Presidential Politicin' Challenge '08

[dalonzo9]

After last night's debate, am I wrong in still believing that Barack Obama is the clear choice for President, being the better of two weevils?

Back in 2000, a hopeful, young, wide-eyed, 18 year old Domenic Alonzo I cast his vote in the 2000 Primaries for one Senator John McCain. The recipient of his vote seemed the absolute choice candidate at

Comments

[ericcheung]

I too voted for McCain in the 2000 primary and have been consistently disappointed in him since that vote. If the man I thought I voted for in 2000 ran this year I would still vote for Obama but the choice would be a little harder. He's got Stockholm Syndrome with the GOP. He's got this bizarre loyalty to that party, I'm guessing, because he doesn't have faith in the viability of a multi-party system. That's too bad because that's exactly what we need. What you've written on McCain is almost exactly how I feel about the man (except that I suspect I have less respect for him now than you do given his completely bizarre campaign

[dalonzo9]

Yes, his loyalty is quite bizarre. Sometimes it seems evident in his face how reluctant he is getting behind his own Party. I think you're right; he hasn't belief in a multi-party system which, you're also right, we need. If he had accepted that Independent nomination... he would've seen!

The prescription you mentioned is, indeed, a major reason to vote for Obama. As I said, he recognizes that there are those without access to education. Senator Obama, at least, KNOWS they exist! If the debate illuminated anything else about McCain it's that he really knows NOT that they exist.

[holtzapplepie]

the Electoral College by re-partitioning the votes so that more votes go to states with greater density of higher education institutions...However, I simply must give less political legitimacy to decisions made by people still basing [their decisions] on faith rather than something, at the very least, a little more tangible.I think the problem with this is the underlying assumption that people going to college are intelligent. There are many many stupid people who are going or have gone to college ( like G.W.B.), and there are many smart people who have never gone to college, even some that haven't finished high school. Basically, you would want people (who most likely come from poorer backgrounds that went to substandard public schools that fail to educate properly) to have to depend on the generosity of the more privileged (LMAO....hahahaha) to keep their interests in mind while voting. At the very least this would be anti-democratic and at the worse could further widen the gap between the educated and ignorant, the haves and have-

[dalonzo9]

"I think the problem with this is the underlying assumption that people going to college are intelligent. There are many many stupid people who are going or have gone to college ( like G.W.B.), and there are many smart people who have never gone to college, even some that haven't finished high school."

Very true.

As much as I like democracy, I am wary of "pure" democracy. I agree entirely with the Federalists' model of the "democratic republic," where it starts at an almost entirely democratic level but ends up being a system of overall representation. The founders were correct in trying to disperse invasive factions to avoid this country being haphazardly led by its "whims and passions."

Just imagine how a pure democracy US would be considering its public's priorities....

[larivee22]

I've been to both inner city public and posh suburban private (Catholic) schools, and I admit gotten a more thorough education in Catholic school, but the curricula (sans religion classes / birth control stuff in each of the resepctive institutions, of course) was basically the same in the two school systems.

The only difference between the two was that Catholic school has a hell of a lot more control over whether or not it wants to keep classes small and disruptive (sometimes violent) kids out of the mainstream school environment. Ironically, the public schools had better physical resources (modern buildings, real sports facilities, properly heated classrooms, a real caff), too. It's amazing what a little extra attention and a quiet and non disruptive environment can produce. Put me off organized religion, but that's a small price to pay. ;-)

[dalonzo9]

"It's amazing what a little extra attention and a quiet and non disruptive environment can produce."

Totally possible with an expansive, urban vision. Too bad education is one of the last priorities of our government, these days. Have you seen the spending bill the Senate just sent to Bush for the next budget year? Despite it being more progressive and actually recognizing Gulf Coast victims and things like new, renewable energies, the military got a whopping 60% of the 634 billion dollar expense. I can't seem to recall education being anywhere on the list....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26915459

[ericcheung]

I may post this as my own blog, but speaking of debates check out this article on Palin's mock debate and mock press-conference:

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/26/t-minus-six-days/

It's delicious in its implications.

Kobyashi Maru.

[dalonzo9]

Hah! I am not surprised at all. I find it doubly amusing that Palin was the "less deranged" choice next to Lieberman. Despite Bush's overt, Christian insistencies, he was at least less zealous about them in his absentee domestic policy in favour of his extreme, US interventionist foreign policy. After Bush, the Republicans are really fledgling.

The thing about the Kobayashi Maru is that it always ends in disaster! So, I guess the Republicans are trying to groom their nominees for a graceful failure. Good for them!

[theturbochrist]

I concur entirely good sir. I tried to watch the debate, but then my girlfriend fell violently ill. I rode the guilt trip this morning pretty hard.

[dalonzo9]

I am glad to see concurrence, my good man.

Send my best to your goilfwiend!

[larivee22]

She also disservices her own sex by being obstinately anti-choice.

And because she allows the McCain campaign to claim that she needs to be treated with deference, and charging rape victims for the rape kits / tests used in their cases, and dragging out the old "hockey mom" trope in a sad attempt to reignite the "mommy wars", and by having a really, really annoying voice and wearing overly femme power suits to demonstrate that she's really just a gal.

[dalonzo9]

"charging rape victims for the rape kits / tests used in their cases"

Oh, wow, I cannot believe I forgot that point! When I read that, I was in total disbelief. I really wish I could have found the initial article I read (online), which outlined pretty much all of the really scary parts of her track record.

Then there is also the case of, for the sake of her backwards beliefs, forcing her own 17-year-old daughter to come to term with a pregnancy and remain with that boyfriend of hers....

Yeah, Palin totally steamrolls over several years of progress.

[frugee]

Whoah....I am not a Palin fan or foe, but her daughter may just want to carry the child.

[dalonzo9]

That is true... she may and she honestly can. She's not from a less-than-wealthy family, so as a 17-year-old mommy, she can rest assured that her child will be taken care of. However, I have two concerns:

1) How much of the decision was based on Palin's politics and the threat of liability?

2) Though it isn't best to judge... judging by the boyfriend, and the state of Alaska itself (I lived there for about 3.5 years), I highly doubt she was informed or educated quite enough about the hardships of teen pregnancy or her options. After all, Palin's abstinence-only stance led to the lack of contraception that led to the pregnancy....