 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Popular Views on Obama
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Amos Date: 01 Jul 08 - 10:59 PM Barack Obama gave another speech today, in Independence, Missouri, on the subject of who we are as a nation, and how we shall define patriotism. The text is here. It's a rip-snorter of a speech. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Riginslinger Date: 02 Jul 08 - 08:44 AM Yeah, he's desperately trying to fend off the accusation of being unpatriotic. I wonder if this will help him? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Wolfgang Date: 02 Jul 08 - 08:52 AM Obama's shuffle to the right suggests this man is ruthless enough to win Obama's sheer eloquence, combined with the string of recent policy flip-flops, points to another worry many Democrats are beginning to voice about their nominee: that there might be a hollowness to him... a man bent on winning and ruthless enough to make sure he does. That's the standard operating procedure for Republicans. For Democrats it takes some getting used to. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Amos Date: 02 Jul 08 - 10:52 AM Rig, you are a puredee witchhunting snark sometimes. It was your crowd who peppered him with stupid remarks about flag pins and pledges of allegiance, like a lot of McCarthyist wannbes, and when he stands up and calls bullshit on it, you say he's desperate. What horseshit. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Riginslinger Date: 02 Jul 08 - 11:30 AM What ever those folks said, and I was not one of them, didn't do anything by the way of damage compared to what his good friend Reverend Wright did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Amos Date: 02 Jul 08 - 11:55 AM Well, as I have said before, you need to take rersponsibility for the kind of crappy remarks you forward, or re-reflect, even though you know they are crap. Stand up and own your own viewpoint instead of trading in sewage. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Little Hawk Date: 02 Jul 08 - 12:08 PM That article you provided the link to is an interesting one, Wolfgang. It suggests to me that the usual controlling forces which always end up dominating American foreign and domestic policy are, as always, well in control of the political agenda, and that Obama will serve them in the usual fashion once he is elected (if he is). McCain will also serve them in the usual fashion. So get ready for more of the same. The great American leopard is very unlikely to change its spots at this juncture. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Bobert Date: 02 Jul 08 - 12:17 PM Now don't be like that, LH... It's defeatist and that ain't you... Come on... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Amos Date: 02 Jul 08 - 12:19 PM The inability to perceive differences is a great failing in acuity, good Hack. You disappoint. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Little Hawk Date: 02 Jul 08 - 12:23 PM Hey, I'd still rather see him in charge than McCain, guys. ;-) So if I was there, he'd get my vote. But I do not expect the leopard to change its spots. I have said all along that I will be very surprised if the USA withdraws from Iraq. Dennis Kucinich will have the very same causes to fight for after this election as he did before it...with one exception: Bush and Cheney will not be around to impeach any longer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Amos Date: 02 Jul 08 - 12:28 PM COmplaints of Media Bias as regards Obama. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Bobert Date: 02 Jul 08 - 01:21 PM It's a two sided sword, Amos, with Big Media... They are steamed that Obama got the nomination and so, conscoius or not, they do not view Obama positively... They look for negatives in him... I can't decide if it's bias or prejudice or a combination of the two??? The other side of the swordn is the complete pass that Big Media gives it's darling, John McCain... They are infacutaed with him because he gives them unlimited access and is very accomodating... I've read where he has picnics and feeds 'um and boozes 'um up... I mean, lets get real here... This is what it is and it ain't all about Fox... The Washigton Post holds Obama to a much higher standard than it does McCain... If Obama gibves a major policy speech the Post will run it on A-17 while McCain will get front page for saying something as repeatative as "The surge is working", which, of course, the Post loves because it has supported the Iraq war since the very beginning and has bit ob every sorry ass aecuse that Bush can think of for US being there??? Now as for Obama and the Post, Obama only gets front page if it's negative or at best, neutral... Thats the way it is... Like I said on another thread, Obama ain't the nominee that the corportists wanted... Oh yeah, they wanted him to do well so they could pump out their chests an boast of just how colorblind everything is in our little military/industrialist state but, make no bones about it, they wanted Hillary... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Little Hawk Date: 02 Jul 08 - 01:27 PM I think you may be quite right about that, Bobert. I think they had figured on Hillary all the way, and Obama was just there to make it look good, like you say. The usual dog and pony show. But something else you said caught my attention. The part where you say that the media is infacutaed with McCain. It reminded me of how madly infacutaed I was with this girl back in junior high school...only it didn't get me anywhere at all, because she couldn't interpret my infacutaeization. She didn't know what it meant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Amos Date: 02 Jul 08 - 01:52 PM As true today as it was back then, LH... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Little Hawk Date: 02 Jul 08 - 01:58 PM Perhaps. But I am less inclined to fall into intense periods of infacutaeizantion now than I was then... ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Bobert Date: 02 Jul 08 - 08:01 PM Well, infactuation is good for the soul... Not too sure about that "infactaeizantion" stuff is so I won't comment... Might of fact, I have recently been going thru a little infactuation with an ol' high school girl who I only went out with once but nevermind that... I wouldn't have a clue what she is doing now and plau, I am very happy with the P-Vine... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Amos Date: 04 Jul 08 - 07:00 PM From Canada: "Thank you, Barack Obama, for transforming politics" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Amos Date: 06 Jul 08 - 12:54 AM "There's some snarkiness out there today toward Barack Obama from reporters after he chided them for their coverage of his recent statements on Iraq. We reporters, like all humans, do sometimes bristle at criticism, but everyone who erroneously reported that Obama had somehow changed his position ought to just go ahead and swallow this medicine. Obama simply did not change his position, as some reported he did. A little basic research is all it takes to learn that. Obama, as far back as September of 2007, refused to commit to fully pulling out troops before 2013. That's more than 16 months, the timespan he frequently cites for ending the Iraq War. No, he has not often emphasized his "facts on the ground" argument, but it's always been there. When Obama said today, "I was surprised by how finely calibrated every single word was measured," he was wrong in his characterization of the media's calibration. It was quite poorly calibrated, in fact. ..." " ("Across the Pond", a German blog) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Bobert Date: 06 Jul 08 - 09:06 AM Normal... The press loves McCain and is willing to be McCain's lap pit bull... Maybe Obama needs to take a few pages outta McCain's game plan and pry the press with BBQ and booze... And sit for hours in bull sessions with them... That is what McCain does and it has been effective... When we look back at the Repub nominatin' campaign it seems that McCain spent more time campaigning to Big Media then he did campaigning to the voters... Good strategy... But realistically Obama probably couldn't pull it off because the McCain folks would say that was flip-flopping... BTW, had Bush flip-flopped on his decision to invade Iraq back during the mad-dash-to-Iraq days the world would be a much more stable palce today and gas wouldn't be $4 a gallon and over 4000 Americans would still be alive, and 30,000 Americans wouldn't be disabled and upwards of 1,000,000 Iraqis would still be alive and the US would have respect in the world... Flip-floppin' ain't a bad thing... Inflexibility in today's world is... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Amos Date: 07 Jul 08 - 07:33 PM "If Senator Barack Obama is elected president, he'll be leaving the Senate behind. But the presumptive Democratic nominee took steps today to ensure he'll stay in touch with his old colleagues. Obama's campaign announced the formation of a Congressional Liaison Team today, which will "ensure that the member of Congress' counsel is considered in overall message strategy, campaign planning and execution." The four team members are hardly household names, but three of the four have close ties to the Obamas: -- Senior Advisor, Phil Schiliro -- Chief of Staff to Representative Henry Waxman of California -- Senior Counsel, Mike Strautmanis -- A chief Obama advisor, served as Chief Counsel and Deputy Chief of Staff in Obama's Senate office -- DNC Policy Director, Karen Richardson -- Obama's Iowa policy director, served as Deputy to the Policy Director in Obama's Senate office -- Director of Congressional Affairs, Michael Robertson -- Served as Deputy to the Chief Counsel in Obama's Senate office" This strikes me as an innovation that will bear good fruit, and a sign of good footwork. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Amos Date: 07 Jul 08 - 07:36 PM "Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has unwittingly joined the five-man Democratic race for the U.S. Senate in Georgia. DeKalb CEO and U.S. Senate candidate Vernon Jones has mailed "thousands" of flyers across the state bearing an image of himself and Obama holding microphones in front of a campaign crowd with the headline: "Yes We Can!" (Details here). At first glance, it appears the two men are at the same campaign event. But they are not. The photo of Jones was digitally joined with one of Obama. Jones acknowledged that his campaign combined the photos, but said he wasn't trying to mislead anyone. His Democratic opponents immediately accused him of implying he has been endorsed by Obama, an idea quickly shot down by Obama's campaign. "The Obama campaign was not involved with the use the Senator Obama's picture in this mailer, and despite what this mailer inaccurately suggests, Senator Obama will not endorse a candidate in the U.S. Senate primary in Georgia," said Amy Brundage, a Chicago-based Obama spokeswoman. She declined further comment. Jones said the campaign ad was not meant to imply an endorsement by Obama. "Absolutely not," Jones said in a telephone interview Thursday afternoon. "What it does say is that Obama and I share a vision for a new America." He added: "Obama and I represent the future of Georgia and America. We want to balance the budget, create jobs, provide affordable and accessible health care and prevent folks from losing their homes."" You know he's risen from the ranks when they start trying to ride his shirt-tails! :D A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Riginslinger Date: 07 Jul 08 - 07:58 PM You've got to wonder where they'll end up! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Amos Date: 08 Jul 08 - 11:01 AM Barack is under fire in both the LA Times and the NY Times for too much revision toward the center, and raising questions abouthis fiscal blueprint being excessive. TIme will tell. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: beardedbruce Date: 08 Jul 08 - 12:22 PM "Barack is under fire in both the LA Times and the NY Times for ..." And yet, you do not see fit to give us their critism? Hardly evenhanded, old chum.... I seem to recall a number of redundent postings when they had something to say about Bush. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: beardedbruce Date: 08 Jul 08 - 02:01 PM Obama denies shifting to reach political center Tuesday, July 08, 2008 1:32:50 PM By LIZ SIDOTI Asked by a voter about accusations of flip-flopping, Democrat Barack Obama dismissed the notion Tuesday that he has been shifting stances on Iraq, guns and the death penalty to break with his party's liberal wing and court a wider swath of voters. "The people who say this haven't apparently been listening to me," the likely Democratic presidential nominee said in response to a question at a town-hall style event. Obama blamed criticism from "my friends on the left" and "some of the media" in part on cynicism that ascribes political motives for every move candidates make. "You're not going to agree with me on 100 percent of what I think, but don't assume that if I don't agree with you on something that it must be because I'm doing that politically," he said. "I may just disagree with you." The Illinois senator was responding to a question from a self-described "reformed Republican" who said he worked for Democrat Bobby Kennedy four decades ago and thanked Obama for restoring "that faith." "You had an interesting week off being accused of flip-flopping, which is mostly nonsense," the man said. He then asked Obama to restate his Iraq position, and Obama used the opportunity to dispel the idea he had changed his stances on a range of issues. Since wrapping up the Democratic nomination last month, Obama has voiced positions that break with the Democratic Party's left and have seemed at times to shade his own past positions on a range of subjects. He's drawn criticism from some liberal Democrats who question his loyalty and from Republicans who accuse him of flip-flopping. His remarks aside, Obama is clearly competing for the center of the electorate. Originally best known as an anti-Iraq war candidate, his latest commercials make an obvious play for voters across the political spectrum by focusing on family values and patriotism as well as "welfare to work" and lower taxes. Over the past few weeks, he angered liberals by supporting compromise electronic surveillance rules for the government's eavesdropping program even though the bill provided immunity that he opposed last year for telecommunications companies that conducted warrantless eavesdropping. When the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's gun ban, he said he favors both an individual's right to bear firearms and a government's right to regulate them. And, he broke with death penalty opponents when he disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision outlawing executions of people who rape children. On Iraq, he has gone from hard-line opposition to the war to more nuanced rhetoric that calls for a troop drawdown process that could last 16 months. He has said that the safety of U.S. troops and the stability of Iraq might force him to adjust that timetable -- a potentially flexible formulation that has troubled liberals even though he's long said the nation needs to be careful leaving Iraq. "I am somebody who is no doubt progressive. I believe in a tax code that we need to make more fair. I believe in universal health care. I believe in making college affordable. I believe in paying our teachers more money. I believe in early childhood education," Obama told his audience here. "I believe in a whole lot of things that make me progressive and squarely in the Democratic camp." But, he said: "I'm not just somebody who is talking about government as the solution to everything. I also believe in personal responsibility. I also believe in faith." So, he said when he talks about the idea of recruiting churches and other religious groups to provide community services through faith-based initiatives, as he did last week, "that's not something new. I've been talking about that for years now. I've been organizing with churches for years in the community. So the notion that somehow that's me trying to look more centered, more centrist, is just not true." He also raised the Supreme Court ruling that upheld the rights of individuals to bear arms and said: "I actually have said that I agree with that for years, even before the ruling came down." He said that doesn't contradict his view that "we've got decent controls over the use of illegal firearms in our community." On Iraq, he drew cheers when he said: "I opposed this war from the start" and "I have also consistently said that once we were in, we had to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: beardedbruce Date: 08 Jul 08 - 02:04 PM "Obama blamed criticism from "my friends on the left" and "some of the media" in part on cynicism that ascribes political motives for every move candidates make. "You're not going to agree with me on 100 percent of what I think, but don't assume that if I don't agree with you on something that it must be because I'm doing that politically," he said. "I may just disagree with you."" It is a pity that his voting record is so much against what I want to have in the executive branch- he is obviously one of the best candidates to run in the last 50 years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 08 Jul 08 - 02:54 PM I remember when we were volunteering, a young Obama support saying something alaong the lines of " I can hardly wait for Obama to get elected so that he can pull all the troops out." I looked at him and said. "He isn't going to pull them all out right away he's going to do it based on conditions and he will most likely leave a couple of divisions in reserve for training and to deal with terrorists." The kid asked me where I got that idea. I said "From Obama." The kid looked at me Like I had suddenly grown a second head. In politics, people hear what they want to hear. The sad thing is that the Press is little better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: beardedbruce Date: 08 Jul 08 - 03:29 PM Washington Post Mr. Obama on Iraq His hint of softening on his unrealistic withdrawal plan is only sensible. Tuesday, July 8, 2008; Page A14 BARACK OBAMA has taken a small but important step toward adjusting his outdated position on Iraq to the military and strategic realities of the war he may inherit. Sadly, he seems to be finding that the strident and rigid posture he struck during the primary campaign -- during which he promised to withdraw all combat forces in 16 months -- is inhibiting what looks like a worthy, necessary attempt to create the room for maneuver he will need to capably manage the war if he becomes president. Mr. Obama's shift came when he was asked last week about his withdrawal plan, which he first proposed in late 2006, a time when Iraq appeared to be sliding into a sectarian civil war. Since then, a new U.S. counterinsurgency strategy has helped bring about a dramatic drop in violence, and the Iraqi government has gained control over most of the country. Among other things, Mr. Obama said "the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability" -- an apparent acknowledgment that the hard-won gains of the last year should not be squandered. He also said that "when I go to Iraq, and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies." This statement hardly altered Mr. Obama's longstanding opposition to the war or his basic strategy of ending U.S. involvement in it as soon as possible. But it suggested that he won't pursue his 16-month timetable without regard to the consequences in Iraq or the counsel of U.S. commanders. As we see it, that's a modest but real step toward a responsible position on a conflict that, like it or not, involves vital U.S. interests. Yet Mr. Obama's words drew so much heat so quickly that he felt obliged to hold a second news conference the same day, in which he insisted that his position hadn't changed and affirmed that he hadn't seen "information that contradicts the notion" that the 16-month timetable was workable. Over the weekend some of his Democratic supporters argued that he can't afford even such a nuanced shift in position, lest he undermine his antiwar support and lessen the contrast between him and the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain. In fact, Mr. Obama can't afford not to update his Iraq policy. Once he has the conversations he's promising with U.S. commanders, he will have plenty of information that "contradicts the notion" of his rigid plan. Iraq's improvement means that American forces probably can be reduced next year, but it would be folly to begin a forced march out of the country without regard to the risks of renewed sectarian warfare and escalating intervention in the country by Iran and other of Iraq's neighbors. The Democratic candidate is reportedly planning a visit to Iraq in the coming weeks. That will offer an opportunity for him to lay out a new position on the war that both distinguishes him from Mr. McCain and gives him the freedom to be an effective commander in chief. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Amos Date: 08 Jul 08 - 04:44 PM Dealing with facts is not hypocrisy. It's intelligence at work. Obama asserts he is not departing from his principles against the Iraq engagement, but that he is willing to review how to implement them based on fact-gathering. I twould be foolish to do anything less. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Jul 08 - 05:06 PM Plans that cannot be amended are not very good plans... Witness the Japanese plan of attack at Midway Island, for example. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: GUEST,The Pariah Date: 08 Jul 08 - 05:22 PM I fear, based on a rising tide of his self-contradicting policy statements, that fears about both his inexperience, his ego and his motives may be too close to the mark. I take nothing from his detractors, but only from his own remarks. At the risk of being seen as a heretic, I see parallels between this candidacy and that of the late Jack Kennedy. I lived through the Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower years and have, perhaps, a different perspective than many who know this period only through the filter of history books and jaundiced professors. While he had his successes, notably the Cuban Missle Crisis, the Peace Corps and the energizing of young people through his personal charisma, he also had the "Bay of Pigs," his serial philandering and a number of other personal political miscalculations, any of which could have spelled disaster for all of us. I truly believe that, had he lived, he would not have come to be regarded as the saintly popular figure the media has helped to construct. Tragically, assassination does that for public figures. Likewise for his brother, Bobby, who was beloved by legions of young, idealistic fans, but who could behave (as his son currently does) like a self-important jerk. He was abrasive and often overreached as Attorney General. I do not believe he had either the maturity or the temperment to be President. All I needed to know about Teddy, the youngest brother who desperately wanted to live out the truncated legacies of his older siblings, was Chappaquiddick. Mary Jo Kopechne still cries out for justice from her watery grave. The immaturity and bad judgement that led to her death, and the lame attempt at a cover-up, could not deter the voters of Massachusetts from electing "The Last Kennedy" despite his obvious shortcomings. They have continued to compound this felony for many years. I want someone to lead the U.S. who has demonstrated integrity, fidelity and courage, and who has also demonstrated leadership ability. I see none of these qualities in Senator Obama, despite all the media apologists and campaign strategists who would have us believe he is the Messiah come to save the people.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Jul 08 - 06:15 PM Obama does seem rather similar to John F. Kennedy in a number of respects...and, yes, Kennedy would probably not be seen as so saintly now had he not been assassinated. Whether Obama will make a good president or not is yet to be seen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: dick greenhaus Date: 08 Jul 08 - 11:48 PM If you want to see a radical flip-flop on Iraq, watch McCain, now that the Iraqi government is demanding a timeline for US troops to leave. He's already on record as saying that if this (improbable) event were to occur, we'd have no choice but to leave. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Jul 08 - 08:32 AM Washington Post: The Candor Gap By Robert J. Samuelson Wednesday, July 9, 2008; Page A15 It is one of our fondest political myths that elections allow us collectively to settle the "big issues." The truth is that there's often a bipartisan consensus to avoid the big issues, because they involve unpopular choices and conflicts. Elections become exercises in mass evasion; that certainly applies so far to the 2008 campaign. A case in point is America's population transformation. Few issues matter more for the country's future -- yet it's mostly ignored. Two changes -- aging and immigration -- dominate, and they intersect. In 2005, 12 percent of the population was over 65; by 2050, that will be almost 20 percent. Meanwhile, immigration is driving population growth. By 2050, the population may exceed 430 million, up from about 300 million now. About four-fifths of the increase will reflect immigrants and their children and grandchildren, estimates the Pew Hispanic Center. The potential for conflict is obvious. Older retirees and younger and poorer immigrants -- heavily Hispanic -- will compete for government social services and benefits. Squeezed in between will be middle-class and middle-age workers, facing higher taxes. What do the supposedly plain-spoken John McCain and Barack Obama say about these looming problems? Well, not much. Of course, they're against poverty and fiscal irresponsibility. They oppose illegal immigration and favor "reform." But beyond these platitudes, they're mostly mute. It's not that the problems are secret. Dozens of reports have warned of population aging, which affects most wealthy societies. Global aging is "a demographic shift with no parallel in the history of humanity," argue Richard Jackson and Neil Howe in "The Graying of the Great Powers." By their estimates, U.S. government benefits for retirees (mainly Social Security and Medicare) will rise from 9 percent of national income in 2005 to 21 percent by 2050. The outlook is worse for many other rich nations, some of which face shrinking populations. In Germany, retirement spending is projected at 29 percent of national income in 2050; in Italy, it's 34 percent. Similarly, immigration is widely studied. Pew projects that immigrants will constitute 19 percent of Americans in 2050, up from 12 percent in 2005. The Hispanic share of the population will double, from 14 percent to 29 percent. If most immigrants assimilated rapidly, this wouldn't be worrisome. But many, especially low-skilled Hispanics, don't. Consider a new study of Mexican Americans by sociologists Edward Telles and Vilma Ortiz of UCLA. Compared with their parents, the children of immigrants did make progress, they found. Incomes increased; English-language skills spread; intermarriage rose. But after the first generation, additional gains were grudging. Third-generation Mexican Americans were only 30 percent as likely as non-Hispanics to have completed college. In the fourth generation, about 20 percent still had incomes below the government poverty line. "Assimilation, where it occurred, was far slower than it was for European-Americans," write Telles and Ortiz. Because government policies might mute these problems, they ought to be subjects of campaign debate. We could lighten the burden of aging by curbing government benefits for wealthier retirees and raising Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to reflect longer life expectancies. These changes would move federal retirement programs back toward their original purpose -- a safety net for the most vulnerable. We could refashion immigration policy to favor skilled over unskilled immigrants, because they contribute more to the economy and assimilate faster. What we do, or don't do, about these issues will profoundly affect the character of the country in 10, 20 and 50 years. Doing nothing is a policy -- a bad one. That's what Obama and McCain essentially offer. It's easy to explain why. To discuss these issues frankly might be political suicide. It could alienate crucial blocs of voters: retirees, Hispanics. Blunt talk would expose a candidate to charges of being mean-spirited (against retirees) or racist (against Hispanics). What political consultant would advise such a course? People complain about governmental gridlock. But what often obstructs constructive change is public opinion. The stalemates on immigration and retirement spending are typical. We avoid messy problems; we embrace inconsistent and unrealistic ambitions. We want more health care and lower health costs; cheap energy and less dependence on foreign energy; more government spending and lower taxes. The more unattainable our goals, the more we blame "special interests," "lobbyists" and other easy scapegoats. In this campaign, we have a candor gap. By and large, Americans want to be told what government will do for them -- as individuals, families, consumers -- and not what it will do for the country's long-term well-being, especially if that imposes some immediate cost or inconvenience. Grasping this, our leading politicians engage in a consensual censorship to skip issues that involve distasteful choices or that require deferred gratification. They prefer to assign blame and promise benefits. So elections come and go, there are winners and losers -- and our problems fester. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Bobert Date: 09 Jul 08 - 08:42 AM I agree with Samuelson... With 527's armed to the teeth and ready to pounce it has become almost impossible for a candidate to be 100% forthright... Obama must feel like he is on a recon mission behind enemy lines seein' as the 527's have become the way that the Repubs structure their campaigns these days... (But, Bobert, the Dems have 527's, too) Ahhhhh, yes they do and I think it would be very interesting to know how much money goes into Dem 527's verses Repub 527's but, alas, the Repubs have blocked legislation in Congress that would require this info to be made public knowledge... So, if you are a candidate, you had better walk softly thru the 527 mine field... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: GUEST,Bored in July Date: 09 Jul 08 - 08:43 AM And today, the NYT & Huffington Post are piling on Obama for the sea change on his stand on issues he has been running on since January 2007 to May 2008. So Obama said one thing to get nominated, and will say another different thing entirely to get elected. Welcome to US presidential sleeze politics! Nothing new under the sun here. We all knew we would have a novelty candidate from Democrats after Super Tuesday. Obama is a novelty candidate because of his race, Clinton was a novelty candidate because of her gender. Scratch the surface of either of (or McCain) and all are cut throat, ego maniacal politicians who will do or say anything to win. In that sense, there is virtually no difference between them. Which is why the idealism virgins will be the next election cycle's cynics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Jul 08 - 08:44 AM "From: Bobert - PM Date: 09 Jul 08 - 08:42 AM I agree with Samuelson..." And I agree with Bobert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: GUEST,Bored in July Date: 09 Jul 08 - 09:21 AM "In this campaign, we have a candor gap." sayeth Journalist Samuelson. Well, duh! This journalist blames everyone EXCEPT the powerful special interests who control the media, and the journalists (sic) themselves who muzzle any discussion whatsoever of the issues. The media elite (and they are an extremely small group of humans completely disconnected from living the stuff of real life) directs the messages to mold the public opinion he claims is "the problem". Harumph. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: beardedbruce Date: 09 Jul 08 - 05:34 PM Pat Buchanan Don't Misunderestimate Obama Tue Jul 8, 3:00 AM ET With 68 percent of Americans believing George Bush has done a poor job, and 82 percent saying the country is on the wrong track, the election of 2008 will turn on one issue: Barack Obama. If Sen. Obama can convince the people he is "one of us," and not some snooty radical liberal from Chicago's Hyde Park, who looks down upon white America as a fever swamp of racism and reaction, a la the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the senator will be the next president. The election of 2008 thus mirrors the election of 1980. Then, the country wanted Jimmy Carter gone. Americans had had enough of 21 percent interest rates, 13 percent inflation and 7 percent unemployment. They wanted the Iranian hostage crisis ended, violently if necessary. After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, America wanted a leader who would not kiss Leonid Brezhnev on the cheek but reassert American power. The issue then was Ronald Reagan. Portrayed as some Al Capp cartoon of a crazed right-winger and B-Grade Hollywood actor given to spouting Reader's Digest bromides, Reagan was regarded as ridiculous by much of the media and too big a risk by much of the nation. In one debate with Carter, Reagan erased the misperceptions and turned a close race into a cakewalk. That is Barack's opportunity. A savvy politician, he has measured correctly the hurdle he must surmount and is moving expeditiously to alter an image of him forged by his own past associations and policy positions. In three weeks, he has jettisoned his new politics in a stunning display of raw pragmatism. A prime minister must be "a good butcher," H.H. Asquith told Winston Churchill on naming him First Lord of the Admiralty, "and there are several who need to be pole-axed now." Four years later, Asquith would pole-axe Churchill over the Dardanelles disaster. Obama is not lacking in this capacity that Richard Nixon, too, felt was an indispensable attribute of a statesman. Samantha Power was tossed off Barack's sledge after calling Hillary a "monster" and suggesting Barack's Iraq timetable was not set in concrete. Robert Malley was canned for having talked to Hamas, though that was his portfolio at a think tank for conflict resolution. Barack pole-axed pastor Wright and, though he said he could no more repudiate his church than his family, shortly after the second time Wright went off, Barack severed all ties to Trinity United. Barack has spoken of how he cringed at the racist reaction of his white grandmother after she was accosted by a black man on a bus. Grandma has now been rehabilitated in a new ad as the loving woman who inculcated good old Kansas values into little Barack. When his own surrogate, Gen. Wesley Clark, suggested John McCain's war service did not automatically qualify him as presidential timber, a storm erupted. Barack proceeded to cut the general's legs off. His had been one of a few Senate voices to speak of Palestinian suffering. But Barack's address to the Israeli lobby read like it was plagiarized from the collected works of Ze'ev Jabotinsky. When the Supreme Court declared every citizen has a Second Amendment right to a handgun, Barack stood with Justice Scalia. When Scalia said the court ought not to have taken away Louisiana's right to execute child rapists, Barack was with him again. When Congress voted the telecoms immunity from prosecution for colluding with the Bush administration in wiretapping citizens, Barack stood with Bush and the telecoms. Fearing it might cost him his huge money-raising advantage over McCain, Barack tossed campaign finance reform over the side. In Ohio, Barack was a populist opponent of NAFTA. He is now a free-trader. Yet when economic adviser Austan Goolsbee told the Canadians pretty much the same thing, Barack disinherited him. As July 4 approached, Barack gratuitously dissed his friends at MoveOn.org for their "General Betray Us" ad mocking Gen. David Petraeus. And that flag pin Barack got rid of after 9-11, calling it a "substitute ... for real patriotism"? It's back on the lapel. Last week, Barack said that, after he meets with Petraeus and his field commanders in Iraq, he might "refine" his commitment to withdraw all U.S. combat brigades within 16 months. And finally, Obama has co-opted President Bush's faith-based initiative and claimed it as his own. What is Obama up to? Having secured the nomination, he is moving to convince the nation he is neither a black militant nor a radical, but a man of the center who will even listen to the right. Though infuriating to readers of The Huffington Post, this may save Barack. For in Middle America folks worry less about politicians adjusting positions than about True Believers willing to go over the cliff with flags flying — and taking us with them. Reagan was no Barry Goldwater. He knew when to "hold 'em," and he knew when to "fold 'em." Yet, America still knew who Reagan was. We may be misunderestimating Barack. But the question of 2008 remains: When all is said and done, who is this guy? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Amos Date: 09 Jul 08 - 07:34 PM THis kind of palaver is a cheap and easy way for guys like tha to make a living, Bruce. It says little of substance. This Obama is a man of quick intelligence and a strong character. Worth watching. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Jul 08 - 09:18 PM Quick intelligence and a strong character? Well, yes...but can he match Chongo Chimp when it comes to that? And can McCain or Obama benchpress 500 pounds without even breathing hard? Hmmm? I don't think so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Amos Date: 09 Jul 08 - 10:45 PM Um...I hate to break it to you, but Chongo's vocabulary is only about 2 % of McCain's, and McCain's only about 15% of Obama's, according to authoritative analytical studies done by the statistical team at Puldit, Ottomi, Ash, the famous New York statisticians..../ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Jul 08 - 12:11 AM Tossing around fancy words like "jejeune" or "frisson" to impress people never solved a cold case or landed a hot dame, Amos... ;-) Chongo told me to tell you that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: beardedbruce Date: 10 Jul 08 - 04:41 PM Washington Post: Clintonites at Arm's Length By Robert D. Novak Thursday, July 10, 2008; Page A15 "I would say he was pretty underwhelming," a longtime Democratic activist said several days after he and some 200 other big-money supporters of Hillary Clinton's failed presidential campaign met with the victor, Barack Obama, in Washington on June 26. Gus will support and contribute to Obama as the party's nominee, but he is not enthusiastic about it. He is not alone. After the closed-door session in the Renaissance Mayflower Hotel's ballroom, Gus was among 20 participants who gathered for drinks to talk it over. They agreed that it was not an "exciting performance" by the candidate who has entranced monster rallies across the country. Obama was "low-key" in a perfunctory appeal to them. The Clintonites do not feel alienated, as supporters of Edward M. Kennedy did in 1980, when they never resigned themselves to Jimmy Carter's renomination. None of these loyal Democrats talked about sitting out the general election campaign against John McCain or locking up their bank accounts. Since a donation does not indicate the benefactor's degree of enthusiasm, what difference does it make if they're not enthusiastic? It signals a lack of confidence by important Democrats in a candidate whose charisma is supposed to cancel out his inexperience. Only one member of the Mayflower group whom I contacted (the one least critical of Obama) was willing to let his name be used. Gus is a multimillionaire trial lawyer whose name would be widely recognized as a Democratic money man. He is no "Friend of Bill" who automatically signed on with the former president's wife. With his support sought by several of the presidential candidates, Gus at one point considered backing Obama but ended up with Clinton because she seemed the best qualified, most electable Democrat. Contrary to the media consensus, Gus found the Clinton campaign to be one of the best-managed in his wide experience. Just what Gus and his friends were seeking in the encounter with Obama is unclear, but they left dissatisfied. As has been reported, Obama said that he and his wife, Michelle, each were writing the maximum $2,300 check to help erase Clinton's massive campaign debt. Obama added that he would ask his supporters to contribute as well. But, in the opinion of the Clintonites, he did not open the door to his campaign, because he asked nothing of them. Big-money Democrats who could have expected to be named U.S. ambassadors by a President Hillary Clinton realized that they would get nothing from a President Obama. The train had left the station, and they were not aboard. Terry McAuliffe, long the Clintons' faithful political servitor and Hillary's presidential campaign chairman, played the cheerleader after the meeting. "This is unity!" he declared to reporters assembled in the Mayflower's long lobby. Vernon Jordan, another longtime Clintonite, was similarly upbeat. But the tone of what really happened inside the locked ballroom was quite different once Obama and Hillary Clinton had their cordial say and the floor was opened for questions. The first "questioner," an angry woman from New York, demanded a roll call of presidential preference at the Denver convention. Next came another distraught woman who declared that Clinton's candidacy was the victim of "misogyny." One participant told me, "This is as tough a crowd as Obama is going to face the whole campaign." It was so tough that Lanny Davis, the participant who let me use his name, tried to change the mood. Davis, who was a Clinton White House aide and remains a fervent supporter of both Clintons, rose to say that the presidential contest had been painful in dividing Democratic families -- alienating him from his Obama-supporting son, Seth Davis, the prominent college basketball reporter. Now, he said, they are together again. But Davis admitted to me that there is "a lot that needs to be done" for all wounds to be healed. "It's going to take a long time," Gus said of achieving unity. The minds of the Clintonites are with Obama, but not their hearts. That helps explain why the presidential race appears close in what otherwise shapes up to be a horrible year for Republicans, and that is why the nominee's "underwhelming" performance at the Mayflower is important. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Jul 08 - 04:48 PM In reading that article you just posted, BB, I experienced not even a very small frisson. In fact, I found it all rather jejeune. ;-D Amos, you listening? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: beardedbruce Date: 10 Jul 08 - 04:52 PM LH, What, are you running for Saint, too? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Jul 08 - 04:58 PM You mean there's a position open now? Hey! Yeah, I'd be interested. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Emma B Date: 10 Jul 08 - 05:00 PM LH - the bad news is - it's usually posthumous :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Jul 08 - 05:05 PM Yeah, that's true. Even in Joan of Arc's case, although certainly the common people regarded her as a Saint while she was alive. It just takes the Church a long while to catch up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama From: Amos Date: 10 Jul 08 - 05:43 PM Anything can be arranged, LH. But I agree--the article was kinda jejeune and, well, meretricious. You guys are missing the core strengths in the candidate and missing why they are important. I only hope when the stupid millstones and histrionics die down, he'll still have enough edge and enough elbow room to show his stuff. A |
