Palinmania: Please, Not Another Obama

Home Coffeeroom Politics Palinmania: Please, Not Another Obama

Viewing 29 posts - 1 through 29 (of 29 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #593593

    Dave Hirsch
    Participant

    A stint of executive experience is lacking for a presidential resume; you need the competence to reach out to Congress with policy and ideas and work on effective legislation. We ought to elect a harmonious, competent and articulate person to lead the nation; a level-headed person that will be able to influence Congress and Washington in passing effective legislation, and create a better future. Sarah Palin has excited the Republican Party as no one had done before; however, one term with a campaigner-in-chief in the White House is enough.

    #721509

    nfgo3
    Member

    Does this post comply with the Coffee-Room rule against “megillahs”? If there were a rule about getting the facts right, it would certainly be in breach of that rule. For example:

    “Barack Obama had a distressed youth: moving across the globe and growing up without parents, he used drugs and other illegal substances to alleviate his pain.” Where did “David Hirsh” get this from? Moving around is not necessarily stressful, and Mr. Obama learned from the broad variety of his childhood experiences. He did not use drugs or “other illegal substances” – whatever that is – because of the stress in his life. He tried drugs as a youth because that is what a lot of youths do.

    “Barack Obama, often called divisive and partisan by his critics, has a populist approach and used a grassroots campaign to become president.” Yes, it’s true Mr. Obama is called divisive by some of his critics, but those critics are lying liars. It is not divisive to propose a policy that some people don’t like. It is divisive to suggest that Sarah Palin is not an American citizen – oh, wait, no one, not even the “divisive” Mr. Obama, alleged that about her. I must be thinking of someone else.

    As for the “similarity” between Ms. Palin and Mr. Obama: the similarity is non-existent. Mr. Obama advanced himself to high levels of academic and scholastic achievement – an Ivy League college and law school, top honors in law school, vs. Ms. Palin’s intellectual mediocrity and simple-minded opinions about a complicated world. Ms. Palin does not begin to grasp the complexity of the problems facing the US and the world today, and she has demonstrated – in her 2 years in the public eye – that she does not have the education or experience to address anything more complicated than skinning a large dead mammal.

    #721510

    tzippi
    Member

    A megillah about the former nominee could be called a Palindrone.

    #721511

    Dave Hirsch
    Participant

    Does this post comply with the Coffee-Room rule against “megillahs”? If there were a rule about getting the facts right, it would certainly be in breach of that rule. For example:

    Moderating

    Read: most probably!

    Where did “David Hirsh” get this from? Moving around is not necessarily stressful, and Mr. Obama learned from the broad variety of his childhood experiences.

    He did not use drugs or “other illegal substances” – whatever that is – because of the stress in his life. He tried drugs as a youth because that is what a lot of youths do.

    Well, you can suggest that Obama was lying in his memoir as some of his friends suggest, but I gave him the benefit of doubt.

    “other illegal substances” – whatever that is –

    Yes, it’s true Mr. Obama is called divisive by some of his critics, but those critics are lying liars. It is not divisive to propose a policy that some people don’t like. It is divisive to suggest that Sarah Palin is not an American citizen – oh, wait, no one, not even the “divisive” Mr. Obama, alleged that about her. I must be thinking of someone else.

    As for the “similarity” between Ms. Palin and Mr. Obama: the similarity is non-existent.

    In 2003, Palin is appointed to chair the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission where she and restored honor to the bi-partisan commission. Obama, hardly finished campaigning for the House (and his re-election campaign) as he announces his run for the US Senate – something he was working on since 2002.

    Mr. Obama advanced himself to high levels of academic and scholastic achievement – an Ivy League college and law school, top honors in law school, vs. Ms. Palin’s intellectual mediocrity and simple-minded opinions about a complicated world.

    Ms. Palin does not begin to grasp the complexity of the problems facing the US and the world today,

    and she has demonstrated – in her 2 years in the public eye – that she does not have the education or experience to address anything more complicated than skinning a large dead mammal.

    In light of the above, I agree with you that Obama isn’t to be compared to Palin. Sarah Palin would bring more experience and bi-partisan leadership to the Oval Office. However, I believe that is is still too scarce for the US Commander-in-Chief.

    #721512

    Dave Hirsch
    Participant
    #721513

    Midwest2
    Member

    Actually, I kind of like Sarah’le. She won’t get the Republican nomination, so I hope she runs as an independent and does to the Republicans what Nader did to Gore/Lieberman. Of course, I’m not a Republican;-)

    #721514

    Dave Hirsch
    Participant

    Midwest2,

    I fret over that notion. Her third party candidacy can turn out to be another Ross Perot spoiler. Although she denies it, I believe that her presidential aspirations will lead her to do just that. It might depend on the GOP nominee, but she is capable of pulling it off and become quite a force for a third party candidate. I hope, though, that she’ll put the country before her prestige and self-interest. We can’t afford another term with Obama in the White House; too much (irreversible) damage has already been done.

    And, who tells you that she won’t pull off a victory in the GOP primary? She can do it the same way Obama did; run a good campaign, give eloquent speeches, duck important questions and talk about insubstantial things such as Hope and Change. She might also take others’ slogans and campaign promises and make it hers. Remember how Obama hijacked John Edward’s Healthcare reform?

    #721515

    charliehall
    Member

    Is this redstate.com?

    #721516

    More like redstate than daily kos.

    #721517

    tzippi
    Member

    I think she’ll make a laughingstock of the GOP is she tries to run.

    No wait. I’m wrong. Let her run, and have Newt Gingrich as her running mate.

    #721518

    Dave Hirsch
    Participant

    Charlie, is this all you have to defend your thin-skinned, unpopular, naive and inexperienced “Messiah” President. It’s interesting how you claim that those supporting Palin are hypocrites while you do exactly the same. Those are facts (therefore they’re more Restate.com than DailyKos). If you want to disprove it, be a man, let’s go. I’m fully ready and prepared for a debate. Just don’t quit suddenly as you did by every debate you had with me until now.

    How is it possible that those liberal and Democrat icons were able to swear that Obama isn’t prepared; yet, miraculously after he became the nominee he is and even better (because of Palin!)? Hypocrisy!

    Yes, I prefer “Fair & Balanced” news over sources that “Get thrills up their legs” and “journolists” that manipulate news. I’m color-blind when it comes to race and don’t differentiate between Man and Woman, Religion or Race; I elect one that’s fit for office. I look out for the day when Martin Luther King’s dream will come true. I wait for the day when we will live in a nation where we won’t be judged “by the color of the skin but by the content of our character.” I look forward to a life of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness” where white men won’t be discriminated against; a time when “reparations” will be the talk of yesteryear and presidents will be elected according to their merits. I didn’t demand FDR to compensate me for the genocide of my grandparents and nation – I want everyone treated in kind. I also don’t vote for hype and rhetoric, I vote for substance!

    #721519

    Midwest2
    Member

    Dave, are you running for office :-)? Are you practicing to set up a right-wing political blog?

    I hate to disillusion you, but there are still plenty of Democrats in our circles. We don’t make as much noise – or usually write such long posts – but we’re here. And some of us are doing content analysis on some of the more enthusiastic “redstate” posts because we want to understand a mindset that’s so totally removed from the reality of the country.

    #721521

    nfgo3
    Member

    I don’t know where to start repudiating Dave Hirsh’s refudiation, as it is so wrong in so many ways. So I’ll start with a few points.

    First, as for DH’s comments headed “Moderating”: Yes, I know your post was posted, and therefore was either (i) approved or (ii) not disapproved by the moderators. The fact of its posting does not, however, conclusively establish that it is not a “megillah” in violation of the Coffee Room requirement for brevity. The rule you quoted uses the term “megillah” to refer to proposed posts which are unduly long and says they “probably” will be deleted, not that they absolutely will be deleted. In other words, the rule says explicitly that some unduly long posts will get posted notwithstanding the work of the moderators, and so my question about your “megillah,” and my implication that your post is too long under Coffee Room rules, is reasonable, and your refudiation is not only incorrect but illogical. The rule you quoted uses the term “megillah” as short-hand for “too long to post,” much as Americans use the term “separation of church and state” as short-hand for the text of the First Amendment of the US constitution which prohibits Congress from establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. But, of course, a Palin supporter such as former Delaware senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell does not understand the difference between (a) the words and meaning of the US constitution, and (b) a short-hand phrase to refer to a provision of the US constitution. Your misunderstanding of “megillah” represents the same inability.

    Second: your discussion of Obama’s youthful drug use. I stand by my explanation, i.e., he was youthful and youths do stupid things. He outgrew it. His explanations are consistent – and more detailed, and more personal – than my explanation, but mine is correct and helpful in evaluating the adult’s fitness to be president. As for your statement that “other legal substances” refers to alcohol: that is dead wrong outside Utah. Maybe you are from Utah, in which case I can forgive the confusion.

    Third: Barack Obama’s “anemic experience”. Mr. Obama’s intellectual gifts, education and experience enabled him to win a hard-fought primary and a US election. That does not per se mean he would be a good president (we’ve had bad presidents who won elections, and I’m not even counting W, because he did not win his first election0, but Mr. Obama clearly figured out how to get from no where – i.e., South Side of Chicago, or Hawaii, or Indonesia – to the White House. As for Ms. Palin’s experience, being mayor of a village of 9,000 people, or governor of a state of 600,000 (which state receives substantial federal aide and has oil tax revenue that enables it to pay cash subsidies to its citizens) is hardly adequate preparation for governing a nation of 308,000 000 people, and Ms. Palin’s policy statements (e.g., I can see Russia) hardly indicate that she learned anything on the job.

    More importantly: You correctly stated, “The job of the President of the United States is the toughest in the world.” I would add, and I think you would agree, that no job can adequately prepare anyone for the job of president of the US. It takes extraordinary personal gifts of intellect, education, determination, organizational skill and reasoning ability to execute the job well. As between Mr. Obama and Ms. Palin, there is no comparison between their personal qualities as to who is better equipped to fulfill the duties of the office.

    One other point: The comparison of Mr. Obama’s vs. Ms. Palin’s fitness and qualifications for the office of president is in some respects meaningless, because no one favoring Mr. Obama would consider a woman (qualfied or not) of Ms. Palin’s political views; and, likewise, no one favoring Ms. Palin’s views would consider Mr. Obama. A more meaningful comparison would be between, say, Ms. Palin vs. Mitt Romney, or Newt Gingrich, or Mitch McConnell, or even Dave Hirsh. Many Republicans have publicly expressed their doubts about Ms. Palin’s fitness for office, so you don’t have to take my word for it. And please note, some of the Republicans who have doubts about Ms. Palin have no intention of running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. Mr. Obama’s primary opponents in 2008 had other interests in suggesting that he was not the best person for the job.

    #721522

    “megillahs” are not prohibited, just recommended against as it is usually too big of a tirchah for the mods to read them

    DHs post was probably too short to be included in our admittedly nebulous definition of what is a megillah

    #721523

    charliehall
    Member

    “We don’t make as much noise – or usually write such long posts – but we’re here”

    And I don’t have time to respond to the anti-Obama megillah point by point. I have a day job. And the Obama-haters wouldn’t care anyway.

    We just finished the most productive Congressional session in decades. It passed two huge economic stimulus packages. It set up a framework so that no American will ever be forced to go without health insurance, something that was originally proposed (by Theodore Roosevelt!) 98 years ago. It ratified the strategic arms treaty with Russia. It finally provided for the healthcare needs of the 9/11 responders — over nine years after the terrorist attack. It finally got rid of the stupid prohibition against Gays serving in the military. Arguably there has not been a Congress since the 1965-1966 session has so much progress been made in so many areas.

    That is pretty good for an inexperienced President. He knew when to compromise and when not to compromise. He gets grief from the Left and from the Right, so he is probably right in the center where he belongs. Similarly, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid deserve a huge amount of credit. Most commenters here are from the Right so they don’t appreciate what has just happened. Our country is better off as a result of the actions our elected officials have taken.

    #721524

    charliehall
    Member

    “I didn’t demand FDR to compensate me for the genocide of my grandparents and nation “

    FDR didn’t commit genocide.

    #721525

    Midwest2
    Member

    nfgo3 – Thank you. I have neither the time nor patience to respond to Dave at length, and you did a much better job than I would have.

    charliehall – You’re right. The Obama-haters wouldn’t care anyway. That would require taking a good look around at what’s going on in the country and actually stopping to think about it, instead of going off on feel-good rants. Thinking is hard work.

    #721526

    nfgo3
    Member

    charliehall: your post about the productive session of Congress that ended 12/22/10 understates the contributions of President Obama and overstates the contributions of the Congress. Republicans in the Senate invoked filibusters at a record-breaking pace, and their leader, Senator Mitch McConnell, stated unequivocally that the role of the Senate Republicans is first and foremost to prevent the reelection of President Obama. I do not recall ever hearing that from a Congressional leader, and it gives the lie to any Republican claim that their primary concern is the well-being of the nation. The Senate Republicans have been – dare I say it – divisive, solely for the purpose of advancing their own interests. While I was disappointed with President Obama’s compromise on taxes, it apparently was the key to getting any worthwhile legislation out of this Congress.

    #721527

    Dave Hirsch

    Please clarify your opening statement.

    #721528

    charliehall
    Member

    nfgo3,

    The irony about McConnell is that the tax package he agreed to probably ensures Obama’s re-election as it is essentially a massive economic stimulus. But it now looks like the ONLY essential priority for Republicans is low tax rates for their base supporters, millionaires. Everything else is a candidate to be thrown under the bus.

    #721529

    klach
    Member

    congress is obviously quite incompetent

    #721530

    nfgo3
    Member

    charliehall: If you are correct that the recently approved tax package ensures President Obama’s re-election, then it’s not irony – it’s very skillful politics. I hope you are right, but I am wary.

    One other thing: why do we Jews use “megillah” as slang short-hand for a too-long comment or too-long statement or too-complicated situation. The Five Megillos are holy writings. Shouldn’t we refrain from using “megillah” as a negative term. Perhaps the Coffee Room moderators could lead the way be removing the word from the CR rules.

    #721531

    nfgo3
    Member

    One other other thing: The most polarizing president ever is not Barack Obama. That distinction belongs to President Abraham Lincoln – his election and subsequent actions in defense of the authority of the federal government led to The Civil War. Mr. Lincoln is also considered by many as one of the three greatest US presidents. What is striking about this error by Mr. Hirsch is his readiness to attribute horrible qualities to Mr. Obama and his presidency, without considering simple and widely known facts.

    A related flaw in Dave Hirsch’s thinking is his calling Mr. Obama a “messiah”. I have never read or heard an Obama supporter call Mr. Obama a “messiah,” but he is regularly called, facetiously, a “messiah” by his extreme right-wing critics, for the porpose or with the effect of insulting Mr. Obama’s supporters by alleging that they overrate his competence. I fully understand President Obama’s limits, but overall, I am satisfied that he is doing as well or better than anyone else could do in the current circumstances.

    #721532

    charliehall
    Member

    nfgo is correct. Lincoln was unquestionably the most polarizing President. He could have simply let the South secede. The North would have abolished slavery, and refused to return fugitive slaves to the Confederacy, whose economy would have completely collapsed. The other polarizing aspect of Lincoln was that he pushed throught the aggessive Republican domestic agenda while a war was in progress. The next president to do that was George W. Bush, with disasterous results. It was not until Grant’s presidency that the consequences of the Republican Give Everything to Business economic policy were seen, and what resulted was the longest recession in American history.

    #721533

    charliehall
    Member

    nfgo is also correct on the alleged characterization of Obama as a messiah. I’ve been reading dailykos for years and I’ve never seen that term used except by a troublemaking Republican troll.

    #721534

    tzippi
    Member

    Nfgo, no time to really read these posts but davening through them, I see that I was guilty of misusing the word megillah.

    IOW, I get your point.

    (And this time, I was employing irony.)

    #721535

    Dave Hirsch
    Participant

    Dave, are you running for office :-)? Are you practicing to set up a right-wing political blog?

    I hate to disillusion you, but there are still plenty of Democrats in our circles.

    We don’t make as much noise – or usually write such long posts – but we’re here.

    And some of us are doing content analysis on some of the more enthusiastic “redstate” posts because we want to understand a mindset that’s so totally removed from the reality of the country.

    I don’t know where to start repudiating Dave Hirsh’s refudiation, as it is so wrong in so many ways. So I’ll start with a few points.

    former Delaware senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell does not understand the difference between (a) the words and meaning of the US constitution, and (b) a short-hand phrase to refer to a provision of the US constitution.

    Second: your discussion of Obama’s youthful drug use. I stand by my explanation, i.e., he was youthful and youths do stupid things

    “other legal substances” refers to alcohol: that is dead wrong outside Utah. Maybe you are from Utah, in which case I can forgive the confusion.

    Mr. Obama’s intellectual gifts, education and experience

    That does not per se mean he would be a good president

    I’m not even counting W, because he did not win his first election

    As for Ms. Palin’s experience, being mayor of a village of 9,000 people, or governor of a state of 600,000 (which state receives substantial federal aide and has oil tax revenue that enables it to pay cash subsidies to its citizens) is hardly adequate preparation for governing a nation of 308,000 000 people

    and Ms. Palin’s policy statements (e.g., I can see Russia) hardly indicate that she learned anything on the job.

    As between Mr. Obama and Ms. Palin, there is no comparison between their personal qualities as to who is better equipped to fulfill the duties of the office.

    Mr. Obama’s primary opponents in 2008 had other interests in suggesting that he was not the best person for the job.

    #721536

    nfgo3
    Member

    Well, Dave Hirsch, I will oblige you:

    Obama’s “rock-star status” is a characterization which I have seen only in right-wing attempts to blame the news reports they do not like for Mr. Obama’s popularity, first as a candidate and then as President. It is not worthy of a comment. It is also also an attempt to overstate his talents, for the purpose of bringing him low when he does not walk on water.

    I do not know what you are referring to in this statement. I will say that I am not questioning your honesty, only your grasp of the facts. As for my arrogance, I would like to know what I wrote that shows you my arrogance. As for my “liberal way of spinning things … “: Spinning is neither conservative nor liberal, it is a rhetorical device. Which of my statements do you consider to be “spinning.”

    DH and I discuss Obama’s drug use: First, I have not read either of Mr. Obama’s books. I haven’t read a book by Palin, or George Bush or Bill Clinton. I don’t read politicians’ books until they are dead, and I do not read them for the truth of the matter stated therein, but only to see how they tried to explain themselves and then compare their claims to what they actually did. Politicians’ books tend to be bunk. Perhaps the books of Messrs./Ms. Palin, Obama, Bush, and/or Clinton are the exception to the rule, but I do not care to waste my time reading their books. If I want to waste my time, I argue with people in the Coffee Room. 😉

    DH’s objection to my “megillah” comment: I was not purporting to characterize your post as a violation of the Coffee Room rules, I was simply asking for an opinion from the moderators, and one of them provided comments which indicate that (i) the mere posting of a comment does not mean that the post complies with the rules, and (ii) your particular comment does comply with the rules. That is all I wanted to know. You continue to fail to see the illogical nature of your understanding of my comment.

    DH’s comment about my comment about Christine O’Donnell: is, as written, a non-sequitur.

    Do you mean to say that I am a “rank” liberal, or a “ranking” liberal. The latter would imply that other liberals hold me in high regard. The former would imply that you hold all liberals in low regard. I don’t know what other liberals think of me, but I am confident that I am not rank.

    DH writes, in response to my praise of Mr. Obama’s education and intelligence: “How do you know his intellect and education, have you seen his college transcripts? If all he was able to do was being a lecturer and a ‘quitter’. “

    You evidently think that the only way to judge a person’s education and intelligence is to view his college transcripts. No, I have not seen them. I have heard him speak, I even read his speech on race delivered in Philadelphia, and it is excellent – not for its political effectiveness but for the understanding it reveals of American history. As for his being a “quitter”: I don’t think his election as president shows any quitting tendencies. And his other career choices shows that he had an interest in public service. And there are very few unintelligent or uneducated members of the Harvard Law Review. You (and, not incidently, I) might not like their political opinions, or their career choices, but they are, as a group, intelligent and educated. (And I’m not one of them, in case you were thinking of accusing me of that. And please don’t use this statement as a set-up for an insult such as: “Don’t flatter yourself – I don’t think you ever received such an academic honor.”)

    DH writes: “Show me a capital business that hires a CEO based on his education.”

    Actually, I do know of one business that hired a guy as CEO because he had brassy educational credentials and no executive experience, and he was awful. Yes, I am agreeing with you that brassy education credentials do not necessarily make good chief executives of private companies (which is what I think you mean by “capital business”). You never thought a rank liberal would agree with you about anything. Is this going to get you kicked out of the rank conservatives’ club? I hope so, for your sake.

    I’m tired. I think I’ll watch the second half of the Jets game.

    #721537

    nfgo3
    Member

    Well, Dave Hirsch, I will oblige you:

    Obama’s “rock-star status” is a characterization which I have seen only in right-wing attempts to blame the news reports they do not like for Mr. Obama’s popularity, first as a candidate and then as President. It is not worthy of a comment. It is also also an attempt to overstate his talents, for the purpose of bringing him low when he does not walk on water.

    I do not know what you are referring to in this statement. I will say that I am not questioning your honesty, only your grasp of the facts. As for my arrogance, I would like to know what I wrote that shows you my arrogance. As for my “liberal way of spinning things … “: Spinning is neither conservative nor liberal, it is a rhetorical device. Which of my statements do you consider to be “spinning.”

    DH and I discuss Obama’s drug use: First, I have not read either of Mr. Obama’s books. I haven’t read a book by Palin, or George Bush or Bill Clinton. I don’t read politicians’ books until they are dead, and I do not read them for the truth of the matter stated therein, but only to see how they tried to explain themselves and then compare their claims to what they actually did. Politicians’ books tend to be bunk. Perhaps the books of Messrs./Ms. Palin, Obama, Bush, and/or Clinton are the exception to the rule, but I do not care to waste my time reading their books. If I want to waste my time, I argue with people in the Coffee Room. 😉

    DH’s objection to my “megillah” comment: I was not purporting to characterize your post as a violation of the Coffee Room rules, I was simply asking for an opinion from the moderators, and one of them provided comments which indicate that (i) the mere posting of a comment does not mean that the post complies with the rules, and (ii) your particular comment does comply with the rules. That is all I wanted to know. You continue to fail to see the illogical nature of your understanding of my comment.

    DH’s comment about my comment about Christine O’Donnell: is, as written, a non-sequitur.

    Do you mean to say that I am a “rank” liberal, or a “ranking” liberal. The latter would imply that other liberals hold me in high regard. The former would imply that you hold all liberals in low regard. I don’t know what other liberals think of me, but I am confident that I am not rank.

    DH writes, in response to my praise of Mr. Obama’s education and intelligence: “How do you know his intellect and education, have you seen his college transcripts? If all he was able to do was being a lecturer and a ‘quitter’. “

    You evidently think that the only way to judge a person’s education and intelligence is to view his college transcripts. No, I have not seen them. I have heard him speak, I even read his speech on race delivered in Philadelphia, and it is excellent – not for its political effectiveness but for the understanding it reveals of American history. As for his being a “quitter”: I don’t think his election as president shows any quitting tendencies. And his other career choices shows that he had an interest in public service. And there are very few unintelligent or uneducated members of the Harvard Law Review. You (and, not incidently, I) might not like their political opinions, or their career choices, but they are, as a group, intelligent and educated. (And I’m not one of them, in case you were thinking of accusing me of that. And please don’t use this statement as a set-up for an insult such as: “Don’t flatter yourself – I don’t think you ever received such an academic honor.”)

    DH writes: “Show me a capital business that hires a CEO based on his education.”

    Actually, I do know of one business that hired a guy as CEO because he had brassy educational credentials and no executive experience, and he was awful. Yes, I am agreeing with you that brassy education credentials do not necessarily make good chief executives of private companies (which is what I think you mean by “capital business”). You never thought a rank liberal would agree with you about anything. Is this going to get you kicked out of the rank conservatives’ club? I hope so, for your sake.

    I’m tired. I think I’ll watch the second half of the Jets game.

Viewing 29 posts - 1 through 29 (of 29 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.


Trending