| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue, Aug 26 2008, 9:47 am EDT Post subject: cranbury politics |
 |
|
I was wondering if our small town has become too political over the years.
On Cranbury Day, Obama's camp will have a booth organizing voters. It seems to me this one day where the town comes together is becoming too political when the focus should be inclusive. Whether it is Obama or McCain, I am against it (unless they personally want to show up.)
I understand a booth for our Town to provide information on available resources, our local candidates to meet people, but why do we need presidential and legislative politics to enter the picture. The local Republican, Democrat and TC booth will all have the same forms to register. I understand we can't keep them out if they want to join. It just seems to me that a small town event like Cranbury day should be a time above the political process.
Here is the link I refer to:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/voterregistrationdrive/gpl94l
Whether you're a McCain supporter or Obama supporter, it just seems inappropriate to me. Am I alone in this thought? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Cranbury Conservative
Joined: Tue, Apr 29 2008, 9:26 am EDT
Posts: 287
Location: Old Cranbury Road
|
| Posted: Tue, Aug 26 2008, 9:58 am EDT Post subject: Re: cranbury politics |
|
|
I agree, Cranbury day is a local event not a national event. Politics should be limited to our local town and at the most the state level.
Is the Obama event for Cranbury day even being run by a resident of our town? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Aug 26 2008, 10:50 am EDT Post subject: Re: cranbury politics |
|
|
| Is there a rule that says one cannot setup a booth for political purpose? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Aug 26 2008, 11:42 am EDT Post subject: Re: cranbury politics |
|
|
There is no rule. But, as I said is it not overkill? There is no rule that stops me from running up and down in front of Church on Sunday screaming like a nut either. But, proper decorum states I don't do it. My point in the original posting is whether an event that is apolitical and meant to unite a town needs to have a booth from a presidential or even a senate campaign.
I understand booths to meet local candidates. That's fine and IMO a good idea, as is a town booth. But, I just think it's best to not bring major party politics in on a day that is meant for everyone to come out and really celebrate the town itself.
There will be 4 booths dedicated to politics on Cranbury day. Why not have Obama and the local Democrats together? Why a separate booth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Aug 26 2008, 12:18 pm EDT Post subject: Re: cranbury politics |
|
|
i would suggest people who run obama event to bring in teleprompter.
In a live satellite speech tonight to the Democratic National Convention in Denver from a home in Kansas City, Obama said: "I'm here with the Girardo family here in St. Louis."
http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080825/BLOGS09/80825054 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jersey Dad
Joined: Tue, May 20 2008, 11:02 pm EDT
Posts: 179
Location: Cranbury Estates
|
| Posted: Tue, Aug 26 2008, 11:41 pm EDT Post subject: Re: cranbury politics |
|
|
To make it more local, maybe we can insist that the theme of the booth be...
Vote for Obama! It's the fastest way to get Corzine out of New Jersey! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cranbury liberal
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Aug 26 2008, 11:56 pm EDT Post subject: Re: cranbury politics |
|
|
So? That's a pretty minor flub. Some of McCain's are far more comical and let's not get started with Bush... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cranbury liveral
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Aug 27 2008, 12:00 am EDT Post subject: Re: cranbury politics |
|
|
| Jersey Dad wrote: | To make it more local, maybe we can insist that the theme of the booth be...
Vote for Obama! It's the fastest way to get Corzine out of New Jersey! |
In total seriousness, this is one of the reasons I am thinking of voting for McCain, or voting independent, despite being a registered Democrat who is very unhappy with the national Republican leadership and what they have done to damage this country.
I just find the image of Obama as an agent of change from "politics as usual" and supposedly a leader with integrity completely incompatible with having anything to do with Corzine (and I say this having voted for the guy!). Corzine is the poster child for cliche, business-as-usual NJ corrupt politics. He utterly lacks integrity. So for Obama to rely on his speaks volumes about Obama's true positions, or lack thereof. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Aug 27 2008, 9:17 am EDT Post subject: Re: cranbury politics |
|
|
From the article:
"Then 7-year-old Sasha Obama asked: "Daddy, what city are you in?"
"I'm in Kansas City, sweetie," Obama said, correcting his earlier geographic reference."
His daughter is smart to catch the slip-up. 
BTW, it's a booth to get people to register to vote, not necessary voting for Obama. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Aug 27 2008, 10:00 am EDT Post subject: Re: cranbury politics |
|
|
The town Republicans, the Town Democrats and the Town Council office will all have absentee ballott forms and register to vote forms available as they do every year. So if that is the case then Obama's group has no reason to be there.
The booth for Obama is also voter registration, but they certainly will be advocating and pushing Obama, just as a McCain booth would do. It is most certainly a booth to get people interested in Obama. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Aug 28 2008, 8:09 am EDT Post subject: Re: cranbury politics |
|
|
I agree that Cranbury Day should be nonpolitical. I may skip it this year because I am sick and tired of Obamamania. His ideas of social and political change are too inline with socialism. As if NJ's COAH isn't bad enough.
Keep the change! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Aug 28 2008, 8:35 am EDT Post subject: Re: cranbury politics |
|
|
can we do a mccain booth for cranbury day???/
I just hope that obama does not become president - this world and economy does not need someone like him right now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Aug 28 2008, 10:05 am EDT Post subject: Re: cranbury politics |
|
|
| I plan to vote for Obama. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Aug 28 2008, 10:12 am EDT Post subject: Re: cranbury politics |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | can we do a mccain booth for cranbury day???/
I just hope that obama does not become president - this world and economy does not need someone like him right now. |
I don’t really like Obama because I don't agree with many of his plans and visions and I think he might be mostly fake. But I’m voting for him because it is a vote against McCain.
I suspect the U.S. and world economy will see a boost if Obama were elected. McCain has no major plans to change course from the current administration in military or economic and social policy. And much of that is what has led us here. We had enormous world goodwill after 9/11 and Bush not only destroyed that but made even most of our allies hate us. And now they don't even fear us because they have seen that we can get bogged down, winning battles but losing wars that require more than brute force. While we fool ourselves in Iraq, which had nothing to do with al Qaeda at the time and which will revert to a state now run by Shiite warlords (with allegiance to Iran) instead of one Sunni warlord as soon as we leave, Iran, North Korea, Russia are all testing the waters seeing how our total lack of world political capital, dependency on foreign oil and investment, and inability to solve everything militarily on multiple fronts allows them to take actions 100-times more dangerous than Iraq ever could have been to us. Even Africa, which never completely evolved out of tribal control but had made great progress, is disintegrating into a continent of warlord fiefdoms as the world is too distracted and divided to do more than mildly object. Even the Taliban is back, not only gradually re-taking control of Afghanistan but now expanding its authority over Pakistan (they will soon end up stronger than they were before 9/11). That is the war we should have fought, but Bush took our eye off the prize way too early to settle his family vendetta against Iraq.
The current administration has been the most dangerous and destructive toward U.S. security, prosperity and long term interests of any in the history of the U.S. Presidency. We had a chance to really take a leadership in the world in a true battle against terrorism after 9/11 but instead only alienated the world using that as a pretense for completely unrelated agendas and demonstrating we consider ourselves above international law (if we don’t like what the U.N. has to say, we’ll just ignore them, but still expect everyone else to respect them…). Worst of all we have emboldened terrorists and massively helped their recruiting efforts. Sure we hammered the Taliban for a while and took down a petty dictator (who hated al Qaeda BTW), but the terrorists have seen that we can get totally bogged down, that we still can’t fight gorilla tactics any better than we could in Vietnam, that despite all our wealth and might we still send our troops into war under-supplied, that U.S. popular support of war is ridiculously fickle (first 80 percent support it, for no good reason, then only 30% do as soon as they realize it isn’t an easy victory – duh!). They are laughing and we undermine our world credibility, as our most organized and dangerous enemies like Iran totally disregard us and even publicly dare us to do anything about it. Granted we have taken logical measures to make it harder, but far from impossible, to perpetrate terrorists acts on our soil. But that would have been a given of any administrations response to 9/11. The problem is that is like solving a problem on a leaky raft by sticking your finger in the hole. It helps in the short term but you need a strategy for getting off the raft or at least moving toward shore. Our strategy has sent us further adrift.
I used to respect McCann, in the 90’s. He was not a typical Republican party-liner. The problem was his ambition for the White House was stronger than his integrity and after evaluating the reasons for his failed run in 2000 he made a conscious decision to compromise himself to become more palpable to the Republican Party insiders. He’s not the man he used to be. That said, he may never have made sense on the Iraq and military issues. Its not something he could really be judged on in the ‘90’s. But whatever the case, I absolutely cannot support someone who thinks a unilateral, unprovoked, U.N.-condemned invasion of Iraq was great policy. If his position was to question it but say, “now we’re here and we can’t abandon the mess we started,” maybe, but he wants me to believe it was great policy from the get-go. I didn’t support it then and predicted to my friends how it would go and so far I seem to be better at anticipating results than Bush or McCain, and that is sad. It’s also sad to see how much McCain has lost the spark he had when he was truly independent (in all but party name). He used to have original ideas and push forward ideas even when they weren’t popular. Now he doesn’t seem to have any original ideas or plans. If he takes office we can only hope for the inevitable cyclical nature of the economy because he’ll do absolutely nothing to help it.
So McCain and the Republican party leave me no choice but to vote reluctantly for Obama. After that, I expect to re-register as an Independent because the Democratic party in New Jersey disgusts me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Aug 28 2008, 11:27 am EDT Post subject: Re: cranbury politics |
|
|
This is getting off topic.
However, my view is a president is several handicapped if they don't also control the house and senate. The problem with Bush for most of the time is it was one party control. Now that we see the Dems in control there is balance.
If we elect Obama we would have a repeat of Carter and even Bush since Obama would have a blank check. It would be just like NJ is now, but on a federal scale. A leader with no experience and with full support of the house and senate. So tax increases and bad business practices would have a blank check.
McCain hates Bush he was rail roaded and dragged through the mud in 2000. I am voting McCain because 1) He dislikes Bush 2) Lieberman supports McCain showing a statement of McCain's character and 3) It provides for a president who's party does not control the senate and house so there is balance. 4) Experience and knowledge.
The point though is not views of who should be president so much as is it really appropriate given the heat on both sides for a booth to be established by any candidate for president, senate or even Trenton at an event meant to unite people and support causes such as the Fire Department and Lions Club. I hope if McCain's group is thinking of a booth that they do not and that Obama's group decides to pull out. Rush Holt yesterday stated that Obama's big push is voter registration to get Obama voters and explain why Obama is better. That is in line exactly with the booth that they are putting in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Aug 28 2008, 12:24 pm EDT Post subject: Re: cranbury politics |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | However, my view is a president is several handicapped if they don't also control the house and senate. The problem with Bush for most of the time is it was one party control. Now that we see the Dems in control there is balance.
If we elect Obama we would have a repeat of Carter and even Bush since Obama would have a blank check. It would be just like NJ is now, but on a federal scale. A leader with no experience and with full support of the house and senate. So tax increases and bad business practices would have a blank check.
|
You seem to be saying two different things -- that the President is "severely handicapped?" if they don't share party control of Congress but that this is a good thing. So are you saying you will vote for McCain because you would like a severely handicapped President?
Bush started with party control of Congress and lost it but wasn't effective in either case. He also had no real experience, less than Obama even. Reagan had no national experience and didn't control Congress most of the time and did lots of things.
I think when you have a dangerous, ineffective President it becomes a good thing to have a different party controlling Congress. When you have a good President, it's better for them to have a Congress that can cooperate. So it really just depends on the person in office. Even if I don't like Obama, I'd rather see him start with party control in Congress and see if he can accomplish something. Better that than more deadlock. Deadlock is helpful, like now, when the leader has demonstrated such irresponsibility of action that no action is better than progress. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
