Campaign analysis

I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight.....

* If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're
"exotic, different."

* Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, a quintessential American
story.

* If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.

* Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you're a maverick.

* Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.

* Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well
grounded.

* If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become
the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a
voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend
12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a
State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people,
become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human
Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate
representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131
bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public
Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real
leadership experience.

* If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city
council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000
people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000
people, then you're qualified to become the country's second
highest ranking executive.

* If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while
raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches,
you're not a real Christian.

* If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left
your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month,
you're a Christian.

* If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education,
including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the
fiber of society.

* If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with
no other option in sex education in your state's school system
while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you're very
responsible.

* If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position
in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner
city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's
values don't represent America's.

* If your husband is nicknamed "First Dude," with at least one DWI
conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote
until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the
secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely
admirable.

OK, much clearer now.

Nice sequacious diatribe!

I agree with one thing... you are confused.

Its about time someone starts throwing insults around to the other side. Obviously, this is a slanted-left post, something to get the blood going in the morning. Post one of these for the other side and have some fun with it. Argue some of the points made in the posts and prove them wrong, and then you can call me "sequacious". Someone must have been an English major in college!

By the way, HB, is there any way to get a direct link to the Back 9 part of the huskermat website on the front page of the site? If there is, could you explain to this "sequacious" person how to get there?

There you go again, Red Sox, being confused. Let me help you out. First, I never insulted you. I said the diatribe you copied and pasted was sequacious, i.e. not your own thoughts. Secondly, the last part was supposed to be jocose. It was a play on the first part of your previous post. I guess I should have put a smiley face. No need for you to get your feathers ruffled.

No feathers ruffled here. I must not have the grasp of the english language that you have. Smiley faces do work for me though!

Sequacious??? Jocose???

Sounds like somebody's trying to order coffee at Starbucks...whatdahey???

Why must I be castigated for using the English language correctly? The sad thing is I am use to it from my family, friends, and students.

And Red Sox, you made a good point earlier, so I decided to acquiesce to your request in the spirit of good debate. Later, I will give my thoughts regarding your post. I am sure that will provide plenty of fodder for all.

Should be fun Vader.

Below, I argued the points of this liberal propaganda spew and proved them all wrong (imo) as requested.

[Red Sox original posted email in italics] Except I did it in Word and it didn't transfer over, sorry.

* If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're
"exotic, different."

Response – Hawaii is touted as an exotic destination by most people. Also, Obama grew up in Jakarta, Indonesia for four years. Wouldn’t you agree that is “exotic, different” from other men/women who have ran for president? By the way, that doesn’t make him bad or wrong. Also, his grandparents raised him after he returned to Hawaii at age ten. This statement just doesn’t include all the facts.

* Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, a quintessential American story.

Response – First off, “eating mooseburgers” is ad hominem, imo. What does eating have to do with anything? I’m sure Obama ate food in Indonesia and Hawaii that you or I have never eaten. So what! Irrelevant topics or information does nothing to further the debate and need to be left out. Secondly, I wouldn’t call Palin’s story quintessential, but it is extraordinary.

* If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.

Response – Statement commits a logical fallacy. His name doesn’t make him radical, but his views and associations do. He supported a Muslim member of his father’s tribe in Kenya to be their president. Odinga lost, encouraged violence, many people died or were displaced, and he was appointed prime minister to stop the violence. Read the article Is Obama forthright about this? It makes me question his motives, character, and integrity.

By the way, did any of you hear anything about the private session of congress over the summer that talked about declaring martial law in case of violent protests after the elections and retraining troops to deal with that problem? I ran across a video on youtube, but was unclear about it. Sorry, I digressed.

* Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you're a maverick.

Response – Statement commits another logical fallacy. Who cares what the Palin’s named their kids? She is a maverick because she has blazed a trail of firsts being her own person. Not to mention, she had the gumption to take on the established status quo even within her own party.

* Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.

Response – Again, statement commits a logical fallacy. Going to Harvard has nothing to do with him being unstable. All of his “misstatements”, political dodges, inability to directly address a question, and down right lies beget that characterization. It makes me question his character and his integrity.

* Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well
grounded.

Response – Again, argument is ad hominem, imo. Reeks of elitism. What is wrong with ‘small’ colleges?

* If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become
the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a
voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend
12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a
State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people,
become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human
Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate
representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131
bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public
Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real
leadership experience.

Response – I believe the correct criticism of Obama is no real “executive” leadership experience, and is quite valid. As for ‘brilliant’ community organizer, if you consider sitting on the board with a confessed domestic terrorist whose education agenda is to radicalize students, and agreed as well as participated with him by doling out the money, not to actual schools, but to radical groups who “partner” with education brilliant, then you have your man in Obama. WSJ article It is interesting that most of you supporting Obama are in the education field. Do you all support his radical views on education, as well?

Obama also supports the group ACORN, who do a great job of voter registration drives. They just aren’t legal, but that doesn’t matter, I guess, although, it is finally in the news. Also, it turns out that Obama’s longstanding relationship with ACORN may have been a major contributor to the financial crisis we are in now. Interesting read Obama supports ACORN, ACORN supports Obama, ACORN is instrumental for the high risk loans of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and Obama receives the second largest sum of monies from those quasigovernment institutions. Not to mention, Obama promised to give groups like ACORN the opportunity to help shape his presidential agenda. Watch for yourself

Finally, you know the old “guilt by association” is thrown around a lot. I personally think that using that kind of man, as a launching pad for a political career is means to question Obama’s motive, character, and integrity. I have to agree with one commentator I listened to (can’t think of the name off hand, sorry) who said it is “guilt by participation”. Two entirely different interpretations, but only one is true. Obama still tells lies about his real affiliation, friendship, association, participation, whatever you choose to call it with Ayers. Why? It makes me question his character, core convictions, and his integrity.

* If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city
council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000
people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000
people, then you're qualified to become the country's second
highest ranking executive.

Response – First off, she was a sports reporter not a weather girl. Secondly, why is she belittled for being a small-town mayor and a governor? Did you know that as governor of Alaska she was the commander of the Alaska National Guard and the commander in chief of the Alaskan State Defense Force? She is routinely briefed in matters of national security as it relates to Alaska being the first line of defense for our nation. They are on full time duty and have carried out many missions under Palin. What experience has Obama had for being the commander and chief of our troops? Her job experiences only give her “executive” experience, unlike Obama. Her character, demeanor, convictions, and desire to actually represent real Americans in Washington makes her as qualified as any VP candidate in my lifetime. Lastly, how come there are more comparisons/contrasts between Obama and Palin, when McCain is the opponent running for president?

* If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while
raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches,
you're not a real Christian.

Response – First off, Obama was married in the same year I was married. My wife and I have only been married 16 years, so there’s some more “fuzzy” math from the ‘unknown’ author of this email-circulated diatribe. He or she has glaring liberal proclivities. Sorry, I digressed again. Furthermore, I would take umbrage with the innocent use of ‘Protestant’ church. Obama’s pastor was Rev. Jeremiah Wright for how many years? Obama only distanced himself from Rev. Wright when it was politically convenient to do so. It makes me question his integrity and convictions. Doesn’t it you?

* If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left
your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month,
you're a Christian.

Response – Again, mischaracterizations galore. McCain’s first wife was not disfigured in her automobile accident in 1969. What does ‘rich heiress’ have to do with anything? McCain has always taken full responsibility for his divorce and acknowledges his immaturity as the primary cause. McCain has made many mistakes in his life, as have we all. The difference is he owns up to them.

* If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education,
including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the
fiber of society.

Response – ‘Age appropriate sex education’, please, he advocates this program for children as young as kindergart
ners. That is not teaching. It certainly is not responsible. It is, however, indoctrination. Goes back to his radical educational philosophy. I do not agree with it, so I question his motives and core convictions.

* If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with
no other option in sex education in your state's school system
while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you're very
responsible.

Response – Another logical fallacy that is lame. If you don’t agree with abstinence only sex education, fine, but don’t imply Gov. Palin is not responsible when her daughter was the one who was irresponsible to justify your position. You cannot get pregnant, contract STD’s, or experience emotional pain if you practice abstinence, period. That is irrefutable. This argument is analogous to teaching children about Russian roulette. One side says if you never put a bullet in the chamber, then you will never get shot. The other side says, well, we don’t think you are mature enough to control yourself. We know you will play with the gun, but we want you to be ‘safe’, so if you only put one bullet in the chamber and spin it good, you will be ‘safe’, usually, most of the time, statistically speaking, of course. Please, give me a break!

* If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position
in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner
city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's
values don't represent America's.

Response – This is an appeal to emotion and is not relevant to the debate at hand. But, I would say good for her.

* If your husband is nicknamed "First Dude," with at least one DWI
conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote
until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the
secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely
admirable.

Response – This is ad hominem, again! It, also, is not relevant to the debate at hand.

Conclusion – I would be remiss if I did not point out a few things. First, this email is riddled with logical fallacies that invalidate it as a genuine means of persuasion for someone who is looking for a good, honest, and logical exchange of information in the free market place of ideas.

Secondly, this email demonstrates the lack of that which I constantly encourage my students about, the ability to think for themselves. Those who cannot think for themselves become trapped in sequacity to those who do. This problem permeates all sides of the political aisle. Case in point, I received one of those chain emails from my mother this morning. It took a piece of satirical writing and transformed it into a bastion of lies directly attributed to Obama. I emailed her back explaining the mistruth about the email and that it shouldn’t be circulated. I believe the same is true about this email. It is intellectually repugnant.

Finally, there are many reasons (some of which I mentioned above) why I do not agree with Obama. I have legitimate questions about his character, integrity, core convictions, and paths that he would seek to take our country down. Thankfully, we all have the freedom to agree or disagree, vote for or against, and publicly articulate personal opinion pro or con about the candidates. We truly live in a great nation and I pray it will continue to be so in the future for my sons and future grandchildren.

Jeremy Strong

Well I see I need to roll up my sleeves here. We have a smart man on our hands in Vader! I better do my research on McCain and Palin when I respond back. Obviously, you understand the whole point of the email. It is a left-slanted email of course. It brings up interesting things to talk about. I don't necessarily agree with how you defended Palin and McCain, with "ad hominem", "mischaracterizations", "logical fallacies", etc. You are arguing about how the email is phrased, not with what is in the email. There could be a few inaccuracies, and I'm sure I can look up a website or two that will discredit what you have put down about Obama and ACORN, Fannie Mae, Abstinence programs, etc. How do I believe your information? Do you get your information from blogs like HB does? I see you have a website article or two listed. That's fine, but I guarantee you that for every site bashing Obama and listing all of these supposed issues with his character I can find a site that does the same thing with McCain and Palin. I'm not saying you don't say things in a very intelligent way, probably more convincing than me, but it doesn't mean I have to believe you because you use bigger words than me.

How do you know Barack Obama's character? Seriously, have you sat down and talked to the man? Do you or I have the right to judge someone's character? I never said I agree with everything in the random email either. I posted it for conversation. How can either you or I judge someone's morals? I never said behind any statements about McCain or Palin in the random email that I endorsed any of those statements. As far as I am concerned, IN MY HONEST OPINION, I believe America will be fine with either set of candidates. I believe all four individuals will do their best to try to "right the ship" and America will be better off in four to eight years. Is that everyone's opinion? No. Some believe Obama will drive America into the ground. Some believe that McCain will continue Bush's policies and America will continue down the same path. You are correct that we live in a great country where we can at least argue about these type of issues. I respect your intelligence Vader, but I do not agree with you on everything. That's fine though. We do live in America, not Russia. Or China. Or Cuba. Or Venezuela.

Now, in more detailed response......

WND.com? Are you serious? This is what you are using for info? When did this website become a source of unbiased news when it has Newt Gingrich all over it and ads for conservative t-shirts? Come on. Also, how can you prove those emails were from Obama? Did you see him type those emails? If so, then you have proof. If not, then it cannot be proven.

National Review? Again, a website that is very much a conservative slanted website. How can we truly believe what they have on there? How can we believe what they have on their website when they have a part of their website entitled "liberal fascism" and "Planet Gore" to bash Al Gore and his beliefs? Come on.

The point I make is this. You can post all of these websites and they can be looked at as the gospel by the conservatives of America that do not want Obama elected, or you can look at them as inaccurate websites that are aimed at hurting the Obama campaign by the liberals of America. We are going to be spinning our wheels in the gravel all the way to the election with these types of arguments.

Also, for the record, I went to a small college (Wayne State) for my undergrad degree and went to another small college (Doane) for my master's and will go back there again for another master's starting in the summer. I have no problem with small colleges. I went/will go to two of them. Just another point I am trying to make about the point of the email and how it was for conversation purposes, and not for "truth". I hope everyone can catch that.

Alright, Chad! Go Tigers! (Undergrad class of '95, M.Ed. class of '00)

Undergrad from Wayne in 2003 and MCI from Doane in 2006. I'm getting old now!

This thread, with all of it's critical points like whether Sarah Palin's lead dog in the Ititorad is on steriods and whether Obama hogged the best swing on the elementary school playground, point out the need for campaign reform that I have advocated for years. You'll see how powerful I am as you see the great strides that have been made toward adopting it.

I propose that the congress, with approval of all of the states, establishes criteria as to who is eligible to run. What past or current indiscretions would prevent this person from serving at the national level?

Any person who wants to run for national office; President, VP, Senate, or House will secretly file an Intent to Run form and pays the cost of the "inspection report". No one ever knows that person had filed. The FBI, Secret Service, or similar organization would do a very complete investigation of this person and determine if that person is eligible to run. They notify the candidate, and no one else, he or she has either passed or failed the criteria test. If the candidate is disqualified then he or she would have no embarrassment and could go on with life as if nothing had ever happened.

We now have all of the personal items out of the way. If anyone writes, says, blogs, emails, etc. anything of a personal nature about the candidate then that person will be subject to a very hefty fine and forfeit the right to vote in that election. If the guilty party is another candidate or anyone affiliated with that candidate's campaign then the penalty becomes very steep. In addition to the fine and loss of vote, the candidate will be penalized 1% of the votes cast for him or her.

If we don't have to sift through the "he said-she said" garbage of our recent elections it might be easier to determine what each candidate really stands for. All candidates learned a long time ago that the truth is not necessary in campaigning. If you say your opponent is guilty of blah, blah, blah, that person is guilty. Even when your opponent is able to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that your statement is a bald faced lie only a few of the people who heard the original lie will hear the retraction or apology and most of them will already have been tainted by the lie. In this case, the liar will be penalized 2% of his votes.

Some of you folks who are old enough to have seen the movie, but young enough that you haven't lost your mind yet, help me out with the title of this movie. Jimmy Stewart played a backwoods lawyer who is defending a woman against some charge. Throughout the trial he ties fishing flies. At one point Jimmy makes a statement and the prosecuting attorney objects. The judge rules in favor the prosecution and tells the jury to disregard the statement. The defendent whispers to Jimmy, "How can they disregard something they have already heard?" Jimmy answers, "I'm not sure they can." It is impossible to "unhear" something. If you know the name of that movie please let me know. I'd love to find it and watch it again.

These steps wouldn't solve all of our election woes but maybe they would help. Our wonderful media, who are so sure we aren't smart enough to decide anything for ourselves offer all sorts of assistance. For example, a recent Readers Digest has an article and poll taken outside the USA that asks, "Which candidate can do the best job of improving our image with the rest of the world?" WHO CARES? When Dan Gable was coaching the Hawkeyes do you think his goal was to improve the image of his team with the rest of the teams in the country or was it to kick their butts? When a foreign country suffers a natural disaster and we come in with billions of dollars in aid or they are invaded and we liberate them our image with that country will improve for a while. But in a short time they will forget and we will be on their hate list again.

Supreme Court and Cabinet nominees would go through the same inspection secretly, before the President ever announced his or her intent to nominate that person. Any member of congress who brought up a personal point would be banned from all congressional hearings and votes on that nominee.

I disagree with the point you make. To presuppose that information found on a conservative website is false on the basis that it is by nature intended to hurt Obama (as you suggested) is laughable. Truth is truth whether you believe it or not. I only posted those websites as a reference so I wasn't perceived as making things up (and of course that information would not be found on a liberal website or the mainstream media). If you can factually prove the information wrong, fine. But, just to discredit something the way you just did is intellectually asinine in my opinion. We obviously view things differently and I respect that. It is, however, beneficial for all to have civil discourse, so I find this enjoyable. By the way, I finished my undergrad at Wayne State as well.

Vader have you seen this one?

http://usawakeup.org/USSA.htm

Well see Vader, we do have something in common! Us Wayne Staters are a dying breed! What was your major? I still don't know what type of teacher you are. I teach American History here at good ol' Crete...

In deed! Nice to see some common ground.

My major was BS.

No, seriously, I majored with a B.S. in Natural Sciences. I hold a field endorsement which allows me to be qualified to teach any science class in NE.