Journal pudge's Journal: Obama Gets Smacked Down 7
I was listening to the Democratic debate from Sunday and there was an interesting exchange. George Stephanopolous asked Senator Obama a question about something Karl Rove said, and then:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Now, Senator Obama, I know you're loathe to agree with Karl Rove on just about anything.
OBAMA: I am.
He didn't seem at all to be kidding. He seems to think that just because Rove is on the other side of the aisle, Obama should therefore disagree with him on most things. But then a debate participant went on to show Obama the error of his ways:
I think a winning strategy is not crafted by a political calculus that divides the country into red states and blue states.
So what I've been trying to express in my campaign is that if you believe that part of the problem is the failed politics of Washington and the conventional thinking in Washington, if you're tired of the backbiting and the score keeping and the special-interest-driven politics of Washington, if you want somebody who can bring the country together around a common purpose and rally us around a common destiny, then I'm your guy.
[...]
What I'm suggesting is that we're going to need somebody who can break out of the political patterns that we've been in over the last 20 years. And part of that is the notion that half the country's on one side; the other half's on the other.
Obama sure did get smacked down there. The problem is, he's the one who smacked himself down.
I liked Obama because I thought maybe he really did want change. That he really was tolerant of people who disagreed with him. I was wrong. He's just another pandering, hypocritical, politician. The problem is I didn't give him enough credit: I thought he was too inexperienced to be that good at being that deceptive.
What's really amazing is that either Obama doesn't want what is best for the country, or he insanely thinks Rove doesn't. Everyone with half a brain, who can think beyond their irrational hatred, knows that Rove wants what is best for the country. As Obama does. As all of these people on both sides do. So why would Obama be loathe to agree with Rove? Certainly, they both want what is best for the country, so therefore they will at times agree. Obama is blinded by hatred, yet he wants to bring us together?
Now Playing: ABC News - The Iowa Debates: The Democrats
Wanting what's best for the country (Score:2)
I'm not sure that everyone on both sides wants what's best for the country. I'm not talking about what THEY think is best for the country, which is a different issue.
I think there are a huge number of people in politics in the United States who are in it for themselves and the power they feel they have as a result of their posit
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone with half a brain, who can think beyond their irrational hatred, knows that Rove wants what is best for the country. As Obama does. As all of these people on both sides do.
I'm not sure that everyone on both sides wants what's best for the country. I'm not talking about what THEY think is best for the country, which is a different issue.
What is best is perception. They all want what is best. Whether they KNOW what is best is a different issue, but since none of us can know, it's not too interesting to talk about.
I think there are a huge number of people in politics in the United States who are in it for themselves and the power they feel they have as a result of their positions.
Perhaps, but all of them are only doing it in the first place because they want what is best, and doing what is best is the primary motivation (whether what they think is best is actually best, or not).
I think people who are out to radically change the Constitution are not out for the "best" for the United States. They are motivated to make such changes because it will serve them in some way. That's how I see most liberals' positions these days.
I agree with the first sentence, and disagree with the second. They want what is best: they are just deluded into thinking th
Re: (Score:2)
I should have said that I believe that politicians who are out to radically change the Constitution are doing it to serve themselves -- get more people to vote for them, got voted on to more powerful committees, get social organizations to support them, get companies to give them money, etc... I really don't think, at the national level, there are more than 10% "ho
Re: (Score:2)
I should have said that I believe that politicians who are out to radically change the Constitution are doing it to serve themselves -- get more people to vote for them, got voted on to more powerful committees, get social organizations to support them, get companies to give them money, etc.
Sure, but almost all, if not all, of them do so because they think that is what is best: "better that I am in office even if I have to compromise, then someone else who doesn't want what I want, which is what is best."
I think you're being a smidge unfair to Obama (Score:1)
Take my local libertarian candidate for county commissioner as an example: The guy is a total jerk in real life and politically, he never lets anyone get a word in edgewise until he's done talking, pretends to do civil disobedience protests yet somehow manages
Re: (Score:2)
Or rather, I don't think his positions are as incongruent as you seem to think they are. After all, it's easily possible to loathe agreeing with someone you dislike or distrust, and yet do so.
Sure. But it is NOT possible to loathe disagreeing with someone you dislike or distrust if you are "my guy" to end the "the backbiting and the score keeping" and "bring the country together around a common purpose" and to reject "the notion that half the country's on one side; the other half's on the other."
The point is that he proved he is not what he said he is: the uniter to bring people together. Instead, he is just another politician who separates people into those he agrees with and those he doesn'
Re: (Score:1)
I'll buy that. I thought you were trying to make a slightly different point than you were trying to make, I think--I'm personally not certain that Rove always has the best interests of the country at heart, but I also don't think anyone does all the time unless they're a saint. Rove's actions and advice whi