Comments on: Candorville: 8/11/08- Gall-Mart, part 1

By: PeaceZGood

PeaceZGood — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 06:06:49 +0000

Thank you.

By: amused2u

amused2u — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 04:53:39 +0000

No need to apologize for your opinion. You’re entitled to it, just as I am to mine. I envy your optimism about what an Obama victory would mean, I really do.

By: PeaceZGood

PeaceZGood — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:20:39 +0000

My opinion is to wait and see. Nothing is set in stone. Getting a Democrat into office is the MOST important item on my agenda. Everything else will fall into place AFTER he’s elected. We have to keep our eyes on the prize and not let the ins and outs of Democratic turns in the road bother us. Remember, you don’t play a game by only running wearing blinders. When Obama is attacked there is a “24 hour” focal point where the Democrats must respond and/or fight back. That’s how the political “game” is played. I heard that on TV. Sometimes each side must concede a little to gain something else. That’s the way of politics. Dirty? Yes, I think so. But, it is our America way and is much better than fighting a military civil war every four years. I personally hope that you and others on the fence or having second thoughts, will seriously reconsider what will happen if the Republicans make it in again. Sorry. Just my opinion.

By: amused2u

amused2u — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:18:56 +0000

I don’t expect perfection in any person, candidate or otherwise, but I do believe that Obama’s current standing in the polls has less to do with any negative campaigning by McCain or resentment from Hillary supporters and more to do with many of Obama’s primary supporters feeling like they’ve been had. That said, I just finished reading this article from the NYT on Obama’s economic policies:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24Obamanomics-t.html?em=&pagewanted=all

and I may yet change my position and vote for him. Not very enthusiastically, though, which is a shame.

By: PeaceZGood

PeaceZGood — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:56:20 +0000

What’s really sad is that there is no person on this earth who is perfect, or who will perfectly fill the bill. That’s why we all have to settle whenever politicians vie for power. In fact, if you or I ever ran for President, I’m sure we wouldn’t please all the people all the time even within our party. It’s the pits, huh?

By: amused2u

amused2u — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 01:37:03 +0000

Well, I would argue that the VP choice is very important, because that’s who becomes president if anything happens to the elected president, and history has shown us that something happening is always a possibility.
But your other points are well taken. Perhaps by November I won’t care so much anymore and I’ll decide to go ahead and vote for the guy and dispassionately watch the crapshoot fallout.

By: PeaceZGood

PeaceZGood — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 19:07:31 +0000

Sorry. Typo. “Running mate’s STANCE IS” should be typed, instead of “it”.

By: PeaceZGood

PeaceZGood — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 19:05:58 +0000

It chokes me to think that Obama is kissing posterior to get elected; however, he HAS to do what he has to do. That is discusting, but it’s reality. I agree with Darrin in that AFTER he’s elected, he may change. But we need to realize that it will take YEARS to clean up after Bush’s bigoted and brash changes to our usury laws, our constitution, and our reputation in the world. THEN he may, and just may, make the changes we Democrats want put into place (he needs to roll back what Bush did first). Let’s worry about his running mate’s pro life stance later. In fact, why even worry. It won’t matter what his running mate’s stance it anyway. The VP doesn’t have the power to effect very much in the way of bills, laws, or appointments to the Supreme Court, right? So, bottom line. With Obama we have a MAYBE there will be change. With McCain we have a FOR SURE there will NOT be change. I think the maybe is the better risk.

By: amused2u

amused2u — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:12:39 +0000

Well, it is astounding how far we have already come in tolerating abuse from the government. But Americans are definitely tiring of losing their homes and retirement funds and not being able to afford gas to get to work and having their banks go under. I think they are both more fed up and more resigned at the same time. As any 12 stepper knows, you have to hit bottom before you are willing to do the hard work to get help.

By: Darrin Bell

Darrin Bell — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 05:34:50 +0000

I don’t know if I’d call that cynical. Maybe this is more cynical: I don’t believe we’d be shaken by another eight years of war-mongering, corruption, assaults against the Constitution, and scandal. I think Americans become accustomed to it. I think we adapt. I think the more we experience that kind of abusive government, the more we’re willing to tolerate abuse from government.

Obama’s disappointed me, particularly when he implied the Bush administration hasn’t done anything impeachable, and when he rolled over along with the rest of the Democrats on FISA. But I don’t believe that as president, Obama would subvert the constitution himself. I believe the Democrats have decided not to challenge the White House because they think they’re going to have the White House themselves in January, and THEN they can set things straight.

It’s cowardice. It’s scheming. It’s moral compromise. It’s politics. And there’s no way anyone’s going to make it to the White House without either compromising or hiding some of their morality. Not if they want people in places as disparate as San Francisco, CA and Selma, AL to vote for them. George W. Bush disguised his ambitions. He argued against nation-building and interventionism, and look at him. He argued against big government, and look what he did. Franklin Roosevelt sounded like a corporate, modern-day DLC Democrat when he ran in ‘32, but look what HE did once in office. History shows that you often can’t judge a candidate by the way he moves toward the center during general elections.