[
You don't seem like the kind of person who would think everything Rove says is true.
While I obviously don't agree with him on his political views and don't like all of his tactics, I have to hand it to him at how brilliant he is in regards to politics. The man is a genius.
I actually really enjoy seeing him interviewed for this reason. He speaks his mind and is surprisingly respectful and charming to the interviewer no matter what he's being asked. Just because I don't agree with his point of view doesn't mean that I don't respect him.
A few facts are in order....1st...Kerry at any time could have ordered his full military file released and if his side were true....He was a lock to win the election. Kerry still has not ordered his full files released he has only released 7 pages of a 100 plus page file ....Why do you think that is?
I don't remember the exact numbers but of the approx 260 officers and sailors that served with Kerry 254 of them signed on to the Swift Boat sailors allegations.
Nice spoofing of my screen name. Very mature.
I've said it before, I'll say it again - Kerry was stupid to base his campaign off of being a Vietnam Vet. Bush was an easy target, and basing a campaign off a few years on a boat 30 years ago was silly - just as McCain's campaign based on being a POW is silly. And really, I have no doubt some of the swift boaters' claims are accurate (i.e. that Kerry's claims were not 100% truthful).
The point was (and still is) that with sufficient funds and air time, you can convince a large percentage of people of just about anything. Several billionaire GOP donors provided the money, and the conservative media machine provided the air time, and it worked very effectively.
Usually, when politicians start "getting stuff done" we all suffer.
Yes, I agree that when the legislature fails to accomplish anything, little changes because they will just default to continuing the budget. But when the executive branch is run by someone who has never held a job long enough to accomplish something, then all heck breaks lose. Stuff needs to happen constantly, and it is enormously complex stuff. Obama's one and only proven ability is to run for higher office, and that skill is of no value in the Oval Office. McCain has effectively lead the Senate in most of its major initiatives for many years now, by building coalitions and calling for and advocating specific changes. That experience is exactly the kind of evidence that shows he has the necessary skills to lead the executive branch.
Palin doesn't yet have as deep a track record as McCain, but she has demonstrated those key skills in a smaller arena. It is not the size of the executive branch the she leads that matters, but her performance in that office. We can evaluate and discuss that performance over the next two months. But again, what has Obama accomplished?
I'm dead serious when I say two other politicians ran on Hope and Change and I wouldn't have voted for them either. They also ran on class warfare, and one was racially based. They are Lennin and Hitler.
They were not so obviously, before they gained power, the men we now know through the lens of history. Neither is Obama.
Obama is the most frightening choice for president that has been offered up to the American people as a major parties candidate in my lifetime and probably the history of our country.
WTF! Did you even hear McCain's speech last night? He's running on change as well. So is Palin. Pot calling the kettle black here.
Besides, what would you prefer, a candidate running on the despair and gradual decline platform? Finally, how can you argue that we don't know what Obama is going to do and we know he is the most frightening candidate in our nations history?
Watch out, you can be called a racist warmongering baby killer for asking that question.
Is this hypocritical quote really what we are going to be hearing for the next 2 months? Bleh! I am starting to feel like a lot of people don't even really understand what job the president does. Let me detail the presidents responsibilities.
1) Sign laws.
2) Assign Justices.
3) Serve as chief diplomat.
4) Declare war.
5) Figurative role to rally the spirit of the American people.
I probably missed a few, but I think that suffices, so who's best? #1 is hard to judge because it depends far more on congress. If the Dems strengthen their congress majority (likely) then McCain will be mostly vetoing and Obama mostly signing. But if congress is relatively evenly split (like now) it doesn't really matter who controls the presidency as they will only see bills that made it through a split congress. Who's better at #2, I think that will be evenly split along political lines and there's no way to change anyones mind. #3, I think Obama is better, as the majority of the globe seems thrilled to deal with him as opposed to a republican at this point. #4 I would give an edge to McCain, with the hope that whoever is in office not need that quality (peace is better than war). #5, I would give Obama the lead as he tends to excel in that arena.
So, if like me you assume congress will be relatively deadlocked, the choice comes down to whether you think McCain's war experience and likely justice choices are better than Obama's international popularity, ability to rally emotions, and his justice choices.
Everything else is just smear or ignoring what the president actually does. Well, I guess I'd also throw in a how likely is the president to ignore and violate the constitution. I think both McCain and Obama will be so much better in that regard that it's almost not worth listing, but then again I never anticipated Bush would do so much damage to it.
I'm waiting for the same thing to come out on McCain and Palin.
In this day and age it's impossible for any candidate not to have such gaffes. I wouldn't hold those against them so long as they are obvious slips of the tongue and not some deeper character flaw sneaking out. During most of those, and it's clear he's exhausted from the ridiculous schedule during the primaries. With the media recording everything, even a simple stutter or stumble will eventually find its way onto YouTube.
Take the 57 states deal. It's obvious he doesn't really believe he visited 57 states. Likely, he was thinking how many states he visited and made a disassociation. Perhaps he meant to say "out of 50 states, I've been to 37 (or 47...something ending in 7)" Instead, he said "fifty" and then "seven".
Now, if we left candidates alone between the hours of 5pm and 9am, and if they only campaigned from 9am-5pm, this might be different. Candidates could be well rested and you would expect them to be on their game more.
Couple thoughts from last night... not comparing since I didn't see all of Obama's speech or either VP.
About 20% of McCain's speech was good; the man has an amazing life story. 70% was boring as snot. The other 10% made me choke. They need to stop using the video background if they can't figure out the coloring. The flag flying over his head was only marginally less tacky than Obama's Athenian decor. The thing with his mom was silly; she stood up to acknowledge the crowd before they even started clapping.
McCain should never give a major speech again. Leave it to Palin. Everything he does looks forced, especially the creepy smiles, and as noted above he's boring.
Just like Kerry, too much about being a POW, not enough about policy or this mysterious "change" (he *is* a Republican, right? The one with Congressional majority for 6 of Bush's 8 years?).
His praise of Palin seemed genuine, if not a bit dubious in its claims.
Lots of double speak, something I don't recall McCain doing much of in 2000. A few examples:
Saying he'll fight big oil... then pulling out the drill here, drill now spiel. I think this was traditional pandering, and I hope McCain realizes that drilling in the US will never be able to drastically affect gas prices. A lot of voters seem to not grasp this, though.
Lots of tax cuts, some of them quite specific... no real cost savings mentioned (just a general 'cut out government waste and pork barrel phrase') - I'm guessing this means bigger deficits, leading to...
Saying he'll stop putting off our problems to future generations... but saddling them with more debt so the wealthiest 10% of Americans can have tax cuts.
And last, the choker of the night, which made me start laughing:
[Russia] invaded a small democratic neighbor to gain more control over the world's oil supply...
Good rhetoric, but an utter and total falsehood. Georgia has 0 (that's zero) oil resources and imports every drop they use from Russia. They have a couple pipelines that connect Azerbaijan to Turkey but they account for a small amount of oil and Russia made no attempts to control them (I think they're owned by Russian companies, anyway).
Overall, McCain'08 still feels like Kerry'04 all over, with way too much emphasis on the distant past and very little of the present.
Looking forward to seeing some polls in the next week or so...
. I wouldn't hold those against them so long as they are obvious slips of the tongue and not some deeper character flaw sneaking out.
That's the problem I have in that we don't know what his character is besides what he (and the media) tells us. I base character on actions / associations / what he's done, not words. It also says a lot for a person on whom they CHOOSE to associate with.
1) Sign laws.
2) Assign Justices.
3) Serve as chief diplomat.
4) Declare war.
5) Figurative role to rally the spirit of the American people.
I probably missed a few, but I think that suffices
Not for me it doesn't.
6) Budget and administer $2.7 trillion in annual expenditures
7) Commander in Chief for 2.4 million soldiers in active and reserve military.
8 ) De facto leader of the free world responsible for protecting the freedom of Americans by spreading democracy throughout the world.
Only Palin has experience relevant to 6. McCain personal experience as squandron commander and advocate for the surge speak volumes about 7. Obama claims some relevance to 8 because he has been thinking about these issues while campaigning, but he seems to view the role as the US being one of many, where McCain recognizes the unique role of the US within the world.
I'm dead serious when I say two other politicians ran on Hope and Change and I wouldn't have voted for them either. They also ran on class warfare, and one was racially based. They are Lennin and Hitler.
They were not so obviously, before they gained power, the men we now know through the lens of history. Neither is Obama.
Obama is the most frightening choice for president that has been offered up to the American people as a major parties candidate in my lifetime and probably the history of our country.
WTF! Did you even hear McCain's speech last night? He's running on change as well. So is Palin. Pot calling the kettle black here.
Besides, what would you prefer, a candidate running on the despair and gradual decline platform? Finally, how can you argue that we don't know what Obama is going to do and we know he is the most frightening candidate in our nations history?
Well, there is change and there is change. I look at the track records (and promises) of both Palin and McCain and I like what I see - especially from Palin. When I look at Obama's track record and his promises, when he bothers to quantify them, and, well, I guess I already said it in the post you quoted...
After all, if a cancer patient comes out of a hospital either cured or in a pine box, both are "change". I prefer the former.
My wife and I saw Palin's speech on the internet. We both, separately and at the exact same time identified the moment when Palin cinched the presidency for McCain. It was whin Piper licked her hand and "fixed" her little brother's hair.
. I wouldn't hold those against them so long as they are obvious slips of the tongue and not some deeper character flaw sneaking out.
That's the problem I have in that we don't know what his character is besides what he (and the media) tells us. I base character on actions / associations / what he's done, not words. It also says a lot for a person on whom they CHOOSE to associate with.
I'm waiting for the same thing to come out on McCain and Palin.
In this day and age it's impossible for any candidate not to have such gaffes. I wouldn't hold those against them so long as they are obvious slips of the tongue and not some deeper character flaw sneaking out. During most of those, and it's clear he's exhausted from the ridiculous schedule during the primaries. With the media recording everything, even a simple stutter or stumble will eventually find its way onto YouTube.
Take the 57 states deal. It's obvious he doesn't really believe he visited 57 states. Likely, he was thinking how many states he visited and made a disassociation. Perhaps he meant to say "out of 50 states, I've been to 37 (or 47...something ending in 7)" Instead, he said "fifty" and then "seven".
Now, if we left candidates alone between the hours of 5pm and 9am, and if they only campaigned from 9am-5pm, this might be different. Candidates could be well rested and you would expect them to be on their game more.
Believe it or not, I agree with pretty much all of what you said. The ones that I think kill Obama is when he is at a loss for words and just stutters and rambles. I cannot remember the last time I saw a major politician do such a thing (on a regular basis). Not even the infamous Dan Quayle had that problem. Obama can't seem to think on his feet when he is concerned that what he really WANTS to say will definitely not go over well.
Like I said a couple of weeks before we even knew Palin was in this, McCain will win handily. And the MAIN reason, seriously, is that Obama seems to be incapable of keeping his foot out of his mouth when the teleprompter is not around.
My wife and I saw Palin's speech on the internet. We both, separately and at the exact same time identified the moment when Palin cinched the presidency for McCain. It was whin Piper licked her hand and "fixed" her little brother's hair.
Dead serious here.
Really? I feel sorry for the kid to be honest. He's nothing more than a prop now. It's like they pass him up and down the line as different family members need to look "caring".
Besides, look at the polls. The democrats are generally polling better from the conventions. CNN right now has a "who won" poll up and the democrats are winning almost 2-1.
1) Sign laws.
2) Assign Justices.
3) Serve as chief diplomat.
4) Declare war.
5) Figurative role to rally the spirit of the American people.
6) Budget and administer $2.7 trillion in annual expenditures
7) Commander in Chief for 2.4 million soldiers in active and reserve military.
8 ) De facto leader of the free world responsible for protecting the freedom of Americans by spreading democracy throughout the world.
Only Palin has experience relevant to 6. McCain personal experience as squandron commander and advocate for the surge speak volumes about 7. Obama claims some relevance to 8 because he has been thinking about these issues while campaigning, but he seems to view the role as the US being one of many, where McCain recognizes the unique role of the US within the world.
#6 is set by congress, the president just signs off on it. So, no that is not the presidents job. This is exactly the type of thing I mean when I say people misunderstand what the presidents job is. #7 I agree with, but I meant #4 to encompass it (although you are right that they are technically different responsibilities).
Regarding #8, that's just less generically restating my #3, and I'm not convinced that's our job. Assuming democratizing the world is our job, Obama is right that we are one of many and in the world today. We need to be working with the other free nations, not going it alone.
Don't believe me that we are one of many, here's a thought experiment. If we entirely stopped importing and exporting today, how would the nation do? Would we remain a powerful example? Could we be self-sufficient, or would the entire economy go into a complete economic collapse? If the answer is #1, then fine we're awesome and unique. If you answered #2, then we are highly reliant on the rest of the global and can hardly declare how unique we are. Add on to that, we've lost a lot of "moral authority" due to the Iraq war and our torture of POWs.
I still think America is a great nation, even the greatest nation. We just need to be realistic that this isn't 1989 anymore.
My wife and I saw Palin's speech on the internet. We both, separately and at the exact same time identified the moment when Palin cinched the presidency for McCain. It was whin Piper licked her hand and "fixed" her little brother's hair.
Dead serious here.
Really? I feel sorry for the kid to be honest. He's nothing more than a prop now. It's like they pass him up and down the line as different family members need to look "caring".
Did I say it was good for her? Could you not say what you said about the children of all presidents? Should only childless people run for high office?
My comment came from what I know about how women, even women at hillaryclintonforum.com, think/feel.
Besides, look at the polls. The democrats are generally polling better from the conventions. CNN right now has a "who won" poll up and the democrats are winning almost 2-1.
Not interested in polls. I used to say that but had a hard time living it. But no longer. I stopped taking polls seriously during the 2000 election, but I NEVER took internet polls seriously. I'm interested in who wins.
That was interesting. If nothing else, I personally am learning a bit about how hard it is to get into politics from this years campaign. It looks like Obama used a completely legal but nonetheless cheap method to eliminate competition for his first election. Palin evidently had early ties to Stevens, which probably included some similarly sleazy techniques to get through the door. McCain's political career had some similarly weird moments early on when he was divorcing his first wife and chasing Cindy (and her $$$). I don't know much about Biden, but he no doubt "did his time" as well.
#6 is set by congress, the president just signs off on it. So, no that is not the presidents job. This is exactly the type of thing I mean when I say people misunderstand what the presidents job is.
According to the constitution yes, but the procedure has been changed extensively. Now the president submits it and the Congress amends it. But coming up with the budge is one thing and executing it is another.
#7 I agree with, but I meant #4 to encompass it (although you are right that they are technically different responsibilities).
#4 is done by Congress, except in an emergency. Declaring war is a solemn task, but it does not involved the sustained commitment of effort that prosecuting a war does. McCain has shown commitment to his efforts. Obama job hops.
Regarding #8, that's just less generically restating my #3, and I'm not convinced that's our job. Assuming democratizing the world is our job, Obama is right that we are one of many and in the world today. We need to be working with the other free nations, not going it alone.
But each of your descriptions severly understates the actual responsibilities. Being a diplomat is a world apart from being leader of the free world. Obama can handle the smaller version of the job you laid out, but I don't believe is the right guy for the full version.
Don't believe me that we are one of many, here's a thought experiment. If we entirely stopped importing and exporting today, how would the nation do?
I agree that comparative advantage is extremely important. That's why the fiasco earlier this year was so informative when Obama had to send a back door message to Canada to let them know his NAFTA bashing was a bunch of campaign BS.
I'm dead serious when I say two other politicians ran on Hope and Change and I wouldn't have voted for them either. They also ran on class warfare, and one was racially based. They are Lennin and Hitler.
This is why we can't have nice things. If anyone thinks this kind of attitude is seriously worth being debated is deluding themselves.
I'm dead serious when I say two other politicians ran on Hope and Change and I wouldn't have voted for them either. They also ran on class warfare, and one was racially based. They are Lennin and Hitler.
This is why we can't have nice things. If anyone thinks this kind of attitude is seriously worth being debated is deluding themselves.
You're right of course. I just always feel that if I can convince just one person to hold a slightly more nuanced view of the world that it might make a difference.
You don't seem like the kind of person who would think everything Rove says is true.
Regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, you are extremely naive if you do believe everything Rove says. Even the people who love what he does would believe with this, they would just defend it as doing what needs to be done.
SPECIFICALLY WHAT ARE OBAMA'S ACCOMPLISHMENTS ..I have asked this question over and over again without a response...Perhaps you have one....Maybe you will want to say he was a community organizer...WHAT DID HE ACCOMPLISH IN THAT POSITION ..He Boss said he did very little actual work...You could say he was a State Senator...WHAT BILL OR SIGNIFICANT PIECE OF LEGISLATION DID HE PASS....As a US senator he got elected and withing a year began running for president...NO SIGNIFICANT LEGISLATION AT ALL...In fact he was a Co Sponsor on approx 60 bills and NONE of them passed.
This probably isn't what you want to hear, but I rather like it when politicians don't get much done. The majority of day-to-day decisions in our country are run by a system called capitalism not our democratic republic government. Usually, when politicians start "getting stuff done" we all suffer.
That said, how meaningful are the accomplishments you demand? The senate and house are designed around voting on bills, who actually submits a bill is largely irrelevant (except it usually provides them an opportunity to pork-barrel the bill for their constituents). For Obama, McCain, and Biden what is important to look at is their voting records and perhaps their ability to form bipartisan compromise. The reason I say perhaps to bipartisanship is that even if someone highly bipartisan (McCain/Lieberman for instance) were president it's unclear that they would have the same power to advocate for bipartisanship that they held while in the senate.
Regarding accomplishments of all stripes; every candidates actual accomplishments are exaggerated by their supporters and dismissed by their opponents supporters. Yes, that even includes Palin's "executive experience".
So Rose cutting through the BS....You can't think of a single Accomplishment of OBAMA......neither can I.....Why would I or anyone
with even a little common sense want to make the guy the President of the most powerfull country in the World....
That was interesting. If nothing else, I personally am learning a bit about how hard it is to get into politics from this years campaign. It looks like Obama used a completely legal but nonetheless cheap method to eliminate competition for his first election. Palin evidently had early ties to Stevens, which probably included some similarly sleazy techniques to get through the door. McCain's political career had some similarly weird moments early on when he was divorcing his first wife and chasing Cindy (and her $$$). I don't know much about Biden, but he no doubt "did his time" as well.
This reminds me of the movie "Spiderman". Seriously.
I was watching the Spiderman character turn down an offer by his friends influential dad to start what would, on this side of the movie screen, be a very successful career. He refused because he wanted to do it himself. He completely missed the point that the whole world of true successful people is based on successful people helping and mentoring others to be successful, which is how THEY became successful.
It is literally all about individual people helping individual people. People like Zig Ziegler, et-al constantly talk about it. 'Course, it can be stained by less than honorable shenanigans sometimes, but the concept is extremely sound and good.
BTW, those on the republican (and Hillary) side are, when questioning his citizenship, attempting to do to him what he did to his opponents in that video. I prefer to leave that one alone.
I hate when people gain or lose this sort of stuff via technicalities. I am very much a "spirit of the law" sort of guy.
I'm dead serious when I say two other politicians ran on Hope and Change and I wouldn't have voted for them either. They also ran on class warfare, and one was racially based. They are Lennin and Hitler.
This is why we can't have nice things. If anyone thinks this kind of attitude is seriously worth being debated is deluding themselves.
I don't know what the "nice things" comment means, but regarding the other part, if you think my argument is so sound that it cannot be debated against, I guess I appreciate the compliment. Thank you.
I don't know what the "nice things" comment means, but regarding the other part, if you think my argument is so sound that it cannot be debated against, I guess I appreciate the compliment. Thank you.
I believe the "nice things" quote is from the Simpsons (perhaps it has another more original source, but that's what I remember it from).
% Lisa shows her father her science-fair project, a little homemade
% robot.
Lisa: Meet Linguo, the grammar robot. I built him all by
myself. If you misuse language, he'll correct you.
Homer: Well, let's put him to the test. [slowly] Me love beer.
Linguo: *I* love beer.
Homer: Aw, he loves beer. Here, little fellow. [pours a handy
can of beer in Linguo's mouth]
Lisa: Dad, no!
Linguo: [shorting out] Error.
Homer: I'm sorry. I thought he was a party robot.
Lisa: Ugh. This is why I can't have nice things. [growls,
takes Linguo and goes upstairs]
My wife and I saw Palin's speech on the internet. We both, separately and at the exact same time identified the moment when Palin cinched the presidency for McCain. It was whin Piper licked her hand and "fixed" her little brother's hair.
My comment came from what I know about how women, even women at hillaryclintonforum.com, think/feel.
Have you ever stopped and thought about how inane some of your comments are? You've made an absolute prediction that McCain/Palin will win, hands down, now apparently because Palin's kid did something cute on TV? I won't even get into how demeaning that is of women's intelligence.
Not interested in polls. I used to say that but had a hard time living it. But no longer. I stopped taking polls seriously during the 2000 election, but I NEVER took internet polls seriously. I'm interested in who wins.
Internet polls are crap, and nobody uses them for anything other than entertainment. That much is true. But polls are fairly accurate tools as long as they're done right, and used within their predictive limitation. The problem is when, as in 2000, dumbass news anchors take an exit poll of 1000 people (±3%) that shows a 1% margin and makes a prediction on it. When a 3% poll shows 49% to 48%, you absolutely can not use it. TV/radio talking heads still do because they're paid to talk, not analyze.
Some of the current polls are showing some bizarre things - statistical ties in Indiana (which W carried by ~20% in 2004) and North Dakota (W carried by more than 25%). This doesn't really mean anything now since the polling was done between conventions, and McCain/Palin will most likely still win both states in November. But if you are disregarding this information entirely, you may be in for a terrible surprise down the road.
Comments
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/bu ... pledges_to
While I obviously don't agree with him on his political views and don't like all of his tactics, I have to hand it to him at how brilliant he is in regards to politics. The man is a genius.
I actually really enjoy seeing him interviewed for this reason. He speaks his mind and is surprisingly respectful and charming to the interviewer no matter what he's being asked. Just because I don't agree with his point of view doesn't mean that I don't respect him.
And besides, he can't lie ALL THE TIME ;-)
Nice spoofing of my screen name. Very mature.
I've said it before, I'll say it again - Kerry was stupid to base his campaign off of being a Vietnam Vet. Bush was an easy target, and basing a campaign off a few years on a boat 30 years ago was silly - just as McCain's campaign based on being a POW is silly. And really, I have no doubt some of the swift boaters' claims are accurate (i.e. that Kerry's claims were not 100% truthful).
The point was (and still is) that with sufficient funds and air time, you can convince a large percentage of people of just about anything. Several billionaire GOP donors provided the money, and the conservative media machine provided the air time, and it worked very effectively.
Yes, I agree that when the legislature fails to accomplish anything, little changes because they will just default to continuing the budget. But when the executive branch is run by someone who has never held a job long enough to accomplish something, then all heck breaks lose. Stuff needs to happen constantly, and it is enormously complex stuff. Obama's one and only proven ability is to run for higher office, and that skill is of no value in the Oval Office. McCain has effectively lead the Senate in most of its major initiatives for many years now, by building coalitions and calling for and advocating specific changes. That experience is exactly the kind of evidence that shows he has the necessary skills to lead the executive branch.
Palin doesn't yet have as deep a track record as McCain, but she has demonstrated those key skills in a smaller arena. It is not the size of the executive branch the she leads that matters, but her performance in that office. We can evaluate and discuss that performance over the next two months. But again, what has Obama accomplished?
Watch out, you can be called a racist warmongering baby killer for asking that question.
No, no, no. Only liberals are baby killers. Republicans love life. That is, until it's out of the womb. Then they don't give a shit.
Here are some great quotes too:
http://blog1.thejtandbearshow.com/2008/ ... affes.aspx
I'm waiting for the same thing to come out on McCain and Palin.
No doubt about it though, Obama is no Bush. Or Quayle. 8)
Um, which Republicans are you talking about?
BLASPHEMY! How dare you post something negative about the Messiah?!?
WTF! Did you even hear McCain's speech last night? He's running on change as well. So is Palin. Pot calling the kettle black here.
Besides, what would you prefer, a candidate running on the despair and gradual decline platform? Finally, how can you argue that we don't know what Obama is going to do and we know he is the most frightening candidate in our nations history?
Is this hypocritical quote really what we are going to be hearing for the next 2 months? Bleh! I am starting to feel like a lot of people don't even really understand what job the president does. Let me detail the presidents responsibilities.
1) Sign laws.
2) Assign Justices.
3) Serve as chief diplomat.
4) Declare war.
5) Figurative role to rally the spirit of the American people.
I probably missed a few, but I think that suffices, so who's best? #1 is hard to judge because it depends far more on congress. If the Dems strengthen their congress majority (likely) then McCain will be mostly vetoing and Obama mostly signing. But if congress is relatively evenly split (like now) it doesn't really matter who controls the presidency as they will only see bills that made it through a split congress. Who's better at #2, I think that will be evenly split along political lines and there's no way to change anyones mind. #3, I think Obama is better, as the majority of the globe seems thrilled to deal with him as opposed to a republican at this point. #4 I would give an edge to McCain, with the hope that whoever is in office not need that quality (peace is better than war). #5, I would give Obama the lead as he tends to excel in that arena.
So, if like me you assume congress will be relatively deadlocked, the choice comes down to whether you think McCain's war experience and likely justice choices are better than Obama's international popularity, ability to rally emotions, and his justice choices.
Everything else is just smear or ignoring what the president actually does. Well, I guess I'd also throw in a how likely is the president to ignore and violate the constitution. I think both McCain and Obama will be so much better in that regard that it's almost not worth listing, but then again I never anticipated Bush would do so much damage to it.
In this day and age it's impossible for any candidate not to have such gaffes. I wouldn't hold those against them so long as they are obvious slips of the tongue and not some deeper character flaw sneaking out. During most of those, and it's clear he's exhausted from the ridiculous schedule during the primaries. With the media recording everything, even a simple stutter or stumble will eventually find its way onto YouTube.
Take the 57 states deal. It's obvious he doesn't really believe he visited 57 states. Likely, he was thinking how many states he visited and made a disassociation. Perhaps he meant to say "out of 50 states, I've been to 37 (or 47...something ending in 7)" Instead, he said "fifty" and then "seven".
Now, if we left candidates alone between the hours of 5pm and 9am, and if they only campaigned from 9am-5pm, this might be different. Candidates could be well rested and you would expect them to be on their game more.
Overall, McCain'08 still feels like Kerry'04 all over, with way too much emphasis on the distant past and very little of the present.
Looking forward to seeing some polls in the next week or so...
That's the problem I have in that we don't know what his character is besides what he (and the media) tells us. I base character on actions / associations / what he's done, not words. It also says a lot for a person on whom they CHOOSE to associate with.
Not for me it doesn't.
6) Budget and administer $2.7 trillion in annual expenditures
7) Commander in Chief for 2.4 million soldiers in active and reserve military.
8 ) De facto leader of the free world responsible for protecting the freedom of Americans by spreading democracy throughout the world.
Only Palin has experience relevant to 6. McCain personal experience as squandron commander and advocate for the surge speak volumes about 7. Obama claims some relevance to 8 because he has been thinking about these issues while campaigning, but he seems to view the role as the US being one of many, where McCain recognizes the unique role of the US within the world.
[edited to fix goofy bb artifact]
Well, there is change and there is change. I look at the track records (and promises) of both Palin and McCain and I like what I see - especially from Palin. When I look at Obama's track record and his promises, when he bothers to quantify them, and, well, I guess I already said it in the post you quoted...
After all, if a cancer patient comes out of a hospital either cured or in a pine box, both are "change". I prefer the former.
Dead serious here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3Ned5TQoW4
Enjoy.
Believe it or not, I agree with pretty much all of what you said. The ones that I think kill Obama is when he is at a loss for words and just stutters and rambles. I cannot remember the last time I saw a major politician do such a thing (on a regular basis). Not even the infamous Dan Quayle had that problem. Obama can't seem to think on his feet when he is concerned that what he really WANTS to say will definitely not go over well.
Like I said a couple of weeks before we even knew Palin was in this, McCain will win handily. And the MAIN reason, seriously, is that Obama seems to be incapable of keeping his foot out of his mouth when the teleprompter is not around.
Really? I feel sorry for the kid to be honest. He's nothing more than a prop now. It's like they pass him up and down the line as different family members need to look "caring".
Besides, look at the polls. The democrats are generally polling better from the conventions. CNN right now has a "who won" poll up and the democrats are winning almost 2-1.
#6 is set by congress, the president just signs off on it. So, no that is not the presidents job. This is exactly the type of thing I mean when I say people misunderstand what the presidents job is. #7 I agree with, but I meant #4 to encompass it (although you are right that they are technically different responsibilities).
Regarding #8, that's just less generically restating my #3, and I'm not convinced that's our job. Assuming democratizing the world is our job, Obama is right that we are one of many and in the world today. We need to be working with the other free nations, not going it alone.
Don't believe me that we are one of many, here's a thought experiment. If we entirely stopped importing and exporting today, how would the nation do? Would we remain a powerful example? Could we be self-sufficient, or would the entire economy go into a complete economic collapse? If the answer is #1, then fine we're awesome and unique. If you answered #2, then we are highly reliant on the rest of the global and can hardly declare how unique we are. Add on to that, we've lost a lot of "moral authority" due to the Iraq war and our torture of POWs.
I still think America is a great nation, even the greatest nation. We just need to be realistic that this isn't 1989 anymore.
My comment came from what I know about how women, even women at hillaryclintonforum.com, think/feel. Not interested in polls. I used to say that but had a hard time living it. But no longer. I stopped taking polls seriously during the 2000 election, but I NEVER took internet polls seriously. I'm interested in who wins.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeTcE1E0wWI
That was interesting. If nothing else, I personally am learning a bit about how hard it is to get into politics from this years campaign. It looks like Obama used a completely legal but nonetheless cheap method to eliminate competition for his first election. Palin evidently had early ties to Stevens, which probably included some similarly sleazy techniques to get through the door. McCain's political career had some similarly weird moments early on when he was divorcing his first wife and chasing Cindy (and her $$$). I don't know much about Biden, but he no doubt "did his time" as well.
According to the constitution yes, but the procedure has been changed extensively. Now the president submits it and the Congress amends it. But coming up with the budge is one thing and executing it is another.
#4 is done by Congress, except in an emergency. Declaring war is a solemn task, but it does not involved the sustained commitment of effort that prosecuting a war does. McCain has shown commitment to his efforts. Obama job hops.
But each of your descriptions severly understates the actual responsibilities. Being a diplomat is a world apart from being leader of the free world. Obama can handle the smaller version of the job you laid out, but I don't believe is the right guy for the full version.
I agree that comparative advantage is extremely important. That's why the fiasco earlier this year was so informative when Obama had to send a back door message to Canada to let them know his NAFTA bashing was a bunch of campaign BS.
This is why we can't have nice things. If anyone thinks this kind of attitude is seriously worth being debated is deluding themselves.
You're right of course. I just always feel that if I can convince just one person to hold a slightly more nuanced view of the world that it might make a difference.
So Rose cutting through the BS....You can't think of a single Accomplishment of OBAMA......neither can I.....Why would I or anyone
with even a little common sense want to make the guy the President of the most powerfull country in the World....
I was watching the Spiderman character turn down an offer by his friends influential dad to start what would, on this side of the movie screen, be a very successful career. He refused because he wanted to do it himself. He completely missed the point that the whole world of true successful people is based on successful people helping and mentoring others to be successful, which is how THEY became successful.
It is literally all about individual people helping individual people. People like Zig Ziegler, et-al constantly talk about it. 'Course, it can be stained by less than honorable shenanigans sometimes, but the concept is extremely sound and good.
BTW, those on the republican (and Hillary) side are, when questioning his citizenship, attempting to do to him what he did to his opponents in that video. I prefer to leave that one alone.
I hate when people gain or lose this sort of stuff via technicalities. I am very much a "spirit of the law" sort of guy.
I believe the "nice things" quote is from the Simpsons (perhaps it has another more original source, but that's what I remember it from).
% Lisa shows her father her science-fair project, a little homemade
% robot.
Have you ever stopped and thought about how inane some of your comments are? You've made an absolute prediction that McCain/Palin will win, hands down, now apparently because Palin's kid did something cute on TV? I won't even get into how demeaning that is of women's intelligence.
Internet polls are crap, and nobody uses them for anything other than entertainment. That much is true. But polls are fairly accurate tools as long as they're done right, and used within their predictive limitation. The problem is when, as in 2000, dumbass news anchors take an exit poll of 1000 people (±3%) that shows a 1% margin and makes a prediction on it. When a 3% poll shows 49% to 48%, you absolutely can not use it. TV/radio talking heads still do because they're paid to talk, not analyze.
Some of the current polls are showing some bizarre things - statistical ties in Indiana (which W carried by ~20% in 2004) and North Dakota (W carried by more than 25%). This doesn't really mean anything now since the polling was done between conventions, and McCain/Palin will most likely still win both states in November. But if you are disregarding this information entirely, you may be in for a terrible surprise down the road.