August 2006 Weddings
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
A question for conservatives
I guess it's a few questions. I'm not trying to start a war, and I'm trying to write this as fairly as possible. I really am curious.
1. Do you think the MPC has intentionally insinuated that Barack Obama is a terrorist, or at the very least, someone to be feared?
2. If yes, do you agree with them? If not, how do you reconcile this kind of fear-based campaigning with your vote for the MPC?
3. Are you a Palin fan?
4. What are your thoughts about several traditionally conservative newspapers and individuals endorsing Obama, while citing both the Palin nomination and the fear-based campaigning discussed above?
Re: A question for conservatives
1) No. I think he is someone to be feared - not in a racist or terrorist sense but as someone who will not be good for the country. I think McCain has outright said that.
2) It is politics. Both sides are guilty as they are in every election.
3) She would not have been my first choice. I am still voting for Mccain, however. I think reform is necessary.
4) I still think I know best.
Is this for conservatives or republicans or both? I'm not really either but I wanted to comment:
number 2 bothered me. There are MANY reasons to vote for someone.I don' t think because of ONE issue that anyone should have to justify why they are voting for a candidate. I am not a one issue voter. Nor are most people. I vote for whoever best fits my ideology.
Both, either, whatever.
I agree that there are many reasons, of course. I'm just incredibly disgusted by the smear campaign that is being run. If it was my candidate, I would be incredibly irritated. Not that it would change my vote, but it might if I was lukewarm on my candidate, and his VP, already.
1. Insinuated that Obama is a terrorist - no, insinuated that he is someone to be feared--I wish they would, but with a focus on his liberal agenda (and lack of check on Dem power). ?If you mean the Ayres thing, I think that's a valid argument for them to make, although I think a minute they spend talking about it is a minute they are losing. ?Voters are focused on the economy, not Obama's ties (deep or shallow) to an unrepentant terrorist. ?
2. See above. ?In short, I don't think the tone of MPC is any more negative than any other campaign. ?
3. I liked the idea of her on the day she was announced, but I've been underwhelmed since. ?I don't think she's an unmitigated disaster, and I don't think she'll run to the right with the party either, but she's crappy off the cuff and she's out of her depth.
4. I've never really cared what the ed boards of newspapers think. ?That's so old media. ?Neither the Palin nomination nor the campaign tone are a good enough reason for me to vote for unchecked power to implement a liberal fiscal agenda for this country.
Deductive reasoning isn't a conservative or liberal attribute. ~epphd
That's the point of her question, though, I think. It was "how do you reconcile". If you are a multi-issue voter then surely if you have issues with a candidate you still want to vote for, you somehow reconcile with those issues you don't like.
I feel like my grammar was effed up in that explanation but I dunno where the problem is.
Ditto all of this, except I Like Palin a little more than Yeah does.
I'll always vote for the most viable candidate that comes closest to my views. I've said this before, but I learned my lesson when Perot ran in '92--while I was too young to vote, it was a clear example to me that a 3rd party candidate is more like a vote for the candidate that's farthest away from your views.
<a href="http://www.thenest.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=HTML&utm_campaign=tickers" title="Home D
You aren't serious right? ?I pal around with lots of lawyers. ?It doesn't make me one.?
Deductive reasoning isn't a conservative or liberal attribute. ~epphd
1. No I don't think it has been intentional by the campaign. I think some of his zealot supporters have made this an issue.
2. I don't buy the terrorist thing even though I do question Obama's judgment on some of his relationships like those crazy pastors - Rev. Wright and Father Plager. The Ayers thing is getting old but I do believe there is more to that relationship than Obama's wants to own up to. Does it make him a terrorist? No. But another question mark in my book on not knowing Obama that well.
3. Not a Palin fan. There were much better picks. But I don't hate her and I am not changing my support of McCain because of her.
4. I could care less about any endorsements. I make my own decisions.
If there should be any fear regarding Obama, it should be over his issues. Those scare me. But then that is because I don't believe in his big government philosophy.
Yes I am very serious. We are not talking about lawyers. We are talking about an incredibly loaded term: terrorist. It's a word that means much more than "lawyer" and saying someone pals around with them implies so much more in this era of a "war on terror."
1) No I do not think that has been happening. I think that Obama is to be feared because of his liberal agenda and far left friends. I think his judgment is to be feared as well since he does and has "palled around with terrorists." Obama and Ayres being friends does not mean that Obama is a terrorist, obviously, and I dont think that insinuation was ever made. But someone who wants to be President thinking it is a-ok to be friendly with a known and unrepentant domestic terrorist... that shows a serious lack of judgment.
2) N/A
3) I like Palin, I was and am thrilled with the choice.
4) The members of the media/commentators with whom I normally agree anyhow like Palin; I dont really care what a random editor of a newspaper I dont read thinks.
Just want to say that while I wouldn't expect a newspaper's endorsement to change anyone's mind, many newspapers endorsed W in '04, and have now endorsed Obama, citing Palin and the nasty campaign:
Link
The Denver Post, which had backed George W. Bush in 2004 and is owned by Republican-leaning William Dean Singleton, this evening endorsed Barack Obama for president. So did the Chicago Sun-Times, Kansas City Star. Southwest News-Herald (Ill.) and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. And to top it off: two more Bush backers in 2004, The Salt Lake Tribune and Las Cruces (N.M) Sun-News.
This followed this afternoon's surprises: the Chicago Tribune, which has never in 150 years endorsed a Democrat, backed Obama, as did its fellow Tribune paper, the Los Angeles -- which had endorsed no one in more than 30 years. It seems like a dam broke yesterday with the unexpectedly early choice of Obama by The Washington Post.
This would make me think twice.
but... no matter how much Obama and all the libs may wish it were so... McCain-Palin (and Palin especially) =/= Bush. Thus, you can like Bush but not McCain/Palin, and vice versa.
I think you are attributing more influence to newspapers than they have anymore. Way, way more.
ETA: if a liberal leaning newspaper endorsed McCain, would that change your vote or influence you at all? I really doubt it. And I think if you say it would, you are full of it
Well, it is the same in reserve. Personally, I could not care less who the editors endorse - I didnt care during the primaries either. And given the waning numbers of newspaper subscribers, I dont think I am alone.
www.metrobabyblog.com
1. There are some people that make this link and others, including myself, that see this statement more as showing a lack of judgement on Obama's part.
2. I see this type of campaigning as par for our political discourse, unfortunately. It is not something I condone, but something I expect, and get, from both sides in one way or another (and the reason I refuse to register as a member of a party-even Independent).
3. I am lukewarm on her, but am the same with McCain.
4. I don't keep tabs on who endorses which candidate and only know of a few through this board and drudge or powerline for I do not really care what others think of a candidate that I may or may not vote for--I can decipher that on my own.
(Bolding mine.) Excuse me? He does pal around with terrorists? As in, currently? Do you have a source for that? That's a pretty serious allegation.
I am honestly curious as to what "palling around" involves. When I think "palling around," I think of spending free time together on a regular basis, doing activities of mutual interest, etc. I don't think of serving on a charitable board together. You know, I have yet to hear what evidence has been presented of true "palling around."
I'm amazed that people think all these vicious rumors have just sprouted up with no prompting from the McCain campaign. If you don't think all this stuff isn't part of a whisper campaign that has been fueled by the campaign itself, then I've got a bridge to sell you. And I bet you know where it goes.
Even McCain repudiations of the things that crazies have said at his rallies were pretty weak-ass. When that one woman stood up at a town hall meeting and said Obama was an Arab, McCain's response was "No...he's a decent family man." That statement right there implies that an Arab could not be a "decent family man" or that somehow being an Arab-American would preclude somebody from serving as president. Instead of responding to the Muslim rumors that Obama is a Christian, the campaign should be pointing out the Constitution of the United States imposes no religious test on candidates for public office. Colin Powell was right this morning when he said that the right response to this stuff is, "So what if he is?"
Frankly, I'm done having any respect for McCain. His running mate has said that Obama pals around with terrorists. Just the other day, she referred to the "pro-America" parts of the country, which contained absolutely disgusting implications. Nancy Pfotenhauer was just saying that northern Virginia isn't "real" Virginia. These are things coming directly from McCain's campaign, yet he had the gall to talk about how his feelings were hurt by the statements of John Lewis, someone not affiliated with the Obama campaign and someone whose statements Obama had already repudiated.
The McCain campaign is using scare tactics and appealing to the basest parts of people's nature to further their campaign, and in the process, it is further dividing this country. I am sick of pretending it's just a few crazies and not the campaign itself. I am done. I did once like McCain, but I can no longer muster even an ounce of respect for what he has become.
Not sure that this was posted to actually get conservatives' opinions but I'll go for it.
1. No, I don't think they have insuinated that Obama is a terrorist. I think they have appropriately said that his relationship with Ayers is inappropriate for a presidential nominee (or, well, anyone). I think it's important that we look at why and how they were involved and what did they accomplish together.
2. I think his far-left policies are to be feared because I think they will downright bad for our country. I'm sure the left fears McCain. I think I've heard that on this board more than a few times.
3. Yes, very much so. I'm excited about what she's done in AK and what she could do for our country. I like that she's focused on taxes and energy.
4. That would be pretty sad if I changed my vote because a paper didn't endorse the person I like! I don't agree with them and I'm okay with that because I'm confident if how I feel about the issues.
Ayres = terrorist.
Obama has had a close relationship with Ayers in the past (clearly he has distanced himself of late, though not enough IMO). I believe he launched his senate campaign from Ayers home? Or did some campaigning from his home? In any case dont have time to source bc I have dinner cooking but Obama has spent time with Ayers and his family, in his home.
Ayers = an unreprentent domestic terrorist.
That's just it, though, PGH. When you have a moment, if you would find those sources, I would appreciate seeing them, because I've heard McCain and Palin spout this same line, but I have yet to see any proof.
PGH, I'm still waiting for the evidence that he does, as in currently, "pal around with terrorists."
This is a pretty good accounting of Obama's dealings with Ayers, and I would hardly term this relationship "close."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8630.html
1. Intentionally, probably. Campaigns aren't stupid, they know how your mind works. He pals around with terrorists, so your mind will think he's either a terrorist himself or he's got really bad judgment. When really, the real purpose of a terrorist is to have you lose faith in your government-its the complete opposite of what Obama is striving for. Furthermore, the innuendo means they don't even have to admit it; you've made the connection yourself. Pretty clever if you ask me.
2. I think Obama has done just as poorly in this field-that last commercial using the debate material is really sort of over the top fear-mongering. If I were McCain, I'd bring in Congress' approval rating and show how the vote how Obama votes, you know, when he actually casts a vote, lol. At least he's got one person on his team who isn't IN Congress right now.
3. I was at the beginning, I've tried to stick with it, but frankly, she's not impressing anyone. At the risk of sounding like that woman that wrote that Time magazine piece, she's ruining it for the rest of us.
4. I think newspapers want to sell newspapers. Obama's up; it makes sense to endorse him. Show me a true conservative newspaper like the Washington Times endorse Obama, maybe I'll give it a second look. But everyone on this board is far too smart and invested in the election to be swayed by a newspaper endorsement. You'd do far better to ask this on the street than in here.
Well then you offend too easily. It's pretty clear from some of your responses and even from part of your question that you are looking to argue and prove people wrong, not so much to understand.
No he didn't. This is not true at all. They sat on a few boards (funded by big time GOPers) and before BO ran for senate he met with Ayers (at Ayers' home I believe) as do all Chicago dems when they run for state office.
And can we all try to remember that Ayers is in academia now and is considered a respected member of inner Chicago Education circles? His nefarious activities occurred 40 freaking years ago.
If you mean respected as in trying to radicalize education and educational practices without any proof that it will improve student achievement (another great program-NCLB) then, yeah, he is respected.
And as far as his activities occuring 40 years ago---that would be fine and I believe people do change, but when he made comments 7 years ago hoping for more bombs, I don't buy that he has.
Why Ayers is respected in certain ed circles in Chicago or whether this respect is deserved is the subject of an entirely different topic. My point in saying that he is respected is to point out that he is not part of some fringe element. He is part of today's Chicago political elite. Whether good or bad, he is certainly not an underground figure any more.
As for his quote about hoping for more bombs? I couldn't find this quote you refer to. I did however, find this quote in the 2001 NYT article on his biography: ''I feel we didn't do enough.'' As someone who was fighting for an end to an unpopular war and fighting against racial injustice, I don't think it is completely accurate to say that this automatically means he wanted more bombs. Unless you have a different comment in mind?
Here is the NYT article: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all