|
| Posted by: Mattinglyinthehall
- [37838313] Sat, Apr 12, 2008, 16:42
Part 1 was approaching 600 posts. |
| | | 1 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sat, Apr 12, 2008, 16:46
|
Boxman
I'm going to respond here to your post #20 in the Audacity of Hope thread. Tree started that thread to discuss Obama's book and a discussion like this is certain to mire it in off-topic distractions. Since we're more specifically discussing Obama, himself (as opposed to the book) this discussion is more apropriate here, anyway.
So, point by point, returned.
One need look no further than the MSMs love affair with him. The Rev. Wright scandal would have been the death kneel of most politicians, but The Great Leader avoided the killing blow.
I strongly disagree with your contention that MSM took it easy on Obama over Rev Wright. There was more than a solid week where you couldn't watch any cable news program for 30 min without seeing any of Rev Wright's greatest hits. On April 4th, Progressive Review claimed their research found 17,258 mentions of Rev. Wright and Barack Obama. Further, at least some of Wright's statements were presented by MSM in dubious context, repeatedly airing snippets that make some of his quotes sound much worse than intended. Surely if the media were taking it easy on Obama through the Wright scandal, they would have spent time making excuses for him. Can you find a MSM news report (not an opinion piece or points from an on-air discussion) that attempts to soften any or Wright's rhetoric? I sure don't recall any.
Another strong challenge to the notion that Obama receives preferred media attention over the other candidates came this week, when MSM allowed the Clinton and McCain campaigns to mischaracterize some of his statements in San Francisco on Sunday with no attempt to correct the record. Understand that I'm not crying foul here as I realize that McCain has dealt with a similar mischaracterization over his '100 years in Iraq' statement, just pointing out that Obama isn't being treated any better.
Further, to my knowledge, the Wright scandal is the first time in history that a politician has ever been so strongly attacked for his association with a religious leader, and not for lack of opportunity. For example, the media has made very little of the Bush family's close ties with Rev. Sun Myung Moon.
I have to admit, I have a very hard time being told I have blinders on by someone who cites the Jeremiah Wright scandal as an example of "MSMs love affair" with Obama. Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani all have close ties with highly questionable figures and MSM has not approached coverage of those relationships anything like the coverage of Jeremiah Wright.
Do you really believe that The Great Leader did not [base?] his opinions on issues and the words that he has said?
Of course some of Obama's rhetoric and ideas have come from Wright, most notably But not from any of Wright's most dubious statements, as far as I know. Of course some of Obama's opinions and rhetoric have come from Wright, most notably, his 1990 sermon, which Obama pulled the title of his book from. If you haven't read it, I reccommend that you do. I'll note here that of all the Rev. Wright clips I've seen on TV, I've never seen MSM play any excerpts from that sermon, which would seem strange if I believed they were protecting him from scandal on the Rev. Wright story.
Also, I'll note here that I'm trying to respond to your post in a respectful manner. So I'd appreciate it if you'd do the same. Mocking Obama supporters by continuing to refer to him as "Great Leader" while addressing someone whom you know is an Obama supporter is deliberately insulting. It's difficult to take post like #8 in the Audacity of Hope thread very seriously when you enter the discussion by insulting everyone in your first post. Further, name-calling is juvenile. You'd have to go back years to find a post where I refer to President Bush as shrub or any similar derogatory nickname. I was called out by Madman years ago over that and he was right. I know you're not the only one who does it but I'm making an effort here with you and I'm respectfully asking you to do the same.
Back to the topic:
He talks about "change" and other vague-alities.
Of course you know that vagueness is standard MO for any political candidate. GW Bush's 2000 campaign was a clinic in that regard, responding to Gore's challenges of his extensive budget proposals with "fuzzy math" and no elaborations necessary. That said, I believe a very strong case can be made that Obama offered more policy proposal specicifics earlier than has McCain. This isn't something I've researched and it would take some vetting to show decisively but especially on economic issues, McCain has also been rather light on substance. Right leaning MSM takes Obama to task for this perceived lack of specifics. I've not seen the same criticism of McCain from either side of the media aisle.
Yes I know it's been attempted to explain his specific positions on issues. Yet I find nothing but lies and hypocrisy with him.
If you really believe Obama offers only lies and hypocrisy then I'll request some examples of this dishonesty. What lies has Obama told? I'd also like to kow what your questions are regarding the specifics of his policy proposals. Through a 600 post Obama thread, you only raised one question regarding any of his policies (gun control).
[Obama's] followers love him because he's a uniter. What issues will he unite us that both parties are equally represented?
The first issue that comes to mind for me is that he has stated he will appoint Republicans to his cabinet. But I think some strong and deeper examples are his demand for personal responsibility and acknowledgement of racial progress. It's clear that through his rhetoric, Obama has been working very hard to lay the most important and difficult groundwork in lifting America's poor and welfare-dependant into self sufficiency. Obviously, these issues have been long held conservative positions and Obama stresses them frequently and does not shy away from these themes at black venues. In fact, I believe he stresses them even more with largely black audiances. These are also two primary ways (to revisit one of your previous questions) in which Obama differs from Jeremiah Wright and Black Liberation theology. I'll be happy to provide examples if you'd like.
You either socialize medicine or you do not.
With all due respect, this statement doesn't make much sense. Is medicine currently socialized? If so, who socialized it? And is a candidate such as McCain who seeks to mostly maintain that status quo therefore a socialist?
You either pull troops out of Iraq right away like HRC and The Great Leader want, or you do not.
The truth is that whatever the situation is on the ground in Iraq, we can only maintain current troop levels for so much longer and the country's economic status will increasingly pressure the CIC to reduce the ongoing cost of the war. Further, the increasing burden to military personelle will add to the difficulty of continuing current troop levels beyond the inauguration in January.
Unfortunately, Democrats are at a severe propaganda disadvantge on this issue. A Republican can cite recent successes in Iraq as justification for pulling troops out at any time, regardless of what the situation on the ground actually is. Any troop pullout by a Democrat CIC will be controversial, whatever the actual realities.
Where's the capacity for compromise regardless of who says they are a uniter?... The words that come out of his mouth are fine and dandy. I'm more interested in his actions.
There's always capacity for compromise. Obama supported 1996 Gringrich-Clinton welfare reform bill. Regarding actions, his IL legislature record seems to strongly support his rhetoric on bipartisan compromise. He played a "central role" according to the NYT in state welfare reform (something I've previously asked you and Baldwin about and am still waiting for a response on) and according to WAPO he "played an important role in drafting bipartisan ethics legislation and health-care reform." In Washington, there's the Lugar-Obama bill, a nonproliferation initiative and the Colburn-Obama bill, which set up a public federal database to track where tax money is spent, which legislators are spending it and what contractors are receiving it.
You and Tree cannot say that. Unless of course you want to condemn Tree for saying that opposing opinions are not welcome. In that vein, Tree has become like the President he hates, where opposing ideas need not apply.
Tree has apropriately responded to that on his own and as he points out, there is nothing to condemn. He wants to try to keep that thread to an on-topic discussion of Obama's book. While I know from experience that this is probably futile, you know that I try to respect the integrity of thread topics, which (like I said) is why I'm posting this response to you in this thread. Personally, my opinion is that informed and respectful opposition strengthens both sides of debate.
You do not like my criticism of [Obama] and the mocking of his flock, that's honestly your problem. I see a person in [Obama] who is like The Great Oz where there is nothing behind the curtain.
I don't take any issue with your criticizing Obama. I'll just point out where I disagree. And I've already said my piece about your blanket-mocking of everyone who supports him. I've proposed that you and I show one another and the forum more respect.
I see a man who is bankrolled by the same hedge fund people that everybody criticizes everyone else for taking money from.
I think "Bankrolled" suggests that he receives the greater bulk of his funding from those sources. There isn't any truth to that at all. Soros isn't allowed to contribute any more money to a political campaign than you or me. Further, why, exactly, is George Soros so "suspect" that a politician shouldn't accept a contribution from him?
The truth, which I believe you know, is that he made a decision to stop taking lobbyist and PAC money early in his presidential campaign. It was reported in February that almost 90% of the money his campaign has received in donations is from individuals. His donations record is far, far cleaner than any major candidate in recent memory, despite whatever minor blemishes you might come across.
He is bought and sold
By all means, please explain and support this statement.
|
|
| | | 2 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sat, Apr 12, 2008, 19:07
|
I strongly disagree with your contention that MSM took it easy on Obama over Rev Wright. There was more than a solid week where you couldn't watch any cable news program for 30 min without seeing any of Rev Wright's greatest hits.
Jesse Jackson's campaign died over anti-Semitism. Jimmy The Greek, Don Imus, and Michael Richards and countless others have all seen their own careers destroyed and were publicly humiliated for their stances.
No doubt the Clinton machines helped to drag out the lifespan of the Wright coverage.
Granted, Obama did not say what Wright said, but Obama admits that Wright is an extremely important person in his life. Wright did not become a firebrand overnight. How many times did Obama and his family sit in that church and listen to the hate from that man?
Take the Wright issue, Obama's refusal to wear the infamous US pin, and his wife's comment about how she "for the first time was proud to be an American". By themselves, a tad damaging and embarassing. Taken as a whole it starts to paint a bigger picture of a man whom I believe to be a fraud.
Also look up his recent comments about how he wouldn't want his daughters "punished" with a baby should they get pregnant at a young age.
Would you continue to go to Wright's church after bearing witness to what he has to say?
Why would you directly or indirectly associate yourself with that much hate and publicly say how important this person is to you?
With all due respect, this statement doesn't make much sense. Is medicine currently socialized? If so, who socialized it? And is a candidate such as McCain who seeks to mostly maintain that status quo therefore a socialist?
We are essentially down to three Democrats for President right now. You guys win this one.
Of course some of Obama's rhetoric and ideas have come from Wright
Doesn't that freak you out? How could it not?
But I think some strong and deeper examples are his demand for personal responsibility and acknowledgement of racial progress. It's clear that through his rhetoric, Obama has been working very hard to lay the most important and difficult groundwork in lifting America's poor and welfare-dependant into self sufficiency.
Yeah self sufficiency. The gov't provides your retirement, schooling, and medical care. That's self sufficiency for you. Will we have in home nurses to wipe our asses too?
The government put themselves in charge of the retirement of a good number of people in the form of Social Security. They tax folks at a rate of 6.2% and there's no guarentee the system will be around at all let alone around at a level people were originally told would exist.
Give the people the 6.2% back and teach them how to save money. That's self sufficiency, not more government and benefit cuts.
Our public schools below the collegiate level are the bottom feeders of the industrialized world. More government to the rescue I suppose.
And now Obama and Hillary (probably McCain too) believe those past government failures have earned more of our trust so now we're supposed to put them in charge of our health care.
How back asswards is that? Would you keep giving money to someone who keeps failing to provide key things for you or would you can his ass?
Tree has apropriately responded to that on his own and as he points out
You will be Tree's apologist all the way to the gates of hell if necessary apparently.
I think "Bankrolled" suggests that he receives the greater bulk of his funding from those sources. There isn't any truth to that at all. Soros isn't allowed to contribute any more money to a political campaign than you or me. Further, why, exactly, is George Soros so "suspect" that a politician shouldn't accept a contribution from him?
I believe you know that Soros is economically more capable to support activist groups and industry personnel to believe/think a certain way via his money. You don't really believe we have equal pull to a guy like Soros do you?
Left wing activist groups are a means by which the wealthy liberals (this applies to right wingers too) can skirt campaign finance laws. I'm amazed you didn't catch that.
Please refer to another thread, which I'll attempt to locate if you cannot where Boldwin and I discussed Soros or do some googling.
|
|
| | | 3 | truthsabitchinnit
ID: 4311112
Sat, Apr 12, 2008, 19:41
|
Any pointers as to where to look for things Rev. Wright has really said? I mean, preferably, whole speeches or something, as taking things out of context has a tendency of messing things up. All I've seen so far is the transcript of a speech on mutual caring and understanding he gave shortly after the 11th of September 2001, that one I've posted on another thread here as well... Beyond that, there hasn't been a whole lot going around.
Also look up his recent comments about how he wouldn't want his daughters "punished" with a baby should they get pregnant at a young age.
Mmmm... ok. Where's the punchline? I take it your problem is with the word "punished", isn't it? A baby is a blessing no matter what 'n all that, is it? How about when being honest about it?
|
|
| | | 4 | Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Sat, Apr 12, 2008, 19:42
|
I realize that this is a conversation betwenn you and MITH, but I'm not finding anywhere that Soros is backing Obama. In fact, Obama and Soros got into a bit of a spat last year about this time, when Soros said that the US should pressure Israel to negotiate with Hamas and Obama said that if he was president he would not negotiate with Hamas at all.
As for the rest, I'll let MITH respond (as noted above), but only say that you appear to be taking Wright completely out of context and letting him speak for Obama, which seems (at best) silly. Are you afraid to let Obama speak for Obama, or simply find it easier to use surrogates?
|
|
| | | 5 | Perm Dude
ID: 533191212
Sat, Apr 12, 2008, 21:11
|
#3: Haven't read the accompnying commentary, but this page has the sermon in full.
|
|
| | | 6 | biliruben
ID: 4911361723
Sat, Apr 12, 2008, 23:14
|
NYT mentioned Soros supported Obama for prez in article yesterday.
|
|
| | | 7 | Madman
ID: 14139157
Sat, Apr 12, 2008, 23:45
|
Obama's remarks at a fundraiser last Sunday, which extend his Wright-speech theories of racial division, are meeting with some controversy. Times Transcript ... You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Antipathy to people who aren't like them is a polite way of calling small town blokes bigots. Of course, as we know from the Wright-speech, Obama views the cause of bigotry to be lack of economic opportunity, so this shouldn't be news to anyone. The news bit, perhaps, is that he's stereotyping the small-towners who aren't supporting him as the bigots who are falling into that trap, and given the polls, this may be a non-trivial quantity of bigots.
The more controversial and surprising remarks were with the implications on gun-control and religion, with the suggesting that they were the result not of heartfelt belief but the result of modern cynicism. It's an interesting theory that rests upon the newly discovered Obama-fact that urbanization has only been happening for about 25 years.
I also find it interesting that nowhere in any of his economic platforms is there a push to rejuvinate small town economies. In other words, he is pretending to promise something that he himself doesn't have an answer to. I didn't even know that liberals wanted to move jobs out of the big cities and back into the small towns. That's one trick I'd really love to see Obama pull. Oops, I'm revealing my bigoted cynicism. I must be religious. Dang, he's right again!
Lastly, I find it rather humorous that a President who wants to attack the economic well-being of Columbians and most American nations is claiming that small town Americans are the ones who are bigots. His argument would be more persuasive if he himself didn't make base appeals to xenophobia.
|
|
| | | 8 | astade
ID: 1533770
Sun, Apr 13, 2008, 00:22
|
Madman, a disappointing review of several simple sentences. Granted, Obama has rescinded his previous statements due to Clinton and McCain's objection. He now says he misspoke, lol.
Nevertheless, I have become accustomed to you writing highly analytical posts that didn't resort to piecing together statements and invoking utterly irrelevant facts. A touch sad.
|
|
| | | 9 | Tree
ID: 303291223
Sun, Apr 13, 2008, 01:37
|
You will be Tree's apologist all the way to the gates of hell if necessary apparently.
In all earnestness, it's as if you don't actually read most of this message board, because if there is anyone here who even remotely leans left who is NOT my apologist, it's MITH, who has called me out numerous times on numerous subjects.
so, now i ask you two simple yes or no questions:
1. did i not suggest you were more than welcome to read Obama's book?
2. did i not suggest you were more than welcome to comment on that book in the thread dedicated to it.
now, finally, please point out where i said opposing opinions were not welcome, as you have claimed. If i said such a thing, i apologize, but i do believe that if you go back and read the thread about Audacity of Hope, you'll find i never said anything of the kind.
|
|
| | | 10 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Sun, Apr 13, 2008, 10:35
|
Boxman
Jesse Jackson's campaign died over anti-Semitism.
I don't recall the reason for the demise of Jesse Jackson's campaign but I do know that he was never a contender for the nomination. I remember knowing that as an 11 year-old child. But more importantly, neither Jackson nor any of the people you mentioned were ruined over something that someone else said, much less things that someone else said some number of years ago. Regardless, you're citing the fact that Obama's campaign survived the assault (ftr I don't believe it has - or will) as evidence that the media was easy on him. If he did survive, it wasn't for their lack of trying. In my opinion, it was every bit as shameless and incessant that of Eliot Spitzer and Larry Craig and probably even outlasted both.
You are the only person I have heard argue that the mainstream media has not covered Reverand Wright enough.
Take the Wright issue, Obama's refusal to wear the infamous US pin, and his wife's comment about how she "for the first time was proud to be an American". By themselves, a tad damaging and embarassing. Taken as a whole it starts to paint a bigger picture of a man whom I believe to be a fraud.
From the examples you cite (depending on which Wright quotes you have in mind) it seems that it's Obama's love for country that you believe is fraudulant. Wouldn't it be strange for Obama to forgo the lapel pin if he were attempting a patriotic facade? That wouldn't make for a very clever bit of personal symbolism for a guy who's political enemies spent the last year trying to make him look and sound like a terrorist sympathizer. As Madman and I both pointed out in our exchange in the Obama Part 1 thread, much of what Reverand Wright has said in that area is not uncommon at all in the African American public discussion. I think those sentiments are much more prevelant than many whites realize. The Daily Show clip I linked in Part 1 (here it is again) is a terrific depiction of this. Of course I don't present that to prove what I'm saying, just to help explain it.
As actual evidence, I'll point out again that MLK himself used much of the same rhetoric that we've seen played on television ad nauseam.
I also realize it's possible I've misunderstood you here and that you were getting at something other than love of country in calling Obama a fraud. Can't be sure.
The MLK stuff also responds to your question about how Obama's coopting some of Wright's message to his own doesn't freak me out (skipping ahead a little). Obviously, other speech from MLK is some of the most revered speech in American history. So, no. I have no problem with a politician who serperates out the positives from an overall mixed body of work such as Wright's. The fact that we know Wright was wrong at least 3 or 4 or 5 times (remember, that's still all we've seen - from a decades-long career) doesn't mean that he wasn't right most of the time. In fact, that he maintained the largest black congregation in Chicagoland suggests that the positives from his sermons far outweighted the negatives. I believe black churches tend to mostly very uplifiting, possibly even moreso than other churches.
Would you continue to go to Wright's church after bearing witness to what he has to say?
No, but perhaps I might if I were an African American from Chicago. My grandparents stayed Catholic despite the Vatican's refusal to condemn the Holocaust. But as the person I am now, I don't believe I would. Mitt Romney and most living Mormons stuck with their church even though they banned blacks from the clergy, but as the person I am today, I can't imagine myself there. The opinions of Reverand Wright, while I do believe finally becoming somewhat dated in the black community, are definitely not all that removed from the mainstream of that culture. For many people, their religious lives are very closely tied with their family and social lives. Dogma doesn't always matter quite so much as the community. I think it's likely that, if I were a black American, I might have grown up with thae type of bitter and divisive talk having some presence in my household (as I told MJB in part 1, even as a white kid growing up, to an extent I did, courtesy of my grandmother - similar to Obamam, actually, and similar to many Americans my age and possibly most Americans a generation older than me).
Every culture has its flaws and that of modern African Americans is no different. There is an element in that community, especially among those of Wright's generation, that holds onto the bitterness of the civil rights era. I believe more and more young black mrn and women realize these are throwback opinions and that things have changed more than their parents and aunts and uncles and grandparents realize. But progress is slow and often acknowledgement of progress is even slower. It's hard to get people to accept that the goals they fought and bled and risked their lives and were beaten and humiliated and imprisoned for are now dated. And the divisive bitterness of people like Wright is locked to that struggle. Obama tried to explain this gently in his race speech. Most of the news media (left and right) didn't seem to notice this key admission. The few who did, such as Coulter, sarcastically dismissed the notion out of hand.
Why would you directly or indirectly associate yourself with that much hate and publicly say how important this person is to you?
There are two parts to the answer. The first I've already explained, that if you're black in America (particularly in Chicago, I suspect) the only way to remove every source of such bitterness and divisiveness from your life might be to revove yourself from much of the black community, if not from it all together. Obama asserted a very honest moral equivolence when he said that he can no more turn his back on Wright than he can turn his back on the black community. In part 1 madman explained of his church which did not allow women in the priesthood prior to 1984; societal standards are a constraint to any institution. Rhetoric like Wright's has been a long standing and unfortunate societal standard. Unfortunately, some ideas such as and especially those based in oppression die very hard.
The second part of the answer is where I might differ from other Obama supporters and turn a bit cynical. Simply - he's a politician. This is of course one of the reasons blanket insults like "Great Leader" are almost never a truthful or fair commentary. Anyway, why would any secular black man with aspirations for public office join the largest and most visible black congregation in the region? Understand that my own experience with faith has left me pretty cynical with regard to the topic as it is and when you start talking about the faith of people who are politicians I just don't take most of it seriously.
I'm not necessarily calling him (or any or every other pol) a fraud as a Christian. That's a very harsh accusation and something that of course I I can't possibly know for sure. But that cynicism leaves me mostly indifferent to their religious life unless I feel like they are coopting their faith into policy. With Obama, his straightfoward, stated opinions differ starkly from most of Wright's most incendiary statements, so I really don't have that concern here.
The most legitimate critique of Obama regarding Wright I've seen expressed is from Madman; Does he necessarily share every crazy belief of Jeremiah Wright? No. But he's proving that his past isn't one of demonstrated courage at a minimum. But since I think a politician like Obama most likely joins a church like TUCC to further his career, rocking that boat is probably too bold even for a politician who has tied 'change' to his message.
Yeah self sufficiency. The gov't provides your retirement, schooling, and medical care. That's self sufficiency for you. Will we have in home nurses to wipe our asses too?... How back asswards is that?
I think you missed the context of my point about Obama's call for self-responsibility, particularly in the black community. I'm not referring to basic services the government provides for all or most Americans. That's an extensive tangent and this post is long enough.
You will be Tree's apologist all the way to the gates of hell if necessary apparently.
I haven't apologized for tree. Your claim that you were excluded from that thread is simply wrong. If you choose to see it that way I can't help you. Rather than insult me, lets move on, shall we?
Left wing activist groups are a means by which the wealthy liberals (this applies to right wingers too) can skirt campaign finance laws. I'm amazed you didn't catch that.
Of course this is true. But the argument that no politician should accept a donation from a rich connected person is very naive. And if I were concerned with an endorsement and $2100 donation from Soros (or if I knew why I was supposed to be concerned) I'd find solace in the fact that Obama has so willingly publicly disagreed with Soros. If you're going to get me to believe that Obama is "bought" by or otherwise beholden to Soros I'd need evidence that Obama has compromised his own positions to be in Soros' favor.
|
|
| | | 11 | Madman
ID: 14139157
Sun, Apr 13, 2008, 10:55
|
Granted, Obama has rescinded his previous statements due to Clinton and McCain's objection.
I missed that, apparently. What I saw is an expression of "regret" at how he said what he wanted to say. He's standing by the "truth" behind his statements, that economic impoverishment in small towns has created bigotry and pushed people to religion, etc.
And to my deeper point, can you find ANY of Obama's positions that are designed to create more jobs in small towns and reverse the urbanization the US has experienced over the past 100+ years? And why in the world would we want to do that, anyway?
|
|
| | | 12 | Baldwin
ID: 473421019
Sun, Apr 13, 2008, 12:08
|
I don't know that anyone is talking about reversing urbanization. He's talking about replacing jobs that were lost to globalism and outdated plants. A lot of great big city jobs were lost when foreign governments invested in more modern plants at no cost to their domestic industries so to the extent that these jobs were lost due to something other than fair competition there prolly is a role for government there.
|
|
| | | 13 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, Apr 13, 2008, 13:25
|
Mith:
From the examples you cite (depending on which Wright quotes you have in mind) it seems that it's Obama's love for country that you believe is fraudulant. Wouldn't it be strange for Obama to forgo the lapel pin if he were attempting a patriotic facade?
But what was his response to not wearing the pin? Something along the lines of patriotism is more than wearing a pin. I respond to that by saying if you want the highest office in the land, wear the pin. Just like how Coca-Cola employees should not drink Pepsi, a person running for President should respect the flag and wear a pin. It may sound a little cornball, but in a President I want him to put the country first and symbolism counts.
As Madman and I both pointed out in our exchange in the Obama Part 1 thread, much of what Reverand Wright has said in that area is not uncommon at all in the African American public discussion.
Do you want someone who was exposed to that much hate and not immediately rejecting it being your President? Whether or not hatred is prevalent in the Afro-American is irrelevant. Hate is wrong in small doses or large.
I did not expect Obama to get up in the middle of a sermon and leave. What I do expect is that he should have never gone back again and certainly have not put a hater on his campaign council (IIRC, his group of religious advisors?).
As actual evidence, I'll point out again that MLK himself used much of the same rhetoric that we've seen played on television ad nauseam.
Martin Luther King Jr. was murdered for his beliefs and lived in a MUCH different America than Wright does today. In the context of where the country was at during the time MLK, he was within his bounds to say that. Wright is not.
I think it's likely that, if I were a black American, I might have grown up with thae type of bitter and divisive talk having some presence in my household (as I told MJB in part 1, even as a white kid growing up, to an extent I did, courtesy of my grandmother - similar to Obamam, actually, and similar to many Americans my age and possibly most Americans a generation older than me).
Does that make it right? Oh well, my daddy hated Group X and his daddy hated Group X and his daddy hated Group X so I'm gonna hate Group X too. That's foolish logic and that thinking will never take us forward.
But since I think a politician like Obama most likely joins a church like TUCC to further his career, rocking that boat is probably too bold even for a politician who has tied 'change' to his message.
If Obama followed a hateful Wright to further his own ambitions, just what will he do as President then? Or to become President? Chicago has plenty of churches and the outlying suburbs have a ton and I'm sure he could have found a "black" church that didn't preach hate if he had deemed it important enough. He did not.
I think you missed the context of my point about Obama's call for self-responsibility, particularly in the black community. I'm not referring to basic services the government provides for all or most Americans.
Then we have differing definitions of self sufficiency. To me it means that a man is able to stand on his own two feet and does / should not rely on the government for his livelihood. I would love nothing more than blacks and all other Americans to be fully self sufficient. I would love to hear what politicians have in mind to get us there. Tacking on more government programs does not create independence from government it creates dependence.
I haven't apologized for tree. Your claim that you were excluded from that thread is simply wrong. If you choose to see it that way I can't help you. Rather than insult me, lets move on, shall we?
The following piece is meant as constructive criticism. You hitching your wagon to Tree and not calling him out for the obvious shortcomings of what he posts paints you to be a jerk, biased, and less intelligent than you really are. I believe that if you specifically took him to task on even the obvious things, his quality of posting would increase dramatically and that would make the boards a more peaceful place.
If you're going to get me to believe that Obama is "bought" by or otherwise beholden to Soros I'd need evidence that Obama has compromised his own positions to be in Soros' favor.
We won't find things like this on the cover of the New York Times. What I can do is attempt to paint a picture, but I believe you'll do whatever is necessary to discredit or dismiss. Yet I'll try anyway in the hope that you are open minded.
Barack Obama asked to repudiate George Soros’ support
Barack Obama’s Hateful Connections
|
|
| | | 14 | Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Sun, Apr 13, 2008, 14:56
|
He's standing by the "truth" behind his statements, that economic impoverishment in small towns has created bigotry and pushed people to religion, etc.
No he isn't. Just as that's not the point he made in the first place.
Now, maybe you disagree and people are looking to Washington more and more and more.
But I would think you would not be having Hillary Clinton make your talking points for you.
|
|
| | | 15 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Sun, Apr 13, 2008, 19:59
|
Boxman has referred to that much hate in regards to Rev, Wright at least three times today alone. My question is, "What much hate?"
You'll have to identify what he's said and why it's hateful, and I don't believe that's been established.
|
|
| | | 16 | Madman
ID: 14139157
Sun, Apr 13, 2008, 20:05
|
lot of great big city jobs ... He's talking about jobs in small towns. How's *he* going to bring those back? Obama's trying to sell a fantasy ... by talking tough with Canada and Colombia, jobs are going to miraculously reappear in small town America. As far as I can see, he's not even talking much about revamping our trade-adjustment-assistance program that already exists to help industries hit by free trade.
Oh yeah, he's also going to subsidize the health insurance industry, making premiums affordable for everyone, especially those in small town America. Yippee. To that, I'll just note how effective the federal/state insurance racket has been in the Delta ... it's driven most health care professionals entirely away from where the people live, with the predictable and sad resulting increase in at-risk pregnancies, diabetes, etc. Obama's attempting to sell his health insurance industry subsidizes and rereg under the guise of actual health CARE subsidization ... and there's a big difference.
PD -- I guess I missed the retraction for the accusation that people from small towns hold "antipathy against those who aren't like them" ... I guess it may have been drowned out in the rounds of cheering brought by the rousing line "people are bitter!"
Obama's trying to spin his way out of it without denying the meaning of what he actually said. That parallel campaign finance system he's got sure is a doosey.
|
|
| | | 17 | Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Sun, Apr 13, 2008, 21:16
|
And I suppose you know the meaning of "what he actually said" is that right?
This is another almost "gotcha" moment which offends pretty much only those people who are all ready to be offended but are just awaiting a chance to spin words into something offending.
|
|
| | | 18 | Madman
ID: 14139157
Sun, Apr 13, 2008, 23:33
|
And I suppose you know the meaning of "what he actually said" is that right? Uh, we all do. He used plain English. The paragraph in question is quoted in my post 7, and you can find the full text (and audio) of his statements on the Huffington Post.
I obviously don't know what he *meant* to say. However, the fact that he hasn't retracted the plain meaning of what he *did* say is informative enough.
He's obviously extended and amending his remarks, misquoting himself and putting a different spin on the remarks. If he first distanced himself from what he actually said, this would be entirely fair. But when you don't retract the plain meaning of what you accidentally said, don't expect me to simply ignore what you said the first time.
It didn't have to be a gotcha moment. Simply say that you didn't say what you meant, and move on. It's his refusal to correct the record that's the problem here.
Of course, we shouldn't expect better from someone who said in a public speech that he couldn't disown Wright anymore than he could his crazy uncle, and then just a few days later said that he WOULD have disowned Wright if Wright wasn't going to retire. Words apparently don't mean much to him.
|
|
| | | 19 | Perm Dude
ID: 423591313
Mon, Apr 14, 2008, 13:12
|
You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
This is what he said. Let's stop dancing around the issue, like we are Style "reporters" and it is more important to talk about the method and the effect rather than the actual words.
Has he backed away from these words? No. Has he explained them more--perhaps even better? Sure. Did he use this as some sort of racial divide? No--he never mentioned race. This is just another controversy people (maybe even yourself, in #7) have inserted into his remarks in order to make them more controversial.
The issue is getting great play here in PA, and while it is not fully shaken out, the early consensus here (particularly after Clinton's folksy response) is: Yes, we are bitter after what this Administration has done. Anyone who isn't a little bitter isn't paying much attention.
As for Wright, Obama didn't say he would repudiate the man. Despite your trying to slice and dice his words (which, according to you has no meaning anyway) to get the result you want, he was clear that he would repudiate what Rev Wright said at the time rather than the man himself.
Meanwhile, Bob Casey's support seems to be helping Obama on his right. Bob Casey is a hero to the blue collar working class Dems which dominate Northeastern and western PA.
|
|
| | |
| | | 21 | walk
ID: 181472714
Mon, Apr 14, 2008, 13:54
|
Very interesting, PD, #19. Kristol's piece also suggests the "elitist" perception of Obama based on his comments. I think Obama was calling it like he sees it, as uncomfortable as it may seem. When chit don't go right, people hold onto the things most dear to them. So, one who is not a fan of Obama will construe this as antipathy to the poor working class, and fans of Obama will point to these words as indicative of frustrations of poor working class within the context of an economy built for the richie rich's. It'll be interesting to see how those on the fence with Obama perceive his remarks.
I don't believe these folks will find Hillary anymore appealing after downing a shot of whiskey and talking about huntin' ducks.
Oh, and "I come from generations of Christians." Fcuk her.
|
|
| | | 22 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Mon, Apr 14, 2008, 16:15
|
Boxman
a person running for President should respect the flag and wear a pin.
Under what authority has this new tradition (which you insist is both binding and telling) in Presidential election politics come to pass?
in a President I want him to put the country first and symbolism counts.
Well, from what you say you're actually insisting on putting symbolism first. Lets remember where this particular line of our discussion started -- the reason you brought up the pin. You did so to support your contention that Obama's love of country is fraudulent. This is a very harsh assessment of the man's personal character. In response I'd suggest that the use (or non-use) of very superficial symbolic measures such as attaching (or not attaching) a cheap flag pin to one's lapel is a terrible way to judge anyone's true personal character.
Please take a step back for a moment and consider the logic of citing a factor so easy to fake as wearing a pin - as evidence of whether a man's character is fraudulent.
Further, this insistence that "symbolism counts" is difficult to understand, coming from someone who makes regular practice of railing against people who base their political decisions and opinions on depthless "feelings".
Do you want someone who was exposed to that much hate and not immediately rejecting it being your President? Whether or not hatred is prevalent in the Afro-American is irrelevant.
Pancho Villa asked in response to this, "What much hate?", which is a fair question. You've seen the same 30 second clips over and over again but I'm not sure exactly which quotes you're referring to and what context you might be assuming from them. Obama's account is that when he first began attending Wright's church, he was inspired by the positive messages in his sermons. There is no reason to doubt this. I urge you to read the text of his 1990 "Audacity To Hope" sermon, linked in post #1 for an example. How many sermons like that one did Obama hear before he heard Wright say something hateful?
Further, how could you know that Obama didn't immediately reject much or most or all of the questionable things that he's heard Wright say? What I think you demand is for Obama to have immediately denounced Wright the moment he heard something he thought was shocking or scandalous.
The thing is, in the African American community (surely in certain sectors, anyway) the type of rhetoric you've heard from Wright isn't all that shocking or scandalous. I don't think it's often a majority opinion (I hope not, anyway) but it's out there and not particularly uncommon. Suffice it to say, blacks, particularly among themselves, are not nearly so PC as whites usually are in public. Perhaps those on the right who are so offended by some of the opinions openly expressed in the black community might remember that the next time they rail harshly against political correctness.
I digress. What I'm trying to point out is that in some places within the black community, such as, perhaps, the south side of Chicago, I simply don't think you can get away from that type of rhetoric. So think about what you're really saying here. Remember that Obama has not expressed the "hate" (whatever that means, exactly) you're referring to, tha it came from a community leader whom he is close with, to be specific. This standard you insist on - that anyone exposed to rhetoric such as Wright's who does not immediately denounce the speaker is at that moment omitted from Presidential consideration - effectively eliminates an awful lot of people. And this standard isn't uncommon. In fact I see it expressed all the time since the media's Rev Wright hatefest last month. But it sets us as a nation a bit further back than I think most of us thought we were in terms of racial progress.
Last month in the Part 1 thread, Biliruben wrote, "The truth is, there are many in this country that are simply not ready for a black president and all that entails." Exactly the same thing had occurred to me and this is it applies. Most of white America appears to be just fine with the idea of a President with black skin. But being black in America goes an awful lot deeper than skin color. Ideas - even bad or dated ones - do not die easily. Within a culture they are passed down from generation to generation. And apparently it is no longer enough for a man to be free of the previous generation's hate. He must publicly and explicitly reject the community that allows it to persist. And as Obama himslef has made clear, he will not denounce the black community.
I'm curious, when did this become the rule, anyway? Because even very recently, it used to be that that a politician could align himself with a person or institution that harbors some questionable beliefs or history as long as the pol demonstrated that he himself does not subscribe to those controversial issues. I've already noted the Bush family ties to Rev. Syung Myung Moon. Another example: as a Presidential candidate in 2000, GW Bush spoke at Bob Jones University, a stronghold of leftover American racism, where until later that year, campus rules explicitly prohibited blacks and whites from dating one another. Bob Dole also spoke there during his campaign. And Ronald Reagan not only spoke there as a candidate, but fought rto overturn the previous administration's DOJ ruling that a religious institution can't claim a First Amendment right to engage in racial discrimination, which took away their tax-exempt status (Reagan failed and the ruling was upheld by SCOTUS). As far as I know, showing explicit support for Bob Jones University did not in any way unhinge the candidacies of Bush, Dole or Reagan.
And of course there is no shortage of further examples. The Bush family's very close personal ties to the House of Saud are well known. Yet no one thought to disqualify Bush from either of two Presidential Elections for his close relationship with these despotic, misogynistic, oppressive, torturous, despicable people.
Martin Luther King Jr. was murdered for his beliefs and lived in a MUCH different America than Wright does today.
Contrary to what Ann Coulter might claim, Wright did live in MLK's America.
In the context of where the country was at during the time MLK, he was within his bounds to say that. Wright is not.
Curious. I'm not sure exactly which quotes you refer to here (from either man) and I'll have to ask you to elaborate. I'll just note again: ideas do not die easily. Certainly not as easily as men do, anyway. Logically, this leads to the notion that you would feel the same way about MLK as you do about Wright if he had lived all this time. No?
Does that make it right? Oh well, my daddy hated Group X and his daddy hated Group X... That's foolish logic and that thinking will never take us forward.
No, of course not. You misunderstood me. I'm not defending Wright's controversial opinions as fair or correct. Madman put it better than I can: Societal standards are a constraint to any institution. Standards can unfortunately sometimes be negative and an institution can be anything from a church to a school to the workplace to a family. Wright and people who share his worst attributes are ingrained in black culture.
I've spent too much time on the Rev. Wright stuff without getting you to point out your references more specifically. I request in your response that you specify which Wright quotes you're referring to in your responses to these points since some of the clips we've seen are in more accurate context than others and you've been extremely vague with regard to exactly what you're referring to.
Then we have differing definitions of self sufficiency. To me it means... Give the people the 6.2% back and teach them how to save money. That's self sufficiency, not more government and benefit cuts.
Your line of responses to this point seems deliberately obtuse. You asked me for examples of issues that Obama can use to unite right and left. I very specifically discussed his stressing of personal responsibility and self sufficiency for America's poor and welfare dependant. This is a conservative ideal that Obama has co-opted into his platform, refers to heavily in rhetoric, supported in policy (Clinton-Gingrich welfare reform) and also acted upon in legislation (IL state welfare reform).
Back to your responses, when was the last time a major party Presidential candidate included a repeal of Social Security in his platform? I don't think you really believe that such a proposal would be one that would achieve unity. I was answering the question in the terms you presented it to me, so please do not change the subject and then criticize my response under newly established terms.
For the record, I've never heard you bash a Republican candidate's "personal responsibility" credentials for not demanding that we do away with SS. But I am trying to avoid digression.
...constructive criticism. You hitching your wagon to Tree and not calling him out... paints you to be a jerk, biased, and less intelligent... if you specifically took him to task... his quality of posting would increase...
I do sometimes call out posters when I think they're out of line. But there are two exceptions I take to this point of yours. The first is that your criticism here is quite hypocritical considering that I have never once seen you call out any righty poster for anything, ever. If you don't think Jag and others have a strong tendency toward open hostility, unwarranted insults and simply abject, often embarrassingly uninformed discourse, you're quite sadly mistaken. I can present many examples where I have openly criticized Tree for poor-taste responses even when taking up my side of an argument. Although I have asked this of you and others in the past I've never seen you do the same. In fact, when I did begin to suggest that posters should do a better job of policing their own side, you were one of the people who jumped on me most harshly, calling me out as a forum cop and other insults. Simply put, you don't have a moral leg to stand on with this "constructive criticism". But I'll tell you what, I'll continue to call out people for poor-taste posts, left and right alike, as I see fit. If you begin an at least semi bipartisan approach to the same, it will be a change I will whole-heartedly welcome, as I do agree, it will help raise the quality of the forum.
Second, Tree didn't write anything in that post that was worthy of condemnation. Here's what he wrote:
i am suggesting you should read "audacity of hope", because you do seem interested in the political process and political discourse.
if, instead, all you're going to do is mock Obama, the book, liberals, and really, anything else, i'd like to kindly ask you to not interject in this thread if you aren't going to read the book.
this thread is specifically about the book, what it means generally speaking, what it might mean to us as individuals, and what it might mean to us as a nation and a people.
if you aren't going to read it, then honestly, this thread is no place for you. i'd like to respectfully ask you to excuse yourself from this thread if you don't want to be involved positively.
That language is quite plain to me. In fact the first thing he wrote was that he hopes you do pick up the book. I'm sorry, Boxman, but that's not exclusionary at all. Now, I'd really prefer that we move on from that.
I'm about to start on your Soros links now. More after I get through them and have some time.
|
|
| | | 23 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Mon, Apr 14, 2008, 17:16
|
You did so to support your contention that Obama's love of country is fraudulent.
I asked that you take the pin, Wright's comments, and his wife's statement about "the first time she's proud to be an American" and take them as a lump sum. It does not paint a pretty picture.
You've seen the same 30 second clips over and over again but I'm not sure exactly which quotes you're referring to and what context you might be assuming from them. Obama's account is that when he first began attending Wright's church, he was inspired by the positive messages in his sermons. There is no reason to doubt this.
Three questions.
1) Do you believe YouTube caught 100% of every hate filled thing Wright has had to say? You refer to the 30 second clips; that's what YouTube has. It's a safe assumption he's done it other times.
2) Why would Obama put Wright in an important position in his campaign after he made those comments? Either Obama knew Wright is a hater and put him close to his family and his campaign or he failed to do his homework. Which failure is it? Then tell me you really believe Obama didn't know Wright's views.
3) What would you expect Obama to say to the general public? "I thought his messages of hate were profound. I'm glad he baptized my children."
Further, how could you know that Obama didn't immediately reject much or most or all of the questionable things that he's heard Wright say?
Why did it take the scandal for Obama to publicly distance himself from Wright and to take him away from the campaign?
The thing is, in the African American community (surely in certain sectors, anyway) the type of rhetoric you've heard from Wright isn't all that shocking or scandalous. I don't think it's often a majority opinion (I hope not, anyway) but it's out there and not particularly uncommon. Suffice it to say, blacks, particularly among themselves, are not nearly so PC as whites usually are in public. Perhaps those on the right who are so offended by some of the opinions openly expressed in the black community might remember that the next time they rail harshly against political correctness.
So then let's put a white candidate in the same shoes as Obama with a white preacher on the North Side of Chicago. Do you think the end result is the same? You dismiss hate speech as being part of Afro-American culture. I worry about a culture that permits, rewards, and relies about people who preach hate.
I would hope at least some of the Afro-Americans have gotten past the hate stage that Wright is stuck in.
I very specifically discussed his stressing of personal responsibility and self sufficiency for America's poor and welfare dependant. This is a conservative ideal that Obama has co-opted into his platform, refers to heavily in rhetoric, supported in policy (Clinton-Gingrich welfare reform) and also acted upon in legislation (IL state welfare reform).
Then let's do it. You DON'T do it by creating national health care. I think a self sufficient poor / middle class would be one of the best things that could happen to this country.
Back to your responses, when was the last time a major party Presidential candidate included a repeal of Social Security in his platform? I don't think you really believe that such a proposal would be one that would achieve unity. I was answering the question in the terms you presented it to me, so please do not change the subject and then criticize my response under newly established terms.
For the record, I've never heard you bash a Republican candidate's "personal responsibility" credentials for not demanding that we do away with SS. But I am trying to avoid digression.
Well I hate to disappoint. If any candidate is truly interested in people becoming self sufficient, then they have to be in favor of enabling people to provide their own retirement and health care. That means the government needs to get the hell out of the way. Otherwise, they are just uttering bullet pointed crap that sounds good to the masses but means nothing.
|
|
| | | 24 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Mon, Apr 14, 2008, 17:22
|
Why did it take the scandal for Obama to publicly distance himself from Wright and to take him away from the campaign?
my response to this is that i have not heard you distance yourself from Communists, Al-Queda, Nazis, the KKK, and Tele-tubbies.
It's a non-issue, until it becomes one.
|
|
| | | 25 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418
Mon, Apr 14, 2008, 18:02
|
Boxman -
I heard anger from Rev. Wright. You are wrong to throw the word "hate" around so liberally.
I think a self sufficient poor / middle class would be one of the best things that could happen to this country.
You are so hung up on pie-in-the-sky radical libertarian dreams of no governmental assistance to the poor that polite conversation with you is near impossible. Do you realize how radical your beliefs are? Look, I know that my beliefs are more liberal than most politicians, but I am intelligent enough to know which battles I can win.
Do you REALLY think that a mainstream politician should ignore the lessons of the past 70 years, the most impressive stretch of time economically in the history of the world, and go back to making the elderly paupers. You may think that poor people should face retirements without even a measly SS check, but no one else buys that. If you are going to dismiss any politician who doesn't advocate your cockamamie scheme, you will be left with supporting Libertarians. They need your vote.
You DON'T do it by creating national health care.
Actually, you do. The health care plans advocated by Obama or Clinton will eventually bring down the percentage of GDP we spend on healthcare, a goal I find laudable. Lots of people in the insurance industry will be out of work, an even more laudable goal.
If any candidate is truly interested in people becoming self sufficient, then they have to be in favor of enabling people to provide their own retirement and health care.
Yeah, we got that. And we also know that you won't support Sen. Obama no matter what. I don't know why MITH engages you, it's certainly not "debate".
|
|
| | | 26 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Mon, Apr 14, 2008, 22:43
|
I asked that you take the pin, Wright's comments, and his wife's statement about "the first time she's proud to be an American" and take them as a lump sum. It does not paint a pretty picture.
The picture aint pretty, cause there aint no picture.
A pin?!?!?!? For christs sake, you'd rather have someone wear a freaking pin, than to to actually uphold the Constitution? Symbolism, is cheap, empty and meaningless. Yet, on the basis of symbolism, you deride the man. This Box...makes you cheap, empty and meaningless.
The Rev Wrights comments? If we cherry picked your comments, or cherry picked Madmans comments over a 10 yr period, I hold little doubt that we could find 30 minutes of commentary to make you look like whatever we wanted and/or to MM look like a fool. (Which FTR, MM most certainly is NOT.)
His wifes comments? Ummmm...when did "First Lady" become an elected office????????
|
|
| | | 27 | J-Bar
ID: 292552222
Mon, Apr 14, 2008, 23:49
|
"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either," Lott said at last week's party.
Lott never mentioned race either but when it can be interpreted by any as offensive then apologies are warranted. And then a quiet step down ;-)
|
|
| | | 28 | Tree
ID: 23336154
Tue, Apr 15, 2008, 06:42
|
no, but Lott's history on race was sketchy anyway, as he had voted against renewal of the Voting Rights Act, voted against the continuation of the Civil Rights Act and i also believe he was against MLK Day as a National Holiday.
but, more importantly, Lott was pressured to resign by his own fellow Republicans and George Bush's White House. This wasn't a liberal thing at all, but rather another example of conservative rats abandoning a sinking ship.
|
|
| | | 29 | J-Bar
ID: 292552222
Tue, Apr 15, 2008, 07:58
|
never said it was a liberal thing, and so it is ok to use history and past remarks and votes to extrapolate an interpretation that is different than what it explained. i appreciate you clarifying that, thanks. i would garner to say that it is an example of conservatives holding their own to a std instead of making excuses for them.
|
|
| | | 30 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Tue, Apr 15, 2008, 08:56
|
or, more an example of distancing themselves from someone who could cause them political harm.
|
|
| | | 31 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Tue, Apr 15, 2008, 09:58
|
As for Wright, Obama didn't say he would repudiate the man. Despite your trying to slice and dice his words (which, according to you has no meaning anyway) to get the result you want, he was clear that he would repudiate what Rev Wright said at the time rather than the man himself.
On "The View" Obama said that he would have left the church and taken more drastic action if Wright hadn't retired.
Has he backed away from these words? No. Has he explained them more--perhaps even better? Sure. Did he use this as some sort of racial divide? No--he never mentioned race.
Antipathy toward those who are different is pretty much saying that, however.
Given your last comment, I think where we'd differ is the import of his subsequent explanations. You view them as a substitute for his original statements.
Because he hasn't straight up apologized or specifically retracted the meaning of his prior words, I view his subsequent statements as additional information which generally address *different* arguments. I.e., he now argues that people are bitter because of hard economic times. That's a much simpler and more benign argument that has little to do with the kerfluffle raised by his initial statements.
I'm more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and a pass. He was speaking extemporaneously, and its easy to make mis-statements. However, given that it's been more than a week and he stands by the meaning of his original words and has solely disavowed the political flare-up that resulted rather than the way his words were interpreted, it would be dishonest of me not to hold him to the standard that he asks of us. Namely, to consider his subsequent statements as auxiliary rather than substitutes.
|
|
| | | 33 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Tue, Apr 15, 2008, 10:12
|
Boxman
I asked that you take the pin, Wright's comments, and his wife's statement about "the first time she's proud to be an American" and take them as a lump sum. It does not paint a pretty picture.
I've responded extensively to two of them. I'm not sure what to make of Obama's wife. I do suspect she may sympathize with some of Jeremiah Wright's less attractive positions, though we can't be sure. She could also just be a very sloppy speaker, like W. Either way, I do think she's likely to be a problem for Obama's campaign.
So, the three parts of your “lump sum of fraudulent love for country” (feel free to use that :)) are: some highly unpatriotic quotes from his church pastor, some dubious quotes from his wife (in both cases, other people’s rhetoric which is explicitly opposed at the core of Obama’s message) and his rejection of this trendy and superficial symbolic flag-trinket.
Suffice to say, I do not agree that this amounts to sufficient evidence that Obama does not love his country.
1) Do you believe YouTube caught 100% of every hate filled thing Wright has had to say? You refer to the 30 second clips; that's what YouTube has. It's a safe assumption he's done it other times.
What we've seen is something like 5 total clips from 3 different sermons. Of the 5, some are much less nocuous than I believe MSM has presented them. To answer your question, I'm sure that in his decades long career, Wright has made bitter and divisive statements on far more than 3 occasions. I obviously don't know how often it happens except to say that I know that it isn't all the time. I also know that there are many Jeremiah Wright sermons available for purchase. I think that between the web and the news cycle, if a very high percentage of his sermons included that kind of language, I'd probably have seen quite a bit more than the same 5 clips over and over again.
I imagine at least a handful of wingnut bloggers and pac operatives out there have been sitting through Rev. Wright marathons looking for goodies to upload or stockpile for the summer. If Wright said that stuff frequently enough for it to be very easy to find, there'd be more of it linked at the blogs and making it to TV. But so far it just isn't out there.
2) Why would Obama put Wright in an important position in his campaign after he made those comments?
He didn't. Wright was one of 170 members of Obama's African American Religious Leadership Committee. The group is basically an honorary committee. I don't believe they have any actual function and I've read that this committee has never actually met.
3) What would you expect Obama to say to the general public? "I thought his messages of hate were profound. I'm glad he baptized my children."
Your point is to say that the way Obama addressed the Wright issue is exactly what anyone would expect him to do or the same as any pol would have done? I can't say that I agree. I think the safest way out was a public mea culpa. I'm not saying it would have worked any better but I think that's the traditional move when caught up in a scandal that there is no backing out of.
What Obama did, denouncing Wright's incendiary comments but not Wright, himself was much tougher, ballsier and honest - refreshingly honest. It’s easy for Americans to wrap their heads around, “oops, my bad.” But acknowledging and addressing the complexity of a relationship with someone like Jeremiah Wright is not so easy to understand.
So then let's put a white candidate in the same shoes as Obama with a white preacher on the North Side of Chicago.
White and black America are not opposing mirror images of one another. Those comparisons don't work because the communities don't hold themselves or each other to the same standards. But thee are plenty of applicable analogies that I've already addressed. The very close relationship between the Bush and bin Laden families is a good one. Why shouldn't an open and public association with the House of Saud automatically disqualify anyone named Bush from the Presidency? Would anyone named Bush so honestly address the complexity of his family’s relationship with the bin Ladens?
Do you think the end result is the same?
Obviously not. Despite their close ties with the bin Ladens, someone named Bush will have served in the White House through 5 of the last 7 Presidential Administrations. Whether the Obama campaign ultimately survives the Jeremiah Wright scandal or not, I do not believe the Obamas will approach a Washington legacy comparable to that of The Bushes.
Why did it take the scandal for Obama to publicly distance himself from Wright and to take him away from the campaign?
As I've pointed out, Wright wasn't really in the campaign to begin with. But that's what scandals do. Look, just because I find Obama's candor refreshing, it doesn't mean I'm naive enough to forget he's a politician. His campaign is damaged from Wright and probably hasn't weathered it's last or toughest assault on the issue. He has no choice but to separate himself from Wright. To their credit, Wright and Obama have been fairly candid about this as well – even before the scandal began.
You DON'T do it by creating national health care.
I really don't know what you're talking about here. Obama hasn't proposed anything that can accurately be called "creating national health care."
Well I hate to disappoint. If any candidate is truly interested in people becoming self sufficient...
So be it, I guess. But this has nothing to do with your question about how Obama will create/promote any political unity.
Your Soros links were posted after a you pasted a quote from me asking for evidence that Obama is "bought" by George Soros. The first link does not support this. All it offers is a case against Soros as an anti-Semite and either an America hater or an hyperbolic speaker. The second link offers only the same, with even less information. We can get into those charges if you want (I did question why I'm supposed to be concerned with Soros in the first place) but what we're talking about is whether Obama is beholden to Soros. The only way to know whether this is true is to do some work. What are Soros' sinister objectives? What policies that Obama might not otherwise support has he embraced or endorsed that will help Soros see these objectives through? These are your claims; the onus is on you to support them. Providing links to right-wing sites that claim Soros is a bad person doesn't support a contention that Obama is beholden to Soros.
Good politicians (take that in relative terms) accept money from powerful people, even when their record is questionable. It doesn't mean they are bought. Like I've said, while I do find Obama refreshing, he is still a politician. Let’s be realistic. 2008 isn’t the first Presidential campaign you’ve followed. When we’re talking about honest or candid people in regular terms, we know what we mean. When we’re talking about honesty and candor in a pol (one who has a realistic chance at success) we have no choice but to lower the bar. It’s unfortunate, but it’s the way it is. The system will not permit them to be completely honest about everything if they want to survive.
Whether you want to admit it or not, from a liberal/leftist point of view there's an awful ot to like about him. Policy-wise I don't think he's all that special (tho there are a few bright spots) but the inclusiveness and honesty (of course not complete honesty - that just isn't possible in our political system) are something that you don't see in national politics today.
Seattle Zen
I heard anger from Rev. Wright. You are wrong to throw the word "hate" around so liberally.
I don't have a problem with recognizing some of what Wright has said as hateful. But I do agree that Boxman and others have been rather liberal with that term in blanket-referencing Wright's statements. I have asked Box to try to be more specific in referencing Wright's statements.
I don't know why MITH engages you, it's certainly not "debate".
To Boxman's credit, he's made good on my proposal that we drop the hostility that usually accompanies our discussions. I find that productive and think he should be encouraged, not insulted.
|
|
| | | 34 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Tue, Apr 15, 2008, 10:43
|
Mith:
White and black America are not opposing mirror images of one another. Those comparisons don't work because the communities don't hold themselves or each other to the same standards.
While the histories of those cultures are different, that does not excuse hate speech in 2008 America for anyone. It also should not permit a candidate for waiting to be "caught" having one of those people around. There ought to be some due diligence when putting someone around the President. Further, one would think that if someone had a pure heart without hatred they wouldn't want to associated with someone like that to begin with. "Crazy Uncle" relationship or not.
Since you state that each community does not have the same standards, does that mean it's OK for blacks to hate white people or America? They certainly have a right to their opinion under the 1st Amendment, yet when someone is running for President these remarks have to be considered.
The very close relationship between the Bush and bin Laden families is a good one. Why shouldn't an open and public association with the House of Saud automatically disqualify anyone named Bush from the Presidency? Would anyone named Bush so honestly address the complexity of his family’s relationship with the bin Ladens?
My records here show I am no W apologist. W did not run on a platform as grandiose as Obama's on uniting the country and how he doesn't see red or blue he sees purple. People knew what they were getting with W. Perhaps the Bin Laden connection was not known to the average American, but the House of Saud is pretty well known. The Bush Family is also much more well known than Obama.
Regarding Soros, like I said earlier, he won't exactly be on the front page of the NYT with his wheelings and dealings but with Soros there is smoke and where there's smoke there is fire.
Providing links to right-wing sites that claim Soros is a bad person doesn't support a contention that Obama is beholden to Soros.
And there we go. Any future information I may supply will most likely be dismissed as right wing. As if MoveOn.org themselves will expose Soros or Howard Dean will get on CNN with a laundry list of the things the man has done.
|
|
| | | 35 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Tue, Apr 15, 2008, 10:49
|
Soros and Obama go back to 2004 at least.
Soros, Obama, and the Millionaires Exception
Because Obama was running against Blair Hull in the primary and then Jack Ryan in the general (both multi-millionaires), Obama could, and did, receive especially large donations from individuals, to so-called "millionaires exception." Normally individuals are limited to giving $2300 to candidates in federal elections, but when candidates are running against millionaires, these limits are lifted and candidates are allowed to receive up to $12,000 from a single individual. Soros and his family gave Barack Obama $60,000. This does not include money that Soros was able to funnel to so-called 527 groups (Moveon.org, for example) that have also been politically active; nor does it include money that Soros was able to raise from tapping a network of friends, business associates, and employees.
In mid-March George Soros wrote his latest broadside against the "Israel Lobby"-calling for the Democratic Party to "liberate" itself from the influence of the pro-Israel lobby and stating that America should be dealing with Hamas, the terror group that is now the governing authority of the Palestinians. This was published in the influential New York Review of Books. So inflammatory were Soros's comments that a few leading Democrats issued rebuttals.
Obama received some praise for separating himself from George Soros on March 21st, even if he chose to do so through a spokeswoman. The New York Sun ran an article with the headline, "Obama rebuffs Soros" on March 21st . Hope springs eternal, but in this case, not so much.
New York magazine revealed in an article regarding Barack Obama's fundraising prowess that a mere two weeks later, after this so-called rebuttal of Soros (on April 9th), Barack Obama attended a fundraiser at the New York residence of Steven and Judy Gluckstern. There was a photo at the beginning of the article of Obama speaking from a stairwell to the small group assembled to give him money for his campaign? None other than...George Soros was in the audience.
It seems that Obama's "criticism" (or rather the perfunctory criticism offered by a spokeswoman) of Soros for his anti-Israel diatribe (which was also a veiled insult to American supporters of Israel) has not prevented Barack Obama from socializing with, and receiving money and support from, George Soros.
|
|
| | | 36 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Tue, Apr 15, 2008, 11:11
|
that does not excuse hate speech in 2008 America
More with the hate speech allegations. Several times you have been asked to provide details as to what you believe qualifies as hate speech, but rather than oblige, you just continue to repeat the charges.
One would think that since you use the term so frequently, you would have instant access to material that would support your claim. Otherwise one might think that you're merely parroting party line rhetoric that is meant to enflame, not inform.
I'm also concerned about the double standard that currently exists among candidates.
Madman states in #31:
its easy to make mis-statements. However, given that it's been more than a week and he stands by the meaning of his original words and has solely disavowed the political flare-up that resulted rather than the way his words were interpreted, it would be dishonest of me not to hold him to the standard that he asks of us. Namely, to consider his subsequent statements as auxiliary rather than substitutes.
I started a thread in which Frank Rich and Juan Cole thoroughly exposed some of John McCain's statements about Iraq as factually incorrect and naive, as well as McCain's analogy between Korea and Iraq as the ramblings of a foreign policy novice.
Not only has the media given The Straight Talker McCain a complete pass on his gaffes, so have those who find it important to analyze every word of every sentence that Obama speaks during this campaign.
|
|
| | | 37 | Perm Dude
ID: 423591313
Tue, Apr 15, 2008, 11:14
|
#35: This is an attempt at hairsplitting which doesn't actually work. Obama said Soros was wrong on the question of Hamas. And he is not supposed to be at a fundraiser, then, with Soros in attendence?
WTF?
Boxman: I expect you'll be writing (actually, cutting and pasting) full exposes about Soros' involvement with McCain now. Looking forward to your googling results...
|
|
| | | 38 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Tue, Apr 15, 2008, 11:30
|
Boxman, your responses to my posts have been increasingly short addressing fewer of my points and increasingly missing my context. Perhaps you could hold off your response until you have more time to devote to it. Before now I've been averaging one post per day so I'm certainly not going to hold you to a timely reply.
Re: post 34
that does not excuse hate speech in 2008 America for anyone.
There is a difference between making excuses for Wright (which I have not done) and explaining why Obama and the black community accept him.
Since you state that each community does not have the same standards, does that mean it's OK for blacks to hate white people or America?
Again, this grossly misses my point. In referring to different standards, I'm saying that the black and white communities will accept different kinds of offensive behavior.
My records here show I am no W apologist.
You don't have to continually repeat this. I've not made any case or suggestion that you are a W supporter. All the more reason that I should expect you to hold W to the same standards that you hold Obama to.
People knew what they were getting with W. Perhaps the Bin Laden connection was not known to the average American, but the House of Saud is pretty well known.
I'm not sure that I agree with this contention (as I think you mean it) but if you're right it strengthens my argument, not yours. My contention is that the members of the House of Saud have a long history of terrible, reprehensible behavior and their relationship with Bush's family didn't disqualify the Bushes from the Presidency. Your statement that the Bush/Saudi connection was well known strengthens my point that such a connection doesn't usually disqualify someone from the presidency.
This was in response to your point that closely aligning oneself with someone known for offensive behavior should be a Presidential disqualifier.
W did not run on a platform as grandiose as Obama's on uniting the country and how he doesn't see red or blue he sees purple.
This is a new caveat to your position regarding a pol's association with people who are known for offensive behavior. You now claim that Obama should be held to a different standard than others regarding who his personal associations. With all due respect, Boxman, I find it hard to believe that you'd be just fine with Obama spending his Sundays chumming up with the bin Laden family instead of in the pew at Trinity United.
And there we go. Any future information I may supply will most likely be dismissed as right wing.
This is mistaken as well. I didn't dismiss you links based on the simple fact that they are right wing. I dismissed them because they didn't even attempt to make a case that supports your claim.
You've made a rather bold accusation regarding Obama and Soros and have presented no evidence to support it. I'll ask again: What are Soros' sinister objectives and what policies that Obama might not otherwise support has he embraced or endorsed that will help Soros see these objectives through? No, the NYT will not package your proof together and wrap it in a bow for you. Providing evidence to support your contention will take sopme work and it looks like you haven't done any at all.
I only know of one Barak Obama quote regarding George Soros. It came when he was asked about an article in which Soros opined that Israel should negotiate with Hamas whether Hamas recognizes Israel's right to exist or not. Obama's response was:"Mr. Soros is entitled to his opinions," a campaign spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, said. "But on this issue he and Senator Obama disagree. The U.S. and our allies are right to insist that Hamas — a terrorist organization dedicated to Israel's destruction — meet very basic conditions before being treated as a legitimate actor. AIPAC is one of many voices that share this view." So when Obama was presented with a choice of supporting Soros or Israel, he went with Israel in no uncertain terms.
|
|
| | | 39 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Tue, Apr 15, 2008, 11:36
|
And I see that I should heed my own advise and remember to take a little extra time with my posts, as well. Prior to #38 I'd been doing a pretty good job at keeping the errors to a minimum. Sorry if that last one is a little tough to read.
|
|
| | | 40 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Tue, Apr 15, 2008, 11:42
|
PV #36
More with the hate speech allegations. Several times you have been asked to provide details as to what you believe qualifies as hate speech, but rather than oblige, you just continue to repeat the charges.
One would think that since you use the term so frequently, you would have instant access to material that would support your claim. Otherwise one might think that you're merely parroting party line rhetoric that is meant to enflame, not inform.
I'll second that. It would advance the discussion if Boxman would provide more detail on exactly what he means. It's becomming increasingly difficult to guess at what he means in my responses.
PD #37
I expect you'll be writing (actually, cutting and pasting) full exposes about Soros' involvement with McCain now.
In Boxman's defense his point was not that Obama is more flawed than McCain because of his relationship with Soros. It was that Obama supporters are blind to the fact that he is no better than McCain in that regard. Boxman wrote, "[Obama] is bankrolled by the same hedge fund people that everybody criticizes everyone else for taking money from."
|
|
| | | 41 | Perm Dude
ID: 423591313
Tue, Apr 15, 2008, 13:49
|
But that's not proven by that article, MITH. Soros in the audience at a fundraiser does not equal Obama being bankrolled by hedge fund people.
In fact, Obama only has about 6% of his donations from those who have given the maximum of $4600, and about 90% of his donors have given $200 or less. If by "bankrolled" Boxman means that Obama's campaign has been largely funded by one particular group of people giving large amounts of money, that simply isn't the case.
Now, Obama (or McCain, or Clinton) might be beholden to those interests in some other way. It isn't my point to prove a negative about influence. But it is clear that hedge fund people aren't funding Obama to the degree that they are funding McCain and Clinton (mostly, the latter). And that appears to be true from the get go.
|
|
| | | 42 | walk
ID: 181472714
Tue, Apr 15, 2008, 13:53
|
Today's Real Clear Politics
Many editorials about Obama today, mostly negative...a lot of attention on the SF comments about the "bitterness of small town voters" comment. Ed Kilgore's piece is interesting as it points to the republican's strategy in exploiting the Obama gaffe. Other editorials speak to Obama's liberal voting record. I like Herbert's advice, for Obama to get back on-message.
This campaign has gone on soooo long. I know I have fatigue. I've read less, watched less and posted less (although am busier)...I just want the general campaign already.
|
|
| | | 43 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Tue, Apr 15, 2008, 14:02
|
PD
But that's not proven by that article, MITH.
Agreed. I wasn't defending Boxman's position as accurate. Indeed I've been refuting it through 5 posts now. I just meant that an accusation that he wouldn't hold McCain to the same standard isn't really aplicable, since his point (putting its accuracy aside) is that Obama is the same as McCain.
Unless of course you intended; " expect you'll be writing... full exposes about Soros' involvement with McCain now." as a challenge for Boxman to support his contention that John McCain is associated with Soros. But I don't think that's what you meant.
|
|
| | | 44 | Perm Dude
ID: 423591313
Tue, Apr 15, 2008, 14:05
|
Soros has, indeed, supported McCain. My own point being: "So what?" The Right like to bandy Soros' name around as some evil money man on the Left.
|
|
| | | 45 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Tue, Apr 15, 2008, 14:08
|
Right. That's the essence of one of my points in refute.
|
|
| | | 46 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Wed, Apr 16, 2008, 08:46
|
Back to issues for a short moment ... How much of the world's food supply should we put into our cars and trucks?
James Hamilton on World food prices ... This *should* be one of the defining issues in this debate, although it probably won't be. It is one of the few issues where we have three distinct strategies.
1) Obama -- very pro-ethanol, voted for energy bill, sponsored bills requiring E- fuels in all filling stations, etc.
2) Hillary -- in between McCain and Obama, voted against the energy bill, been more pragmatic??
3) McCain -- initially very anti-ethanol, but has moderated/clarified to say that he's only against federal *subsidies*, which is essentially the policy-level a president would have, anyway.
Incidentally, this specific issue is also why Obama > McCain in Iowa, while McCain might beat Hillary there ... the reverse of the Arkansas political effect. This political impact is why I don't think this will be a major issue in the campaign ... McCain won't want to appear too weak in the Midwest corn states, so he's not going to bring it up. And Obama's not going to brag about helping to starve the world's poor, so he's not going to bring it up. Nonetheless, it *should* be brought up.
|
|
| | | 47 | biliruben
ID: 4911361723
Wed, Apr 16, 2008, 09:49
|
I'm not completely up on the science, but is starting to sound like, in terms of energy efficiency, biofuels should be limited to waste oils, which I'm guessing will be a small, niche market.
Around here, people started using waste corn-oil from restaurants to run their cars. Mmmm! Your Mercedes smells like popcorn!
We should certainly foster and promote these kinds of uses, and I'm sure there are many other sources of waste oil that can be reused in this way, but it won't be a broad solution.
|
|
| | | 48 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Wed, Apr 16, 2008, 10:33
|
my younger brother has hooked up both his vehicles to run on recycled cooking oil. he did most of the work himself, and that had a mechanic friend of his come in and finish up some of the more trickier aspects.
if it's simple enough for my brother and a friend to do it, it oughta be done everywhere. however, Big Oil no doubt stands in the way.
|
|
| | | 49 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Wed, Apr 16, 2008, 10:53
|
Any diesel engine will run on used cooking oil. There's nothing standing in the way except the cost of producing the stuff. It's only a byproduct or waste product until there's a market for it.
|
|
| | | 50 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Wed, Apr 16, 2008, 12:04
|
Bruce Springsteen, on Obama's comments about small-town voters, as well as the comments made by Reverend Wright.
"Critics have tried to diminish Senator Obama through the exaggeration of certain of his comments and relationships," Springsteen wrote. "While these matters are worthy of some discussion, they have been ripped out of the context and fabric of the man's life and vision ... often in order to distract us from discussing the real issues: war and peace, the fight for economic and racial justice, reaffirming our Constitution, and the protection and enhancement of our environment."
on point.
|
|
| | | 51 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Wed, Apr 16, 2008, 15:05
|
Brinker has been ripping Obama a new one the last few weeks on his show. This is no Republican extremist mind you. He gave Bill Clinton's administration a lot of credit for economic policies during his Presidency.
Brinker is pretty even handed...though clearly a capitalist.
He's very concerned with Obamas proposal to lift the limit on the social security tax from the existing 100K.
His concern is the effect it will have on the economy.
Taxing companies and additional 6.5% on it's highest wage earners and taxing self employeed busines owners an additional 13%.
It will put people in high tax states like CA and NY into the 60+% nominal tax catagory.
He is very concerned about the effect this will have on the economy as people at that level may find it no longer worth while to run a business at a 60% tax level.
Just throwing something out there.
|
|
| | | 52 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Wed, Apr 16, 2008, 15:09
|
Brinker also mentioned a friend of his who is an active member of the DNC told him there is a talking point email out there telling people to call his show and defend Obama, including defensive positions.
One caller two weeks ago called up and went after Brinker concerning Obama and Brinker took him on. The call ended with Brinker asking the man 3 times "what do you do for a living". The man stammered and stumbled and finally hung up.
That's when Brinker brought up the email.
|
|
| | | 53 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Wed, Apr 16, 2008, 15:19
|
Nerve -
Could you point me to the proposal for 13% tax increase for self-employed business owners?
I can't find it on Obama's website.
|
|
| | | 54 | Perm Dude
ID: 53328168
Wed, Apr 16, 2008, 16:16
|
Taxing companies and additional 6.5% on it's highest wage earners and taxing self employeed busines owners an additional 13%.
This isn't true, nerve (neither the percentages not the theory). These people are already taxed at that amount. What Obama wants to do is lift the ceiling of the amount they earn which is covered by this tax (the ceiling of which is going up anyway--he just wants to lift it higher).
Currently the ceiling for Social Security is at $102K. not $100K (last year was $97.5K and in 2004 it was $94.2K), and the tax rate for Social Security is 6.2% (there is an additional 1.45% tax for Medicare, but there is no ceiling on Medicare tax--those "highest wage earners" are already paying Medicare tax and have been since 1993).
The increase in the tax would only apply to those amounts over and above the current ceiling. If the ceiling was raised to $150K a person making this amount would pay an additional 6.2% on $48K. The rate does not increase, only the amount of money under which it is subject will change (and, since the ceiling is raised automatically as average wages increase, we are talking only about a planned increase above the automatic increase. There is really no way that one can term this an increase in the percentage that people pay unless someone
I don't know what Obama has for a number (don't see it on his web site, but it might be out there somewhere), but Brinker doesn't appear to have all the facts in his criticism.
|
|
| | | 55 | Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Wed, Apr 16, 2008, 16:41
|
Er, I meant neither the percentages nor the theory
Stupid fingers.
|
|
| | | 56 | Madman
ID: 14139157
Wed, Apr 16, 2008, 23:06
|
Brinker's basically right, PD. Obama's suggested removing the SS tax ceiling, which changes the marginal rate from 0% to 6.2% if you are employed by a company. The company would theoretically kick in a matching 6.2%. Self-employed would have to pay both the employer's portion and the worker's portion, for a 12.4% increase on all income above the currently-schedule cap.
This is an extremely large change in tax burden for a group of people who don't necessarily have to do the extra work to get that extra money. This is probably why Obama won't commit to it. That and the fact that it doesn't stabilize the Trust Fund ratio (the best measure for a fiscally sound SS reform plan) nor restore actuarial balance. Although it does help.
|
|
| | | 57 | Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Wed, Apr 16, 2008, 23:17
|
It has been some time since I read through Obama's SSA plan, but the raising of the ceiling (which you are saying is actually an elimination? News to me.) is only one component of the whole plan.
Like steering a big ship away from the rocks, it isn't necessary that a huge single thing happen right now--it is more important that a number of small things should be done now.
As for the tax itself, this only applies to the amount above the ceiling. And nerve's quote of Brinker leads me to believe that Brinker doesn't know that there is already no ceiling on Medicare tax.
|
|
| | | 58 | Madman
ID: 14139157
Wed, Apr 16, 2008, 23:30
|
Br -- Here's his official website commentary ... BO on SS ... Obama will protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries alike. And he does not believe it is necessary or fair to hardworking seniors to raise the retirement age. Obama is strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security.
Obama believes that the first place to look for ways to strengthen Social Security is the payroll tax system. Currently, the Social Security payroll tax applies to only the first $97,500 a worker makes. Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security and he will work with Congress and the American people to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security solvent for at least the next half century.
The SS payroll tax is effectively double for all self-employed folks (although some research effectively argues that all of our wages are lower by the employer-paid 6.2%, so take that for whatever it is worth).
Notice also the deft move away from the 75-year actuarial solvency standard to the "next half-century" ... this is a sneaky capitulation to the fact that eliminating the payroll tax won't get you to 75-year solvency. And also note there is no mention of a stable trust fund ratio, since that sets the bar even higher. So much for the "tough talk". If Clinton actually balanced the non-SS budget, I'd take that solution over what Obama's offering.
He's also mentioned this in various debates ... although he's backed off in more recent ones.
Lastly, we should bear in mind that his mind isn't made up. He's also floated a doughnut-hole proposal. link ... this makes slight more sense from a political stand-point, but even less sense from a financing perspective.
Essentially, what you'll get from him is a promise to talk tough, but to take all the big non-tax levers off the table (indexing benefits to longevity or mortality), altering inflation factors, etc. Pretty much your standard cynical politician bury-your-head-in-the-sand and pray for donations from illegal immigrants. (this is a reference to the actuarial accounting change which reflects "bonus" contributions to our SS from illegals ... this change improved the 75-year actuarial balance by 0.2%-0.3% of payroll, quite the big shift.)
|
|
| | | 59 | Madman
ID: 14139157
Wed, Apr 16, 2008, 23:42
|
It has been some time since I read through Obama's SSA plan, but the raising of the ceiling (which you are saying is actually an elimination? News to me.)
Well, I've heard a number of different versions ... I don't think you can fairly pin him down to a specific design, other than to say his main policy lever is increased tax revenues from wages earned above the currently-scheduled cap. In whatever form that eventually takes.
... is only one component of the whole plan.
Like steering a big ship away from the rocks, it isn't necessary that a huge single thing happen right now--it is more important that a number of small things should be done now.
I'd agree with that. I don't see Obama advocating for anything other than a change in /elimination of the payroll cap, however.
As for the tax itself, this only applies to the amount above the ceiling. And nerve's quote of Brinker leads me to believe that Brinker doesn't know that there is already no ceiling on Medicare tax. Agree with you here ... I assumed that Brinker was simply rounding to 13% for simplicity. Dunno.
|
|
| | | 60 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 04:43
|
Could you point me to the proposal for 13% tax increase for self-employed business owners?
I can't find it on Obama's website.
The proposal is to raise the limit on SS tax which currently caps out at 97K.
So currently if you make 150K for instance you and your employer only pays the SS tax up to 97K which is logical on a number of levels. As far as I know it's been like this for a long time. You also "cap out" on how much SS you take home when you retire.
Obama is proposing completely lifting the cap, with the possible exception of income between 100K and 200K (Actually was a John Edwards idea). So starting at 200K you and your employeer would be taxed an additional 13%. If you are self employed you would pay it your self.
Both Obama and Clinton have also discussed raising the top tax rate to 39.5% (Pre Bush Tax cut) So 39.5% + 13% = 52.5% then add Ca. State tax of 9% = 61.5% nominal tax rate.
I'm not surprised it's not on his web site.
Brinker is calling it the stupidest tax proposal he has heard since he started his show.
one link
|
|
| | | 61 | Perm Dude
ID: 13336177
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 09:37
|
Not to nitpick, but the ceiling on the amounts subject to Social Security withholding is now $102 K. That is, 2008 earnings up to $102 are subject to Social Security tax. The numbers I posted above are the correct ones.
You also "cap out" on how much SS you take home when you retire.
Well, you can't have it both ways, nerve. If you limit the amount that a person pays in (by having a cap on the tax) then you shouldn't be surprised that there is a maximum amount that a person can take out. The limit on benefits exists because the limit on income subject to the tax exists.
The income tax is a separate matter (though, under Bush, the federal budget has become a more immediate concern).
|
|
| | | 62 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 11:12
|
OK PD got it, it was 97K last year. The "13%" was my mistake, not Brinker's, I was doing it from memory.
But that reminds me I left medicare out of the equation above. This would make the nominal tax in CA closer to mid 63-64%
Well, you can't have it both ways, nerve. If you limit the amount that a person pays in (by having a cap on the tax) then you shouldn't be surprised that there is a maximum amount that a person can take out. The limit on benefits exists because the limit on income subject to the tax exists.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious...
My point is, you are going to take the cap off, which was put in place to compensate people who aren't receiving any benefits after a very low bar.
If your attitude is screw them they are making enough money, go ahead and tax them at 63%, there are consequences beyond the effect on the individual tax payer. It's adding another 6.2% to a business owners bottom line when compensating high paid executives. 13.4% to a self employeed.
Will they just take it in stride? Or will they just pass the price on to the consumer? Will some of these guys who have made their money just decide working for 35 cents on the dollar isn't worth the trouble and go play golf instead?
A pretty simple solution is to simply gradually raise the SS age requirements. We are all living much longer then a few decades ago, it's logical we should work longer given that fact.
Many people who get older "want" to work longer and get satisfaction from their jobs. (Have you seen how happy those Wal Mart greeters are? Just ask Sarge)
My point is when the tax gets that agressive it hurts everyone because it wil have an effect on the economy.
I'm more then happy to say before we create this big a tax, let's work on balancing the budge starting with the military budget as ground zero.
OK now it's the socialists turn to drop into the thread and tell us it's great that we are paying the upper middle class 37 cents on the dollar.
|
|
| | | 63 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 11:13
|
Not to nitpick
Actually PD that was the very definition of "nit picking".
|
|
| | | 64 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 11:25
|
Clinton's remarks in the ABC article shows just how clueless she is.
"Middle class and working families are paying a much higher percentage of their income [than wealthier Americans] -- that was Warren Buffet's position," said Clinton at a June 29 PBS debate, "When you cut off the contribution at $90,000, $95,000, that's a lot of money between $95,000 and the $46 million that Warren Buffet made last year. And he's honest enough to say, 'Look, tax me because I'm a patriotic American and I want to make sure our country stays strong and is fair.'"
If this were true it might make sense but Buffet only receives a salary of $100,000 a year. The rest of the compensation she is describing is stock gains which are taxed as capital gains and therefore exempt from the SS tax.
Obviously Buffet doesn't care just about the American tax payer, he has donated all his money to Bill Gates charity, the government and American people will get none and most of the money is being spent helping Africa. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great thing, but let's cut the "I want to make sure our country stays strong crap".
No one is stopping Buffet from voluntarily paying higher taxes if it's such a great idea...has he done it? Why not?
|
|
| | | 65 | biliruben
ID: 4911361723
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 11:25
|
Personally, I just can't get worked up about either employees making 100K+ a year or the companies paying them that wage.
The income distribution in the country is getting increasingly and radically skewed. When the average family's income declines over the last decade, yet we are seeing the top 10% (which is pretty much who this affecting), getting the lion's share of the productivity gains, I say suck it.
If you think businesses will simply lose motivation and fold-up shop over the difficulties imposed on paying someone a six-figure income, I think you are buying into a giant load of shiznet right out of Reagan economic theory.
|
|
| | | 66 | Perm Dude
ID: 13336177
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 11:33
|
#63: My point wasn't to nitpick (that is, to point out that the numbers are slightly off), but to demonstrate:
a: The ceiling is rising
b: The ceiling is currently already more than Brinker is citing
c. The percentages he cites to support his argument are wrong.
Now, pointing out that someone's numbers are wrong might be considered nitpicking, I suppose. But if someone is going to cite numbers they should be the correct ones. Otherwise that someone runs the risk of not having their argument taken very seriously, particularly his "sky-is-falling" argument which needs to be supported by facts.
Given how many tax breaks the people we are talking about have received in the last 6 years, this is not a big deal in my opinion, especially since we are talking about an increase in their benefits as a result.
|
|
| | | 67 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 11:41
|
If you think businesses will simply lose motivation and fold-up shop over the difficulties imposed on paying someone a six-figure income, I think you are buying into a giant load of shiznet right out of Reagan economic theory.
1) 5 out of 6 businesses fail without this additional shove, why does an additional 6.2% tax on top of a company that is struggling not make a difference?
2) You think it's fair for the government to take 63% of a persons wages? That's fair?
3) You dont think the companies who can will just pass the tax right back on to the working stiff? Like they are going to settle to just make less profit?
4) If you think the average family makes less then they did 10 years ago then I think you are buying into a giant load of shiznet right out of socialist economic theory.
8-]
I told you the socialists would be on soon...where's Zen Bili?
|
|
| | | 68 | biliruben
ID: 4911361723
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 11:45
|
Show me the 63%. Break it down for me for someone making 120K here in Seattle.
|
|
| | | 69 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 11:47
|
PD b: The ceiling is currently already more than Brinker is citing
c. The percentages he cites to support his argument are wrong.
PD Did you even read my response?
I was the one who cited the incorrect percentages, I did it off the top of my head.
Yes the ceiling rises a few thousand dollars at a time to compensate for inflation. Obama is proposing completely eliminating the cap.
It's not rocket science PD. The ABC article cites it as being an additional 1 trillion dollar tax. You think the government taking an extra 1 trillion dollars a year out of the economy won't have an effect on the economy.
|
|
| | | 70 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 11:48
|
PD 61 -- You work in the Obama campaign, no? Not to nitpick, but you might want to clue him in on the fact that it's up to $102,000, not 97k ... It wasn't his most embarrassing gaffe of the night, and is irrelevant, IMO. But since you bring it up ... ;)
BTW, the sharp increases over recent years reflects the sharp increases in recent years in measured national average wages (subject to SS tax). I suspect this rate of increase will slow-down in 2009-10, but it is hard to tell since it's a nominal index, not a real one (IIRC). Does anyone know if Obama's suggested $200k+ line of demarcation is also going to float with national wages?
BR -- according to the dems last night, the magic # is $200k for Obama, $250k for Hillary ... no new taxes whatsoever on people earning less than that. Read my lips. Which basically means that they'll have to abandon any spending plans. An interesting tactic. Good news is that my family's exempt from any tax increase as long as a Democrat's in power. Wuhoo! I get to keep my Bush tax cut thanks to the Dems! Apparently so will about 94% of taxpayers ... Ah, democracy at work. Just gotta be sure you're in the majority and everything is *cool* cause you can get someone else to pony up. They will keep working to may share of the tax burden, won't they?
Although what in the heck did Obama mean when he agreed to the no-new-taxes pledge, but hedged by saying "Well, it depends on how you calculate it." ??????
No one is stopping Buffet from voluntarily paying higher taxes if it's such a great idea...has he done it? Why not? Somewhere I read that voluntary tax collections to the feds amounted to somewhere around $2.6m in 2006, nationwide. That's intentionally million. Wish I could find that source.
|
|
| | | 71 | Perm Dude
ID: 13336177
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 11:55
|
I saw that on his website as well, Madman. But you are nitpicking.
I haven't seen Obama's proposal (would love a link if someone has it). I think we're all flailing around a bit without the specifics of what he'd do. But I think one of the few strong points he made in the debate was on the question of Social Security, in which Clinton said she'd not raise anything but would commission the issue, and Obama pointed out that her example of the 1983 commission recommended those very things she said she wouldn't do.
|
|
| | | 72 | Perm Dude
ID: 13336177
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 11:58
|
You work in the Obama campaign, no?
Your Rovian attempt to discredit the messenger as a substitute for actual issue discourse won't work here, Madman...
:)
|
|
| | | 73 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 12:04
|
Show me the 63%. Break it down for me for someone making 120K here in Seattle
Bili again did you read my post? Washington doesn't have a State income tax therefore it wouldn't be that high there.
The nominal 63% rate would be CA. (Which stated)
Both Clinton and Obama have discussed rolling back the Bush tax cut for the top bracket. That would make it 39.5% instead of current (34.5% ?)
For a self employed individual...
39.5% + 2.9% medicare + 12.4% SS + 9.3% Ca state tax.
64.1% nominal tax rate.
PD please check my numbers and thanks for reminding me about Mediare taxes...8-]
Washington State would only be 54.8%
|
|
| | | 74 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 12:06
|
If he doesn't raise the top bracket then it's a mear 59.1% nominal tax rate in CA.
|
|
| | | 75 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 12:28
|
Dang, I need to retract part of 70. I think Obama's SS cap is a bigger gaffe than I realized. Here's the full quote:
Well, Charlie, I just have to respond real quickly to Senator Clinton's last comment. What I have proposed is that we raise the cap on the payroll tax, because right now millionaires and billionaires don't have to pay beyond $97,000 a year.
That's where it's kept. Now most firefighters, most teachers, you know, they're not making over $100,000 a year. In fact, only 6 percent of the population does.
Ouch. It's one thing to misquote the current #. It's quite another to not realize that it floats with wages.
Of course, this quote comes in the context of a much more serious Clinton gaffe about firefighters, etc., earning that much money. This isn't household total income we're talking about, it's an individual-specific wage total that is subject to this tax.
Not sure about his "6%" statistic.
|
|
| | | 76 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 12:30
|
I should also mention that Brinker hasn't been emphatically opposed to raising the top bracket back to 39.5%. (As I've said he's pretty even handed)
His biggest point is don't raise any taxes until this economy gets turned back around.
|
|
| | | 77 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 12:37
|
I haven't seen Obama's proposal (would love a link if someone has it). I think we're all flailing around a bit without the specifics of what he'd do. But I think one of the few strong points he made in the debate was on the question of Social Security, in which Clinton said she'd not raise anything but would commission the issue, and Obama pointed out that her example of the 1983 commission recommended those very things she said she wouldn't do.
Again, I'm pretty sure Obama doesn't have a proposal. But the absence of a proposal doesn't mean that we can't evaluate what he's said.
If you my honest opinion, I don't think he cares and an Obama Presidency won't see anything done about it at all. This is an issue that the Democratic congress will decide, and from what I can see, there's absolutely no umph behind looking at it. For better or worse.
And, yes Obama slammed Clinton for seeking bipartisan compromise on Social Security. More of the typical partisan clap-trap. Excuse me if I don't get excited about a candidate who mocks bipartisanship simply because it means some of one's goals will have to be compromised for the good of the country.
|
|
| | | 78 | Perm Dude
ID: 13336177
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 12:44
|
You missed his point, Madman. He wasn't mocking bipartiship. He was mocking Clinton for using a bipartisan commission example which is likely (as it did in the past) to recommend solutions which are the opposite of what Clinton said are acceptable to her.
One either says everything in on the table and let a commission sort out the details (and accept them), or you make your own decisions. Clinton wants it both ways.
|
|
| | | 79 | biliruben
ID: 4911361723
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 12:56
|
You are over-estimating the total %, Nerve, because you are ignoring deductions and tax breaks.
Helping my sister, a small-business woman, itemize, she practically paid no taxes, even though on paper she made more gross income than I do.
If you show me someone who actually pays more than 50% of their gross in taxes, I'll show you a bleedin' moron. I am guessing that not too many 100K+'ers are morons. Realtors and mortgage brokers excepted.
|
|
| | | 80 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 12:59
|
I guess we just have to disagree. I don't believe any single person should be making their "own decisions" on a program like Social Security. Even Bush had a commission.
Working across the aisle isn't a catch-22. It's fair to present what you'll fight for, but to acknowledge that we are a diverse country with diverse viewpoints and that the final solution that is actually workable -- and therefore in the country's best interests -- will entail a significant degree of compromise. Not sure why Obama's not getting that. Or maybe he does, and just doesn't care about getting Social Security fixed. Which is my aforementioned speculation; I just don't think he's this stupid.
|
|
| | | 81 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 13:02
|
BR -- it's 50% on the margin, not average. There are quite a few self-employed folks that earn more than $200k and therefore would be facing a significant hike in their marginal tax rates, which are the revelant tax rates to be talking about when discussing behavioral incentives.
Although overall, I do suspect quite a few pay 50% if you include all taxes, which nerve doesn't. Most notably there are sales taxes, franchise taxes, indirect corporate taxes, etc., that we all pay. But that's diverging from the point of this debate.
|
|
| | | 82 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 13:05
|
Aargh ... 80 should read ... I don't believe any single person should imposing their "own decisions" on a program like Social Security. ... I'll add that this is especially true if the person in question doesn't understand the basics of the current law, like whether the wage base cap is indexed or not.
|
|
| | | 83 | Perm Dude
ID: 13336177
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 13:19
|
Well, the merits of another bipartisan commission on Social Security should probably enter the equation in order to determine if you are using this as a basis to test Obama's willingness to go across the aisle. Bill Clinton had two SS commissions (neither one under sniper fire, as I recall). The options are few: Raise revenues by increasing the tax rates or the amounts covered, decrease benefits, or privatize (or snippets of some/all of these).
But hey: You want to root around for Obama gotchas go right ahead. Sometimes leadership isn't the opposite of bipartisanship.
|
|
| | | 84 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 13:45
|
39.5% + 2.9% medicare + 12.4% SS + 9.3% Ca state tax.
You are over-estimating the total %, Nerve
Bili's also right because the 9.3% CA income tax is only on the portion of income after Federal tax. You are not taxed on your W2 amounts, you are taxed on your income minus federal taxes. It's been a while since I've filled out a CA income tax return, but I doubt that has changed.
I also agree with Bili, there are no self employed people in America who pay 40% of their income in taxes. Everything from chewing gum to visits to the Emperor's Club are expensed.
|
|
| | | 85 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 13:48
|
I was more responding to Nerve's comment that we were being so bloody unfair to the richie-riches because they were paying such a high average tax rate.
Even when discussing marginal rates, I don't really think we have much to worry about in terms of motivation. In the real world, as an small business person, you just do what you need to do. You don't slack off because you are approaching some income where your marginal tax rate might increase. In reality you generally have no idea until after you do your taxes months later, and even if you did, your clients generally won't let you just quit for a few months to avoid paying a higher rate. What's my sister going to do, calculate her income obsessively every day, and as soon as she feels like she will be paying too much tax if she treats the next client, quit? Her clients who rely on her for weekly treatments would just find another acupuncturist if she tried this.
This sort of theoretical economic mumbo-jumbo just doesn't make any sense in the the real world.
|
|
| | | 86 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 14:24
|
BR 85 -- the two big movements are a general disuasion from work altogether, transfers to lower paying occupations, etc. That's the longer-run.
The shorter-run are the accounting gimmics, which both Democratic candidates want to increase ... changing timing of income, after-the-fact tax shelters, etc.
I'll also point out that I'm fairly sure the SS actuaries don't use dynamic scoring like the CBO does, so these impacts aren't in their estimates. The impact to federal general revenues is also something outside of their mandate.
This sort of theoretical economic mumbo-jumbo just doesn't make any sense in the the real world. The classic example is the yacht industry in the early 1990s ... but there are many others. Not sure what is terribly radical about the idea that high marginal tax rates either discourages work or causes people to seek compensation in tax-sheltered arenas. I guess we are all too young to remember the 1970s ... I bet Brinker's not.
|
|
| | | 87 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 14:32
|
The options are few: Raise revenues by increasing the tax rates or the amounts covered, decrease benefits, or privatize (or snippets of some/all of these).
This is an over-simplified view of the world. In reality, when people talk about "cutting benefits" they are talking about changes to complicated SS formulas that may or may not result in actual reductions, may or may not improve equity, etc.
This is why I'm a large proponent of a set of solutions that can be characterized as "automatic stabilizers" ... automatic formula changes that attempt to maintain benefits and solvency balances around certain notions that are agreeable and fair.
It's very hard for us to imagine what the "promised" Social Security benefits of 2045 are going to look like, how large they are relative to incomes at the time, how large they are relative to longevity, etc. But what we can do is establish formulas that, for example, maintain *today's* actuarial amounts and relativities to payroll, tax burden, etc., into the future. For example, automatic adjustments based upon longevity / mortality, ideally through the normal retirement age, but potentially through the monthly benefit amount if must be. You can conceive of returning to FDR's minimum payout guarantees, as well.
I also think the morality of the current subsidy for 1930s traditional families ought to be questioned. It's particularly odd that supposedly progressive Democrats continue to insist on attacking 2-earner households the way that Social Security currently does. Not to mention widower and divorcee issues.
Incidentally, this is also why I do *NOT* like solutions centered around picking this index formula or that ... we simply don't know the impact of switching index formulas. It could help, but they could hurt, as well.
If you want to describe all of this a "benefit cuts", so be it. But there are gigantic equity issues involved that the Democrats are simply ignoring.
|
|
| | | 88 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 14:34
|
The classic example is the yacht industry in the early 1990s
The yacht industry in the 1990's was affected by the Luxury Tax, not any marginal rate.
|
|
| | | 89 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 14:36
|
People stopped working in the 1970s?
I can't get too terribly worked up about how much we tax people who have an actual choice about whether or not to work. Everyone I know works to eat and have a roof over their heads.
Those people who build yachts as a hobby are not on my radar, and I honestly don't think we should be crafting economic policy with them in mind.
If folks are choosing options, for instance, instead of income, just tax the options at the same rate as income. With the political will, loop-holes can simply be closed.
|
|
| | | 90 | Perm Dude
ID: 13336177
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 14:36
|
The yacht industry was an example of targetting taxation on goods, not an income tax example. Essentially, bili is saying that there is no evidence that progressive taxation is a work disincentive on by its nature, and in particular above a certain amount of income.
He points to the fact that people at that income aren't primarily working for the additional marginal increases in income.
Perhaps Brinker is too young to remember the 1950s, in which the top income tax rate was 91% and yet the economy was chugging.
|
|
| | | 91 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 14:37
|
You are over-estimating the total %, Nerve, because you are ignoring deductions and tax breaks.
Where did I ignore tax breaks?
Of course you are only taxed the 64% level on taxable income after all deductions including Zen's exclusion for taxes.
You are also only taxed the 64% on the money that is over $200,000.
Even Bill Gates pays the same tax rate as everyone else on the first $20,000, $30,000, $40,000. I guess I thought that was just common sense and everyone knows that.
The 64% only kicks in on the money over $200,000 and after all deductions.
So if someone makes $300,000 a year after all deductions, he is not taxed 64% on the first $200,000 (If that is the level Obama uses) the 64% is on the money between $200,000 and $300,000.
That's pretty basic tax law right?
Sheez maybe not.
I also agree with Bili, there are no self employed people in America who pay 40% of their income in taxes. Everything from chewing gum to visits to the Emperor's Club are expensed.
Zen nice sarcasm.
I'm self employed and I just did my taxes.
I deducted a computer, a printer and a dentist bill. I deducted 10% of the cost of my apartment because it's my office. I'm still trying to pull together mileage (Bad at keeping records.)
That's it.
Less then the 7.65% of my SS and Medicare tax that my employeer would normally pay, not to mention no medical insurance.
I know it sounds "cool" to say we deduct chewing gum, but it's not true. It's not only honesty, I just don't want to mess with the IRS so I only deduct what is 100% legit, and it ain't much.
I'm also with Madman, this bill will have no effect on my tax situation so I am not being self serving.
Really my point is, this is a thread about Obama and this needed to be included.
A Trillion dollar tax is a pretty big deal no matter how they get it.
|
|
| | | 92 | Perm Dude
ID: 13336177
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 14:38
|
BTW, I'm not arguing that rates should be 90%. Merely that the reflexive argument about work disincentives for even very small tax increases for the rich is overbroad.
|
|
| | | 93 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 14:38
|
SZ 88 -- that impacted the price of yachts, just like marginal tax rates impact the price of labor.
BR -- People stopped working in the 1970s? ... since the 1970s, there has been a rapid expansion of the labor force participation rate, a slowing of the decline in the workweek, etc. I mentioned the 1970s primarily because it was characterized by policies that Obama seems to support ... higher marginal tax rates with more tax loopholes.
|
|
| | | 94 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 14:41
|
The only reason the labor for participation rate has expanded is because of more women entering the workforce. It's been in steady decline for men since the 70s, and that's with declining marginal tax rates.
|
|
| | | 95 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 14:43
|
very small tax increases A 12.5% increase in tax rate, plus an increase in the income tax rate (return to 39.5% top bracket), plus any change in state tax rates (state budgets are deteriorating) ... that adds up to a non-trivial tax increase for many second-wage earners.
Why not stay at home, take care of the kids, forego daycare payments ... and you get the same Social Security, anyway, just to wrap these two conversations back together.
The labor force participation rate is already plateauing because of (I suspect) a cultural dynamic ... no reason to take a tax sledge-hammer to it.
|
|
| | | 96 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 14:46
|
The only reason the labor for participation rate has expanded is because of more women entering the workforce. It's been in steady decline for men since the 70s, and that's with declining marginal tax rates.
It is precisely the two-earner households where you see the biggest impact of tax policy, since they have the easiest ability to attach and detach from the labor supply ...
It's the combination of marginal rates and wages ... wages for men have increased slower than women, more than offsetting the marginal tax rate reductions, I would suspect.
|
|
| | | 97 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 14:49
|
I'm disputing whether taxes would have a feather's effect, much less a sledge-hammer.
My guess is that people's home values doubling and tripling over the last decade had a lot to do with people feeling they could retire early or go to a 1-income household.
My guess is that that trend is reversing right now. Rapidly. And it will have a much larger effect that a few percentage points tax on the 200 thousandth dollar.
|
|
| | | 98 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 14:53
|
My guess is that that trend is reversing right now. Rapidly. And it will have a much larger effect that a few percentage points tax on the 200 thousandth dollar.
Well, if that was your standard, I would have agreed to begin with.
I'm beginning to realize I never really felt the housing mess creep up like I should have ... I guess that's the downside of Arkansas' conservatism ... you don't truly empathize with the craziness going on elsewhere. Never thought I'd say that ...
|
|
| | | 99 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 14:56
|
LOL.
Yeah, when we started discussing housing in 2003, I thought it was crazy then. Little did I know what would follow in the next few years would make 2003 look sane.
We are veering far off-track here I think.
|
|
| | | 100 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 16:04
|
Rapidly. And it will have a much larger effect that a few percentage points tax on the 200 thousandth dollar.
Bili, if they do raise the top rate to 39.5% (5% increase) and eliminate the SS tax above 200K 12.4% that's a 17.4% increase.
How does that equate to "a few percentage points?
Oh right, socialist math. 8-]
It's an additional Trillion dollars in taxes. Imagine what big brother can do with that?
|
|
| | | 101 | Perm Dude
ID: 13336177
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 16:07
|
Pay off 1/3 of the Iraq War?
|
|
| | | 102 | Boldwin
ID: 463471413
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 16:57
|
It'll go in the 'pay off the war' lockbox, Nerve.
|
|
| | | 103 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 17:36
|
We are approaching 10 trillion in debt. You think we might start trying to work that off?
I can't even fathom how much a trillion is. It's beyond my comprehension. And we have passed 10 of them on to our kids and grandkids to pay.
Yeah, I think we should start taxing the living-hell out of the rich. If they lose their "motivation" to stop stealing grandma's pension, or being all creative with our home mortgages, all the better.
Sorry, Nerve. No matter how you try to twist it, I can't rustle up any sympathy or concern for the rich, or worry how they can keep on going into work if they pay a little more money to uncle Sammy. Feel free to keep trying, however.
Anyone making that kinda dough is probably getting more income from capital gains and dividends anyway, and we hardly tax that at all.
|
|
| | |
| | | 105 | Boldwin
ID: 463471413
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 19:13
|
Anyone who believes they only mean to raise taxes on those earning over 200k needs to turn in their mensa card immediately cause it has just been cancelled.
Other than the fact that presidents don't have the power to raise taxes period, there isn't an iota of truth in the position they both took.
|
|
| | | 106 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 19:14
|
Sorry, Nerve. No matter how you try to twist it, I can't rustle up any sympathy or concern for the rich, or worry how they can keep on going into work if they pay a little more money to uncle Sammy. Feel free to keep trying, however.
Oh now I'm "twisting it"???
Twisting???
What did I "twist" Bili? Please enlighten me.
I stated facts. What is the "twist"? Or does that just "sound cool" like self employed people writing off chewing gum?
It's not a matter of crying a river for the rich.
A trillion dollars in taxes will have negative consequences for everyone.
Classes warfare feels good. It warms your belly.
Taking 65% of someone's pay for the guvment is BS.
Pay for Iraq?
How bout we keep our a$$ out in the first place?
Don't use that as an excuse for borderline communist confiscation of property.
Have you considered a move to China?
CEO's are often overpaid.
Many people making over 200K a year often work their a$$ off and excel at what they do. They help create wealth for an entire company that exceeds the average worker, therefore benefiting everyone. They get advanced degrees and work long hours. None of that matters to you.
I'm not one of them, but I understand their value. A socialist doesn't.
Companies don't pay them these salaries because they like their haircuts.
I'm not talking about absurd CEO salaries.
I've worked for people who made mid six figures, they deserved it based on their contribution to the corporation. They more then compensated the company in value.
or worry how they can keep on going into work if they pay a little more money
How is the government taking 60+% of their pay "a little more money"?
|
|
| | | 107 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 19:29
|
I find how your discussing it disingenuous. Perhaps that's a better word than twisting. You keep touting that 60% figure like that's really how much they are going to pay on the totality of what they make, when in actuality it's going to be nothing close to that.
I don't think it's socialist to have the people who have benefited disproportionately from the fruits of our society give back at a higher rate than those struggling to pay their bills at the bottom of the ladder. If you think that's socialism, so be it.
Our society provides an education, infrastructure and a marginally stable environment for people to excel and make that money. I don't think it's radical for those who do excel to contribute to maintaining those things so that our society can continue to produce these types of people. I am not saying they don't work hard and deserve their high salaries. I just think paying a bit more tax is the least they can do as payback for being lucky enough to be born in our magnificent country.
I also think there are plenty of folks who make money off the backs of other's labor, who are compensated disproportionately to their value and contribution. Think Kerry Kittinger. Think Hedge fund manager Y, selling worthless derivatives in fancy fancy pink bows to CALPERS. Think Wall Street hustlers sucking little old lady's retirement funds dry with excessive fees. That's capitalism for you, and I think it's a huge flaw. The best I can think of to make up for that flaw is to tax those people at a higher rate to somewhat mitigate this flaw and use it to build a safety net for those who get screwed.
|
|
| | | 108 | Madman
ID: 14139157
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 22:36
|
BR104 -- those are professional averages. There's quite a bit of variation; it's not accurate to say that only CEO's are impacted.
I just think paying a bit more tax is the least they can do as payback for being lucky enough to be born in our magnificent country.
A *bit* more? Higher income earners pay a disproportionate fraction of our overall tax burden. The issue isn't whether they continue to do that ... it's whether they need to pony up even more. And with SS, the issue is whether it is a "social insurance" program available to all members of society, or whether it requires subsidization from the wealthy.
Obama is the first Presidential candidate to propose the de-linking of SS taxes and SS benefits as the sole mechanism for improving its financing. A founding principle of SS was that it was "social insurance", meaning it was a society-wide program available to everyone because of a "market failure" (modern terminology) in the annuity market. This meant that the more you put in, the more you got out. This has survived, although it is considerably more progressive on the benefit side than it used to be.
If I was a "progressive" Democrat, I'd want to think long and hard about undercutting one of the core moral arguments underpinning Social Security's current structure.
Fortunately, I'm not. Therefore, that argument holds no sway with me. I welcome the long-run political dynamic involved with transforming Social Security from a social-insurance program and turning it into a welfare-for-the-poor program. Just don't say I didn't warn you Obama supporters. (although as I said before, I doubt he'll do anything at all about it, so maybe it's all moot)
|
|
| | | 109 | Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 23:04
|
as the sole mechanism for improving its financing.
Is this true? Where have you found this information?
|
|
| | | 110 | Madman
ID: 14139157
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 23:21
|
PD -- that's the only option listed on his website, and the only one he talks about.
I'll be the first to admit, you can't pin him down. For example, in Sept. of last year, he was calling for the same bipartisan 1983-style commission that he just lambasted Clinton for this time.
SS statements
In there, he also says he'll listen to other ideas. So who knows.
One quote that I find amazing is the quote from "Audacity of Hope" ... The Administration argues that the stock market can provide individuals a better return on investment, and in the aggregate they are right; historically, the stock market outperforms Social Security's cost of living adjustment ... huh? That's the biggest non-sequitor I've read in awhile. What does the Social Secuirty COLA have to do with investment return for retirement / funding SS? Bizarre; can't believe that was a written, reviewed, published and contemplated statement.
|
|
| | | 111 | Madman
ID: 14139157
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 23:29
|
Also from MTP, 11/11/07: A: Well, I am going to be listening to any ideas that are presented, but I think that the best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more and the people who are in need are protected. That is the option that I will be pushing forward.
Wowza. He only earned $157k last year, so surely he didn't mean that literally. Not sure how to make sense of that. Was that before his idea for the "donut hole" between $100k and $200k?
Can't say I blame the media for no longer trying to get these guys pinned down on, you know, actual ideas.
|
|
| | | 112 | Perm Dude
ID: 13336177
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 23:29
|
Well, I think your statement about being the sale mechanism is a stretch. Probably better to say that it is the only one that we know of. Or, since your digging has found him to be open to different ideas, perhaps not even that. Frankly, I find many of your complaints about Obama to be that they do not confirm your beliefs about him, therefore he must be flighty, "hard to pin down," or just a hypocrite.
I, for one, would like to see more details from him on this issue, particularly since he has stated that it is an important one (calling it a "crisis" a few years ago). But the lack of specificity is a different complaint than what you are making, Madman.
|
|
| | | 113 | Madman
ID: 14139157
Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 23:51
|
You suggested 3 main categories of solutions ... he's taken two of them off the table -- benefit cuts and privatization. That's on his website and from debate comments.
Raising the payroll tax isn't the only option we "know of" ... it's the only option he's ever supported. In one debate (darned if I know which one, but it was early), he did refer to raising the payroll tax as the mechanism he'd pull.
The reason I call him "flighty" or hard to pin down is that he keeps making contradictory statements ... like the one about him paying more in SS taxes, but then saying that he wouldn't alter the current scheme for those earning under $200k. Or that the wage cap doesn't raise when it does. Or that it's disingenuous to call for a 1983-style commission or not.
I think it's become clear that the only SS policy he supports is an increase in the payroll tax rate on all who earn about $200k. He's voiced no support for any other policy. He's quit voicing support for a 1983 style commission.
If there are other statements he's made, I'll change my perception of him accordingly. If forming beliefs based upon factual statements is judging him according to my beliefs, so be it. I'm a proud member of the Google-based community. Simply voicing your belief that he'll do something else won't persuade me. Unless you have some specific information from him or the campaign, of course.
|
|
| | | 114 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Fri, Apr 18, 2008, 02:35
|
I find how your discussing it disingenuous... You keep touting that 60% figure like that's really how much they are going to pay on the totality of what they make, when in actuality it's going to be nothing close to that.
Huh? I just got done with a post going over what I thought was common knowledge about tax rates. Every time I post about this do I have to explain tax law over and over?
I thought it was common knowledge that everyone's taxes are taken the same way at each income level. Are you under the impression there are people reading this who don't know that? If so I am truly baffled.
The 60+% (in CA.) is of course, only on the portion of the taxable money over $200,000.
I've used the word nominal starting with my very first post on the subject (51) and in almost all my posts, going back to before you brought this up. I count 6 times (marginal might have been a better word.)
So that's disingenuous? Forgive me if I assume everyone here has a high school education.
If people here don't understand the most basic tenants of how we are taxed in this country, that makes me disingenuous?
Look you can disagree but you don't have to turn this into my trying to "trick" people.
I don't think it's socialist to have the people who have benefited disproportionately from the fruits of our society give back at a higher rate than those struggling to pay their bills at the bottom of the ladder.
Neither do I.
If you think that's socialism, so be it.
Well by definition it's all socialist to a degree. That's fine if it's reasonable. I do think we have a burden as a society to do what's best for the common good to an extent.
There's a point where it becomes extreme and excessive. I think keeping 64 cents on every taxable dollar (Over $200,000) is extreme. Yes I do think that is socialism.
Look I'm not a red baiter. I can live with it if it's the will of the people and everyone understands it. I don't have to agree with it though.
There's nothing wrong though in a civilized conversation calling a spade a spade.
You don't have to put on your Mother Theresa outfit and talk down to me because I can live with 45-50 cents on the dollar (Over $200,000) but you think 64 cents (Over $200,000) is fine.
The 45-50 cents (Over $200,000) is still doing what you suggested, having the people who have benefited disproportionately from the fruits of our society give back at a higher rate than those struggling to pay their bills at the bottom of the ladder.
Do you really think that 64 cents (Over $200,000) is going to go to help the less fortunate?
How much of it is going to the military for wars like Iraq? For the latest military weapons?
In California the tax rate is so high to try and pay all the government pensions of $90,000 a year, $100,000 a year. Not exactly the "less fortunate".
You notice I'm now putting "over $200,000" in parenthesis every time now so I won't be disingenuous? 8-}
|
|
| | | 115 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Fri, Apr 18, 2008, 02:47
|
Wowza. He only earned $157k last year, so surely he didn't mean that literally. Not sure how to make sense of that. Was that before his idea for the "donut hole" between $100k and $200k?
Actually
Democratic Sen. Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, made $4.2 million last year as widespread interest in the presidential candidate pushed the sales of his two books.
In tax returns the campaign released Wednesday, the Obamas reported a significant jump in their income from the previous year as profits from the books "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope" accounted for some $4 million. The Obamas paid federal taxes of $1.4 million and donated $240,370 to charity.
Their salaried income was $260,735, which included his $157,102 salary as a U.S. senator and hers of $103,633 as vice president of community and external affairs at the University of Chicago Medical Center.
So their combined salary even without the book would put them $60,000 over the donut hole, although I assume the income from the book is taxed the same way?
Certainly no matter what happens in this election, with his intelligence and popularity, (and hers) these two stand to make a lot more then $260,000 a year in many future years.
|
|
| | | 116 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Fri, Apr 18, 2008, 09:54
|
nerve -- yeah, forgot about his royalty revenue; I was just applying his Senate salary ... but the payroll tax works separately, I believe, no? Like this from 2006 ... Barack's authorship money causes him to file Self-employment taxes (the point I missed earlier) and Michelle's work for Treehouse Foods does the same.
The payroll tax is an individual-specific tax. Which is why I don't follow Hillary's logic that firemen and teachers would pay extra under Obama's SS plan.
|
|
| | | 117 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Fri, Apr 18, 2008, 10:22
|
Barack's authorship money causes him to file Self-employment taxes
Which would actually mean he pays double on that amount (SS and Medicare) as I do since the employeer doesn't pay, right?
The payroll tax is an individual-specific tax. Which is why I don't follow Hillary's logic that firemen and teachers would pay extra under Obama's SS plan.
I wonder how it would apply to a couple filing jointly.
If the Husband made $200,000 and the wife made $100,000,(all after deductions) would they be taxed on the combined income? If so that would mean in California the wife would essentially be bringing in $36,000 on her $100,000 salary ad might as well quit the job and stay home. Why work at a job worth $100,000 when you are only taking home $36,000.
Of course with a law like this, I guess couple's would just file separately to avoid the extra 12.4% tax. (Assuming self employed with the above numbers.)
I don't know anything about filing separately though so I don't know how that works.
I don't believe there is anything "intentionally" disingenuous about my statement above.
|
|
| | | 118 | biliruben
ID: 4911361723
Fri, Apr 18, 2008, 10:28
|
I'm not going to continue to belabor this, Nerve.
When, even after I suggest you might reconsider your phrasing, you say:
How is the government taking 60+% of their pay "a little more money"?
You don't think that sounds like you are suggesting that the government is actually taking 60% of someone's total pay, when you know darn well that's not true? Enough of that.
I agree it a quantitative, not qualitative issue. No, I don't think it's excessive. I find the need to make more money than you need to live in comfort and happiness an illness that is enabled by our capitalist system. Anything that dulls that fever is a good thing.
|
|
| | | 119 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Fri, Apr 18, 2008, 10:40
|
I find the need to make more money than you need to live in comfort and happiness an illness that is enabled by our capitalist system.
It's an illness, but it's not enabled by our capitalist system. What our capitalist system does is to translate that need into productive channels, so that the best way for you to achieve that greater wealth is to do something for me that I want to have done. A win-win.
This is as opposed to virtually all other systems which tend to funnel that "illness" into political power-grabs and zero-sum or even negative-sum games.
The higher the tax rate, the less of a win-win any transaction becomes.
|
|
| | | 120 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Fri, Apr 18, 2008, 10:52
|
You don't think that sounds like you are suggesting that the government is actually taking 60% of someone's total pay,
Yes I see your point.
No, I don't think it's excessive. I find the need to make more money than you need to live in comfort and happiness an illness that is enabled by our capitalist system. Anything that dulls that fever is a good thing.
Again you are entitled to your opinion. I never intend to red bait people with comments about "socialists". Some of my best friends are socialists. Please don't ever take it that way.
Is money over emphasized in American culture? Without a doubt.
But I still think one of the greatest things about capitalism (when it's followed in it's purest, uncorrupted sense) is that if you decide you are going to work hard, get an education and take chances, there's a "possible" reward if you succeed.
Yeah it's financial, but it can also mean being able to give your children an excellent education, helping your parents as they get older, being able to explore the world, lots of things besides pure greed.
I think a lot of times your class warfare comments like richie rich, ignores the hard work many people who make that kind of money put in. The extra efforts, responsibility and stress, as well as the risks they take.
Maybe you've never met people like this so you don't believe it. I worked for a Fortune 100 company most of my career, I do know people like this. They did work extremely hard. Sometimes I didn't even know how they made it through some of the crap they had to deal with.
They deserved to make a lot more money then I did. I really didn't want their job, even for the extra money. I watched people at the top of my pyramid and literally said I will never be there because I can't possibly do what they are doing.
Again fair enough if you think that portions of their salaries should be taxed at an agressive rate.
I do think it's sad you always lump them into one big group of evil people. I've worked with some truly brilliant people who made great incomes and I have a lot of respect and admiration for their hard work and contributions to the organization that I think justified the higher pay.
That's been my experience. Maybe it hasn't been yours.
|
|
| | | 121 | Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Fri, Apr 18, 2008, 11:28
|
#117: I believe it was 2003 that the law was changed to eliminate the "marriage penalty" for nearly all couples--the penalty is virtually eliminated for couples with widely different incomes (that is, one person makes a lot more than the other).
For the royalty income, Obama would pay both "sides" of the SS and Medicare taxes, since as a self-employed person he would be both the employer and employee.
|
|
| | | 122 | walk
ID: 181472714
Fri, Apr 18, 2008, 11:40
|
NYT, Krugman: Obama Clinging to Stereotype
I don't necessarily agree, but it is the news right now. Krugman is generally anti-Obama, and this piece is, too. It'll be interesting to see how this is used in the general election if Obama is the candidate. I think so far, he has responded the way I would like, which is to continue to stay on message.
|
|
| | | 123 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Fri, Apr 18, 2008, 12:57
|
Nerve 117 -- you can file income taxes jointly, you don't pay payroll taxes jointly. It's an individual-specific tax ... See the Obama's 2006 filing (my post 116) for a good example ... they calculate, separately, their earnings subject to the payroll tax. Obama's royalty money and her Treehouse money (what in the heck did she do for them for $51k?)
If one person earns $100k and another earns $30k, then the couple would pay it on all $130k (since each separately is below the limit). If one earns $200k and the other earns $30k, you still pay it on $130k (ok, being nitpicky, $132k) ... one person pays it to the max of $102k, the other on all of the $30k.
|
|
| | | 124 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Fri, Apr 18, 2008, 12:58
|
And PD 121 is correct ... if your earnings are from being self-employed, then you'd double what you pay ... again this is reflected in the rates in the Obama's 2006 filing.
|
|
| | | 125 | biliruben
ID: 4911361723
Fri, Apr 18, 2008, 12:59
|
Reread the last 2 paragraphs of 107, Nerve. I don't lump. I distinguish between two sets of people, and I don't think either or evil. I see the second set as sick.
|
|
| | | 126 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Fri, Apr 18, 2008, 15:45
|
Nerve - this post of mine doesn't add any value, but I wanted to let you know that, FWIW, your posts 114 and 120 are very good and I completely agree with them.
|
|
| | | 127 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Fri, Apr 18, 2008, 16:00
|
Maybe you've never met people like this so you don't believe it. I worked for a Fortune 100 company most of my career, I do know people like this. They did work extremely hard. Sometimes I didn't even know how they made it through some of the crap they had to deal with.
Actually, I know many people like this. I'm not one of them either, but many, maybe most people I work with work outrageously hard. Sometimes they still put in all-nighters to get things done at age 40 and 50. 16-18 hour days are the norm for some of these folks. They aren't rewarded particularly well monetarily for their hard work. They do it because they are driven by the love of what the do, and have a driving interest in answering scientific questions, as best I can tell.
I view that sort of motivation to work hard a bit healthier, but I'm pretty sure they are mostly still pretty crazy. ;)
|
|
| | | 128 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Fri, Apr 18, 2008, 16:10
|
her Treehouse money (what in the heck did she do for them for $51k?)
She was on the board of directors until she resigned.
|
|
| | | 129 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Fri, Apr 18, 2008, 16:13
|
They aren't rewarded particularly well monetarily for their hard work. They do it because they are driven by the love of what they do,...
I view that sort of motivation to work hard a bit healthier, but I'm pretty sure they are mostly still pretty crazy. ;)
I know the type Bili. As I've said before my Aunt is a nun and spent 3 years in Africa working with the poor at age 67...not the best pay.
I respect her as much as anyone I know.
|
|
| | | 130 | Boldwin
ID: 463471413
Fri, Apr 18, 2008, 16:31
|
When are you going to tell me which order she is in?
|
|
| | | 131 | PV @ Zion Nat'l Park
ID: 583531816
Fri, Apr 18, 2008, 19:04
|
Actually, I know many people like this. I'm not one of them either, but many, maybe most people I work with work outrageously hard. Sometimes they still put in all-nighters to get things done at age 40 and 50. 16-18 hour days are the norm for some of these folks.
Hey, I'm not one of them either! In fact, I'm taking a few days off with 5 kids and we're camping in Zion Park. Turned off my phone, to hell with business.
Of course I just had to run into Springdale and hook up at an internet cafe to check my fantasy baseball teams, so it appears my priorities are in order.
|
|
| | | 132 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Fri, Apr 18, 2008, 19:10
|
Sweet, PV. Hope you're enjoying Zion. I thought briefly about taking a trip there from Vegas with my boy. I here is beautiful.
|
|
| | | 133 | Seattle Zen
ID: 29241823
Fri, Apr 18, 2008, 19:40
|
PV
You tellin' me that they haven't WiFi'd Zion yet?
Isn't it still too cold? It's all freezing rain and possibly snow out there this weekend. Have a great time.
|
|
| | | 134 | Wilmer McLean
ID: 223291822
Sat, Apr 19, 2008, 00:52
|
Just an aside:
-------------------------------------------------
...
George: Hey, when you order from the waitress, get her to point to the menu. I
want to see what finger she uses.
Jerry: Uh, say, I wanted a side order of fruit but I didn't see it on the men
Waitress: Oh, you're getting it (pointing to menu with index finger), it comes
with your breakfast special.
Jerry: Right you are.
George: I didn't get the special, but I'd also like the fresh fruit too.
Waitress (scratching cheek with middle finger): I'll check.
George (after waitress walks away): I don't believe it, she did it again!
Jerry: Oh, she had an itch.
George: She had an itch. She could have used any one of those fingers. That
finger was meant for me.
Kramer (laughing): Yeah, she knew what she was doing.
...
21 seconds in -
-------------------------------------------------
Back to the issues.
|
|
| | | 135 | biliruben
ID: 4911361723
Sat, Apr 19, 2008, 01:01
|
Heh. Missed that.
Did you notice the hip-hop brushing off the shoulders too?!?
Damn. He'd be a sweet president. Dude's not scripted. He's got that huge smile, but that debate's focus on bull-danky obviously pissed him off, and he ain't afraid to show it.
|
|
| | | 136 | Boldwin
ID: 463471413
Sat, Apr 19, 2008, 05:50
|
The finger and the smile. And the crowd caught it! Too funny.
|
|
| | | 137 | Boldwin
ID: 463471413
Sat, Apr 19, 2008, 06:01
|
I think we can say that he was speaking for most Americans.
|
|
| | | 138 | Wilmer McLean
ID: 4830201
Sun, Apr 20, 2008, 03:13
|
Hamas Endorses Obama Sunday, April 13, 2008 Audio from WABC
3:40 into the audio.
On Sunday, Aaron Klein and John Batchelor interviewed Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Prime Minister of Hamas, on WABC radio. The interview produced a scoop which, for some reason, has not been widely publicized: Hamas has endorsed Barack Obama for President. Yousef said, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election." Why? "He has a vision to change America." ...
|
|
| | | 139 | Boldwin
ID: 463471413
Sun, Apr 20, 2008, 05:36
|
which, for some reason - WM
If this post just screams to be cross-posted to two threads...
|
|
| | | 140 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, Apr 20, 2008, 06:41
|
Mith: Boxman, your responses to my posts have been increasingly short addressing fewer of my points and increasingly missing my context. Perhaps you could hold off your response until you have more time to devote to it. Before now I've been averaging one post per day so I'm certainly not going to hold you to a timely reply.
How about this. I'm convinced that my stance on Obama is correct. Even if Obama was a Republican and was going thru the nomination process I wouldn't vote for him. You're convinced that your stance on Obama is correct. We've both written term paper length arguments in defense of our position. I still don't agree with you and no matter what I've put forth or will put forth you will not agree with me and vice versa.
Fair?
|
|
| | | 141 | Tree
ID: 511251614
Sun, Apr 20, 2008, 10:21
|
i think it hasn't been widely publicized because it's not really that important that Hamas endorses Obama. it would be important if Obama then took such an endorsement and pointed to how much he embraces such an endorsement.
until then, it's even less relevant (if that's even possible), than the whole lapel pin farce.
seems to me that more and more time is being spent on attacking Obama for things that don't matter, and the American public is (mostly) wise to it at this point.
|
|
| | | 142 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Sun, Apr 20, 2008, 10:38
|
So be it. Though I don't engage people I disagree with here to try to convince them to see politics or the world the way I do. That would be futile and obnoxious. The point is simply to exchange ideas and where possible, hash out some of the ones that don't hold a lot of water.
And I do think I was able to do that in some cases here, particularly the notions that Obama supporters as a whole are charmed by him beyond the point of of seeing his flaws and that the MSM's coverege of Obama shows any kind of "love affair" with him.
|
|
| | | 143 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, Apr 20, 2008, 11:03
|
Tree: seems to me that more and more time is being spent on attacking Obama for things that don't matter, and the American public is (mostly) wise to it at this point.
What matters is a matter of perspective is it not?
To me, the opinion of those closest to Obama are important. I can't look back 20 years on his legislative and public speaking record. I don't "know" him or am familiar with him. He claims to run as an outsider because he's not part of the Washington political machine. If that's the case, then we've got to especially look at his outside sources of inspiration and who he surrounds himself with.
So I've got to look at everything. This includes comments made by his wife, his preacher, when he makes comments about "those who cling to religion and guns", and for whatever odd reason he refuses to wear a flag pin. It just seems odd that a Presidential candidate would refuse to do that.
This is more rhetorical than anything, I cling to Jesus Christ My Savior and love guns and would use those issues in the voting booth, does that make me bitter? I was a Christian before I was a voter and I'll still be one when I leave Earth and cease to be a voter so I don't "cling" to religion. I was disappoited to hear a stereotypical statement like that coming from someone who most likely himself was and could still be a victim of stereotyping.
What I do know about Obama is this: he's a smart, articulate black man and I'd love it if Republicans had one that ran for President because I sure as hell would love to see a minority President. We claim to be this diverse country, but all we've had for Presidents are old white guys. It's time for a minority.
On the surface, liberalism aside, he is awesome. I don't dispute that. He's young, energetic, able to get lots of people to follow him like the Rolling Stones or Pearl Jam. Yet I still maintain my stance on just how genuine he is about his claims of unity and other things. With him, I smell a fraud. If that draws your ire, fine, but that's how I see it.
|
|
| | | 144 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Sun, Apr 20, 2008, 11:47
|
I cling to Jesus Christ My Savior and love guns and would use those issues in the voting booth, does that make me bitter?.
I think you misunderstood what he meant. He didn't say peopel are bitter because the vote on issues related to their Christianity (that wouldn't make any sense at all). He answered a question at a speech in SF about why he isn't as popular in PA as Clinton. His response was basically that the big issue there is the economy, but since the economy there has been so bad for so long, PA residents have become cynical that anyone will ever do anything about economy, so they turn to social issues to base their vote on.
I was disappoited to hear a stereotypical statement like that coming from someone who most likely himself was and could still be a victim of stereotyping.
This is the first time I've heard an Obama critic sat this. The question basically (which was a fine one, by the way) called for Obama to stereotype Pensylvanians in one way or another. This sounds like a strange critique from a rightist person whom I believe I've heard challenge PC speech in the past.
By the way - as I type, the panel on the McLaughlin Group is on NBC and has just finished their discussion on the same topic. That's two full weeks later and both network and cable television news are still running with this story, almost on the heals of multiple weeks of wall to wall Jeremiah Wright coverage.
|
|
| | | 145 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Sun, Apr 20, 2008, 11:59
|
for whatever odd reason he refuses to wear a flag pin.
Maybe because he doesn't equate patriotism with whether or not you wear a flag lapel pin.
That and perhaps he has the same feeling as me, every time I see someone wearing it I think "what a dumb ass".
It's just bad fashion.
Why would anyone care?
|
|
| | | 146 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Sun, Apr 20, 2008, 12:17
|
Hamas comment "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election." Why? "He has a vision to change America." ...
Right or wrong, there's a large part of the world who feels the exactly like this about Obama. Hamas is in a long line. Why should one group in that line be singled out to make an issue of it?
I think it's great that a group like Hamas would feel this way about any US President.
If Hamas really believes this, and Obama does get elected, perhaps it's our best hope yet for a semblance of peace in the Middle East...wait, that would make him the Anti Christ right Baldwin?
Whatever the reality of the man is, I still think the single biggest effect his presidency would have is shaking up the way the world looks at America. I can't tell you how many people over have said to me "America will never let a black man be President, will they?"
It would blow a lot of peoples minds.
Until you get over to this part of the world, and other parts of Asia, it's hard to understand the cast system that still exists and how "looked down upon" you are based solely on the color of your skin.
In India the lighter your skin, the "better" you are, even within their own race. That's why they can't imagine the USA having a black President.
The women in Asia carry umbrellas all summer because they don't want their skin to get darker because white is better. In the grocery stores here they sell skin whitening cream...like 5 different brands.
I'm not voting for any of the 3 so my comments in this thread are made as an outside observer only.
|
|
| | | 147 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, Apr 20, 2008, 14:30
|
Before Obama starts pigeonholing people again, maybe he could look at some data first.
From the Wall Street Journal.
Trigger Happy
By ARTHUR C. BROOKS
April 19, 2008; Page A10
In words that he has come to regret, Barack Obama opined as to why he was having a hard time winning over many blue-collar voters: "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
It was a throwaway line to a private audience at a San Francisco fund-raiser. And it was made public on a liberal Internet blog, not by right-wing commentators. But Mr. Obama's opponents seized on the quote. It was evidence, they claimed, that he is "elitist," caricaturing middle Americans as gun-toting, immigrant-despising, religious rednecks – who are also deeply unhappy people. And as a contrite Mr. Obama admitted, "I am the first to admit that some of the words I chose, I chose badly."
The comment may or may not be an indication of Mr. Obama's real views about those ordinary Americans who've not enjoyed the full fruits of economic growth over the past decades. Yet his casual portrayal no doubt had heads nodding vigorously in assent among his supporters, and probably among many others.
That anybody would find this portrayal realistic illustrates how little some Americans know about their neighbors. And nothing reveals the truth better than the data on guns.
According to the 2006 General Social Survey, which has tracked gun ownership since 1973, 34% of American homes have guns in them. This statistic is sure to surprise many people in cities like San Francisco – as it did me when I first encountered it. (Growing up in Seattle, I knew nobody who owned a gun.)
Who are all these gun owners? Are they the uneducated poor, left behind? It turns out they have the same level of formal education as nongun owners, on average. Furthermore, they earn 32% more per year than nonowners. Americans with guns are neither a small nor downtrodden group.
Nor are they "bitter." In 2006, 36% of gun owners said they were "very happy," while 9% were "not too happy." Meanwhile, only 30% of people without guns were very happy, and 16% were not too happy.
In 1996, gun owners spent about 15% less of their time than nonowners feeling "outraged at something somebody had done." It's easy enough in certain precincts to caricature armed Americans as an angry and miserable fringe group. But it just isn't true. The data say that the people in the approximately 40 million American households with guns are generally happier than those people in households that don't have guns.
The gun-owning happiness gap exists on both sides of the political aisle. Gun-owning Republicans are more likely than nonowning Republicans to be very happy (46% to 37%). Democrats with guns are slightly likelier than Democrats without guns to be very happy as well (32% to 29%). Similarly, holding income constant, one still finds that gun owners are happiest.
Why are gun owners so happy? One plausible reason is a sense of self-reliance, in terms of self-defense or even in terms of the ability to hunt their own dinner.
Many studies over the years have shown that a belief in one's control over the environment dramatically adds to happiness. Example: a famous study of elderly nursing home patients in the 1970s. It showed dramatic improvements in life satisfaction from elements of control as seemingly insignificant as being able to care for one's plants.
A bit of evidence that self-reliance is at work among gun owners comes from the General Social Survey. It asked whether one agrees with the statement, "Those in need have to take care of themselves." In 2004, gun owners were 10 percentage points more likely than nonowners to agree (60% to 50%).
That response is not evidence that gun owners only care about themselves, however. In 2002, they were more likely to give money to charity than people without guns (83% to 75%). This charity gap doesn't reflect their somewhat higher incomes. Gun owners were also more likely to give in other ways, such as donating blood. Are gun owners unsentimental? In 2004, they were more likely than those without guns to strongly agree that they would "endure all things" for the one they loved (45% to 37%).
None of this is to dictate what gun policy should be in our nation and its communities, let alone whether gun owners deserve to be happier than those of us without firearms. Guns are an important area of debate about freedom and security, not to mention constitutionality. What we do know, however, is that contrary to the implication of Mr. Obama's comments, for many Americans, happiness often does indeed involve a warm gun.
Mr. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of the just-published "Gross National Happiness" (Basic Books).
|
|
| | | 148 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Sun, Apr 20, 2008, 16:39
|
Someone might want to clue in Arthur C. Brooks that Obama (a) was referring quite specifically to Pennsylvanians and not Americans as a whole (very fancy stats, tho) and (b) never suggested or implied that gun owners earn less. He did not even attempted any argument that requires this be true.
Seriously, I don't know which would be worse, if Brooks is grossly uninformed of the topic he's paid to write about or just shamelessly dishonest. Either way, that's one of the worst opinion columns I can remember. I'd be shocked that even gets printed in the WSJ but I guess that's what happens to a paper when it becomes a Rupert Murdoch outlet.
|
|
| | | 149 | Boldwin
ID: 463471413
Sun, Apr 20, 2008, 17:36
|
Just can't even deal with the truth, can you MITH?
Obama did exactly say that gun owners were the unhappy losers in life's lottery turning to guns for solace.
Are you seriously suggesting Penn differs from those stats or if it did that Obama would know that?
Luxuriating in the absence of conservative counterpoint since I left off frequently posting has made you so intellectually lazy you don't even pause for introspection before clicking post. There was nothing uninformed or dishonest about Brooks' piece but there was something decidedly lazy about your reponse.
|
|
| | | 150 | Madman
ID: 14139157
Sun, Apr 20, 2008, 17:51
|
Wilmer 134 -- Back to the issues. *Back* to the issues? Could you tell me when the Democratic primary was actually, you know, about the issues?
Barack's candidacy was launched by his biography and ability to bring people together. Is that "an issue"?
BR 135 -- You see the latest "bull-danky" from Obama, where he took a *conditional* sentence fragment from McCain, turned it into an assertion, pasted it together with the instigating question, and pretended that McCain said and believed it? The guy is the best liar we've had running for office since, well, maybe ever.
|
|
| | | 151 | Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Sun, Apr 20, 2008, 18:06
|
Not being Bush is the issue people most care about, Madman.
|
|
| | | 152 | Boldwin
ID: 463471413
Sun, Apr 20, 2008, 18:11
|
Loser's in life's lottery, aka..."you go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them." - Obama Unhappy...aka bitter...And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy" - Obama never suggested or implied that gun owners earn less. - MITH
Yes, he said directly they're bitter people who saw all the good jobs go away and turn to God, guns and family to compensate for their unhappiness. All of which Brooks' piece dealt with devastatingly.
|
|
| | | 153 | Tree
ID: 511251614
Sun, Apr 20, 2008, 18:16
|
ability to bring people together. Is that "an issue"?
yea, it's a huge issue, and we've discussed it here. i want the next president to be able to bridge the various gaps that Bush and company widened to astonishing gaps, be it between democrat and republican, or the US and foreign nations.
it was Obama's message of that, that brought me from a Clinton supporter to an Obama supporter.
|
|
| | | 154 | Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Sun, Apr 20, 2008, 18:18
|
Brooks is an idiot--and anyone who believes his piece has never heard the phrase "lie with statistics."
And guess what? The "bitter" comment has had absolutely zero influence here in Pennsylvania. It seems only the elites care that Obama, in an offhand comment, seems to be elitist.
|
|
| | | 155 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Sun, Apr 20, 2008, 18:19
|
Just can't even deal with the truth, can you MITH?
You're projecting. And this forum is familiar enough with your standard for what is 'devastating'.
|
|
| | | 156 | Boldwin
ID: 463471413
Sun, Apr 20, 2008, 18:25
|
Obama's 'bridging that gap' in Penn meant solving his anti-gun problem. Penn has an unusually high gun ownership and he was keenly aware of this problem for him since he tried to outlaw all guns and ammo while he was an Illinois legislator.
So how did he reach out? Two years ago he had a Daily Kos diarist, meaning an official contributor I believe, create a bogus gun owners group in Penn to eventually endorse Obama.
Penn gun owners are just toasty warm feelin the love.
I wonder what other reaching out he has already planned.
|
|
| | | 157 | Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Sun, Apr 20, 2008, 18:36
|
Making up more non-support for yourself, Baldwin? You don't even seem to understand (or care) that here in the real world, Obama's off-the-cuff remark has had no effect (meaning zero change in his polling). Zippo.
Perhaps because many in Pennsylvania realize that it was an off-the-cuff remark. Perhaps they realize that "gotcha politics" isn't where they want to go anymore. Or perhaps it is that they really are bitter, and tired of being told that they should be more bitter against Obama because of this comment.
Pennsylvanians, like many places, are tired of the obvious manipulation you and your elitist media friends are attempting.
Make up all the outrage you want. We're not buying.
|
|
| | | 158 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Sun, Apr 20, 2008, 18:44
|
Yes, he said directly they're bitter people who saw all the good jobs go away and turn to God, guns and family to compensate for their unhappiness.
This is one of those things that is so easy and simple to refute with a basic elementray school understandiung of English that it is a display of how the deep-seated biases of some people will literally blind them from truth.
He was asked a question about why he trails Clinton in PA polls. His answer was an attempt to explain why voters there are more focus on social issues rather than economic ones.
Just look at the sentence:So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. The word "cling" refers to issues they focus on with regard to their political preferences, not with regard to their lives in general! He was asked a political question about political preference in Pennsylvania and he gave a political answer about Pennsylvanians. You insist he chose to forgo a political response about the subject of the question in favor of an opportunity to play Dr Phil - for American gun owners and religious in general.
|
|
| | | 159 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Sun, Apr 20, 2008, 18:48
|
So how did he reach out? Two years ago he had a Daily Kos diarist, meaning an official contributor I believe, create a bogus gun owners group in Penn to eventually endorse Obama.
I've not seen this charge before. Please provide a source for this. There is really evidence that he "had" this done? Moreso than merely some connection between him and this "diarist"?
|
|
| | | 160 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Sun, Apr 20, 2008, 18:58
|
Madman
You see the latest "bull-danky" from Obama... The guy is the best liar we've had running for office since, well, maybe ever.
From your description it doesn't sound like anything aprticularly skillful. But then given the way we've seen his bitterness statment twisted I guess it doesn't take much skill. I'm not sure what bull-danky your referring to.
|
|
| | | 161 | Madman
ID: 14139157
Sun, Apr 20, 2008, 19:15
|
His skill is in saying it in a way that makes no one think to fact-check him ... or if they do fact-check him, like with the debate (riddled with misleads and falsehoods), no one cares because it was a set-up ...
The statement I'm referring to link ... Remember, this was on the heels of complaining about "gotcha" politics ... this is, of course, coming at the same time he and his campaign are trying to figure out a way to continue to keep the Bosnia "gotcha" alive link ... I seriously don't recall ever seeing a candidate with this much hutzpa ... "listen to my words, don't pay attention to what I do" ... maybe he's just having a bad week of morals or something. I do feel a bit sorry for Hill. She never imagined what has hit her. She thought Republicans was tough ... I think we can safely say that the meme that Obama isn't "tough enough" (i.e., willing to sling the mud around) is pure bunk.
|
|
| | | 162 | Doug
ID: 321302615
Mon, Apr 21, 2008, 00:25
|
A blog post I enjoyed re: flag pin issue and the psychology behind it.
|
|
| | | 163 | Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Mon, Apr 21, 2008, 01:00
|
What kind of Santorum-like definition is that, Madman? Being tough isn't about how much mud you sling, but about how well you can take the hits, especially smears, lies, and half-truths that pass for discourse on the Right these days.
Your point is that Obama is being "tough" because he's denounced the petty politics of taking Clinton to task for her sniper fire story? No, wait--that's not it. It's that he directed his aides to push the story while lying about it in speeches? Hmm. No proof of that. We'll have to go with Obama being two-faced about it, I suppose, since he is such a Messiah-figure that he must therefore be micromanaging his campaign or have perfect knowledge of what his aides are doing on his behalf.
And the McCain "misquote?" Jeez. McCain never actually answered the question asked. Obama was "shameless" because he took a sentence "out of context" from a McCain non-answer?
I guess we have the Right's first talking point on Obama: He's a liar. When the Straight Talk Express goes off the rails, what's your second?
|
|
| | | 164 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Mon, Apr 21, 2008, 13:46
|
Being tough isn't about how much mud you sling, but about how well you can take the hits, especially smears, lies, and half-truths that pass for discourse on the Right these days.
PD -- I was being kind calling these despicable tactics "tough". Would you prefer I use more applicable negative language? I can if you insist.
It's that he directed his aides to push the story while lying about it in speeches? Hmm. No proof of that.
Obama, in PA debate: When asked about Clinton's Bosnia problem, he said this: "I think Sen. Clinton deserves, you know, the right to make some errors once in a while. … I think what's important is to make sure that we don't get so obsessed with gaffes that we lose sight of the fact that this is a defining moment in our history ... for us to be obsessed with this—these kinds of errors I think is a mistake. And that's not what our campaign has been about."
Obama campaign overspins and has to retract ... Obama campaign fuels Bosnia story with written gotcha statement (pre-planned, not just prompted by reporter questions) ... Clinton doesn't have the moral authority to lay wreath at Tomb of Unknown Soldier ... No, the gotcha moments aren't what his campaign has been about. This is a new kind of politics where you say one thing in speeches and do entirely different things campaigning. Or is that the old politics? I'm confused.
As for McCain's quote ... Obama used a hypohetical and ascribed it to McCain ... McCain just said you *could* describe the economy as having shown improvements (which is entirely true), but that, instead, he saw the economy as representative of tough times. Obama even pretended he had a direct quote, reading off a cue-card and saying "quote", when in fact the "quote" was fabricated by taking a few words from the conditional sentence-fragment and pasting it with words from the questioner.
To illustrate the technique ... PD, why did you call Obama a liar? (your sentence #2, last paragraph). Does the Obama campaign know that you believe he's a liar? Given that you think he's a liar, why are you working for him?
If you can't reprimand your candidate for gotcha moments like that, then you've entirely lost sight of civility.
|
|
| | | 165 | Boldwin
ID: 463471413
Mon, Apr 21, 2008, 13:59
|
Nah, he's just joined the cult.
Let's take his kids. Cults is baaaaaaad.
|
|
| | | 167 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Mon, Apr 21, 2008, 14:48
|
Madman
McCain just said you *could* describe the economy as having shown improvements... but that, instead, he saw the economy as representative of tough times.
I don't agree with that at all. McCain's response to that question was deliberately ambiguous. Its the trick that all politicians use to appease both the people who want to hear him say that the economy is strong and the people who want to hear him say the economy is weak. My reading of the quote leaves me quite certain that McCain intended for the argument for "great progress economically" to be very much a part of his answer to that question. It wasn't a throwaway line. If 100 people ask him that question I guarantee he'll repeat that bit 100 times.
Obama's point doesn't really change at all if he'd instead said; "John McCain went on television and said that employment statistics suggest an argument that we've had "great progress economically over the last seven and a half years. Now, how could somebody who has been traveling across this country, somebody who came to Erie, PA, cite any argument that we've made great progress?”
I might call Obama's characterization a cheap shot, perhaps. But not despicable. It's typical campaign politics and franly less offensive than than McCain's characterization of Obama's "bitter" comment as an attempt to "attribute our fundamental values and beliefs... to some kind of economic circumstances".
|
|
| | | 168 | Boldwin
ID: 573452112
Mon, Apr 21, 2008, 14:51
|
So you find the truth offensive.
|
|
| | | 169 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Mon, Apr 21, 2008, 14:54
|
Boldwin, I'm happy to debate the context of the quote with you if you'd like but I have no interest in your juvenile tit-for-tat.
|
|
| | | 170 | Perm Dude
ID: 2332219
Mon, Apr 21, 2008, 14:59
|
#164: You insist on both calling Obama a liar based upon your misconceptios and saying I'm uncivil? Well, we've reached the end quicker than I thought.
|
|
| | |
| | | 172 | Madman
ID: 14139157
Mon, Apr 21, 2008, 17:55
|
I'm calling Obama a liar because he's not telling the truth. Was his handwriting on that 1996 survey? Obama says no, the document says yes. Is he running a different sort of campaign, responding only to things like the Bosnia story as a last-defense when questioned, or did the written statements from the campaign promulgate the story? Given that written statements were reported on, we can presume that they exist.
Does Hillary deserve a pass after her apology? Obama says yes, and then proceeds to engage in hyperbolic gotcha politics with the soldiers on the conference call.
Obama pretended to give a direct quote of McCain, yet there is no such direct quote. In addition, the context of McCain's answer was indeed ambiguous, primarily because economic data is itself ambiguous. (for example, have wages gone up or down? Depends on your measure, household versus worker-based)
You follow the evidence where it leads. And I haven't even really touched the surface of his debate comments.
|
|
| | | 173 | Madman
ID: 14139157
Mon, Apr 21, 2008, 18:01
|
And don't forget who said the following:
'Pennsylvania has sort of turned the corner,'' he said. ''It is not complete yet. We can still make some important investments that will take it all the way to a really robust economy. I think what we are starting to see is a lot of creative energy and a lot of job creation.'
He's amazingly slippery, able to change his story at the drop of a hat. MITH -- still want to mock McCain for ambiguity?
|
|
| | | 174 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Mon, Apr 21, 2008, 18:23
|
I don't believe I've mocked McCain, Madman. His answer to that question was ambiguous. Deliberately so. Big deal. That's one of the things pols do, especially during election season.
McCain knows that too few people are better off today than they were 7 1/2 years ago. He knows this is true despite the WH's assurances through most of that time that it's all peaches and cream. But he chose to kiss up to the party faithful (his conservative cred is still an issue, remember) by mixing in one of the party lines and forgoing any discernable answer to that yes or no question.
Obama was stumping in PA (where the economy is his focus issue) and called him on not admitting in a straightfoward answer that people are not better off today. Again, big deal.
I don't understand why you're acting like this is such shocking behavior for politicians.
|
|
| | | 175 | Perm Dude
ID: 2332219
Mon, Apr 21, 2008, 20:29
|
then proceeds to engage in hyperbolic gotcha politics with the soldiers on the conference call.
Was he on that call?
MITH: For many on the Right, they are shocked (shocked!) that a Democrat is "getting away with it." Which means, of course, that people aren't focusing on those things the Right wants them to focus on in a Democratic primary.
|
|
| | | 176 | Boldwin
ID: 573452112
Mon, Apr 21, 2008, 21:30
|
"It doesn't really matter if he is a new kind of politician or not, all that matters is that people really believe that he is." - MITH, PD, every other koolaid drinker.
|
|
| | | 177 | Madman
ID: 14139157
Mon, Apr 21, 2008, 22:55
|
McCain knows that too few people are better off today than they were 7 1/2 years ago.
Depends I guess on how you define too few. Not sure what the Presidency or the Republican or Democratic congresses have to do with any of it, but median household income for households with no earners, two earners, three earners, and four earners are all up since 2000 ... and the single-earner household statistic is up since Bush's first full year (2001) ... link ... what we've seen is a change in the composition of a household causing the overall median household income to be down (all in real terms). I think also if you look at the SS national wage index, you'll find that it has increased, as well. This is important since it focuses only on income under $90k, and is a per-earner basis.
Now, you could argue that people's household composition and the # of earners isn't a choice ... but I think a lot of families that have experienced negative income shocks are like mine, where we've had a 25%ish drop in family income over the past couple of years, but it was by choice, not necessity. Just not worth the extra work to get the extra money.
Employment is up, the number with health insurance is up (249.8m in 2006), although both of these total statistics belie warranted dissatisfaction with the *rate* of employment and health coverage ... and the quantity with health coverage is doubly disappointing because the bulk of the increase in coverage has been through increased health insurance offered through government programs during Bush's tenure.
But this is exactly the sort of debate that the DNC knows McCain won't offer, because the subtext is a losing one, politically. People don't really want to compare to 2001 ... they compare to where they've been more recently, and, worse, where they are going.
Therefore, even though the question is technically asked about the last 7 years, the question people are really associating the answer with is right now and the future ... in that context, McCain's answer is the academically correct one, IMO ... you could argue that there's been growth over the last 7 years, but that where we are today isn't acceptable in many people's minds ... that's why he's offering the economic agenda that he's offering, yadda yadda.
And this isn't shocking behavior from politicians. But it is reaching new lows, and we haven't even really got rolling (i.e., the DNC stat about 1.8m job losses, first time I've ever seen that sort of innumeracy made public ... pretending to offer a direct quote from someone and reading off a cue card, but it not being a direct quote, etc.).
..............
PD --- Was he on that call? No. Didn't mean to suggest he was, although I can see how you'd read my crappy writing as suggesting that ... just trying to say that his campaign set it up. I presume it had his endorsement or OK. If not, I'll retract that bit.
I also just noticed that his campaign has apologized for the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier comment made during that phone call, so maybe he's realizing that he's gone over the edge. I think the appropriate way to deal with these things is to give people lots of slack if they actually do apologize, pull back or disavow. So, I'll give him kudos for that. But I think he should be embarrassed that he set the phone call up at all. Although if I didn't have a strong economic or domestic policy platform to run on, I might engage in similar distraction tactics, as well.
|
|
| | | 178 | astade
ID: 1533770
Tue, Apr 22, 2008, 00:56
|
Madman,
Regarding your census data did you happen to graph the data?! Look at the positive trending during the Clinton presidency through 2000 (before the dot-com and pre-9/11).
Please don't use that data to try to support that we are better off today than 7.5 years ago. You are misleading people.
|
|
| | | 179 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Tue, Apr 22, 2008, 11:02
|
And this isn't shocking behavior from politicians. But it is reaching new lows
I have to disagree. As ugly as Clinton v Obama has been at times, we haven't nearly reached the lows of 2004.
If Obama is a liar for pouncing on the partial context of McCain's deliberately ambiguous statement, then you must have been pulling your hair out in 2004 when President Bush accused Senator Kerry of "throwing out the wild claim that he knows where Osama bin Laden was in the fall of 2001 - and that our military had a chance to get him in Tora Bora."
|
|
| | | 180 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418
Tue, Apr 22, 2008, 18:15
|
And this isn't shocking behavior from politicians. But it is reaching new lows
Some "low". Yeah, well below the "John McCain fathered black babies out of wedlock".
If this is the "low", it's the highest "low" since the Jimmy Carter v. Gerald Ford lovefest.
|
|
| | | 181 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Fri, Apr 25, 2008, 13:56
|
Pat Buchanan on Obama.
Is He One of Us?
By Patrick J. Buchanan
As one looks at the polls, the issues and the candidates, the election of 2008 resembles what poker players call a “lay-down hand.”
Two-thirds of the nation believes the Iraq war a blunder. Sixty-nine percent disapproves of President Bush. Eighty-one percent thinks America is on the wrong course.
Inflation is at 4 percent and rising. Unemployment is 5 percent and rising. Gasoline, heating oil and food prices are soaring. The dollar has lost half its values against the euro. Homes are being foreclosed upon at Depression rates. The stock market is in a swoon. And 3.5 million manufacturing jobs have vanished under Bush.
Hillary and Obama have both raised far more than John McCain.
Democratic turnout in the primaries and caucuses is two and three times what it was for the GOP. The youth, energy and enthusiasm are on the Democratic side. Voter registration is rising dramatically, and the new registrants are almost all Democrats or independents.
Thirty Republican House members are retiring. In the Senate, the big question is whether Democrats will achieve a 60-40 margin to enable them to kill Republican filibusters.
By all odds, Republican retention of the White House should be as imperiled as it was in 1932, when the hapless Herbert Hoover faced FDR.
Yet John McCain, who presides over a disconsolate party many of whose leading lights not only do not love him, they do not like him, is even money to be the next president of the United States.
What explains this?
Answer: Barack Obama, the probable nominee of the Democratic Party — his cool and pleasant demeanor aside, and his oratorical skills notwithstanding — is being steadily pushed by his own mistakes, and rivals Hillary Clinton and McCain, outside the social, cultural and ideological mainstream of American politics.
Hillary’s victory in Pennsylvania confirmed what Texas, Ohio and Florida hinted at. Barack has not closed the sale with Middle America. Moreover, he may never close the sale.
What is Barack’s problem?
Though he has stitched together the McGovern wing of the party — the anti-war crowd, the cause people, the professoriat — with the Jesse Jackson wing — 90 percent of the African-American vote — he is being systematically pushed out of the heartland of the party, the white working and middle class. And reinforcing the impression in Middle America that Barack is “not one of us” is the core of both the Clinton and Republican strategies. And they are working.
In Ohio and Pennsylvania, resistance to the probable nominee hardened and calcified among Catholics, ethnics, union and blue-collar voters, even as Barack outspent Hillary two and three to one.
Racism is the reason, wail the pundits. But this is not a reason, it is an excuse. Barack, after all, ran up record totals in virtually all-white Iowa and is favored to win in virtually all-white Oregon.
Moreover, all politics are tribal. There was resistance in rural Pennsylvania to voting for an African-American, but there was also wild enthusiasm for voting for an African-American in Philly, where Hillary — spouse of “our first black president” — was getting about the same share of the black vote as Barry Goldwater.
On balance, as Joe Biden undiplomatically blurted out, the fact that Obama is a black man is an extraordinary asset in 2008. It is the reason a junior senator, three years out of the Illinois legislature, is running first for the nomination, and has become the favorite of a national media intoxicated with the idea of a black president.
Barack’s problem is social, cultural and ideological.
Increasingly, he is seen not as a man of the middle, but as radical chic, a man of the liberal and leftist elite who confides to closed-door meetings in San Francisco that folks in Pennsylvania cling to guns, Bibles and bigotries as crutches, because they cannot cope in the Global Economy and government has failed them.
He is seen as a man comfortable with friends still proud of the radical role they played planting bombs in the 1960s, a man who feels relaxed about sending his daughters on Sunday to hear the racist rants of an anti-American berserker.
And if your wife, beneficiary of a Princeton-Harvard Law education denied to 99.9 percent of the people, says she cannot recall ever being proud of America before now, folks are naturally going to be suspicious about why you dumped the American flag pin.
On the big issues of 2008 — amnesty, the hemorrhaging of American jobs, Iraq — McCain is on the same side as George Bush, whose approval rating is 28 percent. McCain can be defeated on those issues.
But if, with a little help from Hillary, McCain can paint Barack indelibly as a man of the trendy and radical left, he can win. America will have nowhere else to go.
Journalists disagree on whether immigration, Iraq or the economy will be the major issue in 2008. The real issue may be — and this is what is causing heart palpitations among Democrats — is Barack Obama one of us, or is he one of them?
|
|
| | | 182 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Fri, Apr 25, 2008, 16:35
|
Could an Obama supporter explain to me why he's bragging about giving handouts to Agribusiness that cause people to pay more for basic food?
Obama Helped Lead Efforts To Pass Amendments That Improved The Bill's Renewable Energy Provisions And Was Singled Out For His Work As A Negotiator On The Energy Bill's Ethanol Provisions. In 2005, Obama passed amendments to the 2005 Energy Policy Act which would double the amount of ethanol used in our gasoline supply by 2012 (from 2 billion to 8 billion gallons); provide a tax credit for the retail purchase of E-85 fuel; and established an applied research program to improve technologies for the commercialization of a combination hybrid/flexible fuel vehicle; or a plug-in hybrid/flexible fuel vehicle. The Chicago Sun-Times reported, "Hastert, meeting with reporters on Friday, praised the "incredible teamwork" of the delegation, singling out freshman Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for his work on the House-Senate committee, which cut the final deals on the transit bill and ethanol tax breaks. The energy bill included an incentive for the use of what is called E-85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gas that can be used in "flexible fueled" cars and is supposed to be cheaper than conventional fuel. The bill calls for gas companies to get a tax credit to cover 30 percent of the cost to install E-85 pumps at service stations, up to $30,000." [Chicago Sun-Times, 7/30/05; AP, 7/27/05; H.R. 6, Became Public Law No: 109-58; S. 918, 109th Congress; SA 670 agreed to, 5/12/05; H.R. 6, Became Public Law No: 109-58; S. 918, Referred to the Committee On Environment and Public Works; SA 851 to HR 6, Passed by Unanimous Consent, 6/23/05; H.R. 6, Became Public Law No: 109-58; S. 650, 109th Congress; HR 6, Vote 139, 6/15/06, Passed 70-26, D:32-12, R:38-14, I:0-0]
|
|
| | | 183 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Fri, Apr 25, 2008, 17:00
|
Madman raised the issue - Obama "helping starve the world's poor" - in post 46.
|
|
| | | 184 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Fri, Apr 25, 2008, 19:53
|
Did you see an effective counter argument to 46?
I think MBJ's 182 is valid.
|
|
| | | 185 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Fri, Apr 25, 2008, 20:20
|
Sure its a fair point. By not making it a campaign issue, both McCain and Obama are complacent in the impact on world food prices from subsidizing ethanol in the US, whatever that impact actually is. You can even argue that Obama bears greater responsibility for continuing to support subsidies. Looks like it turned out to be a bit of an overshot.
Another thing that occurs to me is this internationalist perspective some of you righies seem to have suddenly taken up on American domestic policy. :)
|
|
| | | 186 | Perm Dude
ID: 4637249
Fri, Apr 25, 2008, 20:20
|
Looking out for his state's farmers is what legislators are supposed to do. An "effective counterargument?" It is called "representative democracy."
|
|
| | | 187 | Wilmer McLean
ID: 343202518
Sat, Apr 26, 2008, 03:06
|
Finally, Obama can underscore his campaign message of "change." ;)
|
|
| | | 188 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sat, Apr 26, 2008, 09:19
|
Looking out for his state's farmers is what legislators are supposed to do. An "effective counterargument?" It is called "representative democracy."
So ethanol production causing a rise in food prices isn't a concern for the Democratic Party?
|
|
| | | 189 | Perm Dude
ID: 4637249
Sat, Apr 26, 2008, 09:23
|
I'm saying that Obama, in looking out for Illinois farmers (who rank #2 in the country in corn grown for grain), isn't doing a bad thing when he is actually representing his constituents, even when that representation puts the rest of us at a disadvantage, or (like pretty much everything in the Farm Bill) isn't a good long-term solution at all.
Knocking Obama for representing his constituents probably isn't going to get your argument very far, Box.
|
|
| | | 190 | biliruben
ID: 4911361723
Sat, Apr 26, 2008, 09:25
|
Well, to be fair, food prices weren't rising significantly 3 years ago, and ethanol was thought to be a much better solution to oil dependency than I think it is now.
But sure, rising food prices are a concern.
And sure, 20-20 hindsight gotcha politics played on a Senator looking out for his constituency is a fun game, but doesn't really add much to a mature discussion of issues.
|
|
| | |
| | | 192 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Sat, Apr 26, 2008, 18:12
|
I'm not going back in time to knock him for it - read my post - I wonder why he's still bragging about on his site - prominently featuring his agribusiness handout
Handing out the pork to his corporate farmers "constituents" isn't what immediately comes to mind when I think of a "new kind of politics"
|
|
| | | 193 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Mon, Apr 28, 2008, 14:08
|
Given Obama's connections to George Soros this article is appropriate here.
From the WSJ.
Friends of Terror in Peru
By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY
April 28, 2008; Page A17
Thursday's vote by the European Parliament to take the Peruvian guerrilla group known as the Tupac Amaru (aka MRTA) off its terrorist list has Peru in an uproar. For good reason: The MRTA is notorious for kidnapping, torturing and murdering civilians to advance its political agenda. More recently, Peruvian officials have linked it to Hugo Chávez's "Bolivarian Movement," which seeks to destabilize democracies in Latin America, and to the Colombian rebel group FARC.
The Europeans' decision is maddening. But it is also instructive, in that it shows how terrorists can advance their cause with the help of nongovernmental organizations. Under such headings as "human-rights" advocacy, NGOs that share the ideology of the far left toil away daily in Peru, trying to legitimize their buddies who, behind the scenes, continue their "armed struggle." The kicker is that these NGOs are often funded by foreign governments and philanthropists.
Peruvian Congressman Rolando Sousa, who I interviewed in Lima 10 days ago, knows a lot about the problem. He headed a congressional subcommittee that looked into the activities of the Bolivarian Movement in Peru. Its findings are now before a special commission with subpoena power that is likely to uncover even more. But he's already learned enough to cause alarm.
Mr. Sousa says that Mr. Chávez's Bolivarian Movement sits on a three-legged stool. Two of the legs are legal, the third is not. The first leg is official Venezuelan "diplomacy." Discounted oil shipments have bought the allegiance of 19 countries in the region. Other ploys, such as the purchase of Argentine debt and aid for Ecuadorian energy projects, are likewise designed to create dependence and establish Venezuelan dominance.
The second leg of the stool is the effort to establish ideological control within unions and grassroots organizations. These organizations have created a series of nonprofit "associations," which, Mr. Sousa says, operate internally like political parties, with official titles like "secretary of foreign relations" and "secretary of doctrine."
The names of these NGO associations – like "Houses of Alba" (Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas) and "Houses of Friendship" – may sound innocuous. But, says Mr. Sousa, "What matters is their objective which, like a coin, has two sides. One side is open. The other is hidden."
Openly, the associations administer eye clinics, literacy programs and health centers manned by Cuban doctors. Behind the scenes, the congressman warns, they work to indoctrinate the poorest Peruvians in the ideology of the extreme left.
The third, illegal leg of the stool is the most dangerous. Mr. Sousa cites two groups: the "Continental Bolivarian Coordinator" and the "Bolivarian Congress of the People." His committee found that both are recruiting and using the most extreme elements of the country – anarchists, terrorists and the radical left – to produce "the social conditions . . . the chaos" necessary to create the impression that democracy is not working.
Once this is accomplished, the grassroots organizations – nurtured by the NGOs – are standing by, ready to bring the extremists to power through the ballot box. The strategy was used in Bolivia to bring down the Sánchez de Lozada government in 2003 and bring Chávez puppet Evo Morales to power.
There is now ample evidence linking Mr. Chávez, the mastermind of the Bolivarian Movement, to terrorism, courtesy of the computers seized from the camp of dead Colombian guerrilla Raúl Reyes. At this time the connection, beyond ideology, between the Bolivarian NGOs and the Bolivarian terrorists remains blurry, notes Mr. Sousa. But the special congressional commission may bring the relationship into focus.
Meanwhile the work of other foreign-funded NGOs in the interest of terrorist organizations warrants urgent attention. Take the Peruvian "human-rights" group Aprodeh, which labored in Europe to get the MRTA off the terrorist list there, even though Peru still considers it a grave threat to its security.
In 2007, according to government records, Aprodeh received funding from Oxfam America, George Soros's Open Society, the John Merck Foundation, the city of Barcelona, the Dutch embassy and a U.S. government agency called the Inter-American Foundation, among others. On Friday, the Peruvian government asked Aprodeh to explain how its NGO status allows it to intervene on behalf of terrorists, as it did in the European Parliament.
No wonder the term NGO has become a dirty word in Peru. In an interview in Lima last week, Peruvian President Álan Garcia told me that "anticapitalism" NGOs funded by foreigners also play a major role in blocking development. "It's something that amazes me," he said.
Me too. Especially considering the fact that the victims of the poverty and violence that their agenda produces are Peru's most vulnerable.
|
|
| | | 194 | Perm Dude
ID: 153362712
Mon, Apr 28, 2008, 14:26
|
What connection would that be?
|
|
| | | 195 | Boldwin
ID: 443322717
Mon, Apr 28, 2008, 17:26
|
More 'fancy' data for MITH to not like...
Yup Obama, just the losers gravitating to God, Guns and ... wait a minute, not the Republican Party...hmmm.
|
|
| | | 196 | Perm Dude
ID: 153362712
Mon, Apr 28, 2008, 17:33
|
You think that graph is relative today, Balwin? Heh. Only as an indication of how far the GOP has gotten away from its roots.
|
|
| | | 197 | Boldwin
ID: 443322717
Mon, Apr 28, 2008, 17:40
|
Actually that isn't a half bad point, PD.
If I was a Republican and actually cared I'd go post that graph over at Free Republic as amunition against the slide from conservative to RINO party control. As it is I don't post there. Maybe did just once ten years ago. Can't remember for sure.
|
|
| | | 198 | Perm Dude
ID: 153362712
Mon, Apr 28, 2008, 17:48
|
Andrew Sullivan the last few days has been going nuts on the point, Baldwin. When it comes to budgetary restraint, military intervention, etc., the current crop of Republicans on the national level (and their "friends" like Joe Lieberman, Zell Miller) have gotten the GOP farther and farther from what got them successful in the first place.
If there wasn't a war going on to force compliance and party discipline in the Republican Party, this whole thing would have blown up years ago for them. As it is, thousands of Americans have lost their lives and we are billions of dollars in debt in the meantime.
|
|
| | | 199 | Boldwin
ID: 323592819
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 02:56
|
Instapundit is just compiling a fist full of dynomite on the Wright/Obama story reved up by Wrights appearance with Bill Moyer.DANA MILBANK ON JEREMIAH WRIGHT: For Obama, the Voice of Doom? "Speaking before an audience that included Marion Barry, Cornel West, Malik Zulu Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party and Nation of Islam official Jamil Muhammad, Wright praised Louis Farrakhan, defended the view that Zionism is racism, accused the United States of terrorism, repeated his view that the government created the AIDS virus to cause the genocide of racial minorities, stood by other past remarks ('God damn America') and held himself out as a spokesman for the black church in America." I don't see how this can help him.
UPDATE: Joe Klein: "I've been to dozens and dozens of African-American church services over the years, including the investiture of one of my friends as an AME minister two years ago, and I have very rarely, if ever, heard the kind of rants that are part of Reverend Wright's canon. . . . Wright's purpose now seems quite clear: to aggrandize himself--the guy is going to be a go-to mainstream media source for racial extremist spew, the next iteration of Al Sharpton--and destroy Barack Obama." Yeah, if Wright's not trying to sabotage Obama's candidacy, what is he doing?
ANOTHER UPDATE: Some useful background here. Doesn't today's speech mean that Bill Moyers wasted his time and reputation in trying to walk Wright back from the brink?
MORE: Ouch: "Frankly, it’s as selfish of a move as we've seen in some time. Imagine, for example, if Norman Hsu or Vicki Iseman were doing publicity tours right now."
STILL MORE: Ron Coleman says the chickens are coming home to roost. And here's more from The Telegraph.
MORE STILL: Andrew Sullivan finally catches on: "But what he said today extemporaneously, the way in which he said it, the unrepentant manner in which he reiterated some of his most absurd and offensive views, his attempt to equate everything he believes with the black church as a whole, and his open public embrace of Farrakhan and hostility to the existence of Israel Zionism, make any further defense of him impossible. This was a calculated, ugly, repulsive, vile display of arrogance, egotism, and self-regard. This is an outright attack on the stated beliefs and policies and values of Barack Obama in a secular setting."
Yes, Wright's views certainly contradict Obama's stated beliefs, policies, and values. Andrew adds: "Obama needs not just to distance himself from Wright's views; he needs to disown him at this point. Wright himself, it seems to me, has become part of what Obama is fighting against." Become? I don't see that Wright has changed. People have just noticed. And if this is what Obama is fighting against, then . . . where's the fighting against part?
FINALLY: Eric Scheie on Pastor Wright's fantasy world of hyperbole. Some of that hyperbole is deflated by this comment from The Volokh Conspiracy:
"Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains. He did not put me in slavery. And he didn't make me this color."
Nobody put Wright in chains.
Nobody put Wright in slavery.
Wright's color is due to his Negroid and Caucasian genes.
People can be so literal. Or is the whole thing being cleverly staged to give Obama the all-time greatest Sister Souljah moment? Tons of choice links within. Too late to transport them to this post.
|
|
| | | 200 | Myboyjackk
ID: 8216923
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 09:37
|
My favorite was the whole "black kids do poorly in school because their brains are genetically different than whites - they're good at rap and dancing, not reading and writing" business. Thanks for clearing up the last 100 years of advancement, Rev.
I take it that the "context" and "cherry picking" defense team is regrouping.
|
|
| | | 201 | walk
ID: 181472714
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 09:51
|
I saw most of Hardball last night with Chris Matthews spending most of his show on the Wright thing. I said it weeks ago, and continue to be dismayed that so much coverage and attention and weight is being attributed to Obama as a result of his association with Wright (let alone the selective comments that are emphasized).
Ultimately, I think the point about the relevance of Wright is that it speaks to Obama's values and beliefs. So, giving the benefit of the doubt, what is the real concern folks here think we should have about Obama's affiliation with Rev. Wright?
I would say none. Move on.
Please share your concerns, or if you prefer, the concerns you think others have that you would deem "valid."
|
|
| | |
| | | 203 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 10:22
|
Well, to be fair, food prices weren't rising significantly 3 years ago, and ethanol was thought to be a much better solution to oil dependency than I think it is now.
No, that's not being fair at all, for two reasons.
First, it *was* foreseeable. This is why economic theory exists. Remember complementary and substitute goods in Econ 101? In point of fact, it is precisely because it was foreseeable that we actually are going a bit too far in assuming causation for this specific runup (see the end of this post). Plus, many questioned the physics, as well. Specifically, what's the energy gain calculus. This was one of the "right meets left" topics that my wife and I have been able to kibbitz about for years.
Second, let's say that you reject the worldviews and theories that I believe made this predictable. This still doesn't justify government action. One of the reasons I'm a conservative is that I believe it is better for government to be too slow to act rather than too fast. The damage government does is very hard to undue, both in terms of political rhetoric and in terms of direct economics. To help alleviate the Great Depression, we're still subsidizing coal plants in the midwest, for goodness sake. Remember, Obama was a big supporter of a nationwide mandate on distributors to sell E-85. Think of the havoc that would have caused if it had happened.
Much better to not subsidize or mandate ethanol or E-85. Let the market sort itself out, because the market is the only entity that considers all of the feedback loops that have prices. The existence of a few non-priced items does not itself override the deep value of paying attention to all the items that do have prices. Don't rely on partial-equilibrium "studies" that "prove" that ethanol is economically viable at $30 a barrell, oops I meant $50 a barrell, oops I meant $75 a barrell, oops I meant $110 a barrell, oops ...
(BTW, part of the runup in food prices, I think, is the result of the commodity runup, which has at its root monetary policy ... so we shouldn't panic at the moment, assuming the economy can sort itself out ... but the flip-side is another "not forseeable" impact of a drought; when that "unforeseeable" event happens, you'll see this exact same logic playing out. I think we are getting extremely lucky that the runup in commodity prices causing chunks of this food price problem is coincident with legislation changes; this allows people to see the dangers with a much smaller supply problem than what could have been).
MITH -- glad to see he's moderating his out-year stance ... too bad the reverse has been signed into law. He's also long on words and short on specifics. You can't just put 35%+ of an admittedly growing food supply into your cars and then turn around and give unlimited grain to the world. So much for confronting the tough questions. But at least its a start. He does appear to be malleable, at least in rhetoric.
|
|
| | | 204 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 10:31
|
MITH -- 'We're going to have to shift to cellulosic ethanol, using biomass that is not part of the food chain,' he [Obama] said. 'And that's going to require some time.' Just had to comment on this, specifically. Obama wants the land devoted to biomass production to become more valuable (as an energy source). This has the exact same effect on land values and food commodity prices as the current policies. Just instead of growing corn, you'll grow other stuff (or allow it to be grown). That's what I'm talking about in terms of confronting the hard questions.
And if I'm not mistaken, the reason the energy calculus on cellulosic ethanol is more attractive is the presumption that the inputs are coincidentally available, allowing you to ignore the energy cost of production ... biomass that would otherwise clog landfills, etc. But to meet energy demands on the scale we need to dent our oil/coal demand, you have to consciously grow it, obviating a critical assumption.
It's all about scale and the allocation of scarce resources.
|
|
| | | 205 | Perm Dude
ID: 153362712
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 10:35
|
#200: Wright apparently has decided to go all out on the victimology circuit. Some people respond to adversity with grace, others with blame. Wright is clearly the latter. Truth is, his writings and sermons in the past were not as god-awful as his latest two offerings to the press. So, go ahead and try to slam me for saying that we need to look at things in context, MBJ. Your post #200 reveals that you are more interested in putting people into boxes than engaging on this issue.
Baldwin quotes Sullivan, but neglects to mention that Sullivan takes pains to point out that Wright isn't running for any public office. Baldwin (and those who write his talking points) likes to put Wright's words into Obama's mouth, and there is a certain segment of the population who are sensitive to this kind of bait-and-switch rhetoric. But this whole "talking about talking about politics" is just damn tiresome. So pardon me if I don't engage on the lower levels so much.
|
|
| | | 206 | walk
ID: 181472714
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 10:46
|
#205, PD, agreed. Wright isn't running for office, and while it is appropriate to ask Obama about whether he shares Wright's views, it's not appropriate to focus the assessment of a candidate's candidacy on this issue -- especially after the speech Obama gave on race in response. For sound byte reasons, and attentiveness reasons, and I dunno the "it's more fun to focus on the Wright guy and blame Obama instead of listening to Obama's own nuanced and sophisticated words" reason, this chit lives on. I guess Wright represents "the real Obama." As if. Stupid country.
|
|
| | | 207 | Myboyjackk
ID: 8216923
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 11:38
|
Your post #200 reveals that you are more interested in putting people into boxes than engaging on this issue.
Yeah, unlike Obama we bitter, unemployed Middle Americans who cling to God and bigotry like to "put people in boxes".......
|
|
| | | 208 | walk
ID: 181472714
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 11:43
|
Do you really think Obama meant it the way you are saying it in #207, MBJ?
|
|
| | | 209 | Perm Dude
ID: 153362712
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 11:52
|
You were awfully quick to put me into a box, MBJ--my sin, apparently, was urging the kind of context seeking you utilize everyday in your job.
How about stop taking Obama (or me, or anyone, for that matter) to task for what they didn't say?
|
|
| | | 210 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 12:03
|
Do you really think Obama meant it the way you are saying it in #207, MBJ?
How did I "say it"? Was it my inflection that you picked up on?
Anyway, I think he meant, roughly, what you said expressly at the very end of #206. Beyond that, I'm not much of a mind reader
|
|
| | | 211 | walk
ID: 181472714
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 12:14
|
Thanks, MBJ. I don't think Obama said anything about clinging to bigotry, but I will go back and check. That is what I was sorta keying on in your #207. I think what Obama was trying to say is what Obama said he was trying to say, that when things are not going well (lose your job, prices increase, etc.), you tend to fall back to the things that are most important to you, value-wise. His comments were more about folks being dimayed by eco circumstances, not folks being insular.
NY Times, Herbert: Rev Wright
|
|
| | | 212 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 12:31
|
wow. I agree with a Bob Herbert piece. fascinating.
|
|
| | | 213 | walk
ID: 181472714
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 12:34
|
Yeah, it's a good piece...a shame that Wright is so selfish about this, and at the same time, potentially making it more difficult to change to happen to advance equality by him negatively impacting a Black candidate's candidacy. Argh.
|
|
| | | 214 | Madman
ID: 14139157
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 12:39
|
Walk 211 -- I don't think Obama said anything about clinging to bigotry My post 7 quotes him ... they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them. Must have missed that, eh? This is also consistent with his Philadelphia speech on Wright, where he suggested that economic impoverishment causes racial animosity. Kind of like why Don Imus is a bigot.
Walk 206 -- I guess Wright represents "the real Obama." As if. Stupid country. Actions speak louder than words, especially when words are cheap. Oprah walked out on Wright years ago. Obama didn't. Still don't understand that one, and he still hasn't bothered to explain. Especially now that Wright has implied that Obama secretly agrees with him. Should I assume his pastor, a man of God, is misleading us? Is it so "stupid" to presume that Obama's chosen spiritual leader knows something about him that I don't?
Although thanks to his "The View" comments from a few weeks ago, we now know that he *would have* walked out on the Church if Wright hadn't retired.
Clearly, Obama does not believe that white men are the enemy (reference to Wright's discussion of Farakhan yesterday). But he's clearly a lot, lot closer to that point of view than I am, or he wouldn't have hung with Wright for all these years.
|
|
| | | 215 | walk
ID: 181472714
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 12:57
|
Thanks Madman, yep, I missed the antipathy...but I also agree with the point.
I think it's stupid to be absorbed by Wright, and judge Obama based on it, particularly relative to the myriad of other more important issues.
I don't buy your conclusion that Obama is more anti-White than you are...you are making some inferential leaps here...
|
|
| | | 216 | walk
ID: 181472714
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 13:20
|
Okay, more time to reply:
I don't think Obama was saying eco impoverishment causes racial animosity, but that when people are in down times, tney tend to hunker down and keep close to the things they find most comfortable. People do tend to like people like themselves, too (classic psych research: "similar to me phenomenon"), so what he is saying is essentially true. How he said it was not eloquent.
I do not believe that cos Obama was a member of Wright's church, or that cos Oprah left and Obama did not, that Obama is closer than you to believing white men are the enemy (I guess that includes his mother and grandmother, too). He more closely associated to someone who believes that, but you basically have to ask yourself this question: "Do you believe Obama was a member of Wright's church cos he some kind of anti-White person or that maybe there are other aspects to Wright's thinking that attracted and retained Obama to his church?" I believe the latter. I think Obama is a smart, reasoned, principled person and that more of Wright had to say was in-line with this type of thinking than the angst that has been highlighted (out of context). I also don't feel any White people are in a position to selectively judge Wright's positions and I don't believe the Obama-Wright association is a critical or even "somewhat important" consideration in his candidacy. You seem to think so, and that is your priviledge.
|
|
| | | 217 | Madman
ID: 14139157
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 14:01
|
I don't believe the Obama-Wright association is a critical or even "somewhat important" consideration in his candidacy. Different people can be attracted to him for different reasons. Since I disagree with him on virtually every policy position that he has, the one thing that could attract me to his candidacy was his transcendent race potential. Racial healing, showing the world a different side of America (this still holds), etc. The Wright issue -- and, more importantly, how he has handled it -- obviously strikes to the core of who he is and how he views race issues in America. It's not the only view of his core, but it is critical to his being. His campaign on race was about biography, who his family was, who he was, where he was from, who he knew, and how that could unite us. Wright is obviously an important datum when evaluating his biography.
He made that portion of his candidacy about biography. Unfortunately for him, his Pastor wants to rewrite Obama's perspective on it. And he's been in the public eye for over a year now, and my perspective is that he's made race relations worse, not better. This casts doubt on one of the core rationalizations of his candidacy. It's far from over; I still predict he'll win the general with 53% of the vote and there will be a coming together next spring. But he's taking on water because of substantive failings to follow through on the initial promise of his campaign.
|
|
| | |
| | | 219 | walk
ID: 181472714
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 14:26
|
Madman, well said. Thanks. To clarify #217. You said: "And he's been in the public eye for over a year now, and my perspective is that he's made race relations worse, not better." Who has made race relations worse, Obama or Wright. Obviously, I would say Wright, but I am not sure if you are saying Obama. I think Obama's candidacy, and Wright unintended introduction to the campaign, has brought race relations to the front burner. I think Obama has handled this well, particularly based on his eloquent speech a month or so back. I think you have to ask yourself, based on this issue, which I agree is important, is Obama capable (i.e. does have the potential) to improve or degrade race relations (and other relations; e.g. repub & dem, rich & poor, U.S. & other countries, etc.). I think he definitely does. I am highly attracted to him as a candidate because of this belief in his potential to build bridges, using diplomacy, intellect, common sense, compassion and trust.
|
|
| | | 220 | walk
ID: 181472714
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 14:34
|
218, PD. Great to read that...The media will continue to eat this up as it's more interesting for them, gets more ratings, etc. to focus on the Wright thing, than, for example more important and topical campaign news such as:
- McCain's healthcare proposal (further articulated today)
- Obama's split with Hillary and McCain (who agree) on the summer gasoline tax reprieve.
A candidate's character is important, I mean chit, what I do for a living is largely based on defining and measuring personal attributes, performance and potential, but when this Wright thing is the only thing, without any guts by commentators and pundits to then explicitly take it to the (il)logical extension and say: "Okay, so why are we debating this? how does this affect this candidate's leadership potential?", without equal time to issues or other more direct questions about character and potential, then I get disgusted.
|
|
| | | 221 | Perm Dude
ID: 153362712
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 14:42
|
Could be good news for Obama, I think. Longer term, anyway. Some bottom-dwellers will continue to try to conflate the two, but the more Wright marginalizes himself the better for Obama.
I wonder if this is a matter of Wright protecting his turf, so to speak. The Right, in particular, have been very sharp on the tight hold that liberal black preachers have on their congregations, so this might play into this well, and Obama can dovetail his "new politics" meme into it. I dunno--but it seems to me that this kind of victimology is foursquare against the kind of personal responsibility-taking that Obama has clearly pushed.
Such personal responsibility-taking might, indeed, be making race relations worse, as Madman opines. But I think the short term pain the African-American community might be feeling is the very kind of thing Madman and many others on the Right have been prescribing for them for years.
|
|
| | | 222 | walk
ID: 181472714
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 14:43
|
More on Obama on wright
I like this line, too: "Anybody who knows me or what I am about knows that I am trying to bridge gaps and seize the commonality in all people." I guess the question is if you believe this, believe his actions support this, etc. I would like to see this sorta end after today, but have this bad feeling Wright will feel compelled to volley back.
|
|
| | | 223 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 15:21
|
Quotes from 218/222 ... Well, I didn't think he had it in him. Going to watch the actual Obama statement this evening. But those quotes are very, very good. Unlike the Philly speech (my opinion), he's directly addressing the issue head-on here.
PD -- But I think the short term pain the African-American community might be feeling is the very kind of thing Madman and many others on the Right have been prescribing for them for years. Yes, and this is more inline with what I thought he'd be able to do from the beginning. Call BS BS, whether from a black pulpit or from Hagee or from where-ever. Up until now, it's seemed to me that he's been doing more equivocation and dodging, sprinkled with political philosophy that I don't agree with. At least in those quotes from today's press conference, there's none of that. Very impressive on such a quick turnaround. Makes you think that he really believes it. I'm still a bit cynical, but it's impressive.
OK. 55-45, revised general election prediction. ;)
|
|
| | | 224 | walk
ID: 181472714
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 15:27
|
Alright, Madman! I think the Philly speech was more of what I want in my leader...rise above it. But in this case, he also has to address the Wright guy head-on cos that's where the attention is (and the questions). I agree, he did it well.
|
|
| | | 225 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 15:32
|
One of the biggest objections Obama had during insistence that AIDS was started in the United States (intentionally)
Baldwin you agree with the good Rev. on this don't you?
I certainly do.
The evidence is pretty compelling but I won't muddy up this thread with it, we've been over it before.
|
|
| | | 226 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 15:49
|
"I have been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ since 1992, and have known Reverand Wright for 20 years," Obama said. "The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago."
Obama said he heard that Wright had given "a performance" and when he watched news accounts, he realized that it more than just a case of the former pastor defending himself.
"His comments were not only divisive and destructive, I believe they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate," Obama said. "I'll be honest with you, I hadn't seen it" when reacting initially on Monday, he said.
and
"He has done great damage, I do not see that relationship being the same," said Obama.
"What became clear to me was that he was presenting a world view that contradicts what I am and what I stand for," Obama said.
Good for Obama. making a clear distinction, and not only separating himself from Wright, but also denouncing Wright. THAT is very important.
"I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia explaining that he's done enormous good. ... But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS. ... There are no excuses. They offended me. They rightly offend all Americans and they should be denounced."
|
|
| | | 227 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 15:56
|
It is becoming clear to even the casual observer why Obama at first attempted to treat Wright with kid-gloves and gently renounce without too much offense or disrespect.
Wright is spiteful and takes no prisoners when scorned. Any thoughtful politician would try hard not to unleash his wrath if he could help it. Sadly Obama couldn't help it; now he has to fight, and put the bulldog down.
|
|
| | | 228 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 16:36
|
Sorry I screwed up my lead sentence in post 225, should have read...
"One of the biggest objections Obama had during his speech today was Wright's insistence that AIDS was started in the United States (intentionally)"
|
|
| | | 229 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 16:39
|
Wright is spiteful and takes no prisoners when scorned. Any thoughtful politician would try hard not to unleash his wrath if he could help it. Sadly Obama couldn't help it; now he has to fight, and put the bulldog down.
So Bili you disagree with Wright's charges about America? Or just the way he is treating Obama?
What has Wrigt said specifically you disagree with..except perhaps the AID's comments?
|
|
| | | 230 | walk
ID: 181472714
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 17:32
|
"now he has to fight, and put the bulldog down." Love it, bili baby!
|
|
| | |
| | | 232 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 17:52
|
I don't really know what Wright's charges are. I just know he ain't helping Obama.
|
|
| | | 233 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 18:11
|
I haven't heard all his comments either, but one big point he's made is equating America's use of war with acts of terrorism. Basically critiquing America's use of military force.
This has been one of he most "outrageous" charges I hear mentioned. I would think some of us agree with that sentiment.
As the Rev pointed out yesterday, even if he agrees with it Obama can't go along with it and get elected.
If the Rev does believe it, these criticisms about America, he has every right to defend himself and I guess Obama is doing what he "has to do to get elected".
Perhaps a 4 day press conference was a bit much.
Maybe he (The Rev.) has said more that I haven't picked up on.
|
|
| | | 234 | Boldwin
ID: 323592819
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 18:35
|
The guy can't possibly be so dense as to not know he's hurting Obama's chances, can he? I think we need to call out the armchair pop psychologist army to explain this.
- conscious or unconscious hurt felings because he was kicked from Obama's team?
- jealous thinking, 'Why is he the one being lionized? He pays me to teach and inspire him!"?
- he really is just a simple-minded self-promoting narcissist oblivious to the harm he does others?
- Al Sharpton syndrome?
Your ideas?
Maybe Rush needs to put 'operation chaos' on stand-down. Too much chaos. He doesn't actually want the queen of darkness winning the nomination, does he?
|
|
| | | 235 | Perm Dude
ID: 19332914
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 18:37
|
All of the above?
|
|
| | | 236 | walk
ID: 83171517
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 19:18
|
Herbert....read Herbert, boldwin. He hits on your points. Fame, narcissism, ego, revenge.
|
|
| | | 237 | Tree
ID: 55392917
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 19:38
|
Sullivan: The Race, The Right, and Obama
a small blurb of a piece, but i really liked it, and it had a lot to say in very few words.
|
|
| | | 238 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 19:45
|
That Sullivan sounds pretty close to what Madman's been saying. He simply doesn't believe Obama's telling the truth.
It's not just Republicans either. I know democrats who don't believe him either.
Cynicism is so ingrained in our political culture that's it may be impossible to overcome. If so, I think our country is doomed to decay.
|
|
| | | 239 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 21:47
|
The Cynic in me can't shake the feeling that this Sister Soulja moment was all scrpted well in advance
Obama and Wright told the NYTimes this was coming over a year ago.
Mr. Wright, who has long prided himself on criticizing the establishment, said he knew that he may not play well in Mr. Obama’s audition for the ultimate establishment job.
“If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me,” Mr. Wright said with a shrug. “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.”
|
|
| | | 240 | Tree
ID: 55392917
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 22:24
|
i just don't buy this whole planned in advance bit. anyone who has read Audacity of Hope or listening to everything else Obama says, knows that flies in the face of everything he has said over the past few years.
|
|
| | | 241 | Madman
ID: 14139157
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 22:49
|
Anatomy of a Disinvitation ... concise timeline, with links, to a variety of facts regarding Wright's initial disinvitation. First time I had seen a link to the infamous "Rolling Stones" sermon quotes... Not sure if Obama heard fact #8 from that sermon or not ...
It's enough to point out that in early 2007 Obama basically knew everything about Wright that he knows now, yet he didn't throw him overboard because he needed political cred with minorities. Since that time, his needs have changed. That's essentially what Wright and Obama discussed back in early 2007 ...
But something about Obama's demeanor this time convinced me that this time he really is pissed. I suspect it was the new bit of information that Obama got ... specifically, that Wright was willing to throw Obama overboard. That's what was "particularly" disturbing this time. Has to get his goat; I know it would piss me off if I were the first half-black to have a serious run at Pres. The new info. might also be just how stubborn Wright really is, and hungry for the spotlight that he clearly wants to share. Just my cynicism ... but I stand by my previous posts; this will, in time, blow-over. He finally did what he should have done when he started this campaign, and/or in his Philly speech (which is now even more of a logical mish-mash). This delayed recognition was a mistake, but not the same order of magnitude problem that a live-wire Wright was going to be... "planned" or "foreseen" Sista Soulja moments, if well executed, are still enough to keep voters at bay.
I'm cynical.
|
|
| | | 242 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 23:03
|
The delay to fully "disown him" (Is his white granny next?) was necessary to demonstrate his bona fides with those sympathetic to Wright's views.
|
|
| | | 243 | Perm Dude
ID: 19332914
Tue, Apr 29, 2008, 23:07
|
because he needed political cred with minorities.
Since he wasn't one himself...
|
|
| | | 244 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Wed, Apr 30, 2008, 06:28
|
Baldwin to Nerve When are you going to tell me which order she is in?
I did in the original thread where you asked it...
What order did you say your sister was in?
It's my Aunt, Dominican.
original response
Now your going to muddy up the Obama thread with remarks about my Aunt's Order?
|
|
| | | 245 | Boldwin
ID: 323592819
Wed, Apr 30, 2008, 06:36
|
Sit down before you read this one, PD. Grab a coffee and calm your nerves, as you will need to fortify yourself for this.
Victor Davis Hanson weighs in.
|
|
| | | 246 | Boldwin
ID: 323592819
Wed, Apr 30, 2008, 06:39
|
I didn't see your response in the other thread. Just occassionally a post will get stepped on and buried by new posts and I miss one important to me.
|
|
| | | 247 | Boldwin
ID: 323592819
Wed, Apr 30, 2008, 06:50
|
While I was focussing on the turnover at head strategist in the Clinton camp, maybe it's the Obama head strategist who's the weakest link.
|
|
| | | 248 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Wed, Apr 30, 2008, 08:22
|
Victor Davis Hanson weighs in.
Baldwin, did this article come out before or after Obama laid into the Rev.?
His repudiation of the Rev. was so absolute it's doubtful this article could have been written afterwards.
|
|
| | | 249 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Wed, Apr 30, 2008, 08:24
|
By the way if you go back and read the Q&A session after Obama's anti Wright speech he says "you know" over and over again. I counted at least a dozen times, sometimes twice in a row.
Not very good speaking technique and not like him either. Must of been shaken up.
|
|
| | | 250 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Wed, Apr 30, 2008, 09:40
|
PD 243 -- You aren't putting yourself fully back in time. A poll among minorities back in early 2007 -- when the Wright flare-up started.
|
|
| | | 251 | Perm Dude
ID: 5322308
Wed, Apr 30, 2008, 10:26
|
#245: A very good piece, except for this phrase:
If you wish to learn how morally confused the Obama campaign has become
Conflating Rev Wright with the Obama campaign seems to be seemless, at this point. Perhaps Davis doesn't even realize he's doing it. But it bears correction: Rev Wright is not Barack Obama.
|
|
| | | 252 | Perm Dude
ID: 5322308
Wed, Apr 30, 2008, 10:32
|
#250: That is posted at the end of February, Madman. Nevertheless, this quote from your posted piece is interesting:
Blacks, in part, may be slow to warm to the candidacy of Obama because, a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll suggests, they are less likely than whites to believe that America is ready for a black president.
It doesn't seem to me that both are true: Obama is either not black enough (so blacks don't support him) or too black (so blacks don't support him because they aren't ready for a black president).
Nevertheless, support for Obama among blacks continues to grow the more Bill "First Black President" Clinton speaks.
BTW, here's Noam Scheiber's take on it, FWIW
|
|
| | | 253 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Wed, Apr 30, 2008, 12:58
|
PD 252 -- well, I don't have a minority poll right around April 2007, when Wright's ugliness was first made public, and when Obama first described that ugliness as an "attempt to be provocative" (among other descriptions). Here's one from October, 2007 which basically confirms the same thing. My point was that Obama's strength among minorities is a recent phenomenon. The Wright fiasco pre-dates the growth of that strength.
Now that he *is* strong among minorities, he no longer needs Wright and he's bailing on him ... like he supposedly told Wright that he might have to do back in April, 2007.
And I applaud his latest maneuver. Well done. Especially if it had been done a year ago, it would have relegated the issue to one of judgment, a sole example of bad judgment to which all candidates can stake similar claim. His statement was so clear and convincing, that it almost works as far as it would have when this stuff first surfaced. But now, of course, he's having to backtrack bigtime on his Philly speech where he made a public claim on inside information on who Wright was, and, as a result, the American people should buy into Obama's interpretation. He's wisely backing off the claim to inside knowledge of his Pastor.
As to the Schieber piece, it does Obama no favors. It reminds us all that Obama and Wright had detailed specific theological exchanges. Surely in the midst of those illuminating and stimulating instances some of Wright's theories became known to Obama. Put another way, I personally am attracted to Wright's intellect; seeing his speeches this weekend, he's definitely a bright guy. I'd never go to church there because of it, however, since I disagree with most of his conclusions. Hard to reconcile an Obama who disagrees with his Pastor so much but yet is attracted because of that intellectual disagreement. That's a story that's going through an awful lot of hoops.
Much simpler and more cohesive is the story that Schieber is attempting to avoid ... that Obama really wasn't that interested and really didn't pay that much attention. Joan Walsh (see beginning paragraph 5). This undermines Obama's claim of religiosity, which was one of his initial biographical strengths. But it's the only story that seems to make much sense here and yet still tries to give Obama the benefit of the doubt.
I'll close by citing this Dick Morris speech. This is indeed a huge opportunity for him. If he does some of these things -- especially contextualizing the stories that Wright uses to excoriate the US -- he can recapture control of the race debate that he started, and get an awful lot of people on board to his candidacy. Wright may claim that an Obama Presidency will institute "policies [that] grind under people". But it's not too late to give specifics to demonstrate why Wright's worldview is bankrupt.
|
|
| | | 254 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Wed, Apr 30, 2008, 13:43
|
some pretty good suggestions here on how Obama can counter the Wright issue...
Tell (voters) flat out that Wright will not keep their homes from foreclosure.
Tell them that Wright has absolutely nothing to do with gas prices doubling under the presidency of George W. Bush.
Make it plain that your name is on the ballot and not his, and you're the guy who has the right plan to transform the country.
and so on and so forth.
|
|
| | |
| | | 256 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Thu, May 01, 2008, 19:24
|
Nice clip Walk.
Americans have their head so far up their...
They don't want to hear logic.
!000% correct on the solution to the "oil crisis"
Use less gas.
Gas is $4.00 a tank in an SUV that gets 15 miles to the gallon?
It's $2.00 a gallon in a car that get 30 miles...and the supply will expand lowering prices even more.
Duh America.
Unless you like giving the Mid East and Russians all your disposable income...duh.
So Fricken stupid.
Should have figured this out in 1977.
|
|
| | | 257 | Boldwin
ID: 323592819
Thu, May 01, 2008, 20:17
|
Nerve
I've always had the suspicion that the puppet-masters would have bled the same amount of money from us no matter what we did to economize. They just would have escalated the price more. "How much pain do you think they will tolerate this year, Mr Bush? I dunno, let's find out shall we, sheik? *roar of laughter*"
|
|
| | | 258 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Thu, May 01, 2008, 20:27
|
Article in the times today about European middle class struggling to make it. Not just us.
|
|
| | | 259 | Madman
ID: 14139157
Thu, May 01, 2008, 21:53
|
That Obama clip ... starts out really good ... talking about politicians offering feel-good short-run "solutions" (generous word) that won't help the long-run or really do much ... the he kicks off his "solutions" (generous word) to the energy crisis: sending a bunch of lawyers over to Exxon Mobil to investigate price gouging ... wonder if he did the self-mockery on purpose ...
BTW, anyone have factual back-up for Obama's assertion that every President since Nixon made energy "independence" a national goal? I have obvious examples of Nixon, Carter, George I, Clinton, and George II. It's fair to ignore Ford. But Reagan? One of the first things he did was to dismantle parts of Carter's energy policies ... I just can't find anything on it and I don't really remember it being a national goal that he trumpeted. Not saying he was smart enough to understand how vacuous the goal is, but I am wanting to know if Obama's got the goods on him. I'd like to know when and what Reagan was proposing.
|
|
| | | 260 | Madman
ID: 14139157
Thu, May 01, 2008, 21:57
|
Article in the times today about European middle class struggling to make it. Not just us.
Read it. First, the majority of the forces impacting income distribution in this country are the same forces impacting the entire developed world, so it isn't surprising. It really doesn't have anything to do with a +/- 5%-point marginal tax rate on high income Americans.
Second, however, just as I criticize similar articles about America for not proving their case, the Times article was extraordinarily weak on a tight factual case. You simply must consider mobility and demographic change. There was a quote in there about the reduced quantity of earners in a particular dollar range of German earners ... the same thing exists in America because the whole distribution is stretching, with more richer Americans. So you really have no idea what that sort of thing means. Europe has also been facing an influx of immigration, bulging the lowest quintiles and artificially reflecting the experience of typical Europeans, just like what's been going on here. Sloppy journalism that tells us nothing, unfortunately.
|
|
| | | 261 | J-Bar
ID: 153192922
Thu, May 01, 2008, 22:38
|
walk and nerve -- law signed by bush 12/19/2007 stds were raised. now we can debate at what level they should be but that it is somehow a new and fresh idea is laughable.
|
|
| | | 262 | Boldwin
ID: 323592819
Fri, May 02, 2008, 01:45
|
Huckabee has an interesting take on Wright's motives.
He can't have Obama win and put the lie to everything he's ever preached about the hateful white man.
|
|
| | | 263 | Boldwin
ID: 323592819
Fri, May 02, 2008, 02:03
|
To put this in perspective tho...it's not like 'Clinton' bad. It's not 'cattle futures' bad, or 'Madison Guarantee FEC fraud' bad, or 'travelgate' bad, or 'whitewater' bad, or hundreds of cases of major illegal campaign contributions bad, or 'Juanita Broaddrick' bad or 'Paula Jones' bad or 'schtuppin the help' bad, or 'hundreds of illegal FBI files' bad, or 'the other 15 scandals I can't think of off the top of my head in less than a minute' bad.
Obama only has Wright and Resko hangin over his head. He's like a choir boy in comparison.
|
|
| | | 264 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Fri, May 02, 2008, 04:11
|
BTW, anyone have factual back-up for Obama's assertion that every President since Nixon made energy "independence" a national goal?
NO President has done the work that really needs to be done to free us from oil dependence after the 70's oil embargo which was essentially an act of war. It's a disgrace we are still at the mercy of the people who held us hostage as a country in the late 70's. It was a wake up call but we chose to remain asleep.
Cafe standards should have been raised incrementally each year. This simple act would have dramatically saved large amounts of oil.
Conservation needs to be discussed as a national policy as if we were in a war. (oh wait we are in a war)
Either politicians are afraid of big oil or perhaps even worse they are afraid to talk to Americans as adults with tough talk.
It's time to get rid of gas guzzling cars, and SUV's. It's simple supple demand logic. Oil is a depleting resource. As soon as we begin to make dramatic reductions in our consumption it will have profound effects on the price of oil and the health of our economy.
We are in a crisis over this resource and we have the power to make it manageable very quickly and simply. Instead we beg our enemies to "please sir may I have more" and help them build kingdoms with our stupidity.
|
|
| | | 265 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Fri, May 02, 2008, 06:46
|
Nerve: Cafe standards should have been raised incrementally each year. This simple act would have dramatically saved large amounts of oil.
Conservation needs to be discussed as a national policy as if we were in a war. (oh wait we are in a war)
Beautiful.
Either politicians are afraid of big oil or perhaps even worse they are afraid to talk to Americans as adults with tough talk.
They're owned. Also, the further liberalization of this country is making people instinctively rely on the gov't for solutions instead of themselves. The problem with that is our gov't is feeble and incapable.
It's time to get rid of gas guzzling cars, and SUV's. It's simple supple demand logic. Oil is a depleting resource. As soon as we begin to make dramatic reductions in our consumption it will have profound effects on the price of oil and the health of our economy.
I'm sure you're talking about a gradual phase out via increased fuel mileage standards for newly produced cars, correct?
We are in a crisis over this resource and we have the power to make it manageable very quickly and simply. Instead we beg our enemies to "please sir may I have more" and help them build kingdoms with our stupidity.
I don't agree that we have the power to make it go away very quickly. It's the perfect storm of gov't incompetence, lack of effective industrial and distributional innovation (at least for now), and consumer laziness.
Gas goes to $3, what happens? People piss and moan and drive anyway. Gas goes to $4, what happens? People piss and moan and drive anyway. I think this is one of those rare events where industry is one of two things: 1) In co-hoots with the problem or 2) Incapable of overcoming an enormous economic moat of established fuel use type and the means of distribution.
Like you, I look at this as a matter of national security. The problem is what are we going to do about it? A gas tax holiday is about the dumbest thing I ever heard of. I don't support a raise in the gas tax either because that hurts the poor and working middle class too much.
I've read somewhere that we have a $6 billion annual subsidy for the oil companies. They obviously don't need it anymore. I would get rid of it and use that $6 to subsidize alternative energy sources or make an annual pool of $6 billion to American citizens who have a home that want to put solar panels on their roof. I know you're talking about cars and the subsequent price of gas, but I think if we provide relief in other areas too we'll see some improvements.
Allow me to pull a number out of my ass in an effort to offer an idea.
Let's say the average cost for putting solar panels on a house is $40,000 each. Let's have a goal of a 1,000,000 homes a year that install these systems. Without factoring in efficiency gains and price declines of installation over the years, the gov't would need to allocate $40 billion annually to see this happen. Eliminating the $6 billion oil subsidy leaves us to come up with $36 billion. I think we can squeeze that out of the existing federal budget. I don't know the dollar for dollar where, but I think we can.
I wouldn't force this on citizens. Rather I would put it out there that this program exists and allow citizens to voluntarily apply for it on their own. They would own these systems free and clear. The only requirement would be 99% electrical independence from the grid. Of course they would need to be hooked up to the grid in the event something happens to the solar panels on the roof.
|
|
| | | 266 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Fri, May 02, 2008, 13:23
|
Box I'm sure you're talking about a gradual phase out via increased fuel mileage standards for newly produced cars, correct?
Yes exactly. But the problem should have been addressed years ago.
I don't agree that we have the power to make it go away very quickly.
Fair enough but if we came out with a national policy that we were going gradually increase cafe standards, and we talked the talk and walked the walk, speculators would panik. Part of what is propping up price is speculation and they would run for the hills if they saw we had a leader who was serious.
Like you, I look at this as a matter of national security. The problem is what are we going to do about it?
We need leaders who are dead serious about the issue. We need a war time like speech about oil, about peak oil, a reality check discussion and plan of action. Announce raising cafe standards by 1/2 gallon minimum a year until we see results.
As you said Box, the problem is that the politicians are bought and paid for so what seems like easy and logical steps never happen.
Let's say the average cost for putting solar panels on a house is $40,000 each.
Everything I continue to read about current technology is that it stil isn't cost effective, although it likely eventually will be.
Nuclear energy is the other topic we need to look at as a nation. At least have a serious debate. Everyone remembers 3 mile island but my understanding is that it's gotten much safer.
What's worse, the remote chance of a Chernobyl (With 50 times safer technology today), or all the pollution we are breathing in from dirty sources of energy?
France gets 75% of their electricity from Nuclear power.
By the way I am not hijacking the thread, this was the thrust of the Obama clip that was posted by Walk.
I've been hearing these discussions for a few years now, just not by politicians.
|
|
| | | 267 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Fri, May 02, 2008, 13:26
|
Nuclear energy would not only make energy production cleaner and cheaper - it would make wide scale. long distance mass transit more feasible.
The electric trains in France and Germany are thr heat.
|
|
| | | 268 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Fri, May 02, 2008, 16:34
|
Nerve: Fair enough but if we came out with a national policy that we were going gradually increase cafe standards, and we talked the talk and walked the walk, speculators would panik. Part of what is propping up price is speculation and they would run for the hills if they saw we had a leader who was serious.
That's 100% accurate. Speculators would sully their diapers in a hurry if our gov't took this problem as seriously as it actually is. You hit on something I want to emphasize. Speculators could very well be the real culprits here regarding the price of a barrel of oil. These are the guys that have phony anxiety attacks when a Iranian speed boat comes within 1000 yards of a US Naval warship that could obliterate it from the face of the earth and oil goes thru the roof.
Iran knows what they're doing with that by the way. Or is it Iran? It's not like we haven't gone to war over events at sea before.(Conspiracy time!!!)
We need leaders who are dead serious about the issue. We need a war time like speech about oil, about peak oil, a reality check discussion and plan of action. Announce raising cafe standards by 1/2 gallon minimum a year until we see results.
I'm with you. Forget the "until we see results" part though. Demand sustained innovation.
Everything I continue to read about current technology is that it stil isn't cost effective, although it likely eventually will be.
Fair point. Yet this is a war time situation we are in so I think we have to look at qualitative and opportunity costs. I think if the gov't (i.e. The US taxpayer.) is footing the bill and getting energy independence out of it, that is more effective than any amount of bombs we drop in some Middle East country.
Nuclear energy is the other topic we need to look at as a nation. At least have a serious debate. Everyone remembers 3 mile island but my understanding is that it's gotten much safer.
What's worse, the remote chance of a Chernobyl (With 50 times safer technology today), or all the pollution we are breathing in from dirty sources of energy?
Here's why nuclear energy bothers me. The MASSIVE amount of gov't regulation and requirement that would go into it. You are right that technology is a lot better now, but I'm just skeptical of a gov't that can't even effectively deliver foodstuffs to its own citizens after a natural disaster.
Also expect the fear mongers to use the point that nuclear reactors offer a target for terrorists who hijack planes.
By the way I am not hijacking the thread, this was the thrust of the Obama clip that was posted by Walk.
This is also an extremely valid election topic that any candidate should take very seriously.
|
|
| | | 269 | Perm Dude
ID: 3943117
Fri, May 02, 2008, 16:40
|
I think the government is doing a decent job now on nuclear power regulation--to deregulate it (essentially, giving over the large-scale potential problems to the free market) is asking for problems.
That said, I agree with MBJ on the topic. I'd rather go more nuclear, store the waste while continuing to search for nuclear waste solutions than to continue to depend upon dwindling, dirty, and terrorist-enabling energy sources.
|
|
| | | 270 | walk
ID: 83171517
Sat, May 03, 2008, 09:22
|
WALL STREET JOURNAL
PEGGY NOONAN
Loyal to the Bitterness
May 2, 2008
I am out of step. There is something that is upsetting others whom I care about and whose thoughts are often not unlike my own. And it's not hitting me the same way.
I am referring to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I disagree with and disapprove of the things he says. The U.S. government did not spread AIDS among the black community, 9/11 was not the chickens coming home to roost, etc. He seems like a bright man, warm, humorous and compelling, but also needful and demanding of the spotlight, a showman prone to crackpottery, and I have to wonder how much respect he has for his congregation. He shows a lot of fury and does a lot of yelling for a leader of the followers of the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
AP
When he is discussed on news shows, pundits are asked what they think Mr. Wright's political impact will be, which is another way of saying: What will people think of this?
I always wish they'd say what they themselves think. I think what Mr. Wright has been saying is extreme and radical, and people don't like extreme and radical when they're pondering who their next leader will be, and as Mr. Wright has been Barack Obama's friend and mentor for 20 years, this will hurt Mr. Obama. This is borne out in the week's polls. From the New York Times: 48% of Democrats say he can best beat McCain, down eight points since April. The proportion of Democrats who say Mr. Obama is their choice for the nomination is now 46%, down six.
I also think that if Hillary Clinton wins because of the Wright scandal, it will leave a sad taste in the mouths of many. Mr. Obama reveals many things in his books, speeches and interviews but polarity and a tropism toward the extreme are not among them. What happened with Mr. Wright should not determine the race. Mr. Obama's stands, his ability to convince us he can make good change, his ability to be "one of us," that great challenge for a national politician in a varied nation, should determine the race.
But I am finding it hard to feel truly upset about what Mr. Wright has said. This is the out-of-stepness I referred to. So here I will talk not about how people will respond to him but how I do.
* * *
I do not feel a sense of honest anger or violation at his remarks, in part because I don't think his views carry deep implications for our country. I have been watching America up close for many years – if you count a bright childhood, for half a century. I have seen, heard and respected the pain of a people who were forced to come here when they did not want to and made to live in a way that no one would want to. Who could deny them their grief or anger? I have seen radicalism and extremism, too. I have seen Stokely Carmichael, the Black Panthers, the Black National Anthem, Malcolm X, James Baldwin, Louis Farrakhan. I came to see their radicalism as, putting the morality of policy based on rage aside, essentially unhelpful and impractical. It wouldn't work as an American movement, not long-term. Hatred plays itself out, has power in the short-term but is nonsustaining in the long. America, and this is one of its glories, has a conscience to which an appeal can be made. It may take a long time, it may take centuries, but in the end we try hard to do the right thing, and everyone knows it. Hatred is a form of energy that does not fuel this machine and cannot make it run.VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY
Sen. Clinton reached out to Bill O'Reilly just as Jeremiah Wright was giving his National Press Club speech. Coincidence?
Read all about it in the latest issue of Political Diary1.
And all the time I was watching the old days of rage, blacks in America were rising, joining the professions, becoming middle class, assuming authority, becoming professors and doctors. No one is surprised anymore to meet a powerful man or woman who devises systems by which others should live – that would be a politician – who is black.
I came to think all the talk of radicalism and extremism amounted to little, and was in the end rejected by the very people it was meant to rouse. They didn't buy it.
This week I talked to a young man, an Irish-American to whom I said, "Am I wrong not to feel anger about Wright?" He more or less saw it as I do, but for a different reason, or from different experience.
He said he figures Mr. Wright's followers delight in him the same way he delights in the Wolfe Tones, the Irish folk group named for the 18th-century leader condemned to death by the British occupying forces, as they say on their Web site. They sing songs about the Brits and how they subjugated the Irish and we'll rise up and trounce the bastards.
My 20-year-old friend has lived a good life in America and is well aware that he is not an abused farmer in the fields holding secret Mass in defiance of the prohibitions of the English ruling class. His life has not been like that. Yet he enjoys the bitterness. He likes going to Wolfe Tones concerts raising his fist, thinking "Up the Rebels." It is good to feel that old ethnic religious solidarity, and that in part is what he is in search of, solidarity. And it's not so bad to take a little free-floating anger, apply it to politics, and express it in applause.
He knows the dark days are over. He just enjoys remembering them even if he didn't experience them. His people did.
I know exactly what he feels, for I felt the same when I was his age. And so what? It's just a way of saying, "I'm still loyal to our bitterness." Which is another way of saying, "I'm still loyal." I have a nice life, I'm American, I live far away, an Englishman has never hurt me, and yet I am still Irish. I can prove it. I can summon the old anger.
Is this terrible? I don't think so. It's human and messy and warm-blooded, as a human would be.
The thing is to not let your affiliation with bitterness govern you, so that you leave the Wolfe Tones concert and punch an Englishman in the nose. In this connection it can be noted there is no apparent record of people leaving a Wright sermon and punching anyone in the nose. Maybe they're in search of solidarity too. Maybe they're showing loyalty too.
* * *
Few voters will be more inclined to vote for Barack Obama because his friend, mentor and pastor is extreme. They will think it makes Mr. Obama less attractive. They will not think Mr. Obama handled the challenge with force, dispatch and the kind of instinct that turns dilemma into gain.
And yet . . . it doesn't get my blood up. It doesn't hurt my heart. It doesn't make me feel I need to defend my country. Because I don't see it as attacked, only criticized in a way that is not persuasive.
Mr. Wright seems to me to be part of the great "barbaric yawp," as Walt Whitman called the American people fighting, discussing, making things and living. I like the barbaric yawp. I don't enjoy it when it makes me wince, but at least when I am wincing, I know the yawp is working.
|
|
| | | 271 | walk
ID: 83171517
Sun, May 04, 2008, 08:21
|
NYT, Dowd
|
|
| | | 272 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, May 04, 2008, 08:55
|
From the WSJ.
President Obama: The Preview?
By JON KELLER
May 3, 2008; Page A9
"Sen. Obama and I are long-time friends and allies. We often share ideas about politics, policy and language."
-- Deval Patrick
There may not be two politicians on the national stage more alike than Barack Obama and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick. Both went to Harvard Law, are African-American politicians with mass appeal, and use soaring rhetoric to promise a bold new postpartisan politics.
But the two men differ in one critical area: Mr. Patrick has an executive record. And, unfortunately for the senator from Illinois, it reveals that the Patrick-Obama brand of politics isn't really new. It is, in fact, something akin to the failed liberalism of old, in a new vessel.
Mr. Patrick, 52, was swept into office in a landslide in 2006. He won because Democrats were energized to capture the governor's mansion and because he presented himself as an historic candidate. Having never held elective office before – though he was assistant attorney general for the civil rights division in the Clinton administration – it was easy for him to claim that he wouldn't be beholden to special interests or outmoded orthodoxies. Baby boomers, eager to make a permanent mark on the political landscape, also found the idea of electing the state's first black governor appealing.
What the Bay State got, however, is a pedestrian liberal governor who is remarkably quick to retreat in the face of pressure from the status quo.
Mr. Patrick's first cave-in came just weeks after he was elected, and before he was even sworn into office. On the campaign trail he promised to cut $735 million in wasteful spending from the state budget. But when the Democratic Senate president rebuked him for it, the governor-elect backpedalled. The Boston Globe summed it up this way: "Patrick backed off and said he didn't really mean it."
Another retreat came on a common sense issue that likely might have marked him as a true reformer had he made even a losing fight of it. Massachusetts is the only state that mandates that cops, not flagmen, direct traffic at road-construction sites. Earlier this spring, Mr. Patrick proposed loosening the requirement as a way to save taxpayers millions, but quickly recanted when the police union flooded the capitol with lobbyists. Within days, Mr. Patrick told listeners of his monthly radio show "the more I think about this, the less certain I am that we can fix this top down."
Education may be the one area where Mr. Patrick could have done the most to demonstrate that he is indeed a new man of the left. Fifteen years ago, the state enacted strict testing requirements for both teachers and students and passed reforms that encourage the creation of charter schools. The result: Massachusetts consistently places among the top performers on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Sticking by these bipartisan reforms – or even expanding them to help minority children in poor areas – would seem to be an easy call.
But to the delight of education unions, Mr. Patrick instead appears to be laying the groundwork to dismantle these reforms. He appointed antitesting zealot Ruth Kaplan to the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, where she repaid his confidence recently by disparaging the college preparation emphasis of some charter schools. She said these schools set "some kids up for failure . . . Their families don't always know what's best for their children."
S. Paul Reville, chairman of the education board, has also drawn attention for his willingness to water down certification testing requirements for aspiring teachers. Under the guise of trying to overcome a teacher shortage, the administration wants to allow applicants who have failed the test three times to teach anyway. When pressed on the issue, Mr. Reville said publicly that the certification test "isn't necessarily the best venue for everybody to demonstrate their competency."
One characteristic of the Obama-Patrick brand of politics is the assertion that they can personally persuade disparate political leaders to reach a consensus. Mr. Patrick's biggest test of this claim came this year when he proposed bringing jobs to the state by allowing casino gambling in Massachusetts. The proposal angered an odd alliance of liberals and social conservatives because gambling is a highly regressive (if voluntary) tax. And it ended in defeat for the governor.
Rather than use the bully pulpit to create public pressure in favor of his proposal – Mr. Patrick told me in late March "I don't think that the way to advance most of our agenda is to do it through the media" – he lobbied lawmakers behind closed doors, using data that proved flimsy and skewed. In the end, his bill went down to a crushing defeat and, on the day of the legislature's vote, he skipped town to ink a $1.35 million book deal at a Manhattan publishing house.
What should trouble Mr. Obama the most is that the stirring rhetoric of Mr. Patrick's 2006 campaign, now being recycled by the Illinois senator (at times, word for word), is no longer connecting with Massachusetts voters. A mid-April poll found that 56% of the state's voters disapprove of the governor's performance. Even among left-leaning Democrats, more than four in 10 disapprove of Mr. Patrick.
Voters in Massachusetts had hoped Mr. Patrick's reformist promises and appealing style would mean a makeover for a tired political culture that has long since stopped producing satisfactory results. Instead, they, along with voters in southern New Hampshire and northern Rhode Island (which receive Boston news), now seem wary of the Obama-Patrick connection. These areas turned out heavily for Hillary Clinton in the presidential primaries and helped her carry all three states.
Mr. Obama has self-servingly said of himself and Mr. Patrick, "We are the change we've been waiting for." But what Mr. Patrick has demonstrated in office is that once the initial rush of making history has waned, these fresh faces seem to offer little change beyond the rhetoric.
Mr. Keller is political analyst for WBZ-TV in Boston and author of "The Bluest State" (St. Martins, 2007).
|
|
| | | 273 | Perm Dude
ID: 3945349
Sun, May 04, 2008, 10:56
|
Another stand-in? Are we in for six more months of "X, this anti-American/legislative failure/goon/criminal, is just like Obama!"?
|
|
| | | 274 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, May 04, 2008, 12:19
|
Another weak dismissal?
|
|
| | | 275 | Perm Dude
ID: 3945349
Sun, May 04, 2008, 12:41
|
Another weak effort to paint Obama with the sins of another.
Listen, I have no problem with people who criticize Obama. There are lots of things not to like about his policies (I'll give you one: There are many Democrats like John Murtha who like the system as it is. He lives on earmarks. If Obama can't get his own party members to change, how can he hope to get Republicans on board).
What I am dismissing is this attacking Obama through some strawman-of-the-day. I don't give a crap about a Massachusetts governor (and, I dare say, neither do you). If you've got a problem with Obama than spit it out. This "sin by association" is the very kind of corrosive politics that Obama is against. And you advocate and use. And it has gotten you George W. Bush.
|
|
| | | 276 | Perm Dude
ID: 3945349
Sun, May 04, 2008, 12:43
|
The Empire Strikes Barack:
|
|
| | | 277 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, May 04, 2008, 18:12
|
If you've got a problem with Obama than spit it out.
I've stated such in this thread, repeatedly. The fact that you said that implies that you only lurk here to make one or two sentence random typings, insert a YouTube video, and move on.
Read the posts.
|
|
| | | 278 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, May 04, 2008, 18:18
|
PD: If the "He is too much like Bush" argument is acceptable for the left to use, why can't an argument be made that Obama is too much like someone?
|
|
| | | 279 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Sun, May 04, 2008, 18:29
|
I find that video disturbing.
|
|
| | | 280 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Sun, May 04, 2008, 19:32
|
Boxman
If the "He is too much like Bush" argument is acceptable for the left to use, why can't an argument be made that Obama is too much like someone?
That column didn't make a strong case at all that Obama is like Patrick in any way that could make Patrick a reliable projector for Obama's policies and effectivelness.
Take a look at the similarities Keller cites - most of them are completely incidential. So they both went to Harvard - so did President Bush. The paragraph you bolded about Patrick's rise to his governorship is a pretty close description of Bush's 1994 campaign, he also having never held elective office, using that to claim he was unencumbered by the state's political orthodoxy and running against and defeating an incumbant. Is Bush's political career any kind of indicator for whether will succumb to the pressures of the political establishment?
|
|
| | | 281 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, May 04, 2008, 20:07
|
So they both went to Harvard....
It goes beyond that Mith. They share the same ideology, passions, and use each others material (with consent of course).
Based on Patrick's values and demeanor and how they mirror Obama, it's fair to say that Patrick is a microcasm in Massachusetts for what Obama could be as President.
|
|
| | | 282 | Perm Dude
ID: 3945349
Sun, May 04, 2008, 20:12
|
The "He is too much like Bush" is about the policies of the man he wants to replace. Obama isn't running for pastor. Nor is McCain, for that matter.
In fact, your arguments (boilerplate from The Corner, or FOX News) are the opposite of policy arguments. It is about the reputation of people other than Obama, and how bad they are, and therefore Obama must be bad too. If you have a policy argument to make then make it. Otherwise try to stay quiet.
|
|
| | | 283 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Sun, May 04, 2008, 20:23
|
Boxman, I'm certain beyond doubt that if I were inclined to scrutinize Patrick's record I could present a handful of items of similar relevance (with the exception of sharing a little bit of flowery rhetoric) that so liken him to any politician I want.
|
|
| | | 285 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Sun, May 04, 2008, 20:38
|
I should add that I highly doubt that Mr. Keller cared to have researched the validity of some of his assertions. Reliance solely on anecdotal arguments is sometimes a fair indicator. Do we really know that there hasn't been greater bipartisanship in the MA legislature under Patrick? Do we really know whether caving under political pressure is really so typical of his governorship? Or that he didn't just take honest looks at his budget cut proposals and decide that pulling them back was what was best for the state?
While I have no idea, I do bet that at least some of Keller's characterizations don't stand up. But I really don't care either way, since I think the greater point doesn't work in the first place. Look at it this way, if I were to go back and tally up every vote in the MA legislature since Patrick took office and showed that it's much less partisan than during Romney's tenure, would you then argue that this reliably suggests that Obama's bipartisanship touch is the real deal?
|
|
| | | 286 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Mon, May 05, 2008, 20:18
|
From the WSJ.
Obama's Health Care Record
By SCOTT GOTTLIEB
May 5, 2008; Page A15
Laughing gas can be useful during complicated dental procedures, but should every health plan be required to cover it and should health insurance cost more because of it?
Barack Obama thinks so. As a state senator in Illinois, he voted to require that dental anesthesia be covered by every health plan for difficult medical cases. Today, the requirement is one of 43 mandates imposed by Illinois on health insurance, according to the Illinois Division of Insurance. Other mandates require coverage of infertility treatments, drug rehab, "personal injuries" incurred while intoxicated, and other forms of care.
By my count, during Mr. Obama's tenure in the state Senate, 18 different laws came up for a vote and passed that imposed new mandates on private health insurance. Mr. Obama voted for all of them.
As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama says people lack health insurance because "they can't afford it." He's right. But he is also partly responsible for why health insurance is too expensive. A long list of studies show that mandates like the ones Mr. Obama has championed drive up the cost of insurance for the very people priced out of coverage.
A 2008 study by an insurance-industry supported research organization, the Council for Affordable Health Insurance (CAHI), estimates that mandates increase the cost of basic health coverage by 20% to 50%, depending on the state. Average policies in high-mandate New Jersey cost about $4,000 according to a 2004 insurance survey, much more than the $1,200 charged in low-mandate Wyoming.
CAHI estimates that there are 1,961 state-mandated benefits across the country. It's not just specific products and services that get mandated, but also whole categories of providers like chiropractors and psychologists. By one count, states have enacted about 500 laws mandating coverage for 25 different types of providers.
States also mandate new categories of eligibility that force small businesses to cover additional dependents. One popular measure is the "slacker mandate," which extends coverage to unmarried dependents under the age of 30.
Not all mandates are equally expensive. Drug rehab, for example, increases a plan's premiums by 9% on average, according to America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). Coverage for psychologists adds 12% to premiums. But in total, in some states mandates increase the cost of insurance from 10% to 20%, according to AHIP.
These increased costs aren't shared equally among all who have health insurance. People who are covered through self-insured employers (usually large corporations) are shielded from state mandates because of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which prevents states from enacting controls on plans that cross state lines.
The burden of paying for state mandates is usually borne by individuals who buy their own insurance, small employers and others not covered by ERISA. In total, about half of the people who have insurance bear the brunt of the cost of state mandates. And, as it turns out, individuals who do not work for large corporations are much more likely to be uninsured. AHIP calculates that between 20%-25% of uninsured Americans can't afford coverage because of the increased cost of providing mandated care.
It doesn't have to be that way. If insurers were allowed to offer "bare-bones" plans – which would be cheaper because they would cover just essential care – many consumers who are priced out of health insurance now would likely buy these plans instead of living without insurance.
State mandates even hurt those who have insurance because they prompt insurers to cut back on coverage for catastrophic illnesses. This undermines the purpose of insurance by turning policies into prepaid health care rather than security from the economic consequences of serious medical problems. And because many mandates define the duration and scope of specific benefits, they lock in treatment standards that grow outdated as knowledge advances. That can diminish incentives to find more effective ways of delivering medical care.
Why, then, do we have mandates?
For the simple reason that each mandate has a powerful constituency – be it chiropractors, dentists or other groups – who benefit when their services are included on the list of mandated care. These groups pressure lawmakers to expand the list of mandates and, over time, the list grows to be very long and expensive. Often the care that is being mandated is for minor medical problems because small, routine ailments are suffered by more people and therefore have broader political constituencies.
One way to make insurance more affordable is to extend the benefits of the ERISA exemption to people who buy insurance on their own, putting them on a level playing field with those who get coverage through large employers by freeing them from expensive state insurance laws.
Most insurance plans would still cover important health-care items such as prenatal HIV testing or routine colon cancer screening or bone density tests – three additional mandates Mr. Obama helped enact in Illinois. But without government mandates, plans would also have the flexibility to offer lower-priced insurance options.
Better still, Congress could pass legislation that has long languished in the House allowing people to purchase health plans across state lines. People could choose which state regulations to buy into, creating a market for the insurance mandates. This would give states more incentives to fix local problems that have helped make health insurance expensive in the first place. It's a fair bet that there would be an exodus of policyholders from higher-cost, higher-mandate states like New Jersey and even Illinois (which has more expensive mandates than about half of the other states).
Mr. Obama says people need more options to purchase insurance outside the workplace. He also says he can draw on his experience as a state legislator to lead a reform of the kinds of special interests that pursue these mandated benefits. Right now Mr. Obama's health-care proposal, like Hillary Clinton's plan, does the opposite by adding federal regulations on top of state laws.
"My plan emphasizes lowering costs," Mr. Obama says. If that is really what he wants to do, he can start by freeing consumers from forced subsidization of the pricey state mandates. Given a choice between the lower costs he promises and subsidized dental anesthesia he has delivered, some would opt for the affordable health insurance and make do with some extra Novocain.
Dr. Gottlieb is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
|
|
| | | 287 | Wilmer McLean
ID: 35439718
Thu, May 08, 2008, 04:06
|
Obama Administration stated Cabinet requirements:
August 19, 2007 (video upload date)
1) Competence - "People who know what they're doing."
2) Integrity - "If you wanna work in the Obama White House, you can not lobby afterwards."
3) Independence - "...the best leaders are those who are able to gather information, not just from people who agree with them, but even more importantly, from people who don't."
|
|
| | | 288 | Boldwin
ID: 4643963
Thu, May 08, 2008, 05:51
|
2)...Obama is clearly man of uncommon foresight.
3)...a new explanation for his association with Wright and Ayers?
|
|
| | | 289 | Perm Dude
ID: 5442688
Thu, May 08, 2008, 09:36
|
#3: More like a means to get away from the Bush Administration's non-independence of thought. All those are a way to distance himself from the way the current Administration.
|
|
| | | 290 | Boldwin
ID: 1945699
Fri, May 09, 2008, 11:06
|
Wright offered 5 minute rebuttal after DNC invocation...(2008-05-01) — The Democrat National Committee (DNC) announced today it would allow the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the Official Disavowed Pastor of the Obama for America campaign, to deliver the “invocation rebuttal” at the party’s convention in Denver this August.
“After the traditional opening prayer and the singing of ‘God Bless America’,” said an unnamed DNC source, “the Rev. Wright will have five minutes to call on the Almighty to reject our plea for blessing, refuse to shed his grace on us, and to give our nation what it really deserves.”
Sen. Barack Obama, who this week rejected his pastor’s racially-charged preaching, protested the DNC move, noting, “I would sooner wish to see my racist, white grandmother on the convention stage doing a minstrel show routine, than to allow that bigoted America-hater even one more minute in my spotlight.” - Scrappleface
|
|
| | | 291 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Fri, May 09, 2008, 11:12
|
Lest any of our facts-challenged Obama detractors actually believe the obvious satire pasted into post 290, I'll provide the actual link to the source.
|
|
| | | 292 | Boldwin
ID: 1945699
Fri, May 09, 2008, 11:28
|
My new microsoft keyboard with a million unexplained functions will seldom let me do a simple cut-n-paste. Yer gonna find c-n-p malfunctions. It came without instructions other than how to set it up.
Adding to my considerable frustration Rotoguru won't let me post all too often for some mysterious reason. His new spam filter doesn't like to see too many links perhaps? I've resubmitted a difficult to construct post numerous times the past 2 days [or is it three by now?] but it just won't post. No objectionable words that I can tell.
|
|
| | | 293 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Fri, May 09, 2008, 11:32
|
It's happened to me before, too. Guru sent me an email explaining why my post was rejected and then posted it for me. If you get blocked I suggest you either email Dave or just try to break it up into several posts.
|
|
| | | 294 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Fri, May 09, 2008, 11:36
|
Pretty sure the reason my posts were blocked was because they contained too many hyperlinks.
|
|
| | | 295 | Perm Dude
ID: 5442688
Fri, May 09, 2008, 11:37
|
It is likely not recognizing your GuruID. The spam blocker will not allow the links if the ID is not active. Do you know how to reset your ID?
|
|
| | | 296 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Fri, May 09, 2008, 12:16
|
Boldwin
Check your email for a reply to the trade offer rejection I received from you. Want to see if we can't work something out even if you aren't interested in that particular player.
|
|
| | | 297 | Boldwin
ID: 1945699
Fri, May 09, 2008, 21:31
|
PD
Nope. Let me in on it.
|
|
| | | 298 | Perm Dude
ID: 44442921
Fri, May 09, 2008, 22:45
|
Here's a direct link to check your ID. If it doesn't recognize you, click through on the link on that page to reset the ID.
|
|
| | | 299 | Boldwin
ID: 1945699
Sat, May 10, 2008, 04:56
|
Great. I clear my cookies a lot. That's surely it.
|
|
| | | 300 | truthsabitchinnit
ID: 4311112
Sun, May 11, 2008, 18:51
|
57 down, 1 to go, as it were. Not even counting Alaska and Hawaii, like.
|
|
| | | 301 | Tree
ID: 44101115
Sun, May 11, 2008, 20:45
|
nice find there...
if you cared to contribute to discussion instead of doing a post drive-by now and then, you might have noticed your cutesy little video was posted on this site yesterday morning.
|
|
| | | 302 | Seattle Zen
ID: 29241823
Sun, May 11, 2008, 21:30
|
The Upside of Being Knocked Around
I've made this argument a while back, for much the same reasons. Maybe I just want to believe what this guy says, but I suspect what he says is correct.
But amid the supposed carnage, it’s easy to overlook that Mr. Obama owes a lot to Mrs. Clinton, that without her challenge, he would be a much different candidate today, and not necessarily a stronger one. Reasons abound:
1. SHE MADE HIM A GIANT KILLER
2. SHE MADE HIM ANGRY
3. SHE LED HIM TO THE WORKING CLASS
4. THE WRIGHT FIGHT
5. SHE HELPED DEFINE HIM
I've said this to a lot of people recently:
The long primary battle allowed the emergence, and re-emergence, of Mr. Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., to take place now, rather than later. It’s generally assumed that Mr. Wright would have been an issue at some point, so better for Mr. Obama now than October.
|
|
| | | 303 | Tree
ID: 44101115
Sun, May 11, 2008, 22:20
|
The long primary battle allowed the emergence, and re-emergence, of Mr. Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., to take place now, rather than later. It’s generally assumed that Mr. Wright would have been an issue at some point, so better for Mr. Obama now than October.
that's the discussion in my office as well. there's no doubt that the republicans will again bring it up, but i think we've seen it to be much less of a big deal than originally anticipated.
maybe more voters truly are coming out of their comas, and won't accept the same rove-ian politics anymore.
|
|
| | | 305 | Boldwin
ID: 24421220
Wed, May 14, 2008, 01:31
|
The word teflon should surface sooner or later.
|
|
| | | 306 | Tree
ID: 53425146
Wed, May 14, 2008, 07:30
|
why? the guy it most applies to is leaving the presidency this year.
teflon implies there is something there to actually stick, which, there is not, other than a bunch of fear from the Right.
|
|
| | | 307 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Wed, May 14, 2008, 08:12
|
#s 302 and 303
Fluffy optimism but I don't buy it. There are still many months to go and we haven't seen the last of Rev Wright by any means. American swing voters didn't get tired of Swiftboaters in 2004 and the select 20 total seconds of Rev Wright clips are for more sensational than any Swfitboat Veteran for Truth.
And the Republicans don't have to mention him at all. In 2004 President Bush's campaign may as well have never said the word swiftboat in public.
|
|
| | | 308 | walk
ID: 181472714
Wed, May 14, 2008, 09:50
|
Great freakin album, Tree! "Burn Hollywood Burn!" "911 is a Joke"
...and you thought the beat slowed dooooowwwwn!
It is really obvious...West Virginia could not vote for a Black man. A shame. I saw some startling video yesterday of a woman saying she could not vote for Obama cos he was Muslim (as if that matters, but whatever), so the reporter corrected her, but she still said: "No, no, no, he's Muslim." Ugh. Denial.
Well, to me, that makes me want to have a Black president even more ... to help change these attitudes. Of course he or she has to be competent and ready and able and willing, which I think he is, but when I see these results, read that the exit polls show in that in W.Va 2 in 10 voters said that race matters, and that it mattered for 4 in 10 Clinton voters, I want Obama even more.
|
|
| | | 309 | walk
ID: 181472714
Wed, May 14, 2008, 09:53
|
The Childs victory in the special Mississippi congressional contest yesterday is potentially very telling. A huge Republican stronghold, they ran recently ran ads associating Childs, the Dem, with Obama and Wright...and the Dems still won in a big turnaround. Even Boehner is bugging. Cool. I think Obama's camp and electorate will easily overcome Wright and other negative ads. As PD said, I also see McCain as this year's Dole.
|
|
| | |
| | | 311 | walk
ID: 83171517
Wed, May 14, 2008, 22:14
|
Eeeeeeeeeesh, don't like that ad.
Interesting though to see it posted and bashed the way it is on a conservative blog. I wonder what motivated the Obama campaign to make such an explicit connection to Christianity in a mostly white state?
|
|
| | | 312 | Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Wed, May 14, 2008, 22:21
|
He seems to be trying to overcome those residual complaints about him being a Muslim.
Seems a little swarmy. I'd call this just short of pandering only because he's not promising Kentuckians anything. In fact, the thing seems content-free to me.
|
|
| | | 313 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Wed, May 14, 2008, 22:35
|
He seems to be promising that he really, really loves Jesus. See? His cross is waaaay bigger and more explicit than the Godhuckster Huckabee...
|
|
| | | 314 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Wed, May 14, 2008, 22:41
|
I wonder what motivated the Obama campaign to make such an explicit connection to Christianity in a mostly white state?
All states are mostly white, I believe.
But I'm sure it's just 'cause he was, you know, forced to do it, having to mingle with us yokels who cling to God and guns and all. Don't worry, he won't be touting his Christianity in NY, just close your eyes and think of a happy place until after the KY primary and it'll be like it never happened.
|
|
| | | 315 | Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Wed, May 14, 2008, 23:44
|
I don't think Huckabee was pandering. Do you?
|
|
| | | 316 | Perm Dude
ID: 12447159
Thu, May 15, 2008, 11:04
|
Obama (mis)interprets the President's remarks?
I can see how Obama might react the way he did, but unless the remarks are much more explicit I think you should just assume they aren't.
|
|
| | | 317 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Thu, May 15, 2008, 11:43
|
Yeah - I think he got suckered into protesting too much on that one. He's gettin' a bit touchy.
|
|
| | | 318 | nerveclinic
ID: 5047110
Thu, May 15, 2008, 12:55
|
Obama (mis)interprets the President's remarks?
I don't think he "misinterpreted" at all, although he may have been suckered.
It's obvious to me from the remarks that Bush was referring to Obama. I don't care how much he denies it after the fact.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 321 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Thu, May 15, 2008, 16:02
|
Robert Gates: Wretched AppeaserThe United States should construct a combination of incentives and pressure to engage Iran, and may have missed earlier opportunities to begin a useful dialogue with Tehran, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said yesterday.
"We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them," Gates said. "If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us." Of course, this position of Gates' is nothing new:Gates publicly favored engagement with Iran before taking his current job in late 2006. In 2004, he co-authored a Council on Foreign Relations report titled "Iran: Time for a New Approach." At the time, he explained yesterday, "we were looking at a different Iran in many respects" under then-President Mohammad Khatami. Tehran's role in Iraq was "fairly ambivalent," he said. "They were doing some things that were not helpful, but they were also doing some things that were helpful."
"One of the things that I think historians will have to take a look at is whether there was a missed opportunity at that time," Gates said. Khatami was replaced in 2005 by hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Gates was also a member of the bipartisan 2006 Iraq Study Group, which advocated reaching out to Iran. He resigned from the group when President Bush nominated him as defense secretary in November that year; the report was published on Dec. 6, the day of his confirmation.
The administration charges that Iran is now deeply engaged in training and arming Shiite militias fighting U.S. troops in Iraq. In his remarks yesterday, Gates said evidence to that effect is "very unambiguous."
But, he said, "I sort of sign up" with New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman, who wrote yesterday that the "right question" for the United States is not whether to talk with Iran but "whether we have leverage or don't have leverage."
"When you have leverage, talk," Friedman advised. "When you don't have leverage, get some -- by creating economic, diplomatic or military incentives and pressures that the other side finds too tempting or frightening to ignore. That is where the Bush team has been so incompetent vis-à-vis Iran."
A number of senior U.S. military officials have emphasized the need for robust diplomacy toward Iran, while not ruling out the use of force. "I'm a big believer in resolving this diplomatically, economically and politically," Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a recent interview with The Washington Post. "The military aspect of this, which I think is a very important part of the equation and must stay on the table," Mullen said, is an option of "last resort."
|
|
| | | 322 | Seattle Zen
ID: 29241823
Mon, May 19, 2008, 00:44
|
THAT is the real Obama!
|
|
| | | 323 | walk
ID: 27471621
Mon, May 19, 2008, 10:44
|
A leader with that appeal...poor Hillary. She should have gone before Bill. Now she's SOL. McCain = no chance.
|
|
| | | 324 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Mon, May 19, 2008, 10:55
|
LOL
McCain = no chance
I'm still waiting for you to tell me what kind of odds you're offering. No chance? Seem like 10.1 wouldn't be too much for me to ask for.
|
|
| | | 325 | nerveclinic
ID: 5047110
Mon, May 19, 2008, 12:04
|
McCain = no chance.
No chance? Anyone that confident at this point in the campaign hasn't been around American politics long.
We could find out Obama and Eliot Spitzer used to tag team and it will be a whole new political reality.
If all else fails there's also hanging chads.
It ain't over until the Supreme Court says so.
|
|
| | | 326 | nerveclinic
ID: 5047110
Mon, May 19, 2008, 14:30
|
McCain = no chance
Just heard on a pod cast, two polls released this week. Sorry I heard it so I don't remember the names.
Obama 45
McCain 44
Obama 45
McCain 46
Statistical dead heat.
Don't discount the segment of the population that won't vote for him because:
He's black.
His middle name is Hussain
His name is Obama
He doesn't like flag lapel pins
He's black
He's gonna raise taxes
He ain't like us folks
|
|
| | | 327 | Perm Dude
ID: 6411911
Mon, May 19, 2008, 14:35
|
I agree that saying he has "no chance" probably isn't true.
But this is apples & oranges: McCain's numbers against Obama were terrible when McCain still had a primary fight on his hands. To compare it now while Clinton is still in the race is just as too premature to make a strong conclusion.
I'd also distrust any polling that obviously forces a decision into those two without an "undecided" option.
|
|
| | | 328 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Mon, May 19, 2008, 15:03
|
It's also a little odd to have polls done in % format when popular vote % means nothing; electoral college votes mean everything.
|
|
| | | 329 | Perm Dude
ID: 6411911
Mon, May 19, 2008, 15:05
|
You're right, Box. If half the voters were from New York (for instance) the poll wouldn't really be worth the electrons they are written on.
|
|
| | | 330 | nerveclinic
ID: 5047110
Mon, May 19, 2008, 16:07
|
It's also a little odd to have polls done in % format when popular vote % means nothing; electoral college votes mean everything.
True but I think it serves to illustrate that it's a bit early to hand Obama the Presidency.
|
|
| | | 331 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Mon, May 19, 2008, 16:36
|
You make a good point regardless Nerve, yet I think the majority of people doing the "handing over" are Obama lovers anyway. This forum is an example of that or at least you can derive that from the tone of their posts.
I wonder how the result of the Obama/Clinton battle will play in the general election. Will the swing voters tire of hearing of nothing but the Democrats for months while McCain has basically been in limbo by comparison and switch to him? Or are enough people getting indoctrinated by the Democratic coverage and it'll stick in November?
|
|
| | | 332 | walk
ID: 27471621
Mon, May 19, 2008, 16:37
|
MBJ, you need odds? Why? Do you support your candidate or are you hoping to make some good $ hedging your poli preference.
Even odds. Stand by your man.
|
|
| | | 333 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Mon, May 19, 2008, 17:06
|
Stand by your man. If you say so.
Sometimes its hard to be a woman
Giving all your love to just one man
You'll have bad times
And he'll have good times
Doing things that you don't understand
But if you love him you'll forgive him
Even though he's hard to understand
And if you love him
Oh be proud of him
'Cause after all he's just a man
Stand by your man
Give him two arms to cling to
And something warm to come to
When nights are cold and lonely
Stand by your man
And tell the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can
Stand by your man
Stand by your man
And show the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can
Stand by your man
|
|
| | | 334 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Mon, May 19, 2008, 17:09
|
MBJ, you need odds? Why? Do you support your candidate or are you hoping to make some good $ hedging your poli preference.
Even odds. Stand by your man. <
walk - Who is my man? The only thing that is certain is that I won't be voting for McCain. Try to keep up.
|
|
| | | 335 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Mon, May 19, 2008, 17:48
|
Here's a pretty silly quote from Obama on wh he's going to lose KY so badly:
"What it says is that I'm not very well known in that part of the country," Obama said. "Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it's not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle."
uh... Barack, first of all, you sound like one of the "stoopid Americans" that I keep seeing the Eurotwits making fun of. Last time I checked, Illinois is closer to KY than Arkansas. In fact, unless the Mississpi has really switched course, we touch your home state. Doofus.
Secondly: great way to show how in touch you are with those bitter gun totin' God lover in fly-over country - "Those middle states"! Geez. Keep diggin' that hole, bro.
Those "middle states" full of "bitter" "typical white people" have a funny way of picking the winner of Presidential elections. Might want to get to know some of the peeps in "fly-over country" over the next few months.
|
|
| | | 336 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Mon, May 19, 2008, 18:50
|
Barack, first of all, you sound like one of the "stoopid Americans" that I keep seeing the Eurotwits making fun of. Last time I checked, Illinois is closer to KY than Arkansas. In fact, unless the Mississpi has really switched course, we touch your home state. Doofus.
Secondly: great way to show how in touch you are with those bitter gun totin' God lover in fly-over country - "Those middle states"! Geez. Keep diggin' that hole, bro.
Yeah you're right. Don't take this the wrong way, but being in Illinois doesn't make me feeeeeeeeeel a kinship with the folks in Kentucky even though our borders touch. Even though I'm one of those bitter people that "clings" to religion (proudly) and guns.
I think the Arkansas guys might have a closer culture to Kentucky, but that's stereotyping so I won't go there girlfriend.
The Democrats campaign thus far has been laughable. They're going to win. I don't care if it's McPain, The Great Leader or The Anti Christ. They've got all three horses in this race. But yet they fight like b!tches in a pillowfight. It's almost like they WANT McCain to win. Just chill out, open a cold one, and enjoy the ride. The magic number to clinch the White House is 0. They've won. Be happy.
|
|
| | | 337 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Mon, May 19, 2008, 19:12
|
but being in Illinois doesn't make me feeeeeeeeeel a kinship with the folks in Kentucky
I don't feel a kinship with either Illinois (yawn) or Arkansas (yawn); I am aware that Chicago is a lot closer to my home than is Little Rock. Between me an Obama, that makes one of us. That gaffe is painfully consistent with his general disdain/lack of connection with all things fly-over.
|
|
| | | 338 | Perm Dude
ID: 6411911
Mon, May 19, 2008, 19:31
|
A silly comment to be sure, hardly worth a reply. But so is calling Midwesterner Obama disdainful of " all things fly-over"
|
|
| | |
| | | 340 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Fri, May 23, 2008, 11:38
|
i think the Clintons are treading dangerous ground here.
if they really put forth Hillary Clinton as the VP, as Bill seems to be starting to do, it sets up a potential disaster for Dems if Obama rejects her, as i can see her base being vindicative toward Obama basically rejecting her for a second time.
i do not think she is the best person for the job. she can make great strides in government, but as as VP candidate, i don't think she'll get that shot.
Obama/Clinton is my worst nightmare if i'm wanting the Dems to win in November.
|
|
| | | 341 | Perm Dude
ID: 3345239
Fri, May 23, 2008, 12:18
|
I don't think it is a disaster at all if Obama doesn't pick her. Dems are increasingly rejecting the Clintons' shrillness.
|
|
| | | 342 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Fri, May 23, 2008, 12:50
|
I don't think it is a disaster at all if Obama doesn't pick her.
i should have been more clear. i'm contending that if the Clintons make a STRONG push at her being VP, then it becomes a problem. but if her push isn't any more than any one else's, then i agree.
i just see how some of her base is reacting to Obama. my parents don't trust him, and my step mom is furious that he took way Hillary's crown.
imagine if the perception is that he does it again, by denying her the VP nod.
|
|
| | | 343 | Perm Dude
ID: 3345239
Fri, May 23, 2008, 13:16
|
By the time November comes around their reticence will have gone away, IMO, particularly if Clinton follows through on her promise to campaign hard for him if he gets the nomination.
The more Dems are exposed to Obama the better he sounds, particularly when faced against John "Anger Management" McCain.
|
|
| | | 344 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Fri, May 23, 2008, 14:03
|
i hope you're right, PD.
|
|
| | | 345 | walk
ID: 181472714
Fri, May 23, 2008, 14:10
|
I hearya both...I fear the same way Tree does, as a fair number of Clinton supporters are currently die-hard Hillary...or currently say that they will vote for McCain over Obama (some due to race). However, I also agree that even if Obama says no to a VP slot for Hillary (not sure why she'd want that lame job anyhow), Hillary will still have to support Obama and urge her supporters to vote for him. She'd kill her career if she did not support Obama thereby making it completely transparent that she's out only for herself, not the party.
Once he's official (if he gets it, she can still potentially persuade the superdems to go her way if she wins the popular vote, which is mathematically feasible, even if not counting Florida and Michigan), she's in a no-win situation when it comes to Obama. She has to support him to the extent that no pundits blast her on the internet, TV or newspapers that she is more motivated by an Obama loss and a 2012 run than for a Democratic victory in 2008.
I also think, as PD says, by November, most of the Hillary supporters will realize that an Obama is much more preferable than a McCain...and this means women, cos Obama would be much more for women's rights and other Hillary-related policies and values, than McCain.
Yet, I still fear a spurned Clinton...(?)
|
|
| | | 346 | J-Bar
ID: 184302119
Fri, May 23, 2008, 17:50
|
is "Anger Management" on McCain's birth certificate or is that just meant to make ignorant people have a negative reaction towards his candidacy.
|
|
| | | 347 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Fri, May 23, 2008, 18:00
|
Would you prefer: "He's a dick?"
|
|
| | | 348 | Perm Dude
ID: 3345239
Fri, May 23, 2008, 18:20
|
It is in quotes. What do you think, "J-Bar?"
|
|
| | | 349 | Tree
ID: 174252316
Fri, May 23, 2008, 18:58
|
is "Anger Management" on McCain's birth certificate or is that just meant to make ignorant people have a negative reaction towards his candidacy.
i'm sorry. hasn't part of the whole Republican strategy of the last several years been "OMG?!?!? imagine if someone like Al Gore had been in office during 9/11. he would have been such a pussy!"
equally important is someone's ability to remain cool as a cucumber. i don't want my president flying off the handle at every little thing.
|
|
| | | 350 | J-Bar
ID: 184302119
Fri, May 23, 2008, 22:14
|
and i thought civility was in order tsk tsk
|
|
| | | 351 | nerveclinic
ID: 5047110
Sat, May 24, 2008, 01:47
|
and i thought civility was in order tsk tsk
I don't think Bili agreed to that... 8-}
|
|
| | | 352 | Perm Dude
ID: 3345239
Sat, May 24, 2008, 11:04
|
#350: Are you saying McCain is civil?
Yes, the man who can't control his anger will lose the election to the more civil and moderate one.
|
|
| | | 353 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Sat, May 24, 2008, 11:25
|
#352
That right there is exactly what McCain is going to get for all his efforts at keeping his side civil and attacking his own supporters everytime they so much as look at Obama sideways. He would be better off keeping faith with his own party and base but that is not the McCain way.
|
|
| | | 354 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Thu, May 29, 2008, 13:28
|
From the WSJ.
Obama's Revisionist History
By KARL ROVE
May 29, 2008; Page A15
This week's minor controversy about Barack Obama's claim that an uncle liberated Auschwitz was quickly put to rest by his campaign. They conceded that it was a great uncle whose unit liberated Buchenwald, 500 miles away.
But other, much more troubling, episodes have provided a revealing glimpse into a candidate who instinctively resorts to parsing, evasions and misdirection. The saga over Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Exhibit A. In just 62 days, Americans were treated to eight different explanations.
First, on Feb. 25, Mr. Obama downplayed Rev. Wright's divisiveness, saying he was "like an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don't agree with." A week later, Mr. Obama insisted, "I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial," suggesting that Rev. Wright was criticized because "he was one of the leaders in calling for divestment from South Africa and some other issues like that."
The issue exploded on March 13, when ABC showed excerpts from Rev. Wright's sermons. Mr. Obama's spokesman said the senator "deeply disagrees" with Rev. Wright's statements, but "now that he is retired, that doesn't detract from Sen. Obama's affection for Rev. Wright or his appreciation for the good works he has done."
The next day, Mr. Obama offered a fourth defense: "The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation." Mr. Obama also told the Chicago Tribune, "In fairness to him, this was sort of a greatest hits. They basically culled five or six sermons out of 30 years of preaching."
Then, four days later, in Philadelphia, Mr. Obama finally repudiated Rev. Wright's comments, saying they "denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation." But Mr. Obama went on to say, "I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother. . . ."
Ten days later, Mr. Obama said if Rev. Wright had not retired as Trinity's pastor, and "had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended . . . then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying there at the church." (Never mind that Rev. Wright had made no such acknowledgment.)
On April 28, at the National Press Club, Rev. Wright re-emerged – not to apologize but to repeat some of his most offensive lines. This provoked an eighth defense: "[W]hatever relationship I had with Rev. Wright has changed, as a consequence of this. I don't think that he showed much concern for me. More importantly, I don't think he showed much concern for what we are trying to do in this campaign . . . ." Self-interest is a powerful, but not noble, sentiment in politics.
The Rev. Wright affair is just one instance where the Illinois senator has said something wrong or offensive, and then offered shifting explanations for his views. Consider flag pins.
Mr. Obama told an Iowa radio station last October he didn't wear an American flag lapel pin because, after 9/11, it had "became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues . . . ." His campaign issued a statement that "Senator Obama believes that being a patriot is about more than a symbol." To highlight his own moral superiority, he denigrated the patriotism of those who wore a flag.
Yet by April, campaigning in culturally conservative Pennsylvania, Mr. Obama was blaming others for the controversy he'd created, claiming, "I have never said that I don't wear flag pins or refuse to wear flag pins. This is the kind of manufactured issue that our politics has become obsessed with and, once again, distracts us . . . ." A month later Mr. Obama was once again wearing a pin, saying "Sometimes I wear it, sometimes I don't."
The Obama revision tour has been seen elsewhere. Last July, Mr. Obama pledged to meet personally and without precondition, during his first year, the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Criticized afterwards, he made his pledge more explicitly, naming Iranian President Ahmadinejad and Venezuela strongman Hugo Chávez as leaders he would grace with first-year visits.
By October, Mr. Obama was backpedaling, talking about needing "some progress or some indication of good faith," and by April, "sufficient preparation." It got so bad his foreign policy advisers were (falsely) denying he'd ever said he'd meet with Mr. Ahmadinejad – even as he still defended his original pledge to have meetings without precondition.
The list goes on. Mr. Obama's problem is a campaign that's personality-driven rather than idea-driven. Thus incidents calling into question his persona and character can have especially devastating consequences.
Stripped of his mystique as a different kind of office seeker, he could become just another liberal politician – only one who parses, evades, dissembles and condescends. That narrative is beginning to take hold. If those impressions harden into firm judgments, Mr. Obama will have a very difficult time in November.
Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.
|
|
| | | 355 | walk
ID: 181472714
Thu, May 29, 2008, 13:51
|
Yeah, I read that Rove article, too. I think he's dwelling on some insignificant stuff. I also find it ironic what Rove called the article ("revisionist history)...as if. I think there are better examples, some Rove himself could speak to...but alas, that is not the focus of this thread, nor his editorial. I think Rove's point is about winning and what Obama has done in these instances, in Rove's view, is undermining his chances of winning. I get dismayed that these issues become focal to the voters, often exacerbated by pundits...in this case Rove. I cannot disagree with the statement that Obama's campaign is more persona-driven than idea-driven, although I believe his nuanced appraoch to many topics is there, if one goes past our American-ADDness. When Rove says that Obama could become "just another liveral poli...that narrative is beginning to take hold," I wonder if folks like Rove are hoping to make that image. Rove's motives are relevant here. I mean, it is Rove, afterall.
|
|
| | | 356 | Perm Dude
ID: 58450299
Thu, May 29, 2008, 13:53
|
I don't know why anyone would turn to Rove for political advice, particularly anyone on the Right like Boxman. He has practically brought the entire GOP to its knees on his own, and his actions have enabled new voters to run (not walk) to the Democrats.
|
|
| | | 357 | walk
ID: 181472714
Thu, May 29, 2008, 15:13
|
Obama would Review Bush's Exec Orders
I've been waiting for like a year for someone to say they would review and (potentially) overturn Bush's orders and signing statements (e.g. torture, habeus corpus, etc.). I mean, gotta do it man!
|
|
| | |
| | | 359 | J-Bar
ID: 144352617
Thu, May 29, 2008, 23:53
|
just goes to show 'fair and balanced'
and wasn't it the libs that credited the architect with being the genius behind out smarting the dems at their own game the last 2 elections. and now we just don't understand how anyone could listen to him.
|
|
| | |
| | | 361 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sat, May 31, 2008, 20:50
|
A few years too late.
|
|
| | | 362 | Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Sat, May 31, 2008, 22:02
|
How far has the GOP fallen when Murdoch is supporting a freshman senator over McCain?
|
|
| | | 363 | J-Bar
ID: 144352617
Sun, Jun 01, 2008, 11:42
|
did he also leave his white grandmother, just wondering
|
|
| | | 364 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Sun, Jun 01, 2008, 23:04
|
I can no more disown him [Wright] than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me
|
|
| | | 365 | Perm Dude
ID: 58450299
Sun, Jun 01, 2008, 23:35
|
I didn't see the speech about his leaving the church, but I believe the quote, MBJ, was about Rev Wright rather than his church.
|
|
| | | 366 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Mon, Jun 02, 2008, 06:13
|
Politico “We had prayed on it. We had consulted with a number of friends and family members,” Obama said. “Frankly, it’s one that I made with some sadness. Trinity was where I found Jesus Christ, where we were married, where our children were baptized.”
Obama said he has “tremendous regard” for the church community, but said he could not live with a situation where everything said in the church, including comments by a guest pastor, “will be imputed to me, even if they conflict with my long-held, views, statements and principles.”
“I’m confident we’ll be able to find a church that we’re comfortable with,” he said. “We probably won’t make any firm decision on this until January, when we know what our lives are going to be like.”
“My faith is not contingent on the particular church that I belong to,” he added. “I don’t think I’m going through a religious test.”
“Our faith remains strong and I expect that we will find another church home for our family,” Obama said. “We understand that our faith is something that we apply each and every day. We wish only the best for our friends and the wonderful people at Trinity. They’ll be in our thoughts and our prayers.”
|
|
| | | 367 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Mon, Jun 02, 2008, 14:47
|
I guess if political expediency is your sole reason for joining a church then it's a good enough reason to quit. Better than Dean's reason for quitting the Epicipol Church last election? Not sure.
PD - The quote was from way back.
|
|
| | |
| | | 369 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Mon, Jun 02, 2008, 15:30
|
A couple of admission Obama could make that would impress me and make me feel better about voting for him in November:
1. Admit that he's a "Christian" for about that the same reason that I'm a "Democrat": It's just barely beats the alternative and it's expedient; that he won't pretend that his church membership was any more important to him than the Rotary Club.
2. Admit that if he had his way last year regarding the Iraqi troop withdrawal, it would have been a horrible mistake, that he has learned from that, and that he has optimism for the emerging Constitutional government in Iraq and is duty bound to see that it succeeds, and that its success will be a vital part of his administration War on Ismlamic terrorists.
|
|
| | | 370 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418
Mon, Jun 02, 2008, 18:26
|
2. Admit that if he had his way last year regarding the Iraqi troop withdrawal, it would have been a horrible mistake, that he has learned from that, and that he has optimism for the emerging Constitutional government in Iraq and is duty bound to see that it succeeds, and that its success will be a vital part of his administration War on Ismlamic terrorists.
Are you f'ing serious? The Kool-Aid has kicked in. The "surge" is a farce. "War on Islamic Terrorists"? That snipe hunt has had two effects, it has drained our budget and made contractors billions and billions. Waiting for this government in Iraq to succeed is waiting for Godot.
Had we withdrawn our troops last year, we would have saved hundreds of American lives, billions of American dollars, and Iraq would be one year closer to having worked this thing out on their own.
I prefer that Obama stick to his guns and not follow point 2. A good seventy percent of America urges that as well.
|
|
| | | 371 | walk
ID: 444253118
Mon, Jun 02, 2008, 20:07
|
Yeah, MBJ, it may not be what you want in your leader, but I'm with SZ on this, I don't want Obama to say your second point. The surge has had some modest success, but most of the success is due to the shiite militias standing down, and the iraqi people and other militias getting fed up with al quaida. I don't think our continued presence is going to facilitate stability. It's never-ending. I think Obama is not going to do what you hope. We've been there over five years and at times are providing security for the gov't and at times being the focus of attacks from both sides. I think more and more the iraqi militias and civil warring is dying down, but I don't think it's surge-related. If we leave, it'll force the sunni countries, iran and iraq to sort it out. It could get worse before it gets better, but I'm not buying the surge thing either. Way too many iraqi's continue to get blown up, murdered, kidnapped, etc.
|
|
| | | 372 | walk
ID: 444253118
Mon, Jun 02, 2008, 20:13
|
Issue is Iraq Sovereignty
It's going to be hard for the Iraqi gov't to effectively govern, with a U.S. occupation, if there are theres sentiments.
Assuming the surge is working, this is now a catch-22...I'd rather we cut our losses and provide economic aid and negotiate with Iraqi neighbors to help them create their own stability. We will be there forever otherwise. Maybe we should, cos we created that mess, but I dunno.
|
|
| | | 373 | Perm Dude
ID: 5952212
Mon, Jun 02, 2008, 21:13
|
The choice isn't between admitting the surge worked or not. The choice is future tense: an indefinite occupation of Iraq (probably as a staging area for an attack on Iran) or a pullback of troops.
For whatever reason you believe that the relative peace in Iraq was achieved, there truly is no reason to think that we need to ramp up our presence there. Particularly from a President McCain who confuses some basis details about the country.
|
|
| | | 374 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 56118297
Mon, Jun 02, 2008, 21:29
|
#369
I agree with SZ re #2. And I suspect Obama honestly does as well. Re #1, even if true (my general cynicism regarding politicians leads me to think it's a distinct possibility but I also think its unfair of you to outright assume that his faith in Christ is a sham - you can't know that) I think you fully know such an admission is a sure-fire campaign killer.
While I still think he tries harder at it than most pols, Obama made clear months ago that his campaign will not live up to the candor that he advertised.
|
|
| | | 375 | J-Bar
ID: 144352617
Mon, Jun 02, 2008, 21:41
|
haven't seen any plans to ramp up our presence there but to set a 16 month withdrawal for all but embassy forces is reckless w/o having iraq stability measures to gauge the withdrawal. still have 28500 in s korea. petraeus announced his recommendation to withdraw troops in the fall, i see that didn't get much air time.
|
|
| | | 376 | Perm Dude
ID: 5952212
Mon, Jun 02, 2008, 22:01
|
Is there any real question that McCain is itching to invade Iran?
In any case, holding out for some kind of benchmarks (which Iraq has consistently missed in the past, so the Administration just ignored them) is just tiresome at this point.
|
|
| | | 377 | Perm Dude
ID: 5952212
Mon, Jun 02, 2008, 22:05
|
Andrew Sullivan:
The glee with which some have pounced on Obama's decision to quit TUCC strikes me as unbecoming to anyone who takes faith seriously. The premise, of course, is that Obama doesn't take faith seriously, that his own relationship with Jesus is faked, that only politics brought him to Trinity and only a combination of concealed communist sympathies and hatred of America kept him there. Since the hard right has fused politics with religion, this cynicism is perhaps understandable. But it doesn't make it any truer. Jamil Smith:
I know what it's like to join a congregation, as Barack did, without a strong connection to the Lord and, over time, feel that connection grow. I joined my current church, an A.M.E., in 2005, and in my time there, I've gained more insight, felt more fellowship and enriched my faith in ways unimagined. Even still, my current relationship with Christ isn't close to where I need it to be. I still have a lot of work to do. But I know the process Barack is talking about, and if I were tomorrow forced to rip myself away from my church by forces of mankind - politics, prejudice and misunderstanding being examples - I would be saddened beyond belief. I would have truly lost a part of myself. And that's after less than four years in the church. I can't imagine what I'd feel after 20.
Discussing the culture and politics of Trinity is fair game, I guess. But exploiting a family's source of spiritual nourishment and ridiculing and dismissing someone's faith journey: not so much. That goes for others seeking God at Trinity, or anywhere else. They didn't ask for this scrutiny and they deserve a break.
Are you feeling gleeful MBJ? Got yourself a gotcha moment?
|
|
| | | 378 | J-Bar
ID: 144352617
Mon, Jun 02, 2008, 22:30
|
still has about 13 u.n. resolutions to break first before the consequences of failed diplomacy will be enforced. unsure what this means "Obama called for "tough, disciplined and direct diplomacy." if not consequences then what
|
|
| | | 379 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Mon, Jun 02, 2008, 22:32
|
I would be saddened beyond belief. I would have truly lost a part of myself. And that's after less than four years in the church. I can't imagine what I'd feel after 20.
My guess is it wouldn't even take half of four years for you to figure out if your pastor was an nutty race huckster; Obama's current story is that he wasn't tuned in enough to realize that until just now, so I'm not too concerned about his abilty to shake off the trauma of going to the occasional Sunday morning service somewhere else.
Are you feeling gleeful MBJ? Got yourself a gotcha moment?
Dude, you're so wrapped up in your Obama crush that it makes you sound like a real horse's ass - which you're not. Take offense at me questioning the bona fides of a presumptive nominee for POTUS if you want. I'm not sure what your point is in being personal though.
|
|
| | | 380 | walk
ID: 4952035
Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 07:44
|
I still don't think most white people, and probab ly all of us, can appreciate the context and overall values/beliefs that underly the Trinity Church...certainly not from selective excerpts. Thus, to me, I don't see this issue as speaking to the bona fides of Obama. I really don't. However, that does not mean it should not matter to you, MBJ.
|
|
| | | 381 | Perm Dude
ID: 5952212
Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 09:37
|
Obama's current story is that he wasn't tuned in enough to realize that until just now
Actually, that's not even close. I realize that you don't even want to try to give Obama the benefit of his own words being true ones, but the only thing that is clear is that Obama was giving Rev Wright the benefit of the doubt, knowing that Wright was a good man at heart.
MBJ: Your #369 rings a lot like Madman: "When Obama admits he is a fake, shallow, and typical politician, then I'll at least consider him." Don't take this personally, but that is nonsense.
My #377 was directly confronting the idea that you were questioning his bona fides. I agree with walk that changing your church isn't a bona fide in the race. Especially when it is done in agreement with what you and others have urged Obama to do. You really can't have it both ways: Urge Obama to leave his church, and slam him when he does.
|
|
| | | 382 | walk
ID: 181472714
Tue, Jun 03, 2008, 10:48
|
And while I don't wholeheartedly agree with the statements made by Wright and Pleger in the context of poli campaign, I also think it's really awry that such attention is given to them, and that the conclusion is drawn that Obama's church is racist or that he is anti-white...blah blah blah. We have little clue about the sentiments and discrimination minorities, especially minorities still feeling the discrimination and prejudice as descendants from the travesty of slavery, feel that drives the selective byte-sized sentiments blown out within the Black church. I feel bad for Obama that his faith is questioned ("is he muslim? no, well, his church is racist then") repeatedly (as if that matters? I am an atheist...faith is irrelevant!!!!) as a pertinent issue. I feel bad that he has to deal with Pleger and Wright and their either selfish or poorly timed diatribes. However, I really feel bad that some folks think this stuff matters.
McCain is at least focusing on the right stuff: his foreign policy views vs. Obama's. I don't think we've seen the last of the Wright stuff as I expect some neg advertising to remind us of it lateron, but it's very stupid. I wish even those who don't support Obama would rise above it.
|
|
| | |
| | | 384 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Thu, Jun 05, 2008, 09:20
|
welcome to yesterday, and a different thread.
|
|
| | | 385 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Thu, Jun 05, 2008, 12:50
|
Hamas un-endorses Obama.
Not exactly, since they never officially endorsed him to begin with, as Jake Tapper points out.
|
|
| | | 386 | bibA
ID: 44518214
Thu, Jun 05, 2008, 13:35
|
I am sure that Fox will cover this "un-endorsement" with as much fervor as they did with the "endorsement".
|
|
| | | 387 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Thu, Jun 05, 2008, 13:38
|
Deja vu all over again...Obama's campaign staff put out a statement quoting him as saying, in part, "This isn't the Tony Rezko I knew." But then it wasn't the Wright he knew either...how many times will he pull this excuse out and use it?
|
|
| | | 388 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Thu, Jun 05, 2008, 13:54
|
how many times will he pull this excuse out and use it?
i love a world that exists in a millisecond, one where people don't EVER change, and other people don't EVER change their minds.
i'm sure the Baldwin at age 20 is not the same baldwin at age..well, whatever age you are, just like i am very different now than i was 20 years ago.
|
|
| | | 389 | Perm Dude
ID: 35542411
Thu, Jun 05, 2008, 14:00
|
The Chicago Tribune is all over this story--much more deep than a simple political commercial.
Rezko also worked on behalf of President Bush to the tune of more than $3.8 million. Wonder what kind of man Bush thought Rezko was?
BTW, none of Rezko's co-conspirators contributed anything to any Obama campaign.
|
|
| | | 390 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Thu, Jun 05, 2008, 14:09
|
PD
You have a point but reality comes right back and steals it away.
In one sense the landscape is just teaming with moneymen with bags of money in one hand and a gladhand in the other. It seems that the party machinery on both sides identifies all these opportunities and it's up to each candidate of course to pick and chose which bags and which attached strings he is willing to live with.
Up to that point your man isn't any different than any other candidate hardly.
And then Obama basically takes a house from Rezko.
You think you are gonna slide that on by as a typical relationship you are dreaming, PD, Walk, and all Obama swoon-teamers.
|
|
| | | 391 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Thu, Jun 05, 2008, 14:14
|
Just to be even-handed, McCain has his own 'deja vu all-over-again' problem. Time and time again you will find him posing as the great campaign corruption fighter and every last time you will find him guilty of the exact same thing he is claiming to be standing firmly against.
|
|
| | | 392 | Perm Dude
ID: 35542411
Thu, Jun 05, 2008, 14:22
|
and it's up to each candidate of course to pick and chose which bags and which attached strings he is willing to live with.
I completely agree, but it isn't often clear when people have bags or strings. The Tribune had a long interview with Obama a couple of months ago (can't find the link, but I'll look for it) and hammered him on his Rezko connection. Essentially the editors came away satisfied with Obama's explanation after he sat with them, in their offices, for the interview.
Now, there are slimy people, especially in big-city politics like Chicago's. But I don't equate politicians who are getting massaged by the Rezko's of the world with those politicians who request the massages.
|
|
| | | 393 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Thu, Jun 05, 2008, 14:57
|
I don't think we've seen the last of the Wright stuff as I expect some neg advertising to remind us of it lateron, but it's very stupid. I wish even those who don't support Obama would rise above it.
Obama argued that his membership in TUCC proved that he was ready to leady a new Democratic party that could speak to mainstream Christianity. Why should Obama's opponents refrain from refuting one of the primary rationalizations for Obama's candidacy?
MBJ: Your #369 rings a lot like Madman: "When Obama admits he is a fake, shallow, and typical politician, then I'll at least consider him." Don't take this personally, but that is nonsense. You have my position wrong. I'll consider supporting him when he ceases to be a fake, shallow and typical politician. Or at least tells me in a plausible and upfront way what his tax, energy, foreign, and trade policies really are.
|
|
| | | 394 | Perm Dude
ID: 35542411
Thu, Jun 05, 2008, 15:30
|
Obama argued that his membership in TUCC...
No, he didn't. His argument is that he is a Christian and is not ashamed of it, as many Democrats seem to me. Though being a member of Trinity was part of how he practiced his religion, the argument wasn't about his membership but about his faith.
|
|
| | | 395 | Perm Dude
ID: 35542411
Thu, Jun 05, 2008, 15:35
|
BTW, congrats on forthcoming boy #2.
|
|
| | | 396 | walk
ID: 181472714
Thu, Jun 05, 2008, 15:36
|
Madman, I don't think that Obama's membership in TUCC is "one of the primary rationalizations for his candidacy." That is an interesting interpretation. I can't even talk about TUCC anymore. If that's an important to you, I just can't fathom.
Your other comment about policies is far more tangible. I know he's got a huge document, about 65 page, on his web-site, but it still may not provide the detail you seek.
I certainly do not think he is a fake, shallow and typical politician though. I am not sure how you have made that assessment.
|
|
| | | 397 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Thu, Jun 05, 2008, 16:42
|
walk -- In 2007, Obama made his faith a centerpiece of his campaign. Here's just one piece making that same interpretation ... CSMonitor from 2007. It's hard to recall now, but back in 2005-2007, Dems were very interested in winning the faith-based vote. Obama's religion and political positions share the same motivation. Can't remember any candidate who so forcefully embraced the Social Gospel and trumpeted his personal conversion story as evidence for his ability to identify with the religious voter. Obviously, that argument has been swept under the rug the last few months.
Your other comment about policies is far more tangible. I know he's got a huge document, about 65 page, on his web-site, but it still may not provide the detail you seek. Simple question, I've wasted hours looking for ... has Obama embraced any part of the Bush tax cuts in any written form?
Specifically, the interpretation I'm looking for is this. He says he's going to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Does this mean that he's going to roll back the Bush tax cuts and that he separately believes they were entirely for the wealthy? Or does this mean that he has a magic cutoff point, say $164k (where the top marginal bracket cut in in 2007) above which he'd repeal the Bush tax cuts?
Because the Bush tax cuts sunset, this is crucial information to know which revenue baseline he believes in ... Also, he's verbally promised to not raise taxes on those earning less than $200k+ (last debate, read my lips) ... does that mean he's arguing for an extension of the Bush tax cuts for those earning less than $200k? I can't find any evidence to that position in writing, and given that such a statement endorses the Bush tax cuts to a degree that puts him very close to McCain, I have trouble believing it. Therefore, I think have to assume he's going to let the Bush tax cuts sunset, prefering instead the Democratic interpretation that sunsetting the tax cuts on low-income workers isn't a tax increase. That interpretation would let him keep his debate promise.
This really isn't a "detail". It's a trillion dollar question (on a 10-year budget window). Glad the Dems are done name calling. Maybe now we can learn about the policy proposals that Obama supports.
|
|
| | |
| | | 399 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Thu, Jun 05, 2008, 17:01
|
Condoleezza Rice: "The United States of America is an extraordinary country. It is a country that has overcome many, many, now years, decades, actually a couple of centuries, of trying to make good on its principles," said Rice, the first female black secretary of state, serving in a Republican administration. "And I think what we are seeing is an extraordinary expression of the fact that 'We the People' is beginning to mean to all of us." Beginning? Of course I don't take issue with this statement. But surely, anyone without a blatent political double-standard who was appalled because they think Michelle Obama literally was proud of her country for the first time in her adult life just a few months ago must react with a double-take upon hearing that quote.
Andrew Sullivan asks, "Where's Hannity?"
|
|
| | | 400 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Thu, Jun 05, 2008, 17:02
|
Though being a member of Trinity was part of how he practiced his religion, the argument wasn't about his membership but about his faith.
I agree with this. I didn't mean to state that I held TUCC itself against Obama. You haven't seen me cite the anti-semitic church bulletins, etc., as evidence about Obama's belief structure. More than a month ago, I also specifically exempted painting him with Pfegler's screed (although this was before I found out that he had worked to secure earmarks for that guy, which is pretty pathetic).
Obama has trumpeted his membership in TUCC as evidence of his Christian faith. (this is why it was so important for him to argue how uncontroversial and mainstream Christian it was).
Beyond the manner in which Obama uses the Bible & faith to motivate his politics, Wright and TUCC represent the crowd that Obama chose to be with, that he feels most at home with, and with whom he chooses to commune, barring political aspirations. Is the potential backlash of the public sufficient to keep Obama from continuing to gravitate to those with whom he feels comfortable when he becomes President? I doubt it.
..............
Thanks, PD. Pretty scary to think there will be two of them. But you've survived and kept on to get three, correct? (not sure I ever said congrats on that ... also not sure if that's congrats to surviving or congrats for the lack of sleep you're willing to put up with ...)
|
|
| | | 401 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Thu, Jun 05, 2008, 18:18
|
As an atheist, I would have been completely turned off if any candidate had made faith the centerpiece of his campaign. Well except Huckabee, who I find funny in an endearing kinda way. Ah, to have the Huck-miester get the nod and finally have it out as to whether or not we really want a theocratic state.
But back to our more harsh reality: I didn't even notice faith was even on the fringes of his campaign at the time.
|
|
| | | 402 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 11:38
|
The day after Iran obliterates Isreal from the face of the earth...'That's not the Ahmadnejad I knew'. - Obama
|
|
| | | 403 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 11:39
|
For the record, Obama has never once stated that he would meet with Ahmadnejad.
|
|
| | | 404 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 11:51
|
Really?
|
|
| | | 405 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 12:18
|
Obama's very first line in that clip:
"Now I did not say that I would be meeting with all of them I said I'd be willing to.
|
|
| | | 406 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 12:19
|
Thats right B...really. Did you LISTEN to what Obama said? Expressing a willingness to meet IF....is not the saying that he will meet with. C'mon now. This is 2nd grade English here.
|
|
| | | 407 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 12:28
|
Just don't bet against someday seeing the scenario I laid out in #402 come to pass.
|
|
| | | 408 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 12:30
|
is that your way of withdrawing from your implied allegation in 404?
|
|
| | | 409 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 12:49
|
Further, in almost every discussion Obama has had about meeting with America's adversaries, he has refrained from specifying Ahmadnejad when he refers to Iran. This is important for several reasons. Primarily, as I have pointed out innumerable time's in this forum, Ahmadnejad is not Iran's supreme ruler. It's interesting how willingly you succumb to the media's and the Bush Administration's disingenuous joint promotion of him as the Iranian leadership. Further, Ahmadnejad's current term won't last far beyond Inauguration Day and his opposition in the coming election - who appears to be favored by the Grand Ayatollah - is looking stronger every day.
In the clip you provided he did refer to Ahmadnejad by name, but all he said was that he "isn't afraid of losing a PR war with someone like Ahmadnejad."
A scenario where Barack Obama will be beguiled by Mahmud Ahmadinejad, resulting in America's compliance in the destruction of Israel is an absurdity barely worthy of response.
|
|
| | | 410 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 13:33
|
Ahmadinejad is the clown meant for local consumption. He doesn't have any real power, and the Ayatollah has been substantially more conciliatory and deferential to the West.
|
|
| | | 411 | walk
ID: 181472714
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 16:11
|
Right, that's my understanding, too, bili. However, our country's "fear factor," ADD, and our administration's exaggerated credence to Ahmadinejad's "wipe Israel out" rhetoric, results in him as "the man." I can appreciate Israel's concern, but don't think for one minute Iran would attack Israel, but they are meddling in Iraq.
|
|
| | | 412 | walk
ID: 181472714
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 16:14
|
Obama's Weekend Off
"The elitist." I forgot that his kids were my kids' ages, 10 & 7. A sleepover for 8 seven year-ol's. Man, I can relate. Funny.
|
|
| | | 413 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 16:17
|
don't think for one minute Iran would attack Israel
I can't get behind you there, Walk. Iran is a major concern. Ahmadnejad may be second fiddle to the supreme leader but he still occupies a high level position in Iranian government and wields the influence of that office. I just wish the media and the American political right would open their eyes and address the issue in honest terms. Instead we get asinine "scenerios" like we see in post 402 laid out as realistic future concerns.
|
|
| | | 414 | walk
ID: 181472714
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 17:13
|
I hearya, MITH. It's really hard to say cos what do we know, but I think Iran is more motivated by self-preservation than some masterplan to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, They attack Israel, we and Israel attack Iran. I don't think they are that erratic.
|
|
| | | 415 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 17:54
|
So when the prime minister of a country and the former president of the country says that the country his leadership hates will be 'solved' as soon as they get the bomb and that leadership is under instructions from their most revered spiritual guide Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to destroy Isreal, and then they get very close to having the bomb we should minimize this becaaaauuuuuse......why was that again ???
|
|
| | | 416 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 18:06
|
Because our leadership is far crazier than theres, as has been proven over and over again.
They just talk about nutty things, we actually go and do them. I'd be far more nervous for world safety about giving Bush/Cheney a greenlight on Iran than actually taking their president's bluster seriously.
I think you have to read between the lines with Iranian leadership.
|
|
| | |
| | | 418 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 18:24
|
Bili
I think you will find that that Khamenei has far less influence than the original one [Khomeini] I referenced.
So basically Iran leaders get to say anything they want no matter what, 'because that's just crazy talk'. Very reassuring. Is Obama catching this?
|
|
| | | 420 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 18:27
|
Is post 415 in response to anything I've said?
|
|
| | | 421 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 18:57
|
MITH
Seems like Walk and Bili have been more on that discussion w/ me.
|
|
| | | 422 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 19:20
|
Well, unless and until they have nukes or are about to, then yeah. I'm not giving any crazy-ass American leader any sort of notion that they have carte-blanche to start a war with Iran.
|
|
| | | 423 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 19:30
|
|
|
| | | 424 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 19:44
|
Mighty powerful spyware you got there Bili!
|
|
| | | 425 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 20:44
|
OMG!OMG!OMG!But Kenya appears now to be a new front on the world-wide campaign of global Islamic jihad. And this is the scene into which Barack Obama loudly and voluntarily inserted himself in 2006, on behalf of his cousin, Raila Odinga, who is committed to creating Muslim Sharia courts in every district in Kenya and completely Islamizing Kenya’s coastal region. Obama could hardly be ignorant of the Odinga’s Islamic agenda. Obama owes voters an explanation for his support of it. 'That's not the Raila Odinga I knew'.
The MSM is worthless and liberals have their heads in the sand so deeply it's a wonder they haven't struck oil.
|
|
| | | 426 | Madman
ID: 7538321
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 20:46
|
Where does Obama stand on taxes?
I'm not the only one with difficulties finding out. WSJ today: link Obama will extend the Bush tax cuts "only for households earning less than $250,000".
Sounds clear enough: Obama endorses the vast bulk of the Bush tax cuts, right? Not so fast. Here's the Washington Post from 6/3 "Raise income taxes on wealthiest and their capital gains and dividends taxes. Raise corporate taxes. $80 billion in tax breaks mainly for poor workers and elderly, including tripling Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credit for larger families. Eliminate tax-filing requirement for older workers making under $50,000. A mortgage-interest credit could be used by lower-income homeowners who do not take the mortgage interest deduction because they do not itemize their taxes."
$80b is about the right size for the tax cuts listed, and it's not (I don't think) to extend the Bush tax cuts for those earning under $250k ... let alone pay for the additional initiatives. So, the Washington Post is assuming that Obama will let the Bush tax cuts expire on ALL workers and then enact his other, more specific, tax reforms.
Obama's an enigma. Although maybe this itself is the answer. Whoever the next President is will have to work hard to get the Bush tax cuts for the poor and middle class extended. This will be hard work because they are such a large revenue item and also exacerbate the difficulties with the AMT. If a candidate isn't willing to endorse those tax cuts in the general election, there's not much chance that he'll fight Democrats to ensure that taxes on poor people aren't increased.
|
|
| | | 427 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 21:14
|
OMG!OMG!OMG!
It's nothing short of bloodlust for you, Baldwin. Seriously, have a shred of self respect.
Frontline Magazine 01.25.08 Kenyan politicians have been using his popularity as political capital. In 2006, opposition leader Raila Odinga tried to portray Obama's trip to Kenya as a personal endorsement. Odinga's supporters created T-shirts and posters with cleverly computer-altered images that showed Obama and Odinga standing side by side, arms around each other.
More recently, on January 8th, Odinga told the BBC that Obama is his maternal cousin. Those who understand Kenyan politics know that Odinga's claim is meant to rally Kenyans behind him as he tries to fight his way into the State House, Kenya's highest office, which he contends Kibaki robbed him of by rigging the December 27 elections.
But given Odinga's controversial background and the continued ethnic violence in Kenya, his attempts to invoke Obama's name may undermine Obama's campaign in the U.S.
Odinga is the son of Jaramogi Oginga Odinga, Kenya's first vice-president, a socialist who sent his son to Communist East Germany for college. The younger Odinga named one of his sons Fidel Castro and has also admitted to being one of the masterminds of a 1982 attempted coup against Daniel arap Moi, Kenya's second president. In American Op-Ed pages and in the blogosphere, many of Obama's political foes are already capitalizing on his supposed ties to Odinga.
When Obama took time off his campaign in New Hampshire to make a five-minute phone call to Odinga, urging him to talk with President Kibaki in order to avoid more bloodshed, New York Sun columnist Daniel Johnson wrote, "If [Obama] has been putting tribal or family considerations above America's national interest by supporting Mr. Odinga's anti-Western candidacy, it raises serious questions about his judgment."
By using the words "tribal considerations" Johnson assumes that Obama identifies with his father's tribe, the Luo, the main group clashing with the majority Kikuyus. But Obama has never claimed to be a Kenyan, let alone a Luo. He has said repeatedly that his loyalty is to the people of Illinois, who he represents, and to his fellow Americans.
Obama's perceived support for Odinga may have arisen from a speech he gave to university students in Nairobi during his 2006 visit. Obama spoke out against corruption in President Kibaki's government. Because Odinga is Kibaki's main political rival, Obama's criticism was misconstrued to mean that he had endorsed Odinga.
Obama has not publicly confirmed or denied his relation to Odinga.
But it doesn't really matter whether or not Odinga is Obama's cousin. His political opponents in the U.S. will no doubt find a way to use it against him. As one concerned Kenyan wrote on Kenyaimagine.com, another popular forum, "In the intensity of America's presidential race, any mud that can be thrown at a candidate is fair game. The candidates themselves may decide against going ugly, but there is never any doubt that their supporters will pull no punches and the close relationship (Raila insists) between Hon. Odinga and Senator Obama is proving fertile ground for his opponents, both among the Democrats and from the Republican Party."
|
|
| | |
| | | 429 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 22:02
|
Incidentially, Obama contacted Odinga to urge him to meet with then-president Kibaki days after Condi Rice contacted him with the same request. Apparently both calls were unsuccessful tho in poking around it seems the two men eventually agreed to some power-sharing arrangement supposedly to curb fighting. I haven't seen much about the alleged Sharia/jihad stuff.
|
|
| | | 430 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 22:02
|
At least when he meets with Iranian and palestinian leaders he already knows the dress code so there's that...
|
|
| | | 431 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 22:05
|
Heck let's make the inaugural ball a costume party.
|
|
| | | 432 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 22:10
|
Dress up day is still the closest you'll get to making him into tthe Islamist you so desperately wish for him to be.
UnChristian, unpatriotic and really pretty sick.
|
|
| | | 433 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 22:12
|
Not surprised that's your reaction to getting your teeth handed to you after post 425. Terrible loser as usual.
|
|
| | | 434 | Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 22:16
|
This is a bad thing, you say?
BTW, Odinga is no cousin of Obama.
Keep tossing up the softballs. Sometimes we need some easy ones.
Madman: So, the Washington Post is assuming that Obama will let the Bush tax cuts expire on ALL workers and then enact his other, more specific, tax reforms.
This is my understanding.
|
|
| | | 435 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 22:16
|
So his greatest admiration for his brother Roy who converted to Islam from Christendom, cousins named Fidel attending communist East German college and his support of his cousin's political aspirations to turn Kenya muslim are somehow beyond the pale to ask about....riiiiiight. What exactly does his family have to do to red flag themselves as a campaign issue? If they were really trying, what more could they do?
|
|
| | | 436 | Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 22:25
|
Does the truth even matter to you anymore? Or has your cousin Hugo Chavez given you fits this week and you can't concentrate?
|
|
| | | 438 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 22:26
|
beyond the pale to ask about
OMG!OMG!OMG! is not "asking."
Forget objectivity, you're in straight up bloodlust mode. There's no regard for facts in your frenzy.
Obama ha so far been declared a radical muslim, a terrorist sympathizer, a madrass attendee, gay, a radical Christian and now a cousin and political supporter of the leader of Kenya who (according to the same people who make that claim) seeks to "completely Islamizie Kenya's coastal region."
Oh yeah - and he has dressed up kind of like a Muslim (or kind of like Jesus) at least once.
|
|
| | | 439 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 22:50
|
Odinga, is a member of Obama's ancestral tribe, the Luo, and a Muslim. He is the son of Senior’s sister, a direct first cousin and nephew of Obama's father.
And bloodlust is irrelevent. What is relevent is that something like this was not dealt with by the media.
|
|
| | | 440 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 23:01
|
Helping his cousin put Kenya under Muslim sharia.
Stop telling me this was already put to bed by the media because they never mentioned it. If I have never heard of this until today, trust me, the media did not cover this story.
Stop telling me it is a non-issue because to any thinking person it raises questions that beg to be answered.
I'm not telling you what I think this all means. I am demanding that people ask obvious questions and get deserved answers.
|
|
| | | 441 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 23:07
|
And bloodlust is irrelevent.
Apparently not since it inhibits your ability to point and click, though at least you don't deny it, Crusader. Anyway:Raila Odinga... has claimed to be a cousin of Illinois senator Barack Obama (maintaining that Obama's biological father was his maternal uncle). However, no evidence has been offered to document that claim, and the fact that Odinga made such a claim only in the immediate aftermath of the disputed December 2007 elections in Kenya (even though Obama had been a prominant political figure long before then) suggests it was opportunistic fiction invented by Odinga to provide himself with a badly-needed cloak of political legitimacy. (A few monhs earlier, Nicholas Owino Rajula had also claimed to be a distant cousin of Senator Obama.)
Barack Obama's uncle has denied Odinga's claim that the two men are directly related, saying: "Odinga's mother came from this area, so it is normal for us to talk about cousins. But he is not a blood relative." Even if Raila Odinaga and Barack Obama were in fact relatives, their connection would merely be a genetic one - the two men have no history of any substantive form of familial relationship.
Although the Obama campaign acknowledged that Senator Obama spoke to Raila Odinga by telephone "for about five minutes" in January 2008 (he also made a public appearance with Odinga during a trip to Kenya in August 2006), we could find nothing substantiating the claim that "Obama and Raila speak daily."
|
|
| | | 442 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 23:08
|
I'm not telling you what I think this all means.
Sure
OMG!OMG!OMG!
|
|
| | | 443 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 23:40
|
Here's an article from Kenya's The Standard that describes the event we see in the photo in post 440.
Indeed, here's the photo from the article - note Obama is wearing the same clothes as in the photo in 440:
Kisumu residents yesterday accorded US Senator Barack Obama the kind of reception normally reserved for rock stars and popular presidents.
The climax of his welcome was his arrival in ancestral village of Nyang’oma Kogelo in Siaya District, to an emotional reunion with his 85-year-old grandmother.
The Illinois Senator arrived in Kisumu aboard a commercial flight, East African Express, which touched down at 8:40am.
An elated Obama declared: "I am happy to be back here. This is where my father was born and I appreciate the warm welcome."
Moved by the massive crowd that welcomed him, Obama said, "The people of my grandfather, I am proud to be with you and I bring you greetings from the US Government,"
Lang’ata MP Raila Odinga, Nyanza PC Mr Paul Olando, Kisumu Mayor Mrs Priscah Auma and Catholic Archbishop the Rev Zacheus Okoth received him. The article goes on to describe the speaking event - which it notes Odinga (and three other local officials) was present at and recounts Obama's comments in some detail. But it never mentions any support for any Kenyan politicians - much less did it describe the event as a political rally for Odinga or anyone else.
In fact, here is another article from teh same paper from the same day about the election season heating up and it makes no mention of Obama - who surely would have made a huge news in the Kenyan papers that day if he had endorsed a presidential candidate.
|
|
| | | 444 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 00:23
|
For the record, Baldwin has not shown a shred of evidence that Odinga leads "a new front on the world-wide campaign of global Islamic jihad" or "is committed to creating Muslim Sharia courts in every district in Kenya".
BBC 10.27.07: Kenyan Muslims deny Sharia claims Kenyan Muslim leaders have dismissed as propaganda allegations that an opposition party promised to introduce Sharia for Muslims if it won elections.
The National Muslim Leaders Forum said its deal with the Orange Democratic Movement was to end the current discrimination against Muslims.
Christian leaders have been calling for the pact to be made public to end angry speculation ahead of December's polls.
Roughly one-third of Kenya's population of 34 million is Muslim.
Recent opinion polls show 45% of those interviewed support ODM's Raila Odinga compared to 43% who favour President Mwai Kibaki, who is running on a Party of National Unity ticket.
Rendition probe
Muslim leaders decided to make the pact public after a document circulated on the internet claimed that Mr Odinga's ODM had pledged to introduce Sharia in parts of the country where Muslims are in the majority.
"There was a fear that Muslims will force their faith on other people, Islam does not allow suppression of other religions and we will be the last to advocate for this," said Abdullahi Abdi of the National Muslim Leaders Forum.
Instead the memorandum of understanding, signed in August, states that Mr Odinga has pledged to defend Muslims against harassment and victimisation by state security forces who claim to be fighting terrorism.
If the ODM leader wins, he promises to set up a commission to investigate renditions of Muslims to Somalia, Ethiopia and the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay on the island of Cuba.
The document also commits Mr Odinga to initiate policies to redress the present marginalisation of Muslims living in the Coast and North-East provinces.
|
|
| | | 445 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 00:31
|
LOL! - Odinga isn't even a Muslim! He wondered why PNU was peddling cheap propaganda about his religious background yet he had reaffirmed that he was a Christian.
"They are telling lies and stealing tax payers’ money against biblical teachings. Are they true Christians?" he posed.
Invoking the biblical teaching of ‘Love your neighbour as you love yourself’, he said he had embraced the Muslim community in the spirit of brotherhood.
"I’m a Christian and love Muslims as my brothers even though Kibaki and his team are peddling lies about our relationship. They want people to believe that we have struck a deal with Muslims to introduce Sharia law," he said.
|
|
| | |
| | | 447 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 00:45
|
PDF: CRS Report For Congress at teh State Dept site titled, "Kenya: The December 2007 Elections
and the Challenges Ahead". This was writtten in December 2007 following the kenyan election and therefore following the accusation that Odinga sought to spread sharia law. The Report has been updated as recently as April of this year. Ctrl+F for "sharia" yields no results.
|
|
| | | 448 | Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 00:52
|
Pretty sad when Baldwin has to mine petty Kenyan politics to seed his anti-Democratic slams.
|
|
| | | 449 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 01:06
|
He din't mine anything except for rabid right wing internet sites with no regard for factual integrity. If he'd done the slightest bit of objective research rather than succumb to the temptation to take the scumbags at iperceive.net (and the dozens of sites that quote them) at their scrubby word, he might have had to face his conscience before typing omgomgomg.
|
|
| | | 450 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 01:08
|
He might want to remember GEN 38:9-10 as he cleans up.
|
|
| | | 451 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 01:25
|
"Islam does not allow suppression of other religions"...yeah, well the facts say otherwise. Not sure I'd take that at face value, or anything that guy says.
|
|
| | | 452 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 01:28
|
Also I'll take the word of christians in Africa facing the daily encroachment of Islam and the regular murderous atrocities that that entails, over MITH's understanding of Odinga.
And if it's petty Kenya politics tell it to Obama.
|
|
| | | 453 | Perm Dude
ID: 2256610
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 01:31
|
Ah, now Obama is to blame for Islamic "encroachment?"
Any kind of man would simply apologize for making a mistake and moving on. You simply continue with the slamming, as if Obama made you do it and he's going to pay.
Enough already. If you don't have the balls to say you were wrong on the points you were raising at least don't continue to demonstrate that facts don't matter to you.
|
|
| | | 454 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 01:37
|
These are matters that deserve delving into. I don't know that I am wrong about anything when no one on this board knew a thing about this 2 hours ago. I'd hardly call anything about this settled.
|
|
| | | 455 | Perm Dude
ID: 2256610
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 01:56
|
Actually, I knew about the false claims of Odinga when they first appeared on Snopes.com a few weeks ago. You're still making your way to that reality, it seems.
|
|
| | | 456 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 02:26
|
Quite a read.
|
|
| | | 457 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 02:27
|
You just didn't think 'we could handle the truth' so you kept it to yourself, huh?
|
|
| | | 458 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 07:28
|
What are you saying I kept to myself? Your reliance on unfounded claims that Obama supported Odinga is sadly typical of you. The work I put in last night should be enough to satisfy any lurkers who aren't simply desperate beyond standard of truth to hang a noose around Obama's campaign.
There's no getting through to a hack who honestly believes that promoting unfounded fish tales in the face of pages and pages of evidence to the contrary is a totally different thing from anything resembling a lie.
It's amazing that I'm the one who was recently called the most lopsided partisan on this forum. Your foaming at the mouth to pin whatever terrible thing you can get to stick on any Democrat is simply disgusting.
|
|
| | | 459 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 07:44
|
MITH
Once again you conflate finding links that fit your agenda with conclusively solving the question raised.
You actually have to gather all possible info on the issue and weigh the merits.
I am not the one rushing to claim I have this weighed in the balance.
|
|
| | | 460 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 08:32
|
Once again you conflate finding links that fit your agenda with conclusively solving the question raised.
No. I'm researching the liklihood of the accusation that you or the sites you link present.
Here's what I've found:
1. The link you provided claimed outright that Obama and Odinga are first cousins - a claim that you state as fact (I guess you feel you've weighed that in the balance).
That claim seems quite clearly to have started on january 8th of this year, following the announcement of their familial relationship made by Odinga, a political figure who you yourself claim is a scoundrel and who has much to gain from any association with Obama who is wildly popular in Kenya. Despite having met Obama on at least two occasions in the previous two years, Odinga suddenly and opportunistically made this claim during the violent aftermath of Kenya's disputed election. Further, Obama's real uncle in Kenya outwardly denies that the two men are related. For most people, the fact that no actual evidence of their familial relationship exists beyond the claim of Odinga (who isn't the only Kenyan politician to claim to be related to Obama) would be enough to dismiss this.
2. Your link claims that Obama went to Kenya in 2006 on behalf of Odinga.
There is simply no record that I have found, anywhere, to support this and of course your link provides no supporting evidence evidence of any kind. When your standards are that low, the result is OMG!OMG!OMG!.
3. You, along with Kurt and Margaret Schulzke of iperceive.net also claim that Obama was campaigning for Odinga. You and the Shulzke's single piece of evidence of this is a photo showing Obama speaking on a stage with Odinga speaking behind him. Your caption read, "Helping his cousin put Kenya under Muslim sharia." (there's your standard for "weighing in the balance" again)
Yet local news reports from that day which cover teh event Obama spoke at make no mention of Obama supporting any political campaign and their description of the event is far from anything resembling a political rally. Further, another report from the same day which discussed the coming election season made no mention of Obama endorsing any candidate, which obviously would have been huge news consdering how wildly popular Obama is there.
By the way, Kenya's The Standard has an exceptional featuer that allows you to plug in any date you want and see all the paper's articles from that day. Obama arrived in Kenya on August 25th, 2006. Have at it.
4. Your site claims outright that Odinga leads "a new front on the world-wide campaign of global Islamic jihad" and "is committed to creating Muslim Sharia courts in every district in Kenya".
I've pointed out that Odinga proudly claims he is a Christian and that this claim apparently started from a pact he really did make with local Muslims. He claims to ave publicized the benign nature of pact since the rumors gained steam.
Further, I checked the State Department's site (which I believe tends to keep up on such things as governments forcing the expansion of sharia law upon its citizens) and there was no such mention.
That said, I will rant you that this is not a complete vetting of Odinga and so I won't claim to have completely refuted unsubstantiated claim #4 (if I were satisfied with your standars for fact, of course, I'd be calling it a slam dunk). I haven't gotten through your link in 456 and don't know what kind of evidence might be there but given the standards you've shown so far, I don't expect to be impressed. By the way, am I to believe you haven't spent any time searching unsuccessfully for real evidence of unsubstantiated claims 1, 2 and 3?
But the counters I've provided to unsubstantiated claims 1, 2 and 3 are far stronger evidence than anything associated with the claims themselves, which is pretty much nothing. That's why their unsubstantiated (duh).
|
|
| | | 461 | walk
ID: 4952035
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 09:57
|
Pwnd
|
|
| | | 462 | walk
ID: 4952035
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 10:01
|
What is the real, real concern here though? Do you really think Obama has some unusual affiliations with anti-American motives? I think it's conspiracy-level thinking (which is not so unsusual to read here though). What's the more plausible likelihood for Obama to have reached out to folks, relatives, whatever in other countries, continents? A reasonableness test is often a good thing to think about when thinking about these things. Maybe not as much fun though. Talk about finding things to fit into one's agenda!
|
|
| | | 463 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 10:22
|
2. Your link claims that Obama went to Kenya in 2006 on behalf of Odinga.
There is simply no record that I have found, anywhere... - MITH
Other than the picture of Obama on speaking on the stage obviously in support of Odinga seated with him on stage, other than that, you mean.
|
|
| | | 464 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 10:26
|
Odinga is taking money from Libya and Saudi backers. You take their denials at face value, do you? No those guys would have no interest in promoting sharia.
|
|
| | | 465 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 10:37
|
Weighed in the balance:
obviously in support of Odinga
What exactly makes that obvious? Obama spoke at event that as far as I can tell was held for Obama and not Odinga. Odinga was there with at least three other local officials. As far as we know Odinga didn't even speak at the event except to calm down the crowd.
Further, The Standard reported on Obama's speech in considerabledetail (see post 443) with no mention, whatsoever of any explicit political support for Odinga.
Unsubstantiated.
|
|
| | | 466 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 10:38
|
#464
Red item #4 in my post 460 again
|
|
| | | 467 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 10:43
|
Walk
Yeah, I really do think these power elites are all related one way or another. I think the average Kenyan family does not get to go to college in east germany, isn't related to Dick Cheney distantly, doesn't end up with wealth, doesn't aquire Libyan and Saudi backers, there is a whole lot more than meets the eye here.
|
|
| | | 468 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 10:46
|
MITH
So what is your caption for the picture in #440?
Save me some potatoe salad and meet me at the three-legged sack race?
Obviously that is a political rally, tho there is no denying your extreme efforts at googling. Kudos on that but this is a political rally, bro.
|
|
| | | 469 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 10:50
|
this is a political rally, bro.
Here's the local paper's account of the event:Obama and his entourage arrived at the New Nyanza Provincial General Hospital at 9.20am in a convoy of 15 cars. He commissioned the new paediatric ward at the hospital before touring the facility and giving words of encouragement to the children admitted at the facility.
He left the ward at 10am and addressed the huge and enthusiastic crowd that was waiting for him next to a mobile Voluntary Counselling and Testing Centre.
The Senator and Michelle took an HIV test at the mobile clinic.
"If a Senator from the United States and his wife can get tested, then everyone in this crowd, in this town and in this province can get tested," he said, to cheers and ululations from the crowd.
Thousands of cheering people rushed in past police who could barely contain the throng trampling the dusty grounds. Some waved American flags while others climbed trees for a better view of Obama, who was flashing his trademark grin.
"I am so proud to come back home. It means a lot to me that the people of my father and grandfather are here to greet me with such warmth," Obama, 45, told the crowd.
Police and plainclothes US marines had a rough time controlling the surging crowds.
Raila came to the aid of the security personnel when he took the microphone from the master of ceremonies and pleaded with the crowd to remain calm.
Obama took the crowd to ecstasy when he greeted them in dholuo: "Misawa u duto" (Greetings to all of you)
The crowd responded with cheers and ululation interrupting the senator’s speech by about a minute forcing Raila to take the microphone and intervene again.
"Kare Obama ma nyalo telo America ni en mana jaluo kaka wan (It is true that Obama who may one day lead America is a Luo like us," said Mama Odhiambo, 45.
Obama said he was proud to come back home saying the visit to the lakeside region meant a lot to him.
"I am so proud to be back home … it really touches my heart when my relatives come out in large numbers to welcome me," he said.
He hailed the collaboration between the US and Kenya in research aimed at controlling HIV/Aids and Malaria.
He expressed concern that the region had been ravaged by the HIV/Aids and challenged the community to undergo tests.
"To know your status is the first step to controlling the spread of the disease. Let everybody be tested," he said.
Obama and Michelle underwent the tests at 10.05 am at Liverpool VCT and emerged at 10.20am where he announced he was happy to know his status.
Obama left the facility at 11am headed for the Kemri in Kisumu where he planted a tree after touring the facility.
The Senator expressed concerns that malaria remained a killer disease in the region where one of four children dies of the disease.
He challenged the international media to highlight the impact of malaria noting that the media had concentrated on HIV/Aids at the expense of other disease.
Obama called on the US and Kenyan governments to scale up resources on anti-malaria campaigns.
He later toured Ondero village in Ugenya constituency where he received an emotional welcome from HIV/Aids orphans and their grandmothers.
He joined the grandmothers in a traditional Luo jig and later toured the Senator Obama supported Orphans and Vulnerable Children project in the area.
There are 2,306 orphans in the village under the care of 1,174 grandmothers – 95 per cent of whom are over 75 years old.
"When I look at these young children, I think of my father and grand father who grew up in this region … fortunately there was no HIV/Aids at the time," Obama said.
US ambassador Mr Michael Ranneberger accompanied the Senator.
Obama arrived at his ancestral village at 4pm and recalled that he was last there 17 years ago as a grandson and was delighted to return to the village.
"I am here not as a grandson anymore but as a senator and a representative of the US government," he said.
Obama explained that his current status did not allow him time to greet everybody individually and stressed that his visit was official.
"When I’m here I’m not on my own but accountable to the American Government. This visit is to strengthen partnership between the US and Kenyan government," said the senator.
Obama, Michelle, daughters and his sister Auma Obama were treated to a warm reception at Barrack Obama Primary School.
Nyong’o, Oburu Oginga, Stephen Ondiek, Sammy Weya, Odhiambo Omamba and Siaya Mayor Orwenja Umidha Obama challenged Kenyans to shun tribalism.
"It does not matter if you are Kikuyu or Luo, but people should work together to build the nation," he said.
He promised to build a strong partnership between Kenya and the US. "Whenever I see a young boy, I think of my father and the distance he travelled to acquire education through the support of the community and I wish every other boy here will have a similar opportunity," said the senator.
"I love you guys and Uriti uru (goodbye),’’ was his parting shot.
The chairman of the Luo Council of Elders, Mr Riaga Ogalo presented Obama with a walking stick and a traditional stool.
He then excused himself to join the family members at a private function.
|
|
| | | 470 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 11:00
|
I'll be weeks sorting thru all this before I come to any conclusions but obviously the media left you guys hanging with a nominee with mountains of questions and questionable friends still to be explored. Enjoy. These are the kinds of things your nominee should have had thouroughly explored and answered long ago before he had the nomination locked up. I guess having the liberal media in your back pocket can be a two edged sword sometimes.
|
|
| | | 471 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 11:06
|
From the same link:Lang’ata MP Raila Odinga, Nyanza PC Mr Paul Olando, Kisumu Mayor Mrs Priscah Auma and Catholic Archbishop the Rev Zacheus Okoth received him.
Others were MPs Prof Anyang’ Nyong’o (Kisumu Rural), Mr Ken Nyagudi (Kisumu Town West), Prof Ayiecho Olweny (Muhoroni), and the Nyanza Provincial Police Officer Mrs Grace Kaindi and New Nyanza Provincial General Hospital medical superintendent Dr John Odondi. Did it occur to you to wonder how many of those people the Schulzkes cropped out of their photo?
|
|
| | | 472 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 11:06
|
before I come to any conclusions
Ha!
|
|
| | | 473 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 11:10
|
Here's what I suggest you do B, go to The Standard's home page and plug in dates for every day Obama was in Kenya. It's an exceptional feature that every newspaper in the world should offer on line.
I believe he arrived on 8/25/08 so maybe you want to start a few days prior to that and see for yourself what they reported about Obama and Odinga.
|
|
| | | 474 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 11:31
|
the picture of Obama on speaking on the stage obviously in support of Odinga seated with him on stage, other than that, you mean.
So, using Baldwin's criteria, we can also conclude that the famous picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in the 80s means that Rumsfeld(and, in the typical guilt by association tactic, Reagan) supported Saddam's genocide of Kurds and Shiites, Saddam's sons' rape rooms, as well as Saddam's payments to families of Palestianian suicide bombers.
|
|
| | | 475 | Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 12:30
|
obviously the media left you guys hanging with a nominee with mountains of questions and questionable friends still to be explored.
LOL! No, they didn't. Throwing up sh!t that people make up about Obama is not a place for exploration.
|
|
| | | 476 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 12:59
|
George Bush supporting Ray Nagin
|
|
| | | 477 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 17:38
|
MITH
There is more to learning than just finding arrows that point in the direction that you like and sticking them away in your quiver. I am not going to pretend that I completely understand Luo politics or Kenya in a couple hours. One thing I do know is that Muslims consider the area just outsiden their sphere of influence, the land where you tell 'righteous lies' to further Islam's advance and I wouldn't being doing the happy dance everytime one of them feeds you reassurances that you want to hear.
|
|
| | | 478 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 18:40
|
YThere is more to learning than just finding arrows that point in the direction that you like and sticking them away in your quiver.
You're out of your mind. There is no better way than that sentence to explain OMG!OMG!OMG!
You're the one presenting and espousing the unsubstantiated claims. Am I to believe it's just a coincidence that these arrows happen to point in the direction that YOU like? All I've done is take your unsubstantiated claims and weigh them against whatever sourced information I could find.
|
|
| | | 479 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 18:54
|
And for the record - I'me the one who sought out and found the most reliable account's of the goings on in Kenya - the State Dept website and the Kenyan news. I'm also the one who told you about their search by date feature and invited you to use it - even providing you with the dates that Obama was in Kenya.
Have you poked around there yet? Am I to believe that if you spend hours searching every place you can think to look an dcome up without a shred of evidence to support any significant connection between Obama and Odinga that you will report as much here? You know there's more to learning than blah blah blah Don't make me laugh.
|
|
| | | 480 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 21:22
|
I'm not dropping everything in my life to focus on this so I'll just advance on my own timetable thank you.
BTW Odinga says he's Obama's cousin. What do you have for proof that he isn't? Just the belief that any Luo polition is likely to lie about that?
|
|
| | | 481 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 23:02
|
1. Obama's real uncle denies Odinga is family.
2. We have these two men speaking with one another on exactly 3 occasions over 2 years, no more. Odinga did not make his announcement until just after the third time. The response from the Obama camp was that if it's true, Obama doesn't know anything about it. If that was a lie, it's odd that Obama would publicly meet twice with his cousing whom he is supposedly trying to hide a relationship with. In any case, whether the two men are first cousins or in any other way related, there is little evidence of anything more than minor acquaintance that Odinga plays up for political purposes.
And that little evidence is a photo from a speach he gave about improving life in Kenya by doing things like getting tested for AIDS that you insist is a campaign rally for Odinga, bro.
|
|
| | | 482 | Perm Dude
ID: 4455981
Sun, Jun 08, 2008, 03:04
|
Odinga is lying, Baldwin. We know it because both Obama and Obama's Kenyon family (who are in a position to know) both say so.
Regardless, as MITH points out, you don't demonstrate any working political relationship either. Certainly not one that advances Islam, which seems to be your point. This should not be a surprise, since Odinga and Obama are not only not related, but not Muslim.
|
|
| | | 483 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Sun, Jun 08, 2008, 07:49
|
you don't demonstrate any working political relationship - MITH
Except for appearing with him on stage in support. You both want to say that picture isn't evidence of political support and that being associated with Obama in Kenya is political gold so valuable any Luo there would lie about it.
|
|
| | | 484 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Sun, Jun 08, 2008, 08:21
|
You both want to say that picture isn't evidence of political support and that being associated with Obama in Kenya is political gold so valuable any Luo there would lie about it.
That's true on both counts.
We have a local newspaper account of that speaking event, pasted right into post 469, that makes no mention of any political support for Odinga. According to the article the topic was primarily about fighting malaria and HIV. Odinga's presence there, like the 9 other local community leaders who were there, was as the local member of parliament.
At Obama's next speaking event later that day he was quoted as saying, "I am here not as a grandson anymore but as a senator and a representative of the US government." and, "When I’m here I’m not on my own but accountable to the American Government. This visit is to strengthen partnership between the US and Kenyan government."
You think I can't find pictures of American politicians speaking in foreign countries with local leaders seated nearby on stage? This claim to know outright that the photo is a campaign rally is just one in a string of absurdities you (and the Schulzkes) have presented, as you claim not to have come to any conclusions.
|
|
| | |
| | | 486 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Sun, Jun 08, 2008, 09:03
|
Two days after Baldwin's photo was taken:US Senator Barack Obama has expressed concern over endemic corruption, saying it must be tackled if the country is to develop.
Obama, who gave a public lecture on governance at the University of Nairobi on Monday, said graft had reached a crisis level. He, however, added that the vice was prevalent worldwide and should be eradicated.
Kenyans yearning for change
He praised several personalities who had stood out in the anti-corruption cause.
They included Nobel Laureate Prof Wangari Maathai, Mr John Githongo, Ms Millie Odhiambo and Ms Betty Murungi.
He said the Narc Government had started off on the right note soon after assuming power, by cleaning up the Judiciary and instituting a fresh investigation into the Goldenberg scam.
But he expressed disappointment that some of those who had championed the fight against graft had changed tune after getting senior Government positions.
Obama lamented that politicians made promises to voters during campaigns only to renege on them on being elected.
He said: "Kenyans are now yearning for change and are frustrated over the leaders’ tolerance of corruption."
Wealth declaration
He proposed that public officers be paid competent salaries to avoid corruption temptations.
They should also account for their wealth annually, he said.
In the US, said Obama, public officials, including senators, were required to fill wealth declaration forms every year detailing their income, investments and the location of the investments.
"The American Press can write about all I have, including my businesses and the investment decisions I have made," he said.
Obama criticised tribal politics practiced by some Kenyan leaders and challenged the youth to take up leadership roles and change this culture.
"The arguments we see between the Luo, the Kikuyu, the Kamba, or the Maasai are irrelevant.
"If people were rich, maybe the arguments would make sense, but people are poor and need help," he said.
The Senator fielded questions from the audience before ending his talk. Interesting how there's no mention of Odinga in this account of Obama taking time out to praise certain Kenyan poitical leaders, don't you think?
Is it not also interesting that he explicitly downplays the tribal differences that you and the the Schulzkes say he has injected himself into?
|
|
| | | 487 | walk
ID: 4952035
Sun, Jun 08, 2008, 09:27
|
NYT: Frank Rich
He gets it...do you?
|
|
| | | 488 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Sun, Jun 08, 2008, 09:51
|
Photos of the speaking event in question at the Getty Images news picture archive:
The caption reads:
US senator of Kenyan descent Barack Obam...
Kisumu, KENYA: US senator of Kenyan descent Barack Obama addresses residents in Kisumu, 365 km west of the Nairobi following a HIV Aids test he did together with his wife Michelle at the Nyanza general hospital in Kisumu, 26 August 2006. Obama urged resident of the area to go and be tested for HIV and Aids so as to know their status. AFP PHOTO / SIMON MAINA (Photo credit should read SIMON MAINA/AFP/Getty Images)
Caption:
US Illinois Senator Barack Obama gives a...
Kisumu, KENYA: US Illinois Senator Barack Obama gives a speech after getting tested for HIV 26 August 2006, at the Nyanza general hospital in Kisumu 360km west of the capital. Thousands of people turned out to greet US Senator Barack Obama in the Kenyan city of Kisumu, some breaking through police barriers at a hospital where the politician took an HIV/AIDS test before heading to his grandmother's village. AFP PHOTO/SIMON MAINA (Photo credit should read SIMON MAINA/AFP/Getty Images)
Numerous new references to that event where at least 10 local leaders and officials were present. Still none of them describe the event as an Odinga rally.
Hmmm.
|
|
| | | 489 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Sun, Jun 08, 2008, 09:53
|
Oh in case you think I'm withholding the good stuff (you would never do that I'm sure...) by all means search for yourself.
I simply typed in: Obama Kenya
|
|
| | | 490 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Sun, Jun 08, 2008, 09:57
|
And of course note the placcard behind Obama on stage (a little embarrassed it didn't occur to me to take a closer look at that before). Obviously it indicates the event is about health care and treatment and not a plitical rally.
|
|
| | | 491 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Sun, Jun 08, 2008, 10:01
|
AP account of events in Kenya. Again no mention of Odinga.
This must have been the worst political rally in history if I can't find a single news mention of the candidate they were promoting, huh? This Obama guy must be the worst public speaker in history.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 494 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Sun, Jun 08, 2008, 10:45
|
The Economist reported it this way that week (complete article since they require subscription):KENYA swooned this week at the visit of Barack Obama, a Democrat senator from Illinois. It was a homecoming, of sorts; Mr Obama's father was born in a village in western Kenya. The reception was rapturous, with the country briefly united in its belief that “their boy” could become America's next president—and its first non-white one. For Mr Obama, the trip was a chance to improve his foreign-policy credentials. It was also a usefully public summer holiday, with a visit to his 83-year-old grandmother, Sally Hussein Obama, who fed her grandson porridge and chicken at her homestead.
Predictably, Kenyan politicians jostled to bathe in Mr Obama's light. The senator did his best to divide time between government and opposition. The embattled president, Mwai Kibaki, had looked forward to being seen at last with a squeaky-clean politician. He was said to be mortified when Mr Obama informed him that Chicago television crews accompanying him had been “shaken down” for hefty bribes at Nairobi airport. And Mr Obama was made into something of a mascot by Raila Odinga, a populist who hopes to succeed Mr Kibaki in next year's elections.
Mr Odinga is a Luo, like Mr Obama's father. That matters in Kenya, where the Luo are one of the larger tribes but feel politically hard done by. When Mr Obama negotiated his motorcade into Kibera, a mostly Luo slum in Nairobi, the crowds welcomed him as one of their own. Perhaps he could help them out of their stinking gutter? Not really, said Mr Obama. He was elected to serve Illinois.
Mr Obama did do a few good turns, however, urging Kenyans to take AIDS tests and championing press freedom. He spoke out against tribalism and corruption. Bringing the message of clean government from Chicago was a stretch, but Mr Obama was probably right that corruption remains the biggest obstacle to Kenya's development. A local newspaperman applauded the straight talk, but noted that if Mr Obama had been a Kenyan he might well have been murdered or exiled for saying the same things to the same crowds.
|
|
| | | 495 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Sun, Jun 08, 2008, 11:52
|
MITH,
I don't think you realize that those with ODS(Obama Derangement Syndrome)have created their own reality void of any sense of honesty.
For instance, OBS blogger Pamela Geller has been covering the Obama/Odinga connection for months. It's amazing the claims they relate as facts without one shred of supporting evidence. A few examples:
>Islamic governments have targeted Kenya as a key element in the spread of Islam in Horn of Africa and ultimately the world. The Kenyan Diaspora including Presidential candidate Sen. Barack Hussein Obama has also played a part
>That Obama suports Odinga unequivocally speaks volumes . What a dark glimpse into the soul of Barack Hussein.
>Obama's tacit support for the ruthless leader of the insurgent rebellion in Kenya
Now, sane people who use terms like supports Odinga unequivacally and tacit support would certainly be able to provide page after page of quotes from Obama to support such claims. Yet, there is not even one to be found, even though every word the Senator said was documented during this high profile trip.
What's really sad is that these people who basically condone lying to advance their hateful agenda believe that they are "real Americans" and that they can dictate what is anti-American.
In the end, they may be successful in determining the presedential race based on innuendo instead of issues. I saw a poll where one out of ten Americans believes Obama is a Muslim, so the smear tactics seem to be working. Maybe even more disconcerting is that so many Americans feel that being a Muslim, in itself, is reason for discrimination and hate.
Isn't it ironic that Baldwin buys into such an agenda, while fearlessly defending the FLDS on the grounds that you can't indict an entire culture based on the criminality of a portion of followers?
|
|
| | | 496 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Sun, Jun 08, 2008, 12:09
|
But he's a political missionary, here to educate us natives.
|
|
| | | 497 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Sun, Jun 08, 2008, 19:31
|
Relax MITH, I really have a hard time believing any of the top two presidential candidates has a sincere religious bone in their body. Other than the secret handshake and the apron, that is.
|
|
| | | 498 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Sun, Jun 08, 2008, 20:23
|
Relax MITH
Shouldn't be necessary but that's what it takes for you to see the huge forks sticking out of your OMG!OMG!OMG! and all the leaping claims that came with it.
Perhaps it was an homage to the Hillary2008 campaign?
|
|
| | | 499 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Sun, Jun 08, 2008, 20:47
|
Remember a guy who said 'A little leven ferments the whole loaf'?
Well just because Obama [and the Bush dynasty for that matter] doesn't have a sincere religious impulse doesn't mean they aren't heavily involved in contaminating the loaves.
|
|
| | | 500 | walk
ID: 4952035
Mon, Jun 09, 2008, 06:37
|
Why does a candidate need to be religious? Obama for atheists!
|
|
| | | 501 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Mon, Jun 09, 2008, 08:15
|
It seems likely enough to me that Obama joined TUCC because it helped his early political career. But it's also possible that it was a genuine attempt to connect with a part of his racial culture in America that he had limited access to in his upbringing or that it was Michelle, who he met 2 years before joining TUCC, who brought him to and/or kept him at TUCC.
The most likely answer is that there were multiple factors.
And I'm generally pretty cyical and believe that very little of what almost any pol says or does is guided much by his faith. But whatever the case, as with W, there's no way tp know whether or how sincere his or anyone else's faith is today (Boldwin's mindreading abilitys notwithstanding).
|
|
| | | 502 | J-Bar
ID: 22557823
Mon, Jun 09, 2008, 20:27
|
obama - "not the man that i knew"
why no coverage on this often used statement from a man who is running on his judgement and CHANGE message.
hmmmm
|
|
| | | 503 | Tree
ID: 3959918
Mon, Jun 09, 2008, 23:36
|
J-Bar - how many times has he used that statement? what makes it newsworthy?
|
|
| | | 504 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Mon, Jun 09, 2008, 23:56
|
J-Bar
I've been jokin about that non-stop.
|
|
| | | 505 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Tue, Jun 10, 2008, 00:07
|
And yet, not one of you said a word about Duncan Hunter's relationship with the imprisoned Brent Wilkes, much less McCain's with Charles Keating.
Not that there's anything wrong with hypocrisy as Jerry Seinfeld would say.
|
|
| | | 506 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Tue, Jun 10, 2008, 03:04
|
Honestly I don't even know who Hunter is. I also don't know that Keating and McCain are so inextricably tied together. I have pointed out that in general McCain is as likely to commit campaign fraud as clean it up. No hypocritical covering for McCain's problems here.
The image I want you to have of McCain is him skipping down Penn Ave. naked just to please some liberal MSM reporter because they asked him too. He is the MSM's lapdog.
|
|
| | | 507 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Tue, Jun 10, 2008, 08:47
|
Change He Should Believe In
Barack Obama for years accused President Bush of stubbornly refusing to acknowledge changing realities in Iraq. Today, however, Sen. Obama is the stubborn one. In his failure to recognize the substantial progress that has occurred in Iraq, Obama undercuts several of the most compelling themes of his campaign.
In May 2008, the number of American soldiers killed in Iraq was the lowest since the beginning of the war.Meanwhile, Sunni Arab countries like the United Arab Emirates are finally sending ambassadors to Baghdad; the Iraqi army has proven that it is capable of defeating Shia militias in battle; and oil output has risen to its highest level since early 2003. Additionally, in an important sign that Iraq’s political system is functioning, the country’s parliament recently passed a comprehensive law against oil smuggling that will help increase the Iraqi government’s revenues from the sale of oil.
Sen. Obama has billed himself as a truth-telling leader who is above partisan politics and who will do what is right even when politically inconvenient. That kind of leader would adapt his rhetoric to reflect the successes achieved in Iraq. He would become a responsible voice within his party by challenging his constituents to embrace progress in Iraq. Using his considerable influence to rein in the reflexive and poisonous antiwar rhetoric that has become the Democratic party’s standard rallying cry against Republicans, he would seek to alleviate the bitter divisions that plague our country.
Unfortunately, Sen. Obama has not been that kind of candidate. Instead, he has chosen the far easier path of exploiting the existing currents of public opinion for political gain. In his speeches, he downplays the gains achieved through the surge and dismisses as “spin” all evidence of progress, all the while repeating his call for a withdrawal of all U.S. combat troops within sixteen months of becoming president, no matter the conditions on the ground. By so doing, he is not being honest and he is not rising above partisan politics; indeed, he is failing to be a leader in any meaningful sense.
|
|
| | | 508 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Tue, Jun 10, 2008, 09:07
|
In May 2008, the number of American soldiers killed in Iraq was the lowest since the beginning of the war.
of course, April 2008 was the highest number of American soldiers killed in Iraq than any of the previous seven months, and ten days into June we're already at more than half of the number of deaths in May.
in fact, over the 5+ years this war has been going on, May 2008 was the *only* time we'd had less than 20 US deaths, and only the third time there were less than 30 US deaths.
this is NOT something to brag about. just because once in 63 months less than 20 soldiers died, does not mean what is going on is even remotely successful.
while it's entirely possible things are turning around, to draw that conclusion because of what is basically, so far, a statistical anomaly, is, well, stupid.
|
|
| | | 509 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Tue, Jun 10, 2008, 09:33
|
this is NOT something to brag about. This is true also because it isn't the metric we should be using when talking about why we are in Iraq.
IMO, we need to be looking at the series of benchmarks the administration began to produce regularly in 2004/5, but that I now can't find anywhere. I understand why Bush's opposition has grasped onto the casualty argument, but it is a sad failure. The objective is not the elimination of casualties today, but the successful extrication of the US in the long-run, leaving behind a capable Iraqi state that isn't opposed to our interests. The more we focus on the casualty count, the more license we give our leaders to obfuscate about what is truly important. Both sides of the aisle appear to be deep in this polemic at the cost of US lives and treasure.
|
|
| | | 510 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Tue, Jun 10, 2008, 10:52
|
The more we focus on the casualty count, the more license we give our leaders to obfuscate about what is truly important. Both sides of the aisle appear to be deep in this polemic at the cost of US lives and treasure.
For the record a check at the issues/iraq section of Obama's campaign website, under the heading: "The Problem", the number of American casualties is not listed.
|
|
| | | 511 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Tue, Jun 10, 2008, 10:53
|
he downplays the gains achieved through the surge
I've pointed this out before, but it still gets repeated by war apologists ad nauseum:
The gains over the past year in Iraq are not the result of the surge. These gains would have been accomplished with the same number of US troops pre-surge.
Much of this is outlined in Boxman's link #23 in this thread.
So, to accuse Obama of not being honest goes both ways. The recent successes in Iraq were mainly accomplished through an alliance with the Sunni "Awakening Groups", the cease-fire last August called for by Al-Sadr and generally more competence within Iraqi security forces.
However, the "Awakening Groups" are now the defacto security apparatus within the Sunni provinces, independent of Baghdad; the Kurdish Peshmerga is still operating independently of Baghdad(though there are thousands of Peshmerga within the national army); and the Badr militia is heavily infiltrated into the general ranks of the Shiite-dominated national army which isn't active in the Sunni and Kurdish provinces.
There are still three distinct sectarian divisions within Iraq, and until provincial elections are held which give true representation to the regional sects, especially recognizing the security and economic distinctions, claims that an important sign that Iraq’s political system is functioning, the country’s parliament recently passed a comprehensive law against oil smuggling is just window dressing that masks deeper, more fundamental issues. Making the claim that a Parliament which agrees that oil smuggling should be illegal is a byproduct of 30,000 additional foreign troops, then claiming to represent honesty, should insult the intelligence of all Americans.
|
|
| | | 512 | Perm Dude
ID: 2555108
Tue, Jun 10, 2008, 11:28
|
I have no problem with a body count. This is our cost and Americans need to know what the continuing cost is for them to continue to be in Iraq.
Provide context if you want. But don't hide from the cost.
|
|
| | | 513 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Tue, Jun 10, 2008, 12:50
|
MITH 510 -- I actually do agree that some of Obama's ideas deserve more debate. We simply aren't getting much info. anymore on what is going on. (remember the Afghan war briefings? And the first 30 days of the Iraq war?)
Specifically, this is intriguing: "if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda"
In general terms, how does he define what is and isn't Al Qaeda?
When he says targeted strikes, is he talking air strikes, or does he include the possibility of ground assaults? Follow-up: How will he convince the government in Iraq to give us access to their airspace and groundspace to conduct these attacks if we aren't providing other security (and assuming we continue to draw-down our financial infrastructure support)?
If you don't think through those questions (among others), then the decision to withdraw will be just as uncertain and undetermined as the decision to stay.
How do we get candidates to actually *talk* about their ideas rather than just paint the big swipes? Think back to the 1960s and some of the debates that were aired on Vietnam and contrast ... Not blaming Obama here for not filling in the picture ... I'm commenting instead on what we are demanding from candidates ... you just can't talk about these issues in 60 second soundbytes ... and by judging candidates on their 60 second soundbytes, we are getting second-best policies and perhaps also second-best candidates. Sorry, I meant 5 second sound-bytes.
PD -- they are indeed part of the cost-benefit calculation. But by themselves, they are close to sufficient to make an argument. We have two pretty weak indicators right now ... casualties and violence rates ... No wonder the American people are fed up.
|
|
| | | 514 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Tue, Jun 10, 2008, 13:08
|
Very precise post(#513), Madman.
Actually, I think it was Hillary who suggested that we pursue a permanent military facility in Iraqi Kurdistan, a facility that would be welcomed there basically from top to bottom.
In the South, we have facilities in Kuwait and Qatar.
Even if there is a withdrawl of US troops from Iraq sans Kurdistan, the Green Zone, featuring a US embassy built more to be a model of military intelligence than diplomatic mission, will provide a nerve center for tracking activity.
I haven't seen a nuts and bolts exit strategy from Obama that I could embrace at this point, but now that he has secured the nomination, I would hope that his advisory team would start working on specifics.
McCain, on the other hand, has had his nomination wrapped up for months and has yet to offer any solid strategy other than the importance of victory, which, IMO, can't be measured in military terms, something Madman spelled out in precise language.
|
|
| | | 515 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Tue, Jun 10, 2008, 13:16
|
You're demanding a whole lot of specifics of a candidate for someone who was willing to give Dubya a free pass on the necessity of even broad generalities for post-conquest planning before the Iraq war started.
I agree it would be nice if he were to fill out his day planner and let us all peruse his proposed schedule for every 15 minute time-slot for the next 4 years, but the reality is he probably doesn't yet know himself.
He's only been the nominee for a week, and there are hundreds of broad policy areas he has to be reasonably well-versed in. Deeming him an unworthy candidate because he hasn't specified the exact tax rate of someone making $34,252/yr or where he will precisely draw the line as to what might constitute low-level vs high-level Qaeda involvement in Iraq some time in the future when the experts can't even agree on what's going on right now, might be a bit much.
In some circumstances, he may simply not have enough intelligence to discern the answer, in others he may simply not have enough time in the day to formulate a response specific enough for wonks, and for others he may realize he will need to delegate and rely on those who have expertise in a particular area.
|
|
| | | 516 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Tue, Jun 10, 2008, 14:52
|
You're demanding a whole lot of specifics of a candidate for someone who was willing to give Dubya a free pass on the necessity of even broad generalities for post-conquest planning before the Iraq war started. Free pass? When did I ever give him a free pass? I believe I've argued that the post-conquest planning was greater than the hyperbole surrounding it ... and that given all the pre-conquest scenarios they did actually deal with a number of them. I've simply argued that the post-hoc fallacy is an easy trap to fall into.
Here, this isn't a post-hoc fallacy since he's yet to be President. For years now, he's argued we need to be as careful getting into Iraq as we've been getting out. He's interviewed Petraeus and had high-level Congressional briefings. Getting out of Iraq was the central point of distinction he used to gain traction. I don't see how I'm asking for a "ton of specifics" when I'm just questioning what his statements mean. In fact, the first question I asked is a variant of a question he asked Petreaus (sp?) twice.
For the record, I think he has a very good idea what he means with those statements, and some of them, I suspect, are rather workable definitions and answers. I'm deploring the state of our discourse, not criticizing him.
As to the tax rate issue, you are overcomplicating it. Will he fight to extend the Bush tax cuts on those earning less than $250k or are his tax proposals meant to be enacted on the old Clinton baseline instead? Very simple question, there's presumably a simple answer. and the distinction is absolutely huge, both in terms of the federal deficit, but also the impact on working-class families.
Without getting the answer directly, we have no idea what he means when he says he won't raise taxes on those earning $200k or less. That's why the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post are reporting -- as fact -- two contradictory perspectives on his tax plan.
If you want specific questions, I'd ask him whether he'd consider indexing the Social Security income tax exemption limit, or consider changing the NR age - 2 NAWI fixed point in the Social Security formula that adds an unacceptable degree of risk to the "promised" Social Security benefits.
I'm not asking specifics. I'm asking generalities, but just refusing to ask them in the traditional "you're with me or against me" partisan meme that dominates right now.
|
|
| | | 517 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Tue, Jun 10, 2008, 15:08
|
When did I ever give him a free pass?
I hate to dig this up, but it isn't about any post-hoc fallacy. This was before the war started.
See post 146:
biliruben 142 -- They haven't expressed any plan for Iraq after we conquer it. Never before in US history has this been a precondition to self-defense, and for good reason. World War 1, for example, was something I would still support in hind-sight despite the fact that the peace was illy conceived.
Free pass. It wasn't just you, it was the media and Congress, and it got us in the situation we are in now.
I don't understand your insistence on the tax issue. Can't he just let them expire, then create a separate tax-cut for the poor? There are hundreds of ways he could make the tax code more appropriately progressive. Extending the Bush tax cut might be the worst one.
|
|
| | | 518 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Tue, Jun 10, 2008, 16:15
|
BR -- second topic first ... I don't understand your insistence on the tax issue. Can't he just let them expire, then create a separate tax-cut for the poor? He *could* do that. Will he? That's the question. He's proposed a specific payroll tax relief for the poor. Is that meant to offset part of the increase in the taxes those families are going to face when the Bush tax cuts expire? Or is that meant as a tax cut relative to where they are today?
Why would extending the Bush tax cuts for lower income workers be a bad idea?
What's a better idea? I'm concerned about his funging of the payroll tax and general revenues, to be frank. I think it puts Social Security on an even riskier funding basis.
As to your links from 2002 ... I thought you were referring to arguments in 2004ish.
As for the pre-war argument, I stand by that post. Simplified just a bit, here's what I understood myself to say: Either war is necessary to eliminate a near-term serious threat or it is not. If there is such a dire threat, you do your best both during the war and after. I don't believe war is a cost-benefit decision. It's something forced upon you by circumstance. This is true whether there are rosy post-war scenarios or not. And it's definitely true even if you don't share those rosy scenarios with the public.
That logic still holds. Where I'd diverge from my 2002 self is that the intelligence -- widely shared and believed -- suggests that perhaps we weren't forced. I say perhaps because it's notable that despite multiple promptings, the anti-war crowd hasn't articulated a particularly positive vision for where the Middle East would be if we had *not* gone to war in Iraq. And this is despite years of time to work through an argument, and reams of intelligence from the Saddam regime. But just as we now know the threat from Saddam wasn't as immediate as we feared, we also know that the long-run intentions were also clear. Without the box, Saddam would have been trouble. And we also know now that the box was decaying rapidly.
|
|
| | | 519 | Perm Dude
ID: 2555108
Tue, Jun 10, 2008, 16:35
|
On taxes, I think that it boils down to: Obama believes he can do better than the Bush tax cuts.
Maybe he can. But I don't think we need to judge him right now based upon whether he accepts parts of a tax plan of Bush's which has caused disastrous budgetary fallout.
|
|
| | | 520 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Tue, Jun 10, 2008, 16:40
|
tax plan of Bush's which has caused disastrous budgetary fallout.
So run away spending had nothing to do with it then?
It is possible to have gov't with low taxes. It is I tell you; it is. Just don't blow the $$$ you get in the first place.
|
|
| | | 521 | Perm Dude
ID: 2555108
Tue, Jun 10, 2008, 16:51
|
So run away spending had nothing to do with it then?
I didn't say or imply this.
It is possible to have gov't with low taxes.
Sure. It is also possible to have taxes set too low, or with a poor prioritization. Bush's tax policies have skewed our priorities, resulting, in part, with budget disasters and a cleanup for years to come.
|
|
| | | 522 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Tue, Jun 10, 2008, 17:03
|
Bush's tax policies have skewed our priorities, resulting, in part, with budget disasters and a cleanup for years to come.
How so?
I don't agree.
The dividend and cap gains rates needed to be cut. More and more "regular" people are investing in the market and the old rates were punitive. Especially with the emerging extinction of the traditional employer pension, people's personal savings and investments are paramount to a sound retirement so I refuse to believe for a moment that those tax cuts were wrong.
With the other tax rates, Bush eliminated taxes for a lot of people. So long as any rich people get tax cuts, odds are they'll cut the $$$ because they make more.
|
|
| | | 523 | Perm Dude
ID: 2555108
Tue, Jun 10, 2008, 17:17
|
Bush cut (or eliminated) taxes for the wealthiest Americans. In a time of war there is no better emphasis of skewed priorites than asking the wealthy to pay less.
Say all you want about "regular" Americans getting the benefits, but more than half of the Bush tax cuts benefit the top 1% of taxpayers. As was intended.
JGTRRA was a capital gains tax cut (and dividends, I believe), which has been cited as a "success" but which, IMO, was coincidental rather than cauasal to any economic recovery at the time. Some aspects (marriage penalty reduction, child tax credit, etc) are obviously good, but the idea seems to be that the wealthy deserve a tax break because they are wealthy, and that others deserve the break in order to get wealthy.
Tax policy devoid of responsibility. A very liberal policy point, if I say so myself.
All this is whistling in the wind. The legislation will expire anyway, and since they were passed along strict party-line voting there is no chance at them being extended as it.
Obama wants to take the best ideas from the Bush tax policies and add them to his own. And he should get his chance.
|
|
| | | 524 | Madman
ID: 7538321
Tue, Jun 10, 2008, 18:49
|
Say all you want about "regular" Americans getting the benefits, but more than half of the Bush tax cuts benefit the top 1% of taxpayers. As was intended.
Some data might lend perspective here. CBO
From 2000 - 2005 (last year available) ...
The top 1% of earners had their effective tax rate drop 5.5% ... the bottom quintile had their tax rate drop 30%, the second-to-bottom quintile had their tax rate drop 24% ... (Table 1A)
As a percentage of the overall burden, the bottom quintile had it drop 27%, the second-to-bottom quintile had it drop 14.5%, the top 1% had it increase by 8.2%.
Obviously, in terms of dollars, the benefits are larger at the top. Estimates I've seen put it at around 33%-36% to the top 1%. But that's because the top 1% pay more in taxes. The Bush tax cuts were designed to simultaneously lower the tax burden for everyone while also reducing the burden in a progressive way. Remember also that the full cuts for the poorest of the poor went in immediately, with the cuts for the wealthier households being phased in. The cuts were progressive, they just weren't progressive enough for Democrats.
But I don't think we need to judge him right now based upon whether he accepts parts of a tax plan of Bush's which has caused disastrous budgetary fallout. I want to know if he is playing intellectual sleight of hand with us. Specifically, I want to know if he's counting on getting increased revenues by reversing the 2/3ish of the Bush tax cuts that went to the bottom 99%.
From how Dems seem to defend this concept (not just you guys), it seems like he'll have strong support to allow all the Bush tax cuts to expire, and then to give some back to poor folks. And if he sticks to the plans that he has given us specifics for, he'll give less back to poor folks than he'll take away from them with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. It's an interesting argument that the poor need to pay more in taxes. I'd like to hear more of his defense for it before buying off on it, however. I can see why all the old New Democrats in the DLC are so upset with him.
Bush isn't blameless in this. If the Republicans hadn't put a sunset provision in the tax-cuts, Obama wouldn't have been able to get away with this double-speak.
|
|
| | | 525 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Tue, Jun 10, 2008, 19:39
|
The Poor's contribution to the tax-base is so minimal that the only reason I could fathom this mattering is as a political gotcha.
Just don't tax the bottom quintile at all and tax the top quintile a small fraction of a fraction of a percent more, and it's taken care of. No sleight of hand necessary, from a budgetary standpoint, if all you're truly worried about is the tax revenue from the poor.
|
|
| | | 526 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Tue, Jun 10, 2008, 20:18
|
Sure. It is also possible to have taxes set too low - PD
OMG!OMG!OMG! Avoid George Felos!
|
|
| | | 527 | Madman
ID: 7538321
Tue, Jun 10, 2008, 21:20
|
Just don't tax the bottom quintile at all and tax the top quintile a small fraction of a fraction of a percent more, and it's taken care of.
Bush did better than that. He turned it more negative. The effective income tax rate for that quintile was -4.5% in 2000; in 2005 it was -6.5% (see CBO report in my previous post).
That was one of the trickiest things to workout in order to make all the income quintiles benefit from his tax cuts. What do you do when an income tax quintile doesn't pay any taxes at all? Answer: extend the child tax credit. Apparently Obama's going to allow that tax credit for the poorest of the poor to die, under the name of "fairness".
|
|
| | | 528 | Building 7
ID: 174591519
Tue, Jun 10, 2008, 22:10
|
Bush isn't blameless in this. If the Republicans hadn't put a sunset provision in the tax-cuts, Obama wouldn't have been able to get away with this double-speak.
I don't recall the sunset provision as being a Republican idea. If they put it in there, it was only because that's the only way some dems would vote for it. The Repubs have been trying to get the sunset provision eliminated for years.
|
|
| | | 529 | Madman
ID: 7538321
Tue, Jun 10, 2008, 23:10
|
B7 -- As I understand it, it was in there for two reasons. Firstly, they wanted to limit the size of the impact to the budget. This is why they took so long to phase in the tax cuts. Secondly, they argued that it would be good politics to have this debate again 8 years later. The first argument is a budget gimmick, and the second is a political gimmick.
But maybe an effective one. You guys remember Bill Foster, one of the three special-election Dems that portend a Democratic landslide in the fall? He's breaking ranks with his party and opposing the Democratic Budget. link. Why? Because they are going to raise taxes on those in the lowest tax bracket ... increasing it from a 10% marginal rate to a 15% one.
I really didn't believe PD and bili at first. But I'm now convinced. The Dems have really bought into their rhetoric on the Bush tax cuts. And as bili notes, its not like they are getting a ton of revenue by milking the poor. I guess every $ counts.
|
|
| | | 530 | Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Tue, Jun 10, 2008, 23:55
|
I don't think there is a shred of evidence that Obama will abandon the few good parts of the Bush tax cuts by letting that mess die the good death it deserves. Obama clearly believes he can do a better job of setting tax policy than Bush and given the mess the Bush policies have given us overall there is no reason to think he won't, in fact, do a better job despite some grumbling that Obama isn't as specific as some would-be critics like at this point.
|
|
| | | 531 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 09:15
|
From the WSJ.
The Audacity of Death
By DANIEL ALLOTT
June 5, 2008
According to Barack Obama, Gianna Jessen shouldn't exist.
Miss Jessen is an exquisite example of what antiabortion advocates call a "survivor." Well into her third trimester of pregnancy, Gianna's biological mother was injected with a saline solution intended to induce a chemical abortion at a Los Angeles County abortion center. Eighteen hours later, and precious minutes before the abortionist's arrival, Gianna emerged. Premature and with severe injuries that resulted in cerebral palsy. But alive.
Had the abortionist been present at her birth, Gianna would have been killed, perhaps by suffocation. As it was, a startled nurse called an ambulance, and Gianna was rushed to a nearby hospital, where, weighing just two pounds, she was placed in an incubator, then, months later, in foster care.
Gianna survived then, and thrives now, because, as she told me recently with a laugh, "I guess I don't die easy." Which is what the abortionist might have thought as he signed his victim's birth certificate. Gianna's medical records state that she was "born during saline abortion."
* * *
As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama twice opposed legislation to define as "persons" babies who survive late-term abortions. Babies like Gianna. Mr. Obama said in a speech on the Illinois Senate floor that he could not accept that babies wholly emerged from their mother's wombs are "persons," and thus deserving of equal protection under the Constitution's 14th Amendment.
A federal version on the same legislation passed the Senate unanimously and with the support of all but 15 members of the House. Gianna was present when President Bush signed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002.
When I asked Gianna to reflect on Mr. Obama's candidacy, she paused, then said, "I really hope the American people will have their eyes wide open and choose to be discerning. . . . He is extreme, extreme, extreme."
"Extreme" may not be the impression the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have bought Mr. Obama's autobiography have been left with. In "The Audacity of Hope," Mr. Obama's presidential manifesto, he calls abortion "undeniably difficult," "a very difficult issue," "never a good thing" and "a wrenching moral issue."
He laments his party's "litmus test" for "orthodoxy" on abortion and other issues, and even admits, "I do not presume to know the answer to that question." That question being the moral status of the fetus, who he nonetheless concedes has "moral weight."
Those statements are seriously made but, alas, cannot be taken at all seriously. Mr. Obama has compiled a 100% lifetime "pro-choice" voting record, including votes against any and all restrictions on late-term abortions and parental involvement in teenagers' abortions.
To Mr. Obama, abortion, or "reproductive justice," is "one of the most fundamental rights we possess." And he promises, "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," which would overturn hundreds of federal and state laws limiting abortion, including the federal ban on partial-birth abortion and bans on public funding of abortion.
Then there's Mr. Obama's aforementioned opposition to laws that protect babies born-alive during botched abortions. If partial-birth abortion is, as Democratic icon Daniel Patrick Moynihan labeled it, "too close to infanticide," then what is killing fully-birthed babies?
* * *
On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama seldom speaks about abortion and its related issues. But his few moments of candor are illuminative. When speaking extemporaneously, Mr. Obama will admit things like "I don't want [my daughters] punished with a baby." Or he'll say that voting for legislation allowing Terri Schiavo's family to take its case from state courts to federal courts in an effort to stop her euthanasia was his "biggest mistake" in the Senate. Biggest mistake?
Worst of all are Mr. Obama's accusations against antiabortion advocates. He recently compared his relationship with unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers, a member of a group responsible for bombing government buildings, to his friendship with stalwart pro-life physician and senator Tom Coburn.
In his campaign book, Mr. Obama accuses "most anti-abortion activists" of secretly desiring more partial-birth abortions "because the image the procedure evokes in the mind of the public has helped them win converts to their position."
All this explains why the National Abortion Rights Action League voted unanimously to endorse Mr. Obama over Hillary Clinton, as did abortion activist Frances Kissling, who called Mrs. Clinton "not radical enough on abortion."
It's surprising that 18- to 30-year-olds, the most pro-life demographic in a generation, are the same voting bloc from which Barack Obama, the most antilife presidential candidate ever, draws his most ardent supporters.
What's not surprising is that Gianna Jessen, who turned 31 last month, plans not to support Obama.
In "The Audacity of Hope," Mr. Obama denounces abortion absolutism on both ends of the ideological spectrum. That is audacious indeed considering Obama's record, which epitomizes the very radicalism and extremism he denounces.
Mr. Allott is senior writer at American Values, a Washington-area public policy organization.
|
|
| | | 532 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 09:52
|
I don't think there is a shred of evidence that Obama will abandon the few good parts of the Bush tax cuts by letting that mess die the good death it deserves.
I thought you argued that he was going to let the Bush tax cuts expire, and then establish his own new regime.
On his website, one of the linch-pins of his tax plan is to exempt all seniors who earn less than $50k. This includes some of the wealthiest people in our country. How is that better?
More to the point, will Obama fight off Congressional Democrats who want to raise taxes on those earning less than $100k, but who are in denial that this is what they are doing when they let the bulk of the Bush tax cuts expire?
|
|
| | | 533 | Perm Dude
ID: 43545118
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 10:10
|
On his website, one of the linch-pins of his tax plan is to exempt all seniors who earn less than $50k. This includes some of the wealthiest people in our country.
If you are parsing out "wealth" and "income" then I agree with you. But the non-income wealth (such as homes, etc) are often taxed locally, so no real change there.
I've pointed out above, I think, that the big question mark (that should probably be exploited by McCain) is whether old time Dems like Murtha will really get behind Obama, who threatens to take away some of their trough-producing.
|
|
| | | 534 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 10:33
|
PD -- yes, that's what I'm doing. The disconnect between wealth and income is large within the senior population. I'm flabbergasted that Obama would propose a blanket elimination of taxation on seniors earning up to $50k regardless of their asset accumulation, while at the same time proposing to raise taxes on workers earning $50k.
Obama picks Furman. I endorse that choice. Furman is quite the bright fellow, and about as divorced from the partisan-left-wing as he could probably pick. He's also sufficiently divorced from that partisan clap-trap that I think he could be quite effective.
Just as I'm happy about the selection, many Democrats, according to the article, are less satisfied.
|
|
| | | 535 | Perm Dude
ID: 43545118
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 10:43
|
Don't know much about Furman. If he's removed from the far left then I'm happy.
As for the wealth vs income argument, the federal government, for the most part, taxes income. I don't think that a "wealth test," particularly when many of the assets of the elderly are tied up in their primary home (and accompanying possessions) is even desireable, let alone workable.
|
|
| | | 536 | Boldwin
ID: 43561110
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 11:10
|
Here is another matter wise people would have resolved beyond all shadow of doubt before someone was nominated. Or is Hillary's last straw?
MITH's staged shock and outrage that anyone would dare ask doesn't really substitute for complete verification.
|
|
| | | 537 | biliruben
ID: 4911361723
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 11:30
|
John McCain was not born in the United States. Barack Obama was, no matter what rumors you choose to listen to from Hannity and Malkin.
|
|
| | | 538 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 11:32
|
LOL. Interesting but it doesn't look like it'll go anywhere. It would be a shame if such a technicality halted his inauguration.
I'll note that McCain has a similar 'natural born' issue. That I similarly hope does not become a talking point in the public discussion.
|
|
| | | 539 | biliruben
ID: 4911361723
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 11:32
|
Interestingly, the Hawaiian independence movement is pulling out all sorts of constitutional issues to say he's a citizen of the Kingdom of Hawaii.
Can we spend our time on useful and enlightening shiznet, Baldy?
|
|
| | | 540 | Boldwin
ID: 43561110
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 11:37
|
It's gonna be a factor and it didn't need to be one in the general election season. Tsk, tsk. Since it's gonna be a factor it's worth hashing out. There you go, actually thinking sneering is gonna work. Let me know how that works out with the undecided and the uneasy.
|
|
| | | 541 | Perm Dude
ID: 435511110
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 12:00
|
Yikes, what a messed up article. Typical smear tactic of passive voice beginning, citing, well, nobody. Just "bloggers." Then a quick transition into some "experticy" with some law citations which actually miss the mark. No matter--smears need only have the sheen of legitimacy in the law, nothing more than skin deep.
This issue isn't going to be a factor (since McCain has the same "problem") but what will be a factor is "OMG" type slams. Bring them on--sometimes you have to turn the rocks over to get the insects into the open.
|
|
| | | 542 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 13:01
|
It is in Barack's best tactical interest to not release his birth certificate. Get the opposition inflamed about something that won't swing moderate voters. I'll let the lawyers sort it out.
PD 535 -- As for the wealth vs income argument, the federal government, for the most part, taxes income. I don't think that a "wealth test," particularly when many of the assets of the elderly are tied up in their primary home (and accompanying possessions) is even desireable, let alone workable.
I'm not proposing a wealth criteria. I'm simply opposed to Obama's decision to give a income-tax exemption to a group of people who are relatively wealthy -- seniors -- and taxing a group of people who are less wealthy -- the working age stiffs. Pandering of the worst sort. I believe Yglesias has called it ugly, as well, although I can't find the link (I believe it was last fall when Obama came up with this flying pig).
|
|
| | | 543 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 13:12
|
I'm not proposing a wealth criteria. I'm simply opposed to Obama's decision to give a income-tax exemption to a group of people who are relatively wealthy -- seniors -- and taxing a group of people who are less wealthy -- the working age stiffs. Pandering of the worst sort.
Here, here!
|
|
| | | 544 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 13:58
|
No doubt. Old people suck.
Means test.
How does it work when they pull money out of retirement accounts? Is that considered income, or just capital gains? That would be a solution. Drop income taxes and jack capital gains taxes.
|
|
| | | 545 | Boldwin
ID: 43561110
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 14:22
|
This issue isn't going to be a factor (since McCain has the same "problem") - PD
Ah, but McCain has fully addressed 'his' eligibility question. Keep leaning 100% on the sneer defense, PD. That'll work with the swing voters. Suuure it will.
There actually are an undetirmined number of Republicans highly disenchanted with McCain and personally reachable by Obama's charm. I myself find the knuckle-bump quite charming! [Prolly a sure sign it's passe among the young trend setters...lol] Those are the people you need to convince with answers to deal-breaker objections to Obama's suitability and I don't think sneering evasions are gonna do the trick. I don't think these people will be unduly hard to convince but waving off the question dismissively...well that's a mistake.
|
|
| | | 546 | Perm Dude
ID: 435511110
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 14:34
|
Sneer? You've been hanging out in the right-wing blogosphere too long.
The citizenship question will be as much a factor as the gold standard. That is, for some rabid wingers it'll be extremely important, but none of those people will be voting for Obama (and many, like yourself, won't be voting at all).
Hard to say it'll be a "factor" when it'll have no change in voting habits.
There are some genuine policy disagreements between the two candidates (mostly, McCain pumping up Bush successes to ride his coattail while Obama emphasizing failures to bring about change). But this is not one of them, IMO.
|
|
| | | 547 | Perm Dude
ID: 435511110
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 14:39
|
FWIW, my reading of the "two parents as citizens" law is that it applies to children born outside the United States.
Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawai'i.
|
|
| | | 548 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 14:45
|
PD,
The claim is that Obama was actually born in Kenya, not the US. Actually it's more of a "what if" than a claim, since there is not one shred of evidence to support the notion.
|
|
| | | 549 | Perm Dude
ID: 435511110
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 14:47
|
Ugh. Didn't catch that--it is hard to keep the smears straight sometimes. And I suppose they claim he's a closet Muslim?
|
|
| | | 550 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 14:49
|
I find the Hawaiian independence folk's claim's much more compelling!
Some Native Hawaiians think Hawai'i-born Barack Obama can't be president of the United States because he was born in an independent sovereign nation: the Kingdom of Hawai'i.
A few independence advocates claim that Hawai'i legally remains a country today, making Obama and hundreds of thousands of others born in the Islands over the past 50 years not "natural-born" citizens or eligible to be president.
[...]
"Obama was born in the Hawaiian kingdom," said Leon Siu, a Native Hawaiian and musician who brought up the issue in a column he wrote on a news Web site. "Not only was the overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom illegal, it was admitted to be illegal by the United States."
Siu was referring to the "apology resolution" passed by Congress in 1993 acknowledging wrongdoing in the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy 100 years before and recognizing the inherent sovereignty of the indigenous Islanders over their land.
Who knew?!?!
|
|
| | | 551 | Boldwin
ID: 43561110
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 14:57
|
Actually is asking him to produce a birth certificate such an outrageous request? Is a requirement for being issued an auto license more strenuous than for becoming president?
|
|
| | | 552 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 15:01
|
Obama can't drive?!? Or vote either, I bet!
Now that's the real scandal. What's more anti-American than not being able to drive.
Not voting, on the other hand, is probably thought pretty patriotic, given how hard the GOP works to stop people from voting.
|
|
| | | 553 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 15:03
|
according to wiki:
In a response to the State of Hawai'i Appeal of the Arakaki Decision, the plaintiffs offered this information regarding the usage of the Apology Resolution whereas clauses:
Legislative statements in a preamble may help a court interpret the operative clauses of a particular statute by clarifying the legislative intent, but they do not legislate facts or confer rights. Singer, Sutherland on Statutory Construction, §20.03 (5th ed. 1993). The Apology Resolution has no legally operative provisions. Indeed, it expressly settles no claims. 107 Stat. 1510 §3.,b. The committee report says that the Resolution has no regulatory impact and does not change any law. S. Rep. 123-126. Its sponsor assured the Senate that it is only “a simple resolution of apology” and that it “has nothing to do” with “the status of Native Hawaiians.” 139 Congressional Record S14477, S14482 (October 27, 1993), SER 14. The Supreme Court in Rice demonstrated how to deal with the Apology Resolution: the Court cited it but decided the case based on the facts in the record.
In testimony before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, April 17, 2002, Professor of Law Mr. Michael Glennon makes clear the fact that whereas clauses in general can have "no binding legal effect":
Under traditional principles of statutory construction, these provisions have no binding legal effect. Only material that comes after the so-called “resolving clause”—“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled”—can have any operative effect. Material set out in a whereas clause is purely precatory. It may be relevant for the purpose of clarifying ambiguities in a statute’s legally operative terms, but in and of itself such a provision can confer no legal right or obligation.
Would seem to settle it for me. It wasn't a whole lot different from any of a myriad of non-binding resolutions. A gesture, devoid of practical impact outside of the gesture itself.
|
|
| | | 554 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 15:04
|
wiki link
sorry...forgot the link
|
|
| | | 555 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 15:09
|
Uh... thanks, Sarge.
And here I was making an appointment to get my passport photo for my trip to Kauai in January. ;)
|
|
| | | 556 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 15:22
|
werent for your benefit bili. I know you arent gullible enough to fall for that crappola. Twas for some of our 'other' posters enlightenment. ;)
|
|
| | | 557 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 19:46
|
Jim Johnson must not have been the Vice Presidential Search Committee Member that Obama once knew.
Jim Johnson Steps Down
"Jim Johnson's resignation raises serious questions about Barack Obama's judgment," writes McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds. "Selecting the vice presidential nominee is the most important decision a presidential candidate can make and one even Barack Obama has said will 'signal how I want to operate my presidency.' By entrusting this process to a man who has now been forced to step down because of questionable loans, the American people have reason to question the judgment of a candidate who has shown he will only make the right call when under pressure from the news media. America can't afford a president who flip-flops on key questions in the course of 24 hours. That's not change we can believe in."
|
|
| | | 558 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 19:53
|
What does "questionable loans" mean?
|
|
| | | 559 | biliruben
ID: 33258140
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 19:55
|
Nevermind. He got a good rate from Countrywide when chairing Fannie Mae.
|
|
| | | 560 | Perm Dude
ID: 435511110
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 20:49
|
X raises serious questions about Barack Obama's judgment...
This is the McCain gameplan, it appears. They will either win with it or look like Chicken Little. Given McCain's factual difficulties and his own trouble with people associated with him I guess they are trying the Rovian plan of attacking their enemy's strength despite their own weakness in that very area.
I suspect they will look like Chicken Little if they continue with rhetoric like "flip-flops on key questions" for very minor acts like this.
|
|
| | | 561 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 21:09
|
Obama just does nothing but s#it golden eggs for you doesn't he Perm Dude? You are beyond an apologist.
|
|
| | | 562 | Building 7
ID: 174591519
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 21:32
|
Dick Cheney was the head of Bush's Vice-Presidential search committee.
|
|
| | | 563 | Perm Dude
ID: 435511110
Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 21:49
|
My post is an apologist post, Box? In what wayu, exactly?
B7: Yeah, I've always pictured Cheney looking aroung and saying "Hmmmm. Me! I'm the man for the job!"
|
|
| | | 564 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 07:01
|
He uses that word an awful lot...
|
|
| | | 565 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 11:07
|
A cool comparison of the candidates' tax plans, such as they exist.
This is probably as good as can be done. Unfortunately, they aren't careful about which assumptions come from the campaigns and which come from their own guesses.
The most important thing as far as I'm concerned is Obama's perspectives on extending the Bush tax cut provisions for Americans earning under $250k. Their interpretation is that he *will* fight for an extension of those tax cuts, and that his publicly stated tax proposals are in *addition* to fighting for the aforementioned extension.
This is a solution I'd be pretty cool with. I'm just not sure I trust him to do it. It means he'd have to have a death-match fight with Congressional Democrats. It also means that he's got to find a trillion dollars (2009-2018) in revenue, in addition to closing our current fiscal gap, in addition to paying for any new proposals.
Given the debate in this thread, it's also important to note the box on page 12, where the Obama campaign is reported to assert that there *is no plan to raise taxes on anyone* to help Social Security. Again, I support that too. This promise seems more credible.
|
|
| | |
| | | 567 | walk
ID: 181472714
Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 12:20
|
NYT, Friedman: Obama
A very good view, from outside America...a big reason why I am a big supporter.
|
|
| | | 568 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Fri, Jun 13, 2008, 13:19
|
Re Baldwin's #536
From the linked WND article:Geraghty said the Obama campaign could "debunk" the rumors about his birth simply by releasing a copy of his birth certificate, but the campaign has so far chosen not to do that. Here you go.
|
|
| | |
| | | 570 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Jun 13, 2008, 13:35
|
roflmao priceless
|
|
| | | 571 | Madman
ID: 230542010
Fri, Jun 13, 2008, 15:00
|
[begin Hillary support] MITH 569 -- OMG. I didn't realize his name was Barack Hussein Obama II. On the ballot in AR -- I kid you not -- there was no Barack Hussein Obama II on the ballot, only Barack Obama-D. All of his Arkansas votes must therefore be invalid. This increases Hillary's popular vote total lead, and suggests she is the only remaining viable candidate for the Democratic nomination. [end Hillary support]
|
|
| | | 572 | Mith
ID: 18451815
Sun, Oct 21, 2012, 09:10
|
BUTT for posts 425 to about 500.
|
|
| | | 573 | Boldwin
ID: 579242119
Mon, Oct 22, 2012, 03:46
|
For the record, Baldwin has not shown a shred of evidence that Odinga leads "a new front on the world-wide campaign of global Islamic jihad" or "is committed to creating Muslim Sharia courts in every district in Kenya". - MITH@42?
His cousin has now given the upper hand to the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the sunni muslim world. Too late to stop it now, too late to listen to me, but there is all the evidence you ever could need to prove my point. Even I didn't realize back then that Obama's career from day one had been funded by a wahabi saudi prince.
|
|
| | | 574 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Mon, Oct 22, 2012, 05:13
|
You forgot the quotes. "Cousin" is better. See #434.
|
|
| | | 575 | Boldwin
ID: 579242119
Mon, Oct 22, 2012, 06:34
|
Like that makes a diff.
|
|
| | | 576 | Mith
ID: 18451815
Mon, Oct 22, 2012, 06:50
|
there is all the evidence you ever could need to prove my point.
As always, lurkers are welcome to peruse the provided material and come to whatever conclusions they will about exactly what the evidence does or doesn't prove.
|
|
| | | 577 | Tree
ID: 57842011
Mon, Oct 22, 2012, 10:05
|
Like that makes a diff.
and, once again, truth and honestly prove to not be important to you. no longer shocking, just sad.
|
|
|
|