next week i'm going to colorado to dj at a fundraiser and hang out in denver and do one of two things, either:
a-lament the fact that obama is losing his lead in the polls by not standing up to the gop
slander machine.
or
b-enjoy the fact that obama is finally standing up to the gop slander machine.
we(as in 'we non-republicans')need to go after the republicans.
they're sitting ducks.
they've had 8 years, and in 8 years they've managed to fuck up just about everything they've
touched.
even now john mccain talks about how we're 'winning' in iraq.
we're 'winning'?
his definition of 'winning' is a strange one, i guess he means 'winning' in that fewer
u.s soldiers are being killed.
it's great that fewer u.s troops are dying, but that's not 'winning'.
'winning' would be american troops coming home because the iraqii government and military
are capable of looking after their own country, and there's no sign that either of those
institutions are even close to being able to run things on their own.
as i've said before, i hope the democrats don't lose this one they way they lost 2000 and 2004.
the economy blows, and john mccain doesn't have a decent plan to fix it(in fact he and his
party have had 8 years in which to decimate the economy, and now he wants to fix it? it's like
asking a wife-beater to give counseling to his spouse).
all john mccain does is stand on hotel ballroom stages and complain about obama. mccain doesn't
really offer any solutions to the problems that his party has created over the last 8 years, he just
stands around sounding like grampa simpson complaining about young people and their
denim jeans and their pizza pies and electric guitars.
and could john mccain please shut up about 'pursuing bin laden to the gates of hell'?
he and his party had 8 years to pursue bin laden, and bin laden is still at large.
the u.s troops were closing in on bin laden when mccain and bush pulled them out
of afghanistan and pakistan and sent them to iraq.
do we really need more tough-talk from ineffectual gop leaders? the gop are famous
for idiotic tough talk, like gw bush saying 'bring it on' to the terrorists. well, the terrorists
did what bush asked and they 'brought it on', killing tens of thousands of u.s troops
and iraqii and afghani civilians in the process.
tough talk from republican leaders is equal parts dangerous and idiotic.
if mccain is so serious about pursuing bin laden to the 'gates of hell' why doesn't he borrow his second
wife's private plane, fly to afghanistan, and start looking for bin laden?
and can't someone in the media ask mccain if he's referring to the literal or figurative gates of hell
when he talks about his pursuit of bin laden?
or maybe obama could bring this up?
the gop have had 8 years to run the country and they blew it. and if we democrats can't work up the nerve to remind
the country that the gop are ideologically bankrupt and utterly inept, then we don't deserve to win.
it should be an interesting convention.
i really hope someone in the democrat party has the balls to actually ridicule mccain and his republican cohorts.
i just want someone at the convention, ideally obama, to say, 'john mccain and the republicans talk tough, but they've
had 8 years to find bin laden and they blew it. john mccain and the republicans have made america
weak and vulnerable. they've made america weak economically, and they've squandered our great military
on a war that never should have started. they've had 8 years and they've done a terrible job running the country.
it's time for change.'
here's hoping, although based on past performances i imagine democratic speeches will be more like, 'the middle
class in america deserve a pro-rated tax credit that will offset some of the burdens imposed by the inequities
of the marketplace. as democrats we promise to keep the middle class in america average and in the middle.'
come on democrats, stand up and take on mccain and his inept and corrupt party.
it's so simple, they had their 8 years and they blew it.
in 1980 ronald reagan defeated jimmy carter by asking america 'are you better off than you were 4 years ago?'
can't obama just ask the same thing, but maybe phrase it, 'we've had 8 years of john mccain and republican rule, and are we as a country better off than we were 8 years ago?'
-moby
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Propeller
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Icerocket
then dreams all night of supporting obama
then the night after leaving the last comment (below), I had dreams all night long of supporting obama's campaign. the lead up to the elections in america is getting news coverage in my country as well and they showed some footage of slander of obama which was horrible. in my dreams, you were there moby (mostly in the background somewhere). there was one bit where I was asking you what you know about the harmful effects of international free trade. I hope you are not offended but I dreamt of you not being aware of that and so I was hurredely trying to fill you in, telling you about sweatshops and so on. also in the dream there was a community online journal that we were all contributing to which was a dream representation of this, although in the dream it felt like much more of a collaborative online project than this. maybe something that could happen in the future? anyway it was nice but in actuality I'm going to be having to refrain from responding to your journal entries here and on myspace for a while. I had another dream which I'd interpretted as being a message indicating that, which (because of also being quite an awesome little dream with a good message for you) I wrote up for you on MySpace, writing as zimmi under this "next week i'm going to colorado to dj at a fundraiser and hang out in denver" over there.
I wish you well moby
free trade, mmp political systems and maintaining integrity
i just found out that obama supports free trade which i suppose means international free trade and global corporate capitalism. hey ho, i don't suppose it is all that likely that any american citizen would get as close to becoming president as he is/has (within the predominating cultural/political paradigm in america) without supporting free trade, but free trade in the context of global corporate capitalism is really bad news... the kind of thing that probably leads to many people in poorer countries feeling deep seated extreme hatred towards america and the other g8 countries that seem so hell bent on exploiting the resources of any and every other country as much as they possibly can to support their own affluence, very much at the expense of a great portion of the world's human citizens, other species, and the environment.
many consciencious people would say that the republicans and the democrats in america are pretty much two sides of the same coin. yeah obama would better then mccain but how much better? I really don't know. If I was an american citizen, i'd be having to think deep and hard about whether to vote for obama, or support the green party in this next election. ultimately an mmp parliamentary and voting system is required for a more just and truley representative parliament in any country. for anyone who doesn't already know, mmp stands for mixed member parliament and after the elections the parties have to form coalitions with other parties (who have gained at least 5% of the party vote) and then it is the biggest coalition that gets in, not necessarily the individual party that won over the most electorates. In the country where I live, we have an mmp parliamentary system and we have some green party members in parliament. in the old first past the post type of system, it is harder for many people to vote for the party that they most want to support without that vote consequently resulting in some other horrible party actually getting in.
anyway, aside from that, i wanted to point out that ridicule of political opponents is really not necessary in the process of pointing out how much damage another party has done to a country or the faults or incongruencies in other party's policies. i don't think that ridicule in that context is particularly sound and it is ultimately better for politicians to refrain from that, stick to the facts and to respectful forms of relaying information... which demonstrates a higher level of integrity than attempting to undermine and shame other political opponents, with slander and disrespectful ridicule. having said that, just laying down the bare facts for all to see, of how greatly the bush administration have mismanaged their time in the white house so far could be quite completely adequate I think to show them up for being the rogues that they are.
Brit view of US Election
In the UK I have stumbled across the fact that the right wing party, when in power, actually benefits the people, but business does not do as well, and, conversely, when the 'left' are in power, business does well and not individuals - which is contrary to their (and our) expectations. Any idea if this happens in the states too?
Right on.
I couldn't agree with you more, have a great time in Denver. I wasn't sure where to write this so I'll post it here. My high school senior English class used a lot of the music from Moby Gratis in a documentary we made on Media Literacy. It is posted at the following address:
http://www.teachertube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=c32d4dab7475daa0c050
I would have posted it on your youtube channel, but the file is to big. I hope you enjoy it we worked really hard on it. Thanks for the music.
Steve
You know Sacred Dignity,
You know Sacred Dignity, for a liberatarian who claims to dislike both parties, you seem to defend McCain a lot. And if you're going to disagree with people here, how about an argument without sarcasm and mockery. I agree with sea shine, Moby, you should write to Obama about your concerns.
Problems with McCain
1. He said not once but twice in one day (while in Iraq) that Al Queda were being assisted by Iran. Oops, so much for his being the foreign policy "wiz." Iran and Al Queda are Sunni and Shia, meaning they hate each other. Good thing McCain had the ol' Turncoat Hawk, Lieberman, by his side to correct his "senior moment."
2. He wants to stay in Iraq for at least 50-100 years like our troops in Korea. Yeah, you first, John.
3. He says the problem with universal healthcare is that it would be so complex that you'd have to "make an appointment just to make an appointment." So this means you should pay through the nose for healthcare because to get it for free is too much of a pain in the ass? Ask the poor if they mind a few extra phone calls to get their health back.
4. He's flipflopped on Roe V. Wade, the religious right, the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy, campaign finance reform (his own legislation), immigration, gun control, even ethanol and the confederate flag. And let's not forget that his was the last state to honor Martin Luther King's Birthday as a holiday. And perhaps worst of all is the way he, a former war prisoner, caved into the white house on the issue of torture.
5. His "let them eat cake" attitude towards all the homeowners who lost their houses in the mortgage crisis.
6. He admitted the economy was "not his strongest" area. This while Americans are paying record prices at the pumps.
7. He admitted he and his wife have so many houses that he has lost count. And lost touch with all classes except the super-rich like he and his wife.
8. His legendary temper. And this guy would have his finger on the button?
9. He has supported the Iraq blunder from the beginning including any and all "surges" either in troop increases or moneys allocated.
10. He never met a lobbyist he didn't like. Some more than others, hint hint!!
Btw, what's that smell? Oh it's Sacred Asshead taking shots at Moby again for speaking his mind while Sacred Retread does the neocon dance, goosestepping oh. so. proudly. Sorry, Sacred, you can't throw shit and suck your own dick at the same time. You just come off looking like the desperate little GOP monkey that you are, hat in hand begging for spare change while McCain grinds away on the same tired republican organ. Keep draggin' those knuckles, buddy.
www.myspace.com/kurtlockwood
smells like lame rebuttals...
Thanks for the Myspace link. You come across as ignorant as you look. Why the late reply? Been googling for dirt on anti-Mccain, anti-republican, radical nihilist sites so that you could use as ammo here and pass of as your own?
Tell me I'm wrong.
again, straw man arguments. Should i expect anything less from a professional in the business of sleeze?
either you've never taken a course in philosophy called "logic" or you're completely immune to reading comprehension.
so you've found a shopping list of things you don't like about Mccain. do you feel smarter? vindicated? justified?
are you giving yourself the double-barrel finger-point in the mirror right now gloating "i showed that dirty fukuyama-reading, war-mongering, gay-bashing conservative!"
your argument only works if you were addressing a card-carrying, registered-member of the GOP.
and i am not.
so there you go but since you spent a better part of your day formulating a reservoir of "witty" things you could offer as a rebuttal to several of my previous posts, i will humor you.
You (allegedly)said:
"1. He said not once but twice in one day (while in Iraq) that Al Queda were being assisted by Iran. Oops, so much for his being the foreign policy "wiz." Iran and Al Queda are Sunni and Shia, meaning they hate each other. Good thing McCain had the ol' Turncoat Hawk, Lieberman, by his side to correct his "senior moment."
So has Hillary Clinton, Teddy Kennedy, Tom Daschel, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, Joe Biden, etc., which alluded to horrific intel estimates through several sources which was later confirmed to be erroneous.
In scholarship, this is commonly referred to as selective application. you are conveniently ignoring the same fallacy to the very people you claim allegiance to in the interest of...what?!
you said:
"2. He wants to stay in Iraq for at least 50-100 years like our troops in Korea. Yeah, you first, John."
A quote on this please with source and date.
If this is accurate, this is a point I will grant you given the cost and calamity incurred by neoconservatives' adventures (again, read my earlier posts on why i resent both conservatives and liberals).
However, what I believe he is alluding to is the modern equivalent of the marshall plan--painful at first but ultimately became the single greatest foreign policy initiative ever in the history of the world. that said, we should adopt a wait and see attitude since most of the rhetoric is fluff or a deliberate disinformation to dupe the enemies (whoever they are).
you said:
"3. He says the problem with universal healthcare is that it would be so complex that you'd have to "make an appointment just to make an appointment." So this means you should pay through the nose for healthcare because to get it for free is too much of a pain in the ass? Ask the poor if they mind a few extra phone calls to get their health back."
I'm with him on this along every sane, responsible american who's ever had to deal with the massive paper-bureaucracy that is the health care delivery system.
perhaps most people at your age would appreciate the simple axiom that nothing in life is free. what you may get in "free" health care, there will inevitably be a level of sacrafice made on your part whether that means astronomical tax hikes or further encroachment on your personal liberties.
the funding for free universal health care has to come from a source. given the over-bloated budget and reckless spending habits of elected officials, the burden will fall back on you the tax payer.
to quote from economist milton friedman: "you cannot simultaneously have a welfare state and free immigration".
This is something both candidates currently are unable to reconcile.
you said:
"4. He's flipflopped on Roe V. Wade, the religious right, the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy, campaign finance reform (his own legislation), immigration, gun control, even ethanol and the confederate flag. And let's not forget that his was the last state to honor Martin Luther King's Birthday as a holiday. And perhaps worst of all is the way he, a former war prisoner, caved into the white house on the issue of torture."
name me 5 politicians in u.s. history that has not flip-flopped and i'll give you 5 compulsive liars.
Don't get me started on this. every elected official is guilty of this indictment including your oh so precious obama-wama-poo.
he's switched sides (sometimes in a matter of days) on crucial topics such as nafta, wild-catting (oil drilling), campaign finance, gun control, civil liberties (wire taps), etc.
you said:
"5. His "let them eat cake" attitude towards all the homeowners who lost their houses in the mortgage crisis."
do you have an actual quote from a speech or are you extrapolating based on his body language, political disposition or tax status?
did he actually say "let them eat cake"?
if he didn't, how did you gauge his "attitude"?
you said:
"6. He admitted the economy was "not his strongest" area. This while Americans are paying record prices at the pumps."
admittedly, this is something obama could pounce on but it bewilders me on why he continues to talk nonsense about the economy.
read my earlier post on bush's tax cuts and obama's plan to repeal them.
you said:
"7. He admitted he and his wife have so many houses that he has lost count. And lost touch with all classes except the super-rich like he and his wife."
the sooner you come to grips with the fact that a majority of elected officials are stinking rich, the more productive this dialogue will be.
and do you hold people like john kerry (serial gold-digger) or al gore to the same standards?
would it make you feel more comfortable in the fact that obama is living in a home purchased for him by a convicted criminal as part of a "gentlemen's agreement" for certain promises to be fulfilled?
I'll take out-of-touch senility over possible illegality any day.
don't answer, i think i know where you stand.
you said:
"8. His legendary temper. And this guy would have his finger on the button?"
Bubba clinton could implode in cabinet meetings with the best of them. So did carter. what's your point? that mccain has standards of excellence and gets upset when those expectations are not met? people like mccain do not get that far in their careers without breaking some balls or throwing hissy fits like howard dean.
you are just in awe over captain charisma, aren't you? you probably can't come up with enough superlatives in your arsenal to unload each time chris matthews lobs a "soft-ball" to him.
take a closer look at his interviews. when he's not delivering a "prepared and scripted" speech during an interview, he mutters an incoherent "ummm...ah..yeahhh....ummm" in an embarrassing effort to sound diplomatic, experienced and statesmen-like.
churchill, lincoln or tony blair he is not.
so mcain gets pissed, so what?!
would you prefer a "soft" and "weak" obama facing putin across the negotiating table?
you said:
"9. He has supported the Iraq blunder from the beginning including any and all "surges" either in troop increases or moneys allocated."
this is a rehash of point #1 and #2.
*yawn*
you said:
"10. He never met a lobbyist he didn't like. Some more than others, hint hint!!"
have you considered the lack of transparency on the part of both hillary clinton and obama as well when it comes to political contributions from shady sources?
wake up and smell the culture! that's washington dc! that is why I am against the culture of greed and incompetence that's been going on for as long as the movie "mr.smith goes to washington" has been out.
nearly every ethics code and moral obligation to constituents gets thrown out of the capitol hill window the moment a newly minted official enters.
the former governor of my home state William weld once described politics as being "rotten to the core".
i hope you're not under the illusion that somehow obama is excluded from this culture? we don't have enough space here on moby.com to list the countless possibilities and i have yet to even mention his very dubious (read: shady as f*ck) associates.
so there you go. you've not added one illuminating point that hasn't already been said by many, many others who are vastly more intelligent than you. and trust me, i am very familiar with them.
if calling me grade-school names allay your fears about a "vast right-wing conspiracy" taking hold in pinko-sphere here, fire away. at the very least, come up with some better names like "ivory-tower douche-bag".
options for potentially effective actions
I read a biography about jane fonda who was a prominent and effective activist against the vietnam war. at one point in time she was in the process of taking president nixon to court. He stood to be sued for at least a million dollars and of course his reputation was seriously on the line. I don't remember the exact details of what happened, but he made some agreements and then Jane Fonda dropped the case. Did he end up resigning? Well the war in veitnam ended anyway.
My guess is that there would be quite a few things that members of the bush administration could be taken to court for, but for some reason unknown to me, no-one has initiated any court cases against them.
I agree that Obama ought to be going into a lot of detail about how much damage the bush administration has done to america. I recall asking you before if you are actually a democratic party member and whether or not you attend meetings. If you don't, do you know anyone who does? You are making some very good points here moby but chances are, obama is not reading your journal. If you or someone who could be persuaded by you to get certain points across in a democratic party meeting goes to along to a meeting and does that, then there is more chance that your message will get through to obama himself.
Good luck
No We Can't!
taking a page out of the james carville playbook of spin-doctoring, fraught worhsippers of Team Charisma will say and believe anything to avoid reality.
And the reality is captain charisma will inevitably lose a winnable presidential election.
Sure, McCain and his clandestine team of sabotage specialists in Rove Consulting do not play fair but who ever said politics is a fair game? It's a diry, filthy and grimy business where ideologies are neatly packaged into 10 second sound-bites and the u.s. constitution is treated as nothing more than "legal suggestions".
Obama just gives me the impression that he's unwilling to roll up his sleaves and get his hands dirty in a good fight. I suspect that sarcasm is about as tough as he can get.
if he loses any more ground in the polls, you'll see a hissy fit that will surely rival howard dean's infamous melt-down.
another laser-guided shot from uss rove and you can stick a fork in his campaign.
How did he manage to screw up given that this was the democrats election to lose?
The vast right-wing conspiracy?
Nah, the facts don't support this theory.
For one, the liberal media has given Obama an over-sized soap box to deliver his liberation theology of "hope, human kindness and that magical word...change!"
Secondly, hard-core traditional Republicans of the Taft-Reagan variety are not fervent suporters of McCain. Many have even defected to the Libertarian Candidate Bob Barr after Ron Paul conceded in the Republican primaries. Evangelical Christians, the base and staple of the Gop, have serious resverations about McCain's disregard for faith-based inititatives and concerns about his mean-spirited attitude.
Simply put, Obama is committing serious strategic errors (is Michael Dukakis an advisor to Team Charisma?).
beyond the pomp and prose and the premature european victory tour, Obama has yet to deliver a sound economic, domestic or foreign policy proposal that is viable and reasonable to the majority of voters.
Proposing to repeal the bush tax cuts (cap gains, dividend, income, corporate) during a global recession is economic suicide. Either Obama is out of touch with economic realities or he's simply ignorant and naive when it comes to taxation.
How did he manage to get this far? Are we electing party candidates on the basis of how eloquent they sound? has Obama ever authored a senatorial white paper? how has the average american benifitted from his 100 plus days in the Senate? can you imagine obama facing putin in a tense negotiation?
Lastly, I propose that all "celebrities" who offer insipid political meanderings should a) post their historical voting record and b) post their educational experience in the field which they are claiming knowledge of.
Inexperienced? So.
Barak Obama has more experience then John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton when they took office.
They both turned out to be alright for this country.
"Proposing to repeal the
"Proposing to repeal the bush tax cuts (cap gains, dividend, income, corporate) during a global recession is economic suicide. Either Obama is out of touch with economic realities or he's simply ignorant and naive when it comes to taxation."
Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy and his war are the reason we're in this global recission and anyone with an ounce of sense knows it... but look who I'm talking to.
You're a troll. And a bad one at that. With no amount of sense and reason and one of the reasons our country is where it is today. People who after a eight years of hell STILL think the republicans have all the answers when in fact they only have the answers for THEM and don't care how much they fuck us over.
proposing to question the questioner
Another Ad Hominem attempt at discediting dissenting opinion without actually saying anything of consequence.
And what have you offered in return?
"Bush sucks, that sucks, the Grand old party sucks, bible-thumpers suck, the war-mongers suck, humvee drivers suck, people who buy their latte at starbucks suck, people who eat meat suck, people who don't like muse or radiohead suck, thomas pain sucks, tucker carlson sucks, fox news sucks, monica lewinski sucks, teany without bespectacled bald waiters suck"
Come down from your platitude and address the issues.
The Bush Cuts reduced the rate of taxes imposed on dividends, the source of income for retirees across the board indiscriminately. Income tax which is a form of totalitarian control over private enterprise and liberties on the part of government would be increased along with corporate taxes. The former will further hinder spending on americans in a struggling economy while the latter will be forced to reorganize or down-size their payroll due to higher taxes.
There are confluent factors that contributed to the credit crisis; short-selling speculation, subprime, dollar capitulation, irresponsible poor people, etc.
Lastly, don't assume I am voting for McCain because I question Obama's experience. if you have bothered to read any of my previous comments on politics, you would know that i am a libertarian.