Hacker News Reader

Comment by Prrometheus | Hacker News Reader

Torvalds makes the same mistake that many other people make when evaluating politicians - he takes them at face value. If being reasonable and open-minded were qualities that were highly valued by voters, then politicians would hire coaches to help them practice seeming reasonable and open-minded.

In fact, this is one of the things that concerns me most about Obama. I too like the fact that he sounds like a reasonable man in interviews and he seems to value his opponents' aguments. But his voting record shows none of that. By his words, he is a deeply thoughtful man. By his actions, he is a hyper-partisan.

George Bush has taught me to evaluate politicians by their actions, not their words. Ironically, if being open-minded were your highest priority for a politician, then John McCain's actions (though not his words) would place him among the best of any living politician.

View on HN

ok, you had me until the last paragraph at which point you stuffed in your love for McCain ("place him among the best of any living politician") without providing anything to back that up. Precisely what "actions" over the last 8 years would you point to that prove McCain so "open-minded"? And yes, I do mean over the last 8 years. I am a "what have you done for me lately" kind of guy.

Torvolds' blog post is well written. Most none of us gets to meet the people we vote for in person. We have to settle for what we feel and perceive. It is not black and white.

I have no love for McCain; I'm certainly not voting for him. However, he is famous for supporting causes on both sides of the partisan divide (ex. supporting global warming measures, opposing the Bush tax cuts, supporting the Iraq War, supporting open immigration, etc). It would be hard to detect a coherent ideology in his voting patterns. That is why his selection in the primary process gave self-described "conservatives" fits.

That's true on some parts (though supporting Iraq was never crossing party lines) but I think you have to judge by both words and actions. His actions told one story, but then as soon as it came time to run for the big office his words reversed. He went from preaching against the agents of intolerance to nominating one as his VP.

You have to assume that if he is elected, he will do most of what he says he will and live up to his words of late. He will keep or further the Bush tax cuts (or try to anyway) despite having been previously opposed to them because to do otherwise would greatly lessen his chances of reelection. Even 2nd term Presidents, who have that pressure removed, still try to stay close to their promises for the next guy from their party.

If anything, their words are probably a better predictor of future actions, since they'll be held accountable. Every time they do something opposite of what they promised, the Daily Show will roll the video they archived.

>If anything, their words are probably a better predictor of future actions, since they'll be held accountable. Every time they do something opposite of what they promised, the Daily Show will roll the video they archived.

This certainly doesn't seem to have bothered Bush.

He's mostly done what he said he would. He said he'd cut taxes for the wealthy, he did.

TV shows a bunch of clips of him being a moron, but for the most part he's lived up to his campaign promises.

Nah... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Slmr024JYaA

As much as I despise Bush, that video has very little substance. It's more bashing his mistakes than exposing his not having done what he said he would.

It points out some areas where he was wrong, but not really where he didn't try to do something he said. In that video, he said he'd lower taxes and end the surplus and he did. He said he'd try to fix Social Security, and in his own way he did.

Love him or hate him, the guy did pretty much what he told us he would. The problem was he also did a lot of stuff that was clearly never discussed, like ignore Katrina or launch the Iraq war. But that's not really hypocrisy.

I don't like that video either, but Bush clearly discussed having a humble foreign policy, not being the world's policeman, and not nation building. To me, that seems fairly inconsistent with what happened.

Well, that was in the pre-9-11 world. You have to admit that was sort of a game changer. Even though I didn't agree with the Iraq war when it happened, at that point it was clear that something has to be done about radical Islam. That wasn't the answer, but not being the world's policeman isn't possible when people are flying planes into buildings and bombing subways.

I would say that one was less an act of hypocrisy on Bush's part and more an adaptation to the post 9-11 world.

I would say Bush snatched the opportunity presented by 9-11. Before 9-11 he would not been able to do a tiny part of the damage he did. Come on... Iraq was not caused by 9-11: 911 only made an invasion based on doctored intellige possible.

Well, that's largely true but misses the point. The world is much different than it was in 2000. The War on Terrorism is real. Whether or not you agree with the Iraq War (and I never did) you can't call him a hypocrite for changing his foreign policy in the light of new and very important information.

You would expect the same from a good President.

Although terrorist threats are real, I don't consider our War on Terror to be anything but a method to ensure spending against it is the size of war spending. Bush is a war president who is the son of a war president who is the son of a Senator that was also made loads of money off wars. People do what they know.

On the general topic if words matter in politics -- my answer is "no"

Actions are all that count. People are a fickle bunch, and it's an old trick to sound good on TV and then do whatever you feel like -- as long as it's complicated enough to the average Fred that he's not going to get pissed.

That's true for both parties. Look to how people act in the past -- it's a good predictor for the future. (Aside from 9-11 type events)

"It would be hard to detect a coherent ideology in his voting patterns."

Weird, wouldn't a coherent ideology be something good? Because if there is no coherent pattern, I have to ask how can you be sure what he will vote next, and what if not ideology/conviction has determined his votes?

(Note: I don't know anything about McCain or Obama, just curious about the content of your argument).

As a european, I see at least one action that makes McCain quite open minded. When the US Army decided that Airbus won the contract against Boeing, Obama took a protectionist stand and voted for the cancelation of it, while McCain said that Airbus won legitimatly and therefore, the contract shouldn't be canceled, because it's the way competition work : the best offer wins.

The contract was eventually cancelled. I believe that this kind of protectionism harms everybody, the US and the Europeans. Now Boeing won't try their best to make a better offer than Airbus, since they know they won't be allowed to fail, and the US taxpayer will ultimatly end paying higher for an inferior product.

“Man is neither angel nor beast; and the misfortune is that he who would act the angel acts the beast.” - Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

John McCain's actions (though not his words) would place him among the best of any living politician

Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "best". He certainly appeals to Americans who respect those who avoid responsibility and act in their own self interest. He strikes me as the kind of person who is likely to find a way out of past promises when a better deal comes along.

How else would could you explain the way he abandoned his crippled wife for a pretty rich lady twenty years younger then himself? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-J...

How else to explain the many ways he's changed his position since 2000 in order to gain favor with the far right? http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1779141 or his new position on torture? http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/20/mccain-torture-veto

Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "best"

This is what he meant:

if being open-minded were your highest priority for a politician

If you had bean reading, you would have noticed this and spared us, yet another diatribe against a man that nobody here likes.

Given the corrupting environment in which they work, I don't think being "open-minded" about solicitations and temptations to be a good thing for a politician, especially when it leads to breaking commitments.

If you find it necessary to point that out, then you missed the entire point of the post.

> George Bush has taught me to evaluate politicians by their actions, not their words.

To me his words, actions and the results were all pretty consistent. Only the scale of failure of his presidency was a surprise... And the fact that he was voted in twice. You sound like you may have been one of his 'x2' voters. If this was the case it doesn't present the best credentials to be lecturing others on candidate selection.

If you have children in the Iraq war, you might feel differently.

Also, I'm glad we have so many people in this country who understand that the economy is driven by the working people, not the wealthy.

I don't agree with all of Obama's ideas, but I think under his presidency I will have the most freedom to be who I am without fear that my country will turn into the setting of the novel 1984.

But most of all, like Linus, I'm worried about black/white thinkers. I am happy knowing that Obama as a future president, at least shows _evidence_ that he understands multiple perspectives on a problem and can think through contradicting positions to come to a rational conclusion. Too often, difficult decisions seem to have been made, these past 8 years, based on religious views.

>I don't agree with all of Obama's ideas, but I think under his presidency I will have the most freedom to be who I am without fear that my country will turn into the setting of the novel 1984.

From a civil liberties perspective, I am not comforted by Obama's capitulations on FISA and the PATRIOT Act, and neither am I comforted by his choice of one of the fiercest enemies of privacy in Congress as his running mate. Biden bragged that he "wrote the PATRIOT Act", and he was the originator of the office of the Drug Czar.

You may think Obama is better than McCain, and that is your right, but lets have an honest view of his actions in mind when we make that choice.

You basically just mentioned two areas where both candidates somewhat agree. If you widen your scope at all, you see there's a clear difference. Obama's pro gay civil unions and pro choice. He's against torture (which McCain claims to be against, but then voted to essentially give the administration a pass on). He's for habeas corpus for detainees.

On the overall topic of civil liberties, it's not even a contest. McCain's views are much closer to those of the people who once held him prisoner than they are anyone who gives a shit about civil liberties.

Oh, and Obama is pro net neutrality, McCain isn't. If you can present one instance of McCain supporting a single civil liberty that Obama does not, I'd love to hear it, because I can present scores of the opposite.

Is that an honest enough view?

Obama's campaign was caught changing their stance on Net neutrality after Biden was nominated.

http://versionista.com/diff/JAS9LMr5qU7q8BSroV8KzQ/

He removed much of the verbiage but he still supports net neutrality (as evidenced in your link).

I didn't say he stopped supporting Net Neutrality. I only said his campaign was caught changing their stance. Not even Obama himself, as I'm sure he doesn't have time to review edits on his website.

If your read the old copy of his page it was much harder for an average voter to understand. So some staffer "cleaned it up" but there is no evidence he changed his mind on that topic.

Just now: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081103-obama-goes-gun...

  Perhaps more significantly, there is no reference to network neutrality, perhaps the single tech
  issue on which the gap between Obama and McCain is most pronounced. At the 2007 Google talk, Obama
  declared he would "take a backseat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality, because once
  providers start to privilege some applications or Web sites over others, then the smaller voices get
  squeezed out and we all lose."

They edited out the Network Neutrality part of the videos. Ars Technica says it, not me.

Go ahead, mod me down again. Have a nice cozy groupthink and keep voting whoever you fashion while shutting down any dissent. That can never go wrong, right?

Did you read the updated version they changed Information to Ideas but it says:

Ensure the Full and Free Exchange of Ideas through an Open Internet and Diverse Media Outlets

Protect the Openness of the Internet: A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet.

Edit: I know it's an important issue to some people, but it's not something that's important to voters so it's going to get dropped from speeches.

If you have children in the Iraq war, you might feel differently.

Can you explain your argument? It sounds like you're implying "If you had more information, you would reach a different conclusion," but what you're really saying is "If you were subjected to different emotional pressures, you would ignore evidence and come to a new conclusion."

I mean, if a judge is deciding a case against Philip Morris, and has all of his retirement money in Philip Morris stock, he's going to see things differently -- but it's not going to improve his decision.

It seems to me that people with children in the war are more likely to want a leader that supports getting out of the war sooner rather than "staying the course".

Anecdotal, of course, but the people I know who have been over there or who have children in the war claim they don't see that we are going to accomplish much and want to the US to leave Iraq as soon as is feasible. Whereas McCain is more about winning the war, my impression of Obama and from his statements, is that Obama is not so much about winning as much as wanting the war to come to a reasonable end.

So yes, if you had an investment in the war personally, you would probably have more direct information rather than propaganda about the war. Regardless of your emotions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com