Who really is Barack Obama?"CLAIMS & DEBUNKS (Who do you believe?)

[The Sisko]

Thank you. All you Dems, please stop thinking that Rush Limbaugh is the voice of the republican party.

No one said that...

Yes, someone pretty much did.

Wrong answer. What I said was that the distractors from the issues are primarily coming from one side of the aisle. Nowhere did I say that that was the mainstream view or that it was the only view from the GOP.

In the same post to which I linked for Mike33 to "do his homework" earlier, I pointed out that these distractors aren't for mainstream consumption but rather are designed to solidify McCain with certain subsets of the party for whom "shortcuts" are an easy way to make the other candidate nonviable. Since you have pointed out the issues based reasons why you won't vote for Obama, that means you're not a member of this subset. However, because you're not one of them please don't try to pretend they don't exist and that the demogoguery being used by the GOP to manipulate them doesn't exist either.

Nice try though. Vanna, please tell Chad about his consolation prize. :3rdplace:

[chaddukes]

Mud is the favorite tool of politicians and political organizations. It is not exclusive:

The Dems are enjoying muddying McCain with Bush 3 and all the geriatric jokes.

The Repubs want to muddy Obama on religion, race, patriotism, and inexperience.

No argument there.

But, your assertion that the only thing that Repubican's are attacking him on is his heritage is totally false. If it was meant to be some sort of sarcasm then I missed it.

[chaddukes]

John McCain is no longer the Maverick Senator he used to be, he has completely pandered to the conservative base and generally supports the GOP party line. He can't use the 'bi-partisan thinker' argument anymore.

Then Barack never should use the term. I agree that McCain is pandering to his base. That's what he feels that he needs to do to get elected. And its his biggest weakness as far as I am concerned. But, his history shows that he "usually" does what he thinks is best without regard to how it might effect his political future. And it is because of that that he has damaged his relationship with his party.

Obama has always voted the party line and is held up as the golden child of the democratic party. His claims to being a unifier has no basis in reality. Is he just saying what he needs to in order to get elected? I think so.

It seems to me that both are doing what they need to do to get elected. But, McCain's record demonstrates something that Obama claims but doesn't show evidence of.

As for the whole, "Rush Limbaugh, He said" debate, I'll just say that your comments left an awful lot up to interpretation. But, I'll trust your clarification that you meant a certain segment of the population uses these tactics and not the GOP as a whole.

[nonniey]

Insurance, litigation, and abuse of emergency services are the big three i would guess. They are also impacted by the ever increasing costs of pharmaceuticals and medical equipment.

It is Litigation that is at the bottom of the problem. Litigation is what keeps Insurance premiums so high, which in turn forces higher medical costs, which in turn reduces the number of people who can afford medical care/insurance, which in turn forces increased abuse of emergency services. Bottomline, if states (this can be done at the state level) just passed loser pays legislation you'd see a huge decreases in Medical costs (and also in other widely divergent areas).

[The Sisko]

Then Barack never should use the term. I agree that McCain is pandering to his base. That's what he feels that he needs to do to get elected. And its his biggest weakness as far as I am concerned. But, his history shows that he "usually" does what he thinks is best without regard to how it might effect his political future. And it is because of that that he has damaged his relationship with his party.

ORLY??

So what about his flip flop on tax cuts, among other things.....From "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief" to now wanting to make those same Bush tax cuts permanent? That change wouldn't have had anything to do with his political future would it?

He also seemed to change his mind about whether Falwell (too bad I don't believe in hell so I could hope he's rotting there) and Robertson were the types of people he wanted supporting him. Again, his newfound support of the religious right wouldn't have anything to do with his political future would it?

Need I go on? In short, the maverick, pre-POTUS candidate John McCain was a politician I really liked and agreed with a lot. Now, not so much.

[chaddukes]

ORLY??

So what about his flip flop on tax cuts, among other things.....From "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief" to now wanting to make those same Bush tax cuts permanent? That change wouldn't have had anything to do with his political future would it?

He also seemed to change his mind about whether Falwell (too bad I don't believe in hell so I could hope he's rotting there) and Robertson were the types of people he wanted supporting him. Again, his newfound support of the religious right wouldn't have anything to do with his political future would it?

Need I go on? In short, the maverick, pre-POTUS candidate John McCain was a politician I really liked and agreed with a lot. Now, not so much.

I agree with you on his flip flops....where is the argument?

But, where is your argument for Obama? Where is his record of transcending the political culture, and healing the wounds of partisanship.

[Burgold]

It is Litigation that is at the bottom of the problem. .

Nah, Litigation isn't the bottom. Greed is. Litigation is just one of the symptoms that htis greed has taken. Others include corporate profiteering, the con-artistry that is insurance, and lobbiest swag. Law suits are not the principle reason costs are crazy out of control. Greed is.

Mix that with an aging population. Insurance that has seen deregulation. Pharmaceutical companies that have few checks. And all the rest and you have people who can gouge as deeply as they want without fear of repercussions.

[The Sisko]

I agree with you on his flip flops....where is the argument?

But, where is your argument for Obama? Where is his record of transcending the political culture, and healing the wounds of partisanship.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/390184.aspx

http://obama.senate.gov/press/080603-obama_and_cobur_2/

http://obama.senate.gov/press/070628-obama_lugar_sec/

http://obama.senate.gov/press/080502-obama_joins_bon/

http://obama.senate.gov/press/080429-obama_joins_bid/

http://obama.senate.gov/press/071213-coburn_and_obam/

http://obama.senate.gov/press/080521-obama_and_honda/

http://obama.senate.gov/press/080508-obama_joins_ker_1/

...and from http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hTmPa3TKWcnYhN5dNGmP7AWgtmIA which pretty much describes me to a T,

"The old mantra of 'guns, God and gonads' just doesn't exclusively define younger Christian conservatives. It's not that they're turning liberal, but they're multi-dimensional," Zogby said.

"John McCain has a bigger opening than I think he realizes, of putting together a different kind of coalition. Right now, he's not doing it. He's playing '90s politics."

[PeterMP]

http://obama.senate.gov/press/080603-obama_and_cobur_2/

"Senators Tom Carper (D-DE) and John McCain (R-AZ) are original cosponsors of this legislation."

:laugh:

I've looked before, but I'll just in case (I really don't feel like going through all of the links). Is there anything there wasn't also signed on by senior Democratic leadership (somebody that didn't also run for President in 2004 or 2008)?

[The Sisko]

I was doing a quick and dirty search to see what I could come up with. Even so, joining in legislation sponsored in part by McCain who, last I checked is a Republican should count.

Try the third link in the list. It's legislation he co-sponsored with Dick Lugar.

But, I'll give you one more just for the heck of it that I actually forgot.

http://stkarnick.com/blog2/2008/01/obama_praises_reagan.html

[PeterMP]

I was doing a quick and dirty search to see what I could come up with. Even so, joining in legislation sponsored in part by McCain who, last I checked is a Republican should count.

Try the third link in the list. It's legislation he co-sponsored with Dick Lugar.

But, I'll give you one more just for the heck of it that I actually forgot.

http://stkarnick.com/blog2/2008/01/obama_praises_reagan.html

Yeah and then he backed away from those comments really quickly:

"“I didn’t’ say I liked Ronald Reagan’s policies,” Obama explained."

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/01/20/obama-clarifies-reagan-remarks/

[The Sisko]

Yeah and then he backed away from those comments really quickly:

"“I didn’t’ say I liked Ronald Reagan’s policies,” Obama explained."

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/01/20/obama-clarifies-reagan-remarks/

...and? He didn't backtrack on what he said, simply that he didn't agree with Reagan's policies. If you look at his original quote (shown below), he's praising Reagan for his ideas and for not accepting the status quo, things that are quite consistent with Obama's platform. Certainly he could have picked say JFK to make the same point. Picking Reagan to do it showed guts and brains. Dude is playing to win unlike Clinton who tried to run on '90s rhetoric and her name recognition. If McCain continues to do the same thing, the results will be similar.

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and a way that Bill Clinton did not,” Obama told the newspaper. “I think it’s fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10 to 15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom.”

No matter which of these guys wins, I think the country will be good hands. Furthermore, while unlikely, I hope that the winner will adopt some of the better ideas of the loser. So for example, I'd like to see Obama adopt McCain's goal of increasing nuclear power generation, and a McCain administration put more $$$ into alternative energy policy.

[PeterMP]

Where is his record of transcending the political culture, and healing the wounds of partisanship.

...and? He didn't backtrack on what he said, simply that he didn't agree with Reagan's policies.

I'm sorry. I thought you were trying to make the point that Obama would be bipartisian or had a record that transcended the political culture by pointing out that he agreed with Reagan.

If that wasn't your point, I'm not sure what it was.

[chaddukes]

"Senators Tom Carper (D-DE) and John McCain (R-AZ) are original cosponsors of this legislation."

:laugh:

I've looked before, but I'll just in case (I really don't feel like going through all of the links). Is there anything there wasn't also signed on by senior Democratic leadership (somebody that didn't also run for President in 2004 or 2008)?

I thought it was good information. That was info that I didn't know. I have to agree that it isn't taking a real political risk to propose relief funding for Burma. And none of these propositions was really sticking it to the party. Nonetheless, it is reaching across the aisle, and that is what I asked for! The work with Lugar towards destroying weapons stockpiles was a good move on his part.

[The Sisko]

I'm sorry. I thought you were trying to make the point that Obama would be bipartisian or had a record that transcended the political culture by pointing out that he agreed with Reagan.

If that wasn't your point, I'm not sure what it was.

My point wasn't to say that Obama was going to be the second coming of Reagan. Rather, it was to point out that Obama is open to whatever works whether it's a "conservative" or "liberal" idea. I think that's what's actually behind the support of a lot of us Obamacans.

Certainly, as happened when he met with the religious leaders, there are always going to be issues that one side or the other simply cannot stomach or compromise on. However, it's not always about agreeing or disagreeing but about doing things in such as way as not to demonize others for their positions. Again, prior to his run for POTUS that quality was something that I always admired about McCain.

[chaddukes]

I'm dissappoined in McCain as well. But, I know what his record is.

Everytime I'm starting to gain more respct for Obama I find out something new. Not something about his pastor or his wife, but about his fluffing his resume like here: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2YxNTk0NzBiNjgzZmY0MjEwYzg5ODViMjMxN2JlY2Y=

I like the image that he is trying to portray. But, I don't like his voting record on issues that are important to me. Then I hear things that cause me to doubt his integrity and I question that his image is valid.

Then I have a choice between two politicians (not reformers) and I'm going with the guy who most closely reflects my values.

[PeterMP]

I thought it was good information. That was info that I didn't know. I have to agree that it isn't taking a real political risk to propose relief funding for Burma. And none of these propositions was really sticking it to the party. Nonetheless, it is reaching across the aisle, and that is what I asked for! The work with Lugar towards destroying weapons stockpiles was a good move on his part.

I will say it is respectable to work on laws that do things that are necessary and most people agree need to be done.

But in terms of bipartianship, essentially, everybody can point to a collection of things. Hillary even pointed to laws she co-authored with Gingrich and Delay when she first joined the Senate, but nobody bought that she was really a force for bipartianship.

[youngestson]

It's a curious thing that rumors and out-right nonsense have such an impact on political life in America during a time when people have almost unlimited access to "news".

The internet has done a better job of allowing people to seak out opinions, views, and alternate realities which dove tail with their own notions, rather then look at information from multiple views.

Obama is headed for a fire-storm of crap from the GOP in the next 6 months like neither he or almost anyone else can imagine. I'm not a huge fan of his, but I do hope that in some strange way this election will backfire on the GOP and the Bush henchmen now entrenched in the federal government.