Anyone else experiencing Election fatigue?

CtrlSource

Even before the end of the Democratic race, i was starting to get sick of the Primaries and the incessant punditry on US cable news networks.

Now that i know McCain and Obama will be going head-to-head, i feel even less enthused about the whole thing! Is this normal?

Think i need a few weeks detox and should deny binging myself on US political culture for a while

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i could never grow tired of my morning Joe.

CtrlSource

Joe in the morning

Victor

Has Obama peaked too soon?

Pocono Joe

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Ya'll think its bad over there, try living it here with nonstop media Obama swooning and McCain bashing. Makes your head want to explode... duct tape comes in handy.
[/FONT]

CtrlSource

Election fatigue is starting to lift for me. i'm not as enthusiastic as i was during the early Primaries, but the General Election campaign is getting under way now and the next big announcements to energise things (if you'll excuse the pun on the current energy debate ) will be the VP candidates. It'll be fascinating to see who the picks are and what they will bring to the tables of each candidate.

What's making the news around Convention time will also be crucial for both sides. Will the negative advertising have got nasty? Despite McCain's best efforts, will there be a Swiftboat equivalent this year to attack Obama's "patriotism"?

And when the Conventions are done, we've got the formal debates to look forward to....

Pocono Joe

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Roughly 12 to15 out of the 50 states (57 by Obama’s calculations) choose the president of the United States. It will be close come November regardless of what CNN (Clinton News Network), MSLSD, or the Foxy News networks currently report. Personally, I think it will come down to what large states a VP can deliver, and I think it will come down to 2 on the Republican side. Tom Ridge was a very popular governor here in Pennsylvania, and could help McCain wrestle the state away from Obama. Jeb Bush could also deliver Florida… but ooooooooh, the connotations that Bush name currently has. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]As for New York and California... they’re a lost cause. But nothing that the predicted rise in the sea level wouldn’t cure (please excuse the global warming reference).
[/FONT][/FONT]

CtrlSource

MSLSD - lol!

i spent time in Pennsylvania when Ridge was Governor and was in a crowd when he delivered a very powerful speech at Philadelphia City Hall a few days after September 11th. He seemed like an all round good guy. Do you think he might get the nod from McCain?

i used to have great debates around that time with some real hardcore Republicans (had a very eye opening experience of just what guns mean to some people when a friend of mine brought me into his basement "gun room"! Same guy couldn't understand my "woolly" Liberal thinking at all), and it really developed my interest in politics generally on a range of issues.

Here in Ireland the big 2 parties are still divided along Civil War lines and Labour and the smaller parties don't (yet) have strong enough voices, so it's hard to get passionate about our politics.

Despite your system having only 2 major parties, there's such a range of opinions in each, that's it's possible to be broadly a Conservative, Moderate or Liberal in either (well you could perhaps only be an ‘almost Liberal’ on the left wing of the GOP i reckon – and probably still Moderate on some issues )

Pocono Joe

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Okay CrtlSource… McCain will do as he wishes. Ridge is Catholic, but pro-choice (go figure), but a fiscal conservative, and unfortunately will forever be associated with GWB. It’s a coin toss in my opinion. But McCain does pretty much what he wants, and doesn’t always listen to his advisors. I remember going to see GWB and McCain in 2004 when they stumped through the Lehigh Valley, and thinking to myself afterwards… here are the next two presidents. McCain is now the only candidate the GOP has, who has a chance of being elected in the wake of the unmitigated hatred the Democrats and Liberals have had against Bush since their loss in 2000.

As for guns, People Kill - Guns Don’t! Here in Pennsylvania, other than the liberal havens of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, there is a lot of hunting, and we also believe in protecting ourselves (and more than once I have had police officers tell me to get myself a gun). Saturday morning, while having coffee with the wife on the back porch, we saw Whitetail Deer, Wild Turkeys, a Black Bear with cub, Mallard Ducks in our swimming pool, and a coyote. Hard to believe I know, but I never once got any of my guns out. Bottom line is t[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]he vast majority of us yanks are very responsible[/FONT], we just believe in the freedoms written in our Constitution (highly influenced by several Irishman).

As for "perhaps only be an ‘almost Liberal’ on the left wing of the GOP I reckon – and probably still Moderate on some issues." They’re called "Blue Dog Democrats." Unfortunately the Dem’s will stick together come election, while the different types of Repub’s will vote their conscience. But if for no reason other than one, McCain has committed to putting Constitutional Conservatives in the Supreme Court, which is the only reason I’m leaning towards him. It might all come down to the Independents. My uncle and aunt (both born and raised, along with the rest of my family, in Galway) fit the classification of Blue Dog Democrats. They’re visiting this summer from New York City. It should be interesting in this politically charged time. I’ve got to keep reminding myself… alcohol and politics don’t mix.
[/FONT]

Pocono Joe

CtrlSource… to follow up on your comments of guns in the US, based on today’s Supreme Court ruling (and before all the other left leaning vile vitriol takes place), I thought I would be the first to comment.

The United States by no means has a perfect system. Our laws are set up for law-abiding people. No person here with a shred of common sense believes criminals would not have guns just because it was made illegal. Jail is not a deterrent for most career criminals, and our court system continually puts career criminals back into society after little or no time served for their crimes. And from what I’ve been reading recently, it’s something Ireland is unfortunately finding out the hard way.

Below is something I read recently by an anonymous individual, taken from a news website out of Indianapolis, Indiana. It is something that is shared in the minds and hearts of many in our country. Even though we may not communicate it, we do think it.

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or compelling me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some. When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year-old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year-old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat – it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger – even an armed one – can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly. Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would "only" result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip, at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of octogenarians it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as force equalizer if it weren’t both lethal and easily employable. When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I’m looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act."

CtrlSource

With all due respect to the author of that piece and to yourself, i'm sorry to say this, but that argument is just twisted logic and pseudo-philosophical claptrap!

Pocono Joe wrote: »

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or compelling me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception.

There is a third way. Peace. Leaving well enough alone. Ignoring the person you disagree with rather than using force. Realising that some things in life aren't worth risking by duking them out in a gun fight.

Honestly, i don't know how anyone could treat the sentiments in that piece seriously.

As a retort, i think this oft quoted adage of Mahatma Gandhi is appropriate:

"An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind."

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

and how do you think things will go if one party is set on peace and the other party is set on taking that persons money?

utopian ideals aside, you have to live in this world.

CtrlSource

Utopian ideals? Hardly!

i think things would probably go like this: the person set on taking the other's money will take it.

What would you rather see happening?

Pocono Joe

Debate and dissent is never a bad thing, and serves a common good.

Personally, I do not carry a gun on my person. We have strict laws regarding the carrying of concealed weapons here, which I wholeheartedly agree with. I could easily get a gun-carrying permit for myself, but choose not to. But I do "own" guns for both hunting and protection within my home, which is the heart of the recent Supreme Court ruling. If someone were trying to steal money from me, they can have it!!! Money is never on the same plain as the value of human life. I too often see the use of equating money with human life to make a point for this ongoing argument against the right to own guns. That argument is both disingenuous and insulting to almost every common sense individual.

But if someone were to break into my home and threaten my life, or that of my family, I would want the option available to me of protecting myself with any means available. Our constitution guarantees each of us that right, and I will fight to keep that right. And although I do have some qualms regarding individuals who carry concealed weapons, I support that right as long as they go through the rigors of obtaining a carrying permit.
Ask yourself one question. If your life, or the life of one of your loved ones, were seriously threatened, what would you want? Someone who idly sits back out of fear and allows the situation come to an unfortunate end? Or be saved by someone who has the power to protect you and yours because they are on an equal footing with the individual(s) who mean to do bodily harm? I think we all know the answer, and I understand it is a conundrum for an idealistic viewpoint.

The realities of life are often sobering and unpleasant. I am not willing to allow the inmates to run the asylum, based solely on idealistic principles.

CtrlSource

Well it seems we're not all that far apart in our views

My only concern is that you posted that passage, which perhaps doesn't reflect your opinion specifically, but does contain the lines:

"The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year-old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year-old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with carload of drunken guys with baseball bats."

My interpretation of that is that it's a dangerous proposition. It uses scenarios that evoke a sense of outrage in the reader, that a 75 year old would have to face up to a 220 pound mugger etc and of course, our sympathy goes to the elderly person. But where is the sense in encouraging them to arm themselves?

Pocono Joe

CtrlSource wrote: »

There is a third way. Peace. Leaving well enough alone. Ignoring the person you disagree with rather than using force. Realising that some things in life aren't worth risking by duking them out in a gun fight.

If people of Ireland are unable to own guns, and you are free of violent crimes committed with firearms… then bravo, my hat is off to you! But how does one ignore a person who is intent on doing you bodily harm? It just doesn’t happen in the real world. If I’m looking down the gun barrel of a gang banger who has little regards for human life, it’s hard to ignore that person. If someone is breaking into my home at night, knowing full well there are people in the house, then that person has already committed themself to inflicting bodily harm. If not that person would have broken into an empty home.

And whoever thinks gun fights erupt here on a regular basis between law-abiding citizens and criminals has been watching waaaaaaaay too many Hollywood movies. It just doesn’t happen. Without question, the vast majority of gun fights happen between two criminal entities, not with law-abiding citizens. If you look at the vast majority of violent crimes here in the US, you will find an extremely high percentage take place in liberal urban regions that have gun control laws in place (doesn’t make sense, does it?). The highest violent crime areas here in the US are almost exclusively liberal havens. And here is something else to consider. I believe statistics of violent crimes in the US with the use of a gun, against total population, would show it is safer to join the military and serve in Iraq than it is to merely live in the cities of Baltimore, Washington, Detroit or Los Angeles.

And I believe that passage you noted was meant to spark an outrage in the reader… that is granted. Because if not for outrage, little would be done to stop the silent shift of our individual rights into increasing government control based on the ideals of a greater good. The value of a gun as the great equalizer does give the weak hope of defending themselves in their own home against violent criminals. We don’t purchase guns to protect ourselves from a pernicious mother-in-law... then again.

Your serve.

CtrlSource

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Your serve.

Haven't forgotten about our little tennis game - it's just that i haven't been online on boards over the past few days for long enough to compose a considered reply

Back to the original topic though; how's the atmosphere over that side of the pond? Are people still turned on to the election or is there a waning interest in it at this stage?

Pocono Joe

Regarding the original question… It’s hard not to be exposed to the presidential race with the media shoving OBAMAMANIA down our throats. It’s near impossible to watch television or check out the internet without seeing his dissimulating smiling face along with his entire platform comprising nothing more than two words... HOPE and CHANGE permeating the senses. They make everything he does news… from his claim of messiahism being able to stop the rise of the oceans to the picking of his nose becomes front page news. (Interesting… do a google search on Obama. You will come up with 154,000,000 hits for the one term Senator, who often votes "present" on important issues. Yet a google search of McCain, who served over 22 years in the senate, is a maverick known for crossing party lines to get things done, a real war hero, and a 2000 presidential candidate against Bush, only yields only 75,200,000 hits. Tell me there isn’t something wrong there.)

There is an overall general lull in politics now that won’t become fever pitched again until the conventions. Then hopefully we will get over all the hype and see the details and real discussions behind the candidate’s lofty claims and talking points.

Regarding the US general public and politics, we currently we have the hardcore political wolves, the sheep who know only the candidates talking points (well at least Obama’s, because the media rarely reports on anything McCain… unless its bad), and finally the political brain dead (including most union workers who only know what their union bosses tell them what to do). I don't know the breakdown, but I guess it'a about an even 3 way split. Once the conventions take place, some of the sheep will become temporary token wolves. But there is never any hope for the political brain dead… they will forever complain about everything political, but usually don’t bother to vote or contribute anything to the process.

kerry4sam

I followed it religiously during the primaries but now that the end is nigh i really miss the drive and intensity that was present ... i actually can't remember the last time i read an article about the election now :rolleyes: