 |
Nice work, tom. I hate to say it but Kos actually makes a little sense...Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Quote:
Now I know there's a contingent around here that things Obama can do no wrong, and he must never be criticized, and if you do, well (expletive deleted) you!
So McCain is a hot-headed old geezer who wants to fight a 100 year war in Iraq and whose service doesn't qualify him to be president. Butler has all the DNC talking points down pat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
That guy sounds like he resents McCain for getting the spotlight . Yes McCain was one of many... so what ? McCain did not come home from Nam and compare his fellow soldiers as descendants of Ghengi Khan like JF KERRY did ;so I don't quite get his resentment...
Especially when you consider that just 4 years ago Kerry made a big show of riding a military craft into Boston Harbor... saluting crisply to fellow Democrats and " reported for duty" .
I'd be willing to bet Phillip Butler voted for him anyway .
Since John McCain has never touted his time as a POW or in the Navy (except as his time as a Squadron Commander) as qualifications then indeed it was a cheap shot by Weasely Clark (who never came close to enduring anything like McCain's experience ).
Clark's comments are part of a greater effort by Dems like him and Jim Webb to diminish McCain's service. By the time they are finished those old charges of "the Manchurian Candidate" will be revived.
With Butler being a "peace and justice activist" for Veterans for Peace it's easy to see where the resentment comes from. This is a group that wants an immediate end to the Iraq war, ban military recruiters from public schools and "work with others to reduce US addiction to oil and so limit future wars" while saving the planet from global warming.
I wonder how Obama squares that position with his speech yesterday calling the nation to service ?Quote:
ban military recruiters from public schools
I think we have discovered another point of contention with his base of support .Quote:
I am running for President, right now, because of what Dr. King called the fierce urgency of now. This moment is too important to sit on the sidelines. Our country faces determined enemies abroad, and definitive challenges at home. But I have no doubt that in the face of these odds, people who love their country can change it. That is why I am running for President. That is why I'm determined to reach out – not just to Democrats, but to Independents and Republicans who want to move in a new direction. And that is why I won't just ask for your vote as a candidate – I will ask for your service and your active citizenship when I am President of the United States.
This will not be a call issued in one speech or one program – this will be a central cause of my presidency. We will ask Americans to serve. We will create new opportunities for Americans to serve. And we will direct that service to our most pressing national challenges.
There is no challenge greater than the defense of our nation and our values. The men and women of our military – from Fort Carson to Peterson Air Force base, from the Air Force Academy to the ROTC students here on campus – have signed up at a time when our troops face an ever-increasing load. Fighting a resurgent Taliban. Targeting al Qaeda. Persevering in the deserts and cities of Iraq. Training foreign militaries. Delivering humanitarian relief. In this young century, our military has answered when called, even as that call has come too often. Through their commitment, their capability, and their courage they have done us all proud.
But we need to ease the burden on our troops, while meeting the challenges of the 21st century. That's why I will call on a new generation of Americans to join our military, and complete the effort to increase our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines.
Tom,
Did you catch the NY Times' scathing Independence Day editorial on Obama?
It's not Obama's fault though, blame Terry McAuliffe.Quote:
New and Not Improved
Published: July 4, 2008
Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things. He spoke with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders, promised to end President Bush’s abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics.
Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings. First, he broke his promise to try to keep both major parties within public-financing limits for the general election. His team explained that, saying he had a grass-roots-based model and that while he was forgoing public money, he also was eschewing gold-plated fund-raisers. These days he’s on a high-roller hunt.
Even his own chief money collector, Penny Pritzker, suggests that the magic of $20 donations from the Web was less a matter of principle than of scheduling. “We have not been able to have much of the senator’s time during the primaries, so we have had to rely more on the Internet,” she explained as she and her team busily scheduled more than a dozen big-ticket events over the next few weeks at which the target price for quality time with the candidate is more than $30,000 per person.
The new Barack Obama has abandoned his vow to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill if it includes an immunity clause for telecommunications companies that amounts to a sanctioned cover-up of Mr. Bush’s unlawful eavesdropping after 9/11.
In January, when he was battling for Super Tuesday votes, Mr. Obama said that the 1978 law requiring warrants for wiretapping, and the special court it created, worked. “We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend,” he declared.
Now, he supports the immunity clause as part of what he calls a compromise but actually is a classic, cynical Washington deal that erodes the power of the special court, virtually eliminates “vigorous oversight” and allows more warrantless eavesdropping than ever.
The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush’s policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations — a policy that violates the separation of church and state and turns a government function into a charitable donation.
He says he would not allow those groups to discriminate in employment, as Mr. Bush did, which is nice. But the Constitution exists to protect democracy, no matter who is president and how good his intentions may be.
On top of these perplexing shifts in position, we find ourselves disagreeing powerfully with Mr. Obama on two other issues: the death penalty and gun control.
Mr. Obama endorsed the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the District of Columbia’s gun-control law. We knew he ascribed to the anti-gun-control groups’ misreading of the Constitution as implying an individual right to bear arms. But it was distressing to see him declare that the court provided a guide to “reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.”
What could be more reasonable than a city restricting handguns, or requiring that firearms be stored in ways that do not present a mortal threat to children?
We were equally distressed by Mr. Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court’s barring the death penalty for crimes that do not involve murder.
We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.
There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. We don’t want any “redefining” on these big questions. This country needs change it can believe in.
Lol the Clintonoid footprint !Quote:
Bloomberg notes that his drift to the center is difficult because of his voting record (as thin as it is )
Bloomberg.com: Worldwide
I really liked reading this link, thank you for it. I appreciate the men that have gone to war and endured more than I could even imagine. But, at the same time, I wouldn't vote for someone either just because they did. I sensed that Phillip is a straight up guy, but I htought he wanted to make it a point that McCain wasn't the only one who endured pain and torture, well geeze, I wasn't sure anyone said he was the only one. Knowing he is a hot head, well I suppose I wouldn't want a hot head by that red button either. But I also wouldn't want someone too weeny to push it either. So like I said before, this is a lose lose situation...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
What a statement!
Victor Davis Hanson goes so far as to identify Obama as the candidate who is the real McSame
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Barack W. Bush?
"Or they think that Obama is changing so fast and so radically that it's hard to believe he really knows who he is -- or would be as president."Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Ya think?
Surely you heard about Jesse Jackson telling us how he really feels about Obama. I wonder how many other candid remarks we could get with a few open microphones around Obama apologists? Doesn't' much matter, no matter how disillusioned the talking heads get they're always quick to protect Obama's Teflon coating. At least Jesse got it right on what his candidacy is really all about in his mea culpa to Greta, "his commitment to make us feel better about ourselves."
Excerpt from the article:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
""I want to cut his nuts off," Jackson, a former associate of assassinated civil rights icon Martin Luther King, said, in comments which then prompted him to launch a torrent of apologies on cable television news shows."
I wonder where Rev Jesse picked up on that line? Oh! Yes! I remember now! That's the exact phrase his wife used when she found out about his extramarital affair that provided him another child. And guess what? That also resulted in Jesse launching a torrent of apologies. He's consistent if nothing else. The man will undermine anyone for attention. Years ago we had one of the nations longest strikes come to an end at the Old Frontier casino (now closed and demolished). Never once did I see him on the picket line. Yet magically the day the strike finally ended, there he was with microphone in face, speaking to the news media as if he was the super negotiator. Go figure. I haven't seen that cat once in Vegas since then either.
And of course we in NY (hymetown) have long been aware of the Rev's colorful off the cuff comments. Obama asked the Rev "don't you have a corporation to shake-down ? "
My question is :
Why isn't Secret Service investigating this obvious threat to a Presidential candidate ?
It would just waste more of our tax dollars when Congress and their sideshow intervenes for the attention, i.e. steroids.
Like still investigating Plamegate and attorney firings...Quote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
Here's the deal with BO
He is like Robert Redford in 'The Candidate ' who after winning is so confused and so unsure of who he is asks his advisors; "what next ?"
Actually you've described McCain.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Oops: there they go again... : “I'm disgusted with him,” said Ms. Shade, an artist. “I can't even listen to him anymore. He had such an opportunity, but all this 'audacity of hope' stuff, it's blah, blah, blah." NYT: Obama supporters on left cry foul - The New York Times - MSNBC.com
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:14 AM. |