What went wrong for McCain?McCain's life has been defined by tight squeezes. But with two-thirds of voters saying the economy was their top issue, inevitably being the final nail in his political coffin, not even his bold, slightly crazy moves could save the Republicans campaign. Because of his military experience, he symbolized the claim that he could be trusted on issues of national security, but most of the country is tired of the Iraq war and especially the possibility of being over there for 100 years.
His reputation as being an independent maverick was tested when he changed his mind on oil drilling, picked a very conservative vice president, and embraced President Bush's tax cuts that he had earlier opposed. All to try and win over traditional Republicans. Is it any wonder Obama compared him so much to Bush?
The problem with this tactic is evident on the map above. The moderates and independents who initially liked him, were turned off by this move to the extreme right. This prompted the Daily Show to describe his transformation from a "maverick reformer" to a "reformed maverick."
This plan backfired in that the youth and Hispanic vote leaned heavily towards Obama. Why? Because the demographics of the country are changing. If I was a staunch Republican, I'd be worried. Times are not what they were in the early 1980's. Like how Reagan energized a generation of younger voters, who for decades now have dominated the political landscape, so will the young Obama voters do the same for hopefully decades more. So in other words, what was once red, may now be purple and at some point, maybe blue.
The older Republicans say a return to the old conservative way is the answer to revitalize the party. To get back to the basics of long ago. Embracing someone like Palin galvanizes the super conservative base, but does nothing to bring in moderates or independents, a base they need to win. That's a backward way of thinking. Times are different now. They must move forward and evolve, as much as they hate that word. I've talked with several Republicans who have admitted to not being as conservative as their parents. As a Democrat I would say it's the same for me.
A generation of young people just elected a black man to president of the United States! Times are changing. How do we keep moving forward? It's not by embracing the past. How about with two women on the next presidential ticket. I would look forward immensely to Hillary Clinton squashing Sarah Palin like a bug! (I am a bug lover after all.)
43 comments:
I am praying Palin gets the Rep. nod in 2012- that would be the greatest gift to Dems we could ever ask for!!!
I personally believe that McCain lost in large part because of the media. Democrats and Republicans were asked this question in a poll (Not an exact quote) Do you think that the media was more favorable to Barak Obama as the presidential nominee. 90% of republican said yes (we're not surprised) and over 60% of democrats said yes. Even the majority of those who voted for Obama think that the media was bias. I do not think that he was given the same respect as Obama. He was attack more and questioned more. Obama got off with many people really not knowing much about him besides hearing the constant word "CHANGE". There is obviously more to it than that, but it's a major contributing factor.
Onto the real issue:
Every President has run on the idea of "Change" from the previous administration. Maybe they didn't use the word "change" but they used words like reform. It's all the same. So, what I would like to know is what is Barak trying to "change"? I ask this question with all seriousness. You have used the arguement that conservatives are always looking backwards. I am a conservative and I embrace change in many forms. Many business run better because someone came up with a better idea, medicine becomes more advanced as we learn more and engage ourselves in learning. Technology is advancing. We change and grow as individuals to better ourselves and become more knowledgable and educated. Our experiences help us to learn and grow. Ok, so I get change in the general form. I also know and understand that our country is more diverse. I am grateful that we are seeing skin color less and less. I am grateful for Barak's nomination in some senses. I hope that his nomination stops giving blacks and other minorities the excuse that they are somehow still be opressed by the white. I hope that they understand that they have the same opportunities as everyone else. I would like for you to talk to me about specifics regarding the "change" that Barak is bringing.
The reason I ask this is because as a "backward looking" conservative, I do think we need to get back to basic conservative principles. The reason I think this is because we are suppose to look at history to help us to not make the same mistakes. Also, we KNOW that truths, values and principles are eternal. They are not changing, the are always the same. They are the same yesterday, today and forever.
The only ideas of "change" that I heard from Barak are very socialistic in nature, which is not forward thinking at all, in fact it is a very old way of thinking. Ie. redistribution of wealth, not because it will help our economy but because it is "the right thing to do". I've heard of looser regulations on abortion (FOCA). I've heard of more socialized health care and the list goes on. So to sum it up, what is this "change" and is it really forward thinking?
Jen, if the Republican's don't adapt to the general climate of the nation, then they will never get elected. That was my main point. If neither party makes concessions, then they don't stay in office - like Clinton did to get four more years, angering members of both parties - or even get into office in the first place. Which is more effective I ask, chanting from the sidelines or writing laws in the halls of Congress?
And my opinion wasn't about Barack specifically, and the change he will supposedly bring - because really I don't know how much he can really do with the mess he's been left with - it's from that electorate map at the top and the changing colors on it. Obama won Virginia, Florida, Penn, Ohio, all typically Republican states. And who put him there? Young people mainly, because the over 50 white crowd still mainly voted for McCain.
How are Republican's going to get their votes to win in the future as they can't do it with just Republicans? Like I've said before, and read, the countries 20 percent of undecided voters picked the winner this time. Obama did a good job of courting them; he had the money and apparently the media on his side. But please the media did not lose this election for McCain.
I agree a person's values and beliefs should not be compromised, like on abortion and gay marriage. Those are hard core beliefs. But my feelings on BIG GOVERNMENT are some that can be negiotiated, along with reasonable gun control, help for the environment, etc. health care. I'm willing to give some on these issues and it's why I can vote the way I do. Hard-line Republican's need to do the same or they will be nothing but cheerleaders on the sideline for many years to come. I want to be on the football field playing my heart out.
What can the Republican's do to rally? You think just biding your time will be enough for people to come to their senses? Who will it be behind? Sarah Palin?
And yes, Christina, you, me and the SNL writers...
And too, let me clarify, by backward way of thinking I mean, the rigidity of ideas. The unwillingness of some people to bend. I'm not saying you or anyone else I know, just in general. Why can't both parties move with the direction of the country? Why can't anyone concede that this needs to be done?
Lula, you've sparked something I'll address on my blog, maybe later today. The concepts of conservative and liberal. But for now, one thing to consider about McCain's loss is the black and hispanic vote. Both groups are typically more socially conservative, Bush getting the majority of their votes. However, 96% of blacks voted for Obama (Obviously! who can blame them?) and a huge majority of hispanics as well. They identified with HIM, and possibly not with his PLATFORM. McCain couldn't compete with that. Even Hillary, the first black first lady, couldn't compete with that. And I am glad you specified 'hard-line' republicans, because there are definitely some of those. Just like there are 'hard-line' democrats, which before the campaign, Obama was considered one. He has stepped closer to the middle, leaving his lefty comfort zone. McCain left his centrist comfort zone for the right side of the aisle. Obama's move benefited him, while McCain's left the 'base' questioning his sincerity and the independents abandoning him. It will be interesting how long either of them stay there.
Check-in in the near future to see what I've come up with.
I think one of the biggest mistakes McCain made was choosing Palin as his VP. By choosing someone so extreme right he isolated himself to only the die-hard republicans, and you can’t win an election with only one group. I think he weeded out the moderate republicans, undecided, independents and moderate democrats by doing that. Sure it revitalized the party at first but once life really started happening and the economy tanked people began to realize, hey, do I really want someone like her leading our country, which was a very real possibility. I don't blame Palin, McCain knew what he was getting when he chose her so I blame him. I think if he had chosen Ridge, Romney or even Lieberman he might have actually won so I guess I should thank him for that. :)
And as for Obama getting the Hispanic vote because they could relate to him, and not his platform, I heard one of the news people talking on election day about why he won Florida. They talked about how many of the areas he won were highly Cuban areas and that now the 3rd generation Cubans are voting. The first generation voted republican because they had just come from Cuba. They passed that on to the 2nd generation and now the 3rd generation isn't as connected and are voting based on their own ideals which are more on the democratic side and not based on their grandparents past experience with government. Sure you could argue it is a color thing but I like to give them more credit than that. I mean I'm a woman and I didn't vote for Palin.
Lula, I am still confused about what this "change" is and how SPECIFICALLY it is more forward thinking. I'm not saying that it is necessarily right or wrong, I just don't know what HIS definition of "change" is, according to my reasearch it seems socialistic and backward thinking. I'm seriously not trying to be confrontational, I really am just wondering if I have seriously missed something.
In a nutshell, what is Obama's definition of "Change" and how is it "forward thinking"?
P.S. I realize that you weren't specifically referring to Barak Obama when talking about forward thinking and change. However, he is the one the country embrased and he represents the deomcratic party. So if you would like to broaden the question then I would ask: How are democrats more "forward thinking" than republicans and what is the definition of "change" that the democrats are embrasing?
I must comment. Okbushmans said that people identify with HIM rather than his platform--that is absolutely true. The proof is in the fact that on Tuesday night the MEDIA talked about nothing but the fact that we just elected a black man. People were shedding tears over the fact that he was elected and was it because they were thrilled that he could now deliever on all his promises or because we elected a black man? Were they shedding tears of joy because we could now have a "change" in our government? I don't think so. Race just doesn't matter to me, so I was tired of hearing about it. Let's hear more about how he's going to implement all this change!
Don't be fooled. Obama is a member of a very high class. We did not elect a common black man as president. We elected an upper class black man as president, just as McCain, Hillary Clinton, Edwards, Romney and all the others are part of that upper class.
And Jen is right also in the fact that Obama got a free ride from the media, even compared to other members of his party. Remember that great SNL sketch about the debate between Hillary and Obama? They were so mean to Hillary and would give Obama the right answers. SNL was spot on with that one, and that treatment continued throughout the campaign with other(female)candidates who were metaphorically castrated by the media. Is it possible to be metaphorically castrated if you're a woman? Maybe it is women the media doesn't like/is afraid of.
I keep reading on this blog that McCain went too far right in his campaign, but you say that if he had chosen Romney as VP or some others he would have had a better chance. I don't understand that. I'd like to hear/read some more detailed information on that. Lula, will you please let me know where I can learn more about that opinion?
I don't think it is proof that people agreed with him rather than his platform because that is what the media talked about when he won or because people got emotional. The color of Obama's skin didn't make any difference to me, that had nothing to do with why I voted for him. I voted for his platform and yet when he won, I almost got emotional about it too. It was exciting because it just shows how far our country has come and that I am alive to see it. I wouldn't have guessed that in my lifetime we would have seen a black president. The media made a big deal out of it because it is a big deal. Of course they didn't talk about the change he would bring that night because that was trumped by the fact that the US just elected a black man as president. Just go back 60 years and black men couldn't ride at the front of the bus. It is a huge change to our nation as a whole, bigger than what he could ever bring to his presidency. Just like it would have been a big deal if Palin won. You don't think that would have been a huge deal and that wouldn't have been what all the networks were talking about? That instead they would have been talking about McCain's platform? I'm sure there are a lot of people that only voted for Obama based on the color of his skin but I bet there are a lot of people who didn't vote for him based on that same reason.
And I have to say it. I'm sure I will be ridiculed for it but Palin said a lot of stupid things and did a lot of dumb things and the media called her on it. I heard Biden say dumb things too and the media was all over that as well. If you say something stupid the news will call you on it because unfortunately it is news.
And in my opinion if he had chose Romney he might have won because Romney's big thing is the economy and since it is in the tank right now he would have been a good choice to fix it. As for Lieberman and Ridge, they were more moderate republicans. Heck, Lieberman was a democrat not that long ago. Meaning they had more centered views that a lot of people could agree with. Not just the extreme views. Palin had extreme views on a lot of things that I think alienated a lot of folks. I consider myself a moderate democrat. I will vote for a republican if I like their views. I think there are a lot of people like that, that will vote either way based on the views. So, when you bring in an extreme end it tends to make people swing the other way.
Show me please where the media ridiculed Biden for his slip ups and stupid comments as much as they ridiculed Palin. That assertion is absloutely false. Her every word was all over every meida outlet and comedy show while Bidens goofs were hardly mentioned.
PLEASE Republicans, PLEASE keep blaming the media for all of your problems instead of looking at the real reasons you lost!!! I hope you never actually figure out that you lost on VALUES (not social values like gay marriage- a lot of social values were won on Tuesday, for which I am glad) such as socialism vs. Raegonomics, because then the Dems will stay in power for a very long, long, time!!! PLEASE keep bringing up the media!!!!!
Just to clarify myself, I was referring to those who typically vote conservative (among the minorities) voting more because they identify with him. I was not saying ALL hispanics or ALL blacks voted for him because he is black, that would be narrowminded. Or that the white Obama supporters were only doing such because of 'white guilt'. That would be ignorant. But I do feel like it played into it when 96% voted for him. And I will not take anything away from the black community regarding the excitement they feel about a black man being elected. It should be honored and recognized and talked about. It is a moment in history. There was too much suffering and persecution, for this not to be a proud moment. So to belittle that is ridiculous.
And in regards to the media, who cares. The democrats blame talk radio for corrupting the republicans, and wanting there to be more 'fairness' on the airwaves. What I find funny is when commentators like David Gergen or Robin Roberts (GMA) or Barbara Walters talk about how they tried to be balanced and impartial. And then, the day after they were shouting hallelujah. We're not that naive to really not have any idea who you were pulling for! The obvious Obama softy pass the media had doesn't bother me. But when Sarah Palin's family or appearance is ridiculed, that is what is unfair. And she handled her first stop in the lime-light gracefully.
Christina, regarding the media, I said that "there is obviously more to it than that, but it's a major contributing factor." Having said that, I think it is naive of you to think that the media didn't play a role. They were extremely bias. They hushed up about a lot of Obama's past and his associations and made excuses for him. Obama himself said that if it weren't for Fox News then he would have been 11 points further in the polls. I do not believe that Fox News was spreading lies about him. Could they have been over exaggerating the facts, possibly, but at least they were telling us another side that I didn't get AT ALL from CNN, MSNBC or any of the others. When the media who reports the news are 5 for Obama to 1 for McCain it would be tough not to be bias and protective.
Having said that, the country needed change, I agree....but as I have said before, from what I have heard out of Obama's mouth, I do not necessiarly want the change that he is bringing.
Would one of you Obama Supporters PLEASE answer my questions listed in my above comment. I really really want to understand, I have heard responses on just about everything else. I am beginning to wonder if you even have a response.
I find it funny that so many say that Obama supporters couldn’t see his flaws when I believe the same thing about Palin supporters. Bray, here are a few examples of Biden’s stupid comments, all of which I did see personally on the news, some of them many times actually:
He called one of Obama’s campaign commercials "terrible."
He voiced his opposition to the government bailout of AIG before talking to Obama about it.
He said FDR went on television to reassure America after the 1929 stock market crash when it was actually Herbert Hoover who was president during the crash, and it predated television.
He accidentally called Obama "Barack America."
He asked a man in a wheelchair to stand up.
“The world would test the Democrat with a generated international crisis within six months." You didn’t see this one on every news channel? I sure did.
I could go on and on.
And as for the comedy shows, I remember them spoofing Biden at least 4 times. The comedians work with what they get. Can you blame them when they get such gems as the Russia/Alaska comment, the Katie Couric interview, or even the fruit fly comment, especially when she is the poster child for special needs children? I could go on and on with her mistakes too. And how many times have they spoofed Hillary on SNL? So, it isn’t just poor Palin being picked on by the media.
And Bradford, you wanted to know more about the opinion of a different VP choice leading to a victory. I did come across this article in Newsweek that does mention McCain's choice of Palin as a VP. "Voter surveys found her presence tilted a majority of independents and moderates to Barack Obama." In case you want to read it the link is below but Palin fans beware, it says some not so nice things (some of which coming from Fox News).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27568141/?GT1=43001
Jen, I will answer your question tonight. Been busy all day.
Wasn't it almost 70% of voters were concerned about the economy? And personally, the fact that Sarah Palin is more of a fiscal conservative than McCain helped sway me to their ticket. I believed out of the 4 on the the Rep/Dem ticket, she would be the best to slow govt. spending. And to place majority of the blame on her is ridiculous. Why are we even pointing fingers? It's over! I am trying my darndest (Palin rubbed off a little) to be a gracious loser. And as McCain said himself, blame him! And Lula and Mandy I'm curious of your take on my conservative v. liberal post.
Palin helped sway you to their ticket? Really? You were actually thinking of voting for Obama? That really surprises me from what you have said about him before. And as I said in my previous comment, I don't blame Palin at all. McCain knew exactly what he was getting when he picked her.
And I thought we wouldn't have anything to discuss after the election...
I finally did a karate chop on my husbands arms to get him off the computer, but I'm currently asleep at the wheel and probably no one cares now anyway so I'll try to be brief.
Palin did take a beating, but if you throw an elbow you better be able to take one too. She tried to flay Obama as often as she could. And she was good at it. But enough about her. (Wasn't I asking about the youth vote?) It's over for now and I look forward with anticipation to a future debate between her and Hillary Clinton. Can you imagine how fantastic that would be? You could sell tickets. Or maybe they could meet in the wrestling ring.
Okay, white woman, oh you know who you are. Check out an article in yesterday's local rag titled, "McCain couldn't clear the economic hurdle." It mentions almost everything I dicussed in the post about McCain's right turn. Also an article in the NY Times published the end of September I think, "Conservative Ire Pushed McCain from Lieberman." Google-McCain goes right-and a bunch of stuff comes up,if you really are that interested, but I can't believe you really are. You're just trying to bug me right? Even OkBushman said he did it in her recent post, and if she said it, it must be true. She researches way better than me.
Now, time to reign those opinions in missy. They're spewing forth like lava from a long held volcano. This blog has created a monster! Yaa-hoo, it's job is done...
And you didn't say anything about drowning your sorrows will sipping a Purple Cow? Wasn't she cute?
Jen, back to your question. It's a long answer, but hey, you asked for it. How will Obama bring about change, other than the obvious reasons, like he's the 180 degree turn from Bush in almost everyway. I've been considering the financial problems of the country and wondering what the next President of the United States can really do about it. Maybe a tax cut here and there, but can he physically give people a job, or stop the bank from taking their house, or open a business for them? No.
But like Reagan did in the 80's to end the recession, he can do now. Policy wise they are perpendicular, but personality wise they are similar in that they both have, or in Reagan's case had, the ability to give people hope again. Like Reagan before him, Obama can, through his words, inject the hope, the inspiration, the confidence that we can rebound and be strong again. People that are reassured and confident invest in new businesses, spend more money, have a better outlook over all.
You worry about the redistribution of wealth. Obama is a Democrat. Democrats in office almost always give a tax cut to the middle class, increase the taxes of the wealthy, and end up with a budget surplus. Republicans work the opposite way, if fact Reagan gave a tax cut to everyone who made OVER 50,000, to spur growth or whatever. Guess what he had afterwards? A big ole giant deficit. These are not new concepts for either party. The only expensive new social program I've heard of from Obama is the expansion of health care coverage (not universal mind you), and it was slightly cheaper than McCain's plan. I give the guy kudos for at least having an idea for what is a massive problem for millions of Americans. How does this make him a Socialist? Did you consider Bill Clinton to be one when he was president?
Ideally, Democrats allow and embrace change and diversity. They look ahead. They are concerned with humanity as a whole, the environment, and the bigger picture instead of their own existence and their own portion of the world. I call that forward thinking.
Two examples:
At almost the beginning of the Bush/Cheney administration, a document put together by non-partisan government scientists was received on global warming and climate change, detailing how is was getting worse and what might be causing it. Do you know what they did to it? His administration edited it, actually blacked out lines-I saw a copy of a page from it printed in the paper after it was discovered several years later-after it had already been submitted to the public. I call that a failure to look ahead. What does Bush say about global warming now? Oh ya, guess we do have a problem with that after all. Almost a decade too late.
If we start drilling up more of the United States for what little bit of oil that's left here, we better be darn sure it can meet our needs for longer than a few years because once we destroy the landscape, there's no going back. It will be gone forever from future generations. Once again, looking ahead.
Oh boy, so long here, my orginial point with my post was what can both parties do to evolve, to adapt to the changing political climate? Some guy named Norman Ornstein wrote more than 20 years ago, the party that secures the youth vote secures the power for the next generation.
What are we doing about it?
It's something both parties need to address.
Lula, one response about Reagan. Tax cuts, great! Increased govt. spending, not so great. I feel like that was a huge fault in Reaganomics.
Secondly, liberals definitely embrace change more than republicans. But as a republican/conservative, I embrace innovation. I would absolutely support change, evolution, etc if it met my two criteria: #1: Won't cost more. Why is it the govt can't balance a budget? How do they expect 'main street' to do it, if our greedy parents on Penn. Ave can't do it. If it is that important of an issue, you can make do with what you have. #2: Won't give government more power. They already have more than they can handle. And you see what power does to people, and I think Pres. Bush is an example. His best intentions turned into overextention. So if Obama can get things on his 'to do list' staying in those perimeters, go for it! If he can't I'm very skeptical.
P.S. Lula, thank you for the 'research' compliment! I really try to not be a republican zombie, spewing regurgitated sound bytes.
Lula, I appreciate your thoughts, but I am still unclear as to the notion of "forward thinking". You mentioned global warming (now cleverly re-named "climate change"), and by the typical liberal idea I suppose you mean the small change in average temperature is caused by human activity. Again, what is the forward thinking in this issue. Besides the fact that the global climate has been changing for at least 6,000 years (if you're a scientist then millions of years). Back in the 70s the scientists were warning of a catastrophic global cooling. Since we live on a dynamic planet, the climate is constantly in flux, therefore a changing climate is old news. Climate change is an onging pattern and to say that we have any ability to do something to alter this pattern is questionable. So anyway, back to the point, by "forward thinking" I think you mean anticipating a problem and addressing it before it becomes a crisis. On the issue of climate change, we don't yet know that this would be a problem, so why would we do what the socialists want and criple our economy through massive regulations and taxes? If this approach makes me guilty of not thinking forward then I am OK with that, I'd rather gather more facts then jump the gun.
Regarding the drilling issue, you say it is "forward thinking" to not drill under the notion that the landscape would be destroyed and future generations could not appreciate it. Is that correct? I would say that since we haven't opened up a lot of new drilling and haven't built a refinery or nuclear power plant for decades, that developing these sources of energy is now the "forward thinking" approach. Not doing anything is now an old idea and is not working because we are dependent on foreign sources of oil. Besides your notion that drilling is going to destroy the landscape is just not fair. My husband grew up in eastern Utah were there is A LOT of drilling, it is faily unnoticable and the environment is minimally if at all altered. Mining is a different story regarding how it effects the landscape. Also, going back to my nephew who works in the oil industry, there is A LOT of newly discovered oil here in the US, but it needs new technology to extract it.
I guess we can go on and on here. I don't think that you are more "foward thinking" as a democrate that I am as a republican. I think that the idea is a nice idea as a bumper sticker, but there is so much more debatable depth to it. What I think that we continually come back to is the idea that we both want to move foward and get someplace, but the means by which we try to get there are different.
I really hope I didn't open up a can of worms. We don't have to debate these issues further. I really just needed clairification on the idea of "Foraward thinking" and Change. I think that you are accurate on the notion of change, Obama is definitly a "180 turn" from Bush. I just thought that somehow you implied that these ideas were new and "forward thinking" when in fact, they are just different than Bush's and actually cling to traditional democratic ideas.
I really have enjoyed the debates and I honestly do come here for clarification and understand regarding a different way of thinking then mine. You haven't convinced me, but I am definitely enjoying the debate.
Here is what "change" means to me in reagards to Obama:
1. First and foremost, he is not Bush. I understand that McCain is not either, but after the horrible things Bush has done (telling lies to start a war, spending more money in his first four years of office then every other president combined, etc.) the country really felt like we needed to get as far away from his as possible.
2. He is not a Republican. I have said this a million times- the Reps. have had complete power the last 6 of 8 years and had the presidency the last 22 of 30 years. Rather then looking at things they may have done wrong to fix things, they instead insist on blaming others. Americans are no longer buying that- they want to give something else- anything else-a try. Hence the reason Dems. won so huge not only in the presideny but also in congress and the senate.
3. He is smart. I honestly believe that I am smarter then Bush. I also honestly believe I am not nearly as smart as Obama. I think that is a wonderful quality to have as president.
4. He listens. Bush is very arrogant and believes that everything he does is right. Obama obtains information first, then reacts. In an interview Palin said we shouldn't think twice before attacking somebody we thought had terrorists or something. I realize some people agree with that, but I strongly disagree. When it comes to war, one of the most important decisions a president can make, they should look at every available avenue. War should always be the LAST resort, never the first. I think Obama will do that.
5. He has the ability to inspire. Hundreds of thousands of people attend his rallies- in the freezing rain- to hear him speak, and he is not even president yet. When has that ever happened with Bush? Maybe right after 9/11 I was inspired by him, but that quickly faded. Bush has never made me want to be a better citizen like Obama has.
6. I know you will never read it, but I became an Obama supporter after reading The Audacity of Hope. I thought it was incredibly powerful, and in it he talked again and again about how we, as Americans, are sick of party politics. We are sick of government only looking after their own self interests and political interests. He talked about the problems we face in health care, welfare, and other things, and how we have to come together from both sides of the aisle to find solutions. Now, you may say that he never works across the aisle. I believe he means what he wrote, and I would like to see a government that is not so concerned about the Reps. want or what the Dems. want, but rather what we as a people want. I believe him when he says he will work toward that goal. Time will tell if it happens, but I believe it will. That is a major change.
7. He is a doer. He gets things done- he doesn't just talk about things, he actually does things about them. We can see that in his whole life.
8. He is a youthful presence- he represents the vitality, the energy, the perfect persona of somebody we can look up to. I don't know if this is making sense, but for once we have somebody who seems to be more like us rather then like a grumpy old man. That is exciting to a lot of people.
Most of the change he is bringing I do not believe is necessarily in specific policy- I believe it to be in the way things are done. I think Washington will be different now that he is in power, because he will inspire citizens to get more involved in volunteer work or whatever. I believe he will work across the aisle. I believe he will absolutely, positively, NOT be George Bush or anything like him. Young people, including me, don't care about Raegon or what happened in the 60's. They see what Bush has done, and they want that period of the US gone. That is the change that, to me, Obama has the ability to bring.
I wasn't trying to convince anyone. You asked. Regarding climate change and oil drilling, I refer to scientist's who work for unbiased universities and their opinions on the subject, not the government, oil and natural gas companies, and coal companies that destroy the land and pollute the air.
Did you know that most of the easy oil in the continental United States is already being mined? Most, I say, but not all, that is left is in rock shale. Why hasn't it been mined yet? Because it's harder and more expensive to get. And Jen it does effect the landscape, the groundwater, the rivers, the lakes, and all the animals that live around it. The lab I worked for did alot of work in Southern Utah. IT DOES EFFECT THE LAND.
Drilling is not an easy out. Alternative energy is the long term solution. We just have differing philosophies about how to get there. Hopefully someone will figure it out before we all return to the beginning of the 20th century technology wise.
Christina, Thank you for that response. I see your points on the change he will bring. Without getting into another round of he said, she said, there are a few things you said in some of your points that I disagree with. I will not get into that. The notion that Obama will bring change is something I COMPLETELY agree with. Most presidents bring change because they do have different ideas and policies, even within the same party affiliations. My biggest dispute was the implication that somehow this change was filled with new ideas and forward thinking and that somehow republicans are unable to be forward thinkers. That is what I was really looking for clarification on. I have drawn my own conclusion that yes, change is what we will get with and Obama administration, like it or not. But I do reject the accusation that republicans are not forward thinkers (not said by you, but by Lula).
Lula I do not claim to know more regarding the oil issues and landscape than you do, but I have learned from scientists on both sides of the isle. One of the reasons I even participate in this blog is because I do want to understand the other perspective. I enjoy the other perspective from basic citizens with life experience like you and also those who are experts in the field. My nephew is a geologist. He has advanced degrees and studies in geology and he was a geologist prior to being employed by the oil companies. I believe he went into the situation with an unbias perspective. He is trying to help the industry understand the geology and advance technology so we are able to get the oil in a relatively safe and cost effective mannor....but that's not forward thinking at all is it?
And yes, advances in other technologies are necessary, but we've already discussed that in a previous post.
Christina, thanks for the window on your psyche. That was very interesting, and that's all I'll say.
Lula, let's talk about the weather. PLEASE!!!!! I gotta go make a purple cow.
Supposed to be in the high fifties today. Going to rake my leaves. Thanks for the comments everyone. My next post is going to be on blog addiction. Way fun!
I just want to thank everybody for thier comments. I am glad to have a forum where people can disagree, but still be respectful. My brother-in-law just posted some very hurtful things on his blog, character attacks on anybody "stupid enough to vote for Obama." It has really upset me, and I am glad that here that doesn't happen. I know we don't all agree, but hopefully we can at least help understand each other and learn a little bit about the "other side" while still being nice:) Thank you everybody for that, and thank you Lula for providing the opportunity.
Sorry Christina, after what you said, I had to check it out. Holy Cow! That guy isn't very nice. And you know me I had to say a few words, not realizing it was his wife's site. Oops. She'll probably delete what I said. That's probably a good thing. Hope it doesn't offend you. Your Thanksgiving dinner with family should be an interesting one, I'll give you that.
Thank you very much Mandy and Lulo (and also anonymous if it was somebody on this blog) for the comments on my sister's blog. I have been very upset all day, and I really appreciate that you both defended me- that means a lot. It is pretty sad when your sister won't defend you, but I am glad that you both did. Thank you.
Christina, WOW! I just read the post on your sister's blog and I am SHOCKED. I think your brother-in-law was definitely out of line. I honestly had my hand over my mouth and my eyes were wide the whole time I read his comments. I am dumbfounded.
I understand where your sister was coming from, however I don't think that it was articulated very well with facts. Not that I am AT ALL perfect with the facts, but I do try.
Lula, I think that it was pretty low of you to say that rush is a pill pusher, not that it isn't/wasn't true, he fessed up and just like everyone, he has a PAST. Last time I checked Obama openly admitted to doing cocaine, but I don't call him a crack-head. Ladies, i think that in all we have done a pretty good job at keeping the name calling out of it. I know we can all be emotional at times, but I think that points become voided out when they use unnecessary name-calling and low-lying hits.
I'm sorry for the next time you are at a family function, AKWARD. I hope you can all get past it!
Christina and sis, I also just read the post and left this comment to chew on:
And in regards to your hubby's comments, comparing Obama to Hitler is historically inaccurate. Obama does not see anyone as an inferior race. BIG DIFFERENCE! Yes, they both used the propoganda machine. They were both great aurators, both had loyal followings. Here's another irrational comparison:
Obama is very much like Christ. He appealed to the down-trodden and poor. He asked the rich man to give up all his treasures and follow Him. He had a loyal following, and could gather crowds of thousands, just to hear him speak. He could walk on water...wait, too far. You could draw comparisons between any two historical figures, doesn't make it accurate. And although I completely disagree with Obama's policies, I find it deplorable to compare him to horrible leaders before he even takes office.
Shocking I compared Obama to Christ...Lula, you are bringing me to the dark side...or is it the 'enlightened side'. (Of course all comparisons are done in sarcasm)
IMPRESSIVE. Lula, when we first met (My post on abortion), I came to your blog and there were hardly any comments, I was highly irritated with you and almost didn't want to feed into your thinking. What a difference a month makes. Your blog is EXPLODING with comments. I realize it is the same people giving multiple responses, but we do have some entertaining, healthy, heated, insightful etc. conversations going on. What a difference a month makes :)
What's next, a retreat! We can call it "The Political Moms Unite with Moms into Politics get away"
Jen, so sorry if you feel that's a low blow, but unfortunately I could care less about that big jerk Rush. He defames and maligns innocent people every day. So to me, that makes him fair game. Same with that jerk of a brother-in-law who openly, sardonically mocked his wife's sister in FRONT OF EVERYBODY. Basically calling her an idiot. Inciting such racism, such violence, such hatred that I would mistake him for a skin head. This kind of talk is what's going to get Obama killed!
Who came to her defense? No one. Sorry, but I couldn't let it slide. So please don't bother chastising me again. As long as I can sleep at night, that's all that matters.
Thank you guys for all of your support- I really do appreciate it. This has been a rough day for me, and Damien has refused to apologize in any way or admit that his comments were in the least bit out of line. I have been so upset, and I appreciate what you all have said. Thank you.
Hey, the word I need to type in is "broads"- pretty well describes us, huh?
I know. Whats with all the commenting happening on your blog!? Mine's feeling lonely. Don't you want to hate on the conservo's any more? You just begin more controversial topics.
To be honest, OKbusman, I am a little scared to comment on your blog...I have read a lot of your post, but I am afraid if I comment someone will pull a Damien on me:) Maybe I should just get over my fears...
Lula, I guess the emotions are running pretty thick for you. At least you can sleep at night....
Christina: Be afraid. be very afraid! Of course there might be some 'damien's' out there, but I haven't seen any on our blog. And I don't want it to be a preaching to the choir conversation! That isn't any fun, or mentally stimulating! Challenge us! Challenge our thinking. I'm even tempted to jump on annonymously and play devil's advocate just to get more than 'ditto's'!
Post a Comment