So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:04:11 -0500, Jeff wrote:

wrote:



...youth, intelligence, tolerance, gifted, persuasive, redemptive,
inspiring, unifying, empowering, thoughtful/insightful, problem-solving
skills, hope, hope, hope, symbolic power, listens, collaborative,
notbush, nothillaryclinton, notmccain, respect for balance of powers in
federal system, adapts and adjusts effectively, small government/big
government experience in elected office, understands/recognizes racial
and socioeconomic problems from a unique perspective, not a washington
dc insider...there's more, but i suspect these will be sufficient for
your critique and counterpoints.

jeff

...and oh, BTW, did you simply
forget to add "objective" to your list, or did you not think him such?


see above "there's more". it was a hurried response to provide fodder...
he certainly seems to be rationally objective based on his writings
(audacity...).

Lordy-lordy, I read and enjoyed "2001" and "The Runaway Jury"...they
didn't, um, persuade me Clarke was a good astronaut or Grisham was a
good...um, well, let's just leave that one alone...

****, I even heard Jimmy Breslin say good things about
him today on Public Radio.

PUBLIC RADIO!? They probably slipped him some Portuguese PCP or
something...

Folks who call others "inspiring" or "persuasive" have always both
saddened and amused me when they do so.

so what do you call someone you believe to be inspirational or persuasive?

who is a public figure you thought inspirational; ...persuasive? not on
an isolated basis, but overall.

Overall? None, ever. At least none that were attempting to be either.
For example, I find Danny Thomas' story St. Jude's "inspiring" but
AFAIK, he never ran for national office on it (or otherwise). Also,
I've found various well-reasoned arguments (many with whose entire
premise I disagreed) persuasive - Bill Bradley comes to mind. I'd think
a politician seeking office who many found "inspirational" and
"persuasive" _overall_ AND the whole thing was this weird,
non-quantifiable "he just is..." shtick, that such would make a rational
thinker pretty nervous...apparently, your mileage does vary...

(i mean, nobody is suggesting elysian fields or perfection here)

Whew, that's a relief...I mean, we're already bordering on canonization
here...

I can fully appreciate the
_specifically_ _inspired_ or _persuaded_, such as a young black man
saying that Obama's life thus far inspired him to run for Congress, etc.
or someone saying that Obama's argument in favor of premise "x"
persuaded them that he was right on that issue, but to call someone
generally "inspiring" and/or "persuasive" is the first step in, to touch
upon your words, the formation of a cult of personality...at least...

i think those would be charles krauthammer's words...but i understand
the motivation behind them. Did you happen to see the N. Kristof piece
about the poor guy at GITMO?

Nope.

I am inspired and persuaded to believe Obama will not allow such things
to continue.

Obama, on his own, and assuming he wins in what will be a real squeaker,
doesn't have and won't have the political muscle to allow or not allow
****. My, well, "fear" isn't the right word exactly, but let's use it
in a broad sense - my "fear" is that Obama will be the distraction for a
lot of REALLY avaricious people (The Clintons, Brazile, Begala,
Carville, McAuliffe, Schumer and Reid- but probably not Pelosi, etc.) to
really set about running amok and looting the store. I know that many
here at least seem to think that Bush and Cheney did such, but honestly,
do you really see either of them (or even Al Gore or Ted Kennedy)
pulling the same BS as these "white trash" (yeah, after Donna's Katrina
stunt, she honorary "white trash"...) wannabes?

i'm definitely a member of that cult.

Uh-oh...


Um, well, as to "true colors," I'd offer that there have been little
more than hints, even assuming they are not red herrings, in "revealing"
Obama, but those few hints indicate that he ain't exactly married to
this color or that (and while a pun isn't exactly _intended_, it ain't
not intended, either...). And if Obama is "the real deal," and
literally means what he says, I'd offer that he doesn't want your
support, at least until you can get past being so rabidly anti-GOP...
after all, they were, IIRC, the party of ideas not so long ago...


not in my lifetime IIRC, but they have generally been the better party
for soundbites and political propaganda... hell, it was a bunch of NC
republicans (carter wrenn, jesse helms, etc) that near-bout perfected
the fine art of negative, smear campaigns.

though i know he was attempting to make a point about them being the
party of wrong ideas, i've never said Obama was perfect. however, he's
the best of what we have and what we need at this time, imo.

i lost all respect for mccain when he did his waterboarding whirl and
started the loud slurping and suckling at the teat of the fundamental
religious and conservative right.

And yet, Obama's slurping at any teat that happens to land nearby is OK
with you? Hell, I'd want my guy telling those that we disagreed with
where to get off and stating it plain. If they wanted to come around to
our point of view, there'd be welcome and there would be no hard
feelings, but I'd not want him _starting out_ by pandering to anyone and
everyone and giving concessions to them.

i only hope he will remain consistent
in his dogmatic iraq plan...

i am not rabidly anti-GOP -

Well, OK, if you say so...but you might want to wipe the froth from your
mouth BEFORE you say such...

just the particular brand we have endured the last 7+ years...

Ah, so you ARE rabidly anti-GOP, depending on the brand...

i know Obama is more moderate than me -

OK, so it shouldn't be so hard to explain what his positions are and how
you know he is more moderate, right?

look again at the characteristics i listed.

I really don't need to...they are the same vague, subjective ones every
Obama supporter lists...

jeff (pass the kool-aid g)

I think you've had plenty enough already...

Look, I'm willing to give the man a chance if someone is willing to give
me a rational, objective reason as to why I should...

TC,
R

wrote in message
...
I've found various well-reasoned arguments (many with whose entire
premise I disagreed) persuasive - Bill Bradley comes to mind.

speaking of potential running mates, old Bill B may be a good one.
Tom

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:40:36 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
I've found various well-reasoned arguments (many with whose entire
premise I disagreed) persuasive - Bill Bradley comes to mind.

speaking of potential running mates, old Bill B may be a good one.

Um...for whom? Besides, I think he finally lost his desire - yeah,
really - to beat his head against the "broken" wall of US
politics...which, IMO, illustrates _the_ major problem: none of the
"best" people really want the job THAT ****in' badly...

TC,
R
Tom

wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:04:11 -0500, Jeff wrote:


wrote:



......there's more, but i suspect these will be sufficient for
your critique and counterpoints.


Look, I'm willing to give the man a chance if someone is willing to give
me a rational, objective reason as to why I should...

TC,
R

youth, intelligence, tolerance, gifted, persuasive, redemptive,
inspiring, unifying, empowering, thoughtful/insightful, problem-solving
skills, hope, hope, hope, symbolic power, listens, collaborative,
notbush, nothillaryclinton, notmccain, respect for balance of powers in
federal system, adapts and adjusts effectively, small government/big
government experience in elected office, understands/recognizes racial
and socioeconomic problems from a unique perspective, not a washington
dc insider, objective...

it's clear you want something specific in terms of qualification or
ability, but seem unwilling to accept this guy is capable of doing the
job. mccain meets your criteria? hillary? there are 3 choices
available. who do you choose? why? what compels, inspires or persuades
your vote? give us your rational, objective reason.

assuming you could pick the one living person who you believe is the
one, among all others, who meets your criteria...who is it??

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:04:29 -0500, jeff miller
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:04:11 -0500, Jeff wrote:


wrote:



......there's more, but i suspect these will be sufficient for
your critique and counterpoints.


Look, I'm willing to give the man a chance if someone is willing to give
me a rational, objective reason as to why I should...

TC,
R

youth, intelligence, tolerance, gifted, persuasive, redemptive,
inspiring, unifying, empowering, thoughtful/insightful,

problem-solving skills

hope, hope, hope, symbolic power, listens, collaborative,
notbush, nothillaryclinton, notmccain, respect for balance of powers in
federal system, adapts and adjusts effectively, small government/big
government experience in elected office,

understands/recognizes racial.and socioeconomic problems from a
unique perspective,

OK...elaborate on the two singled out, above - convince me that it's not
just some grandiose idea or just something you pulled out of your ass
that sounds good.

not a washington dc insider, objective...

it's clear you want something specific in terms of qualification or
ability,

And it's becoming clear that many folks who I'd have thought felt the
same way, don't...unfortunately...

but seem unwilling to accept this guy is capable of doing the
job.

Um, how do you figure? I've said plain and direct - "convince me with
some facts" and thus far, I've gotten laundry lists of unsupported,
subjective opinions and a reminder that he wrote a book...heck, he
wrote, or "wrote," at least two, but I'm not sure what that has to do
with it...Paris Hilton wrote at least one, too...

mccain meets your criteria?

Entirely? No.

hillary?

Not even close. But admittedly, she has a VERY limited number of
qualities that would serve a POTUS well.

there are 3 choices available.

Um, well, right now, there are NO choices available, but on election
day, there is unlimited choice, including the choice not to vote at all,
available to voters.

who do you choose?

If I were voting today, and the (practical) choice was McCain or
Hillary or Obama, I'd say McCain.

why?

The same reason I said Bush, twice - he is the best in the (practical)
field of two, no more, no less.

what compels, inspires or persuades your vote?

Why do you assume and take it for granted that I am a US voter?

give us your rational, objective reason.

See above.

assuming you could pick the one living person who you believe is the
one, among all others, who meets your criteria...who is it??

I doubt anyone that qualified would have any real interest in or take
the job, but off the top of my head and in the current situation, I'd
offer folks such as Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, or maybe even
Haley Barbour (Gov. of MS). Of the recent crop of candidates, I'd say
Richardson and McCain, flip for POTUS, was probably the "best" possible
choice in the pack. Heck, I'm completely serious when I say I think
Obama would be a good choice as veep with McCain - I think it would give
him a chance to show his stuff (or not, as the case may be) and give a
mandate-level vote to _some_ "team." As I've also said, completely
seriously, IMO, not much "change" can occur if the vote is yet another
50.01% versus 49.99% squeaker regardless of who actually "wins."

TC,
R

wrote in message
...
The same reason I said Bush, twice - he is the best in the (practical)
field of two, no more, no less.

gawd, I hope you are referring to Bush as in GHW, as I am astounded that
anyone of sound mind could look back on the second vote for George W as
anything based upon good sense.



seriously, IMO, not much "change" can occur if the vote is yet another
50.01% versus 49.99% squeaker regardless of who actually "wins."

and this much I do agree with. Somewhere along the way, something of a
consensus has to be built, or the nation will continue to blunder forward,
to the detriment of us all.

Tom

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 00:50:31 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:

gawd, I hope you are referring to Bush as in GHW, as I am astounded that
anyone of sound mind could look back on the second vote for George W as
anything based upon good sense.

Tom, given the choice, most folks couldn't vote for Kerry. What he
did after the war was unforgivable to many. Hell, even folks in his
own home state question his patriotism -- yeah, yeah, I know, we
elected him to the Senate, but no one has ever run against him.

Of the two choices, Bush had to be my choice. I could not vote for
Kerry because I feel he is a traitor. The problem is, Tom, that Gore
should never have lost in 2000. If he had carried his homestate, he
would have won.

Dave

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 00:50:31 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:

gawd, I hope you are referring to Bush as in GHW, as I am astounded that
anyone of sound mind could look back on the second vote for George W as
anything based upon good sense.

Tom, given the choice, most folks couldn't vote for Kerry. What he
did after the war was unforgivable to many. Hell, even folks in his
own home state question his patriotism -- yeah, yeah, I know, we
elected him to the Senate, but no one has ever run against him.

Of the two choices, Bush had to be my choice. I could not vote for
Kerry because I feel he is a traitor. The problem is, Tom, that Gore
should never have lost in 2000. If he had carried his homestate, he
would have won.

Dave

Traitor? When was Kerry convicted as a traitor? Or are your feelings enough
to convict a person of high crimes?

This is not a difficult question, but if you are going to continue to
"Swiftboat" Kerry, you should at least be able to provide the evidence.

Just in case you are not familiar with the legalality of the term "traitor":
"As in any other criminal trial in the United States, a defendant charged
with treason is presumed innocent until proved guilty Beyond a Reasonable
Doubt. Treason may be proved by a voluntary confession in open court or by
evidence that the defendant committed an Overt Act of treason. Each overt
act must be witnessed by at least two people, or a conviction for treason
will not stand. By requiring this type of direct evidence, the Constitution
minimizes the danger of convicting an innocent person and forestalls the
possibility of partisan witch-hunts waged by a single adversary."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/traitor

Op

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 02:07:30 -0500, "Opus--Mark H. Bowen"
wrote:

This is not a difficult question, but if you are going to continue to
"Swiftboat" Kerry, you should at least be able to provide the evidence.

Where did I say anything about *Swiftboats", Mark? I am talking about
is lying, under oath, before congress, while still in uniform. I am
talking about his trip to Paris to meet secretly with the deligation
from North Viet Nam, while still in uniform. Both actions gave
comfort and support to our enemy. The man did not receive an
honorable discharge from the Navy (which has nothing to do with
treason, but *does* speak volumes of his character).

Davie

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
Tom, given the choice, most folks couldn't vote for Kerry.

assuming 'most' to mean 51%, you are correct.
Tom

.....still, I don't think they were right to do so. A message should have
been sent at that point in the Bush presidency.