I watched a superb documentary on Barack Obama and John McCain that aired last night on PBS. They laid out where the candidates had come from and how they'd gotten to this point in their careers, a step away from the world's most powerful office.
I was struck by a number of points about both candidates, but let me outline three that really stood out to me.
- Barack Obama has had his sights set on the presidency for a long time
Have you ever noticed that, although Barack Obama is by all accounts a liberal, the attacks on his record haven't really stuck? Yeah, he planned that.
The Frontline documentary claimed that in the first days of his Senate career, he laid out a plan with advisers to get to the presidency which entailed involving himself in serious legislation but avoiding the truly controversial issues that could be used against him in the presidential election.
What kind of first-term Senator who just got off the bus to Washington sits down and makes a presidential plan before his first term is up? I get the impression that Obama is power-hungry. Now, you can't become president without having some serious ambition and a desire to win - after all, what kind of person do you have to be to look the world in the face and say, "I should be in charge of you"? - but for Obama, it seems clear that he must have been thinking about this even before he arrived in the U.S. Senate! Never really thought about that before...
- The John McCain of 2000 is not the same man as the John McCain of 2008
This is not news, but the documentary laid it out with great clarity. Sometimes we forget we're talking about a man who absolutely bucked the Republican establishment by winning the 2000 New Hampshire primary over the candidate with perfect conservative credentials, Gov. George W. Bush of Texas. That campaign was ultimately derailed by a Karl Rove-engineered smear campaign (read: McCain "fathered a black child out of wedlock") which left McCain so furious and so unhappy with the GOP that he considered changing sides. He stood against the Bush tax cuts and the mismanagement of the war. He was a maverick! Both the success of New Hampshire 2000 and his victories in the primaries of 2008 were motivated by strong support from moderates and independents - the very voters which appear to have deserted him in this presidential election.
Candidates have to swing away from the center for the primary season and back toward the center for the general election. McCain clearly learned the first part of this theory in 2000, where his independent streak failed to galvanize the base. So he swung hard right for the primaries of 2008, and eked out a victory over candidates with stronger conservative bona fides - Romney, Thompson, even Huckabee and Giuliani. But maybe his biggest failure has been failing to swing back. He seems paralyzed by the fear of losing his base, not realizing that he is going to win South Carolina, Utah, Idaho and Alabama in the general election by the virtue of the "R-AZ" by his name, whether they actually like him or not.
- A McCain victory remains possible
The unlikelihood of McCain's nomination is all but forgotten. He was down and out. He was way behind in the polls. He was out of money. He was flailing. He was written off. And he won. It's beyond unlikely that he'll lose, but I believe him when he says he relishes the underdog role. He won the nomination by retooling his campaign staff, and it's time to do that again. He needs to absolutely wreck Obama in tonight's debate. No Ayers stuff - whether it's a problem or not, it doesn't stick with moderate voters - and make Barack Obama defend his political positions. Grill him on his "redistribution of wealth" comment; that was a rare gaffe and he should jump all over it. Paint him as an abortion extremist. Nail him down on drilling for oil. Condemn the Bush administration on something. Then, Thursday morning, fire your campaign managers and hire new people. Retool the "Who is Barack Obama?" question away from his personal stuff and toward his policies. Announce Mitt Romney as your Secretary of the Treasury. Everyone thinks Wall Streeters are the villains, announce some economic policy that punishes them, because while people like tax cuts, nobody really thinks it's going to help their economic problems right now. Do something. Anything. Give the poor media, who is falling all over themselves to try and paint this as a tight race when it appears closer to a landslide, something to talk about.
Make it less boring, for heaven's sake!
114 comments:
I have always thought that Obama didn't get here on his own. I think there is some person or some group of people behind the scene orchestrating his climb to power. It makes me wonder who it is who wants him in power and what is their agenda? (of course I think it is socialism)
McCain has missed a lot of opportunities to slam Obama. I really wonder if he actually wants to win.
There is indeed "some group of people" behind Obama's rise to power. The group is made up of millions of American citizens.
I guess if you want to go back to Obama's "big break," the convention speech he gave four years ago, you could say that he was given that opportunity by a shadowy cabal known as the Democratic Party, which is made up of...millions of American citizens.
The horror!
--David
"McCain has missed a lot of opportunities to slam Obama. I really wonder if he actually wants to win."
Have you missed all the McCain ads? Not enough "slamming?" :)
Actually, I don't think the problem is that McCain hasn't slammed Obama enough. The problem is that he's slammed him on the wrong things and it has backfired on him.
Don't you all think that McCain must be really kicking himself now that he didn't pick Romney as his VP? I honestly think that if he had, it would be much closer than it is now, and perhaps even with McCain in a slight lead. Palin got the Republican base fired-up and raised a lot of cash for him, but aside from that she's been nothing but headaches for him. And most importantly, I don't think she's done much to swing undecided voters towards McCain.
Actually, I don't think the problem is that McCain hasn't slammed Obama enough. The problem is that he's slammed him on the wrong things and it has backfired on him.
Yes, this is true. I keep hearing the things he is attacking Obama on, and I think, "Who cares?" The reason McCain has fallen in the polls is the economy. People are blaming the Republicans for our financial woes. McCain hasn't done a good job of explaining the Democrats' role (primarily that Clinton was the President who both lowered lending standards and deregulated the financial sector). McCain briefly alluded to it in the second debate, but he hasn't come out swinging over that issue, and it is the issue that is killing him.
Anon David, I was thinking more along the lines of secret combinations, but in the BofM, the majority of people ultimately end up supporting the secret combinations, so I suppose your explanation works as well.
But Stephanie, what evidence is there for a "secret combination" behind Obama in the first place? I mean, aside from the fact that you've "always thought" there's been one?
Suppose some spinner of dark LDS conspiracies were to say this:
"I have always thought that Joseph Smith didn't succeed on his own. I think there was some person or some group of people behind the scenes orchestrating his climb to power. It makes me wonder who it was who wanted him in power and what was their agenda? (of course I think it was Satanism)."
At the very least you'd want some evidence for why this person would think such a thing. And in the absence of any such evidence you might rightly suspect some sort of prejudice.
Now imagine someone responding to my hypothetical conspiracy theorist by saying this:
"There was no conspiracy, but there was indeed 'some group of people' behind Smith's rise to power. The group was made up of the many people who believed him."
I suspect you might agree with the above. And I doubt you would accept this as a counterargument:
"In the History of the Church, the majority of Mormons ultimately end up supporting Smith over John Cook Bennett, so I suppose your explanation supports the idea that Smith's rise was due to a conspiracy. After all, in the BofM there are places where the people follow the wrong leader; ergo, popular support is evidence for conspiracy. The continued growth of the LDS Church is not proof that it's a good church; it's proof it is backed by a conspiracy!"
It's true what you say about Clinton, though. Few of Clinton's actions were liberal. (More people would understand that were it not for demagogues like Limbaugh and O'Reilly and Bush miseducating the masses about the terms "liberal" and "conservative.") Regulation is a liberal idea and deregulation a conservative idea. On some level, voters seem to understand that, and conservatism is about to pay the price for being so wrong. (FWIW, I think the McCain campaign theme song should be Archie Bunker singing "Mr., we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.")
Looks like it's going to be a heckuva Nov. 5th. If it's any solace, after seeing God's Plan of Salvation thwarted in Connecticut you might see it bolstered in California.
I guess you win some and you lose some, even if you're God.
--David
I think there is some person or some group of people behind the scene orchestrating his climb to power.
Yes, stephanie, you are right. There is a group of people behind the scenes orchestrating his rise to the presidency. They are called American citizens, of which I am one. Be afraid!
"McCain has missed a lot of opportunities to slam Obama. I really wonder if he actually wants to win."
This is flaty false. Watch any of McCain's campaign advertisements. He's taken every opportunity, and even created many.
BHodges, I am. From the pit of my gut, I am very afraid.
Anon David, reading the BofM and then getting "gut feels" is enough for me.
I guess you win some and you lose some, even if you're God.
God ultimately wins in the end. I can take consolation in that.
Well, the pit of my gut is happy and excited. A little nervous, too. I'll take my gut over yours on this one.
I'm BHodges and I approve this message.
"Anon David, I was thinking more along the lines of secret combinations, but in the BofM, the majority of people ultimately end up supporting the secret combinations, so I suppose your explanation works as well."
stephanie, are you being serious?
do you really think that about barak obama? does that mean you think that mcc is sent from god to counter the anti christ's message?
it's insulting to those of us that support him becasue it suggests that we are fools and part of an evil plan.
i'm not being snarky.
i'm deeply troubled that you think that about the deomocratic party because the republican machine is the scariest thing to happen to american politics.
oy!
to the OP
are you bothered by the fact that BO has had his sights on the pres since he was a young man? it makes sense to me if that was his goal from a young age...it's smart.
(think of the 8th grader who wants to be a surgeon...he's got to have a lot of ambition to make it)
another question, how long has mccain been seeking the presidency?
and how long has he been in DC?(i missed the first half of the frontline)
i will go away now and leave your blog alone.
thanks for letting post.
i promise, i wasn't being snarky
i wish the majority of obama supporters would just admit that they are voting for him because they like his income-distributing philosophies. he is not a capitalist in any way, shape or form. both political parties have negatively evolved from their original ideas and platforms. imo, both have made questionable decisions regarding our chaotic economic situation. to say that the gop is "scarier" than the democratic party is preposterous. there are shadow groups behind both candidates. don't be naive. the candidates are beholden to special interest groups and shady campaign contributors. ever heard of rezko, ayers, etc?? obama and his strategy of legislative "non-voting" is disturbing. are obama supporters really comfortable with all of his illinois "present" votes? the guy has no record. he wouldn't commit or take responsibility for any vote. he has no credibility. can anyone be intellectually honest here?
I just wish the McCain supporters would admit that they are voting for him because they are all greedy, selfish, entitled jingoists.
*note: the above comment is intended to point out the fallacious nature of the comment immediately preceding it.
"i wish the majority of obama supporters would just admit that they are voting for him because they like his income-distributing philosophies."
yep. you got me. i had no idea i was so shallow.
mfranti, I admit I was being a tad bit snarky to Anon David with that comment, and I apologize if I offended you. No, I don't equate Democrat to secret combinations or Republican to "God's party". Check out my post Politics in the Book of Mormon. I do think that:
1. Secret combinations exist in the government. They serve the purpose of people gaining power.
2. Secret cominations are not confined to one party or ideology.
I don't think it is about the ideology at all. I think it is about individuals seeking to gain power and exert control. If people were perfectly righteous and honest, I think we could function under any ideology as a nation.
I don't think that Obama is a lone man seeking power. I think that there is someone behind him who orchestrated his rise to power who seeks to gain from it. Sure, at this moment he is supported by millions of Americans with their $5 each, but I think there is more to how he got here than we know.
I don't trust McCain either, but for different reasons. He is not conservative. He doesn't even pander to the conservatives as much as GWB did to get elected, but he still panders a little to try and get our vote. His record isn't that conservative, though. I won't be happy if he is elected. I think conservatives have already lost this election cycle with him being nominated. And, no, I don't think he has anything to do with God.
Plus, check out that article Mike posted on the sidebar. The minute this economic crisis started and Democrats and Republicans alike started crying for bail-outs, I knew something was wrong. I really trust very few of them.
The letter from the first presidency that was just read in church says Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties.
I believe that is true. One party is not the righteous party. But, in the case of Barack Obama, I just feel that he is not exactly who he purports to be, and I think there is more to the story.
stephanie, how much have you tried to learn about Barack Obama, and how have you gone about learning it?
bh..it doesn't matter. don't even bother to try.
And I don't really think that one ideology (conservative vs. liberal) is the more righteous ideology either. I personally feel that conservative principles (with proper regulation, which means that I am not a "true" capitalist, but more of a modified capitalist) protect individuals better. Considering the bail-out and nationalization of banks, the Republicans can't really claim to be the conservative party anymore. Isn't it ironic that Democrats using "conservative" principles (like deregulation) got us into this mess and supposedly socialist principles (embraced by both parties) are going to get us out, but Republicans are taking the fall for being conservative when they aren't even conservative in the first place? Argh. It makes me want to pull off my toenails.
Anyways, it honestly makes me wonder if the whole lot of politicians in Washington are in cahoots to gain power. They all seem basically the same inside - just dressed up in different "clothes" and saying different things to get people to vote for them.
I hate to sound all conspiracy theory like that, but given what I am seeing going on around me, it seems to make the most sense. I know there are honest people out there who really want what is best for our country and run for office. We've had a couple of good posts suggesting we find those people and support them, but I don't think either Obama or McCain are those people (and I am STILL fluctuating on voting the lesser of two evils or going third party. I practically change my mind back and forth by the minute and feel sick either way because I know either McCain or Obama will be it.)
Right, bhodges, because I must be fairly "uneducated" to not support Obama, right?
it's important that you understand that no one political party or organization is to blame...
now that we got that out of the way
help me understand something, you conservatives hate government why does your kind insist on making careers out of...government. and why do you vote for them?
i'm so confused. the conservative elected officials rail on 'getting government out of your business" or whatever the mantra is and yet, they continue to make a living off the taxpayers dime.
i'm so confused.
Really, are personal attacks based on the person you are voting for necessary?
It was a straightforward question, no need to answer defensively.
I ask again, what have you done to really look into Barack Obama? What recourses have you used and how much time have you spent?
mfranti, I am not sure I understand exactly what you are asking. Are you saying that because conservatives dislike government so much, we should just stay out and leave people who "like" government in charge?
stephanie, you misunderstand,
that was not a personal attack. it was a question.
i don't understand how conservative politicians claim to want to get gove out of their way but make a living doing it?
i wasn't attacking you.
Well, considering that I raise four children under 8 in my "spare" time, probably not as much as I would like to. I read practically his entire website - every position on every issue, and I gather as much info as I can on the internet and radio when I have time. I do not have a television.
no stephanie,
i'm just trying to makes sense of the mantra of small government and the plethora of conservative politicians that seem to make government bigger.
i'm very confused.
mfranti, I still don't understand. Are you saying that because conservatives are against the government taking taxpayer money that conservatives should serve in government without pay? Romney actually made that promise in his bid for President.
but you have admitted to being a fan of the fox news channel. that's hardly a good source.
have you read his books?
i shouldn't even ask that question but it's a natural follow up for me.
i'm not going to convince you to vote for obama. i know better, but....it's important that you realize that he's not a demon. that i will try to convince you of.
a
i'm just trying to makes sense of the mantra of small government and the plethora of conservative politicians that seem to make government bigger.
Oh, okay. The answer is simple. They are NOT actually conservative! They are just pandering to the conservative vote to get elected. Prime example #1: GWB.
I personally wouldn't consider your opinion on Obama not being exactly who he purports to be to be based on enough evidence if you've only read policies on a political website. I think it is quite appropriate for peopel to disagree with his political views or policies, but to pull the "who is Barack Obama" thing is completely subjective.
No, I haven't read his books, and I don't plan to. I have limited time and lots of books that are higher on the priority list.
I disagree with his ideology. That is the reason I won't vote for him. Supposedly I agree with McCain's ideology, but since I don't believe he actually agrees with it, that is where I get stuck.
Disagreeing with his ideology (or what you understand about it) is fine with me. I certainly don't agree with everything Obama promotes. Questioning his character and intimating he is somehow subversive or otherwise is not fine with me.
bhodges, I already said that I don't have any "evidence", and I am not interested in convincing you. It's just a gut feel. I can share my gut-feels, and you can disregard them because of my lack of "evidence".
Well, we're down to "my gut-feel cancels out your gut-feel."
bhodges, that is fine with me. I am not trying to debate you on this.
the only reason i got involved with this discussion (not to convice you to vote for him) was to make clear that there are those of us who have read his books, watched him speak on many many occasions and decided he's a better fit for me politically.
in short, i like him. i think he has what it takes to lead this country to better days.
I liked mccain too. watching that frontline, i was reminded of who mccain was...but he's older now and not the same man. it's a shame too, he's a decent person but i don't agree with his campaign strategies, his vp pick, his healthcare plan nor his stance on abortion (the quote marks around "health of the mother?) shameless!
do i believe that obama will change our HC system? NO. in fact, a lot of his policies wont actually happen. there are more pressing issues for a first term pres. if he's elected, he's getting a big ol mess.
the more i watch those two handle the pressure of an election campain the more i'm convinced that obama has what it takes to be our leader out of the current mess we are in (if you know his background and how he's handled things, you will understand better too)
the guy is a thinker. he's rational. he's intelligent. he's got the mindset...and after 8 years of a numbbutt leading us it's nice to think that we can restore some dignity to the white house.
mfrant:
It has been unnerving watching McCain scramble over the course of the campaign. Pulling in Sarah Palin was geared to getting himself elected rather than to help in a McCain white house. His dramatic scrambling as he "suspended" his campaign to rush back to DC to help with the bail-out. Yeesh.
mfranti, I respect your choice to vote for him and your opinion of him.
I don't really have much bad to say about him besides 1. I disagree with his ideology and 2. I don't trust him. Part of that is that each time a shady character/association comes up in his past, he disassociates himself and says, "This is a distraction from the real issue". It doesn't sit well with me. Part of it is that he voted "present" on so many votes. I find that suspicious (the Frontline explained that perhaps it is part of his strategy, and that makes me even more suspicious - is he actually in this for "we the people" or is he in this for himself? Because I have to think that if he was in this for "we the people", he would take a stand). And part of it is that I just don't feel good about his sudden rise to power with so little experience. I just have the gut-feel that someone was behind him pulling the strings. That's about it. (When I said "the majority of people ultimately end up supporting the secret combinations", I really was just being snarky, so I apologize. I don't think Obama supporters are seeking to support secret combinations. But, I do, based on gut-feel that is relevant to noone but me, have reservations about Obama himself).
the suckiest part of all this is that i want to like the 2008 mccain. he's probably going to be our next president.
but i can't. and palin? holy hell! i can't even go there on this blog.
i'm trying to optimistic that mccain wont be a crotchety old man when he's meeting with our allies and when other countries decided they wont follow us rules. i can't take another war.
my child is too close to draft age.
bhodges, some of us "uneducated" conservatives are unnerved as well.
mfranti, do you really think so? It doesn't seem to me that he has a shot anymore unless he pulls some incredible October surprise.
NO. in fact, a lot of [Obama's] policies wont actually happen.
This is where I am trying to gain optimism. ;)
they wont. the mess is too big. he's going to be cleaning all of his term. (imagine cleaning up after katreena)
i know you wont like this but i would respect any)(not exclusive to obama but any pres in a mess like this) president who said,
we need to increase taxes. we need to pay more to clean up this mess.
the success of the US is worth a few more dollars a paycheck. we are so vulnerable right now. we need to get our debt paid off and become the leaders and innovators again. if not...
well aint nothing nobody can do.
bhodges, some of us "uneducated" conservatives are unnerved as well.
stephanie, comments like that only serve to keep people divided.
that's a rep talking point and you are way better than that.
you have a masters right? in that kind of language that makes you a liberal elitist.
so please don't buy into that crap cos nobody thinks you are uneducated on the issues. he might think you are not totally informed but that's not a requirement for discussion..unless you pull the i am right and you are wrong card.
stephanie: I have said nothing about conservatives or otherwise being "uneducated." I asked upon what you were basing your opinion of Obama. That's all. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Additionally, you say: Part of it is that he voted "present" on so many votes.
This "voting present" issue was one of Hillary Clinton's tactics to question Senator Obama. Clinton knew better, but used the attack anyway. From what I understand, and you can correct me if I am wrong, Senators cannot vote "present." The fact of the matter is, over nearly eight years in the Illinois Senate, Obama voted "present" 129 times. Out of over 4,000 votes. I'm no math whiz but I believe that is around 3%. I wonder if FRONTLINE pointed that out last night. So perhaps you can explain why 3% "present" vote, from what I understand an extremely common rate, says anything about Obama.
stephanie has a masters? I don't even have my BA yet. (1 more year. I did the traditional thing and worked to put my very hard working wife through school.)
In the second debate, the moderator asked what each candidate would like us to sacrifice. McCain said that we need to give up some of our taxpayer-funded programs. I liked that answer.
If I fully trusted politicians to use taxpayer money wisely (no fraud, no waste, no contracts to buddies or contracts with under-the-table kickbacks), I might agree with you, mfranti.
Thank you for the reminder, mfranti.
bhodges, that is very impressive and admirable.
I'll have to answer your question later because I've got to go do baseball, dinner, baths, bed, etc.
Bhodges, I looked up several articles about this issue: New York Times, Boston.com, NPR, Real Clear Politics, Fact Check.org and Barack Obama’s own “Know the Facts” (I tried posting all the links, but I was having so many problems getting it to post).
The conclusion I draw is this: McCain and Palin are mistaken in calling Obama’s present votes a lack of leadership or conviction. However, it does confirm that Obama used voting present to further political agendas. Take abortion, for example. Planned Parenthood approached Obama and asked him to vote present on the partial birth abortion ban so that other Senators in vulnerable districts would follow suit. The reason is that a “no” vote might hurt them in future elections. So, by voting present, the Senators could effectively kill the bill while “hiding” their position. Obama was not in a vulnerable district himself, but he voted present to be a leader in this strategy. That does not sit well with me and reaffirms my uneasiness about him.
You said that I question Obama’s character. True. But, Obama’s ideology and policies are the reason I am not voting for him. It is McCain’s character that may prevent me from voting for him.
I couldn't remember what Obama had asked the American people to sacrifice, so I went back and listened to it again. After criticizing Bush for asking people to shop after 9-11, Obama said that we need to drill offshore and cut back on our energy usage (with government incentives like tax breaks for purchasing energy-efficient vehicles), and he would like to expand the Peace Corp program. That was it.
Honestly, mfranti, McCain's answer that we need to give up some of our government programs (across the board) sounded a lot more like the we need to clean up this mess . . . we are so vulnerable right now. we need to get our debt paid off and become the leaders and innovators again you are looking for (without the increasing taxes and spending more part).
Obama himself said he voted present on principle, and on how it would affect his political outlook. He didn't like the bill but voting "nay" is an easy "hey, look, Obama is a baby-killer" opportunity for critics, plain and simple.
?McCain proposes a disasterous "spending freeze."
Hmm. Turns out I am not the only one who thinks "there is some person or some group of people behind the scene orchestrating Obama's rise to power". Ironically, it is the World Socialist Website. (Funny how we keep drawing the same conclusions while supporting such different ideals). Please read the article. It is good. Here are some key quotes:
[Obama's] career has far more in common with those of Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, individuals selected and groomed by the American ruling class to carry out its policies. Like them, he is being used to put a new face on fundamentally reactionary policies and institutions . . .
It is necessary to distinguish sharply between the political shift among working people and youth, a movement to the left which presages the outbreak of mass social and political struggles, and the efforts of the ruling elite to manipulate popular sentiments, manufacture illusions, and disarm the masses politically.
The Obama campaign is not the vehicle of a leftward movement in the United States—as proclaimed by liberal groups such as MoveOn.org and publications like The Nation. It is a preemptive attack by the ruling class against such a movement. Its function is to delude the American people and divert their growing opposition to war, economic crisis and attacks on democratic rights back into the dead-end of the Democratic Party.
While the American people will cast ballots on November 4, the real decisions are made long before then, in the selection of candidates and framing of the election by the media and the corporate bosses and billionaires who finance and politically screen the candidates.
It was millions in “startup money” from wealthy backers that made it possible for a very junior senator from Illinois, a man who four years ago was serving in the Illinois state legislature and unknown nationally, to become a viable presidential candidate.
The largely flattering treatment of the Obama campaign, not only in the liberal sections of the media but in the right-wing press as well—Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post endorsed him in the February 5 primary in that state—demonstrates a broader agreement in the ruling elite that some sort of new departure in US politics may be required. This, of course, will be a cosmetic and not a fundamental shift . . .
The president who enters the White House in January 2009 will face immense crises both at home and abroad. To address these crises from the standpoint of the needs of the financial aristocracy will require the imposition of unprecedented sacrifices on the American people. That in turn will require a new political approach—a turn to the Democratic Party, which has always been relied upon by big business to use its image as the “party of the people” to defend the profit system . . .
Obama’s mantra of bringing everyone together may appeal to the naïve illusions of youth who are making their first political experiences, but Obama and the Wall Street bankers and media moguls who are promoting him know exactly what they are doing. Theirs is a conscious policy of blurring social and political differences and denying class divisions in a society more deeply divided along economic lines than ever before in its history.
He didn't like the bill but voting "nay" is an easy "hey, look, Obama is a baby-killer" opportunity for critics, plain and simple.
True - because most people see partial-birth abortion as baby-killing (69% according to ABC poll). The fact is that he supported the bill but voted present so that it would fail while he (and others) could avoid being called baby-killers (a term that a lot of people would find appropriate). Some people may be okay with that. I am not.
In terms of integrity, I would rather see him defend why he supports partial-birth abortion. I do think this was a cowardly thing for the Democratic senators to do.
The World Socialist Website?
Good grief. You don't have a lot of spare time to read and this is what you're spending your time with? Aren't you missing Hannity and Colmes right now?
:D
By the way, stephanie, the bill added nothing new to existing law regarding partial birth abortion. Barack Obama does not support partial birth abortion. You must have missed that on the fact check websites. When he has voted against legislation including pba it has consistently been because there was already a law, or the bill intended to redefine abortion to effectively overturn Roe v. Wade. It's how politicians try to slip agendas into bills. It's a trick.
Oh, and don't forget to send me your thoughts on the brilliant Jerome Corsi book, too. :D
Alright, steph. You got me. I just can't keep lying like this. The truth is, yes, Obama is being promoted secretly by a subversive and covert communist group bent on world domination. Amazingly, our group has gone undetected by the entire world, which is why all of the people who literally spend every day trying to dig up negative stuff about Obama have not discovered us yet. Please keep this between you and me.
Actually, last night Obama said that he opposed the bill because it did not include a provision for the health of the mother.
bhodges, why don't you give me a list of "approved" sources for information since you so easily deride the ones I come up with?
Do you believe secret combinations exist in the government today, bhodges? And, if so, where do you see them?
I think there are more dangerous secret combinations on more personal levels.
I'll give you some approved sources as soon as you get a good handle on some of the ones you've already cited. Obama's website, or I believe you also mentioned politifact or factcheck.org. I'd also advise reading his books. Both of them are excellent. Citing the World Socialist Secret Covert Website isn't a strong source.
So none in the government?
By the way, it didn't provide provision for health of the mother, or anything else, in regards to abortion in general from what I understand. You claimed to have read much of Obama's site, but you must have missed his section called Fight the Smears. Here's a bit of it, you can check the footnotes at his site:
At the time Barack voted against a bill containing language designed to protect infants who were “born alive,” such protection was already on the books as Illinois state law.[1]
The accusations against Barack are so reckless that not even the Republican state senator who sponsored the bill will support them. In fact, he freely admits that “None of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide.”[2]
The bill was opposed by many legislators and groups like the Illinois Medical Society because of the unintended impact it would have had on other laws and legal precedents in Illinois.[3]
Barack is on the record[3] saying that he would have supported a similar bill that came up in Congress -- but that didn’t pose a threat to a woman’s right to choose the way the Illinois bill did.[4]
Is there corruption in government? Absolutely. A single entity that comprises an official Gadianton Robber band? Beats me. If there is, their fate is pretty sealed, as is ours. On a church communal and individual level, however, by standing in holy places we need not fear. The question is, what is holy and where are the places?
bhodges, I'm not actually asking you for ideas or approval (I guess you didn't note the sarcasm). I like getting information from many sources, including the world socialist website. I find that they are pretty accurate in their assessment of a lot of issues. What exactly is your problem with them?
bhodges, I think you are talking about a different bill. I am referring to SB-230, which is about partial birth abortion. You appear to be referring to SB-1082 - the Born-Alive Act.
Wow, I was only gone for a day, but I sure missed a lot! :) Now I'm going away for the weekend and will probably miss a lot more, but I just had to jump in here.
Stephanie, I'm currently reading "The Audacity of Hope." Although I know that you will probably continue to disagree with Obama's policies even after reading it, which is to be expected since he's a liberal and you're a conservative, I honestly think that if you read it, then it'll dispell some of the myths about what he actually believes in and what he actually wants to see happen in America. I don't think any of us really expect him to be able to carry out all of them -- he's going to be inheriting a mess as the next president, if he wins -- but maybe if you actually knew his thinking behind it all, you wouldn't have to be "afraid."
Several times as I've been reading, you've crossed my mind. I would read something and think to myself, "Stephanie would hate that," or "I bet Stephanie would agree with this if she read it, not knowing it came from Obama." I think the best way to judge a man is to hear it from the horse's mouth (in other words, read his books). And whether he actually lives up to what he has written remains to be seen. Since it looks like he's going to be your next president, you might want to consider putting "The Audacity of Hope" close to the top of your list of books to read. Once again, you're not going to agree with him on everything, but I think you'll find that it dispells the myths of him being "scary" or a true socialist.
Particularly interesting are the chapters which talk about how he came to his abortion stance, the partial birth abortion ban bill that someone already touched on here, and why he is pro-choice. As well, I recognized the mention of certain bills that we have heard McCain and Palin criticize him on for the way that he voted, but it's interesting to hear why he actually voted that way on some of them and how things can really get twisted in a campaign (and this book is from 2006). In the book, he has unterrupted time to explain fully his side and view of things, which is not something you get in a debate or a 10 minute interview on TV. And that goes for any politician.
As a Christian, what I think I find most interesting and appealing about him is his relationship to faith. He's definitely not a Bible-thumping conservative, but he's certainly not your typical liberal who is scared off by faith or wants it entirely kept out of the political arena. I find that his approach to Christianity and religion in general to be much more appealing, reconciling, and able to build bridges than the approach that we've seen in the past by presidents, whether Republican or Democrat.
steph:
SB-230 was entered in 97 and passed in 99, if I have my numbers right. Obama wasn't a senator at the time, so he couldn't have voted on it.
http://tinyurl.com/SB230x
Um, you must have your numbers wrong. SB 230 was an Illinois state bill, and Obama was elected as a state Senator in 1996.
You're right, I did look at the wrong bill.
I responded earlier adequately, and I'll repeat here using a quote from the non-partisan site "OntheIssues."
In 1997, Obama voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion, & against a 2000 bill banning state funding. Although these bills included an exception to save the life of the mother, they didn't include anything about abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother. The legislation defined a fetus as a person, & could have criminalized virtually all abortion.
Parenthetically, this is exactly what Obama clearly explained during the third presidential debate (this last Wednesday).
Here's his response to the same charge you keep bringing up (McCain brought it up as well during the debate):
OBAMA: Yes, let me respond to this. If it sounds incredible that I would vote to withhold lifesaving treatment from an infant, that's because it's not true. The -- here are the facts.
There was a bill that was put forward before the Illinois Senate that said you have to provide lifesaving treatment and that would have helped to undermine Roe v. Wade. The fact is that there was already a law on the books in Illinois that required providing lifesaving treatment, which is why not only myself but pro-choice Republicans and Democrats voted against it.
And the Illinois Medical Society, the organization of doctors in Illinois, voted against it. Their Hippocratic Oath would have required them to provide care, and there was already a law in the books.
With respect to partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there's an exception for the mother's health and life, and this did not contain that exception.
And I attempted, as many have in the past, of including that so that it is constitutional. And that was rejected, and that's why I voted present, because I'm willing to support a ban on late-term abortions as long as we have that exception.
I find it hard to believe that it would be harder on the health of the mother to induce delivery, partially deliver the baby enough to pierce and crush the skull, then deliver it the rest of the way than it would be to just induce delivery and deliver a live baby when she is late in her pregnancy.
FD, it is not actually Obama I am afraid of, or the good people who see good things in him and back him. It is the groups backing him that I fundamentally disagree with that I fear. When you are elected, you do the bidding of the people who put you into office. If I thought McCain would do the bidding of conservatives who support him, I might have more confidence in him. However, his "maverick" image comes from bucking conservatives. Obama, on the hand, is a pretty consistent liberal. If he does all the things the groups backing him want him to do, I won't be too happy. I take comfort in the thought that he might not be able to.
And I take a strange comfort in knowing that the world socialist website doesn't think that he'll do anything socialist. :)
I find it hard to believe that it would be harder on the health of the mother to induce delivery, partially deliver the baby enough to pierce and crush the skull, then deliver it the rest of the way than it would be to just induce delivery and deliver a live baby when she is late in her pregnancy.
With respect to partial-birth abortion, Barack Obama said "I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there's an exception for the mother's health and life, and this did not contain that exception."
Furthermore, and by the way, it isn't used as an excuse to kill the baby, stephanie, clearly a viable fetus would fall under the existing law protecting them already.
bhodges, Yeah, I caught your quote the first time, and I think it is Obama's pathetic excuse at upholding abortion rights. I don't see how partial birth abortion is necessary to protect the health of the mother in late-term abortion. Just because Obama says that doesn't mean I believe it.
Yeah, I'd like to think it would. But it doesn't appear to be so.
steph, you need to turn off the fox news!
i watch fox news too, to see what they are feeding the american people and it's words like "fear" and scared, and "dont' trust" and you my friend, sound like a living walking sound byte for them.
perhaps this is the secret combination you speak of? (that was menat in jest)
seriously, you if you are having that kind of anxiety, you might want to do like i do when i'm feeling stressed, foster a dog.
(ok, that may not work, you've got four kids but you get my point?)
i think bh hit the nail on the head:
"On a church communal and individual level, however, by standing in holy places we need not fear. The question is, what is holy and where are the places?"
if we are focused on christ and on charity, we will be standing where we need to be.
consider this, many of the 12 will be voting Obama. so he can't be that bad.
(again, that's not to convince you to vote for him but to not fear him)
*in fact, i'm worried about you now. winks, smiles, lovehugsandkisses, mel
mfranti, I don't have fox news! I got rid of my t.v. two months ago. The only things I have actually watched are the debates.
Thank you for your concern. :)
It's already illegal. You are making absolutely no sense, steph. You seem to be operating under the assumption that partial birth abortion is actually legal. Am I reading you correctly?
my apologies for the scatterbraindedness of that last comment. it's hard to work and type and answer phones and check emails and get a coherent sentence out.
ps. you like to use the words liberal and extreme when describing BO...
he's pretty dang centrist. very centrist. that's a by product of your main news source.
i hang with with the left and let me tell you, that's the problem real liberals have with him, he's too center.
a little perspective.
mfrant, how do you know "many of the 12" will be voting for Obama?
mfrant- she's likely also operating under the "he votes liberal 97% of the time" bit.
bhodges, Obama voted on the Illinois Senate bill before the federal bill passed banning partial-birth abortion.
bhodges, here is a hint: if your argument is strong enough, you don't need to resort to belittling or personal attacks to make your point.
i don't know for sure but it's seems like a fair assumption since (from what i remeber) a few of those guys are dems.
you got me. i shouldn't have phrased it that way.
mfranti, when I read his positions on issues I care about on his website and listen to him speak, he is liberal to me. I would love nothing more than to be proven wrong when he is President.
I think Faust was a Democrat.
I don't intend any belittling, and apologize if that has been interpreted. I've been a little snarky, but don't mean to offend. I'll tone that down, thanks.
Obama has held, since the start, that he would support the later senate bill, as it contained just the provision he supported.
steph,
whatever you do, do not, i repeat do not move to Canada, England, France, Sweden, Australia, New Zeland, Norway, Switzerland, Germany, etc.
instead, you might consider staying in texas. seriously. ok, if you are feeling saucy, ut or id.
if you think obama is liberal you cannot ever live in a Europeanish coutry.
if you like conservative, you might try saudi arabia *winks*
If I do go to those countries, it would likely be as a missionary. It's very likely that with my husband's occupation we may move to either of the coasts. Yikes! I like it here in my conservative small-town in Texas. My kindergartener hasn't been asked to attend a lesbian wedding for a field trip yet.
we couldn't be more different.
my daughter's school is very progressive. i chose it for that reason. several of her teachers are openly gay-with all ensuing stereotypes-and i love it. I love that she is exposed to all types of people, some who wear ties and dress, some who don't shave their legs or grow beards, some who like hetro relationships, some the like same sex relationships, some who are religious and other's that don't believe at all.
hopefully, she will go to college in europe and experience more diversity.
i'm hoping that she learn to not be afraid of the differences (of liberals, progressives, atheists, satan worshipers, socialist) and in turn be more christlike.
and don't get me started on sex education-you'd be repulsed by what i've discussed with her.
Yeah, but I still like you. :)
My kindergartener hasn't been asked to attend a lesbian wedding for a field trip yet.
Just wanted to pope in, just to be safe: voting for Obama doesn't indicate I support gay marriage or field trips to lesbian weddings. ;)
and i just wanted to pop, just to be safe and say that i am a fiscal conservative, despite my progressive leanings.
i also believe in investing...for the long term.
While we are having a disclose-fest, I ought to say I am not a Democrat, but a registered Independent, and have voted Repub. in the past.
I also didn't mean to say "pope in," apologies to any offended Catholics or otherwise who frequent this site, of course.
..i too am a registered independent and will be voting for republican Governor and other rep city officials.
steph, did you really need to tell us you are not a dem? seriously? as if we couldn't tell._snorts_
Stephanie said:
"FD, it is not actually Obama I am afraid of, or the good people who see good things in him and back him. It is the groups backing him that I fundamentally disagree with that I fear. When you are elected, you do the bidding of the people who put you into office."
Fair enough. But if you fear this from the Democrat side, why don't you fear it from the Republican side? Are there no shady characters who would want to put McCain in office? None of the groups of people who backed Bush gave you any cause for concern?
Who are the people who have put Republicans in office? A big chunk of them have been Christian conservatives -- and that doesn't include Mormons. In fact, a number of them hate Mormons. What about greedy CEO's, who donate money to the Republican cause to secure another Republican term so that they'll save millions of dollars in taxes? It doesn't scare you that a Republican president would be doing the "bidding of the people who put (him) into office," when those people are the type of people that would like to see the demise of your church, or play a major role in a financial crisis like we're seeing today?
When it comes to partial-birth abortion, I also think it's a horrendous practice that should be outlawed, with the exception of when it's necessary to preserve the mother's life. I used to say that there could never be a medical reason for it, and therefore it should never ever be done, but I'm not a doctor, so it may be ignorant of me to make that assumption.
And so, since I'm not a doctor, I'd have to ask an OB-GYN whether this was true before I really believe it 100%, but I did read a while back in an LDS forum (either it was written by a delivery nurse or an OB-GYN student, I can't remember which), that there are some rare cases in which partial birth abortion is done to save the mother's life. I believe the example she gave was preeclampsia or toxemia, when the baby has to be removed immediately, and when a c-section is not a safe option.
So I don't know. If there are any OB-GYN's out there, let us know. If it's true, then maybe Obama's clause to protect the mother isn't such "a pathetic excuse" after all.
FD, I am sure there are shady characters on the Republican side, but I can't really think of any groups supporting McCain whose agendas scare me.
Congress found that partial-birth abortion is unnecessary to preserve the life of the mother, but still put a statue in the federal law banning it to allow for such abortions just in case (from wikipedia):
The statute includes two findings of Congress:
“ (1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion... is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.
(2) Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives. As a result, at least 27 States banned the procedure as did the United States Congress which voted to ban the procedure during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses.
”
Despite its finding that "partial-birth abortion ... is ... unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother", the statute includes the following provision:
“ This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. ”
This may have been a precaution in case the courts reject Congress's findings of fact. As Hadley Arkes commented, in an editorial in the National Review, "[t]hat provision went even further than the law was obliged to go, for as the American Medical Association testified during the hearings, a partial-birth abortion bore no relevance to any measure needed to advance the health of any woman."
Here is a timeline of how George Soros got Obama's fundraising started: How Soros Financed Obama's campaign.
Here's the photo it refers to.
Here's another article talking about how Soros was an early supporter.
So, anyways, Soros' big money and influence got Obama started. That's not surprising and is not even news. Big money and influence is what gets any major candidate started. But, George Soros is pretty far left (as evidenced by the groups his money supports). If you agree with ideas like open borders, expansion of social welfare programs, bringing American foreign policy under the direction of the United Nations, and other leftist ideas, that is probably not a concern (and the whole situation probably has you pretty excited). To me, it is frightening.
As far as "open borders" are concerned, are you satisfied with current immigration policy? I'm certainly not.
Nope
steph,
what did you think of powell's endorsement of obama on meet the press?
i was so impressed with him. i think all reps need to hear his reasons.
Okay, I watched it. I respect Colin Powell and his opinion. I agree with pretty much all of his criticisms of McCain, hence why I am considering voting for someone else. However, he didn't convince me that Obama is that person. He said he supports Obama because of his ability to inspire, inclusive nature, he's a tranformational figure, etc. Fine - but Obama still doesn't support the things I support.
Also, Powell said twice that he is concerned about the Republican party moving to the right and that he would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments. So, he doesn't appear to be all that conservative. He appears to be a more moderate Republican. Given that he is moderate, I can see how he would jump ship to support Obama. But, he doesn't really change my mind toward supporting Obama at all.
How sad, another soul fallen under the influence of the great one. "Ability to inspire, inclusive nature, and tranformational figure", doesn't hold substance for me, this could be said about any candidate.
Colin, here is what I think you meant to say "I'm voting for Obama because he is black".
What a remarkably idiotic thing to say. And you forgot to include your position of voting for McCain because he's white.
Right back at ya hodges, What an idiotic thing to say...who said I was voting for McCain?
If you look in some of the very earliest posts on this site you will see that Im not a big fan of the dude.
Im sorry if you think "Ability to inspire, inclusive nature, and tranformational figure" are reasons to vote for an untried man with very shady judgement.
I had no idea you considered yourself a candidate!
Hey man, Awesome come back! Did you come up with that your self?
I hope you don't mind my that I also "pal" around with Thom Robb, Ted Kaczynski and Nancy Pelosi!!!! But don't worry, they aren't the Thom Robb, Ted Kaczynski and Nancy Pelosi "I used to know".
think I'll make a fine President, I believe in wealth redistribution! Hey, don't bother contributing to society, I'll give you whatever you need... oh wait...I mean hardworking responsible Americans will! This is the "change" we need.
I am Matt B. and I support this message.
are you the same mattb formerly of mormom mentality?
Matt, your comment consists of nothing but straw men, my friend.
mfranti, sorry to disapoint, not the same Matt.
Hodges, You say it's a straw man. Im cool with that, except for these are all current attitudes and positions held by Obama. You just don't like it because you are seeing it from another angle.
the straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y.
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Person B draws a conclusion that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
Obama has position X (friends with questionable backgrounds, supports redistribution of wealth, many free programs)
Matt attacks position X, not Y.
I admit I exaggerated on the don't bother contributing to society comment but you get my drift.
If Bill Ayers is such a danger I wonder why he is currently a University professor. I wonder why over 3,000 other university professors signed a collective statement of support for Ayers. Why was he Chicago "citizen of the year," and why don't you note that the board on which Obama and he served also included republicans eand was funded by the conservative Annenberg folks?
The Ayers issue is quite simply a non-issue. But unfortunately we have the ugly smears being thrown around irresponsibly by Sarah Palin (McCain has her do the dirty work).
Thanks for the primer on straw man arguments. Here's another way to state it: A person constructs a false point, represents it as the position or state of the opponent, and then attacks it. You call it "exaggeration." I call it a straw man. Either way, it is rather tenuous rhetoric, and not conducive to respectful dialog. And it really makes you sound like a rather obnoxious fellow. ;)
Not only that, bhodges, but the GOP in general is far closer to a number of expatriate Cuban terrorists (including those responsible for the bombing of a Cuban airliner that IIRC killed 76 people). Not to mention criminals like G. Gordon Liddy. And need I mention the abortion-clinic bombers whom Sarah Palin, with her fine sense of moral clarity, could not bring herself to call "terrorists"?
Obama's tenuous association with Ayres occurred in the context of improving education for poor kids. The GOP's relationship to its terrorists is purely about votes. Well, that's a bit unfair. No doubt a fair number of Republicans support terrorism on principle, as long as it's anti-communist or pro-life terrorism.
Speaking of votes, I've got more canvassing to do. L8rz!
--David
Post a Comment