This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Martin Prince, Jr.
Pages: 1  3 4 5 6 7 ... 20
« on: June 05, 2008, 08:39:13 PM »
I also think there's some truth to the criticism of the Obamabots. The Wolcott quote on my Facebook profile details my issue with them pretty well (I wonder if he's cute, because we agree a lot, apparently). I don't think it's a huge stretch to say that there was a bit of cult-like fascination with Obama that wasn't connected to anything beyond personal affection or euphoria.
Since this obviously isn't the case for Clinton supporters like yourself, I can rest assured that all of you are getting straight to work electing Democrats, including Obama, in November, or are pledging to vote for him? I mean, since your loyalties don't rest with a single individual in some "cult-like" fashion (one who agrees with Obama on almost all issues), you won't have any trouble doing this right?
« on: June 04, 2008, 12:53:43 PM »
/pounding head on keyboard
What? I've said pretty clearly at least twice now that I don't think this is an issue, that Obama was in no way dishonest, etc. I can't even comment about how it's weird to me that he didn't know who liberated Auschwitz? It's more of a statement about our educational system than it is a criticism of Obama. But I don't think it's big news to anyone that he is sometimes a little vague -- less so than George Bush or John McCain, definitely, but no one credits either of them with great intellect, and Obama is incredibly intelligent. It just so happens that both Clintons display encyclopedic knowledge of history and policy, and this year's contest has therefore made this minor limitation more apparent than it might have been otherwise.
I wasn't criticizing any of that, Miss P, just the fact that his misspeaking Auschwitz instead of Buchenvald, has risen (through the disgusting, bloated feverswamp that exists in the right) to the level of a political "gaffe". Since I think this is the limit of my coherency on this topic, read here for some more: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15694.html
ETA: Unrelated, but a great pic of Obama with Sasha and Malia from a NYT article:
[img width=415 height=500 src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/06/04/us/04obama2_lg.jpg
« on: June 04, 2008, 09:54:53 AM »
/pounding head on keyboard
« on: June 03, 2008, 09:19:35 PM »
And Clinton herself raised the VP specter again. Please, no...
0. John Edwards (0 because I don't think he'll do it, but he'd be the best advocate for Obama)
1. Wes Clark
2. Mark Warner
3. Kathleen Sibelius
I like Webb and Rendell, but I think they've got some big drawbacks as VP choices. I don't know enough about Strickland though.
« on: June 03, 2008, 06:31:35 PM »
You don't seem to understand how cap-and-trade works.
What annoys me more than GW commercials are the self-serving ever-present ads from GE, ExxonMobil, and BP on how GREEN and environmentally-friendly they're becoming. Like someone said earlier in the thread, an ad campaign is a helluva lot cheaper than actually doing something about the environment. But they aren't as bad as the "Americans United For Clean Coal" ads. Seriously, how dumb are we if people can just repeat and repeat something oxymoronic like "clean coal" and people start believing that it actually exists?
« on: June 03, 2008, 12:59:16 PM »
I gotta say I'm pretty proud of the Democrats these last 17 months. The fundamentals are so in our favor, that we could have nominated some vanilla guy like Wes Clark and had the thing in a walk. But instead we decided to go for either the first female or first black President and make a lil history. Takes guts. Besides, who wants a boring election night in November anyway?
« on: June 03, 2008, 09:54:24 AM »
I do think it's a clusterf*ck. But this is really on the state parties (yes, FL too -- they also could have held a revote but the chairwoman didn't want to dilute the vote on Amendment One) and the DNC. It's not on Obama. I agree that giving Obama all the uncommitted delegates, and then some, is probably marginally unfair, and the RBC shouldn't have done it anyway, just to avoid the appearance of unfairness at this critical juncture. But this was the compromise the Michigan party put forth, and Fowler and at least two other Clinton supporters voted for it. Either they know something we don't know about what kinds of possibilities were available to them or they're complete idiots.
Meanwhile, I heard on the radio last night, on two different shows, that there were Clinton people at the meetings arguing that Obama should get zero of the uncommitted delegates and Clinton should pick up an additional five. Of the uncommitted delegates. In case that wasn't clear. So MI Democrats came to the polls even though the DNC said their presidential votes wouldn't count and there was no significant underballot, and they affirmatively chose to say "none of the above" to the candidates remaining, and yet their votes really represent Clinton votes?
And I don't understand where Ickes, who voted to strip each delegation of votes in August and December, gets off lecturing people about democracy now. Nothing about stripping (then) or seating (now) the delegates is democratic. I very clearly remember the unequivocal statements from the DNC in August and December that these primaries would not count and the state parties would have to come up with alternative means of apportioning their delegates if they wanted to be represented at the convention. No one has ever explained what changed except political expediency. At best, the compromise is an effort -- a sad one, and one that will likely fail -- to appease angry voters in two important swing states. At worst, it is a deeply cynical ploy on Clinton's -- yes, Clinton's -- part to grab delegates and/or appear like a hero to MI and FL voters should she somehow wrangle the nomination.
Not to mention that I am really sick of hearing "count every vote" crap from a campaign that cynically avoided states in favor of a "big state" strategy and didn't put up a fight for MI and FL voters until she needed their support. I have had so many Clinton people lecture me about my commitment to democracy this week -- and I am not even an Obama supporter -- but I never saw them out there with me at 6:00 a.m. doing election protection work or working for *&^% wages at an organization that basically wrote the VRA. Have you seen the proliferation of "even the slaves were counted as 3/5, not 1/2" comments on Clinton blogs? Come again? COME AGAIN? These people don't even understand the basic facts of the historical stain that is the 3/5 compromise; I won't hear any more of their complaints about the importance of the democratic tradition.
This was awesome. A few quick things I'd add though: I think (all) the candidates share some role in this. None of them, for very good reason (their prospects in IA and NH), wanted to show any sort of political leadership to try and help resolve it. And I think a lot of the complaints from (delusional) Clinton supporters come from losing their chance at having all of MI's popular vote count for Clinton's total, and having Obama received zero. The moment during the hearing when Ickes was questioning Sen Levin, and Levin point-blank says "You're asking for a fair reflection of a flawed primary" was f-ing brilliant. And this was from LEVIN, probably the one person *most* responsible for the clusterfuck. Some blog I read wrote that what the RBC did, in the most legalistic interpretation, wasn't (legal), and made the observation that they didn't act as a court of law would have, but rather as a court of equity would've.
Edited to Add: And I don't think clusterfuck is quite fair. My personal opinion is it won't make a whit of difference in the general. Obama's going to win Michigan, and McCain is going to win Florida, barring some large tide of popular opinion either way. This is only a clusterfuck in the eyes of the (many) hyper-informed Democrats who follow this *&^%.
« on: June 01, 2008, 01:10:12 PM »
What gets lost in the Trinity debate:
"I am not going to approach this as a political exercise. This is a deeply personal exercise about trying to express your faith. Now, you know Michelle.. our lives are fairly unsettled right now. We don't know how this nomination is going to go. We don't know how the remainder of the election is going to go. I am traveling all the time anyway. So I am gone on Sundays often times. We probably won't make any firm decision on this until January when we know what our lives are going to be like. In the meantime we will visit other churches. There are a number of churches if we are at home in Chicago that I visited in the past. The important thing is I am not going to approach it with the view of figuring out how to avoid political problems. Thatís not the role of church. My -- again what I want to do in church is I want to be able to take Michelle and my girls, sit in a pew quietly, hopefully get some nice music, some good reflection, praise God, thank Him for all of the blessings He has given our family, put some money in the collection plate, maybe afterwards go out and grab some brunch, have my girls go to Sunday school. Thatís what I am looking for."
« on: June 01, 2008, 11:04:19 AM »
It seems a lot of people were determined to use that church to drag him down, and the reverends weren't terribly considerate of that.
Indeed, but the preachers shouldn't have been considerate of that--the church is obviously not very PC, and that shouldn't change for Obama (as he recognized). But while we might not find anything wrong with the non-PC statements, like Obama said in his letter, the media would have kept bringing up whatever supposedly anti-American, racist, etc. sentiments that were expressed anywhere within the church in an attempt to associate those statements with Obama. The man is trying to win an election and doesn't need that. Wright, the former pastor of the church, hurt him badly. The statements made by other preachers and members of the church were starting to hurt him. Severing ties with the church just seems like a logical way to nip all of this in the bud...because who knows what someone might say close to election time that could deal him a serious blow.
The one unalloyed good to come out of this will be media whores and oppo researchers no longer scouring church bulletins so they can contact sick or unwell church members to dish on Obama. Seriously, how f-ing unamerican is that? Whatever. Has there been the kind of examination of a candidate's religious background like this in recent history? It tops JFK in my opinion. I'd say you have to look to Al Smith in the '28 election for an equivalent hysteria. Ugh.
« on: May 31, 2008, 04:47:54 PM »
Martin, if you want to actually discuss Obama's economic policies, I will do so, but you're going to have to drop some of the indignation and pay a little more respect to frybread.
As for the Cassidy piece, it was, you know, a book review. I thought it did a surprisingly good job of explaining the links between Obama's economic policies (disclosures over regulation, health coverage without mandates, etc.) and Sunstein and Thaler's "libertarian paternalism," though you are correct that not all of the criticisms of "nudging" and behavioral economics apply equally well (or at all) to (all of) Obama's policies. (Cassidy also makes that point at the end: "On other issues, such as trade policy and regulation of the financial industry, Obama has recently adopted a more dirigiste tone than Thaler and Sunstein would care for. More generally, he has talked about confronting entrenched interests and giving a voice to the excluded. Doubtless, he means what he says. . . .") And I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually think Cassidy may be a little hard on Sunstein who, after all, wrote a book about following through on FDR's economic bill of rights (which includes rights to housing, healthcare, education, work, and living wage). That said, Clinton, for all of her many faults, was not running as a Third Way candidate this time, but as a straight-up Keynesian. Obama was running as something else, something a little more DLC than most of his supporters are comfortable admitting. You may object to the term libertarianism because it has a historical specificity you'd like to preserve; I can accept that. But Obama's general emphasis on choice and incentives over regulation reflects some kind of shift -- perhaps because he went to law school during the heyday of law & economics, who knows.
HAHA, I'm an idiot. I clicked the link and read it without even absorbing the hypertext you wrote or the header at the top of the page. And your characterization of my objections are pretty much right on. It's like when Republicans call Democrats "Marxists" for wanting to subsidize health care - you completely lose the actual meaning of the word and the relevance it has, and it drives me nuts. Frybread, if my language has been biting, sarcastic and a bit over-the-top, then I apologize.
Pages: 1  3 4 5 6 7 ... 20