-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/05/wednesday-open-thread-holla-at-us-3/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
The Obama Family in Iowa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll6hGaaUrOY&e;
It brought a tear to my eye to see Barack in Iowa with Michelle. To think that he could be our president, in my lifetime, is an amazing thing for him and for this country. I'm so proud, I could burst. Finally, a president we can take pride in, a real leader to guide us through these challenging times. He'll be our own FDR.
Is there something in Obama's background-some event, some experience gained, that would make him capable of handling an event on the scale of 9/11?
I'm sure Hillary has a plan to exert pressure on the superdelegates for the next few months. But I think that the superdelegates are getting fed up with her ambitions.
http://www.politico.com/playbook/
"Is there something in Obama's background-some event, some experience gained, that would make him capable of handling an event on the scale of 9/11?"
-I don't know of any, but I am sure he could handle it better than Bush did (sitting in a classroom, looking stupid).
Then again, before 9/11 you could have asked the same question of Rudy! (not 9/11 of course, but a disaster) and probably not gotten an answer.
So, what difference does it make? None.
As the chief executive of a state, then-Gov. Bush and then-Mayor Guliani would have had to have some knowledge of their state/city's response plans dealing with major disasters.
Once you step away from the Bush-bashing, you'll see it's a fair question to ask of ALL of the current candidates for president, as all three of them only have experience in the Senate.
Is there something in Obama's background-some event, some experience gained, that would make him capable of handling an event on the scale of 9/11?
He's not a nitwit alcoholic. Does that count?
CNN Analyst: Sometimes "Bi*ch is Accurate
I guess Ferraro's gonna blame Obama for this too.
Let me be consistent here. I'd rather the pundits not try to rationalize the word, "bi*ch," just like (as some say in the TPM comments section) I'd rather Pat Buchanan not try to rationalize racism.
Problem is, Hillary is the type of person to mock outrage for purely political gain. And stuff like this gives her the perfect opportunity to play the victim card.
What's the best way to get the message to Team Obama that his core constituency cannot tolerate the idea of Clinton being offered the VP job?
It occurs to me that the longer this narrative stays in the MSM, the more Team Obama might think that his core constituency feels an obligation to offer her the job.
I do not. How do others feel?
After hearing Jim Webb speak about KY and WV, I have decided that he is the BEST VP choice...whether or not he wants it is another matter.
Question: If it's SUCH a big deal that florida and michigan get seated as-is, why is Michigan polling better for Obama than for CLinton?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/michigan.html
Can anyone here answer a question without resorting to Bush-bashing? Or does the basis of Obama's platform just come down to being the anti-Bush?
My guess is that there's enough support within the party to say that Obama should have the right to choose whomever he wishes.
However . . .
This is why myself and others wanted Obama to campaign in KY and WV. You force her out. . .be the "bad guy" for a few weeks, but maintain full control over your fall campaign.
Everyday she stays in the race is a day she:
1. makes Obama look weaker
2. distracts Obama from McCain
3. increases her leverage to hinder Obama's fall campaign.
4. increases her prospects for 2012
Worst case scenario is this: The Democratic party FORCES Obama to give Hillary the veep spot. Pundits are already asking whether or not she's EARNED the veep spot. What happens if the Party makes the dream ticket a precondition for super delegate support? In that case, it would be out of Obama's hands.
bpm already pointed out that she could technically try to force her way on the ticket at the convention.
I'd encourage Obama to name his veep by late June. Make it clear that Hillary would have to force her way on the ticket and literally take the v.p slot away from someone else.
Make the selection in late June go into full general election mode and move the party forward.
He won't do that no matter how much mischief she and her surrogates try to stir up before August.
::
The only presidents who are "experienced" are incumbents. The only presidents who can "handle" terrorist attacks are presidents who have "handled" terrorist attacks.
That's it.
George W. Bush had no experience before 9/11 and has done much to praise after it.
His is a puppet regime. Someone else pulls the strings, and he puts his foot in his stupid mouth.
He's an idiot, a fool, and an Asshole who has done more to harm American than he has to make her safe and prosperous.
He and Cheney should have already been impeached for their high crimes and misdemeanors.
Bush is hated and hateful and I can't wait till he gets his dumbass off my TV.
It is difficult to talk about O without Bush bashing because in many ways his campaign is a direct response too (and created by) the Bush legacy.
Many of Obama's ideas fall under the idea of good but not revolutionary . . . a more transparent government, a fiscal policy that doesn't totally jam up the middle class, a foreign policy that balances strength and diplomacy, etc.
These concepts have caught hold not just because they are the "right" thing to do because they run so polar oppposite to what has happened over the last eight years.
I'll be blunt, without Bush, Obama wouldn't have had a chance of being president. His relative inexperience, that whole Wright BS, something would have derailed him in favor of Clinton.
But Bush has done so much damage to the country and created such acute pain that many citizens that have long been asleep are starting to awaken and choose the more enlightened candidate, which is Obama
::
No it wouldn't. Because when Obama refuses to be bullied by the superdelegates, what are they going to do? Overturn the will of the people?
We need to let go of this notion that Obama campaigning more in WV and KY was going change anything. It wasn't. The polls in both those states didn't budge.
Pre-Wright; post-Wright. Pre-Bittergate; post Bittergate. Pre-Pennsylvania; post-Pennsylvania.
Appalachia had made up its mind and nothing anybody was going to do or say would change it.
Obama will not choose her as his runningmate.
She can crawl into the convention on all fours and act like a rabid dog, but she's not getting on the ticket.
Take it to the bank.
::
I disagree wholeheartedly, but it doesn't matter because Bush exists.
Anyone who can inspire the electorate the way Obama has is going to be tough to derail no matter what comes before.
b-serious,
Yes, she's going to find a way to blame Obama, even though the person saying it, IS A REPUBLICAN. I don't know how, but you know Ferraro will find some irrational guilt-by-association to Obama.
d,
I appreciate you coming here. I know it can't be easy, but I definitely appreciate you being here, debating.
Hillary is in $31 million dollars worth of debt!
http://www.politico.com/playbook/
Wow. She can talk about "experience," all she wants. But I have a hard time trusting the leadership of someone who's 31 million in debt.
Shouldn't debt precede some type of humility? How do you talk trash when you're 31 million dollars in debt?
Sorry. . .but don't talk to me if you're 31 million dollars in debt. Whatever you're saying, it seems I've got 31 million good reason to think you're delusional.
But don't forget. . . she's ready on "day one."
Wow!
Had Obama not entered the race, I still don't think she would've won.
Hillary is in $31 million dollars worth of debt!
http://www.politico.com/playbook/
Wow. She can talk about "experience," all she wants. But I have a hard time trusting the leadership of someone who's 31 million in debt.
Shouldn't debt precede some type of humility? How do you talk trash when you're 31 million dollars in debt?
Sorry. . .but don't talk to me if you're 31 million dollars in debt. Whatever you're saying, it seems I've got 31 million good reason to think you're delusional.
But don't forget. . . she's ready on "day one."
Wow!
That's a fair assessment.
But "more enlightened" based on what? What makes Obama a "more enlightened candidate" than McCain? Or Clinton? Or Barr (not that he's really in contention).
Any Republican that ran this year-even those with little/no chance of actually winning-got painted with the same "Bush!" label. To be honest, had all the Republicans represented a direct replica of the Bush Administration, I would've looked elsewhere for a candidate.
Now we're down to the final 2.5 candidates (HRC being the .5). At some point, Obama has to stop throwing around the "Bush!" label and stand on his own.
Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, an influential superdelegate who hasn't endorsed either contender, says Obama has now earned the party's nod. "It's time to start healing the party and bringing everyone together," she says. "No one has ever won a majority of pledged delegates and lost the nomination."
"No one has ever won a majority of pledged delegates and lost the nomination."
That's the perfect talking point from now until Hillary drops out. Puts everything into perspective.
That pledged delegate milestone was a big deal. Let's hope that a lot more super delegates endorse Obama with the same logic.
You think it's okay for the RNC to use portions of Michelle Obama's speechuse against Obama, yet you think Obama should let go of the "Bush label"?
Bush's policies and McCain's support of his policies have provided the Obama campaign a wealth of talking points and I hope he rides that horse all the way to the bank!
How are the two related?
I'm going to give you this, from my blog:
Let’s establish something: the next president will represent a change from George Bush. If in no other way than not being him. That is not only change we can believe in, it’s change that’s inevitable.
All I'm asking is at what point there can be a discussion of McCain and Obama's stances on the important issues (of which racism and sexism really aren't) without invoking Bush.
Richardson’s strategy to shift the focus from Ahmadinejad to some nebulous concept of “Iranian leadership” simply won’t play. First, as he knows but Obama apparently does not, Ahmadinejad is nothing more than a straw man for the Guardian Council. He also knows how potentially stupid it would be to bolster the standing of a lunatic hard-liner like Ahmandinejad, a man believed to have played a major role in the sacking of the American embassy in 1979 and the hostage-taking afterwards. Instead, he pretends that Obama meant that he would meet with someone else, with “preparations”.
Richardson then goes on to attempt to change the subject to Cuba, where he blames a policy applied consistently for the last 48 years by Republican and Democratic presidents on George W. Bush. He skips entirely over the other members of the College of Oppressive Dictators that Obama pledge by name to meet in his first year without preconditions, Bashar Assad and Hugo Chavez. In case Richardson or anyone else needs their memory freshened, there is the YouTube video in which Obama pledged to meet each one.
When even the surrogates run away from the policy, it shows the shocking lack of judgment that Obama has on foreign policy and the nature of threats around the world. Even Bill Richardson knows better.
D~
That's a question that every Republican voter should be asking of GOP strategists and 527 groups that are putting the final touches on their Jeremiah Wright video montage.
You know as well as I that the GOP doesn't want to campaign and debate on the issues--unless the issues are flag pins, Black racists, gay marriage, closet Muslims, and abortion.
Bush-bashing is a democrat pavlovian response to any and all criticism and scrutiny of Obama and the main strategy when attacking McCain. They will not let go of it because it will a)deprive them of their National Pastime and b)allow McCain to show that he is an acceptable alternative to disaffected dems who are more conservative and that feel Obama is the second coming of Jimmy Carter.
I contend that there is an ideological, not racial split in the Democrat party which is born out in the KY and OR results:
"Oregon exit polling shows 57% of all Democrats voting in the primary self-identify as liberals, with only 13% identifying as conservative; only 37% identified as liberal in Kentucky. Oregon’s electorate tends towards the activist Left, driven by energy from college communities — exactly the kind of demographic that suits Obama."
If true, the problems for Obama in a general election may be even greater than thought. A center-right candidate, John McCain will attract a high percentages of voters who say they will vote McCain rather than Obama if Hillary loses the nomination. They see McCain as closer to their political positions. The reaction is not that of a sore loser, but a response to the hard-Left leanings of Barack Obama.
McCain has an opportunity to attract votes from Democrats who fear that their party has shifted too far to the left and who fear that Obama is the second coming of Jimmy Carter.
The Dems will continue to link McCain with Bush but this may not prove to be so effective as we near the general election:
Investors' Business Daily provides a useful review:
"On the economy, there are indications the sun is coming out after a fairly mild economic storm. More data are showing a recession will be avoided, and it looks like a new bull market in stocks began in March after a short and shallow bear. ...
For the resilience of this economy, we can thank the president. He pushed substantial tax cuts on income and investment through Congress, which were followed by four years of growth, generating over 8 million jobs. ...
As for national security, Obama keeps saying the war in Iraq and the rest of the administration's foreign and defense policy have, as he put it last week in South Dakota, "prevented us from making this country safe." But the country is safer than anyone expected after 9/11.
There has not been a single terrorist attack on the homeland, and we have instead foiled multiple terrorist plots to kill innocent Americans. America has succeeded in foiling these plots because Bush gave the National Security Agency the authority to monitor any and all communications of suspected terrorists, by telephone, e-mail or other means.
The president also gave authorization for the CIA to employ tough interrogation methods on terrorists in custody, to the extent of transporting those detainees to secret locations abroad.
As we have prevented the terrorists from taking their jihad to the U.S., we have taken the global war on terror to the terrorists' home soil. *** When faced with the entire Washington establishment demanding an end to the war — including his own father's secretary of state, James Baker — President Bush stuck to his guns, placed a new general in charge and employed a surge strategy that is now winning the war in Iraq in resounding fashion."
By Obama's own admission, Rev. Wright is a "legitimate political issue," so I don't think that's necessarily off limits.
s,
...and we should be asking how Obama is going to continue that success in the War on Terror. But when that question is asked, the answer is by "getting us out of a war that we never should have gone into," as Obama said last night. That's all well and good, but it doesn't answer the question of what Obama is going to do about terrorism.
And Obama hasn't answered the question of what he's going to do about a lot of the issues, except not do what Bush has done.
Obama, who was tied with McCain in a hypothetical head-to-head matchup last month, moved to a 48 percent to 40 percent lead over the Arizona senator in May as he took command of his grueling Democratic presidential duel with rival Hillary Clinton.
The poll also found Obama expanded his lead over Clinton in the Democratic race to 26 percentage points, doubling his advantage from mid-April as Democrats begin to coalesce around Obama and prepare for the general election battle with McCain.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2034087120080521
How long will Obama get a pass on this question? He is the candidate of the MSM and they will carry his water for as long as they can. Luckiy, the public is skeptical of the media and may not be so willing to jump on the Obama bandwagon.
To date, the nomination process, the divide in the democrat party and the economy are center stage.
Dems and Obama do not see the war in Iraq as part of the War on Terror. It is a cognitive disconnect that has yet to come face to face with reality. Threats to our national security are dismissed as 'fear-mongering.'
As the debate moves to the general election issues this weakness of Obama's will become more obvious. Look for Joe Lieberman and Rudy Guliani to speak out on this issue and expose the ever present deficit on national security that the dems cannot hide for too much longer.
There are many 'Casey Democrats', seniors and Jewish voters who will cross over to McCain because they do not ascribe to the far-left, virulent anti-war wing of the party to which Obama owes his nomination.
Excellent article. Great links, analysis, overview of Puerto Rican politics and cultural identities, endorsement lists, an Obama ad and a testimony from Puerto Rican women who choose Obama.
Wed May 21, 7:17 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
Democrat Barack Obama has opened an 8-point national lead on Republican John McCain as the U.S. presidential rivals turn their focus to a general election race, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.
By Obama's own admission, Rev. Wright is a "legitimate political issue," so I don't think that's necessarily off limits.
And you agree with him. How convenient.
Anyway, if you call out JJP for being unwilling to discuss "important issues", while believing that a retired pastor is part of a presidential contest, then don't be suprised when people question not only your credibility, but your intellectual honesty.
That’s right, ladies: Teach this nation a lesson for once and for all. Do it for Hillary.
My Lady Parts Do Not Ache for Hillary Clinton
Isn't it more intellectually honest to recognize that Wright is an issue that will play a role in some voters' decision-making process?
The question is: Is this an effective attack strategy for the GOP? It could backfire if it is used as the only or premier issue, but there are plenty of other opportunities to contrast Obama with McCain.
I feel no more sorry for her (as a woman) than I do for Kwame Kilpatrick crying racism! A sham is a sham!! Poeple not to stop crying wolf! They make it harder for those of us with legitimate issues!
As soon as McCain and his "supporters" talk about how McBush is going to fix this country and the war he helped wage without having to hear the constant complaints that how Bush ran the country into the ground is somehow irrelevant to the current political landscape or discussion and constant complaints of Michelle not being REALLY proud of the country at all times during her adult life.
Those who are critical or skeptical of Obama are in violation of the "Obama Rules," which clearly state that only OBAMA can define the nature of the debate.
Note that reasonable challenges to Obama's policies and statements re: Iran and the War on Terror have yet to be refuted and are largely ignored.
And they'll continue to be ignored, because Obama has no answer for them.
BPM,
No one said a discussion on the last seven years is irrelevant. What I'm asking is if that's all Obama's got.
In case you haven't noticed, (and it may be easy to overlook the MSM backout on good news re:Iraq) the surge is succeeding.
McCain's early criticism of the handling of the war and his steadfast support for the surge can be argued as the turning point that prompted the current successful strategy. Meanwhile, Obama is mired in the past, pandering to his anti-war wing with the tired 'war that should have never been waged' meme. Never mind that public support has for months now favored support for the surge and a desire for 'success' in Iraq.
Obama has made a major gaffe re: negotiation with Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela without preconditions
as well as calling Iran a 'tiny' threat. He is woefully inexperienced and lacks the credibility to lead this country in foreign policy and as commander-in-chief.
Even Obama knows he is weak in this arena, hence his knee-jerk, hypersensitive reaction to Bush's remarks re: appeasers. It has now been established that Bush was more likely referring to France, or Jimmy Carter.
Be prepared to hear Obama/Carter in the months to come.
Thanx for pointing me to the photo album over at Black Snob. I just love that family. I wonder if Barack and Michelle needs a babysitter?
Of course. Why the hell do you think people have been complaining that race and race-baiting were eclipsing the relevant issues of the day?
Twenty-one debates; over 40 hours worth of debate; thousands of hours of TV commentary. And the narrative was constantly about Wright; bitter-gate; flag pins; are you "black enough"; was Bill Clinton a black president. Apparently, most people don't want issues. They want entertainment. And racializing is still the best entertainment possible.
Hopefully, Obama v. McCain will be about economic, educational, health, and international issues ...
and not about wives and ex-pastors.
I fell for the MSM line that Puerto Rico is Clinton country.
Even though she still may win PR, here is some evidence to the contrary. They don't vote in the General Election, but 55 delegates up for grabs in the primary ain't no joke.
Bill Richardson is in PR today. I would LOVE an upset!!
Puerto Rico...Obama Island?
You've asked good questions. It would take me forever to try to answer them here.
I think, fundamentally (minus the "McBush" slam at the end), we agree. Those are the type of questions that should be being asked of McCain, instead of reducing everything to just saying he's a continuation of the Bush Administration.
This isn't about protecting Bush from criticism; where it's deserved, let it fly. This is about not painting McCain with a broad stroke to cover up the fact that you (Obama) don't have much to say yourself....
How is McCain going to end the Iraq war?
_____________________________________
In the post-9/11 environment, most Americans recognize that protecting our national security requires taking a more "muscular" approach to confronting and deterring Islamic terrorists and their state sponsors.
John McCain is the best candidate to lead this nation during these times of increasing international conflict, which includes not only the threat of a nuclear Iran, but also unrest in already-nuclear Pakistan, China's rise as a global superpower, and the re-emergence of a hostile Russia. Obama is woefully unprepared to serve as Commander-in-Chief.
McCain believes the Iraq war can be won by 2013, and he rejects a timetable for full-scale troop withdrawals.
Only a small number of troops would remain in Iraq by the end of a prospective first term because al-Qaeda will have been defeated and Iraq's government will be functioning on its own.
"By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won," McCain said.
McCain recognizies the difference between ending the war and bringing troops home and, announcing a withdrawal upfront without regard for the military endgame.
"I know from experience, you set a day for surrender - which is basically what you do when you say you are withdrawing - and you will pay a much a heavier price later on."
John McCain advocates continuing to push for political reconciliation, international and Iraqi government support for economic progress, calls for international pressure on Syria and Iran to crack down on Iraqi insurgents and stop arming and training Shia militias, and leveling with the American people about the opportunities and risks ahead.
I have watched you post manifesto after manifesto of distractions and Obama bashing while hypocritically wondering so much about what Obama is going to do while the rest of the world is wondering what McBush is going to do. Also, please refrain from copying and pasting the opinions of others as answers. Either McCain has detailed, specific plans and answers or he doesn't. If he does, then maybe your time is better spent calling on him to share those with the American people instead of his past and current plan of doing nothing but bashing Obama. Thanks in advance.
McCain has suggested repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax, which will save middle class families nearly $60 billion in one year. He also proposes to double the personal exemption for dependents. To offset lost revenues, McCain has-consistently-offered to work aggressively to end government spending and earmarks, and to eliminate wasteful government programs.
How is McCain going to address the education issues in this country including keeping college affordable?
McCain believes that parents and children should be at the center of the education process. He believes that parents should be empowered with school choice to send their children to the school that can best educate them. As far as protecting college students from the credit crisis, McCain has called on the federal and state governments to anticipate loan problems and expand lender-of-last resort capabilities.
How is McCain going to address the immigration problem other than acknowledge that there is one?
(copying and pasting here, because McCain’s own words speak better than mine)
“A secure border will contribute to addressing our immigration problem most effectively if we also:
Recognize the importance of building strong allies in Mexico and Latin America who reject the siren call of authoritarians like Hugo Chavez, support freedom and democracy, and seek strong domestic economies with abundant economic opportunities for their citizens.
Recognize the importance of pro-growth policies -- keeping government spending in check, holding down taxes, and cutting unnecessary regulatory burdens -- so American businesses can hire and pay the best.
Recognize the importance of a flexible labor market to keep employers in business and our economy on top. It should provide skilled Americans and immigrants with opportunity. Our education system should ensure skills for our younger workers, and our retraining and assistance programs for displaced workers must be modernized so they can pursue those opportunities
Recognize the importance of assimilation of our immigrant population, which includes learning English, American history and civics, and respecting the values of a democratic society.
Recognize that America will always be that "shining city upon a hill," a beacon of hope and opportunity for those seeking a better life built on hard work and optimism.”
How is McCain going to reduce gas prices to 2002 levels?
McCain has proposed a summer gas tax holiday that would suspend the 18.4 cent and 24.4 cent gas tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day (I don’t agree with him on this one). McCain has suggested a pause in filling the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is already about 97% full.
How is McCain going to end the Iraq war?
McCain believes in full support of the successful counterinsurgency strategy (i.e. the surge) effected by GEN David Petraeus. He recognizes that the gains of the last year would be lost under Obama’s call for withdrawal, just as progress was slowed by removing the American military from Iraq’s streets in 2005-2006.
McCain believes the United Nations should take on a larger role in supporting Iraq’s elections in 2008 and 2009. He believes the international community should support and fund programs to spur local entrepreneurship in Iraq, which will lead to an increase in jobs and propel the growth necessary to keep Iraq’s young men away from the attractions of extremism.
Still owe you a couple. :)
This will lead to a stable functioning Iraq and a reduced troop presence in Iraq.
BTW, and immediate, unconditional withdrawl, as proposed by Obama will not end the war but merey end our involvement until it becomes necessary to intervene at later date, after AQI has been able to reconstitute itself and Iran is free to train and arm illegal Shiite militias with impunity, wreaking havoc on the civilian population and destabilizing the government.
Cutting and pasting does not negate the validity of the argument but I guess it provides enough of a 'distraction' for you to ignore the content.
If you disagree that the surge is a winning strategy that is producing successful results, then you will indeed feel that McCain cannot 'end' the war, but it is none-the-less a real plan for ending the war.
Is it asking too much to switch "McCain" with "Obama" and get you to answer the same questions?
I think you can produce sufficient answers to any question re: McCain.
The answer still remains: Can Obama supporters respond to your questions/concerns about Obama without bashing Bush or changing the subject to conveniently put you on defense?
Why is it so hard to explain why immediate withdrawl from Iraq will end the war? Or why negotiations with Iran, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela without preconditions will be a successful, fruitful foreign policy strategy that will advance our national interests?
Yeah, I could, just didn't want to tie up this whole forum with them.
Being lazy. But what the hell....
And I don't expect honest answers to my questions; generally speaking, I rarely do (even though I'm surprised when I get them).
We can't save him, folks. He and Ferraro are so gone.
How is McCain going to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear arms?
Contrary to popular liberal belief, McCain believes in using the international community to keep pressure on Iran’s pursuit of nuclear arms. However, while he believes use of the military should be the last resort, he will not take the use of force option off the table.
How is McCain going to effect positive change in Cuba?
McCain believes that the US should continue to maintain its embargo of Cuba. He believes that America should continue, through radio and TV, to communicate directly with the Cuban people. McCain will press the Castro government to release political prisoners, legalize all political parties and unions, and schedule elections to be monitored by an international body.
How is McCain going to disarm N. Korea?
In 2007, McCain said that it was necessary for North Korea be committed to "verifiable denuclearization" and "full accounting of all its nuclear materials and facilities" before any "lasting diplomatic agreement(s) can be reached.”
How is McCain going to work in the interests of the people when his campaign is run by 115 federal lobbyists, excuse me 114 since it seems another one may have bitten the dust today?
Can you tell me who the 115 are?
The 60 billion is debatable because the families will end up paying more on the state and local levels just as they have with the Bush tax cuts for billionaires when the shortfall is not covered. McCain has been in the Senate for decades and hasn't been able to curb or end earmarks so what specifically will he do differently as president that he couldn't figure out the decades before. Also, from what I have read earmarks wouldn't cover the total costs of the lost revenues. Offsetting in this case is the equivalent of trying to fill a swimming pool with a tablespoon. Where will McCain get the remainder of the funds or does he plan to continue to grow the deficit as Bush and the republicans have done for the last 7 years?
------------------
"McCain believes that parents and children should be at the center of the education process. He believes that parents should be empowered with school choice to send their children to the school that can best educate them. As far as protecting college students from the credit crisis, McCain has called on the federal and state governments to anticipate loan problems and expand lender-of-last resort capabilities."
Your copy and past here doesn't even pretend to ANSWER the question or is it McBush's plan that all parents should homeschool? As far as the credit crisis, McCain has no plans and no vision but he wants someone to anticipate problems. Let me save him some time, McBush college students are graduating with massive debt that will prevent them from doing simple things like becoming homeowners and building wealth. Now that I have anticipated the crisis for him, do you think he might work on a plan of some sort. Besides nothing you posted addressed my question in the slightest.
------------------
[(copying and pasting here, because McCain’s own words speak better than mine)
“A secure border will contribute to addressing our immigration problem most effectively if we also:
Recognize the importance of building strong allies in Mexico and Latin America who reject the siren call of authoritarians like Hugo Chavez, support freedom and democracy, and seek strong domestic economies with abundant economic opportunities for their citizens.
Recognize the importance of pro-growth policies -- keeping government spending in check, holding down taxes, and cutting unnecessary regulatory burdens -- so American businesses can hire and pay the best.
Recognize the importance of a flexible labor market to keep employers in business and our economy on top. It should provide skilled Americans and immigrants with opportunity. Our education system should ensure skills for our younger workers, and our retraining and assistance programs for displaced workers must be modernized so they can pursue those opportunities
Recognize the importance of assimilation of our immigrant population, which includes learning English, American history and civics, and respecting the values of a democratic society.
Recognize that America will always be that "shining city upon a hill," a beacon of hope and opportunity for those seeking a better life built on hard work and optimism.”]
First, let's not pretend. Everything you posted @ 11:59 is a copy and paste. Save the smoke screen. Again, you prove he has no plan unless you meant to convey that his plan is that we remain allies of Mexico and do nothing. I don't see anything here that is different fromt the Bush policy except this piece of presidential innovation: Recognize that America will always be that "shining city upon a hill," a beacon of hope and opportunity for those seeking a better life built on hard work and optimism.”
-----------------
"McCain believes in full support of the successful counterinsurgency strategy (i.e. the surge) effected by GEN David Petraeus. He recognizes that the gains of the last year would be lost under Obama’s call for withdrawal, just as progress was slowed by removing the American military from Iraq’s streets in 2005-2006.
McCain believes the United Nations should take on a larger role in supporting Iraq’s elections in 2008 and 2009. He believes the international community should support and fund programs to spur local entrepreneurship in Iraq, which will lead to an increase in jobs and propel the growth necessary to keep Iraq’s young men away from the attractions of extremism."
Again, you don't even pretend to answer the question of how will McBush end the Iraq war. However, I do find it funny as hell that McBush's plan to end the war in Iraq is that the international community should spend money for the McBush war. Powell warned you in advance of the pottery barn theory that "your break it you bought it". That is probably the stupidest Iraq plan to date: the rest of the world should pay the costs and somehow that will miraculously end the fight and instantaneously get our troops home.
-----------------
"Still owe you a couple. :)"
I appreciate your attempts here, d., but you completely missed my bigger point and I really was making a larger point. For all the experience and bona fides you bestow on McCain he is no more prepared to be president than Obama is and judging by what you posted he is less prepared. Furthermore, you have time and again mocked Obama for vagueness and platitudes and then you post manure that is worse than vagueness and platitudes because they don't even answer the specific questions that they were supposedly intended to address. The real answers are easier than copying from McCain's website, blogs and articles. For example (how will McBush end the Iraq war), McCain has no intention of ending the Iraq war unless he can exchange it for one with Iran. It really is just that simple and avoiding addressing this direct question by engaging in a HYPOTHETICAL 2013 fantasy is shameful but clever enough to fool most of the idiots in the media. Thanks for humoring me but this is surely a waste of time because McCain obviously has no plans and no answers for my questions if a die hard supporter like you can't find them. I guess we will get back to the regularly scheduled program around here of Obama-bashing and Obama defending. :)
We agree on one thing, BPM: that was a waste of time. Because the reality of the situation is that you weren't going to listen to whatever my answers were to your questions.
I'll keep waiting for you to provide Obama's stances on the same questions. Don't worry, though, I don't expect them any time soon.
Is it asking too much to switch "McCain" with "Obama" and get you to answer the same questions?"
----------------
Yes, it is asking too much. I am not Obama nor his policy adviser. In addition, I haven't been in the habit of tossing baseless, hypocritical, and scurrilous aspersions at McCain on this blog. Most importantly though, you have been the commenter running around this blog for months accusing Obama of not having detailed plans, of calling for change but not telling exactly what kind, of espousing platitudes without substance, of being an empty suit, of being ill-prepared and inexperienced, of being unpatriotic (don't waste time denying because that is what your smear boiled down to), of being incapable of securing the nation, of being ignorant of foreign policy, and worse. Since I have seen you ask similar questions for months of others who never saw fit to question you, I thought it was high time you answered your own damn questions about your own McBush.
I knew you couldn't answer my questions before I asked them but imagine my surprise to discover that you didn't know that you couldn't answer the questions. I thought it was obvious that my point was that all of your arguments against Obama are hypocritical and straw men (and apply equally if not moreso to McCain himself) but I am pleased that you proven it so thoroughly with your non-answer "answers" to questions that you couldn't possibly answer because McCain himself hasn't answered. When next you want to hurl empty suit type insults at Obama, you might want to read your McCain "answers" to a few questions in this thread.
He sounds similar to Obama in that answer. That doesn't keep Iran from arming and didn't keep N. Korea from arming. I guess this is another he doesn't have a real plan moment except to stick with Bush's policy.
------------
"McCain believes that the US should continue to maintain its embargo of Cuba. He believes that America should continue, through radio and TV, to communicate directly with the Cuban people. McCain will press the Castro government to release political prisoners, legalize all political parties and unions, and schedule elections to be monitored by an international body.
How is McCain going to disarm N. Korea?
In 2007, McCain said that it was necessary for North Korea be committed to "verifiable denuclearization" and "full accounting of all its nuclear materials and facilities" before any "lasting diplomatic agreement(s) can be reached.”
How is this any different from what has been done for the last 40 years? How is that working for the Cuban people? I guess them surviving another four years of the status quo may be positive in McCain's view.
-------------
"Can you tell me who the 115 are?"
The highest and most intimate members of his campaign. His favorites ride the straight talk express with him. If you want their legal names, submit a press request to the McCain campaign asking for a formal list of his campaign staff in order rank.
That was predictable.
I'm not McCain or one of his policy advisors either. But as a supporter, I should know where he stands on the issues and what his plans are. You should for Obama as well.
I applaud you, though, because you did answer my original question from this morning: it's not possible for Obama or his supporters to address any of the issues this country faces without resorting to Bush-bashing.
If that's what this election year comes down to-using the ease of bashing the sitting president to advance an agenda (or lack thereof)-that's fine. At least I know.
I wonder if it's too early to order a "Don't blame me, I voted for McCain" bumper sticker....
We agree on one thing, BPM: that was a waste of time. Because the reality of the situation is that you weren't going to listen to whatever my answers were to your questions.
I'll keep waiting for you to provide Obama's stances on the same questions. Don't worry, though, I don't expect them any time soon."
Sorry, d, but that doesn't fly. Your supposed answers weren't answers at all just vagueness and platitudes that you have made a big habit of decrying re:Obama without realizing that McBush is no better and everything you project onto Obama is more accurately descriptive of McBush.
If you had real answers, I would have appreciated and acknowledged them but If I ask you whether McBush has ever eaten at Cracker Barrel and you answer with: McCain believes that southerners have a rich cultural heritage in our country and we can help maintain it by recognizing that southern cuisine is a part of that heritage. McCain suggests that the international community should invest funds as tourists dining at Cracker Barrel restaurants to help the south rise again, well then I don't consider that an answer to the question although you pasted a response.
That was predictable.
I'm not McCain or one of his policy advisors either. But as a supporter, I should know where he stands on the issues and what his plans are. You should for Obama as well.
I applaud you, though, because you did answer my original question from this morning: it's not possible for Obama or his supporters to address any of the issues this country faces without resorting to Bush-bashing.
If that's what this election year comes down to-using the ease of bashing the sitting president to advance an agenda (or lack thereof)-that's fine. At least I know.
I wonder if it's too early to order a "Don't blame me, I voted for McCain" bumper sticker...."
--------------------
When did I bash Bush? Sorry I schooled you but you were overdue. In my defense, I did give you the way out by pointing out "if you speak for McBush" but you chose to try and sell smoke and mirrors because others have fallen for it in the past. Again, you couldn't answer questions that McBush hasn't answered and you should have been smart enough to just admit that. McCain is no more prepared and no better qualified to be president than Obama is or Clinton is. Being president is the only training for being president and eventually you will understand this simple but true statement.
If you've got to feel like you "schooled" me to get sleep tonight, rest well.
When you can tell me what Obama's plans are, we'll discuss.
Obama tells you his plans. Listen to him, read his proposals, and get over getting a dose of your own medicine.
Obama believes that he has the ability to persuade our enemies face-to-face to give up their plans to defeat the 'Great Satan' because he is a Democrat who hopes to improve our reputation in the world. He can see all sides of an issue and be a 'uniter.'
He has plans, sure enough. Naive, foolish plans more in line with Jimmy Carter than Harry Truman.
— Congressman Bobby Rush, in a debate with then state legislator Barack Obama, when both men were competing for the Democratic primary for Rush's seat in 2000. Rush won the primary, 61 percent to 30 percent.
Barack Obama has racked up some accomplishments since 2000. But it's interesting that seven and a half years ago, Democratic primary voters in Illinois' First District — a district that included Hyde Park — agreed with Rush's assessment that Obama was insufficiently accomplished and experienced to represent them in the U.S. House of Representatives, nevermind the presidency.
Brother-or sister-don't waste your breath.
You're screaming in an empty room.
This country is going to get what it wants. I can only hope that God is on our side.