|
A few other thoughts I want to share:
1. Obama is running as a "change", "post partisan" and "post racial candidate". On the third, he is doing a great job for sure. But, he has never changed anything in the past. The Illinois senate was not impacted in any serious way for his being there. And in the US senate, he has never written any major legislation. The one that he totes as "keeping nukes away from terrorists" was written by another senator he coauthored with and was really just one of the MANY bills passed that the public never hears about because they are just housekeeping bills. If he hadn't coauthored it, anybody else would have. No newspapers reported passage of the bill and the NYT mentioned it once, but only mentioned the real author and not Obama.
As for post partisan, during Obama's very limited time in the senate, he never broke with his party ever. Have you ever heard democrats complain that he betrayed them and sided with the Republicans or with moderates? NOPE. McCain on the the other hand has authored some of the most important, controversial and news worthy bills for the last 30 years. He also has a 30 year history of breaking with his party and being independent coauthoring major bills with the likes of Ted Kennedy.
So Obama is trying to run as what McCain really is. Its a hard sell.
2. It needs to be remembered that Obama was selected as the "Most Liberal Senator of 2007" by the nonpartisan National Journal. The National Journal has a very good reputation for being nonpartisan and I have not heard a single democrat, liberal, or anyone else accuse them of playing politics with their choice. The analysis for the decision is actually automated. If you want to know how he was selected as "most liberal" here is an article by Charles Green of the National Journal explaining how it was done and why it was him: http://www.nationaljournal.com/conventions/co_20080825_4458.php. I think that Mr. Green is one of their senior editors if not the head guy.
So the point is, general elections are decided by independents and moderates in the middle. Everyone knows that. And one thing that independents and moderates don't like is extremism in either direct. This makes it hard to Obama and easier on McCain.
--Savio
|
Savio, Obama has demonstrated better judgement concerning all the issues that are relevant, better judgement on campaign management, better clarity of mind overall, if his history shows him being cockblocked on his proposals, it never showed that he wasnt trying to push important things foward, id rather have a president that doesnt fear doing the right thing but has no washington history to prove it, that one that has been stuck with the wrong one.
In the end, what matters is who has the better judgement, not who has the most executive experience, or what ever you want to call it.
And all these labels people put on him, only show the obvious, people believe in his change, and those that dont agree with it, are scared the shit out.
|
what matters is who's not dumb enough to say that the economy is fundamentally strong in public
i just got caught up with the campaign happenings of the week
what a FACEPALM.
|
But he meant the strong, proud American workers!
+ Show Spoiler +
who, apparently, aren't strong enough to pick lettuce for $50 an hour
|
ahrara_ thinks Americans aren't hard workers. What an unpatriotic Obamanaut fag.
/foxnews
|
mccain is not in my opinion anywhere near a strong candidate
|
On September 21 2008 11:43 Servolisk wrote:
ahrara_ thinks Americans aren't hard workers. What an unpatriotic Obamanaut fag.
/foxnews
shutup or imma go pro-test
|
palin is some crazy bitch who doesnt know what she talkin about
sways my vote to obama
|
On September 21 2008 11:11 D10 wrote:
Savio, Obama has demonstrated better judgement concerning all the issues that are relevant, better judgement on campaign management, better clarity of mind overall, if his history shows him being cockblocked on his proposals, it never showed that he wasnt trying to push important things foward, id rather have a president that doesnt fear doing the right thing but has no washington history to prove it, that one that has been stuck with the wrong one.
In the end, what matters is who has the better judgement, not who has the most executive experience, or what ever you want to call it.
And all these labels people put on him, only show the obvious, people believe in his change, and those that dont agree with it, are scared the shit out.
He hasn't demonstrated anything because he hasn't ever done anything.
BTW, he was dead wrong on the surge. McCain receives most of the credit for pushing the surge and getting G.W. to stop bungling the war. It is because of McCain (obviously others as well--Gen Petraeus for one--but as far as politicians, mostly McCain and Lieberman) that the US is winning the war now. Iraq is at the lowest levels of violence EVER. There has never been a month since the start of the war as good as these last ones. Obama said, "The surge will fail". That is not judgement. The surge was unpopular at the time, so it was a safe thing to say, but now most Americans trust McCain to handle the war.
Also, it seems strange to take someone who:
1. Never brought change to Illinios as a state senator.
2. Never brought change to the senate as a US senator.
And then all of a sudden say, "But things are different now. Now he will stand up and accomplish the hardest task in the world: changing Washington." There is nothing in his past or resume to suggest that he can change anything. The only thing he has are words. Promises of "future change".
Words are cheap. A record as a reformer, independent, and maverick (all of which Obama would like to be) is hard to come by.
|
So, since words are cheap we should let McCain stay on speech Deficit ?
Obama is a good candidate, not because he has a historic of change, but because he has the strong charisma and leadership that the change moto needs.
Its not about being an overhauler, its about getting the priorities right, you can say what you want, but history of action is not a decisive factor on judgement, and you cant prove Obama didnt impact tons of life and change them for the better, as I cant prove McCain is a damn warhead that will make your country go thro the worst time of its history.
Never brought change is as vague as "future change" you just choose who you want to put your faith on and hold onto that.
The difference is that, while Obama supporters employ theyr logic to reach the conclusion that McBush is not change
The McCain supporters think with theyr fears and emotions, as how obama could screw them, how does he not satisfy theyr needs, how McBush spams in theyr ears that he is the real changebringer and that the black guy is just trying to con you.
Iraq information can be manufactured as easily as I can burp.
Theres still tons of violence there.
Bush should have never step foot in there in the first place.
Who cares if the surge failed or not, the economy is on crack and most will agree that if obama was the president america would not be passing this ridiculous financial, and credibility crisis worldwide.
Plus, he doesnt read the teleprompter every 3 seconds and still gaffs at will.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_obama
For a man with nothing but empty words he has done a ton of shit.
|
On September 21 2008 13:37 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2008 11:11 D10 wrote:
Savio, Obama has demonstrated better judgement concerning all the issues that are relevant, better judgement on campaign management, better clarity of mind overall, if his history shows him being cockblocked on his proposals, it never showed that he wasnt trying to push important things foward, id rather have a president that doesnt fear doing the right thing but has no washington history to prove it, that one that has been stuck with the wrong one.
In the end, what matters is who has the better judgement, not who has the most executive experience, or what ever you want to call it.
And all these labels people put on him, only show the obvious, people believe in his change, and those that dont agree with it, are scared the shit out. He hasn't demonstrated anything because he hasn't ever done anything. BTW, he was dead wrong on the surge. McCain receives most of the credit for pushing the surge and getting G.W. to stop bungling the war. It is because of McCain (obviously others as well--Gen Petraeus for one--but as far as politicians, mostly McCain and Lieberman) that the US is winning the war now. Iraq is at the lowest levels of violence EVER. There has never been a month since the start of the war as good as these last ones. Obama said, "The surge will fail". That is not judgement. The surge was unpopular at the time, so it was a safe thing to say, but now most Americans trust McCain to handle the war. Also, it seems strange to take someone who: 1. Never brought change to Illinios as a state senator. 2. Never brought change to the senate as a US senator. And then all of a sudden say, "But things are different now. Now he will stand up and accomplish the hardest task in the world: changing Washington." There is nothing in his past or resume to suggest that he can change anything. The only thing he has are words. Promises of "future change". Words are cheap. A record as a reformer, independent, and maverick (all of which Obama would like to be) is hard to come by.
I tend to agree with you on this point, but I think your choice of language in describing the war as "winning" or "winnable" is seriously flawed. Stability is the first step to success, true, but it isn't a guarantee by any means. There's a million things that need to be negotiated before a withdrawal can be feasible and even then, there's no guarantee of lasting stability. In fact, it would seem highly unliikely. Anyway I don't want to derail the thread.
I would also argue your "change" argument doesn't exactly apply to McCain. I'd argue he's compromised a lot of his maverick values during the election. He's turned around on drilling, on tax cuts, on federal bailouts (although to his credit he probably didn't know what that was until last week). I'm not saying Obama hasn't done the same. But let's be realistic about change here. Nobody on either side really knows what it means or how to implement it. Assuming it's reform of some kind, what the fuck exactly are you reforming?
|
Savio, Obama openly opposed the war from the start- at time when most democrats were giving Bush there blind faith. He was not a senator so there is no vote, but it shows that he is not just jumping on his parties band wagon. Another example, although significantly less serious, is he opposed the gas tax holiday when Hilary and McCain were both trying to use it as a political gimmick. He could have easily jumped on that but he made the right call by opposing the idea. Making the case that he has never broken from his party, is making the case that he does not have his own ground to stand on, when in fact on one of the most important issues of the election(Iraq), he has been standing on his own ground from the start.
I should also point out that since Gore lost the 2000 election, the democratic party has not exactly had a solidified front in terms of it's agenda. They have been lost in an effort to define themselves to the public, and have mostly identified themselves as "not Bush". So to say that Obama has simply just taken the party line, is really just exploiting the fact that the party line has been defined by the relationship with a week party and divisive president.
When people talk about the military surge and it's success, they are referring to a drop in violence, but the point of the surge was not just to create a drop in violence, but to create it so that the Iraq political establishment could make progress without threat of violence. That political progress has not been made, so although the Surge has successfully brought down the level of violence in Iraq, it didn't really serve it's purpose. That fact does not fall on McCain or Obama, but it does mean that the Surge is not the home-run definitive proof that the republicans would like it to be that McCain knows what he is doing. The fact is once troops levels drop, violence will start again, and then what are we going to do? McCain does not have an answer, except maybe another surge? And another? I don't think there is a clearly good answer on the table, but I do know that the answer is going to require more than just a more extensive commitment to occupation- which is all McCain really has to offer.
Your last 2 posts really do not even address either candidates actual agenda or approach, but just there image. McCains image as an independent is week when his voting record is in line with Bush's policies 90% of the time. His image as a reformer is week when the people running his campaign are lobbyist. His image as a Maverick primarily comes from campaign finance reform, an issue he has been surprisingly quite about as he pulls in lots and lots of money. His image as the better decision maker, is deeply called into question when he picks an absolutely outlandish VP candidate.
Your whole schpeel just recites the RNC marketing campaign. It is not an argument, but a manipulation of peoples perceptions and lack of real political involvment. Words are cheap, but that is cheaper.
|
I would also point out that at the time of the Surge, we were just beginning to adjust our strategy in Iraq by creating incentives for tribal leaders to support americans. Thus the Anbar Awakening. While the surge certainly helped (and imo, was a good policy), it by no means was the only reason we saw reduction in violence.
|
On September 21 2008 15:25 ahrara_ wrote:
I would also point out that at the time of the Surge, we were just beginning to adjust our strategy in Iraq by creating incentives for tribal leaders to support americans. Thus the Anbar Awakening. While the surge certainly helped (and imo, was a good policy), it by no means was the only reason we saw reduction in violence.
To add to that, if we are speaking in hindsite, Obama has been talking about refocusing our efforts on Afghanistan for a while, and now that seems to be the well accepted approach. Plus, he is the one that has been out talking about fixing our diplomacy with Pakistan, a topic that for some reason has been under the radar. During the primaries he talked about more diplomacy with Iran, and was strongly attacked for it, and now Bush is even moving in that direction.
|
On September 21 2008 15:25 ahrara_ wrote:
I would also point out that at the time of the Surge, we were just beginning to adjust our strategy in Iraq by creating incentives for tribal leaders to support americans. Thus the Anbar Awakening. While the surge certainly helped (and imo, was a good policy), it by no means was the only reason we saw reduction in violence.
This is certainly true. Few people understand this and I just recently read several articles from RealClearPolitics pointing out that much of the success we are seeing in Iraq is a result of Gen. Petraeus' policy of negotiating directly with tribal leaders through the brigadier generals.
The surge would not have been as successful imo if it had not been for this.
As for those pointing out that the surge wasn't successful because the Iraqis haven't reach the benchmark political goals that we set, you should remember that that is their part. All we can do is provide to safe atmosphere and they have to work out the politics.
|
On September 21 2008 15:11 TeCh)PsylO wrote:
Savio, Obama openly opposed the war from the start- at time when most democrats were giving Bush there blind faith. He was not a senator so there is no vote, but it shows that he is not just jumping on his parties band wagon. Another example, although significantly less serious, is he opposed the gas tax holiday when Hilary and McCain were both trying to use it as a political gimmick. He could have easily jumped on that but he made the right call by opposing the idea. Making the case that he has never broken from his party, is making the case that he does not have his own ground to stand on, when in fact on one of the most important issues of the election(Iraq), he has been standing on his own ground from the start.
I should also point out that since Gore lost the 2000 election, the democratic party has not exactly had a solidified front in terms of it's agenda. They have been lost in an effort to define themselves to the public, and have mostly identified themselves as "not Bush". So to say that Obama has simply just taken the party line, is really just exploiting the fact that the party line has been defined by the relationship with a week party and divisive president.
When people talk about the military surge and it's success, they are referring to a drop in violence, but the point of the surge was not just to create a drop in violence, but to create it so that the Iraq political establishment could make progress without threat of violence. That political progress has not been made, so although the Surge has successfully brought down the level of violence in Iraq, it didn't really serve it's purpose. That fact does not fall on McCain or Obama, but it does mean that the Surge is not the home-run definitive proof that the republicans would like it to be that McCain knows what he is doing. The fact is once troops levels drop, violence will start again, and then what are we going to do? McCain does not have an answer, except maybe another surge? And another? I don't think there is a clearly good answer on the table, but I do know that the answer is going to require more than just a more extensive commitment to occupation- which is all McCain really has to offer.
Your last 2 posts really do not even address either candidates actual agenda or approach, but just there image. McCains image as an independent is week when his voting record is in line with Bush's policies 90% of the time. His image as a reformer is week when the people running his campaign are lobbyist. His image as a Maverick primarily comes from campaign finance reform, an issue he has been surprisingly quite about as he pulls in lots and lots of money. His image as the better decision maker, is deeply called into question when he picks an absolutely outlandish VP candidate.
Your whole schpeel just recites the RNC marketing campaign. It is not an argument, but a manipulation of peoples perceptions and lack of real political involvment. Words are cheap, but that is cheaper.
I was trying to think of the best way to say that I appreciate the thought you put into your disagreement with me. Its so much better to discuss something with someone who is thinking and serious than those who don't.
Its true that Obama was always against the war while most democrats were for it initially (which is interesting since they were against the first gulf war--which turned out to be popular). This is slightly diminished by the fact that he was not a US senator and therefore did not have the information that congress had at that time or participate in the debate with the other legislators. Regarding the gas tax holiday, I don't generally count campaign positions or tactics as part of someones history since you never get to see who someone really is during a campaign, just what they need to be at that time (more on that later). For example, Obama once was arguing that he was more qualified to be President than Sarah Palin because while mayor, she only had a budget of 12 million and a small work force while his campaign had a monthly budget bigger than her yearly budget and many more employees. I didn't buy this argument because he was in essence saying he was qualified to be President because he was running for President and also, as governor, Palin had a budget of 12 billion (I believe) and 10s of thousands of employees--way bigger than the sum of both campaigns.
You mentioned that my posts didn't address either candidates agendas. That was on purpose. I don't care diddly squat about their agendas because they don't mean anything. Lets take walk down memory lane so explore this. Do you remember what George Bush ran as in 2000? In essence he was the "compassionate conservative" a "uniter not a divider". He pointed to the many times he worked with democrats in Texas to show this. I even remember that he criticized Clinton as having embraced "nation building". Do you remember that? He said that was not his agenda. He wanted to not engage the military in the world in "nation building".
Al Gore ran as a centrist rather than the leader of the leftist environmental movement. John Kerry tried to run as a hawk who (by the end of the campaign only) wanted to pull out of Iraq, but proudly showed his military medals. Mitt Romney tried to run as a die hard conservative. Rudy Giuliani ran as someone who would appoint "originalists" like Scalia to the court. Hillary Clinton (who began her campaign for President before Bill ever left the White House) has tried to become a moderate and centrist notwithstanding what we remember of her while in the White House.
What someone can SAY means nothing especially while they are running for office. Maybe it means something if it is clear that that person is directly hurting their chances of being elected because then you can argue that they must be voting their true conscience because its not in their self interest (McCain did this when he bet his whole campaign on the surge--if it had failed, this probably would have been a race between Obama and Romney).
So...agendas don't mean anything to me because they are just words formed by flexing a few muscles. There is nothing concrete there. You would like to think that Bush lied when we ran for office because he is bad but Obama is telling the truth because he is good....but where is the proof. There is no way to know.
"The best predictor of what someone will do in the future is what they have done in the past"
That is true in psychology, daily life, relationships, AND politics.
So, I don't mess with agendas or words. I look at what Obama has done (most liberal of 2007, no major legislation and almost never parted with party leaders) and what McCain has done (war hero, major bipartisan legislation for 30 years, voted moderate for 30 years, called it right on the surge, formed bipartisan team--like the "gang of 16"--to find compromise between republicans and democrats).
I look at their past to predict their future.
|
Incensed by the advertisements, several current and former executives of the companies came forward to discuss the role that Rick Davis, Mr. McCain’s campaign manager and longtime adviser, played in helping Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac beat back regulatory challenges when he served as president of their advocacy group, the Homeownership Alliance, formed in the summer of 2000.
Source
Also from Fact checker:
The McCain campaign is clearly exaggerating wildly in attempting to depict Franklin Raines as a close adviser to Obama on "housing and mortgage policy." If we are to believe Raines, he did have a couple of telephone conversations with someone in the Obama campaign. But that hardly makes him an adviser to the candidate himself -- and certainly not in the way depicted in the McCain video release.
Link
|
So...agendas don't mean anything to me because they are just words formed by flexing a few muscles. There is nothing concrete there. You would like to think that Bush lied when we ran for office because he is bad but Obama is telling the truth because he is good....but where is the proof. There is no way to know.
There is a difference between an agenda and a campaign slogan. For example, McCain is talking about the strong American worker as the fundamentals of our economy, and how the people on Wall street are crooked and need to be regulated, yet his tax plan gives the biggest break to the top 1% of the income bracket. If Wall street is so crooked, why is he betting the success of his economic agenda on them? That is exactly the type of muscles being flexed that you are referring to. It is just misleading. If he just said he strongly believes in Supply side economics and left it at that, than his message and agenda would be congruent and there would not be an issue. Obamas message and agenda are congruent, so there is no issue.
It is not about trying to judge who is inherently bad or good, but trying to determine behind all the campaign slogans, what is the actual legislation that they are going to try to pursue. You said "there is not proof, there is no way to know", but your underline point was that you are predicting there future actions based on there passed. What is the distinction between making some sort of leap of faith on what they are going to do based on there past, or based on there integrity in trying to do what they say they are going to try to do? In determining what there course of action is going to be, it is a lot clearer to just look at what they have built there platform on vs what you think they might do based on there past.
What do you think McCain or Obama is not going to try to do, and what from there past makes you think this? What part of there agendas(not campaign slogans) do you think is just for show and tell, and why? Is Obama not going to try to take a more diplomatic approach to foreign policy? Is McCain not going to push a very strong supply side economic agenda? (I pick those 2 issues only because they are most important to me). You are insinuating that both candidates will potentially take a completely different course of action than what they say they will take, but I just don't see any reason why you think this. For example, Bush's attempt to privatise social security was caught by a falling stock market, but you can't possibly predict such a thing.
|
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
mccain is not about change, he was simply too big and not evangelical enough to be in close orbit of the republican public front. he is not about to seriously disturb the republicans' way of doing things, as evinced by this campaign. would a maverick mccain pick palin?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
