S.A. Owl Wrote:

ShockerBob Wrote:

S.A. Owl Wrote:

ShockerBob Wrote:One thing that will kill Obama is that his parents are Muslim. The American Public is never going to accept that.

The problem isn't that "his parents are Muslim." The problem is that people are going to keep spreading misinformation like this between now and November.

I'm not spreading any misinformation. I might even vote for Obama as a Republican.

I'm just saying, that fact could keep him from getting into the white house. Even though Obama is baptized.

His dad is Muslim, his mom..no one knows but it could spin she is as well. Being how religious they are doesn't really matter to the American media, as long as pops is Muslim and Obama was raised that way...will raise eyebrows.

I certainly don't even care if Obama was Muslim. I think he's a fine individual.

But with security as the number 1 agenda in the United States, I think the Conservative media will eat him alive. IMO.

Your basic point was correct. No question: His "funny" name and partially Muslim heritage will hurt. I wasn't questioning your motives, and I knew that you were talking about how it could damage him - not that it bothered you.

But you put it out there, anyway. "His parents are Muslim" is not exactly a "lie," but it's no better than a half-truth. His father and mother aren't anything - both have been dead a long time. His mother appears to have had no religion. In your next post, you tossed out the implication he was raised Muslim. He wasn't. All of this, I think, can fairly be labeled "misinformation."

Sorry. I know I don't need to waste space here educating people.

Then there could be misinformation backing up him in his Muslim roots

There basically could be misinformation everywhere in political campaigns. That was my point.

However, I know what I saw on what is described a 'liberal' channel.

If you have some sort of hard proof he wasn't raised Muslim then I'd like to see it.

ShockerBob Wrote:If you have some sort of hard proof he wasn't raised Muslim then I'd like to see it.

Hard? I dunno. You can read all the same stuff I can. Catholic school, Muslim school, non-Muslim mom, blah blah blah.

But we're agreed, it should be immaterial. We have plenty of evidence that Christian faith doesn't guarantee presidential success.

The claim that Obama's step-father was a Wahabist does not hold water. There were no Wahabists in Indonesia in the '60's. The fact that Obama went to a Muslim school doesn't make him a Muslim. I went to a Catholic school without becoming a Catholic. All these claims are just swift boat attacks. How many emails have I rec'd warning "everyone who cares" that Barry is a radical Muslim? Duh!

I wish we could have had that big of crowd cheering on Rice when we played Texas on Ececember 9. I went to see Rice at Toyota, but I did not bother to go see Obama.

WMD Owl Wrote:

ColOwl Wrote:I thought the Republican strategy was to get crossovers to vote for Hillary so she'd get the nomination and be the easiest to beat in November. Now you say that the strategy was (or is) to crossover to vote for Obama to "get rid of Hillary"?

My subscription to the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Newsletter" lapsed....

I can see the Republican cross-over working two ways...

Cross over and vote for Hillary to drag things out until Denver, possibly causing a Floor Fight at the Convention when she pulls all her dirty tricks out of her bag, causing chaos and a divided Democratic Party. If Hillary can't have the nomination, she will take it out on Obama before Denver. After all, its "supposed to be HER nomination"...

Cross over and vote for Obama because he will fold like Dukakis did in 1988. Both Dukakis and Obama are running on "Platforms of Platitudes"... and when nailed down to specifics on what all is involved and what it will cost... the voter support disappears.

Right now "hope" and "change" are cheap...

The "Obama has no specific plans" thing is really beginning to irritate me. Yes, he does use nice rhetoric and talk about change a lot (one of the signs at the rally that made me the happiest said "ch-ch-ch changes," echoing the fact that every time I hear Obama speak I think of that David Bowie song - actually, I kinda think of it whenever I hear any of the candidates talk because they all talk about change all the time), but if you listen to his speeches and look at the policy positions on his website and whatnot, there is more than enough "beef" there...

In the interest of fairness, I would urge you to take a gander at Snopes on Obama, which goes through the numerous emails we have all recieved saying Obama is a radical muslim. If you want fodder, get a little background on his church for the past 20 years - Trinity Church of Christ. I think you will find that both the claims that Obama is Muslim and the claim that there were no Wahabists in Indonesia in the '60's are stretching the truth.

On the other hand, saying that Obama had religious training in Muslim and Catholic schools while growing up are apparently both true. Concluding that he is thus a Muslim or a Catholic based on that schooling is simply unwarranted (and contradictory)! That would be like concluding that because I drove a tractor and hoed a lot of cotton and maize on my grandparents' farm during summers while I was growing up, I must be an Aggie. Furhter, even though I like Brother Bob and, perhaps even more damning, I married a "former student", I can say without apology that I am not an Aggie, regardless of whether you think that is a good or bad thing.

As a practical matter, while I recognize that background has some value, I want to know what the man thinks and believes, not what he was exposed to as a kid. At this point I know he believes in platitudes, but I haven't seen sufficient substance or sufficient value statements to determine if I could support him. I haven't seen anything that would cut either way terribly much yet, so he is, in my book, somewhere between the extremely undesireable (in my opinion) Billary and the mixed bag McCain presents. Thus, when I started trying to figure out who to vote for, I ended up with rankings of the then front runners from least desireable to least undesireable (and none fit into the desireable category), whittled down to the three current frontrunners, of Billary,Obama, McCain. For those of you who want to say that is a party line up, I note that Rudy was between Billary and Obama in that initial list and McCain was not at the top of the list either.

Given that ranking, I am torn between whether to vote in the primary for Billary on the basis that she is more likely to lose the general election or Obama on the basis that he is the lesser of the two evils in the primary or to try to figure out what vote will cause the biggest problem within the Democratic party come convention time and whether that is a sufficient reason to vote one way or the other. But to say that you can't vote for Obama because he is Muslim makes me discount your opinion dramatically. I'm not looking solely for Christian candidates (although I confess that I have a preference for those who are practicing the Christian faith), but rather looking at whether their policy positions are consistent with there I believe they ought to be.

I think a lot of voters are in that same boat, which is why Romney's Mormon faith (which I do NOT consider to be Christian) was not a big hurdle for me but did give me pause to consider what the policy ramifications of that belief system would be. If Obama were a practicing Muslim, then I would give the same consideration to how that fictional hypothesis would be manifested in his policy decisions too. But for those of you who give us all this fictional mudslinging, it simply causes me to want to thrash you since those on this board are more willing and able to wade through the trash to find the truth than 99.9% of the general populace. But then again, there is a reason politics gets ugly sometimes.

Now: How did this relate to Rice athletics again? Oh, yeah ... the rally was on one of Rice's home away from home courts.

Fort Bend Owl Wrote:I'm curious - what do you think the crowd breakdown was in terms of black vs. white?

Hillary's in big-time trouble. I'm wondering if she even keeps going to Ohio and Texas at this point. Maybe she does, but I bet she starts scaling back her operations. Either that or she has to go very negative. I don't see much other options for her than that.

actually, FBO it was a very diverse crowd. easily 30-40% black, another 30-40% white, and the other 20-40% coming from every other race out there. people of every age, definitely a lot of young people (< 30 years old). albeit, i'm no good at speculating anything political, but methinks that unless hilary can amass such a diverse following it'll be difficult to mount a victory.

i'm planning on voting for Obama--tomorrow in fact--and I was still somewhat taken aback by the amount of cynical TV-pandering BS that seems to go on at political rallies. This was my first rally, but I bet many are the same. Highlights: the handpicked super-diverse crowd down on the floor, who were then given signs that were made to look homemade but were actually provided BY the campaign. Now, I'm sure all campaigns do this, and in today's era of TV-driven politics it makes sense. I shouldn't have been surprised. But I was. OK, so I'm a little naive.

It was interesting to compare this crowd with my last big political crowd, which would date to when I participated in the March for Women's Lives in DC in 2004. Even though that crowd was much bigger and politically leaned mostly the same way, this was much more diverse. Does that represent a shift in the party constituency, y'all think? Or is it just that a minority candidate brings out minorities?

In defense of our friendly neighborhood Cougar, I didn't see anywhere where he said he wouldn't vote for Obama because he was hypothetically Muslim or his parents were or whatever, I believe he was just making the point that you can't go broke overestimating the stupidity of the American people and their willingness to buy this kind of BS - he was saying that while it meant nothing to him, it might mean something to OTHER PEOPLE...

oh, and I too loved the fake home-made signs (there was, for quite some time, a black woman, who had been handed signs because she was near the barricade and would then pass them into the crowd in front of the stage, who was holding a "Latina for Obama" sign and looking a bit confused). the people in front of him were sorta handpicked (mostly young people and minorities from what I could see) as they entered or happened to end up in the lucky line, at least as far as I can understand from what some friends of mine who ended up down there told me. That being said, the people behind Obama (and on-screen more, I imagine) were not handpicked, they, from what I understand, were lucky enough to randomly receive a "VIP" ticket that got them into the lower rows (at least, I think that's what it was, some of them were also actual VIPs - hardcore volunteers and people who worked for elected officials and unions supporting Obama and whatnot). They were given generic "Change We Can Believe In" signs or Texas flags...

RiceDoc Wrote:But to say that you can't vote for Obama because he is Muslim makes me discount your opinion dramatically. I'm not looking solely for Christian candidates (although I confess that I have a preference for those who are practicing the Christian faith), but rather looking at whether their policy positions are consistent with there I believe they ought to be.

Just making sure that you know I wasn't saying that from my point of view.

I was just saying Conservatives will take this, spin it and run with it.

ShockerBob Wrote:

RiceDoc Wrote:But to say that you can't vote for Obama because he is Muslim makes me discount your opinion dramatically. I'm not looking solely for Christian candidates (although I confess that I have a preference for those who are practicing the Christian faith), but rather looking at whether their policy positions are consistent with there I believe they ought to be.

Just making sure that you know I wasn't saying that from my point of view.

I was just saying Conservatives will take this, spin it and run with it.

Got it! And didn't mean to imply that you were talking about personal views as opposed to those of the "unwashed masses".

RiceDoc Wrote:

ShockerBob Wrote:

RiceDoc Wrote:But to say that you can't vote for Obama because he is Muslim makes me discount your opinion dramatically. I'm not looking solely for Christian candidates (although I confess that I have a preference for those who are practicing the Christian faith), but rather looking at whether their policy positions are consistent with there I believe they ought to be.

Just making sure that you know I wasn't saying that from my point of view.

I was just saying Conservatives will take this, spin it and run with it.

Got it! And didn't mean to imply that you were talking about personal views as opposed to those of the "unwashed masses".

That's what I figured but just wanted to make sure.

The sad thing is, the 'unwashed masses' usually sway the elections...

CTRice10 Wrote:Oh, and I too loved the fake home-made signs (there was, for quite some time, a black woman, who had been handed signs because she was near the barricade and would then pass them into the crowd in front of the stage, who was holding a "Latina for Obama" sign and looking a bit confused). the people in front of him were sorta handpicked (mostly young people and minorities from what I could see) as they entered or happened to end up in the lucky line, at least as far as I can understand from what some friends of mine who ended up down there told me. That being said, the people behind Obama (and on-screen more, I imagine) were not handpicked, they, from what I understand, were lucky enough to randomly receive a "VIP" ticket that got them into the lower rows (at least, I think that's what it was, some of them were also actual VIPs - hardcore volunteers and people who worked for elected officials and unions supporting Obama and whatnot). They were given generic "Change We Can Believe In" signs or Texas flags...

It was definitely the folks behind him that got the TV face time. The front rows were non-entities in the scheme of things until they panned back at the end of his speech. Then, you just saw the back of them, and they and their signs weren't really well lit.

The folks behind him definitely looked more normal than traditional party bigwigs that tend to get on the dais in most other situations. He has that on McCain and Clinton (in part because they use smaller venues/stages as opposed to a dais with folks behind). But I'm always amused when folks behind a speaker (not just Obama) get all excited and raise up their signs - only to hold them upside down, sometimes for extended periods of time! Yup, those are my voters.

I was at a lunch of financial types today and when the speaker (from NY) asked what was happening here two school of thought were expressed by the self described Rebublicans:

1. Rebs were crossing over to vote for Obama, who they thought would be easier to beat; and
2. Rebublican women were going to cross over and vote for Obama because they hate Hillery.

This was news to me, since I can see the public and independent voters might have Clinton Fatigue.

If you think the Clinton smears on Obama are bad, wait for what happens if he is the nominee. Just my opinion of what certain elements of the right will do, the same folks who trashed McCain in S.C. in 2000.

WMD Owl Wrote:

ColOwl Wrote:I thought the Republican strategy was to get crossovers to vote for Hillary so she'd get the nomination and be the easiest to beat in November. Now you say that the strategy was (or is) to crossover to vote for Obama to "get rid of Hillary"?

My subscription to the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Newsletter" lapsed....

I can see the Republican cross-over working two ways...

Cross over and vote for Hillary to drag things out until Denver, possibly causing a Floor Fight at the Convention when she pulls all her dirty tricks out of her bag, causing chaos and a divided Democratic Party. If Hillary can't have the nomination, she will take it out on Obama before Denver. After all, its "supposed to be HER nomination"...

Cross over and vote for Obama because he will fold like Dukakis did in 1988. Both Dukakis and Obama are running on "Platforms of Platitudes"... and when nailed down to specifics on what all is involved and what it will cost... the voter support disappears.

Now that doesn't just prove my point that the Republican strategists are discombobulated? Half of their followers are crossing over to vote for Hillary so Denver is a mess, but the other half are crossing over to vote for Obama 'cause he's a reincarnation of Dukakis. They both mutually cancel each other out because the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing....or should that be wings?
Reminds me of the joke about the telekinetically gifted soul who taught his students how to project their minds onto street lights so they would all turn green as they approached them. So here's the master going north and the disciple going west, both approaching the same intersection at the same time......
Well, you should get the picture.

GOBAMA! Beat Auburn, or Georgia, . . . or whatever!

ColOwl Wrote:

WMD Owl Wrote:

ColOwl Wrote:I thought the Republican strategy was to get crossovers to vote for Hillary so she'd get the nomination and be the easiest to beat in November. Now you say that the strategy was (or is) to crossover to vote for Obama to "get rid of Hillary"?

My subscription to the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Newsletter" lapsed....

I can see the Republican cross-over working two ways...

Cross over and vote for Hillary to drag things out until Denver, possibly causing a Floor Fight at the Convention when she pulls all her dirty tricks out of her bag, causing chaos and a divided Democratic Party. If Hillary can't have the nomination, she will take it out on Obama before Denver. After all, its "supposed to be HER nomination"...

Cross over and vote for Obama because he will fold like Dukakis did in 1988. Both Dukakis and Obama are running on "Platforms of Platitudes"... and when nailed down to specifics on what all is involved and what it will cost... the voter support disappears.

Now that doesn't just prove my point that the Republican strategists are discombobulated? Half of their followers are crossing over to vote for Hillary so Denver is a mess, but the other half are crossing over to vote for Obama 'cause he's a reincarnation of Dukakis. They both mutually cancel each other out because the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing....or should that be wings?

I guess you need to make room for third "half", and let go of the conspiracy theories for a minute.

I usually vote Republican and in fact normally call myself a Republican, even though i am not active in party activities and remain open to other candidates, normally voting a split ticket.

I am weighing the option of voting for Hillary in the Democratic primary, not for any of the reasons y'all outline, but for the very simple reason that i think she would make a better President than Obama. There are three candidates left who have a realistic chance at being the next President and i would like like to see the best two square off.

I may not do it because there are other considerations, primarily local races, but if i do it will not be for the reasons you ascribe to 100% of the crossover vote.

edit: After reading BBaker's post, i would like to add that I have heard nothing, nada, zip, officially or unofficially, directly or through the grapevine, suggesting, asking, telling, in any way whatsoever, anyone to vote in the Democratic primary for any reason whatsoever. Hope that's clear.

I am a Republican and would never crossover to vote for a Dem just to mess with someone. Why would anyone do that?

I went to the Republican political chair meeting last week. No one ever mentions stuff like that. I wonder where someone would mention that to someone else? So if you are going to do it, you keep it to yourself, I'd imagine.

Course we think that what Dems do all the time. Right? Yeah we do demonize each other.

bbaker Wrote:Yeah we do demonize each other.

but isn't it fun sometimes!

I can understand both schools of thought among Republican fence-jumpers (i.e., whether voting for Hillary or Obama messes with the Democrats more), but either way, it's a bad idea and creates bad ju-ju to try to mess with the other party's primary. Exhibit A -- 1966 California Republican gubernatorial primary, where Governor Pat Brown (the Democratic incumbent) had his flying monkeys release dirt on former SF Mayor George Christopher, because he would be such a stronger general-election candidate than the other Republican (movie actor R. Reagan). Democrats should curse Brown's name to the end of time for that one.

To the extent that religion becomes an issue for Obama, the Muslim stuff is not likely to fly (at least nowhere near the surface). His church in Chicago, however, with its self-trumpeted "Black Value System," is more likely to be a headache for him. Regardless of the merits of the "BVS," it will be easy to caricature as the the First Church of We-Hate-Whitey, which is clearly not a message that Obama's campaign wants to send.

The Republican strategy is to have Republicans vote in the Republican primary and Democrats vote in the Democrat primary. Your party affiliation in Texas is set by the party primary you voted in. You have to vote in this Republican primary to be eligible to be a delegate to the precinct, senatorial or county, state and national
conventions. I am a Republic precinct chair and I have to vote in the Republican primary to be eligible to hold the office. I voted the first day of early voting on Tuesday.

A Democrat JP in my county was ineligible to hold his office when he voted in a Republican primary four years ago. So it is important to vote in the primary of the party that you wish to belong to and not cross over.

bbaker Wrote:I am a Republican and would never crossover to vote for a Dem just to mess with someone. Why would anyone do that?

I went to the Republican political chair meeting last week. No one ever mentions stuff like that. I wonder where someone would mention that to someone else? So if you are going to do it, you keep it to yourself, I'd imagine.

Course we think that what Dems do all the time. Right? Yeah we do demonize each other.