DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Kramer on September 09, 2008, 12:04:33 AM
-
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/obama-on-the-ne.html (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/obama-on-the-ne.html)
Folks I think Obama is coming unhinged -- he really seems to be losing it -- likely the pressure is too much for him to take. He's weak.
Obama on the Need for Habeas Corpus: Distinguishing Between 'Barack, the Bomb-Thrower' and 'Barack, the Guy Running for President'
September 08, 2008 7:30 PM
FARMINGTON HILLS, Mich. -- A fired-up Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., took on his opponents -- "these people," he said incredulously, in a familiar refrain -- for shamelessness and dishonesty.
"I have said repeatedly that there should be no contradiction between keeping America safe and secure and respecting our Constitution," Obama said. "During the Republican convention, you remember during the Republican convention, one of them, I don’t know if it was Rudy or Palin ... they said, ‘Well, ya know, Sen. Obama is less interested in protecting you from terrorists than ... reading them their rights.’"
(It was Palin, who said "Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America -- he's worried that someone won't read them their rights?")
"Now, let me say this," Obama continued, "first of all, you don’t even get to read them their rights until you catch them. So, I don’t know what, they should spend more time trying to catch Osama bin Laden and we can worry about the next steps later. Hah! I mean, seriously! These folks.
"Catch ‘em first!"
Obama said his position on this "has always been clear. It has always been clear. If you’ve got a terrorist, take ‘em out. Take ‘em out. Anybody who was involved in 9/11 –- take ‘em out."
But, the former constitutional law professor argued, "What I have also said is this: that when you suspend habeas corpus -- which has been a principle, dating before even our country, it’s the foundation of Anglo-American law -- which says, very simply, if the government grabs you, then you have the right to at least ask, 'Why was I grabbed?' and say, 'Maybe you’ve got the wrong person.'
"The reason you have that safeguard," he said, "is because we don't always have the right person. We don’t always catch the right person. We may think this is Mohammed the terrorist, it might be Mohammed the cab driver. You may think it’s Barack the bomb thrower, but it might be Barack the guy running for president.
"The reason that you have this principle is not to be soft on terrorism, it’s because that’s who we are," Obama said as the crowd rose to its feet, applauding. "That’s what we’re protecting. Don’t mock the Constitution! Don’t make fun of it! Don’t suggest that it’s un-American to abide by what the founding fathers set up! It’s worked pretty well for over 200 years!
"These people!" Obama said.
Obama also mocked the new TV ad put out by the McCain campaign claiming that Gov. Sarah Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere."
"I gotta admit these folks are shameless," Obama said, "because the record is indisputable," he said, describing how Palin had originally supported the project.
"I wouldn’t do that," Obama said. "I mean, I'm not perfect --"
"Yes, you are!" shouted a woman in the crowd.
"No, no, no, no," Obama said. "Talk to Michelle, she’ll tell you. But what I'm not going to do, I'm not going to describe in an ad that I did something that is opposite of what I did."
-- Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller
-
It hasn't gone unnoticed that Sarah has been brutally targeted by the press yet I haven't heard any crying, whining, sniveling or complaints coming fro her.
Am I missing something here?
-
Barack should check with the Alaska dem Party:
This is the cached page prior to their attempted scrubbing:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:szpJxaSZwiMJ:www.retireted.com/real-estate/gravina-bridge/ted-earmarked-funds-for-bridge-that-goes-nowhere/+ (http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:szpJxaSZwiMJ:www.retireted.com/real-estate/gravina-bridge/ted-earmarked-funds-for-bridge-that-goes-nowhere/+)
-
Obama's doing what anyone else would do if their position was falsely misrepresented and attacked. He points out what his position really is and the logic of it and slams the opposite position. All of which, from what was posted here, he seemed to do exceptionally well and articulately. Well done, Barack.
I bet if the accusations that McCain's torture was phony bullshit he himself made up, and McCain responded, however else McCain's response would be described, it wouldn't be described as "Boo hoo McCain is crying . . . "
I think it's a sign of desperation - - it's starting to sink in with you guys that there is no way this 72-year-old loser with his phony torture stories of 35 years ago and his decades as a Republican Senator with nothing to show for it is going to go down as a Republican sacrificial lamb along with the bimbo mom-from-hell at his side. Obama is hitting back at your lies and you can't take it. Awww . . . .
-
Obama's doing what anyone else would do if their position was falsely misrepresented and attacked.
He is lying back. That's the hypocrisy, which you seem to think is a fatal flaw.
-
<< OBAMA: Don’t mock the Constitution! Don’t make fun of it! Don’t suggest that it’s un-American to abide by what the founding fathers set up! It’s worked pretty well for over 200 years! >>
Then why, I wonder, does Mr. Obama want to change the most fundamental basis of it by altering the equal representation of each state in the Senate and proportionate representation of the people in the House?
-
Barack should check with the Alaska dem Party:
This is the cached page prior to their attempted scrubbing:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:szpJxaSZwiMJ:www.retireted.com/real-estate/gravina-bridge/ted-earmarked-funds-for-bridge-that-goes-nowhere/+ (http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:szpJxaSZwiMJ:www.retireted.com/real-estate/gravina-bridge/ted-earmarked-funds-for-bridge-that-goes-nowhere/+)
That makes Sarah look like a saint.
I'm sorry but I have to raise this question. I wonder if there is any history of mental illness in Obama's family. I really think he is getting serious close to a nervous breakdown. I have a feeling he is slowly going into meltdown mode. Maybe the white grandmother is a little crazy or something. The reason I ask is she seems to be holed up and out of contact with the world. You know the old saying about the crazy person in the attic or something like that. I'm serious about this; Obama is making some strange facial expressions these days. Wow what would the Dems do if in the middle of the debates the he just froze or went catatonic or something like that.
-
Obama's problems with his positions however is that they are 180degrees to what he began his campaign. Let's take a look with the latest 1st
- now no new tax hikes on anyone (in a struggling economy)
- drilling is now ok (selectively of course)
- considered joining the military
- NAFTA's ok
- Iran is now a threatening country, and should not have access to Nukes
- there should also be some pre-conditions, before meeting with Iran
- the Surge has worked
- oh yea, there's no fixed time to pull troops out....it really matters what his commanders say and the situation on the ground.
Now, where have I heard that before?
-
<<He is lying back. That's the hypocrisy, which you seem to think is a fatal flaw. >>
I didn't see that. Where in the article cited at the top of this thread, is he lying at all?
-
<<Obama's problems with his positions however is that they are 180degrees to what he began his campaign. Let's take a look with the latest 1st>>
Crying and whining (which this thread started out with) is one issue, flip flopping is another.
I myself raised the problem of flip-flops in other threads. I'm not happy with them but on a lesser-of-two-evils kind of theorizing, I'd say, first of all, McCain has flip-flopped even worse than Obama, and secondly, if the flip-flop is just something the guy's gotta say to get elected, then better for him to flipflop than to lose the election, because McCain is a fucking disaster waiting to happen. He's gotta be stopped at all costs including flip-flops.
When this campaign started out, I really believed that Obama was really gonna change the way the country is run. I didn't doubt that was his intention, but the only doubts I had were whether or not he'd be assassinated as were other politicians who had threatened the ruling class interests.
At this point, I am disillusioned with Obama as the one honest guy in the arena, but that loss of faith has been at least partially counter-balanced by considerations of pragmatism and the sure knowledge that McCain is the worst possible candidate for the job short of George W. Bush himself and his sidekick Cheney, and therefore he has to be beaten, ideally by Clean Pure Anti-War Obama, but if that ain't gonna happen, then by Hypocritical, Flip-floppin' Invade Pakistan Obama.
-
He said Sarah was lying about stopping the bridge to nowhere.
And it is hypocritical to fault her for rethinking her position on that when he rethought his position on fisa.
-
He said Sarah was lying about stopping the bridge to nowhere.
And it is hypocritical to fault her for rethinking her position on that when he rethought his position on fisa.
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/04/hey-obama-fight-the-smears/ (http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/04/hey-obama-fight-the-smears/)
How Bam buds are smearing Sarah
by Michelle Malkin
Special to the NYPost
Copyright 2008
WHEN you point a finger, the old say ing goes, three fingers point back at you. When it comes to accusing his opponents of spreading vicious rumors, Barack Obama needs to pull back his finger and follow the other three.
Told of accusations that members of his team facilitated the avalanche of smears against GOP veep nominee Sarah Palin, he scoffed: “I am offended by that statement; there is no evidence at all that any of this involved us.” Obama insisted: “We don’t go after people’s families, we don’t get them involved in the politics. It is not appropriate and it is not relevant. Our people were not involved in any way in this and they will not be.”
Hmm. Depends on the meaning of “our people.” The new issue of Us Weekly hits newsstands Friday - hitting millions of readers with a smirk-attack on Gov. Palin, shown with her youngest son, Trig, in a photo plainly chosen to make her look weird.
The cover line: “BABIES, LIES & SCANDAL,” along with these juicy bullet-items:
“* Under attack, admits daughter, 17, is pregnant
“* Investigated for firing of sister’s ex-husband
“* Mom of five: New embarrassing surprises”
The story reads like a partisan hit job because, well, it is. Pimping the “report” to journalists at the Republican National Convention was Mark Neschis - a former Democrat flack turned corporate-communications chief for US Weekly’s owner, Wenner Media.
Wenner’s chief is Jann Wenner, a big-time Obama donor. In March, his flagship Rolling Stone ran a cover story dubbing Obama “The New Hope in the accompanying editorial, Wenner oozed: “We need to recover the spiritual and moral direction that should describe our country and ourselves.” In the July issue, he fawned over The Messiah’s “dazzling smile” in a seven-page sitdown interview. Rolling Stone put Obama’s face on the cover again over the summer. In June, Us Weekly ran a gushing cover story on Michelle and Barack Obama headlined, “Why Barack Loves Her.”
Obama could begin Wenner’s “spiritual and moral” recovery by condemning the use of gossip rags to wage partisan war on the Palin family.
And the Dem nominee can make good on his vow to fire smear-mongers by cutting loose one of his own people.
On Tuesday, much of the media - spurred by Obama supporters and left-wing blogs - falsely spread claims that Palin had been a member of the Alaskan Independence Party - many of whose members espouse secession. No state records exist of Palin’s membership in the party - and she’s been a registered Republican for more than a quarter-century. The New York Times had to retreat from its story on Palin’s “radical” ties, but the damage was done.
And Team Obama’s rumor-spreading wasn’t done yet. The Associated Press points to “Obama advisers and surrogates” who linked Palin this week to “conservative former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan.”
Mark Bubriski - Obama’s Florida spokesman - was one of those linkers. He sent an e-mail to the Miami Herald claiming: “Palin was a supporter of Pat Buchanan, a right-winger or as many Jews call him: a Nazi sympathizer.”
Wrong again. Palin attended a Buchanan visit to Alaska that year, but backed Steve Forbes’ White House run.
Offended yet, Barack?
To date, Bubriski has offered no apology and suffered no consequences. Meanwhile, MoveOn (which has endorsed Obama) has mass e-mailed the lie to thousands of activists.
Incensed at what it saw as unfair attacks on his character and family, the Obama campaign bought the domain name fightthesmears.com and launched an all-out effort in June to combat baseless rumors. But the site has been rather sleepy since its splashy debut.
To effect some change (and undo the damage done by his friends), maybe Obama would be willing to turn Fight the Smears over to Palin?
-
I lifted from this thread exactly what it reported about Obama's comments on Palin and the Bridge:
<<Obama also mocked the new TV ad put out by the McCain campaign claiming that Gov. Sarah Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere."
<<"I gotta admit these folks are shameless," Obama said, "because the record is indisputable," he said, describing how Palin had originally supported the project.
<<"I wouldn’t do that," Obama said. "I mean, I'm not perfect --"
<<"Yes, you are!" shouted a woman in the crowd.
<<"No, no, no, no," Obama said. "Talk to Michelle, she’ll tell you. But what I'm not going to do, I'm not going to describe in an ad that I did something that is opposite of what I did.">>
Palin supported the Bridge to Nowhere, then reversed course when it became national news and an object of public ridicule. She misrepresented her position as having "stopped" the bridge without even mentioning that she originally suppported it, and quit only after adverse national publicity about it. That was misleading, trying to portray her as a fearless crusader when in fact she was participating in the boondoggle till it became a public embarrassment.
Obama quite properly excoriated her for - - not lying, according to the quote here, he never used that word - -for doing the opposite of what she claimed she did.
-
<<How Bam buds are smearing Sarah
<<by Michelle Malkin>>
Now THAT'S exactly what I mean. What crypto-fascist McCain supporter is going to caption this "Boo Hoo Now the Barracuda is crying about what's being said about her?"
It's only a "Boo Hoo" caption when the person complaining about distortion is Obama.
-
I lifted from this thread exactly what it reported about Obama's comments on Palin and the Bridge:
<<Obama also mocked the new TV ad put out by the McCain campaign claiming that Gov. Sarah Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere."
<<"I gotta admit these folks are shameless," Obama said, "because the record is indisputable," he said, describing how Palin had originally supported the project.
<<"I wouldn’t do that," Obama said. "I mean, I'm not perfect --"
<<"Yes, you are!" shouted a woman in the crowd.
<<"No, no, no, no," Obama said. "Talk to Michelle, she’ll tell you. But what I'm not going to do, I'm not going to describe in an ad that I did something that is opposite of what I did.">>
Palin supported the Bridge to Nowhere, then reversed course when it became national news and an object of public ridicule. She misrepresented her position as having "stopped" the bridge without even mentioning that she originally suppported it, and quit only after adverse national publicity about it. That was misleading, trying to portray her as a fearless crusader when in fact she was participating in the boondoggle till it became a public embarrassment.
Obama quite properly excoriated her for - - not lying, according to the quote here, he never used that word - -for doing the opposite of what she claimed she did.
Perhaps you should read the link i posted.
. However, Gov. Sarah Palin said the $398 million bridge was $329 million short of full funding, and only $36 million in federal funds were set aside for it.
Because then you would have seen this:
Paid for by the Alaska Democratic Party - Not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee
2602 Fairbanks Street | Anchorage, AK 99503-2428
Tel (907) 258-3050 | Fax (907) 258-1626 | adp@alaska.net | www.alaskademocrats.org (http://www.alaskademocrats.org)
His own party in Alaska says Palin killed the bridge.
-
I lifted from this thread exactly what it reported about Obama's comments on Palin and the Bridge:
<<Obama also mocked the new TV ad put out by the McCain campaign claiming that Gov. Sarah Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere."
<<"I gotta admit these folks are shameless," Obama said, "because the record is indisputable," he said, describing how Palin had originally supported the project.
<<"I wouldn’t do that," Obama said. "I mean, I'm not perfect --"
<<"Yes, you are!" shouted a woman in the crowd.
<<"No, no, no, no," Obama said. "Talk to Michelle, she’ll tell you. But what I'm not going to do, I'm not going to describe in an ad that I did something that is opposite of what I did.">>
Palin supported the Bridge to Nowhere, then reversed course when it became national news and an object of public ridicule. She misrepresented her position as having "stopped" the bridge without even mentioning that she originally suppported it, and quit only after adverse national publicity about it. That was misleading, trying to portray her as a fearless crusader when in fact she was participating in the boondoggle till it became a public embarrassment.
Obama quite properly excoriated her for - - not lying, according to the quote here, he never used that word - -for doing the opposite of what she claimed she did.
Perhaps you should read the link i posted.
. However, Gov. Sarah Palin said the $398 million bridge was $329 million short of full funding, and only $36 million in federal funds were set aside for it.
Because then you would have seen this:
Paid for by the Alaska Democratic Party - Not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee
2602 Fairbanks Street | Anchorage, AK 99503-2428
Tel (907) 258-3050 | Fax (907) 258-1626 | adp@alaska.net | www.alaskademocrats.org (http://www.alaskademocrats.org)
His own party in Alaska says Palin killed the bridge.
got him with a rope-a-dope
-
http://dwb.adn.com/news/alaska/story/9320482p-9235189c.html (http://dwb.adn.com/news/alaska/story/9320482p-9235189c.html)
-
I read the link you posted and nowhere is Palin's original support for the project even mentioned.
-
His own party in Alaska says Palin killed the bridge.
I heard that today too. Priceless
-
I read the link you posted and nowhere is Palin's original support for the project even mentioned.
So. Obama said she didn't kill the bridge. She did.
-
The other day i read where Obama said he wouldn't be bullied. So what does he do but go after the second seat on the ticket.
One would think he is running against Palin.
Barack needs to refocus.
-
<<The other day i read where Obama said he wouldn't be bullied. So what does he do but go after the second seat on the ticket.>>
Yep.
<<One would think he is running against Palin.>>
Yep.
<<Barack needs to refocus. >>
And yep.
Read today's Hufpo and the excerpt from it I posted under the thread "Palin's Real Function in this Election." You are 100% right.
-
Again, you're problem Tee, is that McCain's so called flip flops came before he was chosen as the GOP candidate. In otherwords, his changing of positions occured prior, and have had no real impact on him becoming the GOP nominee to current. If Obama were to be running then, on what he's running on now, Hillary would be the Democrat candidate. In otherwords, his pandering is so transparent, he's taking a nosedive in the polls
-
<<Again, you're problem Tee, is that McCain's so called flip flops came before he was chosen as the GOP candidate. In otherwords, his changing of positions occured prior, and have had no real impact on him becoming the GOP nominee to current. >>
But sir, may I suggest to you that a flip-flop is still a flip-flop whether it occurs before or after one is chosen as one's party's candidate. It might be considered naive in some circles if one were to believe that at the time of Senator McCain's latest flip-flops, that he was not positioning himself for a run at the Presidency.
<<If Obama were to be running then, on what he's running on now, Hillary would be the Democrat candidate.>>
Sadly true. But the fact remains, IMHO, that the people want change, and he is in a much better position than Hillary to promise believable change. So one should consider what type of candidate the Democrats need to field against any Republican - - an otherwordly saint, true to his highest principles and guaranteed to lose, or a street-smart guy from the streets of Chicago, who knows what he has to say to beat the Party's favourite sons and daughters to cinch the nomination, and to the general electorate to win the Presidential election.
<<In otherwords, his pandering is so transparent, he's taking a nosedive in the polls>>
IMHO, his pandering has pissed off a lot of his base (myself included, except I'm a non-voting part of it) but may have gathered in some of the independents and moderates that would otherwise have been lost to him had he stayed true to his original message. As election day draws nearer, is it not possible that some of the pissed-off base, remembering why they were attracted to Obama in the first place, will realize the sheer awfulness of what they were against when they first came to Obama and also realize that whatever problems they have with Obama's pandering will be as nothing compared to the problems that they will have with a McCain-Palin ticket in office, especially if or when McCain is called to his just rewards and The Barracuda takes over?
-
And may I suggest a "flip flop" performed when it largely means nothing, and has presious little effect on them politically, is merely a change in one's mind & position, once more factors have been taken into consideration, while a flip flop performed in the heat of a political campaign is transparent political double talk, in an effort to offend the least amount of people.
And if the polls are any indicator, the electorate, especially those likely to vote, can tell which flip flops are an authentic changing of one's mind vs trying to say anything in order to get elected
-
<<And may I suggest a "flip flop" performed when it largely means nothing, and has presious little effect on them politically, is merely a change in one's mind & position, once more factors have been taken into consideration . . . >>
That is just your own rather indulgent take on the situation, where more realistic people would have to consider it obvious that McCain was abandoning his convictions to advance himself within the party as the election got closer.
<< . . . while a flip flop performed in the heat of a political campaign is transparent political double talk, in an effort to offend the least amount of people. >>
That is all too obvious, but I don't think McCain can entirely escape the pandering charge either, regardless of when his flip-flops occurred. None of them are ancient history, they all IIRC occurred in the last couple of years.
<<And if the polls are any indicator, the electorate, especially those likely to vote, can tell which flip flops are an authentic changing of one's mind vs trying to say anything in order to get elected>>
The polls actually say nothing in respect of what effect the flip-flops have had on anyone.
-
Alrighty, you run with that, Tee ;D