SierraSong
 
  1  
Tue 27 Jun, 2006 09:01 pm
Obama is a very liberal Democrat, perfect for Illinois. He's no stranger to special interest groups and is supported by crooks like George Soros, by teacher's unions, pro-abortion groups and People for the American Way.

A 'balanced budget amendment' is Democrat code for raising taxes, which is exactly what Obama would do.

He's anti-war and anti-military and that alone would work against him. I don't think an anti-war candidate has ever been elected while we're engaged in a war. Add to that the fact that he's a Senator. Senators don't exactly have the best track record for being electable to the presidency.

Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. is unelectable.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Wed 28 Jun, 2006 12:33 am
SierraSong wrote:
Obama is a very liberal Democrat, perfect for Illinois. He's no stranger to special interest groups and is supported by crooks like George Soros, by teacher's unions, pro-abortion groups and People for the American Way.

According to Voteview.com, Obama is a bit more liberal than the median Democrat, but pretty much in the center of that party, so I don't see how you conclude he is "very liberal". (Voteview.com ranks Congressmen according to a peer-reviewed methodology; it is operated by Sociology professors from UC San Diego, University of Huston, and Carnegie-Mellon University.) As to your unsubstantiated labelling of George Soros as a "crook" and of some Obama supporters as "pro-abortion", I will ignore it. Finally, I don't see why support by teachers unions and People for the American way would count against ones electability.

Sierra Song wrote:
A 'balanced budget amendment' is Democrat code for raising taxes, which is exactly what Obama would do.

That must be why Republicans from Nixon to Gingrich campaigned for it first, against Democrats from Johnson to Clinton.

Sierra Song wrote:
He's anti-war and anti-military and that alone would work against him. I don't think an anti-war candidate has ever been elected while we're engaged in a war.

In 1968, Richard Nixon campaigned on a platform of "ending the war and winning the peace". I have no reason to believe that he wouldn't have accused Johnson of lying about the casus belli if he could. But the New York Times published that fact after the election, so he probably couldn't make it a campaign issue. More generally, why would opposition to an unpopular war make someone unelectable?

Sierra Song wrote:
Add to that the fact that he's a Senator. Senators don't exactly have the best track record for being electable to the presidency.

That is a valid point.
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Wed 28 Jun, 2006 07:00 am
Insider Trading Conviction of Soros is Upheld

When Black Commentator magazine labeled Barack Obama a "mainstream Democrat", he was so disturbed he wrote them a letter, saying in part:

Quote:
"To begin with, neither my staff nor I have had any direct contact with anybody at DLC…I don't know who nominated me for the DLC list of 100 rising stars…I certainly did not view such inclusion as an endorsement on my part of the DLC platform…I spend much of my time with audiences trying to educate them on the dangers of both the Patriot Act, Patriot Act 2, and the rest of John Ashcroft's assault on the Constitution…In the last three months alone, I passed and sent to Illinois governor's desk 25 pieces of major progressive legislation, including groundbreaking laws mandating the videotaping of all interrogations and confessions in capital cases; racial profiling legislation; a new law designed to ease the burden on ex-offenders seeking employment; and a state earned income tax credit that will put millions of dollars directly into the pockets of Illinois' working poor."

http://www.blackcommentator.com/47/47_cover.html


You are welcome to your opinion as to whether he's electable.

He's not (in my opinion), and that's why I'm hoping he throws his hat into the ring. :wink:
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Wed 28 Jun, 2006 08:52 am

That was nearly twenty years ago!

From your link:

Quote:
The highest court in France [..] rejected a bid by George Soros [..] to overturn a conviction for insider trading in a case dating back nearly 20 years, leaving the first blemish on his five-decade investing career.

"a case dating back nearly 20 years, leaving the first blemish on his five-decade investing career" - doesnt sound like the decisive proof somebody is "a crook" to me...

Also:
Quote:
Ron Soffer, his lawyer, said Soros planned to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights [..] "The appeals trial occurred in 2004. How can you call witnesses and ask them about what happened in 1988?" The French stock market regulatory authority investigated the matter separately and concluded that Soros had not violated the law or any ethical rules, Soffer said.
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Wed 28 Jun, 2006 09:34 am
nimh wrote:

That was nearly twenty years ago!

From your link:

Quote:
The highest court in France [..] rejected a bid by George Soros [..] to overturn a conviction for insider trading in a case dating back nearly 20 years, leaving the first blemish on his five-decade investing career.

"a case dating back nearly 20 years, leaving the first blemish on his five-decade investing career" - doesnt sound like the decisive proof somebody is "a crook" to me...

Also:
Quote:
Ron Soffer, his lawyer, said Soros planned to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights [..] "The appeals trial occurred in 2004. How can you call witnesses and ask them about what happened in 1988?" The French stock market regulatory authority investigated the matter separately and concluded that Soros had not violated the law or any ethical rules, Soffer said.


So the fact that he was able to stretch the 'appeals' process for two decades means he's innocent? Maybe to you.

Heh. Take it up with the French, they're the ones insisting he's a crook.

The dirtbag also said:

Quote:
"As he has from the beginning, George Soros maintains that he engaged in no illegal or unethical conduct," Vachon said in a statement


That's because pond scum like him have their own, ahem, "code of ethics".
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Wed 28 Jun, 2006 10:29 am
sozobe wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Interesting -- I'm not. The Republicans are just as incongruous as the Democrats, and the only thing holding them together is winning. If their winning streak ends in this year's Congress elections -- and I'm fairly optimistic about that -- 2008 will be completely open. There seems to be a meme propagating through the press: "No matter how lousy the shape of the Republicans is, those Democrats just can't seem to make it". I can see where it's coming from -- witness those quibbles betwen Dean and Schumer over strategy. But for the most part I think it's pessimism feeding on itself through thoughtless repetition.


Hey, sure hope so. The good news is, the midterms are in just a few months (~4.5), so we'll know the answer to that one reasonably soon.

Interesting point about the meme, not sure if I agree or not (whether the problem is the meme or the problem is the Democrats).


Eric Bohlert's take on this question and I think he's gets it right.
Quote:
On the same day at least 40 Iraqis were killed by insurgent bombings, USA Today reported a strong majority of Americans (57-39) want a timetable set for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq. Which, of course, means a strong majority of Americans back the Democratic timetable initiative, the same initiative that the mainstream media?-across the board?-last week labeled a political loser for Dems, while cheering the GOP for winning the war over the war with its 'cut-and-run' rhetoric. Now we find out that 57 percent of Americans want to cut-and-run.

The newest findings only add to the insult of last week's incredibly dishonest news coverage of the Senate debate regarding Iraq, where RNC talking points were billboarded again and again. "GOP leaders took obvious pleasure in the Democrats' disarray" on Iraq, wrote the Washington Post. CNN reported Republicans were "having a field day" watching Democrats debate resolutions to establish a withdrawal timetable, while conveniently ignoring the fact a majority of Americans supported the Democratic plan (even last week). And Newsweek obediently announced, "Democrats lost the week in the war over the war."

Folks, we need to pause here and really examine just how derelict the MSM has become, and just how entrenched the entire corporate media enterprise is in terms of allowing the Republican party to dictate coverage on key political issues. The fact that the lapdog press allows it to happen on behalf of a historically unpopular president just boggles the mind. (And yes, the USA Today poll confirmed Bush's much-anticipated June bounce was non-existent.)

As I noted last week, "Apparently if Karl Rove signs off on a political strategy (hit the Dems hard over Iraq), the press assumes it's a work of genius and shows little interest in dwelling on the pertinent questions, such as isn't there an obvious risk Republicans run in making the hugely unpopular war in Iraq, and specifically the notion that U.S. troops should pretty much stay there indefinitely, the centerpiece for their 2006 campaign?" Instead, journalists purposefully ignored clear polling data which obliterated the narrative that the Republicans had the winning had in the Iraq troop debate.

Why can MSNBC talk show host and former GOP Congressman Joe Scarborough easily analyze the American domestic politics of Iraq, but entire bureaus within the Beltway cannot, or more specifically will not? Because let's not kid ourselves, journalists at this pay grade are not dumb. They can read the polling data just like anyone else and could instantly grasp the political barriers the Republicans were erecting by going all in with Iraq during an election year. But they chose, as a group, to focus on the perils facing Democrats instead. And that's what makes the media's complete failure on the issue all the more distressing; it's being done intentionally. Journalists are afraid of the facts and the consequences of reporting them. My book is filled with the examples ?-entire chapters?- and last week's Iraq debate is just the latest instance...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/

Because "the dems have no plan" is a fundamental republican talking point, it won't matter a quince what any dem or group of dems say or lay out, that talking point will be repeated as if it were a truth-bearing statement rather than what it is - a slogan.

And it is certain (as close to absolutely as we might get) that they will continue to use the slogan because of what Bohlert speaks to above and because this slogan gets a lot of conceptual work done.

What else can the Bush administration say about Iraq (particularly) other than 'we do it for an increase in overall good in the world' or 'we do it to protect you' or 'things are going well'? They can no longer say their plan was a dilly as things continue to go to shitt in almost all direcions. So they have to differentiate by saying 'at least WE have a plan' (while pretending that slogans actually constitute plans...on Jon Stewart two weeks or so past, Mehlman acknowledged that "we'll stand down when they stand up" was just a slogan...tip of the hat to such rare honesty and to Stewart for facilitating it).

And he 'dems have no plan' meme is useful in a very important conceptual framing - always, always, always the present republican crowd promote the suggestion that they are strong, masculine, dependable father figures and that the dems constitute the opposite of those characteristics. To have no plan is to be confused, flighty, in need of stern direction...in other words, it is to be womanly (like the french are).
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Wed 28 Jun, 2006 11:03 am
SierraSong wrote:
So the fact that he was able to stretch the 'appeals' process for two decades means he's innocent? Maybe to you.

I didnt say he was innocent.

I did say that one transgression, nearly twenty years ago, in a five-decade investing career, doesn't immediately reduce someone to just "a crook" in my eyes. Let alone "a dirtbag" and "pond scum".

I'd suggest you might get some interesting results if you applied the same standard to some conservative investors, politicians, etc.

But I suspect you wont.

Face it, you think Soros is "pond scum" because he dared to put $$s into anti-Bush campaigns, not to mention campaigns that support gay groups, minority groups, ecology groups and such liberal causes. Thats why conservatives hate him. You would have thought the same if he hadnt been declared guilty in France for a twenty-year old case. And you wont be rushing in to declare any conservative who was convicted for one 20-year old transgression "dirtbags", either.

Never mind that Soros has done more to support those very democracy activists in "New Europe" that conservatives love to praise, constituting a more US-friendly alternative to German and French voices as they do, than any other single person. Pumping billions into projects that have helped to create a new class of pro-Western, anti-communist, anti-nationalist thinkers, activists and rulers, including those now newly in power in Georgia and those who helped bring about change in Ukraine and Serbia.

He supported the Dems, so he must be a crook. Any 20-year old case from a prior career will do as a stick to beat that dog with.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Wed 28 Jun, 2006 11:04 am
Good post, Blatham.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Wed 28 Jun, 2006 04:54 pm
No plan is just a slogan? Laughing That isn't clever enough by half to convince anyone but the choir. You know what would be? A Plan.

Where is the Democratic version of the PNAC? Where is their version of the "Contract with America?" Why not illustrate this plan so Americans can sink their teeth into it?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Wed 28 Jun, 2006 07:02 pm
SierraSong wrote:
Insider Trading Conviction of Soros is Upheld

When Black Commentator magazine labeled Barack Obama a "mainstream Democrat", he was so disturbed he wrote them a letter, saying in part:

Quote:
"To begin with, neither my staff nor I have had any direct contact with anybody at DLC…I don't know who nominated me for the DLC list of 100 rising stars…I certainly did not view such inclusion as an endorsement on my part of the DLC platform…I spend much of my time with audiences trying to educate them on the dangers of both the Patriot Act, Patriot Act 2, and the rest of John Ashcroft's assault on the Constitution…In the last three months alone, I passed and sent to Illinois governor's desk 25 pieces of major progressive legislation, including groundbreaking laws mandating the videotaping of all interrogations and confessions in capital cases; racial profiling legislation; a new law designed to ease the burden on ex-offenders seeking employment; and a state earned income tax credit that will put millions of dollars directly into the pockets of Illinois' working poor."

http://www.blackcommentator.com/47/47_cover.html


You are welcome to your opinion as to whether he's electable.

He's not (in my opinion), and that's why I'm hoping he throws his hat into the ring. :wink:


This is a misleading characterization of the exchange between Obama and Black Commentator. the words you posted did appear, but they are taken out of context. You make it sound as if he had some kind of hysterical reaction from being referred to as a "mainstream democrat" - and that's not what happened.

You're sure going to a lot of trouble to make Obama seem a lot more fringe and 'out there' than he in fact is. Calling him a name connecting him to Sadaam Hussein, and such. You might protest too much.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Wed 28 Jun, 2006 07:08 pm
It's his name.

It seems metaphoric to her opinion of public perception of his possibilities.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Wed 28 Jun, 2006 09:05 pm
Barack Obama's name has no connection - either metaphorical or grammatical, to Sadaam Hussein's. Perhaps the (reaching and smarmy) "ironic" connection that was intended was (the unoriginal) Barack Osama...
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Wed 28 Jun, 2006 09:56 pm
snood wrote:
This is a misleading characterization of the exchange between Obama and Black Commentator. the words you posted did appear, but they are taken out of context. You make it sound as if he had some kind of hysterical reaction from being referred to as a "mainstream democrat" - and that's not what happened.

You're sure going to a lot of trouble to make Obama seem a lot more fringe and 'out there' than he in fact is. Calling him a name connecting him to Sadaam Hussein, and such. You might protest too much.


In my opinion he is a very liberal senator. The only trouble I went to was to check out his voting record and the many special interest groups that have contributed to his campaign. I was interested because of the comments made by some here.

I think I read that his dad named him - I have no idea if Hussein is an old family name or not. Speaking of Barack's father, he didn't "grow up as a goat herder" as he stated in his speech to the Dem convention. I believe he was a Harvard-educated economist, although Obama was raised by his white mother (and grandparents, I think).
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Wed 28 Jun, 2006 10:01 pm
snood wrote:
Barack Obama's name has no connection - either metaphorical or grammatical, to Sadaam Hussein's. Perhaps the (reaching and smarmy) "ironic" connection that was intended was (the unoriginal) Barack Osama...


Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. is the name given to him at birth.

So far, you're the only one that's made a "connection" to Saddam.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Thu 29 Jun, 2006 07:50 am
From today's Chicago Tribune, page 3 (online version)


Quote:
http://i4.tinypic.com/166ji92.jpg

By Marni Goldberg
Washington Bureau
Published June 28, 2006, 9:43 PM CDT


WASHINGTON -- Sharing the experience of his own quest for faith before an enthusiastic crowd, Sen. Barack Obama spoke Wednesday of progressives' failure to handle religious issues and insisted it is time Democrats find a cure for their spiritual ills.

The Illinois Democrat offered his political and religious observations to a coalition of Christians gathered at the Call to Renewal conference on poverty in America.

On the event's final day, Obama was honored for his work on behalf of society's less fortunate. He said it was his work as a community organizer for Christian churches that acquainted him with his own beliefs and values.

"I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death," Obama said. "It is an active, palpable agent in the world. It is a source of hope."

Democrats and liberals have struggled in recent years with how to approach what has been termed the religious gap between them and more openly religious communities that often have aligned with conservative Republican candidates.

"At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that?-regardless of our personal beliefs?-constitutional principles tie our hands," the first-term senator said.

"At worst, some liberals dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word 'Christian' describes one's political opponents, not people of faith," he continued.

His own religious convictions aside, Obama said that, as a Democrat, he has fallen into the same trap as many in his party who have come before him, remaining quiet about the role faith has played in his life for fear of engaging in the conversation on religious values.

Obama said that while America's religious gap has been manipulated by the likes of such evangelical conservative leaders as Rev. Jerry Falwell and broadcaster Pat Robertson, Democrats have remained on the sidelines. And that, he said, has to end.

"Over the long haul, I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people, and join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy," Obama said.

Obama is not the first leading Democrat to recognize the need for progressives to handle religious issues more openly. Other Democrats, including Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and party chairman Howard Dean, have made similar assertions, and both were participants at the Call to Renewal conference this week.

"I think what we heard today was a significant address in American politics and a speech that will be cited after today," said Rev. Jim Wallis, the president and chief executive of Call to Renewal, a liberal faith-based group. "It was a very sophisticated, substantial discussion that we haven't seen from a politician, and frankly a Democrat, in a long time."

Values and culture play a role in some of society's most urgent social problems, Obama said. "Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square." By opening their minds to the possibility of a faith- and values-based discourse, he said, secularists might find they share values with religious people.

"And we might realize that we have the ability to reach out to the evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of American renewal," Obama said.

"No matter how religious they may or may not be, people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool to attack and belittle and divide," he said.

But even as he urged Democrats to soften their stance on religious issues in politics, the senator cautioned against "inauthentic expressions of faith ?-the politician who shows up at a black church around election time and claps, off rhythm, to the gospel choir."


Well, hopefully some hear it.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Thu 29 Jun, 2006 08:44 am
Yeah, "Hussein" is actually his middle name. See:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1924133#1924133

Walter, nice article. That's definitely something I've really liked about Obama. Jim Wallis made a gigantic impression on me with his analysis after the 2004 election, I've really wanted the Democrats to take that to heart.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Thu 29 Jun, 2006 05:22 pm
snood wrote:
Barack Obama's name has no connection - either metaphorical or grammatical, to Sadaam Hussein's.

Couldn't speak to a "grammatical" connection. Maybe you can explain that one. However, I'll have to press the issue about a metaphoric,...but moreso, a LITERAL connection to Saddam Hussein's name. Man, just a tiny google could have saved you from that humiliation.
snood wrote:

Perhaps the (reaching and smarmy) "ironic" connection that was intended was (the unoriginal) Barack Osama...

I think SierraSong deserves an apology from SnoodWrong.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Sat 1 Jul, 2006 05:50 am
Quote:
Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. is unelectable.


Gratuitous slime. Does your mother find you offensive too?

Last night, Hardball had a segment labeled "Obama for President?". I didn't get to hear more than a sentence or two, but noted the raised profile of this possibility.

As soz knows, I've been hoping/clamoring for this candidacy for a while now. Obama is a truly exceptional political figure with the potential to turn American political discourse in a much needed positive direction (the need being evidenced by the slime above).
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Sat 1 Jul, 2006 07:32 am
I think it will be rather difficult to make anyone feel badly about calling the man by his name.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Sat 1 Jul, 2006 07:46 am
SierraSong wrote:
Speaking of Barack's father, he didn't "grow up as a goat herder" as he stated in his speech to the Dem convention. I believe he was a Harvard-educated economist

Not going to check it out, but re the insinuation that Barack lied, the man can of course easily have been both. Having grown up as a goat herder and moved on to become a Harvard-educated economist. That would be a striking life story, but then again that would be why Obama used it in his speech, obviously.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 32
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/21/2026 at 02:59:43