Letters to the Editor
weeping for brunnhilde
Published Letters: 1150 Editor's Choice: 3
-
@ luminesce
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Weeping: it's common sense. Many Americans will see/feel those associates of his said/did extreme things, and will feel uncomfortable about voting for Barack when there are so many unknowns about him, and too many of the knows have extreme edges.
Ok, presuming this is true, that doesn't support the claim made by WinAll which was that WinAll questioned his judgment, not that WinAll worries that other people will feel uncomfortable about his associates. These are two separate claims, right?
That was why many voters in Pa said they couldn't vote for him.
Because of "unknowns?" Ok, but that has zero to do with Obama's judgment.
He has to prove himself more nationally before people will feel comfortable with him.
Which has what to do with judgment?
Whether you think it's valid or not - isn't the point. It's the reality for many Americans.
I'm just trying to make sure that whatever arguments are being adduced are plausible.
If you have an argument about how Obama's associates provide valuable insight into his judgment such that we should be concerned about what kind of judgment Obama would exercise in the Oval Office, please make it.
As I say, I'm all ears.
Otherwise, if there's no argument to be made, why cling to this "associates" issue as if there's any merit to it?
It's fine to go about speculating about electability, if that floats your boat, but to say, "I'm worried about his judgment because of his associates" with absolutely zero basis for "worrying" is just demonstrates weak critical thinking skills.
I'm willing to entertain valid arguments, but they have to actually be arguments, not empty polemic.
Is that so unfair?
-
@ luminesce
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A more general response to you is more philosophical.
I simply don't believe in choosing a candidate based on whether he or she is acceptable to other voters.
I understand about democracy and compromise and all that, believe me. I really do.
But I believe lines must be drawn somewhere. At some point, one has to not be afraid to lose.
I think the general orientation you seem to exemplify, namely, of being afraid of how right-wing attacks will influence a certain segment of the electorate is madness.
Imo, that's exactly the ethos that enabled the mad bipartisan rush to war.
The politicians themselves were afraid of being tarred as commie pinko hippie freaks so they fell in line rather than fighting.
It's rank cowardice, imo, and it's not an impulse I believe should be indulged.
That's where I'm coming from.
-
@ luminesce
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"It does say a lot about a certain lack of judgement that he thought he would be able to run for President against Republicans with such little experience and with these ties, especially - the things Reverend Wright was saying."
No, it doesn't.
Until you can actually build an argument, this is just a lot of superstitious nonsense.
Aren't liberals supposed to believe in reasoned discourse, empiricism and knowledge over superstition and prejudice?
You can assert all day long that Obama's judgment is in question but until you can actually make an argument, your credibility (at least with me) is pretty low.
But this is a serious issue to me, because I really believe that liberalism means something. One of the things it means is that it's not ok to take the easy way out, appealing to "common sense" by way of supporting the status quo.
Liberalism is about scepticism, about challenging conventional wisdom, testing it, always trying to do better based on something like rational discourse.
I understand not everyone is interested in rational discourse, but it's a principle I believe is worth fighting for.
Don't you?
-
@ luminesce
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Fine, fair enough. You should vote as your conscience dictates.
"And for me thinking objectively about reality is far from cowardice - it's wisdom."
But my point is that "thinking objectively about reality" can often be complacency in disguise, not wisdom at all.
The Democrats who refused to stand up against the war were cowards precisely because they were "thinking objectively about reality."
Americans love war, or at least their voting habits suggest they do.
The objective reality was that Democrats would have been punished at election time for treachery and softness, etc. had they dared oppose the administration.
So they tagged along because the "objective reality" dictated they do so.
And now we have a horrific war without end.
I fail to see the wisdom to this sort of obsequiousness to "objective reality."
Am I missing something?