Letters to the Editor
-
Really?
The problem with Hillary-bots is that they continue to find TINY flaws in Obama and his group while ignoring MAJOR ETHICAL VIOLATIONS in Hillary and her little group.
"In addition, Mr. Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon. A spokeswoman for Exelon said Mr. Axelrod’s company had helped an Exelon subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, with communications strategy periodically since 2002, but had no involvement in the leak controversy or other nuclear issues."
I'm SHOCKED!! SHOCKED!!
Of course, I was MUCH MORE SHOCKED when I found out that Mark Penn's group is representing Blackwater.
We have Hillary's campaign director representing a mass murderer, and you are concerned about a 3rd rate minor connection.
Clean your own house. Hillary's campaign is dirty, and her supporters fight dirty.
-
Please Forgive Me for Trying to Inject Logic into Politics
I completely understand the political logic. Hot button issue + complicated nuanced facts = votes from those who are dogmatic and stupid (yes, that's redundant) or simply seeking a good rationalization for supporting Hillary so they don't have to confront the question of whether they support her solely because of gender.
But, I utterly fail to understand the actual logic of the people who profess to believe NOW's nonsense. Work with me here.
If he had voted "no" on the bills in question, rather than "present," would he have taken heat or suffered any political price for for it at the time? The answer to that question would be NO. He held an extremely safe seat in a liberal district. A "yes" vote would have been the wrong answer for him politically, not a "no" vote. Indeed, "No" would have been better for him politically than "present" in his district.
But maybe, you say, he did it because, even then, he had his eye on a bigger prize and wanted political cover with larger electorates. Okay, fine. Where's your evidence of that? The answer is, you don't have any. Zero, zip, nada. He has not at any time in his entire political career tried to use these "present" votes as political cover or in any way peddled himself as soft on this issue to try to garner conservative votes. Not once. If he ever had, don't you think NOW would be putting that into its last minute flyers and robo-calls? And, indeed, doesn't the fact that this is now the second time they've saved this nontroversey up for last minute robo-calls and mailers tell you something?
The truth is that he has, at all times, been explicitly, unapologetically, unwaveringly and uncompromisingly pro-choice. The suggestion he was laying up some store of mushy ambiguity to hide behind in some as yet unrun future race is just dumb in light of how he ran before these votes and how he continued to run thereafter. So upon what possible basis can you make this accusation? Sorry, projection doesn't count as a basis.
Finally, is he catching heat for this vote now that he would not have caught had he just voted "No." Looks like. Was that foreseeable? Yup. Did he do it anyway, knowing he could catch heat for it from, say, NOW, later on? Yeppers. Why did he do that? Because he wanted to stop the damned bills. Doing that meant being willing to exchange heat from the right directed at colleagues from conservative districts for possible heat from the left on himself. Boy, what a coward.
So lets sum up. He wanted to stop the bill. He was willing to pay a possible political price to do it. And you people are saying that's evidence of some character defect, some level of moral cowardice or calculation that is just so unacceptable to you, that you're supporting Hillary? Are you kidding me?
-
During the dedication of the Clinton Library
Bill Clinton went up to Karl Rove and said, "Man, I REALLY admire you! You are just the master!! Nobody but nobody does political infighting better than you. We need to sit down and talk politics."
Clearly they did, and clearly Bill picked up some pointers.
Since when did Karl Rove-style NOW-boating become acceptable? Seems to me that it became OK when She Who Must Be Obeyed became threatened.
-
Lack of political intelligence
is pretty pervasive.
"If he had voted "no" on the bills in question, rather than "present," would he have taken heat or suffered any political price for for it at the time? The answer to that question would be NO. He held an extremely safe seat in a liberal district. A "yes" vote would have been the wrong answer for him politically, not a "no" vote. Indeed, "No" would have been better for him politically than "present" in his district."
It wasn't his vote, you dummy. It was moderate Republicans. they couldn't vote against the leadership. They could vote "present"
God save us from clueless NC people who do NOT understant Illinois. As a grad from UNC who lives in Illinois, I see the problem. IL is more complex.
-
Tiny flaws add up?
@dataguyx
How about these tiny flaws? Opposed Feingold's censure of Bush over wiretaps; rejected Murtha's call for redeployment; had once said Bush doing good job on Iraq; ignored Jena, Mississippi; no early response, then feeble one on mortgage crisis; neglect of European Subcommittee; would meet with Cuba, Iran, North Korea without conditions; 'present' vote on women's issues; 'oops, I pressed the wrong button' on questioned votes; many missed votes; FISA voting record weaker than HRC's; repeatedly voted for Patriot Act; supported anti-union candidates; relationship with homophobes McClurken and Rev. Caldwell; advocate of Social Security privatization; cut money for children's welfare; health insurance program does not include adults; support for Bush's feeble energy plan; words about Reagan!! **(1); besmirched the 90's **(2); besmirched the 60's **(3); 'Unite Here' appeal; reach across the aisle **(4); a few possibilities I won't mention.
**(1) Reagan: dishonesty, drugs for guns, lied to congress, death squads, deficit, recession, shift of tax burden, union buster, enemy of environment, trickle down/supply side economy, B1, Star Wars, ignored AIDS, invasion of Granada, f***ed the poor, no credible action on apartheid.
**(2) The 90's: peace, prosperity, extension of rights (espec. women's), anti-hate crime, birth of health care as an issue, family and medical leave, empathy for the poorest of us (thanks Bill & Hill) -- all the while fighting the neocons & my state dough ball Newt Gingrich.
**(3) The 60's: popular revolution (anti-war, pro-people), civil rights advances (thanks to Dr. King & many others, and thanks to Johnson for the arm twisting and legislation).
**(4) The reach across will be a reach around: Hasn't anyone been paying attention? It will be a one way reach. Think RWR, GHWB, GWB -- Newt thru Rove.
Now, here is a problem I have with some Obama supporters. With regard to the 'present' vote, which is far enough below the radar that I was able to paraphrase it in a discussion with a half-dozen of my friends (all ultra-progressives and of mixed age and sex). They were outraged -- arms flailing, comments full of invectives and unsubstantiated claims. I sat back and listened. When I corrected my paraphrase with "Oops, I should have said Barack and Illinois, not Hillary and New York," they changed their tune to STFU.