Patriotic Rivals

The post is good except for the final sentence. It seems a cop-out to equally categorize each candidate by a single description and then fail to justify that leveling with any substantial examples.

I am not sure if we have less patriotism today or if it is merely a case of anti-americanism getting more press even in this country, which brings up the fact that Obama spent twenty years in a church that mixes politics and religion and in which anti-Americanism is very strong content of the political sermons. It is unbelievable that in twenty years our would-be president was unaware of those very strong anti-American and anti-white people, political sermons. It amazes me that while Bush is accused of mixing state and religion because he takes his religion seriously, althogh Bush does not attend a church that mixes politics and religion, but Obama has ths far escaped such an accusation, even as Obama supportd Bush’s view that churches should be utilized for their social benefits. Let us hope that Obama is not intending the sort of church that he was a member of for twenty years.

If you consider Obama’s participation in a political religious church that preached very strong anti-American thetoric, what is there in McCain’s record that equals this and would justify lumping McCain in the same category as Obama. On the other side what is there in Obama’s record to match McCain’s miltiary service to our country?

It doesn’t matter if it’s a balck or white church preaching racist and/or anti-american politics , it bothers me and I think it is a serious character issue especially when the character under consideration is patriotism.

If you say that the only remarkable thing about McCain’s military service is that he was a POW, then you are saying that there is nothing remarkable or partiotic about military service in general.

If your argument is that military service does not count anything toward patriotism, and that mixing racist and anti-American politics with religion has nothing to say about patriotism, then the question is what characterists do have consideration toward partriotism _ fancy rhetoric? Maybe flag pins? Since Obama is currently on the cover of Rolling Stone in all of his rock star glory smiling down at his lapel newly adorned with flag pin, then I guess we can conclude that Obama is more patriotic than McCain, not having ever seen such slick imagery of McCain drawing attention to such an accoutrament.

If you are suggesting that I question Obama’s pattriotism merely because I disagree with his “perspective”, then I object. The explanation given by Obama’s own team as to why Obama was involved in that church for twenty years is because it was necessary as a career move. Now Obama is wooing evangelicals and we are supposed to believe in his religous sincerety because in this election process wooing evangelcals is a good career move.

Further more, It is absolutely true that I think that the anti-Americanism preached with viscous falsity and lies by Obama’s former pastor is unpatriotic. Sorry, it’s the content and substance that makes me think so and besides I didn’t see a flag pin on his lapel and so that makes my case.

David, I don’t see much about Barak Obama’s patriotism here. Because of that, I heard this on Rush Limbaugh this week, and thought I should share it here. (I wish I could go to the original sources, but I don’t have the time to.) I am glad, however, that your opinion of Obama has become more jaded. Yes, he is just a smooth-talking politician that would do serious damage to our country.

———–

OBAMA: I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign. (applause). And I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine. (applause).

RUSH: Wait a minute, whose patriotism has been questioned here? Whose qualifications have been questioned here? What’s happening here, folks, is very simple, an effort to devalue McCain’s military experience and hero status and to raise up Obama’s patriotic position by redefining what patriotism is. Here’s more of Obama from just a moment ago in Missouri.

OBAMA: When we’re arguing about patriotism, we’re arguing about who we are as a country and, more importantly, who we should be. But surely we can agree that no party or political philosophy has a monopoly on patriotism. (applause)

RUSH: Then why the hell do you feel it necessary to go to Independence, Missouri and talk about it? Then why the hell do you have such difficulty in deciding whether or not to wear the American flag lapel pin? One party obviously has a track record that deserves to be examined. We all know which party that is. And this is why this party is constantly defending itself on this. Let’s be honest, folks. Patriotism is equated with supporting the military when the US is at war. Which political party the last three years has done its best to secure defeat of its country and the US military at war? Democrat Party. One party has a track record that deserves to be examined when it comes to patriotism, and they know it. They know they’re weak on national security. Which is why they gave us Kerry the last election, they thought he would overcome it. Which is why they’re now trying to devalue McCain’s hero status and his war service and that’s why they send their candidate out to Independence, Missouri, to do a defensive speech on patriotism, because they know. Here’s another from Obama.

OBAMA: Of course, precisely because America isn’t perfect, precisely because our ideals demand more from us, patriotism can never be defined as loyalty to any particular leader or government or policy. (applause). As Mark Twain, the greatest of American satirists and proud son of Missouri, once wrote: “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it.” (applause) That’s what patriotism is.
RUSH: Wait a second. He just contradicted himself here. Patriotism can never be defined as loyalty to any particular leader or government or policy. And then he quotes Mark Twain: “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” This is a huge contradiction. Which political party is it that is suggesting to us that terrorists deserve constitutional rights, the same constitutional rights accorded United States citizens? We don’t have the right to spy on terrorists? Which party is it that wants us to sue phone companies that allow terrorists to be spied on? Which party is it that’s doing its level best to discredit any intelligence gathering technique that is used in order to improve this nation’s security? No wonder they feel defensive about this. Which party was it that was saying that the surge would never work? Which party was it that claimed the surge wouldn’t work? Which party was it whose supporters ran a full-page New York Times ad on “General Betraeus”?

Which party was it whose members accused Petraeus of lying before he opened his mouth? Which party has as a member a man who avoided voting on the MoveOn.org resolution in the Senate? Barack Obama and the Democrat Party. Remember the vote on condemning MoveOn.org, guess who didn’t vote? He wasn’t there, he didn’t vote. It was Barack Obama. Which party has accused troops of murder and rape? The Democrat Party. Which party has members that have accused Club Gitmo operatives of torture and being like Pol Pot’s regime and the people who ran the Soviet Gulags? That would be Dick Durbin and the Democrat Party. Which political party has tried to kill — and they failed — war spending bills with poison pills and other techniques? It would be the Democrat Party. So no wonder they feel defensive about patriotism. Here’s our final Obama sound bite from his speech in Independence today.

OBAMA: Surely we can arrive at a definition of patriotism that however rough and imperfect captures the best of America’s common spirit. What would such a definition look like?

RUSH: Okay, so now not only are we being lectured to on patriotism by Obama, we’re being told that only he can redefine it. He’s going to redefine patriotism for us. What he says after this doesn’t matter. We don’t need The Messiah to redefine patriotism. We know it when we see it. We know it when we don’t see it. And we see it plain as day when we don’t see it. So he wants to redefine it. They want to wipe out any status that McCain enjoys as a war hero or a servant to his country.

———–

RUSH: We’ll start with Michael in Naperville, Illinois. Nice to have you on the program, sir. Hello.

CALLER: Real quick. I’m furious about this General Clark saying this stuff about John McCain. In his twenties, John McCain was serving his country. He got shot down and was in a prisoner of war camp for five years. Barack Obama in his twenties, by his own words, was sitting around, smoking pot and doing cocaine, snorting cocaine. I mean, this guy served his country while Barack Obama was trying to find his racial identity during his twenties and John McCain was serving his country. I’m furious about this.

RUSH: No, you’re not. You’re not curious at all. You’re trying to make a blistering point which you’ve done very well.

CALLER: I’m furious, not curious!

RUSH: Oh, sorry. Then you ought to be furious about it.

CALLER: I’m furious. I mean, this guy was sitting around doing nothing while John McCain was in the service.

RUSH: He’s still done nothing! What has he done since? Seriously, what has he done? He’s “organized communities” in Chicago. Eh eh, we all know what that means. What’s he done? He’s senator in Illinois, and he bailed out of 130 votes. What’s he done since? What’s he done? What’s he accomplished? He’s a smooth talker and he makes people feel good.

Carl if you are calling me vehement for my depiction of Reverend Wright, I have to wonder if you have ever listened to Reverand Wright’s political sermons that equally deserve the description I have already applied as well as being deservingly described as vehement.

I have no idea what your qualification “100% consistent” actually means but in fact McCains record is often upheld. Liberal Pundits like to portray McCain as inconsistent because he came out for drilling for oil in response to our current crisis. The same pundits criticize Bush for remaining true to his beliefs and not changing his mind in accordance to public opinion. Which way do they want it? It is absurd to portray someone as “waffeling” because they adjust their opinion in response to current reality, which happens to be a major crisis. The argument that because no one has used the phrase that McCain is “100% consistent” means that McCain is inconsistent doesn’t hold water. It’s an absurd phrase in the first place and why should anyone use that sort of terminology?

David has a right to do anything he pleases but it doesn’t make David right. And, this may come as a surprise to you, but I also have a right to respond and question David’s assertions. It is not a one way street, So lighten Up my freind.

It’s all well and fine to say that one must recognioze the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate but you haven’t done that, – nor have you justified your opinion that David has done that. I am just coming into the conversation in the current post. I acknowledged that David had done a good job until his last paragraph and I still stand by that opinion.

Neither you or David has answered the question – if military service is discounted, if racism and anti-americanism are discounted – what then is the basis by which you measure patriotism?

My complaint about McCain’s academic performance has a lot to do with the weak character that is displayed by someone who chooses to join the military but refuses to conform to David said “military standards of conduct. Does that history make it likely that he will keep his oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution if he takes that oath as President?”

As Carl said we should examine each candidates strengths and weaknesses and most people have both. You can describe McCain’s rebellousness as a weakness but it is a weakness often found in those who also exhibit unusual acts of courage and endurance. You are asking if we should trust a man who wouldn’t shine his shoes or keep his quaters orderly, or who rebelled against authority,- and about whom the following is also true:

“In March 1968, McCain was put into solitary confinement, where he remained for two years.[110] Unknown to the POWs, in May 1968, Jack McCain was named Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command (CINCPAC) effective in July, stationed in Honolulu and commander of all U.S. forces in the Vietnam theater.[111][3] In mid-June, Major Bai, commander of the North Vietnamese prison camp system,[112] offered McCain a chance to return home early.[111] The North Vietnamese wanted a worldwide propaganda coup by appearing merciful,[113] and also wanted to show other POWs that elites like McCain were willing to be treated preferentially.[111] McCain turned down the offer of release, due to the POWs’ “first in, first out” interpretation of the U.S. Code of Conduct:[114] he would only accept the offer if every man taken in before him was released as well.[85][115] McCain’s refusal to be released was even remarked upon by North Vietnamese senior negotiator Le Duc Tho to U.S. envoy Averell Harriman, during the ongoing Paris Peace Talks.[116] Enraged by his declining of the offer, Bai and his assistant told McCain that things would get very bad for him.[115]”

Or a man who is willing to stand up for the surge when it was politically unpopular, and who has a proven bi-partisan record? I think I’ll take the chance on the unshined shoe bit, after all he was a lot younger then and he probably shines his shoes now.

Meanwhile you write off Reverend Wright screaming “Damn America” and other horrible things about “white America”.

You may not see that you are favoring Obama but in your effort to write of McCain’s impressive military career, his acts of bravery, his ability to endure torture and refusal to reveal any signifigant information to the enemy even under the extremity of torture, is , in my book favoring Obama by bending over backward to discredit McCains strengths, while exagerating McCain’s weaknesses.

And you also favor Obama by shrugging off his relationship to a political religion that promotes racism and anti-Americanism. Obama has also worked with an American terrorist who was probably bombing buildings in America at the same time that McCain was serving his country in the military. I am sure you can find a way to gloss over that relationship. No favoritism of Obama on your part. None at all.

Reach, I’m afraid that your concise, well-reasoned reply, complete with correct grammar and spelling, has no place in the world of online political commentary. You’d do better in the Wall Street Journal or something similar.

Of course I’m just kidding you David; you do pretty well too.

I just read the two editorials, and I found McCains to be more clearly focused on the meaning of patriotism as putting the interests of the country above private interests. While both men recognize military service as patriotic, Obama’s speach is not as clearly focused on patriotism, which in the words of President Kennedy’s speechwriter, Dick Goodwin, is defined as “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country”. Obama’s speech is often about what the country does for the individual rather than what the individual does for the country. Obama’s speech also centers a lot on his own personal expereinces, while McCain’s speech only relies on his personal experiences in relation to his military service to the country, while Obama’s speaks about his grandfather’s military service.

I concur with a definition of patriotism that is service to the country, or service the something larger than the individual and so I think McCain’s speech stuck to the subject of patriotism, whereas Obama’s speech wavered into the territory of what our country does for the individual.

What is it that you find about Obama’s editorial on patriotism that you find “superior”. I do not understand how a person can be described as a great orator if they do not actually communicate well focused ideas. In the interview that Mellisa sent through the email to this dialogue,(But was not published here), the quotes given by Obama never seem to add up to actually saying anything crisp and coherent. I have allready given you reasons why I think McCain made the far superior speech – which is that McCain’s speech is about patriotism and identifies patriotism as service to something larger than than self-interest, where as Obama’s speech appears to be attempting to sell patriotism on the basis that it is in one’s self interest to be patriotic. He also comes across as trying to convince the public that he, Obama, is patriotic, and so it seems that Obama’s speech is somewhat self-serving, which is not resonate with the meaning of patriotism. It is not that Obama made untrue statements, but that Obama does not have a clear concept of patriotism as service to one’s country. Obama talks too much about what one’s country can do for the private individual than is appropo in an editorial about patriotism, imho.

Now you have heard someone say that McCain is a better orator than Obama.

You are right, after searching “Melissa”. I found it (Post 5). I had read the email version and thought that many well formulated and very valid points were made. Then there were a lot of post posted at that time and the only mention I noticed of Mellissa’s post was where you responded to all of the points in the post by dismissing Limbaugh as a partisan

I notice that Limbaugh made the following point and that it applies to your reduction of McCain’s impressive military career to laying emphasis on the fact that he got demerits for not shining his shoes, etcetera (although we had to actually read the article to find out what McCain got demerits for, and I had to ask for the source of your claim in order to do that)

Rush “Which is why they’re now trying to devalue McCain’s hero status and his war service and that’s why they send their candidate out to Independence, Missouri, to do a defensive speech on patriotism”

Rush expresses a series of valid points about the Democrat’s support of terrorist’s rights, giving terrorists the same rights as United States citizens. Obama may have been listening because shortly after Obama switches his position on the privacy/security issue and comes out against prosecuting private companies that have aided the government in spying on our enemies. Then Obama openly targets MoveOn.org for calling General Petraeus “General Betraeus”, once again echoing the points made by Limbaugh in the “partisan editorial”, which also reminded us that Obama wasn’t present when the Senate voted on the Moveon.org resolution. This shift to the center, now that it is a general campaign as opposed to a primary, angers Obama’s far-left wing supporters who greatly contributed to Obama’s big time funding campaign during the primaries– the same successful funding campaign that motivated Obama to change his position on public funding.

I am not at all surprised that Obama made a shift to the center, nor that McCain has also shifted some of his positions but I do not didmissively lump both candidates into a common category and shut the door on the issue as you apparently are attempting. If you want to discuss some of the ways that McCain has shifted his positions, you can do so and then there can be a fair evaluation as to the reasons and justifications for each candidates shifting of their positions. I certainly do not believe that a politician should never change their positions about issues. It the manner, timing and reasons for shifting positions that need to be examined. Obama’s timing on coming out against Moveon.orgs slandering of General Petraeus is decidedly belated. Why did Obama wait so long after the fact?

Editing process still drives me crasy. I thought I had it right but when I clicked on my link to see if it worked it reverted to the former version. I thought the post had already posted correctly at that point.

Do you mean that you are dissapointed that McCain didn’t originally argue that the tax breaks should be balanced by spending cuts? Possibly because in the year 2001, spending cuts were not as much an issue as they are now. May, 2001 is prior to 911, which certainly caused and increase in spending.

McCain’s original argument was that there should be more tax cuts that benefit the middle classes, with which I agree.

Obama wants to increase taxes and Hillary wanted businesses to take on the burden of health care which would mean that many small business would have to cut back on employees since the cost of employing would be radically increased. Large businesses would have yet more reasons to move jobs over seas to cheap labor markets in countries that have not developed labor rights laws and environmental standards.

It was not an argument it was an observation, which I will now enhance apon. May, 2001 was the beginning of the Bush adminsistration. Bush took office in January and the transition time between the election and taking office was shortened by all the recounts demanded by Democrats. The first State of the Union Adress was given in February and spoke about balancing the budget and paying down the dept. That was the expectation at that time and so it would have been redundant, in May of 2001, for McCain to argue that tax relief should be balance by spending cuts, as the goal as allready stated was to reduce the debt and to keep a balanced budget.

You say that the expense of the war isn’t the issue since that expense can be offset by reducing domestic spending. The Democrats opposition to the war is usually combined with the idea that the money spent on the war can be spent domestically. Of course as of yesterday’s news about Iran testing long range missels, that choice may not be an option. However you seem to be suggesting that the budget could have been balanced by reducing domestic programs. Which programs do you think should be reduced and/or eliminated?

The Obama campaign has proposes many new costly programs and one of the ways that Obama proposes to pay for them are by reducing military spending

Quote: “The total price tag of Obama’s plans, according to his campaign, is $130 billion a year. On top of that, Obama is proposing a middle-class tax cut of about $80 billion a year.
….
It is a far different blueprint than McCain is offering. The senator from Arizona has proposed relatively little new spending, arguing that tax cuts and private business are more effective means of solving problems.”

Quotes found HERE

The point of bringing up the State of the Union Address was to demonstrate that reducing the debt and keeping the budget balanced was allready the plan at that time.

Since the idea of balancing the budget and reducing the debt was already part of the discussion, I think that McCain used his alloted speaking time more productively by bringing up the issue that there was not enough in the plan for the middle classes.

Since you do not watch cable then you have probably never seen televised congressional sessions on Cspan. Each speaker has allotted minutes to speak and so to use those minutes to suggest something that has already been stated would be wasteful. Each speaker has to use his allotted speaking time to get across the most cruciial points, which in this case would be more cuts for the middle classes which is exactly the use that McCain put his alloted speaking time to.

If I shouldn’t ask you a question, then why did you spend so much time answering it? I don’t know how I am supposed to respond to that.-but Just one comment – Reducing foreign aid seems dangerously isolationist in today’s world and besides I think it is a positive act that this country does and likely benefits us in ways that cannot be analysed but which we would feel if we suddenly stopped sending aid to those beyond our borders, who have been struck by misfortune. It helps to build allies and we need that.

Let’s just say that all the answers you gave are too large a topic for this discussion.

A while back you said “I’m not sure if I should be pleased or disappointed that his original argument was nor as wise as the argument I had believed him to make.”

And from the ensuing discussion it seems that the argument that you originally believed McCain to be making is his current argument – that the tax cuts need be supplemented with spending cuts.

Since MCCain is supporting making the Bush tax cuts permanent,it seems he is no longer arguing to increase tax cuts for the middle classes. However, in effect, to not make the Bush tax cuts permament, at this point, equates with raising taxes.

Since Obama is against making the Bush tax cuts permament and for increasing tax cuts for the middle classes, then he is effectively for raising the taxes on the rich, which sounds fair enough but needs to be considered in terms of affects. If it results in capital leaving the country , it may not be a good thing for the economy, and then the taxes may have to raised on the middle classes to cover the costs of all the programs that Obama wants to fund.

The question is, can you raise taxes on the wealthy without causing capital to leave the country?

How about the wealthy independents?

There are some wealthy that use their wealth for the greater good. Bill Gates For Instance, Bono, who is actually a collaborater with Bill Gates. That is the beauty of the private capitalistic system. Although greed will allways exist, there are also philantropists. Under state capitalism there is only one source of capital and if that source is corrupt, then there is no other choice, but under private capitalism, there are multifarious choices and even some wealthy people who chose to use their wealth for a greater good.

However for the most part, by the law of averages, I believe that if one taxes the rich too heavily, especially in relation to other segments of the population, the rich will move their capital to a system more advantageous to them.