Obama and change

[BeeR]

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: bushwacked.

[TimC]

I would imagine Skins is an Obama fan.

 

I asked him in our Risk game. Yep.

 

He's still not very smart.

[Randall]

I asked him in our Risk game. Yep.

 

He's still not very smart.

 

 

66% of Fox viewers still think Saddam had WMD. Voters have to have a little intelligence. Most make the French look like geniuses

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

You mean BarackObama.com? I tried and all it had was a place to give my personal info so I could "join the team." No link to any such "blueprint." I hope his blueprint for the country is a helluva lot better than the one for his web site. However I also admit I'm not about to read 64 pages of what is probably more vague rhetoric than anything else. Got a reader's digest version?

 

Massive tax increases, probably. shhhhhhh don't tell anyone till Dec.

 

It's the John Kerry campaign strat. Hey what the hell almost worked for him...

 

Yeah, racism is wonderful. Remember, Lord loves a workin man, see a doctor about it, and don't trust whitey.

 

His website has a place to enter your email address, or if you open your eyes a bit more and look in the bottom right hand corner it clearly says "skip registration or whatever and go directly to the site". And the site is very robust. I think you need a class in innernets navigation.

[Azazello1313]

Interesting notes on Obama's philosophical background.

 

libertarian my ass

 

ok i'll tell you what, i'll paste his entire issue outline from his website, and you tell me which positions involve scaling back government power...

 

Civil Rights

Strengthen Civil Rights Enforcement

Combat Employment Discrimination

Expand Hate Crimes Statutes

End Deceptive Voting Practices

End Racial Profiling

Reduce Crime Recidivism by Providing Ex-Offender Support

Eliminate Sentencing Disparities

Expand Use of Drug Courts

 

Disabilities

“We must build a world free of unnecessary barriers, stereotypes, and discrimination .... policies must be developed, attitudes must be shaped, and buildings and organizations must be designed to ensure that everyone has a chance to get the education they need and live independently as full citizens in their communities.”

 

Economy

Provide Middle Class Americans Tax Relief

Fair Trade

Technology, Innovation and Creating Jobs

Labor

Protect Homeownership and Crack Down on Mortgage Fraud

Address Predatory Credit Card Practices

Reform Bankruptcy Laws

Work/Family Balance

 

ah f it you can do the rest if you want to. just looking for a handful ot positions where he advocates LESS government in order to lend credence to this libertarian claim. reading through the site, i don't even see anything about scaling back the patriot act or anything of that sort. simply a government answer to every perceived problem. and you want to argue he's a libertarian because his plan to massively increase government involvement in health care still permits people to retain a sliver of control over their own decisions? it takes a pretty massive amount of chutzpah to try and sell that MASSIVE expansion of government bureaucracy a "libertarian" proposal.

[Azazello1313]

 

yeah i've seen stuff like that, and it does lend some credence to the idea that he tends to be cordial and concilatory toward the other side and all that. but look, the illiinois state legislature as a body is far to the left of the US senate. he may have been something of a "moderate" in the former, allowing him to generate bi-partisan support for his initiatives, but he is pinned all the way to the left in the latter. let's remember, george w bush WAS a "uniter" in the context of the texas state government. obama's been in there a few years, what has he done to reach across the aisle to get anything done? what has he done other than vote straight party line left at every possible opportunity?

Edited February 7, 2008 by Azazello1313

[moneymakers]

And Obama Wept

February 07, 2008 9:43 AM

 

Inspiration is nice. But some folks seem to be getting out of hand.

 

It's as if Tom Daschle descended from on high saying, "Be not afraid; for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all the people: for there is born to you this day in the city of Chicago a Savior, who is Barack the Democrat."

 

Obama supporter Kathleen Geier writes that she's "getting increasingly weirded out by some of Obama's supporters. On listservs I'm on, some people who should know better – hard-bitten, not-so-young cynics, even – are gushing about Barack…

 

Describing various encounters with Obama supporters, she writes, "Excuse me, but this sounds more like a cult than a political campaign. The language used here is the language of evangelical Christianity – the Obama volunteers speak of 'coming to Obama' in the same way born-again Christians talk about 'coming to Jesus.'...So I say, we should all get a grip, stop all this unseemly mooning over Barack, see him and the political landscape he is a part of in a cooler, clearer, and more realistic light, and get to work."

 

Joe Klein, writing at Time, notes "something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism" he sees in Obama's Super Tuesday speech.

 

"We are the ones we've been waiting for," Obama said. "This time can be different because this campaign for the presidency of the United States of America is different. It's different not because of me. It's different because of you."

 

Says Klein: "That is not just maddeningly vague but also disingenuous: the campaign is entirely about Obama and his ability to inspire. Rather than focusing on any specific issue or cause — other than an amorphous desire for change — the message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is. “

 

The always interesting James Wolcott writes that "(p)erhaps it's my atheism at work but I found myself increasingly wary of and resistant to the salvational fervor of the Obama campaign, the idealistic zeal divorced from any particular policy or cause and chariot-driven by pure euphoria. I can picture President Hillary in the White House dealing with a recalcitrant Republican faction; I can't picture President Obama in the same role because his summons to history and call to hope seems to transcend legislative maneuvers and horse-trading; his charisma is on a more ethereal plane, and I don't look to politics for transcendence and self-certification."

 

Then there's MSNBC's Chris Matthews who tells Felix Gillette in the New York Observer, “I’ve been following politics since I was about 5. I’ve never seen anything like this. This is bigger than Kennedy. [Obama] comes along, and he seems to have the answers. This is the New Testament."

 

And behold, Obama met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him.

 

The Holy Season of Lent is upon us. Can Obama worshippers try to give up their Helter-Skelter cult-ish qualities for a few weeks?

 

At least until Easter, or the Pennsylvania primary, whichever comes first...

 

- jpt

 

UPDATE: Let me be clear: I'm not saying there shouldn't be enthusiasm in politics. I'm merely touching on the fact that some Obama supporters' exhuberance seems to be getting a little out of hand. Obama himself joked about this at a Hollywood fundraiser, as noted in Men's Vogue:

 

“When Morgan Freeman comes over to greet Obama, the senator begins bowing down both hands in worship. ‘This guy was president before I was,’ says Obama, referring to Freeman's turn in Deep Impact and, clearly, getting a little ahead of his own bio. Next, a nod to Bruce Almighty: ‘This guy was God before I was

 

 

 

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

yeah i've seen stuff like that, and it does lend some credence to the idea that he tends to be cordial and concilatory toward the other side and all that. but look, the illiinois state legislature as a body is far to the left of the US senate. he may have been something of a "moderate" in the former, allowing him to generate bi-partisan support for his initiatives, but he is pinned all the way to the left in the latter. let's remember, george w bush WAS a "uniter" in the context of the texas state government. obama's been in there a few years, what has he done to reach across the aisle to get anything done? what has he done other than vote straight party line left at every possible opportunity?

 

Up until a year ago, there was nothing he could do. The Republicans ran roughshod over Congress, basically shunning any and all Democratic representation in committees, bills, etc. I can't speak for 2007. I don't think the Democrats accomplished much of anything in Congress the past year and their disapproval ratings support that as well.

[Azazello1313]

Up until a year ago, there was nothing he could do. The Republicans ran roughshod over Congress, basically shunning any and all Democratic representation in committees, bills, etc. I can't speak for 2007. I don't think the Democrats accomplished much of anything in Congress the past year and their disapproval ratings support that as well.

 

somewhat true. but a lot of votes have been taken and a lot of legislation been passed since obama has been in the senate. he has one of, if not THE the most partisan records in his party over that span. facts are facts.

[Bill Swerski]

66% of Fox viewers still think Saddam had WMD. Voters have to have a little intelligence. Most make the French look like geniuses

 

Perhaps that had something to do with the way that the question was framed, as Saddam absolutely did have WMDs back in the '80s (he used them against the Kurds and I believe Iran as well) and at least until sometime in the '90s.

 

Do you actually know how the poll was conducted? Was it done properly via random phone calls, or just over Fox's web site? Can you give us the actual question that was asked?

Edited February 7, 2008 by Bill Swerski

[Pope Flick]

az's hard on against this guy is hysterical.

 

http://www.sos.state.il.us/bb/toc.html

 

The Illinois Senate was split 32/27 for Republicans in 2000. The House was 62/56 Democrats. Nothing close to "the illiinois state legislature as a body is far to the left of the US senate" except if I guess Strom Thurmond was still kicking around the US Senate at that point, which he was.

 

 

What the hell is "straight party line left?"

 

This?

 

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

[Ursa Majoris]

Perhaps that had something to do with the way that the question was framed, as Saddam absolutely did have WMDs back in the '80s (he used them against the Kurds and I believe Iran as well) and at least until sometime in the '90s.

Hardly the point, is it. IIRC, we invaded in 2003, at least 10 years after WMDs were a thing of the past. In other words, the primary given reason for the invasion was a crock of poo and it is that fact that I simply will not get over. Being lied into a political war of choice is the very essence of anti-democracy.

[Bill Swerski]

Hardly the point, is it.

 

Maybe not your point, but it certainly was mine in the dispelling of Randall's hatchet job on Fox viewers with some weak statistic that he most likely pulled from a left-wing anger site.

Edited February 7, 2008 by Bill Swerski

[tonorator]

Hardly the point, is it. IIRC, we invaded in 2003, at least 10 years after WMDs were a thing of the past. In other words, the primary given reason for the invasion was a crock of poo and it is that fact that I simply will not get over. Being lied into a political war of choice is the very essence of anti-democracy.

 

it's all moot. either he had them or he didn't. if he didn't, we f'ed up. if he did, they aren't there any more, and neither is he. so why are we still there?

 

you go on the intel you have which in this case did not produce any WMDs. here we are years later applying surges to the current effort for reasons unknown. end the thing and let's get on with more important business.

[Pope Flick]

it's all moot. either he had them or he didn't. if he didn't, we f'ed up. if he did, they aren't there any more, and neither is he. so why are we still there?

you go on the intel you have which in this case did not produce any WMDs. here we are years later applying surges to the current effort for reasons unknown. end the thing and let's get on with more important business.

 

 

Except in this case the intel was trumped up to cause near hysteria: yellow cake being mentioned in the State of the Union when they knew it was false, just for starters.

[Azazello1313]

az's hard on against this guy is hysterical.

 

http://www.sos.state.il.us/bb/toc.html

 

The Illinois Senate was split 32/27 for Republicans in 2000. The House was 62/56 Democrats.

 

illinois is a very blue state. their legislature obviously reflects that. just like texas is a very red state, even though they've had democrat majorities from time to time in their state legislature. democrats who get elected in texas are not like democrats who get elected in illinois, and republicans who get elected in illinois are not like republicans who get elected in texas. that is reflected in the fact that obama and bush both had good records of "bipartisanship" in their home states...not so good once they got to washington.

 

What the hell is "straight party line left?"

 

This?

 

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

 

yeah, and when you go through that raw data and look at where the majority of each party voted and all that, you get this

[TheShiznit]

yeah i've seen stuff like that, and it does lend some credence to the idea that he tends to be cordial and concilatory toward the other side and all that. but look, the illiinois state legislature as a body is far to the left of the US senate. he may have been something of a "moderate" in the former, allowing him to generate bi-partisan support for his initiatives, but he is pinned all the way to the left in the latter. let's remember, george w bush WAS a "uniter" in the context of the texas state government. obama's been in there a few years, what has he done to reach across the aisle to get anything done? what has he done other than vote straight party line left at every possible opportunity?

 

I would suggest you do some research versus just asking. From my recollection, it was he and McCain who worked together to craft an ethics bill.....and McCain had praise for his ability to seek input from the republican side. It is out there. I understand if you don't want to vote for him....neither do I....but to just be a contrarian rather than actually look at his record of sponsoring bills and what not....that is getting old.

[wiegie]

illinois is a very blue state. their legislature obviously reflects that. just like texas is a very red state, even though they've had democrat majorities from time to time in their state legislature. democrats who get elected in texas are not like democrats who get elected in illinois, and republicans who get elected in illinois are not like republicans who get elected in texas. that is reflected in the fact that obama and bush both had good records of "bipartisanship" in their home states...not so good once they got to washington.

yeah, and when you go through that raw data and look at where the majority of each party voted and all that, you get this

You have obviously never spent any time in rural Illinois--the farmers out there are about as right as you can get.

 

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/electi...PosterAll50.gif

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Perhaps that had something to do with the way that the question was framed, as Saddam absolutely did have WMDs back in the '80s (he used them against the Kurds and I believe Iran as well) and at least until sometime in the '90s.

 

Do you actually know how the poll was conducted? Was it done properly via random phone calls, or just over Fox's web site? Can you give us the actual question that was asked?

 

Fox (Hannity?) has repeatedly said Iraq had WMD and moved them to Syria before the US invasion. The poll takers are merely spewing back the indoctrination given to them by watching Fox programming.

[TheShiznit]

You have obviously never spent any time in rural Illinois--the farmers out there are about as right as you can get.

 

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/electi...PosterAll50.gif

 

Nor has he been to Naperville or the collar counties and sub-burbs of the city...like Downers Grove, Oak Brook, and the such. Those places are VASTLY conservative. The Henry hyde, Dennis Hastert...and too many to mention of the worlds. How liberal is Jerry Weller? Illinois elected its first democratic governor in Blago in YEARS. Thompson, Edgar, and Ryan can hardly be considered liberals.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

I would suggest you do some research versus just asking. From my recollection, it was he and McCain who worked together to craft an ethics bill.....and McCain had praise for his ability to seek input from the republican side. It is out there. I understand if you don't want to vote for him....neither do I....but to just be a contrarian rather than actually look at his record of sponsoring bills and what not....that is getting old.

 

You haven't been reading Az's posts for very long have you?

[Bill Swerski]

Fox (Hannity?) has repeatedly said Iraq had WMD and moved them to Syria before the US invasion.

 

I watch Fox often and have never heard anybody outside of Hannity make this claim, and I don't believe that he ever presented it as fact.

 

The poll takers are merely spewing back the indoctrination given to them by watching Fox programming.

 

Kind of like how Randall is merely spewing back the indoctrination given to him by MoveOn.org and the Daily Kos.

 

The "poll takers" may have been Fox's web server in this case, as I see no evidence that this was anything other than a voluntary Internet poll.

[Azazello1313]

it's all moot. either he had them or he didn't. if he didn't, we f'ed up. if he did, they aren't there any more, and neither is he. so why are we still there?

 

in a sense, you are absolutely right. in 2002, the entire world believed saddam had WMD. why? well, we know now that saddam WANTED the world (particularly, iran) to believe that he had them. we know that he retained lots of ambitions (including nuclear), but that by the time we actually invaded he had dismantled the WMD programs we knew he had in years prior, probably because he decided they were presently not worth the expense of maintaining them.

 

with the benefit of that hindsight, would we have invaded in 2003? no, obviously it would not have been justified. a lot of decisions we and our allies made DO look foolhardy in light of that hindsight. it forces us to reevaluate a lot of things, about our intelligence services, about the wisdom of a "preemptive" war.

 

what it DOESN'T change is our responsibility and the strategic imperatives of establishing a functioning government in iraq. these responsibilities and imperatives do not change one bit based on how many WMD saddam had or did not have. if we had founds bunkers and bunkers of VX and weaponized anthrax, we would still be facing the exact same realities as far as what to do now. the reality now is that terrorists ARE in iraq vying for political influence. the reality now is that a belligerent nation right next door is trying to acquire nuclear weapons, sponsoring terrorism in palestine, trying to wage war with israel and trying to bully the entire region. the reality now is that our men and women are fighting successfully to prevent these things from happening.

[Azazello1313]

I would suggest you do some research versus just asking. From my recollection, it was he and McCain who worked together to craft an ethics bill.....and McCain had praise for his ability to seek input from the republican side. It is out there. I understand if you don't want to vote for him....neither do I....but to just be a contrarian rather than actually look at his record of sponsoring bills and what not....that is getting old.

 

obama bailed on that when he realized it might hurt him politically, and mccain didn't exactly praise him for it

 

i would suggest YOU do some research :irishwink:

[Pope Flick]

Nor has he been to Naperville or the collar counties and sub-burbs of the city...like Downers Grove, Oak Brook, and the such. Those places are VASTLY conservative. The Henry hyde, Dennis Hastert...and too many to mention of the worlds. How liberal is Jerry Weller? Illinois elected its first democratic governor in Blago in YEARS. Thompson, Edgar, and Ryan can hardly be considered liberals.

 

 

az just throws stuff out to see what sticks. It is getting old. Austin Texas, the capital of the state government is one of the most liberal spots in the entire country. But he can dismiss that in trying to sound right. Not that it is.