Obama on Small-Town Pennsylvania...

[Alcon]

Essentially correct but an extremely dumb thing to say.  He should apologize.

Pretty much an Obama gaffe RSS feed, aren't you Sam? 

[Alcon]

I'm not surprised of the forum's opinion on his remarks concerning guns, religion and anti-immigrant ideas, but I would have thought differently on anti-trade ideas.  Or maybe there are more free-traders here than I thought.

What about people's responses about this statement indicate their own views about trade?

Although the statement was made in context to small-town PA, there's a direct line between "when they getting bitter" ---> "they cling to anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain frustrations" in his comments.

Even for someone who is anti-trade, I think that's fairly undeniable.

[Alcon]

Oh, come on.

[Alcon]

I'm surprised no one noted the real gaffe:

Obama called Pennsylvania a Midwestern state

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But this is all a big-little nothing.

No, he called small towns in Pennsylvania "like" a lot of small towns in the Midwest, as far as I can tell?

[Alcon]

Al, would you elaborate on the inaccuracies of the comment for us pathetic suburbanites?

The first thing when I woke up today was an email from a friend in northwestern PA (who works in a factory) reading "Obama nails Erie."  I'm very much confused who to believe .  Viewed in the context of voting patterns (the only instance in which the "anti-trade" part makes sense) it all seems accurate to me.  But I do want to hear your thoughts on this.

[Alcon]

Al, would you elaborate on the inaccuracies of the comment for us pathetic suburbanites?

The first thing when I woke up today was an email from a friend in northwestern PA (who works in a factory) reading "Obama nails Erie."  I'm very much confused who to believe .  Viewed in the context of voting patterns (the only instance in which the "anti-trade" part makes sense) it all seems accurate to me.  But I do want to hear your thoughts on this.

I'm not certain who you are addressing.

One major one in the link between religion, guns and the economic shift 25-30 years ago.   Well prior to that, there was the same religion and gun trends (I'd actually say the area is less religious than my current area, in terms of church attendance). 

A very good example is me.  I graduated from HS in one of those small towns 28 years ago.  While in High School I was in "Shotgunners Club," where students shot skeet.  Yes, we shot skeet out behind the school.

Just to follow up (since this topic has gotten an incredible number of replies) -- I was speaking to Al, and said as much, although I appreciate your reply.

I'm not sure I accept the idea that additional economic hardship does not encourage people to take refuse in religion, though.  But I suppose this is moot since, if the best I'm going to get is a single-person anecdotal example, no one's mind is going to change here.

Edit: Reading this thread is reminding me of why I know I am going to love, and hate, this General Election for very different reasons.  People really look for a personal reason to hate people they disagree with.

[Alcon]

Alcon who is this seer "Al" and why is he is seer? In any event, how do I meet him?  I want a seer up close and personal.

Al is Realpolitik, currently AKA "Trech Gwlad Nac Arglwydd!"  Welsh fellow, frequent poster, near-universally referred to by the shortform of his first name (Alun).  Surprised that you're unfamiliar after so many posts.

Not sure about Seer, but certainly Poster -- as in, poster to whom I was responding for further clarification.

[Alcon]

I did a search for both names (including that charming  string of Welsh words (heck I have a lot of Welsh blood myself, and my dad's name was Lloyd, and he could sing like a Welsh angel to boot), and come up empty. Perhaps you could favor me with a link to a post by this poster, Alcon? Thanks.

Sure.  In fact, I'll do you better.  I have three in a row!  Same page as my original comment, a few posts up.

PS: I caught the earlier version of your post, before you Bowdlerized it.

I don't even remember what it said, but I remember it was rude.  I just came back from our county convention and have a newfound animosity toward the human race.  Especially the parts of it who debate resolutions involve changing commas to semicolons.  Incorrectly.

It's not personal -- you're just carbon-based and not agreeing with me unconditionally.

[Alcon]

I thought the comment was a tender  bon mot of endearment actually. Pity that you cleansed it. Thanks for the links. I will inspect this chap with in interest.

I'd pretend that I know what a bon mot is, but it's clear you're so far over my head you could be in a fighter jet, everyone probably knows I don't already.

[Alcon]

I thought the comment was a tender  bon mot of endearment actually. Pity that you cleansed it. Thanks for the links. I will inspect this chap with in interest.

I'd pretend that I know what a bon mot is, but it's clear you're so far over my head you could be in a fighter jet, everyone probably knows I don't already.

Meet Mr. bon mot

I'm ashamed to admit that I was hoping for it to be a pastry.

[Alcon]

Chris,

A few points.

Obama has repeatedly said "there will have to be sacrifice" as part of his platform.  I don't for a moment believe he can enact it, but the vision of America he's putting forth is one in which people have to sacrifice for their community.  It's all pretty trite and transcendentalist, but it's hardly akin to "vote for me and it will all be better."  If anything, I think that's the message that McCain and Clinton give off more (especially Clinton).  Then again, that is essentially the traditional political message.

Of course people are desperate to believe in something.  Some find religion, some find politics, others just manifest it interpersonally.  And, as far as I know, Obama's campaign has been all about "believe in yourself."  Again, I don't think it's realistic, but you are misrepresenting his candidacy -- or at least misrepresenting the meaningless mantras.  Besides, we have President Bush because a huge portion of the electorate are "desperate to believe in something."  Hell, we have the Republican Party, Democratic Party, every party, for that reason.  Or at least, they do believe in something zealously, which I guess is your definition of "desperate to believe in something."

As for the comments about his wife, I feel that you're representing what she said in the light that best fits your argument.  But that's pointless to rehash.  It's been hashed elsewhere sufficiently.

I like Obama.  I like McCain.  I personally think they are both decent people.  There are parts of both of them that frighten me.  I'll admit that I'm mostly posting this because I think your "burn in Hell comment," non-Christian that I may be, was unacceptable.  I suppose you may see Obama as some sort of antichrist figure, preying on those in need of something to believe.  Maybe my positive view of Obama is a rationalization; maybe your negative view of him is.  Maybe they're just coincidental.  I'm not sure.  But I do think vitriol is generally less necessary than our emotions tell us that it is.

Anyway, whatever, cheers.

Edit: I'm getting too involved in this bullsh**t

[Alcon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Many as they age, find that excess baggage. Whatever is, is, and one must do the best one can given that. It may be something along the lines of the final realization of relative ignorance, and the modesty that ensues. If one as one approaches senescence remains desperate about belief, that strikes me as rather sad.

I don't know how they manage to not have that beaten into them way before that point.  Thank God for modern medicine and culture.  Senescence comes earlier and I imagine lasts a hell of a lot longer.

Nice weather though.

[Alcon]

I can't entirely remember the context in which I wrote that but...

Basically the remarks seem to be founded on an assumption of deviancy; these people should be voting for him, only a minority are, therefore there must be something wrong with the majority group... and from this assumption comes the rest of what he said (including the parts that people seem to be getting most worked-up about).

Further to that, he seems to think that the fundamental problem that these areas face isn't demographic and economic, so much as it's about people in these areas having no "faith" in "Washington" and the political process generally.

Which, frankly, is bollocks.

Fairly put.  Thank you.

If someone were to argue this:

"Viewed in the context of voting patterns, assuming that affluent suburban voters are self-loathing hypocrites seems accurate to me. What else explains the bizarre and apparently contradictory electoral record of these places post-Watergate than the fact that affluence has failed to bring these people the happiness that these people clearly feel is their birthright? Clearly the lack of the happiness that they feel entitled to has made them bitter and this is reflected in the petulant voting patterns of such areas over the past three decades"

Would you resent it?

I don't really understand what the sentence says.  In any case, no I wouldn't, but, quite honestly, I have that luxury.

I'm a little tempted to say that I want to not dismiss Obama as an elitist because, in a similarly grueling election campaign with a demographic aligned up against me, I might be tempted to say something of comparable idiocy.  But, then again, I have the luxury to forgive that too, because it's probably much easier to dismiss that sort of thing when I'm not a frequent victim of it.

[Alcon]

1) People who have attended the church have stated on interviews with CNN, Fox, NPR, etc that comments such as these coming from Wright were almost a weekly occurrence.

I've listened to numerous examples of Wright's sermons, and none of them make me think, this guy is so awful that I would refuse to associate with him.  I mean, I have some pretty whacko leftist friends and neighbors who say some things I politically deplore, but as human beings many of them are worthwhile.  If I were running for president, though, I guess I'd be expected to drop them like a bag of potatoes.

Would you mind linking me to these quotes, by the way?  I'd like to see them contextually.

2) McCain's foibles are irrelevant.  No one is holding him up as a Messianic figure.

Sure they are.  Fewer, probably, but sure they are.  And I don't see how that makes his foibles irrelevant either way.

[Alcon]

In many ways, most serious presidential candidates are elitist at some level.  GW Bush, a Governor, son of a president, great education.   Clinton, phenomenal education and former governor.   We don't grab someone off the street an make them President.

Nope.  And there's probably demand for a certain unerring conviction of beliefs and faith in self that I'd normally find unattractive as a personal characteristic.

We do look at how they relate to those things important to us, collectively.  It's this test that Obama is currently failing.  We also, somewhat like with Wright, not back away from the remark.

I don't understand the last sentence.

[Alcon]

But I don't hear much talk about it.  For someone who is all talk, like Obama, to not hear him talk about it is fairly telling.  As a disclaimer, I have, in fact, listened to the vast majority of Obama's speeches.  There is no "ask not what your country can do for you" rhetoric.

I hear a lot of "there will be sacrifices"-type rhetoric.  Maybe we've just heard different speeches, but I'm surprised to hear you say that.  To what extent can he really emphasize that without sounding paranoid?  I wouldn't blame McCain for not conceding the flaws in America in his speeches often enough when running for the GOP nomination.

Again, its the way he chooses to focus it.

I'm having trouble articulating the distinction, but its there.  It's more like he is saying "believe in me and you can believe in yourself"... there is just something missing there that you hear from Reagan and Kennedy that you don't get with Obama.  His cult seems to think that once he is elected they will have cleared the hump and he has done nothing to discourage that thinking.

What could he say that he hasn't, or hasn't enough (to you)?  Within the context of someone running for President, of course.

I think you would be pissed too.

Annoyed, not piss, and certainly telling no one to go to Hell.

And its just a reflection of the fact that he is not truly a uniting figure, he just wants you to think he is.  He is just as eager to label others and turn people against one another as anyone else and the media gives him a free ride on it.

Turn people against one another, how?  I can see this as elitism resulting from pandering.  I cannot see this as a calculated attempt to send two classes upon each other...or whatever you're getting at.

Anyway, I did miss campaign season on the forum and how brutal it can get.

I miss being too young to see certain parallels to things that actually matter, myself

[Alcon]

He really hasn't backed away for questions on this, not a "I misspoke."  He said "I regret," if it caused "offense."  He didn't say, "I withdraw it." or better yet, "I was wrong."

I would be like me saying "Alcon, I think you're a pig." Then I say, "Alcon, I regret if calling you a pig caused you to be offended."  I still have not said, "Alcon, I don't think you a pig." (I think you're one of the better posters and not a pig, BTW, but that's not relevant to the example.)

I do understand that without an analogy (I'm not quite that dumb), and I think your analogy is misplaced.  He said something elitist and condescending.  He followed up by trying to explain it away in a way that essentially proves he meant what he said.  What he said was wrong.

I partially reject the idea that this is exclusively an indicator of elitism.  It's just a total mis-understanding of a culture and their motivations.  It doesn't necessarily demand a feeling of superiority...it just demands an ability to try to explain away why people disagree with you, intellectually and culturally.  That's not a matter of elitism.  That's just a matter of human jackassery.

And Obama is being a jackass about this.

[Alcon]

But it's not what Rev. Wright said that bothers me so much as his insincere dissociation with him.  If he had simply said "I had heard the comments.  I didn't agree" then it would have been fine.  He lied his way out of it.  Again, that would be par for the course if Obama's whole persona were built up on him being better than everyone else.

Again, it's not that I don't believe you, but I like to read quotes for myself so I can see whether he was double-talking (something all politicians do, as far as I can tell) or plain lying.  And it just helps me sleep better at night when I know I did the work for myself...I tried to Google what you're referring to and got no results.

I disagree with the concept that "Obama's whole persona were built up on him being better than everyone else."  Besides, that seems an odd complaint to make about politicians, who invariably run on the pretext of their ideas being better than anyone else.  Or maybe it's OK to be the vessel of purity, just so long as you don't think yourself the purity itself.  That's a tough distinction to make, but that's a separate discussion, right?

As for McCain... far fewer.  I see him being a honest and effective public servant and nothing more.

Nothing more?  That's a pretty polarized view of humanity you have here (hell-worthy vs. "honest and effective...and nothing more")

[Alcon]

That's not necessarily an indication of elitism, or that a president shouldn't be elite.  I actually think Obama is being sincere.  I think that this was a window into his ideology.

Ideology on what?  I think this is a window into his failure to "feel the pain" of the people of Western Pennsylvania.  I don't actually think this would affect any policy whatsoever.

Yes, and too much of one to be President.

Heh.  Well, if this level of jackassery is enough to disclude one for the Presidency, I'm going to live a life full of write-ins.

[Alcon]

I think it could, on gun rights issues, economic issues, and some religious tolerance issues.

I think we already know Obama's position on gun issues.  Which economic issues does this cast new light on?  And what "religious tolerance issues"?  I'm curious about specifics.  What don't we know about Obama already that this could indicate, is what I'm getting at.

I'd rather have a liar that is competent (Clinton) than an honest jackass (Obama). 

Cool.

[Alcon]

One thing I would be worried about is hostility from the government toward religion (note I did not say Christianity).

You're expecting Obama, a churchgoing politician who talks a lot about devotion and even opposes gay marriage on theological terms, to be hostile to religion?  On what level?

Guns seem to be far worse, his thought that it's related to economics flies in the face 250 years of history.

Which is attitudinally wrong and all, but we already knew that Obama is pro-gun control.

Economics, Obama is addressing the problems as the were 25-35 years ago.  Will he tell us next about his plans for dealing with the Soviet Union or his opinion of disco?

You're still not giving me specific policy, just telling me that this proves he'll enforce "disco" economics.  Again, I'm looking for specifics here.  Are you afraid that he will rock the boat, or do his policies just not ring your bell? 

Obama is wrong here on so many levels.

First thing I've agreed with outright this entire post.

[Alcon]

That we don't know.   He talks about his religion, but then give equivacal answers regarding his pastor.  He says now that it's part of being "bitter."

He said that some cling to religion in the light of hard times.  This is probably a caricature of middle-American folks, but that's a big jump to an indicator of hostility toward religion.  Also, I'm not sure what "but the give equivacal answers regarding his pastor" is supposed to mean...

And you still haven't given me a single specific policy decision this might affect, even if we do accept that this is a significant indicator that Obama is anti-religious.

But we know now that he thinks the reason people oppose it are because they are "bitter."  He doesn't address the real reasons.

No, he didn't, which has what to do with eventual policy?

He identifies the economic conditions as being those which have not existed for decades.  We had a collapse of manufacturing jobs, but the economy has changed in that time.  Notice what I said, he is a problem that no longer exists.  I'm not talking about policy, because there is really nothing there to set policy about.

First, you said:

I think it could, on gun rights issues, economic issues, and some religious tolerance issues.

Then, I asked you for specific policy examples.  When I did that, you gave examples.

And now you say that there are no specific policies involved in the examples you gave.

Que?

[Alcon]

I think that raised by some other posters.  His first answer was lawyerly.  His second was also lawyerly, but coming closer to "yes, I heard these things."  He'd be a complete idiot if he hadn't.

The area has always been very religious; it is not a "hard times" triggered event.

I understand that you feel that way, but that isn't replying to what you quoted.

Some of the faith based things, tax issues, possibly not being supportive of civil rights in that area.

I'm probably being unclear, but by "specific things," I  mean...well...things that are specific.  "Faith-based things" contains the word "things," so it isn't very specific.  "Tax issues" isn't very specific.  "Being supportive of civil rights in that area" both has an unclear antecedent and is  separately very non-specific.

If he can't realize that the situation doesn't exist, how can he make policy to "fix" it?

OK, so now your contention is not that this reflects his policy positions, but rather that his lack of recognition of economic conditions in the area will contribute to policy inaction.

I semi-disagree.  I think that most of the candidates don't know enough about economics to right a half-decent economics package, even if basic understanding is certainly a very important thing.  But that is a separate debate.

What you're presenting now is different from your original assertion, which was that this will affect individual policy decisions.  That's still my primary point of questioning.  This new subject that you've raised is a fair point, but it is not what I questioned.

[Alcon]

I'm saying that trying to solve a nonexistent problem can create a problem.  Since he didn't say how he'd fix this "problem," again, I can't more specific about the result of policy he'd support to try to do that.

All right:

Ideology on what?  I think this is a window into his failure to "feel the pain" of the people of Western Pennsylvania.  I don't actually think this would affect any policy whatsoever.

I think it could, on gun rights issues, economic issues, and some religious tolerance issues.

Emphasis mine.

So, we've established that this could reveal his position on gun rights, economic and religious tolerance issues (including faith-based issues and civil rights), but you can't outright name any of those issues, because Obama hasn't been specific?  Even though we're allegedly seen through his veneer, and have determined the genre of these positions he holds that we did not previously know of?

I'm only asking for theoreticals, not ones that we're certain this shows a different opinion on.  On which religion-related issues does this indicate Obama might have a different opinion than before you heard this?  I am only asking for examples.

[Alcon]

Well, this was a good thread for a while there.