General Discussion

So after hearing the Obama speech from the DNC, I was watching the Republican review with Larry King Live.  And while it wasn't just the panel of republicans stating that Obama came off as defensive and  hostile - I'm at a lost for exactly what the hell they are talking about.  To me his speech was actually pretty light on Mccain.    I thought he stated the facts, as best he knew them, and simply made his case as it relates to his opponent.

To the point.  Can some of the more politically inclined spell out for me, in no uncertain terms, exactly when fact based rebuttals mutate into slanderous aggressive remarks?  I mean at what point is the line crossed?  When you bring up the issue?  Does it happen when you state your opposing stance?  If Mccain votes a certain way and Obama then states that he (Mccain) did indeed vote a certain way...isn't that just the truth?  I don't see this invisible political rage that is supposedly conveyed.

I'm not making the post in jest.  I seriously am just lost when it comes to the perceived overtones in political speeches.   If Obama says "John has voted with Bush on 90% of his legislation," and then goes on to plainly turn that into a demonstration of how John isn't about change; I fail to see how this is coined "the same ole slanderous political approach."

Though the question points to a certain degree of naivety on my part (admittantly I'm not the most politcally savy individual), I just find myself starring cock-eyed at the TV after most of these speeches when the dems/repubs start weighing in.  I mean if I were to watch an Obama speech and flip over to FOX news, I'd swear Obama was threatening to blow up Mccain's house or something.

Originally posted by SagaBoy

So after hearing the Obama speech from the DNC, I was watching the Republican review with Larry King Live.  And while it wasn't just the panel of republicans stating that Obama came off as defensive and  hostile - I'm at a lost for exactly what the hell they are talking about.  To me his speech was actually pretty light on Mccain.    I thought he stated the facts, as best he knew them, and simply made his case as it relates to his opponent.

To the point.  Can some of the more politically inclined spell out for me, in no uncertain terms, exactly when fact based rebuttals mutate into slanderous aggressive remarks?  I mean at what point is the line crossed?  When you bring up the issue?  Does it happen when you state your opposing stance?  If Mccain votes a certain way and Obama then states that he (Mccain) did indeed vote a certain way...isn't that just the truth?  I don't see this invisible political rage that is supposedly conveyed.

I'm not making the post in jest.  I seriously am just lost when it comes to the perceived overtones in political speeches.   If Obama says "John has voted with Bush on 90% of his legislation," and then goes on to plainly turn that into a demonstration of how John isn't about change; I fail to see how this is coined "the same ole slanderous political approach."

Though the question points to a certain degree of naivety on my part (admittantly I'm not the most politcally savy individual), I just find myself starring cock-eyed at the TV after most of these speeches when the dems/repubs start weighing in.  I mean if I were to watch an Obama speech and flip over to FOX news, I'd swear Obama was threatening to blow up Mccain's house or something.

Well when it comes to the 90% line that the Democrats are touting that isn't "Truth" it is political spin.  They aren't considering the entire 8 years that Bush has been in office but instead just a certain period. 

Or how Obama blames the housing crisis on Bush and says how the last 8 years have been bad which just isn't true.  Housing prices went through the roof for 6 out of those 8 years.  The market is correcting itself. 

Or how he states that McCain will provide tax releif for corporations but not for 100 million tax payers.  Yet McCain has proposed Tax breaks for every single Tax Payer. 

Or how he blames Katrina on Bush when it was a failure of the Govenor and Mayor of New Orleans and not on the Federal Government.  Of course they won't fault the Mayor (Democrat) or the Govenor (also a democrat). 

"You turn the other cheek you are weak." "You stand up for yourself you are defensive and a whiner." There is nothing really to read into this. It is just the standard political strategy used by the Republican party, at least in the last two elections. It has worked twice and they think it will work again. I'm proud that Democrats don't use this particular strategy, but I can't say they wouldn't if they hadn't thought of it first.(I'd like to think they wouldn't.)

We will see if it works in 08. I doubt it will. Something else may work for the Republicans, but this strategy is worn out.

Originally posted by Laserwolf

"You turn the other cheek you are weak." "You stand up for yourself you are defensive and a whiner." There is nothing really to read into this. It is just the standard political strategy used by the Republican party, at least in the last two elections. It has worked twice and they think it will work again. I'm proud that Democrats don't use this particular strategy, but I can't say they wouldn't if they hadn't thought of it first.(I'd like to think they wouldn't.)

We will see if it works in 08. I doubt it will. Something else may work for the Republicans, but this strategy is worn out.

If you don't think the Democrats use it as well then you have missed quite a bit.  Didn't you watch the Primaries?  They got extremely nasty and they used everything but the kitchen sink while duking it out to get the Dem Nomination. 

The reason that a lot of Democrats claim it is a Republican (only) thing is that Rove was just so evil that he was a mastermind at it.  Honestly I think Rove could make a ticket with Jesus and Mother Theresa look bad.  He just was that good at dirty politics. 

Is it right?  Of course not.  But it won't be fixed until they stop all of this ridiculousness and block off time where they present the candidates and that is it. 

For instance from 6pm to 9pm 10 mins per candidate is set aside and their positions and qualifications are introduced.  Other then that no Advertisements at all.  If they would really reform politics by doing that we would see actual change. 

Too often (and both sides are guilty of this) votes are won by sound bytes and emotion.  Which should not be involved at all.  Heck pictures of the Presidential candidates shouldn't even be shown.  Just a Resume.  Then people should vote based on those resumes for which candidates can come to the debates and then there should be some debates (to act like interviews).  The debates should be open floor/phone questions from the American People.  No preset speeches, no preset questions.  None of that crap. 

Today's system is too much like a popularity contest.  Honestly that is how you get people like Bush in the White House.  That is how Clinton got into the White House.  It's how Obama got his nomination. It's how McCain got his nomination. 

None of these candidates were the best people for the job none of them were even the best person running for the job. 

For instance: 

1992 election - Ross Perot was a much better person for the Job then Bush Sr or Clinton

2000 Election - McCain (back then) was a much better candidate then Bush.

2008 Primary (D) - Biden is a better candidate for President then Obama, so was Clinton, so were a lot of other candidates.

2008 Primary (R) - Ron Paul was by far the best candidate for President in either party. 

The reality is we won't see any change unless there is a revolution, and that won't happen unless the government really screws up bad.  The way the government has inflated is against the premise of the constitution, and the bickering between parties even voting down bills because of who proposed it is what we face now.  Nothing will really ever get done in this type of environment, unless their is a party majority in the house, senate, and executive branch.  But usually when this happens it sets our country back 20 years as the party now rich with power tries to increase thier power and inflate the size of the federal government.

What candidates in the speech talk about is also of little to no consiquence since most of it is run by the state and local governments.  Infact most of the things that affect our daily lives is done by our local governments.  That and the president doesn't actually have much power and needs congress to make changes.  With this in mind we should really pay more attention to the other officials on the balots we recieve to vote.