bush deviated farther from the republican party on his first run for governor and president than obama has ever done from his party.
Romney did bring change for Massachussets, brought it out of the red, brought healthcare to the state.
THanx for proving my point. Are you that idiotic?
You whine about Obama's lack of substance, then you tell everyone you voted first for the lazy actor, then the robo-politician who radically tansformed himself from "liberal enough to get elected in Massachusetts" to "Limbaugh approved arch-conservative".
i voted for their platforms, and not because of some silly slogan. so your point is moot.
Both Romney and Thompson have had more experience than Obama btw.
funny how calling someone lazy while ignoring the 100 no votes no show record in illinoise as someone who is productive.
name one accomplishment of obama.
if not shut up.
Did you vote for Bush in 2000 based on his platform? You know, things like "We gotta cut government spending!" and "We are not in the business of nation building".
But you go right ahead and mark up your platform checklist.
Yes, and he failed to accomplish what he did. But 911 changed him. had 911 not happened, i think he could have balanced the budget better, and followed on what he promised. Bill Clinton didn't follow through on everything either, nor every other president before him.
But, it's rather wise to vote on platform issues rather than personality, would be a general principle.
Unless this is a Highschool Student president election.
anymore cut and paste witty moveon.org statements you have to make Pixel Pusher. Or are you gonna get to address on how Obama actually stands for change.
Pointless Iraq war banter in 3...2.....1......
Really? Did either of these guys serve in previous white house administrations? What extra "experience" does Thompson have besides being a Senator for 7 years? What super secret Federal Government training program did State Governor Romney undergo to make him more qualified to be President?
Voting "present" is not a "no show", it requires him to be "present" on the floor to vote "present"...hence the term, "present".
And this is a common practice, part of wheeling and dealing amongst state senators to craft legistlation.
Ah, the old "9/11 changed everything" dodge. Yep, Ted Stevens needed a bridge to nowhere because 9/11 changed everything. Indiana needed millions in Homeland Security money to protect flea markets and bowling alleys from al-Qaeda because 9/11 changed everything.
What's the point of voting for someone's platform if the candidate doesn't follow through on it? Personality is superficial, but character & judgement isn't.
Last edited by PixelPusher; 03-18-2008 at 09:09 PM.
I'd run into the same problem Manny had, since you've already decided that Obama is disingenuous in what he's said and what he's written. I take him at his word, you don't.
I think tone and nuance matters, you prefer a platform checklist.
What more is there to say?
it was derailed when you tied "a more perfect union" to a racial "clearing up" speech by the man that will, God help us, run this country in january.
ok let me get this straight. he says he can't distance himself from his pastor just like he can't distance himself to his white grandmother. ok.
20 years. man, all of that time and this guy's pastor has no influence on him? i don't buy it. o socialism. o "global warming" tax. God bless these next 4 years. No candidate does it for me. none.
Manny and Ignigokt are picture perfect examples of Obama supporters and voters without a top choice, respectively. I've talked in person with people who have basically said the same exact things that Ignignokt has said. The truth is that they voice a valid concern. There are many many moderate-to-right-leaning voters out there who want to see Obama make himself unique and stand apart in a way other than his bad ass speeches. They want him to tell them "Okay, this is how I am going to do it..." Ignigokt said himself that once Obama explains his proposed mechanisms for change, he'd vote for the guy. He and many others like him are maybe even secretly hoping that Obama will begin to flesh out some real mechanisms of change. But for the here and now, he is Hillary with an awesome personality.
I actually agree with gtown, about Obama only being able to make this speech because of who he is, yadda yadda, but I don't see that as a bad thing. If this is the guy it will take to further America down the road towards some ideal known as racial and social equality, then I'll gladly vote for him.
Also, Manny, I don't think you realize how the developments of the past month or so have effectively made Barack Obama more and more of a polarizing figure himself. I don't want to go into whether or not any of his staff are anti-semetic, because that's semantics, what matters is that there are a ton of jews in this country, they always vote in high numbers, and the second they sense a politician possibly criticizing our Israel policy, they act. And that's not even to get into the Hillary-fanatic-woman-voter bloc who will never vote for a man who has defeated their idol.
I think some people don't understand the type of change that Obama supporters are hoping to see. It's not necessarily a change in platform from Hillary. Let's face it, both Hillary and Obama have similar progressive agendas. The whole notion of "change" that Obama supporters are rallying around is a change to our approach on government.
Look at his campaign. Obama has a record-setting donor base and record-setting fundraising. He's raised money from over a million people donating an average of $120 each. It's a grassroots funded campaign. That's a change from recent elections. That's a change from the DNC-McAuliffe style of campaigning where you hit up big donors. Look at Obama's recent disclosure of earmarks. The whole point of releasing such information is to get more elected officials to do the same and this is a change to the way our politicians usually operate. Look at yesterday's speech. Obama took on an issue that most people are uncomfortable talking about (this country's latent racism). Now the issue of racism is at the forefront of our conversation and being discussed with a new-found candor.
On the day of the primary here in Texas, I was interviewed by the BBC. The reporter asked me why I support Obama. My response was that I supported him for his approach to politics. I said I was tired of hearing about how Republicans are evil from Democrats I spoke to and Democratic candidates. I said I have many friends and family that are Republicans and they want the same things I do out of life. I said I didn't want to hear about how we are going to "Fight the Republicans" from my candidate because that's not going to accomplish anything except for create more disharmony. I acknowledged that I'm not naive about the differences in the party, but I do think our country is not as polarized as people say it is.
My thing was that I finally had a candidate that spoke as candidly as politicians can nowadays and I appreciated that. I remember when Obama caught a lot of grief from dyed-in-the-wool liberals for daring to recognize that Ronald Reagan did more for his party than Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter did for theirs'. But that's how polarized and ridiculous this nation has become. You can't acknowledge the accomplishments of "the other side" without being raked over the coals by your own party.
I was impressed with those comments, because Obama actually said what he thought as opposed to repeating the party line. On the Daily Kos, people exploded in anger that he didn't mention any Democrats as "transformative figures" in that discussion, but again, why should he have to? That whole conversation reminded me of when Mike Brown said Lebron James was the most talented player he ever coached and the Spurs forum went ape with comments like "Why didn't he acknowledge Tim Duncan?". That's the level our political discourse has been at recently.
And don't get me wrong. I don't think he's perfect candidate or the Messiah, as the meme goes. I've said on this board a few times that I expect to be disappointed once he takes office. I sincerely hope he sticks to his word and implements changes such as a more open government and more citizen invovlement once he takes office. I do. But at the very least, if he can at least get some of his agenda through, a progressive agenda, that's more than Hillary would have been able to do and that's all the "change" I need right now.
Frankly, you're right Manny. Those passages from the speach you posted ARE things I've never heard a Democrat politician say. I have, however, heard Republican politicians say them...and they are usually called racist for it. Those aren't new ideas; they are truisms. Welfare hurt black (sic. poor) people? Absolutely! Just look at the illegitimacy rate since the "War on Poverty" began! I've posted the same things ON THIS FORUM!!! Vote for me!!
But, you know what? It IS refreshing to hear Obama SAY it...it's a good dialogue to have, and one that simply doesn't get started by a Converative saying it; the media/lberals/YOU won't listen.
THAT said; Barrack Obama is an United States Senator!!! He doesn't need to just SAY it...he is in the very unique position of DOING something about these issues he so "bravely" brought up in his SPEECH!!
Has he?
Has he sponsored legislation to reform welfare, to fix problems with it? Not that I've heard. What about any of the other "brave" issues he talked about in his speech? Any legislation from his office? Any talks on the floor of the Senate? Anything at all? Or will he only reveal the implementation of his brave words if we anoin....er....elect him President?
Actions >>>>>>> Words.
He is a United States Senator.
Will Manny vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination?
I'm curious.
Obama: Fire Imus
Obama First White House Contender to Call for Imus' Firing Over Racial Slur
By JAKE TAPPER
April 11, 2007—
In an interview with ABC News Wednesday afternoon, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., called for the firing of talk radio host Don Imus. Obama said he would never again appear on Imus' show, which is broadcast on CBS Radio and MSNBC television.
"I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus," Obama told ABC News, "but I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same at ude."
Obama said he appeared once on Imus' show two years ago, and "I have no intention of returning."
Racial Slur Stirs Trouble for Shock Jock
Last week, Imus referred to the Rutgers University women's basketball team, most of whom are African-American, as "nappy-headed hos." He has since apologized for his remarks, and CBS and MSNBC suspended his show for two weeks.
"He didn't just cross the line," Obama said. "He fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America. The notions that as young African-American women -- who I hope will be athletes -- that that somehow makes them less beautiful or less important. It was a degrading comment. It's one that I'm not interested in supporting."
Though every major presidential candidate has decried the racist remarks, Obama is the first one to say Imus should lose his job for them.
His proclamation was the latest in an ever-expanding list of bad news for Imus.
Sponsors, including American Express Co., General Motors Corp., Procter & Gamble Co., and Staples Inc. -- have announced they are pulling advertisements from the show for the indefinite future.
Tuesday, the basketball team held a press conference.
"I think that this has scarred me for life," said Matee Ajavon. "We grew up in a world where racism exists, and there's nothing we can do to change that."
"What we've been seeing around this country is this constant ratcheting up of a coarsening of the culture that all of have to think about," Obama said.
"Insults, humor that degrades women, humor that is based in racism and racial stereotypes isn't fun," the senator told ABC News.
"And the notion that somehow it's cute or amusing, or a useful diversion, I think, is something that all of us have to recognize is just not the case. We all have First Amendment rights. And I am a cons utional lawyer and strongly believe in free speech, but as a culture, we really have to do some soul-searching to think about what kind of toxic information are we feeding our kids," he concluded.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/s...3031317&page=1
I'm just curious, has he blasted the rap industry for using such words in their rap lyrics?
I wonder where he stands on this.
Oh my, now what is manny going to say. First Imus and
then his Grandmother. But he still has the crazy uncle
who he just cant give up. Oh, I forgot both of them,
Imus and his Grandmother are white and prejudice.
His crazy uncle is just.......well........you know........
had the black experience.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, will be the next news cycle...
You won't vote for Obama if he wins . . .
Dr Thomas Sowell take on Obama's speech.
Jewish World Review March 19, 2008 / 12 Adar II 5768
Obama's speech
By Thomas Sowell
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com
Did Senator Barack Obama's speech in Philadelphia convince people that he is still a viable candidate to be President of the United States, despite the adverse reactions to statements by his pastor, Jeremiah Wright?
The polls and the primaries will answer that question. The great unasked question for Senator Obama is the question that was asked about President Nixon during the Watergate scandal; What did he know and when did he know it?
Although Senator Obama would now have us believe that he is shocked, shocked, at what Jeremiah Wright said, that he was not in the church when pastor Wright said those things from the pulpit, this still leaves the question of why he disinvited Wright from the event at which he announced his candidacy for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination a year ago.
Either Barack Obama or his staff must have known then that Jeremiah Wright was not someone whom they wanted to expose to the media and to the media scrutiny to which that could lead.
Why not, if it is only now that Senator Obama is learning for the first time, to his surprise, what kinds of things Jeremiah Wright has been saying and doing?
No one had to be in church the day Wright made his inflammatory and obscene remarks to know about them.
The cable news journalists who are playing the tapes of those sermons were not there. The tapes were on sale in the church itself. Obama knew that because he had bought one or more of those tapes.
But even if there were no tapes, and even if Obama never heard from other members of the church what their pastor was saying, he spent 20 years in that church, not just as an ordinary member but also as someone who once donated $20,000 to the church.
There was no way that he didn't know about Jeremiah Wright's anti-American and racist diatribes from the pulpit.
Someone once said that a con man's job is not to convince skeptics but to enable people to continue to believe what they already want to believe.
Accordingly, Obama's Philadelphia speech — a theatrical masterpiece — will probably reassure most Democrats and some other Obama supporters. They will undoubtedly say that we should now "move on," even though many Democrats have still not yet moved on from George W. Bush's 2000 election victory.
Like the Soviet show trials during their 1930s purges, Obama's speech was not supposed to convince critics but to reassure supporters and fellow-travelers, in order to keep the "useful idiots" useful.
Best-selling author Shelby Steele's recent book on Barack Obama ("A Bound Man") has valuable insights into both the man and the cir stances facing many other blacks — especially those who were never part of the black ghetto culture but who feel a need to identify with it for either personal, political or financial reasons.
Like religious converts who become more Catholic than the Pope, such people often become blacker-than-thou. For whatever reason, Barack Obama chose a black extremist church decades ago — even though there was no shortage of very different churches, both black and white — in Chicago.
Some say that he was trying to earn credibility on the ghetto streets, to facilitate his work as a community activist or for his political career. We may never know why.
But now that Barack Obama is running for a presidential nomination, he is doing so on a radically different basis, as a post-racial candidate uniquely prepared to bring us all together.
Yet the past continues to follow him, despite his attempts to bury it and the mainstream media's attempts to ignore it or apologize for it.
Shelby Steele depicts Barack Obama as a man without real convictions, "an iconic figure who neglected to become himself."
Senator Obama has been at his best as an icon, able with his command of words to meet other people's psychic needs, including a need to dispel white guilt by supporting his candidacy.
But President of the United States, in a time of national danger, under a looming threat of nuclear terrorism? No.
That's because I stand behind my choice.
I can't be bashing Obama and then vote for him with a clear conscience.
I'm just wondering if Manny will do the same.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
