Concerns About Obama's Inspiring Speeches

[lazerus]

Like many people on this board, I'm a supporter of Obama's candidacy. He's an inspiring speaker, seems very electable, will send a message to the rest of the world that America is changing course, etc etc. His lack of experience is unfortunate, but I would still rather have him then Hillary, again, for reasons most people on this board are already very familiar with.

My concern is over a recurring theme in many of his speech's, including his recent victory speech in Iowa. He's said he's going to unite the country, using phrases such as "We aren't red states and blue states, were America! Were one people!" etc etc. A lot of bipartisan talk.

Does anyone share my concerns that this is not a good thing? I don't *want* the government to be bipartisan on a lot of issues. When Republicans try to teach creationism in schools, ban abortion, or crush gay rights, I don't want a government that will compromise on that issue. The majority party, and the president should be able to say "No, were the majority in both houses and have the presidency, so you can cram it up your ass." That goes double, when the soon-to-be minority party is this fanatically unreasonable.

I just really don't see that in Obama. Thoughts?

[CaptainChewbacca]

What makes you think bipartisanship would lead to the extreme right-wing viewpoint to win out? Bipartisanship is generally a middle road of compromise.

[Pablo Sanchez]

What makes you think bipartisanship would lead to the extreme right-wing viewpoint to win out? Bipartisanship is generally a middle road of compromise.

That in itself is a concern, because the GOP has had a lot of success in recent decades by assuming an extremist position on issues and forcing the "middle" rightward. Also, compromise is undesirable on some issues, simply because the Republicans have it completely wrong--the Iraq War and health care are two examples.

[Stravo]

What makes you think bipartisanship would lead to the extreme right-wing viewpoint to win out? Bipartisanship is generally a middle road of compromise.

The poster does not WANT middle of the road compromise. How do you compromise on issues like gay rights? We should not compromise on whether a class of people should have their rights impinged upon just because of their sexual orientation.

What Lazerus is talking about is giving in to the right wing just to achieve bi-partisanship. Sometimes bi-partisanship and compromise is just wrong. Sometimes the other side of the argument is quite simply wrong. By giving in to them you are weakening your own position for the sake of keeping everyone happy.

[CaptainChewbacca]

What I'm saying is that the extreme right wing that wants to 'crush' gay rights is neutralized by bipartisanship. There's always a compromise that all sides can live with, because not everybody gets everything they want on both sides.

[lazerus]

What I'm saying is that the extreme right wing that wants to 'crush' gay rights is neutralized by bipartisanship. There's always a compromise that all sides can live with, because not everybody gets everything they want on both sides.

No, there isn't. Using the gay rights example, so long as you are treating these people different under the law, they are not equal. Period end of story. It's like, if one side wanted to re-insitute slavery, and the other wanted all races to be equal, so we "reach a compromise" at seperate-but-"equal" laws. Sure, neither side is happy, but if your pro-equal-rights that is is still totally unacceptable. There is no room for compromise on rights-based issues, as well as many others the republicans are firm on.

Put simply, when it's a matter of principle, if you compromise, the other guy has won. If creationism is only "sorta-kina" mentioned in schools, it is STILL IN THE SCHOOLS.

[RedImperator]

I think it's worth remembering that the Wonder Chimp was promising bipartisanship, too--you see how much that promise was worth. I'm not terribly concerned with Obama selling out his core principles just to get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

The majority party, and the president should be able to say "No, were the majority in both houses and have the presidency, so you can cram it up your ass."

The minority party can stop any legislation with 41 votes in the Senate. Barring an unimaginable landslide victory for the Democrats, this just isn't going to happen. And that's before you consider the problem that the Democratic party usually doesn't vote in lockstep; Bill Clinton's attempt to nationalize health care went down in flames when the Democrats had solid majorities in both houses.

And anyway, the Republicans had that exact situation for four years, and there were howls of outrage when Bush and the GOP leadership said exactly that. You can't have it both ways. The mechanisms that keep the shitheads in check when they're the majority also allow the shitheads to gum up the works when they're the minority.

[brianeyci]

You sure can "compromise" if the right manufactures concerns and fear mongers of liberal plots to take away religious people's right to practise their own faith and read the bible. A compromise in this case would be Obama asuaging the conservotards fears by picking something less than their made up concerns, but still fully ethical because the right made up phantoms and demons like liberals will ban the bible and even religion itself. The "compromise" would be to the left of what the consevotards want, but still fully to the left for what liberals and gays want (or should want.)

His stance on gay marriage is equal rights for both parties, not separate and equal. He avoids the question of whether marriage should automatically be granted, but he does say it could be from a religious institution, which almost definitely means marriage. I see no benefit in forcing a conservative Catholic church in recognizing a marriage if it doesn't want to, when a liberal Catholic church down the street could marry the gays. Church is overrated -- it is like a private club, and courts have repeatedly ruled in favor of club's rights to exclude or include different types of people arbitrarily as not human rights violations. As long as it's called marriage, not a civil union, and as long as the couple gets treated the same way in the eyes of the law, especially in terms of finances, taxes and adoption, I am happy. I couldn't give a fuck if some inbred decides not to let me in their club, and gays and liberals should not give a fuck either.

This seems to be Obama's stance too, because he avoids using the term "civil union" and continues to mention equal rights. Civil union is an euphenism for separate and equal, correct, but if a politician avoids mentioning the words civil union entirely it's usually an indication he realizes separate is not equal.

There is a big difference between telling everybody to unite under your banner, red states and blue states, and saying once you're in power you will let people fuck you up the ass. You have to be real, real stupid to give in to core principles if you hold all the cards.

[Darth Wong]

What I'm saying is that the extreme right wing that wants to 'crush' gay rights is neutralized by bipartisanship. There's always a compromise that all sides can live with, because not everybody gets everything they want on both sides.

So if gays want equal rights and the right wing wants to give them massively unequal rights, then it would be good to compromise and give them somewhat unequal rights? Are you on drugs?

[Vaporous]

Generally, as has been demonstrated the last seven or eight years, when the president says he will compromise with the opposition he means "they'll give me most of what I want, and I'll come back for the rest later."

[CaptainChewbacca]

What I'm saying is that the extreme right wing that wants to 'crush' gay rights is neutralized by bipartisanship. There's always a compromise that all sides can live with, because not everybody gets everything they want on both sides.

So if gays want equal rights and the right wing wants to give them massively unequal rights, then it would be good to compromise and give them somewhat unequal rights? Are you on drugs?

I didn't say it would be a GOOD compromise, I said it would be A compromise, and its what generally happens in politics. If Obama and the dems blow the republicans out of both houses of congress and want to ram sweeping changes down America's throat, they're welcome to it. Historically, these changes happen gradually through compromise while you change the mindset of the American people.

It isn't a perfect system, because if it was we wouldn't have reparations-seekers on one side of race relations and the white supremists on the other, but there's a middle ground which can be reached which is tolerable to the vast majority of all concerned.

[Patrick Degan]

The right wing agenda in this country has been exactly to split the country along ideological and even sectarian lines. Divide-and-conquer strategy. The last thing the GOP wants is a united populace turned against them, hence a large measure of their propaganda has been to set conservative against liberal, gun owner against non-gun owner white against black/brown, Christian against non-Christian (and in some quarters Christian against Mormon —in the past it had been Protestant against Catholic), "Red" against "Blue" states, to gull the most people into voting against their own interests.

Chimpus Caesar made clear his partisanship when he starved Democratic-voting states of Home Security monies while giving it to loyal GOP-supporting shitholes in the middle of nowhere which would never face terrorist attack on any credible terms. New Orleans dared to vote Democratic? Fuck 'em, they don't need that levee reconstruction money. California dared to vote Democratic? Fuck 'em, my Enron pals can loot the state at will. New York dared to vote Democratic? Fuck 'em, their share of the DHS budget can go to Buttfuck, Idaho where they love me and voted the way God and Diebold intended them to.

That shit is part of what Obama wants to stamp out.

[Yogi]

That shit is part of what Obama wants to stamp out.

It's also what I disagree with. If one side fights fair and the other side fights dirty, then the side that fights fair is going to get its ass kicked. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and if Obama or another Democratic president gets elected, I want him to use his newfound executive powers courtesy of the Bush Administration to screw the Republicians until they're begging for checks and balances to be reinstated. This might actually teach them a lesson next time they consider subverting the Constitution again.

[RedImperator]

That shit is part of what Obama wants to stamp out.

It's also what I disagree with. If one side fights fair and the other side fights dirty, then the side that fights fair is going to get its ass kicked. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and if Obama or another Democratic president gets elected, I want him to use his newfound executive powers courtesy of the Bush Administration to screw the Republicians until they're begging for checks and balances to be reinstated. This might actually teach them a lesson next time they consider subverting the Constitution again.

Or it would, you know, solidify the precedent and end all hope, forever, of taking the United States off the road to tyranny. But hey, abuse of power is awesome if our guy does it!

[Yogi]

Or it would, you know, solidify the precedent and end all hope, forever, of taking the United States off the road to tyranny. But hey, abuse of power is awesome if our guy does it!

Come on, have a little faith in the Republican whine machine. They complain about being slighted NOW, think about what'll happen when they're ACTUALLY being oppressed.

[RedImperator]

Or it would, you know, solidify the precedent and end all hope, forever, of taking the United States off the road to tyranny. But hey, abuse of power is awesome if our guy does it!

Come on, have a little faith in the Republican whine machine. They complain about being slighted NOW, think about what'll happen when they're ACTUALLY being oppressed.

Um, decide that once they get back in power, they have to ensure they never lose an election again, by any means necessary? Are you honestly trying to argue in this thread that the powers that be behind the Republican party, if subjected to a taste of their own medicine, would respond by humbly acknowledging a lesson learned and resolve to never do it again?

[Mr. T]

His talk is just that, talk. What I'm more concerned about would be if he can find a balance between hitting back at the shit that's going to be thrown his way by the Republicans and keeping his "Mr. Nice-Guy" image.

He's already made some good moves though, like freezing out Fox news.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Or it would, you know, solidify the precedent and end all hope, forever, of taking the United States off the road to tyranny. But hey, abuse of power is awesome if our guy does it!

Come on, have a little faith in the Republican whine machine. They complain about being slighted NOW, think about what'll happen when they're ACTUALLY being oppressed.

Um, decide that once they get back in power, they have to ensure they never lose an election again, by any means necessary? Are you honestly trying to argue in this thread that the powers that be behind the Republican party, if subjected to a taste of their own medicine, would respond by humbly acknowledging a lesson learned and resolve to never do it again?

You realize that 95% of what the neocons have gotten away with, they've gotten away with only because of a complete lack of an opposing force. What is being suggested here is that the dems actually become that, and put a literal fear of god into the neocons. Right now they're spoiled bullies who continue because none of the 'opposing side' has the balls to stand up to them.

Once somebody steps up and slams them hard with what they've been dishing out for the past decade, they'll think twice before attempting such a trick again. Or are you seriously suggesting we humbly appease the rabid fundies now so that they don't get worse? That we shouldn't put the neocons in place because we're afraid they'll do something insanely illegal in retaliation that makes the political suicide Bush and Co. have committed seem like child's play in comparison?

[brianeyci]

This appeasement idea is bullcrap.

If by "it" you mean the war in Iraq and other crap like Patriot, the neocons have got away with it because the American people backed President Bush and the Democrats were just representing the will of their constituents. But of course, it's spineless politician's fault and the American people are not culpable, no siree .

And it totally ignores the fact it's political suicide. Obama is not dumb: he has to work with practical realities like how the Dems will never get a fillibuster proof majority, not some high horse that says he should do the right thing no matter how unlikely the chance of success. He even came out and said, talking to dictators does not mean he agrees with them, but he would be willing to talk to them. I wonder if some of you have ever heard the man speak, or follow politics closely at all where figuring out how to unite disparate elements is a key plank of success.

[brianeyci]

ghetto edit: When I say appeasement idea, I mean the idea that the majority of the problems have been because one "side" has been consistently appeasing the other. That is bullcrap, because the other side didn't exist until it became painfully obvious Bush was a failure, at least not in significant enough numbers.

Yes, one way is to insult and attack the other side until they collapse, but another way is to laugh and ignore them. Obama's choosing the latter, and the dirt is flying off him like bullets off a tank as a consequence.

Fear of god my ass. The whole point of religion is they fear only god, and Obama is not a god.

[Patrick Degan]

His talk is just that, talk. What I'm more concerned about would be if he can find a balance between hitting back at the shit that's going to be thrown his way by the Republicans and keeping his "Mr. Nice-Guy" image.

He's already made some good moves though, like freezing out Fox news.

You are an excellent tactician, Captain. You let your second-in-command attack, while you sit back and watch for weakness.

If Obama's as smart as he seems, he'll let his minions do most of the dirty work and weigh in only when Republican weaknesses are exposed —when he can hit for maximum value and minimum effort and still look like the good guy. Franklin Roosevelt was very successful using that approach.

[Darth Wong]

Once somebody steps up and slams them hard with what they've been dishing out for the past decade, they'll think twice before attempting such a trick again.

Ironically, this is exactly what the Republicans have been thinking about violent Muslim extremists. The result of this thinking is Iraq.

[Yogi]

Um, decide that once they get back in power, they have to ensure they never lose an election again, by any means necessary? Are you honestly trying to argue in this thread that the powers that be behind the Republican party, if subjected to a taste of their own medicine, would respond by humbly acknowledging a lesson learned and resolve to never do it again?

And how would it be different than what they are doing now? Just to get an idea of what you're thinking, what would be something that they would try and get away with as a minority party that they haven't already tried now? It might get the common citizen to realize that his civil liberties actually mean something when taken away, but even if the common citizen is as oblivious as ever, how would it make the Republican party even nastier?

On a flip side, how could it make the Democrats worse. They've been rolling over for Republicans for quite some time now. Appeasement doesn't work. Trying to cooperate doesn't work. I would much rather have a nasty partisan two party system than the one party system of the past decade.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Um, decide that once they get back in power, they have to ensure they never lose an election again, by any means necessary? Are you honestly trying to argue in this thread that the powers that be behind the Republican party, if subjected to a taste of their own medicine, would respond by humbly acknowledging a lesson learned and resolve to never do it again?

And how would it be different than what they are doing now? Just to get an idea of what you're thinking, what would be something that they would try and get away with as a minority party that they haven't already tried now? It might get the common citizen to realize that his civil liberties actually mean something when taken away, but even if the common citizen is as oblivious as ever, how would it make the Republican party even nastier?

On a flip side, how could it make the Democrats worse. They've been rolling over for Republicans for quite some time now. Appeasement doesn't work. Trying to cooperate doesn't work. I would much rather have a nasty partisan two party system than the one party system of the past decade.

I'm with Red. You, as an American, have no idea how ugly and corrupt that path can take you. You just think it'll give you "gotcha" moments from Dems like you've been getting watching Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert and something more liberal like Europe. Well that's not going to happen by just being more vicious in the trenches. No, what you're talking about is a Democratic Party as committed to opacity, corruption, and authoritarianism as the right, just on different stumps.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Once somebody steps up and slams them hard with what they've been dishing out for the past decade, they'll think twice before attempting such a trick again.

Ironically, this is exactly what the Republicans have been thinking about violent Muslim extremists. The result of this thinking is Iraq.

Alright then. Rolling over for the neocons simply gives them more incentive to continue their bullshit. Conceded, fighting fire with fire will also make things drastically worse. Out of curiosity, then, is there any solution better than possibly decades of undoing the constitutional clusterfuck the administration's got us in and slowly forcing the general public out of what is essentially all but a far right mindset? Let alone even beginning to try and fix things overseas?