It’s hard to remember the last time I genuinely voted FOR someone

2004 was the first and only time I genuinely voted for someone.  2000, didn’t know much about Bush to be really for or against him.  Dole…..heh.  Maybe Bush Sr but I can’t say I was genuinely behind him.  I was 17 in 1984 and if I could of voted that would of been one….hell, I campaigned for Reagan in High School. 

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Curt wrote:

unfortunately, for myself, I have to vote against someone rather then for someone.

Tell me about it.  I consider this the greatest failing in contemporary American politics.  It’s hard to remember the last time I genuinely voted FOR someone, rather than a lesser-of-two-evils vote AGAINST the "other guy."

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I agree with all those. One of the reasons why he wasn’t my first, second, or even third choice for President. But it appears this election will be between the better of two evils, and Obama-Hillary beat him by a million miles in that regard. If you check the posts I did prior to him winning the nomination you will see many posts on McCain that were less then glowing. But now this election is about ensuring the Socialist twins do not get in and completely tear this country apart ala Jimmy Carter…unfortunately, for myself, I have to vote against someone rather then for someone.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Curt wrote:

You have examples of McCains hypocrisy, bring it.

Given his years of decrying the influence of money in politics, I see hypocrisy in his recent attempt to get out from under the public financing for which he registered. This is especially true when he’s publicly criticizing Obama for doing the very same thing. (Yes, they’re both hypocrites on this one.)

It’s hypocrisy to assure the big banks/brokers that the Federal government will/should step in to save them from "systemic risk" in the mortgage crisis, while (in the same speech) preaching personal responsibility to everyone else.

I see hypocrisy in the contradiction between his public condemnation of waterboarding and his vote against legislation that would prohibit the practice.

It’s hypocritical to criticize others for discussing timetables or oversight of Iraq, when he himself proposed benchmarks–and the possible need to "examine the mission" if they went unmet–in early 2007.

When he, in 2008, describes Iraq as something that "many of us fully understood from the beginning would be a very, very difficult undertaking," after coughing up the "greeted as liberators" line repeatedly in 2003, I smell hypocrisy.

Urging Huckabee to stop aside in 2008–when he didn’t release his 2000 delegates until the day before the Republican Convention–strikes me as hypocritical.

Now, we can come up with long lists of this stuff from any of the remaining candidates. Such is a certainty in today’s political system. I just wish that I saw some discussion of how to answer these legitimate criticisms, instead of the head-in-the-sand, let’s-only-talk-about-the-other-guy nature of most sources of ‘discussion.’

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I could care less that the Tax Professor brought up religion….I care about the hypocrisy that is one display daily from Obama and his wife.  You have examples of McCains hypocrisy, bring it.  But when a man has become this holier then thou messiah you better damn well believe I will point out the mans hypocrisy. 

McCain has made no such allusion, and has laid out his failings for all to see and judge.  Not so with the messiah.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Myself, when I see liberals talk about the poor and downtrodden, about how hard it was going to help those folks which forced them to miss all the high paying jobs meanwhile they were earning more them a majority of this country does AND gave a pittance to charity….I see hypocrisy.

Trust me, I could provide some lovely examples of hypocrisy from McCain’s speech of two days ago (on the mortgage crisis) or Clinton’s recent comments on Wright (*snort*).

I’m a political centrist and a partisan Independent, simply because government is not a black-and-white choice between conservative and liberal, and because both major parties are filled with hypocrites. I sit back and see both sides inflate their records, spout obvious half-truths, and spawn useless threads while hoping that no one looks into their half of the political universe. (I can tell you that, after hearing 8 years of “I misspoke,” “I was less than candid” and “I can’t recall” from the current Administration, arguments around ‘misremembering’ don’t get a great deal of traction.)

Sadly, our political process has become one in which we are encouraged to vote against "the other guy" instead of voting for someone in whom we can honestly believe. In that context, I take a dim view of any word-parsing, semantic games or molehills-made-mountains.

(Yes, I make the same sorts of comments on other blogs–conservative and liberal–that I make here. I will say, by the way, that the atmosphere among commentators here is much better than the norm.)

I will say that I probably “zeroed in” on the charity thing because of your use/citation of the “well short of the biblical 10% tithe” comment. I take my faith very seriously (I’m a Southern Baptist), and I have grown disgusted with the casual way in which we’ve injected judgments of faith into the political debate. There’s a reason that the Founders explicitly prohibited religious tests for public office, but we seem intent on introducing them nonetheless. In that respect, you hit a nerve. *grin*

We do agree, I suspect, that the most important issue you raised in your original post was the question of Illinois ethics laws. That should be investigated further.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

There are many issues on which Obama (and Clinton, and McCain) can be legitimately criticized

Yup, and I’ve pretty much hit them all.  Hell, even hit a few in this post alone but you zeroed into the charity thing and wouldn’t let go.  Myself, when I see liberals talk about the poor and downtrodden, about how hard it was going to help those folks which forced them to miss all the high paying jobs meanwhile they were earning more them a majority of this country does AND gave a pittance to charity….I see hypocrisy. 

I’m not surprised tho.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Now that the Obamas have hit pay dirt with Barak’s books, why doesn’t Michelle practice what she preaches and give up her 6 figures job and become a 5 figures nurse, teacher, or social worker.

There are many people would like to have a community services oriented job but can’t because they couldn’t pay their bills if they did. 

Michelle isn’t encumbered by such financial necessities, is she?  Just another "let them eat cake" limousine liberal…

Like or Dislike: 0  0

"Not quite as wonderful" refers to leveraging benefits of Katrina-relief legislation for non-Katrina charities; it’s one of those "spirit of the law vs. letter of the law" things.  You’re right to say that it’s great that he gave it–and, make no mistake, it truly is–but what does that have to do with fitness to lead, other than (perhaps) providing ammunition for cheap shots?

Mike’s simple "Meanwhile, Cheney continues to give millions to charity" comment seemed to hang the VP out there as some sort of role model, but Cheney has had what, three more decades to amass wealth?   My only point is that, when one has $22 million in after-tax income in a single year, one can be more charitable afterwards; that’s why I say there’s an apples-to-oranges element in that comparison.   Who can say what any of us would do with $22 million (more, I would assume, since he undoubtedly has other savings and investments) in the bank?

I suspect that, in general, most politicians ramp up their charitable contributions as their career progresses.  Whether that is due to increased wealth, concern for public image, or actual charity is left open to interpretation.  More to the point, however, is that we cannot ascribe motive to any of it.  Pointing at someone’s contributions and naming them a hypocrite is just cheap-shot attack politics.   Picking out one piece of church doctrine and implying that someone is less than "Biblical" is a cheap shot as well; do you REALLY want to go there?

I don’t really pay that much attention to charitable donations, anyway, and (as I said earlier) I certainly don’ t hold candidates to a tithing expectation when churches don’t even agree on what a tithe is.  You look at Obama and say "he didn’t give much back then," but I see that his contributions are increasing and think, regardless of the intent behind that increase, it’s a good thing.

There are many issues on which Obama (and Clinton, and McCain) can be legitimately criticized, but this seems…lame.  

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Not quite as wonderful as one might think at first glance

Because of this guys gut feeling? Are you serious? The fact is he gave money that was owed him to charity, a lot of it. Whether you like where it came from or why…he gave it.

Obama, the messiah, the man of the people, gave little.

Oh, and if you think that an income of $250,000 is “just fine” for raising kids, planning for their future (education and the like) while preparing for one’s own retirement, I would beg to differ.

Thats going to be your argument? That 250 grand a year really isn’t much? Wow…..since the median income in Illinois is 51 grand a year I really don’t think that argument will hold water.

Myself, I think that is their prerogative to earn that much. Good for them. That is the American way to have the freedom to earn well. But don’t go around telling everyone how hard it was for you, how you had to take low paying jobs and other baloney when nothing could be further from the truth.

Like or Dislike: 0  0