PDA

View Full Version : Excellent article on Obama and McCain


revefsreleets
06-13-2008, 09:20 AM
I'm kind of hit or miss with Samuelson, but when he's on, dude is spot on.

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/19880779.html

Cast a ballot for McBama
Published on Friday, Jun 13, 2008
WASHINGTON: For the party faithful, this is a sweet moment. They have their candidates and, whatever the obstacles, can still imagine victory in November. But the rest of us ought to remember that the politics of winning and governing often collide. The first involves maximizing popularity. The second requires farsighted choices that ultimately benefit the country but may initially hurt a president's approval ratings. What have we learned about the candidates' capacity for governing? Enough, I think, to temper the excitement.
Start with Barack Obama. Even those who disagree with him ought to feel pride in his impending nomination, because it continues America's racial reconciliation and atonement for slavery. But symbolism can't substitute for policy, and any feel-good fallout from electing Obama would soon fade. He'd have to earn popular support, and this would be made harder by a problem of his own making: He'd have to disavow much of his campaign rhetoric. The reason is that his campaign is itself a contradiction.
On the one hand, he projects himself as the great conciliator. He uses the metaphor of his race to argue that he is uniquely suited to bridge differences between liberals and conservatives, young and old, rich and poor — to craft a new centrist politics. On the other hand, his actual agenda is highly partisan and undermines many of his stated goals. He wants to stimulate economic growth, but his hostility toward trade agreements threatens export-led growth (which is now beginning). He advocates greater energy independence but pretends this can occur without more domestic drilling for oil and natural gas.
All this reflects Obama's legislative record. From 2005 to 2007, he voted with his party 97 percent of the time, reports the Politico. But Obama's clever campaign strategy would put him in a bind as president. Championing centrism would disappoint many ardent Democrats. Pleasing them would betray his conciliating image. The fact that he has so far straddled the contradiction may confirm his political skills and the quiet aid received from the media, which helped him by virtually ignoring the blatant contradictions.
And what does the straddle tell us of him? Aside from ambition — hardly unique among presidential candidates — I cannot detect powerful convictions in Obama. He seems merely expedient in peddling his convenient conflicts. He strikes me as a super-successful graduate student: the brightest, quickest, most articulate guy in the seminar. In his career, he has advanced mainly by talking and writing — not doing — and may harbor a delusion common to the well-educated: that he can argue and explain his way around any problem.
By contrast, no one can claim that McCain lacks convictions. He has often defied Republican party orthodoxy, and his credentials to lead a centrist coalition are stronger than Obama's. According to the Politico, he sided with his party only 83 percent of the time from 2005 to 2007. Even in this election year, he has taken unpopular positions. Note his criticism of farm subsidies, which won't help him in the Midwest. The trouble with McCain is that he often mistakes stubbornness for principle.
He has a hard time changing his mind, even when the evidence overwhelmingly suggests he's wrong. He has stuck with ''campaign finance reform'' despite its dismal record. After three decades, it has entangled political campaigns in rules and paperwork without solving any notable problem (for example, people continue to believe that wealthy ''special interests'' have too much influence). On immigration, he still does not grasp what I think is the actual problem: not illegal immigration so much as too many poor and unskilled immigrants, whether legal or illegal. Like Obama, he seems oblivious to the possible unintended consequences of endorsing an anti-global warming ''cap-and-trade'' program.
Steadfastness and good judgment are qualities we value in a president, and McCain has often displayed these. He was early and correct in his criticism of the Bush administration's conduct of the Iraq War and of its treatment of prisoners. He has been consistent in his opposition to high and wasteful federal spending. But good judgment must accompany steadfastness, and there are enough instances of McCain's bad judgment to make you wonder which would prevail.

So, vote for McBama. The truth is that both candidates leave room for doubt, and neither has forthrightly addressed some of America's obvious problems — costly government retirement programs, immigration, our energy appetite. But for me, McCain does have one provisional and accidental advantage. By most appraisals, the Republicans will get slaughtered in congressional elections, and I have a visceral dislike of one-party government. It didn't work well under Bill Clinton or George W. Bush. Divided government doesn't ensure good government, but it may limit bad government by checking the worst instincts of both parties.
Samuelson is a Washington Post columnist.

j-dawg
06-13-2008, 06:23 PM
hmm... guy needs to explain how "export-led growth is now working".

Preacher
06-13-2008, 06:50 PM
He also needs to explain how winning the primary has continued racial reconciliation and atonement for slavery.

What I have seen, it has driven more racism. Now, if you choose not to vote for Obama, it is because your a racist. Not because you disagree with his politics.

katk9
06-13-2008, 07:30 PM
He also needs to explain how winning the primary has continued racial reconciliation and atonement for slavery.

What I have seen, it has driven more racism. Now, if you choose not to vote for Obama, it is because your a racist. Not because you disagree with his politics.
I totally agree.

Atlanta Dan
06-13-2008, 08:20 PM
Racism is working both sides of the aisle this election cycle

Preacher
06-13-2008, 11:05 PM
Racism is working both sides of the aisle this election cycle

I haven't heard too much racism coming from the GOP towards Obama.

What i HAVE heard... is that he is too inexperienced and too liberal-- and questions as to why he can tie religion and politics together, and GOP'ers can't.

billybob
06-13-2008, 11:13 PM
Wonder whar mr. mike would have to say about that?its hard to discuss polital views on my all time favorite football teams site. they will separate themselves in due time!!

GBMelBlount
06-14-2008, 07:41 AM
I have been trying to stay out of this but aren't both Obama & McCain on the pro Kyoto, anti Anwar, "global warming" train? If this is the case, I question the reasoning ability, and true motives, of both "pro economy" candidates. Just my two cents.

Atlanta Dan
06-14-2008, 08:37 AM
I haven't heard too much racism coming from the GOP towards Obama.

I have not head too much racism coming from Obama about the GOP either Preacher; just as I assume you are claiming it is not Obama but his supporters that are peddling racist gibes against whites, I am referring to such conduct as:

Fox News referring to Michelle Obama as Obama's "baby mama" (a term used to describe a black woman who has a man's child out of wedlock);

An Atlanta restaurant marketing a T-shirt with the image of Curious George above the slogan "Obama in '08"

http://www.ajc.com/search/content/metro/cobb/stories/2008/05/15/norman_0515.html

And this charming marketing of TheSockObama™, which "is made with high quality knit materials to capture the nostalgic look of the Sock Monkey that we all know and love."

http://thesockobama.com/

Those who seriously claim race baiting is only coming from supporters of one side this campaign need to take a another look at Matthew 7: 1-6

revefsreleets
06-14-2008, 08:42 AM
http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/19706139.html

Transform the country? Already been done

By Paul Krugman

Published on Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008

NEW YORK: Fervent supporters of Barack Obama like to say that putting him in the White House would transform America. With all due respect to the candidate, that gets it backward. Obama is an impressive speaker who has run a brilliant campaign — but if he wins in November, it will be because our country has already been transformed.

Obama's nomination wouldn't have been possible 20 years ago. It's possible today only because racial division, which has driven U.S. politics rightward for more than four decades, has lost much of its sting.

And the de-racialization of U.S. politics has implications that go far beyond the possibility that we're about to elect an African-American president. Without racial division, the conservative message — which has long dominated the political scene — loses most of its effectiveness.

Take, for example, that old standby of conservatives: denouncing Big Government. Last week John McCain's economic spokesman claimed that Barack Obama is President Bush's true fiscal heir, because he's ''dedicated to the recent Bush tradition of spending money on everything.''

Now, the truth is that the Bush administration's big-spending impulses have been largely limited to defense contractors. But more to the point, the McCain campaign is deluding itself if it thinks this issue will resonate with the public.

For Americans have never disliked Big Government in general. In fact, they love Social Security and Medicare, and strongly approve of Medicaid — which means that the three big programs that dominate domestic spending have overwhelming public support.

If Ronald Reagan and other politicians succeeded, for a time, in convincing voters that government spending was bad, it was by suggesting that bureaucrats were taking away workers' hard-earned money and giving it to you-know-who: the ''strapping young buck'' using food stamps to buy T-bone steaks, the welfare queen driving her Cadillac. Take away the racial element, and Americans like government spending just fine.

But why has racial division become so much less important in American politics?

Part of the credit surely goes to Bill Clinton, who ended welfare as we knew it. I'm not saying that the end of Aid to Families With Dependent Children was an unalloyed good thing; it created a great deal of hardship. But the ''bums on welfare'' played a role in political discourse vastly disproportionate to the actual expense of AFDC, and welfare reform took that issue off the table.

Another large factor has been the decline in urban violence.

As the historian Rick Perlstein documents in his terrific new book ''Nixonland,'' America's hard right turn really began in 1966, when the Democrats suffered a severe setback in Congress — and Ronald Reagan was elected governor of California.

The cause of that right turn, as Perlstein shows, was white fear of urban disorder — and the associated fear that fair housing laws would let dangerous blacks move into white neighborhoods. ''Law and order'' became the rallying cry of right-wing politicians, above all Richard Nixon, who rode that fear right into the White House.

But during the Clinton years, for reasons nobody fully understands, the wave of urban violence receded, and with it the ability of politicians to exploit Americans' fear.

It's true that Sept. 11 gave the fear factor a second wind: Karl Rove accusing liberals of being soft on terrorism sounded just like Spiro Agnew accusing liberals of being soft on crime. But the GOP's credibility as America's defender has leaked away into the sands of Iraq.

Let me add one more hypothesis: Although everyone makes fun of political correctness, I'd argue that decades of pressure on public figures and the media have helped drive both overt and strongly implied racism out of our national discourse. For example, I don't think a politician today could get away with running the infamous 1988 Willie Horton ad.

Unfortunately, the campaign against misogyny hasn't been equally successful.

By the way, it was during the heyday of the baby boom generation that crude racism became unacceptable. Obama, who has been dismissive of the boomers' ''psychodrama,'' might want to give the generation that brought about this change, fought for civil rights and protested the Vietnam War a bit more credit.

Anyway, none of this guarantees an Obama victory in November. Racial division has lost much of its sting, but not all: You can be sure that we'll be hearing a lot more about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and all that. Moreover, despite Hillary Clinton's gracious, eloquent concession speech, some of her supporters may yet refuse to support the Democratic nominee.

But if Obama does win, it will symbolize the great change that has taken place in America. Racial polarization used to be a dominating force in our politics — but we're now a different, and better, country.
Krugman is a New York Times columnist.

Atlanta Dan
06-14-2008, 08:53 AM
Consider the source when quoting Paul Krugman on whether we are in an era where racial politics are just a bad memory; last month he was still hoping Hillary might not lose and wrote this:

There’s just one thing that should give Democrats pause — but it’s a big one: the fight for the nomination has divided the party along class and race lines in a way that I believe is unprecedented, at least in modern times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/opinion/09krugman.html

Rhee Rhee
06-14-2008, 09:08 AM
What I have seen, it has driven more racism. Now, if you choose not to vote for Obama, it is because your a racist. Not because you disagree with his politics.

spot on. 100%.

my mother was just saying that exact thing. she has decided to vote for Obama over Mcain basically because it has become more of a racial battle (she didn't say that word for word but I got the general gist of it).

for those of you who are interested, I attend Punahou which is the school Obama attended and graduated from way back when he lived in Honolulu with his grandmother.

revefsreleets
06-14-2008, 09:11 AM
But the fact is, we HAVE moved forward as far as racial harmony. Are we where we need to be? No way, but we are a Helluva lot better off than 20 years ago.

Personally, I see a silver lining if Obama gets elected: A black liberal president will go a long way towards healing some of the PR damage this country has self-inflicted upon itself over the last 8 years. Europe, Central America, Africa...our standing in the eyes of the World would grow.

Atlanta Dan
06-14-2008, 09:40 AM
But the fact is, we HAVE moved forward as far as racial harmony. Are we where we need to be? No way, but we are a Helluva lot better off than 20 years ago.

Personally, I see a silver lining if Obama gets elected: A black liberal president will go a long way towards healing some of the PR damage this country has self-inflicted upon itself over the last 8 years. Europe, Central America, Africa...our standing in the eyes of the World would grow.

We absolutely have moved ahead. When I moved to Atlanta in the early 80s state government offices still were open on Memorial Day (aka Union Decoration Day) but closed for Confederate Memorial Day and the Georgia State flag had the Confederate stars & bars that were added to the flag after Brown v. Board of Education came down in the 50s.

All I am saying is a significant % of the vote (on both sides) will be driven by Obama's race and a lot of "dog whistling" (messages intended only for the recipients' ears) race driven messages are going to be circulated this fall.

revefsreleets
06-14-2008, 01:39 PM
No matter what, there will always be backward hillbillies and nutjobs in this Country...no avoiding it.

Godfather
06-14-2008, 05:26 PM
I haven't heard anything about all or even most Hillary/McCain voters being racist, just that it was a factor for some voters. In fact, 20% of West Virginia voters ADMITTED it which makes it likely that the real number was closer to 40.

I do think it's a positive step forward that a black candidate is a serious candidate for POTUS. Even more so considering he's an empty suit.

Steel Buckeye
06-15-2008, 12:15 AM
John McCain says there is not enough money for public healthcare but he does have enough money to continue the war in Iraq. Mmm… strange: no money for something everybody needs but enough money for a war, which is endless. Come on people, God gave you brains, so use it and don't believe everything they say. Eight years of lies and manipulation should be enough. Get the Republicans out of the White House. They had their chance - and they failed miserably. I don't think Obama is the best person for the job, IMO Bill Richardson deserved it more but Obama is looking like the lesser of 2 evils.

Godfather
06-15-2008, 04:40 PM
John McCain says there is not enough money for public healthcare but he does have enough money to continue the war in Iraq. Mmm… strange: no money for something everybody needs but enough money for a war, which is endless. Come on people, God gave you brains, so use it and don't believe everything they say. Eight years of lies and manipulation should be enough. Get the Republicans out of the White House. They had their chance - and they failed miserably. I don't think Obama is the best person for the job, IMO Bill Richardson deserved it more but Obama is looking like the lesser of 2 evils.

Not sure that's a good analogy. You don't have to like the war but we're stuck thanks to the Pottery Barn rule. We broke it, now we have to fix it.

Public healthcare is a bad idea. Look at the Walter Reed scandal and ask yourself if you want civilians to get that kind of care too. The problem with healthcare is the insurance companies.

Atlanta Dan
06-15-2008, 06:04 PM
Not sure that's a good analogy. You don't have to like the war but we're stuck thanks to the Pottery Barn rule. We broke it, now we have to fix it.

Public healthcare is a bad idea. Look at the Walter Reed scandal and ask yourself if you want civilians to get that kind of care too. The problem with healthcare is the insurance companies.

Walter Reed is a disgrace but some of the most cost effective quality health care, private or public, is regarded as being provided by the Veterans Administration.

Study after study puts the VA system at the very top for fewer medical errors, for effective treatments, for lower costs and for patient satisfaction. And the VA delivers all of this for at least $1,500 less per year per patient than Medicare.

Though government can't just expand the VA system for the whole country (that's not possible politically or logistically), the basic concept is adaptable. The VA uses a system that keeps track of patients for a lifetime and uses electronic records to reduce errors and provide up-to-date proven treatment. That idea can be adopted by other insurance systems and hospitals.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=3991225&page=1

HometownGal
06-15-2008, 07:10 PM
but Obama is looking like the lesser of 2 evils.

That's the way I feel about McCain and that is one of the reasons why he is getting my support.

I'm not voting for Obama because he is a black man - I'm not voting for him because I just don't trust him. I go with my gut and my gut is telling me NO to Obama.

billybob
06-15-2008, 07:25 PM
Just say no to Obama bin Laden. (LOL)

TackleMeBen
06-15-2008, 07:29 PM
i dont think either are good candidates. but as a republican, i guess i am going to have to vote for whoever is on the republican ticket this election. i like richardson and would have loved to see him on the ticket.

Godfather
06-15-2008, 09:01 PM
As a Katrician, one factor in my decisions is which candidate I would prefer in a crisis. We all saw what happened with the Three Stooges (Bush, Blanco, and Nagin) in charge. Obama is not ready for prime time. McCain being the GOP nominee makes it easier to vote Republican, but I don't want someone in charge who isn't qualified to lead.

revefsreleets
06-16-2008, 09:38 AM
I know Krauth is a hardline conservative, but he makes valid points here:

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/19952764.html

Why McCain can win on Iraq
By Charles Krauthammer



Published on Sunday, Jun 15, 2008

WASHINGTON: In his St. Paul victory speech, Barack Obama pledged again to pull out of Iraq. Rather than ''continue a policy in Iraq that asks everything of our brave men and women in uniform and nothing of Iraqi politicians. . . . It's time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their future.''

We know Obama hasn't been to Iraq in more than two years, but does he not read the papers? Does he not know anything about developments on the ground?

Here is the ''nothing'' that Iraqis have been doing in the last few months:

1. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki sent the Iraqi army into Basra. It achieved in a few weeks what the British had failed to do in four years: take the city, drive out the Mahdi Army and seize the ports from Iranian-backed militias.

2. When Mahdi fighters rose up in support of their Basra brethren, the Iraqi army at Maliki's direction confronted them and prevailed in every town — Najaf, Karbala, Hilla, Kut, Nasiriyah and Diwaniyah — from Basra to Baghdad.

3. Without any American ground forces, the Iraqi army entered and occupied Sadr City, the Mahdi Army stronghold.

4. Maliki flew to Mosul, directing a joint Iraqi-U.S. offensive against the last redoubt of al-Qaida, which had already been driven out of Anbar, Baghdad and Diyala provinces.

5. The Iraqi parliament enacted a de-Baathification law, a major Democratic benchmark for political reconciliation.

6. Parliament also passed the other reconciliation benchmarks — a pension law, an amnesty law, and a provincial elections and powers law. Oil revenues are being distributed to the provinces through the annual budget.

7. With Maliki having demonstrated that he would fight not just Sunni insurgents (e.g., in Mosul) but Shiite militias (e.g., the Mahdi Army), the Sunni parliamentary bloc began negotiations to join the Shiite-led government. (The final sticking point is a squabble over a sixth Cabinet position.)

The disconnect between what Democrats are saying about Iraq and what is actually happening there has reached grotesque proportions. Democrats won an exhilarating electoral victory in 2006 pledging withdrawal at a time when conditions in Iraq were dire, and we were indeed losing the war.

Two years later, when everything is changed, they continue to reflexively repeat their ''narrative of defeat and retreat'' (as Joe Lieberman so memorably called it) as if nothing has changed.

It is a position so utterly untenable that John McCain must seize the opportunity and, contrary to conventional wisdom, make the Iraq War the central winning plank of his campaign. Yes, Americans are war-weary. Yes, most think we should not have engaged in the first place. Yes, Obama will keep pulling out his 2002 speech opposing the war.

But McCain's case is simple. Is not Obama's central mantra that this election is about the future not the past? It is about 2009, not 2002. Obama promises that upon his inauguration, he will order the Joint Chiefs to bring him a plan for withdrawal from Iraq within 16 months. McCain says that upon his inauguration, he'll ask the Joint Chiefs for a plan for continued and ultimate success.

The choice could not be more clearly drawn. The Democrats' one objective in Iraq is withdrawal. McCain's one objective is victory.

McCain's case is not hard to make. Iraq is a three-front war — against Sunni al-Qaida, against Shiite militias and against Iranian hegemony — and we are winning on every front:

• We did not go into Iraq to fight al-Qaida. The war had other purposes. But al-Qaida chose to turn it into the central front in its war against America. That choice turned into an al-Qaida fiasco: Al-Qaida in Iraq is now on the run and in the midst of stunning and humiliating defeat.

• As for the Shiite extremists, the Mahdi Army is isolated and at its weakest point in years.

• Its sponsor, Iran, has suffered major setbacks, not just in Basra, but in Iraqi public opinion, which has rallied to the Maliki government and against Iranian interference through its Sadrist proxy.

Even the most expansive American objective — establishing a representative government that is an ally against jihadists, both Sunni and Shiite — is within sight.

Obama and the Democrats would forfeit every one of these successes to a declared policy of fixed and unconditional withdrawal. If McCain cannot take to the American people the case for the folly of that policy, he will not be president. Nor should he be.

Give the speech, senator. Give it now.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Krauthammer is a Washington Post columnist. His e-mail address is letters@charleskrauthammer.com.

Atlanta Dan
06-17-2008, 09:36 PM
I haven't heard too much racism coming from the GOP towards Obama.

.

You apparently have not been to Texas:chuckle:

At the Republican state convention, a booth hosted by Republicanmarket was selling a pin Saturday that says: If Obama is President will we still call it the White House

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/06/stick-a-pin-in-it.html

tony hipchest
06-17-2008, 09:48 PM
You apparently have not been to Texas:chuckle:

At the Republican state convention, a booth hosted by Republicanmarket was selling a pin Saturday that says: If Obama is President will we still call it the White House

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/06/stick-a-pin-in-it.htmlway to go, repubigotlicans! :thumbsup:

i hope texas is enjoying their 105 degree temps and 95% humidity before summer even hits.

revefsreleets
06-18-2008, 10:20 AM
That's literally saying that one bad apple spoils the whole barrel.

Atlanta Dan
06-18-2008, 11:43 AM
That's literally saying that one bad apple spoils the whole barrel.

Not quite - Preach said he had not seen much racism coming from the GOP; i took that to mean coming from individual members of the GOP as opposed to the RNC issuing a press release calling for the repeal of the 13th Amendment.

Peddling buttons with that statement at the official state convention would seem to establish pretty blatant racism is coming from some members of the GOP; I assume Dems or independents would have been selling mechandise at that gathering.

tony hipchest
06-18-2008, 11:54 AM
That's literally saying that one bad apple spoils the whole barrel.eh, it was more a shot at texans than anything else. and to be an equal opportunity offender, i even lumped in the democratic texans.

i know bigotry doesnt know any political boundries, just like the 105 degree heat doesnt.

and if thats how Republicanmarket wishes to run its agenda, and if they are kind enough not to call DC the "plantation" or "cotton field" if obama gets elected, then more power to 'em.

if they wanna be cute and funny with there little pins, then i can be cute and funny too, with a blanket statement used for emphasis.

im sure this type of divisive race baiting will get even worse as november approaches.

revefsreleets
06-18-2008, 12:32 PM
It's freedom of speech. People are free to be as stupid and ignorant and tacky as they want to be...regardless of party. There will be, no doubt, many attacks on McCain that will be just as groundless and ignorant concerning his status as a war hero and POW, especially from the radical hippy-dippy Utopian far left. These kooks always balance each other out.

Preacher
06-18-2008, 02:57 PM
I have not head too much racism coming from Obama about the GOP either Preacher; just as I assume you are claiming it is not Obama but his supporters that are peddling racist gibes against whites, I am referring to such conduct as:

Fox News referring to Michelle Obama as Obama's "baby mama" (a term used to describe a black woman who has a man's child out of wedlock);

An Atlanta restaurant marketing a T-shirt with the image of Curious George above the slogan "Obama in '08"

http://www.ajc.com/search/content/metro/cobb/stories/2008/05/15/norman_0515.html

And this charming marketing of TheSockObama™, which "is made with high quality knit materials to capture the nostalgic look of the Sock Monkey that we all know and love."

http://thesockobama.com/

Those who seriously claim race baiting is only coming from supporters of one side this campaign need to take a another look at Matthew 7: 1-6

AD...

You will find the extremist in every crowd...

What I was referring to, was the fact that it "seems" that the stock come back to a white person who doesn't want to vote for Obama is a claim of racism. I have already heard it said that if Obama doesn't win, it is because of race.

The mold has been cast, either Obama wins and we are moving ahead from our racist past, or he loses and we are still a racist nation. No matter what people actually think of his policies and lack of experience.

Now, is that the official DNC position? No.

What's funny about all of this...

Obama isn't the first black nominee of a major party--- and potentially the first black president, because America has just gotten ready for it.

He is the first black nominee of a majory party because Colin Powell decided not to run 8 years ago.

And even though Powell was far from conservative, I would have voted for him in an instant.

Atlanta Dan
06-18-2008, 05:08 PM
AD...


He is the first black nominee of a majory party because Colin Powell decided not to run 8 years ago.
.

???

And the Oakland Raiders only won the SB in 1976 because Franco & Rocky got hurt; the fact remains they got the trophy that season.

I fail to see how Powell deciding not to run in a race it was no sure thing he would have won in any way impacts, for better or worse, Obama's accomplishment.

Throwing that argument out there illustrates a consistent denigration of anything Obama does regadless of whether or not it is based on anything beyond speculation.

Preacher
06-18-2008, 05:16 PM
???

And the Oakland Raiders only won the SB in 1976 because Franco & Rocky got hurt; the fact remains they got the trophy that season.

I fail to see how Powell deciding not to run in a race it was no sure thing he would have won in any way impacts, for better or worse, Obama's accomplishment.

Throwing that argument out there illustrates a consistent denigration of anything Obama does regadless of whether or not it is based on anything beyond speculation.

Denigration of Obama? No.

Denigration of the press and sycophants hailing a racial break-through (and signaling that your a racist if you don't vote for him), yes.

Atlanta Dan
06-18-2008, 05:49 PM
Denigration of Obama? No.

Denigration of the press and sycophants hailing a racial break-through (and signaling that your a racist if you don't vote for him), yes.

Kind of mixing apple and oranges aren't we?

Casting all Obama opponents as racists (and while Sean and Rush may be throwing that alleged Dem talking point out there, please cite to me who exactly is saying that) is not the same as acknowledging the significance of Obama's nomination, regardless of whether you share his political views.

Are you serioulsy contending the actual (as opposed to a shoulda, woulda, coulda hypothetical) nomination by a major party of someone other than a white male as its Presidential candidate is not a major breakthrough and noting the significance of such an event is mere syncophancy? And syncophancy to exactly what - Obama?; Blacks?; Political Correctness? Keith Olberman? - Please share.

Would Colin Powell have been nominated if he ran - quite possibly (in 1996, not 2000)

Was he nominated - no

Is the Obama nomination the actual break-through a Powell (or for that matter Hillary) nomination might have been - Yes

QED

Preacher
06-18-2008, 06:36 PM
Kind of mixing apple and oranges aren't we?

Casting all Obama opponents as racists (and while Sean and Rush may be throwing that alleged Dem talking point out there, please cite to me who exactly is saying that) is not the same as acknowledging the significance of Obama's nomination, regardless of whether you share his political views.

Are you serioulsy contending the actual (as opposed to a shoulda, woulda, coulda hypothetical) nomination by a major party of someone other than a white male as its Presidential candidate is not a major breakthrough and noting the significance of such an event is mere syncophancy? And syncophancy to exactly what - Obama?; Blacks?; Political Correctness? Keith Olberman? - Please share.

Would Colin Powell have been nominated if he ran - quite possibly (in 1996, not 2000)

Was he nominated - no

Is the Obama nomination the actual break-through a Powell (or for that matter Hillary) nomination might have been - Yes

QED


I notice you typed and highlighted all which falls no where in my post. I stated SPECIFICALLY the press and sycophants.

What I AM contending, is that while it is a good thing to see that we can nominate people regardless of skin color, it didn't happen this year simply because we were finally ready for it and thus, we must vote for him simply because he is black... to help push equivalence of race, and thus, to not vote for him (as the casting is going) is to be a racist.

remember, I live in the San Francisco Bay area...

What comes across on my local TV is probably not quite the same as anywhere else in teh country.

Yet, I have had friends called racists simply because they are voting for McCain. And I find that hilarious, as one of them, my best friend, is married to a black woman.
__________________________

However, I find all of this quite funny.

Because if Obama was a republican... he would be called

1. Too yellow (since his skin is light)
2. A house N####r
3. Not really black
4. a traitor
etc. etc.

So yeah, let me back up,

I do denigrate the entire thing... because politically, it is all a crock. it isn't about the black man anymore, it is about the LIBERAL black man.

Just ask Colin Powell the names he was called... Just ask Condaleeza Rice what was said about her..

Naa.... its a black republican... so it can't be racist.


http://www.fraterslibertas.com/Images/Politics/Rice1.jpg

Noooo............ Not racist at all.....

but did the liberal elite say anything about it? Black caucus? Nope.


How about this lovely one by our peace loving Arab friends? Where are the calls of racism?

http://www.opinionbug.com/wp-images/condoleezza_rice_pregnant_with_monkey_072406.jpg


WHere is the outrage over the UK press using this one.... making her look like an evil monkey? Look at the face, under the nose and the mouth... tell me what she is supposed to resemble?

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2005/06/27/rowson512.jpg


But yeah...

Obama being nominated is such a great thing... such a headway for black america.


WHAT A JOKE>

It is great headway for Liberal black America...


This election cycle is really getting me sick.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
06-18-2008, 07:02 PM
I haven't heard too much racism coming from the GOP towards Obama.

What i HAVE heard... is that he is too inexperienced and too liberal-- and questions as to why he can tie religion and politics together, and GOP'ers can't.

Explain to me why eveytime there is a democratic nominee he is suddenly the "most liberal" democrat in politics?

Preacher
06-18-2008, 07:12 PM
Explain to me why eveytime there is a democratic nominee he is suddenly the "most liberal" democrat in politics?

Because the Dem party keeps putting them up for election.


Now, if they had chosen someone like Tony's favorite, The New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, or Evan Bayh (if he ran) etc... then they would have been moderate dems.

Atlanta Dan
06-18-2008, 07:14 PM
I notice you typed and highlighted all which falls no where in my post. I stated SPECIFICALLY the press and sycophants..

No - you said this - signaling that your a racist if you don't vote for him

I fairly read that to mean you are contending the media contends all voters who do not vote for Obama are racists - your words, not mine. Who exactly is saying that? Should not take long to Google up such a allegedly common contention.

With regard to this only being a breakthrough for liberal black America, exactly how in the world can you claim to reach that conclusion except to say it only counts as a breakthrough for the entire nation if a black candidate of a particular political philosophy is nominated?

At least one black American appears to disagree with you on that, assuming you do not want to claim she is just 1 more closet liberal.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pronounced herself "gratified" and unsurprised by Sen. Barack Obama's win in the Democratic presidential primary during an interview at the Susan G. Komen National Race for the Cure in Washington, D.C., today.

"As an American, it's a great thing. As a black American, it's a great thing. Our country's extraordinary. We've overcome a lot," she said. "And I'm very gratified, but not surprised."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/07/rice_gratified_by_obama_win.html

Of course, maybe Condi said as a liberal black American it is a great thing and the synchophantic liberal media edited out the word liberal from her quote.

Preacher
06-18-2008, 07:25 PM
No - you said this - signaling that your a racist if you don't vote for him

I fairly read that to mean you are contending the media contends all voters who do not vote for Obama are racists - your words, not mine

With regard to this only being a breakthrough for liberal black America, exactly how in the world can you claim to know that?

At least one black American appears to disagree with you on that, assuming you do not want to claim she is just 1 more closet liberal.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pronounced herself "gratified" and unsurprised by Sen. Barack Obama's win in the Democratic presidential primary during an interview at the Susan G. Komen National Race for the Cure in Washington, D.C., today.

"As an American, it's a great thing. As a black American, it's a great thing. Our country's extraordinary. We've overcome a lot," she said. "And I'm very gratified, but not surprised."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/07/rice_gratified_by_obama_win.html

On the all issue... sorry, I misread what you said... I thought you said that I said (are you following this :chuckle:) that all dems were claiming racism, which I wasn't. But yes, I AM claiming that Obama sycophants and (I need to modify this) SOME in the press are pushing this view that ALL who don't vote for obama, are doing so at least partly because of racial reasons.
________________

Now about Condi...

Notice however, she is a conservative....

and my point is that liberal america only contends that black america has arrived when liberal black america makes it.

I have been talking to other (black) pastors about this very phenomenon, and about how the word racism gets thrown about... how black america doesn't consider black conservatives black, etc. etc. etc.


and that last line is my entire problem with what is happening now.

Do I even need to bring up what happend to the black republican in virginia?

If that was Obama, all hell would break loose, but because it was a conservative, the press and the black caucus took a pass on it.

So to say now that there is SUCH a great headway because of Obama... is just hollow to me. Because if they really cared about headway for the entire black race, they would have been outraged by those cartoons I posted of Condi. They would have been outraged by the outright BRUTAL treatment of a black republican in Virginia.

No. This is a joke... and mark my words. You will hear cries of racism far and wide if Obama loses this election.

__________________________________________________ __

And just to clarify to EVERYONE.....

It isn't that I don't want a black man for president... I really don't care.

It is that I am tired of the double standard for black democrats and black republicans.

Racism is racism people. If you make fun of skin color or traits based on skin color, your a racist... regardless of who you pull the lever for.

billybob
07-22-2008, 09:47 PM
Denigration of Obama? No.

Denigration of the press and sycophants hailing a racial break-through (and signaling that your a racist if you don't vote for him), yes.

Wow.Wonder how the" LORD"..........Would judge a man?????????

billybob
07-22-2008, 10:38 PM
On different "news" talk shows I have heard a few black reference the fact that they migh tprefer he lose becasue it will limit the ability to claim that they can't make it cause they are black.

I really am starting not to care which of these losers win the job, but I think that split goverment will preven the them from doing as much damage, so I am voting McCain. They both really support alot of policys I just can;t get on board with.

BTW, I have traveled the world, and there are just as many racists in Europe as anywhere else, maybe even more. And who gives a crap about our world standing? I absolutely hate Globalists

Thats fair,but explain to me if you will your definition of"globalist" .It is all possitional for public display.Too much freedom has been takin from us already,"The People",because of our unwillingness to accept our responsability as active members of society ,we are actually losing control to the government ,which we should control. I have plenty of wood for the fire,just make me toss it on.:coffee:

billybob
07-23-2008, 12:13 AM
Thats fair,but explain to me if you will your definition of"globalist" .It is all possitional for public display.Too much freedom has been takin from us already,"The People",because of our unwillingness to accept our responsability as active members of society ,we are actually losing control to the government ,which we should control. I have plenty of wood for the fire,just make me toss it on.:coffee:

You go "Speed" rev up that "powerfull Mach 5. The odds are against you now,and there's dangerous work to do.Adventures waitin just ahead,Go speedracer,go speedracer,go speedracer gooooooooooooooooo!{ lol}Jam on the peddle like your never comin back!Adventures waitin just a-head,go speerdracer,go speerdracer,go speedracer goooooooooo! The mach 5 is the line for the offense, that we will field this season. I vote to call them the mach 5,because everyone is not convinced that they can do the job. I think when speeds older brother appears,and takes control of the situation,The racer-x will be there to save the day. I believe that Tomlin has full control of the type of team he wants to be a part of. You know that he likes a smashing defense.He also knows that. It was hard transversing this back to the o-line,but i really do not want to discredit our coach,in his learning era.I f he feels comfortable with a 5 r/b formation,i say break the mold.
You can almost read the mans thoughts,when they show him on the sideline last season.He learned a lot from his first year as a head coach.
And the kicker is ,not only a head coach,but a headcoach of the "Pittsburgh Steeler's"
And i know he wants to do us proud!!!!!!!!After all he is creating his own ,unique legacy.And it is not a short order my friends.:coffee:

Preacher
07-23-2008, 12:29 AM
Wow.Wonder how the" LORD"..........Would judge a man?????????

Actually, he did... quite often.

And for the record, I wasn't judging Obama. I was talking about his sycophants... I listed no one by name, rather I was talking about a group think.... which individuals move in and out of.

Nice try though.

Atlanta Dan
07-23-2008, 08:06 AM
I'll give you th e "baby mama" bit, but at the same time he has to come off it. IS he embracing his blackness and his roots in the poor neighborhood, or is he Midwestern values white middle america. He can have it both ways, but can't bitch when people make black references to him or his wife.

On the other.... I really do not consider myself a racist and understand there might be sensitivity around the monkey issue, but the man looks like Curious George.

Because we all know you cannot be poor and black and have solid "Midwestern, Middle American"" values:banging:

Preacher
07-23-2008, 04:30 PM
Because we all know you cannot be poor and black and have solid "Midwestern, Middle American"" values:banging:

From what I was told by the "poor black" members of my church in Dayton Ohio, that is exactly right.

You have to choose one or the other. Because by choose "Middle American values" you are selling out the black cause.

That isn't my argument, heck it wasn't even their argument. IT was what was being taught to them.

revefsreleets
07-24-2008, 09:09 AM
You need to get out more. Not everyone that is racist is a nutjob or hillbilly. I know several executive types and people you would never guess that are closet racist. Funny what people will say in private after a few drinks.

I consider people who should know better and don't nutjobs. The hillbillies have their excuse, but there's no excuse for the other, hence: nutjobs.

Atlanta Dan
07-24-2008, 11:22 AM
That's basically what his wife said in her thesis. His poor black sid eclaims to be South Chicago tough neighborhood black. That is a long way from Midwestern

Care to provide a link and quote as to what his wife "basically said" in her thesis?

Last time I checked Chicago was in the Midwest but maybe you need to be white to be "Midwestern."

Atlanta Dan
07-24-2008, 10:08 PM
Chicago may be "IN" the Midwest region, but they are far from the Midwest in values and life style.

So as "NCSteeler" (presumably not living in the Midwest?), please educate me as to what constitutes "Midwest values and life style" and how far outside of Chicago you need to live to have those values and "lifestyle" (Evanston? Rockford? Peoria? Indianapolis?)

In addition, I remain interested in hearing what Michelle Obama "basically said" in her thesis which indicates if you are poor and black you cannot have "Midwestern, Middle American" values.