UPDATE: Our guest writer from last weekend sent in his retort, an opposition piece to the Pro-bama campaign here. Obamaniacs v. Reaganites.

Recently, as in yesterday, kottke linked to a story about a man who started his own personal challenge to widdle his possessions down until he had only 100 things remaining. The premise immediately intrigued me. As any regular reader knows, I struggle with the consumption obsessed nature of our country. Individuals such as the No Impact Man are very inspirational. But as much as I try to live with some of those 'minimalist' goals in my own life I feel most of the time I am really no different then most everyone else and the thought of actually only possessing 100 things seems exceedingly far fetched. We all have 'stuff' and as much as we would like to not be so cluttered at home, some of it, while seldom used, holds certain sentimental value. Else, why would we possess it? But is clutter, also known in some cases as sentimental 'stuff' really so bad?

Editor's Note: We were supposed to have a guest writer today, Stan, to rebut an answer I gave to a question he asked, but Stan couldn't get it together in time. So I'll post the question and the answer, and if Stan comes through, we'll add in his rebuttal. This conversation happened in the comment section of the Hypertext Bazaar - 06.03.08. Cheers!

stan said:

Question #1: Do the blog hosts like Obama so much because they like him or because they dislike President Bush? If you like Obama so much, what is the reason specifically, not the typical and ambiguous 'change' mantra please.

Question #2: Since we just had a discussion about the shallowness of John Edwards and his politically motivated actions (endorsing Obama only when certain victory appeared to be at hand), how does Obama's move to disassociate from United Trinity Church (or whatever the name of the church is) strike everybody? doesn't that seem a bit politically motivated?

timothy j carroll said:

Great question, Stan.

To start, I grew up on Reagan and Bush, and came of age with Slick Willy.

Reagan was like a grandfather; one that you eventually learn used to squeeze money out of poor people and looked good doing it.

Bush was like a father; he navigated the first war of my life (Cold War aside) and he generally didn't suck too much.

Clinton was like a cool uncle; he liked to smoke cigars and got caught screwing the waitress. And he didn't have any wars.

My voting history: 2000 - Nader, 2004 - Kerry

(Let's ignore for the moment that both of these elections were most likely stolen.)

In 2000, I wasn't completely sold on Gore, I didn't think Bush had a shot, and I'm all for more than two choices, hence my third party vote. It wasn't a vote for Nader so much - I did think he was an honest, forthright guy - as it was a vote to let us have more choices. I think that's very important.

In 2004, I was completely against Bush. And I didn't think Bush had a shot. Kerry was the pick because I abhorred the president, especially his mishandling and mismanagement of 9/11.

Regret: Not that my exact vote needed to be counted, per se, but I do wish that I had voted for Al Gore in 2000.

Here's my situation.

1. I thought McCain was the best nominee in 2000. I never had confidence in Jr. Not for one minute. At this point, sidling up with the Pres takes McCain out of the picture for me.

2. The September 11 attacks brought on 2,974 fatalities, excluding hijackers. The man who caused the 9/11 tragedy is not in Iraq. There are no WMDs in Iraq. 4,087 American soldiers have died so far in Iraq; 312 more Coalition deaths; 49,297 Iraqi deaths; and 29,978 American soldiers wounded. That is an extremely reprehensible morass that we have entered into, and accountability is deserved. Being in the Iraqi War is not just Jr.'s fault; it was the fault of anyone else who aided and abetted.

3. I like Hilary Clinton, and flirted with the idea of supporting her for a minute. I thought Obama may be in over his head. I thought that Romney (Reaganite?) would have been the Republican nominee and I liked Clinton v. Romney in my favor. She was attractive, as a candidate.

4. Clinton voted for the Iraqi War. I CANNOT get past this fact. Nothing else about her is unattractive to me, as a voter. But I saw it coming, this unfathomable abyss of death that is "Mission Accomplished." She should have seen it coming. Barack Obama saw it coming.

5. Obama is an attractive, enigmatic candidate. He's very easy to get behind, if you're an open-minded voter. His speeches are both intoxicating and motivating. However, I am convinced that there is no possible way for the man to live up to the hype he has created. But I'm willing to give him the chance.

My expectations are much more tame than Obama's rhetoric. I am an optimistic realist.

As far as the church: Yes. It is political. But we talked about the self-serving politics of Edwards. Bill Richardson's decision - that we applauded - would also be political, but not self-serving. The question would then be, is Obama dropping out of his church politically self-serving?

Honestly, I don't know.

It would be self-serving if he thought he was losing voters, and that he could save himself politically by cutting ties. But many people who liked him already didn't stop liking him because of the church.

His being in the church didn't change my mind as a voter. Obama had a religious leader who questioned the administration's handling of 9/11 (as do I) and was outwardly critical of racism (as am I).

But more than part of the story, The Rev. was allowing the antics to become the actual story. I believe he didn't leave Obama much of a choice.

GW Bush talks directly to God, so he wouldn't even need a church. But seriously, Bush puts religion smack dab in the middle of his politics. Obama, by disassociating from the church, is actually taking his religion out of his politics, sacrificing his associations for the sake of winning the presidency. Country before self, or self-serving politics?

Put it in perspective: If Clinton disgraced the presidency by committing adultery, what has Bush done with all of that blood on his hands. And I bet Bush has a very nice pastor. So now does Rev. Wright still matter so much?

Stan, if you would like to rebut as a weekend guest post, or just present some dissenting opinions, please email me (on Bios page).

Thanks for reading,

tjc

SIDE NOTE: I first endorsed Obama as the Captain of the Soul Force.

CLARIFICATION: I am a registered Independent, so I could not vote in the closed primaries in Pennsylvania.

Stan responds... finally!

Firstly, I enjoy your website and the usually thought-provoking and sometimes insightful information contained on it or linked to in it. I suppose I'm so enamored with the political position of the blog hosts because, as good as I find the information on the website (which leads me to believe in the elevated intelligence of it's hosts), I cannot understand their firm commitment to the Obama campaign.

I will try and make this post as concise as possible for ease of reading, but also because I don't have the luxury of much free time. I will start with a little about me - background and my political leanings - then a response.

I am father of two small children, both under two, and husband of one beautiful woman and fantastic mother. I'm son to caring and gracious parents, blood-brother to one and uncle to many. I'm conservative in most matters, above and beyond the political spectrum. I tend to lean Libertarian, but would like a little more government involvement than they propose, so I end up Republican who firmly believes in the American people and their ability to adapt and thrive when left to their own devices. I am not the mean, nasty, old, greedy, grumpy white guy everyone imagines.

What do I want from my government:

1. Strong national defense/security

2. Police and firefighters

3. Roads, infrastructure

4. Some regulatory agencies to keep people out of danger and protect American's interests - FDA, SEC, FBI, DOJ, etc.

What don't I want from my government:

1. Over involvement in every issue

2. Socialism

3. Weak policies, followed by weak or no enforcement

Comments on your replies to my questions:

tjc - "Reagan was like a grandfather; one that you eventually learn used to squeeze money out of poor people and looked good doing it."

Where in the world do you get Reagan squeezing money out of poor people? (Editor's Note: trickle down economics) Reagan was a great president and he refreshed the capitalist foundation this nation was built on and prospers from. We needed Reagan to undo what Jimmy Carter did with his reckless fiscal policy. Carter will go down as one of - if not the - weakest president in recent memory. He is still out there, pandering to every thug regime in the world. And for what? To try to establish a foreign identity that was so terribly weak and absent under his administration. He could best serve the country by staying at home and buttoning his lip. Tim said he is too young to remember Carter's administration, and I was too young to recall it personally, but from my reading of history (economic and geopolitical) he is not looked kindly upon.

tjc - "(Let's ignore for the moment that both of these elections were most likely stolen.)"

Again, lets be honest here, this is a cheap shot. The Supreme Court decided it. How else do you want it decided? I am sure you will say popular vote count, but general election is only that, a popular vote count, it is the Electoral College votes that really count. Same way as the super delegates would have decided the Democratic primary in the event of a close race. If you don't like it, ask your representatives to change the laws, but not in the middle of an election.

tjc - "In 2000, I wasn't completely sold on Gore, I didn't think Bush had a shot, and I'm all for more than two choices, hence my third party vote."

Totally agree - we need more than two parties. I think the two we have are much more similar than they claim when they bash each other. I believe only what I believe politically, not the espoused views of the party I tend to side with, a.k.a. I don't toe the party line. I, personally, am very disappointed with the Republican party, too. They have been irresponsible and have not stuck to the platform of fiscal responsibility to which I adhere. Now we are going to have to choose between a moderate Democrat (McCain) and a Socialist (Obama).

You then list your five bullet points about your current views. Good for you, I like people who thinks things out and come to a decision. I applaud your efforts, my real fear is that not nearly enough people care to engage in critical thinking and formulate their own opinions. War opposition is your thing - great. You have a cause and you should vote your convictions.

Personally, I don't think President Bush, or anybody, wants to be at war. Whether you think he is right or wrong on the war, he is doing what he thinks protects U.S. interests. Maybe he sees the need to have a stronghold in a volatile Mideast that controls world oil flow, which, like it or not, is essential for our societal functioning and the base of our strong economy and power on the world stage. Establish a position over the weakest player in the area - before everything spirals further out of control - and instill some fear in the neighbors. I don't know if he was/is right, but he is not going to war for war's sake.

We know that turning a blind eye to the Mideast has left us with bombings in New York in 1994 and 2001. Part of President Bush's war problem has been its weak communication. Halfway into the war, the administration seemed to change the message from 'Liberate Iraq' and 'Reduce the threat to the U.S. from a hostile regime,' and adopted a 'Promote Democracy around the world' theme. The change in tone has confused and muddled why we went there, in American minds, and this has left many wondering what our real intentions are and what the end result will be.

tjc: "The man who caused the 9/11 tragedy is not in Iraq. There are no WMDs in Iraq."

True, but Osama bin Laden is almost certainly in Pakistan, with his abilities to plan other attacks greatly diminished and Al Qaeda weakened. Will someone else step into the power vacuum and take his place? Definitely. Will we be attacked again in the U.S.? Yes. Can we do anything to make the extremists/terrorists stop hating us? No.

Time and again they have developed new and constantly-changing reasons to declare war on America. First, they don't like our culture; then it was Iran; then because we had troops in Saudi Arabia; then because our involvement in Afghanistan against the Soviets; now because of Iraq. And guess what? There will always be a reason no matter what we do. Or do not do.

We cannot ignore that many of the Mideast regimes at least cooperate with the rogue individuals on some level. I am not so concerned whether or not we can prove it in some court. Did we find in WMDs in Iraq? No, but we know they used them a few years ago on the Kurds and I would bet lots of money that they got shipped to Syria or Lebanon, where they know we would not forcibly look. Again we may not prove it in a court, but let's make reasonable assumptions.

You called Romney a Reaganite; well, Romney would have had my vote, but he didn't make it to Pennsylvania.

My reasoning: I like fiscally responsible people with real world experience. Romney headed up Bain Capital, a successful financial firm for years. He also headed the U.S. Olympic Committee in Utah to rave reviews. The government should be run in a fiscally responsible fashion; it is too big and expensive not to be managed well. So I, in general, tend to favor economically-focused candidates especially those who have been successful in business. If America doesn't have overall economic prosperity, how will we fund all of our programs?

Obama is, no doubt, an engaging and charismatic speaker. Most - myself included - wish we possessed such skill. Furthermore, he seems to be passionate and I admire passionate people in all endeavors. Heck, I even kind of liked Howard Dean in 2004 for his passion, even though his big government programs would have been disastrous. We need to be able to separate emotional factors like Dean's passion or Obama's oratorical prowess from their underlying political stances.

When Obama's church fiasco was exposed, we discussed self-serving politics. My point was he joined the church and described Rev Wright as his spiritual mentor who had a profound effect on his religious beliefs for 20 plus years. Now, it has been revealed that Wright said more than a few very distasteful things, which Obama does not recall, but Obama is willing to walk away from it. If Wright was as influential in Obama's life as he suggests, either he knew what Wright was preaching or Wright wasn't nearly as influential as Obama claimed. It seems that either answer leads me to think the decisions were totally political in nature. Not that it's necessarily bad, but how firmly will he stick to his beliefs and stances if elected to office?

Do you really believe that Obama sat and listened in Rev. Wright's church for years, yet claims not to be aware of some of the things he was saying? These statements do not stand alone, so either Obama is not telling the truth about what he heard from Wright over the years or he is not terribly good at reading between the lines. Or his long term relations with Rezko, should we believe he had no idea what he were up to even though he was his neighbor and financial confidant, or at very least his real estate deal-maker? Or his ties to William Ayres and Bernardine Dohrn, radical anti-establishment activists with a history of domestic terrorist actions. When asked in 2001 about his radical history, Ayres said, "I don't regret setting bombs, I feel we didn't do enough."

These relationships - showing lapses in judgment - are not casting him in a good light or in good company.

Additionally, his naiveté in foreign policy affairs hearkens back to Carter's. Does anybody recall that Carter went and signed all of these peace accords and thought he solved the world's problems, only to turn around two years later and find all of the countries he made pacts with pursuing weapons or nuclear ambitions? Somehow Carter was shocked, but no one else was.

Obama will sit down with Iran, South Korea, Venezuela, et. al. and talk to them. Wow! What a novel idea. Don't you think others tried this before? Talking isn't the problem, getting them to listen is. He apparently believes his charm will smooth talk will win over everyone as it has so many Americans so far. I got news - the world can be a rough place and we need to deal with or confront many unsavory characters and sometimes charm isn't the best method for obtaining our desired results.

Politically expedient choices like this will make any reasonable voter question his candidacy at least on some level. Not that we all have not made mistakes or errors in judgement at times, but we are talking about the President of the United States.

All of this aside, my above complaints about Obama's candidacy are not the reasons he will not get my vote: policies stances will be my determining factors.

Just because Obama can make everything sound good, doesn't mean his policies are good for America. Unfortunately for us conservatives, politics is not about facts; it's about what politicians can get people to believe.

By the way: awesome speech from Obama about fatherhood and responsibility on Father's Day. More speeches like that, followed up by actions to support the speeches, or ways to bring about 'change,' and I may yet be convinced

Stan's random musings

Major media unabashed favoritism for Obama is as clear and bordering on pathetic. After securing the nomination, Katie Couric had this series of rigorous inquiries:

1) In our latest poll, 59% of Democratic primary voters, including 46% of your voters, think you should select Senator Clinton to be your running mate. So in the spirit of Kennedy picking Johnson and Reagan choosing Bush, why not pick Senator Clinton?

2) As you know, a lot of it is about chemistry. So just now sitting here talking about it, do you think you're chemically compatible?

3) Do you have any concerns about raising your daughters under the glare of the spotlight if you're elected?

Culminating with the tough, ferocious:

4) Did you ever think you would see this day?'.

What? What? This guy is auditioning to be the leader of the free world and that is the kind questions you come up with for a national audience?

What happened to people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps and looking to succeed instead of waiting for the government to prop them up, hand them something or bail them out.

The idea that President Bush wants oil prices to rise for personal gain is nonsense. The idea that President Bush can influence the price of oil to such a degree to make it happen is utter nonsense. He has enough money to live extraordinarily comfortably for the rest of his life, as do almost all people in high political office, Obama included. Do you think if he had so much influence in oil prices that he would jeopardize the economy that affords him his lifestyle to make a few bucks on stock holdings? If anyone were cunning or powerful enough to pull it off, there are much better ways to profit much more handsomely. Oil trades on a free market and prices are determined as such. Most people get involved in politics to quench their egotistical thirst for power and control.

All of this nonsense about rich people getting tax cuts. Do you know that the top 10% of wage earners in the U.S. pay about 70% of the taxes? You are probably not that far away from being considered rich by these standards. If you want to help the cause so much, why not take a couple hundred extra dollars a month and send it to the government.

The government can't get out of its own way, because it is too big. It's not really anyone's fault, but the sheer size makes it hard to maneuver. You think the federal government will be able to handle healthcare and numerous other programs after you witness the slow crawl of operation at the local DMV or the post office. I don't see how we think government will be good at administering larger more important programs if these agencies have trouble operating efficiently.

Democrats should win every election. They propose to take someone's money and redistribute it to someone who has less; I am surprised they've lost any elections in the past 60 years - it is hard to lose on that platform - especially now when they are more and poorer people than ever...

A Passion for Sports

While I religiously listen to ESPN's Mike and Mike in the Morning, I am hardly a sports radio junkie. Until ESPN took over a local am radio station, sports radio in Philadelphia had been dominated by 610 WIP, a station that is, well, garbage (with the exception of Glen Macnow, this is). From time to time, however, I will listen to Mike Missanelli, an ex-WIP host that shared airtime with ESPN's Stephen A. Smith in their New York market, who is now back in Philly on ESPN's Philadelphia radio station. On Wednesday, he discussed a one-man play that he attended the previous evening, Philly Fan. The play chronicles the life of the Philadelphia sports fan, ultimately revealing that we have a huge chip on our shoulders due to our history of passion coupled with an even longer history of failures.

Philadelphia is arguably the most passionate sports town in the United States. We rabidly cheer those athletes whom deserve it, and boo those who we feel deserve it more (who we feel deserve it is key here). We have a reputation for turning our backs on our own players and teams at the drop of a hat, but ultimately, we love them. Well, most of them. Some of them we run right of town undeservingly.