I was in protests prior to the war starting, wrote my legislators and even the President. What I did has as much relevance to the authorization as much as Obama giving a speech in the IL Senate. It sounds like you are saying Obama was being disengenous to be nice to Kerry.
I'm not obsessed with the "MLK thing," but I keep being asked about it, some I've responded. I can't believe, Batman, that you would make this argument (that I've quoted here), when every politician in our modern history running for President has said they'd do a better job, a good job, a great job, a job that will change the dynamic in Washington, a job that will cure our economy, a job that will repair our foreign relations, a job that will bring social justice, however the candidate defines it. It's politics. We keep coming back to what bugs me. Obama is a politician. He's playing the game. Sure, he's smart and sophisticated about it and has done some new things, like using the internet marvelously, but he's still a politician trying to get elected President. He's made promises to the country of what he'll do if elected. Based on what? His record? Please. You can slam Ms. Clinton's record, but what about the lack of a record for Obama? Don't we always take a large measure of who we elect to this office on faith? Faith based on what the candidate says, how he/she says it, how they "connect" to us, how they inspire us, how they make us believe they are the right choice? It certainly isn't experience. If it was, Jack kennedy wouldn't have won in 1960, Bill Clinton wouldn't have won in 1992, and George W. Bush wouldn't have had the opportunity to be selected by the Supreme Court in 2000. I don't know what you want me to say. Apparently, you want Barack to be flawless as a candidate. Sorry, but I don't buy it. I'll buy him, but I won't buy that argument. And I'll continue to say that the Clintons are good Democrats, whether you like them or not, who have been unfairly "raped and assaulted" by a GOP run amok and a media complicit, knowingly or not, in the deed. Obviously, you can disagree, and I respect that, but it happens to be my opinion. And I want Obama to get the nomination. Why? Not because I think he is the reincarnation of Jack or Bobby Kennedy. He's not. It's because I think he can win. Impeach Bush.
Hopefully make it plain ahead of time what it is possible to accomplish. Make it known ahead of time that efforts to over reach will no be productive. If something gets in that is a non-starter, stop and introduce the bill over. Also let it be made public not once but in an ongoing campaign who stopped the progress about what could have been made. invite them to take up the pet issues in separate bills. The most conservative candidates aren't going to like being outed as the ones that killed a bill banning late term abortions. Focusing on what we have in common doesn't have to do with how liberal or conservative he is. So the fact that he is liberal doesn't mean he can't work across the aisle. He's done so already numerous times in just 2 years. Despite his liberal positions, and given the fact that he has no real leadership position in the senate he's still managed to work in a bi-partisan effort on numerous issues. Once he's in charge and setting the tone, I can't imagine that given more power to exert leadership and set the tone, that would somehow lessen. So it isn't that his position on issues don't matter. But what matters more is that even with those positions he has already shown that he can get things done with people who have opposite positions on issues. He's seeking to expand that. Obama doesn't shy away from his issues. As he recounts, it was in front of an automakers group that he spoke of raising fuel efficiency standards to 40mpg, and as he said, there wasn't a lot of applause it was almost silent. He talked about alternative fuel, and what needed to be done. He doesn't shy away from his issues, but by being able to focus on commonalities, then people won't see him as a pure idealogue, and will be more willing to work with him. So in addition to working on the commonalities, I think he has a better chance of getting the positions he and Hillary share actually passed. So in addition to getting more accomplished, I believe he'll be able to getting his own positions passed more likely than Hillary will. Will they all get passed? No. But I have a hard time believing that Hillary and her style of winning friends and influencing people would do better. We've seen politicians like Hillary and including Hillary. Her campaign is underhanded, and slimy. I don't like that kind of politics, and I don't think she can push her issues through better than Obama can, but in addition to that Obama offers more. Obama wants to change the focus. That is more lofty than Just the same tired argument of my issue is right because of reason x. He has presented a plan of how he will change the argument. I'm not trying to convince you, just trying to show the reasoning behind my disagreement with your assessment of Obama. How as that for a horrible run-on sentence?
Except that it's not about winning over opponents. If you start at point A (Obama's strong left position) and your opposition starts at point B (conservative side), one style of leadership says you come up with a compromise solution at point C (moderate left). That's what Bill and the GOP Congress did, for example, with welfare reform. The other solution is to stand your ground and say "my way or nothing". That is the Bush style (and also the Hillary style in regards to health care in 1994). The result doesn't tend to be very good. You may (Bush) or may not (Hillary) get your way. But you'll definitely piss off half the country. "His positions are stated, written and present for folks to see, but arguing about them over and over has been done for decades and gotten us to the point we are at now." The question then is should positions matter? If you don't think we should be debating those and just buy into his style you are putting style over substance.[/QUOTE]
This style over substance thing is as silly as change versus experience. On virtually every issue, Obama and Clinton are identical. The exceptions, off the top of my head, are mandated health care vs. affordable (but not mandated) health care, initial positions on the Iraq war and the scope of pre-conditions to insist on before talking with our enemies. With the exception of the Iraq thing (on which, going forward, they are identical), each of these differences is a matter of degrees. As such, where does the "substance" come in? It's as if Obama, by virtue of having displayed a more attractive and successful style, has somehow ceded "substance." As if a candidate can only have one or the other, even while their platforms and position papers are virtually exactly the same. Sishir: I defy you to tell me how HRC has any leg up on Obama wrt "substance." Similarly on change v. experience, if the important thing was experience we should have nominated Richardson, Biden or Dodd -- in that order. The only experience HRC has that BHO doesn't is being married to Bill Clinton. Their professional careers are virtually identical otherwise, with regard to experience. If HRC really believed experience was the important thing, she would have dropped out and endorsed Richardson, Biden or Dodd at the beginning of the race. But she doesn't believe that; she's just presenting a false choice in order to get hand over Barack. Deckard: I guess we can be done talking about this. I have kept it up because you have continually said (a) there was no significant difference between Obama and Clinton wrt cynical, dishonest campaigning and (b) Clinton was suffering undue and unfair attacks in this race (with the implication that this is happening out of proportion with what's happened to Obama). Both of those things are imminently false and each time I've said why and asked for clarification you've ducked and refused to answer. That's fine. I'm glad you're supporting Obama, whatever the reason.
Using reason to justify your position is "tired"? We're not electing the next American Idol here. It is and always will be about the issues. Who has the best ideas? Who's willing to compromise and to what extent? Who will base their policy decisions on reason rather than emotion?
Really? I would venture to guess that if we tried to have an honest health care debate about Obama and Hillary's policies, not a single one of us would have ANY clue what we were talking about. Unless you work in the industry and have studied the plans in detail, you have no idea which plan would work better in reality - and chances are, even if you did have that background, your analysis would be very sketchy (this is why professional health care economists disagree on the issues). The reality is that none of understand the issues in any kind of depth to rationally judge them. We can understand philosophies - conservative vs liberal, free trade vs protectionist, etc - but not one of us would be able to have a legitimate argument on the details. And all the differences in their positions are in the details. If the election is about the issues, then 99.9% of the electorate is unqualified to make any kind of decision.
That makes no sense. Somebody who has great ideas on policy issues, but is inefficient, and unorganized and gets nothing done, then it isn't really about issues. But if a person has similar ideas and operates in a style that is ultra-efficient and organized, then that style is indeed important. I'm sorry there is a reason why leadership style is important. I'm not saying issues aren't important, but they aren't the only thing that's important. I haven't seen either candidate basing their policies on emotion.
Barack Obama might not be Jesus, but he wants to save the world with $845 Billion of US Taxpayer money over 13 years. http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272618845.shtml Barack Obama's Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Cliff Kincaid Feb 12, 2008 A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations. Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama’s “Global Poverty Act” (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends. The bill, which is item number four on the committee’s business meeting agenda, passed the House by a voice vote last year because most members didn’t realize what was in it. Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require. According to the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no hearings have been held on the Obama bill in that body. A release from the Obama Senate office about the bill declares, “In 2000, the U.S. joined more than 180 countries at the United Nations Millennium Summit and vowed to reduce global poverty by 2015. We are halfway towards this deadline, and it is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day.” The legislation itself requires the President “to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.” The bill defines the term “Millennium Development Goals” as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000). The U.N. says that “The commitment to provide 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) as official development assistance was first made 35 years ago in a General Assembly resolution, but it has been reaffirmed repeatedly over the years, including at the 2002 global Financing for Development conference in Monterrey, Mexico. However, in 2004, total aid from the industrialized countries totaled just $78.6 billion—or about 0.25% of their collective GNP.” In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning “small arms and light weapons” and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Millennium Declaration also affirms the U.N. as “the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development.” Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.’s “Millennium Project,” says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.’s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the “Millennium Development Goals,” this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels. Obama’s bill has only six co-sponsors. They are Senators Maria Cantwell, Dianne Feinstein, Richard Lugar, Richard Durbin, Chuck Hagel and Robert Menendez. But it appears that Biden and Obama see passage of this bill as a way to highlight Democratic Party priorities in the Senate. The House version (H.R. 1302), sponsored by Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), had only 84 co-sponsors before it was suddenly brought up on the House floor last September 25 and was passed by voice vote. House Republicans were caught off-guard, unaware that the pro-U.N. measure committed the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars. It appears the Senate version is being pushed not only by Biden and Obama, a member of the committee, but Lugar, the ranking Republican member. Lugar has worked with Obama in the past to promote more foreign aid for Russia, supposedly to stem nuclear proliferation, and has become Obama’s mentor. Like Biden, Lugar is a globalist. They have both promoted passage of the U.N.’s Law of the Sea Treaty, for example. The so-called “Lugar-Obama initiative” was modeled after the Nunn-Lugar program, also known as the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, which was designed to eliminate weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. But one defense analyst, Rich Kelly, noted evidence that “CTR funds have eased the Russian military’s budgetary woes, freeing resources for such initiatives as the war in Chechnya and defense modernization.” He recommended that Congress “eliminate CTR funding so that it does not finance additional, perhaps more threatening, programs in the former Soviet Union.” However, over $6 billion has already been spent on the program. Another program modeled on Nunn-Lugar, the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP), was recently exposed as having funded nuclear projects in Iran through Russia. More foreign aid through passage of the Global Poverty Act was identified as one of the strategic goals of InterAction, the alliance of U.S-based international non-governmental organizations that lobbies for more foreign aid. The group is heavily financed by the U.S. Government, having received $1.4 million from taxpayers in fiscal year 2005 and $1.7 million in 2006. However, InterAction recently issued a report accusing the United States of “falling short on its commitment to rid the world of dire poverty by 2015 under the U.N. Millennium Development Goals…” It’s not clear what President Bush would do if the bill passes the Senate. The bill itself quotes Bush as declaring that “We fight against poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity.” Bush’s former top aide, Michael J. Gerson, writes in his new book, Heroic Conservatism, that Bush should be remembered as the President who “sponsored the largest percentage increases in foreign assistance since the Marshall Plan…” Even these increases, however, will not be enough to satisfy the requirements of the Obama bill. A global tax will clearly be necessary to force American taxpayers to provide the money. * Americans who would like their senators to know what they are voting on can contact them through information at the official Senate site.
On the UN thing, no it doesn't. From what I gather, it's a bill to have the US spend what it has publicly already committed to in the UN. If the US wants to change it's mind, there's nothing to stop it from cutting spending or simply removing itself from the project. As for the "could result" - that's a nice convenient way of making a nothing sound extremely scary. Especially when combined with.... Umm, so to come up with $845 billion, they are counting years that already occurred and are irrelevant? I won't pretend to know much about the bill, but this article is pretty ludicrous.
Oh yeah - I definitely think it's an interesting topic and hopefully we'll learn more about this in the near future. I certainly hadn't heard a word about it before your article. If it comes up for a vote and has Obama's name on it, I suspect either his campaign or Hillary will bring it up as either a legislative success or something to criticize.
So what exactly is your alternative to reasoned debate on the issues? All I see here is cynicism at its worst. Would you care to explain how one would objectively evaluate the "leadership style" of a candidate? Honestly, I agree with most of what you say. Some politicians are more effective at getting their agenda passed than others, but I see that more as a product of his/her issues and willingness to compromise than some nebulous conception of "leadership".
Ultimately, people make decisions on Presidents based on perceptions about intelligence and character. The details in debates, the speeches, all of that are ways for candidates to shape those perceptions - but I wouldn't assume for a second that we're really getting any details on how any of their plans would actually work. I don't see it as particularly cynical - businesses and everyone else make decisions about leaders, friends, etc based on fungible things. I don't think evaluating a candidates is a particularly objective process. If it were, picking a president would be a much easier decision.
Ok... I think we're talking about two different things (how it is vs. how it should be). My original response took issue with FB's praising Obama for moving the debate away from reason (not saying Obama is actually trying to do that). If anything, we should be striving for a more reasoned debate. That would take an informed electorate, which is too much to ask for aparently.
how's he going to do that w/o raising taxes, or w/o the "excess" profits, generated from additional revenue, which in turn generate greater tax receipts, of companies like the evil exxonmobile?
