Bill, i'm trying to have a rational discussion here about the issue at hand, theres no reason for you to try and
impugn my credibility. John McCain said himself in the debate that candidates can't be held responsible for what a minority of their supporters may believe. I don't think that the McCain campaign has been racist in any way, even though i've heard numerous McCain supporters make racist comments (both in news media and in person unfortunately). those comments have nothing to do with McCain as a candidate, just like the beliefs of Obama's extreme supporters shouldn't be held against him.
on the subject of obama being incredibly liberal (
which i didn't realize we were arguing about until now), this surprised me too, but take a look at this
US Presidential Election 2008
from an objective standpoint and based on his voting record, Obama really isn't all that liberal (just so you know, my dot fell somewhere near
Kucinich's, so you can see what kind of a liberal wacko you're dealing with). that's not just some random site i dug up either, politicalcompass.org is highly reputable.
I personally find the Obama/Biden campaign's position on gay marriage highly dissapointing, but its likely just strategy so as not to alienate christian voters who may disagree on this issue despite clear economic alignment with the democratic platform.
do you really think the president will have any impact on gay marriage anyways? many state constitutions already have provisions against gay marriage so it really doesn't matter either way. As for the issue of abortion, Obama has already clearly stated his position that he supports the right to choose, if necessary i'll dig up the exact quote from the debate where he says it specifically, but he didn't beat around the bush at all with that.
and look stop pointing out claims of racism etc from other barack obama supporters, i never once said that negativity from the McCain camp had absolutely anything to do with race, and i don't give a flying [Poor language removed] what other people say about it, so when people on here are arguing about it, i'd rather you didn't bring up
useless superfluous details like that. negativity is an important part of any political campaign, the only point i was trying to make is that, in terms of the sheer proportion of negative ads, McCain definitely has the edge. I mean for [Poor language removed] sake,
i never even said that it was a bad thing to run attack ads, i never [Poor language removed] said it was racist, i was just verifying a fact. By definition, an attack ad is negative Bill, its purpose is not to promote the individual running, but to denigrate their opponent. If John McCain was running against adolph hitler and pointed out his flaws in a commercial, it would still be an attack ad and would still be negative, so bringing up what you see as Obama's flaws has absolutely nothing to do with this.
all we're arguing about is negativity, policy positions don't apply in the least bit, hell i wasn't even trying to attack mccain on this point so i have no [Poor language removed] idea why you're being so adverserial about it.
your point about radicals is absolutely [Poor language removed] bullshit, so much so that i wouldn't dare try to argue the converse. radicalism does not follow party lines either, though you may see it as such. many of the main proponents of the cause arguing that 9/11 was an inside job, first of all, tend to be too jaded with american politics to vote at all (those who actually believe that definitely don't support barack obama, they seem him as just another pawn of the system). still others who believe 9/11 is an inside job are neo-conservatives, those who generally distrust the government and champion the government staying out of our lives, even to the point of suspecting them of grand treason. furthermore, there are just as many radical conservatives,
- those who believe that global warming is a worldwide liberal conspiracy embraced by every major science journal,
- that barack obama is the anti-christ
- that barack obama is a muslim spy in cahoots with all the major middle eastern leaders
- that stem cell research means that your tax dollars will go towards cloning
- that the federal income tax isn't constitutional and thus noone actually has to pay it.
i could probably find more, but i really don't spend much time on neo-con sites. my point is that you can't categorize the majority of extremists as liberal or conservative, i'm sure you'd disagree with the far right extremists just as much as i'd disagree with the far left, this whole guilt-by-association game you're playing, by seemingly faulting all liberals for the beliefs of an
insane few is just absurd.
as for the dems catering to the far left, any political scientist in america will tell you exactly how ridiculous that statement is. our very system of government lends itself to centrists parties, as you cannot win an election simply by appealing to your ideological base, moderate voters will always be essential. if anything, it'd probably be more logical to say that the republican party tends to focus further to the right, just because your middle of the road american is more likely to lean slightly to the right (see political compass).
having worked extensively on political campaigns, i can verify that the opinions of bloggers mean absolutely nothing, campaign managers realize that very few people actually read them, and that those who do rarey are influenced by them, so theres no point in even mentioning what they think in a discussion of the american political climate. just because crazed left wingers on line think something doesn't mean that the democratic party caters to them.
exactly what the [Poor language removed] does your point about islam being linked with terrorisim have to do with anything. barack obama is not a muslim, there's no need to bring up that point at all. even if you are trying to make some sort of analogous point, the premise of said analogy is completely flawed, if you consider:
- Timothy McVeigh
- The Irish Republican Army
- Orange Volunteers
- Tamil Tigers
- Jewish Defense League
- The Klu Klux Klan
im sure you were just trying to make an analogy, but statements like that still make me incredibly angry.
and yes, pragmatists on the far left tend to support barack obama, just as pragmatists on the far right tend to support john mccain, even if they don't align with every single one of the candidates views, its in their best interest to vote for the candidate most similar to them, which is precisely why american political parties focus on the center, because they know taht the ideological extremes will support the candidate closest to themselves anyways.
(the Downs Model is the basic premise behind all political science related to democracies with single-member districts. the model itself confirms this fact that political parties tend to move towards the center, because they know taht as long as they stay just to the right or left of the center, the radicals on their end will likely vote for them as they would disagree even more heavily with their opponent. thats why you're claim that the democratic party is somehow further to the left than the republican party is to the right is fundementally unsubstantiable, first because you never specified any sort of axis of orientation (i could for instance, define a moderate as ralph nader), and second because such an occurrence would defy the very nature of political parties.
