Barack Obama's latest speech

[rah]

Iraq wan't BUSH.

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by rah
Read the article again. Obama was asked to give a quick call to Jones and lean on him a touch. He refused. I guess Obama didn't think it was about reform. He didn't want to buck the machine. Gee what a surprise since he's a product of it.

He preaches about change/reform but when asked to help move it along, he shows his true colors.

That's not journalism; it's an opinion piece. The writer, David Byrne, is a local blogger. Reporters don't use loaded phrases like "issued an oozy statement." From the "article"...

...the Obama campaign sent word back that amounted to a "no."

Huh? Not even a claim that Obama himself was made aware of the request. There's a very high percentage chance that the question was never even put to the candidate.

On his own site [http://dennisbyrne.blogspot.com/], Byrne triumphantly posts this quote in the banner:
"Dennis Byrne...[and others] have been so consistently wrong on so many issues...[they should] open barbershops, where they could pontificate to their hearts' content but with much less potential damage to the body politic." --Moti Rieber, Chicago Tribune, Letter to the Editor, Feb. 12, 2007

Next time, rah, try to put a little meat on the bones you're serving.

[rah]

It's a reform lite bill in the most corrupt state of the union, and no comment or help to push from the state senator. Obama is the one lacking any meat. All talk. no action.

[PLATO]

I just couldn't resist...sorry Impaler[WrG]

For all those who keep trying to defend Obama by saying he's not A party hack, stop wasting your breath. First off the disastrous Obama proposals are not Obamas, they were simply the policy positions of the Democratic party taken to their logical horrific conclusions, Obama has always been a pawn to those ideologies and the cunning members of his party who set the party agenda. Obama’s record of support for Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reed policies and democratic ideology is crystal clear, just try and name one issue ware he's not touting the democrat part line, theirs not a one. Simply having a new face on the same policy positions in no way washes away the taint the Democratic party has earned.

[-Jrabbit]

Nice job presenting a local blog hack as a Tribune reporter.

Show me proof that Obama was even aware of this request for intervention and we can talk.

[Impaler[WrG]]

PLATO: Rather then dispute my point you seem to have conceded it and then tried to throw it back at me as if that were a rebuttal. Essentially a "Yea but so are you!!" response. My point was that McCain is a member of the Republican leadership and supports the current administration, thus he inherits its failures. Pointing out that Obama supports the Democratic platform is rather blatantly obvious, guess what genius politicians belong to political parties for a reason and overwhelmingly support their parties platform, especially at the national level!

You've also conceded that Obama inherits all the good will and positive record of the Clinton presidency because he is 'just another democrat', thanks thats a good point that I was afraid you would argue over.

Then you show a graph of congregational approval, from which I can only presume you mean to blame Democrats for the low rating and you want to imply that the Democratic polices and positions are failing. But you seem to have forgotten that Republicans have been it out right control for the majority of Bush's term and have been in a position to block everything since 2006 (even after losing the house going to a virtual tie in the Senate) through filibustering in the Senate backed up by Bush's veto. The only Democrat driven piece of legislation passed have been the Minimum wage hike and the new GI bill both of which were so popular Republicans could not risk blocking them. People do not disapprove of Democratic legislative Initiatives, they disapprove of congresses interactions with the executive branch.

Its quite clear me that the shape of the last 8 years of that graph is a nearly identical to Bush's approval rating over that same period, go ahead put the data next to each other an you will see a remarkable degree of coloration (congress averaging 10 points lower though as is natural), Congress's approval simply reflects the overall approval of the government at large which is driven primarily by Bush policies and their fallout. If Congress was able to act as a proper check on Bush then their might have a different opinion of it but for the time being people correctly perceive that congress is not checking Bush and their opinion of congress will simply be their opinion of those unchecked Bush policies.

Thats how I personally judge congress and I strongly disapprove of its inability to stop the disastrous Bush policies (though I put the lion share of the blame on Reid). My disapproval will be expressed at the voting booth by continuing to vote out the Republicans and all indications are that the rest of the country will do the same and Democrats will archive larger marines in the Senate and house. If you think that graph bods well for Republicans they your sadly mistaken.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
PLATO: Rather then dispute my point you seem to have conceded it and then tried to throw it back at me as if that were a rebuttal. Essentially a "Yea but so are you!!" response. My point was that McCain is a member of the Republican leadership and supports the current administration, thus he inherits its failures. Pointing out that Obama supports the Democratic platform is rather blatantly obvious, guess what genius politicians belong to political parties for a reason and overwhelmingly support their parties platform, especially at the national level!

You've also conceded that Obama inherits all the good will and positive record of the Clinton presidency because he is 'just another democrat', thanks thats a good point that I was afraid you would argue over.

Then you show a graph of congregational approval, from which I can only presume you mean to blame Democrats for the low rating and you want to imply that the Democratic polices and positions are failing. But you seem to have forgotten that Republicans have been it out right control for the majority of Bush's term and have been in a position to block everything since 2006 (even after losing the house going to a virtual tie in the Senate) through filibustering in the Senate backed up by Bush's veto. The only Democrat driven piece of legislation passed have been the Minimum wage hike and the new GI bill both of which were so popular Republicans could not risk blocking them. People do not disapprove of Democratic legislative Initiatives, they disapprove of congresses interactions with the executive branch.

Its quite clear me that the shape of the last 8 years of that graph is a nearly identical to Bush's approval rating over that same period, go ahead put the data next to each other an you will see a remarkable degree of coloration (congress averaging 10 points lower though as is natural), Congress's approval simply reflects the overall approval of the government at large which is driven primarily by Bush policies and their fallout. If Congress was able to act as a proper check on Bush then their might have a different opinion of it but for the time being people correctly perceive that congress is not checking Bush and their opinion of congress will simply be their opinion of those unchecked Bush policies.

Thats how I personally judge congress and I strongly disapprove of its inability to stop the disastrous Bush policies (though I put the lion share of the blame on Reid). My disapproval will be expressed at the voting booth by continuing to vote out the Republicans and all indications are that the rest of the country will do the same and Democrats will archive larger marines in the Senate and house. If you think that graph bods well for Republicans they your sadly mistaken.

Yeah, I was trying to say that both parties suck and that Obama is part of the problem, but I was just trying to do it in a satirical way. There is a great division between Americans right now and it has more to do with Party politics than it does with any one party. If graphic data is what you want, it would be easy to corelate the relatively high ratings of Clinton with the Republican takeover of Congress just as it would be easy to corelate lower ones of Bush with the democratic takeover of Congress. That would be ludicrous on both accounts I agree. Bush has clearly been a let down while history seems to be judging Clinton well. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Clinton was that great a President, but stacked up to Bush he looks pretty good.

Now, all that being said, I believe that partys, in and of themselves, are not monoline in their philosophy. The Republican party of Bush I and II is clearly not the Republican party of Reagan and Goldwater. My support of the party is based on my agreement with the underlying principles that the latter two pushed. I also believe that the democratic party is as united in its core beliefs as it has been in my memory. I respectfully disagree with them.

The question for me (and many Republicans) is "Where does McCain fit in?" Is he a "neo-republican" or more in the ilk of Goldwater? Has his recent record been just to get the neos on his side, or is he really the "maverick" that once stood in the shadow of Reagan with pride? To be able to try to decide that, I actually read the republican party's platform. It seems to me to be much closer to the Goldwater/Reagan philosophy than the Bush philosophy. It appears to support real change from what we have.

To be fair, I went and looked at the democratic platform as well. It is a clear representation of what we have been hearing from the democrats for the last 4-5 years. They appear to have got their act together with being on message. While I believe that they have many high ideals and the best interest of the country at heart, I don't believe that their ideas lead the country in the right direction. In fact, I believe that they will temper many of the private sector competitiveness that has spurred this country to its position of economic preminence.

Just as it appears to be for you, I don't believe that the stump speeches of the candidates are the real issue here. I believe that it is the underlying party platforms that they will be pushing that is the critical thing. To that I have to say: Bush's party platforms sucked, McCain's are pretty good, and Obama's are well intended.

So, in conclusion, no I don't dispute your point on Bush. I dispute its relevance to McCain and your understanding of the internal conflict within the Republican party.

[DaShi]

Sadly, this is PLATO at his best.

[Heraclitus]

Then Aristotle must really suck.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
Then Aristotle must really suck.

Dude, you believe that everything is made of fire, and that all directions are useless, and you died by burying yourself in a dungheap.

Aristotle comes off quite well in comparison.

[Agathon]

My wife had a good joke for Obama regarding Palin.

"The Republicans say that Sarah Palin would be a good figurehead for this country, but in truth she wouldn't even make it as a figurehead for a ship!"

For some reason that makes me

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Agathon


Dude, you believe that everything is made of fire, and that all directions are useless, and you died by burying yourself in a dungheap.

Aristotle comes off quite well in comparison.

Yes but I'm right on that you can't step in the same river twice.

Also Hegel and Nietzsche like me.




Wait....

[rah]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
Nice job presenting a local blog hack as a Tribune reporter.

Show me proof that Obama was even aware of this request for intervention and we can talk.

Hmm, I said he was biased in my original quote. I don't see how that is misrepresenting anything. I said look at the facts.

The request was quoted in the Sun-Times

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/1159383,CST-NWS-leg12web.article

and on the the NBC local news.

If Obama is unaware, he's got his head in the sand also.

But let's take all that away. He's the senator of a very corrupt state, that is trying to pass a reform bill and has not spoken up for it. Sad. Please find anywhere where he's clearly states that he supports this particular messure. If he's such a champion for reform, how could he not be aware of this bill and what's happening to it? He doesn't have the balls to stand up to the machine.

[-Jrabbit]

Obama hasn't been an Illinois congressman since 2004. Why would he get mired in local b1tch-slapping in the middle of the presidential race? Repeating: there is no upside here.

Again, all you have is, "a request was made" to the campaign. How you get from there to saying that Obama won't stand up to the Ill. Dem machine is truly a remarkable leap beyond the facts presented.

If your contention is that Obama is "just another pol" -- surprise, I agree. THEY ARE ALL EFFING POLITICIANS!!! Sadly, I have to vote for one.

[rah]

"There is no upside here"

Code for no balls. If he really stood for reform he would get in the middle.

Thanks for agreeing with me. He's just another effing politician. He's not the one we've been waiting for.