9
   

The Case Against John McCain

 
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 05:40 pm
sozobe said...

Quote:
Good chance," eh? Have a link?

The overwhelming consensus is that when voting is over on June 3rd, Obama will have won more states, more pledged delegates, and the popular vote, and that remaining undeclared superdelegates will then seal the deal between then and July 1st.


I sure do.
Lets start with this one...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/20/primary.wrap/index.html

Quote:
Neither candidate is expected to reach the 2,026 delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination.


Then lets go to this one...
http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0298.html

Quote:
Some pundits and other experts have raised the specter that Democrats will have a brokered convention, meaning neither candidate will have enough delegates to secure the nomination on the first ballot.


Then lets use this one...

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JB14Aa01.html

Quote:
While Obama is racking up the states, it's about delegates. The tight delegate count is a time bomb for Democrats in November. It's possible, though unlikely, that one candidate will lose every remaining primary and caucus yet assemble enough delegates to win the nomination. Under the rules that award delegates proportionately by state vote, it's likely that neither candidate will accumulate enough pledged delegates before the Denver convention


Of course, there is also this one...
http://www.contactomagazine.com/articles/superdelegates0208.htm

Quote:
Under Democratic Party rules it takes 2,025 delegates to clinch the nomination. At the moment, Obama has a modest lead over Clinton, but it is possible that by the end of the primary season in June, neither candidate will have won enough delegates to claim the nomination outright.


And this one...
http://www.wsbt.com/news/election/2008/18665334.html

Quote:
Most observers project neither candidate will have enough pledged delegates to win the nomination, so the non-pledged superdelegates will likely decide the outcome


I can provide you with a lot more, if you want.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 06:09 pm
Tell John McCain to Stand Up For Our Troops and Veterans
by Alex Cornell du Houx
It may surprise you to learn that the current G.I. Bill has depreciated so much that it doesn't even cover half the cost of an in-state public university. When I joined the Marines in 2002, I didn't rely on the educational benefits as advertised because I knew Congress has yet to fulfill the original promise of the G.I. Bill in modern-day terms - to provide full educational benefits to every service member. But many veterans did take that promise to heart, and today they have the debt to show for it.

Today, the Senate voted on a bipartisan bill written by Senators Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel that fulfills the original promise of the G.I. Bill to our veterans. A bipartisan group of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives supported the bill, but unfortunately John McCain was not one of them. Though both Democratic candidates took time out of their campaigns to vote for this important piece of legislation, John McCain didn't bother to come back from the campaign trail to stand up for our troops. Not that he would have voted for the legislation had he been in Washington -- McCain has refused to support the bill.

Now, my words are my own and I surely don't speak on behalf of all veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan or the U.S. Marine Corps. But I can tell you this: when I returned from Fallujah to complete my senior year at Bowdoin College, the current G.I. Bill provided me with enough to cover my textbooks and meals, that's it. The actual college tuition turned into college debt, and as a recent graduate five months removed from college that reality of decades of paying back my college loans is sinking in - hard.

Many of us knew this reality was coming. But as I watch this debate play out, the most frustrating part is watching Senator McCain repeatedly say that he will not support the new G.I. Bill. While I rarely agree with him on political issues, I've always admired his service to our country. But I just can't understand why he doesn't support this bill - a bill that can make the lives of millions of veterans easier during tough economic times. Instead, John McCain supports a watered-down version of the bill that is backed by the Bush Administration. It is really disheartening to watch McCain cozy up to President Bush at the expense of my fellow veterans.

The difference between the two bills is clear: one honors the commitment to our veterans to provide full educational benefits, and one is a political tool that does not. The McCain-Graham-Burr legislation only boosts most monthly veterans' benefits by $400 and does practically nothing to support the National Guard and Reserve. McCain's bill will do nothing for the over 160,000 Reserve and National Guard members who have served more than one tour in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The 21st Century G.I. Bill will provide full educational benefits to veterans equal to the highest tuition rate of a public college in their state and provides a monthly stipend for housing based on the geographic area. In addition, the bill will match the amount a private institution provides in scholarships. In my case, this means if Bowdoin College covered half the cost of my education, the G.I. Bill will cover the rest.

For Senator McCain to say the new G.I. Bill is too generous and expensive is morally reprehensible. Two weeks in Iraq will cover the cost of the Webb-Hagel Bill and, like the past bill, it's an investment in our economy. McCain also argues that the bill will hurt retention rates, though the Congressional Budget Office says otherwise. Living up to the promise of the original G.I. Bill can only encourage retention and recruitment.

When our grandparents came home from World War II, we made a sacred promise to provide for their education. 51 percent of World War II veterans took advantage of those educational benefits, and by 1947 veterans enrolled in the G.I. Bill accounted for 49 percent of all students. In many ways, the G.I. Bill gave birth to a new middle class in America. At the time, the program cost about $10 billion, or about $50 billion in today's dollars. Due to the increase in graduates' earning power and their addition to the national economy, these veterans returned $350 billion to the economy - nearly a seven-fold return.

When Franklin Roosevelt signed the original G.I. Bill, I could have attended almost any of the top private universities in the country in exchange for my service. In December, I graduated with almost $19,000 in debt.

The 21st Century G.I. Bill is not a handout; it's a long overdue promise to our veterans to give us the opportunity to succeed when we come home. It's about time for Senator John McCain to understand that, do the right thing, and tell President Bush to sign it into law.
link
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 06:14 pm
mysteryman wrote:
sozobe said...

Quote:
Good chance," eh? Have a link?

The overwhelming consensus is that when voting is over on June 3rd, Obama will have won more states, more pledged delegates, and the popular vote, and that remaining undeclared superdelegates will then seal the deal between then and July 1st.


I sure do.
Lets start with this one...


Cool!

Quote:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/20/primary.wrap/index.html

Quote:
Neither candidate is expected to reach the 2,026 delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination.


context:

Quote:
Obama's top strategist, David Axelrod, said getting the pledged delegate majority was an "important milestone," but not the end of the trail.

Neither candidate is expected to reach the 2,026 delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination.

That means the race is likely to be settled by "superdelegates" -- party leaders and officials who will cast votes at the Democratic convention in August.


That's exactly what I was saying, too. When they say "2,026 delegates" they mean "pledged delegates." I refer to superdelegates, as well.

Quote:
Then lets go to this one...
http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0298.html

Quote:
Some pundits and other experts have raised the specter that Democrats will have a brokered convention, meaning neither candidate will have enough delegates to secure the nomination on the first ballot.


That one doesn't need context. "Some pundits" have "raised the specter."

Quote:
Then lets use this one...

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JB14Aa01.html

Quote:
While Obama is racking up the states, it's about delegates. The tight delegate count is a time bomb for Democrats in November. It's possible, though unlikely, that one candidate will lose every remaining primary and caucus yet assemble enough delegates to win the nomination. Under the rules that award delegates proportionately by state vote, it's likely that neither candidate will accumulate enough pledged delegates before the Denver convention


I added some bolding. PLEDGED.

Obama is not going to win 2,026 pledged delegates before the convention, no. But he needs to hit that magic number by combining pledged delegates and superdelegates. He's going to be pretty darn close by the time voting ends June 3rd, and won't need that many more superdelegates to go over the top.

Quote:
Of course, there is also this one...
http://www.contactomagazine.com/articles/superdelegates0208.htm

Quote:
Under Democratic Party rules it takes 2,025 delegates to clinch the nomination. At the moment, Obama has a modest lead over Clinton, but it is possible that by the end of the primary season in June, neither candidate will have won enough delegates to claim the nomination outright.


"It is possible" = "good chance"? Not exactly.

Quote:
And this one...
http://www.wsbt.com/news/election/2008/18665334.html

Quote:
Most observers project neither candidate will have enough pledged delegates to win the nomination, so the non-pledged superdelegates will likely decide the outcome


I can provide you with a lot more, if you want.


What we have here is a failure to communicate. Laughing

This last quote is exactly precisely what I've been saying. What seems to not be getting across is that the superdelegates can decide the outcome at any moment. If something like 80 of the heretofore undeclared supers say that they'll vote for Obama tomorrow, he's passed 2,026 and has the nomination.

Nobody REALLY has the nomination until the convention. But he'll have the nomination every bit as much as Kerry at this point in 2004.

And it looks very likely that the superdelegates will make their move between the end of voting June 3rd and July 1st -- well before the convention.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 06:15 pm
(Just here for a minute, "something like 80" is a very rough estimate and not something I'm standing by, no time to research the number though.)
0 Replies
 
hanno
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 06:38 pm
blueflame1 wrote:
Tell John McCain to Stand Up For Our Troops and Veterans
by Alex Cornell du Houx
It may surprise you to learn that the current G.I. Bill has depreciated so much that it doesn't even cover half the cost of an in-state public university. When I joined the Marines in 2002, I didn't rely on the educational benefits as advertised because I knew Congress has yet to fulfill the original promise of the G.I. Bill in modern-day terms - to provide full educational benefits to every service member. But many veterans did take that promise to heart, and today they have the debt to show for it.

Today, the Senate voted on a bipartisan bill written by Senators Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel that fulfills the original promise of the G.I. Bill to our veterans. A bipartisan group of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives supported the bill, but unfortunately John McCain was not one of them. Though both Democratic candidates took time out of their campaigns to vote for this important piece of legislation, John McCain didn't bother to come back from the campaign trail to stand up for our troops. Not that he would have voted for the legislation had he been in Washington -- McCain has refused to support the bill.

Now, my words are my own and I surely don't speak on behalf of all veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan or the U.S. Marine Corps. But I can tell you this: when I returned from Fallujah to complete my senior year at Bowdoin College, the current G.I. Bill provided me with enough to cover my textbooks and meals, that's it. The actual college tuition turned into college debt, and as a recent graduate five months removed from college that reality of decades of paying back my college loans is sinking in - hard.

Many of us knew this reality was coming. But as I watch this debate play out, the most frustrating part is watching Senator McCain repeatedly say that he will not support the new G.I. Bill. While I rarely agree with him on political issues, I've always admired his service to our country. But I just can't understand why he doesn't support this bill - a bill that can make the lives of millions of veterans easier during tough economic times. Instead, John McCain supports a watered-down version of the bill that is backed by the Bush Administration. It is really disheartening to watch McCain cozy up to President Bush at the expense of my fellow veterans.

The difference between the two bills is clear: one honors the commitment to our veterans to provide full educational benefits, and one is a political tool that does not. The McCain-Graham-Burr legislation only boosts most monthly veterans' benefits by $400 and does practically nothing to support the National Guard and Reserve. McCain's bill will do nothing for the over 160,000 Reserve and National Guard members who have served more than one tour in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The 21st Century G.I. Bill will provide full educational benefits to veterans equal to the highest tuition rate of a public college in their state and provides a monthly stipend for housing based on the geographic area. In addition, the bill will match the amount a private institution provides in scholarships. In my case, this means if Bowdoin College covered half the cost of my education, the G.I. Bill will cover the rest.

For Senator McCain to say the new G.I. Bill is too generous and expensive is morally reprehensible. Two weeks in Iraq will cover the cost of the Webb-Hagel Bill and, like the past bill, it's an investment in our economy. McCain also argues that the bill will hurt retention rates, though the Congressional Budget Office says otherwise. Living up to the promise of the original G.I. Bill can only encourage retention and recruitment.

When our grandparents came home from World War II, we made a sacred promise to provide for their education. 51 percent of World War II veterans took advantage of those educational benefits, and by 1947 veterans enrolled in the G.I. Bill accounted for 49 percent of all students. In many ways, the G.I. Bill gave birth to a new middle class in America. At the time, the program cost about $10 billion, or about $50 billion in today's dollars. Due to the increase in graduates' earning power and their addition to the national economy, these veterans returned $350 billion to the economy - nearly a seven-fold return.

When Franklin Roosevelt signed the original G.I. Bill, I could have attended almost any of the top private universities in the country in exchange for my service. In December, I graduated with almost $19,000 in debt.

The 21st Century G.I. Bill is not a handout; it's a long overdue promise to our veterans to give us the opportunity to succeed when we come home. It's about time for Senator John McCain to understand that, do the right thing, and tell President Bush to sign it into law.
link


We must pay them well, but not as anything but soldiers. As has become my custom (Ha!), I credit McCain with understanding this concept, despite his racial handicap.

This is the very problem with Iraq, why it's reminding people of Vietnam, we've got people out there performing the work of fighters who are in it for college money. For that to be a good deal they had to be allowed to keep their mind on 'getting out'. Obviously if we quit sugar-coating things we'll have to pay the market-value of that kindof thing (which if we enlist violent offenders...), I mean, if we're down to one person and he/she knows what he/she is doing there and we can count on him/her...
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2008 06:07 am
blueflame1 wrote:
Tell John McCain to Stand Up For Our Troops and Veterans
by Alex Cornell du Houx
It may surprise you to learn that the current G.I. Bill has depreciated so much that it doesn't even cover half the cost of an in-state public university. When I joined the Marines in 2002, I didn't rely on the educational benefits as advertised because I knew Congress has yet to fulfill the original promise of the G.I. Bill in modern-day terms - to provide full educational benefits to every service member. But many veterans did take that promise to heart, and today they have the debt to show for it.

Today, the Senate voted on a bipartisan bill written by Senators Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel that fulfills the original promise of the G.I. Bill to our veterans. A bipartisan group of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives supported the bill, but unfortunately John McCain was not one of them. Though both Democratic candidates took time out of their campaigns to vote for this important piece of legislation, John McCain didn't bother to come back from the campaign trail to stand up for our troops. Not that he would have voted for the legislation had he been in Washington -- McCain has refused to support the bill.

Now, my words are my own and I surely don't speak on behalf of all veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan or the U.S. Marine Corps. But I can tell you this: when I returned from Fallujah to complete my senior year at Bowdoin College, the current G.I. Bill provided me with enough to cover my textbooks and meals, that's it. The actual college tuition turned into college debt, and as a recent graduate five months removed from college that reality of decades of paying back my college loans is sinking in - hard.

Many of us knew this reality was coming. But as I watch this debate play out, the most frustrating part is watching Senator McCain repeatedly say that he will not support the new G.I. Bill. While I rarely agree with him on political issues, I've always admired his service to our country. But I just can't understand why he doesn't support this bill - a bill that can make the lives of millions of veterans easier during tough economic times. Instead, John McCain supports a watered-down version of the bill that is backed by the Bush Administration. It is really disheartening to watch McCain cozy up to President Bush at the expense of my fellow veterans.

The difference between the two bills is clear: one honors the commitment to our veterans to provide full educational benefits, and one is a political tool that does not. The McCain-Graham-Burr legislation only boosts most monthly veterans' benefits by $400 and does practically nothing to support the National Guard and Reserve. McCain's bill will do nothing for the over 160,000 Reserve and National Guard members who have served more than one tour in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The 21st Century G.I. Bill will provide full educational benefits to veterans equal to the highest tuition rate of a public college in their state and provides a monthly stipend for housing based on the geographic area. In addition, the bill will match the amount a private institution provides in scholarships. In my case, this means if Bowdoin College covered half the cost of my education, the G.I. Bill will cover the rest.

For Senator McCain to say the new G.I. Bill is too generous and expensive is morally reprehensible. Two weeks in Iraq will cover the cost of the Webb-Hagel Bill and, like the past bill, it's an investment in our economy. McCain also argues that the bill will hurt retention rates, though the Congressional Budget Office says otherwise. Living up to the promise of the original G.I. Bill can only encourage retention and recruitment.

When our grandparents came home from World War II, we made a sacred promise to provide for their education. 51 percent of World War II veterans took advantage of those educational benefits, and by 1947 veterans enrolled in the G.I. Bill accounted for 49 percent of all students. In many ways, the G.I. Bill gave birth to a new middle class in America. At the time, the program cost about $10 billion, or about $50 billion in today's dollars. Due to the increase in graduates' earning power and their addition to the national economy, these veterans returned $350 billion to the economy - nearly a seven-fold return.

When Franklin Roosevelt signed the original G.I. Bill, I could have attended almost any of the top private universities in the country in exchange for my service. In December, I graduated with almost $19,000 in debt.

The 21st Century G.I. Bill is not a handout; it's a long overdue promise to our veterans to give us the opportunity to succeed when we come home. It's about time for Senator John McCain to understand that, do the right thing, and tell President Bush to sign it into law.
link


Once again, you criticize without even having the facts in front of you and you post this distorted commentary of an obviously politically motivated bill which provides NO INCENTIVES.

McCains bill provides increased benefits based upon time of service which I think is the incentive we need to make sure the military is not a dumping ground for the stupid.

"Defense. Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Richard Burr of North Carolina and John McCain of Arizona have made changes in their GI benefits bill that have increased its cost $4 billion to $38 billion, Graham and Burr announced today. The increase was caused primarily by increasing education benefits for active-duty personnel to $1,500 a month, eliminating a $1,200 benefits enrollment fee, doubling the money available for books and fees and making the education benefits fully transferable to a spouse or child after 12 years of service. After serving six years, members could transfer up to half their education benefits to a spouse or child. "I can't tell you how much the forces appreciate this idea," Graham said. "That means your retirement money doesn't have to be spent on the education of your child." Another change would annually adjust the benefits based on increased costs of higher education rather than on inflation, since the cost of college has been rising faster than inflation over the last few years. The bill would be paid for by cutting overall spending by half of 1 percent. Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., will propose an amendment to the supplemental bill this week that costs $52 billion for GI benefits."

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/hbp_20080521_8533.php
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2008 06:09 am
"I respect Sen. John McCain's service to our country," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, said as he spoke on the Senate floor of his support for the bill. "He is one of those heroes of which I speak. But I can't understand why he would line up behind the president in opposition to this GI Bill. I can't believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans. I could not disagree with him and the president more on this issue. There are many issues that lend themselves to partisan posturing, but giving our veterans the chance to go to college should not be one of them."

Former Navy flier McCain, who was on the campaign trail today and did not vote on the bill, was offended by the notion of Obama, who did not serve in the military, suggesting that he was "posturing" on the bill, or not wanting to be generous to his fellow veterans.

In a statement, the Vietnam War P.O.W. said he "will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did."

"It is typical, but no less offensive that Senator Obama uses the Senate floor to take cheap shots at an opponent and easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of," McCain said. "Let me say first in response to Senator Obama, running for President is different than serving as President. The office comes with responsibilities so serious that the occupant can't always take the politically easy route without hurting the country he is sworn to defend. Unlike Senator Obama, my admiration, respect and deep gratitude for America's veterans is something more than a convenient campaign pledge. I think I have earned the right to make that claim."
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2008 11:38 am
Shamnesty? McCain suffers right wing backlash over immigration flip-flop by Muriel Kane
Published: Friday May 23, 2008

Since running into problems with grassroots conservatives over his support last year for an immigration bill that would have offered citizenship to illegal immigrants, Republican presidential candidate John McCain has steadily maintained that he would deal with border security before taking up larger immigration issues.

Now a statement by McCain to a group of business leaders concerned about obtaining visas for foreign workers, which suggests he has reversed his position yet again, is leading to rumbles of discontent within the conservative base.

McCain told the business roundtable on Thursday, "Senator Kennedy and I tried very hard to get immigration reform, a comprehensive plan, through the Congress of the United States. ... Because of our failure as a federal obligation, we're seeing all these various conflicts and problems. ... We must enact comprehensive immigration reform. We must make it a top agenda item."

McCain's statement immediately led to a blast from right-wing blogger John Hawkins. "John McCain is a liar," Hawkins wrote in an entry that quickly became the subject of widespread discussion on the right. "He's a man without honor, without integrity, who could not have captured the Republican nomination had he run on making comprehensive immigration a top priority of his administration."
link
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2008 11:43 am
John Hawkins is an asshole!
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2008 11:49 am
"John Hawkins is an ****!" Is that a McCain quote?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2008 11:51 am
McCain and the NRCC have some serious problems of their own: their push to moderate the party a little has met with strident resistance from the Republican base, who aren't into moderaton.

The comments here are unreal:

http://blog.nrcc.org/comment.cfm?entry_id=400

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2008 11:52 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, it's fair to say that his worldview was shaped by a multitude of different events/situations. He was a law professor, a community organizer, a State Senator. All of those experiences likely added to his worldview, along with others.

Cycloptichorn


I'll accept that. However, I don't think it is particularly impressive. Fairly monotone experiences all in confined environments, and not much in the way of serious personal challenges or serious accountability in running a complex organization.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2008 11:54 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, it's fair to say that his worldview was shaped by a multitude of different events/situations. He was a law professor, a community organizer, a State Senator. All of those experiences likely added to his worldview, along with others.

Cycloptichorn


I'll accept that. However, I don't think it is particularly impressive. Fairly monotone experiences all in confined environments, and not much in the way of serious personal challenges or serious accountability in running a complex organization.


Oh, I don't know. Community organizing implies a certain level of organizational ability.

Anyways, he should be measured against his rival, McCain; not exactly a wealth of organizational leadership experience there either.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2008 12:14 pm
Quote:
and not much in the way of [...] serious accountability in running a complex organization.


Obama's campaign is a pretty complex organization, and I'm quite impressed at how he's run that.

If we're comparing how McCain has run his campaign with how Obama has run his, no contest IMO.

I elided "serious personal challenges" -- I think Obama has dealt with that, too. Earlier in life than McCain, but still significant.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2008 12:30 pm
I don't think the "community organizing" amounts to much, but I do agree that the campaign is a complex thing. There are lots of experienced professionsl consultants able to do such things for him, though I will concede the candidate sets the tone and the basic strategy, and, by all appearances, Obama's has been very good.

I don't think that Cyclo understands (or at least is willing to appreciate) what went into McCain's experience in the Navy and as a prisioner in Vietnam. Perhaps that isn't possible for one who hasn't experienced anything like it. However I take a very different view of it.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2008 12:32 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
I don't think the "community organizing" amounts to much, but I do agree that the campaign is a complex thing. There are lots of experienced professionsl consultants able to do such things for him, though I will concede the candidate sets the tone and the basic strategy, and, by all appearances, Obama's has been very good.

I don't think that Cyclo understands (or at least is willing to appreciate) what went into McCain's experience in the Navy and as a prisioner in Vietnam. Perhaps that isn't possible for one who hasn't experienced anything like it. However I take a very different view of it.


In what way did McCain's experiences amount to 'complex leadership?'

I will readily agree that his time in captivity was formative in this fashion, per his memoirs; but I question the complexity of the situation, as it applies to managing the government.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2008 01:10 pm
Managing an organization of any kind, a carrier fighter squadron or an informal organization of objectively speaking, powerless prisioners (who eventually took over the camp and psychologically dominated their captors) is a learning experience that the academic and political worlds don't necessarily provide. There are lots of examples of adept politicians, with ample rhetorical skills, who found themselves over their heads in dealing with even the elementary complexities of this. There are also counter examples of such people thriving under these circumstances.

All things considered, I would be reassured by the presence of some evidence in this case.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2008 01:49 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Managing an organization of any kind, a carrier fighter squadron or an informal organization of objectively speaking, powerless prisioners (who eventually took over the camp and psychologically dominated their captors) is a learning experience that the academic and political worlds don't necessarily provide. There are lots of examples of adept politicians, with ample rhetorical skills, who found themselves over their heads in dealing with even the elementary complexities of this. There are also counter examples of such people thriving under these circumstances.

All things considered, I would be reassured by the presence of some evidence in this case.


There's always that situation which doubters like to ignore - Obama's campaign is extremely well-managed and well-run. That's some evidence for ya of competence and leadership, though I understand others like to knock this particular example.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2008 02:27 pm
Does it never strike you lot that you might be taking all this stuff a mite too seriously.

It is only a movie after all. But if you roll the credits at the end it will take longer than the movie itself. It's a production of MEDICORPS. And they have set you a fine old puzzle. A long ten horse race in which seven have fallen at various stages and the last three are coming around the bend into the straight and one way back but still plugging on and a couple of jockeys are trying to remount in case anything untoward happens up front. The latest betting in running is about 5 gets 4 Big Ears, 8 gets 13 Thowd Fellah and 1 gets 10 The Gutsy Broad which is toiling and being ridden hard. There's two fences left to jump but one of them has a big hole in it which Thowd Fellah has claimed on account of his dodgy pins.

And the winner gets to be crowned King of the World with a remit to "do what it takes to protect the Republic", as the Romans said, and within it to have a bit of a say.

Each one of your votes can be cancelled out by some half-gaga little old lady who goes on the cut of their jib as sailors say when the hammock swings gently in the Pacific swells. They are not always sending the fighter squadrons into battle. George will confirm that I feel sure.

It's the same here but our stuff is more dour except for the occasional bombshell.

It generates phone calls on a grand scale. I saw one shot of a crowd and half of them were on the phone telling their unfortunate loved ones that they were in the same room as the next president of the Youknighted Stoits.

Mr Rich takes a fancy to becoming Ambassador to England or France. He's worth billions. He interviews all serious candidates and finds out the price in the usual way like one does when one buys a bag of onions to help one to cry. Ambassadorships are graded. The bottom grades are filled by career diplomats who screw up. Mr Nearly Rich has a go at Athens say.

Mr Rich owns some companies in newspapers and suchlike and once his bet's on he uses the companies to whip up fervour. And there's a good few Mr Rich's and quite a lot of Mr Nearly Rich's.

I suppose one misses all that when one takes it seriously. Destiny calls. There will be the 699th President one day and only the Good Lord knows what electing her will be like.

Good fun I should imagine as long as you keep your distance.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2008 02:41 pm
There is no litmus test for the job of US President, the only real experience is having served in the office. So one is left with her gut feeling My strong feeling is that Barck Obama has the right stuff. A younger McCain may have been fit for the presidency but he has lost quite a bit of his faculties. He is not mentally fit for the job.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/28/2024 at 05:30:40