U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

[FactionHeir]

In case no one mentioned it yet, Obama CHANGEs his stance on NAFTA (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/19/obama-softens-nafta-rhetoric/).

So all this talk during the primary was pandering just like the "same old politics"?

[Lemur]

Wait a minute, you want to restrict all of that cash free speech? I thought Republicans hated McCain-Feingold?

I mean, really, if a man isn't free to spend as much money free speech as he likes, what is the world coming to? (Yes, Don, I understand your point, and I see its validity, but I can't help but tweak you.)


So all this talk during the primary was pandering just like the "same old politics"?
Yup. And here's the thing -- Obama would be a much scarier, creepier dude if that had not been pandering. Now let's see if Johnny Mac backs out of any of the pandering positions he took in the primaries ...

[Louis VI the Fat]

Obama is pulling a bait and switch here. For the past year and a half, he said he wanted to be the voice of change, for hope. Then he gets a fundraising advantage and says "Screw all of you, I'm in it to win it". Made me so torqued, I just donated $50 to McCain, and I don't even like the guy.Tsk, Don. Obama is going to Washington and he is going to change everything. He is a different kind of politician, you know. The kind who puts his money where his mouth is. He never says one thing and does another - that's old politics. :smash:

In other words, yes, i know exactly why you just send McCain those $50. Gah! I want the Dems to win, I don't need John McSame. And the Republicans need a right good kicking this election, for reasons Odin put so well a few pages back. But I simply can't root for Obama. Too slick, too much money, too much of a hypocrite. :whip:

[Ice]

Tsk, Don. Obama is going to Washington and he is going to change everything. He is a different kind of politician, you know. The kind who puts his money where his mouth is. He never says one thing and does another - that's old politics. :smash:

In other words, yes, i know exactly why you just send McCain those $50. Gah! I want the Dems to win, I don't need John McSame. And the Republicans need a right good kicking this election, for reasons Odin put so well a few pages back. But I simply can't root for Obama. Too slick, too much money, too much of a hypocrite. :whip:

You just didn't say McSame...

[m52nickerson]

As far as Obama's stance on NAFTA I don't see were he has changed his stance. He believes in free trade, but does not like NAFTA because of some of the clauses.

Link to Obama's comments, before the Ohio debate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhh7SvDIWGk

Link from Obama's site discussing his interview with fortune magazine.
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/06/18/fact_check_on_fortune_intervie.php

He did not say he was going to repeal NAFTA, but he has said he wants to renegotiate.

Take it for what you will.

Now regarding the campaign finance, I can't blame Obama for going back on his pledge simple because McCain has the 527 aka "The Swiftboats" on his side. If Obama would have stuck to his agreement he and McCain would have had the same amount of money to spend, but McCain would also have the 527s and they can raise all the money they want.

Obama has made it well known that he does not want, and will condemn any 527 trying to speak for him speaking for him, McCain has not done that. Obama has no choice.

Here are some links breaking down campaign finance from both canidates,

Obama
http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do?cand_id=P80003338

McCain
http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do?cand_id=P80002801&searchType=&searchSQLType=&searchKeyword=

Notice that Obama has not received PAC money, in fact he payed some back. McCain has received almost a million dollars form PACs.

McCain has received almost half of him total money in chunks larger then $2000. Obama, half of his is from donations under $500 dollars, and most of that chunks less then $200.

If you really want to see some interesting things click on the Individual contributions and you can see who gave what. Like the fact that Chris Rock gave close to $10,000 to Obama.

[CountArach]

As far as Obama's stance on NAFTA I don't see were he has changed his stance. He believes in free trade, but does not like NAFTA because of some of the clauses.
...
He did not say he was going to repeal NAFTA, but he has said he wants to renegotiate.
I think the issue is that he went from wanting to unilaterally renegotiate it to wanting to do so multilaterally.

A new campaign ad from Obama:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylVTBiGh00c

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Now regarding the campaign finance, I can't blame Obama for going back on his pledge simple because McCain has the 527 aka "The Swiftboats" on his side. If Obama would have stuck to his agreement he and McCain would have had the same amount of money to spend, but McCain would also have the 527s and they can raise all the money they want.

Obama has made it well known that he does not want, and will condemn any 527 trying to speak for him speaking for him, McCain has not done that. Obama has no choice.

Obama can't prevent MoveOn.org from doing stuff anymore than McCain can prevent 527s on his side. They're the curse of McCain-Feingold era campaigning. Do you see either nominee saying: "I warned you I would not tolerate this being done in my name, I hereby rescind my acceptence of the nomination and withdraw my candidacy." Because, short of that, most 527s will do what they darn well please.

[PanzerJaeger]

So all this talk during the primary was pandering just like the "same old politics"?

You didn't actually buy into all his crap about change and a new style of politics did you? He's just more of the same, slightly repackaged by the marketing department.


Now regarding the campaign finance, I can't blame Obama for going back on his pledge

You know you've reached the level of blind support when... :help:

Isn't that the whole point of Obama? Ignore the inexperience, ignore the ties to racists, radicals and terrorists. This man won't go back on his word! He's a man of integrity, honesty, and character*.

*Only when politically expedient. Higher taxes may apply.

[m52nickerson]

Actually Obama did not take back any promise. The agreement Obama signed said he would only use public financing IF his opponents agreed to do the same. McCain only agreed after Obama opted out.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#25273881

[Lemur]

Nick, why's it so hard to accept that Obama broke his promise on this one? And why does everyone think it's so damning? Wouldn't the same people calling cthonic curses upon his head be laughing uproariously if he threw away his money advantage?

Enough with the posturing. Both McCain and Obama said things they didn't mean in the primary. Shock. Horror. I may have a fit of the vapors.

Rend your garments and toss ashes upon your heads all you like, you pack of drama queens, but either man is a massive improvement over the current regime.

[PanzerJaeger]

And why does everyone think it's so damning?

Well, I think it is important because he has built his entire campaign and public image on the idea that he offers a new style of politics based on honesty and transparency. In actuality, he is using that persona to excel in the "old" ways of doing things, such as blatantly lying - as all politicians do.

Of course, as you said, this was the smart move to make. This story will last another few days, but his monetary edge will last him through the entire campaign.

I think that if the Republicans want to have any chance at all, they need to knock Obama off his pedastel. The only thing extraordinary about the man's candidacy is his skin color. Other than that, he is just another politician offering the same old Democratic positions warmed over election cycle after election cycle from the Carter era.

[Ice]

Rend your garments and toss ashes upon your heads all you like, you pack of drama queens, but either man is a massive improvement over the current regime.

That I can agree upon, Lemur.

[CountArach]

either man is a massive improvement over the current regime.
MCCAIN IS RUNNING FOR BUSH'S THIRD TERM!

OBAMA IS CRYPTO-MARXIST!

VOTE RON PAUL!

[Lemur]

The only thing extraordinary about the man's candidacy is his skin color.
Sorry, I just can't let this one go. PJ, by your lights, the only thing of note about Barack Obama is his skin color, correct? Let's unpack that a little bit.

1.5 million people have contributed money to his campaign. (That's an all-time record, in case you didn't know.) In your version of reality, they are all either dupes of the Democratic machine or racists who can't see past skin color. That's 1.5 million of your fellow Americans you're talking about.

Somewhere between 18 and 19 million Americans have voted for the man. I guess they're all bigots and racists who can't see past skin color, too. Who knew we had so many, in so many different states?

Earlier in this thread, you asked for some concrete reasons to support Obama. I gave you a few, all of which you dismissed and then proceeded to explain that it's all about his skin color, since no other reason existed, and all else was puffery and lies. You were shocked and dismayed when I called you out as a racist.

Based on the above sentence, I gotta call you out again. If the only thing you can see about the man is his melanin count, does that say something about him, his supporters, or something about you, O fascist? Just because you disagree with the reasons people support the guy doesn't mean those reasons don't exist. Just because you refuse to acknowledge anyone else's position doesn't make those positions meaningless. Your towering disrespect for your fellow Americans is stunning, and I'm forced to ask if you would be quite so callous if the candidate were not black.

Your posts demonstrate an overarching theme of racism. You've made it very, very clear that all you see when you look at Senator Obama is blackness. He's black, get it? Very, very black. And according to you, the only reason he's getting anywhere is because he's black, black, black. In your world, he's the ultimate affirmative-action hire.

Look, if you want to despise and disrespect Senator Obama, that's your business, but at least do your fellow Americans the courtesy of not assuming that anyone who supports the guy on any level must be a racist who hates whitey and loves the black man, okay?

-edit-

I ignored it at the time, but let's not forget:


Why can't Obama be compared to Curious George in our colorblind society? The resemblence is uncanny. Now his "baby mama", she really does look like a monkey.

[FactionHeir]

I'd say Obama is a valid candidate albeit possibly not as qualified as McCain. It mainly comes down to Liberal vs Conservative and Democrat vs Republican.

One thing I will say though is that Obama's skin color is helping him in some ways. While many black conservatives claim that race is not an issue, many of them are considering voting for Obama (and its making the news).

[Ronin]

OBAMA IS CRYPTO-MARXIST!



all you guys who accuse American politicians of being Marxists should come over here and talk for 5 minutes with a member of a real marxist comunist party....your head might fly off or something....

no mainstream American politician is anywhere even near resembling Marxism....you guys got your definitions screwed up. :laugh4:

[Lemur]

As a former Chicagoan, I approve this message (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/opinion/20brooks.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print):


On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes.

This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside. [...]

All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.

And still Republicans underestimate him. Wake up, kids. The affirmative-action "empty suit" is going to drink your milkshake unless you get a whole lot smarter.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Just for interests sake, Lemur, have you made your mind up between the two candidates yet? I remember you donating money to both candidates. Am quite curious if you've got a clear preference yet.

Me - not that I have to choose - would vote Obama, without a doubt in my mind. Even if I do not mind McCain that much and am underwhelmed about Obama's candidacy.
Clinton supporters should listen to Al Gore: get over it, go and vote, and vote Democrat.

[Lemur]

Hey Louis, no, I haven't made up my mind, and I don't feel any compelling reason to do so anytime soon. I see good reasons to vote for both men, and I see good reasons not to vote for both men. But I'm thrilled to bits with the choice.

The attacks on Obama are more frequent and hysterical, so I wind up spending way too much time defending him on this board. But the truth of the matter is that at the beginning of this process, we were told the matchup was going to be Clinton/Giuliani, which kinda made me feel like this:


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/indiagun985.jpg

But now it's on, and the choice is between McCain and Obama, and I feel like this:


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/chuck8.jpg

[Xiahou]

Here's one you should like then, from ABC:
If It's Bush vs. Kerry Again, Who Gets Which Role? (http://a.abcnews.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=3105288&page=1)

It's long, but I thought it was an enjoyable read.

[PanzerJaeger]

Sorry, I just can't let this one go. PJ, by your lights, the only thing of note about Barack Obama is his skin color, correct? Let's unpack that a little bit.

Ok, but lets try and play nice.


1.5 million people have contributed money to his campaign. (That's an all-time record, in case you didn't know.) In your version of reality, they are all either dupes of the Democratic machine or racists who can't see past skin color. That's 1.5 million of your fellow Americans you're talking about.

Somewhere between 18 and 19 million Americans have voted for the man. I guess they're all bigots and racists who can't see past skin color, too. Who knew we had so many, in so many different states?

I'm not sure where you are getting this from. My overarching point throughout this thread has been that the man is selling the american people a bill of goods. He is not experienced, and he offers nothing particularly new either in policy positions or the way he plays the game. His new way of politics is nothing new, if you will.

To ignore his race, rhetorical skills, and general image, and the way in which it has effected his candidacy, is to put blinders on. Lets not forget the percentage of the black vote he got as the campaign progressed, and its hard - well impossible - to believe that his race did not play a part in the rest.

To many, Obama's candidacy is about making up for past injustices. Its about being part of history. Its about proving how progressive you really are. Its not about the issues.

Of course this is not everyone's reason, but to act as if his race has not been a factor in his candidacy - and in turn accuse me of racism for bringing it up - is wrong, in my opinion.



Earlier in this thread, you asked for some concrete reasons to support Obama. I gave you a few, all of which you dismissed and then proceeded to explain that it's all about his skin color, since no other reason existed, and all else was puffery and lies. You were shocked and dismayed when I called you out as a racist.

I did not dismiss them and then proceed to explain that its all about his skin color. I simply dismissed them because they were weak reasons, in my opinion.



Based on the above sentence, I gotta call you out again. If the only thing you can see about the man is his melanin count, does that say something about him, his supporters, or something about you, O fascist? Just because you disagree with the reasons people support the guy doesn't mean those reasons don't exist. Just because you refuse to acknowledge anyone else's position doesn't make those positions meaningless. Your towering disrespect for your fellow Americans is stunning, and I'm forced to ask if you would be quite so callous if the candidate were not black.

Again, in Barack Obama I see an empty candidate. No experience, no new positions, and certainly no change in the "old ways".

If you wish to act as though race has had no part in his successes, and failures, thats fine. I think even his campaign would disagree though.



Your posts demonstrate an overarching theme of racism. You've made it very, very clear that all you see when you look at Senator Obama is blackness. He's black, get it? Very, very black. And according to you, the only reason he's getting anywhere is because he's black, black, black. In your world, he's the ultimate affirmative-action hire.

That simply isn't true. Look back over the thread. I've made far more points about his lack of experience, lack of new positions, lack of integrity, and willingness to lie just like anyone else. As I said, he is the quintessential old style politician repackaged for the 21st century.




Look, if you want to despise and disrespect Senator Obama, that's your business, but at least do your fellow Americans the courtesy of not assuming that anyone who supports the guy on any level must be a racist who hates whitey and loves the black man, okay?

I never said that. Why would I think his supporters are racists? I really don't know if you are intentionally trying to mischaracterize my points or if I am that hard to understand. :help:

My points about race highlight my belief that many of his supporters are blind idealists who are so caught up in the historical nature of his candidacy that they have failed to see that - as I said - besides his skin color, he offers nothing new; certainly not racists.

Ok, I've made this as clear as possible in a completely non-antagonistic manner.

:bow:




-edit-

I ignored it at the time, but let's not forget:

Man, she really, really, really looks like a monkey. Theres nothing racist about that. The woman could pass for KoKo. :yes:

[Louis VI the Fat]

the matchup was going to be Clinton/GiulianiGiuliani I thought would be a good candidate, but he didn't hold up to close scrutiny. A disappointment. Clinton I liked better and better as the race progressed. She is hugely unpopular on internet game sites, but she is my type of gal. Best policies, best personality. :2thumbsup:

Alas, it was not to be. I must say this election was more fun back when I still had somebody to root for. Now, it's like a football match in which I'm a complete neutral.


I see good reasons to vote for both men, and I see good reasons not to vote for both menSo do I. Unfortunately, unlike you, I am not impressed much by either candidate. McCain has this...odd personality. He doesn't click with me. Something in his eyes. If he were walking behind me I'd keep looking over my shoulder. Don't know why.

At other times, he strikes me as a reasonable man, not too socially conservative, with a clear and assertive foreign policy, etcetera. My overriding sentiment though is no Republican in the White House after this neocon experiment. Hence Obama. I won't go into his shortcomings here.

I'd love an Obama / Al Gore ticket, unrealistic as it is. They'd be a perfect, very complementary pair. Gore could give the administration stability, experience, and direction. With a green character to top it off.

*dreams*

[CountArach]

She is hugely unpopular on internet game sites
Fixed for you :tongue:

[m52nickerson]

I'm not sure where you are getting this from. My overarching point throughout this thread has been that the man is selling the american people a bill of goods. He is not experienced, and he offers nothing particularly new either in policy positions or the way he plays the game. His new way of politics is nothing new, if you will.

Again, in Barack Obama I see an empty candidate. No experience, no new positions, and certainly no change in the "old ways".



Question, you say he offers nothing different. Have you read his "Blueprint for Change"?
Don't you think the fact that he is now running a campaign completely financed donations from citizens is something new? How about the fact that he is taking no money from PACs?

See I don't think you have read his plans. I don't think you've done much research on the man at all. I think you attack him because some part of you are deathly afraid that he will be the next president, all because of the man's race. That is the reason you continue to bring it up, not just in this thread but in other.

I believe you are lying to us and yourself.

[PanzerJaeger]

Question, you say he offers nothing different. Have you read his "Blueprint for Change"?

I have, actually. I especially enjoyed the three paragraphs on his record, including critical passage of "Google for Government". ~:rolleyes:

Its nothing new, at all really. Its the same democratic platform as years past. If thats your thing, then thats great. Don't claim he's proposing any real change, though.



Don't you think the fact that he is now running a campaign completely financed donations from citizens is something new? How about the fact that he is taking no money from PACs?

I never said the man wasn't popular. Flush with money, such a position is easy to hold. If the situation wasn't so rosey, that stance would surely hold as firmly as his on NAFTA, public funding, Rev. Wright, etc...



See I don't think you have read his plans. I don't think you've done much research on the man at all.

Is it really that unbelievable that someone could be informed about his positions and... disagree?

That must be it. I just haven't had the joys of socialized medicine, retreat in the face of terrorists, and bigger government explained to me. Be my guest...


I think you attack him because some part of you are deathly afraid that he will be the next president, all because of the man's race. That is the reason you continue to bring it up, not just in this thread but in other.

If that were the case, I would have no problem stating it. I hold no pretenses about such things, and I'm sure others can attest to the fact that I've made my feelings towards certain groups of people explicitly clear.



I believe you are lying to us and yourself.

All I can say is that you are mistaken. If you have an issue with discussions on the racial implications of Obama's candidacy or even the very mentioning of his race, I hope you have sent similar letters to CNN, MSNBC, Kos, The Huffington Post, etcetera.

[m52nickerson]

I have, actually. I especially enjoyed the three paragraphs on his record, including critical passage of "Google for Government".

Its nothing new, at all really. Its the same democratic platform as years past. If thats your thing, then thats great. Don't claim he's proposing any real change, though.
Really, I don't remember canidates talking about opening up the health care plan available to private citizens. Who was the other presidential candidate that wanted to mandate all new buildings have zero carbon admissions by 2030? Yes, its all the same.


I never said the man wasn't popular. Flush with money, such a position is easy to hold. If the situation wasn't so rosey, that stance would surely hold as firmly as his on NAFTA, public funding, Rev. Wright, etc... NAFTA on which he shifted his position on how he would go about re-negotiating the agreement. Public Financing which the agreement he signed stated that he would agree to go under that system IF his opponent also agreed to, when did McCain agree to take public funds, thats right it was after Obama made his announcement. So, everyone you have ever called friend has never said anything, or took a stance on something you did not believe in?


Is it really that unbelievable that someone could be informed about his positions and... disagree?

No, if someone disagrees and has a valid reasons why. You have yet to show any.


That must be it. I just haven't had the joys of socialized medicine, retreat in the face of terrorists, and bigger government explained to me. Be my guest...
Yes you sound informed. Obama's plan is far from socialized medicine, but of course you know that. By retreat I'm sure you mean with draw from a unjust occupation of a country, that may force that counties government to do something. Or are you talking about Afghanistan? Obama's plan there is far from retreat, but you know that. Bigger government, do you mean more regulation then yes. Regulations are not always a bad thing, especially when it will double vehicle fuel efficiency standards, but you.......oh never mine.


If that were the case, I would have no problem stating it. I hold no pretenses about such things, and I'm sure others can attest to the fact that I've made my feelings towards certain groups of people explicitly clear. All I can say is that you are mistaken. If you have an issue with discussions on the racial implications of Obama's candidacy or even the very mentioning of his race, I hope you have sent similar letters to CNN, MSNBC, Kos, The Huffington Post, etcetera. Many people have brought up the issue of Obama's race, that does no make them raciest. You seem to bring it up quite alot. This with other comments, and the fact you out of everyone here has attacked Obama with the most venom.

I will be going out of town until Monday, see you then.

[Lemur]

To ignore his race, rhetorical skills, and general image, and the way in which it has effected his candidacy, is to put blinders on.
i like how you slipped "rhetorical skills" in there, an element you haven't even acknowledged thus far. Are you suggesting the man you compare to a monkey can talk real good? This is new and interesting.


Lets not forget the percentage of the black vote he got as the campaign progressed, and its hard - well impossible - to believe that his race did not play a part in the rest.
As I have said in this thread, I expect the number of people voting for him because of his race (such as black people) will be balanced out by the people votin against him because of his race (racists). Just look at how Hillary was going for votes in the final couple of months of the primary, and you'll see what I mean. She was dog-whistling the racism so hard the windows were vibrating.


To many, Obama's candidacy is about making up for past injustices. Its about being part of history. Its about proving how progressive you really are. Its not about the issues.
What, some voters are more interested in the movement and the man than specific issues? Ye gods! I think this is the first time this has happened anywhere! Up until now, every voter in America would calmly consider the platform of each candidate, meditate upon these issues in a Platonic state of equilibrium, and come forth from the mountaintop with a decision. I have never, ever heard of voters getting interested in the person and the movement rather than the candidates' specifics on corn policy. You're right, Obama supporters are a new kind of stupid, and should be mocked constantly.


Of course this is not everyone's reason, but to act as if his race has not been a factor in his candidacy - and in turn accuse me of racism for bringing it up - is wrong, in my opinion.
Look, PJ, if you're going to go comparing a black man's wife to a monkey, you're gonna get what you deserve. I'm sure we can have a balanced, nuanced discussion of race and poitics, but you know what? I don't want to have that convo in the primary thread, and I don't want to have that convo with you.


I did not dismiss them and then proceed to explain that its all about his skin color. I simply dismissed them because they were weak reasons, in my opinion.
Yeah, you baited someone dumb enough to talk about why they like Obama(me), and the entire thing was a set-up so you could dismiss anything said and move on to your real point, which was all about how there are no valid reasons to support the man, and anyone who does so is a fool. Polite phrasing could not disguise the essential meanness of that exercise.

The next time you want to denounce someone, just go ahead and do it. We all know where you're coming from, and you don't need a set-up to get into your angry denunciations.


Again, in Barack Obama I see an empty candidate.
You know, if you repeat this point with only minor variations a hundred more times, you're going to get a prize.


Man, she really, really, really looks like a monkey. Theres nothing racist about that. The woman could pass for KoKo. :yes:
You see, it's **** like this that just completely cuts your legs out from under you. Are you really so thick that you don't see the problem with a young, fascist white boy calling a black man's wife a "monkey"? Are you stupid or tastelessly provocative? 'Cause i don't see a third alternative.

Sorry, but at the end of the day, you're just mixing your contempt of people who disagree with you with some truly despicable racial language. No doubt you will now insist, "Oh, I had no idea that calling black people 'monkeys' had a history. I can't see race, I've evolved past that, so how could I know?"

Now, I'd like to suggest that any further discussion of PJ and his tendency to see monkeys when he looks at highly educated black people should be moved to a new thread. Topics in which PJ posts have a depressing tendency to become all about PJ. Hell, maybe this thread should just be locked, since it's already more than halfway to being permanently spoiled.

[Lemur]

Now that's I've wasted my own weight in words on defending Senator Obama from what I feel are baseless, racist attacks, allow me to turn around and attack the Senator on the kinds of grounds I prefer: absurdity.

Apparently Sen. Obama's staff has worked up an alternative Presidential Seal. No, really. (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/the-great-seal-of-obamaland/)


It is emblazoned with a fierce-looking eagle clutching an olive branch in one claw and arrows in the other and is deliberately reminiscent of the official seal of the president of the United States. Around the top border are the words “Obama for America;” across the bottom is the campaign’s Web address. It also contains the logo of the Obama campaign, variously interpreted as a sunrise or a view down an open road.

Just above the eagle’s head are the words “Vero Possumus,” roughly translated “Yes we can.”


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/obamaforamerica190190.jpg

[FactionHeir]

Seems rather arrogant to use that logo IMO. Like presuming he'll be president about 5 months before the actual election.

[Lemur]

Oh, it's all kinds of stupid, FactionHeir, and you're just brushing the surface of it. But most importantly, it's funny. That's my personal yardstick for political news. Is it funny?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Just above the eagle’s head are the words “Vero Possumus,” roughly translated “Yes we can.”

My Latin is getting rusty, as I thought this translated as "Truly a Possum (http://amos.indiana.edu/library/scripts/possum.html)". :wink3:

[Crazed Rabbit]

I think it's funnier because of his great claim of moral high ground by not wearing the flag pin and showing his patriotism by his actions. And then he goes and copies the presidential seal.


By retreat I'm sure you mean with draw from a unjust occupation of a country, that may force that counties government to do something.

Whether or not how we got there was good or bad, we are there now and just pulling out will give the terrorist groups the run of the country.

m52nickerson, most of Obama's plans are just reheated liberalism from the '60s and earlier. He talks of his election being the first time we cared for the sick, etc. Is he ignorant or just deceptive about the slew of federal programs LBJ started to combat the same things? Unsurprisingly, those programs failed. It's also a fair question, considering his naiveness about world politics (if not American politiking).


Don't you think the fact that he is now running a campaign completely financed donations from citizens is something new?

It is, in the last thirty years, and means he'll have much less rules on how he can spend that money. Ironic, considering his earlier comments on greater government control over fundraising.

CR

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Oh, it's all kinds of stupid, FactionHeir, and you're just brushing the surface of it. But most importantly, it's funny. That's my personal yardstick for political news. Is it funny?

It is funny, but depressingly normal for Obama's campaign. I really like the guy, well at least compared to the alternative and Hillary, but his campaign is often over-zealous. They called some people three or four times a day here in Vermont and I think it may have really turned some people off.

I'll probably still vote for the guy, but it'd really help if he stopped pulling stuff like the seal and annoying calls.

[Marshal Murat]

just deceptive about the slew of federal programs LBJ started to combat the same things? Unsurprisingly, those programs failed.

Didn't those same programs reduce poverty by 5% or so? Those programs only 'failed' because they were short-term, not long term (like some FDR policies). It also didn't help that he was fighting a war in Vietnam. I also am kinda worried if Obama adds Webb, because that might be a Kennedy-Johnson pair, or a Lincoln-Johnson pair.

And I would just like to say that Mussolini and Hitler made great speeches too. :inquisitive:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

And I would just like to say that Mussolini and Hitler made great speeches too. :inquisitive:

And I would just like to point out my personal opinion that only idiots say that politicians who have great oratorical skills are all similar in terms of policy or application.

[Marshal Murat]

It's not that I actually believe that, but it does sound something like one would hear during the election. I had liked Obama, but now I'm more McCain. His 'sweeping rhetoric' was inspiring and all, but as the great Hildabeast has moved on, I have grown more and more cautious about supporting Obama. His 'new ideas' are essentially those of the more liberal base of the Democrats. He has conviction (or it seems like he does) and honest (or seems like he is). However, the sudden and complete trust one puts in Obama is unnerving. His supporters are almost entirely die-hards, unwilling to recognize that Barack Obama is mortal. He seems practically messianic. His positive attributes seem more like a smoke-screen than actual substance.
So someone who wields that much public trust is, to me, a great threat. It reminds me of the man who sold the Emperor his new clothes. I can't explain it, but when someone like that can inspire so many, it's more disconcerting than enjoyable.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

It's not that I actually believe that, but it does sound something like one would hear during the election.

I know, I judged that you didn't believe it because of the :inquisitive:. But as you said, there are people who do.

[CountArach]

It's not that I actually believe that, but it does sound something like one would hear during the election. I had liked Obama, but now I'm more McCain. His 'sweeping rhetoric' was inspiring and all, but as the great Hildabeast has moved on, I have grown more and more cautious about supporting Obama. His 'new ideas' are essentially those of the more liberal base of the Democrats. He has conviction (or it seems like he does) and honest (or seems like he is). However, the sudden and complete trust one puts in Obama is unnerving. His supporters are almost entirely die-hards, unwilling to recognize that Barack Obama is mortal. He seems practically messianic. His positive attributes seem more like a smoke-screen than actual substance.
So someone who wields that much public trust is, to me, a great threat. It reminds me of the man who sold the Emperor his new clothes. I can't explain it, but when someone like that can inspire so many, it's more disconcerting than enjoyable.
Just to defend his supporters, THIS (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/21/1545/63989) article at DailyKos is on the front page of their site. Tell me that they aren't die-hard Obama supporters. I would say that they can recognise his faults:

And if you object to it, then even Barack Obama will hold the threat of imminent Terror over your head as justification for why we should ignore past violations of Constitutional rights and declare a massive, flag-waving, star-spangled do over that simply declares there's no more problem.
They are pretty pissed about his capitulation on FISA and they do blame him for voting the wrong way.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Lemur:

Good bit on idealist/rough and tumble pol all in one package -- a powerful point. Cook County politics is NOT for the faint of heart and he did well in that league. It may not be the majors, but it IS very much at the professional level.

Right now we have:

Obama:

(+) THE candidate for all of the party die-hards: he's glib, fairly charismatic, he's politically liberal but not divorced from reality, he's a man of color (an advantage nationally now -- my nation has changed), he can make hard-nosed campaign decisions, he apparently doesn't have a lot of "quit" in him. Because he started so far in the hole vis-a-vis heir apparent Hillary, his campaign has a surprising degree of grass roots support for a Dem. If he weren't so entrenched in the "the federal government is the answer" camp I'd rather like him. Obama also picks up some points from those who are disillusioned by Bush. Bush is NOT hated by the public to the extent he is by the Dem core or the media, but he's not going to create coat-tails for McCain and will cost Mack a few votes.

(-) The "Reagan" dems don't like him much and Hispanics are lukewarm. These are VERY important blocs in key swing states like CO, NM, PA, & OH. The election is still a long way off, and McCain has so far not shown an ability to win away enough of these voters -- but much could change either way.

McCain:

(+) Genuine hero. Pretty honest politically and a record of not being a staunch right-winger. Handles town hall stuff well and has a good deal of personal charm. Foreign policy still matters in the general election and very few think McCain will be a screw-up as CinC. Good chance to grab liberal republicans a Reagan Democrats -- scores well among Hispanics.

(-) Will have trouble turning out the votes from the Republican core set. Inevitably comes off as being the candidate of the "past" in a one on one. Facing a big hurdle in the U.S. voters typically vote out the party in power after two presidential terms unless the opposing candidate is really weak. McCain's policy background says he would NOT be a Bush third term, but Obama is more naturally positioned to take advantage of the periodic "house-cleaning" mood that affects the electorate.


All in all, McCain is doing well but not keeping up in finding or charm. For now, that leaves Obama with a modest, but measurable lead. Things will tighten up toward the GOP's favor as the election nears -- usually seems to do so -- but maybe not quite enough.

[CountArach]

Lemur:

Good bit on idealist/rough and tumble pol all in one package -- a powerful point. Cook County politics is NOT for the faint of heart and he did well in that league. It may not be the majors, but it IS very much at the professional level.

Right now we have:

Obama:

(+) THE candidate for all of the party die-hards: he's glib, fairly charismatic, he's politically liberal but not divorced from reality, he's a man of color (an advantage nationally now -- my nation has changed), he can make hard-nosed campaign decisions, he apparently doesn't have a lot of "quit" in him. Because he started so far in the hole vis-a-vis heir apparent Hillary, his campaign has a surprising degree of grass roots support for a Dem. If he weren't so entrenched in the "the federal government is the answer" camp I'd rather like him. Obama also picks up some points from those who are disillusioned by Bush. Bush is NOT hated by the public to the extent he is by the Dem core or the media, but he's not going to create coat-tails for McCain and will cost Mack a few votes.
Oh really? (http://www.pollster.com/presbushapproval.php) 28.4% Approval rating screams unpopular to me. Republicans make up more than 28.4% of those who are either registered with a party, or as independents.


(-) The "Reagan" dems don't like him much and Hispanics are lukewarm. These are VERY important blocs in key swing states like CO, NM, PA, & OH. The election is still a long way off, and McCain has so far not shown an ability to win away enough of these voters -- but much could change either way.
Obama winning Latinos almost 3-to-1 (http://www.pacificmarketresearch.com/ld/poll_national.html) - Found this poll the other day:

The survey found that 60 percent of Latinos planned to vote for Obama, compared to 23 percent for McCain, while 16 percent were undecided.

Obama's lead among Latinos is consistent among those born in the U.S. as well as those born abroad. Among U.S.-born Latinos, Obama leads McCain 57 percent to 26 percent, and among foreign-born Latinos, 64 percent to 21 percent.

Likewise, Obama does well among Latinos across many states. In California, he leads 66 percent to 20 percent; in New York, 65 percent to 20 percent; in Texas, 61 percent to 22 percent. Combining data in the four southwestern states expected to be key battlegrounds -- New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Nevada -- Obama leads McCain 57 percent to 31 percent among Latino voters. In Florida, where about half of Latino voters are Cuban-American, Obama has 43 percent to McCain's 42 percent. The poll's margin of error is 3.5 percent.

(-) Will have trouble turning out the votes from the Republican core set. Inevitably comes off as being the candidate of the "past" in a one on one. Facing a big hurdle in the U.S. voters typically vote out the party in power after two presidential terms unless the opposing candidate is really weak. McCain's policy background says he would NOT be a Bush third term, but Obama is more naturally positioned to take advantage of the periodic "house-cleaning" mood that affects the electorate.
Have you seen his record? He agrees with Bush on nearly everything. But I'll leave Stephen Colbert (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/19/the-word-the-lexicon-artist/) to make the point for me:

It’s no secret that one of John McCain’s biggest challenges as a candidate is distinguishing himself from President Bush. I’m not sure why he’s eager to spurn President Bush’s supporters. I mean, that’s walking away from almost 29% of the American electorate and nearly half the Bush children.

But he’s so different from Bush already. The only issues they agree on are education, immigration, Iraq, abortion, Supreme Court judges, Social Security, tax breaks for the wealthy, wiretapping, trade, healthcare, the Middle East, same sex marriage and Medicare.

[PanzerJaeger]

Now, I'd like to suggest that any further discussion of PJ and his tendency to see monkeys when he looks at highly educated black people should be moved to a new thread. Topics in which PJ posts have a depressing tendency to become all about PJ. Hell, maybe this thread should just be locked, since it's already more than halfway to being permanently spoiled.

I want to address this first, as it really does indicate poor form on your part.

It is obvious to anyone following this thread that you have been the one to initiate personal attacks, not once but twice. After the thread was closed the first time, yet again you felt it necessary to call me out with a litany of ad hominem attacks when I simply attempted to answer your question. Now you're whining about how I am spoiling the thread? It takes two to tango.

I encourage you to review the previous pages. You've attacked anyone who dares question your opinions.. not just myself but Odin as well. Find the initial personal attacks. They weren't from me. This is a nasty little habit of yours, Lemur.

This thread is about analysis and commentary. I'm sorry if you don't enjoy my commentary, but if you don't want to engage in our little discussions, then don't continue to attack me.

So now that you've made all your points, you'd like to end the discussion? I'll be happy to step aside so you can continue to dominate the thread and lecture those that don't fall in line with your opinions, right after I respond. :2thumbsup:



i like how you slipped "rhetorical skills" in there, an element you haven't even acknowledged thus far. Are you suggesting the man you compare to a monkey can talk real good? This is new and interesting.

Wrong. Have a read through the primary thread.



As I have said in this thread, I expect the number of people voting for him because of his race (such as black people) will be balanced out by the people votin against him because of his race (racists).

Really? You feel there are that many racists in the base of the democratic party? The Kos is a bastion of racial resentment, but not toward black people. :beam:



What, some voters are more interested in the movement and the man than specific issues? Ye gods! I think this is the first time this has happened anywhere! Up until now, every voter in America would calmly consider the platform of each candidate, meditate upon these issues in a Platonic state of equilibrium, and come forth from the mountaintop with a decision. I have never, ever heard of voters getting interested in the person and the movement rather than the candidates' specifics on corn policy. You're right, Obama supporters are a new kind of stupid, and should be mocked constantly.

Again, in your rush to cede the point you've made a leap that I did not, typical of your style. When did I say that this was the first time this has ever happened? Sadly, its the next in a long line..

World history and more specifically that of America is full of examples of over zealous supporters putting persona over real issues. It never turns out well.

Take a step back. You're defending people becoming more interested in a "movement" than the real issues? Is that really a position you want to take?



Look, PJ, if you're going to go comparing a black man's wife to a monkey, you're gonna get what you deserve. I'm sure we can have a balanced, nuanced discussion of race and poitics, but you know what? I don't want to have that convo in the primary thread, and I don't want to have that convo with you.

Then why do you continue to bring it up? :dizzy2:

Sorry, I just can't let this one go. PJ,

So you just want to scream "racist!", but you don't want to discuss it? Casting aspersions can certainly make you feel better about yourself, but you very rarely learn much in the process.



Yeah, you baited someone dumb enough to talk about why they like Obama(me), and the entire thing was a set-up so you could dismiss anything said and move on to your real point, which was all about how there are no valid reasons to support the man, and anyone who does so is a fool. Polite phrasing could not disguise the essential meanness of that exercise.

Completely untrue. I honestly wanted to know what you saw in the man. I will admit that I was slightly surprised at how scant and weak your reasons were, but my question was no elaborate set up.



The next time you want to denounce someone, just go ahead and do it. We all know where you're coming from, and you don't need a set-up to get into your angry denunciations.

:drama3:

This is what I'm talking about. You continue to want to make this into some personal dispute. You've made it abundantly clear that you don't like me. On the other hand, I have no problems with you. I don't know why you believe I would go to the trouble to set up some elaborate trap just to denounce you? :dizzy2:

Contrary to what you apparently think, this is not all about you. The more I see of Obama, the less I like of him. If you choose to take my commentary about the sentaor as personally insulting, that indicates some issues on your part, not mine.



You know, if you repeat this point with only minor variations a hundred more times, you're going to get a prize.

I'm sorry, I thought this was about me being a racist? Seeing as our latest discussion has comprised of you accusing me of racism and then taking issue with my criticisms that have nothing to do with racism, maybe its more about you taking issue with criticisms of the man in general?



You see, it's **** like this that just completely cuts your legs out from under you. Are you really so thick that you don't see the problem with a young, fascist white boy calling a black man's wife a "monkey"? Are you stupid or tastelessly provocative? 'Cause i don't see a third alternative.

Sorry, but at the end of the day, you're just mixing your contempt of people who disagree with you with some truly despicable racial language. No doubt you will now insist, "Oh, I had no idea that calling black people 'monkeys' had a history. I can't see race, I've evolved past that, so how could I know?"

If I knew how to edit the bit under my username, it would most definately be changed to Tastelessly Provacative! Anyway, do the rules against this stuff only apply selectively? Wait, Banquo's already provided me the answer. :beam:

In your race to jump to conclusions, you've completely missed the point again. Either Obama is post racial or he isn't, and all evidence suggests that he isn't. You know, if I attended a white supremist church for 20 years, and referred to Obama as a typical black man, you may have a point about me. :idea2:

If the man wants to be president, he has to go through the same grist mill that every other one has. His wife looks like a monkey - she really, really does. It sets a dangerous precedent when you begin to say "Oh you're white so you can't say this, he's black so this is off limits, etc."

Turn off the OMG and think about that one for a minute. If its ok to call GWB a monkey, shouldn't it be ok to do the same to the Obama's, or does his race play into that equation? And, if you can agree that his race does change the game, then why can't that be discussed?



So let's recap, one more time, shall we? Once again you claimed that I was only opposed to Obama's candidacy because of his race, and once again I provided you with the same reasons I have been opposed to his candidacy for months - none of them involving race.

Do you remember what I said the very first time you implied I was racist? When you asked if I would support any black politicians for the presidency? Or is Colin Powell not black enough? I guess you missed my "Condaleeza 08" post back when we were discussing our presidential hopefulls.

Yes Lemur, this die hard racist thought that the rather attractive, completely non monkey looking, black woman currently heading the State Department would be a fine choice against Hillary. You see, I admire Rice for her personal and professional achievements. On the other hand, I have little respect for a woman that spends years in Princeton, and can only come up with "Why I don't fit in with whitey" as her senior thesis. This is the same woman that had never been proud of her country until her husband had success in the primaries. Rice is truly post-racial. The Obamas? They wallow in their race. Everything from the church they went to for 20 years to the company they've kept all their lives to the statements they've made indicate that they have deep seeded racial resentments.

That all might be a little too difficult for you to digest, so lets make this very easy. If you're going to continue to call me a racist, please provide any evidence that I have ever used Obama's skin color as a reason not to vote for the man. Quotes would be delightful.

Of course you and I know this is about liberal versus conservative, not black versus white. As I said before, if you take issue with my criticisms of those who are voting for the man because of his skin color or the historical nature of his candidacy, you may be better served to direct your ire towards CNN - as the topic is discussed on that channel and in the media constantly. :stupido2:

[Lemur]

OKay, PJ, you've had the last word. Let's take this to PM, shall we?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Oh really? (http://www.pollster.com/presbushapproval.php) 28.4% Approval rating screams unpopular to me. Republicans make up more than 28.4% of those who are either registered with a party, or as independents.

Being unpopular is different from being hated, though.

CR

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Being unpopular is different from being hated, though.

CR

I'm beginning to think that if I assess George W. Bush as anything other than a warmongering idiot that I'll be forcibly told how stupid I must be. :rolleyes3:

Bush's 28.4% approval rating sucks. It does mean that he doesn't even have full support among the 33% or so who label themselves GOP-inclined. It does not mean he is actively hated -- especially among the GOP. Mostly, the conservatives are disappointed and disillusioned.



It sucks down at the 2-3% level among dems and the Euro-Ozzie left because he:

Invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam;

Has been aggressive in his use of force;

Has not deferred to the majority opinion among world governments that the War on Terror is inherently wrong and terrorism can only be truly combatted through a combination of negotiation, economic handouts, and police work against individual terrorists as criminals.

To be fair, the Bush administration has not been subtle in its approach to international politics.



It sucks among the conservatives because:

He didn't WIN decisively in Iraq;

He didn't take illegal immigration seriously;

He didn't veto a spending bill until 2007 and has grossly inflated government rather than paring it back.

NOTE: the reasons among conservatives are VERY different from those driving Dem disapproval. George is just perched at the confluence of both.



I'll be interested in seeing how hard those poll numbers among Hispanics turn out to be. Sample was a little small, but a 3.5% MOE isn't too shabby. I'd have been interested in a fuller sense of the method of interview and questions -- but then again I taught research meth so I'm picky.

[m52nickerson]

McCain has offered 300 million dollars to anyone who can develop an automobile battery that far surpasses existing technology.

I think the old man has gone off the deep end.

http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/newsreleases/8086c84c-f5b7-4602-b336-1f423d0e20dd.htm

[Redleg]

McCain has offered 300 million dollars to anyone who can develop an automobile battery that far surpasses existing technology.

I think the old man has gone off the deep end.

http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/newsreleases/8086c84c-f5b7-4602-b336-1f423d0e20dd.htm

Actually its far from going off the deep end. It plays well into the politial arena of today's real economic issues over the cost of fuel. Now will it ever truely be done is a different story, but just the mention of it will encourage some to attempt radical new ideas to develop such a battery. The big arguement around this is that the current electrical battery only lasts about 50 to 100 miles and requires it to be charged every day.

Any improvement on that might have an economic gain for the United States and might make it convienent for the American consumer to want to purchase.

So while it might just be a gimic for the election - thinking the man has gone off the deep end is a conclusion that demonstrates your own biased view of the candidate. No biggy to me, but at least realize what the political reality of such a move is.

[Marshal Murat]

To me it ($300 mil) seems to inspire what is great about America. It'll give the small man the inspiration the will and ability to pursue a better battery. Sure, the automobile companies could do the same work and all, but they're not facing as much competition as the American enterpernuer. While some call it crazy, I call it America.

[Lemur]

I think the old man has gone off the deep end.
Not so different from the X-Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-prize), and that's been working out well. No, I think Johnny Mac is onto something here. Only question is, why car batteries? There's lots of places where breakthrough tech would make a huge difference. Not that improvement in batteries is bad, mind you ....

[Crazed Rabbit]

I think it could be a political score for McCain.

It also shows an important difference between the two - Obama favors old school regulations, McCain new and innovate incentives instead of punishments.

Reading about the fallout from Obama's seal fiasco, if he keeps that sort of stuff up he'll crystallize a media CW as being "charismatic but arrogant".

@ Louis - why the support for Obama? Do you want him to ruin our economy so France can go back to its 35 hour work week without worry? ~;p

CR

[CountArach]

McCain has offered 300 million dollars to anyone who can develop an automobile battery that far surpasses existing technology.

I think the old man has gone off the deep end.

http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/newsreleases/8086c84c-f5b7-4602-b336-1f423d0e20dd.htm
Not a bad idea at all. I would rather that went into solar-powered cars or some other viable alternate energy soutce, but this is a good step in the right direction.

[Meneldil]

Well, as you're probably aware, Fox News went for the trifecta. First there was calling for Obama's assassination (http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0508/Fox_analyst_apologizes_for_Obama_assassination_joke.html), then there was the "terrorist fist-jab," (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jun/13/television.barackobama?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront) and now it's calling Michelle Obama his "baby mama," a phrase normally reserved for unmarried women who you've knocked up.



So, hum, an analyst working for Fox can say such crap and not be fired right away ?

And here I was thinking french medias were bad.

[CountArach]

So, hum, an analyst working for Fox can say such crap and not be fired right away ?

And here I was thinking french medias were bad.
To be fair, the Terrorist Fist-jab analyst was fired, or at least had her own show taken away from her.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Good grief! Panzer, read. This Black bastard is a complete disgrace (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2327749220080623) to the election!


Also, Obama wants crack (http://www.addict3d.org/news/393016/Obama%20wants%20crackdown%20on%20energy%20speculators)

[Tribesman]

This Black bastard is a complete disgrace to the election!
Aw come on Louis that Black bastard just had a little slip of the tongue , perhaps he thought it was his job of giving good PR and lobbying for political favours for crazy dictators rather than his job of pushing for a candidate in a democratic election .

[TevashSzat]

I'm not really sure whether this has been discussed in the thread here yet, but this was a very intersting blurb that I heard on the news this morning.

Basically, "the stone age did not end because we ran out of stones." That said, this effort by all of the politicians to reduce gas costs, while beneificial in the short term, are very harmful in the long term. While some gas cutbacks have occurred, there really hasn't been any mass boycott of gas due to its cost simply because American society is so dependent on gasoline for everything that the current prices have not reached a critical level yet.

Domestic and foreign attempts to lower prices are the reason that this level has not been achieved yet. Oil producers like the Saudis, yesterday?? iirc, will increase oil production when they see prices approaching such a level simply because although they want oil prices to be high, they don't want it to be so high such that demand will significantly decrease. As such, they increase production just before this level is approached and prolong such an oil dependence. Domestically, no politicians can realistically not call for attempts to decrease gas costs and still accept to be successful. Even though it would be the best in the long term to let gas prices increase alot without much control and thus, force everyone to develop and invest in better energy technologies, it is political suicide for either Obama or McCain to propose to do so.

I would really like to hear a response from both candidates in a debate regarding this, but I don't expect any half-decent response other than a skillfull avoidance of the issue.

[Don Corleone]

Not sure exactly the point you're trying to make, Tevash, but if it's getting us weaned of our dependence on foreign oil (and eventually, all petroleum products), both candidates have laid out plans to help in that regard.

McCain wants to build more reactors. A lot more. He recognizes, correctly, that nuclear power does nothing to increase greenhouse gasses, fissable material is limitless, at least for the foreseeable future, and understands that large public expenditures may need to be made for proper disposal and handling of the waste. He also offered a 300 million bounty to a commercially realizable electric car that could take advantage of all the electricity coming in from all those new nuclear plants. He's also mentioned the use of clean coal technology for a fossil fuel that we actually do have in abundance.

Obama wants us to primarily cut back on energy consumption and pursue using solar power. I'm not sure if anybody in his campaign have done a feasibility study of converting the nation to solar power, but last time I checked, based on the current efficiency, it takes photo-voltaic cells the size of Nebraska just to power a city of 500,000. And photo-voltaic cells use heavy metals, which need to be replaced periodically, so it's not as 'clean' a technology as people might first think. I think Obama also wants to implement windfarms, but even the great liberal icon, Ted Kennedy, wouldn't let a windfarm go up off the coast of Cape Cod, so I don't know where you're going to put those, if you let the NIMB crowd have their way.

[Ice]

Now who would have seen this coming?



Obama Tilts Toward Center, Irking Some Activists
Stances on Spy Bill
And Corporate Tax
Buck Liberal Base
By SUSAN DAVIS
June 24, 2008; Page A8

Barack Obama's support of an overhaul of domestic-spying laws last week was the latest in a string of statements suggesting the Democratic presidential candidate is tacking toward the center to compete with John McCain.

On foreign policy, national security, tax issues and even local politics, Sen. Obama has made some decisions lately that belie his ranking by the nonpartisan National Journal as the U.S.'s "most liberal" senator.

During the primaries, he ran to the left of Sen. Hillary Clinton, securing the nomination in part by shoring up a base that included self-identified liberals and Internet activists who helped fill his campaign war chest.

Some of those supporters are irked by Sen. Obama's latest moves, but the general-election season will put increased pressure on both candidates to attract moderate and independent voters.

The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, conducted in early June, showed that 58% of voters perceive Sen. Obama as a liberal and 24% view him as a moderate. In contrast, 34% view Sen. McCain as a moderate and 48% see him as a conservative.

To be sure, the predominant view among party leaders is that a turn toward the center is smart politics, and that Sen. Obama's willingness to buck the left wing on issues such as the spy bill signals he is maneuvering to fight Sen. McCain directly for voters in the middle of the political spectrum.

"I applaud it," a senior Democratic lawmaker said. "By standing up to MoveOn.org and the ACLU, he's showing, I think, maybe the first example of demonstrating his ability to move to the center. He's got to make the center comfortable with him. He can't win if the center isn't comfortable."

Sen. Obama's press office didn't respond to requests for comment.

The shift has met with some protest from the activist left. The liberal MoveOn.org, which endorsed Sen. Obama, is petitioning its members to call his campaign to object to his support of the spy bill. The group notes that he previously vowed to support a filibuster of the legislation because of immunity provisions for telephone companies that helped the government carry out its surveillance program.

Popular liberal blogs criticized the senator after he announced his support of the bill Friday. "There's an element of distrust now," Matt Stoller, a liberal activist and co-founder of the blog OpenLeft.com, said Monday at an Internet politics conference in New York.

Mr. Stoller said that Sen. Obama's position on the spy bill may not alienate the majority of his supporters, but the issue gives activists "a strong reason not to trust him or give him the benefit of the doubt."

Similarly, Sen. Obama's decision to opt out of the public-financing system for the general election was a blow to leading liberal Democrats who have championed campaign-finance reform and public financing. "This is not a good decision," Sen. Russ Feingold (D., Wis.), said in a statement Thursday.

On taxes, Sen. Obama told The Wall Street Journal in a recent interview that he would consider cuts to the corporate tax rate as part of an effort to simplify the tax system, a position also advocated by Sen. McCain.
[Graph]

Sen. Obama's shift toward the center is particularly apparent in foreign policy. In a recent speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, he offered such ardent support for Israel that he had to backtrack just a few days later. Sen. Obama, working to woo Jewish voters, told the lobbying group that he supported Israel retaining control of an "undivided" Jerusalem. The comment so infuriated many Arab leaders that he was forced to issue a clarification that he didn't oppose Israeli-Palestinian negotiations over the future of the city.

He also used the AIPAC speech to tweak one of his most controversial positions -- a stated willingness to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- and outline a hard-line position on Iran that is basically interchangeable with Sen. McCain's.

In his remarks, Sen. Obama said a possible meeting with Mr. Ahmadinejad would take place "at a time and place of my choosing, if and only if it can advance the interests of the United States" -- and only after earlier talks between lower-ranking American and Iranian officials. He also vowed to "do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon -- everything."

On Iraq, meanwhile, Sen. Obama has been making clear that he favors shrinking the U.S. military presence there, as opposed to trying to quickly eliminate it through an immediate withdrawal.

He favors withdrawing one or two "combat" brigades a month, but the designation is vague enough that it could allow a President Obama to leave potentially significant numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said he had been prepared to lobby Sen. Obama against withdrawing forces too precipitously, only to find that the senator's thinking was not that far from his own.

Mr. Zebari said that he had a lengthy telephone call last week with Sen. Obama and that he came away "reassured" that Sen. Obama wouldn't take steps to jeopardize Iraq's recent security gains. He said Sen. Obama told him he would "consult very closely with the Iraqi government and with the military commanders in the field" before ordering any withdrawals. "He will not take any drastic decisions, or reckless actions," Mr. Zebari said.

Sen. Obama's center tilt comes as Republicans have increased their efforts to paint him as a liberal -- a word that has been demagogued to where Democrats now mostly prefer the term progressive to describe their views.

In recent interviews and speeches, Sen. McCain has drawn parallels between his rival's energy policies and those of former President Jimmy Carter, who conservatives criticize for tax increases and heavy regulation.

Politically, Sen. Obama also endorsed Georgia's Rep. John Barrow, a conservative white Southern Democrat, against a liberal African-American woman, state Sen. Regina Thomas, in the July 15 primary. The move raised eyebrows, because party leaders generally don't get involved in intraparty skirmishes. While Ms. Thomas may have more appeal among Democratic primary voters, Mr. Barrow is widely viewed as in a better position to win in this swing district.

The endorsement also stoked anger on the left.

"It is up to us to create a progressive check on Obama, and we might just have our first opportunity," OpenLeft.com wrote regarding Sen. Obama's nod, agitating for Ms. Thomas to score a primary upset.


Man, what a smart politician. I'll give the guy that.

[CountArach]

Republican Senator jumps ship. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGDJijGCeO4)

[Xiahou]

Chalk up another incident of Obama taking credit for legislation he had nothing to do with- this time via a campaign add:

Obama says that he "extended healthcare for wounded troops that had been neglected" and cited Public Law 110-181 as proof of this.

The problem is: Obama didn't show up to vote. Only 9 senators voted the bill down or did not show up to vote.
Obama was one of the 9.link (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/06/bummer-obama-caught-in-major-lie-in.html)

The link is just to the first blog I found covering it- but if someone doesn't like it, you can look up the voting records and view the ad online. :book:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Obama slides a little more to the center -- classic Dem post primary shuffle.

McCain throws a few bones to the conservative wing of the GOP to keep them from staying home come November. Classic CCGOP strategy.

Both candidates are making the cheerfully exploitative -- and politically correct -- assessment that their core supporters to date have no where to go, so they can piss them off a little bit and say things to grab the others in the middle or previous opposition. SSDD

Don't you love the "new" politics as practiced by the Crown Prince of Change and Maverick Mack? :rolleyes3:

[CountArach]

Don't you love the "new" politics as practiced by the Crown Prince of Change and Maverick Mack? :rolleyes3:
Yup, I feel sorry for you guys having no real choice.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

McCain throws a few bones to the conservative wing of the GOP to keep them from staying home come November. Classic CCGOP strategy.

Why the heck do they only give themselves the options of staying home or voting GOP? Really, I can think of two (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Party_(United_States)) choices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)) that a disgruntled GOP member has besides staying home. Besides, you might even get a third party in the system!

[Xiahou]

Why the heck do they only give themselves the options of staying home or voting GOP? Really, I can think of two (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Party_(United_States)) choices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)) that a disgruntled GOP member has besides staying home. Besides, you might even get a third party in the system!Indeed. I'll definitely be voting, but it probably won't be for McCain. There are things I like in both the Constitution party and the Libertarian party, but Im not in love with either.

[CountArach]

Indeed. I'll definitely be voting, but it probably won't be for McCain. There are things I like in both the Constitution party and the Libertarian party, but Im not in love with either.
Prohibition Party (http://www.geneamondson.com/prohibition-party-2004.html) FTW. They got 1896 votes last Presidential election, so they could use all the help you can give them!

[Ice]

Why the heck do they only give themselves the options of staying home or voting GOP? Really, I can think of two (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Party_(United_States)) choices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)) that a disgruntled GOP member has besides staying home. Besides, you might even get a third party in the system!

Both of those parties are too "out there" for my tastes.

Besides voting 3rd party does nothing.

[Lemur]

Besides voting 3rd party does nothing.
Tell it to the Whigs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_Party_(United_States)), the Federalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party_(United_States)), and the Democratic-Republicans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party).

[LittleGrizzly]

Besides voting 3rd party does nothing.

For those outside the swing states its about as ineffective as voting dem or rep

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Both of those parties are too "out there" for my tastes.

How about America First, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Party_(2002)) Reform, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Party_of_the_United_States_of_America) Centrist, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrist_Party_(United_States)) or Moderate? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderate_Party_(United_States))


Besides voting 3rd party does nothing.

You know, ironically, that's because people don't vote third party. If people like you decided to, then it would do something.

Besides, by that logic, a single vote doesn't do anything anyways, so why bother?

[CountArach]

You know, ironically, that's because people don't vote third party. If people like you decided to, then it would do something.
Thank you EMFM, that's what I've been trying to explain to people on other sites for ages. However, at the Presidential level it does not have the same effect as voting Third Party at a more local level, where there are fewer votes and hence each third party vote pushes them far closer to acceptance.

[Xiahou]

Prohibition Party (http://www.geneamondson.com/prohibition-party-2004.html) FTW. They got 1896 votes last Presidential election, so they could use all the help you can give them!I actually would like a party that's a mix of the Libertarian party and the Constitution party.... Maybe we could call them Republicans. :idea2:

Now if only we could find some candidates to run. Bah, it's a silly pipe dream. :shame:

[CountArach]

Vote: Ron Paul

[OverKnight]

"Former President Bill Clinton, who has been noticeably reticent in his backing for Barack Obama, finally offered his endorsement yesterday, issuing a one-sentence statement through a spokesman."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/25/bill_clinton_offers_help_to_obama/

Wow, a ringing example of party unity. :laugh4:

I wonder why Bill is having a harder time letting the loss to Obama go than Hillary? Maybe because since he doesn't hold an office, he has less to gain from playing nice? Fear that he might lose the title of most charming Democrat?

Whatever the outcome, I'm glade the next president won't have the last name Bush or Clinton. I really don't want the Presidency to become a bauble traded between the Montagues and Capulets.

How about Jenna vs. Chelsea in 2020? :scared:

[Marshal Murat]

The third party has rarely appeared because the two parties traditionally have chosen centrist policies with some to the right or left. The major third parties were traditionally regional, and thus lacked national appeal. Minor third parties were based on a single subject, and quickly withered.

Progressive Party under that ol' Bull Moose. Ran on the issue of Roosevelt, or more broadly, reform. It was born out of the La Folette party, which disappeared after La Folette's death and Roosevelts campaign.

Socialist Party, got 6% of votes in urban and Mid-western states, led by Debs, but slowed after his death and the Cold War.

Free-Soilers, ran on the single issue of no slavery in new states. Platform absorbed by the new Republicans, who combined disaffected Whigs and some Democrats.

American Party, ran on the issue of restricting immigration. Platform absorbed by Whigs and Democrats, but never gained serious support.

The two parties today (Republicans and Democrats) are broad bases for supporters to spring from. In Mississippi the Democrat victor has conservative values. Webb (?) of Virginia has a concealed weapons permit, but is a Democrat. Schwarzenegger is more liberal than some Republicans.

Third parties often share the same ideals with other parties, scattering any votes that could, combined, challenge the traditional duo. The Constitution Party (who kinda scares me) has five or six competitors for the same votes. It would be practical suicide for someone to try and run on that in a national election. State or local, it would focus more on the candidate than the party and their platform.

With Republicans and Democrats, you have flexibility in the message but can still appeal to a certain block, while third parties have to run either on personality or specific, regional, message. In those cases, the possibility of a third-party candidate shrinks, since they lack the personality to stand out against either the Democrats or Republicans.

Also, if the Constitution Party believes like the Founding Fathers, wouldn't they abolish themselves since Washington disliked political parties?

[Redleg]

Vote: Ron Paul

Ron Paul is a mix of sound policy ideas and completely insane politics. While I like his fiscial conservativism, I am completely against his isolation stance in regrads to the world. He doesn't just speak of withdraw of military forces from everywhere besides the United States, something I agree with, but he also speaks of basically withdrawing from any aid given to other nations. Now that just might be political rethoric on his part, but his isolationist stance concerns me.

Some of his other policy ideas while in the long run might do the country some good, like returning to the gold standard, I don't think he has thought out the short term requirements to make it work.


Same problem goes with many of Obama's and McCain's stated policies - some of them would be beneficial in the long term, but they both fail to address the method in which to get there. Again this is the norm for American Politicians running for office, you get broad brushstrokes on policy, but nothing that will force a candidate to take a committed stance toward how they will tackle the issue. Which forces many to look at what the past track record of the candidate is versus address the issues that the candidate is running on.

This is what is forcing me to wait until the debate cycle begins so I can see if anyone can get the candidates to actually address issues versus the normal statements that focus on what the opposition's policies might be. Currently all I see in this election is the same voting cycle of the last 4 national elections - voting for who you believe to be the lesser of two bad candidates. With a democratic controled congress - this would force me to vote Republican - primarily to force the two branches to compramise (SP) to get legislation through or to create a stalemate of sorts in the government.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Tell it to the Whigs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_Party_(United_States)), the Federalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party_(United_States)), and the Democratic-Republicans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party).

Add the Republicans to that.

Oh and I think people are definitely right about voting third party in local elections. Here in Vermont we have libertarians (oh noes!), plain old independents, Marijuana party-members, and others all running for local seats. That doesn't mean they get elected much but at the very least Bernie has been quite successful for a number of years.

[Geoffrey S]

It would be interesting to see influential local (read: not nationally organized) parties in the States. I'd have thought that would have been closer to the original intentions, in any case - the most damaging thing to the intentions constitution to me seems to be the development of the nationwide two-party system, dominating both the legislative and executive (and media?) powers.

[Ice]

Add the Republicans to that.

Oh and I think people are definitely right about voting third party in local elections. Here in Vermont we have libertarians (oh noes!), plain old independents, Marijuana party-members, and others all running for local seats. That doesn't mean they get elected much but at the very least Bernie has been quite successful for a number of years.

Here Here, I found a party! :2thumbsup:

Kidding aside, you are correct that my vote doesn't do much. I've always wondered why I really even bother voting.

[CountArach]

You are in Michigan, your vote counts for so much more than someone in Oklahoma.

[Lemur]

Yup, midwest votes are gonna count for a lot this year. Michigan-Indiana-Illinois-Wisconsin could decide this thing.

But really, I don't see a valid reason not to vote third party if the spirit moves you. That's democracy, baby!

[Ice]

You are in Michigan, your vote counts for so much more than someone in Oklahoma.

You are missing my point. I doubt the race will come within one vote. I know my state has more electoral votes than other states.

[m52nickerson]

Chalk up another incident of Obama taking credit for legislation he had nothing to do with- this time via a campaign add:
link (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/06/bummer-obama-caught-in-major-lie-in.html)

The link is just to the first blog I found covering it- but if someone doesn't like it, you can look up the voting records and view the ad online. :book:

True, Obama was not present when the 110-181 was voted on. He did however introduce the "Dignity for Wounded Warriors bill" in march of 07. Much of this original bill was put into 110-181, which was the bill that passed. So at best he is guilty of sloppy citation.

Dignity for Wounded Warriors bill (http://obama.senate.gov/press/070301-obama_mccaskill_1/)

[woad&fangs]

John McCain's appeal to the youth vote (http://www.johnmccain.com/videogame/invaders/)

[Lemur]

Gotta admit, this made me laugh:


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/nymagclintonobama.jpg

[m52nickerson]

Gotta admit, this made me laugh:


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/nymagclintonobama.jpg

hahahaha..........that is good.

[Marshal Murat]

That just doesn't look right

Barack Obama isn't walking on the water

[Seamus Fermanagh]

They each needed to have a 'rita in the off hand.

I got a nice chuckle out of McCain channeling his "inner Buffet."

[Crazed Rabbit]

Dang, the Prohibition guy is a better speaker than McCain. Cirrhosis of the liver cut if half! How can we not elect him?


So at best he is guilty of sloppy citation.

At best.

Anyway, anyone else a bit surprised by Obama's gall to spin the whole spurning of public financing as some great political vision for the people?

CR

[Lemur]

Anyway, anyone else a bit surprised by Obama's gall to spin the whole spurning of public financing as some great political vision for the people?
I guess he didn't feel comfortable saying, "I got all this money, and by the power of Grayskull I'm gonna use it, so sue me, suckers!" But that's what I would have said.

Yeah, his attempt to spin it as a great strike against ... the broken ... something ... was kinda pathetic. Oh well, it's all for the best. People who think Obama will heal the lame, raise the dead, quiet the angry globe and balance the budget need to take a giant chill pill. It's not a bad thing for some of those starry-eyed supporters to learn that the man is -- *gasp* -- a politician.

Seamus is dismayed that McCain and Obama are breaking positions as the need strikes them. I don't mind, really, as most of the positions they took to placate their respective bases were asinine. And after seven-and-a-half years of being ruled by True Believers, I'll take a competent, practical pol, thank you very much.

[CountArach]

Just a question about pollies changing their position (It doesn't happen too often here except when a party gets new leadership) - If a politician changes his view from the primary and then into the general election, does he change it back often once he is in office?

For those who haven't seen it here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGDJijGCeO4) is the ad by Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon - Oh, did I mention he is a Republican? Talk about jumping ship.

And in other Senate race news I want to vote for Biiiiiiggggg Johnnnnnn, Big.... John! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt05KC3Add8)

[FactionHeir]

Some discussion about McCain vs Bush (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/06/26/ac.mccain.like.bush.cnn)

[Xiahou]

Just a question about pollies changing their position (It doesn't happen too often here except when a party gets new leadership) - If a politician changes his view from the primary and then into the general election, does he change it back often once he is in office?That's really the question, isn't it? It's also why I don't dismiss political pandering and outright lying so easily as others seem to- when they've taken stances on both sides of an issue, how do you know which side they'll really support in an election? Elections should be about policies, not a popularity contest. So, to me, flip-flopping and blatant pandering is a big strike against any candidate. For example, it was the main reason that I was very cool towards a Romney nomination.


People who think Obama will heal the lame, raise the dead, quiet the angry globe and balance the budget need to take a giant chill pill. It's not a bad thing for some of those starry-eyed supporters to learn that the man is -- *gasp* -- a politician.We can agree there. :yes:

[KukriKhan]

Just a question about pollies changing their position (It doesn't happen too often here except when a party gets new leadership) - If a politician changes his view from the primary and then into the general election, does he change it back often once he is in office?

A fine question. This is just my observation; others may disagree:

Just before the General election, the executive agencies (FBI, CIA, DoD, Treasury, etc) give the 2 leading candidates orientation briefings. Then, after the winner is picked, he gets the "real deal", classified briefings (remember: although he's picked in November, he doesn't start the job until January). Those briefings usually sober the incoming guy, and December becomes "Let's work together" month.

After he takes office, he gets about a 100-day honeymoon, selecting and presenting to Congress his cabinet and staff. Around mid-April, barring any catastrophies, work starts getting done, and the new guy's actual agenda begins to emerge, tempered by on-the-ground realities globally and nationally.

Then, the trend lately has been: around September or October of that first year, he begins campaigning for re-election.

[Lemur]

Elections should be about policies, not a popularity contest.
Oh, wow, you really had me there. I was laughing so hard that I think some milk came out of my nose. When's the last time a Presidential election was not a popularity contest for the majority of voters?

[Xiahou]

Oh, wow, you really had me there. I was laughing so hard that I think some milk came out of my nose. When's the last time a Presidential election was not a popularity contest for the majority of voters?That's why I said "should". :wink:
Just because it is that way for many voters doesn't mean that I should approve of it and I certainly try to hold my vote to a higher standard for what it's worth..

[Lemur]

Bob Novak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chupacabra) examines the "Obamacon" phenomenon (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/25/AR2008062501942.html).


Powell, Hagel and lesser-known Obamacons harbor no animosity toward McCain. Nor do they show much affection for the rigidly liberal Obama. The Obamacon syndrome is based on hostility to Bush and his administration and on revulsion over today's Republican Party. The danger for McCain is that desire for a therapeutic electoral bloodbath could get out of control.

That danger was highlighted in a June New Republic article on "The rise of the Obamacons" by supply-side economist Bruce Bartlett, who was a middle-level official in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. He expressed "disgust with a Republican Party that still does not see how badly George W. Bush has misgoverned this country" -- echoing his scathing 2006 book, "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy." While Bartlett says "I'm not ready to join the other side," his anti-Bush furor characterizes the Obamacons.

The prototypal Obamacon may be Larry Hunter, recognized inside the Beltway as an ardent supply-sider. When it became known recently that Hunter supports Obama, fellow conservatives were stunned. Hunter was fired as U.S. Chamber of Commerce chief economist in 1993 when he would not swallow Clinton administration policy, and he later joined Jack Kemp at Empower America (ghostwriting Kemp's column). Explaining his support for the uncompromisingly liberal Obama, Hunter blogged on June 6: "The Republican Party is a dead rotting carcass with a few decrepit old leaders stumbling around like zombies in a horror version of 'Weekend With Bernie,' handcuffed to a corpse."

Dude, harsh.

[GeneralHankerchief]

I love the page you linked to for Novak, Lemur. :laugh4:

[PanzerJaeger]

Oh, wow, you really had me there. I was laughing so hard that I think some milk came out of my nose. When's the last time a Presidential election was not a popularity contest for the majority of voters?

Bush-Kerry.

You have a somewhat interesting perspective, Lemur. Yes, the politicians lie throughout the election and yes the plebs see the process as little more than the equivolent of their high school SGA elections, and you're cool with that. :2thumbsup:

You should look into Fascism. If the election cycle is just a big sham that puts the power in the hands of a bunch of morons, why is it necessary? :yes:

[Lemur]

Bush-Kerry.
You have some sort of data to back that up, or are we benefiting from your opinion?

-edit-

Just to throw in a guy who won a Nobel Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman) on this subject (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/opinion/18brooks.html):


In reality, we voters — all of us — make emotional, intuitive decisions about who we prefer, and then come up with post-hoc rationalizations to explain the choices that were already made beneath conscious awareness. “People often act without knowing why they do what they do,” Daniel Kahneman, a Nobel Prize winner, noted in an e-mail message to me this week. “The fashion of political writing this year is to suggest that people choose their candidate by their stand on the issues, but this strikes me as highly implausible.”

Not to mention the studies of committed partisans and their brain scans (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379/).


Researchers asked staunch party members from both sides to evaluate information that threatened their preferred candidate prior to the 2004 Presidential election. The subjects' brains were monitored while they pondered.

"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," said Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory University. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts."

[Spino]

Bob Novak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chupacabra) examines the "Obamacon" phenomenon (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/25/AR2008062501942.html).


Powell, Hagel and lesser-known Obamacons harbor no animosity toward McCain. Nor do they show much affection for the rigidly liberal Obama. The Obamacon syndrome is based on hostility to Bush and his administration and on revulsion over today's Republican Party. The danger for McCain is that desire for a therapeutic electoral bloodbath could get out of control.

That danger was highlighted in a June New Republic article on "The rise of the Obamacons" by supply-side economist Bruce Bartlett, who was a middle-level official in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. He expressed "disgust with a Republican Party that still does not see how badly George W. Bush has misgoverned this country" -- echoing his scathing 2006 book, "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy." While Bartlett says "I'm not ready to join the other side," his anti-Bush furor characterizes the Obamacons.

The prototypal Obamacon may be Larry Hunter, recognized inside the Beltway as an ardent supply-sider. When it became known recently that Hunter supports Obama, fellow conservatives were stunned. Hunter was fired as U.S. Chamber of Commerce chief economist in 1993 when he would not swallow Clinton administration policy, and he later joined Jack Kemp at Empower America (ghostwriting Kemp's column). Explaining his support for the uncompromisingly liberal Obama, Hunter blogged on June 6: "The Republican Party is a dead rotting carcass with a few decrepit old leaders stumbling around like zombies in a horror version of 'Weekend With Bernie,' handcuffed to a corpse."

Dude, harsh.

I wonder what Hunter thinks about the new $300 billion (or was it $390B?!? I've seen conflicting figures) Farm Bill the Dems tried to push through Congress but stalled when they fudged up the process? The same bill that has the collective panties of traditional Republicans and numerous economists in a bunch? Obama enthusiastically supported that bill but not too loudly... quite possibly so that he could distance himself from it enough to persuade moderates that he's not a part of that problem. I also find it amusing that many of the same Republicans who rubber stamped the wasteful nonsense that took place during Bush's 1st and 2nd term have suddenly discovered the voice of their inner-conservative and are screaming bloody murder about this same bill.

Yes, that article is harsh... and well deserved. However as I and many conservative leaning people in this forum have previously stated, it is bewilderingly foolish and delusional to think that a conservative voting for Obama as 'punishment' for the sins of the Neo-Conservative movement within the Republican party will somehow right the wrongs and set the party straight. The sensible and practical thing to do would be to look within the party and pull from the ranks 'true' Republicans (or ones that are far closer to the Goldwater/Reagan archetype and virtually devoid of the Neo-Con taint) and send them to the front lines to fight the good fight. Failing that these disillusioned & disgruntled Republicans would be better served by making a loud and concerted effort to support alternatives like the Conservative Party or, if they were really serious, assemble a core group of like like-minded legislators, governors and the like and threaten to break away from the Republican party unless steps are taken to reform the party and set it on the right path. Think of it as blackmail combined with a more effective, modern day equivalent of the "Contract with America" that Gingrich and his Republican peers put into action when Clinton was in office. Supporting a Democratic candidate who talks the moderate, bi-partisan walk but walks the extreme liberal walk only smacks of political opportunism of the worst kind. The truth of the matter is that these jokers are probably hedging their bets and hoping to cash in on the 'winds of change' and the 'audacity of hope'. If it doesn't work out then hey, they're still a member of the club and they've still got their day job! :thumbsup:

On the flip side I will repeat myself and say that the idea that this is the same Democractic party of Wilson, Roosevelt & Kennedy is laughable to the extreme. The Democrats pulled their own "Neo-Con" not too long ago when they alienated a huge chunk of their traditional Democratic base in the latter stages of the Vietnam war when the party became saturated with extreme leftists and blind idealists of the dovish persuasion. You can bet there was an awful sense of disgust and disillusionment among traditional Democrats when Carter's astoundingly passive and inept handling of the Iran hostage crisis led to one of the greatest and longest lasting humiliations in our history. Try to keep in mind that this was the same party that maintained a decidedly hawkish, pro-active foreign policy stance during much of the 20th century (i.e. WW1, Korea, Vietnam and their general prosecution of the Cold War). To have that same party maintain a decidedly non-violent, passive stance during the Iran hostage crisis must have given those old Democrat hawks nightmarish fits. I often wonder why the Democratic party has failed to produce a truly moderate candidate for President and now I see why... because whatever moderates exist have been chained to the wall underneath the basement stairs or or they've simply gone the way of the dinosaur! Lieberman was perhaps the last of that breed and look what happened to him.

Tragically some of those bad feelings drove many a Democrat into the fold of the Republican party... with disastrous results (i.e. Wolfowitz and those we lovingly refer to as the architects of the Neo-Con movement). The one comfort the Democratic party has is that most people don't know about, remember or even care how much that party has changed since the Johnson administration. To the average American the 60s and 70s might as well be Paleolithic era. Yeah dude! Sex, drugs, rock and roll, Vietnam and... uh, whut?

I've gotten into heated arguments with self-professed Democrats who either choose to ignore or outright deny the not-so-liberal-by-modern-Dem-standards programs and geo-political campaigns undertaken by their party in the 20th century. Since Nixon first stepped into the White House liberals have made an unbreakable habit of decrying Republicans as warmongers and dropping the big Democrat names of the previous century within a saintly context while failing to place them within the proper context of their actual goals and achievements.

So what the hell does all this have to do with Republicans? Well I can never pass up the chance to bust on Democrats. Seriously though, I guess the big question for Republicans is whether they're going to learn from their Neo-Con mistakes and those of the post-Vietnam Democratic party and take the necesssary steps and purge themselves of the taint which has left them with the Neo-Con albatross hanging around their neck. But beyond that begs the more important question... Is it even possible for these post-war generation Republicans and Democrats to do anything right?

[Lemur]

Looks like Senator Obama isn't the only one who claims dubious credit for bills. Senator McCain just did him one better, claiming coup for a bill he opposed (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16022.html). I expect there will be more where this came from, with both men.

If only Hillary had gotten the nod, we could be cruising toward clean government!


McCain, campaigning in Ohio, told voters, “I’m happy to tell you that we probably agreed to an increase in educational benefits for our veterans that not only gives them increase in their educational benefits, but if they stay in for a certain period of time than they can transfer those educational benefits to their spouses and or children. That’s a very important aspect I think of incentivizing people of staying in the military.”

Is that so. McCain is “happy” to promote a bill “we” passed to help veterans with their education benefits.

You’ve. Got. To. Be. Kidding. Me.

As regular readers no doubt recall, McCain opposed the Webb/Hagel GI Bill. He actively fought against it.

Remember this (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10561.html)?

The Senate approved a $194.1 billion wartime spending bill Thursday that promises a greatly expanded GI education benefit for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan…A Vietnam veteran himself, McCain has opposed Webb’s bill as overly generous to veterans at the expense of career military officers and NCOs. McCain did not return to the Capitol for Thursday’s votes…

Indeed, McCain’s opposition nearly scuttled the bill (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/30/politics/politico/main4057552.shtml).

[Xiahou]

From ABC News:
But, with the addition of a clause allowing service members to transfer their benefits to family members, McCain now supports the 21st Century Bill of Rights, the proposal to give substantially more benefits to veterans for college after their service in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And he'll support a deal between the White House and House Democrats to fund the war along with $21 billion in domestic spending.

In a written statement from his Senate office -- while he never explicitly says he'll vote for it -- the Arizona Republican praises a deal between White House and Congressional negotiators for a war funding bill that includes the GI Bill, and $21 billion in non-war-related funding like a three month extension of unemployment benefits and emergency funding for Katrina and Midwest flood relief. link (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/06/mccain-now-supp.html)
He dropped his opposition once they added in what he proposed. Sounds like they "agreed". :shrug:

It's fair to point out that he didn't show up to vote for the bill, but he didn't go around claiming that "I passed bills that.... extended healthcare for wounded troops. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylVTBiGh00c)" as Obama did. Now if McCain starts claiming he voted for it or personally passed the bill, then I'll join you in jumping on him with both feet for it. :beam:

[Lemur]

My kind of news item: Bill Clinton (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2211812/Bill-Clinton-says-Barack-Obama-must-%27kiss-my-ass%27-for-his-support.html) declares that Sen. Obama "can kiss my ***." Pure class, them Clintons.


It has long been known that Mr Clinton is angry at the way his own reputation was tarnished during the primary battle when several of his comments were interpreted as racist.

But his lingering fury has shocked his friends. The Democrat told the Telegraph: "He's been angry for a while. But everyone thought he would get over it. He hasn't. I've spoken to a couple of people who he's been in contact with and he is mad as hell.

"He's saying he's not going to reach out, that Obama has to come to him. One person told me that Bill said Obama would have to quote kiss my *** close quote, if he wants his support.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Oh, come off it Lemur. An aide went running to the press about some off-hand comment mr. Clinton made in private? With the shocking and altogether not very surprising news that Bill harbours some resentment towards Obama? Wow..who'd have thought...
And what, I wonder, has Michelle Obama said in private to her aides about the Clintons in the past few months?

The Clintons are gone, eh? You can go back to your latte through a straw in the safe knowledge that solid, moderate yet devastatingly unhip and unfunky social-democracy has lost this election cycle.



More importantly, you missed the far more important news item, right next to the article you quoted :beam:

Mini-Me, star of Austin Powers, sues over dwarf sex tape (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/2205045/Mini-Me,-star-of-Austin-Powers,-sues-over-dwarf-sex-tape.html)

[Geoffrey S]

The following year [the Austin Powers dwarf] appeared on a US reality television show where he got drunk and urinated in the corner of a gym while riding naked on a scooter.
Right.

[PanzerJaeger]

Weasely Clark, ever the opportunistic :daisy:, assails John McCain's service to our nation.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/29/america/campaign.php


WASHINGTON: With Senator Barack Obama planning to visit the Middle East and Europe in an apparent effort to burnish his foreign policy credentials, the credentials of his likely presidential rival, Senator John McCain, came under sharp attack Sunday from a man considered a possible Democratic vice presidential candidate.

The retired general Wesley Clark said McCain had not "held executive responsibility" and had not commanded troops in wartime.

McCain frequently points out that he led "the largest squadron in the U.S. Navy," but Clark said on CBS television that that was not enough to support a claim to the presidency.

"He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall" as a wartime commander, the general said on CBS. Clark is mentioned as a possible Obama running mate, although he originally supported Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

When the interviewer, Bob Schieffer, noted to Clark that McCain had been shot down over Hanoi, Clark replied, "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."

When Schieffer then asked what executive responsibility Obama had held - the Democrat's résumé includes work as a community organizer in Chicago and eight years in the Illinois legislature - Clark said that Obama was running on the strength of his character and good judgment.

Brian Rogers, of the McCain campaign, was quick to hit back in a release: "If Barack Obama's campaign wants to question John McCain's military service, that's their right. But let's please drop the pretense that Barack Obama stands for a new type of politics. The reality is, he's proving to be a typical politician who is willing to say anything to get elected, including allowing his campaign surrogates to demean and attack John McCain's military service record."

I guess this new politik doesn't extend to O'bama's surrogates. :shrug:

[seireikhaan]

Weasely Clark, ever the opportunistic :daisy:, assails John McCain's service to our nation.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/29/america/campaign.php



I guess this new politik doesn't extend to O'bama's surrogates. :shrug:
Just like Fox isn't responsible when their commentators make remarks about assassinating a Presidential candidate.:wink:

[PanzerJaeger]

Just like Fox isn't responsible when their commentators make remarks about assassinating a Presidential candidate.:wink:

Thats one of the longest stretches I've seen in a long time. E for Effort though... :applause:

[Lemur]

Questioning and/or dismissing Sen. McCain's military experience strikes me as foolish, and a losing strategy, as well as insulting to all Americans. I expect it will fail miserably. Then again, I thought the same thing of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and they pretty much got away with it, so what the hell do I know?


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/169_bandaid.jpg

[PanzerJaeger]

Johnny Mac kept all his medals I believe. ~;)

[LittleGrizzly]

Since the term swift boating entered the american vocabularly i assumed that these types of attacks would be less effective as a candidate could just refer back to the swift boat incident and claim similiar tactics are being used on them, or am i just overly optimistic ?

[Xiahou]

It's pretty hilarious that Clark would say that when the person he originally supported, Hillary, and the person he now supports, Barak, have zero military experience at all- "executive" or otherwise. Not holding a high enough rank makes McCain unqualified, while never having served apparently is no hangup at all in Clark's mind. :laugh4:

For my part, military service can be a plus for a candidate, but it's by no means a requirement.

Edit:
Here's (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080630/pl_politico/11429) and article I came across detailing some of the attacks on McCain's military service. The most offensive seeming charge to me is that McCain was disloyal or traitorous when he appeared in propaganda films as a POW. Duh, he was tortured, remember? In books and interviews he readily admitted that he had reached his breaking point from torture. It's kind of surprising to me that some blogger sitting in his home is willing to attack him for something he did to get his captors to stop torturing him. Really, just not the best line of attack to be following. :no:

[Lemur]

From the same author (Ben Smith), an amusing moment with a member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/McCain_surrogate_defends_Swift_Boaters.html):


One of the participants in McCain's conference call today was Colonel Bud Day, a longtime McCain ally who was also a member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004.

I asked Day whether how he'd compare the attacks he was saying McCain faces today -- from Wes Clark and other Democrats -- to the attacks on John Kerry's war record from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004.

"The Swift Boat 'attacks' were simply revelation of the truth," said Day, a former prisoner of war and Medal of Honor recipient who served i the Air Force. "The similarity does not exist here." [...]

Day, incidentally, appears to differ from McCain on this point. The Arizona Republican was among the first to condemn the Swift Boat ads, calling one "dishonest and dishonorable."

P.S.: Here's (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11429.html) the original of Ben Smith's piece about Clark/McCain. This all has an eerily 2004 vibe to it ...

[Don Corleone]

Not certain I understand your point, Lemur. Even though McCain dismissed the SwiftBoat tactics, because their members number among his supporters, he deserves treatment like that from Wesley Clark? Nice spin.

That being said, McCain needs to grow up quit acting like he's the only kid in studyhall not throwing spitballs. Personally, I'm "outraged-out" at this point. I'm waiting for McCain to accuse Michele Obama of being a madam, and her retorting "Yep, and I turned Cindy away when she tried to flatback for me".

Honestly, our politics have gotten not just vile, but ignorant and appealing to the lowest common denominator... And yet, through it all, the actors on both sides manage to keep a straight face when discussing how shocked and outraged they all are. If we were ever to inject the "honesty" into the process we all claim to want, Jerry Springer would host the debates, not CNN.

Somebody wake Karl Marx up and tell him that outrage, not religion is the real opiate of the masses.

[Spino]

My kind of news item: Bill Clinton (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2211812/Bill-Clinton-says-Barack-Obama-must-%27kiss-my-ass%27-for-his-support.html) declares that Sen. Obama "can kiss my ***." Pure class, them Clintons.


It has long been known that Mr Clinton is angry at the way his own reputation was tarnished during the primary battle when several of his comments were interpreted as racist.

But his lingering fury has shocked his friends. The Democrat told the Telegraph: "He's been angry for a while. But everyone thought he would get over it. He hasn't. I've spoken to a couple of people who he's been in contact with and he is mad as hell.

"He's saying he's not going to reach out, that Obama has to come to him. One person told me that Bill said Obama would have to quote kiss my *** close quote, if he wants his support.

Well nobody likes it when people cut in line, especially the Clintons... :wink:

Just to reinforce some facets of my previous rant Senator Lieberman went on Face the Nation recently and essentially spelled out why he is unhappy with the current Democratic party. He firmly establishes that he is one of those pre-Carter era Democrats I mentioned who is more than a little frustrated with his former party's current foreign and economic policies. For the most part it's a decent interview. Check out the video interview (the transcript is available at the bottom of the page).

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/29/ftn/main4217516.shtml

[Marshal Murat]

1st Amendment, bah (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_9744092)

So the Denver Convention, it's gonna have "chicken wire or chain link" fences to secure all those nasty protesters. While I may paint with a broad brush, it does make me wonder why we can do this to human beings, while PETA complains about animals the same conditions? Why don't they just hang signs for "Denver Detainees" and hand out orange jumpsuits?

[Lemur]

Not certain I understand your point, Lemur. Even though McCain dismissed the SwiftBoat tactics, because their members number among his supporters, he deserves treatment like that from Wesley Clark? Nice spin.
I would summarize my feelings like this:

Attacking John McCain's military service is idiotic, counter-productive and maybe insane.
I'm saddened and disappointed that the Dems are even beginning to go there.
Given the '04 election and the SBVT, I find the Repub outrage over Clark's remarks to be hypocritical and amusing. And Johnny Mac had a member of SBVT on his conference call defending himself? Sweet, priceless irony ...

Also, seems Wes Clark was responding to the Zell Miller of 2008 (as long as we're extending the '04 analogy): Joe Lieberman. Full video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kag0bBJVkIw) of Clark's comments.

-edit-

Joe Klein, a guy I usually don't feel to chummy about, nails this one (http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/06/the_nation_faced.html) pretty well:


Clark is just plain wrong when he says that "getting shot down" doesn't qualify as foreign policy experience. I think McCain's Vietnam war experience gives him important perspective on the horrors of war and should never, ever be discounted--even if McCain's more recent positions have been unduly bellicose. It's also just really bad manners on Clark's part, given the suffering McCain endured. I disagree with McCain's foreign policy positions in the middle east--you may have noticed--but he has traveled widely and, I believe, has worked hard to learn the rest of the world, especially the countries that spun out of the former Soviet Union.

As for Lieberman, he talks about the possibility of a terrorist attack on the US in 2009--which is subtle for "Obama Can't Protect Us!!!"--but focuses all of his comments on the situation in Iraq and Iran, rather than Pakistan, where Al Qaeda now resides. This is a chronic mistake for both McCain and Lieberman. If there is a national security problem that requires immediate presidential attention, it is in Pakistan [...] Again, I wonder why Lieberman is so fixated on Iran.

[Geoffrey S]

The furthest I'd dare go is say that military service isn't necessarily an advantage to a politician who could be in charge of a nation. He wasn't anything spectacular as far as I can tell, and the last thing the US needs is someone who might think he knows better than the current professionals.

[m52nickerson]

Obama speaks out against MoveOn.Org and Clark's comments.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/30/obama-takes-swipe-at-moveon/ (obama-takes-swipe-at-moveon)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/30/obama-rejects-clarks-statement/ (obama-rejects-clarks-statement)

[Crazed Rabbit]

Obama can insult moveon.org all he wants, but they'll still support him.

The thing about Kerry and his service was that he used it as an accuse to stab US troops in the back in front of Congress through vile lies. You know, calling US troops as bad as the Mongol hordes. And it finally (in a way) came back and bit him.

I don't think I've got much respect left for Wesley Clark.

CR

[CountArach]

Obama speaks out against MoveOn.Org and Clark's comments.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/30/obama-takes-swipe-at-moveon/

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/30/obama-rejects-clarks-statement/
Fixed the links for you.

[m52nickerson]

Thank you!

[PanzerJaeger]

I agree with Don. McCain needs to start playing hardball. Obama has already shown countless times that his new style of politics is just a sham and that he's just as crooked as any other politician. McCain should push him on his ties to racists, radicals, and terrorists and show the American people who he really is. He certainly shouldn't expect the MSM to help him out. This will stay in the news cycle maybe one more day, if he's lucky.

Johnny needs to get angry, or at least show some passion. He needs to tell Barack how outrageous and shameful such attacks from his surrogates are. Make some political hay out of this. Use it to appeal to veterens and their families. McCain should have learned in 2000 that nice guys finish last in this business.

[Tribesman]

McCain should push him on his ties to racists, radicals, and terrorists and show the American people who he really is.
And McCain can have all them allegations flung back in his own face due to his own ties to racists , radicals and terrorists .:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[PanzerJaeger]

And McCain can have all them allegations flung back in his own face due to his own ties to racists , radicals and terrorists .:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: no seriously, go on :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Don Corleone]

And McCain can have all them allegations flung back in his own face due to his own ties to racists , radicals and terrorists .:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

That's actually a big challenge Obama is going to face, Tribesman. Any unfounded insult that could be thought of to fling at McCain (siring a black child out of wedlock, his gay affairs, his drug addicted wife) were already trotted out in the 2000 South Carolina primary by McCain's political enemies (either Rove, who swears he had nothing to do with it, or all the guys McCain dragged in front of the Senate Commerce committe during the 90's).

So any mud to fling at McCain has been flung. He's about as exposed as he can get.

[PanzerJaeger]

How far away from his own "principles" and those of the Left will Obama go to secure votes?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080701/D91L1BDO1.html


CHICAGO (AP) - Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans that would expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and - in a move sure to cause controversy - support their ability to hire and fire based on faith.

[Tribesman]

So any mud to fling at McCain has been flung.
Not in the slightest Don , his new campaign has got him more buddies who fall into the radical and racist camp and he hasn't really had any mud flung on his past support for terrorists or his stated intent to support terrorists if he gets into office .


no seriously, go on
Well shall I take it that Panzer doesn't know much about his favoured candidate apart from a rough notion that he must be on the right of the others , or should I just view it that someone who thought Bush was the dogs bollox when it comes to the top job doesn't really have a clue about candidates

[Spino]

How far away from his own "principles" and those of the Left will Obama go to secure votes?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080701/D91L1BDO1.html

Sure as the sky is blue Obama is showing his true colors. Having taken a page from the Bill Clinton handbook he is doing whatever it takes to garner any and all votes he can muster, regardless of where they come from. I suppose I shouldn't make too much of a big deal over this. After all, it is an election year. However having this come from the man that repeatedly accuses McCain of being "four more years of George Bush" this is simply priceless.

Here is the whole article...

Obama to expand Bush's faith based programs

Jul 1, 7:28 AM (ET)

By JENNIFER LOVEN

CHICAGO (AP) - Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans that would expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and - in a move sure to cause controversy - support their ability to hire and fire based on faith.

Obama was unveiling his approach to getting religious charities more involved in government anti-poverty programs during a tour and remarks Tuesday at Eastside Community Ministry in Zanesville, Ohio. The arm of Central Presbyterian Church operates a food bank, provides clothes, has a youth ministry and provides other services in its impoverished community.

"The challenges we face today, from putting people back to work to improving our schools, from saving our planet to combating HIV/AIDS to ending genocide, are simply too big for government to solve alone," Obama was to say, according to a prepared text of his remarks obtained by The Associated Press. "We need all hands on deck."

But Obama's support for letting religious charities that receive federal funding consider religion in employment decisions was likely to invite a storm of protest from those who view such faith requirements as discrimination.

David Kuo, a conservative Christian who was deputy director of Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives until 2003 and later became a critic of Bush's commitment to the cause, said Obama's position has the potential to be a major "Sister Souljah moment" for his campaign.

This is a reference to Bill Clinton's accusation in his 1992 presidential campaign that the hip hop artist incited violence against whites. Because Clinton said this before a black audience, it fed into an image of him as a bold politician who was willing to take risks and refused to pander.

"It would be a very, very, very interesting thing," said Kuo, who is not an Obama adviser or supporter but was contacted by the campaign to review the new plan.

Kuo called Obama's approach smart, impressive and well thought-out but took a wait-and-see attitude about whether it would deliver.

"When it comes to promises to help the poor, promises are easy," said Kuo, who wrote a 2006 book describing his frustration at what he called Bush's lackluster enthusiasm for the program. "The question is commitment."

Obama proposes to elevate the program to a "moral center" of his administration, by renaming it the Office of Community and Faith-Based Partnerships, and changing training from occasional huge conferences to empowering larger religious charities to mentor smaller ones in their communities.

He also proposes a $500 million per year program to provide summer learning for 1 million poor children to help close achievement gaps with white and wealthier students. A campaign fact sheet said he would pay for it by better managing surplus federal properties, reducing growth in the federal travel budget and streamlining the federal procurement process.

Like Bush, Obama was arguing that religious organizations can and should play a bigger role in serving the poor and meeting other social needs. But while Bush argued that the strength of religious charities lies primarily in shared religious identity between workers and recipients, Obama was to tout the benefits of their "bottom-up" approach.

"Because they're so close to the people, they're well-placed to offer help," he was to say.

Obama does not see a need to push for a law to make this program work as Bush did, said a senior adviser to the campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe the new policy.

Bush never got Congress to go along so he conducted his effort to give religious groups equal footing with nonsectarian groups in competing for federal contracts through administrative actions and executive orders.

Obama does not support requiring religious tests for aid recipients nor using federal money to proselytize, the official said.

Obama's announcement is part of a series of events leading up to Friday's Fourth of July holiday that are focused on American values.

The Democratic presidential candidate spent Monday talking about his vision of patriotism in the battleground state of Missouri. With Tuesday's talk about faith, Obama was attempting to settle debate in two key areas where his beliefs have come under question.

He planned to talk bluntly about the genesis of his Christian faith in his work as a community organizer in Chicago, and its importance to him now.

"In time, I came to see faith as being both a personal commitment to Christ and a commitment to my community; that while I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work," he was to say.

[seireikhaan]

Sure as the sky is blue Obama is showing his true colors. Having taken a page from the Bill Clinton handbook he is doing whatever it takes to garner any and all votes he can muster, regardless of where they come from. I suppose I shouldn't make too much of a big deal over this. After all, it is an election year. However having this come from the man that repeatedly accuses McCain of being "four more years of George Bush" this is simply priceless...

Obama to expand Bush's faith based programs

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080701/D91L1BDO1.html

Obama to expand Bush's faith based programs

Jul 1, 7:28 AM (ET)

By JENNIFER LOVEN

CHICAGO (AP) - Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans that would expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and - in a move sure to cause controversy - support their ability to hire and fire based on faith.

Obama was unveiling his approach to getting religious charities more involved in government anti-poverty programs during a tour and remarks Tuesday at Eastside Community Ministry in Zanesville, Ohio. The arm of Central Presbyterian Church operates a food bank, provides clothes, has a youth ministry and provides other services in its impoverished community.

"The challenges we face today, from putting people back to work to improving our schools, from saving our planet to combating HIV/AIDS to ending genocide, are simply too big for government to solve alone," Obama was to say, according to a prepared text of his remarks obtained by The Associated Press. "We need all hands on deck."

But Obama's support for letting religious charities that receive federal funding consider religion in employment decisions was likely to invite a storm of protest from those who view such faith requirements as discrimination.

David Kuo, a conservative Christian who was deputy director of Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives until 2003 and later became a critic of Bush's commitment to the cause, said Obama's position has the potential to be a major "Sister Souljah moment" for his campaign.

This is a reference to Bill Clinton's accusation in his 1992 presidential campaign that the hip hop artist incited violence against whites. Because Clinton said this before a black audience, it fed into an image of him as a bold politician who was willing to take risks and refused to pander.

"It would be a very, very, very interesting thing," said Kuo, who is not an Obama adviser or supporter but was contacted by the campaign to review the new plan.

Kuo called Obama's approach smart, impressive and well thought-out but took a wait-and-see attitude about whether it would deliver.

"When it comes to promises to help the poor, promises are easy," said Kuo, who wrote a 2006 book describing his frustration at what he called Bush's lackluster enthusiasm for the program. "The question is commitment."

Obama proposes to elevate the program to a "moral center" of his administration, by renaming it the Office of Community and Faith-Based Partnerships, and changing training from occasional huge conferences to empowering larger religious charities to mentor smaller ones in their communities.

He also proposes a $500 million per year program to provide summer learning for 1 million poor children to help close achievement gaps with white and wealthier students. A campaign fact sheet said he would pay for it by better managing surplus federal properties, reducing growth in the federal travel budget and streamlining the federal procurement process.

Like Bush, Obama was arguing that religious organizations can and should play a bigger role in serving the poor and meeting other social needs. But while Bush argued that the strength of religious charities lies primarily in shared religious identity between workers and recipients, Obama was to tout the benefits of their "bottom-up" approach.

"Because they're so close to the people, they're well-placed to offer help," he was to say.

Obama does not see a need to push for a law to make this program work as Bush did, said a senior adviser to the campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe the new policy.

Bush never got Congress to go along so he conducted his effort to give religious groups equal footing with nonsectarian groups in competing for federal contracts through administrative actions and executive orders.

Obama does not support requiring religious tests for aid recipients nor using federal money to proselytize, the official said.

Obama's announcement is part of a series of events leading up to Friday's Fourth of July holiday that are focused on American values.

The Democratic presidential candidate spent Monday talking about his vision of patriotism in the battleground state of Missouri. With Tuesday's talk about faith, Obama was attempting to settle debate in two key areas where his beliefs have come under question.

He planned to talk bluntly about the genesis of his Christian faith in his work as a community organizer in Chicago, and its importance to him now.

"In time, I came to see faith as being both a personal commitment to Christ and a commitment to my community; that while I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work," he was to say.
Uh-oh, Spino, you're coming down with Lemur's Disease. :clown:

How far away from his own "principles" and those of the Left will Obama go to secure votes?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080701/D91L1BDO1.html

[Spino]

Uh-oh, Spino, you're coming down with Lemur's Disease. :clown:

Ooops, my bad! I didn't see Panzer's post in the thread when I began my own. Work gets a bit crazy sometimes and I often wind up having the edit window open for a looong time. I'll edit my original post. Sorry Panzer!

[Lemur]

Don't leave Lemur's Disease untreated for long, Spino. It's very dangerous.

Wesley Clark seems to have never heard the #1 rule of foot-in-mouth disease: When you've dug yourself into a hole, stop digging (http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5283442). (Wow, that was one mixed metaphor there. I guess I didn't count my chickens before they came home to roost.)


Clark said McCain's experience as a squadron leader and his five years in a Vietnam POW camp "shows character and courage, but not necessarily judgment."

"I hope the American people will discriminate between someone's early experiences and the kind of judgment they take away from those experiences," Clark said.

What a complete and total tone-deaf idiot. I hope the Obama camp has some sort of leverage they can use to shut him up.

[PanzerJaeger]

No prob Spino.



Not in the slightest Don , his new campaign has got him more buddies who fall into the radical and racist camp and he hasn't really had any mud flung on his past support for terrorists or his stated intent to support terrorists if he gets into office .


Well shall I take it that Panzer doesn't know much about his favoured candidate apart from a rough notion that he must be on the right of the others , or should I just view it that someone who thought Bush was the dogs bollox when it comes to the top job doesn't really have a clue about candidates

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:no seriously, go on :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Tribesman]

no seriously, go on
Why ?
There are only two possible options that explain what you have written .

One , You don't know about your prefered candidate .
Two , You only see a problem with terrorists , radicals and racists if it is a candidate you don't like .

[Xiahou]

Sure as the sky is blue Obama is showing his true colors. Having taken a page from the Bill Clinton handbook he is doing whatever it takes to garner any and all votes he can muster, regardless of where they come from. I suppose I shouldn't make too much of a big deal over this. After all, it is an election year. However having this come from the man that repeatedly accuses McCain of being "four more years of George Bush" this is simply priceless.
The great thing is, this leaves the voters with no way at all to reasonably discern what his real positions are, as it is now firmly establish that he'll say or do pretty much anything to get elected.

Seriously, can we get a mulligan on this election? :sweatdrop:

[PanzerJaeger]

Why ?
There are only two possible options that explain what you have written .

One , You are so thick that you don't know about your prefered candidate .
Two , You only see a problem with terrorists , radicals and racists if it is a candidate you don't like .

I'm just interested, as your definition of terrorists, radicals and racists are a little different than mine. Oh, and I'm wondering how you can match 20 years of Rev Wright and ties to people who bombed the Pentagon. :inquisitive:

[Tribesman]

Of course Panzer , how about drug dealing scum that murder clergymen , fruitcakes that advocate race wars , numbnuts who blame the jews for Hitler and wierdos who blame european Jewry for Americas financial problems , and you can take your pentagon attack and raise it with an american embassy for good measure .


Or is it that you really honestly didn't know:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[PanzerJaeger]

Of course Panzer , how about drug dealing scum that murder clergymen , fruitcakes that advocate race wars , numbnuts who blame the jews for Hitler and wierdos who blame european Jewry for Americas financial problems , and you can take your pentagon attack and raise it with an american embassy for good measure .


Or is it that you really honestly didn't know:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Thats all you've got? You must be made of rubber as I've never seen someone reach so far!

I'm wondering where John McCain was when Barack was diligently sitting in the pew every Sunday listening to "Why da wite folks be evil!!!"

[Tribesman]

Ah I thought so Panzer , terrorists radicals and racists are only terrorists radicals and racists if they are linked to Obama .
Well done , I was fairly certain it was case of #2 after all and you wasn't just #1
Though of course #2 does pretty much incude #1 doesn't it .:2thumbsup:

[PanzerJaeger]

Ah I thought so Panzer , terrorists radicals and racists are only terrorists radicals and racists if they are linked to Obama .
Well done , I was fairly certain it was case of #2 after all and you wasn't just #1
Though of course #2 does pretty much incude #1 doesn't it .:2thumbsup:

Your links and my links are slightly different in severity. And by slightly I mean immensely. ~;)

[Xiahou]

Ah I thought so Panzer , terrorists radicals and racists are only terrorists radicals and racists if they are linked to Obama .
Well done , I was fairly certain it was case of #2 after all and you wasn't just #1
Though of course #2 does pretty much incude #1 doesn't it .:2thumbsup:You haven't shown anything other than vague unsubstantiated accusations. It'd be nice to see some support for you accusations so that the reader can weigh their validity. :yes:

[Tribesman]

You haven't shown anything other than vague unsubstantiated accusations. It'd be nice to see some support for you accusations so that the reader can weigh their validity.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
So what would you like , a history of his role in politics , a list of fruitckes that he accepted endorsements and support from or a statement by him saying that he is going to fund , arm and train terrorists when he gets elected ?

[Lemur]

I hate to interrupt a Tribsey/Panzer dustup, but this editorial (http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/kovach/080626) was too sweet not to repost in part:


The Holy Bible describes certain attributes of The Antichrist. He will be a man that ultimately "sets himself above all that is called god." (If one claims to adhere to several different gods, even though each one claims exclusive dominion, then what does that say about the man?) The Antichrist will be a persecutor of Christians. He will be a consummately skilled liar. And, his identity will be revealed only after The Tribulation has already begun.

Now, before readers make too many assumptions, consider that The Antichrist will be preceded by a False Prophet, who will give The Antichrist his political power. Recently, former president Bill Clinton endorsed candidate Barack Obama, even though Hillary Clinton has only suspended (not withdrawn) her candidacy for president. Bill Clinton cannot become president again. But, he could be appointed — by a President Barack Obama, or even by a President Hillary Clinton — to become US Ambassador to the United Nations. And, in that position, he would be eligible to become UN Secretary General. That, in effect, would make Bill Clinton "king of the world," if the UN seizes power. All of that handed to him by a man that rises up, "speaking boastfully" to the world about "change we can believe in." Hmmmmm. [...]

(For the heavily-footnoted details, my new book, Tribulation: 2008, should be released soon.)

[Crazed Rabbit]

Scorn all you want Lemur, but don't you wish me good luck!* I always knew Bill Clinton would have something to do with the apocalypse.

tribesy, for goodness' sake put up (ze links) or shut up.

CR
*A reference to the article.

[Tribesman]

tribesy, for goodness' sake put up (ze links) or shut up.

Why ?
Is it too hard to understand ?
I mean seriously it isn't hard to find McCains support for terrorists while he has been in politics , it certainly isn't hard to find fruitcakes that have endorsed him and that he has sought support from , its exceptionally easy to find his statement about wishing to support terrorism if he gets elected .

So the only question you have to think about is the corectness of Panzers "only Obama is a :daisy: and only Obama can be attacked on those grounds" or my "both Obama and McCain are :daisy:s" .

[FactionHeir]

Obama's bringing change. He first ditches his seal after some people started thinking of him as arrogant and now he's ditching his first pound (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/02/obama-over-fist-bumping/) as well - refusing to do so with a kid no less. What's next to be thrown under the bus?

[LittleGrizzly]

and now he's ditching his first pound (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/02/obama-over-fist-bumping/) as well - refusing to do so with a kid no less.

Well theres some of my respect gone.... how long must we wait for a cool president!

[Lemur]

Looks as though Bush 41 is an evil-doer as well, at least, to judge by his "terrorist fist-jab" he is:


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/bushkour.jpg

[PanzerJaeger]

Rush beat Howard. By a lot. :jawdrop:



LIMBAUGH SIGNS THROUGH 2016; $400 MILLION DEAL SHATTERS BROADCAST RECORDS

Wed Jul 02 2008 09:02:18 ET
**Exclusive**

The American broadcast industry is rocked, realigned and blasted into a new orbit, yet again, by Rush Limbaugh, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

In what is being described as an unprecedented radio contract, Limbaugh will keep his syndicated show on-the-air and e-v-e-r-y-w-h-e-r-e through 2016 with CLEAR CHANNEL and PREMIERE RADIO.

Already host of the most lucrative hours since radio's inception, Limbaugh's total package is valued north of $400 million, according to media insiders.

The NEW YORK TIMES will claim this weekend that Limbaugh, marking 20 years this summer as a national host, has secured a 9-figure signing bonus for the new deal, newsroom sources tell DRUDGE.

MORE

In its controversial profile, the TIMES reports that Limbaugh is buying a new G550 jet and is making an estimated $38 million a year.



[The cover photo of the TIMES Sunday magazine depicts Limbaugh 'dark and sinister' in a theme of THE GODFATHER.]

While newspapers and traditional broadcast media are experiencing declining revenues, Limbaugh's golden microphone has turned diamond-laced:

Earnings now pace him ahead of the annual salaries for network news anchors: Katie Couric, Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson and Diane Sawyer — combined!

MORE

The deal represents a stunning triumph over the establishment by an outsider who connected with and captured the spirit of the nation's heartland.

Developing...

[Lemur]

And the details of Limbaugh's financial deal as opposed to other radio hosts' is salient to "U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary" how, exactly? I mean, I'm all for wandering afield sometimes, but this seems to be utterly irrelevant. Shall we discuss what's on HBO this week as well?

-edit-

Speaking of TV, it appears that the actor who played a black President on 24 wants credit (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/01/dennis-haysbert-i-paved-o_n_110359.html) for "paving the way" for a black candidate in real life.

Actors just don't quite understand their relationship with reality sometimes.


"If anything, my portrayal of David Palmer, I think, may have helped open the eyes of the American people," said the actor, who has contributed $2,300 to the Illinois Democrat's presidential campaign.

"And I mean the American people from across the board -- from the poorest to the richest, every color and creed, every religious base -- to prove the possibility there could be an African-American president, a female president, any type of president that puts the people first," he said Tuesday.

[PanzerJaeger]

And the details of Limbaugh's financial deal as opposed to other radio hosts' is salient to "U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary" how, exactly? I mean, I'm all for wandering afield sometimes, but this seems to be utterly irrelevant. Shall we discuss what's on HBO this week as well?

You're right. Rush isn't political at all. He plays no part in the process. No one interested in US politics would find that news even slightly interesting.

On the other hand, I hope you're continuing to monitor Fox News for anymore breaking fist-bump scandles, including suspicious past fist-bumps of former US presidents. Very important stuff. :yes:

[Lemur]

Thanks for dodging behind a hastily erected wall of sarcasm. Again: "And the details of Limbaugh's financial deal as opposed to other radio hosts' is salient how"? Look, there are oodles of ditto-heads on this board. Why not do them a favor and start a thread on the appropriate subject?

In news that, you know, relates to the election and stuff, Gallup is examining the relationship between latino voters and Obama: "Hispanic registered voters' support for Barack Obama for president remained consistent and strong in June, with Obama leading John McCain by 59% to 29% among this group."


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/080702Hispanics2_k7v9c4.gif https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/080702Hispanics3_g8n5b1.gif

[PanzerJaeger]

Thanks for dodging behind a hastily erected wall of sarcasm. Again: "And the details of Limbaugh's financial deal as opposed to other radio hosts' is salient how"? Look, there are oodles of ditto-heads on this board. Why not do them a favor and start a thread on the appropriate subject?

I’m wondering why you’re so bothered that I posted that article. More importantly, I’m intrigued as to how you, who brought us the “Fist Bump”(and then thoroughly beat all the funny out of it) among other asinine postings, feel the need to lecture me on the content and substance of what I post. Last I checked you're just a sideshow like everyone else in this 3 ring circus.

[Lemur]

And once again you dodge the question. I accept your apology, as Colbert would say.

[Don Corleone]

Rush Limbaugh has a lot to do with U.S. politics, but he's not a figure in the election, at least not outside his own egocentric world view. This thread is about the election specifically, not U.S. politics in general. It wouldn't be on-topic for me to discuss how Anne Coulter is way hotter than Jeanine Garofalo either.

[PanzerJaeger]

And once again you dodge the question. I accept you apology, as Colbert would say.

I answered the question, in a roundabout sort of way, in my first response. Maybe you didn't catch it.

[Lemur]

It wouldn't be on-topic for me to discuss how Anne Coulter is way hotter than Jeanine Garofalo either.
However, it is your duty and obligation to your fellow Orgahs to start such a thread.

Reading accounts like this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25495610/#storyContinued) make me really, really like Johnny Mac:


"McCain was down at the end of the table and we were talking to the head of the guerrilla group here at this end of the table and I don't know what attracted my attention. But I saw some kind of quick movement at the bottom of the table and I looked down there and John had reached over and grabbed this guy by the shirt collar and had snatched him up like he was throwing him up out of the chair to tell him what he thought about him or whatever ... I don't know what he was telling him but I thought, 'Good grief, everybody around here has got guns and we were there on a diplomatic mission.' I don't know what had happened to provoke John, but he obviously got mad at the guy ... and he just reached over there and snatched ... him."

[Spino]

Rush beat Howard. By a lot. :jawdrop:

I saw the news today but thanks for pointing out the Howard Stern angle. Stern must be livid! The 'King of all Media' outearned... by a great big uncool fat person!


Speaking of TV, it appears that the actor who played a black President on 24 wants credit for "paving the way" for a black candidate in real life.

Actors just don't quite understand their relationship with reality sometimes.

"If anything, my portrayal of David Palmer, I think, may have helped open the eyes of the American people," said the actor, who has contributed $2,300 to the Illinois Democrat's presidential campaign.

"And I mean the American people from across the board -- from the poorest to the richest, every color and creed, every religious base -- to prove the possibility there could be an African-American president, a female president, any type of president that puts the people first," he said Tuesday.

The greatest thing about actors is that most of them never fail to see just how ridiculous and/or stupid they appear to people with a semblance of intelligence when they open their mouths on any subject not related to their craft. Actors children should be seen and not heard.

[CountArach]

Just going back to the earlier discussion about McCain associating with terrorists...

Here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/02/mccain-fundraiser-oversaw_n_110354.html)

The co-host of a recent top-dollar fundraiser for Sen. John McCain oversaw the payment of roughly $1.7 million to a Colombian paramilitary group that is today designated a terrorist organization by the United States.

Carl H. Lindner Jr., the billionaire Cincinnati businessman, was CEO of Chiquita Brands International from 1984 to 2001, and remained on the company's board of directors until May 2002. Beginning under his tenure, Chiquita executives paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (known by the Spanish acronym AUC), which is described by George Washington University's National Security Archive as an "illegal right-wing anti-guerrilla group tied to many of the country's most notorious civilian massacres."

Following a Justice Department indictment last year, Chiquita admitted to illegally funding the paramilitaries and agreed to pay a $25 million fine. Chiquita's payments to the AUC began in 1997 and lasted seven years; roughly half of the funds came after the group was designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department in 2001.

According to the Justice Department, the payments "were reviewed and approved by senior executives" of Chiquita, who knew by no later than September 2000 "that the AUC was a violent, paramilitary organization."

Late last week, Lindner co-hosted a $25,000-per-person fundraiser for McCain and the Republican Party in the wealthy Indian Hills neighborhood of Cincinnati, Ohio. The event raised about $2 million; Lindner also serves on McCain's Ohio Victory Team.

[Geoffrey S]

Thanks for dodging behind a hastily erected wall of sarcasm. Again: "And the details of Limbaugh's financial deal as opposed to other radio hosts' is salient how"? Look, there are oodles of ditto-heads on this board. Why not do them a favor and start a thread on the appropriate subject?
Because the sheer size of this financial deal shows how important at least quite a few people perceive his views to be, possibly also in connection to the run-up to the election?

[Tribesman]

Not bad Count , however there is a lot more than that when it comes to McCain himself and his support for terrorists during his political career .

[Adrian II]

Forget the terrorist crap, this is about money.

I read that story on Huffington's this morning. Lindner and Chiquita are bad news. Between 1959 and the late 1980s, Lindner was the business partner of Charles Keating, one of the central figures in the $200 billion S&L scandal. They ran various other crooked ventures together. McCain was close to both of them. Now it seems he didn't just intervene on behalf of Keating, but also on behalf of Lindner and Chiquita.

The image of 'clean campaigner' John McCain is unravelling fast.

[Redleg]

Forget the terrorist crap, this is about money.

I read that story on Huffington's this morning. Lindner and Chiquita are bad news. Between 1959 and the late 1980s, Lindner was the business partner of Charles Keating, one of the central figures in the $200 billion S&L scandal. They ran various other crooked ventures together. McCain was close to both of them. Now it seems he didn't just intervene on behalf of Keating, but also on behalf of Lindner and Chiquita.

The image of 'clean campaigner' John McCain is unravelling fast.

Never fear Adrian the moderate middle of the United States has pretty much alreadly determined that once again we are faced with voting for the scummy politician that we believe we do the least harm to the nation.

Its not the best way to determine who you vote for, because you have alreadly determined that both are scummy politicians but with our system its what we got...

Pretty much got to hope for a deadlock between Congress and the President, forcing them to work together to pass good legislation versus bad. But we have alreadly seen the results of that - a poor farm bill was passed, because our dear congressmen want to get re-elected and voting against the farm bill is a good way to lose an election in over 30 states.

[Tribesman]

The image of 'clean campaigner' John McCain is unravelling fast.
What image ?
He is down in Columbia now talking about his record of supporting human rights , from the start of his political career this muppet has consistantly supported numerous groups of murdering scum .

[Redleg]

What image ?
He is down in Columbia now talking about his record of supporting human rights , from the start of his political career this muppet has consistantly supported numerous groups of murdering scum .

amusing that Europeans get so upset about American Politics. Hell all politicians have problems. McCain tied to murdering scum based on right wing politics. Obama tied to murdering scum based on left wing politics. Both are career politicians - which makes them both career liars.

So your point is that both are scum however you still haven't made any real arguement concerning your point.

Here is the problem Tribesman your not making an arguement that demonstrates why one individual should be voted over another. Your just poking at other people's arguements. Now while I find it amusing for a short period of time, and even do it myself to poke fun at other people's arguements, you really should after a bit of fun, provide the actual evidence on what you base your arguement on. Because after several pages of amusement over watching you force people to twist, I rather see some actual arguement over the facts from you. Your a smart guy, you should be able to figure out that point rather quickly.

But then I am also sure your going to apply some caustic remark back at me, but that's okay that is your style, but why don't you actually apply a little actual evidence to your arguement after a bit of fun? This is an election year that many Americans are attempting to take seriousily because of the shape the country is in, so while I can actually find most if not all of what your saying by reading on the candidates - I really would like to see where your coming from, which means I would like to see the information your basing your input on not just finding it myself.

The way I see it right now both candidates should not be given the opporunity to be president, unfortunately as I have stated before, the american people are faced once again with voting for the inidividual we believe will do the least harm to the nation.

Currently with a Democratic controled congress that leaves us with voting for a Republican to force a deadlock between the two parties and two branches of government.

[Tribesman]

Here is the problem Tribesman your not making an arguement that demonstrates why one individual should be voted over another.

Red the only point was that what Panzer wrote was bollox , and it was funny seeing someone who could accurately be described as a racist , terrorist supporting radical (OK not really radical as those views while viewed as radical back in the 20s&30s are now only viewed as comical/contemptable) complaining that one candidate was linked to racist radical terrorists .

As for which candidate I prefer , well if it was Clinton/McCain that would be a simple choice , but as it isn't then I think Obama just about edges it as he doesn't have quite as bad as record as McCain who in turn was miles better than Billary .
Now it may be said that the only reason Obama doesn't have as bad a history as McCain is because he hasn't had time to accumulate one , but with the way things are messed at the moment and the way past policies and events are piling into the current growing pile of crap then Obama does represent at least a small move away from the past . Though of course a lot does rest on the running baggage they join with and with McCain now adding the Cheney/Rove baggage to his campaign that puts him further down the list .

[Adrian II]

He is down in Columbia now talking about his record of supporting human rights , from the start of his political career this muppet has consistantly supported numerous groups of murdering scum.Oh, please. You sound like an 18-year-old activist on some campus.

Did you know McCain personally clubbed baby seals to death? He did, from the start of his career!

Consistently! :yes:

[Xiahou]

Oh, please. You sound like an 18-year-old activist on some campus.

Did you know McCain personally clubbed baby seals to death? He did, from the start of his career!

Consistently! :yes:

That "seals" it. I'm voting for him. :beam: :sweatdrop:

[Lemur]

I'd be happy to give Johnny Mac my seal of approval.

Interesting column (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan/blog/2008/07/02/barack_obama_is_no_leftie) by a British conservative about how Obama is really a Tory candidate ...


Consider, more or less at random, some of his policy positions. He wants to cut corporation tax. He plans (disappointingly) to grant immunity to telephone companies that help the federal government to eavesdrop on its citizens. He seems to have dropped any notion of criminalising the private ownership of guns, and made no protest when the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia's ban on pistols last week. Having made some protectionist noises in order to appeal to the know-nothing Pennsylvania Democrats in advance of their primary, he has returned to reaching the virtues of free trade with an enthusiasm matched by few Republicans.

-edit-

I detect a meme developing -- in less laudatory terms, the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121495450490321133.html) argues that Obama is the heir to George Bush's policy and ideology:


We're beginning to understand why Barack Obama keeps protesting so vigorously against the prospect of "George Bush's third term." Maybe he's worried that someone will notice that he's the candidate who's running for it.

Most Presidential candidates adapt their message after they win their party nomination, but Mr. Obama isn't merely "running to the center." He's fleeing from many of his primary positions so markedly and so rapidly that he's embracing a sizable chunk of President Bush's policy. Who would have thought that a Democrat would rehabilitate the much-maligned Bush agenda?

[Spino]

I'd be happy to give Johnny Mac my seal of approval.

Interesting column (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan/blog/2008/07/02/barack_obama_is_no_leftie) by a British conservative about how Obama is really a Tory candidate ...


Consider, more or less at random, some of his policy positions. He wants to cut corporation tax. He plans (disappointingly) to grant immunity to telephone companies that help the federal government to eavesdrop on its citizens. He seems to have dropped any notion of criminalising the private ownership of guns, and made no protest when the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia's ban on pistols last week. Having made some protectionist noises in order to appeal to the know-nothing Pennsylvania Democrats in advance of their primary, he has returned to reaching the virtues of free trade with an enthusiasm matched by few Republicans.

Well then I guess Obama really has everyone duped. It is painfully obvious what he's doing, getting elected by any means necessary. This Brit columnist really needs to pay closer attention.

Consider, more or less at random, that Senator Obama is employing almost the exact same campaign strategy Bill Clinton used to great success in both his presidential campaigns; during the primaries he stuck with what brought him to the table by sticking to the issues that made his constiuency (blacks & kids) and left to far left leaning liberals come out for him in droves. Once Obama unofficially secured the nomination he made a hard right to the center (a move he hinted at during the primaries) to appeal to America's independent, moderate majority. Traditionally America's moderate majority loves candidates that offer some degree of comfort regarding those 800lb gorilla issues such as taxes, national defense, cultural dynamism and economic prosperity. If Obama wins the big prize in the Fall he can then put his core constiuency's fears to rest by drifting back to the far left and with the help of his fellow Democrats, proceed to run wild with irresponsible legislation and reckless spending until America's disgust with single party rule kicks the Dems back into the minority in the Senate & House in 2010. Sound familiar?

And the band played on and on and on... :rolleyes:

[CountArach]

If Obama wins the big prize in the Fall he can then put his core constiuency's fears to rest by drifting back to the far left and with the help of his fellow Democrats, proceed to run wild with irresponsible legislation and reckless spending until America's disgust with single party rule kicks the Dems back into the minority in the Senate & House in 2010.
I was in agreement with you up until here. This one sentence ruined what would otherwise have been some perfect political analysis.

There is NO WAY IN HELL that Obama is out here on the Far Left.

[Tribesman]

Did you know McCain personally clubbed baby seals to death? He did, from the start of his career!
Damn I must have missed that , I thought with him being representing Arizona he wouldn't have had to pander to the fishermen so much for their votes , but it just shows that he does think of his appeal to distant communities as part of his bigger campaign .

[discovery1]

There is NO WAY IN HELL that Obama is out here on the Far Left.

We know you're not from America CA, where everything is shifted to the right.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I think Obama doesn't even know himself what he stands for.

What he wants, is the presidency. He is driven by sheer ambition, not political conviction. I think he really is a sort of BushIII in this respect. Like W, his planning stretches to January 21st, not beyond.
Once he makes it to the White House, he'll walk around the premises a bit, look at the old paintings, feel up the China, marvel at the discomfort of those antiques, and, once bored with all that, look out the window with a stupid look on his face and think: 'uh, what to do next...'

[CountArach]

We know you're not from America CA, where everything is shifted to the right.
Its happened down here too. All I am saying is if Socialist = Far Left, then Obama is not Far Left. Edwards was out to Obama's Left and there are plenty of others out here, like Bernie Sanders and Barbara Boxer.

[woad&fangs]

I think Obama doesn't even know himself what he stands for.

What he wants, is the presidency. He is driven by sheer ambition, not political conviction. I think he really is a sort of BushIII in this respect. Like W, his planning stretches to January 21st, not beyond.
Once he makes it to the White House, he'll walk around the premises a bit, look at the old paintings, feel up the China, marvel at the discomfort of those antiques, and, once bored with all that, look out the window with a stupid look on his face and think: 'uh, what to do next...'

Ah, I must disagree with you here Louis. Bush is an incompetent man-child surrounded by ambitious people. Obama on the other hand is an ambitious and clever man surrounded by equally ambitious and clever people. Obama most certainly knows what he wants to do and he will pursue his goals swiftly and without mercy. :evil: However, no one besides him knows exactly what his uber plans are.

My guess.... Anti Christ or nothing baby!!!.



Joking aside, Obama is much less appealing to me now then he was a few months ago. However, I still think both him and McCain would be competent leaders so I'm still happy about our choices for prez.

[Xiahou]

I think Obama doesn't even know himself what he stands for.

What he wants, is the presidency. He is driven by sheer ambition, not political conviction. I think he really is a sort of BushIII in this respect. Like W, his planning stretches to January 21st, not beyond.
Once he makes it to the White House, he'll walk around the premises a bit, look at the old paintings, feel up the China, marvel at the discomfort of those antiques, and, once bored with all that, look out the window with a stupid look on his face and think: 'uh, what to do next...'

Anyone catch the link I posted a while back that compared Obama's campaign to Bush's?

[seireikhaan]

Anyone catch the link I posted a while back that compared Obama's campaign to Bush's?
And McCain, and Kerry, and Clinton, and Dole, and H Bush, and...:sweatdrop:

Damn, U.S. politics blows...:shame:

[Tribesman]

Damn, U.S. politics blows...
Look on the bright side , it could be worse .

[CountArach]

Look on the bright side , it could be worse .
A pessimist and an optimist are drowning...
The pessimist says "This situation couldn't get any worse."
The optimist says "Oh yes it could!"

[Lemur]

This is the most amusing take (http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/07/mccain-in-colombia.html) I've yet read about Johnny Mac's campaign swing through Colombia:


The most reassuring theory I can come up with is that McCain intends to bring back a couple of sixty pound suitcases that the Secret Service will hustle for him through Customs. And soon Obama's big lead in campaign finance will have vanished. And there won't be anymore questions about McCain being too old to have the energy for the job as he starts campaigning 96 hours straight.

[Adrian II]

The most reassuring theory I can come up with is that McCain intends to bring back a couple of sixty pound suitcases that the Secret Service will hustle for him through Customs. And soon Obama's big lead in campaign finance will have vanished. And there won't be anymore questions about McCain being too old to have the energy for the job as he starts campaigning 96 hours straight.
https://img78.imageshack.us/img78/6115/roflsmileyec4.gif (https://imageshack.us)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As usual, the media as a whole and many of us "handicappers" as well are trying to slam these candidates into neat little one-sentence descriptions. A brief pause suggests that such evaluations aren't accurate for either man. They both bring to the party/embody many themes and experiences -- some of those contradictory to one another. Most of us have to resolve such belief/value disparitities for ourselves on an ongoing basis. Is it less likely that McCain and Obama are doing the same?


Most profound single comment thus far (THANKS Don Corleone!):

"Outrage, and not religion, is the real opiate of the masses."


This explains so much of the recent media approach -- all forms -- that it's scary.

[Crazed Rabbit]

A good article on Obama's swerve to the center:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/03/AR2008070302451.html
A Man of Seasonal Principles

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, July 4, 2008; Page A17

You'll notice Barack Obama is now wearing a flag pin. Again. During the primary campaign, he refused to, explaining that he'd worn one after Sept. 11 but then stopped because it "became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism." So why is he back to sporting pseudo-patriotism on his chest? Need you ask? The primaries are over. While seducing the hard-core MoveOn Democrats that delivered him the caucuses -- hence, the Democratic nomination -- Obama not only disdained the pin. He disparaged it. Now that he's running in a general election against John McCain, and in dire need of the gun-and-God-clinging working-class votes he could not win against Hillary Clinton, the pin is back. His country 'tis of thee.

In last week's column, I thought I had thoroughly chronicled Obama's brazen reversals of position and abandonment of principles -- on public financing of campaigns, on NAFTA, on telecom immunity for post-Sept. 11 wiretaps, on unconditional talks with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- as he moved to the center for the general election campaign. I misjudged him. He was just getting started.
ad_icon

Last week, when the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, Obama immediately declared that he agreed with the decision. This is after his campaign explicitly told the Chicago Tribune last November that he believes the D.C. gun ban is constitutional.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton explains the inexplicable by calling the November -- i.e., the primary season -- statement "inartful." Which suggests a first entry in the Obamaworld dictionary -- "Inartful: clear and straightforward, lacking the artistry that allows subsequent self-refutation and denial."

Obama's seasonally adjusted principles are beginning to pile up: NAFTA, campaign finance reform, warrantless wiretaps, flag pins, gun control. What's left?

Iraq. The reversal is coming, and soon.

Two weeks ago, I predicted that by Election Day Obama will have erased all meaningful differences with McCain on withdrawal from Iraq. I underestimated Obama's cynicism. He will make the move much sooner. He will use his upcoming Iraq trip to finally acknowledge the remarkable improvements on the ground and to formally abandon his primary season commitment to a fixed 16-month timetable for removal of all combat troops.

The shift has already begun. Yesterday, he said that his "original position" on withdrawal has always been that "we've got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable." And that "when I go to Iraq . . . I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies."

He hasn't even gone to Iraq and the flip is almost complete. All that's left to say is that the 16-month time frame remains his goal but that he will, of course, take into account the situation on the ground and the recommendation of his generals in deciding whether the withdrawal is to occur later or even sooner.

Done.

And with that, the Obama of the primaries, the Obama with last year's most liberal voting record in the Senate, will have disappeared into the collective memory hole.

Obama's strategy is obvious. The country is in a deep malaise and eager for change. He and his party already have the advantage on economic and domestic issues. Obama, therefore, aims to clear the deck by moving rapidly to the center in those areas where he and his party are weakest, namely national security and the broader cultural issues. With these -- and, most important, his war-losing Iraq policy -- out of the way, the election will be decided on charisma and persona. In this corner: the young sleek cool hip elegant challenger. In the other corner: the old guy. No contest.

After all, that's how he beat Hillary. She originally ran as a centrist, expecting her nomination to be a mere coronation. At the first sign of serious opposition, however, she panicked and veered left. It was a fatal error. It eliminated all significant ideological and policy differences with Obama -- her desperate attempts to magnify their minuscule disagreement on health-care universality became almost comical -- making the contest entirely one of personality. No contest.

As Obama assiduously obliterates all differences with McCain on national security and social issues, he remains rightly confident that Bush fatigue, the lousy economy and his own charisma -- he is easily the most dazzling political personality since John Kennedy -- will carry him to the White House.

Of course, once he gets there he will have to figure out what he really believes. The conventional liberal/populist stuff he campaigned on during the primaries? Or the reversals he is so artfully offering up now?

I have no idea. Do you? Does he?

[CountArach]

Shall I point out McCain's flip-flops that take him to the right?

Oh, and Obama didn't flip-flop on Iraq - he said the exact same thing that he has been saying the entire election.

[Ice]

Shall I point out McCain's flip-flops that take him to the right?

Oh, and Obama didn't flip-flop on Iraq - he said the exact same thing that he has been saying the entire election.

Here's the problem, CA.

I was listening to NPR the other day, so I don't have a link, and I heard Obama say that he would visit Iraq and maybe revise his plan in accordance with what the generals say.

He then proceeds to say that his plan hasn't changed and we will start a pullout that will last 16 mths.

What if the generals say soldiers are needed for another 3 years? Is he going to ignore them?

I'm not bashing a timetable, although I don't think it's a great idea,but I'm not seeing how it goes together with following our generals' advice.

[Lemur]

What if the generals say soldiers are needed for another 3 years? Is he going to ignore them?
The CIC is supposed to set the overall strategy. The goals and ideals, if you will. The commanders are supposed to advise on tactics, and speak up when the strategy is insane. I don't see how listening to commanders is incompatible with setting an overall strategy.

And this is part of why I always found President Bush's "I'm just doing what my commanders say" duplicitous. Firstly because we know damn well he would replace any general who didn't tell him what he wanted to hear, and secondly because the CIC sets the strategy, not the commanders.

[Geoffrey S]

I love the way it's rarely about the content of the flip-flops - the thing that sticks in the mind and is emphasized in the media is that someone flip-flops. But any politician worth his salt does so. I'd be worried if they didn't.

[CrossLOPER]

I love the way it's rarely about the content of the flip-flops - the thing that sticks in the mind and is emphasized in the media is that someone flip-flops. But any politician worth his salt does so. I'd be worried if they didn't.
I support and always will support the status and issues concerning those known as phalburgii (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/fred2-princes.html).

[CountArach]

Now for some real evidence of what we all already knew.

Obama is the anti-christ (http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/kovach/080626)

[Lemur]

Now for some real evidence of what we all already knew.

Obama is the anti-christ (http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/kovach/080626)
Ahem. (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1959242&postcount=392)

[Crazed Rabbit]

Lemur's Disease (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1928840&postcount=2056): It's Spreading.

So get vaccinated the only way you can (https://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n114/corsiphoto/lemur-big.jpg).

CR

[CountArach]

Oh no! The Lemur's disease - she is catching!

*Starts sucking on needles*

Wow... the innuendo there... just shcoking...

[Louis VI the Fat]

Not news of the weird, not worthy a seprate thread, too funny to let it go to waste, so I'll sneak it in here.


Bush sorry over Berlusconi insult

The White House has apologised to Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi for a briefing describing him as a political "amateur" who is "hated by many". The "insulting" biography was included in a press kit distributed to reporters travelling with President George W Bush to a meeting of world leaders in Japan. He was "one of the most controversial leaders" of a country "known for governmental corruption and vice".

Mr Berlusconi was a key supporter of the US-led war in Iraq. What's incorrect about that press kit (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7495754.stm) anyway? ~:confused:

Gah! In his first term Bush got his foreign intelligence and policies all wrong and he ran around with the attitude of a rabid gorilla, estranging half the globe with it. In his second term he has got his foreign intelligence and policies all correct and now he's all timid and apologetical about it. :wall:

[Lemur]

Every dollar raised by this donation drive will go toward a cure to Lemur's Disease, so please, give now and give generously.

Meanwhile, what the **** is going on in Senator McCain's campaign? I haven't seen back-biting and pointless turmoil (http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/politicalinsider/2008/07/turmoil-continues-in-mccain-ca.html) like this since Senator Clinton's campaign. I hope Johnny Mac can get on top and pull his competing groups together ...


It seems none of the competing advisers working on Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign can actually agree who is in charge.

The New York Times reports "it is becoming clear that his campaign is once again a swirl of competing spheres of influence, clusters of friends, consultants and media advisers who represent a matrix of clashing ambitions and festering feuds... His orbit remains filled with people who have been demoted without being told they are being demoted."

In fact, this morning on Fox News, McCain himself denied that Steve Schmidt now runs his campaign -- despite his recent promotion -- saying "Rick Davis is still the guy in charge." He added that Schmidt has simply "taken on some more responsibilities."

So Mike Murphy (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/07/08/as-mike-murphy-turns.aspx) is not in charge? Or is he?


McCain offered Murphy the strategist's job. "Before he left for Mexico and Colombia, McCain informed Murphy that when he returned, there would be changes in the campaign, that Davis would be demoted and that Schmidt would assume some operational control of the campaign, and that he wanted Murphy to serve as his chief strategist, as he currently didn't have one," a friend of McCain's told me. "Murphy didn't say no," the McCain friend went on. "Murphy expected that to happen." When I asked why it didn't, the McCain friend replied: "As usual, chaos took over."

[Lemur]

A new one for the anti-Obama hysteria files. So Senator Obama comes out with a service-for-tuition scheme, which is unexceptional. Sounds a bit like a watered-down ROTC program, with much less money for much less service.

Here's what Obama said (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jul/02/text-obamas-speech/):


For college students, I have proposed an annual American Opportunity Tax Credit of $4,000. To receive this credit, we'll require 100 hours of public service. You invest in America, and America invests in you - that's how we're going to make sure that college is affordable for every single American, while preparing our nation to compete in the 21st century.

Yawn, right? But not for the screaming hysterics on the right. Check out Jonah Goldberg's reaction (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg8-2008jul08,0,368008.column):


There's a weird irony at work when Sen. Barack Obama, the black presidential candidate who will allegedly scrub the stain of racism from the nation, vows to run afoul of the constitutional amendment that abolished slavery.

For those who don't remember, the 13th Amendment says: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime ... shall exist within the United States."

I guess in Obama's mind it must be a crime to be born or to go to college.

In fairness, Goldberg also attacks Senator McCain in the piece, but it lacks the frothy over-the-top teeth-gnashing, hair-pulling drama of equating Obama with a slavery advocate.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Four thousand dollars for a mere hundred hours light labor? What a bunch of bull.

CR

[CountArach]

Four thousand dollars for a mere hundred hours light labor? What a bunch of bull.

CR
I'm glad you join me in my indictment of CEO wages :wink:

Seriously though... I do like Obama's plan, though I think that College should be free this is a step in the right direction.

[Crazed Rabbit]

CEOs get paid a heck of a lot more than $40/hr. Plus they have to, you know, think, unlike most volunteer jobs.

And college shouldn't be free. Students should have to work to earn there way through college, to attach a cost to it. Now, scholarships to smart people from poor backgrounds are one thing, and the current high price of college should be brought down by cracking down on costs.

But kids shouldn't be able to spend thousands of dollars of taxpayer's money without investing a good deal of their own effort.

CR

[CountArach]

But society ultimately benefits, so why shouldn't society pay for it? Further, why should someone have to pay extra for information?

[GeneralHankerchief]

But society ultimately benefits, so why shouldn't society pay for it?

There's no guarantee that the kids going into college will get anything out of it, especially if they know that they're not paying anything. I know as a taxpayer I wouldn't want to shell out even more money so some snotnose brat can essentially live Animal House for real.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

CEOs get paid a heck of a lot more than $40/hr. Plus they have to, you know, think, unlike most volunteer jobs.

CEOs should only get paid that much for thinking if that thinking achieves results - cost/performance basis.

[seireikhaan]

Well, I'll admit that selfishly, I would really like an extra 4k per year; I'm planning on at least 5 years in college anyways, and I'm mostly going to be paying most all of my college expenses back on my own.

CR, have you ever done 100 hours of service in a year, especially when you've got homework, extra cirriculars, work, tests, and hopefully a social life of some kind? I had to do 20 per year when I was in high school; doing 5 times that while having much harder class work, working a job to pay for the rest of school, extra cirriculars, etc... I would hardly classify that as 'light work'. And I'm going to a state university; I can't imagine what a private would be like.

[CountArach]

There's no guarantee that the kids going into college will get anything out of it, especially if they know that they're not paying anything. I know as a taxpayer I wouldn't want to shell out even more money so some snotnose brat can essentially live Animal House for real.
But on average a person with some college education will earn more than someone from high School, and then someone with a Bachelor's degree will earn far more again:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e7/Education_Income.jpg
These higher incomes mean more taxation revenue for the government and hence more benefits for you and everyone else in society. This in turns mean that you may end up paying less in taxes in the long term.

[Crazed Rabbit]

On average, yes.

But that's because, right now, people going to college have to pay - so they have an incentive to spend their time wisely. They have to invest in their future.

If you remove all the cost of going to college and leave only the benefits - like partying, then you'll have more people going to college who would not if they had to spend their own money, not somebody elses'.


CR, have you ever done 100 hours of service in a year, especially when you've got homework, extra cirriculars, work, tests, and hopefully a social life of some kind?

No. What makes volunteering have any meaning is that you're not getting paid or reimbursed for your effort. Obama wants to give an easy $40/hr job to unskilled youth on the taxpayer's dime.

CR

[CountArach]

On average, yes.

But that's because, right now, people going to college have to pay - so they have an incentive to spend their time wisely. They have to invest in their future.
Yes because Europe's free education programs are such a failure.

[Geoffrey S]

Yes because Europe's free education programs are such a failure.
Well... high freshman dropout rates, plenty take longer than they should.

[CountArach]

Well... high freshman dropout rates, plenty take longer than they should.
But will you deny that society has benefited?

[Geoffrey S]

That has more to do with demand from society than what is supplied. But I agree with you in the sense that I'd rather see too much investment in education than too little, but the way I see it going now from university benches is a serious case of quantity (though not even that when it comes to lecturers...) over quality.

Has society benefited? Got an over-educated, largely apathetic population here in the Netherlands. Works better at sustaining the current system for its own sake than keeping up with the pack, methinks.

[PanzerJaeger]

But on average a person with some college education will earn more than someone from high School, and then someone with a Bachelor's degree will earn far more again:

[IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e7/Education_Income.jpg[IMG]

These higher incomes mean more taxation revenue for the government and hence more benefits for you and everyone else in society. This in turns mean that you may end up paying less in taxes in the long term.

The problem with that argument is that wealth is finite resource. Yes, right now a Masters sets you apart from the pack, which leads to a better job. However, if everyone has a Masters, there is not enough wealth in the economy to pay everyone $90,000, nor would employers see a Masters level education as being worth such an investment, as people at that level would be plentiful. As Geoffrey said, its about supply and demand.

We're already seeing this trend in America. 10 years ago a bachelor's degree in Business Administration would have landed you a great job. These days, with increased college admission, there are plenty of 4 year graduates in the job pool and wages and opportunities have fallen. Those who can, including myself, are going for an MBA - but even that level doesn't offer the wage guarantees it once did.

Essentially, your argument that people who go to college make more money is based on the fact that a lot of people do not go to college. The more graduates there are in the job pool, the less that education will be worth to employers.

(That’s not to say that there aren’t inherent benefits to a better educated society, I just don’t think those benefits are economic.)

[Ironside]

The problem with that argument is that wealth is finite resource. Yes, right now a Masters sets you apart from the pack, which leads to a better job. However, if everyone has a Masters, there is not enough wealth in the economy to pay everyone $90,000, nor would employers see a Masters level education as being worth such an investment, as people at that level would be plentiful. As Geoffrey said, its about supply and demand.

We're already seeing this trend in America. 10 years ago a bachelor's degree in Business Administration would have landed you a great job. These days, with increased college admission, there are plenty of 4 year graduates in the job pool and wages and opportunities have fallen. Those who can, including myself, are going for an MBA - but even that level doesn't offer the wage guarantees it once did.

Essentially, your argument that people who go to college make more money is based on the fact that a lot of people do not go to college. The more graduates there are in the job pool, the less that education will be worth to employers.

(That’s not to say that there aren’t inherent benefits to a better educated society, I just don’t think those benefits are economic.)

Two points.

A. Our entire system is based on that wealth can grow and how to grow it.
B. What is the main niche of the western world on the job market? Cheap consumer goods made by menial labour?
How many years did you need in school 50 years ago?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

There is no such thing as "free."

Taxpayer funded, near-universal college education has demonstrated positive results in a number of European countries -- for example, it was the high education level of Ireland's massively under-employed population that served as one of the key components in Ireland's economic growth over the last 10-15 years.

Most education at the college level in the USA is also heavily funded by the taxpayer. In the USA, a typical state-school education costs approx. $13,600/year whereas a private college will typically cost you $26-29k with some high-end schools charging $40k/year. The practical costs of facilities and faculty are not vastly different on a per student basis -- the rest of the needed tuition comes from government revenues.

It can be argued that private schools provide a higher quality of education, on average, than their publicly underwritten counterparts, but none of the employment/success statistics suggest that the education is of double the value, so those paying for private schooling in addition to getting taxed for public education are losing out on the deal.

The vital difference in the USA is that not all students are guaranteed this opportunity.

In general, the Democrat party has thought fondly of the idea of universal college education, but has made little effort to bring it to fruition, instead concentrating their efforts on greater federal funding and influence/control of the basic education system (ages 5-18).

The GOP has made little effort to establish any policy on this matter, though it may be presumed that the more Constitutionalist elements/hard-core conservatives would prefer to see Government involvement in all education minimized or eliminated. This view is a minority view even within the GOP.


Obama can't fail to have this measure passed if elected. However, in practice, there will be far too many efforts to "scam" the system using college-based "public service" jobs etc. I'm not sure it will generate the "service" people would hope.

On the whole, however, I'd have to suggest that there are far worse, and more expensive, mis-allocations of taxpayer money out there than this program would be.

[Spino]

The problem with that argument is that wealth is finite resource. Yes, right now a Masters sets you apart from the pack, which leads to a better job. However, if everyone has a Masters, there is not enough wealth in the economy to pay everyone $90,000, nor would employers see a Masters level education as being worth such an investment, as people at that level would be plentiful. As Geoffrey said, its about supply and demand.

We're already seeing this trend in America. 10 years ago a bachelor's degree in Business Administration would have landed you a great job. These days, with increased college admission, there are plenty of 4 year graduates in the job pool and wages and opportunities have fallen. Those who can, including myself, are going for an MBA - but even that level doesn't offer the wage guarantees it once did.

Essentially, your argument that people who go to college make more money is based on the fact that a lot of people do not go to college. The more graduates there are in the job pool, the less that education will be worth to employers.

(That’s not to say that there aren’t inherent benefits to a better educated society, I just don’t think those benefits are economic.)

True. But the real root of the problem is that most Americans are steering clear of the types of degrees that their country's industries are starving for. Most of the jobs in high demand are steeped in mathematics and the sciences which, as we all know, have become the penultimate 'uncool because they're too hard & boring' subjects.

There are simply too many Americans getting graduate & post-graduate degrees in liberal arts subjects of dubious distinction (i.e. Filmmaking & the big one... Communications) or as you said, getting degrees in fields that require a certain amount of smarts but are saturated with too many people vying for the same job. America is producing too many lawyers, journalists and film school graduates and not nearly enough doctors, nurses, medical technicians, engineers, accountants, programmers, etc. to meet the demands of those fields. We're simply not producing these people in meaningful quantities anymore.

[discovery1]

But the real root of the problem is that most Americans are steering clear of the types of degrees that their country's industries are starving for. Most of the jobs in high demand are steeped in mathematics and the sciences which, as we all know, have become the penultimate 'uncool because they're too hard & boring' subjects.

:2thumbsup:

I love being an engineering student. Even as the economy tanks my job prospects are getting better.

Who was it that was talking about how hard it is to do 100 hrs of service and a job?
Anyway, if they are being paid for said service, will they take the job?

[woad&fangs]

I'd personally prefer to see that money being awarded to people majoring in engineering or the health sciences but it isn't anything to get outraged over.

As long as the community service is meaningfull it's a good program.:study:

[seireikhaan]

:2thumbsup:

I love being an engineering student. Even as the economy tanks my job prospects are getting better.

Who was it that was talking about how hard it is to do 100 hrs of service and a job?
Anyway, if they are being paid for said service, will they take the job?
That would be moi. And even if you're getting paid for that, 4k still doesn't come nearly close enough for many people. Implying that they won't need a job because they're getting paid for service is, for the majority of students, laughable. I'm not saying its the hardest thing you'll ever do in life; I AM saying, however, that its not as though they simply do a little 'light work', snap their fingers, and get paid, like others were implying. Assuming, of course, that there is some method in place to stop fraud...

But back to Spino's quote: guess I won't have as much competition then, being an accounting student?:beam:

[Crazed Rabbit]

I'd personally prefer to see that money being awarded to people majoring in engineering or the health sciences but it isn't anything to get outraged over.

As long as the community service is meaningfull it's a good program.:study:

Darn straight. Liberal arts majors deserve no scholarships.

Also, Jesse Jackson: Bitter? We report, you decide. (http://www.nypost.com/seven/07092008/news/nationalnews/jesse_jackson_sharply_criticizes_obama_119161.htm)

CR

[seireikhaan]

Also, Jesse Jackson: Bitter? We report, you decide. (http://www.nypost.com/seven/07092008/news/nationalnews/jesse_jackson_sharply_criticizes_obama_119161.htm)

:laugh4: Well, Obama being elected would pretty much undercut Jackson's whole, "all us blacks are victims of racism from the white men so we can do or say whatever we want" thing, now wouldn't it?

[CountArach]

Darn straight. Liberal arts majors deserve no scholarships.
Surely most teachers have some sort of degrees along these lines? At least, they do down here.

[Xiahou]

:laugh4: Well, Obama being elected would pretty much undercut Jackson's whole, "all us blacks are victims of racism from the white men so we can do or say whatever we want" thing, now wouldn't it?Not a problem. Remember, Obama doesn't have slave blood (http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2008/06/21/sclc_head_michelle_obama_treat.html). :dizzy2:

[discovery1]

Surely most teachers have some sort of degrees along these lines? At least, they do down here.

I was under the impression there is already a program for people who become teachers straight out of college that forgives their debt or something. Teach for America (http://www.teachforamerica.org/index.htm) I think, not that I found anything on their web page that talks about that.

[CountArach]

I was under the impression there is already a program for people who become teachers straight out of college that forgives their debt or something. Teach for America (http://www.teachforamerica.org/index.htm) I think, not that I found anything on their web page that talks about that.
That just looks like a volunteer site to me.

[discovery1]

That just looks like a volunteer site to me.

Then I got the name wrong, since I know there is such a program. I've seen ads for it pasted around campus.

http://studentaid.ed.gov/PORTALSWebApp/students/english/teachercancel.jsp?tab=repaying
There's a little bit, not as sweeping as I was imagining though.

[Marshal Murat]

I'm so Sorry (http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2008/07/10/boggsed.html)


So what jumped out at me was how quickly Obama regretted his decision. And that, in turn, made me wonder how often the senator has regretted other choices. Answer: pretty often. (Googling "Obama" and "regrets" yields more than a million hits.)

perhaps this sort of intense self-scrutiny and navel-gazing will translate into electoral victory.

[Lemur]

You know what's sad about that editorial, Marshal Murat? Somebody got paid to write it. We can only hope it wasn't much, 'cause that is one of the sloppiest pieces I've read in ages. He even included the old-person-fumbling-with-Google moment: "Googling 'Obama' and 'regrets' yields more than a million hits." Wow! Gosh! Really? That must be significant.

What a maroon. Not only does he not understand how search engines work, but he doesn't pay enough attention to his own hackery to give us the number of hits in The Googling. Here, I'll finish this idiot's work for him:


Obama + regrets: 1,130,000 hits
McCain + regrets: 902,000 hits

Obama + president: 65,300,000 hits
McCain + president: 5,940,000 hits

So by this hack's logic, Obama will be president, 'cause The Google told us so. Idjit.


Obama + wombat: 93,400 hits
McCain + wombat: 58,800 hits

Why does Obama enjoy an almost 2-1 advantage in wombats over McCain? Quick, write an essay about it and sell it to AJC (http://www.ajc.com/).

[Louis VI the Fat]

:soapbox:
What a maroon.
:furious3:
this idiot
:furious3:
this hack
:furious3:
Idjit.
:soapbox:
Ah, at last! http://forums.wdwmagic.com/images/smilies/sohappy.gif

I knew that sooner or later you'd lose your temper over Obama, and have been saving this dramatic video (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/matthew_moore/blog/2008/04/17/dramatic_obama_vs_dramatic_lemur) just for the occasion! :jumping:

[Redleg]

Ah, at last! http://forums.wdwmagic.com/images/smilies/sohappy.gif

I knew that sooner or later you'd lose your temper over Obama, and have been saving this dramatic video (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/matthew_moore/blog/2008/04/17/dramatic_obama_vs_dramatic_lemur) just for the occasion! :jumping:


LOL - I actually giggled like a girl when I saw the Lemur....:laugh4:

[Crazed Rabbit]

:laugh4: Well, Obama being elected would pretty much undercut Jackson's whole, "all us blacks are victims of racism from the white men so we can do or say whatever we want" thing, now wouldn't it?

A good article on why Jackson is staring at irrelevancy and so angry about it:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-10jul10,0,725595.column

CR

[Lemur]

It's about damn time somebody made us choose between lemurs and Obama. What took them so long? Excellent find, Louis.

And for the record, my anger was more of a professional thing with the hack who wrote that editorial. There are plenty of legitimate ways to attack Obama, so there's no call for the kind of amateurish pseudo-essay that Luke Boggs put out. I mean, if you're going to attack a Presidential candidate, stay awake at the frickin' keyboard while you do it.

Seriously, read the piece Murat linked to. It's a textbook example of amateurish, lazy writing.

[Marshal Murat]

Don't blame me, blame Matt Drudge.

:computer:

Okay, blame me, but let it be a warning to all who link sloppy editorials.

[Xiahou]

You know what's sad about that editorial, Marshal Murat? Somebody got paid to write it. We can only hope it wasn't much, 'cause that is one of the sloppiest pieces I've read in ages. He even included the old-person-fumbling-with-Google moment: "Googling 'Obama' and 'regrets' yields more than a million hits." Wow! Gosh! Really? That must be significant.

What a maroon. Not only does he not understand how search engines work, but he doesn't pay enough attention to his own hackery to give us the number of hits in The Googling. Here, I'll finish this idiot's work for him:


Obama + regrets: 1,130,000 hits
McCain + regrets: 902,000 hits

Obama + president: 65,300,000 hits
McCain + president: 5,940,000 hits

So by this hack's logic, Obama will be president, 'cause The Google told us so. Idjit.


Obama + wombat: 93,400 hits
McCain + wombat: 58,800 hits

Why does Obama enjoy an almost 2-1 advantage in wombats over McCain? Quick, write an essay about it and sell it to AJC (http://www.ajc.com/).
I think you're making a bit much of what was only a parenthetical reference to Google. :shrug:

[Lemur]

I think you're making a bit much of what was only a parenthetical reference to Google. :shrug:
The op-ed piece is full of stupidity and laziness, but the Google reference was the cherry on top. Certainly it was a level of stupidity that deserved a hearty stomping. Contrast and compare it with the op-ed Crazed Rabbit linked to. Now that is a competent piece of writing.

If we're going to link to mean-spirited attack pieces, can we at least agree to link to well-written ones?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What a maroon.

I have always loved this particular Bugs Bunnyism -- Bugs was and remains the champ.

[PanzerJaeger]

Ah, at last! http://forums.wdwmagic.com/images/smilies/sohappy.gif

I knew that sooner or later you'd lose your temper over Obama, and have been saving this dramatic video (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/matthew_moore/blog/2008/04/17/dramatic_obama_vs_dramatic_lemur) just for the occasion! :jumping:


:laugh4:

Lemur's been hot for Barak for a while now.. its cute.

[Don Corleone]

Also, Jesse Jackson: Bitter? We report, you decide. (http://www.nypost.com/seven/07092008/news/nationalnews/jesse_jackson_sharply_criticizes_obama_119161.htm)
CR

I've seen a LOT of footage on the infamous "I want to cut his NUTS out!" statement. I have to be honest, with the photograph they used of Jesse on Drudge Report (holding the "Change We Can Believe in" sign with a really torqued off look) and hearing the statement in my mind with Jesse's peculiar speech mechanisms, every time I roll that clip in my mind, I giggle again and again. :laugh4:

I even went so far as to use it in a staff meeting yesterday. My guys were rolling on the floor. Our division's controller said due to budgetary constraints, he was going to put all capital expenditures on hold, even ones already approved. And I gritted my teeth and in my best Jesse accent, muted the speakerphone and declared "I want to cut his NUTS out". :laugh4: Had them in stitches. :laugh4:

But I don't think this is authentic. I think Jesse was a plant and it was well coordinated with the Obama camp. Why? Can you imagine Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. going on national television to insult and belittle his own father? For something that's more silly then actually threatening? If it was real, Jesse Sr. comes off more like a clown than a thug. And an impotent one at that.

I think the whole thing was orchestrated by the Obama camp to show Obama in the light of standing up to the Black Civil Rights establishment, a criticism Obama has taken to the chin regularly. This gives him credence when he says he's beholden to no special interest groups.

But do any of you really doubt that the Rainbow/PUSH coalition and the National Action Network aren't going to see HUGE windfalls on Jan 22nd, 2009, assuming Obama wins? :idea2:

[Lemur]

Don, I can see the logic of your point, but I also sense that the frustration and anger that the older generation of grievance-mongers feel is real. Obama obliterates the ground under the feet of guys like Sharpton and Jackson. How can they not be angry?

And since this has basically become the all-Obama thread, here's a roundup of what Obama is, according to the chattering classes:


Obama is the new ... (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/07/obama-is-new.html)

Bush (43):
Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, 7/2/08.
L. Whitey Johnson, 7/10/08.

Kerry:
Steve Schmidt, 6/20/08.
Grover Norquist, 6/26/08.
Frank Newport, 5/7/08.
Hillary Clinton, 4/14/08.

Gore:
Hillary Clinton, 4/14/08.
Hugh Hewitt, 3/30/08.

(Bill) Clinton:
Paul Krugman, 6/30/08.
Abe Greenwald, 1/15/08.
Ron Fournier, 12/18/07.

Dole:
Mark Halperin, 2/28/08.

George H. W. Bush:
David Brooks, 5/19/08.
New York Sun Editorial Board, 4/18/08
YouTube, 4/6/08:

Dukakis:
Susan Estrich, 5/12/08.
Nate Silver, 7/10/08.

Mondale
Ronald Kessler, 2/27/08.
Dan McLaughlin, 5/30/07.

Reagan:
Andrew Sullivan, 7/24/07.
Darrell M. West, 7/8/08.
Diane Winston, 6/27/08.
David Paul Kuhn, 7/24/07.
E.J. Dionne, 2/29/08
George F. Will, 5/8/08.
Barack Obama, 1/16/08.

Carter:
John McCain, 6/21/08.
Dinesh D'Souza, 6/18/08.
Matthew Continetti, 5/5/08.
Kurt Anderson, 6/16/08.

Ford:
Dennis Byrne, 1/4/07.

Nixon:
Karl Rove, 7/10/08.
James Kirchick, 7/2/07.
John Pitney, 3/4/08.

McGovern:
John Judis, 4/23/08.
Jeralyn, 2/16/08.
New York Sun editorial board, 5/9/08.

Humphrey:
Dr. Violet Socks, 6/5/08.

Johnson:
Rush Limbaugh, 6/10/08.
Jeffrey Lord, 6/10/08.
Michael Crowley, 6/5/08.

Goldwater:
Alfred Regnery, 2/25/08.

Kennedy:
Caroline Kennedy, 1/27/08.
Ted Sorensen, 7/23/07.
William Rees-Mogg, 2/18/08.
Justin Raimondo, 8/3/07.
E.J. Dionne, 4/22/08.

Eisenhower:
Susan Eisenhower, 2/2/08.
Alan W. Dowd, 6/3/08.

Stevenson:
George F. Will, 4/15/08.
Steve Clemons, 11/4/07.
David Greenberg, 11/16/07.
E.J. Dionne, 4/22/08.

Truman:
New York Sun editorial board, 7/2/08.
Chicago Sun-Times, 5/13/07.

Dewey:
East Hartford Gazette, 6/25/08
Voters of New Hampshire, 1/8/08.

[Don Corleone]

Don, I can see the logic of your point, but I also sense that the frustration and anger that the older generation of grievance-mongers feel is real. Obama obliterates the ground under the feet of guys like Sharpton and Jackson. How can they not be angry?



Oh, I think that Jesse didn't have to reach very deep to find the motivation for his character, so to speak. I'm certain there is a lot of very real anger, jealousy and rage.

But again, Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. of Illinois is going to make the media rounds anywhere he can to dress down his father? For something as moronic as this? Do you really believe that?

[Lemur]

I don't find Jesse Jackson Jr.'s behavior to be proof of much of anything. Fathers and sons can disagree violently, and "great" men's sons are more often resentful than not. (By "great" in this context, I mean a man who believes he is great and devotes his life to a cause, most often to the detriment of his family. I am not saying JJ is "great" in any absolute or measurable sense.)

Also, Junior functions, lives and breathes in Chicago politics, where Senior has been a spent force for decades, at least as far as Cook County is concerned. (See the excellent article Crazed Rabbit posted last page, it gives good Chicago context.) Junior has hitched his wagon to Obama pretty darn firmly. Note that he is co-chair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Jackson,_Jr.) of the Barack Obama Presidential Campaign. If daddy threatens his golden goose, who will kill the fatted calf? Or maybe I mean his sacred cow. Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that Jesse Jackson's chickens ... are coming home to roost ....

[Marshal Murat]

Roosevelt, John Roosevelt that is (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/us/politics/13mccain.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1215900157-dUA29hnl1UhofSEdWUUqTQ)

McCain plays the 'Maverick conservative who saved species of the ursus'!

[Crazed Rabbit]

Obama's lead is drying up in two polls:
Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/145737)and Rasmussen (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll).

Hmm. A result of Obama's centrist maneuvering?

CR

[Marshal Murat]

No one cares. Half of America likes McCain because they genuinely like him or dislike Obama. The reverse for Obama. America is bored with the two of them, and won't worry about them until the nomination convention, and then in September we will start caring again.

It's like soccer (football for you Euros). In the beginning, everyones pumped and ready. The two teams come out, and begin to play. They play around for 80 minutes, and then everyone cares about the last 10 minutes.

[CountArach]

Obama's lead is drying up in two polls:
Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/145737)and Rasmussen (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll).
I read a lot of stuff about the Newsweek polling. In the first poll they over-sampled Democrats and in this one they under-sampled them. Further African-Americans made up a very small portion of this poll and I do not believe Obama won them by the convincing margin EVERY other poll has been showing.

Hmm. A result of Obama's centrist maneuvering?

CR
If you think the Democrats didn't do polling on whether his so-called centrist movements would hurt or help him then you have to be kidding yourself.

[KukriKhan]

Irony test for the US:

https://jimcee.homestead.com/newyorkercover220.jpg

From Guardian (UK) (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/07/new_yorker_cover.html).

I predict: much heat; little light.

I take Marshal Murat's point:


No one cares. Half of America likes McCain because they genuinely like him or dislike Obama. The reverse for Obama. America is bored with the two of them, and won't worry about them until the nomination convention, and then in September we will start caring again.

It's like soccer (football for you Euros). In the beginning, everyones pumped and ready. The two teams come out, and begin to play. They play around for 80 minutes, and then everyone cares about the last 10 minutes.

Tough times for the campaigns, trying to maintain enthusiasm.

On another front, we now have a Greens Party Candidate Cynthia McKinney (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/green-party-tap.html), best known for having asked: "What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th?"

[Sasaki Kojiro]

On another front, we now have a Greens Party Candidate Cynthia McKinney (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/green-party-tap.html), best known for having asked: "What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th?"

This is the kind of thing that makes me laugh whenever someone complains about our two party system.

[Marshal Murat]

I'm now getting tired of Barack Obama. (Links are from Drudge Report)

Is it his economic policy?

Nope.

Is it his foreign policy?

Nope.

Healthcare?

Nope.

It's these two thing...
McLaughlin calls Barack Obama an 'Oreo' (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/14/mclaughlin-takes-heat-for-oreo-comment/)

Longtime Washington talk-show host John McLaughlin is facing fire Monday for referring to Barack Obama as an "Oreo" during a segment on his Sunday political program, "The McLaughlin Group.

I love the McLaughlin group, because they actually have multiple viewpoints. Four politically different panelists discuss political issues. If he uses this sorta term, it's not his fault. He's using a term in common usage. Don't blame the microphone for what the speaker says.

Barack offended over New Yorker Cover (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080714152414.ywhxksb5&show_article=1)
This is something everyone's probably heard about, so I won't beat this dead horse, but the response by the New Yorker editor?
Remnick Reply (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/new-yorker-edit.html)
Can Barack Obama take any language? It's satire, like depicting McCain in a casket 'cause he's so old!

[Tribesman]

Barack offended over New Yorker Cover

So according to that article people who work for McCain and people who work for Obama didn't like the joke .
Big deal .

[KukriKhan]

So according to that article people who work for McCain and people who work for Obama didn't like the joke .
Big deal .


Pretty much another example of Don Corleone's theory: "Outrage, not religion, is the new opiate of the masses."

[Tribesman]

"Outrage, not religion, is the new opiate of the masses."
How dare you say that :furious3:

[Lemur]

This (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9Jbw2-f8IQ) made me laugh. Oh, and I was outraged!

[PanzerJaeger]

Barack purges his website of Surge criticism.. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/07/14/2008-07-14_barack_obama_purges_web_site_critique_of.html)


BY JAMES GORDON MEEK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Monday, July 14th 2008, 8:10 PM

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama's campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop "surge" in Iraq, the Daily News has learned.

The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a "problem" that had barely reduced violence.

"The surge is not working," Obama's old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province.

The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.

Obama's campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an "improved security situation" paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007.

It praises G.I.s' "hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice."

Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is "not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events."

GOP rival John McCain zinged Obama as a flip-flopper. "The major point here is that Sen. Obama refuses to acknowledge that he was wrong," said McCain, adding that Obama "refuses to acknowledge that it [the surge] is succeeding."
jmeek@nydailynews.com




Barack's superior foresight continues to shine. :yes:

The Democrats may be in a good political position, but what a price to pay. Banking on America to fail is a disgusting mentality shared by our enemies.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The Democrats may be in a good political position, but what a price to pay. Banking on America to fail is a disgusting mentality shared by our enemies.

No, our enemies don't bank on us failing -- even if they're rooting for/working towards it.

Our Friends from around the globe, many of whom think we may fail or have failed, shake their heads in surprise/pity/wonder, but they don't bank on our failure.

It's pretty much only the "left" of the Dems who're banking on that failure. However, you need to be fair to them -- they only want that failure so we'll be forced to get past nationalism and capitalism and join the world as a partner rather than a leader. From their viewpoint, that's a win for us.


Nincompoops.