Obama and change

[Azazello1313]

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

 

do you deny that the state as a whole is more blue than the country as a whole?

[Pope Flick]

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:

 

 

http://obama.senate.gov/letter/060206-sen_..._ethics_reform/

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

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.

 

There were many in the intelligence community that would disagree with your statement. The problem was more in line with the politicization of the intelligence, ie Cheney visiting daily to prod the agencies to find what he wanted them to find. Agents resigned over this.

[Azazello1313]

http://obama.senate.gov/letter/060206-sen_..._ethics_reform/

 

thanks for backing me up. as i said, obama approached mccain about a bipartisan task force to work on the issue and then pulled out to side with the rest of his party.

 

I know you have expressed an interest in creating a task force to further study and discuss these matters, but I and others in the Democratic Caucus believe the more effective and timely course is to allow the committees of jurisdiction to roll up their sleeves and get to work on writing ethics and lobbying reform legislation that a majority of the Senate can support.

[bushwacked]

I watch Fox often

 

That's a shocker.

[TheShiznit]

do you deny that the state as a whole is more blue than the country as a whole?

 

Since I live about an hour south of Chicago......ABSOLUTELY YES. There is one glaring spot in this state that is solid blue and the is Chicago....possbily Rockford and East St. Louis. The rest of the entire state of Illinois are Reagan or Goldwater conservatives splashed with some evangelical conservatives.

[Pope Flick]

thanks for backing me up. as i said, obama approached mccain about a bipartisan task force to work on the issue and then pulled out to side with the rest of his party.

 

 

I wasn't backing you up. More preventing you form cherry picking something and providing the full context of the event for those who are interested.

[TheShiznit]

thanks for backing me up. as i said, obama approached mccain about a bipartisan task force to work on the issue and then pulled out to side with the rest of his party.

 

Perhaps you totally ignored the response from McCain.

[Bill Swerski]

That's a shocker.

 

I also watch CNN and Headline News nearly as often.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

http://obama.senate.gov/letter/060206-sen_..._ethics_reform/

 

That's fascinating. I'm surprised the letters are posted on his web site and not kept private. I guess he is for open government...

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

thanks for backing me up. as i said, obama approached mccain about a bipartisan task force to work on the issue and then pulled out to side with the rest of his party.

 

So the committees of jurisdiction are only made up of Democrats?

 

These letters make me want to see a few debates between Obama and the grumpy old man...

[Azazello1313]

That's fascinating. I'm surprised the letters are posted on his web site and not kept private. I guess he is for open government...

 

it seems like it's obama who made them public. which means he basically wrote them for the public's perusement. if grandstanding = "open government", then yeah i guess he is.

 

So the committees of jurisdiction are only made up of Democrats?

 

of course not. obama decided to forgo a bipartisan process with mccain and others in deference to the typical partisan process.

[cre8tiff]

Since I live about an hour south of Chicago......ABSOLUTELY YES. There is one glaring spot in this state that is solid blue and the is Chicago....possbily Rockford and East St. Louis. The rest of the entire state of Illinois are Reagan or Goldwater conservatives splashed with some evangelical conservatives.

 

+1 from southern Illinois.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

it seems like it's obama who made them public. which means he basically wrote them for the public's perusement. if grandstanding = "open government", then yeah i guess he is.

of course not. obama decided to forgo a bipartisan process with mccain and others in deference to the typical partisan process.

 

You just contradicted yourself, unless I'm completely misunderstanding the facts. Are the committees Obama is referring to bipartisan or not? How is deferring from initiating a task force to getting bipartisan committees to look at the same legislation being partisan?

 

By the way, McCain's response in his letter is a very revealing look at why many consider him to have a legendary temper.

Edited February 7, 2008 by CaP'N GRuNGe

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

One more point/question:

 

I know you have expressed an interest in creating a task force to further study and discuss these matters, but I and others in the Democratic Caucus believe the more effective and timely course is to allow the committees of jurisdiction to roll up their sleeves and get to work on writing ethics and lobbying reform legislation that a majority of the Senate can support. Committee consideration of these matters through the normal course will ensure that these issues are discussed in a public forum and that those within Congress, as well as those on the outside, can express their views, ensuring a thorough review of this matter.

 

Are task forces inherently conducted in private? Kind of like when he criticizes Hillary for going behind closed doors to work on healthcare instead of operating in the open? Are such backroom smoke filled room deals better than operating in the open in creating ethics reform? Especially by a group that is reforming itself?

Edited February 7, 2008 by CaP'N GRuNGe

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Nevermind, I think I see your point now. You're probably not arguing the task force / committee angle, but rather the task force / caucus angle.

 

OK, I see your point somewhat. I guess if the caucus had put together decent legislation which satisfied Obama's viewpoint after the idea of a taskforce was put forth but before it started I can't hold it against him for not wanting to reinvent the wheel.

 

It seems that McCain is more miffed that he was not going to get credit here as the Maverick regarding this specific piece of legislation.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Yes I'm talking to myself here...

[TimC]

Azz wins. Again.

[Azazello1313]

You just contradicted yourself, unless I'm completely misunderstanding the facts. Are the committees Obama is referring to bipartisan or not? How is deferring from initiating a task force to getting bipartisan committees to look at the same legislation being partisan?

 

if you want to pass a piece of genuinely bipartisan legislation, you've got to basically have a small bipartisan group formed on the basis of some common ground that can bounce ideas off each other and come up with a consensus piece of legislation. i don't think the committees ever work up to come up with legislation, they simply vote on it, and sometimes amend it, etc. the committe members, and especially the chairs, are usually pretty partisan. the committees are anything BUT "bipartisan task forces", they are a partisan gauntlet to push legislation through. if you're the majority party, you can muscle through partisan legislation.

 

the chain of events here is mccain approached obama about creating some bipartisan legislation, obama personally related to mccain that that sounded like a good idea, and accordint to mccain, that "despite [his] leadership's preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, [obama] was personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership". then obama decided to write the letter saying, basically, no, i think i'm going to work with all the other democrats instead and push what we come up with through the typical partisan committee process. spin it however you want, obama had a choice to work across the aise or to hunker down with his own party and he chose the latter.

[tonorator]

Azz wins. Again.

 

he's won before?

[tonorator]

spin it however you want, obama had a choice to work across the aise or to hunker down with his own party and he chose the latter.

 

mccain comes off like a whiny biatch in his letter ...

[TheShiznit]

if you want to pass a piece of genuinely bipartisan legislation, you've got to basically have a small bipartisan group formed on the basis of some common ground that can bounce ideas off each other and come up with a consensus piece of legislation. i don't think the committees ever work up to come up with legislation, they simply vote on it, and sometimes amend it, etc. the committe members, and especially the chairs, are usually pretty partisan. the committees are anything BUT "bipartisan task forces", they are a partisan gauntlet to push legislation through. if you're the majority party, you can muscle through partisan legislation.

 

the chain of events here is mccain approached obama about creating some bipartisan legislation, obama personally related to mccain that that sounded like a good idea, and accordint to mccain, that "despite [his] leadership's preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, [obama] was personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership". then obama decided to write the letter saying, basically, no, i think i'm going to work with all the other democrats instead and push what we come up with through the typical partisan committee process. spin it however you want, obama had a choice to work across the aise or to hunker down with his own party and he chose the latter.

 

That is patently false Azz. I guess you don't know the rules of the Senate. Sure there are one more democrat versus republicans on the committees that vote to get legislation up the floor for a debate then a vote of cloture. Since the Dems didn't have the requisite 60 votes to force cloture, they had better work with the Repubs or nothing would get passed. Me thinks you are TRYING to find things wrong with Obama that simply aren't there. Shouldn't his politics be enough for you and I to disagree with him? But to convince dems he is a bad guy is well...simply not true.

[Pope Flick]

That is patently false Azz. I guess you don't know the rules of the Senate. Sure there are one more democrat versus republicans on the committees that vote to get legislation up the floor for a debate then a vote of cloture. Since the Dems didn't have the requisite 60 votes to force cloture, they had better work with the Repubs or nothing would get passed. Me thinks you are TRYING to find things wrong with Obama that simply aren't there. Shouldn't his politics be enough for you and I to disagree with him? But to convince dems he is a bad guy is well...simply not true.

 

 

az is part of the republican attack machine who is scared to death of the Obama campaign. Democratic votes as a whole are outpacing Republican votes in all primaries nearly across the board, with the exception of a few of the smaller states. Both McCain and Clinton are hurting for fundage, yet Obama is still picking up steam.

 

He's a partisan through and through and cherry picks schit or makes stuff up to through against the wall to see what type of disinformation sticks.

 

You can also tell he's serious when he stops using smilies, which are generally a part of his Arsenal of Arrogance.

 

But in the end, he makes coffee and photocopies for lawyers, when he doesn leave the tailgate in a huff over katrina postings, which he did the week following that disaster..

[Azazello1313]

That is patently false Azz. I guess you don't know the rules of the Senate. Sure there are one more democrat versus republicans on the committees that vote to get legislation up the floor for a debate then a vote of cloture. Since the Dems didn't have the requisite 60 votes to force cloture, they had better work with the Repubs or nothing would get passed. Me thinks you are TRYING to find things wrong with Obama that simply aren't there. Shouldn't his politics be enough for you and I to disagree with him? But to convince dems he is a bad guy is well...simply not true.

 

since when am i trying to convince anybody he's a bad guy? someone made the claim that the sort of "change" an obama presidency promises to bring entails a spirit of bipartisanship, working across the aise to get things done, etc. i am simply saying that there is very little evidence to support this and that, if anything, based on his liberal, straight party-line voting record and this little incident with mccain over ethics reform, the evidence would have to lead to the opposite conclusion.

 

i guess i would ask the opposite question you ask me. shouldn't his politics be enough for his supporters to agree with him, without resorting to these ridiculous, unsubstantiated bromides about him ushering in a new era of bipartisan love and cooperation?

[tonorator]

i guess i would ask the opposite question you ask me. shouldn't his politics be enough for his supporters to agree with him, without resorting to these ridiculous, unsubstantiated bromides about him ushering in a new era of bipartisan love and cooperation?

 

az, just believe. you will feel a whole lot better.