RoR: Forum

Michael, you continue to amaze me. I looked to make sure we weren't in the 'Banter' section. You are an anarchist who voted for the REALLY big government candidate. You are a supporter of Free-enterprise and voted for the biggest supporter of regulation. Clearly, some part of your mind periodically insists on finding a whole new way to be radically inconsistent and then come here to share that with us.

Post 21

Thursday, November 6, 2008 - 3:37am

I live to serve.
(nah, just kidding...)

The vote did not count, Steve. The election for President was a foregone conclusion. Sen. Obama was a lock as soon as Sen. Clinton dropped out. That was the only real contest.

The overwhelming rejection of the GOP, in the wake of the war in Iraq and the downturn in the economy, was painfully evident.

I gave close and serious attention to all of the contested local races. I read the biographies of the candidates and decided who would be best for each post.

As I said in another topic, Ann Arbor is a one-party community. Most slots were uncontested. I voted Republican or Libertarian where I could, and Green once. I also voted for Jerry Clayton, a Democrat for sheriff, to whose campaign I twice sent checks. His Republican opponent had neither experience nor education in law enforcement and Clayton has both, 20 years as a deputy and a master's in criminology. In every case, I picked the best candidate for the job -- including for President.

Post 22

Friday, November 7, 2008 - 1:26pm

Michael,

urQSen. Obama was a lock as soon as Sen. Clinton dropped out. That was the only real contest... The overwhelming rejection of the GOP, in the wake of the war in Iraq and the downturn in the economy, was painfully evident.
Actually, after looking at the final tallies, I'm not so sure it was that big a win. In a number of states, just a little tweaking would have made a difference. The bottom line, I think, is that McCain really did have a chance. The failure is all in how they ran his campaign.

It is a moot point now, but probably worth remembering in three years.

1. Define the issues. If you can't define the issues, then at least define yourself clearly on the issues before your opponent does it for you. McCain should have owned the Economy issue. Separated the mortgage mess from the Federal deficit in peoples minds (Bush=deficit, McCain=S.190 & efforts to prevent mortgage crisis, Obama=Democrat=Fannie kisser).

2. Don't rest on your laurels while the competing party is having a knock-down, drag-out. You need to look professional, but you don't have to be completely polite. Agree with each of them about the other's faults.

3. Don't be faked out. Before you hamper you own ability to raise money, make sure that you can't be blindsided by a fundraising juggernaut.

4. Don't be fooled by a pretty face. Your running mate is going to have to complement and consolidate your ticket in a substantial and meaningful way. Where you have a weakness, they should have a strength, whether it be their constituency (except evangelists), or their technical savvy on an important concern.

Yeah, he couldda been a contenda

Oh, what the heck...!

jt
(Edited by Jay Abbott on 11/07, 1:39pm)

Post 23

Friday, November 7, 2008 - 1:56pm

"Obama=Democrat=Fannie kisser"!

Post 24

Friday, November 7, 2008 - 2:52pm

Well said, Jay!

Friday, November 7, 2008 - 3:43pm

JA: "Before you hamper you own ability to raise money ..."

McCain-Feingold bought McCain just what he deserved. They sought to limit campaign spending so that people with money would not have an unfair advantage. You see what happened. Sen. Obama chose to decline federal money. And I ask: should the government be funding election campaigns? Is that not a conflict of interest?

Money is speech. But the leftwing of the GOP denied that.

Adam Smith on privately issued banknote.

Karl Marx on DM100 of the communist DDR
(from Ron's Currency pages of the International Banknote Society.)

Money is speech, but McCain did not believe that. He believed that money -- his wife's inheritance, for example -- is evil. Sen. Barack Obama had more respect for money -- if only the awe of a muscle-mystic --, so money went to him and fled from Sen. John McCain.

Post 26

Friday, November 7, 2008 - 4:33pm

"4. Don't be fooled by a pretty face. Your running mate is going to have to complement and consolidate your ticket in a substantial and meaningful way. Where you have a weakness, they should have a strength, whether it be their constituency (except evangelists), or their technical savvy on an important concern."[Emphasis added.]

This parenthetic remark is facile and its implication fallacious. There is absolutely nothing wrong with courting the evangelist vote. A little-ell libertarian can do that quite easily, even if he is an atheist. The purpose of having people vote for you is to get elected, not to prove something about your social circle or your own morality. So long as you can remain true to your principles, (which you need to do as a person, not a candidate) you should court everyone's vote, no matter who they are. You do not court votes by lying or betraying your principles. You do not need to court the vote of people who happen to be racists by appealing to racism. And you may be wise to explicitly and vocally repudiate the votes of racists if that wins you more votes with others.

But you need not publish a list of people whose votes you don't want.

Not being voted for by evangelists or any other class of voter is no proof of personal morality. If it were, then the candidate who garners no votes would be assumed bodily into paradise.

Post 27

Saturday, November 8, 2008 - 9:35am

Ted,

I thoroughly agree with your comments, but frankly the evangelistic vote doesn't come without braided titanium strings. I only oppose accepting - or not accepting, but still adopting - their false positions on many issues. The road to serious doo-doo.

jt
(Edited by Jay Abbott on 11/08, 10:38am)

Post 28

Saturday, November 8, 2008 - 10:52am

Ted,

Got to comment on your graphic for post 26. A familiar christian image, but seems, to me at least, to be saying "Nyah, nyah! We're good; you were bad. We were right. We're being saved, and you are all so obviously ....ed!" The crashing and burning is reflected with equal importance to the 'ascending' in this image.

I suspect for many, the thought that others will be punished is at least (or more) pleasurable than the thought that they might themselves be rewarded. So much for good will...

jt
(Edited by Jay Abbott on 11/08, 10:53am)

Post 29

Monday, November 17, 2008 - 1:50pm

After reading the posts it shocks me that those who have registered for this site are not close to living a life of reason and rationality.

Obama is a vote for the policies of a greater socialist government, we all know that, but some of you seem to think voting for McCain is better...is it? In my opinion and my apparently better judgment, it is a vote of the same horrible magnitute, for the same reason. He is staunch in his fight against spreading the wealth around but he is still a member of the compassionate conservatives. He has no voice for business but cutting their taxes. Other than that he would have raped America, he would have been the modern day Robin Hood, the true villain in that so called story, as Obama is now.

Those that abstain or vote for Obama because it is inevitable are part of the problem in this two party tyranny, this lack of freedom of choice, this monopoly on politics. Those that abstain think they are boycotting, protesting the election and the two party system. But in this action, you are indicating your failure to respect your own life. You don't vote, you don't think, you don't act, you don't live. It is a contradiction to abstain in order to protest. A protest unseen, unanalyzed until the Republicans and the Democrats go at it again in four years when they try to sway those that didn't want to leave their home for the inevitable.

I went into that voting booth, and though you may say my vote was thrown away, I kept my integrity. 'Like Reagan said,"It's just one battle in a long war. Don't give up your ideas. Don't compromise...Don't get cynical", I voted for the person I thought represented the policies I wanted my life to be "ruled" by. I voted for my rights and life (the two are not separate), not for some altruistic, "self-less" act of abstaining

Post 30

Monday, November 17, 2008 - 2:07pm

Joshua:

Well, that's certainly one way of looking at it! :-)

Regards,
--
Mr. Death

Post 31

Monday, November 17, 2008 - 5:55pm