Pajiba

He uses too many big words!

Sub question: Is it a problem if he is?

I don't mind a little arrogance in someone who decides they want to be what y'all call "the Leader of the FREE WORLD!". It seems to go with the territory. I just don't understand the anti-intellectual element.

Wasn't it more the elitism of thinking he could get politicians to behave in a reasonable and electoratically-beneficial (well, it's a word now) way? Is that even elitism? Isn't it naivety?

Obama will not enter into my decisions tomorrow. I, a fiscal conservative and registered Republicam, will, ironically, most likely be voting for Democrats for U.S. Senate and U.S. House. The U.S. Rep-to-be is a family friend and it's kind of hard to turn down a shot at having that kind of influence. The Senator-to-be is governor of a poor state that still managed to run a $90 million budget surplus this year. Suck it, California and Pennsylvania.

Anyway, the Rep-to-be's GOP opponent keeps trying to box him with Obama and Pelosi. The Rep-to-be runs a clever TV ad in which he says if his opponent wants to run against Pelosi, "he should move to San Francisco."

Otherwise, I'll be voting for the same mix of Dems, Reps and Libertarians I usually vote for.
---
"We want the best people to govern us"

No, we don't. We as a society have gone from looking for extraordinary politicians to lead us to wanting our leaders to be "just like us." The days are long gone when an FDR will get a chance.

A letter-writer to my newspaper had this to say about that:

[W]hen I see these negative ads about where people vacation, what homes they have or anything else about their personal lifestyles, I'm supposed to feel alienated as if not "being like me" is a bad thing. Well, duh ... "being like me" hasn't gotten me far.
---
Vox populi!

"Superior air"

Hmmm...I don't see it. I see an actually smart person who is attempting to use said smarts to get things done. Does he seem condescending and holier-than-thou? No. Is he actually smarter and people are taking offense to that? Absolutely. That's how lawyers tend to be. Trust me, I work for them. They can be ruthless, entitled twats but they get the job done. And sometimes by any means necessary.

If you want someone to take over the tremendous pile of shit our country has to deal with, I'd definitely prefer someone who is at least intelligent enough to attempt to get the job done as opposed to someone who sneers at the intellectal, calling them elitist, and doing nothing to contribute to the political landscape than pushing their racist, homophobic, idiotic agenda.

He probably is, so what? Isn't this the classic "I'l vote for him because he's the kind of guy you can have a beer with" meme. Well, you already had that, for 8 years and look what that got you. Keep in mind that the people you go out drinking with are basically, idiots.

Has Obama been an effective president, it's still too early to tell economies don't turn around overnight. Do the Dems deserve to lose control of the House? THEY DO for many, many reasons, they dragged their feet on health care for one thing. And now they're gonna pay. I'm partial to the theory that a Republican congress will be better for Obama in the long run. Gives him an adversary to play off of, plus there is no way you can keep all those nutjobs, in line to mount an effective front against him. Just wait until that horde of teabaggers starts to push their wacko agenda.

Of all the op-ed writers you could have quoted, you used Maureen Dowd? She is so awful she clearly has pictures of somebody high up at the NYT naked with altar boys. And while I won't deny that there's some disappointment with Obama, Dowd has had a vicious personal vendetta going against him since he took office. Her columns read like a 14 year old girl sniping at the guy who dumped her.

Onward to the question: to me an elitist is someone who believes that only a select group of people matter or should have a say. That sounds awfully like a description of the rich white Republican base to me as opposed to President Obama who, although he is relatively privileged, actually gives a shit about people who aren't. In college there was a certain type of girl I really despised who thought it was attractive to boys to act dumb. It's really sad that so many people in this country expect the president to act like that.

Where's Scully? I want to see Scully's response to this.

(after reading the article)

I voted (early voting FTW) for mostly Democrats. Most of these were statewide offices, not national, so ... not so much a referendum on Obama as a commentary on the idiocy of the state Republicans (TX).

People who think the president can fix the economy (and unfortunately, those people seem to always include the president himself) are amusing to me. If a president could "fix" the economy by presidential decree, believe me, he would. But he can't.

Our economy is a giant system managed by a small group of demonstrably incompetent, hopelessly corrupt people (Congress + the financial industry + the govt. entities who are supposed to regulate the financial industry) and influenced heavily (via consumer spending) by a giant group of even more incompetent people (the public).

From day to day, I truly have difficulty deciding which group to have more contempt for: our stupid financial overlords, or the free-spending idiots who cheerfully helped drive the S.S. Clusterfuck right into an iceberg with their indiscriminate borrowing and spending.

I don't lean either way, but I remember during the Obama/McCain debates that McCain warned everyone that Obama couldn't deliver on his promises because Obama didn't understand the political process. That didn't make him elitist, it made him naive. And I think he's now getting over the shock of what a cesspool American politics have become. He wanted to make big changes but didn't know they were impossible to achieve.

Big changes these days are akin to steering a cruise liner at full speed: If you jam the wheel all the way to port, the whole thing will capsize and shit will go haywire. However, if you quietly notify people about the upcoming change in course and where you hope to end up, then gently turn the wheel so a gradual turn occurs, you just might end up where you want to go. Unfortunately, many of those "turns" take years to complete by which time another captain will be in charge to steer it in another direction, therefore wasting all that time, effort and distance achieved by the initial attempt to reach the desired destination. Because of the time and money needed to make big changes (not to mention the massive effort spent on each side trying to prevent the other side from getting what they want instead of working toward any solutions), political maneuverings these days have become complete clusterfucks. It's frustrating and I have no idea how to fix it.

So let me get this straight - they want a man who wants to be President who DOESN'T think that he's better than everyone else? Good luck with that!

One other thing: If the Republicans do regain a controlling majority in either house, I'm almost looking forward to their inevitable crashing/burning. Either with the part of the country that didn't vote for them or with the morons who did. Actually, it will probably be both.

Few things point out the ineffectualness of political idealists more effectively than ACTUAL politics. It's like nobody reads history at all. The screaming lunatic fringe may get a lot of attention and may even manage to get enough votes to get into office, but once there, they have to actually work with the people they've been screaming about. D.C. is not a Tea Party rally.

RE khia213: I want to know how someone who grew up in a single parent household, was frequently raised by his grandparents and just paid off his student loans three years ago is considered an elitist in the first place. Where I'm from that's considered "hood."

Admin already explained this. Obama uses too many big words.

Well put, Tracer, Paddy. I'm not an American, but I do follow American politics...like the rest of the world. I'd have a beer with Obama. He seems like the kind of guy who'd be happy to play fussball in a pub and discuss Battlestar Galactica. Is that elite?! He can make a coherent sentence, so that disqualifies him as a "regular guy"? So regular means stupid, ignorant and uneducated? Why the low self-esteem, America?

Also, what someone has already mentioned: the Republicans are elitists, too, they just use different criteria. They find the NASCAR dads and soccer moms and Palin worshipers useful idiots in gaining votes. They tell those people what they want to hear and do whatever the hell they (the Republican leadership) want behind the scenes.

I'm not saying the Democrats are better, just sayin'.

The trick is to be an elitist but sound like a regular guy. You can get away with that for years. It helps a lot in that regard if you're from the South and the accent comes naturally.

Jimmy Carter did graduate work in nuclear physics at Union College and became a wealthy farmer. Passed himself off as a regular guy.

Bill Clinton attended Oxford on a Rhodes. Passed himself off as a regular guy.

Bush 2 attended Phillips Academy and graduated from Yale (argue all you want how much he earned it) and owned the Texas Rangers. Born to wealth and privilege. Passed himself off as a regular guy.

But if you're John Kerry and you marry an heiress and go windsurfing, or you're John McCain and you get caught admitting you don't even know how many houses you own, or you're Bush I and it turns out you don't know how a bar-code scanner works because you never buy your own grocers, you're sunk.

Obama's problem, if he has one, is that he doesn't try to hide behind an "aw, shucks, I'm just like y'all" demeanor. The truth is, we've been run by (at least modestly) elite minds for decades. But the effective ones are smart enough to put on the dumb* for the benefit of the 300 million to get elected and stay elected.

*--Or be born in the South, same thing.**

**--I keed! I keed!

Gonna have to side with BSlim on this one. And the majority of comments, so far, actually. One other thing that makes me spit venom at this "elistist" meme bullsh, is that by saying "this particular thing is bad, I'm not like that, which makes me better" is inherently an elitist mentality. "I know better than you," is something an elite would say. Obama might feel that way, but it's Palin and Limbaugh and Beck who couch their statements in those terms.

I do have one quibble with Dustin, though:

"I don’t think even the most ardent Obama supporter could argue that the likely blood-bath that the Democrats will swim in tomorrow is little but a referendum on Obama."

It's not. Like, at all. For the far right, the Tea Partiers, it may be. But Obama's approval rating is hovering between 45-50%, and on some things, over 60%. That puts his numbers generally above Reagan (1982) and Clinton (1994) during their first mid-term elections, and the economy is arguably worse now than either of those years. As well, registered Democrats still outnumber registered Republicans. On top of that, Democrats still poll better than Republicans, generally (somewhere around 46% and 22%, respectively, in terms of generic candidates).

It's an anti-incumbent election. And considering how badly some of the wildest Tea Party candidates are polling right now (O'Donnell, Miller, Whitman, Paladino, etc.), it sort of shows that even with this much anti-incumbency, most people still aren't that crazy to vote for utter incompetency. Also, Sarah Palin's national approval ratings still poll around 22%, so it's not an Obama vs. Palin election, either.

I'm not arguing that Republicans won't make gains in this election, I just don't think it's for the reasons this debate is implying/inferring. Which is why I agree that, ultimately, this could be very good for Obama. Though, it's going to hurt in the short-term.

Finally: Anybody in the political center who's abandoned Obama at this point in the game clearly wasn't paying attention in 2008.

Elitism
1. practice of or belief in rule by an elite.
2. consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group.

Does this sound like President Obama? No. Not one bit. So he went to Columbia and Harvard. He knows how to dress well and he speaks articulately (with correct pronunciation!) None of these things makes him elitist.

If anything, President Obama is humble, understanding and (possibly too much of an) optimist, giving the unworthy Republicans chance after chance to work with him. President Obama works against the “favored group” every day. Bush W gave the largest tax cut in history to the top 1% of the population. That’s undoubtedly elitist.

What Cindy. Democrats are all brains and no balls. Republicans are all balls and no brains.

RE Todd: "You're joking, right? When the Republicans regain control of Congress the entire federal government will grind to a halt, and in 2012 they will run on an Obama never accomplished anything' platform and win. Bet on it."

I certainly don't underestimate the Republican Party's hypocrisy.

I wasn't specific enough in my language. When I said "crashing/burning," I basically meant "accomplishing nothing, not one of the goals that they're supposedly running to achieve, except for taking seats away from the Democrats."

Oh, one other thing, cause this is a fun debate:

I think it takes a certain amount of sociopathy to be a politician, and the higher up the ladder you aspire, the more sociopathy it takes. You have to be able to shake hands with and smile right at people who voted for you and believe in you, and then turn right around and fuck them in the back by cutting deals that accomplish some things YOU want but screw them to hell. Or you had to tell outright lies you KNEW were lies to beat the people running against you.

Our presidents and other top politicians may or may not be elites or elitists, but the cocksuckers ALL had to do vile, vicious and underhanded things and make deals with the devil to get there.

In my house we have to basic rules when it comes to voting we don't vote for people who kill babies or charter schools. More often than not this leads us to vote republican. There have been times I've voted both libertarian and democrat but more often to not they can not fullfill those 2 requirments, I do think Obama is an elitist, what happened to the transperancy he promised? That went right out the window quickly.

I wonder sometimes if people are substituting the word elitist for 'uppity'. Sorry, that was a little bit inflammatory of me to say, but I have no idea why he, as a person and icon, generates so much hate.

And yet, it's kind of true. Obama is a black man in public life who has the audacity to not be Morgan Freeman, Will Smith, or Lincoln Osiris. To some of my fellow citizens this is unacceptable.

And I do have to wonder what would've happened had HRC prevailed.

Khia - loved your statement earlier about Obama's upbringing. I think people are just pissed-off that his education done penetrated his brain.

One thing I'm grateful to the Tea Party for: it's given me full license to call its ilk morons without guilt.

Elitist? No...but one hell of a disappointment. To be fare, its both him and the democratic congress that have been equally pathetic in my eyes. Extending the Patriot Act, the healthcare bill compromise that neutered the bill for Republicans that still would never vote for it, Gitmo is still open, working to keep allowing the gays to die in uniform...but only if they act like they are ashamed of themselves, expanding both of the wars vice I don't know...doing something different, I could go on. I have a much more difficult time in thinking of just one thing he has achieved. I mean, at least with Carter, he was fucked over by his party so that's what really caused him to not get a damn thing done, but Obama hasn't done shit considering the fact that his party controlled both houses. I'm getting real sick of hearing how the Republicans are able to stop everything despite them not have the numbers to stop shit.

"[B]ut I dislike and distrust him because he has socialist and fascist tendencies[.]" - Rhett

Unless you're in the top 5% of the population in terms of wealth, you have no reason to make this argument. Even then, it's a straw man. The tax rates were higher under Reagan, Nixon strengthened Medicare and Medicaid. Would you, Rhett, consider either one of them "socialist" or "fascist"?

News Alert: "Death Panels" are a lie.

Check yo' facts, son (or daughter, as the case may be). You may not have liked what Obama and Congress have done, but you can't say they haven't done anything. This has actually been an incredibly active congress.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012902516.html

Do I want my President to be smart? Hell yes. Do I want my President to have attended the best universities this country has to offer? Hell yes. Do I want my President to think he’s smarter than everyone else? Hell yes. Do I want my President to think his shit don’t stink? Hell yes. You may ask if President Obama is an elitist. I understand the question you ask Rowles, but keep in mind that President Obama is not the first President to have been thrown the elitist card but he’s the first President to have had the elitist card used against him to this extent.

But one must be careful about using the word elitist regarding President Obama, because in this case elitist also means arrogance. And arrogance leads to being labeled uppity. Sometimes when I read the blogs from Dailykos to Crooks and liars to Huffingtonpost I get the sense from some that President Obama is being held to a different standard. After delivering health insurance to 30 plus million Americans that were previously denied health insurance, after revamping the college student loan program, after ending the war in Iraq, after pulling the economy from the brink of disaster, after reforming wall street, one comes to the realization that just maybe former presidents were held to a lower standard and that President Obama may have raised the bar quite a bit.

I'm curious why the site's readership, at least based on this post, leans almost uniformly to the left.

The elitist argument seems more like a diversion at this point.

The bigger issue is this - Obama is a fraud. He campaigned as a uniter, as something who believed in transparency, promised to hold health care debates on CSPAN and offered a cleaner version of politics as usual.

He recently called his opponents "enemies," shattered his CSPAN promise, oversaw a justice dept. that holds different races to different standards and takes every possible occasion to slam his enemies and pick fights with a cable news outlet.

Who cares if he's elitist? He's petty to the core and the polar opposite of the man this country elected.

At least the economy is humming along nicely!

"[B]ut I dislike and distrust him because he has socialist and fascist tendencies[.]" - Rhett

You can't be a Socialist and a Fascist. Anyone who studied World War II or the Spanish Civil War knows this. They're diametrically opposed. People who say this about Obama are throwing around words to sound like they're pissed off about his policies when really they've helped their quality of life more than they've hurt it.

BigTodd:

Does "people who kill babies" extend to the people who could cut programs for low-income pregnant mothers, school lunch programs, and want to make all vaccinations voluntary? Check out the stats on infant mortality in the US under Republican programs.

Chris from Delaware (really?):

How exactly is someone supposed to be a uniter when every outreach to the opposition is met with "hell no"?

“That there is truth. It does worry me that Obama might not have the political muscle to carry a coup of the Republican agenda. Clinton had years experience as governor and as a congressman and the boy could network with the other side like a motherfucker. Obama don't seem like the type to do that sort of behind the scenes work.”
Posted by: BarbadoSlim at November 1, 2010 3:24 PM

I just love it when you guys bring up Clinton. Clinton started don’t ask don’t tell and NAFTA. If you think Clinton was a democrat I got a bridge to sell you. Network my ass! If you mean being able to stick his finger in the air to see which way the political winds were blowing before doing anything I guess he did know how to network. Did Clinton do anything about health care in his eight years in office? Did Clinton do anything about wall street in his eight years in office? So you can take Clinton and all those years of experience as governor and congressman and stick it. Oh by the way, wake me up when he finishes paying off his legal fees to his lawyers from that Oval Office dick sucking caper.

Posted by: Pookie at November 1, 2010 3:48 PM

Love him or hate him. He managed to play the game, well.

"Clinton started don’t ask don’t tell"

You understand that this was actually progress at the time, correct?

I'm fucking voting for Russ Feingold tomorrow. Dude has got the whole regular guy but secretly (actually pretty obvioisly if you pay attention at all) a genius thing down pat.

"Clinton started don’t ask don’t tell"

You understand that this was actually progress at the time, correct?

Posted by: samantha t at November 1, 2010 3:54 PM

Yes I do samantha, but also know that President Obama is finally going to end that horrible practice. And when he does end it, lets just hope that our gay brothers and sisters in the military don't ask him what took him so long.

the chaplain best of luck! Feingold might be my favorite Senator and his polling numbers make me want to cry.

I'm not sad enough to move to Wisconsin and vote for him, but it's pretty damn close.

Being deliciously Canadian, I'm unable to vote tomorrow, but if I were sumptuously American, I'd vote for whoever isn't a bloviating, fear mongering asshat, so likely not a Rebublican, and definitely not a Tea Partier.

Is Obama an elitist? No. He's elite. Because he's smart, well spoken and thoughtful, or at least that's the overwhelming impression that I get of the man.

As has been stated here and elsewhere, I don't understand why people like electing people that "are just like me". I want my elected officials to be goddamn Superheroes, smarter, faster and more capable than me.

Good luck ya'll, and may the next 2 years not be a total legislative clusterfuck.

Wait, do they kill the babies by blowing up charter schools? That would at least be efficient. I actually have two requirements of my candidates as well. They must 1. wear underwear and 2. Look damn good in it! Yes, it's superficial, but it makes debates much more interesting.

I actually wish there WERE death panels, I've got many recommendations.

I don't think there is much to debate on this question. Obama does not strike me as exceptionally elitist, and that is hardly a serious character flaw anyway. I don't hear a lot of opponents really trying to sell the "elitist" angle anyway, I hear a lot more accusations of arrogant, reckless, incompetent, etc.

So if there isn't much to debate on this topic, why not extend it a little more to encompass some of the things I do see as flaws in the Obama administration?

When he campaigned (and when I voted for him) Obama was running on Hope and Change. He was openly appealing to idealists and optimists. In particular, I was encouraged by promises of increased openness and transparency in government, the application of intellectual rigor and honest debate in policy formation, and increased communication and participation in the world community (not unilateral military action).

I'm disappointed in what I have seen to date. There has not been a lot of transparency and openness. In fact, the Administration has been characterized by the opposite. They are very, very focused on message control and image control. They are extremely sensitive to criticism, frequently defensive, and often respond to things that should be against them (how many times have they engaged Fox News pundits directly instead of just rising above?) I realize that there is a lot of unfair criticism from the Right but if you are going to be defensive and disingenuous in your response I would prefer if you didn't even bother.

I feel let down. I feel lied to. I don't think that the health care bill was the worst thing since the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia but I'm smart enough to know that the numbers that the Obama camp provided were not realistic. There were a lot of legitimate concerns about that legislation that were never addressed. There were some good ideas on the other side of the isle that were never considered or acknowledged by Democrats. Everyone was more concerned with winning than creating the best plan. Costs for the government and for individuals will be higher than they claimed. Access to coverage will be expanded, which is good, but I don't think they were honest about it. When I wanted honest answers I got sound bites and overly-optimistic estimates (basically lies). Why? Why is being right more important than being honest?

I feel similarly lied to when we talk about the economic recovery and about jobs created or saved. Again, the stimulus is not the worst thing to happen. I was for it then and I stand by it now. But I also know that the White House is outright lying when it comes to reporting on the effectiveness of that stimulus. I don't propose to know how to accurately measure jobs created or saved as a result of Federal Spending but I am smart enough to know when someone is being disingenuous in their estimates.

So here is my question: What do the Obama supporters think of this? Do you deny that there is an issue? Is it all a baseless Right Wing attack meant to undermine the President and keep him from doing his good work? Or do you admit that there is a problem but feel that the greater good of passing Obama's agenda justifies the means by which he has to do it? Are these practices ok because the enemies on the right will take any opportunity, any concession of a point, and use it to undermine Obama? Is it ok to play politics and abandon principles in the name of political expediency? Or are you a little sick of it and disappointed , too?

Sure this post is overly idealistic. I understand that Obama can't change Washington culture overnight. But I think the reality is that he isn't changing anything. He is pushing an agenda that is somewhat good and somewhat bad. I don't think he is doing what is best for the country, I think he is accomplishing some important objectives but creating a lot of unintended consequences in the process, as well prompting some policies that I disagree with entirely. I don't think the current level of spending is sustainable and I think Obama is making that worse. If I have to pull a lever to decide if he is overall the better option for this country or if it is someone else... well, I need to see that someone else, first. I am not prepared to kick him out for just anyone. There really aren't any Republicans I believe in and I am afraid that they are going to react to Obama by swinging far to the Right, which really turns me off.

Yes I do samantha, but also know that President Obama is finally going to end that horrible practice. And when he does end it, lets just hope that our gay brothers and sisters in the military don't ask him what took him so long.

Posted by: Pookie at November 1, 2010 4:02 PM

No he's not he said he would but he has done nothing about it, the courts are the ones doing his dirty work on this one. Call me a homophobe but as an old marine don't ask don't tell is perfect, I don't need to know what you get up to on the weekend just go kick some ass

I can't address the issue of elitism, not being blessed with the mind-reading abilities of so many pundits. But he made a gigantic misstep in the construction of his cabinet -- it is the least diverse in recent history. Not in terms of gender or race, but education. Practically everybody is from Harvard, particularly among his economic team.

These are people who have cycled through federal government, big banking, and Harvard professorships over and over again. They had positions of great influence during the construction of the sand castle. They, each in his way, helped build it. And while I give them credit enough to see what went wrong, and why, they're too enmeshed to be the right people to create a system of more rational rewards going forward, as that would fuck their friends.

" There should obviously be some kind of test for nation-wide office."

I am all for bringing back the literacy requirement to cast a damn vote.

"Obama seems so limp and lame. Even watching him on The Daily Show, I was thinking, "He just does not know how to engage his audience, he has no charisma." "

From all reports, Lincoln was totally awkward and ill-at-ease speaking in front of crowds. I guess that means he did a shit job.

it is the least diverse in recent history. Not in terms of gender or race, but education. Practically everybody is from Harvard, particularly among his economic team.
These are people who have cycled through federal government, big banking, and Harvard professorships over and over again.

-------------------------------------------------

Very, very similar to John F. Kennedy's cabinet where only three guys weren't either Harvard MBAs or Law School alumni. And of those three one went to Northwestern and another was Univ of Chicago. They were all supposed to be whiz kid technocrats, especially Robert McNamara, they managed to fuck things up royally for a bit. Kenndy's administration wasn't exactly a success.

Interesting that people didn't vote for Gore because he has no personality. Obama makes Gore look like a pretty darn charismatic guy, eh?

RE Tracer Bullet: "But I still stand by my argument that at least 300 million Americans are wretched goddamn filth."

No argument from me on that.

I only corrected the number because someone else repeated it, and if you don't nip that shit in the bud, pretty soon everyone on the intertubes is talking about how we have 350 million people in America.

Not for another 20 years or so, I would hope.

DADT is terrible legislation.

It might be a good social rule of thumb (keep your sexual preference to yourself, don't draw unnecessary or unwanted attention to yourself) but as a matter of official policy it is fucking idiotic. Kicking someone out of the service because their sexuality was found out is stupid and evil. Repeal it with extreme prejudice. On this I see no comfortable middle ground.

Posted by: Yossarian at November 1, 2010 4:54 PM

spoken like someone who has not served in a forward postion(no pun intended but make your jokes anyways) it becomes a needless distraction where distraction can get people killed. Nothing Evil about it, I have served with gays and did'nt care and geuss what they got an honorable discharge(set up #2)

This is all nonsense. I don't care for Obama or what he stands for, but a few things:
1) I don't understand how the way the President comes off to me should matter, except insofar as it potentially relates to how he comes off to foreign diplomats.
2) I think the President should think he's better than me. He isn't, but he should think that. If he doesn't think he's better than me, then what is he doing occupying a spot so much higher than me? I think contrived bullshit like the "beer summit" is a lot more offensive than talking down to the electorate.

@BigTodd

I respect your service and admit I have none of my own, but I refuse to abide bigotry under the defense that those bigots have important work to do and they really can't be bothered with accepting all people as equal while they are doing it.

I think most people serving in the military are capable of accepting the presence of homosexuals. I think my generation and especially these new millennials are really becoming an overall open and tolerant group. By your comment above it sounds like you were ok with it when it happened as well. I think the biggest obstacle is the previous generations who still hold positions of power and decision making and are reluctant to grant this concession. It will soon pass and we will look back on it much like segregation in the armed services before that. If people don't want to serve along side gays in the military than I suggest that they (not the gays) find a new calling.

Now I understand, President Obama isn’t like Clinton because he doesn't make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside nor does he blow smoke up your ass and tell you it's sunshine. I guess President Obama’s only fault is that he doesn’t do schmooze very well.

@ Yossarian and other DADT critics. It is a needless distraction. Here is why. Do you think that gays should have their own barracks? If yes, why? If no, why? See the distraction??

You didn't answer my question...hmmmm, you seem distracted. Point made.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Eep. The only voice of reason on the right.

Do you think that gays should have their own barracks? If yes, why? If no, why? See the distraction??
Posted by: Skeetikus at November 1, 2010 5:34 PM

-----------------------------------
I haven't seen nor heard gays asking for that? Do gays have any special barrack or bathroom needs?

@BarbadoSlim,
exactly! Gays may not be asking for this, but the military will have to consider this, which could be viewed as segregation or discrimination. What if some gays are uncomfortable bunking with straight people? It could lead to all sorts of special circumstances that the military might feel they need to consider. It's a freaking waste of time. Everyone keep your damn sexual preference to yourself and do the job you signed up for.

I prefer waffles, but I respect your right to like pancakes.

@Skeetikus

getting off topic here, but you really don't seem to have a clear grasp of this issue. Do you really think DADT is all about gays who want to be loud and proud and flaunting their homosexuality but can't because of the repressive regulations?

It's people who just want to exist like everyone else and serve like everyone else and have sexuality not be an issue. Yeah, the Clinton compromise that was DADT was designed to allow gays to serve quietly if they kept their sexuality a secret, but when you have a career for several years it is not always possible for you to keep your personal life completely secret. It is no longer a viable solution to just keep it a secret. Many soldiers who have tried to do just that have been drummed out because you can't keep your entire life hidden from the people you work for. Right now people can be and are dismissed from their position for no other reason than someone finds out they are gay. There is nothing they can do to defend themselves either; if it becomes known that they are gay they lose their job.

DADT may have been a useful intermediate step but its usefulness has passed. Gay soldiers serve in foreign militaries and there haven't been any mutinies or high-profile collapses. It is relatively uneventful and soon becomes the status quo. It will here, too. It's only a matter of time.

Ah finally, assuming that you are being honest. Three questions:
1. A distraction to whom?
2. Why is it a distraction, exactly?
3. Isn't that what training is for?

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at November 1, 2010 5:21 PM

1. All invovled
2. any multiple reasons,
3. training is an additional distraction

Now questions for you, why should a military guy be burden with your sexuality? It's the same arguement with women in afront serving unit, it's not supposed to make a differance but it does not saying it's right or wrong it just is what it is.

No, you miss the point. Why should a homosexual be burdened with their distractedness? Just because they may be an intolerant minority (and I still think the significance of this is blown out of proportion by people who don't want to allow gays to serve; other countries are way ahead of us on this and it is a non-issue) that doesn't make it right to exclude a whole group of people based on their sex or sexuality. It there are bigots who can't stand to serve beside gay soldiers then let's get the bigots out of the military, not the gays.

Anyone that doesn't want to repeal DADT is a fucking moron. I say this as a six year military vet. There are already gay in the military, many who have sacrificed a lot for this country. We are the only...ONLY western country that thinks so little of our military members that if one of them is allowed to live like a normal human being, all of the sudden its gay sex parties non-stop. Do we in America really view homosexuals as such out of country animals, they can't go a deployment without jumping some random dude? Hell...I had as a supervisor a much more difficult time dealing with the women. At least the gay dudes didn't routinely miss deployments cause of pregnancy.

The problem is that under the UCMJ, every fucking person is a sodomite, and could potentially get kicked out. Oral sex between a married couple...yep, that's sodomy and its grounds to get separated. Of course the military doesn't enforce it unilaterally which is why its a big fucking problem. It literally comes down to how out of touch from reality your command is.

If you are worried in a war zone what a person around you does in their off time...your priorities are really fucked up.

It was funny, we had this theory called "The Conservation of Happiness". In an enclosed space, there is only so much happiness to go around. So to get happy, you had to make others miserable. Two groups of people were fair game by everyone. The random racist (seriously, I will never understand why a racist SOB would go into the military) and the homophobes. I kind of miss making assholes miserable.

Now questions for you, why should a military guy be burden with your sexuality? It's the same arguement with women in afront serving unit, it's not supposed to make a differance but it does not saying it's right or wrong it just is what it is.
Posted by: BigTodd at November 1, 2010 6:07 PM

A military guy would be burdened by my being a heterosexual? Or maybe you meant that military guys are burdened by having homosexuals in their unit? I don't know, dude, you are the military guy. How is it a burden for you? Yet, from what I see in your answers, which are non-answers, it seems comes down to you don't want some faggot in your unit? Because it makes you feel uncomfortable amirite?

You'd think, supersente, that you would know better than to cross swords with me. In any event, I never said 300 Million Wretched Filth are that because they don't necessarily share my values. They are the Wretched Filth because they're STUPID. Because they can be influenced by a shameless liar like Andrew Breitbart or some obviously nonsensical e-mail sent by someone's second cousin's sister's brother's nephew's co-worker. Now, stupidity seems especially prevalent on the right. That said, there are those on the left who believe that Bush ordered/allowed Sept. 11. Those people are STUPID even if I'm inclined to agree with them on other issues.

It's not important whether you're conservative, liberal or moderate. It's important than you hate Jim Belushi.

BarbadoSlim,

Clearly you did'nt read my previous posts I have served with homosexuals and did'nt care it was'nt something that was flaunted. Again I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it will just cause a problem. There is a certian amout of needed neanderthalism (made that word myself)in the lower ranks wich would have a problem, it is what it is

in many places in the world we could be jailed for even having this conversation

Yeah, in some places homosexuality is illegal! And in other places, you can be unceremoniously dismissed from years of loyal service to your country because you are gay.

What exactly are we fighting for? How doe you define freedom? If being bigoted is what makes America different is that really supposed to be a source of pride?

Just remember, those are people that you are so easily dismissing and devaluing. Just what makes them so god damn insignificant in your mind that we need to treat them as less than the red necks and homophobes?

How about they take their fucking paycheck, shut the fuck up and do what the civilian authority tells them to do.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at November 1, 2010 6:31 PM

does that mean you are going to pick up a rifle and do their job?

did'nt think so

"They will march into D.C. with their worthless, righteous indignation, whine that no one will go along with their stupid ideas that are based on nothing ... They won't succeed in changing anything worth changing ... They'll be good for ridiculous soundbites and that's about it."

Context is the only way I could tell which party this was about.

@sansho1

touché

I like that. I should print that out and save it somewhere.

I like to think of myself as the posting equivalent of a large, demonstrative rally to remind everyone to be more restrained and civilized in their debate.

"They will march into D.C. with their worthless, righteous indignation, whine that no one will go along with their stupid ideas that are based on nothing ... They won't succeed in changing anything worth changing ... They'll be good for ridiculous soundbites and that's about it."

Context is the only way I could tell which party this was about.

That doesn't mean it isn't a justifiable accusation to level.

If you guys are echoing the RTRS in dismissing the above sentiment, I think you're on the verge of taking the wrong lesson from it. Decrying the hypocrisy of politicians isn't unhelpful by virtue of the fact that both sides do it -- it's helpful by virtue of the fact that both sides realize it's happening! We should never, ever, ever stop bitching about the cravenness of those we elect, until it stops being true.

It was "pragmatic" to have segregated troops for a long time, too.

Doesn't mean it was right.

Posted by: Wednesday at November 1, 2010 7:04 PM

you are correct, and how many innocent black people died because they rushed biggoted people to change too quickly, is that what you really want. The military will get there it might take time. You rush them they well may walk away in droves and unless you are willing to pick up the weapon for them just let them be.

Of course not, sansho. It is equally applicable, not equally inapplicable, and that is not a trivial truth. Politicians on "your" side want you to focus on how shitty the politicians on the other side are so you won't vote your own out of office.

how many innocent black people died because they rushed biggoted people to change too quickly

Are you serious? Are you saying that gays and their supporters should just back down until the military and homophobes are "ready"? Fuck that. Too bad if it's too quick of a change for the bigots.

unless you are willing to pick up the weapon for them just let them be.
Posted by: BigTodd at November 1, 2010 7:14 PM

-------------------------------------------

WTF is that supposed to mean? Listen, Sgt. Slaughter, this ain't a Tom Cruise movie, what? are one million Cubans waiting to kill you? It's a civilian controlled voluntary military. Noby has to pick up a goddamned thing if they don't want to. YOU get paid to fight and we PAY. YOU. you choose to pick up a weapon? It's precisely that YOUR choice. Don't like it? Don't join, simple as that. This ain't fucking Sparta.

I'm just saying if it ain't broke don't fix it!

Yeah, well a lot of people think it's broke, man.

You didn't say "if it ain't broke don't fix it" You said "Innocent Black people died because they rushed bigoted people to change too quickly."

Brave men and women fight and die for our rights but if those people are found to be homosexual then they suddenly don't have the rights that straight people have.

Please, tell me how that's NOT broken.

superasente,

I don't disagree completely it's not a perfect system at all but the people that are demanding these changes are people that have NOTHING to do with it. If you are not serving and have no intention of serving why do you care.

Hot diggity dog yer right. Them gol-durned homos and their basic human rights taint none o my concern cause I ain't in the military.

Pookie,

well you are wrong on every level there I ride gas free enviroment loving Bianchi (would never own truck), the closest I get to dear hunting is dodging them on the trials on my bike commute,would'nt mind mounting a gun rack on the bike but seems unsafe, lived in the north most of my life and proud of the fact that I grew up in "urban" ghetto, flannel shirts maybe jeans never can't stand anything that goes too far past my knees, and I have no clue wtf a 335 is and why I would want to drop it on 36 year old medium-sized African antelope...so next time you wanna adhoc attack me think again

Pookie,
I did'nt give them an excuse that was done well before I was born, I simply tried to explain how awful things that happened then might be repeated. Do you serve in the military? do you intend to at any point? oh and I got the name because I am large in stature

Are you going to let Yossarian talk to you in that tone of voice? Last time someone talked to me in that tone, motherfucker got SLAPPED!

superasente

I hear what you are saying and I agree gays should be serving hell I think everyone should have to serve in some compacity (ala Isreal) but that's just me. And knowing some of the grunts I know I can tell you trouble will happen, the few gay people in the military that I have known have flown under the radar and there was no problem. and let me be clear so morons like pookie understand I DON'T CARE IF GAYS ARE IN THE MILITARY BUT THERE ARE MANY THAT DO! IT WILL CAUSE PROBLEMS, BUT NOT FROM ME, I AM JUST A MESSENGER

Pookie,

not really a fan of Uncle Ted, however I do love me some Primus and Rollins Band thanks for asking...

Ultimately, it shouldn't matter if people are ready for it or not. We don't do what's right because it's easy; we do it because it's right.

Now, if you don't agree that it's right; that's fine. People can rant and rave at you all night, they can call you horrible names -- and they don't do a damn thing but make themselves look foolish. You're entitled to your opinion, sir (although, I might recommend developing a stronger argument to support that opinion the next time you deal with people who have spent a lot of time developing theirs).

'...that stainless steel fuck piece attached to his junk...'

***

Such a 'fuck piece' is called a steely dan.

(Avoids 'Do It Again' 'barb')

***

The More You Know...

BarbadoSlim
When did I say that exactly? or are you ASSUMING that's what I think?

so now you are inferring people in the military are too dumb for geography? I think the 3 of you want my opinion to be a certian way therefore you keep projecting it on me that way, and that's ok cause I risk my life so you can... enjoy that

Re: Yossarian's longer posts:

I was going to give you a cyber high-five for them, but wanted to get to the bottom of these comments first.

I don't like the question, but I'll be back around here probably tomorrow night to put it to bed. Gotta blanket here in a few hours and this is the only time I'll get for rest.

I will say that ForeignPolicy.com has thorough coverage on the elitist meme, and that the New York Times has all but thrown in the towel for the Democrats, even though the polling in-states doesn't look so bad for more than half of them. This is an interim period between traditional party machine campaigning and the techie, fueled-by-massive involvement campaigning of 2008.

The thing I'm hoping is that we see it's not just Inpedendents, subversives, and paranoids harping that cable news is full of shit (trite journalism, to be collegial). Of course, the thing they're hoping is that their prophetic heresy (remember those primaries so long ago) against reason and inquiry all comes self-filled. $$ stays dependable that way.

It will be detrimental to Obama to see the house committees shuffle the stack against him, but not the end of the fight. It's one day.

Then there's all those tomorrows.

Paging R. Lee Ermey ...

I'm just glad the commercials will be over with.

Having read the whole thread ... Obama's gay and "elitist" means "out and proud?"

Or am I confused again?

Why are the only options "elitist" or "folksy?" All the people supporting the idea of an elitist President are just as bad (OK, still not as bad) as the people who can't support a President with whom they don't want to have a beer. The President should be elite - smart, well-spoken, possibly sexy as hell - but he shouldn't be elitist. He shouldn't look down on those who aren't as smart (although he should feel free to look down on those who are downright stupid. Yeah, I'm lookin' at you, Christine O'Donnell).

So no, I don't think the President is an elitist. Nor do I want him to be one. I do think he uses the word "folks" way too much and that he tries too hard to seem like a "real American." The President should act like what he is: an extraordinarily bright man with real leadership abilities who, despite having made mistakes in office (DADT? Really?) has also made some progress and is, frankly, still the best person I can think of for his job. He shouldn't look down on the stupid folk out there, but he shouldn't strive to be one of them either.

In the last Pajiba debate, I believe I cited Toby Ziegler in The West Wing (which is, of course, my source for all things well-written and political). I do so again in saying, on behalf of all the Democrats: "Make this [presidency] about smart, and not... Make it about engaged, and not. Qualified, and not. Make it about a heavyweight. You’re a heavyweight. And you’ve been holding me up for too many rounds."

I'm not even going to read the question stem. I'm not even going to read what I assume are mostly intelligent and thoughtful responses from Pajibans that I am likely to agree with.

I take such offense

Unless it's being asked by somebody who has been living on fucking Mars, or somebody who has just awoken from a decade long coma who SINCERELY wants to know if all this talk of this "Obama" person being an elitist has any validity, I take supreme umbrage at the question even being posed.

Of fucking course not. What the fuck does that word even mean? That he got in to the best schools and excelled? That he read the entire book and not the Cliff's Notes?

Americans are so goddamn insecure. It's as if half the country is constantly on the look out for the opportunity to drunkenly slur "YOU THINK YOU'RE BETTER THAN ME?" at the first sensation of something going over their heads. When that unwanted complexity and nuance comes from a BLACK MAN? Well....

You know who never got called an "elitist"? George W. Bush. Son of a national public figure who C-minus'ed his way through Andover Academy, Yale and Harvard before being carried over the goal line in to the White House by family connections.

"Elitist" as current political jargon has nothing to do with actual "elitism", which is itself a good thing. I goddamn WANT my president to be "elite". I want him to be the best man or woman among us. I want his intellect and capacity for stress to DWARF my own. I want him to have gone to the best schools and to be able to hold his own with the finest minds in the world. I want him to be able to think critically and digest information and identify the best solutions at a volume and pace that would make the average head explode.

I can see Obama doing all of these things. To a slightly lesser extent too can I see Clinton. To a much lesser extent, so too can I see Carter. This is why I vote for the Democratic party. What happens during a presidency is largely not up to a president (see Carter, who was creamed by circumstances largely out of his control.) What I care about is that while he's sitting in that office, I have confidence that he is intellectually and morally engaged and focused. That he be able to wrap his mind around complex dilemmas as much as possible. Of course, decision making ability goes hand in hand with that, but that's an elite quality as well.

When wingnuts cry "ELITE" they mean people who don't subscribe to their paleoconservative, anti-intellectual, bloody-shirt waving, frothy-mouthed NASCAR culture. If "elite" means turning your nose up at all of that, tattoo the word on my fucking face.

The fuck if I'm reading all these posts. Eff that. So here's my two cents, knowing people will treat my post with the same scrutiny I treated theirs.

I'm sick of people, namely the far right, claiming that they believe in American exceptionalism but do not want exceptionally intelligent people in office.

I know Obama is smarter and better educated than the majority of Americans and I like it. It's costing him politically, but that is a reflection on the state of the American education system rather than on him as a politician.

It sucks that people think he increased the deficit (he reduced it) or that he's raising taxes (40% of the stimulus bill was tax cuts) but thems the brakes when you're dealing with a republican noise machine that long ago decided that lying was a family value they believed in.

As for my votes tomorrow, I'll be voting third party like I always do. It's a vote of principle.

@Cindy - I think you are 100% right and I think in some ways perhaps that is what was really behind the comments by BigTodd (though he may not wish to come out and say that many of his fellow soldiers are homophobic and would take that out in the form of violence on soldiers in their ranks found to be gay). It is sad that we haven't progressed further but I know we'll get there one day. I really do.

As for tomorrow, my vote will not in any way be a referendum on Obama though I can not profess to be a "fan". I don't think he is an elitist but I don't think he is a leader either (not a good quality for the Executive Branch of government). He is a good orator (so long as he has his teleprompter) but he often seems incapacitated when it comes to making decisions. That is due to the wishy-washiness someone else alluded to before. His lack of emotion is also unsettling to me (again, someone else mentioned this). The only time I see him get emotional is when he feels he is being attacked. I know these seem like "surface" things but they carry a lot of weight in the way we perceive people, particularly those in positions of authority.

Yossarian has a lot of good points (as did a couple of others) that our government is a very nuanced, complicated beast. Nothing is black and white. I don't feel as prepared to vote tomorrow as I'd like to be, but I think I have a balanced view of the candidates and referendums on which I'll be voting.

I'll admit to being probably one of the few Pajibans who skews to the right though I do not classify myself as a Republican (or any other label for that matter). I enjoy the commentary here though I could do without the crass generalizations of Americans from the "heartland" and the South that often seem to arise in these political debates.

Happy voting tomorrow, everyone!

P.S. I'll also be voting for Feingold tomorrow (for you fellow Wisconsinites).

Yes

Of course all politicians think they are better than the people that elected them. At some point in time their reason for becoming a politician (I would hope it was to help people and make the country better)changes. They start enjoying the power trip and their agendas become the "what's best for them" agendas. It's no longer about the little people that voted for them.
Some become puppets to do others dirty work and some are the puppeteers pulling the strings. That leaves us as the audience watching a never-ending drama.
We'll never break this cycle until a little common sense shines upon us. Maybe one day a political unicorn will run for office (a person FOR the people and has an abundance of common sense) and the voters will get someone they can trust.

People aren't reading the comments because a.) there are ten kajillion of them (yet another reason Pajiba should get out of the business of politics) and b.) they're all going to be stating one of two things within a very small range of variance. I'm sure there are a few comments that go outside that range, but i'd wager everyone has either said:

1. Of course not. What a ridiculous question.

2. Yes! He is a snob and I am threatened by his big words and fancy education. Were he to chew tobacco and drive an unnecessarily large truck to and from the white house, I would be more comfortable with his blackness...er... presidency.

So if Dustin really wants to get to the bottom of this hot button issue, he can feel free to read all the comments. Much good may it do him. I'd prefer, though, elitist though it may seem, that he go to any one of the venerable and sophisticated political analysis sites available to him for the furtherance of his understanding, instead of turning to an opinionated and untutored mob (myself included) for answers.

Then again, maybe Dustin ought to run for office.

It's good to know that there is something other than the Pajiba 10 that can generate a huge list of comments.

I goddamn WANT my president to be "elite". I want him to be the best man or woman among us. I want his intellect and capacity for stress to DWARF my own. I want him to have gone to the best schools and to be able to hold his own with the finest minds in the world. I want him to be able to think critically and digest information and identify the best solutions at a volume and pace that would make the average head explode.
---
But why would anyone with intelligence and character and kindness want a job that involves such a demeaning (ass-kissing for money) and exhausting (nonstop campaigning) and vicious (partisan slams and slanders) two-year-long job interview? I'd like to think the REALLY smart people are smarter than that and are running Wall Street fir ... oh, wait. Never mind.

I seriously think there's something psychologically wrong with anyone who seeks office above, say, county commissioner or school board. The good you can do vs. the shit you have to eat and take cannot be a ratio that works out in your favor.

"you are both wrong French Toast is clearly the way to go!!! You should report to a re-education camp right away"

If you vote for French Toast, they'll put Big Syrup back in power, and there won't be any buttermilk to go around to those in greatest need.

" Maybe it's just me, but I want a President I can admire, and that means one who I know would kick my butt at Scrabble... unlike the last President, who would probably eat the tiles. "

The problem is, Obama wouldn't even take the time to play Scrabble with you. He's too damn uppity. (I used a word from the list!!)

I'd prefer to play Scrabble with Clinton, where I could have a beer, laugh my ass off, and still get my ass kicked.

I'll wager that by the time I post this, there'll be a thousand more comments to read and prolong my not-studying-for-finals study break. WHOO. So here's the deal: I don't live anywhere near the American continents but I would give up my imaginary friend for a president with a degree. Where I'm from, The Boss has been charged with rape, racketeering and corruption, was acquitted and thinks AIDS can be cured with a shower. He has also not been to school. AT ALL. Did you get that? However, nobody here in the military gives a fuck how you tango. Anyhoodle, happy voting, ya'll.

That would be South Africa, Todd.
You know... World Cup and all...

wow never been there sounds pretty awful, not really a soccor(footbal) and I'm afraid the majority of my knowledge of your country ended when Aparthied did (that's awful I know but hey I'm honest). I hear about things like whats going on in your country and have to stifle a laugh whenever people bring up oppersion in this country. They have know idea what it really means to be oppressed. You and your countrymen do. Hopefully one day you'll either escape such a place or be able to change it, so quit messing around and get back to the books you have a future to change!!

I've said for a long time we should invade Canada and make it the 51st state, I mean they'd never see it coming, and then we can take over the sryup refineries....another win for big sryup

no superasente it's a bubble bath that cures aids showers are for cancer

all your bases are belong to us, jo 'mama'!!! now give us that maple sryup before we start finding reports of WMD's

Skeetikus: about Bill Clinton kicking ass on scrabble--I'm 100% sure he can. I watched the documentary about crossword puzzle lovers, and Clinton did a NY Times crossword puzzle in like 5 minutes, in _pen_ (color me impressed).

Pookie, my main man, everyone loves breakfast food humor and invading Canada jokes. Can't we all just... get along?

, ,

I've honestly considered running for local office, but it seems like more work than worth it. To be so scrutinized for every decision, even those in your personal life, would be more than I think I want. I don't want to be a subject of a 'Letter to the Editor'. At least, not again.

"Sorry to drag up an old one, but Ted Kennedy killed a woman and didn't suffer one iota socially or politically."

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Ted Kennedy was a Presidential hopeful - his chances were destroyed by the Kopechne tragedy. You think that guy didn't hear and think about that every single day of his life? I believe he and his family behaved pretty bloodlessly and reprehensibly about the whole thing, but to say the dude didn't suffer socially or politically is disingenuous.

Hey guys! Sorry I'm late I...oh. Everyone's gone. Well I gues I'll just leave...

Screw it. I have something to say even if no one will hear it. I think many people are misunderstanding the term elitist (especially people who use it). Elitist doesn't mean the person is smarter or better educated or more equipped for the job; an Elitist is someone who discounts others by projecting an air of "elitism" to the general populous. Someone who is cocky and arrogant of their intelligence basically.

That being said, I hardly think Obama is an elitist.

The question that really pissed me off was "Will you vote against Obama?" Are you kidding me?? THIS is the problem with our country. THIS is what the rally to restore sanity was about. THIS is why partisanship in politics has made the government ineffective on all major issues. THIS IS WHY I DIDN'T VOTE.

Our country's politics is more based on blaming, finger-pointing, and spite than it is on actual decisions. And guess what? It's not just the government...it's the American People. If you honestly vote AGAINST someone, someone who ISN'T EVEN RUNNING FOR OFFICE, then your the problem with politics. Period.

Why is it an election 365 days of the year? Oh right...CNN, MSNBC, Fox News. I would blame them for all our problems but then I'd be a hypocrite right?