Barack Obama seems to be very difficult to dislike. Instead of treating Fox News like enemy combatants, he decided to go on and give a lengthy interview with Chris Wallace.
Yes, this is the same Chris Wallace that turned Bill Clinton into a finger waving crybaby.
While I have consistently stated that I am voting for John McCain, I have tried to cover debates and appearance as a dispassionate observer. Barack Obama has had some terrible performances as of late, with his worst being in the Pennsylvania debate. It is with this detached focus that I evaluate his performance being interviewed by Chris Wallace.
Obama simply shined. Thre is no way around it. As bad as he has been lately, he was that good in this interview.
He probably enraged a few on the left by stating that he would vote to confirm General Petraeus as the head of Central Command (Centcom). When asked pointed questions about how his relationship with Petraeus worked, he gave what I found to be clear and intelligent answers.
If General Petraeus questioned his strategy, he would absolutely listen to him and consider his feedback. However, he is not wrong to say that the President must make the final call, since it is the President who’s job is on the line with the voters. While I do not agree with Obama’s stance on the Iraq War, he came across as very humble, which would make sense for a man who criticizes President Bush for (in Obama’s eyes) promising to be humble and then not being so.
This is in stark contrast to the Hillary Clinton crowd that spoke of “General Betray Us.”
Obama also made a very bold statement regarding race in the election that everyody should hear.
“If I lose the geenral election, it will not be because of race. It will be because I did not communicte my message effectively enough to the voters. It will not be because of my race.”
He also stated that Americans are better than that, and this is a subject of much debate.
There is a raging argument going on that suggests that many Americans lie to pollsters when they say they would vote for a black man, but recoil when they are in the voting booth.
This closet racism may exist, but it is among demcrats. It is absolutely a leftist problem, because it is the left that pits people against each other.
Al Gore introduced the world to Willie Horton in 1988 against Michael Dukakis, yet Lee Atwater and President George Herbert Walker Bush get the blame for what one liberal introduced against a fellow liberal.
This feeds into the nonsense that “republicans will play the race card, so we had better do it first to toughen up our own candidate.”
This argument is nonsense because republcians are scared to death of the race issue. A republican who breathes incorrectly can be called a racist. Leftists can yell racist comments and nobody cares. Bill and Hillary Clinton played the race card in South Carolina, using the republican defense as justification.
Barack Obama has seen through this. He admitted that John McCain is not a racist. Therefore, any liberal group that tries this tactic will lose, because their own candidate has disavowed this.
On this issue, Obama’s respect shines through.
If Obama finally wins the nomination, and after Hillary Clinton is dragged from the stage kicking and screaming, a campaign about actual issues can take place.
Barack Obama and John McCain are both good, decent men who have very different ideas.
Obama is wrong on Iraq. He is wrong on trade. He is wrong on taxes, especially the capital gains tax and the Bush tax cuts. His position on Israel is hopelessly naive and misguided.
Many will disagree with me on these issues, but at least these are legitimate issues to begin with.
Many who claim that an Obama loss would be due to racism are playing the race card themselves. After all, ask a black or white liberal if Judge Clarence Thomas or GOPAC Chairman Michael Steele are black, and the contorted answers about being “authentically black” are brought up.
For the Milli Vanillionth time (they were black, but whatever their race, their music bothered me), race is about one and only one criteria. It is an issue of pigmentation. That is determined by melanin content. Being black is not an attitude, a state of mind, or a feeling. Claiming Bill Clinton was black because he was basically brought up in a trailer trash home is an insult to many upwardly mobile blacks that do not like to be portrayed as wife beaters and alcoholics.
Bill Clinton was not a child of blackness. He was a child of poverty, or at least a lower socioeconomic strata. There is no shame in being poor, but it is nothing to brag about either.
Barack Obama has been forced to downplay his wealth, because that might make him less authentic.
Barack Obama is an American success story that should not be President for policy reasons alone.
When a liberal tries to portray republicans as racists for having the nerve to support war hero Hohn McCain when America is at war, and we agree with his prescriptions, ask them how they feel about Clarence Thomas. Explain to them that disliking him is automatically racism. When they claim it is merely his views they find offensive, ask them why wanting to cut capital gains tax cuts and continue the War in Iraq until the job is done are racist positions. Then watch them babble.
Barack Obama was very impressive on Chris Wallace last night, and as we all know, Wallace is tough. Rather than cry about being asked tough questions, as many Daily Kossacks continue to do, tough questions should be encouraged. After all, Chris Wallace is not Al Queda. He is just a reporter doing his job, and one of the few who does it responsibly. As many different phrases of the same question goes, how can one stand up to world leaders when they cannot face a reporter?
Bill Kristol correctly pointed out that many of Obama’s answers lacked substance. Even if that was true, the fact that I did not notice that during the interview only goes to show how effective he was. To go back and watch it again, and judge the performance in a harsher light, would be unfair.
The answer is not to vote against Obama solely on his race. That is racism. However, voting for him because of his race is also racism, and the guilty white liberals supporting him might want to think about that before throwing racial stones.
Republicans have no reason to play the race card, and John McCain is too good a man to do it. We are right on the issues, and should win that way. I would only hope that Barack Obama lives up to his promise to want to heal America. If he loses the general election, the best way to do this is to promise to support John McCain on issues of agreement, go against him on areas of disagreement, but be respectful of the office he holds.
After all, anybody can be magnanimous when they win. I am giving my word of honor that if Barack Obama wins, I will support him on the occasions I agree with him. I supported Bill Clinton on welfare reform and NAFTA.
If Obama can be as gracious and eloquent in defeat as he was during the Chris Wallace interview, then he will have lifted up the discourse in America.
I know John McCain will do what is right win or lose. If Barack Obama does as well, America will be better off for it.
This is why I want Obama to defeat Hillary. The 2008 Presidential race will be tough, sincere, and won by a likable person, democrat or republican.
The well has been poisoned, but it is not too late to chlorinate the toxic political environment.
Mr. Obama will be formidable. After all, he does not seem to be afraid of Chris Wallace, nor does he blame him afterwards for daring to ask tough questions.
Mr. Obama was well prepared. Mr. McCain will be as well.
eric
I don’t know if he shined, however he did a good job. I thought that Wallace didn’t challenge Obama nearly enough. I though Obama’ s statement trying to expand on his comparison between Coborn and Ayers just dug his hole even deeper.
Where I was disappointed with Wallace was first on issues related to things he though Republicans did well. Republicans believe in DEREGULATION. He claimed they wanted to regulate in a different way. Wallace didn’t challenge this and allowed Obama to claim that Reps are for some sort of nebulous regulatory system that Obama likes.
Furthermore, Obama said he would listen to his generals as long as they followed his timetable. Well, his generals have a plan that has nothing to do with timetables. That isn’t listening to them. Wallace didn’t challenge that either.
Finally, Obama claimed he wants to raise the capital gains tax in order to raise revenues. Well, a study of history shows that never happens. Furthermore, while people’s 401k’s aren’t affect by the tax, raising capital gains taxes will affect the stock market in general which will affect their 401k’s and he didn’t challenge that either.
Obama’s biggest weakness is his insistence on defending Wright. This will continue to cost him.
Well said, I am an Obama supporter, but have respect for John McCain. Like you there are many issues, like campaign reform and the environment where I support Sen. McCain. I felt much the same when McCain appeared on the Daily show and had a frank and intellegent dialogue on Iraq and several other issues. “You still don’t get my vote John, but you are a good man.”
I have said to my friends on the left that an Obama vs. McCain debate would be good for the country. They point out that smear ads like the one in North Carolina will still run, even if McCain opposes them. While it is true, I think that the two LEADERS will start to change the tone in this country. I think that they will both show that we can disagree without demonizing the other side.
I often start to wonder where our nation is heading, then I read Jefferson vs. Addams and see it has been going on a long long time. Divisive politics works, and our demoncracy can survive it. But only because we have people like Jefferson and Addams to watch over it. As you probably know, after years of enemity, they resumbed a freindship that continued until their death.
Mike V;
“Obama’s biggest weakness is his insistence on defending Wright. This will continue to cost him.
Exactly Mike.
Especially with the stumping Wright has done this last weekend.
The racial undertones in his speechs are undeniable
What troubles me about Obama is that he speaks in Marxist tones. Pay attention to the word choice and world view that he lays out. He is a hardcore leftist, no matter how pleasant he may seem.
Alright, let’s straighten a few things out here for the sake of truth and honesty:
“This is in stark contrast to the Hillary Clinton crowd that spoke of “General Betray Us.””
That was NOT “the Hillary Clinton crowd.” It was MoveOne.org.
“This closet racism may exist, but it is among demcrats. It is absolutely a leftist problem, because it is the left that pits people against each other.”
Anyone who believes this is completely ignorant of reality. Racism, closet or overt, is a non-partisan problem, but were it not for the “southern strategy” and the GOP absorption of the Dixiecrats in the 70’s and 80’s, the GOP would never have become the majority national party in the 90’s.
“Al Gore introduced the world to Willie Horton in 1988 against Michael Dukakis, yet Lee Atwater and President George Herbert Walker Bush get the blame for what one liberal introduced against a fellow liberal.”
This is a popular lie oft promelgated by the the Right – William Kristol and later Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham. Gore did ask Dukakis in a debate about the weekend furlong program, but never mentioned Horton by name.
JMJ
JMJ;
“Anyone who believes this is completely ignorant of reality. Racism, closet or overt, is a non-partisan problem, but were it not for the “southern strategy” and the GOP absorption of the Dixiecrats in the 70’s and 80’s, the GOP would never have become the majority national party in the 90’s.”
Its easy to believe when you guys throw race around at every opportunity you can when you arguements are not valid.
You have said that if either Hillary or Obama loses it will be because of racism or misogyny.
You, are the perfect example of what Eric is saying.
The majority of people are able to judge if a person is incompetant or not up to par without bringing their etnicity into it.
You guys just like to have racism around as a tool to claim injustice. Without it the democratic party would have nothing left to do. So it only makes sense that they keep brining it up, when its not half as prevalent as they claim it to be.
And by the way, trying to define reality as only being the way you see things is like trying to convince me that just cuz you head comes to a point you’re sharp
Look! There goes Elvis !
Micky, I’m not getting into this. Either you guys are saying that 90% of African Americans are morons – in which case you prove my point about the GOP – or simply come to realize that they are smart enough to know which party is more for their interests and which party is more against their interests. On balance, the African American community, though far from thrilled with the Democrats (I share that with them, by the way), is less so thrilled by the GOP.
JMJ
What I’m saying is this.
The majority of blacks favor Obama.
Sure looks like racial preference on the left to me.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0301/p02s01-uspo.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022701030.html
“Clinton led Obama among African Americans by 60 percent to 20 percent. In the new poll, Obama held a narrow advantage among blacks, 44 percent to 33 percent. The shift came despite four in five blacks having a favorable impression of the New York senator.
African Americans view Clinton even more positively than they see Obama, but in the time since he began his campaign, his favorability rating rose significantly among blacks. In the latest poll, 70 percent of African Americans said they had a favorable impression of Obama, compared with 54 percent in December and January.”
JMJ;
“Micky, I’m not getting into this. ”
Well gosh golly man.
You brought it up !
No, Eric did.
Of course African Americans are backing Obama. He’s the best thing that’s happened to them in over 40 years. Most Catholics backed John Kennedy in 1960. So what? Repressed groups tend to stand with each other.
JMJ
Jersey.
Eric wrote the post, and you decided to pull the subject from his post.
In the comment section(get it? “comments”?) you were trying to make truth out of opinion.
These people are assuming a black candidate will better serve them because he is black
That is racism.
No Micky, try to pay attention here…
Eric said, “This closet racism may exist, but it is among demcrats. It is absolutely a leftist problem, because it is the left that pits people against each other.”
I find this comment self-serving, blatantly disingenuous, and exteremly and partisanly ignorant. Sorry. That’s just the way I see it.
If you think that blacks supporting Obama are racist, then I’m done here. This whole comment section would have just become a bad, tasteless, lowbrow joke.
JMJ
Oh, jeez. Rev. Wright gave his speech and answers at the National Press Club this morning. To quote somebody famous, he’s “a major-legue a**hole”. Even if you didn’t listen to his words, which were abhorrent, his combative demeanor toward the woman asking questions from press members was awful. He tried to dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge any question he could by challenging the question or diverting attention to Dick Cheyney, but ultimately reinforced what people already thought about him.
Barack may have given a good interview, but it just got eclipsed by his former, Former, FORMER!!!! pastor. By the way, did you know that Wright is no longer Obama’s pastor? You might have missed the candidate saying it a few hundred times.
Look Jersey.
You can play that crap at some high school debate. But I’ve come way to far in my life to play your stupid games.
You make a poor example when you dodge with these lame attempts to dodge.
Eric put up a number of subjects within the topic and Y O U picked the one you thought was not right and decided to put your 2 cents worth in.
Eric put it out there and you grabbed it and brought it to comments. Your brought it up in the comment section.
Now please, dont insult mine or anyone elses intelligence with this lame a** BS.
So what? We cant talk about or exchange anything because eric wrote about it first ? But when confronted you say “I dont want to get into this”
I do not think blacks supporting Obama are racists in general. But when a black candidate gets the majority of black support it only points to one thing.
The left is constantly playing race into everything they can as often as possible. Without race they would not have a base to preach to or a platform to run on . They are constantly trying to convince black America that its because of their race they are in the position they are in. And every single candidate has preached to black america that he will change the overblown injustices they face.
Give it a rest, I was not born yesterday
The Reverend was fantastic at the press club today. He was great on Moyers too. I like the Reverend Wright. I’d take him over the prospertity theorlogy Mega Chrurch sleazoid “reverends” anyday.
JMJ
No, Micky, I picked three comments he made and pointed out that he was wrong.
JMJ
The Obamas scored the past week in the media with appearences on FOX and Comedy Central’s “The Colbert Report”. They came off as extremly likable, moderate, calm and open. However we’ve seen this all before.
They’ve repositioned themselves as political purists only to go for soundbite answers aganist their oppenents. I don’t have a problem with Obama’s positions on issues, disagreeing with him more often than not, but rather his attitude of superority- not of blue collar workers but of politics itself.
His trumpeting of a new kind of politics, is alluring until it turns sour with his attacks on McCain. Attack the issues not the man and when doing so give a full answer not a soundbite.
Christopher, You bring up a viable point – and the reason Obama won’t provide comprehensive answers is because he will lose the audience. Dems are typically emotional and vote with feelings. It’s easy to grasp sound bytes such as “Tax the rich”…”a chicken in every pot”…”We are change”… but they get confused when required to employ critical thinking skills. Jesse Jackson’s rhymes were wildly popular, as were Cassius Clay’s…people enjoy not having to think…and that’s another reason Obama stumbles when asked questions that require more than a sound byte – he’s a brilliant guy, and he could likely provide articulate answers, but in playing to his audience, he would confuse them, so he purposely stumblebums around certain topics so he can float away to something easier.
Obama hasn’t proposed anything radical or anything that would turn off voters. Most voters want universal healthcare of some kind. Most voters want this ill-advised colonial oil war to come to an end. Most voters want SS and Medicare saved. Etc. And most voters are agreed that only gov’t can do these things. Obama isn’t hiding his positions behind platitudes at all.
“Dems are typically emotional and vote with feelings.”
This is just dumb. A really, really, partisan and dunb thing to say. If you think the GOP has the corner on rational voters, then I have a bridge for you too. You guys have really, thoroughly disappointed me on this thread. I haven’t seen this much BS since the family vacation to the dude ranch.
JMJ
Bla bla bla.
JMJ;
” haven’t seen this much BS since the family vacation to the dude ranch.”
Or your last comment.
Yea, lets bomb the crap outta Pakistan and go have tea with Iran. Right.
After 20 years I had no idea my pastor felt this way. Right.
JMJ:
“Most voters want this ill-advised colonial oil war to come to an end. Most voters want SS and Medicare saved. Etc. And most voters are agreed that only gov’t can do these things. Obama isn’t hiding his positions behind platitudes at all.
Wasnt ill advised at its conception. Almost every pol voted for it.
Its only been ill advised after the fact by a bunch of vote hunting chicken libs.
Most voters do not want the kind of health care Obama and Hillary are talking about.
Besides that who besides the government could fix SS?
If the market fixed it via private investment it would not be social anymore.
Weare not colonizing Iraq. It is its own soveriegn country.
OIl war ? I wish.
We should make Iraq give us a few billion gallons right now.
All Obama has done is hide behind platitudes till right now. Hope? Change?
(yea, he hopes we all have some extra change, cuz we’re gonna need a ton of it if he’s elected)
I got Wolf blitzer and Jack Cafferty in the background right now saying most Americans want Obama to clarify his positions.
So sorry if we all disappointed you with some things that actually exist
JMJ;
“Most voters want universal healthcare of some kind.”
Thats a load of your dude ranch stepping stones.
The most voters that want universal health care are lib voters. Not all voters.
And yea the “some kind of universal health care” that most of the right would like to see is the kind that never happens.
“Wasnt ill advised at its conception. Almost every pol voted for it.”
You’re not much of a conservative are you. There’s an old axiom that goes sorta like this: When there’s gridlock and agrument in Washington either nothing gets done or a happy compromise is reached – when they all agree we can be sure they agreed on the wrong thing. Conservatives and libertarians had lived by that for years until finally one day the GOP actually became the full majority. Sure enough though, the axiom was once again proven true. You guys just can’t be man enough to admit it – to admit that you were suckered by the GOP.
Most polls average about 70% of Americans agreeing that we need universal gov’t funded healthcare – in other words, no more private employer-funded health insurance system running the show. Look it up yourself if you don’t believe me. Just please no Newsmax or Washington Times or Fox, it demeans us both. try going straight to the sources, like Harris, Pew, Zogby, Quinnipiac, etc.
JMJ
JMJ;
“Most polls average about 70% of Americans agreeing that we need universal gov’t funded healthcare – in other words, no more private employer-funded health insurance system running the show. Look it up yourself if you don’t believe me. Just please no Newsmax or Washington Times or Fox, it demeans us both. try going straight to the sources, like Harris, Pew, Zogby, Quinnipiac, etc.
You make the case, you show me.
I don’t look up anything upon my opponents demands. If its there like you say it is, show me.
You choose your sources, I’ll choose mine.
There was no grid lock ! Where in Gods green earth did you pull that line of crap out out of? Never mind, don’t tell me.
The Senate voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq.
The House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.
You really do think people are stupid, which is not too bright in itself.
I’ll decide what demeans me and what doesn’t.
JBT’s good enough for you? I know you worship them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01cnd-poll.html?ex=1330405200&en=45c0a4cf48ed21a1&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
“Most Americans in the poll said they were satisfied with the quality of their health care, ”
Rasmussen is quite reliable also.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/issues2/articles/29_favor_national_health_insurance_overseen_by_federal_government
Twenty-nine percent (29%) of American adults favor a national health insurance program overseen by the Federal Government. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 39% oppose such a government-led initiative while 31% are not sure.
The survey also found that 46% believe the quality of care would decrease under a national health insurance
And even the Clinton Broadcast System puts in its proper context.
People don’t want a massive government tale over of healthcare. They just say that government should play a role in bringing down the cost.
(CBS) Americans think the U.S. health care system is in need of major repairs, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll.
Nine out of 10 say the system needs at least fundamental changes, including 36 percent who favor a complete overhaul.
Although most Americans say they are generally satisfied with the quality of their own health care, including 41 percent who say they are very satisfied, it’s a different story when it comes to the cost of care.
But the headline is deceiving and contradictory because nowhere in the article or poll does it say precisely that most Americans want universal health care
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/opinion/polls/main2528357.shtml
Just one in five are very satisfied with what they pay for health care, while a majority (52 percent) are dissatisfied, including a third who are very dissatisfied.
U.S. HEALTH CARE SYSTEM NEEDS…
Minor changes
8%
Fundamental changes
54%
To be completely rebuilt
36%
Americans are even more critical of health care costs in the nation as whole: 59 percent are very dissatisfied with the overall cost of health care in the U.S. and another 22 percent are somewhat dissatisfied.
{{{{Most Americans believe government can play a role in fixing the health care system.}}}}}
Two-thirds say the federal government should guarantee that all Americans have health insurance — and a similar number says providing health insurance for all is a more serious problem than keeping health care costs down.
And its a well known fact that in Canada and Britain the wait is too long.
Even though cancer patients don’t have to pay a dime out of pocket the taxation is incredible and the wait to start Chemo is 2 weeks in America and almost 4 months in Canada and Britain.
Consequently Canadians and Brit’s are coming to America to avoid the ridiculous wait.
And quit the “man” crap already.
You should use the term “honest enough” not “man enough”.
We have quite a few female voters also and it just goes to show where your head is at when you always bring up manlyhood
Jersey, These arguments are similar to the truther’s diatribes yesterday…again, consider the source…Washington Times, Newsmax, and Fox are held accountable for what they report – Harris, Pew, Zogby, and Quinnipiac are “for hire” organizations…stats lie. “Government-funded healthcare”… does that mean we pay for it ourselves because WE are the government – then you are right, about 70% of us believe we should pay our own way, and another 30% believe I should pay their way, too. No sale.
“This is just dumb. A really, really, partisan and dunb thing to say. If you think the GOP has the corner on rational voters, then I have a bridge for you too. “… Who is Obama’s greatest contributer right this minute? The Demogogue Queen of America – Oprah. Who makes up the vast majority of the Democratic Party? young voters who have little or no experience in life, minorities who buy into the blame game, hollywood weirdos who pretend they are somebody they are not for a living, and a preponderance of gays and Jewish people. And forgive me Eric, but those of the Jewish persuasion have a tendency to make decisions more on emotion than logic – why else would they suffer through the German years or suffer the Palestinians today? It’s not a partisan thing – it’s common sense, and the fact that you are having trouble coming to terms with it validates my point.
Eagle, what I meant about the polls was rather than going to outlets that spin the results, go to the actual polls and look at the questions, results, and methodologies. I mentioned Fox, and Newsmax, and the WT because they are the most laughable “news” sources. Really, they are. I mean, c’mon.
As for emotional voting, it cuts both ways. Kids see Obama and like him just like hicks saw Bush and liked him. The key word there is “like.” “Like” is an emotional term. It infers no logical rationale. It’s chemistry. Bush, a blue-blood from an establishment CT family came off as a successful cowboy, oil man, and sports team-guy even though he was none of those things. Rational voters would have thought of him as an intellectually weak man prone to being used as puppet for profiteers. But logic sometimes has to be pounded into the heads of the electorate, and now we have three candidates and none of them are anything like Bush. Then there’s McCain and his “hero” background. Again, it really doesn’t tell you anything about what kind of president he would be, yet both his fans and detractors would tell you that his war hero status comes to mind whenever he is mentioned. So there’s lots of ways of looking at the “emotion” argument, but none of them suggest it is a partisan problem. Conservatives and liberals, Democrats and Republcans – people – are all prone to thinking with their hearts too much more than their heads (and too much the other way around too).
JMJ
JMJ;
“Conservatives and liberals, Democrats and Republcans – people – are all prone to thinking with their hearts too much more than their heads (and too much the other way around too). ”
Do you have a poll for that one too?
Jersey, You continue to surprise me. Although I don’t agree with your opinion about Fox and Washington Times, or the personal attacks against President Bush, I will concede the Bubba vote…having lived in Georgia for many years, I guess I have to get off my “ideological bigotry” horse…because if memory serves me right, “Tippicanoe and Tyler, too” may have been a Republican phrase…
Eagle;
“Harris, Pew, Zogby, and Quinnipiac are “for hire” organizations…
JMJ:
” what I meant about the polls was rather than going to outlets that spin the results,’
Are you missing something here Jersey? Or there?
It serves common sense that organizations that are not for hire are less likely to spin or slant as opposed to one that is paid for and expected by their sponsor to show certain results.
Really man, pull it out. You been hanging around Mr. Big Head too much, at least it seems like it
Micky,
JMJ;
“Conservatives and liberals, Democrats and Republcans – people – are all prone to thinking with their hearts too much more than their heads (and too much the other way around too). ”
Do you have a poll for that one too?
Do I really need one?
As for the polls, again, I was saying that you should go straight to the sources (as I do) and then you can see for yourself the methodologies, criterion, questions, etc. I hope (please God!) that you get me here.
—
Eagle,
“Jersey, You continue to surprise me.”
As do you, my friend. And yes, they sort of were “republicans” but in the small “r” sense. I am a firm republican, in the small “r” sense, myself. Nowadays they call one a “liberal” for that. That’s why Europeans can’t figure out our politics anymore, right? ;)
JMJ
JMJ;
“As for the polls, again, I was saying that you should go straight to the sources (as I do) and then you can see for yourself the methodologies, criterion, questions, etc. I hope (please God!) that you get me here.”
I tripped over your last load and fell into this one.
Sources ?
What a joke.
In all the time I’ve known you I have had the pleasure of shutting down due to the fact that all you ever speak from is opinion and personal experience and this delusion that you know what people are thinking.
And today you throw up a couple of flimsy poll results and get on your high horse and say “I should go straight to the sources”
Good god almighty on heaven and earth you have no memory whatsoever do you ?
A look back at all the archives in this blog will show that I am not exagerating this fact one single bit at all.
I get you alright.
I get that you have not put forth one compelling arguement yet that you can really back up with anything.
You even had the inane nerve to defend the bought and paid for polls.
Smarten up and this debate will also
Jersey, I was brought up in a Democratic family and was a blue collar redneck from the north – there are times I fantasize about joining the Michigan Militia, but then I wouldn’t be making constructive efforts to make things work… and that’s the line between the “truthers”, Moveon.org, et al, and those who vote, write, and try to work within the laws to make effective changes.
I’m concerned that, as outlined in the coverage yesterday from the verbose Talisman and his supporters, the Freedom of Speech argument crosses a certain line. A filmmaker is now making a documentary about Abu Graib – and it won’t do well in theatres, but it will be distributed in Middle Eastern countries…and more Soldiers will die because of this film. This has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but it is something whoever gets elected must understand – Information Operations is paramount. We need to be united.
Micky, you lost me. You should go straight to the sources, then you know what you’re talking about. Look at that story about the National Journal declaring Obama to be the most “liberal” (again, a senseless label) senator, even those he missed piles of votes and just the year before was number 11. It makes no sense. Look at the early results from the RWM on McCain, and sure enough he swept the field, exactly on the opposite of what the rightwing pundits had predicted from their polls.
So, you go and look at the polls. Sure enough, the methodologies were seriously flawed (really – google polls at that time, it’s a side-splitting read). I can think of at least a half-dozen senators who are more “liberal” on the face of it than Barack Obama. Given his entire resume, Obama is a rather mainstream Chicago Democrat. McCain is actually a very mainstream republican, he just has that personality of his (I actually have always liked McCain from what I know of him, but I do think he’s a little nuts). So, there’s polls, and then there’s records, and there’s the press, and all that circling around itself into the vortex of November. All I was saying is that you can figure the polls out for yourself, you don’t need Fox to do it for you.
JMJ
Eagle, I hear ya’, I get ya’, I’m with you all the way – I just don’t see the threat as you do. I am confident in our republic and democracy and culture as long as we set our priorities where they belong. They don’t belong there. IMHO
JMJ
First of all, the subject of how liberal Obama is or is not has little to do with my point.
But you have a lot of nerve telling me to do sources when I have always had to ask for sources to contest my sources.
Instead you just throw some malarky out there and expect everyone to take your word for it because you supposedly know so much more about everything.
And then today you have the incredibly insane nerve to tell me to go to the sources when that is exactly what I am famous for doing.
Please.
I have greeting card on my fridge that has picture of two flys.
One fly is a doctor in full gear, stethescope etc. And the other fly is a patient sitting on the table being examined.
The caption shows the doctor telling the patient to “CUT BACK ON THE CRAP”
Just call me doc.
Oh and by the way.
I watch more than FOX. Just got done telling you today I was listening to Cafferty and Blitzer.
Surely by now you must have it ingrained in your mind that I rotate my media all day.
Anyone who only takes a couple of polls to derive their perspective from is a fool.
But the guy who expects me to believe just a couple of his polls is an even bigger fool.
My favorite is to go to the sources that my opponent uses and find points in it that controverts or contradicts his point or position.
And believe me I get to do this often because too many of these morons out there think I wont read it.
There is a HUGE differnce between the government actually controling all our health care needs and them having a hand in seeing to that everyone gets health care.
This is the context that was missing in the polls you selected.
We all know loaded questions when we hear them, so please, give all us fairly well educated people a break
“My favorite is to go to the sources that my opponent uses and find points in it that controverts or contradicts his point or position.”
Well then Micky, you would have to read the google news links every day, the Nation, the Progressive, Scientific American, Discover, the Funny Times, all sorts of other publications from various affiliations, and usually two or three books at a time. You up for it? Oh yeah, and throw in a few video games – today, it’s a great way of communicating with the broader society, all over the world!
JMJ
No, jersey. maybe I said it wrong..An example would be this.
Today Mr, Head was going on about a conspiracy theory that the US blew up the pentagon with one of our own cruise missles.
Later in the debate he referd me to link on another subject but that link said what contradicted his missile theory.
{{ from right pundits}}
I’ve had this one on my mind for a while now.
Why would the government use two jets for the trade towers, one in P.A. and then a cruise missile for the pentagon?
For the sake of continuity shouldn’t they of all been attacks via jet? that would fall into your BS claim that the government was trying to blame this on al Queda.
Al Queda can actually launch cruise missiles at the US ? Never mind, don’t answer that.
But you could start by answering just one of the many questions you dodged for the last 3-4 days.
Also, no where in the link you provided does it say that 911 was a conspiracy on the part of the US. Only that the administration is not being totally forthcoming.
As a matter of fact they themselves say “FOUR” planes killed 3000 Americans. That would kill your cruise missile theory. (you ate your own face on that one)
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13469
Al-Qaeda operatives hijacked and crashed four airplanes in the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001, killing nearly 3,000 people. In October, after Afghanistan’s Taliban regime refused to hand over al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, the U.S. launched the war on terrorism.
You really oughta read your sources a little better instead of just dropping spam everywhere as if you had some intelligent or conclusive point to make.
No offense to the hosts , but I would assume that the only reason why you let this shmuck participate is to use him as an example of the idiocy that threatens this country
I’m sorry, I forgot to conclude.
The point is you should really take the whole context and be careful when you just pull selective quotes.
Cuz I usually will bust yo ass
???
JMJ
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 04/29/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
JMJ;
“Well then Micky, you would have to read the google news links every day, the Nation, the Progressive, Scientific American, Discover, the Funny Times, all sorts of other publications from various affiliations, and usually two or three books at a time. You up for it? Oh yeah, and throw in a few video games – today, it’s a great way of communicating with the broader society, all over the world!”
Let me try to put this another way.
When I was 8 years old I was reading at a levels with high school seniors. And I can read fast. As you might of noticed I’m very good at coming up with relative documents in an expeditious manner.
Plus I always check my opponents sources. Not because I doubt the source as much as I doubt the opponents assumption that I wont examine the whole thing.
Because if you are making the claim, its upon you to give the claim wings. And if your source is flimsy it wont fly then you have no arguement.
I make sure my sources are irefutable before I open my yap.
My father always taught me not to pick a fight I couldnt win.
So we can all can read all the sources you listed above which would be insane and a waste of time or we can read a balance of sources supporting both positions that take a reasonable amount of time and then do the math and draw our conclusions from that.
But also , make sure your sources dont have something in it that contradicts the one quote that you thought would be the nail in the coffin.
I’m just not that stupid, or smart.
By the way, I cant believe I missed this. And the only reason I’m bringing it up is because I refuse to let someone try to insult my intelligence and play chickesh** weasely games in the process.
The only reason you did not want to get into it was because I gave you such a hard time on it the last time.
JMJ;
“No, Micky, I picked three comments he made and pointed out that he was wrong.”
Eric brought it up first and you brought it up here.
You raised it for discussion when you brought it to this thread.
We all bring up things that Eric said in his post by bringing it along with our opinions to the thread.
Too much.
You start talking about it and then you went on to condem Cons for feeling one way or the other as fact.
And then after that you tell me you dont want to get into it ?
Yea right ? Since when do you think you can just drop bombs and walk away ?
While Rev Wright uses up all the Media’s attention what about the other canidate Hillary Clinton? What do you suppose is going on in the Clinton Camp?
http://imustimes.wordpress.com/2008/04/30/james-carvillle-likes-to-rodeo-cajun-style/
laree,
O Reilly is gonna work her over today.
I have a strange feeling she booked this appearance on FOX as soon as Wright started yapping again.
She is probably going to try and use this fallout with Obama and Wright to show that she can concentrate on issues while Obama always has to spend his time on explaining his past.
But I suggest she doesnt say anything like that out loud, or to O Reilly.
[…] else tells us about him? I liked this post from Eric at The Tygrrrr Express. Eric is also a conservative, but like many (including me) he can’t help but be impressed […]
“Al Gore introduced the world to Willie Horton in 1988 against Michael Dukakis, yet Lee Atwater and President George Herbert Walker Bush get the blame for what one liberal introduced against a fellow liberal.” — tygrrrr
Do you mean like when Kerry called Vietnam “Nixon’s war” when it was started by Kennedy(D) and escalated by Johnson(D) and ended (prematurely) by Nixon(R), …. or like calling themselves “liberal” when they are really Leftists spanning a spectrum from socialist to fascist. …or like they say “Bush lied”, when it is they who did (and do), ….or, “Bush ‘stole’ the election” when it was Gore who tried to, …or that Democrats are for equal rights, when the Republican Party was founded to oppose the slave-owning Democrats, …etc., etc.?
But, with regard to Obie’s ability to put a shine on a dead sow’s butt, the fact that he can lie as sweet as you please makes him a much more dangerous sociopath than the others in his stable, not a more qualified contender – unless pretty but empty rhetoric is the only measure of the man. He learns quickly what we want to hear, and whispers it sweetly in our ears, but he’s just saying what he has to say to get what he wants.
Remember, what he really stands for is not in America’s interests, and that the only thing he has “done” in Congress is to sponsor a bill that, if passed, will be to increase taxes in order to give your money to give to third world countries, above and beyond what America already generously provides.
__________________________________________________________
Nice website. I discovered you while searching for something on Mussolini and his early “peace” activism and came across your “Tea With Mussolini, Columbian Coffee with Armageddonijad” (I call him OddMashuggahJob, but I like yours better).
regards
… did my last post get tagged as “spam” because I had so many links?
I can break it up, if that will help. It really is important to realize that words have meaning, and that the meaning of the terms “good and decent” have to be applied with some discrimination, i.e., only to those who at least minimally deserve them. I do not believe Obama is one of them. The refs I gave all support that conclusion, so I hope that post is cleared and added here. I’ll check back to see, and if it hasn’t, I’ll resubmit as several smaller posts.