Thursday Open Thread
Stocks are still down right now with Unemployment claims slightly down, and US govt mulling buying into some of the banks. Massive injections of cash into the overseas banks and markets have pushed their stocks up or even.
Have a nice Thursday!
Submitted by Ender on Thu, 2008-10-09 10:43
Tags:
Comments :
The McCain campaign
has a new web ad out tying Obama to Ayers
. 538 now gives them less than a 10% chance 
of winning, so I guess they figure they might as well go down swinging.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Brendan, I received a funny
Brendan, I received a funny email somewhat related to your comment, but it's...er...not rated G. Let me know if you'd like me to email it to you.
Sure, but it better be funny (nt)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Sent. But no funniness
Sent. But no funniness guarantee implied. It gave me a chuckle, for whatever that's worth.
Heh, I'm happy to hear this ...
because it continues to lower the expectations for Palin/McCain. Their chances are now so low we could be looking at a repeat of 2004 where the exit polls said one thing based on the Liberal hype while the actual vote said another.
I am beginning to think that Palin/McCain may just pull out a stealth victory given all the posturing on the left which is reminiscent of the inevitability of Kerry. I'm in a can't lose position here. If they lose, well it was expected. But if they win? The uproar among the left will be absolutely hilarious. I can't wait to see what emerges to rival http://www.sorryeverybody.com/
this time around should Palin/McCain win. :)
Last night I was thinking about the Dixie Chicks and was wondering how things were going for them today. As you know they did well in the awards circuit hosted by the liberal left. In reading through some of the latest news I came across the following:
Read the whole thing (it's short). I don't know about others but he is articulating a view of the effect Palin will have on this election which I resonate with.
Why do I care about what Toby Keith thinks (as a barometer on the outcome of the coming election)?
Well, he is a down to earth person that everyday people identify with. I am one example. There are millions more I am sure. The point is that he has the same grass roots appeal as Sarah Palin has and for the same reasons. I think that they are both popular because they represent the views of a wide swath of Americana which exists outside D.C. and the other liberal Megalopolis' out there. I think you might be surprised just how wide a swath come November.
On a final note, I was out driving around today and I was paying attention to the yard signs. It is perhaps still a bit early, but the numbers seem way down. Maybe 5% of the homes have signs out (this is a guess, obviously). But what I noticed is that (at least in the areas I was driving) almost ALL of the Presidential campaign signs were for Palin/McCain. I only saw 1 (one) sign for Obama. (In 2004 these same areas were like 50/50 for Bush vs. Kerry.) So I am not quite sure what to make of this.
Maybe it is a sign of desperation on the part of the McCainites and the Obamians are feeling secure in their coming win? This would be consistent with the predictions you cite above, but I think there might just be another implication. Perhaps this is just a reflection of how energized the McCainites actually are, and how confident over-confident the Obamians are? I don't know.
I do know that having the McCainites energize and the Obamians feeling over confident can only help McCain in the final count.
Thoughts?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
This deserves a more in-depth response
than I have time for right now, but one quick point: Dems are in a far stronger position right now than in 2004. For instance, the prediction from electoral-vote.com (not a great site, but ok) is 349-174
while in 2004 on this day it was 280-248 
because Kerry was leading Ohio by 1 point.
Granted complacency is a potential problem and Dems need to stay in the game and work to put this thing away.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
The last 10 days watch how things tighten up...
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
It always does tighten up some
In elections like this.
This election is very similar to 1980. That year you had an unpopular incumbent challenged by a candidate who was attacked as unproven, inexperienced at the national level and couldn't be trusted in a crisis.
It wasn't until the debates that Reagan sealed the deal. And then about a week or so before the election it tightened up and it looked like Carter might have a chance. Of course, it ended up being a blowout.
The other similarity to 1980 is the Senate elections. In 1980 12 Democrats lost their seats, including some big names like George McGovern, Birch Bayh and Frank Church. It was also the beginning of a long-term realignment that is only now starting to unravel.
qui tacet consentire
Yard Signs
There was a bit of a jokey post at 538 about the Obama campaign and yard signs
. About half-way down it gets a little more fact-based. But the gist is that Obama yard signs are not particularly easy to get, because the campaign doesn't feel it is a worthwhile time investment.
Basically, the people who get yard signs are the volunteers who are doing some real work for the campaign.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Well, I have had yard signs in the past ...
and I never volunteered for anyone. So much for that theory.
But even if we accept this logic does this not mean that McCain has many more volunteers in the area than Obama does? And if one believes that having volunteers (as opposed to yard signs) translates into getting more votes then wouldn't this suggest that Palin/McCain are going to be influencing more people?
And even so, for the expense involved (since people have to come pick up the signs themselves) why would you let your opponent have a sea of unchallenged signs anywhere? What's the upside to that?
This just makes me even more suspicious that there may be a November Surprise coming again this year. :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Nope
It is the Obama campaign that is focusing on more productive activities than yard signs, so you having a yard sign in the past, or McCain having more signs, are both irrelevant.
As for your "even so..." I can't answer that. I'm not saying it is a good idea (though it might be), that's just the way the Obama campaign is handling it.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
You're kidding, right?
How many resources does it suck up to have a receptionist, who you are going to have anyway, fill out an order for some signs and then hand them out when people walk in the door? What is their time being redirected to that is more productive? I mean they still need to be there as the receptionist, right?
And what does it say to your "supporters" who walk into your campaign office to get a sign so that they can show their support and you have to say "we don't believe in yard signs and we think that the people who take the time to come get them and put them up are useless?"
If this is truly how Obama thinks then I am more uplifted than ever.
UPDATE:
You know, you have inspired me to take action. I think I'm going to get a yard sign. I can always use a marker to scratch out McCain and just lean Palin. He he. :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Not kidding
But like I said, it's not my policy. You may be right; it may be a really dumb move. But so far he seems to be doing alright.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Toby Keith
This:
...strikes me as an incredibly sexist thing to say. Hey, maybe it's true, but I doubt it. I think most women actually have brains that they can use to decide who to vote for, without feeling that they "have to vote for her" because she's "real normal."
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Meh.
I think you are stretching on calling this sexist. Nothing he says implies that women don't have minds of their own, or that they won't be making up their own minds. he is merely articulating one of the more powerful reasons, in his opinion, that he believes that they will decide to do so. If they can identify with Palin on any level it will increase the chances that they will vote her way by choice, not because they are mind numbed robots being controlled by their gender.
Even so, you are welcome to your opinion. I am just saying that I think both Keith and Palin are popular specifically BECAUSE they seem like someone you might actually meet in the grocery store or the tavern down the street. If you don't think that this will be a factor then fine. We'll see in November.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Heh
Personally, I hope most people have learned a lesson from George Bush, that seeming like someone you'd want to drink a beer with is NOT a qualification for the (Vice) Presidency!
I am sure it will be a factor, but I don't think it will be a deciding one. And I suspect if Palin keeps up these laughable attacks ("We don't know who Obama really is! Trust me, because I'm an open book.") then her star will continue to fade.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I'm laughing out loud now ...
because you just don't get that you are only making Keith's point here. After reading this Palin just went UP in my estimation of her, not down. It is clear that you don't understand your opposition at all. If reading this blog should have taught you anything, it is that we (liberals and conservatives) DON'T think alike. This comment only makes sense to you because you assume that everyone else sees things just like you.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
On the contrary
I know conservatives love this stuff, but they're not voting for Obama anyway.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
And any of those middle of the road conservatives ...
who might have been thinking of crossing over for Obama? They might just take you rhetoric the same way I do. Keep lighting fires under those bridges, OK? I support you 100% in that effort. :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
My rhetoric
I don't care how anyone takes my rhetoric. I'm not exactly a national voice with any influence. The question is how will people take the McCain/Palin rhetoric as it gets increasingly negative. I suspect that it will not, with perhaps a few exceptions, change anyone's minds one way or the other. So it comes down to how the undecideds will react, and whether there are enough undecideds at this point to matter. And perhaps most importantly, whether the undecideds are even listening to them, or instead listening to the "filtered" reporting on the nightly news.
I've got to hand it to you, though. You certainly have a strong ability to come across as way more confident than objective reality would seem to justify. At this point I am cautiously optimistic that Obama will win, even with the polls overwhelmingly in his favor, and you seem almost exuberantly optimistic that McCain will manage to pull it off. And still you say that I am the one who doesn't realize that not everyone thinks like me!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
There is no such thing as a middle of the road
conservative.
That's why they believe that owning any gun is a god given right, and health care is merely a responsibility.
It is the economy, stupid.
Don't you ever get tired....cause your rhetoric sure is...
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
(No subject)
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Awe, did you help a little old lady cross the street today too?
Where in weeks have I posted unrelated nonsensical partisan yip yap, show me.
Otherwise, mind your own business!
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
It's all our business.
This is a public forum, after all.
Anyway, you weren't accused of posting unrelated partisan yip yap, you were (indirectly) accused of using tired rhetoric.
I know I can find examples of you posting things that are unrelated and partisan. Nonsensical and yip yap are in the eyes of the beholder, so going down that road will get us nowhere.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Some people just have no
sense of humor! :=I
It is the economy, stupid.
Is Miss L deficient in some way other than the obvious...
...Is she "forum challenged" in some way?
Why is she being insulated from defending her own desultory grandiloquence?
She may benefit from having an opportunity to try self reliance for a change, speaking for herself while being held accountable, instead of being the lowly recipient of some piteous form of cyber-welfare.
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
Dude
I'm not defending her, I'm defending Brutus' characterization of your rhetoric.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Whatever....
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
Have some leveraged finance
on me!
Here's the Team of Experts
IN case you wondered why margin calls are causing a disruption in world wide finance.
Wholly blaming F&F and the democrats as the only cause of a global market crash is not an honest assessment of the situation. That kind of naivete does not help solve problems.
It is the economy, stupid.
Oh, but it was..."the cause".
What your calling attention to is..."an effect".
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
This is where we disagree
No one forced reputable investment banks to take on these loans without even looking at them.
It is the economy, stupid.
Why would they not, how could they not...
...They have a fiduciary responsibility to make money for their clients, and when GSE sponsored MBS's come up for dispensation...why not?
This goes to the heart of the insidious nature of what the liberals in congress have done, they used a GSE to con the market into investing with a sense of exclusion from ordinary exposure.
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
Any sound
ratings agent in an investment bank would have rejected loans with no verification.
Why didn't the bank regulators NOT do their job and reject the bad loans. It was their fiduciary responsibility.
It is the economy, stupid.
Miss L, Miss L, Miss L....
That's what I am trying to tell you, EVERY SOUND ratings agent in all the investment banks in the land didn't reject loans with no verification.
Why...
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
That is just a ludicrous statement
I can't be held accountable from my own actions, because ..... points finger at the other guy.
Since you don't believe anything I say, do some research on Moody's Rating Agency.
This whole mess was caused by improperly assessing risk, a sense of hubris, bizarre mathematical models, a willingness to look the other way for profit's sake, and insane leveraging.
*The investment banks, like Lehmans were screaming for more loans!* - They lobbied for more loans. They wanted prime lenders to take out sub prime loans.
They did not care what the quality of the loans was, because they could chop them up and turn them into magic pixie dust and make them disappear, and turn a profit.
The down turn we see in the markets going down thousands of points show us the insanely high leverage in the market. Loaning out 40 bucks if you have a dollar, is not a good business model. Trying to hide it is an even worse business model, cause then no one wants to do business with you. (See frozen credit markets)
It is the economy, stupid.
Red Wing and Miss L, You
Red Wing and Miss L,
You guys were made for each other!
I think they could make one heck of a sitcom based on you two as a married couple.
Or maybe as separated-at-birth, adopted, long-lost, reunited fraternal twins, one raised in a hyperpartisan Democratic household and the other in a hyperpartisan Republican household, and then, oh, let's say you end up as roommates. Kind of an "Odd Couple" thing but with the tension based in politics and ideology, and a complete inability to discuss them with each other in a rational, reasonably objective and civil way. But the audience knows that, deep down, you two just love each other.
LOL! Maybe...?
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
What if we all chip in and
What if we all chip in and buy you two a vacation together, to be recorded as a reality show. I think HBO would pick it up.
Thanks for providing me a
Thanks for providing me a fresh link.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I will say thanks to the creative Brut-force
You can mind my business anytime! ;-}
No need to heed the authoritarian bullies. They're packing heat not light.
It is the economy, stupid.
I take it back...you need as much help as you can get!
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
take what back
huh?
Did you compliment me and I missed it?
It is the economy, stupid.
non-responsive
as usual.
It is the economy, stupid.
I don't know about sexist
But the idea that we should vote for someone because they are like us is a very bad idea. We've covered this in some detail in previous open threads, so it isn't some new issue on my part.
Republicans have finally embraced identity politics. I'll be waiting for a minor party that doesn't choose candidates based on likability .
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Take a moment to reflect on what this means ...
Do you really mean to assert that we should instead for the people who are NOT like us, i.e. our opponents? You can't really mean that.
For example, the terrorists are absolutely nothing "like us". Does your position imply that we should be voting for them? Oh wait, if you vote for Obama you kind of are voting for is terrorist pals.
Perhaps it is wrapped up in what you mean when you say "like us". To me this means we share values and perspectives on life. Not necessarily lockstep, but close enough that we can reasonably agree on some of the big issues. What does it mean to you?
So, to make my example above more specific, I don't believe that women should have to wear burqas in public. Are you saying that my voting for someone else who also believes the same thing is a bad idea?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
You know what I mean
But I'll explain for posterity's sake.
Black people shouldn't vote for Obama because he's part-black. Housewives shouldn't vote for McCain/Palin because she's "housewifey". Young people shouldn't vote for Obama because he's younger than McCain. I can go on for as long as you like.
Votes should be cast based on policy, not because a candidate is "like me". A candidate sharing one's values is a good reason to vote for that candidate, certainly, but that wasn't the gist of the quote. The idea that Mr. Keith put out was that the people in "Real America" will vote for McCain/Palin because of who Palin is rather than what she would do in office.
Case in point. Ralph Nader and I have absolutely nothing in common. I've actually met the man. He's not someone who I'd want to come over for dinner. I have no idea what we'd talk about outside of our mutual distrust of the two-party system. I voted for him anyway (the ballot is sealed and about a foot away actually) because we agree on most of the issues.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Well come on now...
Republicans are embracing identity politics?
HA!
That's all Obama is - the continually policy morphing leader of a personality cult!
And blacks are the guiltiest of all, when Clinton gets no % of the black vote in Mississippi in the primary, that became obvious!
Think that might be...racism?
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
Republicans have never had a serious black candidate for prez
There are no black Republicans in Congress.
Think that might be racism?
By the way, Hillary got approximately 10% of the black vote in Mississippi-- not a lot, but not "no %", at least not like the percantage of Republicans in high national office who are black, which really is "no %".
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
True, but wrong.
The reason there are fewer blacks in the R party than the D party is because the D's have spent 40 years and billions of taxpayers money
buyingconning blacks into thinking they were trying to "help" them by enslaving them in a world of dependence and treating them as inferiors.Yo, Housing projects, Food stamps, and free cable TV dog!
But there are many up and coming bright young black R's who have seen through the BIG LIE, and you will be seeing them soon!
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
Meh
So I suppose there are some of these up and coming black Republicans running for House and Senate seats in the upcoming elections? Are there any?
Look: I am no fan of the racial politics of the Democratic Party, I don't like the pandering, I don't like the policies in a lot of cases, and I especially don't like the policy outcomes, especially in this housing mess. I don't like the race-baiting that I saw in the primaries and I spoke up about it on more than one occasion. I think that the Congressional Black Caucus has a couple of good legislators but quite a few demagogues who couldn't legislate their way out of a wet paper bag, and I think that many black Democrats have let their constituents down. So I'm nobody's apologist for failed race-based policies or failed Democratic politicians. But all that being said, your comment is a silly carricature of Democrats that doesn't reflect the fact that many Democrats have at least tried to constructively address racial inequality which, after all, is STILL a problem in this country.
And besides that, Barack Obama is one of most constructive politicians I've ever heard on racial issues. His response to the Rev. Wright situation was simply brilliant I thought in that it showed that Obama was not going to merely pander to blacks to shore up his "base" of black voters to win the primary. So I see better days ahead... white red-bars interested in an end to racial divisions in America ought to get on board!
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
And in that lies his advantage...
LOL! Absurd.
He used Wright and that church for his political and professional gain, and he stayed in that vile environment for 20 years, he sat and listened to Wright spew forth the most foul anti-Semitic, anti-American, hateful, fear mongering, race baiting declamatory for decades.
Until that is when it became PUBLIC what was happening, then, and only then, he dumped him. But not before he lied about it first. Just as he has dumped anyone or anything that poses a questionable attribution to him or his character. When those times come along, and with him they do regularly, he denies, then lies, then dumps it as if it was never an issue.
And well intentioned people, like yourself, who are ostensively bright enough...fall for it.
And there in lies his advantage.
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
I'll be impressed with Obama
I'll be impressed with Obama on "racial issues" when he says we should stop institutionalized racial discrimination -- commonly known as "affirmative action" -- and, if anything, replace it with something not based on race.
And he should emphasize to poor African-Americans that the relative lack of upward mobility among poor African-Americans is not primarily (if at all) due to racism as many of them seem to think, but to the many other adverse factors (criminal behavior, bad schools, "thug" culture, out-of-wedlock births, etc.)
Then talk to me about Obama being some super-constructive politician on "racial issues". Until then, I see a guy saying what maximizes his chances of getting elected.
I'd be impressed with McCain
if he had followed his heart and picked Joe Lieberman as his VP.
I would much rather discuss the pros and cons of bombing Iran, which gives us at least a sense of ourselves as a united nation fighting over what is right or wrong the world.
Instead the hard right tries to decide which rhetorical rope to bring out of mothballs as the newly re-invigorated Christian hard right promotes it's hopeful pro-life message of a gun for every child, turning American's against each other.
It is the economy, stupid.
lol, MissL. We were
lol, MissL. We were discussing a particular topic. No reason to spew a stream of completely irrelevant partisan talking points.
I am going to trademark 'MissL'
It may be irrelevant to you, but it is not irrelevant to me. I don't want these crazy people running the country!
People that wrap themselves in god and the flag, (Sarah Palin and her anti-government cohorts) claim that we are fighting a war for freedom but are too selfish to pay taxes to support the troops. As far as I am concerned that is an automatic disqualifier to lead this country, no matter how many months you were a mayor of an itty bitty city.
It is the economy, stupid.
hooh, why did I bother
hooh, why did I bother trying to guide you on relevancy. And no, relevancy to a topic being discussed is not the same as importance or relevancy to some much broader matter, such as for whom to vote.
I agree
Tucker Carlson (the most agreeable conservative I know of) made the case that Obama would win in a landslide if he proposed to replace race-based affirmative action with class-based affirmative action. The plan would still hit most poor black folks, but it'd also help out the poor whites and would go a long way toward healing the rift between working-class whites and their colored brethren.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
yup, and in addition to
yup, and in addition to removing a major source of inter-racial tension, that move would also be the right thing to do in it's own right. A poor or working class white or Asian kid shouldn't be discriminated against based on his race in order to provide favorable treatment to an upper middle class black or Latino kid. There was arguably a time for that in this country (as in India with the Untouchables, although I assume all or almost all of them were poor as well), but it is not justifiable today.
You're asking for the guy to recklessly risk the election
I don't disagree that affirmtive action needs to be phased out, but Obama almost has to tread lightly on this territory during the election. If the election turns to racial issues, that's not good for him I don't think. Once he's in office, I hope that affirmative action gets addressed at some point. The way he took on the Wright issue gives me hope that he will make wise decisions on the issue. Maybe I will send him a letter with my idea of phasing out all programs targeted at minority racial groups and instead accelerating the closing of the wealth and privilege gap over time with a higher estate tax.
Well, I think you have to add in the fact that the legacy of racism and slavery is the primary cause for the wealth and privilege gap between whites and blacks in America, even today. I agree that active racism by present-day people is not a strong enough force (at least in most parts of the country) to prevent the possibility of upward mobility of any single person of any race, but upward mobility itself is not all that common in our society amongst people regardless of race. Rich kids become rich adults, and poor kids become poor adults for the most part.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Obama and affirmative action
Obama did at least hint at his thinking on the issue in one of the primary debates, when he said something along the lines of his daughters don't deserve affirmative action treatment, but working-class students of all colors do.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
wrong and wrong
First, I'm not asking for Obama to do anything. You are the one who characterized him as exceptionally, impressively constructive on race issues. I'm saying that I don't see a reason to give him such credit, and I laid out what I consider obvious standards for his possibly earning that credit in the future, things he hasn't done yet.
Second, as for upward mobility, there's a reason I referred to relative lack of upward mobility among African-Americans. It is my understanding that poor blacks are significantly less upwardly mobile than poor Asians and poor whites (although I'm open to correction if anyone has data to the contrary). So your argument is moot.
Also, as a note, Latinos generally aren't descendents from American slaves, so those who always point to slavery should tell me if affirmative action should no longer apply to Latinos.
You are mostly arguing against arguments I have not made
You're asking for things that are not possible in American politics. Mondale was boldly honest on taxes and he lost 49 states because of it. Obama has given strong hints about what kind of policies he will favor on racial issues. Remember that progress in politics happens gradually in baby steps, and for him to say that he favors wiping all affirmative action policies off the books tomorrow would be a total non-starter. Gradual progress over time is fine.
I never said that blacks have done as well as other groups in terms upward mobility, but the rejectionist attitudes in many black communities is backlash from past government-sanctioned racism, of which many blacks who are still alive were victims. Despite this, what you say would be one more reason why I would phase out afffirmative action-- it hasn't done what it was supposed to do WRT fixing disparities between blacks and whites.
Again, I favor phasing out affirmative action, so I'm the wrong person to be addressing this to. There are many problems and incosistencies inherent in affirmative action.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Those first two points of
Those first two points of mine that you quoted did indeed address arguments you made (and the third wasn't referring to you), but I don't want to go meta on this.
And if your point is (1) that Obama has given a clear indication that he will -- in the future, as president -- seek and achieve the elimination of race-based affirmative action, and that he'll tell African-Americans that racism is not a major reason they don't have much upward mobility and that it isn't the reason they have less upward mobility than other ethnic groups starting at equal economic status, and (2) that because he's made it so clear that he will do those things, along with stuff he's actually said so far (which is indistinguishable from smart campaign rhetoric as far as I can tell), earns him credit as exceptionally "constructive" on "racial issues", again, I strongly disagree.
Jeebus if nothing else
Obama is an excellent example. Give the guy some credit for that at least.
It is the economy, stupid.
Example of what?
He's an example that anyone who really wants to can go to college in America can?
I'll give him that.
He's an example that if you turn your back on everything you really believe in... just to win - you're not really a winner?
I'll give him that.
He's an excellent example of if if you just lie when faced with the facts of who you are and what you've chosen to be over the course of your lifetime, gullable people will buy it?
I'll give him that.
He's an excellent example that made it perfectly clear that racism is alive and well now days in America, in the black community.
I'll give him that.
He's an excellent example that it pays to be a ruthless calculating Chicago politician.
I'll give him that.
You're right, he is an excellent example.
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
hissss.......
Did you hear that he is going to raise your taxes 500%. A box of ammo is gonna cost $500. Lock and load now before it's too late.
I also heard he was gonna appoint Bill Ayers to the Supreme Court.
It is the economy, stupid.
Rough comment.
I'd ask you to consider this, though: once we've actually had a black president, then we can question the gravitation black voters have towards a black candidate.
Our history is problematic, and even though we'd all like to move forward, we can't really do that with cultural amnesia. For over 200 years, most of our political world has been dominated by a very strong and very nepotistic network of white politicians. Now that a black candidate has the chance to win, people are saying, "Wait, we should all be color blind!"
Yes, we should. But I certainly can't hold it against black voters for not being, this time around. They have every right to want to see that network shattered by installing a black president.
Once that ceiling is broken, then other black candidates will have the ability to run without that kind of scrutiny. And I promise that you'll see less homogenuous support for black presidential candidates in the future if Obama wins this year. That's how this type of identity politics works.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce