A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Oooh, I would LOVE to see that! (Brand X, there's this guy named Barack Obama you might want to research a bit -- obviously you know very little about him... ;-))

Smiles at the prospect of the GOP candidate taking the Dem to school on human rights.

(Finally)

Human rights... you mean gay marriage?

Obama definitely doesn't go as far as I'd like but he goes pretty far. Against the marriage amendment ("Marriage is only between a man and a woman," or whatever), and for civil unions.

soz-- I've always respected you--and one of the reasons (nice that there are a few to choose from) is because you are generally very dispassionate (unbiased).

Your feelings about Obama are understandable. You and I know that you can't throw out a candidate based on one or two disappointing stances.

I am just disappointed that you are beginning to equivocate re the human rights (merely gay marriage now?) foundation that you would otherwise (in another candidate) demand.

Eh?

Where's the equivocation?

He's for civil unions. He says stuff like this:



and



That's pretty good. Doesn't go as far as I would like. Looks like there's room for changing his opinion. Will be happy if he does change his opinion. Will do my part to try to change his opinion.

<shrug>

Did you mean something else by "human rights"? That's what I was asking.

As would I. That would easily be the most entertaining Debate since Ross Perot wiped the floor with Clinton and Bush Sr. simultaneously.

Probably paraphrasing badly: You want to talk about waste? Clinton brought 90 people with him today, Bush 150. I brought 3... and two of them were complaining they didn't have anything to do.

I have seen Giuliani look a little shaky at least once that I recall. But overall, I think it would be a hell of a battle.

Yes, soz. It is a human rights issue.

General comment--

It would be a killer debate.

Giuliani calls it like he sees it.

Obama has been pandering--but he's quick on his feet. Like Clinton.

It would be interesting to say the least.

Lash, I'm not saying it's not a human rights issue. It is a human rights issue, and I haven't said otherwise. I'm asking if that's what YOU meant by "human rights", and if that's all you meant.

Obama doesn't "pander". He's nuanced, he's thoughtful, and given information that contradicts the basis for his previous conclusions, he changes his mind. I think that's a very good thing, overall. It's one of the many things I like about him.

How does his cozy relationship with Richard Daley reveal nuance?

And voting "present"?

I'd love to see both Obama and Giuliani survive the primaries too. I think the chances of it happening are about equal to the chance that both Bradley and McCain would succeed in their respective parties in 2000 - slim and none.

Bill, I agree that it would be wonderful for moderate and independent voters to have one, if not two, candidate(s) still in the running at the end. I'm not holding my breath.

Lash, not in the mood for this. You don't like him. Fine. I can tell that anything I come back with you're going to dismiss, so not going to waste my time.

I can't tell about Giuliani. Normally I'd say he doesn't have a chance but the Republican field isn't that strong so it's possible. Certainly like him better than many other Republican candidates.

Still hopeful about Obama, but I know it's a long shot. We'll see.

"Not in the mood" to answer straight questions--and you try to avoid them by saying I don't like him.

I do like Obama. I'm just not wearing the special glasses.

Meanwhile, Rudy is ahead.

I've been answering them and not getting any indication that you're doing anything but playing games -- and the games (as opposed to a more straightforward examination of issues) are what I'm totally not in the mood for. (Who's wearing the special glasses? I can only assume -- though the curent game-mode makes it difficult -- that you're referring to me. How have I actually -- and not just in Gotchaland -- given indication that I'm wearing such glasses?)

I've missed your answers about Obama's relationship with the Daleys and re his "present" votes.

Would you mind linking them? If you didn't spin them like you did his support of the death penalty, I'll owe you a sincere apology.

How about if we start with how I "spun" his views on the death penalty?

OK. Tomorrow.

Here.

An uninitiate could hardly emerge from that spin knowing Obama supported the death penalty.

That's it?

The very first line contains the information that he supports the death penalty, if equivocally.

Which he does, as demonstrated by his own words.

That's "spin"?

OK.


I'll say this as plainly as I can. I'm willing (though maybe it belongs on the Obama thread) to try to find out what you're talking about re: the Daleys. As of now I have no idea. But I absolutely am not in the mood for gotcha bantering, where words are twisted and intentions assigned and the truth, whatever it is, recedes ever-further in the distance. Cites, from reputable sources, and I'll consider it. Vague accusations and baiting, not interested.

Seemed pretty obvious to me too, Lash. I read; really bad guy= Justified Death Penalty. I don't see him so much agreeing, necessarily, but fully recognizing the public's reasonable interest and demand for same. Close enough for me. Where do you see spin?

He supports the death penalty.

He opposes equal rights for all Americans.

He supported the most notorious hoodlum in American politics.

He deceptively voted "present" rather than do the job he is paid to do by his constituents to hide his views for political expediency.

No matter what language these facts are inserted into--they constitute significant evidence that Obama is just as shady as the rest of the pack.

This isn't gotcha.

Daley