maporsche
 
  1  
Sun 9 Mar, 2008 10:05 am
I never knew what a caucus was until this election. I cannot think of a more un-democratic and unrepresentative process.

I hope that it gets changed before 2012.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Sun 9 Mar, 2008 10:06 am
Dys
dyslexia wrote:
McCain is indeed interesting, on some issues he is extreme right and on other issues he is extreme moderate. I don't think anyone has him pegged yet.


Apparently someone has: http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=113192

BBB
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Sun 9 Mar, 2008 10:08 am
revel wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
McCain is indeed interesting, on some issues he is extreme right and on other issues he is extreme moderate. I don't think anyone has him pegged yet.


Tell me in what way is he not extreme right now as opposed to 2000 when he had a whole nother set of standards and ideals. The only one I can see is his stand on immigration which don't even differ from Bush's and he has even changed a little on that in that he says border security has to come first and the rest will have to come later. (google it) He's changed on Taxes; torture and now he is a religious right and changed on his stance on a gay marriage ban. In 2004 he opposed the ban; now he is in favor it.

Straight Talkin' McCain Takes Both Sides of Gay Marriage Amendment Debate (click on the words in blue to verify facts at this admittedly liberal site.)

I think he can pigeonholed very well; vote panderer.


i'm no Mccain fan, but in all fairness you can characterize any and all of them as vote panderers...
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Sun 9 Mar, 2008 11:49 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
In reading and listening to Charles Krauthammer over the last couple of months I've formed the distinct impression that he not only regards Obama well, but that he would have liked to believe his rhetoric.



Quote:


And herein lies the source of my greatest difficulty with Obama's candidacy.

As Krauthammer goes on to detail, there is absolutely no reason to believe Obama will live up to his rhetoric if elected.

His own advisor was, quite pathetically, unable to provide a pundit with a single example of Obama reaching across the aisle to obtain bi-partisan agreement.

Damage control by the Campaign led to a list of rather anemic efforts on rather trivial matters.

When truly significant issues have been debated in the Senate, Obama has consistently sided with partisan Democrats not willing to strive for compromise.

Quote:
On the difficult compromises that required the political courage to challenge one's own political constituency, Obama flinched: the "gang of 14" compromise on judicial appointments, the immigration compromise to which Obama tried to append union-backed killer amendments, and, just last month, the compromise on warrantless eavesdropping that garnered 68 votes in the Senate. But not Obama's.


Of course one might argue that he "had to" remain lined up with the left of his party if he was to obtain the nomination, but that he can be relied upon to do all the necessary uniting aisle crossing when he is president.

It's hard to imagine how one might argue such a thing with a straight face, but it might be argued.

"New Politics?"

The current hard core supporters of Obama are only too happy to learn that he has never compromised with the Republican scoundrels, for they are the ones he had to woo, but it makes one wonder exactly what the "unity" they all profess to desire actually looks like.

Compromise as long as it leads to their position? Unity as long as it is complies with their unified beliefs?

Would I like to see an end to partisan warfare? Yes, I would, but why should I believe Obama will provide it? When has he ever risked his political career in an attempt to get something important done irrespective of what the ideologues in his party might insist upon?

Do you really want someone in the White House who has the character to fight for what he believes is best for the nation despite what impact it may have on his career?

Do you really want someone in the White House who is capable of compromise with the Opposition for the sake of the nation?

Do you really want someone in the White House that is capable of breaking free of Old Political rules and charting a course for this country that benefits all?

You can have such a president, but he will not be young and attractive. He will not be able to electrify large audiences within 5 minutes of speaking. He will not look like Tomorrow Man. And he will not be able to put a jacket on without someone's help because the enemies of this country found it appropriate to break his shoulders on a regular basis.

He will just be the real deal.

If Obama wins the nomination, and I suspect he eventually will, the race to November will be between a character and a man.

Quote:


Excellent post Finn.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Sun 9 Mar, 2008 11:57 am
Does provide quite a different perspective on both Obama and McCain, huh.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Sun 9 Mar, 2008 12:09 pm
Not really foxfrye; in that McCain compromises has been to the right opposite of what those who have been voting want which is why Obama has been able to cut into McCain past supporters of independents.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Sun 9 Mar, 2008 12:35 pm
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
nimh wrote:
A storm of grassroots enthusiasm in Wyoming today:


Out of nearly 60,000 registered Democrats, some 5,000 went for Obama and around 3,000 for Hillary. Meaning, around 85% of registered Democrats found something better to do on Saturday than caucus for their party.

Compared to past elections, that probably is a 'storm', though.


It's 12 times as much as in 2004. Moreover, it's 7 times as many people as showed up for the Republican caucus earlier this year.

Yes: the Wyoming Republicans held their caucus in January, even before New Hampshire voted - everything was still at stake; and yet in this state, where Republicans outnumber Democrats roughly a zillion to one, just 1,200 Republicans showed up for those caucuses, against 8,000 participants in the Democratic caucuses now.

The Republican Party is not where the excitement is apparently, this year.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Sun 9 Mar, 2008 12:38 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Good grief, are you really trying to make a case for the general nature of Obama's supporters based on this one picture?

No, I'm making a case about the stupidity of posters who are always making out like Obama voters as just a bunch of elitist or preppy latte liberals. If the shoe fits..
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Sun 9 Mar, 2008 12:46 pm
nimh wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Good grief, are you really trying to make a case for the general nature of Obama's supporters based on this one picture?

No, I'm making a case about the stupidity of posters who are always making out like Obama voters as just a bunch of elitist or preppy latte liberals. If the shoe fits..


be fair nimh, a lot, NOT ALL but a lot of them have brought this on themselves with this "The educated class supports Obama " bullshit with it's clear insinuation of superiority. Very annoying.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Sun 9 Mar, 2008 12:47 pm
He has a point, Nimh.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Sun 9 Mar, 2008 12:51 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
be fair nimh, a lot, NOT ALL but a lot of them have brought this on themselves with this "The educated class supports Obama " bullshit with it's clear insinuation of superiority. Very annoying.


Cycloptichorn said some stuff about that. I challenged him on it when it happened.

But that's one person -- I don't think anyone else has been saying it in terms of superiority. It's mostly just been observations of voting trends.

As FreeDuck said at some point, when Obama makes inroads with non-college-educated voters, we don't turn up our noses and say "Ugh, the well is being polluted." We say "Great! He's making inroads with more demographics! We knew he could."

That's seen as a good thing.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Sun 9 Mar, 2008 12:56 pm
sozobe wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
be fair nimh, a lot, NOT ALL but a lot of them have brought this on themselves with this "The educated class supports Obama " bullshit with it's clear insinuation of superiority. Very annoying.


Cycloptichorn said some stuff about that. I challenged him on it when it happened.

But that's one person -- I don't think anyone else has been saying it in terms of superiority. It's mostly just been observations of voting trends.

As FreeDuck said at some point, when Obama makes inroads with non-college-educated voters, we don't turn up our noses and say "Ugh, the well is being polluted." We say "Great! He's making inroads with more demographics! We knew he could."

That's seen as a good thing.


I'm not necessarily speaking of A2K sozobe.. I heard a pundit state it on NPR and it's all over everywhere... and I disagree... the smug tone is unmistakable....
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Sun 9 Mar, 2008 12:58 pm
"Smug tone." Hmm.

I don't listen to NPR so I don't know. But that seems pretty subjective. If you could get a quote or something that'd help. Right now most of what I see is oversimplifications from anti-Obama people. (Oversimplifications of the "Obama supporters are smug overeducated latte liberals" type.)
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Sun 9 Mar, 2008 01:00 pm
there's a young fellow rockin' in a thump thump car and he's smug as a commentator on NPR and our foolish government tries to save face while the whole world struggles to become one bland place
Greg Brown
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Sun 9 Mar, 2008 01:02 pm
I'm a smug overeducated latte liberal and I endorse Kucinich.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Sun 9 Mar, 2008 01:02 pm
dyslexia wrote:
there's a young fellow rockin' in a thump thump car and he's smug as a commentator on NPR and our foolish government tries to save face while the whole world struggles to become one bland place
Greg Brown


kewl.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Sun 9 Mar, 2008 01:03 pm
dyslexia wrote:
I'm a smug overeducated latte liberal and I endorse Kucinich.


and a poopity head....
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Sun 9 Mar, 2008 01:16 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
I'm a smug overeducated latte liberal and I endorse Kucinich.


and a poopity head....
well, there is that.
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Sun 9 Mar, 2008 02:24 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html?hp

The New York Times takes a look at Obama's lack of a real legislative record.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 9 Mar, 2008 02:27 pm
Why even go there? It doesn't matter how much "legislative experience" Obama has. It's about making the right choices after he gets into the white house. If we look at history, not many presidents had "legislative experience." Doesn't make them any better or worse; it's their intellect about doing it right that counts.
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 604
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.22 seconds on 06/21/2025 at 11:11:25