Why Obama won't want to debate McCain much

[Xavier_Onassis]

I would no more hire a butcher to change out my kidney than I would hire a doctor to shingle my house , the skill sets are not overlapping enough, unfortunately due to government regulation , I am forbidden from hireing someone qualified to wire the space shuttle to wire my house , the pidgionholeing of skills is not always based on competance.

I don't think that study of the law is necessacerily bad training for a lawmaker or executive in government , but to make it such a closed shop seaprates the people from the govbernment and leads to people being in power who do not respect the people s wisdom to decide the course of their own lives. People seem to be returning the favor and are paying little respect to the Congress and presidency , even the judicary nowadays.

It isn't that they are poorly qualified to be in government , it is their contempt itself for the people who choose to raise food or drive trucks for their liveing.

============================
If you pick the surgeon instead of the butcher to operate on you, you are an ELITIST, since you prefer to have a member of a small, qualified group to do the job.

I do not think that liberals discriminate against small farmers or truckers nearly as much as the Republicans, who favor the large farmers and the lower-paid non-union, non independent truckers every time. Republicans favor "right to work" laws, which certainly make improving wages more difficult for non-independent truckers, and also favor paying owners of huge agribusiness enterprises to benefit the most from soil bank, subsidies and other sorts of government aid. If they  favored family farms, then every year there would be more, not fewer of them. But the reverse is true.

I do not hold anyone in contempt, but if I choose a qualified professional for any job, I realize that this is by definition being an elitist. I am afraid that your definition of elitist (people Hannity and Rush dislike) is not an accurate one.
 
If your space shuttle engineering buddy wanted to wire your house, all he would need to do is take an exam. I have  PhD and am not qualified to teach in public schools except with a provisional certificate, because I have not taken a methodology course in the last ten years. Same difference, and you can't blame that on just liberals, either. I also would have to pay $150 to be fingerprinted to do practice teaching before I could enter a classroom, because somehow the fingerprints I submitted in 1986 have "expired". In this case, a specific right-wing idiot on the MD County School Board is responsible. It really means that they threw out my records because I have not worked there, but they won't admit this. Fortunately, I have no desire to work there.

Your NASA friend could wire your house. You just couldn't get the county to certify it as being up to code. Big Deal.

The main point is that elitism does exist, and much of the time is is a GOOD idea.

Elitism is similar to professionalism. It can be a GOOD thing.

People who vote against a candidate because he is accused of "elitism" by Rush are your basic yokels, rubes, hicks, and fools. I do not oppose giving them the right to vote, but I do favor educating them.

I would say that Obama, as a law school graduate, is certainly more academically qualified to run the country than McCain, who is probably better qualified at flying jet aircraft and enduring pain in a POW camp. Probably not as good at managing banking, either. He is qualified for Medicare, so he might cost slightly less in medical payments, but then he is older and has more health problems.

Lots of places would not hire McCain because he is too old, can't raise his arms above his head and has a history of cancer, which means that the group insurance wouldn't approve him. Ironically, it is the GOP that would be most likely to support the employer on all these policies.

[Michael Tee]

The dumbing down of America - - JFK and his entourage were repeatedly referred to as an elite, the graduates of elite Ivy League universities, authors of renowned books, lovers of opera, not of Grand Ole Opry, etc.

Now in the days of the worst President ever, "elite" (like liberal) has become a bad word that everyone has to run from.  Dumb (mediocre to abysmal grades) is good, elite is bad.   Elite is bad, but the meaningless "pursuit of excellence" is on everyone's lips.  The U.S. has become the Republic of Bullshit.

[Xavier_Onassis]

How does one pursue excellence and avoid being labeled an elitist?

Pursuing excellence is attempting to be the best. And are not the best always an elite?

[Amianthus]

How does one pursue excellence and avoid being labeled an elitist?

Pursuing excellence is attempting to be the best. And are not the best always an elite?

e-lit-ism
n.

   1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
   2.
         1. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
         2. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.

While I try to be the best professional I can be in my career, I don't use that excellence to try and dominate others, nor do I think that I deserve favored treatment because of that excellence. You, on the other hand, have claimed that the hicks and bumpkins should be ignored "for their own good" and that your education gives you the superiority needed to make those decisions for them.

[sirs]

Here here.  Well summized, Ami     

[Michael Tee]

Well, what "favoured treatment" has Obama claimed for himself by virtue of his own persona or the class to which he belongs?

I believe the charge of "elitism" leveled against Obama refers not to any claim he has made for "favoured treatment"  (he hasn't, as far as I'm aware) but to his alleged contempt for the ability of the masses to manage certain aspects of their own affairs.  It's the old "pointy-headed intellectuals" argument against government regulation, where "elites" try to regulate a market best self-regulated (allegedly) by its participants, letting the goldfish swim with the sharks on the theory that the goldfish don't need any protection from the sharks but should be allowed to compete with them mano-a-mano. 

[Xavier_Onassis]

You, on the other hand, have claimed that the hicks and bumpkins should be ignored "for their own good" and that your education gives you the superiority needed to make those decisions for them.

============================================================
This is total nonsense.

I have never proposed voting on behalf of anyone else. That is clearly untrue.

If I were ignoring anyone, I would not be responding to them.

The entire right wing schpiel on "elitism" is easily recognized bullshit. 

[Plane]

How does one pursue excellence and avoid being labeled an elitist?

Pursuing excellence is attempting to be the best. And are not the best always an elite?

e-lit-ism
n.

   1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
   2.
         1. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
         2. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.

While I try to be the best professional I can be in my career, I don't use that excellence to try and dominate others, nor do I think that I deserve favored treatment because of that excellence. You, on the other hand, have claimed that the hicks and bumpkins should be ignored "for their own good" and that your education gives you the superiority needed to make those decisions for them.

I was going to say this , maybe not as well.

[Plane]

<<Since the lifetime of Marx , what has gotten worse?>>

Pointless exercise comparing now with then.  I would imagine some places got better, some (Africa) worse, but what's the difference?  The real question isn't "What's got better since the time of Marx?" you might as well as "What's got better since the fall of the Roman Empire?"  The real issue is what's wrong NOW and how can we fix it in the shortest time.

I think all of history is instructive , man has not changed his basic nature since the retreat of the ice. The oldest known musical instruments date from about that time and it resembles the Recorder your kid learns on in school. The oldest painting and sculpture known date from that time and were admired by Picasso.

To consider our era peculiar is a sort of provincialism. People were not dumber before writeing was developed , if anything they probly had better memorys , people are not smarter after the development of the calculator , if anything we suffer loss of internal capability fro constant use of the crutch.


Shakespere inspires copycats much as Shakespere himself took ideas from older classics , really good ideas never die , even bad ideas have long spans.

[Michael Tee]

Obviously there are lessons we can learn from history, but there are major changes in the social and the geopolitical environment that did NOT always exist, for example, the threat of nuclear war, to pick only the most obvious. 

Learning from history is no substitute for addressing current problems on their own terms and analyzing them in real time.  The big danger of course in over-stressing history is that you can't find exact parallels.  For example, if I told you that no foreign power has subdued the Afghans in recent history, citing the British and Russian experiences, you would not roll over and agree with me, you would search for and find the relevant differences.

What I said about the need for regime change in America, which kicked off this sub-thread, seems to me to be self-evident.  A re-examination of history since the birth of Karl Marx, in view of the huge number of variant factors that would have to be covered and the numerous distinctions that would have to be drawn, would be a huge enterprise of minimal benefit since the conclusions themselves would be subject to endless disputation all about times and places of little direct relevance to the particular problems of Afghanistan today.

[Plane]

Obviously there are lessons we can learn from history, but there are major changes in the social and the geopolitical environment that did NOT always exist, for example, the threat of nuclear war, to pick only the most obvious. 

Learning from history is no substitute for addressing current problems on their own terms and analyzing them in real time.  The big danger of course in over-stressing history is that you can't find exact parallels.  For example, if I told you that no foreign power has subdued the Afghans in recent history, citing the British and Russian experiences, you would not roll over and agree with me, you would search for and find the relevant differences.

What I said about the need for regime change in America, which kicked off this sub-thread, seems to me to be self-evident.  A re-examination of history since the birth of Karl Marx, in view of the huge number of variant factors that would have to be covered and the numerous distinctions that would have to be drawn, would be a huge enterprise of minimal benefit since the conclusions themselves would be subject to endless disputation all about times and places of little direct relevance to the particular problems of Afghanistan today.

OK, more to the cetnter theme of the thread , when asked only one senator was pointed out who might be to BHO's  left in voteing record.
 There are one hundred Senators chosen as representing every state.

Why should the American people choose a cheif executive that leads to the left of 97% of us? That is like eightysix degrees off center line .

[Michael Tee]

First of all, I'm not sure who measured how far to the left Obama had tilted or what measuring technique was used.

Secondly, I have to note that only two of the U.S. Senators are in the race, not all 100 of them, so it's natural to expect that the two opponents would not be both from the exact centre of the spectrum, but that one would represent a left-of-centre and one a right-of-centre constituency.  Then the question is, not which one is closer to the centre, but how far is each from the centre, ideally using the same standard of measurement for left-of and right-of politicians.   If measured that way, I doubt that there would be all that much difference in where they stand. 

And third, if being centrist were the be-all and end-all of Presidential qualifications, why have an election at all?  Why not just use the measurements and every four years pick the guy who's been most consistently closest to the centre to be the next President?

[Plane]

First of all, I'm not sure who measured how far to the left Obama had tilted or what measuring technique was used.

I asked here a cupple of days ago , I got one answer , I am content with the expertise availible here.

Secondly, I have to note that only two of the U.S. Senators are in the race, not all 100 of them, so it's natural to expect that the two opponents would not be both from the exact centre of the spectrum, but that one would represent a left-of-centre and one a right-of-centre constituency.  Then the question is, not which one is closer to the centre, but how far is each from the centre, ideally using the same standard of measurement for left-of and right-of politicians.   If measured that way, I doubt that there would be all that much difference in where they stand. 

Most of the nation defines the center, the far frindges are where Teddy Rosevelt warned us to look for the kooks

And third, if being centrist were the be-all and end-all of Presidential qualifications, why have an election at all?  Why not just use the measurements and every four years pick the guy who's been most consistently closest to the centre to be the next President?

It isn't , being wise , coragious and intelligent is better than being in agreement with the majority, but why is BHO pretending very hard to be centrest and playing down his connections to the extreme bomb tossing left?

[Michael Tee]

<<but why is BHO pretending very hard to be centrest and playing down his connections to the extreme bomb tossing left?>>

I think the answer is (a) he wants to get elected and (b) his "connections" to the "extreme bomb-tossing left" are marginal to non-existent, and probably weaker than John Insane's connections to the abortion-clinic bombings and the White Citizen's Councils.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The competence and the vision of a president is far, far more important than this arbitrary "left-right" stuff. A good leader can convince the people that his course is the proper one.

McCain was somehow unable to convince the voters in the GOP primaries that he was a superior choice to Juniorbush, although this was clearly the case.

Obama managed to defeat Hillary Clinton despite her formidable experience in the Senate and her knowledge of how Washington works. I would say that this indicates that Obama is a superior leader.

As a rule, we have these think tanks who decide who is more to the left or the right based on their votes in the Senate. But any voter with half a brain does not decide every issue based on whether the Cato Institute or the Progressive Coalition or whoever opposes or favors it, he decides what he believes on his own.

Some require the help of Rush to decide. This is so everyone can play. It's a bit like the Special Olympics.