Disqus - Latest Comments for ryan

Re: John McCain Liveblog

ryan — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 23:49:50 -0000

I've made up my mind about this election already, but I watched out of a sense that I owed it to the John McCain of 2000. There was a hint of the themes from the McCain of 2000, but overall the speech felt boring and rambling. More telling than the speech, however, was the contrast of McCain's message with the partisan rancor of the past two nights - I don't think it works to have McCain claiming he'll be bi-partisan after the attacks from other speakers. The fact that the crowd's biggest cheers were on the drilling issue and at any hint of a slam on Obama underscored this point.

Re: Who is Against Bristol Palin?

ryan — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 04:16:11 -0000

Dave - many of your posts contain interesting arguments, but they are overwhelmed by your use of name-calling and insults. Since your opinion differs from many of the posters here I would like to see it expressed, but perhaps tone it down? For instance:

"And Carville had the gall to bring up Hillary C. in comparison, as if being elected on the coattails of a cheatin' Bubba was more "legitimate" than being elected a state governor and being an expert on energy oil and gas way beyond any Dem candidate---remember that energy issue, anybody?"

...could have just as easily been expressed in the following way without the insults, which would give your arguments more credibility:

"Carville is now comparing Hillary C and Palin. Would Clinton be a national figure had she not been married to the President? I fail to see how Palin's self-made rise to governor is any less notable. In addition, she is an expert on energy oil and gas with considerably more knowledge than any Democratic candidate.

Re: One Most Likely Biting the Dust

ryan — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 14:10:36 -0000

"Barak is friends with an unrepentant terrorist. No need to argue, it’s just plain fact... Barak attended, promoted and used Rev. Wright’s church for 20 years. If a republican attended Klan meetings for 20 years then suddenly denounced them when it became a campaign issue, would you believe it?"

jwest - this is despicable. Reverend Wright's church is on par with the KKK? Having a single acquaintance who has a shady past is grounds for character assassination? I know people who have been to jail - does that make me a thief? Just as the Palin smears are a stain on whoever spreads them, the attempts to paint Obama, a man who has spent his life in service to his community and his country, as an immoral danger are truly contemptible.

Re: One Most Likely Biting the Dust

ryan — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 14:03:24 -0000

"On the disappointing front, if you're waiting for some sort of sack cloth and ashes "apology" for the original post, you can spare yourself turning blue from holding your breath, as it won't be coming. Had I been one of the ones who actually accused Palin of this, then there would certainly have been a full apology and retraction."

Jazz, I think in this case you attacked a woman's character by proposing (or repeating) an fantastic smear claiming that she might be lying about her own son without any solid proof. To me, the difference between the "is Obama a Muslim" and "is Palin lying about her child" smears is one of degree, and both are highly personal attacks that make the process of actually electing qualified candidates much uglier - and note that I'm saying this as an ardent Obama supporter. As to neither apologizing nor retracting the story, this was your comment 72 hours ago:

"Rest assured, if this turns out to be false I will print a large, bold faced apology. But there's a lot of smoke here, and we're looking for the fire. Too many hints to ignore at this stage."

You've attacked a woman's credibility in a very serious and personal way, and I don't think it's unreasonable to simply make an apology to her for propagating rumors (based solely on innuendo) that unfairly disparaged her integrity.

Re: The Fully Vetted Sarah Palin

ryan — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:14:33 -0000

"Would this be an appropriate topic for discussion in the political arena, or is it simply too personal, even if true? ... Or do you, when entering politics and running for a seat in the White House, pretty much sacrifice your privacy and forfeit any right to a lie, even if it was in reference to an intensely personal matter which didn’t amount to any wrongdoing?"

Jazz - if there was some proof behind this story then it would clearly be fair game for discussion as it would be a very revealing insight into Governor Palin's decision making processes. HOWEVER, when following a story that attacks someone's character, it is very, very important to have that proof BEFORE airing the story. I completely fail to see how "airing the possibility" that Palin is staging some mass coverup about her own child is different from those who have "aired the possibility" that Obama hates America or that Kerry lied about his Vietnam service. A smear is a smear, and the power of a smear is in planting doubts in people's minds. In the unlikely event that some real evidence comes to light that proves this story true, that would be the time to air it and discuss the issue, but without such evidence you are essentially saying that it is OK to propose that any despicable thing said about someone "could be true" until they prove it false.

Re: SURPRISE : SARAH PALIN

ryan — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 03:14:15 -0000

It's funny watching you lefties get all huffy about inexperience when your candidate was the most inexperienced of the election.

I don't know if I'm a "lefty", but "experience" is the wrong word. Obama has demonstrated good judgment on a number of occasions - the obvious example is his comments prior to the Iraq war, but there are many others including the fact that he put together a team that won a campaign against a seemingly invincible candidate during the primaries.

Along with 99.9% of the country I don't know much about Palin's judgment, but from what little I've seen, when compared with Obama her record does appear to be very thin. That said, expectations are very low, so if she gets out on the campaign trail and blows everyone away then her addition will be a massive boost to the McCain ticket. If she comes across as unprepared, however, McCain's chances may sink with her.

Re: The Fully Vetted Sarah Palin

ryan — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 02:55:18 -0000

"If she can't stand the heat in the kitchen, then she's free to leave. I agree with your point about principles, and I wish politics in this country could allow for such freedom, but the last eight years have just shot to hell all of that. I don't know whether to believe the allegations or not but until they're answered they remain a blemish on her. Thanks for the reminder on the principles..."

SFStockBoy, I know you mean well, but rationale like this justifies every attack on Obama's patriotism, suggestions that his wife hates America, suggestions that he is a terrorist for knowing just one member of the Weather Underground, etc. In addition, it justifies the swift-boating of Kerry and future attacks on wholely decent people. Allowing the "political process" to devolve into an increasingly fantastic level of character assassinations creates an environment where only liars and scam artists can succeed, and as Obama himself said the other night "America is a better country than that".

Re: The Fully Vetted Sarah Palin

ryan — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 00:21:18 -0000

StockBoySF - in the sense that Jazz is not pushing this story as "something that is", but instead as "something that could be" I agree that he isn't spreading rumors. However, in the sense that giving any credibility at all to these rumors, especially by publishing them as something that "need more investigation", seems to me to be a needless attack on Governor Palin's character.

There was a line in the movie "The Contender" where a female VP nominee was being attacked due to rumors of "deviant sexual acts" during her college days that seems apropos to this discussion. These of course proved to be false, but she refused to address them. Her reasoning was the following:

"...but principles only mean something if you stick by them when they're inconvenient. If I ever did answer the questions... you know, even to exonerate myself... that would mean that it was okay for them to have been asked in the first place... and it isn't."

In this case, accusing a mother of lying about her own child isn't something that's OK to suggest without rock solid proof, just as accusing Obama of hating his country (even if it could be true) is completely out-of-line without very clear evidence.

Re: The Fully Vetted Sarah Palin

ryan — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:40:15 -0000

"ryan, as far as Jazz apologizing..... I disagree with you. Jazz is clearly not spreading rumors."

StockBoySF - if claiming that the governor of Alaska is lying about her own child in order to cover up her daughter's pregnancy based on nothing more than a photo and a case of mono isn't "spreading rumors" then I'm not sure what "spreading rumors" is. If you didn't post on this site for a week, and during that time there were a string of bank robberies in LA, would it be spreading rumors to suggest you were the bank robber? This article seems to have just about as much factual basis behind it as that crazy allegation would, and thus strikes me as nothing more than an ugly smear against a woman who by all accounts is an honest mother of a large family.

Re: The Fully Vetted Sarah Palin

ryan — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:04:03 -0000

Jazz, if/when this turns out to be false please be sure to print a retraction and an apology. Having listened to all of the "Obama is a Muslim", "Obama went to school in a madrassa", "Obama won't salute the flag", etc rumors, it doesn't look any prettier when the insinuations fly from the other side. I understand that this would be a great scoop for a reporter should it turn out to be true, but without any actual proof it's a pretty serious attack on Palin's credibility to claim that she is lying about her own child.

Re: Obama Acceptance Speech: Great Job But Will It Matter?

ryan — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 00:54:53 -0000

A note for those who complain about Obama's perceived lack of specifics: I don't think people care about "specifics" for any reason other than to have something to complain about. Obama actually appears to have more specifics on issues than McCain does - compare http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ to http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/, where Obama has detailed plans, links to whitepapers, etc. McCain's site is noticeably lighter.

"Specifics" are great, and Obama has plenty of information available for those who are interested. That said, given how easy it is to find this information it seems (to me at least) that who fault him for lacking specifics are more interested in finding fault than in the actual specifics themselves.

Re: Obama Acceptance Speech: Great Job But Will It Matter?

ryan — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 00:31:42 -0000

"Obama did what he needed to do tonight but I think that it is a fleeting glory."

I disagree. Even as an Obama supporter I didn't think he would be able to address Republican attacks against him, lay out specific reasons to vote for him, and do so in a way that maintained his message of being a different kind of politician. Obama categorically dismembered every Republican attack against him over the past several weeks (eg: "Now, I don't know what kind of lives John McCain thinks that celebrities lead"), spelled out specifics that most voters can identify with (eg: tax cuts for 95% of Americans), and made a point of saying that we can agree even on divisive issues (eg: reduce abortion by reducing unwanted pregnancies).

With McCain having focused almost exclusively on attacking Obama rather than outlining his own vision for the country it now makes the Republican's job much tougher. Three days ago the pundits were faulting Democrats for an inability to respond to Republican attacks; in one night it seems like Obama has done a remarkable job in silencing those concerns and putting McCain on the defensive.

Re: When going negative, be funny

ryan — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 23:06:41 -0000

pacatrue:

Well, it is funny, but I still wish it was a funny video by some random person at YouTube and not an official campaign video. It's just going to continue the downward spiral of the campaigns.

Well said - I'm also disappointed that Obama has begun pushing negative ads, particularly the ad that insinuated that McCain gave political favors to Ralph Reed (and was thereby associated with Abramoff).

Neocon:

However I find it comical that Obama can unleash attack adds and its okay. When McCain claims Obama is a ROCK star its the end of the world and McCain should be hung... Id rather see this kind of adds then flat out distortions.

Sadly Obama has aired some negative ads, so it's now a question of the degree of negativity, but it seems clear that McCain's negative ads are primarily in the "flat out distortion" category that you mention, which seems like a truly vile way to run an election. Screaming "Obama will raise taxes on the middle class", which is not only false but completely innacurate since Obama has proposed a middle class tax cut, and then claiming that Obama's stance on Iraq was a move to "put politics ahead of country" are simply wretched actions. Obama of course countered with the Ralph Reed ad mentioned above, which is also hitting below the belt, so sadly neither candidate can claim clean hands.

Re: Polls: Race Dead Even Now After Biden Pick Apparently Irks Clinton Supporters

ryan — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:15:01 -0000

"If not this is going to be one huge Titanic to explain to the voters in November."

In every election he's ever run Obama has run from behind - his campaign strategy seems to be to spend a ton of time putting an organization together, and then to unleash that organization during the month before the election. Look at his Senate bid, the Iowa primary... I suspect this October will be the same, which is why the campaign seems to have been lying low in the past months. I could be wrong, and the Titanic you foresee could be steaming along full speed, but after his impressive showing in the primaries I find it tough to believe that they are truly floundering for the general.

Re: Polls: Race Dead Even Now After Biden Pick Apparently Irks Clinton Supporters

ryan — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:37:09 -0000

"I can't believe what is happening. I for one will solicit all Hillary voters to do as I will do, and that is vote for McCain. We Hillary supporters, and firm Democrats, need to have a voice and if our Headshed will not listen to us they will after this election."

If you vote Republican I fail to see how it makes it more likely that the Democratic party will listen to you - that logic is akin to saying "I will root for the Red Sox this year so that the Yankees learn what a true fan I am". If you truly want to change the Democratic party then push for changes that you think are needed, otherwise it isn't "your party" that is the problem.

Re: Bye Bye Barry (Guest Voice)

ryan — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 01:35:44 -0000

While everyone is entitled to an opinion, it would be nice if this piece offered some constructive criticism rather than dwelling entirely on negativity. For example, how about a similar post that details the author's best-case scenario? Write about the surprise third-party candidate who emerged to win the election, and how he or she pulls it off. Had Ross Perot not dropped out midway back in 1992 he very well could have broken through the two-party system, and it's conceivable that if someone like Colin Powell or Warren Buffett were ever convinced to run independently that they could win. An article about such a scenario would prove more enlightening than one like this one that basically says "the system sucks" without offering any insights.

Re: Obama’s New McCain Is Celebrity Too Campaign Ad

ryan — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 00:02:08 -0000

I'm with pacatrue on this one - seeing the Obama campaign respond to a stupid and distracting ploy by saying "but he is too" is disappointing. The whole "celebrity" charge isn't even a negative - would you rather have a President who is hated? There are a ton of responses that turn McCain's "celebrity" charge into a positive, but this isn't one of them, and it's disappointing to see the normally adept Obama team fumble this opportunity.

Re: My Side Is Wrong/Their Side Is Right

ryan — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 21:10:43 -0000

I voted for Arnold but generally support Democrats, so...

Democrats are terrible at managing their party. They seem to be more reactive than proactive. When was the last time a budget got passed anywhere near on time when Democrats were in control?

The Democrats are also far too willing to see government as the solution to people's problems, rather than as a tool to provide people assistance in solving their own problems. The current housing mess is an example - while it makes sense to provide some incentive to prevent foreclosures, providing government backing for bad loans seems like rewarding bad behavior.

Additionally, the Democrats are far too willing to look for someone or something to blame, rather than accepting that sometimes bad things happen. Malpractice suits are one example that have always bugged me - doctors will invariably make mistakes (who doesn't?) but such a mistake should not automatically mean millions of dollars for the victim, yet Democrats have resisted any legislation that would limit damages.

As to the Republicans, one thing they do very well is to rebound by rallying around a core set of proposals that are in general sensible and worth implementing. In 1994 they had the contract with America, which avoided the more fringe issues and focused on popular agenda items, and they actually implemented a good chunk of it. Today the party is fractured into fiscal conservatives and social conservatives so it will be harder for them to re-unify, but if/when they do I'm sure it will be based on a set of proposals on which the full party and mainstream America can generally agree on.

Re: In the Eyes of the Beholder

ryan — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:39:44 -0000

At the moment it seems that the people on both sides who are throwing around the "race" issue are looking to score cheap points and end up discrediting the candidate they are supporting in the process. Screaming "racism" when an ad featuring a black man and two white women is shown it is akin to crying "wolf", and distracts from the true issue of McCain issuing a negative and insulting ad. Similarly, when the McCain campaign screams "race card" over a completely innocuous remark they lessen their own credibility.

Race simply isn't the issue that many want it to be in this election - people on either side will scream about it, but the truth is that McCain isn't racist and Obama isn't Jesse Jackson.

Re: McCain Campaign Ad: Obama Chose Going To Gym Over Visiting Troops

ryan — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 13:33:08 -0000

I agree with most of what mikkel says, although it also seems that a significant amount of credit for the reduction of sectarian violence in Baghdad goes to Petraeus - by re-deploying troops out of the green zone and into neighborhoods they were able to fill the role that the Iraqi police force was supposed to fill, providing some semblance of security to the local population. Aside from that, however, it does seem that the majority of the reduction in violence was due to the Anbar awakening and al Sadr calling off his militia - both of which started well before the troop surge.

Re: McCain Campaign Ad: Obama Chose Going To Gym Over Visiting Troops

ryan — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 12:49:53 -0000

Neocon: "The surge worked. Obama has NO judgement and the Press knows it. He is not qualified to be president and we all know that. His resume would get him laughed out of any corporate office yet we want him to lead America."

There is an argument to be made on these points (although I disagree with your conclusions), so THAT is what McCain's ads should be pushing. The fact that in this ad he is making up facts to falsely attack Obama is the issue being discussed in this thread, and it's one that puts McCain in a very, very bad light.

Assertions from the ad: Obama went to the gym (untrue - was playing basketball with troops) instead of visiting injured troops (untrue - basketball was in Kuwait, the canceled visit was in Germany) because the Pentagon wouldn't let him bring cameras (untrue - cameras weren't going to come along anyhow) .

Re: McCain Campaign Ad: Obama Chose Going To Gym Over Visiting Troops

ryan — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 11:52:21 -0000

I agree with runasim - McCain is someone I've admired, and I'm saddened that he has stooped to this level. I understand that politicians say bad things about their opponents that they know are false in order to score points, but I thought that McCain had more integrity than to basically call someone a troop-hater. As Elrod pointed out, the basketball picture is of Obama playing WITH the troops in Kuwait (video from the military news network: here). Additionally, the canceled visit in Germany was NOT about cameras - it was about a request from the Pentagon not to make a visit that could be viewed as political.

I'm disappointed in John McCain over this, and sad that there are people who believe it. As the Obama campaign's statements have said, McCain's service to America is honorable and to be respected, but the fact that he is using this line of attack is a wholly dishonorable action.

Re: Obama’s Popularity Abroad, a Blessing or a Curse?

ryan — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 23:44:07 -0000

It seems like any ire towards Obama's trip to Europe is just another manifestation of the partisan divide. Much of the mainstream political discussion today unfortunately leaves no room for nuance - someone is either wrong or right, conservative or liberal, etc - so Europe is either a bunch of socialist pansies or a bastion of intelligence and fair-mindedness. As a result, unlike in days where Kennedy could be hailed for his enthusiastic reception in Europe, today Obama can be both assaulted and praised for the same kind of reception.

My opinion (for what it's worth) is that it can only be a good thing when your country's leader (or in this case potential leader) is well-received by other nations - as Dorian said, would it be better if he was hated? The fact that Limbaugh and others attack him for receiving a favorable reception is a demonstration that the logic of some pundits is shaped primarily by party affiliation rather than a candidate's stances on issues and political abilities.

Re: How Obama And Clinton Will Likely End Democratic Primaries

ryan — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 21:54:03 -0000

metalluk - thank you for your insights. One thing that was clear during this primary is that there is a real divide among Democrats in what they are looking for in a candidate. My sense of things is that the Obama supporters are those who believe that Washington is broken and needs an overhaul, and to them Clinton represents more of the same broken political system. The Clinton supporters seem to be those who feel that what is broken in Washington is that the wrong side is in power, and thus are most interested in seeing the person most capable of winning and running the existing Washington machine. Your comments seem to reflect that sentiment if I'm understanding them correctly.

StockBoySF - I've spent some time over the past week or two reading comments on sites like Taylor Marsh (scary!), DailyKos (some are surprisingly insightful, although bitterly partisan) and a few other sites, and today I read through a number of comments to an article on CNN. The CNN comments were probably most instructive - like metalluk, a lot of Clinton supporters see Obama as completely unfit for the job; the argument is probably valid if you view the Presidency as one person pushing a lot of buttons, so it is up to Obama to make it clear that he views the job of the President not as the one who gets everything done, but as the person who sets the agenda and then puts people in position to get things done. In any case, the view that Obama is unfit for the job leads to the question of "how could he have won and how can we stop it", which in turn leads to some of the wild allegations, anger and win-at-all-costs ugliness that has erupted. In addition, posters on DailyKos rightfully point to the poor behavior of many Obama supporters - a lot of them like Obama but hate the smug, self-righteous, and often insulting way that many of his online supporters act, and that has led to anger that the poor behavior was rewarded with a winning candidate. I'm not sure that this entirely explains the vitriol seen at yesterday's meeting, but it gives some insight into its origin.

One addition for StockBoySF - I agree that Clinton has fanned the fires with the Michigan / Florida outrage, and will be surprised if all but her most hardcore supporters don't start to abandon ship if the campaign presses on with the dramatics. That said, Clinton is very shrewd, and it's likely that some agreement (such as the health care czar role mentioned by Joe) will be reached to create a graceful end to the current mess.

Re: How Obama And Clinton Will Likely End Democratic Primaries

ryan — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 11:15:26 -0000

I watched a bit of the rules committee meeting, and what I didn't understand was why there was so much anger. Ickes seemed genuinely upset in arguing that 600,000 people who voted in a primary that was declared (in advance) to be meaningless were having their votes "taken away from them". Those in the audience who were yelling and arguing with committee members were worked up into a total frenzy.

The complaints from protesters seemed to fall into two categories: first, that their votes were being taken away from them (and most of those people weren't from Florida or Michigan) and second, that the Democrats were throwing away the election (followed by chants of "McCain, McCain..."). Since it seems like there must be other reasons I read some of the comments on the Taylor Marsh site, and the posters there just seem to genuinely HATE Obama as they feel he ran a negative smear campaign against Hillary, utilized dirty tactics, and has pulled off a massive con job on those who voted for him.

Do a significant percentage of Hillary supporters feel this way? My mother voted Hillary, but that vote was due mostly to name-recognition, and given a second chance I'm certain she would vote for Obama. Aside from her I don't know any Clinton voters (I'm in the under-40, college-educated demographic that tilts heavily to Obama), but are there a significant number of Clinton voters who are really this angry about the outcome of the primaries?