Obama Responds

[chinaco]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby What evidence do you need? What things do you know about McCain or Clinton that you do not know about Obama and that might be critical to making a decision? To the extent I am able, I am willing to try to provide helpful information that might assuage any concerns you have.

Thanks... but I am capable of figuring that out for myself.

My main concern about Obama is that he is too far left. Which translates to a buch of social engineering and new taxes to support those programs. When I look at his web site... it seems to confirm my fear.

I am uncommitted at this point.

But my current order of preference based on what I know is:

• Hillary
• McCain
• Obama

And I go back and forth between Hillary and McCain. They both have some positions that I do not like.

I could vote for Obama. But at this point it mean Clinton has to be put out of the running and McCain has to mess up somehow.


But... I intend to cut no one any slack. I expect them to live up to their promises.

[Gumby]

I did not mean to imply that you couldn't find out on your own and I apologize if it sounded like that. Just trying to be helpful. Sounds like it is more an ideological difference.

[chinaco]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby I did not mean to imply that you couldn't find out on your own and I apologize if it sounded like that. Just trying to be helpful. Sounds like it is more an ideological difference.

I did not misinterpret you comment nor was I offended.

[HFWR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem more about individual responsibility, the importance of making good individual decisions, and working hard . . .

That'll never work...

[chinaco]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem ...more about individual responsibility, the importance of making good individual decisions and working hard . . . with government assuring the rules are fair, but not attempting to equalize outcomes.

Yeah, what are you... some kind of right-wing nut?

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby And while McCain has been an elected official longer than both, when that "experience" includes things like the Keating Five scandal, maybe it is not so valuable. And, as Obama himself said, experience without good judgment is worthless.

Maybe. But McCain, like John Glenn, was found to have had a rather minor role in the Keating Five thing. It was mostly Riegle and DeConcini, and to some degree Cranston, who were really on the take.

[Texas Proud]

Anybody who believes that Obama did not hear ANYTHING like what was on the video at some time during his 20 years also are the people who believed Clinton did not inhale....

Does it matter to me... not at all..

Does Ferraro's comments get to the level she should have resigned? No...

Even the lady that called Hillary a 'monster' probably should have been given a second chance....

The level of 'intolerance' is just way to high... that is why some of the good people do not want to get into the meat grinder call politics...

[Gumby]

How about we focus on what the candidates themselves say, instead of trying to "tag" them with the intemperate remarks made by some of their supporters?

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby How about we focus on what the candidates themselves say, instead of trying to "tag" them with the intemperate remarks made by some of their supporters?

The character and attitudes of those the candidate chooses to associate with are significant.

What the candidates say is interesting, and may or may not be significant

What the candidates actually do is more significant than what they say. And much more significant than what they say they will eventually do.

One thing Obama actually did (for twenty years) was attend that church, where Rev Wright preached. Another thing he did was to bring his family there. A thing he said was that Wright was an important influence on him.

Nobody's trying to "tag" Obama with a remark made by a supporter. First, "supporter" is too passive a term--this is a guy Obama has said he admires and turns to for advice.


I don't blame Obama's remaining supporters for trying to change the subject. "Please--let's concentrate on his moving speeches and promises, not what he has done."

[Gumby]

I won't repeat my posts about Reverend Wright. It is clear that that we have both made up our minds about the situation and further discussion would be futile.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby None of them is the perfect candidate for me. Each of them has positions with which I disagree .... Of Clinton and Obama, however, I choose the politics of hope and inclusion. Maybe he won't be able to do it, but I am willing to take a chance on someone who will at least try. All I have seen from Clinton is the old politics that divides us and cynically manipulates those divisions to gain power at any cost. I can't support that.

Even though we approach things from a different viewpoint, that is my general feeling also.

Quote:

As far as record goes, Obama has been in elective office longer than Clinton. .... And, as Obama himself said, experience without good judgment is worthless.

Clinton keeps harping on experience, but here is what we do know: Obama has been able to deliver delegates, get the money he needs, and he hasn't changed his message with every shift in the wind. Clinton ran out of money, had a wide lead taken away from her, changed her campaign managers, claimed Obama would not debate her, then complained that the debates weren't 'fair', then shot back with a 'kitchen sink' approach. She seems to want to blame everyone else for her failure.

Based on that little exercise, HRC has not demonstrated leadership qualities, Obama has.

I hope Clinton drops out soon. I want to see how McCain and Obama deal with each other.

Obama is far too liberal for me, but if he is capable of bringing people together for a common good, that might produce some positive results. Even if those results don't align exactly with my beliefs, I'll take it over the old politics. Heck, it's impossible for any single person to represent everyones views. Since I can't expect someone to represent me exactly, I'd like to at least have someone who has demonstrated leadership qualities.

-ERD50

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Obama is far too liberal for me, but if he is capable of bringing people together for a common good, that might produce some positive results.

If a group as disparate as the American population can ever arrive at a common good I will eat a cow pie. Maybe some Swiss Canton, maybe even Finland could be conceived as having a common good.

But America is permanently Balkanized. I shudder to imagine the "common good" that could come out of this. For the most part, someone else will extract their good from mine. I would rather people do not come together to do this.

Wasn't the Bolshevik Revolution about bringing people together for the common good?
Ha

.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha If a group as disparate as the American population can ever arrive at a common good ... Ha .

It is rare, but it happens. Seems like the best case is when we have gridlock - only the laws with wide support can get passed w/o a lot of scrutinty.

But you are right - overall things are so messed up and fractionalized it is hard to imagine any real good happening, no matter who gets in. I'll be happy with 'less bad', and that is probably dreaming also.

On that cheery note....

-ERD50

[Texarkandy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby What is this "civil rights agenda" that you fear?

I see where you are headed with that, but before you paint me with the "R" word - let me clarify

I have no problem with equal opportunity & equal treatment under the law. I think that's about as far as the federal govt need go with civil rights.

What I refer to when I said "civil rights agenda" is the agenda of financial handouts and affirmative action programs to black communities, activist groups, churches, schools, etc. - based solely upon skin color.

Obama has already as much as said he supports reparations for blacks in America via federal financial handouts to black schools.

IMO - The problems in the black community in this country will not be solved (or even much helped) by federal financial handouts.

[chinaco]

If Obama were to take a position that he would not push for a bunch of new handouts and social engineering...

I would vote for him (if he is the Dem candidate).

The Republican party needs to be punished. The Bush administration has created a mess. No need to reward that party for scr3wing things up.

Republicans... it is not about you the voter... it is about the leadership in the party. Once you separate those two issues... it make things a bit easier. We did not scr3wup voting for Bush. He scr3wed up. And it is the scr3wing that is gong to keep on giving for years to come.

[Gumby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texarkandy I see where you are headed with that, but before you paint me with the "R" word - let me clarify I have no problem with equal opportunity & equal treatment under the law. I think that's about as far as the federal govt need go with civil rights. What I refer to when I said "civil rights agenda" is the agenda of financial handouts and affirmative action programs to black communities, activist groups, churches, schools, etc. - based solely upon skin color. Obama has already as much as said he supports reparations for blacks in America via federal financial handouts to black schools. IMO - The problems in the black community in this country will not be solved (or even much helped) by federal financial handouts.

I think you have at least one of your facts wrong. It was Alan Keyes, Obama's opponent in his Senate race, who supported slave reparations. Obama opposed it then, and I have seen nothing since but the hyperventilating speculation of right wing bloggers and op-ed writers to suggest that he supports it now. But if you have a factual source indicating otherwise, I would be interested to see it. If it is the case that he has called for reparations, I would have to disagree with him on that, but I don't think he has.

I also don't believe he has called for "financial handouts and affirmative action programs to black communities, activist groups, churches, schools, etc. - based solely upon skin color", but if you care to narrow it down to some specific position he has taken, we can certainly discuss that position.

P.S. -- I think you are correct that we rarely solve problems simply by throwing money at them. This applies to most social problems, not just "problems in the black community".

[Texas Proud]

Obama is making great speeches and such about 'change' and 'bringing people together'...

I just do not see it in his record.... he voted 'present' on (IIRC, but I could be wrong) over half of the votes when he was not in the Senate...

He has been on the left side on almost all votes since joining the Senate...

Where is his history of 'bringing people together' in politics? I mean the ones who actually vote in the Senate and House....

McCain talks about how conservative he is, but he has a history of 'compromise' and has actually voted on compromise legislation...

So how does Obama plan to do what he says? When even HIS history says otherwise?

[dex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby I have written before that I understood what drove his pastor's words and therefore did not find them disturbing, but I also think that the old politics of grievance (no matter how legitimate) and group identity are not what we need today. I think as Obama's own words demonstrate, he believes the same thing. The President of the United States is supposed to be the president of all of us, not just the rich and powerful. We must look forward and work together - black, white, brown, red and yellow together. Old and young together. Rich and poor together. I don't see how anyone could object to this message.

It appears from the senator's statement that he finds the pastor's statements "inflammatory and appalling"
RAW DATA: Obama’s Statement Condemning His Pastor’s Controversial Sermons - America’s Election HQ

How do you reconcile your "not finding them disturbing" with the senator's comments about the pastor's sermons The pastor was a person the senator chose to employ as an advisor in his campaign.

[Texarkandy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby .... But if you have a factual source indicating otherwise, I would be interested to see it. If it is the case that he has called for reparations, I would have to disagree with him on that, but I don't think he has. ......

Look at his response re: reparations in the S Carolina debate - he dodged giving a direct answer & started talking about schools - (looks like he tore a page from Alan Keyes playbook there)

Frankly, I don't trust what the man says, it's seems all carefully crafted to elicit an emotional response and that makes me suspicious.

There's not much of a track record to indicate how he would govern. When someone doesn't have a track record - it is legitimate to look at who they have associated with in the past - & that is very telling in the case of Sen Obama.

Looking at who he has associated himself with over the years, I can only suspect he's a "stealth candidate" for far left liberal agendas that include a lot of emphasis on ideas of "social justice" & "redistribution of wealth". If you are OK with that, I'm happy for you - that's not the kind of Administration I want. (think Dorothy Hill as Secy of HHS?)

Contrary to his claim that he will unite America - I think an Obama presidency would have the result of further dividing America.

[samclem]

I think an Obama presidency has the potential to raise public cynicism and apathy to a new level. His candidacy has excelled at building expectations in many people who have not traditionally been involved in politics and who don't much watch the goings-on in Washington. By studiously avoiding explicit discussion of the tough choices, he's built a cloudy dream castle on a whipped cream foundation. Look and be amazed, but don't lean against a wall.

If he is elected, the real world will not be put on hold and those who supported him will see there's no pie in the sky. The whole thing was a mirage. They'll maybe start to think that they should have looked under the hood and spent a little less time gushing over the paint job. Or, they'll blame the lack of "progress" on those naysayers who keep bringing up the uncomfortable truths and ruining everything (e.g. that people work harder and produce more when there is a tighter linkage between effort and reward. That high tax rates can lead to decreased government revenues. That abandoning allies in a foreign country of high strategic interest to the US can have terrible long-term consequences and you don't get a "do over".) Whether they blame Obama, themselves, or the opposition party, we'll be set up for a wave of cynicism that will be astounding.