posted November 05, 2008 11:03 AM            

It's all speculation for now.

And while we're speculating, I predict that obama will govern from the center, not as a Marxist as the right is fearing.

posted November 05, 2008 11:33 AM            

TINK,

posted November 05, 2008 11:40 AM            

as a have-not, how much of the wealth being redistributed will I get

tink, you`re not willingly to share with me, when I get too sick and tired of working and not want to anymore and want a hand out instead ???

Isn`t that selfish

juni

------------------
~
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted November 05, 2008 11:57 AM            

IMHO Selfishness is a virtue. Obama is a marxist who does not believe in virtues of selfishness. And his drone male minion who resides with us believed the same at some point of time in during our discussions

>>>Mannu, why dont you take all of your knowledge and education and put it to good use. It is time that the people take a stand, regardless of the leader. Why don't you get out there and make a difference?

posted November 05, 2008 12:37 PM              

Emotion does seem to be the call of the day. I do admit that worries me.

Of course I can't speak for Jwhop if he wanders in , but I won't eat you alive for the marxist comment. I respect your honesty. Many people seem to hope America will head in a socialist direction, but few seem willing to admit that. The "s" word is almost as taboo as the "c" word. Also, I'm guessing a good many Americans aren't aware that what they're after is, in fact, socialism. Someone on another thread (Ra) said something like "if that's where we want to go, well, let's go and get it over with".

I don't mean, in my last post, to belittle the desire for change. I can't think anyone is happy with the status quo. What I'm running into are voters looking for change, but unable to articulate why they believe Obama, other than being a democrat, can deliver that change. And exactly what sort of change? From republican to democrat, surely, but what else? Something more than just a label?
I notice that descriptions of Obama often remind me of things said during Clinton's first race. We were looking for change from the "old guard" then too - someone fresh and young and visionary. All the things you said about Obama, zala ... I said all the same things in 1992. I was "electrified" by his convention speech and I had hope for the future. The "man from hope", remember? I learned a lot from him.

After Carter, how could we not vote for Reagan? After Bush Sr, how could we not vote for Clinton? After Bush Jr, how could we not vote for Obama, right? I'm wondering now what sort of president Obama will inevitably lead us too. One president seems to set us up for the next. I think that alone should give us pause.

posted November 05, 2008 01:14 PM            

Not him, nor his campaign people or his cabinet but US.

posted November 05, 2008 01:16 PM            

quote:

---

After Carter, how could we not vote for Reagan? After Bush Sr, how could we not vote for Clinton? After Bush Jr, how could we not vote for Obama, right? I'm wondering now what sort of president Obama will inevitably lead us too. One president seems to set us up for the next. I think that alone should give us pause.

---

Yes.

I am of the mind a President is only as good as his advisors so I am awaiting his appointments to see the complete picture.

Ozone, wonderful to see you!!

juni

------------------
~
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted November 05, 2008 02:10 PM            

Don't be surprised when businesses lays off people earning 30k or less.

It is happening as we speak.

Before a Doctor's office could afford 5 workers but now with a marxist plan 4 or perhaps 3.

posted November 05, 2008 02:12 PM            

Well, you seem to be on to one of the things I'd highlight. (Though I'd make a tiny little caveat in that the 2000 election was a squeaker, and therefore not as much of a balancing election as far as the population goes.)

My vote was primarily one of balance, and as such would have likely gone to any Democrat running. When I predicted an Obama win it was on the grounds of a bad economy coupled with an unpopular incumbent. Turns out it was the right assessment. I don't personally take his election as a mandate for more Socialistic policies even though his ideas are clearly far closer to that than McCain's are. It's interesting to see the pundits throwing around these questions of whether this is going to mean more government, or whether this will actually force Obama into the middle. It's worthy of bearing in mind that Democratic gains in Congress from Conservative areas, which means that they are very likely Centrist, and won't necessarily back any radical plans. It's also worthy of bearing in mind that a radical course of action would, in all likelihood, result in the loss of the Congress to Conservatives in two years. As such, I'd be super duper surprised if a radical idea was handed to Congress for a vote, came back approved, and there was no political backlash against the action. Only then would I agree that the nation is actively seeking Socialism.

It's notable, to me, that the closest Obama came to claiming a mandate was acknowledging that people want to and should work together once again. There is a chance that he actually understands that his victory is merely one of balance, and not one endorsing big government ideology.

Besides balance, what are the reasons?

As I told Mannu, I don't think McCain is necessarily bad. There are still a few reasons for a vote against this candidate, however:

1. Age, especially considering
2. His choice of Palin as VP
3. As well as his seeming anxiousness to play tough guy on the world stage

Pros for Obama:

1. Expectation. I've already explained this a few times. To condense, I see him as being under considerable pressure to do right not only as the antithesis to Bush, but also as the first non-white President in our history. The consequences of screwing up are an even bigger deal than usual this time around.

2. Some dissolving of the current Republican power structure. Because some Republican administrators won't be going right back to work under a new Presidential administration, there won't be any continuity or complacency in doing things "the way we've always done things." In this way, there is assurance (or even a guarantee) of different personalities than the ones that came before them.

3. Cabinet/Advisors. Both candidates impressed on me that they'd listen to their advisors. I think I'm more impressed by those volunteering to advise Obama, than by those doing so for McCain. It would be an absolute trip if the richest man in the world receives a position. (I secretly hoped Obama would tap a businessman instead of a politician as his VP.)

4. Supreme Court. I'm pretty certain you're on board with me on at least this point. There is a need for continued balance in the highest court.

posted November 05, 2008 02:44 PM              

Kamillia - Very pleased to meet you and welcome to the wonderful world of GU.
three quick points ...
1) At the end of the day, I care considerably more about my country than I do my bank account.
2) I'm an old fashioned Jeffersonian type that holds dear a few crazy notions. Namely, self-independance, self-reliance, hard work and the desire for a smaller government that stays the hell out of my life. Socialism is the antithesis of these concepts.
3) Presently our government is holding my head under water with one hand and offering me a lift out with the other. I don't trust individuals or organizations that play that game. I don't appreciate being set up and I make it a point not to make deals with the devil.

posted November 05, 2008 03:52 PM              

Anyway, he's the least ugliest of the lot.
That's all I have to say really.

posted November 05, 2008 04:02 PM            

Do you really think that the voting machines could have been hacked?

posted November 05, 2008 09:06 PM            

Thanks!

posted November 05, 2008 10:56 PM            

Tink?! It's about time we flush those old fashioned "values" like hard work and self-reliance down the drain. Maybe I have it easier than you, being a Mutable Sag, but I've already adapted. See, I had this crazy notion about getting a job and going back to school and otherwise working hard to do for our family and our future. Now? Hell, I'm getting pregnant and signing up for Welfare. After all, no liberal's going to jump down my throat because if I qualify, then I'm entitled. Seriously, you should think about it. So much CHANGE to go around, we really need to be a part of it and help bring it around more! Seems to be an open invite party to all except those unfortunately successful people but who gives a rat's arse about them, anyway?!

posted November 06, 2008 12:59 PM              

And everything you've said sounds perfectly reasonable. It really does. When I consider it, it sounds quite a bit like what zala said, although clothed with that calm reason you are so well known for. But you're in the minority there, AG. There's a whole lot of mindless hysteria right now. Mindless hysteria is a powerful tool when directed by skilled hands.

I think possibly I'm less inclined to take political figures at face value than you are? Cynical biitch that I am, I consider them all con-men, to varying degrees, so when they point towards the right I instinctivly look to the left. Because of this, reasons 1,2 and 3 just don't pass muster with me.

Let me clarify my socialist comments.
America was not founded as a socialist nation. That's not bias, it's an historical fact. It saddens me deeply to see Americans so eager to head in that dubious direction. Don't get me wrong, I don't blame them. The lower and middle classes are backed into a corner - and purposefully so. We're in a weakened position. Do I think Obama will tranform the US into Maoist China come next spring? No, not at all. It's what we're asking for that frightens me. It's that we've been brought to our knees.

So ..... Rahm Emanuel. First choice for Chief of staff. What can I say? I won't bore you with a rundown of the man's resume. I'm sure you're aware. Change? yeah, ok. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

posted November 06, 2008 02:28 PM            

quote:

---

There's a whole lot of mindless hysteria right now. Mindless hysteria is a powerful tool when directed by skilled hands.

---

I agree with you, but that statement just makes me think about Bush and Rove. Bush, to me, was always the completely mindless choice. I mean, who would have ever imagined we'd elect a President who couldn't talk?

But if we think about cause and effect, the Obama win seems strangely appropriate. Bush was the hope for Conservative restoration, and had an emotional appeal for those who liked him. Now Democrats have mirrored that move with their own guy who also has an emotional appeal.

Somewhat in contradiction to this cause and effect notion, I do believe that any Democrat should have been able to win this race; it didn't have to be Obama.

quote:

---

So ..... Rahm Emanuel. First choice for Chief of staff.

---

Rahm was a surprise, and had to be [Bill] Clinton's idea. It doesn't seem like Obama and his personality would mesh. Fortunately, he hasn't accepted the job yet, so there is still hope there. Also fortunately, he's purportedly a centrist Democrat.

quote:

---

It saddens me deeply to see Americans so eager to head in that dubious direction.

---

posted November 06, 2008 03:57 PM              

AG, Lord knows there was pigheadedness and denial over Bush and his gang, but never hysteria. Men weren't known to weep and woman faint during a Bush speech.
And Bush was never as dumb as he wanted you to think.

But if we think about cause and effect, the Obama win seems strangely appropriate. Bush was the hope for Conservative restoration, and had an emotional appeal for those who liked him. Now Democrats have mirrored that move with their own guy who also has an emotional appeal.

Exactly my point! This wildly swinging pendulum can't be the answer. The farther it swings to the right, the farther it will swing to the left. And so on and so on ..... Not my idea of balance.

Rahm was a surprise, and had to be [Bill] Clinton's idea. It doesn't seem like Obama and his personality would mesh. Fortunately, he hasn't accepted the job yet, so there is still hope there. Also fortunately, he's purportedly a centrist Democrat.

Yeah, it doesn't seem like. Maybe Obama isn't what he seems to be. Actions speak louder than words. This particular act sure says a lot about the man.
Not sure about the Clinton idea. Maybe. But what does Obama owe Hillary or Bill? Btw he accepted the job this afternoon.

I would still be ASTOUNDED if the U.S. took a major Socialistic turn. Senate gains came from Red states, which means these Democrats have typically Republican constituents. I'm not sure that they'll be quick to tow the party line. Only time will tell what will happen, but I'd be surprised even by attempts at radicalism.

posted November 06, 2008 04:24 PM            

I heard rumors that Obama may include him in his team. Gosh! that ugly face of him I can't stand him.

Germany seems to me to be a successful center right nation from the beginning, just as America is and ever was. So Hitler could be called a fascist.

Russia is a center left nation and therefore we call Stalin a socialist dictator.

If Obama starts white cleansing within America or attacking other nations, he will be called fascist dictator and not a socialist one because of what I just said. If he ceases banks (remember Freddie Mae and Mac) he will be called a "Liberal Fascist". It was confusing to me too, but now its very clear after studying US history over the last 160 years. I responded to Jwhop on one of the books that he posted here, was it Goldberg's?

America has over relied on one persons vision to lead the nation. We have seen that one person is not so well rounded to be good in foreign policies, treasury and budgeting, economics, communications, war tactics and strategies etc etc... It is in a way dictatorial with the good for nothing Congress consisting of leaders like Pelosi, Reid etc doing nothing to check the president. Even the cabinet appointees are not people choices. Some of them are appointed by the president. Same with the supreme court.

posted November 06, 2008 06:33 PM            

Ok, I'll give you the point on Bush not inspiring man tears to our knowledge. It would be hard to deny that there was an emotional component, though...at least in my mind. Republicans are far more emotional than they believe themselves to be.

quote:

---

Exactly my point! This wildly swinging pendulum can't be the answer. The farther it swings to the right, the farther it will swing to the left. And so on and so on ..... Not my idea of balance.

---

Point taken there as well.
Do you think that during the primaries people were getting on board with Obama, because they believed Socialism would come to the U.S. under him? Was that his message that was drawing people in? Similarly, after Obama got the nomination did he continue building momentum as a result of people in America really wanting Socialism? I'm sure there's a whole range of leftist attitudes on the Left, but I sincerely doubt that Obama got his majority of the vote based on the promise of Socialism. I don't see him as having that mandate.

quote:

---

But what does Obama owe Hillary or Bill?

---

Nothing, and I don't think he tapped the guy as a favor to Clinton. I think he chose the guy based on an endorsement from Clinton. There's a good likelihood I'm talking out my ass, though, because I'm only theorizing this.

quote:

---

But, for the poor souls held in the grip of these tyrants, was there really much of a difference?
I'm not expecting pure fascism or pure socialism. I'm looking forward to the best of both worlds.

---

Here's the question: Do you believe tyranny is bearable by the people of the United States. I really don't, so I don't know why speculation turns to that.

posted November 07, 2008 03:18 PM              

quote:

---

I like this conversation.

---

I'm not certain what to make of that. But far be it for me to cave with fear, so I'll take another swing ...

quote:

---

Ok, I'll give you the point on Bush not inspiring man tears to our knowledge. It would be hard to deny that there was an emotional component, though...at least in my mind.

---

There's always emotion involved, but we haven't deified anyone like this since JFK and we did that only after he was killed. This is different. When CNN (what does jwhop call it? Communist News Network?) runs a segment comparing Obama's followers to "cultists", something's up. I understand many far-right religious fundementalists believed Bush was doing the work of God (they thought the same of Reagan), but I never heard the term "Messiah" being bandied about in reference to GWB.

quote:

---

Republicans are far more emotional than they believe themselves to be

---

Oh yeah. They attach themselves to politicians and ideologies just the same as the most liberal of democrats. Once that bond is formed, some degree of unreasonable emotion is inevitable.

quote:

---

Do you think that during the primaries people were getting on board with Obama, because they believed Socialism would come to the U.S. under him? Was that his message that was drawing people in? Similarly, after Obama got the nomination did he continue building momentum as a result of people in America really wanting Socialism? I'm sure there's a whole range of leftist attitudes on the Left, but I sincerely doubt that Obama got his majority of the vote based on the promise of Socialism. I don't see him as having that mandate.

---

Those are such important questions, AG. So *deep breath* let's see ....

Did the voters get on board because they hoped he would bring socialism to the US?Hmmmm, first let me say that I shudder to think the low percentage of the US citizans able to offer us even a most basic definition of socialism. Furthermore, I'm willing to bet that, of those who are able, most would hesitate to admit they wanted it, even to themselves. Like I've said, socialism is still very much a naughty word. Consequently, would Obama stand up and say, "Gosh, let's try socialism. Whaddya say?". Of course not. He's not an idiot. But do the people want bigger government and do they want that government to step in and save them? Apparently so.

What was the message that drew the people in?
Well, that was my original question, wasn't it? What is so appealing about this man? The reasons seems to be overwhelmingly emotional. Is that ok with you? Should we choose our Presidents because they make us feel good? Should we vote for a man because he's black and gee, isn't it about time we had a black president? Is the thought that we need a democrat simply because we've had 8 years of repubs adequate? A little emotion is natural, but this man's got us hypnotized. (and I'm exgagerating only slightly here. Obama clearly uses tried and true hypnotic gestures)
What else? Mandates? You mean those campaign promises and political marketing schemes designed to offer us all exactly what anyone in their right mind would want given the last 8 years. You mean "change"? Well, AG, if the selection of Rahm hasn't clued us all in to the lack of real "change" on Obama's itinerary, frankly, Americans are even more easily duped than I thought.

quote:

---

Nothing, and I don't think he tapped the guy as a favor to Clinton. I think he chose the guy based on an endorsement from Clinton. There's a good likelihood I'm talking out my ass, though, because I'm only theorizing this.

---

hmmmm. Rahm is from Illinois. Rahm and Obama are personal friends. From what I've read, Clinton didn't like him. Something doesn't compute here. When you have the time, do a little digging into Mr Emanuel's history. None of the conspiracy stuff - he's gay, he's a pedophile blah blah. Just his offical Washington record. I think you'll find that he's remarkably un-Obama like. At least the Obama we were sold.

quote:

---

Here's the question: Do you believe tyranny is bearable by the people of the United States. I really don't, so I don't know why speculation turns to that.

---

Of course! My goodness, AG, that's what I've been trying to say. Who amongst us is immune? Look, being as I've already made the obligatory Hitler reference, let's remember Germany for a moment. For centuries, pre WWII Germans were the philosophers and mystics of Europe. They were educated, they were culturally refined, they were a thoughtful, civilised, beautiful people. A beautiful people manipulated to the point where they accepted with open arms what was arguably the worst tyrant our world has yet endured. Given the proper circumstances, we'd do no better. Actually, we might very well do worse.