If Obama Weren't Black

Status
Not open for further replies.
What, exactly, does the president do?

Sometimes the best way to appreciate the functions of a particular position is to see what happens when it is done poorly.
- Ask 10 Liberals what they think of Reagan's performance as President.
- Ask 10 fiscal conservatives what they think of the job President Bush is doing.
- Ask 10 Republicans what they think of the job Carter did.

After compiling a list of all the screw-ups blamed on these 3 men, a person would have a good basis for writing the job description of the POTUS. And that person would probably be very motivated to vote.
 
Sometimes the best way to appreciate the functions of a particular position is to see what happens when it is done poorly.
- Ask 10 Liberals what they think of Reagan's performance as President.
- Ask 10 fiscal conservatives what they think of the job President Bush is doing.
- Ask 10 Republicans what they think of the job Carter did.

After compiling a list of all the screw-ups blamed on these 3 men, a person would have a good basis for writing the job description of the POTUS. And that person would probably be very motivated to vote.

Well, that's a good way to come up with what people think the president does.

But, take Iraq for instance. Those of us that don't want our troops there blame Bush for sending them. However, I recall the Senate telling him that it was ok for him to do it. Further, unless I'm mistaken, I would assume that Bush didn't sit up in bed one night and say "we need us a troop surge over there, that's what we need". I thought generals and senators were also wholly involved in the decision to escalate.

I'm not saying that the president's role isn't important, but how important is the experience any of the current contestants in this here beauty pageant have. McCain has a proven track record as senator, Hillary has white house experience (how much is unknown), Obama has a detailed plan and is a great orator.
 
But, take Iraq for instance. Those of us that don't want our troops there blame Bush for sending them. However, I recall the Senate telling him that it was ok for him to do it. Further, unless I'm mistaken, I would assume that Bush didn't sit up in bed one night and say "we need us a troop surge over there, that's what we need". I thought generals and senators were also wholly involved in the decision to escalate.

In addition to these excellent points, it appears that the surge has worked. Won't it be funny if history shows that Bush was an excellent president, if an unpopular ploitician? :)

Clayton Williams Energy Inc. - Feb 16, 2008, The door to Iraq's oil opens - CWEI - InvestorVillage

Ha
 
I it appears that the surge has worked

Ha

Even if that is true, what good is it to win a war that never should have been started? The fact that we may eventually pacify them does not justify our invasion.
 
Won't it be funny if history shows that Bush was an excellent president, if an unpopular ploitician? :)
Ha

Time will tell - it may just prove you right.
 
Marquette,
You are right. For example, President Bush did not actually fly the aircraft that took the troops to war.

Experience--I think it is important, maybe trumped only by character and the (unquantifiable) quality of being a good judge of other people's character.

McCain: Reportedly he did other stuff before he was a Senator.

Obama: Also did other stuff before he was a Senator, but mostly it was "attend school, get Driver's License." A detailed plan--I guess he's been hiding that light under a barrel.

Hillary: "White House experience?" I guess. She has "White House Experience" like I have "Brick House Experience"-- I've lived inside one.
 
Even if that is true, what good is it to win a war that never should have been started? The fact that we may eventually pacify them does not justify our invasion.

I imagine your prospective would change if you were a Kurd or a Shiite living in Iraq. Bad enough knowing that you faced 20 years of living under Saddam's, but knowing that your children and probably grandchildren would be ruled by his sadistic sons, that would drive me crazy.
 
Gee, and all this time I thought the war was about WMD's and the threat to America.
 
Here are the unstated rules:

If things are going well in Iraq (e.g casualties are way down, AQ is on the ropes, the legislature is passing important laws to help with economic growth and stability), then we must talk ONLY about how the US first got involved.

If things are going poorly in Iraq, then we need to concentrate on talking about the dreadful state of things there.

It's simple, really!

**************************
In 2002, Congress spelled out what the war was (to be) about :
(from Wikipedia: Rationale for the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
  • Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
  • Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
  • Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
  • Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
  • Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."
  • Iraq's "continuing to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
  • The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
  • The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
  • Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
#3 is germane to clifp's point. Whether AQ was in Iraq before the war or not, there's agreement that some are there now that deserve our attention.
 
Last edited:
I disagree. Nothing, and I mean nothing, can erase the stain of our illegitimate action in invading a country that never did anything to us. Good, bad or indifferent progress notwithstanding.
 
Marquette,
You are right. For example, President Bush did not actually fly the aircraft that took the troops to war.

Experience--I think it is important, maybe trumped only by character and the (unquantifiable) quality of being a good judge of other people's character.

McCain: Reportedly he did other stuff before he was a Senator.

Obama: Also did other stuff before he was a Senator, but mostly it was "attend school, get Driver's License." A detailed plan--I guess he's been hiding that light under a barrel.

Hillary: "White House experience?" I guess. She has "White House Experience" like I have "Brick House Experience"-- I've lived inside one.


Since McCain is like 500 years old, I'm guessing he did other stuff. How important is it? As Commander in Chief, I would think actual honest to goodness military experience is very helpful... at least, if we're planning to go to war some more. He's co-sponsored legislation with the other side of the aisle. Does that get him points for being a centrist? However, he also has a reputation as being abrasive and not easy to get along with... that might be an issue as "leader of the free world".

Obama has prior experience to being a US senator. He was a state senator and he's been involved in civil activism before that. The information on his website is about as as detailed as we're going to get from him at this point. It's not actionable, but it's more than he's been getting from the majority.

Since Hillary won't open the records of her involvement, we'll never truly know how much she did when Bill was in power. However, I distinctly remember listening to Rush go off on how she was too involved in running the country.

However, none of this has gotten me any clearer a picture on how much it really matters. As an example, suppose Obama wants to raise taxes. It's not like he'd just snap his fingers and taxes are higher. I suppose he could signal that he's not going to veto a tax hike. He could ask someone to propose a tax increase bill. It would take the other clowns we elected to actually follow through with it, though.

Both Obama and Hillary say they have a plan for universal health care. What makes their odds of getting it passed as president any better than as senators since all legislation starts with them? (My school house rocks memory is a bit fuzzy, but I think he was just a bill on capitol hill)
 
You've convinced me. Because he is not a dictator with unlimited power, who we choose as President is of no consequence. I urge you to follow through on your observation and waste none of your time in voting for a candidate. I hope others who have studied the issues to a similar depth will make the same decision to avoid wasting their time in exercising the franchise.
 
You've convinced me. Because he is not a dictator with unlimited power, who we choose as President is of no consequence. I urge you to follow through on your observation and waste none of your time in voting for a candidate. I hope others who have studied the issues to a similar depth will make the same decision to avoid wasting their time in exercising the franchise.


Ahh, so I ask how our system works and, rather than trying to help me out or at least point me to a useful resource, you try and come off as condescending as possible.

Are you just trying to be a jerk or do you not understand well enough to explain it to me :confused:

I did hit up the ol' Wikipedia and found some information:

Powers of the President of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

President of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Still, that's no more detailed than what I learned in school...
 
I'm not trying to be a jerk. I'm having a tough time understanding your point. The Constitution spells out the role of the President and the function of the Executive Branch (he runs that) as well as the Judicial and Legislative Branches. If you've read that document (or, alternatively, listened to Schoolhouse Rock) then you know what the POTUS does. I'm sure you understand that the President largely sets the agenda for the country, and if he is successful in convincing Congress to see things his way, that they will pass the legislation he/she wants. Or, he/she can appeal directly to the public, which can put pressure on Congress, and result in legislation. And, the POTUS makes judicial appointments, which affect our lives in countless ways. And, the President promulgates executive orders which can affect which laws get enforced and how, and can influence policies below the level impacted by laws. And he/she can appoint either effective or ineffective people to run huge government agencies and to represent the US as Ambassadors overseas. Some people think that is important. And, the President sometimes travels directly to foreign countries and meets with their leaders, sometimes these meetings result in important agreements. And, the President is the only person empowered to sign treaties on behalf of the United States--these treaties are agreements between the US and other nations/international bodies. Some people think this is important. That and more--it's in the 'ol Constitution.

Anyway, it's nothing personal. I'd urge anyone who doesn't believe the job of President is important or doesn't know what it entails to stay home on election day. It's really a civic duty.
 
I disagree. Nothing, and I mean nothing, can erase the stain of our illegitimate action in invading a country that never did anything to us. Good, bad or indifferent progress notwithstanding.
I agree that it was a bad idea to push the idea of WMDs as the reason for invading Iraq.

I agree that Rumsfeld coerced the crap out of his staff to reduce the number of soldiers to a politically (Rumsfeldically?) acceptable number. I guess that's what we get for letting Navy Reserve O-6 aviators be SecDefs.

I agree that Bush & Cheney started their term wanting to go into Iraq for all the wrong reasons and just begging for an excuse.

But I think the military was getting pretty darn tired of the embargo, the SOUTHERN WATCH duty, the lingering POW/MIA/KIA questions, and the Al Queda training camp found in Iraq by SF during the invasion. When Saddam started playing games with WMD that he didn't know he didn't have, I think the UN and the armed forces had been flouted enough. I'm not sure how many people have to die, and over how long a period, before imperialism is an acceptable response.

I bet the administration is hoping that no one stumbles across any WMDs in the next few months. And I bet that all Democrats are praying nightly for George Bush's continued good health...
 
Appears That Greenspan Himself Signed off on Iraq Invasion

I think geopolitics can be a little too complicated to decide on the basis of overarching purity of principles. Our principles might wear a little thin if we were freezing in the dark. Seems that Greenspan hedged his bets- maybe there are WMD in Iraq, maybe not. But there sure is oil there, and a lot of it.

Don't know why fighting wars over resources seems so shocking. It has been going on for millennia. I am not sure why fighting a war for oil, the blood of our industrial society should be thought a worse reason than fighting a war to free oppressed people. There will never be an end to oppressed people, whereas we might be able to use another 8-10 mbpd to tide us over into a new energy economy.

Even on the aiplane they remind the parent to secure her oxygen mask before putting on baby's.

I am personally conflicted about it, but I don't think I really have enough information to make a clear decision.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287_pf.html

Ha
 
Gee, and all this time I thought the war was about WMD's and the threat to America.


It was. And I am disturbed about it. Unfortunately, this is the result of an ultra-conservative (GWB). It does not translate to all Republicans.

Unfortunately, we are in that mess and need to see it through. We need to have Iraq stable before we exit. I do not like it myself. But that is where we are right now.

Likewise, I fear the other polar political end which is (too liberal) Obama.

A vote from a Democrat for Obama results in an independent vote for McCain.

Obama is the best thing that has happened to the Republican party this election cycle. The Republican campaign planners are rubbing their hands together over their good fortune. They know that McCain (any republican) will have a much easier time defeating Obama. This is a fact... they are gleeful about the devision of the Dem party... Watch any Republican oriented news (read loud mouth) show.
 
Gee, and all this time I thought the war was about WMD's and the threat to America.

In virtually every major speech given by a President or senior official prior to the invasion, three primary reasons were given for invading Iraq.

Sadddam had WMDs or WMDs programs and in world with global terrorist it was too dangerous to let this continue.
Saddam had a 25 year history of invading and threatening his neighbors and the US had a vital interest in region (i.e Oil)
Saddam the worlds worst dictator and his people were suffering greatly.

Many of the other points that Samclem stated were also used at various speeches

WMDs were the primary reason but not the only reason. That was clear to anybody who was listening back in 2003 or cares to review the historically documents. Gumby you are to smart to fall for the Bush Lied people died bumper sticker version of events...
 
Obama is the best thing that has happened to the Republican party this election cycle. The Republican campaign planners are rubbing their hands together over their good fortune. They know that McCain (any republican) will have a much easier time defeating Obama. This is a fact... they are gleeful about the devision of the Dem party... Watch any Republican oriented news (read loud mouth) show.


Not me, as avid McCain supporter/contributor since 2000, I absolutely don't want run against Obama. Beating Hillary is very doable since the Republican base hates her, lots of men don't like her, and her experience is pitful compared to McCain's. McCain is more principaled, honest, and is an equal to her in campaigning.
Against Obama, McCain has more experience not all of which is an advantage and is more of a known quantity. Other than courage, Obama wins all of the intangibles against McCain.

As an American I'm not upset Obama is likely to win the primary.

I think of Obama as emerging markets funds lots of upside, but very risky. McCain is like Bershire,a steady performer, but probably won't be spectactular, but the guy I want in the White House if bad stuff happens internationally.
Hillary is a CDO, not much upside but really ugly once you dig deeper
 
Not me, ...


I was referring to the RNC (and political pundits) not republicans voters.

Hillary (Billery) is more of a threat... at least, that seems to be the prevailing line of thought with the political wonks.

They are tickled to death with the division in the democratic party and the development of another controversial candidate. In other words, they have an issue they can push to overshadow criticism about the war in Iraq (and possibly the pending recession). Ultra-Left Liberal/Socialist agenda of Obama compared to moderate (more right-center) McCain.

Plus the fact that Obama represents an unknown. That is enough to pause a large number of people.

Put it like this. In the back of many people's mind is the concern that Obama might be a closet Sharpton or Jackson. That is the primary concern shared by many... including many Democrats. It is the main reason I am not very likely to vote for him if he is in the general election. That is enough to drive many to the alternative (McCain)... why take the chance? Why roll the dice?

I am not going to let my anger about GWB override my common sense. And Obama is an unknown quantity/quality!

Of course, if Obama had some track record that was in the daylight... I might consider voting for him. It is not about his race, it is about his politics and the impact to my wallet.
 
Last edited:
Even if that is true, what good is it to win a war that never should have been started? The fact that we may eventually pacify them does not justify our invasion.

Now I'm not a "Bushie" but - before one goes around dissing the initial justification to take down the Sadamm regime, they need to ask themselves a few questions:

1. Did Sadamm have chemical weapons? (which are, in fact, WMD's)

2. Did Sadamm show a willingness to use WMD's? (ask a Kurd)

3. Was there some intelligence (however fuzzy) he was embarking upon a nuclear weapons program?

4. Did Sadamm consistently (for years) obstruct the mission of the U.N. inspectors who were supposed to verify he was not doing all this per the terms of ending the first war with Iraq?

5. Did Sadamm continually (for years) test & violate the no-fly zone per the terms of the UN agreement?

6. Was Sadamm a continuing threat to disrupting oil-supplies coming out of the Persian golf? (a vital interest of the U.S.)


(personally, I was all-for going over there and cleaning his clock in the first place - but the day they dragged him out of his spider-hole was the day we should have started packing our bags & left a note behind that we would do it again if they allowed another madman like Sadamm to run their country - instead of hanging around rebuilding Iraq with US tax dollars & trying to instill a western style democracy)
 
Since McCain is like 500 years old, I'm guessing he did other stuff. How important is it? As Commander in Chief, I would think actual honest to goodness military experience is very helpful... at least, if we're planning to go to war some more.

It would be a mistake for the President and those around him to guide the military in how to fight the war. Yes, s/he would set the limits on how to fight it. It was a mistake in Vietnam for MacNamara and Johnson.

A good President has knowlegeable people around h/h who provide good ideas and management. The President gives guideance - like Reagan.

Jimmy Carter got into the details of running the government and nothing got done.
 
I'm not trying to be a jerk. I'm having a tough time understanding your point. The Constitution spells out the role of the President and the function of the Executive Branch (he runs that) as well as the Judicial and Legislative Branches. If you've read that document (or, alternatively, listened to Schoolhouse Rock) then you know what the POTUS does. I'm sure you understand that the President largely sets the agenda for the country, and if he is successful in convincing Congress to see things his way, that they will pass the legislation he/she wants. Or, he/she can appeal directly to the public, which can put pressure on Congress, and result in legislation. And, the POTUS makes judicial appointments, which affect our lives in countless ways. And, the President promulgates executive orders which can affect which laws get enforced and how, and can influence policies below the level impacted by laws. And he/she can appoint either effective or ineffective people to run huge government agencies and to represent the US as Ambassadors overseas. Some people think that is important. And, the President sometimes travels directly to foreign countries and meets with their leaders, sometimes these meetings result in important agreements. And, the President is the only person empowered to sign treaties on behalf of the United States--these treaties are agreements between the US and other nations/international bodies. Some people think this is important. That and more--it's in the 'ol Constitution.

Anyway, it's nothing personal. I'd urge anyone who doesn't believe the job of President is important or doesn't know what it entails to stay home on election day. It's really a civic duty.


I don't believe I ever said I had a point or tried to make a point. I'm pretty sure all of my posts centered around asking questions, specifically about what makes each candidate qualified for the job. I'm asking questions so that I can make a better informed opinion and you tell me that I'm stupid for having to ask questions.

So, in light of your above statement, what applicable skills does each candidate possess that the others don't that would make them better suited for the job?

Does more senate experience make one better able to talk Congress into passing legislation? What if that experience comes with a reputation for ticking off most everyone in the senate?

If one of the president's main functions is to be our head of state and meet with foreign head's of state, then I would think being an effectual orator and an engaging and charming individual. What if that ability comes with no experience?

I'm perfectly aware of what the president can do. I'm still not aware, after having asked multiple times, how experience as a senator or lack thereof matters.
 
In virtually every major speech given by a President or senior official prior to the invasion, three primary reasons were given for invading Iraq.

Sadddam had WMDs or WMDs programs and in world with global terrorist it was too dangerous to let this continue.
Saddam had a 25 year history of invading and threatening his neighbors and the US had a vital interest in region (i.e Oil)
Saddam the worlds worst dictator and his people were suffering greatly.

Many of the other points that Samclem stated were also used at various speeches

WMDs were the primary reason but not the only reason. That was clear to anybody who was listening back in 2003 or cares to review the historically documents. Gumby you are to smart to fall for the Bush Lied people died bumper sticker version of events...

I will assume the truth of each of these statements, and still it is unjustifiable.

Have you considered that we have more WMD's than anyone else? And that we have shown a willingness to use them? (ask the Japanese) That we have a history of invading our neighbors (ask the Mexicans about that) and other places around the globe? That there are many who believe the current government is illegitimate and undemocratic and that we are turning into a police state? That we have important natural resources (e.g coal and corn)? Maybe the Chinese should invade to set us right again.
 
Last edited:
That there are many who believe the current government is illegitimate and undemocratic....
Of course, if Obama wins the regular delegate count and the popular vote and Hillary takes the superdelegates, history will repeat itself, at least if she went on to win the general election.

And the irony is that Hillary railed against the Electoral College in 2000 as "undemocratic" and she qualified support for Joe Lieberman's primary bid in 2006 by saying the voice of the Democratic primary voters needed to be upheld....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom