Thursday, January 8, 2009
Well, I feel better now
Actually, I personally agree with you. I was unclear in my reasons for saying it was good that he was against it from the beginning. The reasons are largely political. It will be a lot easier politically to defend a course forward if you dont have to explain a previous mistake. I think people who voted for the war could possibly overcome that, it just will make their life more difficult. Also, I dont think that Hillary, for instance, has come to grips with explaining that vote (those votes). While this isnt as bad as an idiot like Biden who still supports the current policy, it makes it tough. See Kerry, John for an example of what this can lead to politically. ;)
Why do you think he "gets it right"?, and why are you prejudiced against fundamentalist Christians?? ;) BTW: Please tell me how you feel about Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles, and Harry/William in light of your prejudice.
He was against the recent escalation of the war. I think this is the correct policy on this issue. My unwillingness to vote for a fundamentalist Christian is not a prejudice, as would say not voting for someone from Kansas, but rather a response to his positions and views that are a part of his religion. Im not sure about the Queen fitting in, given the events of the late 18th century. I dont think she is eligible nor qualified. Moreover, she is not a fundamentalist and so Im not sure why you brought her up. By the way, Im not a fan of Benedict, but I wouldnt have a negative reaction to voting for lets say JPII or especially Paul VI is they were eligible to be president. Im not sure I would but their religion would, if anything, be a positive factor in my mind. Neither of them are fundamentalists who believe in a simplisticly silly version of Christianity, but thinking people of great faith. If the difference isnt clear, it will require a discussion over many beers ;)
That indecisiveness you smell is nothing more than the politics of Obama garnering support from persons who believe that in order to "do it right" one MUST HAVE BEEN opposed to it from the start. I dissent.
Best, Dave
Entirely possible but it is the indecisiveness that is very bad politically, no matter what the cause.
This is disingenuous in the context of your OP in which you said:
"he was the candidate for change. I think that is why he is getting the crowds and the excitement that he is generating."
IMO, any of the Dems could make the claim w/r/t GWB that THEY are the candidate for "change". The fact that Obama is being heralded as you describe (accurately, I might add) is different than whether or not he will actually CHANGE things - which is the essence of my first upthread post in response.
Best, Dave
Sorry, you are confusing me. I said I thought he represented a candidate for change. You then disgreed and implied that he was perhaps not any different than the rest. Now you are saying he is clearly different then Bush, with Bush, as the incumbent, being the benchmark against which change is measured. So which is it.
As to the rest, McCain and several of the others would seem to differ from Bush how? Or for that matter, that idiot Biden is a lot more like Bush on Iraq than is Obama. And like it or not, Iraq is the salient issue in the upcoming election.
Nonetheless, this (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_carlson&sid=a5m60MvOY2Vk) column will cause fits for anyone still thinking that Governor Richardson can emerge from the "second tier".
Best, Dave
I saw the 2nd half of the interview and her article is overreaching on the topics she mentions that I saw.
Also, nobody cares about a MTP interview 18 months ahead of an election on Mem Day Wknd.
I don't think he'll win either but it will have nothing to do with Russert, and sadly, probably nothing to do with Richardson.
Good for you, OP. I saw the same 60 Minutes interview and was likewise impressed. He doesn't take crap from McCain either, that's worth a primary vote right there.
As Dean of the OmniCons, I would like to say that anything that works against Hillary! is a good thing, most likely.
That said, what does anyone think "Act 2" is for Obama? B/C, right now, he's basically a candidate who makes guilty white liberals feel good about themselves.
O/H
Margaret Carlson, columnist for BloombergNews, is NO FAN of anything GOP. I'm not certain she can even write the letters without cringing. ;)
Nonetheless, this (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_carlson&sid=a5m60MvOY2Vk) column will cause fits for anyone still thinking that Governor Richardson can emerge from the "second tier".
Best, Dave
She was the reason for my Time Magazine subscription! Always loved her! :p
(Suddenly, I feel better now too! :))
Incidentally, Michelle Obama will be interviewed by Brian Williams tonight on NBC Nightly News.
That's easily fixed, just stay tuned!
I said I thought he represented a candidate for change.
Close, but not quite. You said that he represented "the" candidate for change. A subtle, but important difference in light of your later posts.
You then disgreed and implied that he was perhaps not any different than the rest.
I said that in light of my skepticism that "outsiders" who acquire this particular 'mantra' (like Howard Dean) are OFTEN not quite the change agents that they portray.
Now you are saying he is clearly different then Bush
I never said he was the same. I simply pointed out that I'm SKEPTICAL that he's so different from other POLITICIANS - GWB included
So which is it.
1) He is different than GWB as I've already said,
2) He may or may not be "the" candidate for change,
3) IF he is "the" candidate for change - it will be interesting to see whether or not he changes "things" or they "change" him as my first post herein suggested was possible.
4) I'm going to wait and see.
McCain and several of the others would seem to differ from Bush how?
If you need an answer to that question, you're unlikely to agree with what I posit - so let's not waste the time. :)
OTOH: As I have repeatedly said, I am NOT going to judge all of our respective candidates for POTUS on the basis of what they would have done, or said they would have done, or might do in IRAQ. There are other issues of import, IMO.
Biden is a lot more like Bush on Iraq than is Obama. And like it or not, Iraq is the salient issue in the upcoming election.
It may well be the "salient" issue, but I don't agree (nor will I) that it should take as large a role in the determination process as you are willing to ascribe to it. So be it.
Best, Dave
Agreed! :D
I'm not sure what you are diagreeing with. Delay has said that, he was a VERY prominent and powerful politician. He has even suggested violence against Federal judges that his adherents disagreed with.
I'm thinking you've taken something out of context w/r/t "violence". I can't be sure, but I'm thinking that.
As for Delay, he doesn't represent all Christian Fundies as far as I know. I just don't worry about the 'impact' of church/state as others do. Hence, my upthread reference to the UK.
Best, Dave
I'd bet loads of money that it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for her to even approach the depths to which Richardson sank on Sunday. Appalling. (and I sort of liked him :p )
Best, Dave
I'm not certain that we disagree "too" much on this in general. However, WHAT to do in order to get it right, IMO, does NOT require or rely upon someone to have been against it from the start. That's just a false choice problem that is being played upon by many on the far left who have yet (IMO) come around to the idea that we ain't gonna be out any time soon - for good or for ill.
I think the only Republican that gets that right is Brownback, and well, as a fundamentalist Christian I will not consider him.
Why do you think he "gets it right"?, and why are you prejudiced against fundamentalist Christians?? ;) BTW: Please tell me how you feel about Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles, and Harry/William in light of your prejudice.
I have been a Hillary supporter for years, but I think she has been too indecisive on Iraq for me to support in the primaries.
That indecisiveness you smell is nothing more than the politics of Obama garnering support from persons who believe that in order to "do it right" one MUST HAVE BEEN opposed to it from the start. I dissent.
I think that is a very good thing and it is that as much as anything that separates him from say, Richardson.
I have no problem with that. It may allow him to be our next POTUS. I think a quick review of Mr. Richardson's perfomance on Russert this past Sunday would give you a few "other" things which separate the two. :)
Best, Dave
Fair enough, as far as it goes. I'm not certain that I recall a whole lot of religious persecution in the UK in the past century or so, do you? ;)
American fundamentalists are a virulent sect and their representatives, ie Tom Delay, have said clearly and in public that they want to enforce their religion on the country.
One of those ATD things, I'm afraid. Bring on the beers. :D
Perhaps a better way to think of it is while I might vote for a secular Moslim, I would not vote for Mullah Omar or other members of the Taliban.
Fair enough. That addresses my question directly.
Best, Dave
GWB is only the most "recent" of these characters.
Best, Dave
Dave, you certainly cant think that by arguing that some in the past have failed to change things or changed them for the worse in the case of Bush, that this means that others will likewise fail or that we shouldnt try? That is terribly flawed logic. ;)
Anything that keeps money out of the oversized coffers of the evil Kucinich campaign is alright with me. I'm pretty sure that he's controlled by alien overlords and dines regularly with Bin Ladin.
Understood.
I assumed as much, but was wondering WHAT elements of his fundamentalist Xtian would give you pause. If 1) I agree with you on all issues of significance, 2) am running for office, AND 3) am a fundy Xtian - what difference does part 3 make?
Just a canard! Here's the rub: Many people who are scared senseless of what they think of as theocracy have no problems whatever with the UK system in which the Queen is the "Defender of the Faith". I don't think it makes a spits worth of difference whether a person is Xtian/Buddhist/Muslim/Atheist or whatever - I'll vote on the basis of their stated positions on ISSUES.
Interesting. I can't fathom why you'd be concerned about a "silly version" of Christianity but not about leaders of a world religion.
It's not. Bring on the beers. :D
Best, Dave
Many of our ancestors, including mine, left the UK in large part because of the fact that religion played a role in politics. Im not sure reliving the religious persecutions and murders of the UK in centuries past is a good thing.
As to Brownback, he is willing to put his religious belief before objective reality, as I might add is Bush. This is in fact one possible reason for his incredibly stupid policies that go against all evidence. Both Paul VI and JPII did not take policies that counterdicted objective reality. Also, the American fundamentalists are a virulent sect and their representatives, ie Tom Delay, have said clearly and in public that they want to enforce their religion on the country. Perhaps a better way to think of it is while I might vote for a secular Moslim, I would not vote for Mullah Omar or other members of the Taliban.
Best, Dave
Different than who? I dont think anyone would say that he isnt quite a bit different than the current administration. While most of the Republicans are clearly not representing a change. So the only real question is whether a change would be good, a question I fully understand your reluctance to argue :)
;)
Actually, I kinda like Obama, and I can't put my finger on exactly why. He's definitely my favorite of the Democrat field so far for '08. It doesn't mean much, because out fo the Democrat field in '04 my favorite was Dean, and we all know how far he got! :D
I'm cautiously optimistic about him too. For example, he has some proposals on health insurance to address both the currently insured as well as the uninsured. It is somewhat practical in that it doesn't mandate 100% universal coverage for everyone - individuals have a choice to participate, which is how it should be.
Contrast that with Edwards, mandating 100% coverage for all, no choice, with a huge gov't subsidy - the true warmed-over libby lib position. Hillary in '93 had the same idea.
Not that Obama's proposal is free from gov't money or free from debating its merits, but it actually recognizes multiple facets of the issue.
This is why I reject the "empty suit" argument, at least for now. His "eloquence" ;) could be getting in the way of some thoughtful ideas on his part.
Still, I bet there are OMNI-cons who feel that giving $$ to Obama is an equivalent action. ;)
We saw different interviews in that case. I probably haven't agreed with anything Carlson has written in over 3 years, but on this one - I have to agree. I genuinely felt bad for Richardson while his performance was ongoing.
I don't think he'll win either but it will have nothing to do with Russert, and sadly, probably nothing to do with Richardson.
You could well be right.
Best, Dave
I dissent. Clearly Mr. Obama is "different" than GWB, so what? I have not said he isn't. I don't agree that the GOP candidates are the "same" as GWB, but if you choose to hold that opinion, it is unlikely that I'll change your mind. ;)
The only real question is whether a change would be good
This is disingenuous in the context of your OP in which you said:
"he was the candidate for change. I think that is why he is getting the crowds and the excitement that he is generating."
IMO, any of the Dems could make the claim w/r/t GWB that THEY are the candidate for "change". The fact that Obama is being heralded as you describe (accurately, I might add) is different than whether or not he will actually CHANGE things - which is the essence of my first upthread post in response.
Best, Dave
Yeah, but his wife's HOT. ;)
Best, Dave
;)
Actually, I kinda like Obama, and I can't put my finger on exactly why. He's definitely my favorite of the Democrat field so far for '08. It doesn't mean much, because out fo the Democrat field in '04 my favorite was Dean, and we all know how far he got! :D
Maybe it was the capitalization.
Close, but not quite. You said that he represented "the" candidate for change. A subtle, but important difference in light of your later posts.
I said that in light of my skepticism that "outsiders" who acquire this particular 'mantra' (like Howard Dean) are OFTEN not quite the change agents that they portray.
I never said he was the same. I simply pointed out that I'm SKEPTICAL that he's so different from other POLITICIANS - GWB included
1) He is different than GWB as I've already said,
2) He may or may not be "the" candidate for change,
3) IF he is "the" candidate for change - it will be interesting to see whether or not he changes "things" or they "change" him as my first post herein suggested was possible.
4) I'm going to wait and see.
If you need an answer to that question, you're unlikely to agree with what I posit - so let's not waste the time. :)
OTOH: As I have repeatedly said, I am NOT going to judge all of our respective candidates for POTUS on the basis of what they would have done, or said they would have done, or might do in IRAQ. There are other issues of import, IMO.
It may well be the "salient" issue, but I don't agree (nor will I) that it should take as large a role in the determination process as you are willing to ascribe to it. So be it.
Best, Dave
Very clear indeed!
I will not judge them solely on Iraq, but the mistakes there are destroying the country financially and putting us at risk. They are also a moral abomination. If someone doesnt get that issue right, what else they do get right is more or less irrelevent to me. So while it isnt the only thing the have to get right, they have to get it right. I think the only Republican that gets that right is Brownback, and well, as a fundamentalist Christian I will not consider him. I have been a Hillary supporter for years, but I think she has been too indecisive on Iraq for me to support in the primaries.
Apart from the analytics though is the perception based on the 60 Minutes piece on him and the excitement that he is generating. I think that is a very good thing and it is that as much as anything that separates him from say, Richardson.
Dean was also 100% correct on the Iraq issue. So I guess your comment is a compliment? ;)
Unlike some of my OMNI brethren, I have yet to base all of my political decisions on whether or not one was for or against Iraq "at the beginning". When one begins to make such determinations, one could find oneself with strange bedfellows. ;)
You may feel differently, so be it.
My comment was that Dean was a flash in the pan (irrespective of his Iraq views then or now) - Is Obama similar to Dean in that respect? I don't know.
Best, Dave
So it seems that you would favor Obama's "sizzle" over Richardson's "steak"?
Richardson strikes me as being (a) a grown-up and (b) a non-poser. What I like about Richardson is, even though he and I are going to be on the opposite side of a lot of things, I get the impression that, whatever decision he might make would be the product of his analysis and genuine belief he's doing what he thinks is best, rather than what is politically expedient or most beneficial to him personally or politically. I do NOT get that impression from Hillary! Edwards, or Just For Kerry.
O/H
Maybe it was the capitalization.
Didn't mean to scare you. ;)
O/H
Sounds a bit Dean-esque to this particular skeptic. I'm not sure what I think of the Junior Senator from my state, but most of those who've gotten to D.C. on the basis of how they were going to "change" the system ended up right in the same barrel with the other critters. Best as I recall.
GWB is only the most "recent" of these characters.
Best, Dave
He was against the war in Iraq before the polls told Hillary to be against it for one. And I saw him on 60 minutes and was just very impressed with him. My favorite part was when the interviewer asked him while they were driving through a black neighborhood that Obama used to work in about the criticism that he wasnt "black enough". Obama just laughed and said, "Its funny, no one on these streets ever told me that".
But I also like his candor and his open attitude and his thoughtfullness. And something else, this from a Republican analyst in the Herald Tribune yesterday, he was the candidate for change. I think that is why he is getting the crowds and the excitement that he is generating.
No, not arguing that or insinuating it. My post was questioning whether or not Obama is really any "different" or not. As I said upthread, I'm not certain - but I remain skeptical. No logic problems here, maybe some comprehension problems 'there'?? :)
Best, Dave
Where in my EP would one find such an argument? I look forward to seeing where it was that YOU think I made such an argument, as I don't believe I did. ;)
Best, Dave
I have no disagreement with that. It will be interesting to see what impact the hard core anti-war vote will play in this election.
He was against the recent escalation of the war. I think this is the correct policy on this issue.
Understood.
My unwillingness to vote for a fundamentalist Christian is not a prejudice, as would say not voting for someone from Kansas, but rather a response to his positions and views that are a part of his religion.
I assumed as much, but was wondering WHAT elements of his fundamentalist Xtian would give you pause. If 1) I agree with you on all issues of significance, 2) am running for office, AND 3) am a fundy Xtian - what difference does part 3 make?
Im not sure about the Queen fitting in, given the events of the late 18th century.
Just a canard! Here's the rub: Many people who are scared senseless of what they think of as theocracy have no problems whatever with the UK system in which the Queen is the "Defender of the Faith". I don't think it makes a spits worth of difference whether a person is Xtian/Buddhist/Muslim/Atheist or whatever - I'll vote on the basis of their stated positions on ISSUES.
Neither of them are fundamentalists who believe in a simplisticly silly version of Christianity, but thinking people of great faith.
Interesting. I can't fathom why you'd be concerned about a "silly version" of Christianity but not about leaders of a world religion.
If the difference isnt clear, it will require a discussion over many beers
It's not. Bring on the beers. :D
Best, Dave
;)
And clean...that's just storybook, man.
:D
O/H
One of those ATD things, I'm afraid. Bring on the beers. :D
Fair enough. That addresses my question directly.
Best, Dave
Beers are always good. Actually, we havent seen that in the UK for probably a couple hundred years. It settled down, a process I would just as soon not see us go though. Im not sure what you are diagreeing with. Delay has said that, he was a VERY prominent and powerful politician. He has even suggested violence against Federal judges that his adherents disagreed with. Im not sure again, what you are disagreeing with. He said it, there isnt much more to it than that. But beers again, would always be good! :)
#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.# |
Posted by mike |