Soz, I highly doubt that you will get satisfying answers to your questions, as they all revolve around one critical point:
Quote:
Is this based on anything?
And the answer is, no. They are assertions from someone who is not familiar with the candidate at all, and certainly hasn't researched him. And claims that he doesn't have to, as these are only 'opinions' of his.
Cycloptichorn
Yes, we know that Obama had a difficult childhood, that he has a bright mind, and had empathy for the downtrodden. We know he managed to graduate from city politics to the State House, and on to the U.S. Senate faster than most other politicians. We know he is well-spoken and apparently high ideals. What we don't know is how well he can legislate, manage the political realities that face every President. He may be great, but so far hasn't impressed me, nor a whole lot of other people even inside the Democratic Party.
"He has a very modest legislative record, but he will go along with senior Party leadership. He has been careful not to offend the big Democratic Party chieftains, by opposing any of their interests." In reply to this you asked, "Is this based on anything"? Certainly. I looked at his record in the Senate. He votes pretty much a straight Party ticket and hasn't made waves with his colleagues. I admit that his record in the last three years is at least as good as Hillary Clinton's, maybe even better. I haven't seen his record in the Illinois Legislature, but my understanding is that there wasn't anything particularly remarkable there either. Three years as a Junior Senator isn't much of a record, especially compared to McCain's record of serving for many years on important committees where Junior Senators are a rarity. McCain's crossing of Party lines to get campaign reform is only one in a long list of significant contributions. Obama is listed as a co-sponsor for some good looking Bills, but that isn't too uncommon.
As to the widely asked question of whether there is substance and understanding of large domestic and international issues beneath the youth and charisma that seems so attractive to young educated people, you replied. "...His deep understanding of the world's realities is a big part of why I support him. It's not just me -- he has racked up an impressive list of experienced, knowledgeable supporters who think that he embodies the best way for America to move forward in terms of foreign policy. (I can bring evidence of this on request.)" I don't doubt that you can produce a very long list of endorsements for Obama. Endorsements during a hotly contested general election are expected, and only are worth the number of votes that the machine can produce. As it becomes more and more likely that Obama will be the Democratic candidate we can expect many more endorsements from savvy Democratic partisans and politicians. For a candidate to suggest that he will sit down and negotiate with the declared enemies of this nation like Iran and Syria, can only be excused by naivety. Phased withdrawal of US forces leaving Iran in control of the region would be a foreign policy disaster of overwhelming proportions. I know you disagree with that, and can cite another long list of Democratic and a few Republicans who want to throw in the towel and write off the War on Terrorism as inconsequential beyond our dead and sunk costs.
Asherman wrote:Yes, we know that Obama had a difficult childhood, that he has a bright mind, and had empathy for the downtrodden. We know he managed to graduate from city politics to the State House, and on to the U.S. Senate faster than most other politicians. We know he is well-spoken and apparently high ideals. What we don't know is how well he can legislate, manage the political realities that face every President. He may be great, but so far hasn't impressed me, nor a whole lot of other people even inside the Democratic Party.
"He has a very modest legislative record, but he will go along with senior Party leadership. He has been careful not to offend the big Democratic Party chieftains, by opposing any of their interests." In reply to this you asked, "Is this based on anything"? Certainly. I looked at his record in the Senate. He votes pretty much a straight Party ticket and hasn't made waves with his colleagues. I admit that his record in the last three years is at least as good as Hillary Clinton's, maybe even better. I haven't seen his record in the Illinois Legislature, but my understanding is that there wasn't anything particularly remarkable there either.
I was actually talking about the "careful not to offend" part. But since you bring up the Illinois Legislature:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html
Beginning -- I do encourage you to read the whole thing:
Quote:People who complain that Barack Obama lacks experience must be unaware of his legislative achievements. One reason these accomplishments are unfamiliar is that the media have not devoted enough attention to Obama's bills and the effort required to pass them, ignoring impressive, hard evidence of his character and ability.
Asherman wrote:As to the widely asked question of whether there is substance and understanding of large domestic and international issues beneath the youth and charisma that seems so attractive to young educated people, you replied. "...His deep understanding of the world's realities is a big part of why I support him. It's not just me -- he has racked up an impressive list of experienced, knowledgeable supporters who think that he embodies the best way for America to move forward in terms of foreign policy. (I can bring evidence of this on request.)" I don't doubt that you can produce a very long list of endorsements for Obama. Endorsements during a hotly contested general election are expected, and only are worth the number of votes that the machine can produce.
That's not what I mean, though. I mean foreign policy experts, and what they say to each other and in private, not press-release endorsements.
A-ha, I found it:
Quote:The great project of the foreign-policy world in the last few years has been to think through a "post-post-9/11 strategy," in the words of the Princeton Project on National Security, a study that brought together many of the foreign-policy thinkers of both parties. Such a strategy, the experts concluded, must, like "a Swiss Army knife," offer different tools for different situations, rather than only the sharp edge of a blade; must pay close attention to "how others may perceive us differently than we perceive ourselves, no matter how good our intentions"; must recognize that other nations may legitimately care more about their neighbors or their access to resources than about terrorism; and must be "grounded in hope, not fear." A post-post-9/11 strategy must harness the forces of globalization while honestly addressing the growing "perception of unfairness" around the world; must actively promote, not just democracy, but "a world of liberty under law"; and must renew multilateral instruments like the United Nations.
In mainstream foreign-policy circles, Barack Obama is seen as the true bearer of this vision. "There are maybe 200 people on the Democratic side who think about foreign policy for a living," as one such figure, himself unaffiliated with a campaign, estimates. "The vast majority have thrown in their lot with Obama."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04obama-t.html
Again, I encourage you to read the whole thing.
Asherman wrote:Phased withdrawal of US forces leaving Iran in control of the region would be a foreign policy disaster of overwhelming proportions. I know you disagree with that, and can cite another long list of Democratic and a few Republicans who want to throw in the towel and write off the War on Terrorism as inconsequential beyond our dead and sunk costs.
McCain seems to disagree, too:
Quote:"And by the way, that reminds me of this hundred year thing. I was asked in a town hall meeting back in Florida, how long would we have a presence in Iraq? My friends, the war will be over soon, the war for all intents and purposes although the insurgency will go on for years and years and years, but it will be handled by the Iraqis, not by us, and then we decide what kind of security arrangement we want to have with the Iraqis ... "
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/mccains_100_years_in_iraq.php
Cyclops,
"They are assertions from someone who is not familiar with the candidate at all, and certainly hasn't researched him."
OK, prove it. Let's see how you can prove to the world that I'm not familiar with the candidates, and haven't done any research on them. You can publish logs of my Internet and media use, you can cite what I read and the exact number of minutes that I spend reading. Those can establish whether or not I'm familiar with the candidates, and have done "research". You've made these assertions about me several times today, and about others in the past. Now, prove you contention that people you know only through a few internet postings, are unfamiliar and ignorant of important facts about any candidate.
The bottom line is that anyone who disagrees with you, or questions the qualifications of your particular candidate is, in your estimation, unfamiliar with the the candidate and his record. The fact that many Democratic stalwarts have the same doubts about Obama is glossed over. You act as if my doubts about the young man are baseless, and probably only an expression of extreme partisanship is frankly nothing less than the same prejudice and willing blindness you accuse others of.
While you're at it how about giving us a complete set of citations for your own exhaustive research. How many hours of each day do you spend reading Obama's old speeches and campaign literature? Can you give us a complete accounting of his Illinois legislative record? Have you read all of the materials related to his work before getting into the legislature? Can you give us a definitive answers to the following questions, with appropriate citations?
What policies will Obama follow as regards to military budgeting, and deployment during his administration?
What precisely is his plan for providing universal health care, and "fixing Social Security"?
How does Obama intend to provide greater social services while simultaneously lowering the National Debt?
What precisely are his positions on:
Gay Marriage?
Abortion?
Atomic Power Generation?
Climate Change?
Immigration?
Size and power of the Federal bureaucracy?
Since you're so big on citations, give us the source and date for each of these definitive positions that your candidate supports or opposes.
Quote:
While you're at it how about giving us a complete set of citations for your own exhaustive research. How many hours of each day do you spend reading Obama's old speeches and campaign literature?
22. 22 hours a day, every day, every week, all year, every year of my life, time upon end, amen.
Look, you can't even identify the guy's basic position on more then one issue. You haven't done any research. I don't need to see your logs to know that, I just have to read your writing. If you have actually done research, you should be embarrassed for posting such inaccuracies. The alternative, of course, is that you are willfully lying; but I didn't want to make that accusation.
For the rest of your answers, see
www.barackobama.com ,
As it is neither my position, inclination, nor duty to inform you of your errors or heighten your knowledge of the candidate.
Cycloptichorn
So you are on top of political research 22.22 hours each day, every day of the year. No sleep, no eat, no reading other materials, your whole life is dedicated to knowing the candidates in general and Obama in particular. Wow, what dedication... what obsessive behavior. Ah, more accurately, you don't do any more research than I do. You have an opinion and that's enough. I'm not surprised that my opinions are unimportant to you, after all the only opinions worthy of your notice are agreeable.
No, I can't identify Obama's basic positions on a lot of issues, and I'm not alone in that respect. In some cases his position seems pretty clear, and I don't nor agree with the position at all, at all. What, only one citation for Obama's definitive policies and positions, and its only his campaign website? I'm not going to signing up with the Obama Campaign just to read what you claim are his definitive positions and policies. That's right, I hadn't visited the official Obama campaign site before! Even more shocking, I haven't visited any of the candidate's websites where they bloviate endlessly about how great their candidate is. Unlike the Cyclops, I use both eyes to survey wider and less tainted sources.
"In the CNN/YouTube debate in early July, Obama was asked, "Would you be willing to meet, separately, without preconditions, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?" Obama replied, "I would," and added that it was a "disgrace" that the Bush administration had refused on principle to do so." I suppose that's a pretty clear policy position, but I believe it will be a hard sell to American voters. Clinton has argued that Obama's foreign policies are inconsistent... bomb Pakistani territory, and set some preconditions for meeting with the Venezuela Castro knock-off. It does seem inconsistent, but I think Obama probably takes each case individually and has no policy direction to give the State Department.
Sozobe recommended an article in the Washington Post, and I read it. It is reasonably common for me to read links when I have the time. The article admits that Obama's record in the Senate is sparse and that we need to look at his time in Illinois. The legislation that the article focused on was a State law requiring that criminal suspects be videotaped. Apparently it wasn't a popular bit of legislation, but Obama got it passed and signed. In the process he learned to propose legislation to mollify opponents. That's pretty basic politics. His efforts toward campaign reform in the Senate, along with the primary sponsor John McCain, is admirable but required very little on Obama's part.
Not much of a record, and not much in the way of substance. That's still my opinion and it is the opinion of many others as well. I guess we're all just a little stupid and prejudiced against the idea that Obama represents radical change for the better in Washington.
You're shifting the goal posts, though, Asherman. (As well as utterly ignoring the other point I made about what foreign policy experts think about Obama and why.)
I have never claimed that Obama is, for example, more experienced than McCain. I'm responding to statements like the following from you:
Asherman wrote:Electing Obama to the Presidency would be like making a middle-schooler the principal for the local high school.
Asherman wrote:If he does, then I sincerely hope my misgivings about him and his incompetence to lead the greatest nation in the world is also wrong.
Asherman wrote:The thing is in the real world airy-fairy idealism is both ineffective and inefficient.
While I don't think that Obama is the MOST experienced candidate, I think he has a great deal more useful experience and substance than you are willing to give him credit for. I have brought some evidence to support that point.
Sozobe,
Sorry, I was responding to the Cyclops. Then went back to edit the post to more completely recognize your links. Here is what I was going to add:
"I also read the NY Times link Sozobe suggested, and found it interesting, but nothing in that article persuaded me that Obama is "on top of" foreign policy. Basically, that article argues that everything done since 9/11 has been a disaster and that a proper post-post-9/11 strategy would be like a "swiss army knife" with many tools. The essential notion is that the US should step back and let the rest of the world pretty much have their own way. Abdicate international leadership isn't specific in the approach, but it certainly seems implied to me."
That approach to me is wrong headed in the extreme, but it is a legitimate position to take... even if its unclear how it could be done without shooting the nation in the foot. The position is indeed drastically different than the one held by McCain and most Republicans, just as there is a clear difference between the military policies of McCain and what seems to be Obama's position. These are important, essential differences.
I don't think my typification of Obama as a young man in a hurry whose political competence and experience are open to question are unique, nor unfair. Obama's strength is his youthful enthusiasm and idealistic conviction that all that is wrong with the world can be fixed... by change. Such idealism propelled Woodrow Wilson, JFK, LBJ, and Jimmy Carter into the White House. Some like all of those iconic figures, but they all had feet of clay just like everyone else. Their idealism inspired us, me included, but when it came time to actually deliver the wagon was empty and the nation suffered for it.
Obama may indeed have more substance than I believe he has. He may, if elected, turn out to be a truly great President. If I were twenty again, I might believe, but I'm not. I've lived and seen politics from both the inside and the outside. Politics isn't about what "ought to be", but what can be done within the constraints of imperfect men competing for a prize that no one ever actually gets to hold in their hands. In my experience and reading the Idealist whose rhetoric and vision move the masses are almost uniformly responsible for more suffering than the so-called corrupt politician. Maybe FDR had Huey Long assassinated, that would be shocking but then FDR may have been the most insightful American politician of the 20th century. I like Truman. No frills, outspoken and coarse on occasion, yet tough minded and wily in the ways of politics. BTW, Truman had almost zero experience at the national level, but he was a veteran of the Missouri Pendergast Machine.
Asherman wrote: Phased withdrawal of US forces leaving Iran in control of the region would be a foreign policy disaster of overwhelming proportions.
It already
is a foreign policy disaster of overwhelming proportions. And it is so not because of the doves, but because of the hawks.
You are hawkish and naturally want a hawk, but dismissing those who do not as simply being naive or lacking in understanding of foreign policy is a vapid, if personally convenient, indulgence.
I offer an alternate possibility, that there are doves and hawks that understand foreign policy well and differ in opinion on how to go about it as can many reasonable and intelligent individuals in such complex situations.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:
While you're at it how about giving us a complete set of citations for your own exhaustive research. How many hours of each day do you spend reading Obama's old speeches and campaign literature?
22. 22 hours a day, every day, every week, all year, every year of my life, time upon end, amen.
Look, you can't even identify the guy's basic position on more then one issue. You haven't done any research. I don't need to see your logs to know that, I just have to read your writing. If you have actually done research, you should be embarrassed for posting such inaccuracies. The alternative, of course, is that you are willfully lying; but I didn't want to make that accusation.
For the rest of your answers, see
www.barackobama.com ,
As it is neither my position, inclination, nor duty to inform you of your errors or heighten your knowledge of the candidate.
Cycloptichorn
That's a rather glaringly weak answer Cyclo. You have accused me of the same thing, and I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I have repeatedly learned that reliable tests of an uncritical mind are (1) one who repeatedly asserts the knowledge of things he cannot possibly know; and (2) one who, when his ideas are challenged, consistently attacks the challenger rather than considering the ideas themselves.
georgeob1 wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:
While you're at it how about giving us a complete set of citations for your own exhaustive research. How many hours of each day do you spend reading Obama's old speeches and campaign literature?
22. 22 hours a day, every day, every week, all year, every year of my life, time upon end, amen.
Look, you can't even identify the guy's basic position on more then one issue. You haven't done any research. I don't need to see your logs to know that, I just have to read your writing. If you have actually done research, you should be embarrassed for posting such inaccuracies. The alternative, of course, is that you are willfully lying; but I didn't want to make that accusation.
For the rest of your answers, see
www.barackobama.com ,
As it is neither my position, inclination, nor duty to inform you of your errors or heighten your knowledge of the candidate.
Cycloptichorn
That's a rather glaringly weak answer Cyclo. You have accused me of the same thing, and I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I have repeatedly learned that reliable tests of an uncritical mind are (1) one who repeatedly asserts the knowledge of things he cannot possibly know; and (2) one who, when his ideas are challenged, consistently attacks the challenger rather than considering the ideas themselves.
Would you like an in-depth discussion of Obama's position on various topics?
I can provide that for you if you like. Which you know. But, you could just go look at his website or watch any number of his more policy-laden and less stumpish speeches.
As for Ash, he cannot have possibly done research into Obama's position if he repeats outright falsehoods as if they were the truth, and then attacks those positions; or he is being intellectually dishonest. There is no third choice. It's that 'inductive reasoning.' You have no doubt heard of it and used it yourself from time to time.
I can't argue against the ideas the Ash put forth, as they are straw-men, and not actual positions championed by my preferred candidate.
Cycloptichorn
Asherman wrote:Cyclops,
"They are assertions from someone who is not familiar with the candidate at all, and certainly hasn't researched him."
OK, prove it. Let's see how you can prove to the world that I'm not familiar with the candidates, and haven't done any research on them. You can publish logs of my Internet and media use, you can cite what I read and the exact number of minutes that I spend reading. Those can establish whether or not I'm familiar with the candidates, and have done "research". You've made these assertions about me several times today, and about others in the past. Now, prove you contention that people you know only through a few internet postings, are unfamiliar and ignorant of important facts about any candidate.
The bottom line is that anyone who disagrees with you, or questions the qualifications of your particular candidate is, in your estimation, unfamiliar with the the candidate and his record. The fact that many Democratic stalwarts have the same doubts about Obama is glossed over. You act as if my doubts about the young man are baseless, and probably only an expression of extreme partisanship is frankly nothing less than the same prejudice and willing blindness you accuse others of.
While you're at it how about giving us a complete set of citations for your own exhaustive research. How many hours of each day do you spend reading Obama's old speeches and campaign literature? Can you give us a complete accounting of his Illinois legislative record? Have you read all of the materials related to his work before getting into the legislature? Can you give us a definitive answers to the following questions, with appropriate citations?
What policies will Obama follow as regards to military budgeting, and deployment during his administration?
What precisely is his plan for providing universal health care, and "fixing Social Security"?
How does Obama intend to provide greater social services while simultaneously lowering the National Debt?
What precisely are his positions on:
Gay Marriage?
Abortion?
Atomic Power Generation?
Climate Change?
Immigration?
Size and power of the Federal bureaucracy?
Since you're so big on citations, give us the source and date for each of these definitive positions that your candidate supports or opposes.
Asherman; Clylop left a link of Obama site which answers every single question you put forth. All you have to do is click on 'Issues' at the top of the page and scroll down to the topics you raised to get an answer. His answers are in depth with solutions or at least plans to the issues you raised; perhaps they might be under a different heading. You just have read all the issues to get a complete understanding to the questions you raised. If you come back and say you have researched it and found it not to answer your question; the only deduction which can be drawn is that you are being disingenuous because as it obvious you are not slow.
Perhaps this would help you along
I went to the site, and was asked to sign up with the Obama Campaign before given entry. I'm not going to do that. As I said before, on principle I avoid all of the candidate's websites where they absolutely control the spin and craft their message to win votes. As I've said many times before, that approach to understanding a candidate is pretty much a waste of time.
Neither do I pay more much attention to the raving media whores in the Commentariate. Even "real news" reports seldom get things right, and their stories in my experience have little to do with actuality. Editorials, and partisan political commentary begins and is biaised from first to last. I watch the regular news with a grain of salt, and the commentariate so seldom that I couldn't name the players reliably.
So who do I listen to? First, the candidates themselves, especially when they are under stress or in unguarded moments. Stump speeches are just hot air to warm the heart. Materials written by the candidates tend to be good, if the materials weren't written with the campaign in mind. I Listen, but with reservations to candidates credible opponents who have dealt with the candidate in the real world's struggle. Hearing "bad" things about a candidate is often more reliable than hearing the "good", but those negatives have to be strained through a finely woven net of doubt and suspicion. I listen to people who appear to be neutral and objective in their comments. I listen to people whom I know and have known for years who have in the past shown good judgment.
I look to the candidates record and how they seemed to arrive at their voting position. I look for independence and moderation in candidates. I look for evidence that reveal how a candidate handles adversity. I don't really trust those who either haven't been tested in the fire, or who behaved badly and selfishly under duress. I look for practical and lengthy experience in politics. I look for evidence of tough mindedness, and the Will to actively meet every challenge. For me, popularity is somewhat of a negative quality. I want a President who, when faced with a decision doesn't consult the polls, or read a dozen news editorials. I want a President like Harry Truman. I look for candidates with compassion whose understanding of human frailty is deep, but who fully realizes the limitations on what can be done to improve the world. I detest idealists as dangerous Pied Pipers. I look for sound judgment, and of course, I look for candidates who share my political philosophy.
As I've said here many times, my political philosophy is fundamentally the same as that of the great Federalists who designed the Constitution, and set the Great Experiment in motion at the end of the 18th century. Want to know what I believe, read The Federalist; read Hamilton, Adams, Jay, Washington, and Madison. Study the court cases of John Marshall. By way of antithesis, I generally despise the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson as inappropriate to a great continental nation and world power. On the other hand, this nation requires both political philosophies and both Parties to maintain itself and avoid single Party despotism. The Two-Party System is an unforeseen consequence of the Constitution, and it is an important part of the "Checks and Balances" that we rely upon.
Am I objective in my consideration of the candidates? I doubt that anyone who has given thought to political philosophy is objective, or completely open-minded. For Obama to get my vote, I would need to be convinced that in the balance he was more Federalist than Jeffersonian Democrat.
To understand what each candidate's political philosophy is, isn't really all that difficult. One caters to the crowd and talks about universal empowerment, and a government whose primary purpose is "leveling". The other places emphasis on maintaining a strong, central government that can effectively manage domestic and foreign affairs guided by, and within the constraints of, the Constitution. One sees little need for a strong and capable military, and the other would reduce the navy to coastal gunboats. In one the People's representatives are expected to carry out whatever policies are popular, and in the other the expectation is that the elected representatives will use their own best judgment and make the best choice available without regard to a decisions popularity. One is wildly idealistic, and the other is practical, pragmatic and understanding of the limits of government.
In the current contest, one doesn't have to read all the ink spilled in favor or against any of the candidates. Endless hours of searching the web to find pro and con opinions is likewise useless. The candidate's position on the various popular issues, is largely irrelevant, but what they have done and how they did it is relevant. With Clinton and McCain, their public histories and how they responded are well known to us all. Obama's history is relatively short. His getting a tough piece of legislation passed during his short term in the Illinois legislature impressed me. Obama showed in that effort that he can tackle a tough problem and see it through. I think he learned something about the give and take of getting legislation in to law. During his Senate term, before going permanently on the campaign trail, he signed on as a co-sponsor to the Finegold-McCain campaign reform effort. I liked that in him, but it cost him nothing and there was no risk to his political career as there was to McCain. Lately, it appears that Obama's dedication to the principles he earlier championed aren't very strong, since he's hedging about how the general election will be financed. Obama's words during the debates about how he believes the US government should be run are alarming to anyone with Federalist leanings. Obama is successful at whipping up emotional support, like other rock stars and media types, but what changes he intends should drive every voter in the country to the moderate, individualist that is John McCain.
You may believe that my research and criteria for supporting a candidate isn't acceptable. Tough, I don't need your endorsement. Does your "research" impress me? Nope, because we approach the problem in very different ways. I don't expect to move you from socialism to capitalism, nor from idealism to practical government. You can argue all you like, but I'm not going to abandon conservative approaches for what I consider to be historically discounted political systems.
Quote:I went to the site, and was asked to sign up with the Obama Campaign before given entry.
Maybe you should hit the button that says 'continue without signing up.'
At least put a little effort into it, man
Cycloptichorn
Revel,
Thanks for a link that doesn't require me to "join" Obama's bandwagon.
I went, I read, and I remain convinced that an Obama Presidency would be a disaster for the United States. There are the usual promises to remake the world into, if not Utopia, at least something that has never existed previously. I see idealism, but nothing to indicate how that idealism is to be translated into reality. Where Obama is specific, I disagree with his assessments of "problems", and his "solutions"... if attempted... would lead, in my opinion, to a more dangerous world. I come away with the feeling that Obama is naive and hasn't the maturity nor experience to head the Executive Branch.
If I were to visit the websites of Clinton, McCain, and Huckabee, I'm sure I'd be treated to the same glittering nonsense I read in Obamas. However, it has long been clear that of the viable candidates, only John McCain most nearly meets my criteria for the position. I believe I have a very good "handle" on who and what both Clinton and McCain are. The more I see of Obama, the less I like him as a potential President. He is obviously ambitious and probably means exactly what he says, and those approaches to leading the United States are, again in my opinion, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Asherman wrote:Revel,
Thanks for a link that doesn't require me to "join" Obama's bandwagon.
I went, I read, and I remain convinced that an Obama Presidency would be a disaster for the United States. There are the usual promises to remake the world into, if not Utopia, at least something that has never existed previously. I see idealism, but nothing to indicate how that idealism is to be translated into reality. Where Obama is specific, I disagree with his assessments of "problems", and his "solutions"... if attempted... would lead, in my opinion, to a more dangerous world. I come away with the feeling that Obama is naive and hasn't the maturity nor experience to head the Executive Branch.
If I were to visit the websites of Clinton, McCain, and Huckabee, I'm sure I'd be treated to the same glittering nonsense I read in Obamas. However, it has long been clear that of the viable candidates, only John McCain most nearly meets my criteria for the position. I believe I have a very good "handle" on who and what both Clinton and McCain are. The more I see of Obama, the less I like him as a potential President. He is obviously ambitious and probably means exactly what he says, and those approaches to leading the United States are, again in my opinion, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Sure; that's your right as a voter here in America, to hold whatever opinions you like.
The only hope that I had was that you would at least stop mis-representing the positions and platforms of the candidate. I don't give a fig if you disagree with them, hell, who expects Conservative Republicans to agree with a Liberal Democrat candidate?
Cycloptichorn
I personally think the conservative way has been discounted rather than the other way around if we take the Regan, Bush and Bush 11 as any indication. In all three we had deficits and economic problems. Bush 11 has not handled the foreign problems as well as Clinton did with Kosovo in that at least under that war we knew what we went in for; we accomplished the mission and put the guy on trial and now Kosovo in an independent state. On the flip side Bush has mishandled Afghanistan and invaded a country for no reason which has put us in a protracted struggle for security in Iraq and has stressed our military and our economic situation and the only solution conservative have to that is just to basically say we got to continue on or we will snap the victory from the jaws of defeat (however that saying goes). No exit strategy or anything resembling it comes from them.
However; Obama has laid out plans and has said how he will accomplish his agenda; it is just that conservatives don't agree with him and rather than discussing the issue; it has become the conservative spin to say he is all pretty talk but no substance. I am glad you took the time to see otherwise and respect your right to disagree with his solutions.
Asherman wrote: only John McCain most nearly meets my criteria for the position.
I am shocked, shocked that a Bush apologist (0ne of A2K's worst) would supprt John "Dead Man Walking" McCain and not Obama!
Are you also shocked that a democrat of 72 years wont vote for him if he is the candidate. I don't believe in a political messiah.
