Obama '08?

Back on topic, per TPM:

Quote:

Report: Bush Officials Not Happy About Possible Obama Speech At Brandenburg Gate
By Greg Sargent - July 10, 2008, 3:48PM

There's been an interesting twist in the ongoing behind-the-scenes discussions over whether Barack Obama will deliver a speech on July 24th at Berlin's historically-charged Brandenburg Gate.

A new report in the German press says that Bush administration officials are unhappy with the idea and privately said as much to representatives of Chancellor Angela Merkel.

The whole thing started when Der Spiegel reported the other day that Obama would be visiting Berlin on July 24th, stirring speculation that he wanted to speak before the Gate, a place that's associated with JFK and Ronald Reagan, symbolizes the end of the Cold War, and would give Obama's speech a great deal of historical resonance.

The Obama campaign has been tight-lipped about his plans, saying that he has "considered several sites for a possible speech." Meanwhile, Merkel has reacted with coolness to the idea.

Now Der Spiegel has added a new twist to the tale.

From the mag...

The respected Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper reported this week that a member of the Bush delegation approached Merkel's foreign policy advisor, Christoph Heusgen, at the G-8 summit in Japan to discuss misgivings about Obama's planned speech. The government is also acting out of respect for Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who has long enjoyed strong ties to Germany and good personal relationships with a number of high-level government officials in Berlin.

The report is unconfirmed, and the paper cited here doesn't have an English translation, but Der Spiegel describes it as "respected." If Bush officials are privately trying to nix a speech that would give Obama a major boost it's an interesting development and raises more questions, such as whether the administration is possibly letting efforts to help McCain intrude on back-channel diplomacy in other areas.

I really hope this is true, I honestly do. For Bush could not have handed Obama a bigger gift, then to start meddling in the election at this point. Obama's camp will run with this thing a looooong way, and it's not going to reflect well on Bush or McCain; it shows fear on their part.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I don't think you hit the rim, Kicky. Try going back and rereading the exchange and I have hopes that you have enough sense to see that.

And taking a cue from McCain's playbook, maybe I should explain, not that I think you are capable of being fair as I never saw you criticize CI when he makes a pointed ad hominem insult much as you do.

I think you would be hard put to find anybody on this forum who has stated that they are considering or have decided to vote for McCain who is really happy with him. McG might be the one closest to that as he has been a McCain supporter ever since I've been on A2K. I rather suspect you won't find a single one who is not critical of McCain in some aspect, however, and most of us are critical in several aspects. I think there is probably not one of us who has not observed the flipflops and commented on them and also criticized issues that he has not flipflopped on. So Cyclops accusation is a lie, intended or unintended, on the face of it.

It simply does not follow that if you don't criticize both in the same post, criticism of one is a blanket endorsement of the one not criticized.

The frequency of your criticisms of McCain is somewhere around, but not actually, zero. You focus quite a bit of fire on his opponent, and rarely if ever have a harsh word for McCain at all.

Given that you understand that McCain has the same, if not worse, aspects of position-changing that Obama does, why have you not called attention to this issue? I mean, we know the answer: because he is a fellow Republican, and you don't really care that he's changed positions, just as you don't really care that Obama has; it's just an attack you think you can levy, is all.

It's the entire ethos of the Conservative movement at this point: flail about until we find an attack which can touch this Obama guy!

Cycloptichorn

Another opinion you can't back up with anything other than you want to believe it, Cyclop? I believe you will find at least one post on A2K referencing every single problem I have with McCain and there are quite a few of them. I'm not positive about that since I haunt several different boards and this stuff gets discussed on all of them but if you haven't seen my criticisms of McCain you just flat haven't looked.

I rather thought it more appropriate to discuss Obama on an Obama thread, however, and less appropriate to discuss McCain on an Obama thread. But that's just me.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I don't think you hit the rim, Kicky. Try going back and rereading the exchange and I have hopes that you have enough sense to see that.

And taking a cue from McCain's playbook, maybe I should explain, not that I think you are capable of being fair as I never saw you criticize CI when he makes a pointed ad hominem insult much as you do.

I think you would be hard put to find anybody on this forum who has stated that they are considering or have decided to vote for McCain who is really happy with him. McG might be the one closest to that as he has been a McCain supporter ever since I've been on A2K. I rather suspect you won't find a single one who is not critical of McCain in some aspect, however, and most of us are critical in several aspects. I think there is probably not one of us who has not observed the flipflops and commented on them and also criticized issues that he has not flipflopped on. So Cyclops accusation is a lie, intended or unintended, on the face of it.

It simply does not follow that if you don't criticize both in the same post, criticism of one is a blanket endorsement of the one not criticized.

The frequency of your criticisms of McCain is somewhere around, but not actually, zero. You focus quite a bit of fire on his opponent, and rarely if ever have a harsh word for McCain at all.

Given that you understand that McCain has the same, if not worse, aspects of position-changing that Obama does, why have you not called attention to this issue? I mean, we know the answer: because he is a fellow Republican, and you don't really care that he's changed positions, just as you don't really care that Obama has; it's just an attack you think you can levy, is all.

It's the entire ethos of the Conservative movement at this point: flail about until we find an attack which can touch this Obama guy!

Cycloptichorn

Another opinion you can't back up with anything other than you want to believe it, Cyclop? I believe you will find at least one post on A2K referencing every single problem I have with McCain and there are quite a few of them. I'm not positive about that since I haunt several different boards and this stuff gets discussed on all of them but if you haven't seen my criticisms of McCain you just flat haven't looked.

I rather thought it more appropriate to discuss Obama on an Obama thread, however, and less appropriate to discuss McCain on an Obama thread. But that's just me.

Sure, I'm sure you do have one or two posts criticizing McCain; and hundreds criticizing Obama. Therefore, this line:

Quote:

The frequency of your criticisms of McCain is somewhere around, but not actually, zero.

Is absolutely correct.

Now, we could discuss McCain, but tell me: which thread is appropriate to do that in? I have a 'case against John McCain' thread, but you never post in there; can't discuss things when a person refuses to do so.

In fact, how much time would you say you have spent discussing McCain in toto in the last few months? For it seems hardly any at all, positive or negative. In fact, with the exception of Hanno, hardly any Conservatives here ever mention McCain. It's all attack on Obama All the Time with you bunch; and this is the exact sort of stuff that you and others accused people of doing towards Bush in 2004 (and there was some validity to that). I'm going to have to start accusing you of ODS pretty soon.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclo wrote: It's all attack on Obama All the Time with you bunch; and this is the exact sort of stuff that you and others accused people of doing towards Bush in 2004 (and there was some validity to that). I'm going to have to start accusing you of ODS pretty soon.

Proves kicky's point very well.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I don't think you hit the rim, Kicky. Try going back and rereading the exchange and I have hopes that you have enough sense to see that.

And taking a cue from McCain's playbook, maybe I should explain, not that I think you are capable of being fair as I never saw you criticize CI when he makes a pointed ad hominem insult much as you do.

I think you would be hard put to find anybody on this forum who has stated that they are considering or have decided to vote for McCain who is really happy with him. McG might be the one closest to that as he has been a McCain supporter ever since I've been on A2K. I rather suspect you won't find a single one who is not critical of McCain in some aspect, however, and most of us are critical in several aspects. I think there is probably not one of us who has not observed the flipflops and commented on them and also criticized issues that he has not flipflopped on. So Cyclops accusation is a lie, intended or unintended, on the face of it.

It simply does not follow that if you don't criticize both in the same post, criticism of one is a blanket endorsement of the one not criticized.

The frequency of your criticisms of McCain is somewhere around, but not actually, zero. You focus quite a bit of fire on his opponent, and rarely if ever have a harsh word for McCain at all.

Given that you understand that McCain has the same, if not worse, aspects of position-changing that Obama does, why have you not called attention to this issue? I mean, we know the answer: because he is a fellow Republican, and you don't really care that he's changed positions, just as you don't really care that Obama has; it's just an attack you think you can levy, is all.

It's the entire ethos of the Conservative movement at this point: flail about until we find an attack which can touch this Obama guy!

Cycloptichorn

Another opinion you can't back up with anything other than you want to believe it, Cyclop? I believe you will find at least one post on A2K referencing every single problem I have with McCain and there are quite a few of them. I'm not positive about that since I haunt several different boards and this stuff gets discussed on all of them but if you haven't seen my criticisms of McCain you just flat haven't looked.

I rather thought it more appropriate to discuss Obama on an Obama thread, however, and less appropriate to discuss McCain on an Obama thread. But that's just me.

Sure, I'm sure you do have one or two posts criticizing McCain; and hundreds criticizing Obama. Therefore, this line:

Quote:

The frequency of your criticisms of McCain is somewhere around, but not actually, zero.

Is absolutely correct.

Now, we could discuss McCain, but tell me: which thread is appropriate to do that in? I have a 'case against John McCain' thread, but you never post in there; can't discuss things when a person refuses to do so.

In fact, how much time would you say you have spent discussing McCain in toto in the last few months? For it seems hardly any at all, positive or negative. In fact, with the exception of Hanno, hardly any Conservatives here ever mention McCain. It's all attack on Obama All the Time with you bunch; and this is the exact sort of stuff that you and others accused people of doing towards Bush in 2004 (and there was some validity to that). I'm going to have to start accusing you of ODS pretty soon.

Cycloptichorn

On all the boards I post on? I've discussed McCain a whole lot more than I have posted about Obama, especially before the primary was settled. I was 100% opposed to McCain winning that primary. I personally want neither McCain nor Obama to be President, but given a choice between the two, I trust McCain more. I haven't spent much time complimenting him either, but I have stated my reasons why I prefer him to Obama.

I have complimented Obama whenever I thought he merited a compliment and that has been several different times. How much time would you say you have spent complimenting McCain?

What would be your best guess of the ratio of your posts criticizing McCain compared to your posts complimenting McCain? What you you estimate as the ratio of your posts criticizing Obama compared to your posts criticizing McCain? What would you estimate as the ratio of your posts criticizing Obama compared to your posts defending or advocating him?

Once we decide who is the better choice to be president, it is natural to be an advocate as much as possible. The difference between Obama and McCain, however, is that McCain is much more of an open book. He's been around for a very long time now and there isn't much that we don't know about him. There is little or no curiosity. Obama is a closed book and a mystery. There is very much we don't know about him, there are many efforts to keep us from finding out, and he isn't helping us know him better much at all.

I haven't started a single thread anywhere opposing Obama, nor have I started a single thread supporting McCain. Perhaps you think it inappropriate to post criticism of Obama on an Obama thread that is heavily stacked with Obama supporters/worshipers/advocates? I can certainly understand that and will graciously withdraw from the thread if that is what the Obama supporters want.

Meanwhile the last time I posted on one of your threads, you ordered my opinion off the thread. That was cool. You called it as you saw it. That isn't a lot of incentive to post on your threads, however, so I don't.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

They're not called "neocons" for nut'n. They love war.

You are such a jackass.

Sure I love war, on someone else's turf.... if it weren't there, it would be here. Prove me wrong. Deny 9/11. Tell me all about it jerk.

0 Replies

Quote:

Perhaps you think it inappropriate to post criticism of Obama on an Obama thread that is heavily stacked with Obama supporters/worshipers/advocates? I can certainly understand that and will graciously withdraw from the thread if that is what the Obama supporters want.

No, I do not think that it is inappropriate for you to comment upon Obama here or anywhere else. It isn't about whether or not your actions are 'appropriate'; it's about the nature of the comments, and the nature of the person making them.

When you post a piece whose thesis posits that politicians shifting their positions is a dangerous thing, and something which is troubling towards considering voting for them, and one of the politicians in this race is clearly far more guilty of this then the other - and you save all your concern for the other side? It come off a little hollow. My claim is that the shifting positions do not, cannot, bother you that much, or you would be more virulently anti-McCain then I; or at least, you would have a few words to say about it, one would think. The silence would seem to indicate that you care about this issue only as far as it can be used to forward a partisan attack against Obama.

So to myself and others, your comments are extremely unpersuasive on this issue. This happens to all of us from time to time, and I'm sure you've felt the same way towards arguments that A2K Liberals (including myself) have put forward... therefore my question: what do you think about McCain's record in such matters?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I think McCain has been 100% dishonest in his immigration platform and that he is currently attempting to correct that and become credible and I still don't trust him on that issue. I think he did flipflop on the the Bush tax cuts; however I accept his explanation that he voted against them because he thought they were irresponsible in the face of runaway spending; and I accept his explanation that he would keep them because they are producing more treasury revenues than will be produced if they are repealed. I thought McCain was wrong when he voted against an amendment to nail down the definition of marriage and I think the failure of that has contributed to failure to provide necessary provision and protections that same sex couples and others who cannot or do not wish to marry need. I think McCain has been and is right on Iraq and national security; I think he was/is wrong on Guatanamo, I was 100% opposed to McCain/Feingold, and I think he has been wrong headed in coziness with Democrats and failure to adequately support some good GOP initiatives. I think he right on earmarks and right to start cutting back on the spending glut in Congress immediately.

And all of this, and comments on other issues, I have said many times over at this point.

0 Replies

The mentality of a neocon:

GOP Leader Boehner: If We Defeat Al Qaeda, "We" Will Have Paid "A Small Price" In Iraq
September 12, 2007 -- 4:18 PM EST // //
Okay, if this isn't portrayed as a major gaffe, with wall-to-wall condemnations from the pundits, it'll be stunning. (Editor's note: That was meant to be bitterly ironic.)

I've just received some advance excerpts of an interview CNN's Wolf Blitzer has done with GOP House leader John Boehner. It's set to air this afternoon. Take a look at this chunk:

BLITZER: How much longer will U.S. taxpayers have to shell out $2 billion a week or $3 billion a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure? The loss in blood, the Americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment is going to require?

BOEHNER: I think General Petraeus outlined it pretty clearly. We're making success. We need to firm up those successes. We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we're making today will be a small price if we're able to stop al Qaeda here, if we're able to stabilize the Middle East, it's not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids.

Note that Boehner is specifically answering a question about troop deaths here -- which he calls a "small price," should we win the war.

This is an obvious point, but it bears making again, anyway: It's really uncanny how often those who aren't sacrificing anything for the Iraq war, aside for perhaps their health in the polls, are willing to...

(a) Describe the very real sacrifice being made by others as not being such a big deal

...while simultaneously...

(b) Describing the sacrifice others are making as their own.

Also, it bears pointing out that Boehner's overall thought here -- that we'll have made a small sacrifice "if we're able to stabilize the Middle East"-- is a pretty big "if." Of course, if you're not really sacrificing anything in the quest to realize this big "if," then there's not much to be lost in going for it even if it is a real long shot, now is there.

0 Replies

Quote:

cicerone imposter

The mentality of a neocon:

It has been my experience that people who use that word are not very bright.

0 Replies

I'm not, so quit reading my post; makes you look dumber.

0 Replies

Record voter interest in US presidential campaign: poll
Published: Thursday July 10, 2008

Record numbers of American voters are keenly following the campaign for the White House, auguring for a much higher turnout in November than in previous elections, the Pew Research think-tank said Thursday.

"Turnout is likely to be higher this fall -- perhaps much higher than in previous elections -- as voter interest continues at record levels," Pew said in a statement posted on its website.

And with more Democrats turning out to vote in the primaries than Republicans, the spike in interest was likely to work in favor of Barack Obama's Democratic Party, Pew said.

"Strong and consistent interest and engagement suggests that voter turnout will likely be high in November, as it was during this year's primaries... Democratic turnout could match or perhaps exceed Republican participation in November, just as it did in most states during the primaries," Pew said.

Seventy-two percent of the 2,004 Americans surveyed last month by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press said they are giving "a lot of thought" to the election.

That is "by far the highest percentage at this point in the campaign since 1988," exceeding enthusiasm levels than during the five previous presidential campaigns, Pew wrote.

Seventy-seven percent of Democrats, or 18 percentage points more than in the same month four years ago, said they were giving a great deal of thought to the election, the Pew poll showed.

"Republican engagement also has increased over this period (from 61 percent to 72 percent), but for the first time somewhat fewer GOP voters than Democrats say they are giving a lot of thought to the election," Pew said.

Democratic voters are also more committed to their party's presumed candidate, Obama, than Republican voters are to John McCain, the poll showed.

"Most voters who say they support Obama -- 28 percent out of 48 percent -- say they support him strongly. By contrast, only about a third of McCain's backers say they support him strongly (14 percent of 40 percent)," the Washington-based think-tank said.
link

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
They're not called "neocons" for nut'n. They love war.

You are such a jackass.

Sure I love war, on someone else's turf.... if it weren't there, it would be here. Prove me wrong. Deny 9/11. Tell me all about it jerk.

You are an embarrassment to the country.

T
K
O

0 Replies

So I learned a new rhetorical concept called the "If-by-whiskey." It is the attempt to tailor one's argument based off of what others say. Basically, it's talking out of both sides of the mouth.

It seems that conservatives are framing Obama as...

1) Having Republican ideas; moving to the center; not what democrats voted for (an assumption that they even know what that is).

and

2) Being an ultra-liberal-super-far-left-socialist; typical democrat; nothing new to offer from that side.

It seems that this is a classical if-by-whiskey. If you are a far left, they want you to feel betrayed by his centrist motion. If you are a moderate liberal, they want him to be super extreme, and want to ask where is the bi-partisanship he offered?

It seems the arguments coming from the right have less to do with Obama, and more to do with what progressives want from their candidate.

Meanwhile, McCain is still lacking in voter support. I'm perfectly content with the right attacking Obama. I honestly can't wait for the next reverend-swift-boat-of-honor attack.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest wrote: Meanwhile, McCain is still lacking in voter support. I'm perfectly content with the right attacking Obama. I honestly can't wait for the next reverend-swift-boat-of-honor attack.

And you won't have to wait too long; promise.

0 Replies

I'm just excited about what the next super-catchy phrase will be. If republicans were born for anything, it's PR and advertising.

They are geniuses at that for sure.
K
O

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I don't think you hit the rim, Kicky. Try going back and rereading the exchange and I have hopes that you have enough sense to see that.

And taking a cue from McCain's playbook, maybe I should explain, not that I think you are capable of being fair as I never saw you criticize CI when he makes a pointed ad hominem insult much as you do.

I think you would be hard put to find anybody on this forum who has stated that they are considering or have decided to vote for McCain who is really happy with him. McG might be the one closest to that as he has been a McCain supporter ever since I've been on A2K. I rather suspect you won't find a single one who is not critical of McCain in some aspect, however, and most of us are critical in several aspects. I think there is probably not one of us who has not observed the flipflops and commented on them and also criticized issues that he has not flipflopped on. So Cyclops accusation is a lie, intended or unintended, on the face of it.

It simply does not follow that if you don't criticize both in the same post, criticism of one is a blanket endorsement of the one not criticized.

The frequency of your criticisms of McCain is somewhere around, but not actually, zero. You focus quite a bit of fire on his opponent, and rarely if ever have a harsh word for McCain at all.

Given that you understand that McCain has the same, if not worse, aspects of position-changing that Obama does, why have you not called attention to this issue? I mean, we know the answer: because he is a fellow Republican, and you don't really care that he's changed positions, just as you don't really care that Obama has; it's just an attack you think you can levy, is all.

It's the entire ethos of the Conservative movement at this point: flail about until we find an attack which can touch this Obama guy!

Cycloptichorn

Another opinion you can't back up with anything other than you want to believe it, Cyclop? I believe you will find at least one post on A2K referencing every single problem I have with McCain and there are quite a few of them. I'm not positive about that since I haunt several different boards and this stuff gets discussed on all of them but if you haven't seen my criticisms of McCain you just flat haven't looked.

I rather thought it more appropriate to discuss Obama on an Obama thread, however, and less appropriate to discuss McCain on an Obama thread. But that's just me.

But it's okay for YOU to discuss McCain on an Obama thread! :wink:

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
They're not called "neocons" for nut'n. They love war.

You are such a jackass.

Sure I love war, on someone else's turf.... if it weren't there, it would be here. Prove me wrong. Deny 9/11. Tell me all about it jerk.

Talk about being a jackass.

To love war is an abomination. I agree war is sometimes necessary but it should never be taken lightly as McCain does or gleeful the way you seem to.

Second, we should not want Iraqis to have live in a war torn country anymore than we want ourselves to live in a war torn country. Anyone who makes that statement reveals a telling callousness for life and peace for others.

But most of all, Iraq and 9/11 are in no way related and never have been despite your type trying to make it so all these many years. All the arguments made in opposition the previous statement can be made about a lot of countries over in that area, namely Pakistan, yet you all never talk or have talked about invading them.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
They're not called "neocons" for nut'n. They love war.

You are such a jackass.

Sure I love war, on someone else's turf.... if it weren't there, it would be here. Prove me wrong. Deny 9/11. Tell me all about it jerk.

Talk about being a jackass.

To love war is an abomination. I agree war is sometimes necessary but it should never be taken lightly as McCain does or gleeful the way you seem to.

Second, we should not want Iraqis to have live in a war torn country anymore than we want ourselves to live in a war torn country. Anyone who makes that statement reveals a telling callousness for life and peace for others.

But most of all, Iraq and 9/11 are in no way related and never have been despite your type trying to make it so all these many years. All the arguments made in opposition the previous statement can be made about a lot of countries over in that area, namely Pakistan, yet you all never talk or have talked about invading them.

War is hell, anywhere! Cool

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know