The Republican Thread

[kapkomet]

There is a difference between not seeing, and not agreeing. I don't agree with your assessment.

That's fine, you are smart enough to determine your own ideas. There are quite a few (I would say the majority) that don't see the hypocrasy. If you can live with the hypocrasy because he's going to be "less hypocritical" then most, okay then. Hopefully I'm saying that right.

 

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

That's fine, you are smart enough to determine your own ideas. There are quite a few (I would say the majority) that don't see the hypocrasy. If you can live with the hypocrasy because he's going to be "less hypocritical" then most, okay then. Hopefully I'm saying that right.

Both candidates have been at times hypocritical, both have flip-flopped, both have thrown campaign staff under the bus (so to speak). Some of that is a necessity. Some of it is political B.S. games that they all play. Some is because of the incredible, pedantic overanalysis of everything either one of them say (usually by their loony ultra-wing followers trying to make the other look bad). And yes, some of it is also just failures on their parts.

 

I think its interesting to see what types of things each candidate tends to get hounded on, because its not necessarily done the way you'd think (finding a weakness, exploiting it). McCain tends to get pounded to no end about misstatements and verbal miscues, and also gets pigeon-holed as Bush II every time he says or does something remotely like Bush. Obama gets pounded for how he handles his staff, and also for every time he does something that might be seen as elitist. It looks to me like the media, and the campaigns, have decided on some themes to continuously beat to death in the other candidate. And if real material is lacking, they stretch reality so far as to be unrecognizable in order to fit that agenda.

 

For the campaigns, I expect that. The media, though, is just lazily following along with it.

 

 

[lostfan]

I don't really think this is the "worst election we've ever had." I am not enamored with either McCain or Obama, or any other standard Democrat or Republican, but I see it like this - McCain would be an improvement over Bush, and Obama is definitely an improvement over Kerry. The 2004 election was pathetic and disheartening, IMO.

 

I've started tuning the media out now. One too many manufactured controversies.

[kapkomet]

I don't really think this is the "worst election we've ever had." I am not enamored with either McCain or Obama, or any other standard Democrat or Republican, but I see it like this - McCain would be an improvement over Bush, and Obama is definitely an improvement over Kerry. The 2004 election was pathetic and disheartening, IMO.

 

I've started tuning the media out now. One too many manufactured controversies.

The Obama phenomenon to me is not necessarily media manufactured. For example, I don't need hounded on what language I should or should not speak. I don't need hounded on whether or not we need (insert special programs here) from the government. I don't need to be told NAFTA or China sucks because the unions are paying his campaigh BILLIONS, probably TRILLIONS, to tell me that the economy sucks because out jobs went elsewhere. These are all eliteist stances, and the media doesn't have to tell me that.

 

[southsider2k5]

I don't really think this is the "worst election we've ever had." I am not enamored with either McCain or Obama, or any other standard Democrat or Republican, but I see it like this - McCain would be an improvement over Bush, and Obama is definitely an improvement over Kerry. The 2004 election was pathetic and disheartening, IMO.

 

I've started tuning the media out now. One too many manufactured controversies.

 

Kerry versus Obama is a tough one for me. I think I might prefer Kerry. It sounds crazy to say this, but I think he might be more moderate than Barack. I really can't think back to one spot where Obama has crossed over to a predominantly republican stance, or opposed his party on anything meaningful.

[lostfan]

Kerry versus Obama is a tough one for me. I think I might prefer Kerry. It sounds crazy to say this, but I think he might be more moderate than Barack. I really can't think back to one spot where Obama has crossed over to a predominantly republican stance, or opposed his party on anything meaningful.

Telecom immunity

 

Also, he was with the conservative SCOTUS opinion on child rape not too long ago, for whatever that counts. Before that, he'd been painted as anti-death penalty because he voted against it in Illinois a few times for other reasons.

[lostfan]

The Obama phenomenon to me is not necessarily media manufactured. For example, I don't need hounded on what language I should or should not speak. I don't need hounded on whether or not we need (insert special programs here) from the government. I don't need to be told NAFTA or China sucks because the unions are paying his campaigh BILLIONS, probably TRILLIONS, to tell me that the economy sucks because out jobs went elsewhere. These are all eliteist stances, and the media doesn't have to tell me that.

Kaperbole™ aside, I'm not really talking about the Obama phenomenon. I'm talking about all the constant over-analysis of absolutely nothing on both candidates from the news networks. It gets tiring after a while. Much of this is just standard campaign BS.

[NorthSideSox72]

Telecom immunity

 

Also, he was with the conservative SCOTUS opinion on child rape not too long ago, for whatever that counts. Before that, he'd been painted as anti-death penalty because he voted against it in Illinois a few times for other reasons.

Also, something that was in the news recently... Obama is in favor of not just keeping, but expanding, Bush's faith-based initiatives.

 

Then there is the Iraq War, which Obama opposed early on when a lot of Dems were jumping on the war wagon. His stance on that is basically Democrat now though.

 

[southsider2k5]

Telecom immunity

 

Also, he was with the conservative SCOTUS opinion on child rape not too long ago, for whatever that counts. Before that, he'd been painted as anti-death penalty because he voted against it in Illinois a few times for other reasons.

 

All of those have changed since he beat Hillary and he has tried to move back to the center. I don't put much weight into that, just like I don't put much weight into McCain's new found rightwingedness. I am more looking at Obama's time in Congress than anything.

[NorthSideSox72]

Kerry versus Obama is a tough one for me. I think I might prefer Kerry. It sounds crazy to say this, but I think he might be more moderate than Barack. I really can't think back to one spot where Obama has crossed over to a predominantly republican stance, or opposed his party on anything meaningful.

I think Obama is a world better than Kerry in many areas outside policy.

 

But I also want to add here, to see a candidate as more independent, its not just based on going across the aisle. Its initiatives and ideas that don't belong to EITHER party. Obama has a number of those in his policies. The idea of alternative energy policy is somewhat Dem, but is really not truly either party at this point. And he's been pushing that pretty hard (more so than McCain). Obama has also talked about mass transit and other subjects that neither party wants to touch.

 

[lostfan]

All of those have changed since he beat Hillary and he has tried to move back to the center. I don't put much weight into that, just like I don't put much weight into McCain's new found rightwingedness. I am more looking at Obama's time in Congress than anything.

I'd say that is analogous to looking at Brian Anderson's batting average through May. It's not really enough to go off of, or to fully gauge. This is where the legit claims of inexperience come into play.

[southsider2k5]

I'd say that is analogous to looking at Brian Anderson's batting average through May. It's not really enough to go off of, or to fully gauge. This is where the legit claims of inexperience come into play.

 

 

I look back at the loads of BS that we have been fed during campaigns and I really believe it is better to go off of their body's of work prior to electing to run versus anything they say on the campaign trail. If you are to this point in a campaign, you pretty much will say anything it takes to get elected. Even if I have to look at something as short as the period of time that Obama has served, I think it is a better indicator of what he will do in office. Bush and Clinton both campaigned as being uniters yet resided over two of the most polarizing White Houses in decades, and their histories showed that they didn't really stray too far from what they had done in their days before the Presidency.

[lostfan]

I look back at the loads of BS that we have been fed during campaigns and I really believe it is better to go off of their body's of work prior to electing to run versus anything they say on the campaign trail. If you are to this point in a campaign, you pretty much will say anything it takes to get elected. Even if I have to look at something as short as the period of time that Obama has served, I think it is a better indicator of what he will do in office. Bush and Clinton both campaigned as being uniters yet resided over two of the most polarizing White Houses in decades, and their histories showed that they didn't really stray too far from what they had done in their days before the Presidency.

I don't disagree with that point. All I'm saying is the whole "most liberal in the Senate" tag he has is abstract, and too small a sample to be of value. Granted, it's in comparison with others during the same time period, but so is a player who is batting .428 or .131 for a month. Congressmen and Senators tend to vote in lock step with their party, so when they swing to the right or left, the difference is only a couple of votes.

[mr_genius]

The idea of alternative energy policy is somewhat Dem, but is really not truly either party at this point. And he's been pushing that pretty hard (more so than McCain). Obama has also talked about mass transit and other subjects that neither party wants to touch.

 

I totally disagree. McCain is for alternative energy just as much as Obama. Also, the Dems haven't done anything for energy independence, the notion that they are better on energy is a farce. A lot Democrats won't even allow windmills in their area. Plus, there is more to alternative energy than wind and solar.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I totally disagree. McCain is for alternative energy just as much as Obama. Also, the Dems haven't done anything for energy independence, the notion that they are better on energy is a farce. A lot Democrats won't even allow windmills in their area. Plus, there is more to alternative energy than wind and solar.

I agree with everything you just wrote. in general, neither side as really done much.

I do believe that McCain and Obama would both change america's energy policy in a good direction. I think Obama's is more drastic than McCains, but that is up for debate. Energy is probably one of those things that I'd have no major issue with either of them.

 

Personally, I prefer Obama's policy of wind and solar with some nuclear over McCains policy of heavy nuclear with some wind and solar. but whatever. I also think that Yucaa isnt as big of a deal as people make it out to be. Just dump the nuclear waste there.

[mr_genius]

I agree with everything you just wrote. in general, neither side as really done much.

I do believe that McCain and Obama would both change america's energy policy in a good direction. I think Obama's is more drastic than McCains, but that is up for debate. Energy is probably one of those things that I'd have no major issue with either of them.

 

Personally, I prefer Obama's policy of wind and solar with some nuclear over McCains policy of heavy nuclear with some wind and solar. but whatever. I also think that Yucaa isnt as big of a deal as people make it out to be. Just dump the nuclear waste there.

 

I'm all for solar and wind power, but I don't think it is ready to take over as a major producer of energy. We need to put money into research as we build some new nuclear. I don't think nuclear power needs to be the total long term solution.

Edited July 11, 2008 by mr_genius

[HuskyCaucasian]

I'm all for solor and wind power, but I don't think it is ready to take over as a major producer of energy. We need to put money into research as we build some new nuclear. I don't think nuclear power needs to be the total long term solution.

agreed

[lostfan]

I'm all for solor and wind power, but I don't think it is ready to take over as a major producer of energy. We need to put money into research as we build some new nuclear. I don't think nuclear power needs to be the total long term solution.

I'm afraid nuclear would become a crutch if we used it as a short-term solution, but I don't see any other way. It's the best option right now, but it's far from perfect.

 

What trips me out is that on all 3 of the energy options (more drilling, solar/wind expansion, nuclear) there is no consensus on any of them, and they all have somebody blocking them. Come on, what gives? We're just going to run in place indefinitely? I applaud aggressive funding of alternative energy but we need to quit using this as a political football and start getting serious. And soon.

[bmags]

I'm afraid nuclear would become a crutch if we used it as a short-term solution, but I don't see any other way. It's the best option right now, but it's far from perfect.

 

What trips me out is that on all 3 of the energy options (more drilling, solar/wind expansion, nuclear) there is no consensus on any of them, and they all have somebody blocking them. Come on, what gives? We're just going to run in place indefinitely? I applaud aggressive funding of alternative energy but we need to quit using this as a political football and start getting serious. And soon.

 

the reality is it should be a combination of all three, in the dakota's, wind power is a fantastic option. In more southern areas and areas with more desert climate, solar is a great option. And there are places where nuclear would be more beneficial than either of these two. I'm for building some more nuclear plants, but I don't think America should look to nuclear to be our whole power like it is in France (some 80% there).

[southsider2k5]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11750.html

 

Hill Democrats miffed at Obama

By JOHN BRESNAHAN | 7/15/08 4:34 AM EST

Text Size:

Barack Obama

Obama spokesman Bill Burton dismissed the criticism as not-for-attribution complaints of staffers who aren’t knowledgeable about the campaign’s Hill coordination efforts.

Photo: AP

 

After a brief bout of Obamamania, some Capitol Hill Democrats have begun to complain privately that Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is insular, uncooperative and inattentive to their hopes for a broad Democratic victory in November.

 

“They think they know what’s right and everyone else is wrong on everything,” groused one senior Senate Democratic aide. “They are kind of insufferable at this point.”

 

Among the grievances described by Democratic leadership insiders:

 

• Until a mailing that went out in the past few days, Obama had done little fundraising for Democratic candidates since signing off on e-mailed fundraising appeals for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee immediately after securing the Democratic nomination.

 

• Obama has sometimes appeared in members’ districts with no advance notice to lawmakers, resulting in lost opportunities for those Democrats to score points by appearing alongside their party’s presumptive presidential nominee.

 

• The Obama campaign has not, until very recently, coordinated a daily message with congressional Democrats, leaving Democratic members in the lurch when they’re asked to comment on the constant back and forth between Obama and John McCain — as they were when Obama said earlier this month that he would “continue to refine” his Iraq policies after meeting with commanders on the ground there.

See also

 

* Obama strategy: Equal pay, not abortion

* Obama says Iraq war must end

* GOP warns against fast mortgage action

 

• Coordination between the Obama campaign and the House and Senate leadership is so weak that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — who will chair the Democrats’ convention in August — didn’t know of Obama’s decision to move his final-night acceptance speech from the Pepsi Center to Invesco Field until the campaign announced it on a conference call with reporters.

 

Obama spokesman Bill Burton dismissed the criticism as not-for-attribution complaints of staffers who aren’t knowledgeable about the campaign’s Hill coordination efforts.

 

“It’s a favorite parlor game in Washington for low-level staff to take shots at anyone they can, given the opportunity,” Burton said. “But as leadership aides across the Hill have confirmed even in this story, we have a constructive working relationship with the House and Senate leadership and continue to work with them to bring about the change the American people demand this November.”

 

On the record, spokesmen for Democratic leaders and the campaign committees say they’re pleased with the coordination they’re getting from the Obama campaign.

 

“We have a great relationship with the Obama campaign and work closely with them on everything from message strategy to on-the-ground coordination in states where we have races,” said DSCC spokesman Matthew Miller. Jennifer Crider, the DCCC’s communications director, said the DCCC and the Obama campaign are working together “to bring our change agenda to the country.”

 

Privately, however, there is a different message coming from some Democratic quarters on the Hill and on K Street. Some Democratic leadership staffers complain that, having defeated the vaunted Clinton political machine in the primaries, the Obama campaign now feels a “sense of entitlement” that leads to “arrogance.”

 

One Democratic aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity, compared the Obama campaign unfavorably to President Bush’s administration.

 

“At least Bush waited until he was in the White House before they started ignoring everybody,” the aide said.

 

“These relationships matter,” said a House Democrat close to the leadership. “I really hope these guys try to get off on the right foot. We all know what happened to [former President] Jimmy Carter and [former President] Bill Clinton. We don’t want to see a repeat of that.”

 

Brian Wolff, the DCCC’s executive director, said that some of the “supposed arrogance” coming from the Obama camp is in reality a misinterpreted sense of confidence in the campaign’s plan for winning the Oval Office, including grass-roots mobilization, in-state political infrastructure, messaging and get-out-the vote operations.

 

“They have to set the tone, and they are setting the tone,” Wolff said. “Arrogance is sometimes mistaken for competence. I think having a real competent approach to your campaign, whether it’s field [operations] or politics, or overall message, I think it’s really important. ... They’re really doing a really good job at this.”

 

Some of the complaints about the Obama campaign are the result of tensions inherent in any presidential campaign — Democratic or Republican — as a candidate’s staff tries to deal with the Washington establishment.

 

Others are the result of the circumstances in which Obama finds himself: Having battled Hillary Rodham Clinton into June, Obama hasn’t had much time for the normal interaction between a campaign and Congress. And having to struggle to help Clinton pay off her own debt, he hasn’t had the time or the resources to raise money for Democratic House and Senate candidates.

 

But some problems are specific to the choices Obama has made — to run as a “change” candidate and to base his operations in Chicago rather than Washington. In distancing himself from “politics as usual,” Obama has shown little interest in being seen with Reid, Pelosi or other members of the Democratic congressional leadership.

 

And by forbidding lobbyists from playing formal roles in his campaign, Obama has denied himself access to people — in many cases, former Democratic members and aides who are still close to leaders and other lawmakers — who could help him smooth over issues with the Hill. Without lobbyists involved, hotel rooms and tickets for the convention are harder to come by, spurring protests and leaving bruised egos among congressional Democrats used to being treated like VIPs.

 

The Obama campaign has already moved to address some of these sore spots, recently appointing Phil Schiliro, former chief of staff to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), as Obama’s Capitol Hill liaison. Schiliro, who also served as an aide to former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), sat in on his first Democratic leadership meeting and House Democratic Caucus meeting last week, said House aides.

 

“I wouldn’t do this if it wasn’t a priority for Sen. Obama and the campaign,” Schiliro said of his new role.

 

Daily message conference calls have been established, and Obama’s campaign has begun consultations, still in the early stages, with Democratic leaders over political strategy for November. Schiliro said it was “premature” to criticize the Obama camp’s level of outreach to congressional Democrats.

 

Other Obama campaign sources repeatedly noted that the drawn-out fight with Clinton has “put the campaign behind schedule” in terms of Hill outreach and message operation, but that the campaign remains confident it can make up lost ground.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Obama isnt sucking up to us. booo hoooo!

[southsider2k5]

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...GIzNDExM2Y3ZWI=

 

Obama: 'I Had No Doubt... We Would See a Reduction in Violence' With Surge

 

The two most glaring contradictions in Obama's statements on the surge are bolded.

 

Rush noted Obama's position in January 2007:

 

OBAMA: We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality, uh, we can send 15,000 more troops; 20,000 more troops; 30,000 more troops. Uh, I don't know any, uh, expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to, uh, privately that believes that that is gonna make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.

 

Dan Riehl notes Obama's position in July 2007:

 

"Here's what we know. The surge has not worked. And they said today, 'Well, even in September, we're going to need more time.' So we're going to kick this can all the way down to the next president, under the president's plan."

 

A Democratic debate in September 13, 2007:

 

After putting an additional 30,000 troops in, far longer & more troops than the president had initially said, we have gone from a horrendous situation of violence in Iraq to the same intolerable levels of violence that we had back in June of 2006. So, essentially, after all this we're back where we were 15 months ago. And what has not happened is any movement with respect to the sort of political accommodations among the various factions, the Shia, the Sunni, and Kurds that were the rationale for surge and that ultimately is going to be what stabilizes Iraq. So, I think it is fair to say that the president has simply tried to gain another six months to continue on the same course that he's been on for several years now. It is a course that will not succeed. It is a course that is exacting an enormous toll on the American people & our troops.

 

Democratic debate, January 5, 2008:

 

I had no doubt, and I said when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence.

 

The reaction to this year's State of the Union address:

 

When Bush proclaimed, “Ladies and gentlemen, some may deny the surge is working, but among terrorists there is no doubt,” Clinton sprang to her feet in applause but Obama remained firmly seated.

 

Obama's released statement that evening: "Tonight Pres. Bush said that the surge in Iraq is working, when we know that's just not true. Yes, our valiant soldiers have helped reduce the violence. But let there be no doubt—the Iraqi government has failed to seize the moment to reach compromises necessary for an enduring peace. That was what we were told the surge was all about. So the only way we're finally going to pressure the Iraqis to reconcile and take responsibility for their future is to immediately begin a responsible withdrawal."

 

The recently-scrubbed portion of Obama's web site: "The surge is not working." Greg has the whole sections that were deleted.

 

UPDATE: Even more, from the Powerline guys:

 

January 10, 2007, on MSNBC:

 

I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.

 

On May 25, 2007, in a speech to the Coalition Of Black Trade Unionists Convention, Obama said:

 

And what I know is that what our troops deserve is not just rhetoric, they deserve a new plan. Governor Romney and Senator McCain clearly believe that the course that we're on in Iraq is working, I do not.

 

On July 18, 2007, on the Today show, he said:

 

My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.

 

On November 11, 2007, two months after General David Petraeus told Congress that the surge was working, Obama doubled down, saying that the administration's new strategy was making the situation in Iraq worse:

 

Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn't withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled them and initiated a surge and at that stage I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we're actually worsening, potentially, a situation there.

 

We never know what the future holds, and those who supported the invasion of Iraq made their own erroneous predictions — about WMDs, etc. But it's less forgivable to deny progress as it's occurring right in front of you. That suggests the candidate is wedded to ideology and oblivious to the consequences of policy changes. And a candidate who has the... well, audacity to claim that he always said the surge would result in an "improvement in the security situation and a reduction of violence" when he said the opposite many times thinks that A) voters are gullible and B) the media have the attention span of an over-caffeinated ferret.

[southsider2k5]

So of course this is the next natural move...

 

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...jk1ZWE3NmM3YTI=

 

Editing History

 

The New York Daily News:

 

Barack Obama's campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop "surge" in Iraq, the Daily News has learned.

 

The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a "problem" that had barely reduced violence.

 

"The surge is not working," Obama's old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province.

 

The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.

 

Yes, this will help dispel the recent "flip-flopper" talk.

[lostfan]

The surge is one factor of about 3 or 4 major factors that have contributed to the reduction in violence. In and of itself, it didn't do anything, I guess you can call it a catalyst. It was more of a general change in strategy from the previous failures. I really wish media coverage of the war is more thorough though, back in the first couple of years they would actually talk big picture, but it's been reduced to useless talking points since nobody really likes talking about it anymore.

Edited July 15, 2008 by lostfan

[NorthSideSox72]

The surge is one factor of about 3 or 4 major factors that have contributed to the reduction in violence. In and of itself, it didn't do anything, I guess you can call it a catalyst. I really wish media coverage of the war is more thorough though, back in the first couple of years they would actually talk big picture, but it's been reduced to useless talking points since nobody really likes talking about it anymore.

If you want more thorough coverage, find newspapers (NOT TV news) that have people on the ground. The Post, The Chicago Tribune, NYT, probably others. They will give you the best, most complete picture.