Comments on: Obama

By: Eve

Eve — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 02:04:33 +0000

I like that, Sean; “don’t leave your idealism at the door, just in your back pocket.”

By: Sean

Sean — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 00:00:37 +0000

I agree, Eve. Politics is not for the pure. You gotta do what you gotta do. The key is always the end result. I grew up in a family active in politics and learned at an early age to leave my idealism at the door. Well, not so much at the door, but in my back pocket. When it comes to candidates and issues I support, I keep my eye on the distant target, but for negotiating the immediate obstacle, I play to win.

By: Eve

Eve — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 23:33:14 +0000

It seems to me that politics has always been a swamp of sorts: no matter who you are going in, you’re deliberately entering what amounts to a mudhole, so prepare to get dirty.

What will determine who survives the quicksand is any given individual’s ability to observe, analyze, weigh options, and make a decision in what amounts to nanoseconds. If getting your way, even if it’s truly for the “greater good,” means wallowing with the big pigs for a while, then that’s what you’ll have to do. At the very least you’ll learn their tactics and strategy, and eventually you’ll float on the top of the mire as opposed to sinking in it.

Sartre wrote what I consider a great play (despite my impatience with existentialism) entitled, “Dirty Hands.” In it, a charismatic party leader negotiates with his political opponents rather than keep his stance “pure.” One of Sartre’s points was that in politics, as in life, it’s not only practically impossible to keep your hands clean, but often imperative to get them dirty in order to further your goals.

I think extreme circumstances call for extreme measures. If liberal politicians are to have any hope of achieving their objectives, they may have to jump in the muck with everyone else, even if they end up climbing on top of them to gain the upper hand. It may be ruthlessly Machiavellian, but if it works–?

By: raindogzilla

raindogzilla — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 03:39:08 +0000

DRB, the point of the post was not to in anyway tout Obama politically but, rather to tackle that sticky issue; whether seculars and liberal religionists can coexist and, more importantly, effectively organize an offesnse against the offensive fundies. After being impressed with his speech at the Dem Convention, I haven’t paid much attention to or heard much about Obama’s fledgling term. This would seem to indicate that he’s going along to get along and/or being kept in line by the boys in the smoke-filled rooms that run the party. I have no love for any dems who voted for the bankruptcy sham or, for that matter, for the ones who rolled over for Alito and Roberts and refuse to take a stand against the War. In other words, this is no endorsement of Obama. Oh, and for some folks who are doing something about the electioneering in evangelical megachurches, check this.

By: Da Rat Bastid

Da Rat Bastid — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 00:48:32 +0000

First of all, check out The Atheist Prophet The name is a joke, of course. Just getting started with it but tell me what you think…
I yhought I posted to this already. A spamware issue again?
Pfft. Probably NSA courtesy of AT&T. But I digress.
Man, fuck Obama. He’s a pissant sellout apologist that uses issues lie this to cover his pro-corporate takeover of the Government. The dill hole rolled over for the Credit Card Industry bill. Man of the people my ass.
I read about this the day after in my local paper, the St. Louis Post Disgrace.
My ire was sparked from this line:

“The Christians who I would work with, they recognized themselves in me; they saw that I knew their book and shared their values and sang their songs. But they sensed a part of me that remained detached and removed, that I was an observer in their midst,” Obama said.

So, it bothered him that the Christians mistrusted and ostracised him. And even though he considered himself a skeptic of sorts, he betrayed logic and surrendered to peer pressure.
For political gain. It’s like Lieberman, who on Meet the Press on Easter Sunday 2005 that he thinks that people do not have freedom from religion, only freedom of. Which mirrors a widely reported “belief” of the Bush family that you’re not really an American citizen if you don’t beleive in some dumb ass dogma.
Preferably theirs. I wouldn’t recommend Islam right now either. You might get charged for blowing up the Sears Tower!
Personally, I think it’ time for a class action suit against the Government. Newdow is only picking the window dressing issues. We need to focus on thing like the Faith Based Initiatives and electioneering in evangelical churches.

By: Raindogzilla

Raindogzilla — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 00:26:26 +0000

Jimmer, it’s not particularly an appetizing option getting in bed with the religious but, just from my experience with quite a few of the more moderate xians, I find that they do respect the separation of church and state, that they decidedly do not want a theocracy, that they, in fact, are not really even inclined to pimp their goddery to others unless they’re asked. They support civil rights, most support gay marriage, choice, and war as an absolutely last option. They’re really a lot like us though they haven’t taken that final step, and it is absolutely necessary to include them on the left- see the percentages above, if we are to rid ourselves of this meddlesome neocon infestation.

Hey, Sean, maybe doing this is altruism?

By: jimmer

jimmer — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 23:34:09 +0000

I’ve been thinking about this for awhile now. It still seems as though the politicians are being compromised into passing a quasi- religious test. They are more or less required to hold a religious belief of some kind. That mile long inch. I think in that way that they are placating the evangelicals. Not in a point by point accepatance but just in acknowleging the religious set-up. The evangelicals have been shaping the debate now for 30+ years and are getting very good at it. I am uncertain as to what the antidote is for such qualifying. But the reality is that religion has shaped the political environment and that of and by itself is a major cause of the problems we face. As well as a major concern for the longevity of real true freedom. To the religious there is only a few problems that need to be addressed by Gov’t. The rest of life is about religion. I still hear people who want the HPV vaccine to be given to girls when they are 18 any younger and apparently that gives the young girls a license to have sex.??? And these are the people who are dominating the political scene.

The religious as M was saying apparently will unite behind their own beliefs and accept people who have similar beliefs. But they will not accept those of us who do not share their beliefs. I understand the idea Obama is giving as more of building bridges but I am most afraid that the bridge leads to a one way dead end street.

By: raindogzilla

raindogzilla — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 22:13:31 +0000

Catherine, I understand things have improved up there since the Cuyahoga River caught fire right before I moved south. Mean Jean still walks the floor of Congress, having withstood a fairly stout primary challenge from someone not so wingnutty. That district(OH-2) went over 65% for Bush in both ‘00 and ‘04 and, still, Hackett came within two percentage points of nailing Schmidt. Paul’s working with IAVAPAC- Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Political Action Committee, subbing on radio for both Springer and Ed Schultz, and, I’m not so sure about this one, suing the gov’t on behalf of 26.5 milion vets who’s info was recently stolen.

He wasn’t completely against the war- or the removing of Hussein anyway, I mean, he went. But he was disgusted by the way the American public was manipulated by this administration- into believing Iraq was an imminent threat, had WMDs, was part of 9/11, was a haven for terrorists, etc. He also was sickened by the way they ran the War in pretty much every phase.