Urban Conservative: 5 Reasons to Vote Against Obama
Urban Conservative has an intriguing commentary on reasons to vote against Obama. For you McCain supporters out there, how good is his list? What reasons would you add?
Obama supporters--Tell us why Urban Conservative's list is inaccurate or give us 5 reasons to vote against McCain. Turnabout is fair play and paybacks is a b***h.
One quick comment before I show you the link. If military service and membership in the Congress were a requirement for qualification for President, then 3/4s of the Congress would not be qualified. Had Romney, Huckabee or Guiliani gotten the nomination, then Obama's lack of service would be a moot point. I may write about this in more detail in the next day or two.
Here's the link.
http://www.urbanconservative.com/2008/05/27/five-reasons-not-to-vote-for-obama/
Obama supporters--Tell us why Urban Conservative's list is inaccurate or give us 5 reasons to vote against McCain. Turnabout is fair play and paybacks is a b***h.
One quick comment before I show you the link. If military service and membership in the Congress were a requirement for qualification for President, then 3/4s of the Congress would not be qualified. Had Romney, Huckabee or Guiliani gotten the nomination, then Obama's lack of service would be a moot point. I may write about this in more detail in the next day or two.
Here's the link.
http://www.urbanconservative.com/2008/05/27/five-reasons-not-to-vote-for-obama/
OH, where to begin on this one! Let's start with
Reason #5
Obama’s experience is lacking.
MY RESPONSE: (lifted from another blogger, did not note the author. Sorry.)
You have two choices for president:
The first one has one of the longest lines of political experience in history. He is exceedingly popular in congress. He was a soldier who volunteered to defend the United States in the Navy.
The second one has no real political experience outside of Illinois. He is tall and lanky with big ears. He even lost a few of his first attempts at gaining political office. He is an excellent speechwriter and orator. He is a good attorney and has a successful law practice.
So which one would you choose?
This is a trick question because both were already Presidents of the United States. The first one is the 15th President of the United States, James Buchannan. He is the President who mired us in the Civil War by declaring the action illegal but doing nothing when the south decided to seceed from the Union. He is largely considered by historians as being the worst President in American history.
He was followed by the other man who became the 16th President of the United States: Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln is credited with the end of slavery, the end of the Civil War, and unification of the nation. He became president at a dark time when our country was deeply divided over very polarizing issues. He had no experience in Washington prior to his Presidency. He is widely considered by historians as one of the best Presidents in American History.
Sound familiar?
*Time permiting, I will comment on the other "resons" as well.*
Reply to this
REASON # 3:
Obama is a skilled orator, a trait that has earned him a devout following in A PARTY LARGELY COMPRISED OF ATHIESTS.
My response: Where did she get the statistics for this outrageous claim? Acording to my quick search on the percentages of non-believers in this country, estimates seem to range anywhere from 3% to 14%. Even assuming ALL athiests ARE Democrats, how can she make the claim the Democratic party is "largely comprised" of athiests? [And even if it were true, so what?] This is clearly a diversionary and illegitimate tactic to smear Obama and the Democratic party, appealing to those [Christians?] who still hold contempt for the non-religious in our communities.
She wants to tarnish Obama for not being a member of the "right kind" of Christian church while also condemn him for attracting those who are members of no church.
Reply to this
Reason #2
Obama’s patriotism is questionable.
My response: And why do conservatives (or anyone) think they have the monopoly on defining "patriotism?"
I, too, can go out and buy a $1.00 made-in-China American flag and wear it around the clock. How exactly does this make me more patriotic than someone who doesn't?
Trying to smear Obama's wife as un-patriotic, too, in no way bolsters your case about Obama's level of patriotism.
Resorting to acts of hurling insults of "unpatriotic" (based soley on your mainly symbolic criteria: flag pins, holding your hand over your heart, having served in the military, etc.) shows just how desperate you are in coming up with "reasons" not to vote for Obama.
Reply to this
As a registered Republican, I don’t like these five reasons to vote against Obama. In fact, it crossed my mind that this might be a democrat imagining what a republican would think. It seems to me that these reasons describe personality rather than a position on issues.
Some seem silly to me. Reason 3 talks about Skilled Orator and a voting bloc of Atheists. I don’t get that connection as a reason.
I think the company he keeps is an issue only if it tells us something about his values and beliefs and how he will govern. For 20 years, he belonged to a church teaching Black Liberation Theology. If he really embraced that theology, that scares me. I don’t know whether he embraced it.
Lack of experience is a problem for me. Review what the Clintons, John Edwards, and other democrats said about him on that subject during the primary.
As a registered Republican, I offer my five objections to Obama in terms of my personal beliefs.
1. I believe Big Government is not effective in solving our problems and is mostly a waste of time and money. Problems like poverty and homelessness are best handled at a local level, by communities, non-profits, civic organizations like the Lions and Shriners, and by churches. To me, Obama’s campaign promises for things like universal health care miss the mark. They would be very expensive and inefficient, and would not really care for the ones who need it.
2. I believe Americans are strong, and generally can and should take care of themselves. I believe most people are not victims, but have control over their circumstances. Personally, I have changed jobs several times, and I have had to study and work to make myself qualified for another job. Americans become strong if they work for something. It seems to me that the Obama campaign promises play to a victim mentality, basically pandering for votes.
3. Hard work should be rewarded. No work, no eat (said my mother). I pay too much in taxes already. Don’t ask me to pay more. At my house, if income is less than our expenses, we have to increase income or lower expenses. Often, the choice is to give up something we want. I expect my government to make some wise decisions. Don’t make me pay for the inability of an inefficient government to make responsible choices. Sen Obama sounds like a classic tax-and-spender to me.
4. I believe traditional values are good for our society and our children and should be protected. That’s all I’ll say on that.
5. Strong national defense is vital. With his lack of experience, Sen Obama, as president, will have to try to surround himself with some wise experienced hands. He may be unlucky in his hiring, as his predecessor was, or he could luck out. But that’s a roll of the dice. And I believe his position on the future of the Middle East, and Iraq, is naïve.
Reply to this
Jim, thanks for providing some real issues to discuss.
In your view, Obama will ineffectively spend too much money on poverty, homelessness, health insurance, and welfare. You do not believe the government should have any role in addressing these issues. [Please let me know if I have misrepresented your key points here.]
You also claim that "our children should be protected." Protected from what exactly? (Poverty? Homelessness? Poor health?) Hiding behind "the children" is a tactic often used by people of all political persuasions to mask their true goals. Can you be a little more specific here?
Just asking.
Reply to this
Jim,
Is there a specific proposal of Obama's that caused you to write your reason #2?
Thanks for a thoughtful list.
Larry
Reply to this
Larry,
In my reason #2, my topic sentence was "I believe Americans are strong, and generally can and should take care of themselves. I believe most people are not victims, but have control over their circumstances."
The main issue I am thinking about is personal responsibility, or the lack of it. In my world, I tried to teach my children to make responsible choices and to correct their mistakes.
The current foreclosure situation is a prime example of my concerns.
In the past few years, lending standards were loosened for residential mortgages, and as a result, many people were able to purchase a home. As individual and economic circumstances changed, some homeowners were not and can not afford the mortgage payments, resulting in foreclosure. The question is who to blame.
Certainly, loan officers and loan companies became more aggressive in their lending practices, to generate business and earn commissions. Some of it was sleazy and borderline ethical. Some of it was illegal. So, we talk about predatory lending.
However, there is another side to the story. The people who bought those houses were adults, and they either had cash or they were able to qualify for a mortgage. Most of them had decent jobs and some financial knowledge. They had their choice of lending company and every aspect of the home purchase.
Some did a poor job in analyzing their needs and ability to pay. Some spent less time thinking about their home purchase than about their decisions buying a cell phone or a TV. This category of buyer was ripe for trouble with their house.
So, when some of these buyers lose their home, what's to blame, predatory lending or buyers overreaching? My answer is "It depends". Often, several factors are in play.
If I think of these homeowners as my children, I would try to teach them that while several things were in play, their best course would be to take responsibility for their choices. It should not be a blame game, but a way to learn about how life works and how thay can do something different next time.
If they are told, and accept, that someone or something else caused their problem, where is the learning for the future?
When politicians discuss the foreclosure situation only in terms of predatory lending, people will be less likely to accept responsibility for their choices, setting them up for future poor choices. That's victimization.
I have heard Bill Cosby talk about personal responsibility. I like that.
I have heard Sen Obama talk about predatory lending. I have not heard him talk about personal responsibility. In my book, that is promoting victimization, and it is pandering for votes.
Just my opinion.
Reply to this
Sorry, another hit and run comment, not directed at anyone in particular.
Some conservatives seem to want to present the current world as a near utopia in which issues of sexism, racism, classism, nepotism, cronyism and any other prejudice or "-ism", have largely been eliminated, ensuring that EVERYONE now has (an acceptable range of) equal opportunities without unfair social impediments. This, then, leaves the success or failure of any individual soley on that person's "choices".
Some of these conservatives, however, may also be the same ones to cherish "traditional values" (an idealized and skewed glorification of the past) in which these impediments were clearly around and even more strongly at play. Is there a contradiction here in the world view they would like to present and the one they secretly wish for?
Reply to this
Peter,
Frankly, I was hoping for a better give and take on the issues.
In response to a discussion of foreclosures, predatory lending, and victimization, you respond with an abstract discussion of what you think some conservatives believe. That's very dissatisfying to me.
In response to your final question, I will speak solely for myself and say that I am talking about my beliefs and there is no secret agenda.
Reply to this
Peter,
I have to respectfully disagree with your characterization of "traditional values" as an idealized and skewed glorification of the past.
On Father's Day, I stumbled across this opinion in my Sunday newspaper. This happens to be a Black male speaking to other men about the importance of taking responsibility in fathering. It definitely could be a non-Black speaking.
In the mode of Bill Cosby, he talks about men taking responsibility for their families, the influence of fathers on their children, and, yes, the importance to children of having a married father and mother.
Peter, you asked me to expand on my reason # 4 above. This is close to what I would have written about that.
http://www.creators.com/lifestylefeatures/annies-mailbox.html?columnsName=ama
Just my opinion.
Reply to this
This anonymous post is mine. I forgot to enter heading info.
Jim
Reply to this
RE: "I have heard Bill Cosby talk about personal responsibility. I like that...
I have not heard [Sen. Obama] talk about personal responsibility. In my book, that is promoting victimization, and it is pandering for votes."
SEE: Obama's Father's Day Speech Urges Black Fathers To Be More Engaged In Raising Their Children
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/15/obamas-fathers-day-speech_n_107220.html
Reply to this
Although I do not read the Huffington Post, I read about Sen. Obama's Father's Day speech. That was a side I hadn't heard from him before. Good for him.
I will listen to him to see if he continues to come down on the side of personal responsibility.
Reply to this
I realize the Huffington Post may be uncharted territory for you, but the only reason I gave this link was because if offered no editorials on the speech, but did offer the COMPLETE TEXT of the speech. VERY Cosby-esque, in my opinion!
Reply to this
Just to correct the record, I don't think the Huffington Post is uncharted teritory for me. My point was that I cannot take it seriously as a source of news.
I will acknowledge that part of that conclusion is because I disagree with some or most of the content.
I get the impression that they have an editorial policy that their views are the correct ones and opposing views are wrong and should be dismissed. That is my main objection.
As I think of it, my objections are similar to your objections to the "Religious Right". Both of us object that people with opposing views are trying to impose their values on us.
So, on one side of that coin is the "Religious Right". On the other side of the coin is the secular left. Both sides are advocating their beliefs, and their opponents complain about that. Me included.
Just my opinion.
Reply to this
What is the secular left? Is there a secular right?
So, we have the Religious Right and the secular left. Two sides of the same coin. Aren't there any other coins (or sides)we can play with?
The Religious Right uses the Bible to guide them in their views. What is the
inspiration for so-called secularists?
Reply to this
BTW, I am still hoping to hear from you on why you would not want the Religious Left imposing their beliefs (through public policy) on you.
As Bush would say, though, "no timeline" required as it only aides and abets the enemy. ; )
Reply to this
Religious right, religious left, secular ????????????????????????????????
In relationships, some people think that the opposite of love is hate. I say that needs more analysis.
When people "fall out of love", they usually don't hate. They just move on. So, I say, the opposite of love is not hate, but disinterest or apathy.
We were talking about abortion and gay marriage. Thinking about the terms we use, if we say that those who oppose the "religious right" are the 'religious left", that is similar to saying hate is the opposite of love. It's just not accurate or descriptive.
As a better description of those who oppose the "religious right" on abortion and gay marriage, I used secular left. If you have a better term to use, I would like to hear it.
What is the religious left or the secular right? Beats me.
If you ask me what I think about the religious left imposing values, I can't relate to that. If you ask me how those that oppose the "religious right" are trying to impose their values, I may have a different answer.
You say that the Religious Right uses the Bible to guide them in their views. I can accept that as your opinion, but I cannot accept it as a universal truth.
What is the inspiration for so-called secularists? I guess they have their agenda and are fighting for it, just like their opponents are fighting for their values.
Just my opinion.
Reply to this
Here is some less dismisive information on the real extent of the mortgage fraud involved in the epidemic of recent home foreclosures.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080619/ap_on_bi_ge/mortgage_fraud
I wonder if these cons hadn't deliberately targeted young black and hispanics in their schemes, but, instead, had ganged up on elderly, limited-income white women (you know, the kindly old grandmother types), we would be less likely to broadly label them as participants in their own choices and more likely to see them as the marks that they were.
Reply to this
Peter,
Thank you for making my point. As I stated earlier, there was some illegal activity in the creation of the current mortgage/foreclosure situation, and, as is pointed out in your article, legal steps are being taken to take care of the bad guys.
On the other hand, in my opinion, what is commonly called predatory lending is only a small part of the story. Many people overreached when they bought their houses, and they did not take the possiblility of job loss, illness, divorce and other misfortunes into account. For some of these, that misfortune occurred or their poor planning caught up with them, and they couldn't afford their house payments.
To simplify, my point is that for these people, they can either pick themselves up by the bootstraps, or they can blame someone or something else.
My opinion on personal responsibility is that people are better off to try to pick themselves up by their bootstraps than they are if they merely put blame somewhere else.
From that comes my conclusion that, while predatory lending did occur, to focus exclusively on the illegal or unethical activity is either naive, political, or deceptive, and does not promote personal responsibility.
We both wrote about Sen Obama speaking about personal responsiblity on Father's Day. I am waiting to hear that from him on other issues.
Just my opinion.
Reply to this
Obama on Pop Culture
June 19, 2008
David Brody [of the Christian Broadcasting Network] recently sat down with Sen. Barack Obama in a one-on-one interview. Brody asked Obama what should be done about the negative tone in today's pop culture.
Obama: The degrading images towards women I think are a problem and when the Imus issue came up, one of the quotes that stirred up a little bit of controversy for me was, sadly, as offensive as what Imus said, was we hear some of that language on the radio in our own communities.
I do think as President you can use the bully pulpit to speak out against some the coarsening aspects of our culture. I am not someone who believes in censorship, but I think there's nothing wrong with speaking out against things that are teaching our kids the wrong lessons.
I want to make sure that when I'm driving along, I don't have to sudeenly fool around with the radio because of an objectionable lyric, or that if I'm watching television that suddenly there's an image on there that's completely inappropriate. That's something that I think all parents struggle with. And it's not a conservative or liberal issue, I think it's just a matter of common sense.
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/395394.aspx
Reply to this
Sorry, Jim, I misread what you wrote about "protecting the children." What you actually said was "traditional values" should be protected. I will still leave my question on the table if you care to address it. Peter
Reply to this
Peter,
I think you do misrepresent my meaning. My point is that I think Big Government is not THE answer to solving these problems; there are other, better ways. My objection, then, to Sen Obama is that he proposes Big Government solutions. That does not make sense to me.
Peter, I would be interested to hear about your core values and your reasons to vote for or against a certain candidate.
Jim
Reply to this
Hi Jim,
I have not overlooked your very profound question. I am mulling it over now and hope to have something substantive to add, hopefully this weekend. Free time has been short lately; I've only been able to do some quick "hit and run" entries. Thanks for encouraging me to think about prioritizing my beliefs and be able to summarize it in words.
Reply to this
Hi Jim,
Thanks for your patience in my getting back to your questions. Unexpected job duties have called me away this weekend (hard work, and all that
Another major distraction for me has been reading the fascinating book The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the the Nation (just out in paperback) by Drew Westin.
"The political brain is an emotional brain. It is not a dispassionate calculating machine, objectively searching for the right facts, figures and policies to make a reason decision. The partisans in our [psychological] study were, on average, bright, educated, and politically aware. And yet they thought with their guts.
"Rational readers may take solace in noting that in American politics today, partisans are roughly equally split...So they cancel each other out, leaving those in the center to swing elections based on more rational considerations. But as it turns out, they think with their guts, too...
"Reason is a slave to emotion, not the other way around...
"Today, Democrats and Republicans seem like two species , living in parallel universes, unable to speak the same language. We hear the same evidence and come to diametrically opposed conclusions, even in simple matters of fact... Precisely the same [evolutionary brain] mechanisms that provide a compass to guide our behaviors in adaptive directions also act as magnets for self-deception, rationalization, and the kind of partisan "reasoning" that prevents any kind of rational discourse about political affairs for roughly 80 percent of the population, including the most politically informed voters...
"The more sophisticated people are politically (e.g., the more they know about an issue) the more able they are to develop *complex* rationalizations for dismissing data they don't want to believe."
Eighty percent! Let's see if we can beat those odds!
Reply to this
Peter,
One of the keys to my success in selling was understanding the role of emotion in persuasion.
All buying decisions are emotional. Those emotions fall into one of two major categories: Fear of Loss and Desire for Gain. Most people fall into the first category. That's one of the reasons so much of political campaigning is negative. Your best chance of success is to appeal to fear of loss.
Part of what I'm trying to do is help people to recognize when their being manipulated by emotional appeals.
Larry
Reply to this
[a work in progress]
Hi Jim,
Let me first get started on some of my core beliefs. How they might tie in to a particular candidate we can tackle later.
I believe one of government's key responsibilities is to act as watchdog (that can viciously bite, when necessary) in protecting its citizens from any large conglomerations of power that have become destructive to its citizens.
Of course, we must start with genuinely threatening military power from abroad. Thus, the necessity for our strong military. Without protection from these noxious external forces, all other government protections become moot.
However, our military has a lot of power itself. We must also insure that this power (through the Pentagon or at the behest of its civilian leaders)is not misused. We need protection from and action taken against real and imminent threats from overseas, hopefully used as a last resort. We should not use our military force to rush into unnecessary wars based on trumped-up, false charges of threat, nor should we use it because another country has natural resources we want ("our national interests") or to unseat governments---selectively picked dictatorships AND democracies---simply because their worldview is incompatible with and doesn't benefit ours.
Large multinational corporations continue to grow richer and stronger, and have increasingly been infiltrating the political arena & setting the agenda in Washington, many times to the exclusion and detriment of our citizens. Capitalism is great, but unfettered capitalism invariably leads to corruption. Regulating these amoral behemoths is critical and should be done by the government. Where we set the "regulation bar" is open to debate but, in my mind, not the concept that there must be some governmental oversight. Our representatives should be representing us, not immortal legal constructs.[Suggestions: radical campaign finance reform to stifle the influence of Big Money in all levels of government. We should also repeal the notion that corporations are legal "persons", entitled to the same rights and privileges---although, interestingly, not so much the responsibilities---of real citizens.]
Governments themselves are also institutions of concentrated power so they, too, need to be monitored. Our founders realized this and came up with the concept of checks-and-balances between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches. On the whole, this has worked out fairly well, but there have been abuses. [Watergate, the McCarthy hearings immediately come to mind.] The Executive branch and its powers have, in recent history, greatly expanded without accountability. Our current administration, in particular, has clearly not conducted itself within the legal confines of this basic defining concept of our nation and needs to be reined in. As should future administrations.
to be continued...
[All opinions expressed here subject to revision or change.]
Reply to this
[a work in progress...continued]
Lastly, majorities can also exert undue and unfair influence over minorities. Our founders realized this and added the Bill of Rights to insure that unreasoned mob rule does not deny vulnerable citizens their basic rights. This has served us well as, through the ages and with great effort, we have continued to bestow these basic rights on minorities not intended or envisioned by our Founding Fathers. To non-land owners, to women, to religious or nonreligious minorities, to minorities that hold unpopular political views, to people of all races and creeds, etc. The historical momentum in this country has been that we extended (not deny) equal rights to ever increasing categories of minorities. I believe that, as Martha Stewart would say, "That's a good thing."
Peter
[all opinions expressed here subject to revision or change.]
Reply to this
Any lessons to be drawn from this article for Americans?
Denmark: The Happiest Place on Earth
Despite High Taxes, Danes Rank Themselves as Happy and Content
http://www.denmark.dk/en/servicemenu/News/BusinessNews/FocusDenmark/TheHappiestPeopleInTheWorld.htm
Reply to this
Hi Larry,
The article could be accused of being biased; it was written in Denmark after all. I could have linked to the original studies/interviews (yawn)listed in the article. However, I found this article to be the most concise and accurate summary of ALL the studies/surveys listed. The article didn't seem to alter or embellish the conclusions.
Are the conclusions to the studies/surveys a reflection of reality? Who can say? Perhaps Danes are just more likely to lie when questioned about their happiness. Perhaps there are serious methodological flaws in the studies. And these should all be addressed.
However, for the sake of argument, let's assume the Danes are, for the most part, the happiest people on earth. Then would you support this system of government (or major parts of it)since it, if true, would (and I quote from your book) "serve[s] the largest number of people for the longest period of time as balanced against doing the least harm or disruption to the fewest number of people and it is the best solution monetarily we can get for the funds available among competing priorities."
Thanks for your insights.
Reply to this
Another link to an article that discusses a study on wealth & happiness that seems to contradict the ones mentioned above. But, like the others, it is hardly conclusive.
Should we, in general, be putting more research into finding out what REALLY makes people happy and using this info to guide us in our policy decisions?
http://www.portfolio.com/views/columns/economics/2008/06/16/Personal-Wealth-Vs-Happiness#page1
Reply to this
Peter,
Thanks for posting. I went to your link and found this related article of interest.
Obama to Expand Bush's Faith-Based Programs
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/ap_on_el_pr/obama_faith;_ylt=A9G_R3UWNGpIJYoAxBFh24cA
Reply to this
Larry,
This is a thorny issue for me. As a society we should encourage all organizations (including religious ones) to help those in true need [poverty]. This is a noble mission and should be promoted. However, I still don't think it's the government's role to get involved with this, especially in giving out money. Too many issues come up.
*Which churches will receive the money and which will be rejected? Will the decisions be made based on the effectiveness of the programs, or the ideology of the churches. [The head of Bush's faith based initiative program, a conservative Christian, quit in disgust, claiming Bush was using this agency merely to hand out bundles of money to those churches which helped him in his campaign and supported his beliefs, not to the churches who provided the best care.] Anything can be politicized as we can see.
*Will only mainstream Christian churches receive funds? What about less mainstream ones? What about other religions? Will we be giving money to Muslin or Buddhist religious charities and, if no, why not?
[Religious organizations also offer "family planning" centers where the advice they give is obviously limited by their religious beliefs re: abortion, birth control, etc. I don't know if these programs currently get funds from the government but they SHOULD be exempt from such funds.]
I don't know if Obama truly believes in helping churches financially in this area or is doing it just for political reasons. We may never know. Even if his intentions are sincere, I still don't accept them for the reasons stated above. [Encouragement perhaps; money NO.] His TIMING of the announcement (in the general election vs. the primary) was clearly an effort to pander to religious folks for additional votes. So, on this issue, I give Obama a THUMBS DOWN.
Reply to this
Peter,
The difficulty for every society and government is how to foster individual responsibility and competitiveness and still take care of those in the population who have won the negative lottery. If I start writing about this now, I'll be here for a long time. I think there are some lessons about the laws of probability that need to factored into public policy and understood by the public at large. Understanding is facilitated when you have an educated population. This is a topic I intend to include in my next book.
Larry
Reply to this
THIS N THAT on Obama (file under FUN TRIVIA)
OBAMA #1? I DON'T THINK SO!
Following Obama's official declaration of being the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Pary, I put my "Obama" bumper sticker on my car. I contemplated putting up an anti-McCain one as well:
McCAIN
Retirement '08
(more humorous than vicious, I thought) but reconsidered and decided to take the high road: no resorting to negative campaigning here!!!
Imagine my surprise when, on the road, I was passed by a driver on a motorcycle who gave me the finger, not the index finger (#1!) but the middle one! (A thumbs-down would have been a more appropriate and less hostile gesture, I thought.) But politics, I realized then and there, can be a very dirty business!!
After this, I was thinking about getting some even harsher anti-McCain stickers to advertise---my version of giving someone else the finger!
I was persuaded otherwise when a few days later a car passed me, honking its horn and the two folks inside waving and showing me their support. Whew! Just in time!
The point of the story (of which there really is none) isn't that only Republicans can be nasty; it's how easily I could have fallen into this when someone made *me* angry. Oh those reptilian brains!
_______________________________________
A "CLOTHES" ELECTION?
And speaking of bumperstickers, I wrote previously about statistics from a company that keeps track of all the Obama and McCain political merchandise they sell (bumperstickers, buttons, T-shirts, etc.), claiming, tongue-in-cheek I imagine, that charting the volume of merchandise sold might give us an indication of the popularity of the candidates.
VOTER TURNOUT PARALLELS POLITICAL PARTY FASHION
"Here's a fresh spin on the polls: People are voting with their wallets! See how CafePress users are buying and creating products to express their political passion, change minds and make history. Have fun with it!
"According to the Wall Street Journal, as of late May, 64% of all primary votes cast were Democratic, and 36% were Republican. The parties performed similarly in the T-shirt Primary, as 70% of election sales were Democratic, and 27% were Republican...T-shirts as indicator of voter behavior? We think so..."
The most current numbers for the week ending 14 June.
Percentage of all sales:
Obama 74.7
Clinton (!?) 11.3
McCain 8.66
Ohmigod! Is it true that Obama may actually be better for business(es) than McCain?
Check it out. It IS fun.
http://www.cafepress.com/cp/buy/elections08_meter
Reply to this
After this, I was thinking about getting some even harsher anti-McCain stickers to advertise---my version of giving someone else the finger!
Reply to this
Thanks for the post! I wonder what search engine you use to find the desired film? I use rapidshare SE ( http://rapidqueen.com ), and you?
Reply to this
I think people need to vote with their heads and not heart. I disagree about the abortion issue, but I have found that I would rather have more positives then negatives. I also think that whoever is writing maliciously and anonymous should check wikipedia and other resources. Bottom line, the Bush administration has been awful.
Reply to this