<<And further, the more he and his surrogates keep the focus and smearing on VP candidate Palin, the more it diminishes him as a Pres candidate>>
Your concern has been duly noted and the Obama campaign wishes to thank you for it. (Translation: The Obama campaign is well aware of your concern over these attacks on your lighter-than-air VP candidate and realizes that this is a very, very weak spot on a very weak ticket. The attacks will probably intensify accordingly.)
<<Is a Community Organizer what we need to POTUS? NOPE>>
OK, how about a community organizer AND a magna cum laude grad of Harvard Law AND a Professor of Constitutional Law from the University of Chicago? (As opposed to a dummy who stood fifth from the bottom of an 800-man class in a military academy!!!) In other words, how about ten times the brain power of Mr. POW of 1965 and his side-kick Miss Almost Alaska combined?
<<And further, the more he and his surrogates keep the focus and smearing on VP candidate Palin, the more it diminishes him as a Pres candidate>>
Your concern has been duly noted and the Obama campaign wishes to thank you for it. (Translation: The Obama campaign is well aware of your concern over these attacks on your lighter-than-air VP candidate and realizes that this is a very, very weak spot on a very weak ticket. The attacks will probably intensify accordingly.)
For 40 years, HE WAS A PART OF THE PROBLEM.
<<The McCain-Feingold bill for example , ever hear of it?>>
Sure I heard of it, but considering all of the problems the average American is facing today, how much of a real difference did McCain-Feingold make to this guy's life? If THAT'S all McCain has to show for his three or four decades in the Senate, that's even more pathetic than if he did nothing.
You gotta think real hard, here was a dummy and a do-nothing Senator for three or four decades and now he's 72 and he wants to rock the Senate to its foundations, bring a tsunami of change to America? You gotta be living in a dreamworld, this stuff is just pure garbage. His boat sailed a long time ago. Giving him four years NOW is just plain stupid.
Obama IS youth, he IS change - - all this petty carping, sniping,Tony Rezko etc - - give me a break!! You think anyone is going to rise up as far and as fast as Obama did in Chicago associating with nobody but choir boys and Professors of Greek Philosophy? Obama had the vision and the courage to oppose Bush's war when virtually nobody else did. THAT is who you want, not a herd-follower like McCain, Hillary, Biden or the rest of that tired-out witless bunch, from both sides of the aisle.
<<Did I say that McCain-Feingold was his total product?
<<He isn't a one trick pony , or a do nothing Senator, he has a long record which you are as free to peruse as anyone .>>
I wouldn't characterize his record of Congressional achievements as "long," at best I'd say it's very modest and very little of it had any practical effect on the lives of average Americans. Considering that he's had about 40 decades to make his mark in the Congress, it was an exceedingly modest mark that he made.
Obama's had a very short run in the Senate. Junior Senators are assigned very modest and unglamorous work to do, far from the headlines and the public glory. I don't hold it against him that he did not shake the earth to its foundations to date from his position as a junior Senator. Few if any other Junior Senators of his length of service have ever done so.
Keeping in mind that Obama has been running an underdog's campaign, first for the nomination and now for the Presidency, it is not surprising to me that he was not able to involve himself more accurately in the legislative business of the U.S. Senate.
I think you're setting ridiculous benchmarks for a junior Senator in the midst of an audacious campaign and ignoring the salient points of this campaign - - McCain is an old, tired, washed-out guy with very modest accomplishments to show for three or four decades of Congressional service. To this very day the defining moments of his life are things that happened, or allegedly happened, 40 years ago on the other side of the earth. He's dumb, with a vicious temper.
Obama is youthful, optimistic, innovative (especially in his campaign) and a man of impeccable intellect and intellectual accomplishment. He's a skilled and persuasive speaker. I realize that to some extent, this forum tends to downgrade Harvard-educated lawyers and Professors of Law, but in most venues, they are valued for their wisdom, knowledge, savvy and ability to get things done. Here, for some reason, these qualities seem to take back seat to the ability to kill, skin and cube a moose.
I really think you ought to give both of these guys some serious consideration. I think you really underestimated Obama - - he is much better qualified than McCain to fill the office.
<<Did I say that McCain-Feingold was his total product?
<<He isn't a one trick pony , or a do nothing Senator, he has a long record which you are as free to peruse as anyone .>>
I wouldn't characterize his record of Congressional achievements as "long," at best I'd say it's very modest and very little of it had any practical effect on the lives of average Americans. Considering that he's had about 40 decades to make his mark in the Congress, it was an exceedingly modest mark that he made.
Obama's had a very short run in the Senate. Junior Senators are assigned very modest and unglamorous work to do, far from the headlines and the public glory. I don't hold it against him that he did not shake the earth to its foundations to date from his position as a junior Senator. Few if any other Junior Senators of his length of service have ever done so.
Keeping in mind that Obama has been running an underdog's campaign, first for the nomination and now for the Presidency, it is not surprising to me that he was not able to involve himself more accurately in the legislative business of the U.S. Senate.
I think you're setting ridiculous benchmarks for a junior Senator in the midst of an audacious campaign and ignoring the salient points of this campaign - - McCain is an old, tired, washed-out guy with very modest accomplishments to show for three or four decades of Congressional service. To this very day the defining moments of his life are things that happened, or allegedly happened, 40 years ago on the other side of the earth. He's dumb, with a vicious temper.
Obama is youthful, optimistic, innovative (especially in his campaign) and a man of impeccable intellect and intellectual accomplishment. He's a skilled and persuasive speaker. I realize that to some extent, this forum tends to downgrade Harvard-educated lawyers and Professors of Law, but in most venues, they are valued for their wisdom, knowledge, savvy and ability to get things done. Here, for some reason, these qualities seem to take back seat to the ability to kill, skin and cube a moose.
I really think you ought to give both of these guys some serious consideration. I think you really underestimated Obama - - he is much better qualified than McCain to fill the office.
As a State Legislator BHO frequently voted "present".
How is this up to even a low standard?
In what way am I setting the bar to high in that I want the elected to do the job they were elected to do. I was not comparing Obamas small Senate record with McCains long Senate record , I was compareing BHO's habit of avoiding contraversy by haveing no input to contraversy to McCains famous feistyness.
<<Another thing to think about his his anti war stand. He acts like it was such a brave act:
1. he wasn't even in the us senate at the time to vote on it
2. he said he was against it coming from a liberal district so big deal, like it took a lot of guts to take that stand.>>
Everybody couldn't be in the U.S. Senate at that particular moment in time. Whatever position he occupied was an elected position and his patriotism was put on the line. He stuck his neck out with that oppositional voice. "Soft on terrorism" is easy for ANY political opponent can say, even at the level of municipal government.
I think it took guts for any elected official to buck the President when he was beating the war drums.
And even leaving aside the issue of courage, it sure as hell speaks to his foresight.
"... at least aware of the possibility that his lack of what many would consider "patriotism" could cost him big-time further on down the road."
Is the surge gonna bring back the 4,000 dead hillbillies, restore the health of the 30,000 maimed and crippled hillbillies, bring back the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead and put back half a trillion bucks in the U.S. Treasury?
<<No it didn't. It was a choice, and it was the right choice. Iraq was also a choice, and given the intel at the time, was also the right choice. Simple as that>>
Yeah, you go with that, sirs.
And if you have any influence on the McCain-Palin campaign, tell them to go with it too.
<<It still might.
<<When Chamberlain took this stand , didn't it cost him later?>>
Your argument seems to be that if Chamberlain was accused of lacking patriotism for trying to avoid war with Hitler and the charge stuck later, the same thing could happen to Obama, that by not supporting the war the charges of lack of patriotism could stick later.
First of all, Chamberlain's patriotism was never put in question, as far as I know. He was charged with accepting the word of a liar in exchange for a very brief period of peace, and then having to face a much strengthened liar after he'd used the peace bought with his lies to strengthen himself. Patriotism was not the issue, being a sucker was.
Your analogy is kind of intriguing, because both situations depend on the lies of war-mongers and the credulity of those who are taken in by them, although in Chamberlain's case, the liar and the sucker are each heads of independent nations negotiating with one another; in Obama's case, the liar is the leader of the nation, the suckers are the elected representatives of the people of the nation, and Obama is the anti-Chamberlain, the guy who not only was not taken in by the war-monger's lies but actively stood out all too alone in the crowd as the one who refused to go along with them.
There is absolutely NO connection between Juniorbush's pre-emptive strike against unarmed Iraq and Chamberlain's agreements on the Sudentenland.
Hitler had an army, Saddam had a pitiful assortment of soldiers that were easily defeated in a few days. Hitler had modern weapons, Saddam had nothing, compared to the US. Great Britain was allied with France as well as neighboring Poland. The US is half a world away from Iraq. Hitler had aircraft that threatened both France and the UK. Saddam had absolutely no way to attack Americas in the US.
There was no reason to start the Iraq War and even less to start it with no plans as to how to end it. Seldom have deliberate ignorance, deception and stubbornness of a leader been in such a deadly combination as in Juniorbush, Cheney and Rumsfeld and his Neocon advisors.
<<Chamberlain was not questioned for his patriotism , but his wisdom .>>
Yes.
<<That is what it cost Chamberlain why should Obama in a very simular situation not have his wisdom questioned?>>
Because usually, as in Chamberlain's case, for example, you question the wisdom of the guy who got it wrong, not the wisdom of the guy who got it right.
<<That is what it cost Chamberlain why should Obama in a very simular situation not have his wisdom questioned?>>
Because usually, as in Chamberlain's case, for example, you question the wisdom of the guy who got it wrong, not the wisdom of the guy who got it right.
<<Good ,so Obama getting this wrong in exactly the same way as Chamberlain ,should have him cost the same loss of respect for his wisdom that Chamberlain lost.>>
Chamberlain took the word of the liar and made peace when he should have made war. [I'm using the popular version of the myth, which most people have in mind when they speak of Chamberlain, not necessarily the historically accurate version.] Obama rejected the word of the liar and refused to sanction war and advocated peace. One man (Chamberlain) was fooled by a war-mongering liar, the other (Obama) was not.
Obama got it right where Chamberlain got it wrong. That's why he's a candidate today - - had he swallowed Bush's lies like the rest of the Democrats did, he'd be nobody today.
<<And here, McCain was right about the surge, and Obama got it wrong. Yet, Obama's getting the pass.>>
Well, first of all it's much too early to say the surge has worked. The results are modest and tenuous. It will all come crashing down on the Americans' heads. Or at least, I certainly hope it will, but we'll have to wait and see.
However, even if McCain is right on the surge, it's virtually meaningless for a guy to be right on the small stuff and wrong on the big one. The big question was the wisdom of the war itself - - here Obama clearly showed the superior judgment, as most Americans now realize. Most Americans overwhelmingly recognize the war was a mistake. Even if America "wins," the cost was astronomical, way beyond any benefit of any kind the country could hope to receive.
Let me put it another way -- if you as a boss hired a manager who made a mistake that cost you three trillion dollars when another employee called him wrong from the beginning and opposed the entire project, correctly predicting the disaster that followed, and five years into dealing with the mistake, the manager proposes a way to save a million bucks out of the disaster, although teh other employee says it won't work, but it does - - what are you gonna do, keep the guy who cost you the three trillion dollars and fire the guy whose judgment would have spared you that loss, or hire the guy who could have saved you three trillion, and fire the guy who figured out how to save a million bucks after five years?
<<And here, McCain was right about the surge, and Obama got it wrong. Yet, Obama's getting the pass.>>
Well, first of all it's much too early to say the surge has worked.
However, even if McCain is right on the surge,
it's virtually meaningless for a guy to be right on the small stuff and wrong on the big one. The big question was the wisdom of the war itself
<<You are really wanting to hire the dealer who wanted to fold every hand. Folding is the right choice now and then , but folding every hand never wins.>>
Real bad analogy. We're not talking about folding EVERY hand and never were. We're talking about ONE hand. We're talking about not taking the ONE hand from a crooked dealer, when everyone else accepts it. And then the hand turns out to be a pack of lies (or, buying sirs' idiotic defence, a pack of "mistakes") then watching the house and the store, 3 trillion dollars' worth, go down the drain in consequence. And saying "I told you so" to all the idiots - - McCain, Clinton, Biden - - who bought into the hand and the dealer.
The American people should know by now what Obama's judgment was. Unlike you, they won't confuse it with "wanting to fold every hand." They know that was NOT Obama's judgment. They know he did not fall for Bush's lies, and had the rare courage to say he did not.
They also know that McCain did. They don't give a shit about the surge. The jury's still out on it, and even if it does succeed, it will never get back the tiniest fraction over what was already sacrificed in one enormous lapse of good judgment, the decision to launch the war. It won't gain them anything big and it won't restore any big losses.
You are trying to spin this into a favourable take on McCain's judgment, but there is no way. No way. It is the proverbial task of making a silk purse from a sow's ear.
Mikey doesn't give a shit what Obama says about it because he knows Obama's just saying stuff he thinks he has to say to get elected.
They say they did one thing but they did another. Obama never does that.
If you have proof to the contrary that goes beyond your usual "ROTFL/LOL" formula, I'd be interested to see it."
"...lies about where the money comes from. Bullshit stuff. Penny-ante stuff. "
So both of them lie about teh essentials, Obama only (if at all) about the non-essentials.
<<So she is lieing about where the money went or came from?>>
She's not lying about that - - everyone knows it came from the Fed and everyone knows it went to the City of Wassilla or the State of Alaska. She's lying about being the Great Earmark Fighter, which is the core of her political identity.
<<I wouldn't trust someone to not lie about important stuff if the truth can't be spoken about "non-essentials" - in other words, if he's willing to lie about stuff that doesn't matter, why would you trust on stuff that DOES matter.>>
The simple fact is everything about Obama's past is as he states it, and whether you trust him or not, he's backed up by others and he told the truth about who he is. The small stuff, if he lied at all, it's stuff like how many donors gave above or below this level or that level and I just don't give a shit. They're all gonna lie about their campaign finances. McCain is supported by lobbyists, lobbyists run his campaign, I don't expect him or his campaign to be truthful about where their money comes from and I don't give a shit because I already assumed the worst regardless of what they say.
So the money was simply pissed away on other stuff that might have been even more useless than the bridge.