(no subject)

[skyring]

I thought McCain's concession speech was good and gracious. Not nearly as electrifying as Obama's, but it obviously came from the heart.

Yet I've just read someone's blog saying that it's a good thing his past speeches weren't like that, otherwise he might have won.

So much for democracy, hey?

Listen up, lady. The people get to pick who they want, and if it's not your preferred guy, it doesn't make them stupid or ignorant or gullible or out of step. Going by the numbers, the reverse is true.

The big thing about democracy is that it's the people who have the final say. It's not the scientists picking the candidate who will be best for the environment or computing or technology. It's not the economists picking the guy best for the banking industry, and it's not Mensa picking the brightest.

It's everyone having a say, and if they vote for someone because he gives good speeches or he has nice grandparents, then that's the way it is. It's democracy.

I remember Tim Costello at the Constitutional Convention, saying that candidates for the head of state position should be run through a selection committee so as to eliminate those who were obviously unsuitable. He then named as examples of unsuitable candidates two politicians with views that differed from his. You could almost see him shudder with horror at the thought of them even being considered for the top job.

To him, democracy is about removing freedom of choice.

And then there are those who have what I call a football team mentality. They support a particular sports team, maybe because it's the local one, they like the team colours, they like the shape of the captain's jaw, whatever. And "their" team is the one they support against all others. Now, that's OK, but when you get to supporting political parties on the same principle, voting the same way all your life, regardless of policies, candidates, skills and suitability, isn't that *exactly* the same as making a choice for some frivolous reason?

Me, I see democracy as giving everybody the same voice, regardless of how clever they are, how rich they are, what way they swing sexually, what gods they worship, and what colour their skin is. The vote of the bloke with the bum out of his strides has the same value as that of the merchant banker. They count the votes, and it's quantity that matters, not quality.

And that's exactly the way it should be. Heaven help us if we should ever get to live in a society where the self-proclaimed elites get to make all our choices for us.

Comments

[reggiesgirl2.livejournal.com]

Yet I've just read someone's blog saying that it's a good thing his past speeches weren't like that, otherwise he might have won.

So much for democracy, hey?

And you based your entire post on that one comment? If that's all they had to say, I think you WAY over-reacted and took their comment completely the wrong way.

Your entire post after you wrote the above veered so far off course that I fail to see how the two are connected. What does someone's making a remark about McCain's speeches have to do with not being a democracy?

IMO, it IS a democracy when one can vote for someone because they like his speeches or not vote for him because he's a crappy speaker. In a democracy, you choose whatever works for you to make up your mind who to vote for.

And, FWIW, I happen to agree with the person who said that about McCain. I thought his concession speech was his best by far. He actually sounded like a class act for once. During the actual campaigning, his speeches were so full of contempt and put-downs and insults to Obama's intelligence, experience, and anything else he could find to attack about "that man" (McCain referred to Obama that way) that I was disgusted listening to him and I wouldn't have voted for him had I been American.

Not wanting to start an argument with you but I had to comment after reading your remarks.

[greedyreader.livejournal.com]

I agree with what reggiesgirl had to say.
(((hugs)))

[skyring.livejournal.com]

Well, I agree with reggiesgirl too. Every word. I guess where I went wrong, at the end of a twelve-hour shift, is in not making my own views and reasoning clear enough.

[onyerbike.livejournal.com]

I gotta agree with the majority here. Reading your post made me go "Whoa! Where did that come from??"

The poster you're referring to was merely saying that, had all of McCain's speeches had been as gracious and measured, the race would probably have been a lot closer. There are lots of people who would have normally voted for McCain, but as the mud-slinging and snarking and outright lying got worse, they couldn't see themselves rewarding that kind of behaviour with a vote. There's a way to win without playing dirty, but McCain chose not to go that way. And I'm sure it cost him a lot of votes, and a lot of respect.

The McCain of the 2000 primaries was someone I would have considered voting for, and if I were American, I'd be a registered Democrat. The 2008 McCain was ignorant and downright nasty.

Just because the blogger in question happens to be a Democrat doesn't negate what was said. I'm sure there are lots of Republicans who are saying the same thing while they dissect what went wrong.

There was a way to voice your opposing view here, but lashing out with "listen up, lady" was NOT the way to win friends and influence people.

Just sayin'.

[skyring.livejournal.com]

the blogger in question happens to be a Democrat

Definitely not a Democrat. Not even an American.

I agree with you, yes, if McCain had given better speeches, he might have won. That's the point. But that's not what the original poster was saying.

Here's what I said above, paraphrasing and watering down the original poster:

it's a good thing his past speeches weren't like that

She wasn't saying that if he'd given better speeches McCain might have won. That's just stating the obvious. She was saying, in strong terms, that it was a good thing he wasn't more attractive to the voters. Otherwise he might have won.

Well, just how do you judge a political candidate? How do you make your mind up who to vote for? Wouldn't the things a candidate says in public be a bloody good way of deciding whether to vote for him or her? Isn't that precisely how Obama won?

[onyerbike.livejournal.com]

Okay, my bad. Someone else on our mutual flist said roughly the same thing, but now that I check, I was talking about the wrong poster.

I judge who to vote for based primarily on the issues. But how the candidate presents him/herself is a big part of it, too. It does no good if you've got great opinions but can't string two words together without attacking your opponent. McCain's willingness to Go There with the attacks dismayed me. Obama was by no means pristine in this either, but he was able to couch his attacks in a more reasoned voice, so it didn't seem like "Oh yeah? That! So there!" Does that make sense?

That said, as an Obama supporter, I have said it myself - it *is* a good thing McCain's speeches weren't more appealing, because that election was a lot closer than it should have been.

[skyring.livejournal.com]

From my point of view, it's up to the American voters to select their representatives, not Australians commenting from afar as to how Americans should cast their votes.

It's not that I don't care about the candidates, the issues and the influences the USA has on the world. But I care even more strongly about democracy and the voices of the "little people". Elections are a rare chance for ordinary people to have an influence, regardless of what the political experts who don't have to worry about the next mortgage payment may tell them.

As a cabbie in Canberra, I see the political elite and I know where they live in their big houses in the posh suburbs and where they go to eat and drink in the expensive restaurants where they have too much wine to risk driving home. And I see the people living in the small houses in the poorer suburbs, taking a weekly taxi home with the groceries because they can't afford a car.

And I rejoice that the two people have exactly the same value vote.

hey pete

[newkaligula.livejournal.com]

I think there is an issue here with people not "knowing" you.

For example "listen up lady" in the way you would say is in NO way an insult or put down.

Oh well. That's life in the electronic age

Re: hey pete

[skyring.livejournal.com]

It's a litteration.

Re: hey pete

[atenea-nike.livejournal.com]

You mean an alliteration? *puzzled*

Re: hey pete

[newkaligula.livejournal.com]

you gotta be careful. sometimes he plays with the language quite deliberately.

:)

[skyring.livejournal.com]

Your entire post after you wrote the above veered so far off course that I fail to see how the two are connected. What does someone's making a remark about McCain's speeches have to do with not being a democracy?

It's the underlying attitude that is exposed by the comment that rankles with me. That it's a good thing he wasn't more attractive to the voters, otherwise he might have won.

That's precisely the point. The people vote the way they want, for their own personal reasons. In Canberra, I had to rank forty candidates in order on the last ballot paper. Most of them I hadn't heard of. I don't have the time to attend public meetings, look up their positions on the things that matter most to me, study their past records.

How do you think I voted? For those who were known to me, I placed them in the appropriate order. For the majority I hadn't heard of, I voted according to whim.

But it was my whim.

[reggiesgirl2.livejournal.com]

On the chance that I'm going to piss you off (I'm not trying to do that and I hope I don't succeed), I have to say that you are not making much sense to me.

In one breath you tell us you are rankled at some lady's attitude because she said that, in her opinion, had McCain's campaign speeches been different, he may have won the election, and in the next breath, you tell us that you voted according to whim.

You talk about her "unerlying attitude" ... WHAT underlying attitude? She said what many many people have said since last night.

She has given her opinion and you have given yours. Why does it rankle you that her opinion is different. She's allowed to have a different opinion, as are you and anyone else. That's part of a democracy IMO. Free to disagree.

[skyring.livejournal.com]

I think that I didn't express myself clearly enough, and I've written another post where I attempt to correct what seems to be a common misunderstanding.

[newkaligula.livejournal.com]

yeah yeah go on, dig the hole deeper. Lurve it