Obama '08?

blatham wrote:

Quote:
Murky Group Spends Hundreds of Thousands against Obama and Clinton
By Paul Kiel - March 24, 2008, 11:44AM
This election is sure to see its share of attack groups like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. But while most of the attention will be on the billionaire-backed attack organizations, there are also sure to be a number of smaller groups operating under the radar.

A group called the Republican Majority Campaign is a good example. Since January, the group has disclosed spending a total of $350,000 on phone calls against both of the Democratic presidential nominees. The FEC filings show a number of expenditures in equal amounts on the same day against both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama throughout February and March. It's an oddly unfocused strategy and one that the group declines to describe publicly in any detail.

But that's not all that's curious about the group. It's operations resemble those of groups formerly run by Linda Chavez and Christopher Gersten, although those associated with the group deny any connection with Chavez and Gerstein.

Chavez, a former Reagan administration official and President Bush's one-time nominee for Secretary of Labor (derailed by a nanny scandal), and Gersten, a former Bush administration official, ran a stable of conservative political action committees together for many years. But that stopped not long after a front-page Washington Post story, under the headline "In Fundraising's Murky Corners," exposed a troubling trend in those groups. Only about one percent of the funds were used for actual political activities such as contributions to politicians or independent political activity. The rest was cycled back into fundraising costs, "a modest but steady source of income for Chavez and four family members," and various expenses for the family associated with the groups. "I guess you could call it the family business," as Chavez put it.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/republican_majority_committee.php

If you want to play the 'whose is blackest game':

Reformer Barack inhales special-interest cash
Sen. Barack Obama, whose campaign has sharply criticized the role of outside political groups in the presidential race, has benefited more than any other candidate from millions of dollars in independent political expenditures, records show. The increasing support for Mr. Obama has given him a boost from the same sort of political activity his campaign has railed against, especially when millions of dollars in union and other special-interest money backed his opponents.

The political arm of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and other independent groups have spent more than $7.1 million directly supporting the Illinois Democrat's bid for the presidential nomination, campaign records show. By contrast, similar outside groups have spent about $5.1 million backing Sen. Hillary Clinton, New York Democrat.

Political specialists point out that Mr. Obama doesn't have any control over those expenditures because outside groups raise and spend money independent of the presidential campaigns.

"It's going to happen, regardless of what the candidates say," said James Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University.

The Obama campaign, which had been vocal in criticizing such expenditures earlier in the race, says it asked groups not to mount independent political efforts on Mr. Obama's behalf.

Citing money from "big interests," Obama campaign manager David Plouffe wrote in an e-mail to supporters last year, "Outside groups are in the process of pouring more than $3.2 million into Iowa to support Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

"Barack has repeatedly spoken out against the work of these outside groups, and this campaign does not accept any money from Washington lobbyists or PACs," he wrote.

Mr. Plouffe also reportedly told reporters in December that Mr. Obama faced a "blizzard of outside money" from groups supporting Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina, who has since dropped out of the race.

In response to questions about the latest SEIU expenditures, the campaign released a letter from Obama campaign attorney Robert Bauer to Andy Stern, president of the 1.9-million-member union. Dated Feb. 26, the letter asks SEIU to devote its "time and energies in full partnership with the official [Obama] campaign, in place of any current or planned independent activities."

The message went unheeded.

Since last week, the SEIU reported spending more than a quarter-million dollars supporting Mr. Obama through door-to-door canvassing and phone banks in Pennsylvania, which holds its primary April 22. Overall, the group has reported $4.9 million in independent expenditures for Mr. Obama, mostly during the past month.

A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton criticized the Obama response regarding outside money being spent on his behalf.

"The reality is, our political system allows for many different types of groups to play a role in the process, including third-party entities," said Clinton spokesman Phil Singer. "It only becomes a problem when one candidate criticizes another candidate, but then benefits from the very same types of expenditures, as is the case with Senator Obama, or if there is illegal coordination."

Last month, The Washington Times reported that while Mr. Obama refuses donations from federal lobbyists and paints his Democratic presidential rival as a Washington insider for accepting their contributions, he took hundreds of thousands of dollars from partners at dozens of firms that lobbied Congress in 2007.

The partners ?- who often share in a law firm's overall profits ?- gave at least $214,000 to the Obama campaign from October through December, according to a review of Federal Election Commission records and lobbying-disclosure reports with the Senate.

The SEIU accounts for more than half of the outside political money directly supporting Mr. Obama, while a new California political group called Powerpac.org has spent more than $300,000, according to a review of late independent expenditure reports filed with the Federal Election Commission since last year.

The liberal group MoveOn.org spent more than $60,000 supporting Mr. Obama.

"The work that we do ... is funded by janitors, nurses and school bus drivers, who are giving a few dollars a paycheck," SEIU spokeswoman Stephanie Mueller said. "I don't think that our members have ever thought Barack Obama wasn't grateful for the support they've been giving him."

Three groups, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and the pro-choice Emily's List, have spent more than $1 million each in support of Mrs. Clinton.

The independent political expenditures are just a fraction of what groups such as SEIU and AFSCME are spending in the campaign, said Anthony Corrado, a campaign-finance specialist and professor at Colby College in Waterville, Maine.

"They're spending millions more in terms of communicating with their own members," he said. "I think the candidates are more wary of this type of activity than is generally thought. It can produce a mixed message. Given the fact the candidates have so much money to spend, the candidates would probably rather be in control of their own message."

So far, no groups have reported any expenditures on behalf of Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who has clinched the Republican nomination, though Mr. Corrado said that will likely change during the general election.
http://theunionnews.blogspot.com/
(originally reported by WashingtonTimes)

0 Replies

Blind Faith

The statements of clergymen like Jeremiah Wright aren't controversial and incendiary; they're wicked and stupid.

By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, March 24, 2008

It's been more than a month since I began warning Sen. Barack Obama that he would become answerable for his revolting choice of a family priest. But never mind that; the astonishing thing is that it's at least 11 months since he himself has known precisely the same thing. "If Barack gets past the primary," said the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to the New York Times in April of last year, "he might have to publicly distance himself from me. I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen." Pause just for a moment, if only to admire the sheer calculating self-confidence of this. Sen. Obama has long known perfectly well, in other words, that he'd one day have to put some daylight between himself and a bigmouth Farrakhan fan. But he felt he needed his South Side Chicago "base" in the meantime. So he coldly decided to double-cross that bridge when he came to it. And now we are all supposed to marvel at the silky success of the maneuver.

You often hear it said, of some political or other opportunist, that he would sell his own grandmother if it would suit his interests. But you seldom, if ever, see this notorious transaction actually being performed, which is why I am slightly surprised that Obama got away with it so easily. (Yet why do I say I am surprised? He still gets away with absolutely everything.)

Looking for a moral equivalent to a professional demagogue who thinks that AIDS and drugs are the result of a conspiracy by the white man, Obama settled on an 85-year-old lady named Madelyn Dunham, who spent a good deal of her youth helping to raise him and who now lives alone and unwell in a condo in Honolulu. It would be interesting to know whether her charismatic grandson made her aware that he was about to touch her with his grace and make her famous in this way. By sheer good fortune, she, too, could be a part of it all and serve her turn in the great enhancement.

This flabbergasting process, made up of glibness and ruthlessness in equal proportions, rolls on unstoppably with a phalanx of reporters and men of the cloth as its accomplices. Look at the accepted choice of words for the ravings of Jeremiah Wright: controversial, incendiary, inflammatory. These are adjectives that might have been?-and were?-applied to many eloquent speakers of the early civil rights movement. (In the Washington Post, for Good Friday last, the liberal Catholic apologist E.J. Dionne lamely attempted to stretch this very comparison.) But is it "inflammatory" to say that AIDS and drugs are wrecking the black community because the white power structure wishes it? No. Nor is it "controversial." It is wicked and stupid and false to say such a thing. And it not unimportantly negates everything that Obama says he stands for by way of advocating dignity and responsibility over the sick cults of paranoia and victimhood.

That same supposed message of his is also contradicted in a different way by trying to put Geraldine Ferraro on all fours with a thug like Obama's family "pastor." Ferraro may have sounded sour when she asserted that there can be political advantages to being black in the United States?-and she said the selfsame thing about Jesse Jackson in 1984?-but it's perfectly arguable that what she said is, in fact, true, and even if it isn't true, it's absurd to try and classify it as a racist remark. No doubt Obama's slick people were looking for a revenge for Samantha Power (who, incidentally, ought never to have been let go for the useful and indeed audacious truths that she uttered in Britain), but their news-cycle solution was to cover their own queasy cowardice in that case by feigning outrage in the Ferraro matter. The consequence, which you can already feel, is an inchoate resentment among many white voters who are damned if they will be called bigots by a man who associates with Jeremiah Wright. So here we go with all that again. And this is the fresh, clean, new post-racial politics?

Now, by way of which vent or orifice is this venom creeping back into our national bloodstream? Where is hatred and tribalism and ignorance most commonly incubated, and from which platform is it most commonly yelled? If you answered "the churches" and "the pulpits," you got both answers right. The Ku Klux Klan (originally a Protestant identity movement, as many people prefer to forget) and the Nation of Islam (a black sectarian mutation of Quranic teaching) may be weak these days, but bigotry of all sorts is freely available, and openly inculcated into children, by any otherwise unemployable dirtbag who can perform the easy feat of putting Reverend in front of his name. And this clerical vileness has now reached the point of disfiguring the campaigns of both leading candidates for our presidency. If you think Jeremiah Wright is gruesome, wait until you get a load of the next Chicago "Reverend," one James Meeks, another South Side horror show with a special sideline in the baiting of homosexuals. He, too, has been an Obama supporter, and his church has been an occasional recipient of Obama's patronage. And perhaps he, too, can hope to be called "controversial" for his use of the term house nigger to describe those he doesn't like and for his view that it was "the Hollywood Jews" who brought us Brokeback Mountain. Meanwhile, the Republican nominee adorns himself with two further reverends: one named John Hagee, who thinks that the pope is the Antichrist, and another named Rod Parsley, who has declared that the United States has a mission to obliterate Islam. Is it conceivable that such repellent dolts would be allowed into public life if they were not in tax-free clerical garb? How true it is that religion poisons everything.

And what a shame. I assume you all have your copies of The Audacity of Hope in paperback breviary form. If you turn to the chapter entitled "Faith," beginning on Page 195, and read as far as Page 208, I think that even if you don't concur with my reading, you may suspect that I am onto something. In these pages, Sen. Obama is telling us that he doesn't really have any profound religious belief, but that in his early Chicago days he felt he needed to acquire some spiritual "street cred." The most excruciatingly embarrassing endorsement of this same viewpoint came last week from Abigail Thernstrom at National Review Online. Overcome by "the speech" that the divine one had given in Philadelphia, she urged us to be understanding. "Obama's description of the parishioners in his church gave white listeners a glimpse of a world of faith (with 'raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor dancing, clapping, screaming, and shouting') that has been the primary means of black survival and uplift." A glimpse, huh? What the hell next? A tribute to the African-American sense of rhythm?

To have accepted Obama's smooth apologetics is to have lowered one's own pre-existing standards for what might constitute a post-racial or a post-racist future. It is to have put that quite sober and realistic hope, meanwhile, into untrustworthy and unscrupulous hands. And it is to have done this, furthermore, in the service of blind faith. Mark my words: This disappointment is only the first of many that are still to come.

http://www.slate.com/id/2187277/pagenum/all/

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I am afraid of getting a President who will focus on the 'black agenda' and make matters worse instead of healing.

What is the 'black agenda' and how does it differ from the Democratic agenda?.

You didn't read all that stuff when it was posted (by others) several days ago either? I don't want to go back and look it up but you can if you really want to know. I am speaking of the 'black agenda' as defined by TUCC of course.

Quote:

Barack Obama wrote:
That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country.

Yup, sounds great if weighted too heavily, in my opinion, toward minorities. Yes it is a fact that too many poor/disadvantaged children are black or other minorities. It is also a fact that most poor/disadvantaged children are white. I would have been more reassured if he had referred to all children of every race/ethnicity etc. rather than divide them up into groups in his speech.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I am afraid of a President who claims to be a uniter, not a divider, but who has never voted with the GOP even once nor reached out to them in identifiable way nor co-sponsored any significant legislations shared by GOP sponsors.

Obama-Lugar. But I think you and others misunderstand him when he talks of uniting us. He's talking about uniting people, not politicians, around a common agenda.

I had forgotten about Lugar. Both pieces of legislation that I can recall though were pretty Leftist in their presentation and perspective. Don't quote me on that though because it has been quite awhile since I looked at either of them Politicians, however, are elected by the people to govern. So you can't leave them out of the equation. Also going back to the previous point, you don't unite people by separating them out into groups in your mind and in your speech either.

Quote:

Quote:
What specific evidence do you have to show that Obama is in fact the person he claims to be?

What evidence do you have that he isn't?

I have evidence of a 20 year close relationship and membership and financial investment in a church headed by a racist, anti-American bigot cited as Obama's friend, mentor, and advisor.

So again, what evidence do you have that he is?

Quote:

Also do you believe I provided competent rebuttal to your other points?

No, but I'm letting them go.[/quote]

Accepted. I doubt I would say anything that you would accept as competent rebuttal. Maybe I did once, but I can't recall.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
What danger are you afraid of? What do you think he will do as president that is so dangerous?

Foxfyre wrote:
And not only is Obama the most leftwing socialist serious candidate for President we've had in a very long time, he now has a public relations problem that I don't believe was dispelled by his speech.

So when asked what specifically you think makes Obama so dangerous, now that we've heard some controversial statements by Rev. Wright, part of your answer is that he's "the most leftwing socialist serious candidate for President we've had in a very long time"?

Asked and answered OE. I don't believe I insinuated that Rev. Wright is running for President. I also believe that if the situation were reversed, and John McCain had been a 20-year active member of John Hagee's church, had contributed heavily to it, had cited Hagee as his spiritual advisor and mentor, and had put Hagee on his campaign staff, you would not be suggesting that such circumstances should make no difference at all and shouldn't raise any question about John McCain and/or how he might govern.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

So again, what evidence do you have that he is?

No more and no less than all of his words and all of his actions.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

So again, what evidence do you have that he is?

No more and no less than all of his words and all of his actions.

Well without going into ALL his words and ALL of his actions, could you be a bit more specific and cite a couple of examples?

0 Replies

Isn't it good to see that all republicans are so pure of heart and mind?

0 Replies

ho, Christopher Hitchens wrote extensively of Henry Kissinger's war crimes. In his research he discovered evidence that backs up much of what Rev. Wright says about America. War crimes should be damned by God and everyone else. Your continuous railing against Rev. Wright is contingent on your ignoring American history which is what truly damns America. You have someone to crucify with soundbites which enables you to keep on keeping on pretending America is some kind of moral force. To do that you must ignore the truth at all costs.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I also believe that if the situation were reversed, and John McCain had been a 20-year active member of John Hagee's church, had contributed heavily to it, had cited Hagee as his spiritual advisor and mentor, and had put Hagee on his campaign staff, you would not be suggesting that such circumstances should make no difference at all and shouldn't raise any question about John McCain and/or how he might govern.

I don't think Wright is at all comparable to Hagee. It continues to be asserted that Wright is a racist, anti-American bigot but it hasn't been demonstrated, and I imagine nobody is pushing back on it because it would be a distraction. I've certainly let it stand in order to avoid getting bogged down in the muck on what exactly constitutes a racist or a bigot. Just as Imus isn't a racist for saying nappy-headed ho once, likewise Wright is not a racist for saying that the US is run by rich white people -- an inarguable fact.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
What danger are you afraid of? What do you think he will do as president that is so dangerous?

Foxfyre wrote:
And not only is Obama the most leftwing socialist serious candidate for President we've had in a very long time, he now has a public relations problem that I don't believe was dispelled by his speech.

So when asked what specifically you think makes Obama so dangerous, now that we've heard some controversial statements by Rev. Wright, part of your answer is that he's "the most leftwing socialist serious candidate for President we've had in a very long time"?

Asked and answered OE. I don't believe I insinuated that Rev. Wright is running for President.

Good. That's settled. You don't believe that Rev. Wright is running for President.

Now about the other bit: how do Rev. Wright's statements - that have been denounced by Obama - make Obama "the most leftwing socialist serious candidate for President we've had in a very long time"?

I mean, so far you've said that Wright's statements were racist and anti-American. But how do Wright's statements now make Obama "leftwing socialist"?

Explain.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
old europe wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
What danger are you afraid of? What do you think he will do as president that is so dangerous?

Foxfyre wrote:
And not only is Obama the most leftwing socialist serious candidate for President we've had in a very long time, he now has a public relations problem that I don't believe was dispelled by his speech.

So when asked what specifically you think makes Obama so dangerous, now that we've heard some controversial statements by Rev. Wright, part of your answer is that he's "the most leftwing socialist serious candidate for President we've had in a very long time"?

Asked and answered OE. I don't believe I insinuated that Rev. Wright is running for President.

Good. That's settled. You don't believe that Rev. Wright is running for President.

Now about the other bit: how do Rev. Wright's statements - that have been denounced by Obama - make Obama "the most leftwing socialist serious candidate for President we've had in a very long time"?

I mean, so far you've said that Wright's statements were racist and anti-American. But how do Wright's statements now make Obama "leftwing socialist"?

Explain.

Fox is gonna have to wing this one! I'm waiting with bated breath. LOL

0 Replies

As soon as you guys post some of what Obama's specific policies are, I would be happy to explain why they are scary. Of course that will require more then the watered down sound bites and analyst projections of what they might be.

But, for now, lets look at his website and use what's there.

Education:
"Obama will quadruple Early Head Start, increase Head Start funding and improve quality for both."
Good idea, hefty cost.

"Obama will reform NCLB, which starts by funding the law. Obama believes teachers should not be forced to spend the academic year preparing students to fill in bubbles on standardized tests. He will improve the assessments used to track student progress to measure readiness for college and the workplace and improve student learning in a timely, individualized manner. Obama will also improve NCLB's accountability system so that we are supporting schools that need improvement, rather than punishing them. "
Increased spending, moving away from accountability, throwing money at the problem.

"Obama will address the dropout crisis by passing his legislation to provide funding to school districts to invest in intervention strategies in middle school - strategies such as personal academic plans, teaching teams, parent involvement, mentoring, intensive reading and math instruction, and extended learning time."
Why not make the government schools federal schools and do away with local administrations? Again, a hefty price tag.

"Obama will double funding for the main federal support for afterschool programs, the 21st Century Learning Centers program, to serve one million more children. "
Spend, spend, spend... looks like a tax increase to me... oh boy.

"Obama will create new Teacher Service Scholarships that will cover four years of undergraduate or two years of graduate teacher education"
"He will also provide incentives to give teachers paid common planning time so they can collaborate to share best practices. "
"Obama will promote new and innovative ways to increase teacher pay that are developed with teachers, not imposed on them. "
Common theme for Obama's educational policies - SPEND MORE MONEY!

Fiscal matters:

"Obama will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but he will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers. "
Despite the fact that tax revenues are higher with the Bush tax cuts... Lets give the rich a reason to move their money offshore and out of the country again.

"Obama has called for an end to subsidies for oil and gas companies that are enjoying record profits, "
"Obama will level the playing field for all businesses by eliminating special-interest loopholes and deductions, such as those for the oil and gas industry. "

Obama is playing on the fact that gas and oil prices are high by going after them.. typical Democratic strategy. Raising taxes and cutting subsidies on them will only be passed on to the consumer. I don't want to spend $6 a gallon on gas. Do you?

Foreign Policy:

"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months."
Stupid is as stupid does I suppose. Full on civil war in Iraq in 16 months. I wonder how long before Iraq becomes a subsidary of Iran?

"The best way to press Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society - in and out of government - to seek a new accord on Iraq's Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing. "
Good luck on that one. An impossible dream and a plan for utter failure. Welcome to a single term if he wins.

"Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq's neighbors - including Iran and Syria."
Negotiating with terrorists. Great way to ensure more terrorism.

"To make diplomacy a priority, Obama will stop shuttering consulates and start opening them in the tough and hopeless corners of the world - particularly in Africa. He will expand our foreign service, and develop the capacity of our civilian aid workers to work alongside the military. "
Hey, want a suicide mission in Mozambique? Obama has a job for you...

"Obama will embrace the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty around the world in half by 2015, and he will double our foreign assistance to $50 billion to achieve that goal."
Oh good, more spending...

"Obama will crack down on nuclear proliferation by strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so that countries like North Korea and Iran that break the rules will automatically face strong international sanctions. "
Because previous sanctions have worked so well...

"Building a 21st Century Military"
Basically undoing the 8 years that Clinton spent reducing the military to 9/11 levels.

"Obama will reverse President Bush's policy of secrecy. He will institute a National Declassification Center to make declassification secure but routine, efficient, and cost-effective."
Terrorists have the internet too.

There are a lot more, but the common theme throughout is spend, spend, SPEND!

Now, don't get me wrong, I like Obama. far more then Clinton, but I do not think he will be a good President. He will most likly have a democratic majority in both houses and if you think the budget is in a deficit now... just wait for 4 years of this uncontrolled spending.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:

So again, what evidence do you have that he is?

No more and no less than all of his words and all of his actions.

Well without going into ALL his words and ALL of his actions, could you be a bit more specific and cite a couple of examples?

To prove what, that he is who he says he is? He says he was a community organizer -- the facts show that he was. He was a state senator for years and years and does not have a record for working with Black Panthers or launching investigations into whether or not the US infected black people with AIDS. He is a US senator, same story. He wrote two books about his life, neither of which are disputed in any way. He has and continues to tell us who he is and what he thinks is important and all of his actions have been consistent with that. You can't counter all of that by saying, well, he was close with the pastor of a church who said some whacky things, things which Obama has consistently and emphatically said he disagrees with.

What about who he says he is is actually in question?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
old europe wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
What danger are you afraid of? What do you think he will do as president that is so dangerous?

Foxfyre wrote:
And not only is Obama the most leftwing socialist serious candidate for President we've had in a very long time, he now has a public relations problem that I don't believe was dispelled by his speech.

So when asked what specifically you think makes Obama so dangerous, now that we've heard some controversial statements by Rev. Wright, part of your answer is that he's "the most leftwing socialist serious candidate for President we've had in a very long time"?

Asked and answered OE. I don't believe I insinuated that Rev. Wright is running for President.

Good. That's settled. You don't believe that Rev. Wright is running for President.

Now about the other bit: how do Rev. Wright's statements - that have been denounced by Obama - make Obama "the most leftwing socialist serious candidate for President we've had in a very long time"?

I mean, so far you've said that Wright's statements were racist and anti-American. But how do Wright's statements now make Obama "leftwing socialist"?

Explain.

Go back and reread what I said. I didn't say that Rev. Wright's association with Obama makes him the most leftwing socialist serious candidate for President we've had in a very long time. His voting record and what he has so far proposed for the country are evidence for that. I think the last figures I saw put the cost of Obama's first year proposals for new initiatives at something like $276 billion? And I don't think that included the ongoing costs of entitlements that would be put into effect through his healthcare proposals, etc.

Rev. Wright is a PR problem for Obama on top of all the rest.

0 Replies

McGentrix, Bushie is the biggest spender in history by far. Obama could never throw anywhere the kind of money where it's needed that Bushie has thrown at a needless war of choice.

0 Replies

Foxy,

you've stated that now, after you've heard statement from Rev. Wright, you've come to see Obama as dangerous. Here. Your statement.

Foxfyre wrote:

You're right that those who would not have voted for Obama anyway will not be persuaded to vote for him at this point. But voters like me, and I don't think I'm atypical, who were not excessively concerned about Obama and didn't fear him as President are now taking a much closer second look. I didn't think there was any force out there strong enough to make me prefer Hillary to Obama. But now I'm wondering if she might not be the less dangerous choice. Obama did not reassure me.

When asked about why you see Obama as a more dangerous choice now, your answer is

Foxfyre wrote:

Rev. Wright is a PR problem for Obama on top of all the rest.

Does this mean that the whole turmoil about Rev. Wright (that you consider nothing more as a PR problem) made you go look at Obama's actual platform, and you came away with the impression that he was the most leftwing socialist candidate in years - and that's what you see as dangerous?

Are you saying that Obama's statements after the whole turmoil about Rev. Wright (that you consider nothing more as a PR problem) did not reassure you that he is not a dangerous leftwing socialist?

I thought you were worried about the fact that Rev. Wright was an anti-American racist?

What exactly is it?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

But, for now, lets look at his website and use what's there.

Education:
"Obama will quadruple Early Head Start, increase Head Start funding and improve quality for both."
Good idea, hefty cost.

Money well spent. As a taxpayer, this is where I want my money to go.

Quote:

"Obama will reform NCLB, which starts by funding the law. Obama believes teachers should not be forced to spend the academic year preparing students to fill in bubbles on standardized tests. He will improve the assessments used to track student progress to measure readiness for college and the workplace and improve student learning in a timely, individualized manner. Obama will also improve NCLB's accountability system so that we are supporting schools that need improvement, rather than punishing them. "
Increased spending, moving away from accountability, throwing money at the problem.

Again, this is where I want my money to go.

Quote:

"Obama will address the dropout crisis by passing his legislation to provide funding to school districts to invest in intervention strategies in middle school - strategies such as personal academic plans, teaching teams, parent involvement, mentoring, intensive reading and math instruction, and extended learning time."
Why not make the government schools federal schools and do away with local administrations? Again, a hefty price tag.

Define "hefty".

Quote:

"Obama will double funding for the main federal support for afterschool programs, the 21st Century Learning Centers program, to serve one million more children. "
Spend, spend, spend... looks like a tax increase to me... oh boy.

After school programs are an important extension of education.

Quote:

"Obama will create new Teacher Service Scholarships that will cover four years of undergraduate or two years of graduate teacher education"
"He will also provide incentives to give teachers paid common planning time so they can collaborate to share best practices. "
"Obama will promote new and innovative ways to increase teacher pay that are developed with teachers, not imposed on them. "
Common theme for Obama's educational policies - SPEND MORE MONEY!

We have no choice but to invest in education for our people if we are to remain competitive in a global economy and have good future leaders of our country.

Quote:

Fiscal matters:

"Obama will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but he will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers. "
Despite the fact that tax revenues are higher with the Bush tax cuts... Lets give the rich a reason to move their money offshore and out of the country again.

So you say we have a choice between not taking money from the rich or them moving their money offshore? Sounds like either way we won't get anything from them. So why not go back to pre-Bush levels and at least some, like Warren Buffet will pay.

Quote:

"Obama has called for an end to subsidies for oil and gas companies that are enjoying record profits, "
"Obama will level the playing field for all businesses by eliminating special-interest loopholes and deductions, such as those for the oil and gas industry. "

Obama is playing on the fact that gas and oil prices are high by going after them.. typical Democratic strategy. Raising taxes and cutting subsidies on them will only be passed on to the consumer. I don't want to spend $6 a gallon on gas. Do you?

No, not really. By ending the subsidies they have to compete in a truly free market, which means new innovations in alternative fuels and more efficient cars. I thought you were a conservative.

Quote:

Foreign Policy:

"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months."
Stupid is as stupid does I suppose. Full on civil war in Iraq in 16 months. I wonder how long before Iraq becomes a subsidary of Iran?

Seeing as how we gave it to them wrapped in a bow, I don't think we can really complain about that.

Quote:

"The best way to press Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society - in and out of government - to seek a new accord on Iraq's Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing. "
Good luck on that one. An impossible dream and a plan for utter failure. Welcome to a single term if he wins.

So it can't be done? If it can't be done, why are we still there?

Quote:

"Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq's neighbors - including Iran and Syria."
Negotiating with terrorists. Great way to ensure more terrorism.

Iran and Syria are not terrorists, they are nations.

I was going to keep going but it's getting long and my responses will pretty much be the same for each item. I have something else to say to you, but I need to wait a few posts.

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

ho, Christopher Hitchens wrote extensively of Henry Kissinger's war crimes. In his research he discovered evidence that backs up much of what Rev. Wright says about America. War crimes should be damned by God and everyone else. Your continuous railing against Rev. Wright is contingent on your ignoring American history which is what truly damns America. You have someone to crucify with soundbites which enables you to keep on keeping on pretending America is some kind of moral force. To do that you must ignore the truth at all costs.

Blueflame, you rail every chance you get that you agree with Wright. We get it. Obama's problem is a question of judgment and inaction. I promise you that most thinking Americans are not going to buy into Wright's deliberate lie that rich whites invented HIV/AIDS as a way to wipe out the black race. Good luck with that.

If Obama is outraged at the things he now says he is hearing for the first time, that's another flaw on his part. If I had heard anything controversial (especially the bigotry displayed by Wright) from my pastor, my first act would have been to investigate to see just what else he might be wrong about. Obama had 20 years to do that and chose not to. Instead he shrugs him off as an old cranky uncle. And guess what? His new pastor is just as bad as Wright - let's please do start a countdown to how long before he's also banished from Obama's website and life.

Spare me any more of your lectures (I've had plenty from Obama) that Wright is right. The voters in this country will decide if Obama is the type of leader they want for the next four years. Obama has already proven he doesn't have two of the credentials many look for in a president - judgment and character. Don't rail back "the other side is just as bad", please (although I know you will). Again, the voters will make up their own minds.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxy,

you've stated that now, after you've heard statement from Rev. Wright, you've come to see Obama as dangerous. Here. Your statement.

Foxfyre wrote:
You're right that those who would not have voted for Obama anyway will not be persuaded to vote for him at this point. But voters like me, and I don't think I'm atypical, who were not excessively concerned about Obama and didn't fear him as President are now taking a much closer second look. I didn't think there was any force out there strong enough to make me prefer Hillary to Obama. But now I'm wondering if she might not be the less dangerous choice. Obama did not reassure me.

When asked about why you see Obama as a more dangerous choice now, your answer is

Foxfyre wrote:
Rev. Wright is a PR problem for Obama on top of all the rest.

Does this mean that the whole turmoil about Rev. Wright (that you consider nothing more as a PR problem) made you go look at Obama's actual platform, and you came away with the impression that he was the most leftwing socialist candidate in years - and that's what you see as dangerous?

Are you saying that Obama's statements after the whole turmoil about Rev. Wright (that you consider nothing more as a PR problem) did not reassure you that he is not a dangerous leftwing socialist?

I thought you were worried about the fact that Rev. Wright was an anti-American racist?

What exactly is it?

OE, I have explained it as best as I can. Yes I fear any anti-American socialist being President in America. I don't know that Obama is anti-American, but within the whole Jeremiah Wright flap, he has said nothing to reassure me that he does in fact disagree with Jeremiah Wright's pro-Africa, anti-American point of view. He can't seem to bring himself to state specifically what he does think about those things that he says he disagrees with Pastor Wright about. That is what he is going to have to do to deal with the questions about his real views that have been raised by this whole Jeremiah Wright flap. Up until that Jeremiah Wright, flap, however, I had no reason to even think about or wonder what Barack Obama's heartfelt attitudes about his country might be.

His being a liberal socialist is a whole separate issue unrelated to Jeremiah Wright. It was his voting record and the heavy on government control programs he has advocated in his campaign rhetoric that convinced me that he would not be my choice for President. And I came to that conclusion long before I knew there was a Jeremiah Wright.

0 Replies

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

[ Obama has already proven he doesn't have two of the credentials many look for in a president - judgment and character.

You're a joke.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know