Sunday, May 25, 2008

Obama campaign sexist?

1984 Democratic vice-president candidate, Geraldine Ferraro "said that she might abandon her lifelong party loyalties and vote for the Republican John McCain if Mr Obama is confirmed as the nominee." This is because she thinks the Obama campaign has been terribly sexist. Read the article in the British, Telegraph for Ms. Ferraro's reasons.

19 comments:

jazzycat said...

The Obama campaign has offended me in many ways and the thought of him being president is frightening, but I don't think his campaign has been sexist.

L'oiseau said...

I think Ferraro's just racist. From her previous comments anyway...

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/03/11/politics/
horserace/entry3925257.shtml

professor ed said...

Ah the name calling, the labeling, is alive and well this political year. Obama, et al, is accused of being "sexist" while Hillary, et al, is accused of being "racist". I know that examples exist on both sides to support the presumed legitamacy of each. What concerns me is that this politically correct tit for tat is an omen of what we can expect in the contest between McCain and Obama. Remember now folks, don't even think of criticizing Senator Obama on anything, or you will be guilty of "RACISM"! And remember that if you criticize Senator McCain on anything, you will be guilty of "AGEISM"!!

L'oiseau said...

I have never called Dennis racist, and he has criticized Obama plenty of times.

I gave proof of Ferraro's at least underlying racist comments, but I certainly don't think that all Hillary supporters are racist.

Name-calling and labeling are probably coming out because these things actually do exist and are happening, as much as some people would like to ignore them.

This year, either the first female president, first African American president, or oldest president will be issued into office. Many are going to be accused and guilty of sexism, racism, and ageism.

We can't get too hung up on it, but we can't just sit back and allow it to happen either.

Robert said...

I for one hope none of the above get elected. I dislike them all.

L'oiseau said...

Robert,

Who were you hoping for?

Robert said...

Honestly, I was hoping for a candidate that would focus on reducing the size of government, reducing the national budget (I mean actual cuts, not this malarkey of stopping increases and calling it cuts), protect our borders, reduce government involvement in our daily lives, someone who respects free enterprise and capitalism, someone who wants to reduce or eliminate income tax, someone pro-free speech, pro-second amendment, pro-life, someone who understands the importance of an energy policy that includes new sources of oil (i.e. drilling) along with alternative energy, and someone who believes strongly in individual liberty.

I wanted someone to reign in government and recognize what it is. At best government is a necessary evil and should be the absolute last choice for problem solving. All of the candidates above are so violently opposed to those above mentioned principles that I can’t in good conscience vote for them. In all cases, those people seem to believe that people thrive because of government, not in spite of it. As Reagan said, “Government is not the solution, government is the problem.”

Listen to the candidates speak. They talk in flowery language about government “partnering” or “working with” people. Make no mistake, Government doesn’t partner or work with anyone; the government enforces and mandates. These candidates are offering up governmental solutions to things which should be left to other more capable people.

McCain speaks of creating a department of government to manage “carbon credits” and who would create great punitive damage on corporations while paying lip service to free enterprise and tax cuts. Hillary speaks of taking corporate profits, increasing taxes on people, and nationalizing health care. Obama is nearly a Marxist with his views on nationalizing virtually everything and he speaks about cutting our standard of living as though a country’s wealth was a zero sum game (as though in order for the US economy and standard of living to be high, someone else’s has to be low). They’re all varying degrees of socialists. They may be higher or lower on the chain, but they’ll all take us there eventually.

These people are not freedom loving. They’re government loving. That’s why I won’t vote for a single one of them. Even McCain who is the least socialist of the three advocates massive increases in government. I’m tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. The only thing it has done is get us to socialism a little slower. No more.

professor ed said...

Alas Robert, you are truly a voice crying in the wilderness. During my time in high school (1961-65) I had a history teacher who constantly used the term "creeping socialism". Regretably, as you point out, the "creeping...", continues to this day. But while I have every reason to be just as cynical, if not more so, as yourself, I will vote for the lesser of two evils. As Edmund Burke (a British chap of some renoun) stated: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".

Brent said...

I agree, Barack Obama is pure evil. Probably sent by the devil himself. Then again, John Hagee believes that Hitler was sent by God, so you never know how these things will work out.

jazzycat said...

Brent,
If I were you, I do not believe I would be mocking the vision of America that Robert and Prof. Ed presented. It is a vision very much like the pilgrims that founded this country had when they left tyranny for the hope of freedom and a new start in America. Quite frankly anyone who supports the Obama candidacy has no business mocking anyone who stands for freedom, opportunity, and prosperity. Let me remind you of the Obama quote where he said:

“We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,"

He went on to say that it is not right that the US uses 25% of the worlds resources, but only is 3% of the total world population. This view sounds much like what we here from socialists and far left loons. Comparing Hagee to Rev. Wright is like the old apples to oranges analogy. One is the long time racist and anti-American pastor and mentor of a candidate and the other is an endorsement by a motor-mouth preacher of a candidate. A battle of mocking between your chosen candidate’s views and Robert’s solid views on justice, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is one you will lose……….

Brent said...

I wasn't even responding to Robert, although I thought about it, but I'm really trying to spend less time here. It proves pointless. So I'm not going to respond to most of what you said either. I will point out that all I was responding to was Professor Ed's implication that Obama is outright evil. Disagree with whoever you want, but we won't solve anything in this country by saying things like that. (I know at least one of you will attempt to convince me that he is actually evil. I wish I could bet on things like that. I'd be a rich man.)

jazzycat said...

Brent,
One thing is for certain. If Obama and the radical left that he represents achieve power, it will become almost impossible for you to become rich in America.

Our concerns will then be focused on carbon credits, equitable redistributing an ever smaller pie and currying favor with the rest of the world so they will like us.

BTW, Evil does seem to flow from Marxism. This is historical fact.

Brent said...

Have you ever responded to anything without using the word Marxist? Do you still have a "better dead than red" sign hanging in your house? And by the way, under Bush the rich have become richer and the poor have become poorer. How exactly does that help me become rich?

L'oiseau said...

Robert,

I respect your views, and even Jazzycats, while I vehemently disagree with them :)

I do think though, that of the candidates, Obama understands free social organizations better than Clinton and McCain. He was a Community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, and has many stories about how helpful that was for the community -- no government involvement required.

Sometimes I fear that a hatred for "Marxism" and socialism makes people tread far too close to anarchy (government is a necessary evil, etc.) I wish that we could accept a good balance of government departments and free social departments to help our community better itself, our country, and our world.

I admire and respect Obama's love for the world, and the people in it. If America is using 25% of the world's resources and we only have 3% of the population, that means that we are using resources that other people cannot have. That means something to me. As Christians, we should be selfless and think of others, not just ourselves and what we've "earned". Everything we have belongs to God.

As far as Wright vs. Hagee, which I think is silly, they both should be considered equally insane to you, if you're going to condemn Wright. If you don't think saying that Hitler was doing God's will is disgusting, then I'm not sure what to say.

We can argue over the significance of the pastor's relationships with the candidates, but the reality is that both candidates have renounced these things. Will we ever know if deep down in their hearts they still agree with these pastor's rantings? Probably not. But we can choose to accept them both at their words, or neither. If you keep bringing up Wright, I will keep bringing up Hagee.

jazzycat said...

l'oiseau
you said....
If you don't think saying that Hitler was doing God's will is disgusting, then I'm not sure what to say.

I don’t like Hagee and agree that what he said was disgusting. However, the Bible is clear that everything that happens has been ordained by God. Men have free will to sin and God allows them to do just that as they did in crucifying Jesus. God was not powerless to stop Hitler. He is not powerless to stop natural disasters. By allowing them to happen he has indeed ordained them. Some may like to think God is impotent and powerless to change events, but that is not sound Biblical theology. It is not within our power to ascertain God's reasons like Hagee and Robertson seem to think, but he is in complete and total control of even the feathers that fall from a sparrow.

jazzycat said...

brent,
You need some new talking points because the ones you are using are stale and untrue. The fact is many previously poor Americans have prospered under the overall good economy of the Bush years.

This will not happen under a socialistic government regulated economy. I can't help it if you can't discern Marxism when it is slowly being implemented before your eyes!

L'oiseau said...

Jazzycat,

You are right, I agree with you. In fact, in the case of Pharaoh in the OT, it was God himself who "hardened" his heart and caused him to sin, so I won't even put that past the Lord, though I don't understand it.

However, Hagee was not saying what he said to reveal the power of God's glory and omnipotence. He was saying that Jewish people were being punished by God through Hitler, who had their children walk through gas chambers and end up in a pile of bodies on the other side.

That is what I think is disgusting and disagree with.

I don't believe that Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for New Orleans either. I believe God has already executed all of humanity's punishment (Hell), and has decided to save some through Jesus.

I know it's hard to know what other Christians believe online, especially since I'm sure you consider me to be a crazy socialist, but we may be theologically closer than you think -- I've read many of your blog posts. :)

I do wish you would respond to some of my other comments though. I thought I made some pretty good points that went ignored!

professor ed said...

l'oiseau said:
I admire and respect Obama's love for the world, and the people in it. If America is using 25% of the world's resources and we only have 3% of the population, that means that we are using resources that other people cannot have.
l'oiseau: I do not know if the senator's statistics are correct. Assuming they are, one of the reasons why the USA can afford to distribute foreign aid to deserving/undeserving nations around the world is because the "3%" have utilized the "25%" to a standard of living that allows for such beneficence.

jazzycat said...

l'oiseau,
Thanks for taking the time to look at my site. It is nice to have something in common. Since you asked, I have commented on a few more of your views....

Obama understands free social organizations better than Clinton and McCain. He was a Community……… no government involvement required.

I am not sure of your point here, but I do agree that non-government help for the poor is far superior and more cost effective than government involvement.

I wish that we could accept a good balance of government departments and free social departments to help our community better itself, our country, and our world.

I have no problem with this concept if accountability is added to the equation. The continual throwing of money at failed social programs has been disaster IMO. We should measure effectiveness and phase out the things that are not working. Also, there is nothing better for people’s prosperity than freedom and liberty. The absurd freedom restricting over regulation that has come about because of the radical ecco & green movements has really hurt in the form of more costly energy. Had Clinton signed the Amwar drilling bill, we would be a lot closer to energy independence. Make no mistake the poor are suffering the most from this global warming lunacy, and it could get much worse if people don’t wake up.

If America is using 25% of the world's resources and we only have 3% of the population, that means that we are using resources that other people cannot have. That means something to me. As Christians, we should be selfless and think of others, not just ourselves and what we've "earned".

First, we are buying their raw materials and not stealing them. This is certainly a benefit to them. Also, this points out that maybe liberty and freedom through a capitalistic economic system is what they need. We should certainly encourage and help them with such a system it they want to increase their prosperity. I don’t see how the answer is to deprive ourselves of goods and services so as to be at their level. The answer is to bring them up rather than wring our hands with guilt, self loathing, and a blame America first mindset for every problem in the world.