If you can’t see through the lies, then let me help you.
Obama’s campaign tightens control of image and access
The campaign on Monday barred cameras from a large gathering of African-American civic leaders Obama attended. It recently refused to provide names of religious figures with whom Obama met in Chicago and directed some of them to avoid reporters by using a special exit. And on Wednesday, the campaign orchestrated Michelle Obama’s appearance on the friendly set of “The View” and a flattering spread in the pages of Us Weekly.
Hmmm. A private meeting with black leaders and us typical white people shouldn’t be concerned? Imagine if McCain held a private meeting only for whites. Outrage, eh? Why not for Obama? And sneaking them out to avoid reporters? If this doesn’t smell fishy to you then get your nose checked out! And what’s wrong with Michelle? Can’t handle people on the right? Afraid? Aren’t you supposed to be helping your hubby ‘bring people together’? How do you do that by only visiting with lefty folks?
Yet while McCain’s aides have had their share of skirmishes with the press, they still enjoy a reputation for giving reporters traveling with him an unusual amount of access.
I guess he doesn’t have anything to hide.
Strategists for Obama, the country’s first black nominee, have made it clear that they believe they need to take extra steps to control his image and protect against attack. But such efforts at times appear to conflict with the candidate’s stated desire to be unusually transparent and open, and they have already occasionally put him at loggerheads with news organizations pushing for greater access to him now that he is the presumptive nominee.
Chicken.
In spirited discussions with reporters barred from Monday’s meeting with African-American civic leaders, aides said that no cameras were allowed because the participants wanted the meeting to be private, even though it was announced on the daily hotel roster of events. Later, other aides said the lighting was not properly set up for television quality.
Lighting. Riiiiight. Hasn’t the left made a huge ruckus over Bushco and their ’secret meetings’? But it’s all good and dandy if it’s a Democrat, right? The hypocrisy is so blaring you need to put shades on.
When Obama met with religious leaders last week, his campaign kept out photographers and reporters and refused to share a full list of participants.
What’s he hiding? What kinds of promises is he making them? What kind of dirty deals are going down? Don’t know, do ya? So much for a new style of politics and shedding those evil ways from those old Washington types. You’re being hoodwinked. Can you not see it?
Professor Douglas Kmiec, a conservative constitutional scholar at Pepperdine Law School, said Obama told him and others in attendance that he was keeping the meeting private so everyone could speak without fear of public judgment.
Or too afraid of another YouTube moment? No need for whitey to catch on to your private plans. Just smile and they’ll follow you to the voting booths! What dolts!!!
McCain has is faults, but they can’t be as bad as Obama’s!
June 20, 2008 at 6:26 pm |
Hypocrisy cuts both ways, matey. Have we forgotten the Bush campaigns? This administration has been more secretive, selective, dishonest and deceitful than any in US history, so I’m afraid the right’s credibility is somewhat stretched on this issue.
And it’s not that McCain doesn’t have anything to hide – it’s just that he ain’t news. How many lobbyists has he thrown under the Straight Talk Express? He ain’t news, honey, because all he is promising is business as usual, and whatever the US public may or may not want, they definitely don’t want that.
But please, don’t tell me that you think Obama is a radical black muslim just waiting for his chance to enslave the white man and exact his revenge? I thought you were the sensible one…
Cheers
Elroy
June 21, 2008 at 12:18 pm |
“Hypocrisy cuts both ways, matey.”
Yes! I’m glad you realize it. Bush may have been secretive, but he didn’t run his campaign based on transparency like Obama has. No matter how bad Bush or the right has been, does it excuse Obama’s actions? Now that Obama’s being secretive. Shouldn’t that concern you?
“But please, don’t tell me that you think Obama is a radical black muslim just waiting for his chance to enslave the white man and exact his revenge? I thought you were the sensible one…”
I am sensible! But when Obama starts meeting groups secretly and after seeing his associations, it raises questions! Shouldn’t it? I’m not going to make exaggerated assumptions about Obama, but I will make what I feel are reasonable or fair assumptions. No more, no less, than any other candidate. McCain has a much greater record that he can stand on. What does Obama have? Name one successful piece of legislation that Obama has had. What’s his greatest accomplishment?
Try to answer and not just turn the tables and say ‘What about McCain…?’ Progress can not be made just by pointing fingers. Most lefties that I run across don’t seem to want to answer a question. It’s almost like they’re afraid. It’s much better to point and distract. As you may have noticed, I do try to answer questions, unless they get to stupid and inane.
June 22, 2008 at 5:05 pm |
I think you are being unnecessarily paranoid. If Obama is being anything less than transparent then I suggest that this is because he is being hounded and pounded by FOX et al on the hunt for the next Jerimiah Wright. It is a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Every politician meets groups secretly. Why should Obama be any different? Especially since Obama is who he is, a black man running for POTUS. And just because Bush didn’t ‘run his campaign based on transparency’, does that give him carte blanche to be a sneaky as he likes? Have you really any idea of how managed his ‘campaigns’ were? About the ‘Town hall’ meetings that were purportedly open to everyone but were, in reality, savagely vetted?
I understand that Obama has declared he will ‘run his campaign based on transparency’, but compared to what? The behavior of the Bush administration has so warped the definitions of politics that, by, Bush’s standards, Obama is transparent, so to what standard are you holding him? Bush so raised (or lowered, depending on your viewpoint) the bar, moved the goalposts and lowered (or upped) the ante that the old standards no longer apply. It is a brave new world – be careful what you wish for.
Your ‘reasonable or fair assumptions’ about Obama based on ‘seeing his associations’ is to indulge in the fallacy of guilt by association, nothing more. Either find something concrete or more on. The conservative meme that Obama has ‘no record’ is, I would posit, neither here nor there.
The current president had no record of anything much apart from bankruptcy, boondoggling and nepotism, yet there he is. (His governership of Texas, by the way, means nothing – it is largely a ceremonial post, with the real power being help further down the food chain. It is, however, a top-notch opportunity to drink deep from the public trough).
So no record is certainly no impediment to the presidency, and I might argue that it could be viewed as a strength – Obama has less baggage than Mccain, less favours owed; being less versed in and weighed down by Washington beltwayism has got to be a plus for a country that has had enough of business as usual. They WANT something different, and sometimes a new view is needed – whatever is going on now is clearly not working – plus Obama is not as big a hostage to big business as McCain or Bushco, and this is all to the good.
I understand that turning the tables and saying ‘What about McCain?’ ‘What about Bush?’ and pointing fingers is not, in itself, an argument, but you must understand that there are also consequences to be paid for the behavior and precedents set by your favoured representatives – the Bush Republicans have not operated in a vacuum – nd the last eight years have changed the game. The US is operating in a new paradigm designed by the GOP. Get used to it.
Cheers
Elroy
June 22, 2008 at 9:19 pm |
“…I suggest that this is because he is being hounded and pounded by FOX et al ”
The media is supposed to look at the pros/cons of a candidate. But if the left adores someone, then we should all stop doing our job and sing Kumbaya, right?
“…but compared to what?”
Be as transparent as possible. No secret meetings. Nothing hidden. Nobody blocked from the press. Easy!
“…is to indulge in the fallacy of guilt by association, nothing more.”
Really? Wow! All those articles I’ve read from the left talking about whom is associated with Bush being bad therefore making Bush bad was all wrong to do? I’m sure you won’t have to search far to find a laundry list of people that Bush associates with that the left feels is a ‘bad’ person. Guilt by association is only proper to do if you’re on the left then, right? I don’t recall you condemning their behavior. I’d like to see that!
“…it is largely a ceremonial post”
Bullshit! Being a Governor has more responsibility than being a Senator.
“Obama has less baggage than Mccain,”
Maybe. But the longer you’re in Washington, the more you can accumulate.
“there are also consequences to be paid for the behavior and precedents set by your favoured representatives”
Only you believe they are my favoured rep’s. Did I vote for Bush the second time? Yes. Was it because I liked him soooooo much? No. It was because I didn’t like his opponent far more. I’m sure you’re familiar with the ‘lesser of two evils’ concept?
June 23, 2008 at 2:44 am |
‘The media is supposed to look at the pros/cons of a candidate. But if the left adores someone, then we should all stop doing our job and sing Kumbaya, right?’
‘Terrorist fist jab’ is not looking at the pros/cons of a candidate. It is blatant scaremongering and smearing. What it isn’t is Fair & Balanced™ reportage,
‘Be as transparent as possible. No secret meetings. Nothing hidden. Nobody blocked from the press. Easy!’
Maybe Obama is being ‘as transparent as possible, that is as transparent as it ispossble for Obama to be, under the cricumstances. But again, I ask you – compared to what? What or who is the standard by which you judge him?
‘Really? Wow! All those articles I’ve read from the left talking about whom is associated with Bush being bad therefore making Bush bad was all wrong to do?’
It all depends on who they are, I guess.
‘I’m sure you won’t have to search far to find a laundry list of people that Bush associates with that the left feels is a ‘bad’ person.’
Then I look forward to seeing it.
‘Guilt by association is only proper to do if you’re on the left then, right?’
I see that the bad behaviour of the left is legitimizing your bad behaviour. I thought you called that ‘hypocrisy’. Would’t that make you a hypocrite?
This is becoming a barrier to debate. If the left use the tactics of the right, the calls ‘Foul!’ on the basis that the left complained when the right did it because they are underhand and nasty, and if the right use the tactics of the left the right say ‘Tough!’ because the left did it first, no matter how much the right complained at the time.
The thing is, your boy Rove and his motley crew re-wrote the dirty tricks book that he was given by Lee Atwater into something truly wretched, and that is now the standard operating manual for all political operatives. Be careful what you wish for. If Obama chooses to fight a clean fight then good luck to him, but he’d be a mug to considering the shitstorm he about to encounter.
‘I don’t recall you condemning their behavior.’
Maybe you weren’t looking.
‘I’d like to see that!’
All in good time.
‘Bullshit! Being a Governor has more responsibility than being a Senator.’
Not in Texas.
‘Maybe. But the longer you’re in Washington, the more you can accumulate.’
Exactly! Bingo! Are you catching on? Or getting confused?
‘Only you believe they are my favoured rep’s’
Well no, I should think anyone that reads your blog would reach a similar conclusion.
‘Did I vote for Bush the second time?’
I don’t know. Did you?
‘Yes’
Well, they’re your favoured reps then. Own it! You pulled the lever/pressed the button/pushed the chad! Nobody made you do it!
‘Was it because I liked him soooooo much? No’
Oh. Why, then?
‘It was because I didn’t like his opponent far more.’
Do you really think you should be voting for people you don’t like, and that this is what the founding fathers had in mind?
I’m sure you’re familiar with the ‘lesser of two evils’ concept?
John Kerry was ‘evil’? Why? I mean, GWB, sure, but Kerry? Why the animosity?
Cheers
Elroy
June 23, 2008 at 4:53 pm |
“‘Terrorist fist jab’ ”
Forget the concept, just look at one (or a few) examples, eh? This is that distracting that really doesn’t help.
“that is as transparent as it ispossble for Obama to be,”
Nobody forced him to have closed door meetings so it is possible.
“What or who is the standard by which you judge him?”
If he says he is ‘transparent’ and acts in a manner that is not- closed door meetings- then transparency has been lost. Easy. Do you call closed private meetings ‘transparent’?
“Then I look forward to seeing it.”
Oh give me a break! Just mention anybody in the administration or whom Bushco is friendly with! Cheney, Rove, Abramoff, Rice, his pet goldfish….
“I see that the bad behaviour of the left is legitimizing your bad behaviour. I thought you called that ‘hypocrisy’. Would’t that make you a hypocrite?”
Nope. I complain because the left does it and there is no problem. When the right does it back, then they complain that it ain’t fair. That is what I call hypocrisy. Check this quote out: “You shall judge a man by his foes as well as by his friends.” Joseph Conrad Check out Wiki if you don’t know him. I’m sure you’ll agree on his wisdom.
“Not in Texas.”
How would an Aussie know this? And why would the second largest state have no responsibility? It makes no sense. I think your politics or emotions trump your logic.
“Exactly! Bingo! Are you catching on?”
Haven’t you been paying attention? I have complained about the dinosaurs and corruption in politics. Some can spend many years in it and still do a good job, others will only enrich themselves. Kick the bad ones out and keep the good ones!
“Well, they’re your favoured reps then. ”
Nope. You cannot say the lesser of two evils is ‘favoured’. Not in the sense that I like them. Only in the sense that they are better than another option. If you can’t understand that then there isn’t much hope for you. The way you state ‘favoured’ makes it sound like I’m happy about it.
“Do you really think you should be voting for people you don’t like, and that this is what the founding fathers had in mind?”
No, we should vote for who we like but what are we supposed to do when there is no one you like? The only choice is voting for the better of the two. I doubt that is what they had in mind, but they didn’t have airplanes and automobiles in mind either but we have them too.
“John Kerry was ‘evil’? Why? I mean, GWB, sure, but Kerry? Why the animosity?”
The list is toooo long. I might get around to posting it but since it’s water under the bridge… what good would it do?
June 23, 2008 at 11:07 pm |
” Forget the concept, just look at one (or a few) examples, eh?’ This is that distracting that really doesn’t help. “
I don’t have all day. The Terror fist jab’ crack is indicative of the kind of ‘scrutiny’ that Obama is getting and is going to get. What has this to do with policy? This is just ‘Obama is a black radical muslim’ nonsense and it will continue. It is not scrutiny. It is racist abuse.
‘” Nobody forced him to have closed door meetings so it is possible’
Everybody has closed door meetings. What don’t you understand about this? It’s all relative, and he owes you nothing. It does not mean that he is being opaque. It means that there are some things, for reasons neither of us understand, that he feels it is better to keep private.
’If he says he is ‘transparent’ and acts in a manner that is not- closed door meetings- then transparency has been lost. Easy. Do you call closed private meetings ‘transparent’? “
Again, by what standard? By Bush’s standards Obama is clear glass..
” Oh give me a break! Just mention anybody in the administration or whom Bushco is friendly with! Cheney, Rove, Abramoff, Rice, his pet goldfish….
These people are Bush’s close political allies. Rezko, Wright and Ayers are not going to be in Obama’s cabinet, and none are active politically active in the sense that Abrahoff was. R, W & A are peripheral to Obama – C, R, A and R are not peripheral to Bush. Vive la difference!
‘Nope. I complain because the left does it and there is no problem. When the right does it back, then they complain that it ain’t fair. That is what I call hypocrisy.’
There you go. To me, the situation is completely reversed. The left are called out on stuff all the time – it’s the right that get the free pass. The vast majority of ethical, moral and legal scandals are by Republicans, but you only ever hear about a few.
But what is ‘it’? If we are going to start to say ‘They did it first!’ then we really should be specific about what ‘it’ is, what acts, specifically, we are talking about. Over to you, champ..
‘Check this quote out: “You shall judge a man by his foes as well as by his friends.” Joseph Conrad Check out Wiki if you don’t know him. I’m sure you’ll agree on his wisdom.’
Hmm. What exactly do you mean by this?
” How would an Aussie know this? And why would the second largest state have no responsibility?’
We call it ‘reading’. I saw someone say this somewhere and I was intrigued. Was it true? So I fossicked around and found a variety of sources that said the same thing.! And I didn’t say NO responsibility, I merely said that the Governor of Texas has less power than in other states.
http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=187648
‘Haven’t you been paying attention? I have complained about the dinosaurs and corruption in politics. Some can spend many years in it and still do a good job, others will only enrich themselves.’
Exactly. Therefore, Obama = good, McCain = bad. But maybe that’s complicating the issue.
‘ Nope. You cannot say the lesser of two evils is ‘favoured’. Not in the sense that I like them. Only in the sense that they are better than another option. If you can’t understand that then there isn’t much hope for you. The way you state ‘favoured’ makes it sound like I’m happy about it. ’
You favoured them with your vote. You must therefore take some responsibility for your action. You can’t vote for someone and then wash your hands of the consequences. Unless you are a conservative.
‘ No, we should vote for who we like but what are we supposed to do when there is no one you like? The only choice is voting for the better of the two.’
You could vote for a third party, or fourth, or fifth, or whatever, as more voting for alternative candidates might break the two-party deadlock; staying home might encourage better candidates next time, or you could actively work towards any of the above, but what you can’t do is say you bear no responsibility for the policies of a man you knowingly and voluntarily voted for.
If he misled you in anyway, if you feel he lied about anything, fine, say so, and work towards undoing the damage your vote however inadvertent, did.
‘I doubt that is what they had in mind, but they didn’t have airplanes and automobiles in mind either but we have them too’
Then I can only assume that you are not a strict constructionist . The FFs didn’t see semi-automatics or assault rifles or machine guns or the plethora of arms now available either, yet the 2nd Amendment appears to be stuck in the 18th c.
I also recall reading that Jefferson or one of them wrote that he would be surprised in the Constitution would still be going in its original form 200 years later. He fully intended it to be flexible and interpreted as the times demanded.
‘ The list is toooo long. I might get around to posting it but since it’s water under the bridge…’
Ok, name three things. Your top three ‘I hate John Kerry because…’
‘… what good would it do?’
Because history, my friend, is what we learn from. And because I like to argue. And because I am interested in why you had to reject him. Are your reasons valid? I mean, it might be because of all that swiftboating propaganda, or the flip-flopping canard, or the ‘He looks French!’ smokescreen, and that would never do!
Cheers
Elroy
June 24, 2008 at 10:12 pm |
“It is not scrutiny. It is racist abuse.”
In that example, yes. But what about the others? Ignoring all the other potentially valid points because you find one that was wrong to do doesn’t help much. Micro and macro views are both needed.
“Everybody has closed door meetings. What don’t you understand about this? ”
He’s not transparent. He says he would be. A lie. I understand completely.
“Again, by what standard?”
I’ve already told you my standard. Anything hidden or done behind closed doors is not transparent. A standard is a standard. I’m not comparing candidates because Obama is not. When Obama says he will be transparent, then there is no comparison. Now, if he said he will be MORE transparent than so-and-so, then you have a point.
“Rezko, Wright and Ayers are not going to be in Obama’s cabinet”
Can you guarantee that or prove it? NOPE!
“he vast majority of ethical, moral and legal scandals are by Republicans, but you only ever hear about a few. ”
I disagree. Our very liberal paper up here did a study and 64% of the crooks were Dems.
“What exactly do you mean by this?”
Like I said: I’m sure you’ll agree on his wisdom. (reread the quote)
“I merely said that the Governor of Texas has less power than in other states.”
Ok, ‘power’ being the key word. The power of each state is subjective and would depend on what the topic is. Alaska is pretty weak on influence, but our strategic location for the military is vital.
“Therefore, Obama = good, McCain = bad. ”
I disagree. McCain has crossed the aisle more times to work with Democrats than (guessing here) any Republican. Many consider him more of a Dem than a Rep. Is it his working with the opposite party what caused him to be bad?
“You favoured them with your vote. You must therefore take some responsibility for your action.”
Again, you misuse the term ‘favoured’. If I was captured as a POW and they gave me a choice between electrocution and waterboarding and I pick electrocution, it doesn’t mean I favour it. I don’t favour either. I favour Ice Cream with whipped cream but they didn’t give me that choice. Making the second worse choice is not favouring.
“You could vote for a third party”
I did that once. The guy got 20% of the popular vote. And not one single electorial vote. Can you say ‘you just wasted your vote’? Lets get realistic, ok?
“but what you can’t do is say you bear no responsibility for the policies of a man you knowingly and voluntarily voted for”
Show me where I’ve said that.
“If he misled you in anyway, if you feel he lied about anything, fine, say so, and work towards undoing the damage your vote however inadvertent, did.”
He’s a lame duck. Nothing will get done against him. Congress hasn’t been able to do anything. They have more power than I.
“yet the 2nd Amendment appears to be stuck in the 18th c.”
Aren’t most of them? We’ve made some changes, and undone at least one bad change. What’s your point? Changing for changes’ sake isn’t the best reason.
“Are your reasons valid?”
Ooooh, a can of worms has been opened. What is ‘valid’? That depends. If I say he’s too tall is that valid? I may distrust tall people. You may think it’s silly. Then ‘valid’, like ‘beauty’, is in the eye of the beholder. I can see it already. I post my reasons, you shoot them down because you believe differently. My ‘valid’ reasons are that- MINE! Not yours, not hers, or that guy over there- they’re MINE!
Typically, it’ll be because (get ready to be shocked and awed) the person has said or done something I don’t like. Not what is said about him.
I’ll give you one example. He spoke of bringing jobs back to the US. Too many jobs were being sent overseas. (and I am the protectionist one????) Did he really believe that? Did he really care? Can it be proved??? I can’t ‘prove it’, but when his wife’s company has a lot of overseas workers (can’t recall the %) and they don’t see a problem with that, then what do you call it? Hypocrisy! Yes ladies and gents, too many workers overseas, we need to bring them back! But don’t look at us as being part of the problem. Noooooo!
If he believed that, then they would’ve moved the workers back to this country, but (s)he didn’t! Go ahead and use the excuse, “It’s his wife’s company and not his.” But it doesn’t wash. She should have set the example and moved them back here. That would’ve shown sincerity. If you thought moving workers overseas was bad, then why do it? Put your money where your mouth is. Walk the walk or move along.
June 25, 2008 at 4:06 pm |
‘In that example, yes.’
Hooray! Lap of honour for Elroy! Thank you for being so magnanimous.
‘But what about the others?’
Which ones?
‘Ignoring all the other potentially valid points because you find one that was wrong to do doesn’t help much. Micro and macro views are both needed.’
I just picked a glaring example at random. There are others, just far more insidious. All that Jerimiah Wright caper for instance. Just watch Sean Hannity. He does it every day.
‘He’s not transparent. He says he would be. A lie. I understand completely.’
Within context he is. With the right-wing attack dogs salivating for another ‘terrorist fist jab’ moment I venture that he is being far more circumspect than he might otherwise be.
‘I’ve already told you my standard. Anything hidden or done behind closed doors is not transparent. A standard is a standard. I’m not comparing candidates because Obama is not. When Obama says he will be transparent, then there is no comparison. Now, if he said he will be MORE transparent than so-and-so, then you have a point.’
Obama did not say ‘I will be transparent according to the standards of a bloke in Alaska who I have never met and don’t know exists.
‘Can you guarantee that or prove it? NOPE!’
Can you prove they will be? Nope. However, I would be willing to stake my house on the negative. Any half-way sane reading would say ‘Not in a pink fit’.
‘I disagree. Our very liberal paper up here did a study and 64% of the crooks were Dems.’
Hmm. Got a link so I can see it myself?
Meanwhile, read these:
http://senate2008guru.blogspot.com/2007/08/republican-culture-of-corruption-2007.html
http://www.correntewire.com/refresh_your_memory_the_gop_has_always_been_the_party_of_perverts
Mere tips of the icebergs.
‘Ok, ‘power’ being the key word. The power of each state is subjective and would depend on what the topic is. Alaska is pretty weak on influence, but our strategic location for the military is vital.’
You misunderstand. I’m not talking about the power of a state within the union but the power of a governor within his/her state. Reread the article.
‘I disagree. McCain has crossed the aisle more times to work with Democrats than (guessing here) any Republican. Many consider him more of a Dem than a Rep. Is it his working with the opposite party what caused him to be bad?’
No, it’s his willingness to sell out his principles to get the Republican nod. He is a fraud. He either does not believe what he is saying, in which case he is a liar, or he does believe it in which case he is a, what do you call it? – a flip-flopper of previously unknown dimensions.
‘Again, you misuse the term ‘favoured’. If I was captured as a POW and they gave me a choice between electrocution and waterboarding and I pick electrocution, it doesn’t mean I favour it. I don’t favour either. I favour Ice Cream with whipped cream but they didn’t give me that choice. Making the second worse choice is not favouring.’
Yes it is. Even if the choices are limited, you are still favouring one over the other. When offered the choice between electrocution and waterboarding you will make that choice based on what will hurt the least, which torture you would prefer over another. The choices aren’t great but they are still choices and, as such, you will favour one or the other based on your experience.
Anyhoo, your analogy is flawed because it leaves out the third option of not being tortured at all. No one is making you vote – you can refuse. The choice between Obama and McCain is not absolute.
‘I did that once. The guy got 20% of the popular vote. And not one single electorial vote. Can you say ‘you just wasted your vote’? Lets get realistic, ok?’
You should be voting according to your convictions. It is, among other things, the fear of the ‘wasted vote’ that keeps third parties marginal. If everyone had the courage of their convictions then third parties would be far more viable. As it is, you let powerful vested interests dictate your choices. Home of the which? Land of the who?
‘Show me where I’ve said that.’
I didn’t say you have said it – I just said you can’t.
‘He’s a lame duck. Nothing will get done against him.’
Don’t be so sure.
‘Congress hasn’t been able to do anything.’
Yet.
‘They have more power than I.’
So? There are many grassroots organizations for you join to repair the mess made by the man you voted for. Be responsible for your actions. Take a stand.
‘Aren’t most of them? We’ve made some changes, and undone at least one bad change.’
No, not all, thanks to some wise decisions. Still good to know you are not one of those constructionist dinosaurs. But what was that one bad change that was undone?
What’s your point? Changing for changes’ sake isn’t the best reason.
No, but when circumstance change the courts must be able to respond.
‘Ooooh, a can of worms has been opened. What is ‘valid’? That depends. If I say he’s too tall is that valid? I may distrust tall people. You may think it’s silly. Then ‘valid’, like ‘beauty’, is in the eye of the beholder. I can see it already. I post my reasons, you shoot them down because you believe differently. My ‘valid’ reasons are that- MINE! Not yours, not hers, or that guy over there- they’re MINE!’
‘Yes, they are subjective, just like standards of transparency. So I’ll rephrase – are they valid to me? Do I consider them valid? I’ll give you one example. He spoke of bringing jobs back to the US. Too many jobs were being sent overseas. (and I am the protectionist one????’’)’
The USA is very protectionist in some ways, and not in others, but it gets very mad when countries act in a protectionist manner towards it. Is there anything wrong with protectionism?
Oooh! That’s a big one!
‘Did he really believe that? Did he really care?’
Probably.
‘Can it be proved??? I can’t ‘prove it’, but when his wife’s company has a lot of overseas workers (can’t recall the %) and they don’t see a problem with that, then what do you call it? Hypocrisy! Yes ladies and gents, too many workers overseas, we need to bring them back! But don’t look at us as being part of the problem. Noooooo!’
If he believed that, then they would’ve moved the workers back to this country, but (s)he didn’t! Go ahead and use the excuse, “It’s his wife’s company and not his.” But it doesn’t wash. She should have set the example and moved them back here. That would’ve shown sincerity. If you thought moving workers overseas was bad, then why do it? Put your money where your mouth is. Walk the walk or move along.’
As the Republicans managed to steal the 2004 election too I suppose we’ll never know one way or the other, but the funny thing is that you think that Heinz Foods is run by Kerry’s wife! Oh, what a simple, quaint, naive life you guys lead! You might want to have a chat with bliionaire Nelson Platz about Heinz corporate governance.
Actually, Heinz built the biggest pickle factory in the world in Pennsylvania in 1987, and they still maje their ketchup in Ohio. I dunno how much they make overseas They have a pant here somewhere) but if your notion is that companies only manufacture in the countries where they are domiciled then you really are a protectionist par excellence!
And an advocate of criminality, as it is against US law to act in way which would disadvantage shareholders and I’m sure that the shareholders would argue with the economics or baking every last bean in the US of A!
There. That reason for hating Kerry is, by any objective analysis, invalid. Anything else I can help you with?
Cheers
Elroy
June 25, 2008 at 4:25 pm |
PS Sorry, I forgot to mention that perhaps your ire for the plight of the unemployed manufacturing workers of the USA might be aimed at those who made it possible for corporations to relocate their operations in third world countries. And who might that be? Yes, that’s right…
Cheers
Elroy