Thread: Poll: McCain-Palin vs. Obama-Biden

Originally Posted by BadKharma

I do not associate allcommunity organizing as socialist. However since you brought it up lets take a look at the definition without any stigmatism attached to it:

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun

Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Is your concern about the label socialism based upon how you want extreme liberal policies viewed? I did not present the term socialism as a slur or attack only that Alinsky's policies were socialist and I do not subscribe to them. As far as Obama's work the only thing he was successful in implementing was removal of asbestos. Since the entire country had already recognized asbestos as a carcinogen what really did he accomplish? Possibly the fact that schools and other public buildings were scheduled for asbestos removal before the neighborhood that he was organizing for grated upon him.

My concern is when people throw the word around, it means a million different things AND it is generally used as a blanket condemnation without going into specifics about what is specifically wrong with a particular thing or policy. There is not a rigid “socialist agenda” even amongst bonified "socialists", let alone progressive or liberal American citizens. And there are systems and institutions of government that operate within the definition you’ve brought in above that are arguably good and work well as part of a democratic republic under a generally capitalist market – work good for us all as a whole, as a society, serve the common good. It’s hard to argue with the “brand”, though, and anybody who’s been called a socialist knows they aren’t being complimented…rather they are being dismissed unfairly and even irrationally without a clear argument to rebut. It is something that gums up communication and I daresay it is often used precisely for that reason – to win an argument, unreasonably advance or protect an individual or class group’s interests at the expense of the rest of us. In those cases, the word is not used to bring clarity or further rational discussion at all.

One example of things that are “collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods” that have been good for a democratic republic: our highway system, publicly owned and government administered. Serves general mobility which supports production and distribution of goods. Everybody has equal access to it and through this collective ownership, national standards of construction, safety, traffic control devices, etc., make it possible for an American from Maine to be able to drive comfortably on California highways without any confusion over what the rules of the road are. We do many other things collectively as a society because they are things that are for the good of the commons and actually work out better without the profit motive. How do you feel about Social Security? How about SSI?

We can disagree over whether this or that thing is better done by the private sector and that can be an intelligent argument. But to just call it all socialistic makes that impossible. Our military is socialistic, as well in that it is publicly owned, government administered. And horrors, an E-5 gets paid the same scale whether they’re working on the nuclear reactor of the ship or working in the galley or the bosun’s locker. And when it comes time for promotion, you take a test and everybody who passes down to a level that fills the available slots for advancement gets the next stripe, regardless of differences in score. Better cut this off with those general points for brevity.

Originally Posted by BadKharma

Stating that I prefer more than one source is to general? Please show me something from Alinsky that indicates what you are saying. As far as your other points I did not feel like going through a book line by line that basically was saying the same thing repeatedly with nothing new to add. However since you feel it is necessary I am doing so now with this reply.

I’m feeling a little schizophrenic trying to go back and recapture what I was talking about but I believe I meant more that the next line, “The quotes that you highlighted are Alinsky's from what Obama supposedly learned.” I didn’t know where you were going with that.

Originally Posted by BadKharma

I never said Obama should stick to one thing. The point I was trying to make was that if Obama is so proud of his work organizing then why did he leave it? I did not associate switching to politics as negative. I said that doing so shows more than some idealized perception. Chicago politics especially. Other than teaching at law school it seems community organizing was the main focus albeit at different levels or functions. Once again I am not condemning him especially since he has a limited record in order to show his "experience" for obtaining the top political position. I feel maybe that part of his resume shows more of his background than qualification. Why exactly do you feel that I would for a moment think that any human being is above personal ambition? However you apparently believe Obama is above personal gain in his choice to enter politics.

The way I read it, you think he’s not proud of what he’s done as an organizer or he would have stuck to it and that’s what I said. And the negative I read was that clearly he’s not proud of his work as an organizer? Is that not what you were implying? And I went on to say that no doubt he had ambition, that there was nothing wrong with that and that he thought he could do more good at a higher level as well. This is not a humble, Mother Theresa type, and I’m not claiming it. Further, he did not leave the job undone, He left it to his successor to do. I guess I should be asking what makes you think that the general feeling is that Obama is above personal ambition. And as for Chicago politics – that’s where he’d put down roots. That was where the people he’d work to help as an organizer lived, those were the people he was still trying to help. I don’t get why you apparently think he should have left Chicago and gone somewhere else to run for election.

What I think I hear you saying is that working on the ground with people, getting to know what their issues are, what the barriers are, their personal stories, their strengths and their weaknesses, helping them to build local leadership and political power is just his background and doesn’t add up to any qualification. I think, while it may not be traditional, it is indeed a qualification, involved in retail politicking at the local level, getting a lot of information and ideas on what government was doing right, wrong, could be doing better. Getting to know the people he’d be serving, Being more cognizant when he moves up to the political position of ways he can support those still organizing, those still living in the old neighborhood.

Originally Posted by BadKharma

Granted the ultimate goal is to form a workable compromise, much like a marriage with give and take. My point is when did Obama do that? From what I could find of his voting record; that is when he actually voted, it was upon party lines. If you have some examples showing BHO as a champion of bipartisanship could you please share them? When did Obama compromise over anything that was against his parties viewpoint? I really enjoy how you took the time to attack GWB there. However lets try to keep the focus.

I don’t want to get too deep into the canard about Obama’s “Present” votes. It’s been debunked. I’ll quote a part of one of those and you can read the rest if you’re interested at Fact Check: Obama's 'present' votes - Boston.com

“THE FACTS: Obama acknowledges that over nearly eight years in the Illinois Senate, he voted "present" 129 times. That was out of roughly 4,000 votes he cast, so those "presents" amounted to about one of every 31 votes in his legislative career.

Illinois legislators often vote "present" and for a wide variety of reasons. Sometimes blocs of lawmakers do it as a protest in some dispute over rules and procedures. Obama was often joined in his "present" votes by 10 or 20 other senators."

As to the not bipartisan charge, would you believe a story on fox news? Headlined “Obama’s State Senate Years Show Bipartisan Record” ? Well probably better you read it than take my word for it:

Obama’s State Senate Years Show Bipartisan Record - America’s Election HQ

Finally, to be fair here, the shot at GWB was in direct response to your charge that Obama’s bipartisanship was exactly what GWB has been (IMO) accurately known for amongst Democrats.

Thanks again for the response, BK. I thought I’d lost you for a couple days. Maybe we can have some more discussions on specifics that you disagree with Obama on