Obama the Great

Bartholomew said:

I'm just the opposite. For once, I'd like a leader who didn't think he was always right. Then, when something started to go sour, he could change directions a bit easier.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying they all need to think that they are always right. But they need to have faith that they are the right person for the job. There's a difference. I do agree that it gets old watching each candidate think that everything they say is gospel, and then something changes and they have to backpeddle. You'd think they'd get tired of that too.

I'm just saying they each need confidence that they can and will handle the job as President of VP with all the qualities necessary and will lead the nation into better times.

rugcat said:

It's simply a shorthand way of reminding voters that McCain is a Republican and that his policies, both foreign and domestic, closely parallel that of his party -- just as Obama's parallel those of Democratic party.

Click to expand...

That's true. But it's hyperbolic, in the sense that it's not true for the entirety of McCain's time during the Bush admin.

McCain is trying desperately to distance himself from his own party and its policies-- thus his oft repeated mantra about being a "maverick." Obama can't let him get away with that -- he needs to counter McCain's assertations.

Click to expand...

Again, I don't like McCain. And I think the "Maverick" stuff is largely an act. But I don't think this is a fair characterization. He's a party leader. He's expected to push his party's agenda from the White House. But even then, he's not done it all the time.

rugcat said:

It's simply a shorthand way of reminding voters that McCain is a Republican and that his policies, both foreign and domestic, closely parallel that of his party -- just as Obama's parallel those of Democratic party.

Obama's campaign point is that Rebublican policies are what has got the country into the mess it's in. The belief that we are in bad shape is common to all sides of the political spectrum.

McCain is trying desperately to distance himself from his own party and its policies-- thus his oft repeated mantra about being a "maverick." Obama can't let him get away with that -- he needs to counter McCain's assertations.

You may disagree or not with Obama's portrayal of McCain, but it's not a meaningless talking point.

Click to expand...

Well, I somewhat disagree. I think it is not just shorthand for McCain=Republican. I think this is the same tactic Democrats so love to decry -- fearmongering. It is an attempt to rob your opponent of his own self. To demonize him by linking him to deeply unpopular president. Same as "Eight years of Bush/McCain policies brought us into this mess" (and forget the one dimentional, incorrect simplification of the claim).

According to the Mayan calendar, isn't the world supposed to end in 2012?

Click to expand...

Yeah, but it's the end of 2012, so we'll have time.

As this thread was supposed to be about political gaffes, I would say, unequivocally, the main reason why Bush is as unpopular as he is is because he cannot speak well. His mind is very sharp, but he lacks any oratory gifts. Hence, he has let the left run back and forth over his body for almost eight long years without fighting back.

Just take one single teenie tiny example: "Bush Lied!" He didn't. See?

Jimmyboy1 said:

As this thread was supposed to be about political gaffes, I would say, unequivocally, the main reason why Bush is as unpopular as he is is because he cannot speak well. His mind is very sharp, but he lacks any oratory gifts. Hence, he has let the left run back and forth over his body for almost eight long years without fighting back.

Just take one single teenie tiny example: "Bush Lied!" He didn't. See?

Click to expand...

I say he did. See?

Jimmyboy1 said:

Obama will slash military spending for domestic entitlement spending, doing two things in the process: elevate the welfare state and revitalize Armageddon.

Click to expand...

How is a gradual withdrawal of the troops from Iraq where we are spending $10 billion dollars every month slashing military spending?

If anything it's a much-needed bit of fiscal sanity for America while the Iraqis sit on $75 billion dollars they won't spend on their own damn country.

On the justices, the last two were brilliant choices. I believe McCain would continue that type of choice. There is simply no room in this country for any more judges who pee on the Constitution. NONE. Unaccountable, unelected, poopooheads.

Click to expand...

Oh, you mean right-wing activists like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas?

There is a need for justices who put the law and Constitution over their personal political affiliations, but Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas hardly qualify.

nighttimer said:

How is a gradual withdrawal of the troops from Iraq where we are spending $10 billion dollars every month slashing military spending?

If anything it's a much-needed bit of fiscal sanity for America while the Iraqis sit on $75 billion dollars they won't spend on their own damn country.

Click to expand...

I think Jimmy means something more along these lines (you can probably find a clip without the incerted rhetoric).
I wouldn't hold my breath on that cut in spending in Iraq. He is not going to withdraw any signifficant number of troops. And the one he does withdraw would go to Afghanistan.

As for fiscal responsibility -- the man said on a national debate that it is absolutely critical to increase budget to include better education to preschoolers. Don't make me laugh.

Not trying to make you laugh. And since you didn't reply to the point are you in favor of America continuing to pour dollars into Iraq while they squat on a budget surplus?

Jimmyboy1 said:

As this thread was supposed to be about political gaffes, I would say, unequivocally, the main reason why Bush is as unpopular as he is is because he cannot speak well. His mind is very sharp, but he lacks any oratory gifts.

Click to expand...

Bush never lost any points with me over his misstatements. Those are the sorts of things that happen when everything that you say is recorded. I'll *laugh* at them, but I'll laugh at just about anything.

The people I know who want Bush gone (including me) do so because of his policies. Specifically the shredding of our civil liberties, and the destruction of America's moral authority.

For me, at least, it's not a partisan thing. It is specifically about the people who are in power at this moment, who call themselves conservative, but aren't.

nighttimer said:

Not trying to make you laugh. And since you didn't reply to the point are you in favor of America continuing to pour dollars into Iraq while they squat on a budget surplus?

Click to expand...

You never asked that specific question. You asked a different one and I replied to it.
Now that you ask -- I think US should definitely cut its government spending (although as I posted on another thread, the debt/gdp ratio today is not as dire as some would like to claim, but nothing special as compared to historic levels). I aslo think that spending in Iraq vs. withdrawing and cutting that spending is a much harder question than many would like to pretend. I think that it can be very appealing to follow public opinion and make populistic moves. It can also be very dangerous down the line and bring higher costs in lives and money (example, when Israel left Lebanon in '00 it did so under pressure of public opinion etc. This in turn strengthened Hezbollah and eventually intensified the conflict in '06. The debate is still on what was better the slow erosion of our forces in Lebanon or the damages of the last war).
In any case, since i am not a US citizen I also admit that my views on this might be colored by my perceptions of what will impact my country more.

By the way, it's 69B$ not 75

nighttimer said:

I bow to no one in my enthusiasm for Barack Obama and I am very hopeful a majority of my fellow Americans (and electoral votes) agree with me next month.

But I cannot go along with you deathwizard that Obama is a great man.

He has the potential for greatness, but ultimately all potential means is you haven't done it yet.

Whether the next POTUS is Obama or John McCain, they are going to inherit one helluva mess from the guy who's been keeping the seat warm for the last eight years. The economy is on life support. We're mired in two wars in two parts of the world and not close to winning either one. We're hooked on foreign oil, a staggering amount of debt and more problems than I've got time to list.

There are no shortage of challenges already present that could make Obama a total failure as president.

Except for the fact that there isn't anything Americans can't accomplish when they decide they want to get it done and they have a president who is willing to ask for their help.

If Obama wins, let's come back in 2012 and have this conversation then. Right now, he's still a work-in-progress.

Click to expand...

You bring up some good points. I guess that the question is do you walk around as an average person, do something great, and then become great because of your acts? Or are you already great and then given the opportunity to prove it?

Greatness is proven through actions, small or large. Until then, everyone is just a person with potential.

dmytryp said:

Now that you ask -- I think US should definitely cut its government spending (although as I posted on another thread, the debt/gdp ratio today is not as dire as some would like to claim, but nothing special as compared to historic levels).

Click to expand...

I'm not a real fan of GDP as a comparative statistic. We've spent the last 20 years monetizing things that used to be 'free' (a lot of them as a consequence of women joining the work force like child care). Those sorts of things raise your GDP without adding any intrinsic value to your economy. Having said that, I'm not making a value judgement over what is 'better,' just saying that it makes comparing GDPs over time a whole lot more difficult than you would think at first glance.

Measures that I would think would be more likely to give you ways to compare seriousness of the debt would be things like National Debt / Total Tax Revenues (ie how long to pay off absent *any* new spending) National Debt / Industrial Output (ie compare it to just the value of actual products, not including any services). BTW, I have no idea what those sorts of comparisons would look like.

Robert Toy said:

Let me see if I understand this:

The US invaded Iraq and destroyed its infrastructure (forget people);

The US is spending $10 billion a month on its continued endeavors in Iraq:

Iraq now has $75 billion in surplus;

The ungrateful Iraqis should be paying for their own reconstruction, etc.

Put like that it makes sense, no?

Okay, got it.

Click to expand...

I agree with you completely. Even if we pulled out of Iraq tomorrow, the fact of starting a war means that we are morally obligated to a) take care of our veterans, and b) help rebuild the infrastructure we destroyed. Given how much those are going to cost to do right, it makes that $10B a month we're spending in Iraq even more dear.

Jimmyboy1 said:

Just take one single teenie tiny example: "Bush Lied!" He didn't. See?

Click to expand...

The Bush Lied line refers to WMDs. Did they find WMDs recently that I don't know about? If not, then yes, he lied. They found some yellow cake. Yellow cake =/= WMDs.

deathwizard said:

I guess that the question is do you walk around as an average person, do something great, and then become great because of your acts? Or are you already great and then given the opportunity to prove it?

Click to expand...

". . . but be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon 'em."

-- Wm Shakespeare, Twelfth Night