothball some carrier battle groups, boomers, and reduce our ground forces for the kind of savings we'll need to survive this financial crisis intact. And speaking of trimming the officer corpse; after 8 years of blank check military spending, there's probably many, many tons of fat to trim there. Our military is bloated beyond belief at this point.

 

Step one is to get the fuck out of Iraq. As has been stated by proponents of the invasion on this forum; 70% of the country is in the hands of the Iraqis, and attacks are way down. Good enough. Mission Accomplished. Bye bye.

 

$340 MILLION A DAY. Yeah, we can probably use that elsewhere right about now.

Edited November 10, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[bradleym]

I think that Obama's strongest constituencies have signaled their desire to end the tired issues and labels of the past (guns, socialism, left/right, pro-choice/pro-life (gag!), 'welfare-queens', 'deficit-hawks', etc.) that are near meaningless in the current context. In short, to minimize ideology and to focus on pragmatism, intelligence, sober and far-reaching evaluations of where we stand and what might work, and to broaden the perspective beyond our shores. To be sure, those old categories and labels still mobilize a lot of people, and many hot-button, litmus-test issues will remain in the future, but they have less hold than they once did, and generational change is helping with that.

 

Will generational change bring new "hot button issues?" If there is a new electorate out there aren't they going to gravitate toward simplistic views of politics and litmus test thinking just out of a practical need to keep it simple?

 

Good point. Humans will probably always oversimplify, and many of us (myself included) tend to want to (re)fight old wars, but I also think that even though recent generations have grown up in a polarized world (ayn rand v. the pinkos), our experience of the world has demonstrated that problems are complex, unintended consequences do exist and simplistic labels don't capture reality very well and thus don't help much in evaluating policy. For example, one of the effects of a wealthier society is that more young people have had the opportunity to participate in other cultures, an experience that in my experience destroys many preconceptions and makes you more humble in your thought.

 

I think last week's vote signals that a significant percentage of the electorate realize that the old polarization doesn't work, and that one can take a more subtle and compromising approach to evaluating candidates. e.g. evangelicals (anti-abortion, anti-gay, etc.) who voted for Obama. Will the old wedge issues be replaced with new nonsense on which to polarize ourselves? Well, we're still human, I guess.

[ivan]

oh, and yeah, what does "purging the officer corps" mean? was there some fear that any general that agreed w/ bush's war would be cashiered?

 

i think the example is how officers who disagreed with rummy's approach to Iraq were 'purged'.

funny - that's exactly what i was thinking

[mattp]

Are you saying the Democrats didn't attack McCain's or Palin's character during the campaign?

 

What rock have you been living under for the past year?

 

I didn't say they DIDN'T do it. But attack was clearly much more central to the McCain platform than it was to Obama's.

 

We didn't hear a lot about the Keating scandal, for example, or McCain's "paling around with" G. Gordon Liddy, or that he crashed three jets. In fact, one could easily have watched TV news for the last year and not known anything about these stories. In addition, Obama almost completely avoided attacking Palin. Wisely, he stepped back and let her trip over herself.

 

Obama certainly took advantage of a poor helpless George Bush, but here again I don't think there were lies told that even come close to the distortion of Obama's relaionship with Ayres, for example, or in the final days the assertion that he had taken a stand dramatically different from McCain on domestic coal.

[bradleym]

oh, and yeah, what does "purging the officer corps" mean? was there some fear that any general that agreed w/ bush's war would be cashiered?

 

i think the example is how officers who disagreed with rummy's approach to Iraq were 'purged'.

funny - that's exactly what i was thinking

 

i know, i was just a little slower than normal this morning. sorry about that.

[Bug]

Wow Ivan.

In league with Fairyweather now?

I am dissapointed.

[Alpinfox]

 

Are you saying the Democrats didn't attack McCain's or Palin's character during the campaign?

 

What I saw from the McCain campaign and its lackeys:

 

-Obama is a terrrorist (not true)

-Obama is a muslim (not true)

 

 

What I saw from the Obama campaign and its lackeys:

-McCain is an "erratic", tempermental old man (true)

-Palin is woefully unqualified for the position of VP (true)

[ivan]

oh, and yeah, what does "purging the officer corps" mean? was there some fear that any general that agreed w/ bush's war would be cashiered?

 

i think the example is how officers who disagreed with rummy's approach to Iraq were 'purged'.

funny - that's exactly what i was thinking

 

i know, i was just a little slower than normal this morning. sorry about that.

what other flaws of bush's then do you expect obama to continue?

 

my laughter was more at the potential for outrage at obama instead of the actual outrage at bush for having done just that

 

at any rate, regardign the military, i'd heard that obama was thinking about keeping gates on as secdef, and to my knowledge, there've been no such accusations of purges since he's had the helm, right?

[prole]

"Purging the officer corps" is right-wing fantasy. Not worth breath.

[bradleym]

"Purging the officer corps" is right-wing fantasy. Not worth breath.

 

agreed. complete red herring.

 

'All I can say about this here election is that if Obama makes us all kill a kitten with a 3lb hammer every saturday morning, well, there'll be hell to pay...'

[Fairweather]

Actually, what I was thinking about when I typed that was Clinton's constant whining that over 80% of US military officers at the time professed Republican. Your point about Bush is well taken, but I think he and Rumsfeld limited their "purges" to Generals--who tend to be political appointments anyway (Think Lincoln). I was just proposing things to look for as danger signs from my perspective. Where Clinton only carped, would Obama take it a step further? If he plans to reduce military spending, will he be focusing on systems or personnel? And if it is the later what would the rehire criteria be for, say, WO's, Lt's, Captians, Majors, and Colonels? Political perhaps? Again; just speculation.

[marylou]

In league with Fairyweather now?

 

That's an insult to fairies!!

[marylou]

"Purging the officer corps" is right-wing fantasy. Not worth breath.

 

agreed. complete red herring.

 

That Fairness Doctrine "sky is falling" argument from the right falls under that category as well..

[Fairweather]

In league with Fairyweather now?

 

That's an insult to fairies!!

 

...right on cue, like a female version of TTK--without the brains. Congrats! You'll soon have a smoking buddy in the White House!

[ivan]

fairweather is a big meanie

[Bug]

Actually, what I was thinking about when I typed that was Clinton's constant whining that over 80% of US military officers at the time professed Republican. Your point about Bush is well taken, but I think he and Rumsfeld limited their "purges" to Generals--who tend to be political appointments anyway (Think Lincoln). I was just proposing things to look for as danger signs from my perspective. Where Clinton only carped, would Obama take it a step further? If he plans to reduce military spending, will he be focusing on systems or personnel? And if it is the later what would the rehire criteria be for, say, WO's, Lt's, Captians, Majors, and Colonels? Political perhaps? Again; just speculation.

 

Hopefully he will focus initially on getting the justice department back in balance.

Bush really hacked that all to peices for partisan purposes.

[Fairweather]

Actually, what I was thinking about when I typed that was Clinton's constant whining that over 80% of US military officers at the time professed Republican. Your point about Bush is well taken, but I think he and Rumsfeld limited their "purges" to Generals--who tend to be political appointments anyway (Think Lincoln). I was just proposing things to look for as danger signs from my perspective. Where Clinton only carped, would Obama take it a step further? If he plans to reduce military spending, will he be focusing on systems or personnel? And if it is the later what would the rehire criteria be for, say, WO's, Lt's, Captians, Majors, and Colonels? Political perhaps? Again; just speculation.

 

Hopefully he will focus initially on getting the justice department back in balance.

Bush really hacked that all to peices for partisan purposes.

 

In hindsight, what is your opinion of the much-maligned John Ashcroft? Didn't he turn out to be one of 'the good guys' in your book--refusing to sign off on many of the darker elements of the WOT?

[bradleym]

In hindsight, what is your opinion of the much-maligned John Ashcroft? Didn't he turn out to be one of 'the good guys' in your book--refusing to sign off on many of the darker elements of the WOT?

 

he's a wonderful singer. inspirational.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

 

Are you saying the Democrats didn't attack McCain's or Palin's character during the campaign?

 

What I saw from the McCain campaign and its lackeys:

 

-Obama is a terrrorist (not true)

-Obama is a muslim (not true)

 

 

What I saw from the Obama campaign and its lackeys:

-McCain is an "erratic", tempermental old man (true)

-Palin is woefully unqualified for the position of VP (true)

 

The difference between the two campaigns was stark. McCain, a life long mysogenist, has led a sordid love life full of prostitutes and extra marital affairs. His ethical record based on the Keating 5 scandal alone is abysmal.

 

Obama's campaign never touched any of those issues. All in all, Obama was true to his word about running a campaign focused on the issues.

 

In sharp contrast, McCain/Palin went after every scrap of guilt by association they could find, which amounted to nothing. When the Ayers thing got a big yawn, they tried a blatantly racist campaign to link Obama with Islam and terrorism. Disgusting.

 

McCain had nothing on the issues save a doomed-to-fail-again re-hash of Bush's policies. It's no wonder he didn't focus on them much, instead choosing to try to smear a man who easily rose above it. Towards the end, McCains pathetic focus on Obama, devoid of any real message save the tired, anti-liberal tripe and impossibly weak innuendo that provides red meat for the nation's more ignorant half, bordered on pathological. He pounded that same nail with that same hammer, despite continually sliding poll numbers, over and over and...

 

McCain ran the most underhanded, untruthful, and despicable campaigns I can remember. His addition of Trailer Trash Barbie fit the tone of his lie machine perfectly. The man is a complete and utter tool.

 

Anyone who fell for his bullshit should probably kill themselves now by the most expeditious means possible. We need to voluntarily depopulate to mitigate resource depletion; it might as well be the dumber half that checks out.

Edited November 11, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

In hindsight, what is your opinion of the much-maligned John Ashcroft? Didn't he turn out to be one of 'the good guys' in your book--refusing to sign off on many of the darker elements of the WOT?

 

he's a wonderful singer. inspirational.

 

 

Ashcroft provided almost endless entertainment during his tenure. When "Si Senor Gonzales" came along, however, I realized that Ashcroft was not the bottom, nor anywhere near it. It's still incredible to me how good that criminal partisan fuck Gonzales made Ashcroft look.

 

In addition enacting the SS's version of American human rights policy and wiping his filthy ass with our Constitution, Gonzales put icing on his legacy by completely politicized the Department of Justice. All with Bush's complete, smiling approval, of course.

 

Fucking.Incredible.

 

Gonzales is one guy that truly deserves to be ass rammed in a maximum security prison for the rest of his life.

[Fairweather]

 

Are you saying the Democrats didn't attack McCain's or Palin's character during the campaign?

 

What I saw from the McCain campaign and its lackeys:

 

-Obama is a terrrorist (not true)

-Obama is a muslim (not true)

 

 

What I saw from the Obama campaign and its lackeys:

-McCain is an "erratic", tempermental old man (true)

-Palin is woefully unqualified for the position of VP (true)

 

The difference between the two campaigns was stark. McCain, a life long mysogenist, has led a sordid love life full of prostitutes and extra marital affairs. His ethical record based on the Keating 5 scandal alone is abysmal.

 

Obama's campaign never touched any of those issues. All in all, Obama was true to his word about running a campaign focused on the issues.

 

In sharp contrast, McCain/Palin went after every scrap of guilt by association they could find, which amounted to nothing. When the Ayers thing got a big yawn, they tried a blatantly racist campaign to link Obama with Islam and terrorism. Disgusting.

 

McCain had nothing on the issues save a doomed-to-fail-again re-hash of Bush's policies. It's no wonder he didn't focus on them much, instead choosing to try to smear a man who easily rose above it. Towards the end, McCains pathetic focus on Obama, devoid of any real message save the tired, anti-liberal tripe and impossibly weak innuendo that provides red meat for the nation's more ignorant half, bordered on pathological. He pounded that same nail with that same hammer, despite continually sliding poll numbers, over and over and...

 

McCain ran the most underhanded, untruthful, and despicable campaigns I can remember. His addition of Trailer Trash Barbie fit the tone of his lie machine perfectly. The man is a complete and utter tool.

 

Anyone who fell for his bullshit should probably kill themselves now by the most expeditious means possible. We need to voluntarily depopulate to mitigate resource depletion; it might as well be the dumber half that checks out.

 

Boy are you one fat, dumb, hypocritical, and angry piece of shit.

[tvashtarkatena]

How will you "do the right thing" for your country? Plenty of guns around the house I'd wager, but the mess you'll leave the missus! I'd go with pills. Oh, and don't forget the adult diaper and plastic sheets.