The new Primary Thread

[Barnabas]

Are there results?

[Dinner]

If the Dems pick up enough seats in Congress to make sure Republicans can't continue to be obstructionists of everything then it would be nice to have a President actually willing to take bold action.

[Ramo]

Only in Jakarta. Obama's ahead.

[DinoDoc]

What policies has Obama put foward? All I get from his speeches are vague and annying platitudes about "change" with nothing to back them up.

[Ramo]

Vague and annoying platitudes? Speak of the devil...

About what? You have to be more specific. His platform is probably more extensive than any of the Republicans (and at rough parity with Clinton's).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
So, you're saying that, while trying to win over the Democratic electorate, he's putting out a bunch of moderate, realistic proposals that he secretly is planning on shelving once he actually gets to deal with Congress (because Congress is way to the left of the Dem electorate)? You really believe that?

Um... what?

I'm not sure how you get that out of anything I've said. The problem is that I don't see him really running on moderate realistic proposals aside from the Democrat candidate agreed on ones of more accessable healthcare (not universal, because Obama doesn't believe in universal health care), getting out of Iraq, and reversing the Bush tax cuts.

I think, though, based on his actions and campaign rhetoric on other issues he'll try to reach and make the bold play and won't be as succesful as focusing on a bunch of smaller little things that add up.

These proposals were obviously created with Congress in mind. If there's a filibuster proof Dem majority in the Senate, a President Obama might act more boldly than a President Clinton. I don't see how that's a bad thing.

I doubt there will be a filibuster proof Democratic Majority in the Senate. If there is, I'd rather not see a bolder President in charge. A bold slide to the left is not something I'd be happy to see after a bold slide to the right when Bush had his Republican majorities with a wussy Dem minority who wouldn't use their powers to stop legislation.

I'd rather someone who take things back to the middle.

You have to be more specific.

Frankly so does Obama... DD isn't the only person wondering what Obama really stands for.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ramo
Vague and annoying platitudes? Speak of the devil...

About what? You have to be more specific. His platform is probably more extensive than any of the Republicans (and at rough parity with Clinton's).

More importantly...what has he done that demonstrates that he has the ability to carry out that platform?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
Vague and annoying platitudes? Speak of the devil...

Well I should be able to recognize my own kind, Ramo.

About what?

Budget? Will there be an increase in taxes in his admin and if so to what extent does he envision such an increase? Foreign Policy? As a follow up to that I'd like to know his opinions on what (if anything) we should be doing to stablize Pakistan. I'd also like to know his opinions on the situation with the DPRK. Border Security? Following on with that: Amnesty first, Enforcement first, or something else? Energy Security? Probably more issues as well if I had more time.

[Ramo]

I'm not sure how you get that out of anything I've said.

You claimed that Obama's domestic proposals would be too bold to get past the Republicans. I pointed out that's wrong. You claimed that there's a difference between policies made on the campaign trail in a primary and in the oval office. I pointed out that the difference worked in the completely opposite direction.

[q]I think, though, based on his actions and campaign rhetoric on other issues he'll try to reach and make the bold play and won't be as succesful as focusing on a bunch of smaller little things that add up.[/quote]

Again, what bold domestic proposals are you referring to? Simply, that is not reflected in platform It's amusing that all these criticisms of Obama are as vague as how the critics' characterize Obama...

I doubt there will be a filibuster proof Democratic Majority in the Senate. If there is, I'd rather not see a bolder President in charge. A bold slide to the left is not something I'd be happy to see after a bold slide to the right when Bush had his Republican majorities with a wussy Dem minority who wouldn't use their powers to stop legislation.

I'd rather someone who take things back to the middle.

You're changing your criticism of Obama. You were saying that Obama's proposals (undefined) were so bold, he could never get them through Congress. If you want to change the topic, that's fine (and this criticism refutes itself since a filibuster-proof Senate is unlikely). But your original point is nonsense.

More importantly...what has he done that demonstrates that he has the ability to carry out that platform?

Obama-Coburn on ethics reform, Obama-Feingold on lobbying reform, Lugar-Obama on anti-proliferation, etc. in the US Senate. Expanding the EITC, getting confessions video-taped, reforming the DP, etc. in IL.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
You claimed that Obama's domestic proposals would be too bold to get past the Republicans. I pointed out that's wrong. You claimed that there's a difference between policies made on the campaign trail in a primary and in the oval office. I pointed out that the difference worked in the completely opposite direction.

How does "There are campaign proposals and then how a candidate would act on a wide variety of issues while in office" equate to "You claimed that there's a difference between policies made on the campaign trail in a primary and in the oval office"?!

You are reading far more of your own biases into my statements (turning my comment that there are far more issues a President has to deal with than solely what he campaigned on into a candidates change their positions when they get to the Presidency).

Again, what bold domestic proposals are you referring to? Simply, that is not reflected in platform

His rhetoric is for bold change (what in the world do you think "Yes, we can" stands for?). Are you saying he'll get in the WH and then say, nah... I wasn't all that serious about bold change.

It's amusing that all these criticisms of Obama are as vague as how the critics' characterize Obama...

No more vague than his discussion of policy.

You're changing your criticism of Obama. You were saying that Obama's proposals (undefined) were so bold, he could never get them through Congress. If you want to change the topic, that's fine (and this criticism refutes itself since a filibuster-proof Senate is unlikely). But your original point is nonsense.

What topic am I changing? I said that a filibuster proof Senate is unlikely, but IF THAT HAPPENED, then...

Try actually reading what I wrote rather than filling in what you want.

[Ramo]

Budget? Will there be an increase in taxes in his admin and if so to what extent does he envision such an increase?

He plans on rolling back the Bush tax cuts for those making above $200,000, combined with some middle class tax breaks, and expanding the EITC.

Foreign Policy?

Some things that come to mind are:
-Hammering out a grand bargain with Iran (similar to the proposal that they sent us in '03).
-Setting up a UN-run uranium bank.
-Increasing non-military foreign aid to ~$50 billion.
-Adding ~90,000 troops to the army and marines (similar to Clinton and, I'd imagine McCain)

As a follow up to that I'd like to know his opinions on what (if anything) we should be doing to stablize Pakistan.

He was an early critic of Musharraf, and has talked about tying military aid to democratic reform. Every candidate is vague here, but some are clearly worse than others ('specially the Republicans; after the Bhutto assassination, McCain basically said that Perv was a swell guy that we should trust).

I'd also like to know his opinions on the situation with the DPRK.

I don't know. I imagine that he's more or less content with the status quo.

Border Security? Following on with that: Amnesty first, Enforcement first, or something else?

Slightly to the left of the Senate consensus. One of the important things to me (no doubt, you wouldn't like it) is that he's stood tall up against Dobbism when Clinton meekly went along with it (as in the drivers' license debate). He promised to bring immigration reform up in his first year. As far as actual policy goes, he's pretty similar to Clinton and McCain. In the Senate debate, he sponsored an Amendment that would strike the requirement for certain immigrants to return to their countries before renewing their visas; Clinton voted against that Amendment and McCain was AWOL IIRC.

Energy Security?

Favors nuclear plants; Clinton doesn't. Pushes for a higher reduction in ghg emissions than Clinton, but also with a cap and trade system. Like foreign policy, a complicated issue. He was a little too friendly to coal in the past, but seems to have moved away from that. Both seem to like corn-based ethanol, which sucks.

[Ramo]

His rhetoric is for bold change (what in the world do you think "Yes, we can" stands for?). Are you saying he'll get in the WH and then say, nah... I wasn't all that serious about bold change.

I think Clinton's proposals are fairly bold... The difference is that I don't know if she can bring along a Senate amenable to them.

How does "There are campaign proposals and then how a candidate would act on a wide variety of issues while in office" equate to "You claimed that there's a difference between policies made on the campaign trail in a primary and in the oval office"?!

What "wide variety of issues" are you talking about? And again, why exactly do you think that his proposals in the oval office would be to the left of his proposals when campaigning for the Dem nomination?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
...Try actually reading what I wrote rather than filling in what you want.

Now, that would be a BOLD change!

[Thue]

I still remember when Imran Siddiqui was the very definition of a hard-core loyal conservative .

To be fair, the republican party is probably not what it once was. I think one of the breaking points for Imran was when Bush worked against a free trade agreement created by Clinton.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Thue
I still remember when Imran Siddiqui was the very definition of a hard-core loyal conservative .

I remember when I was a Goldwater Republican. We all get wiser with age.