Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
None of the aforementioned are strong contenders, at least among the talking heads.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
None of the aforementioned are strong contenders, at least among the talking heads.
You don't need to go any further than Wikipedia- although I'm sure you could find more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Quote:
In 1973, Thompson was appointed minority counsel for the Senate Watergate Committee, a special committee convened by the U.S. Senate to investigate the Watergate scandal.[17] Thompson is sometimes credited for supplying Republican Senator Howard Baker's famous question, "What did the President know, and when did he know it?"[18] This question is said to have helped frame the hearings in a way that eventually led to the downfall of President Richard Nixon.[19] The Senator, who had brought Thompson in as his chief counsel, remarked "I had high regard for him as a lawyer and as a friend."
Quote:
In 1977, Thompson represented Marie Ragghianti, a former Tennessee Parole Board chair, who had been fired for refusing to release felons after they had bribed aides to Democratic Governor Ray Blanton in order to obtain clemency.[24] With Thompson's assistance, Ragghianti filed a wrongful termination suit against Blanton's office. During the trial, Thompson helped to expose the cash-for-clemency scheme that eventually led to Blanton's removal from the Governor's office.[15] In July 1978, a jury awarded Ragghianti $38,000 in back pay and ordered her reinstatement.
Quote:
In 1996, Thompson was a member of the Committee on Governmental Affairs when the committee investigated the alleged Chinese attempts to influence American politics. Thompson says he was "largely stymied" during these investigations by witnesses declining to testify; claiming the right not to incriminate themselves or by simply leaving the country.[40] Thompson explained, "Our work was affected tremendously by the fact that Congress is a much more partisan institution than it used to be."[41]
Thompson became committee chairman in 1997 but was reduced to ranking minority member when the Democrats took control of the Senate in 2001. [42] Thompson served on the Finance Committee (dealing with health care, trade, Social Security, and taxation) the Intelligence Committee, and the National Security Working Group
Maybe you don't think that's anymore experience than Obama- but I think many others would disagree. I could do the same thing for McCain, but I think you can look it up just as easily. What's Obama done?Quote:
After the retirement of Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in 2005, Bush appointed him to an informal position to help guide the nomination of John Roberts through the United States Senate confirmation process.[57] Roberts was subsequently confirmed as Chief Justice.
Until July 2007, Thompson was Chair of the International Security Advisory Board, a bipartisan advisory panel that reports to the Secretary of State and focuses on emerging strategic threats.[58] In that capacity, he advised the State Department about all aspects of arms control, disarmament, international security, and related aspects of public diplomacy.
To gently steer the argument back to your original point of contention, nothing you listed involves serving as an executive. Anybody who ran the Department of Education for a week could justifiably claim to have more executive experience. Also, nothing you list pertains to foreign policy.
Your argument, and it's a popular one, is that Obama doesn't have executive branch experience. My counter-argument is that many other candidates are in the same boat, and yet they receive no such criticism. I'm not seeing anything that addresses this.
You must not have read what I posted. First I'll respond in general- all the resume fodder I listed shows much more experience working in and with the federal government than Obama has.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
In specific- re: Nothing relating to foreign policy....You have the investigation into Chinese political influence while on the Governmental Affairs committee and time on the Intelligence Committee and even the Finance Committee (dealing with trade).
Re: Executive experience...Almost everything listed involves interaction with the executive and with the duties of the federal government. Naturally you'll counter "That's not experience as an executive!!". You can call it whatever you want, but you're just parsing. Do you really think that none of what I've listed would be beneficial experience to someone who would be taking the reigns of the federal bureaucracy and the face of our foreign policy? Trying to counter that none of them have been president or governor misses the point imo. The lack of experience charge is a valid one- Obama does lack experience. People can decide how important that is, but that doesn't make it untrue.Quote:
Until July 2007, Thompson was Chair of the International Security Advisory Board, a bipartisan advisory panel that reports to the Secretary of State and focuses on emerging strategic threats.
Well then, tell me why I should also dislike McCain. Gimme the arguments if you're in the mood.
I think what your complaint is one of misperception, Lemur. You're right that nobody is taking time to complain about the others, because there's labels already hung on them that much more rejective (is that a word)?
Edwards (greasy ambulance chaser that would put the White House up for sale to the highest bidder)
Paul (a crackpot and a loon that lacks a rudimentary understanding of macroeconomics)
Biden (has run so many times it's almost a requirement he throw his hat in. He's just there to make the primaries dignified. He's not a real candidate, and true to form, dropped out after the first primary).
Thompson (laaaaaazzzzzzzyyyyy, and doesn't seem to be particularly interested in the election at all).
So yes, their lack of executive experience could be mentioned as well. But isn't that like telling somebody that they're incompetent and don't deserve their job. And their part is crooked. :shrug:
I think this country could do worse than Obama. A lot worse. I fundamentally disagree with him on major issues of policy, but I do believe that he believes in what he's saying. That carries a LOT of weight with me. But my complaint about his lack of experience isn't just experience in the executive office. Other than giving a rousing speech at the Democratic convention in 2004, name one major accomplishment worthy of note that he's had....
And finally, let me conclude with the statement that "There IS hope for the Democratic Party". It's been a year of campaigning now, and I haven't once heard anyone mention that most aggravating of terms "electable".
Don, thank you, finally an answer that makes political sense. Muchas gracias.
Well, he may have had an influence on voter turnout to the Iowa caucus', in a very positive manner, at least for dems. For example, in my precinct, for Dems, roughly 280 people showed up to caucus, in comparison to 2004, when a mere 130 people showed up. Edwards was already there in '04, and I just can't imagine Hillary was the difference(considering she got 3rd).
I think the Obama turnout is one of the most interesting things to come out of Iowa. I'm curious to see if it continues in the primaries and then whether it carries over into a general election- traditionally the youth vote has been a no show in elections, we'll have to see if he is able to generate enough enthusiasm to change this.Quote:
Originally Posted by kamikhaan
Well, I've already talked about my problems with McCain, I largely agree with the Club For Growth's assessment of him, with McCain-Feingold being something that really sticks in my craw,as well as his "we know better than you" approach to immigration reform. I also find his apparent temper problems disconcerting- it seems to sometimes get the best of him and make him act childishly. Even still, when Thompson more than likely drops out, McCain will likely be my silver medal. I wanted to like Romney, but he's just too phony and strikes me as dishonest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Edit: One big plus for McCain is that he actually had the guts to criticize ethanol in Iowa of all places. You've got to appreciate his honesty and consistency in that.
Their assessment ????come off it Xiahou their earlier assessments are that putting Bush junior into office would be like having Reagan serve a third term:dizzy2:Quote:
I largely agree with the Club For Growth's assessment of him
Romney is not phony. I just don't get that sentiment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Do you not like his all-american 50's/60's personality? He grew up in the 50's and early 60's! He was 3 years old when the Korean war began. I think it is endearing.
He is THE center right candidate. Giuliani is the center candidate. In Iowa,Romney played up how conservative he is to get votes, but Huckabee was way more "conservative" and took the cake. I think it has always been clear where he stood in office and even in the race for office. I wish that you liked him more. I am all about the guy and I'm so afraid that he will be out after South Carolina if more people don't wake up to the fact that he is the best thing we've had in a very long time.
You are right though about the perception that people have about him as phony. I don't like his commercials - they are too well produced and seem fake. Luckily, I have seen his "Ask Mitt" segments and speeches. I think his approach to politics is solid and optimistic.
Personally, I don't like or trust McCain in an executive position. He has run before and is a proven dud. The guy lost the nomination to the most unpopular president in modern U.S. history. McCain is a dud and his nomination will be another testament to how out of touch the GOP has become.
The best thing that can happen to the U.S. when Romney is out is the election of Obama. There are no other viable options that I can look forward to in this race.
***He won the Wyoming Caucuses. I hope people notice this. Here's the link
Well, to be fair McCain lost to Bush when it wasn´t yet obvious that he´d be an awful president.
(Admittedly, I voted for Giuliani in the last thread. He seemed, and still does, sensibly enough on the economic and fiscal level, and an effective executive too. I had heard of his autocratic tendencies before, but looking into his history made my doubts grow instead of diminish)
I like McCain. I´m a foreigner and I don´t follow American politics as closely as politics in my own country, but what I´ve seen of him is consistent and hard to disagree with. I´ve always felt that the 2000 nomination (and by extension, presidency) was stolen from him, not in the least because of the disgusting rumours spread about his adopted daughter by the Bush campaign back then.
Romney isn´t bad. Too many "soundbite" statements, a lot more pragmatic than he´s trying to appear right now, but a good choice overall.
Romney will win Wyoming Caucus
Quote:
With 91 percent of precincts reporting, Romney has won eight of Wyoming's 12 delegates.
Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson has won two, and California Rep. Duncan Hunter has won one.
Well, he is a senator, and I'm not as well versed on the American system as some others, but doesn't being a senator give a fair share of experience?Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
It gives experience of the legislative kind - in the crafting and making of laws. The presidency however, is an executive office - ie making decisions and implementing them. A candidate who has been a State Governor has experience in executive office, albeit at a lower level (for example, much less foreign policy but quite similar fiscal implementation).Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
I believe that those who are concerned at Senator Obama's lack of experience would highlight that he has some of the former, but none of the latter type.
Hence why, if Obama does get the nomination, I would very much like to see him get Richardson for the nomination.
I've been reading far-right and far-left blogs today, taking an indecent joy in how upset they all are. The far-lefties, in particular, are deeply unhappy with Obama. I've never been a Kos reader, but I couldn't resist glancing over to see how they're taking the rise of a candidate who doesn't suck up to them.
I like my Democrats a bit more hard-edged, at least at this moment in time. I never got over the stolen election of 2000 and I don't think I ever will. I was hoping for someone, as a candidate, who conveyed that they understood why that matters. It's about understanding that the other side is screwing you (and the Rule of Law, and therefore the country) as a matter of policy. People understood that about Nixon, and they need to understand it about Bush (especially the press) and the current crop of Republicans and conservatives that enable him. Bush is their legacy, just as much as Iraq and Katrina are Bush's.
They're really, truly worried that the new frontrunner won't be divisive, vindictive and punish those evil Republicans. How dare a candidate talk about reconciliation and forming a working majority? Doesn't he know it's all about tit for tat? Some must stop this negro phenomenon ...
Meanwhile, on the far-right, there's lots and lots of McCain bashing, since it's now obvious that he's a player. I love the fact that my #1 and #2 are despised by the extremists. Surely that speaks to their value.
Yeah, kinda funny. Our own Banquo's Ghost suggested some kind of unholy union that would permit a McCain-Obama administration; I've actually heard talking heads (briefly) bring up the same possibility 3 times since last night's debates.
They pause, shake their heads at the "silliness" of the very thought, and resume their sermon. But apparently, a seed has been planted. Bravo BG!
On the NH debates on ABC: I must say they were much more informative than the ones I've watched on the other channels. I fully expected CNN's W. Blitzer to turn to Vanna White and ask her to spin the Wheel of Fortune to select the next question. ABC's Charlie was thoughtful, fair to the speakers, and pretty inclusive.
New for the Dems: Edwards has apparently decided to be a man "on fire", passionately attacking corporate fatcats. Clinton said it was wrong to raise false hopes for Americans - I couldn't believe her opponents let that slide without comment.
The Repubs: Romney is apparently everybody's punching bag - he took hits from everybody, even Thompson. Huckabee worked the crowd with his "ditch IRS - sales tax only" proposal (and stole a little of R.Paul's libertarian wind with it).
I'm not real happy that the networks are not including all the candidates listed on the states' ballots. ABC squezzed out Kucinich, and now Fox is tossing Paul. That sounds wrong, and may be illegal.
Not necessary illegal, they're hosting the show so they make the rules. I believe, however, that the GOP is withdrawing it's support of the Fox debate.
I think you're right about the cable networks, but the guys who broadcast on "the people's airwaves" are bound by more stringent rules - or so I thought was the case after laws enacted in the 70's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat