Bev in B'ville Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 Reported by Fox News this morning (live interview), Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a very close friend of Hillary Clinton's and a major player at the DNC, is supporting McCain/Palin. In the interview she said that Obama is so far left it's scary and called him an elitist. Fox News asked what about McCain, would you call him elitist?She said he does have privilege, but when that privilege would have saved him physical torture in Vietnam, he refused it saying he was no better than the other prisoners. She also said that McCain is more centered (politically) than Obama and has shown his willingness to cross (political) lines when necessary for the good of the country. She also said it's important to note that Hillary has not come out to say anything bad about Palin. In other news, Donald Trump, another former Hillary supporter, has also announced that he is supporting McCain. You've got to wonder, what is Obama thinking by alienating these people? Does anyone know of RNC people or other notable republicans jumping ship to the Obama camp? Just curious. (Let's keep it civil folks. I'm not interested in starting a political firestorm here.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melinda in VT Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 We saw this on the news last night, and it totally cracked us up. Lady Rothschild thinks Obama is an elitist.:lol: How did she even say that with a straight face?:001_huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracey in TX Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 Wow, that's huge! Thanks for sharing. I've been in a news bubble for three days and missed this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny in Atl Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 We saw this on the news last night, and it totally cracked us up. Lady Rothschild thinks Obama is an elitist.:lol: How did she even say that with a straight face?:001_huh: Yes, I wonder if she knows how many homes she owns? :001_huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bev in B'ville Posted September 18, 2008 Author Share Posted September 18, 2008 We saw this on the news last night, and it totally cracked us up. Lady Rothschild thinks Obama is an elitist.:lol: How did she even say that with a straight face?:001_huh: She didn't become "Lady" until her marriage in 2000 to Sir Evelyn de Rothschild (the title came with the marriage). She wasn't born into it; in fact, she was born in New Jersey. I also found it interesting that she was an entrepreneur and became wealthy as a result of her own business. She wasn't born into wealth. Just clarifying. The dems are going after her personally as a result of her declaration of support for McCain/Palin. I wanted to get the facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melinda in VT Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 Well, I'm not a Democrat (although I am voting for Obama), but I hope my response didn't come across as a personal attack on Rothschild. I just found the charge of elitism ironic coming from someone with such an elitist-sounding name, that's all. She certainly has a right to support whomever she wants, for whatever reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny in Atl Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 I thought what she said about abortion was interesting, especially for those of you voting for them on that one issue. Also there's another video of her calling those unhappy with her move to the McCain camp as "rednecks". Obama is no more elite than she. If anything she has long run in much fancier circles. Yes, she started off as a middle class gal from NJ, but she left that life long ago. It's also funny to note that the McCains are also not humble folk. Yes, John married into wealth... which Cindy did nothing to earn. Both Cindy and Sarah's outfits for the conventions were outrageously expensive. The Palins, simple folk in this race, both made very nice salaries in recent years, way more than my dh will ever make. The simple common folk image in politics is just that, an image, and not based in fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB in NJ Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 Hey, we'll take her!!! It's a big party with a big tent: everyone is welcome :D I did notice that Hillary hasn't said anything about Sarah Palin. I wonder if she'll vote for McCain/Palin after all. She may not make it public, but only she knows what goes on in that voting booth. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bev in B'ville Posted September 18, 2008 Author Share Posted September 18, 2008 I thought what she said about abortion was interesting, especially for those of you voting for them on that one issue. Also there's another video of her calling those unhappy with her move to the McCain camp as "rednecks". Obama is no more elite than she. If anything she has long run in much fancier circles. Yes, she started off as a middle class gal from NJ, but she left that life long ago. It's also funny to note that the McCains are also not humble folk. Yes, John married into wealth... which Cindy did nothing to earn. Both Cindy and Sarah's outfits for the conventions were outrageously expensive. The Palins, simple folk in this race, both made very nice salaries in recent years, way more than my dh will ever make. The simple common folk image in politics is just that, an image, and not based in fact. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. She's a self-made person (entrepreneur who made millions - the American dream by many standards). Does this mean her opinion doesn't count? Did her opinion count when she was supporting the Democratic party? Does it matter that Cindy McCain didn't earn her money? Her parents did earn it. Should they be penalized for sharing with their children? Sarah Palin doesn't set her salary, the state legislature does. Because she and her husband both work and earn more than your dh, does that make them bad? I once paid a chunk of money for a dress I wore for about 1 hour (my wedding dress). Some would call that wasteful, but I don't. The taxpayers didn't buy Sarah's dress, so I don't feel I have the right to judge her for that when I've done something similar. Bush has been in the White House for 8 years (news flash, I know), and he's anti-abortion. He hasn't been able to change the law, and as Lynn says in the video you posted, a woman's constitutional right to abortion. Let's stop attacking the messenger and look at the message. My original question still stands. Does anyone know of RNC people or other notable republicans jumping ship to the Obama camp? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny in Atl Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 Hey, we'll take her!!! It's a big party with a big tent: everyone is welcome :D I did notice that Hillary hasn't said anything about Sarah Palin. I wonder if she'll vote for McCain/Palin after all. She may not make it public, but only she knows what goes on in that voting booth. ;) Yup, her best bet to get into the White House in four years. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie in AR Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 I did notice that Hillary hasn't said anything about Sarah Palin. I wonder if she'll vote for McCain/Palin after all. She may not make it public, but only she knows what goes on in that voting booth. ;) That is exactly what I told my dh yesterday. If Obama is elected, Hillary's chances for the White House are over. She doesn't want that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB in NJ Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 Yup, her best bet to get into the White House in four years. :lol: Exactly. If Obama wins, it's curtains for her. About 2 seconds after Palin was announced, my mother and I saw the entire scenario playing out: McCain/Palin win, McCain doesn't run for re-election, and in 4 years it'll be Palin vs. Clinton. Amazing, huh? I can't believe for one split second that Hillary Clinton really, truly wants Obama to win. I just don't buy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathmom Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 OK, when did McCain say he wouldn't run for re-election??? I keep seeing you guys saying that but I've never heard it elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LisaNY Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 We saw this on the news last night, and it totally cracked us up. Lady Rothschild thinks Obama is an elitist.:lol: How did she even say that with a straight face?:001_huh: Well, you know that old expression, "It takes one to know one" :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB in NJ Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 OK, when did McCain say he wouldn't run for re-election??? I keep seeing you guys saying that but I've never heard it elsewhere. He hasn't said it. It's just conjecture on our part. Pure speculation, that's all. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Academy of Jedi Arts Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 That is exactly what I told my dh yesterday. If Obama is elected, Hillary's chances for the White House are over. She doesn't want that. I don't buy that for a second. Hillary is still a relatively young woman. Eight years from now she will still be a viable candidate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB in NJ Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 I don't buy that for a second. Hillary is still a relatively young woman. Eight years from now she will still be a viable candidate. I don't think it's her age that'll cost her; it'll be that same "loser" status that follows people after they lose their party's nomination. She lost BADLY. There is NO WAY she shoudln't have gotten that nomination. It was almost a given that she would get it. Enter Barack Obama. A young upstart with an incredible gift of speaking and inspiring people. She suddenly found herself fighting for what most assumed was rightfully hers. And she lost. That is why many think she won't be a viable candidate if Obama wins and serves 2 terms. Also, we've had 8 years since the last Clinton administration. Al Gore lost his election (say what you will about the popular vote; our Constitution says electors choose the President, and they did); Hillary lost her nomination. People are tired of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. They want something -- someone -- new. Her age in 4 to 8 years would be the least of her political worries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LisaNY Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 Hey, we'll take her!!! It's a big party with a big tent: everyone is welcome :D I did notice that Hillary hasn't said anything about Sarah Palin. I wonder if she'll vote for McCain/Palin after all. She may not make it public, but only she knows what goes on in that voting booth. ;) Oh my GOSH, Donna!! Are you in the dark, or what???!!!??? Sarah and Hillary were *together* on Saturday Night Live!!! They spoke about A LOT of things. And you obviously missed it - geez! :glare: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie in AR Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 I don't think it's her age that'll cost her; it'll be that same "loser" status that follows people after they lose their party's nomination. She lost BADLY. There is NO WAY she shoudln't have gotten that nomination. It was almost a given that she would get it. Enter Barack Obama. A young upstart with an incredible gift of speaking and inspiring people. She suddenly found herself fighting for what most assumed was rightfully hers. And she lost. That is why many think she won't be a viable candidate if Obama wins and serves 2 terms. Also, we've had 8 years since the last Clinton administration. Al Gore lost his election (say what you will about the popular vote; our Constitution says electors choose the President, and they did); Hillary lost her nomination. People are tired of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. They want something -- someone -- new. Her age in 4 to 8 years would be the least of her political worries. This is my thinking, too. She will be old news in 4 to 8 years if Obama wins this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumping In Puddles Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 Does anyone know of RNC people or other notable republicans jumping ship to the Obama camp? Just curious. (Let's keep it civil folks. I'm not interested in starting a political firestorm here.) Sure' date=' of course you are going to get people defecting from both sides. I think it was a way bigger deal that Lieberman is endorsing McCain than Rothschild. You have to remember, the fight with Hillary for the nomination was very bitter and divisive and you will have Hillary supporters who still see Barack as the opposition. To me, it makes NO sense to say that you support Hillary but would vote for McCain. Fundamentally, Hillary and Obama have more in common than Hillary and McCain. Likewise, there are higher up Republicans who do not like Sarah Palin but I don't think they would be foolhardy and vote for Obama because of it. That really shows the bitterness in the party and at this point, I think that McCain may actually win because of this reason. I, personally hope not but I fear that is where this is heading. One last thing... I don't think Obama is purposefully alienating those in his party - he is still neck in neck with McCain (so this is not "wow... look at all the Dems defecting" kind of thing) and Obama needs to stick to his guns and not worry about a few people who may not agree with him. Link Tom Bernstein went to Yale University with Bush and co-owned the Texas Rangers baseball team with him. In 2004 he donated the maximum $2,000 to the president’s reelection campaign and gave $50,000 to the Republican National Committee. This year he is switching his support to Obama. He is one of many former Bush admirers who find the Democrat newcomer appealing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny in Atl Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 I'm not sure what you're getting at here. She's a self-made person (entrepreneur who made millions - the American dream by many standards). Does this mean her opinion doesn't count? Did her opinion count when she was supporting the Democratic party? Does it matter that Cindy McCain didn't earn her money? Her parents did earn it. Should they be penalized for sharing with their children? Sarah Palin doesn't set her salary' date=' the state legislature does. Because she and her husband both work and earn more than your dh, does that make them bad? I once paid a chunk of money for a dress I wore for about 1 hour (my wedding dress). Some would call that wasteful, but I don't. The taxpayers didn't buy Sarah's dress, so I don't feel I have the right to judge her for that when I've done something similar. Bush has been in the White House for 8 years (news flash, I know), and he's anti-abortion. He hasn't been able to change the law, and as Lynn says in the video you posted, a woman's constitutional right to abortion. Let's stop attacking the messenger and look at the message. My original question still stands. Does anyone know of RNC people or other notable republicans jumping ship to the Obama camp?[/quote'] I always though the American dream was to own a home. :lol: My point is that Rothschild is an elitist herself, as is McCain, and the Palins are not poor simple folks. It's all a sham. And even more curious is that Clinton's and Obama's views (plans) were almost exactly the same. So how Rothschild totally dumbs her "beliefs" for McCain, whose views are diametrically opposed, leaves me wondering if there is not more to this story. She says she does not dislike Obama, so what else is there except that he is an elitist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumping In Puddles Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 Oh, and Obama being an elitist? Come on! Yes, he speaks eloquently, yes he is dare I say it? An intellectual! He is a very smart man who came by everything he has in this life by his own self. He didn't even put on his Harvard application that he was black (which would have given him an edge). He earned it. There is this painting of Obama by the opposition that he is "not one of us, but above us" and the more it gets played the more people "see" it. I want the President of the USA to be smarter than me, I want him to be a big thinker like our founding fathers but I also think Barrack is not just intellectual but he has not lived his life being sheltered and catered to. He knows what it is like to live like ordinary Americans but people will hear that he is an elite (Remember at the RNC when Mitt Romney, yes, Mitt Romney said we need to get rid of the rich elite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny in Atl Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=blog Found this... thought it might be interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jami Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 My point is that Rothschild is an elitist herself, as is McCain, and the Palins are not poor simple folks. It's all a shame. Who are the poor simple folks? In Washington, I mean. Is it even possible to be a career politician on say, a teacher's salary? Once a person is a Governor or Congressman(woman), they make significantly more than say, a steelmill worker. And does anyone *want* a "poor, simple person" leading the country? Depending on what that definition means. Does it matter where a person started even if they later find themselves in a higher income bracket or with more influence? Obama and Palin would seem to be the two that didn't start out with a "silver spoon". But if Cindy McCain's father started with nothing and worked hard and she inherited and John M. came from a military family and married well...does that mean he has nothing to say if he's not currently poor? I'm not a fan of true elitism (I'm better than you because I'm rich or smart) or anti-elitism (I suspect anyone with more money and intelligence (or education) than I have. Jami Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camy-7 boybarians 1 lady Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 I know there are a few GOP people who have crossed to the other side of the aisle in their pick for Pres., but I can't think of their names at this time. This is a very interesting election year! Blessings, Camy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bev in B'ville Posted September 18, 2008 Author Share Posted September 18, 2008 I always though the American dream was to own a home. :lol:My point is that Rothschild is an elitist herself, as is McCain, and the Palins are not poor simple folks. It's all a sham. And even more curious is that Clinton's and Obama's views (plans) were almost exactly the same. So how Rothschild totally dumbs her "beliefs" for McCain, whose views are diametrically opposed, leaves me wondering if there is not more to this story. She says she does not dislike Obama, so what else is there except that he is an elitist? Your American dream is not mine, and mine has changed over the years. Now that my kids are in high school and my husband and I are looking at what we want to do in retirement, our next dream is just being formulated. Personally, moving to Vegas to become a professional poker player sounds like a hoot!:lol: Actually, Clinton was more of a Centrist than Obama ever will be. Obama has consistently voted along party lines and the more leftist the idea, the more he was behind it. Clinton, as you may remember, angered many democrats with his centrist views. He did not jump on the bandwagon for every democratic proposal. It's part of what made him so popular. I dislike the fact that you label her an elitist without really knowing her and with much supposition. Her parents worked two jobs each to put their four children through school; this according to the video you posted. That doesn't sound elitist to me. She's a self-made person who happened to fall in love with someone the Queen of England knighted. Does her marriage make her elitist? I can come to many more conclusions about her behavior other than she's an elitist. Let's jump on the conspiracy train for a moment and say she's in league with Hillary to get McCain elected so in the next election cycle Hllary can have another go at the democratic ticket. Okay, off the train, that's just scary. Another scenario is that she truly believes what she is saying. She, along with Lieberman and Trump, have examined the issues most important to them and made a choice. It has nothing to do with how much money someone else thinks they have in the bank or how many homes they might have. I'd like to think that's what I'm trying to do. I'm looking at the issues important to me (not the gender or color of the people running for office) and that's how I'll vote. That's why I was impressed with Lynn's defection. It took a lot of guts to get on national television and make that kind of proclamation. She still insists that she's a democrat and will remain so, but for the issues important to her in this election, McCain/Palin is her ticket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiCO Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=blog Found this... thought it might be interesting. That was interesting. Thanks for the link. I also found a Democrats for McCain site. I still haven't made up my mind- this is going to be an interesting election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demal Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 I know there are a few GOP people who have crossed to the other side of the aisle in their pick for Pres., but I can't think of their names at this time. Here's a list: http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Obamacans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny in Atl Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 Another scenario is that she truly believes what she is saying. She' date=' along with Lieberman and Trump, have examined the issues most important to them and made a choice. It has nothing to do with how much money someone else thinks they have in the bank or how many homes they might have. I'd like to think that's what I'm trying to do. I'm looking at the issues important to me (not the gender or color of the people running for office) and that's how I'll vote. That's why I was impressed with Lynn's defection. It took a lot of guts to get on national television and make that kind of proclamation. She still insists that she's a democrat and will remain so, but for the issues important to her in this election, McCain/Palin is her ticket.[/quote'] If this were the case, why then could she not give specifics as to why she likes McCain over Obama, actually policy? I know why Trump likes McCain better as well as Lieberman. I would have considered voting for McCain if Lieberman had been his VP. Yes, Obama is far to the left and McCain until recently was pretty middle of the road. So what happened? I was bemused at all his regulation talk, and Palin jumped right in there too! Remember the Keating Five? It's all smoke and mirrors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margaret in GA Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 "Obama has consistently voted along party lines and the more leftist the idea, the more he was behind it" Bev, your above quote doesn't really agree with your initial statement on your original post that this was to be a civil argument. Calling someone a leftist is about as devisive as you can get. And it makes no sense. Do you really believe that was his only criteria when he went in to cast his votes? As for elitism, I'll defer to the Daily Show "ELITE! If you're Elite enough as the President, they carve your head on a mountain?" - John Stewart Margaret Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bev in B'ville Posted September 18, 2008 Author Share Posted September 18, 2008 Technically, I didn't call him leftist. I called the idea he voted on leftist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cindy in C-ville Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 Bev in B'ville, I just wanted to say I like your name. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bev in B'ville Posted September 18, 2008 Author Share Posted September 18, 2008 Hey, I like yours two. Great minds and all....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ma23peas Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 Is anyone bothered by the fact that Obama refused to acknowledge his donations so that there would be NO limit or legal requirement for him to claim how much he is making? And that at the end of all this, should he lose, ALL that money is his? Who is being the elitist? http://rezkowatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/campaign-reform-obama-style-i-know-its.html Get the facts and if he's so quick to renege on that promise..why should I trust him? He never has given a good reason why he refused to take federal backing other than that he can now have all those funds at his disposal and make out a much richer man without even serving as President. Tara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumping In Puddles Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 Is anyone bothered by the fact that Obama refused to acknowledge his donations so that there would be NO limit or legal requirement for him to claim how much he is making? And that at the end of all this, should he lose, ALL that money is his? Who is being the elitist? http://rezkowatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/campaign-reform-obama-style-i-know-its.html Get the facts and if he's so quick to renege on that promise..why should I trust him? He never has given a good reason why he refused to take federal backing other than that he can now have all those funds at his disposal and make out a much richer man without even serving as President. Tara That is not being elitist, and if he doesn't take one red cent from this (without being President) he will never want for money. It is estimated that each speech he will give will net him over 250,000 dollars. Money was not the motivation for this. He has stated when he made the decision that without this extra money he would not be able to compete with the fringe groups ( like the Swift Boat Veterans) and be knocked out like Kerry was. This gives him a lot more leeway in terms of running the campaign and defending himself against groups that will try to discredit him. FWIW, I don't agree with Obama on this issue. It is not a deal killer but I think it was wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumping In Puddles Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 Lady Rothschild came out earlier in the week saying "I don't like Obama. I feel like he is an elitist." I wonder what her definition of elitist is. How many houses he owns, how much money he has, or how much education he has, or where he lives? I really like the reason this conservative republican gives for backing Obama. There is a striking difference between that endorsement and that of Trump and de Rothschild. Thoughtful, clearly articulated reasons from the latter and not so much from the former. THE MORE I LISTEN TO AND READ ABOUT “the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate,” the more I like him. Barack Obama strikes a chord with me like no political figure since Ronald Reagan. To explain why, I need to explain why I am a conservative and what it means to me. In 1964, at the age of 16, I organized the Dallas County Youth for Goldwater. My senior thesis at the University of Texas was on the conservative intellectual revival in America. Twenty years later, I was invited by William F. Buckley Jr. to join the board of National Review. I later became its publisher. Conservatism to me is less a political philosophy than a stance, a recognition of the fallibility of man and of man’s institutions. Conservatives respect the past not for its antiquity but because it represents, as G.K. Chesterton said, the democracy of the dead; it gives the benefit of the doubt to customs and laws tried and tested in the crucible of time. Conservatives are skeptical of abstract theories and utopian schemes, doubtful that government is wiser than its citizens, and always ready to test any political program against actual results. Liberalism always seemed to me to be a system of “oughts.” We ought to do this or that because it’s the right thing to do, regardless of whether it works or not. It is a doctrine based on intentions, not results, on feeling good rather than doing good. But today it is so-called conservatives who are cemented to political programs when they clearly don’t work. The Bush tax cuts—a solution for which there was no real problem and which he refused to end even when the nation went to war—led to huge deficit spending and a $3 trillion growth in the federal debt. Facing this, John McCain pumps his “conservative” credentials by proposing even bigger tax cuts. Meanwhile, a movement that once fought for limited government has presided over the greatest growth of government in our history. That is not conservatism; it is profligacy using conservatism as a mask. Today it is conservatives, not liberals, who talk with alarming bellicosity about making the world “safe for democracy.” It is John McCain who says America’s job is to “defeat evil,” a theological expansion of the nation’s mission that would make George Washington cough out his wooden teeth. This kind of conservatism, which is not conservative at all, has produced financial mismanagement, the waste of human lives, the loss of moral authority, and the wreckage of our economy that McCain now threatens to make worse. Barack Obama is not my ideal candidate for president. (In fact, I made the maximum donation to John McCain during the primaries, when there was still hope he might come to his senses.) But I now see that Obama is almost the ideal candidate for this moment in American history. I disagree with him on many issues. But those don’t matter as much as what Obama offers, which is a deeply conservative view of the world. Nobody can read Obama’s books (which, it is worth noting, he wrote himself) or listen to him speak without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man. It gives me comfort just to think that after eight years of George W. Bush we will have a president who has actually read the Federalist Papers. Most important, Obama will be a realist. I doubt he will taunt Russia, as McCain has, at the very moment when our national interest requires it as an ally. The crucial distinction in my mind is that, unlike John McCain, I am convinced he will not impulsively take us into another war unless American national interests are directly threatened. “Every great cause,” Eric Hoffer wrote, “begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” As a cause, conservatism may be dead. But as a stance, as a way of making judgments in a complex and difficult world, I believe it is very much alive in the instincts and predispositions of a liberal named Barack Obama. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumping In Puddles Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 Here, read about why Rothschild jumped ship: Obama elitist, says Lady Rothschild Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild is an ardent Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter who raised scads of money for the New York senator's failed presidential campaign. She and her husband, Sir Evelyn Robert Adrian de Rothschild of the prominent Rothschild banking family of England, split their time between New York and a British country estate. It's not a bad life, she says, and she'd like you to have one just like it. Which is why she's backing Sen. John McCain for president, not her party's nominee. Sen. Barack Obama? He's an elitist, she says. "I have a wonderful life," the wealthy socialite told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday. "I want John McCain and Sarah Palin in the White House so other people can have that wonderful life." After issuing her endorsement Wednesday, Rothschild resigned her membership of the Democratic National Committee's Platform Committee. But she told Blitzer that she wouldn't give up her party membership. "I'm going to stay a Democrat," she said. "Ronald Reagan might have said it right -- the Democratic Party left me, I didn't leave the Democratic Party." In a July interview with CNN, Rothschild explained why, despite Clinton's calls for party unity, she couldn't back Obama. "I don't like him," she said. "I feel like he is an elitist." Rothschild revived the elitism argument Wednesday, this time aiming her barbs at Blitzer. When the host asked if she was getting "grief" from Democrats displeased by her endorsement, Lady Rothschild got annoyed. "I'm getting it all the time, particularly from the likes of you, the liberal elite," she quipped. "You're the elite, not me." Am I really the only one who feels that this is... not logical? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jami Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 Lady Rothschild came out earlier in the week saying "I don't like Obama. I feel like he is an elitist." I wonder what her definition of elitist is. How many houses he owns, how much money he has, or how much education he has, or where he lives? I really like the reason this conservative republican gives for backing Obama. There is a striking difference between that endorsement and that of Trump and de Rothschild. Thoughtful, clearly articulated reasons from the latter and not so much from the former. Thanks for linking that, Sharon. That's pretty much how my dh feels about the current situation. I would like some definitions of elitism. People keep using that word...I'm not sure it means what they think it means.... ;) Jami Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 I dislike the fact that you label her an elitist without really knowing her and with much supposition. Her parents worked two jobs each to put their four children through school; this according to the video you posted. That doesn't sound elitist to me. And Obama comes from a working class family. He attended Columbia University and later Harvard Law. He worked as a civil rights attorney and worked in the community forming job centers for underpriviliged women and such. That doesn't sound elitist to me. Speaking generally, not just to the post I quoted: I agree with Jumping in Puddles that without that extra money the Dems couldn't compete with the corporate 527 funds the Republicans have backing them. Obama has more *people* supporting his campaign with small donations. As far as Obama being the most liberal (or "leftist" if you want to go there) senator, this has repeatedly been shown to be not completely true. I've seen reports listing Obama anywhere from 9th most liberal to 16th most liberal. McCain, on the other hand consistently rates in the top ten of most conservative and last year had the *highest* presidential support score of any Senator. I don't think Bush has been good for this country, I don't think McCain will be good for this country. He's not a vote for change, that is for sure. Hillary Cllinton's people are jumping ship just in case Obama loses. Because then there will be the appearance of separation and difference between the two. Clinton's policy plans and ideals are *much* more similar to Obama's than McCain's. This is a political ploy and *nothing* more. Articles regarding the claim Obama is the most liberal senator: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/16/Obama-lefty/ http://www.politifact.org/truth-o-meter/statements/687/ http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/maverick_misleads.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ma23peas Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 Well, in my terms, I define elitist as those who consider their philosophy and outlook to be superior to others, his revelation that when people are facing struggles in their jobs/life they cling to religion and their guns...(completely paraphrasing here)...then he condemns our culture in preference to the European view...yes, they speak 2+ languages because the countries are smaller than most of our states and if New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, and Utah all spoke different languages, we would be FORCED to speak the languages to survive economically...we don't have that need here...we don't do that much commerce with Mexico and yet we are almost bilingual in our services now...so I don't get where he's coming from..he doesn't speak for America, he speaks about how he wants to change America so that he's not so embarrassed by our clinging to religion and failure to speak German and Dutch...by the way I've studied three languages and working on the fourth. It would be a complete waste of time for 80% of Americans to learn Chinese, Japanese or other when they're farmers, plumbers, mechanics, accountants...for those interested in international business or law, there are plenty of opportunities for them and they need the language...In every speech I've heard him (freely speak, not out of a teleprompter) he can not communicate well and his elitist views come out...give him 10 years in some job other than President and I might have some experience from which to make a better decision but as it stands now, they're attacking Sarah Palin for her experience and she has more executive experience than he has, but she's not running for President. Tara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 Well, in my terms, I define elitist as those who consider their philosophy and outlook to be superior to others, Then I've seen a LOT of elitism, including here on these boards. his revelation that when people are facing struggles in their jobs/life they cling to religion and their guns...(completely paraphrasing here)... The quote: he said it was “not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion...as a way to explain their frustrations.†I don't see how that statement is elitist. then he condemns our culture in preference to the European view...yes, they speak 2+ languages because the countries are smaller than most of our states and if New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, and Utah all spoke different languages, we would be FORCED to speak the languages to survive economically...we don't have that need here...we don't do that much commerce with Mexico and yet we are almost bilingual in our services now...so I don't get where he's coming from..he doesn't speak for America, he speaks about how he wants to change America so that he's not so embarrassed by our clinging to religion and failure to speak German and Dutch...by the way I've studied three languages and working on the fourth. I've lived in Europe and while I agree that the countries are smaller and that's a large part of the reason they speak many languages, that's not all of the reason. They don't learn English in school in Germany or Japan because they are bordered by an English-speaking nation. They do it because it's the language of business. Japanese is also a big language in business. Maybe a farmer in Idaho doesn't need to learn Japanese but it would behoove you if you were a business owner in Hawaii. It would behoove you to learn Spanish if you were a farmer in Idaho or California because so many migrant farm workers speak Spanish. It's not "elitist" to suggest that it people aren't harmed and are often helped by learning other languages. give him 10 years in some job other than President and I might have some experience from which to make a better decision but as it stands now, they're attacking Sarah Palin for her experience and she has more executive experience than he has, but she's not running for President. Well then she also has more "executive experience" than McCain. Why isn't she the Presidential candidate for the Republicans since she has more "executive experience" than McCain? That's a really silly term, imo. You're right that there is no comparison between his education and experience vs. hers but on my balance sheet he wins, hands down. Let's see what Karl Rove had to say about experience and what type of experience really matters: With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he’s been a governor for three years, he’s been able but undistinguished. I don’t think people could really name a big, important thing that he’s done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America. And again, with all due respect to Richmond, Virginia, it’s smaller than Chula Vista, California; Aurora, Colorado; Mesa or Gilbert, Arizona; north Las Vegas or Henderson, Nevada. It’s not a big town. So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what? I’m really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States? The population of Richmond, VA is over 200,000 with a metro area of 1.1 MILLION people. The population of Wasilla, AK? At the time Palin was elected mayor it was around 5,000. She was governor of Alaska for less than two years. So, Karl Rove clearly doesn't think she has the necessary experience. According to what Rove is saying (and of course he's the big player in the Republican party, I *promise* he helped choose the VP) McCain went *against* choosing who could govern wisely and instead made an "intensely political choice." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny in Atl Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 Even one of McCain's own talking head doesn't think either he or his VP is qualified to run a corp (must be harder than running the US Gov). :lol: "Earlier today, McCain spokeswoman Carly Fiorina told a St. Louis radio program that Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) was not qualified to run a business. This afternoon, she reiterated her comments on MSNBC, this time clarifying that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) — or any other presidential candidate — couldn’t run a major corporation either. Watch it: Fiorina said that “it’s a fallacy†to compare the presidency to running a company, and thus McCain’s inability to run a corporation shouldn’t matter." Of course, she has be relieved of her spokesperson duties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LisaKinVA Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 As far as Obama being the most liberal (or "leftist" if you want to go there) senator, this has repeatedly been shown to be not completely true. I've seen reports listing Obama anywhere from 9th most liberal to 16th most liberal. McCain, on the other hand consistently rates in the top ten of most conservative and last year had the *highest* presidential support score of any Senator. I don't think Bush has been good for this country, I don't think McCain will be good for this country. He's not a vote for change, that is for sure. When it comes to determining "conservative" or "liberal" -- this is usually done by 501©(4)'s and/or 527's. They make their determiniations by choosing legislation voted upon during the past year or so. Based upon the number of times a person "agrees" or "disagrees" on the political group's positions gets them a conservative or liberal rating. This type of system is in no-way unbaised. How do I know? I worked for a DC marketing firm from 1993-2001 and we helped develop these things for voter mail. Party loyalty is something else entirely. This is the percentage they vote according to their "party line." This number is pretty stable, and not easilly politicized. You can see how the Democrats and Republicans stack up here (this is a Washington Post database -- and the WP isn't exactly known for being a conservative rag...) Both Dems and Republicans are listed according to percentages of votes along party lines). Obama(#12) is listed below Biden (#8) at about a 96% party loyalty rating. You find the first Republican listed at about #23 on the list -- the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Issackson. McCain is about #55 on that list for party loyalty with 88%. So, for spin sake (:D) out of 100 Senators, McCain is in the bottom half of party loyalty and Obama/Biden average in the top 10% for party loyalty. It should also be noted, that this record doesn't include any votes they have missed in the current session. Running for president can really depress one's vote history. Take a look... it's interesting to see how they all line-up party-wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bev in B'ville Posted September 18, 2008 Author Share Posted September 18, 2008 Well, in my terms, I define elitist as those who consider their philosophy and outlook to be superior to others, his revelation that when people are facing struggles in their jobs/life they cling to religion and their guns...(completely paraphrasing here)...then he condemns our culture in preference to the European view...yes, they speak 2+ languages because the countries are smaller than most of our states and if New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, and Utah all spoke different languages, we would be FORCED to speak the languages to survive economically...we don't have that need here...we don't do that much commerce with Mexico and yet we are almost bilingual in our services now...so I don't get where he's coming from..he doesn't speak for America, he speaks about how he wants to change America so that he's not so embarrassed by our clinging to religion and failure to speak German and Dutch...by the way I've studied three languages and working on the fourth. It would be a complete waste of time for 80% of Americans to learn Chinese, Japanese or other when they're farmers, plumbers, mechanics, accountants...for those interested in international business or law, there are plenty of opportunities for them and they need the language...In every speech I've heard him (freely speak, not out of a teleprompter) he can not communicate well and his elitist views come out...give him 10 years in some job other than President and I might have some experience from which to make a better decision but as it stands now, they're attacking Sarah Palin for her experience and she has more executive experience than he has, but she's not running for President. Tara One other note. Obama has given his 'permission' to use his name for other democrats trying to win their seats in congress, but he refuses to share any of the $77 million he's received from donations to help them. Even if it means losing the majority back to the republicans (yippee). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LisaKinVA Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 Even one of McCain's own talking head doesn't think either he or his VP is qualified to run a corp (must be harder than running the US Gov). :lol: "Earlier today, McCain spokeswoman Carly Fiorina told a St. Louis radio program that Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) was not qualified to run a business. This afternoon, she reiterated her comments on MSNBC, this time clarifying that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) — or any other presidential candidate — couldn’t run a major corporation either. Watch it: Fiorina said that “it’s a fallacy†to compare the presidency to running a company, and thus McCain’s inability to run a corporation shouldn’t matter." Of course, she has be relieved of her spokesperson duties. Okay, I noticed you didn't bother to mention that the entire clip was edited in a very biased manner... and sent out by the Obama Campaign. :confused: Fiorina actually said no one running for office (and she listed all of their names) were qualified to run a corporation. You can see the full unedited, and underreported clip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jami Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 I'm tempted to stand with Mr. Darcy on this one. "Yes, vanity is a weakness indeed. But pride -- where there is a real superiority of mind, pride will be always under good regulation.'' ;) I'm not sure appreciating either wealth and the lifestyle it offers when one has worked hard or intelligence and education, again, when used well, necessarily make one an elitist. There's not necessarily a judgement being made against those without either position or education. And it seems to me that there are plenty of people in both parties who earned their "elite" status and genuinely want to see others accomplish the same. Then there are those that were born to it and perhaps don't appreciate it or disdain those less wealthy, educated, etc. OR those who think they're elite because they get paid a lot of money to throw a ball through a hoop, make a lame movie, or a mediocre pop album. But really...there is certainly no superiority of mind there. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 Even one of McCain's own talking head doesn't think either he or his VP is qualified to run a corp (must be harder than running the US Gov). :lol: "Earlier today, McCain spokeswoman Carly Fiorina told a St. Louis radio program that Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) was not qualified to run a business. This afternoon, she reiterated her comments on MSNBC, this time clarifying that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) — or any other presidential candidate — couldn’t run a major corporation either. Watch it: Fiorina said that “it’s a fallacy†to compare the presidency to running a company, and thus McCain’s inability to run a corporation shouldn’t matter." Of course, she has be relieved of her spokesperson duties. Okay, I noticed you didn't bother to mention that the entire clip was edited in a very biased manner... and sent out by the Obama Campaign. :confused: Fiorina actually said no one running for office (and she listed all of their names) were qualified to run a corporation. You can see the full unedited, and underreported clip I saw the full clip as she was saying it on the news, I haven't seen a version sent out by the Obama campaign. And Jenny clearly stated that she said none of the candidates were qualified. Clearly, the woman in question wasn't qualified either since she got fired from HP. She now works for Fox News *and* the McCain campaign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 I want the President of the USA to be smarter than me... I don't know how smart you are, but I think that's a pretty good thing to want in a president. Me? As time has gone on, I have resolved myself to lowered expectations. I would just like the President of the USA to be smarter than my cat's favourite nip-toy. I've been wanting that for about..... oh.... 8 years now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 One other note. Obama has given his 'permission' to use his name for other democrats trying to win their seats in congress' date=' but he refuses to share any of the $77 million he's received from donations to help them. Even if it means losing the majority back to the republicans (yippee).[/quote'] I don't think he can legallly redirect funds donated *directly to his campaign*. Do you have some hard sources on this? We're actually off to history co-op so won't be around the rest of the day or I would look. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny in Atl Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 Clearly, the woman in question wasn't qualified either since she got fired from HP. She now works for Fox News *and* the McCain campaign. And with a very nice balloon payment, despite her less than wonderful time as the CEO of HP. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.