Will Obama crash and burn after August 27th?

Will Barack Obama’s campaign crash and burn in the election’s final phase?

Obama has gained the support of legions of fans who have raised him up to the level of a deity. In music videos and on college campuses, his supporters have cast him as a man who will reform politics and change Washington forever.

Neocon pundit Zac Morgan asked me to comment on a piece he wrote for fun. I was so impressed with it that I asked permission to post it here and he gladly agreed.

The essence of Morgan's argument is that his fans (Obama's fans, not Morgan's) will leave in droves as he is outed as a career politician.

My only criticism of Morgan's piece is that he might be the one who is overly idealistic. In assuming a certain level of realism from Obama's fans, he may be overestimating their inteligence and level of political engagement. To paraphrase H. L. Mencken, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of Obama's people."

The tongues of fire have fallen upon Chris Matthews, who continues in his role as the rock upon which the Church of Obama is built upon. Just last week, Matthews, who claims to have covered politics since he was five years old, boldly declared the Obama campaign as the "New Testament"...a turning point from the lamb-slaughtering days of backroom special interest politics that have dominated the nation since its Founding.

The story arc painted by the MSNBC-Newsweek-Washington Post wing of the mainstream media is nothing short of bowing with palm leaves and chanting "Hosanna to He who comes in the name of Kennedy" as Obama clomps toward the nomination of a party whose symbol is, naturally, a donkey.

But can it last?

Once Barack Obama secures the Democratic nomination--and he will--the movement that has been built around Obamessiah will turn out to be a foundation of shifting sand, not one of the rock.

Here's the problem: Barack Obama is a very conniving, very cynical politician.

I hear the gasping, and I know that it's nothing less than heresy to those who chant "Yes, We Can" with the same rote adoration as a Catholic priest says a quiet "Our Father"...but he's a pol. Plain and simple. And the media is going to catch up to that reality once he becomes the Democratic candidate for President of the United States.

Suddenly, Barack Obama will be pressured by Establishment groups that need their demands fed--the DCCC, the DSCC, the DNC. He'll be forced to play a game of headline-grabbing with the very media savvy McCain organization, who will stick to numbers...numbers like "the number one most liberal member of the United States Senate" or "$900 billion in new spending." Expect to see more questioning of just how much Obama challenged the status quo when he opposed the Iraq War running as an underdog candidate in a three-way race for the U.S. Senate and he needed the support of rabidly anti-war Lakefront liberals to carry his way to the nomination.

Remember in the November 15th debate when Barack Obama was laughed at by the crowd for taking a nakedly political route around the driver's licenses for illegal immigrants question? He knew a yes answer would hurt him with the Democratic base in the primaries and a no would be detrimental in the general election. So, like Hillary had done just two weeks before, he tried to have it both ways. He got a pass from the anti-Hillary movement bubbling in the media at the time.

I expect that situation will happen again to Obama when he's placed in a similarly tough political position...and the boldness of Barack will start to fade away.

Making matters worse for the man who would be King is the plethora of liberal positions that he took before becoming a national figure: a present vote against an Illinois version of the Born-Alive Infants' Protection Act...the bill which prevented babies born during botched abortions from being left for dead...and passed in the Senate 98-0 is ripe for exploitation by a 527 group or a PAC.

With the National Journal talking about the Present Obama and the McCain camp discussing the Past Obama, the Democratic nominee will be forced to discuss how he can build common ground with Republicans on tough issues like Social Security, Medicare, taxes, and Iraq. He won't be able to. Ethics reform when Republicans are getting handcuffed and shipped to Federal prison is one thing, but matters like the war and Medicare require adult supervision...as McCain will continually point out.

As the year moves on, Obama will be placed in the grind of a traditional campaign. He'll need to shade the truth in order to launch attacks against John McCain, he'll have to stand by 527 organizations that slander the Republicans. And he will probably decide not to accept public financing in spite of his pledge to do so last year. In short, he'll become just another politician.

Exit hope, enter jade.

Perhaps the saddest part of all of this is the effect this will have on the unprecedented youth mobilization that Senator Obama brought to the 2008 campaign. These apathetic voters who heard a Sermon on the Mount from the man who will be unmasked as just another liberal, cynical politician will probably flee from politics in the same way that Catholics fled their churchs after the pedophilic priest scandal.

I expect that the coming Obama Turn-off will lead to some of the lowest vote totals for young voters for at least another decade hence. And that is a shame.

Obamessiah will be crucified...and there will be no resurrection.

Posted by Andrew Breza at February 26, 2008 10:19 PM
Comments
Comment #246530

Andrew,
“I expect that the coming Obama Turn-off will lead to some of the lowest vote totals for young voters for at least another decade hence.”

Now that is a funny prediction. Does this Neocon pundit follow politics? Just wondering.

Nothing is more alarming to the GOP than large voter turnout. Nothing is more alarming than Americans voting for the GOP because most Americans are liberal. The majority of Americans want the US out of Iraq. The majority of Americans do not favor privatization and deregulation and corporatism, and do not want to see jobs shipped abroad.

This makes the GOP desperate to turn people off of politics. The GOP must depress voter turnout, and they will do whatever it takes: hatred; name-calling; smears; appeals to bigotry; and attempts to dismiss enthusiasm for change as irrational.

If the Democrats win in 2008, but do not have a supermajority in Congress, it will be necessary to reach across the aisle. Obama is doing a superb job of making this feasible.

It’s going to be tough for the Democrats if they win. It’s going to be tough for liberals. The country is in terrible shape. Our military is bogged down in a pointless war. The economy is in horrible shape.

Did you know the dollar has lost half its value against the Euro under Bush? Think about that.

Change is necessary, and the changes that have to be made- HAVE to be made- are going to be difficult. It’s going to take cooperation.

Doesn’t that seem like a much better approach than dishing out the same old hatred and name-calling?

Posted by: phx8 at February 27, 2008 1:45 AM
Comment #246540

Fear makes man believe the worst…

Why do you fear Obama? Because this year Obama has given people something to vote and not just reason to vote against something…the Reds say, “Vote me because he will raise your taxes”; “Vote for me because he will let the terrorist win”, etc…

That game has run its course.

Posted by: Buffalo at February 27, 2008 9:25 AM
Comment #246543

Crash and burn, eh?

First of all, Barack’s been essentially put through rhetorical boot camp by the endless series of debates held this year, and has found a talent for neutralizing hostile questions and accusations. He’s not the same guy who fumbled that question on the first debate.

Secondly, you underestimate the intelligence, drive, and organizational capacity of his supporters at your peril. That’s what Hillary’s done, time and again, and Barack’s won eleven straight contests, and may win at least one of Hillary’s firewall states.

Meanwhile, your current candidate’s campaign seems little better run than Hillary’s. He’s got a tough position to sell, and not half the charisma he needs to sell it to a doubting public.

Speaking of that, here’s my third point: part of Barack Obama’s appeal is that he’s tapping into people’s deep seated wish for change, and he’s done it in an unequivocal way that has convinced people that even if he’s an imperfect candidate, that he’s not an obstacle like so many other Democratic and Republican politicians have been to getting what they want done. God help him in the next election if he doesn’t deliver, but for the time being, he looks to many people like their best option.

So far, nobody’s been able to dump a real load of horseshit on him. He’s been clean enough for the most part that the crap hasn’t stuck to him well. Most people don’t expect politicians to lack questionable associations. Obama, though, hasn’t been so careless as McCain in those associations. He hasn’t invited lobbyists he’s supposed to hate to run his campaign, he hasn’t used them for the most part to fund it either.

Those waiting for Obama to self-destruct have been consistently disappointed. The same has not been true for the Republicans, as of late.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 27, 2008 9:45 AM
Comment #246544

phx8-

Nothing is more alarming to the GOP than large voter turnout. Nothing is more alarming than Americans voting for the GOP because most Americans are liberal. The majority of Americans want the US out of Iraq. The majority of Americans do not favor privatization and deregulation and corporatism, and do not want to see jobs shipped abroad.

The GOP did o.k. in 2004, maintaining all three federal branches, with turnout at historical highs (I think you have to go back to Nixon in 68 to see a better year). War fatigue is a better theory for DNC support than an American turn towards liberalism.

Having said that, I’m interested in seeing Krugman’s New Deal II put to the test of voters. We really haven’t seen liberal policies in Washington since 1993-94 (save Bush’s Part D) and this year is as good as any with everyone looking for a “change.” That’s why I see no reason to vote for McCain this November. But does that make me liberal?

Posted by: George in SC at February 27, 2008 9:47 AM
Comment #246545

Oh dear, it’s that line of thinking again, how tiresome. All politicians are liars, Barack Obama is a politician, thus he must be a liar. You see, because if Obama is actually telling the truth, if by some miracle the attitudes and ideas that have been in place since his first book are not just window dressing, the Republicans are soooooo screwed.

And they know it. So they attack any way they have left. They claim he has no platform, just pretty words, which is obviously bunk to anyone who has taken five minutes to check out his website. They claim he is a hard core, MoveOn liberal, when on many issues, such as gay marriage and school vouchers, he is quite the moderate. They tout his lack of experience, when in fact he has slightly more than another Illinois statesman named Abe Lincoln. The Right is desperate, and it shows.

L

Posted by: leatherankh at February 27, 2008 9:52 AM
Comment #246548

George in SC-
Here’s what I think: I think America was never as right-wing as Republicans thought. I think they were brought in sort of for much the same reasons that you bring a consultant or an efficiency expert in. It seemed for a while that their policies, moderated by Clinton’s were doing the country some good, so people went with it. However, the split decision of 2000 should put to rest any notion that the Republicans somehow completely won people over.

2001 put some life back into the GOP, since they had established themselves as being the more credible party on defense, and their militant stands on things appealed to people at that point.

The real problem was that the Republicans lived up to neither part of that image. Now, some think that by redeeming themselves on that count, they can have it all back, but I don’t think that will work.

The Republicans were once more moderate, but they shifted under America’s feat, especially after 2001, towards hard-right, market fundamentalist, religious right positions. They vacated the center, and then so strongly forced their position on the rest of Americans that the Democrats broke out of their decades-long retreat in the face of the conservatives, and reclaimed that center. It will be very difficult for Republicans to reclaim that any time soon, especially the way they’ve allowed the hardliner component of the party to become their base.

War fatigue wasn’t the problem. War incompetence was, and the successes of late in Iraq change little, since they’re not conclusive or permanent at the moment. Bush and the Republicans have lost the chance to make this work. All they’re doing now is trying to duck out of responsibility for the ongoing quagmire, or the minimize it so people come to accept it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 27, 2008 11:22 AM
Comment #246549

Stephen/Leatherankh:

The problem is that what is happening has NEVER happened before in American politics, at least in the modern era. Never has a man moved pretty much from the state house to the presidency. He the candidate with the thinnest resume’ EVER for either political party. (Well at least for the last 100 years).

I think it is a very legitimate question if he will implode.

He may or may not, we will see. I think Repubican need to throw the heat at him big time. When a newcomer without a resume’ comes in promising the world, he must be tested. He needs to be tested more that previous presidents, because we cannot look at this years of experience in public office and draw conclusions.

You may not like what is coming, but it needs to be done. He is going to be nominated from your party for commander in chief. And he is a novice. The gloves do need to come off to make sure he is made up of what he claims to be.

You are nominating a newcomer, what is coming is what should be expected.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 27, 2008 11:37 AM
Comment #246553

Interesting to note, just found information from the website judicialwatch.org pertaining to their 10 most wanted list of corrupt politicians for the year 2007:
1. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY): In addition to her long and sordid ethics record, Senator Hillary Clinton took a lot of heat in 2007 – and rightly so – for blocking the release her official White House records. Many suspect these records contain a treasure trove of information related to her role in a number of serious Clinton-era scandals. Moreover, in March 2007, Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint against Senator Clinton for filing false financial disclosure forms with the U.S. Senate (again). And Hillary’s top campaign contributor, Norman Hsu, was exposed as a felon and a fugitive from justice in 2007. Hsu pleaded guilt to one count of grand theft for defrauding investors as part of a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme.
5. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY): Giuliani came under fire in late 2007 after it was discovered the former New York mayor’s office “billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons…” ABC News also reported that Giuliani provided Nathan with a police vehicle and a city driver at taxpayer expense. All of this news came on the heels of the federal indictment on corruption charges of Giuliani’s former Police Chief and business partner Bernard Kerik, who pleaded guilty in 2006 to accepting a $165,000 bribe in the form of renovations to his Bronx apartment from a construction company attempting to land city contracts.
6. Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR): Governor Huckabee enjoyed a meteoric rise in the polls in December 2007, which prompted a more thorough review of his ethics record. According to The Associated Press: “[Huckabee’s] career has also been colored by 14 ethics complaints and a volley of questions about his integrity, ranging from his management of campaign cash to his use of a nonprofit organization to subsidize his income to his destruction of state computer files on his way out of the governor’s office.” And what was Governor Huckabee’s response to these ethics allegations? Rather than cooperating with investigators, Huckabee sued the state ethics commission twice and attempted to shut the ethics process down.
8. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL): A “Dishonorable Mention” last year, Senator Obama moves onto the “ten most wanted” list in 2007. In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin “Tony” Rezko. In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company’s shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.

For reference only, please refer to their website for further information.

Posted by: dobropet at February 27, 2008 12:19 PM
Comment #246555
Will Barack Obama’s campaign crash and burn in the election’s final phase?

One can only hope!
But then I’m hoping that both major party candidates crash and burn.

Once Obama is nominated he will have to finally face some tough questions. This will finally show the voters what he’s really made of.
He’ll have to answer questions on the economy, border security, the war, ethics, deficit spending, taxes, and the national debt.
And I hope that the usual ‘I’ll work to solve these problems’ won’t cut it with the voters this time around for either candidate. I hope the voters will force both Obama and McCain to come up with a plan to solve these problems.
So far Obama has skated by with a phony message of hope with no substance to back it up. But if he’s gonna continue with his message of hope he’s gonna have to put a little substance in his rhetoric and I just don’t believe he has any.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 27, 2008 12:29 PM
Comment #246556

Did you see the look on B. Hussein Omama’s face when Hillary was asked what the name of the incoming Russian president was?

As Hillary was stumbling for an answer (she didn’t know it either), B. Hussein was crapping his pants…his face blanched.

Ask that guy substantive questions, and this is what will happen.

All sizzle, no steak.

Posted by: sicilian eagle at February 27, 2008 12:33 PM
Comment #246558

1. Are you so sure Bush knows who the incoming president of Russia is??

2. For a so-called “Republican” blog, you guys spend the majority of your time on Democratic presidential candidates…what…nothing interesting about McCain and Howdy Doody (AKA Huckabee)???

Posted by: Rachel at February 27, 2008 12:57 PM
Comment #246561

I’m close with you Stephen except for a few thoughts.

I agree that this country was never as far right as the GOP would want you to believe; their goal is to win elections and they have been winning by appealing to people on the right. And I don’t want to generalize and say that this is a center-right country. To me that’s rather simplistic because it doesn’t address effect population centers have on political thinking.

Even during Reagan’s 49 State 1984 victory liberalism was still the predominant political thought in the larger cities while conservatism was more predominant in rural areas. Reagan didn’t change that more so than he got he got conservative minded Democrats to switch parties. Large population centers are more likely to accept liberal solutions because the common good has a greater impact on an individual’s life. Self reliance is more predominant out in farmland.

In my short life I have met few people who have made philosophical changes in their political thinking; most of them were radicals (conservatives among liberals and liberals among conservatives) who grew older and became more conforming to their environment. Relocated liberals (we have a lot of retirees here) often stay liberal, at least for a while til we wear em down….

As for the war I’ll stand with my original idea of war fatigue. After all, name a war in our history that wasn’t mis-managed. Wars are painful, costly events that never go according to plan. To be other than than mis-managed would invite more of them.

Posted by: George in SC at February 27, 2008 1:06 PM
Comment #246562
most Americans are liberal

LOL, if you mean classic liberal, I might agree… (you know, actually giving a damn about individual rights, limited government, liberty, etc).

If you mean progressive (much of the current Democratic party), you’re way off base.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 27, 2008 1:09 PM
Comment #246563
For a so-called “Republican” blog, you guys spend the majority of your time on Democratic presidential candidates…

??? As I look over at the Democratic side of the blog, I see a LOT of posts about Bush, McCain, Republicans, etc…

I say that your comment is entirely without merit…

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 27, 2008 1:10 PM
Comment #246564

I have to agree with ‘war-weariness’ to be honest, if we had been out of Iraq in the Spring of 2006 in significant numbers, we would have still completely mis-managed the effort up to that point but the country was just starting to get weary of it and I don’t think we would be looking at a 36 Bush approval rating two years out.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 27, 2008 1:18 PM
Comment #246570

This thread is a very legitimate issue. We have seen the stock market bubble and the real estate bubble.

Are we now seeing the Obama bubble? The problem with Bubbles is that they are very hard to detect while inside, but extremely obvious afterwords. (Dean).

Is Obama going to implode? I think he might be going to. There sure looks like a lot of air!!!

We will see.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 27, 2008 1:48 PM
Comment #246573

As for Obama, I don’t know what to think about him. Ehrenstein’s Magic Negro theory is still relevant a year later. But is race even be a factor? Could a nice, unknown white man have easily brought the message of hope and of undefined change to the scene with the same results? He probably wouldn’t have received the kid-glove treatment from the press but it might have worked. I just don’t know.

Will the bubble burst? Obama is attractive as long as he and the change he promotes remains undefined. If either are defined then he becomes another politician, and an inexperienced one at that. He won’t get a free pass on his mistakes, and as someone said the press loves to build you up so that they can tear you down. I’m still betting Hillary has a trick up her sleeve, but she better hurry as the press has set next Tuesday as her funeral.

One thing I know, like many I missed on the tech bubble and lost a bundle. I wouldn’t put more than a nickel on this one…..

Posted by: George in SC at February 27, 2008 3:11 PM
Comment #246576


What is happening in the Democratic Party now is a continuation of what happened in Connecticut in 2006. The liberals rallied their base and defeated Lieberman in the primary, only to have many Democrats join forces with the Republicans and independents to re-elect Lieberman in the fall.

Many liberals dislike Hillary Clinton as much, if not more than the Republicans do. The blue-collar Democrats are supporting Hillary, while the liberals have rallied behind Obama.

Because of his race, Obama has stolen the African-American voters away from Hillary. They were for Hillary before they were for Obama and I believe the most logical reason for their defection is race. Opra was for Hillary before she was for Obama.

In the African-American voters, the liberals have the allies they need to, in all likelyhood, defeat Hillary. I sincerely hope that the Move On/Daily Kos liberals don’t lead our party down the path to defeat again.

Posted by: jlw at February 27, 2008 3:43 PM
Comment #246579


Andrew: The primary difference between a donkey and an elephant is the amount of greenhouse gases they emit into the atmosphere.

Posted by: jlw at February 27, 2008 3:57 PM
Comment #246580

Phx8

The 2004 election had the biggest total numbers ever. Who won?

The last time a Dem won more than 50% of the vote in a presidental election was in 1976. Republicans managed that four times in that same period.

Dems always assume that most people want them to win. Actual election returns do not bear this out. Maybe Dems are just lazier or less responsible and do not vote as often. Or maybe Dems are not as popular as they think. Which of these thing do you think is true?

Posted by: Jack at February 27, 2008 3:59 PM
Comment #246581

jlw


I sincerely hope that the Move On/Daily Kos liberals don’t lead our party down the path to defeat again.

They just might. I think it’s an unknown right now. With Obama so untested, we will need to see what happens when the heat comes.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 27, 2008 4:31 PM
Comment #246582

George & Jack,
For various reasons, almost half of Americans do not vote.

Obama is generating huge turnouts.

To McCain’s credit, he has made it clear the usual conservative methods of campaigning- hatred and smears- are not welcome on his behalf. Rejecting and publicly repudiating Cunningham does nothing but make McCain shine. Hats off. Good on him.

Posted by: phx8 at February 27, 2008 4:45 PM
Comment #246583

Craig Holmes-
Were the two Roosevelts that much more experienced? JFK had only two more years in public office than Obama has now when he became President.

And how much experience did George Washington or Abraham Lincoln have? Experience in public office doesn’t always constitute good experience. Sometimes it just settles a person too much, makes them too set in their ways.

I don’t think, having lasted this long through such a competitive primary, that Obama’s going to implode. He’s too well organized. People on the right can hope he’ll go off the rails, but their hope is mostly wishful thinking. He’s already faced tough question, and he’s shown a talent for absorbing that kind of punishm. Maybe a couple months ago, you could have seen him as a lightweight, but his ability to blow past an established political operator like Hillary should be a warning sign to Republicans and right-wingers hoping for an easy campaign. Anything could happen between now and November, but I wouldn’t count somebody’s who it looks like will win the nomination without New York or California out.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 27, 2008 5:22 PM
Comment #246584

This post is just wishful thinking. I could easily write a post asking whether John McCain will “crash and burn”.

Hillary has tried playing the “grownup card” over and over again and hasn’t made a dent.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 27, 2008 5:24 PM
Comment #246585

|”I expect that the coming Obama Turn-off will |lead to some of the lowest vote totals for young |voters for at least another decade hence. And |that is a shame.”

Illogical. This is straight fear mongering sensationalism trying to make 15 seconds of fame. The primaries and caucuses have had record turn outs, including red states like Kansas who had TWICE the turnout that they expected. People were lined far out the door for the opportunity to demonstrate their vote (crazy caucus), none the less durring sub-freezing temperatures and ice/snow in most of Kansas and Missouri on Super Tuesday. And some Elephant a$$ thinks that Obama is going to hurt turn out, for years to come even. WOW! Pig-head!

Obama has done nothing but STRENGTHEN the voting process and voter turn-out. It is far more logical to say that he is going to bring out the BIGGEST turn-out in November, especially among young and poor voters (his core base).

Posted by: angrymob at February 27, 2008 5:33 PM
Comment #246590

The whole piece is sheer speculation. It will be interesting to come back to this after the election and compare this guy’s unsupported and unsupportable predictions to what actually played out.

That part about building common ground with the Republicans - what is that supposed to mean, anyway? I mean, let’s face it, the Republican version of common ground is for the opposition to compromise, for the opposition to come over to the Republican way of doing things and for the opposition to cave and give in.

I say it’s way past high time to switch that around and call for the Republicans to give ground to find common ground. I’m not really interested in another 4 or 8 years of a Bush clone in the White House, pandering to all the base instincts of the ultra-right. And I think most of America feels the same way at this stage of the 21st century. That’s McCain’s big problem right there - he has always been Bush’s prince even when Bush was trashing the heck out of McCain in the 2000 election. Bush and Co. has long ago worn out their welcome due to incompetence and self-serving. Tell me how McCain is going to overcome that huge albatross.

So, yeah, Obama’s got a mess of warts that might not sit all that well with everyone. But when the alternative is 4 or 8 more years of the same as the last 8 years, I don’t think they’re going to hurt him all that much.

Besides, the writer’s premise seems to be that Obama’s going to turn off a lot of the younger voters with those warts. I think he’s got that exactly wrong - the less sophisticated younger voter is going to tend to forgive flaws they don’t understand AND (which the Rep/con swiftie smear machine is going to irritate) they are going to tend to side with the candidate being smeared rather than the the candidate doing the smearing.

We’ll find out in November I guess.

Posted by: spongeworthy at February 27, 2008 6:22 PM
Comment #246597

For anybody who thinks the Farrakhan thing has any real legs:

Obama has been asked about Farrakhan’s words of praise and Farrakhan’s receipt of an award from “Trumpet Newsmagazine,” a Trinity church publication last month. Obama told Jewish leaders Sunday: “An award was given to Farrakhan for his work on behalf of ex-offenders completely unrelated to his controversial statements. And I believe that was a mistake and showed a lack of sensitivity to the Jewish community and I said so.”
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 27, 2008 7:58 PM
Comment #246600

Woody

Hillary has tried playing the “grownup card” over and over again and hasn’t made a dent.

You hit on the functional keywords exactly: grownup card

Todays voters look at the old timers and see nothing more than a book of lies and false promises which equates to more of the same. Finally the voters are getting it. And finally they have what appears to be a chance to imagine step away from what only a few short months ago seemed to be just another inevitability of a continuation of past practice. I wonder how can anybody in good conscience seriously fault voters for aspiring to an honest, responsible and accountable government. The American people know what they want. I believe they will come out in droves to vote for a man whose likely election will represent a statement against the arena of corrupted old school insider politics.

Posted by: RickIL at February 27, 2008 9:10 PM
Comment #246602

Stephen:

Were the two Roosevelts that much more experienced? JFK had only two more years in public office than Obama has now when he became President.

By far more experienced

FDR had military experience as assistant secretary of the Navy. Had been on a national ticket as a vp. And had been govenor of New York

Theodore Rosevelt was already president the first time he ran. (McKinnley had been shot). And was a war hero!!!

As for JFK, you are putting state legislative experience on par with Congress. That is new. Say I have 10 years of elected experience, I was on a school board. does that count?

JFK was a war hero.


ALL of the names you mentioned had military experience of some sort. All of them had prior national experience. JFK for 14 years.

Obama has 3 years in the US Senate and no military experience.

He can’t be put in the same league as JFK or the Rosevelts.


George Washington was a war hero in both the french and Indian war and revolutionary war.

Abraham Lincoln was a founding father of the Republican party. He had helped create the Republican party in to a national movement against slavery. He had one term in the house earlier in his career, and was in the Senate in his first term. Obama and Lincoln have about the same legislative experience, however, Lincoln had helped form a national party. The Republican party. For instance Lincoln’s nomination was in many ways related to the famous lincoln douglas debats which were for the US Senate.

Obama isn’t in any of these former president’s league. He literally has no national achievement that you can point to. All are small potatoes.

He is not a war hero. He has not founded a new political party, he has not been a govenor. He has not been reelectd to Congress.

He is simply the least qualified politician every to be nearly nominated for president.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 27, 2008 9:28 PM
Comment #246603

Morgan deeply underestimates this man’s guile. More than that, though, he ‘misunderestimates’ Howard Dean, who has quietly run a brilliant guerilla war against the Republican Party for three years.

They’re still roasting sacrifices on the Holy of Holies, regardless of whatever Matthews thinks, and the chief priest is Howard Dean.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at February 27, 2008 9:30 PM
Comment #246604

Now that the conservatives have begun hoping and praying for the implosion of Obama and all that he stands for it must be time to question your sincerity. That is your sincerity as to just how much you really care about your government. You folks in your hatred for all things liberal are waging a war against change and advocating for the slime that currently runs the big show. Dems and repubs included.

You folks are actually hoping that he is not real. This kind of reminds me of the neocon ploy to imply that anyone who opposed the war is unpatriotic. I guess by the same token maybe you who oppose change are no better than those corrupted money grubbing leeches who created the mess this country is in today.

It seems that your partisan biases may be more important to you than what is best for this country. Maybe values are only important when they are applied to a conservative.

Posted by: RickIL at February 27, 2008 9:35 PM
Comment #246608

RickL:

You folks are actually hoping that he is not real.


Sorry that is you not us. You are the ones caught up in hope. You have placed your hope in a man minimal national credentials. He will make history as the least credentialled Presidential nominee in history.

Here is an idea for a republican campaign add in the fall:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug75diEyiA0

All bun and no beef!! All hat and no cattle!!

Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 27, 2008 10:16 PM
Comment #246611

Craig Holmes-
It’s a bit sad that we conflate military experience with political experience. I would not underestimate the value of military experience, but it’s not the same as political experience. In fact, it can work against a person if they didn’t take the right lessons away.

But is Barack Obama in grave danger of Collapse?

Look, people have been talking about a bubble for months now. They’ve based this on the notion that people like us are a bunch of flighty sheeple willing to follow just about anybody who speaks real Purty.

Those who aim at his rhetoric miss the real core of his success: he’s a very good leader. He doesn’t outfight his opponent, he outthinks them. He takes the polls as a starting place for his political activities, then pushes things in new directions. His organization on the ground is very well coordinated, and the planning around it is very much responsible for his slate of victories. If he had campaigned like Hillary had, she might have had the nomination already. Instead, she’s progressively cratering, even having won much of the NE, and the big democratic states of NY, NJ, and California.

Instead, he effectively nullified those victories, outmanuevering her. You think a guy who can pull off that kind of victory and keep on winning thereafter is a candidate on the verge of collapsing? Hillary’s more likely to crater than he is. McCain’s scandals are a hell of a lot more sticky than Obama. In essence, you have to count on something unknown at this point being revealed or done in order to get that collapse.

All things being equal, I bet on the endurance of the strong before I bet on their collapse. Eleven wins in a row, and a Super Tuesday with most states and voters won is not the sign of a fragile candidate.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 28, 2008 1:36 AM
Comment #246613
He is not a war hero. He has not founded a new political party, he has not been a govenor. He has not been reelectd to Congress.

He also won his seat by beating Alan Keyes, a late entry because the incumbent had to step out of the race at the last minute because of a sex scandal concerning his ex-wife and swingers clubs…

I guess that I just don’t see it since I’m not caught up in the same old routine we’ve seen before. In fact, from an article from 1878…

“You cannot take up a magazine or newspaper without being struck by the feverish interest with which social topics and problems are discussed, and if you were a student of social science, you would find in almost all these discussions evidence, not only that the essential preparation for the discussion is wanting, but that the disputants do not even know that there is any preparation to be gained. Consequently we are bewildered by contradictory dogmatizing. We find in all these discussions only the application of pet notions and the clashing of contradictory “views.” Remedies are confidently proposed for which there is no guarantee offered except that the person who prescribes the remedy says that he is sure it will work. We hear constantly of “reform,” and the reformers turn out to be people who do not like things as they are and wish that they could be made nicer. We hear a great many exhortations to make progress from people who do not know in what direction they want to go. Consequently social reform is the most barren and tiresome subject of discussion amongst us, except æsthetics.”

Posted by: Column Manager at February 28, 2008 2:03 AM
Comment #246617

Column Manager-
People will become caught up in it when they begin to believe that a lack of reform is endangering their interests.

People look at the Democrats in Congress, and they wonder why they’re not getting their money’s worth. They look at Obama and see somebody who has bought less into that system, who hasn’t become so used to politics as usual that his experience leads him to behave like many Democrats and Republicans have over the past few years. Voters have shown the willingness to risk the downsides of inexperiences to gain the benefits of better judgment.

And yes, people want real reform, not just promises. They don’t like the position this government has put them in, economically, politically, militarily, or internationally. The time has come for the Republicans to understand that what happened in 2006 was a divorce, not merely a separation.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 28, 2008 8:35 AM
Comment #246618

Craig

Hope is hope regardless. It is quite obvious that it is the hope of a few here that he is not real. So yes it is you that is hopeful also. The difference is that mine is optimistic hope yours is careless and spiteful destructive hope which presents an obstacle to improvement.

And what a cute commercial. I say bring them on. Such commercials do nothing more than reaffirm the low level of character with which the republican party is held in these times of amoral republican ideologies.

When I think credentials in government thoughts of back room deals made by cigar smoking slime with money to spare, free vacations, free meals and expensive hookers. A bunch of experienced old time politicians getting together and plotting ways to further their cause at my expense. And if we are lucky they will throw just enough morsels our way to keep us from watching too closely. Frankly I am sick of morsels and sick of being taken lightly. At this point in time I would give my vote to anyone who I feel might actually sincerely pursue an agenda in good conscience with the intent to restore credibility, accountability and integrity to government. All these qualities are necessary requirements to reform which is long overdue.

Tell me do you think your man and his republican peers would be genuinely willing to admit their greed induced failings and pursue an agenda of reform?

Posted by: RickIL at February 28, 2008 8:47 AM
Comment #246619

“He is simply the least qualified politician every to be nearly nominated for president.”

Except GWB who you didnt seem to mind Craig. But I guess what we really need to know from you is what exactly counts as experience Craig. If military service counts how about teaching constitutional law? If organizing a political party of all things is considered experience then what about community organizer?
IN your panic Craig you seem to have left reason and logic behind here.

“He is simply the least qualified politician every to be nearly nominated for president.”

Except GWB Craig who had a term as Govenor of Texas which is not the same as govenor of well most other states. Why is it Craig that the state legislature doesnt count again? Is it because that it doesnt fit into your erroneous theory.
Craig, stop for a second get your breath, breath deep, the panic you are feeling is distorting your thinking.

No matter how many times you say it Craig its just not true. In fact what we have discovered here is that Barack Hussein Obama is in the company of Lincoln, the Roosevelts, Kennedy, and of course the exception that proves the rule GWB.
But keep vetting this guy it does us all good, especially after the lack of vetting on your boy W.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 28, 2008 9:12 AM
Comment #246620

He’s switching stances on subjects. How can people trust that? Are the people of America going to depend on a candidate, that denounces his past record, as being blind to the facts? Or is it that the majority is not currently in light of the facts themselves and thus follow by virtue of statement?:

WASHINGTON – Leading Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has blasted rival Hillary Rodham Clinton for flip-flopping on NAFTA, but, according to the public record, he has also switch positions.
Obama has turned trade into a centerpiece of his campaign in Ohio, where trade agreements are particularly unpopular as domestic manufacturing jobs disappear.
Texas and Ohio hold nominating contests March 4, and Obama has criticized the North American Free Trade Agreement at campaign stops in both states.
“What the world should interpret is my consistent position, which is I believe in trade,” he said after meeting with workers at a manufacturing plant in Ohio. “I just want to make sure that the rules of the road apply to everybody and they are fair and that they reflect the interests of workers and not just corporate profits.”
Just last October, however, Obama announced he would vote for a Peruvian trade agreement that would expand NAFTA into that country.
In fact, he was the first presidential candidate to declare support for the NAFTA expansion. He was also the keynote speaker at a luncheon of the Hamilton Project – a Wall Street group working to drive a wedge between Democrats and organized labor on globalization issues.
NAFTA went into effect in 1994 while former President Clinton held office. In her memoir, Hillary Clinton called NAFTA a success, though she says she has a plan to review it and fix it.
Obama said he opposed NAFTA from the start and U.S. workers were not the only ones to suffer from its effects. Wages and benefits in Mexico had not been improved by the treaty, he said.

Posted: February 26, 2008
9:31 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Posted by: dobropet at February 28, 2008 9:30 AM
Comment #246623

I’m confused by this statement… Could you please elaborate? What is it about being Governor of Texas that I’m missing…

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 28, 2008 9:38 AM
Comment #246624

Err, the quote didn’t come along properly, sorry… I’ll try again.

Except GWB Craig who had a term as Govenor of Texas which is not the same as govenor of well most other states.

Could you please elaborate?

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 28, 2008 9:42 AM
Comment #246628

Rhinehold from Wikipedia- “Partly because of many elected officials, the governor’s powers are quite limited in comparison to other state governors or the U.S. President. In popular lore and belief the lieutenant governor, who heads the Senate and appoints its committees, has more power than the governor.”

Posted by: j2t2 at February 28, 2008 10:21 AM
Comment #246629

RickIL >He can’t be put in the same league as JFK or the
RickIL >Rosevelts.

That’s certainly a defensible point. You know who else comes to mind reading your list of “He’s not in the same league as…” and “He never has done…”? The current resident of the WH of course, who has been treated in some cases literally as the second coming of Christ. Why is it now this is a problem for Obama but apparently never was for the chimpster? I mean come on, no matter how much you guys platonicly love W, you’ve got to admit he’s orders of magnitude outside the Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt league. He’s not even fit to polish Lincoln’s boots. But you’re holding Obama to a different, higher standard because….?

The only good reason I would hold Obama or any other candidate to a higher standard that Bush would be because they’re gioing to have to be da-n good to clean up Bush’s mess.

Posted by: 4@+,/21+3(:) at February 28, 2008 10:24 AM
Comment #246630
who has been treated in some cases literally as the second coming of Christ.

LOL, I’ve seen him depicted as the second coming of someone, but not who you mention…

In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever seen any kind of fervor over GB ever, even his margin of victory in the 2000 election miniscule. It doesn’t speak to the type of treatment JC would get, IMO, but rather an acceptance that this is who is the REP nominee and he is better than the DEM nominee who has his own issues and baggage, etc. If the DEM party had nominated just about ANYONE other than John Kerry in 2004, I doubt that the US would have had a second GB term…

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 28, 2008 10:29 AM
Comment #246635

Rheinhold, sure that line was a bit of hyperbole, although I think I could support that with a link without a lot of effort.

That line notwithstanding, I again ask why is Obama being looked at with more scrutiny than the current resident in terms of accomplishments and experience by the Rep/con partisans posting here? For that matter, McCain hardly measures up to Washington, Lincoln or the Roosevelts either. Sure he was in the military, but by the same token, I think a strong case can and has been made for the historically tepid performance of long-time military men as president. Ref: U.S. Grant.

Posted by: 4@+,/21+3(:) at February 28, 2008 11:21 AM
Comment #246636

Rhinehold-
Loyalty Oaths, Free Speech Zones, The Evangelicals backing him to the hilt, the Swiftboating… There was fervor behind Bush among the Right. That’s just about all that kept him in office, really.

Predicting who will be the best president is difficult at best. Obama may be a terrible president. But he seems to match the ambition that most Presidents have with the ability to get an organization and other politicians to do what he likes, and like it themselves. Barack Obama is a rarity, and I think uncertainties about the future would be foolish reasons not to take a risk on him.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 28, 2008 11:35 AM
Comment #246637

Stephen:

It’s a bit sad that we conflate military experience with political experience. I would not underestimate the value of military experience, but it’s not the same as political experience. In fact, it can work against a person if they didn’t take the right lessons away.

Military experience is important. Especially in a time of war. It is far far more important than state legislative experience.

By the way I am not predicting the Obama bubble will pop. What I am stating is a fact. Obama has the slimist resume’ in history.


J2D2:

Except GWB who you didnt seem to mind Craig. But I guess what we really need to know from you is what exactly counts as experience Craig. If military service counts how about teaching constitutional law? If organizing a political party of all things is considered experience then what about community organizer? IN your panic Craig you seem to have left reason and logic behind here.

I think you are right about George Bush. He did have a slim resume’. Six years in the state house in Texas is pretty slim.

Now is that a point in your favor somehow? After 7 years of George Bush with a slim resume’ and now you are nominating someone with a slimmer resume’ and are using Bush to defend it?

Why is it Craig that the state legislature doesnt count again?

It certainly counts. Stephen has put Obama’s state legislative experience on an equal level as Kennedy’s Federal Legislative experience. I was saying hogwash. Being in the house of Representatives and US Senate is a long way from being a state legislator.

There are 7000 state legislators and onon 535? members of the house and Senate.

In a time of war you are nonminating a man with the slimmist resume’ in history.

That increases the odds of an implosion.


“W” is not on the ballot.


Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 28, 2008 11:52 AM
Comment #246638

j2t2:

I actually believe Obama has presidential material in him. Or at least that he most likely does. (Sometimes we are all suprized! (ie Dean).

My point is that he has the slimmest resume’ in the history of our country. He may have the character of JFK, or Reagen or Lincoln or any other president. However, he doesn’t have their resume’.

You mention state legislature as to why I don’t allow for it in my scheme.

I will just shoot right back at you. Show me a quality president in our nation’s history where that was their strenght moving into the presidency!!

It is actually rare to have federal legislative experience considered a plus. Usually it is govenorships, or being VP. The normal qualifier for US presidents in modern times has been govenorship/VP.

The last president to not fit that mold was JFK. Eisenhower one could argue was unique. I don’t imagine anyone would think him unqualified.

Johnson was a Vice President before he became Pres as was Nixon, as was Truman.

Now we are back to Rosevelt who was govenor of NY.

Congress is considered a weak resume’. All three are in congress!!

This is a unique election. I would like some history buff to go back and find a time when in the general election neither party nominated someone with either VP or Govenor experience. It is probably the 1800’s.

Now the candidate with the weakest of weak credentials is the front runner, and we are down to examining state legislative experience which up until now in our history has very been considered a qualifier for the presidency.

It is very fair to speculate on what this all means.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 28, 2008 12:18 PM
Comment #246641
Loyalty Oaths, Free Speech Zones, The Evangelicals backing him to the hilt, the Swiftboating… There was fervor behind Bush among the Right. That’s just about all that kept him in office, really.

There is a difference in thinking someone is ‘the second coming’ and working hard to use political means to ensure that that person stays in office and the opponent stays out, Stephen.

I think that Bush actually came in as the least popular president in recent history. He barely won the election and the party that lost was not only fighting the results and calling his legitimacy into question, there was a serious movement to have him impeached before he even too the oath.

Bush has had an uphill battle and the attacks just over 8 months into his presidency did little to make his road easier. That he has chosen the wrong path on so many areas along the way hasn’t helped, but it is telling to me how he has such a low opinion rating but the DEM nominee in 2004 couldn’t unseat him, either the DEM part is just or more despised or the nomination process that the DEM party uses is deeply flawed (I vote for the latter, especially considering what we are seeing this year as well).

Perhaps it is time to stop looking at the nominated candidates or elected officials as the problem…. Perhaps it is time to point the fingers back at ourselves and re-examine what our expectations and demands are. It is hard for anyone to succeed when we are so bipolar in our demands. (We want you to do everything and we want it to cost nothing! We want you to keep us completely safe but we don’t want you to do what is necessary to do that! etc…)

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 28, 2008 1:10 PM
Comment #246646

Truman served only four months as Vice President before he became president. He had been a senator for 1 and 2/3 terms prior to that.

In 1880 James Garfield had only a few terms in the US House of Representatives and Winfield Scott had been a civil war general, but neither had been a governor or vice-president

Posted by: Warren P at February 28, 2008 1:43 PM
Comment #246650

Warren P.

Truman was President when he first ran for president in 1948 after Rosevelt had died.

Obama stands in good company as being qualifed for Vice President. Actually that is what is resume’ would qualify him for when looking at history. If you want to compare Truman to Obama that is.

However when Truman first was nominated by the democratic party in 1948 he was a sitting president.

I have no problems with Obama being qualified as a VP.

Garfield had many terms in the US House of Representatives (17 years) and was a war hero.

My point still stands, Obama has the least experience of ANY presidential candidate nominated by a major party in modern history and maybe in the history of our country.

Is there where we want to go?


Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 28, 2008 2:03 PM
Comment #246651

@+,/21+3(:)

That line notwithstanding, I again ask why is Obama being looked at with more scrutiny than the current resident in terms of accomplishments and experience by the Rep/con partisans posting here?


1. He qualifcations are less well known. It is rare to have a candidate come from the US. Senate. It is unheard of to have a candidate come forward and be nominated to the presidency with only 3 years experience.

2. We are at war and Obama has absolutely no military experience. In times of war, previous military experience has been looked on as important.

In 2000 we were at peace. It is very fair in the current state of affairs to point out that we are at war, and military experience is desirable.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 28, 2008 2:09 PM
Comment #246652

Craig.
What war, we are playing peace keeper in Afgan and Iraq. the war ended years ago. All we are doing is police work and special ops work. We are pissing houndreds of billions of dollars a year away in these countries and for what?
I know Jack things are so rosy their now but do we really need to be their? How much more can our economy handle right now?
As far as a thin resume right now, a lot of americans are so fed up with the current politicians and their lack of good judgement a thin resume is a plus not a minus. So please keep calling attention to his thin resume.

Posted by: timesend at February 28, 2008 2:21 PM
Comment #246653

Craig >”W” is not on the ballot.

And we are extremely grateful for that, although who knows what Constitutional changes he may have inserted in his signing statements. Could Cheney be McCain’s running mate, though? Oh, the humanity…

Craig >I think you are right about George Bush. He did have a slim
Craig > resume’. Six years in the state house in Texas is pretty
Craig > slim.

Right, so now why the Rep/con tizzy about Obama’s experience level? You were OK with an inexperienced Dubya, but not OK with an inexperienced Obama? Dare I roll out the perennial Rep/con fatal flaw: hypocrisy?

Craig >My point still stands, Obama has the least experience of
Craig >ANY presidential candidate nominated by a major party in
Craig >modern history and maybe in the history of our country.

Right, except for Dubya.

Posted by: 4@+,/21+3(:) at February 28, 2008 2:24 PM
Comment #246659

4@+,/21+3(:):

First of all, no Dubya had been a govenor. That is the traditional way of becoming president in our country in modern times. Also he was a second term govenor. Bush came to the presidency in the NORMAL way. He also had been a military officer.

And Bush had been reelected by an overwelming amount.

Obama has a far far weaker resume’ than Bush did in 2000. Bush we weak but not unheard of. WE HAVE NEVER nominated a presidential candidate with a resume’ as weak as OBAMAS. NEVER HAPPENED, that I know of. At least not in modern history.

timesend:

As far as a thin resume right now, a lot of americans are so fed up with the current politicians and their lack of good judgement a thin resume is a plus not a minus. So please keep calling attention to his thin resume.

I would accept your point if he had obvious strong resume’ with equal responsibility elsewhere. He has no national credential outside of government either.

His real claim to fame is as a state legislator. That is all he is. For instance Eisenhower had an outside credential. Measure Eisenhower compared to Obama for me.

Again, Obama has very little qualifications.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 28, 2008 2:43 PM
Comment #246666

Man, this is such a hilarious article title! I’ve been chuckling over it for two days, and laughing out loud when reading all the rightwing comments. Republicans are oozing so much pathos and desperation right now!!!

What has crashed and burned is the Grand Old Party’s entire sense of itself. The wingnut Neocons thought their fearmongering, and dirty tricks, and expensive propaganda machine had bought them a permanent lock on America, but it seems they might be wrong.
Talk about the audacity of hope! They were so hoping to run against Hillary, but now aren’t too likely to get her. They were hoping that the candidate that won the Republican nomination could appeal to every segment of their party. The Plutocrats, the old school Goldwater types, the Evangelicals… but McCain… well, he doesn’t.

And oh no, what they’re likely to face is the charismatic Barack Obama! A guy who has got what no millionaire could ever buy!!! They’re so dreading the thought that this brilliant, cool, and amazingly eloquent guy is the one they have to beat in November.

:^D

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at February 28, 2008 3:05 PM
Comment #246669

There is no way that Bush’s election was anything normal, as shown by the Florida voting system. As for his second reelection, all Diebold electronic vote scanning systems are in question, as illustrated here:
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
Why the media has not covered this only adds to the problem with corporate influence in the government, anyone know Rupert Murdoch?

Posted by: dobropet at February 28, 2008 3:44 PM
Comment #246670

Interesting fact, dobropet…

IF you remove the power the government has over us (limit its ability to affect our lives) then there is no reason for the businesses to attempt to influence it! The perfect way to end corporate influence in our government is to quit trying to tell americans how to live in the first place…

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 28, 2008 3:47 PM
Comment #246672

dobropet:

There is no way that Bush’s election was anything normal

You are 100% correct on this. (At least I think so).

But Bush’s acsention was normal. His resume’ was well within how Americans have traditionally chosen it’s leaders.

Obama still is has the weakest resume’ of any candidate in memory!!

Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 28, 2008 3:59 PM
Comment #246674

Craig Holmes-
See what a can of worms you’re opening up? You’re counting “war hero experience” which doesn’t necessarily mean much of anything. I mean, you might call Reagan one of the best presidents of all time, but the man who is credited with winning the Cold War had absolutely no real military experience.

Frankly, I think the problem is you made a broad sweeping comment on Obama, but have done so without studying the breadth and width of history. You would know that JFK missed a lot of time as a legislator because of his health problems, that Teddy Roosevelt’s war hero status was as a member and organizer of a volunteer force in that rather artificial fight we call the Spanish-American War. You would have also known that most of Abe Lincoln’s time was in the State Legislature, and as a lawyer. In that regard, Obama’s not unlike him.

I think frankly that the positions you’re taking are conveniently angled towards John McCain as a candidate, talking about how a president needs to be a war hero and have long experience in Washington. But if you apply such standards, there’s a lousy president for every good one you can cite.

If we agree the last President and his policies were lousy, then McCain puts us in an uncomfortable position. He’s backing the policies of the Bush administration to the hilt, economic and military policies that Americans are not at all satisfied with. Additionally we have been presented with evidence in recent days that his supposed hatred of lobbyists was actually quite the opposite, so one part of that long experience in Congress seems to have brought with it negative consequences.

This connection to the culture of corruption might put him in a position not unlike that of Ullyses S. Grant, who though a great military man, was a rather troubled President at best, haunted by corruption. Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter also served in the military, but that didn’t necessarily make them good presidents.

When I look at Obama, the question is, what kind of leader will he be? The way it seems, Obama is the better leader than most of the others. He’s been able to keep a positive, civil tone to his campaign and beat candidates who were taking a low-road approach against him. He’s taking the nomination right out from under Hillary Clinton, who should have done better, being the more experienced political operator.

If Obama becomes the nominee, he starts out stronger than McCain. He has built up organization in the Red States, and with the transitions of the 2006 election, the equation of what states will turn blue and which might go swing might be changed fairly effectively by his presence alone.

Obama seems to be poised to do something good for the party. I think it would be silly of us to worry about the length of his resume if he’s already shown strong, evident talents. The whole point of such qualifications is to speak to the candidate’s talents. If the candidate’s talents are obvious, withholding judgment in his favor on that count is foolish. You don’t pass over the valedictorian from a college because he doesn’t have a long resume. Americans should be willing to take a chance on potential, rather than insist on formalities blindly.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 28, 2008 4:08 PM
Comment #246677

4@+

I was not involved in this thread. No problem, I know how easy it is to mix names. I wish I could reply but unfortunately I was bored to death with presidential history in school. As a result I did just enough to get by and now tend to avoid specific historical argument out of fear of embarrassment. Not something I am proud of, but in the end we all work with what we know. :)

Posted by: RickIL at February 28, 2008 4:24 PM
Comment #246681

Stephen:

You are the one bringing up all those people. I am simply saying that Obama’s resume’ is thinner than them all.

You are for Obama, and that is fine. But my point remains that he is unique. We have never had a major party nominate someone with as thin a resume’ as Obama has.

You can make it about me, and that is fine. You can say it’s convenient and that I am a McCain supporter. It doesn’t change the facts.

You compared JFK’s congressional experience to Obama’s state experience. Now that I called you on that, you are saying JFK was ill.

As for Theodore Rosevelt, he was first elected Vice president. He became president when McKinnley was shot.

Abraham Lincoln who you are comparing Obama to, helped start the Repubican party!! A national movement. Creation of a national party looks pretty good on a presidential candidate’s resume’. What national thing has Obama done next to Lincoln?

Obama is unique. There is nothing we can point to where we can say this has happened before. Obviously when something is new, it needs to be examined.

There is simply a huge dramatic gulf between action and rhetoric.


Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 28, 2008 4:41 PM
Comment #246685

Craig “The normal qualifier for US presidents in modern times has been govenorship/VP.”
Seems that would leave both the frontrunners out this year Craig.

Should McCain be deemed unqualified due to the fact that he would be the oldest president at ascension by 4 years.72 years old certainly isnt a normal qualifier is it Craig?
BTW Obama fits right in with Roosevelt, Kennedy and Clinton on age.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 28, 2008 4:48 PM
Comment #246686

Stephen:

In all seriousness, I think the one thing Obama has done that can be measured is the state legislature.

In the US Senate, he barely got there before he began to run for President. So he maybe had one year of clear Senatorial experience.

On the other hand Obama has hand he was in the state legislature for what 8 or 9 years which is a good solid time where by we can measure this person.

So what did Obama do in that 8 or 9 years that the American People should look to him and say, he is our guy?

I really mean this Stephen. He might be our next president. Take all of the talk and hype away, and look at what he has actually done. To Obama’s credit he was in the state legislature for a respectible amount of time.

We need to as a country ditch the emotionalism for a moment and look. That is to me his claim to fame. We can take that measure, and then look and make some projection as to what he would do as a president. That is fair.

It’s like comparing middle school football to AAAA hs varsity. It’s tough it really is.

So here is my question. All talk asside, what did he accomplish for our country his 9 or so years in the state legislature?

Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 28, 2008 4:51 PM
Comment #246688

Craig Holmes-
Yes, I am bringing up all those people, since you’ve created this criteria for being a good president, as a way to prove your point wrong by counterexample.

Abraham Lincoln did not create the Republican Party. He was the first president from that part, but the party dates back to 1854. Obama seems to be involved with a similar sea change in politics, one that is evident by the fact that turnout is at record levels in almost every state the Democrats have campaign in. Here in TX, it’s about triple.

Your pronouncements are a recipe for inaction though. Let’s wait, you say, until this person has a bigger resume. But why not strike while the iron is hot? fact of the matter is, 2008 may not come around much, and Obama seems the much more natural fit for the party. Imagine, in 1860, what would have happened with the Republicans if they had looked at Lincoln and said “he’s not experienced enough.” He had two years in Congress, and they didn’t end well.

But they ignored the empty space in his resume, and picked the man who had done so well in the famous Lincoln-Douglas Debates. They picked the talented speaker, the man who could effectively pitch their politics to the public. They picked the guy who seemed to be good at reaching across the aisle, across lines of rivalry, who brought people into the party.

And for that risk, We got a President who won a war to keep this nation whole, and the Republicans got a politician whose contributions would keep the party in power for decades on end.

Democrats today are willing to take a risk on an inexperienced but talented politician, who seems poised to lead the country in a different direction. Once long ago, the Republicans did the same and profited from it. Why should we not take the risk?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 28, 2008 4:55 PM
Comment #246693

Rheinold, check this link regarding Bush as second coming of Christ.

Posted by: 4@+,/21+3(:) at February 28, 2008 5:23 PM
Comment #246696


I would think that inexperience could be an admirable trait when one consideres what a terrible mess experienced politicians have made of our goverment and our popularity in the world. Dick Cheney has about half a century of government experience. That is a half a century of experience that this country could have done without and we would have been far better off if we had. George Bush might have had a successful presidency if he hadn’t handed so much power to Cheney.

While I am not euphoric over Obama, I would much rather take a chance on his inexperience than McCain’s experience.

The problem that Republicans have is that they are still saddled to a failed president but, more importantly, they spent years stockpiling amunition to use against Hillary and the Democrats are stabing them in the back. The Republicans have very little effective amunition to use against Obama. If they call him a liberal, it reminds the voters that conservatives have made the mess in Washington. If they say he is inexperienced, it reminds the voters that experienced politicians made the mess. The Republicans can air Obama’s dirty laundry in public but, compared to an experienced politician like McCain, Obama’s dirty laundry looks remarkably clean.

Another problem that Republicans are facing with Obama is momentum. It can be very powerful in an election. If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, it will be because of the enthusiasm that his campaign has generated. When McCain gets the Republican nomination it will be by default.

Posted by: jlw at February 28, 2008 5:31 PM
Comment #246698

Stephen:

Yes, I am bringing up all those people, since you’ve created this criteria for being a good president, as a way to prove your point wrong by counterexample.

No I am not creating a criteria for a good president.

I am saying that Obama is inexperienced and has a weak resume’. He will make history if nominated as being the least experience in modern history.

I will therefore make another point that is directly supporting this thread. He has the highest risk of implosion of any nominee in modern history simply because of his unknown quantity.

The subject of this thread is whether or not Obama will implode. I think there is a risk of this. We are looking at an emotional sale. Many times, emotional sales end up in regret.

jlw

While I am not euphoric over Obama, I would much rather take a chance on his inexperience than McCain’s experience.

Take a look over your life. When you are highly emotional do you make your best decisions?

What you are saying is that the the people with the most emotion are correct.

I would argue that over time, emotional decisions are not as good as rational ones.

Obama is leading because he makes people feel the best. Not good.

You mention momentum. I completely agree with you. We do buy and sell on momentum. That is exactly why 2000 was the number one year for starting tech funds, and why so many people bought homes with bad loans in 2005, and why you believe right now that this is different.

Momentum buying is very dangerous.

Really look at this thing. This does look like a classic bubble.

You can shoot the messenger. It’s not good for the country to have another bad presidency. We need to approach this election with some sense of rationality.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 28, 2008 6:07 PM
Comment #246699

Stephen:

Your pronouncements are a recipe for inaction though.

My pronouncement is for lower expectations.

Obama is probably going to be president. We need to look at what a former state legislator can do, and cannot do as President.

A non emotional look at his record in Illinois will give us some clues.


Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 28, 2008 6:11 PM
Comment #246702

Craig >So what did Obama do in that 8 or 9 years that the
Craig >American People should look to him and say, he is our guy?

Again, take out the word Obama and replace it with Dubya or McCain or Hillary; if you get the same answer, which I think you do, you have to admit the point is moot.

Sure Dubya was gov of TX; so what?
I guess you didn’t see the post that purports that the gov of TX is basically powerless. Other than that, though, he mostly managed to make millions running perfectly good companies into the ground - which obviously prepared him well for his term in the WH.

Posted by: 4@+,/21+3(:) at February 28, 2008 7:37 PM
Comment #246703

4@+,/21+3(:):

Again, take out the word Obama and replace it with Dubya or McCain or Hillary; if you get the same answer, which I think you do, you have to admit the point is moot.

Actually not. Hillary has a record on healthcare that goes back to 1992 on the national state. In addition she has been in the US Senate for 7 years from 2000, and was first lady for 8 years. In addition she is the first woman ever elected to the US Senate from New York and won reelection recently by a wide margin.

She has served in the Senate foreign relations committee for some time.

I think she is qualified to be president.

My point about Obama still stands. Obama has one of the thinnest resume’s ever for a candidate for the presidency from a major party.He has the least experience of any president in modern times.

It’s pretty obvious.

Somewhere you on the left are thinking I think he will make a bad president. What I think is that you are all making an emotional decision based on euphoria and that is not good for the country. It is also not good for these fine young people who most likely are about to get disappointed. The facts of Obama don’t match the euphoria. That doesn’t mean he wont make a good president. It means he wont meet you and your party’s expectations.

Let’s just say that there will be a big letdown after the honeymoon when the Euphoria is over and reality sets in. When that happens he will still be a liberal senator that will grow into the job. He will be more Clark Kent that Superman.

What I think is new, is the wide difference between talk and walk. I don’t think it has ever been this wide in a presidential campaign.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 28, 2008 8:04 PM
Comment #246709

Craig Holmes-
You’ve set the criteria implicitly. You’re looking for a war hero. You mention that time and time again. If this were a classified ad, you’d have set a certian number of years and said “those with military experience preferred”

You say he’ll implode because he’s underqualified. I’ve provide examples of those without multiple decades of political experience to demonstrate that Barack’s experience level is not that bad, that certainly we’ve had great leaders who didn’t need to have multiple decades in federal elected office or war records to govern well. Meanwhile, this is a guy who graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School after becoming the first black president of the Harvard Law review in its 104 year history, who, even while he was a state legislator, was a lecturer on Constitutional Law at the tier-one University of Chicago Law School.

As we look at his campaign, we’ve seen him able to alternatively create and take advantage of a strongly committed, strongly disciplined campaign, to raise money from individual donors alone, over a million at this point, and run the campaign properly off that money.

Obama’s the least likely to crater. So far, his detractors have had to resort to guilt by association, rather than actual nail things on him. He’s handled most of the pressing and controversial question with a grace and civility notable in today’s viciously adversarial times, and continues to work hard to win the states he needs to win.

Barack’s campaign is much more robust than his competitors. That’s why they’re having to resort to the vicious slime of the day to try and slow him down. You don’t constantly attack somebody who’s unstable, if you leave them alone. Such attacks are reserved for those who won’t collapse on their own, given the chance.

Or put another way, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, and this entry wouldn’t have been made if Republicans and Right-Wingers weren’t afraid he’d win. Ironically, the more they run their mouths on this, the more they might end up propelling him to victory.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 28, 2008 9:40 PM
Comment #246710

Craig,
The economy will probably be the main problem by November. McCain admits he is not knowledgeable aboout the economy. Obama has very limited knowledge too. McCain seems to favor continuing current policies. Obama favors changes.

Withdrawal from Iraq directly ties into the problems with the economy, because it is a horrendous drain, and contributes substantially to the burgeoning debt.

The Fed is about to lower the fed funds rate an additional half percent, and I think that’s a bad mistake. The Fed is printing money like crazy, money is being poured into banks in an effort to stave off collapse. The inflationary effects of the plunging dollar, along with commodity fueled inflation, is creating a situation much like the aftermath of Vietnam.

Only worse. Much worse.

It’s going to require drastic changes. Unfortunately, I doubt we, as a country, are capable of making the changes fast enough: tax increases, huge cuts military spending, withdrawing from Iraq, creating a lot of jobs, fast, in the US, stopping outsourcing, addressing entitlements, and so on.

Which means the next administration, regardless of whether it is Dem or Rep, will face a horrendous situation. It took a long time and some very bad policies to get into this position.

Posted by: phx8 at February 28, 2008 9:49 PM
Comment #246712

It’s interesting to hear about “Obama’s detractors” and the extraordinary lengths they gone to attack him, how well he has stood up to this massive onslaught, etc.

It’s interesting because it’s simply not true. The Hillary campaign has “attacked him”, I suppose, but while wearing kid gloves out of fear of alienating the Democratic base. Attacks from the right, so far, have been extraordinarily mild except from a handful of talk show hosts, people who have been directed their real ire against Hillary. The organized Republican campaign apparatus hasn’t even begun with Obama yet, but when they do, they aren’t going to worry in the least about the opinions of the Democratic base.

I have no idea how Obama will stand up to real attacks, real pressure, real scrutiny. Maybe he’ll do very well, but who knows? The real campaign hasn’t even started yet.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at February 28, 2008 10:06 PM
Comment #246716

LO-
So what will these real attacks be? Play the race card, play the pseudo-muslim card, beat up some more on his inexperience. play more on the Rezko thing, call him a Liberal?

The problem is, you will be going negative against a candidate who not only deals with negative attacks well, but often gets sympathy points in the bargain because of his gracious style.

So what will be your strategy: alienate the American people even more by throwing the Kitchen Sink at him?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 28, 2008 10:27 PM
Comment #246719

Loyal Opposition,

I have no idea how Obama will stand up to real attacks, real pressure, real scrutiny. Maybe he’ll do very well, but who knows? The real campaign hasn’t even started yet.

Hilarious! McCain has been directing comments and attacks towards Obama every single day for quite awhile now. At the same time, so have the Clinton’s. Nobody can stop talking about Barack Obama - including the folks in all of the political blogs, like this one. And the maddening part about that for everyone but his supporters is the fact that Obama has been gracefully, effortlessly, and indeed even politely, parrying these combined attacks from both the Clinton AND Republican machines!

Stephen:

Barack’s campaign is much more robust than his competitors. That’s why they’re having to resort to the vicious slime of the day to try and slow him down. You don’t constantly attack somebody who’s unstable, if you leave them alone. Such attacks are reserved for those who won’t collapse on their own, given the chance.

Or put another way, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, and this entry wouldn’t have been made if Republicans and Right-Wingers weren’t afraid he’d win.

Spot On. They’re terrified and completely freaked out, and none of them seem able to believe that this could actually be happening to a couple of aged, well entrenched politicians like McCain and Clinton. The Obama campaign is about trying to bring an end to the same old, corrupt, business-as-usual attitude we’ve seen in Washington for far too long, and while Obama may be the one at the wheel, it’s really the American people that are trying to moving our bus to better location. :^)

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at February 28, 2008 10:52 PM
Comment #246721

Stephen, the kinds of attacks I’m thinking of that will undoubtedly be forthcoming from Republicans have to do with (a) Obama’s past political record and (b) the content of his policy proposals for the future.

These are NOT matters that have been aired to any great extent so far because Obama’s record and proposals aren’t areas of concern for Democratic primary voters, large segments of which probably agree with him.

How many people know for example, about Obama’s consistent anti-gun voting record? That he’s voted in the past for an outright ban on the manufacture, sale or possession of handguns? That he’s supported legislation allowing criminals to sue their victims if their victims shoot them? Now, Democrats might not challenge him on such issues, but do you imagine that such things aren’t going to get a full airing in a general election? That powerful political forces like the NRA—which so far have concentrated on Hillary—aren’t going to turn their whole attention onto Obama?

How about the fact that while in the Illinois Senate Obama voted to allow porn shops to open within 1,000 feet of churches and elementary schools? Is that “change” we can believe in?

How about his very extreme pro-abortion positions—how many know that unlike even Hillary, Obama does not favor legal protection for infants that survive abortions? How about driver’s licenses for illegal aliens?

These and a wide range of other issues have not even been DISCUSSED yet, and a lot of current Obama supporters don’t even know about them.

But they will, believe me. Such debates won’t finish him off because there are many who agree these positions—though not as many who currently support him. He is clearly an adept politician who will be able to deflect such attacks on his positions, and John McCain will have many problems of his own that will undoubtedly offset many of the difficulties Obama faces.

But no matter what, Obama isn’t going to be able to gather sympathy and support from now until November for being “attacked” whenever anybody mentions his actual policy record. And he won’t be able to remain a cypher onto which so many project their sentimental hopes and dreams for “change” once the content of the kind of “change” he represents gets a fair hearing.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at February 28, 2008 11:19 PM
Comment #246722

Phx8:

Which means the next administration, regardless of whether it is Dem or Rep, will face a horrendous situation. It took a long time and some very bad policies to get into this position.

You are dead on in this. I think the only way to solve some of these problems is something I heard Hillary say. She used Reagan and Tip Oneal as an expample of how to get out of the entitlement issue. She was saying basically that she wasn’t going to lock herself into a position today, because in the end she was willing to sign something bipartison that she could “live with”.

I think that is correct. This big problem of healthcare (entitlements) is too big for either party to pass alone. Well practically one party would need to get over 60 votes in the Senate anyway.

I am for experience this time around. I think the stakes are two high to put a novice no matter how eloquent he is in the whitehouse. Those here can think that the liberal solution or the conservative solution is best. I don’t think that is the answer. I think the solution that can pass congress as imperfect as it might be is the answer.

It will probably have more tax increases than I am comfortable with, and more benefit cuts than you are comfortable with, but for the good of the ocuntry, it probably needs to be done.

I trust Hillary or McCain in crafting such a compromise. I don’t think Obama has the background or experience to “get ‘er done”. His proposals look pretty basic and liberal. the kind the right will just block.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 29, 2008 12:37 AM
Comment #246723

Phx8:

In other times I would be anti Hillary because I can’t stand her husband. He just cannot shut up. But in our current state of affairs, I think she would be better than Obama.

My choices are 1. McCain, 2. Clinton, 3. Obama.

I can live with 1./. or 2.

I also don’t want Obama for Commander and Chief. He is too much of an idealoge. Wow, when he says what he is going to do to the military it makes my skin crawl. He is so anti military. He wants to casterate them and then fight a war on terror.

I think he is a new kid on the block who needs to learn some more before he plays with the big toys.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 29, 2008 12:42 AM
Comment #246725
How many people know for example, about Obama’s consistent anti-gun voting record?

Obama is not anti-gun. Look at the facts:
Barack Obama on Gun Control
Then if you want, compare them to McCain’s stances:
John McCain on Gun Control

How about the fact that while in the Illinois Senate Obama voted to allow porn shops to open within 1,000 feet of churches and elementary schools? Is that “change” we can believe in?

No, that’s a lie. He didn’t vote for it, he voted present. Why? This from an article in the NYT:

Mr. Obama was also the sole present vote on a bill that easily passed the Senate that would require teaching respect for others in schools. He also voted present on a measure to prohibit sex-related shops from opening near schools or places of worship. It passed the Senate.
In both of those cases, his campaign said, he was trying to avoid mandates on local authorities.

If Republicans have a problem with this it must mean that the GOP now wants micromanagement of decency at the federal level, and to be able to preempt the rights of any community that doesn’t responded exactly the way they advocate.

How about his very extreme pro-abortion positions

Again, you want micromanagement of decency at the federal level. Obama doesn’t want to micromanage, he trusts women to make abortion decisions for themselves:

Obama’s record in Illinois represents that of a pragmatic progressive, who pushed for moderate reforms and opposed right-wing legislation. In the IL legislature, voting “present” is the equivalent of voting “no” because a majority of “yes” votes are required for passage. Many IL legislators use the “present” vote as an evasion on an unpopular choice, so that they can avoid being targeted for voting “no.” During the 2004 Democratic primary, an opponent mocked Obama’s “present” vote on abortion bills with flyers portraying a rubber duck and the words, “He ducked!”.

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.

Q: What us your view on the decision on partial-birth abortion and your reaction to most of the public agreeing with the court’s holding?

A: I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don’t make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy. And I think that’s where most Americans are. Now, when you describe a specific procedure that accounts for less than 1% of the abortions that take place, then naturally, people get concerned, and I think legitimately so. But the broader issue here is: Do women have the right to make these profoundly difficult decisions? And I trust them to do it. There is a broader issue: Can we move past some of the debates around which we disagree and can we start talking about the things we do agree on? Reducing teen pregnancy; making it less likely for women to find themselves in these circumstances.

link

These and a wide range of other issues have not even been DISCUSSED yet, and a lot of current Obama supporters don’t even know about them.

If people are truly curious and not interested in being spoon-fed propaganda, the facts are actually very easy to find.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at February 29, 2008 12:49 AM
Comment #246727
you want micromanagement of decency at the federal level

So, micromanagement of decency is off of the table but micromanagement of charity is ok?

BTW, I do have an actual serious question. Why did Obama vote ‘present’ instead of ‘no’? You seemed to indicate that there was a reason behind it, I am just curious what that is, because on the surface it seems to be a bit disengenuous…

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 29, 2008 12:56 AM
Comment #246728

Craig,
There’s plenty about Hillary I can put down, but she does bring a lot of experience to the table, and a team that could be very good at addressing the problems the next administration will face.

If McCain would just stop pandering to his base, and put his best foot forward- his ability to work with both sides of the aisle- I’d be a lot happier with him. He’s dead wrong on Iraq, but economic circumstances may force the next administration’s hand, regardless of what they wish.

I’m not too concerned with Obama’s liberal take on matters. Being a liberal, that’s not surprising. But as you noted, it will take a president who can reach across the aisle, and put together 60 votes in the Senate & a large bloc in the House, in order to ‘get er done.’ Circumstances are going to limit the next administration’s choices.

I’m seriously worried about the economy. It has a huge effect on my job, because I am in an area which is extremely sensitive to the economy. Talk about gun control and other peripheral issues won’t add up to a hill of beans if the dollar keeps plunging, and inflation goes out of control.

Posted by: phx8 at February 29, 2008 1:11 AM
Comment #246729

Veritas, it’s interesting that you say that Obama isn’t anti-gun and then offer as proof a link that outlines a number of extremely radical anti-gun positions. Obama, according to your link, wants to “ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.”

Now, I realize that a lot of anti-gun types don’t know the difference between semi-automatic weapons and machine guns, but this—Obama’s position—is one that would effectively ban outright a very high percentage of guns. Well over half of the handguns sold in the US are semi-automatics.

It’s also interesting that Obama—and his supporters—seem to think that Obama can weasel out of responsibility for everything under the sun by having voted “present” instead of taking principled stands. This is how they try to turn the very thinness of his record and his wishy-washy rhetoric unmatched by deeds into a virtue.

But you know what, when a bill comes up that would allow a porn shop to open across the street from a school, you vote against it. Refusing to cast a vote that follows the public position you’ve already takes is not being a leader—it’s being a weasel.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at February 29, 2008 1:13 AM
Comment #246730

Rhinehold:

So, micromanagement of decency is off of the table but micromanagement of charity is ok?

Question: Do you never tire of boorishly inserting what you consider to be “forced charity” into every thread you choose to comment in? You’ve had this argument so frequently, and with so damn many people, I would think you’d be a little bored with it by now.
Anyway, I’ll answer, but I’m also informing you that I refuse to debate your favorite off-topic topic with you any further.
Yes, micromanagement of decency is off the table. Those are the sort of personal choices that are no one elses business. Social programs (which in your lexicon becomes “forced charity”) are not intrusive into our personal lives, they are there only to keep a certain percentage of our fellow citizens from falling into the torturous ravages of unchecked poverty and/or total neglect in old age. Without them, we actually risk our own lives through increased crime (since desperate people are often driven to acts of desperation) and through various diseases which could run rampant throughout our entire society.
So, the answer is: Yes. Social Programs are ok, because the vast majority don’t want America to resemble a third world nation in any way, shape, or form.


BTW, I do have an actual serious question. Why did Obama vote ‘present’ instead of ‘no’? You seemed to indicate that there was a reason behind it, I am just curious what that is, because on the surface it seems to be a bit disengenuous…

This was addressed in one of the blockquotes in my last post. It begins: “Obama’s record in Illinois—” Basically it is a way for someone to vote “no” on a piece of legislation that may have a lot of problems, yet not allow the opposition to automatically have a reason to smear them endlessly for a “yes” vote afterward.
Hence, the GOP is forced to lie about something, and a Democrat such as myself can then come along and be able to debunk it, like I just did with that porn shop lie.

Loyal:

Veritas, it’s interesting that you say that Obama isn’t anti-gun and then offer as proof a link that outlines a number of extremely radical anti-gun positions.

Perhaps it seems that way to the most rabid of NRA and militia members? To me, it appears that Obama’s positions aren’t in any way anti-Second Amendment, nor anti-sportsman.
Instead it seems his positions are more anti-street thug, anti-gangbanger, and anti-crazy-student-timebomb-ready-to-blow.
Just my take on it.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at February 29, 2008 2:23 AM
Comment #246731

I’d vote against that law, and most other laws for that matter. If your community has a thriving porn shop next to your kids school you have bigger problems than any law could ever fix. If the market doesn’t put it out of business then it’s time to move away from the wierdos you live by.
People need to start being accountable for themselves and stop looking for the government to save them.

Posted by: andy at February 29, 2008 3:49 AM
Comment #246735

Veritas-

Perhaps it seems that way to the most rabid of NRA and militia members?

A ban on “the sale or transfer of all forms of semi automatic weapons” is about as anti-gun as it gets and goes further towards an outright ban on gun ownership than any other legislation proposed in history. You don’t have to be a rabid NRA member to identify such an ignorant position.

Clinton can’t attack this now but it’s fair game for the GOP this fall. If he espouses this on the campaign trail he will lose OH, PA and FL in November.

Posted by: George in SC at February 29, 2008 9:15 AM
Comment #246737

“To me, it appears that Obama’s positions aren’t in any way anti-Second Amendment, nor anti-sportsman.”

Take it from an actual sportsman in Ohio, we use semi-automatics. The Remington 1100 and 1187 model semi-automatic shotguns are a favorite of deer hunters, and semi-automatic .22 caliber rifles are a mainstay for small game hunting. Semi-automatic simply means the gun chambers the next round automatically after each shot, without having to be cocked, pumped, bolted, or broken down. Proposing a ban on such popular firearms would be political suicide here in OH. (Go for it BHO!!!!)

Posted by: Duane-o at February 29, 2008 10:48 AM
Comment #246738

Duane-o,
Anyone who hunts with a semi-automatic is not a “sportsman.” That is just killing for fun.

Posted by: phx8 at February 29, 2008 10:54 AM
Comment #246740

Phx8, why, pray tell, is anyone who hunts with a semi-automatic not a sportsman?

But first let me ask this: do you know what a semi-automatic is?

I ask because I don’t see why anyone would consider it more “sporting” to use some manual reloading mechanism (i.e. a pump action or bolt action rifle) which increases the potential for letting wounded animals escape and/or increases their suffering instead of mercifully and humanely killing them quickly.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at February 29, 2008 11:07 AM
Comment #246742

phx8, have you ever hunted? A semi-automatic can fire five rounds in the time it takes a pump action to fire three, maybe four. Not that big a difference. Liberals who have never fired a gun in their lives seem to think a semi-auto is a machine gun. It’s not even close. And by the way, your “killing for fun” statement: Why do you think they call us “sportsmen”? Nobody is relying on squirrel meat for survival here in OH, despite the state of our economy. An end to “killing for fun” would wreak havoc on our ecosystems, but who am I, a simple country boy, to lecture the Seattle, Chicago, New York, and San Francisco liberals on the environmental management of Ohio? I’ve only lived here all my life.

Posted by: Duane-o at February 29, 2008 11:36 AM
Comment #246743

_http://www.ilga.gov/search/LISGSApage.asp?q=obama&site=leg90
_http://www.ilga.gov/search/LISGSApage.asp?q=obama&site=leg91
_http://www.ilga.gov/search/LISGSApage.asp?q=obama&site=leg92
_http://www.ilga.gov/search/LISGSApage.asp?q=obama&site=leg93
_http://www.ilga.gov/search/LISGSApage.asp?q=obama&site=leg94
_http://www.ilga.gov/search/LISGSApage.asp?q=obama&site=leg95



Senator Barack Obama (D), 13th District - 93rd General Assembly

This link is to bills that have Senator Obama as the primary sponsor.
This is the only year a listing of this sort is available, that I could find.

These are mentions of Barack Obama in house resolutions while a U.S. Senator.


13 WHEREAS, The Illinois House of Representatives wishes to
14 recognize and to express its appreciation to the many who made
15 the Shelter a reality; they include…
…Senator 1 Barack Obama;…

_http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/95/HR/09500HR0121.htm

WHEREAS, She has garnered national attention for the Cool 3 Globes exhibit by having high profile personalities 4 participate and put out a globe of their own, with former 5 President Bill Clinton, Senator Barack Obama, Leonardo 6 DiCaprio, and Jodie Foster each taking a part in the Cool 7 Globes exhibit;
_http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/95/HR/09500HR0275.htm
3 RESOLVED, That a copy of this resolution be delivered to 4 President George W. Bush, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, 5 Governor Rod R. Blagojevich, Senator Richard Durbin, Senator 6 Barack Obama, and each of the members of the Illinois 7 Congressional delegation.
_http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/95/HJR/09500HJ0027.htm Posted by: Weary Willie at February 29, 2008 11:39 AM
Comment #246744
Question: Do you never tire of boorishly inserting what you consider to be “forced charity” into every thread you choose to comment in? You’ve had this argument so frequently, and with so damn many people, I would think you’d be a little bored with it by now.

I’m sorry, but no. As long as we are being immoral in forcibly taking property from one person and giving to another, I will keep bringing it up. Perhaps once we end this practice I will be quiet about it.

BUT, what I find funny is that you have been as rabid, and boorish if you will, in your rabid defense of your cult leader Obama. Yet that’s ok, because… Well, I can’t think of anything.

Finally, it was clear, by reading the next statement I made that you quoted as well, that I was being humorous about that comment. That you a) missed it and b) stayed in rabid defense mode is further telling.

Have fun defending Obama for the next, well, hopefully for you 10 months I suppose. I have a feeling that it will a long arduous battle, but if you are up for the task, enjoy!

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 29, 2008 12:06 PM
Comment #246745
He [Dubya] also had been a military officer.

ROTFLMAO!!

And Bush had been reelected by an overwelming amount.

An “overwhelming” 51% of those voting??? The lowest possibly majority…

Posted by: Rachel at February 29, 2008 12:31 PM
Comment #246748

Yes, I’ve hunted. I was encouraged by the adults around me to think it was ok. Some of the hunting was for food. I’ve eaten fried rabbit, but not squirrel. There really isn’t much meat on a squirrel. Anyway, through personal moral development I came to realize my hunting was cruel, and wrong.

So I’ll drop the topic, and request that anyone who hunts for “sport” ask themselves what they are doing when they kill an animal, and if it is right.

Posted by: phx8 at February 29, 2008 12:46 PM
Comment #246749

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?GA=93&DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=573&GAID=3&SessionID=3&LegID=3218
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=052000050K2.24
It is unlawful for any person to knowingly take any all‑white whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in this State at any time.


Posted by: Weary Willie at February 29, 2008 1:01 PM
Comment #246753

705 ILCS 105/27.3b
Synopsis As Introduced


Amends the Clerks of Courts Act. Permits the clerk of the circuit court to accept credit card payments over the Internet for fines, penalties, or costs from offenders on voluntary electronic pleas of guilty in minor traffic and conservation offenses.

This is a good thing.
Streamlining a contribution to our government so as not to interfere much with our making a living.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 29, 2008 1:20 PM
Comment #246754

Phx8,
If you were to “shoot on sight” a deer in the road, instead of letting it stand there and get hit by a 60,000$ beemer, our full-coverage insurance for new automobiles would be cheaper.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 29, 2008 1:38 PM
Comment #246755

Do you take note? The white tailed whitetail deer and minor traffic and conservation offenses

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 29, 2008 1:49 PM
Comment #246756

Does this have anything to do with the topic at hand?


Child Care and Development Advisory Council

Child Care and Early Education
Legislation Summaries 2006
NCSL Home > State & Federal Issues: Issue Areas > Human Services > Child Care and Early Education Legislation Summaries 2006
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/2006legsum.htm#il
Illinois
2006 Ill. Laws, SB 1497, PA 94-1054

Directs the State Board of Education to administer funds to conduct voluntary preschool educational programs for children ages 3 to 5. Specifies that these funds must supplement, not supplant, funds received from any other source. Requires teachers to have an early childhood teaching certificate.

Assigns the Board of Education to be the primary source of funding, over the next two years, through appropriations for the program. Specifies that the first funding priority will be those programs that serve primarily at-risk children, and that the second priority is those programs that serve primarily children with a family income of less than four times the federal poverty guidelines. After June 30, 2008, appropriated funds must be distributed for the benefit of children who are subject to such disadvantages that they are at risk of academic failure. Requires the State Board of Education to annually report, by November 1 of each year, to the General Assembly on how the new funds were allocated.


2006 Ill. Laws, SB 2202, PA 94-1034

Permits the student teaching portion of the practical experience requirement for an Early Childhood Certificate to be satisfied through placement in any prekindergarten through third grade classroom. Specifies that the supervising teacher must be certified and qualified in early childhood education. Permits certain paraprofessionals to be paid while receiving credit for student teaching with a current employer, as long as the position meets the requirements of the certificate program.


2006 Ill. Laws, SB 2882, PA 94-0894

Creates a K-3 pilot class size reduction program, to be administered and implemented by the State Board of Education. Assigns the State Board of Education to develop the application process and a formula to distribute funds. Authorizes the funds to be used to defray the costs and expenses of operating and maintaining K-3 classes with no more than 15 students per class.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 29, 2008 2:01 PM
Comment #246757

A cursory glance at his career shows a bias towards a government approach to solving every problem. He includes private participation but makes no accomidation to it in his proposals.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 29, 2008 2:03 PM
Comment #246758

He includes private participation in his retoric but makes no accomodation to it in his proposals.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 29, 2008 2:21 PM
Comment #246759

George:

A ban on “the sale or transfer of all forms of semi automatic weapons” is about as anti-gun as it gets and goes further towards an outright ban on gun ownership than any other legislation proposed in history. You don’t have to be a rabid NRA member to identify such an ignorant position.

This will probably sound confusing, but laws often are extremely specific, even when they go by simplistic definitions. I just did a little research on the state law that was being voted on there, and it appears that what they were defining as “all semi-automatic weapons” did NOT include handguns and sporting rifles that have double-action triggers and mechanisms which most of us think of as semi-automatic. Basically, it looks like the Illinois legislature was making an attempt to ban the sale and transfer of specific types of guns that were being used to commit the most crimes and deaths in their inner cities.

No doubt all the gun nuts will have a very serious problem with that, because you just never know when you’re going to need to blast a squirrel out of a tree in an inner city neighborhood, and a semi-automatic with a double action trigger isn’t going to quite cut the mustard.

Clinton can’t attack this now but it’s fair game for the GOP this fall. If he espouses this on the campaign trail he will lose OH, PA and FL in November.

Please. Do you really think it’s news to Democrats that the GOP considers everything that can be scraped together (or made up out of whole cloth) as fair game to attack our candidate?
That being said, I wonder how some of McCain’s previous positions are going to sit with the gun nuts?
For instance:

McCain said he was open to voting for an assault weapon ban, depending on the details.
McCain spoke generally of the need for some tighter gun controls on hardened criminals and children. In Congress, he pressured his colleagues to require background checks for buyers at guns shows, and he supported a requirement that trigger locks be sold with handguns.

These kinds of statements are often strictly interpreted as “anti-Second Amendment” to the NRA and militia types, are they not?

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at February 29, 2008 2:25 PM
Comment #246760

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentii

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 29, 2008 3:04 PM
Comment #246761

hEY vv
i GOT ANUTHER PICANIC BASKET FOR YOU!

Quigely Down Under is a good example of how someone uses a weapon to inforce their will on another person.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 29, 2008 3:07 PM
Comment #246762

LO-
First, I have no desire to make my choice based on what the Republican Party wants to do to our candidate, or will try to do. In my experience, that’s a gutless approach to politics, especially against the bullies that Republicans have become. We want somebody who won’t back down on our core values, not somebody who, when put to the test in the Senate, decided to fall in line with the Neocon Right as a political calculation.

As for your notions about his votes?

First, if you tell folks he’s a liberal, I’m not thinking people will gasp in surprise.

Second, you’re making some false assumptions right off the bat. There are often reason for voting against a bill, especially when you get past the putative purpose to what the language of the bill actually says.

As for Drivers License for illegal immigrants? Read this, and see if you still take that position.

First, license records are more complete than most other records. He goes on to say this:

Removing the 8 million-15 million illegal immigrants from these databases would only make law enforcement harder. Of course, the unlicensed won’t pack up and leave. They will drive without licenses, increasing insurance premiums for everyone. They will use fake IDs, buy real IDs from crooked DMV employees - as several of the 9/11 terrorists did - forge “breeder documents” to get real IDs (another 9/11 terrorist trick), or resort to identity theft. These millions of people will continue to live and work in this country, invisible to any government database and therefore the police.

Additionally, he asks, how is this DMV clerks supposed to verify a person’s status?

Finally, there’s this:
A 2003 American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators report concludes: “Digital images from driver’s licenses have significantly aided law enforcement agencies charged with homeland security. The 19 (9/11) terrorists obtained driver licenses from several states, and federal authorities relied heavily on these images for the identification of the individuals responsible.”

What we have here is the confusion about the value of certain approaches. We have our movie and story-book fantasies about what might work, the emotional appeal of shutting out the barbarian invaders the illegal immigrants, as opposed to the practical problem.

This, I think, is part of the reason many people don’t take the Republicans as seriously as they once did. People have learned the hard way that laws intended to make Americans safer don’t always do so.

The gap between intention and result is important. Who do you want legislating for you, somebody who lets a crappy law go through because of political considerations, or somebody willing to hazard the cheap political oversimplifications for the sake of getting it right?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 29, 2008 3:13 PM
Comment #246763

Pardon me here, this last part was meant to be blockquoted:

A 2003 American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators report concludes: “Digital images from driver’s licenses have significantly aided law enforcement agencies charged with homeland security. The 19 (9/11) terrorists obtained driver licenses from several states, and federal authorities relied heavily on these images for the identification of the individuals responsible.”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 29, 2008 3:15 PM
Comment #246764

Weary Willie-
Tell me something: does the right to bear arms mean all arms in all situation, in any way, shape or form, or can we put limits on the kinds of weapons people are allowed to own, along with the time, places, and manner of their carrying and use?

This is the crux of the matter here, and the absolutist NRA position kind of ignores that question.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 29, 2008 3:18 PM
Comment #246766

I kind of have to wonder at the credibility of the claim that Obama is nearest to collapsewhen John McCain only raised 12 million in February.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 29, 2008 3:24 PM
Comment #246767

The only reason Quigley was in Austrailia was because of his weapon. When he got there he was stuck there. He was lied to and he threw the liar out of his house.

He accepted his environment by waiting for the hail of bullets that would greet him but instead, he was “saved” by a minority when that minority hit him over the head with a shovel.

He suffered and prevailed and when he had won and stood in front of the prevailing “federal” government. His “savior” steps forward with a hundred-thousand supporters to protect Quigley.

Lincoln may be the sole reason the republican party is in existance but the current challenge by Mr. Obama may very well lead to a third party challenge that would put Obama on par with Lincoln.

via. arguements made

If Obama does not get the Democratic Party Nomination for President there will be resentment among minorities. He could very well inspire the formation of a new party. One that will put Obama on an equal footing with Lincoln.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 29, 2008 3:27 PM
Comment #246768

Veritas-

According to the link you provided that statement came from a State Legislative National Political Awareness Test and not specific legislation. I can’t find a copy of his test answers (there is a copy of a similar test out there but not this one) but you have to assume it is his political position.

Skip the gun argument for a moment (such a ban could never be enacted at the Federal level) and just put that statement into political space. That statement is terrible politics at a national level. When asked about it, and he will be asked, if he doesn’t back away then he will lose the independents and the blue dogs in the States previously mentioned.

As for McCain’s positions they don’t really matter to me because I won’t be voting for him. I think he was a “C” from the NRA for a long time until he got in hot water supporting limits on private transfers.

Posted by: George in SC at February 29, 2008 3:35 PM
Comment #246769

Stephen Daugherty,

The right to “bear arms” includes any means needed to protect one’s self, home, family, property.

An honest person would agree to this.

You do not. You’re motives are in question.
The right to one’s security is fundamental. It is a Human Right. An independent person would take that responsibility onto himself, not expect the government to do it for him.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 29, 2008 3:37 PM
Comment #246770

The idea that giving driver’s licenses to illegals offers certain benefits to law enforcement(keeping track of their locations, cutting down on the traffic of illegal ids, etc) is undoubtedly true.

But in exactly the same way that handing out syringes full of heroin to junkies would cut down on the illegal drug trade and allow cops to keep an eye on their behavior.

Such solutions are only seen as desirable when you already refuse to enforce or inneffectively enforce the laws to begin with. In other words, a classic liberal solution to a problem.

If we actually did enter the information for illegal aliens into a driver’s license database as you suggest, then why not use that information to find and deport the illegals?

Who wants to bet that ENFORCING the immigration laws using these means would be expressly forbidden by any bills giving licenses to illegals? Of course enforcing the law, once you have their names and home addresses would HAVE to be forbidden, otherwise illegals wouldn’t sign up for such licenses.

Why not just follow such a policy to its logical conclusion? If illegals are given Social Security numbers, public housing, public benefits, and all the benefits of citizenship, then it will be even easier to keep track of them!

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at February 29, 2008 3:49 PM
Comment #246771

Stephen may agree with the second amendment, but his motives should be in question.

How can anyone put faith in a government/party that does not protect them?

Crime is not a natural occurance!
Abnormal wear is exactly that! Abnormal!!

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 29, 2008 3:56 PM
Comment #246772

Tell me this tidbit, Mr Daugherty,
Should a challenger in a chess game play without his rook and knight and win before he is qualified to be a contender in your game?

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 29, 2008 3:59 PM
Comment #246773

Stephen-

On your 2nd Amendment question, it depends on who is the “we” you are referring to. I think you can agree that the Federal Government is significantly barred from infringement of individuals possessing guns. That’s why all of the Federal legislation as well as funding for the ATF are based upon the Commerce Clause.

I think you can also agree that the 20th Century court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment has fundamentally changed the meaning of the Constitution. In this case it has probably expanded the right of the individual under the 2nd beyond what was originally envisioned. I personally don’t have a problem with local gun ordinances but I do see a conflict with them and an expanded 2nd. Hopefully the D.C. case will give us some good insight here.

Posted by: George in SC at February 29, 2008 4:02 PM
Comment #246774

I doubt it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 29, 2008 4:15 PM
Comment #246776
I think you can also agree that the 20th Century court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment has fundamentally changed the meaning of the Constitution.

In this case

I personally don’t have a problem with local gun ordinances

Hopefully the D.C. case…


Who was that masked man!


Hail the great DC case! Nine Gods to the rescue! Hail the nine gods!

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 29, 2008 4:23 PM
Comment #246777

Phx8:

I’m seriously worried about the economy. It has a huge effect on my job, because I am in an area which is extremely sensitive to the economy. Talk about gun control and other peripheral issues won’t add up to a hill of beans if the dollar keeps plunging, and inflation goes out of control.

What you are watching is just the third great bubble (commodities). If you go back and look at history, we used to have recessions about every 4 to 5 yeas. Now they are far less frequent. This sounds weird but we have traded recessions for bubbles. The economy has to have some outlet for excess.

The fed is doing a good job doing what we “hired” them to do. Inflation is much lower than it used to be, and the economy has a much lower standard of deviation. That is the good news. They have learned to do their job.

You know the old saying be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

Here’s is what I expect in the economy. Either we will whistle past the grave yard and miss a recession, or we will have a mild one. The fed will make sure of that by loose money and low interest rates.

Then when the coast is clear, they will signal no more rate cuts and boom, commodities will fall. Unemployment will ease upwards, but still be low by historical norms. It will feel like a recession, just like it does now.


Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 29, 2008 4:33 PM
Comment #246779

Veritas Vincit


” “all semi-automatic weapons” did NOT include handguns and sporting rifles that have double-action triggers and mechanisms which most of us think of as semi-automatic. Basically, it looks like the Illinois legislature was making an attempt to ban the sale and transfer of specific types of guns that were being used to commit the most crimes and deaths in their inner cities.”

never seen a semi automatic rifle with a double action trigger. as for handguns, all a double action trigger does is allow the gun to be fired without having to cock the hammer for the first shot, after that a single action, and a double action semi auto handgun work exactly the same way. so what is it this worthless law is going toaccomplish other than restrict the availability of quality firearms to law abbiding citizen?

there is no mechanical difference between a semi auto hunting rifle and an ak47 both operate exactly the same way. they use gas pressure to cycle the action and feed the next round into the chamber. the only difference is cosmetic.

Posted by: dbs at February 29, 2008 4:42 PM
Comment #246780

phx8

“Duane-o,
Anyone who hunts with a semi-automatic is not a “sportsman.” That is just killing for fun.”


where do you come up with this stuff? just because someone chooses to use a self loading rifle or shot gun doesn’t mean they’re out there unloading the gun as fast as they can pull the trigger. thats like saying everyone who owns a ferrari is out there driving at 180mph. kinda silly don’t you think?

Posted by: dbs at February 29, 2008 4:48 PM
Comment #246782
The fed is doing a good job doing what we “hired” them to do.

We didn’t hire them at all. It is mandated by law that the fed is even in existance. Let’s have a vote on it’s existance, beginning with a 10 year education program on how the federal reserve came into existance and where it’s fundamental stratagies originated.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 29, 2008 5:01 PM
Comment #246783

George:

According to the link you provided that statement came from a State Legislative National Political Awareness Test and not specific legislation.

Right, but they did give a date of 1998, so I went and looked for what was being written about the topic of gun-banning in Illinois during that time frame. What I found were a few mentions of a possible ban being imposed on certain specific types of semi-automatics, but not those with double-action triggers (which are commonly considered semi-automatic).

I can’t find a copy of his test answers (there is a copy of a similar test out there but not this one) but you have to assume it is his political position.

You know, I couldn’t find a copy of that either. And you know what? If neither of us was able to find it, why should we then assume that this is actually Obama’s position? That means we’d both have to be willing to take the word of that website. I don’t know about you, but I really don’t feel comfortable doing that kind of thing. I try to make certain that when I’m writing about something, I’m not just shoveling a bunch of BS.

Skip the gun argument for a moment (such a ban could never be enacted at the Federal level) and just put that statement into political space. That statement is terrible politics at a national level.

But is it a terrible statement that he actually made? Or, alternately, was it a terribly worded question on that “political awareness test”? Until we could know with certainty, it wouldn’t be fair to speculate.

When asked about it, and he will be asked, if he doesn’t back away then he will lose the independents and the blue dogs in the States previously mentioned.

Depends on what he actually said, and what his true position really is, don’t you think? On his website, however, does say this:

Barack Obama did not grow up hunting and fishing, but he recognizes the great conservation legacy of America’s hunters and anglers and has great respect for the passion that hunters and anglers have for their sport. Were it not for America’s hunters and anglers, including the great icons like Theodore Roosevelt and Aldo Leopold, our nation would not have the tradition of sound game management, a system of ethical, science-based game laws and an extensive public lands estate on which to pursue the sport. Obama recognizes that we must forge a broad coalition if we are to address the great conservation challenges we face. America’s hunters and anglers are a key constituency that must take an active role and have a powerful voice in this coalition.

It also gives a link to a pdf for more info on the topic. To me, that statement doesn’t sound at all like Obama is anti-Second Amendment or anti-sportsman.

As for McCain’s positions they don’t really matter to me because I won’t be voting for him. I think he was a “C” from the NRA for a long time until he got in hot water supporting limits on private transfers.

Maybe the McCain campaign will want to avoid bringing up the topic entirely if his rating isn’t so high?

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at February 29, 2008 5:03 PM
Comment #246785
.. I think he was a “C” from the NRA for a long time until he got in hot water supporting limits on private transfers.

Was McCain involved with an effort to limit the number of sales of firearms by individual gun dealers in the late 80’s or early 90’s?

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 29, 2008 5:13 PM
Comment #246786

“What I found were a few mentions of a possible ban being imposed on certain specific types of semi-automatics, but not those with double-action triggers (which are commonly considered semi-automatic).”

this comment makes no sense. like i tried to point out earlier. it’s obvious that any one who would make it has no knowlege, or understanding of firearms period.

Posted by: dbs at February 29, 2008 5:16 PM
Comment #246787

“Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.”

Posted by: dbs at February 29, 2008 5:19 PM
Comment #246791

Willie-

McCain got in trouble with the NRA a few years ago when he and Lieberman worked against what was termed the “gun show loophole”. Of course it’s not a loophole; how can the Federal Government pass legislation on intrastate commerce between individuals? I don’t think they liked campaign finance either but that’s not gun related.

NOTE: I know an individual in North Augusta SC that advertised a gun in the local trade paper and sold it to someone in Augusta, GA a few miles away. He’s about to do 5 years in the Federal pen. for this (he got caught up in an ATF sting). If you live in border areas beware!

Posted by: George in SC at February 29, 2008 5:33 PM
Comment #246792

Double action triggers are 2 triggers, one needing to be pulled before the other. Both could be pulled at once but the final result is one round being fired.

The purpose of a 2 trigger apparatice is safety.
One trigger must be pulled before the second trigger can be pulled.

I can’t think of any semi automatic weapon being constructed with a double action trigger.

Unless I’m wrong. But what difference would it make.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 29, 2008 5:40 PM
Comment #246793

Weary Willie

a double action trigger is one which performs 2 funtions 1. it cocks the firing mechanism, usually a hammer, such as in a double action revolver, but also there are semi auto handguns that use them, most modern berettas have them 2. it releases the fireing mechanism, although in autos, it only serves to eliminate the nessesity to manually cock the hammer before firing the first round. after the first shot all trigger pulls are single action, as the recoil action cocks the firing mechanism. hell you probably already knew this stuff though. some of the others i’m thinking probably don’t.

Posted by: dbs at February 29, 2008 6:01 PM
Comment #246794

I’m familiar with the term “Lock and Load!”.
After that function has been accomplished it takes only a small pressure on the trigger while not breathing to put an object in the general area I would be addressing at the time.

Which brings me back to my question:

But what difference would it make.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Posted by: Weary Willie at February 29, 2008 6:11 PM
Comment #246796

Weary Willie-
Yeah, I know Quigley Down Under. A Western set in Australia, Tom Selleck playing the title Character, Alan Rickman playing the bad guy Elliot Marston. But to paraphrase Mandy Patinkin’s character from The Princess Bride I do not think this means what you think it means.

First of all, the Government that’s in collusion with Alan Rickman’s rancher is colonial; those are British soldiers. Note the Irish and Scots who serve as his henchmen. They’re cooperating with him in the extermination of the Aborigines, which the film is decidedly biased towards (not that I would complain about it)

He’s not saved by the guy hitting him over the head. The fate waiting for him, which almost overtook him, was to be left exposed in the desert. He only avoided that by A) Stabbing one of his captors and shooting the other one through the head from long distance, and B) being rescued by the Aborigines.

The final scene that you refer to occurs after the climactic showdown, where Quigley has a pretty good party line for him: “I said I never had much use for Colt. I never said I couldn’t use one.”

Yeah, Westerns are fun. Trouble is, they’re often more wishful thinking than they are reality. For example, seeing somebody like Obama in a cowboy hat once upon a time wouldn’t have been odd, it would have in fact been the norm: two-thirds of cowboys were black.

Hollywood, for all of Republican’s potshots at it, seems to be the source of much of their mythology. They want their cops to act like the rebellious rulebreakers in action movies.

Their thinking of war seems to be based largely on what they see in the movies, the pitched battles, firefights, the glory, the pomp and circumstance, all the boring stuff about logistics, strategy, and anything where the corpses aren’t piled up excluded. The people we’re fighting for are supposed to be grateful, helpful, and instantly take up our political system no matter how little experience they have of real Democracy.

Lincoln is not the sole reason the Republican party still exists. However, he is a good reason why it still exists. His leadership literally saved America. It didn’t hurt that his leadership was genuinely good on the substance.

It’s looking more and more doubtful that Obama will lose the nomination. I doubt we’d be seeing a third-party approach. I think the more likely outcome if Hillary manages to eke out the nomination is that he’ll be the running mate.

On the subject of the second amendment, my position is consistent: like the right to free speech, the second amendment cannot be construed absolutely.

You are not free to incite riots, ask somebody to kill another person. You are not free to yell fire in a crowded theatre, to divulge national security sensitive material. You’re not free to hold a rock concert naked in the middle of the street at 3 AM. You are not protected from liability if you defame a person falsely. You can be imprisoned for violating copyright.

If First Amendment protections are not absolute for speech, why should 2nd Amendment protections be absolute for weapons? You talk about having chess pieces missing, but there’s a flaw in your logic: A Chess Board Missing a few pieces probably won’t function well. However, people have done just fine defending themselves without unrestricted legal access to automatic weapons, RPGs, bazookas, and Artillery. Shoot an intruder with a shotgun or a revolver, and they’ll be just as dead. It does not follow that by taking some weapons off the market, that the rest stop working for defense and sport shooting.

As for my intentions? Feel free to indulge in whatever morbid fantasies you want. I’d like to think I make my intentions pretty clear, but apparently being in favor of mild gun control makes you evil. Pardon me while I laugh maniacly and grow a mustache to twirl.

LO-
It’s not worth the trouble. You’re asking somebody in very little position to verify the status of the person to establish that they are really citizens.

A Driver’s license is not like a syringe of Heroin. Shooting up heroin is illegal. Driving is not. It’s a legal activity, and to truly establish that a person is not a citizen in good standing, you have to do a lot of digging that’s beyond the scope of a DMV clerk’s duties.

Even worse, if the person shows up with the right forged documents, they get what is essentially a de-facto proof of citizenship.

To be quite blunt about it, the guy’s point is that trying to deny illegals drivers licenses will probably make enforcement more difficult as a practical matter. If they manage to get a drivers license, they’ve tied themselves into the system, making them easier to track down. We want Illegal immigrants to compromise themselves in this way. It makes them easier to catch.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 29, 2008 6:57 PM
Comment #246803

The semi-automatic ban that Obama advocated is really only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Obama’s anti-gun record.

Just as the gun issue as a whole is only a tip of the iceberg when it comes to Obama’s almost completely unexamined record, a record which has a great many elements at odds with the mainstream. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if Obama’s support has already hit a ceiling—repeating “hope” and “change” like a mantra is going to protect him forever from his record. Personally, I think Hillary would have been a far more formidable candidate and that we’re going to see a LOT of leaks appearing in the Obama dam between now and November.

Getting back to the gun issue, the proposed semi-automatic ban is far less egregious and troubling than facts such as these.

1). Obama has advocated that you be arrested and prosecuted for a felony if your firearm is stolen and used in a crime. You don’t have to had any involvement in the crime at all—all they have to do is say that your gun was not “properly secured.”

2). Obama is a proponent of allowing law-suits against gun manufacturers. Not simply for dangerous defects in their manufacture, as is the case with usual consumer protection law (and which already allowed) but for marketing and selling “dangerous” devices. In other words, he would treat guns like tobacco products, opening them up to huge multi-billion dollar class-action lawsuits by individuals, states, and cities.

This is actually an end-around intended to drive gun manufacturers out of business and make it harder for law-abiding citizens to acquire firearms.

The day after such a measure was put into law, liberal-controlled states and cities, anti-gun activists, as well as trial-lawyers across America wanting to get into the multi-billion dollar action, would flood the courts with lawsuits. Just as happened with tobacco.

Even if the cases were without merit and they eventually lost, the affect (and no doubt the intent) would be to tie up and bankrupt gun companies with decades of legal fees, intimidate sporting good stores and others who sell guns, and ultimately create a situation where law-abiding citizens had an extremely hard time lawfully and affordably purchasing firearms.

If you own a gun and/or believe in the Second Amendment, you need to be aware that this is the sort of thing Obama means when he talks about “change.”

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at February 29, 2008 8:47 PM
Comment #246810

dbs:

this comment makes no sense. like i tried to point out earlier. it’s obvious that any one who would make it has no knowlege, or understanding of firearms period.

I am no expert by any means, but I’m not totally ignorant when it comes to guns. What I was reading said that double-action firearms can indeed be considered semi-automatic (maybe they’re wrong about that), but Illinois wasn’t planning to include those guns in the proposed ban.
As understand it, double-action and semi-automatics both take a single pull on the trigger to fire each round, but with double-action it’s the trigger-pull which rotates the cylinder and moves the following round into place, while with semi-automatics both the recoil force and a spring-load action is used to bring up the next round.

Loyal Opposition,

Wow. That’s quite a lot of extrapolating you’re doing there about Obama. The obvious truth is, Obama needs to be asked in detail about his positions on the second amendment, and I think it’s clear that you don’t have enough real information to be doing the kind of fear-mongering that you’re attempting to do here.
Although, I am willing to give you half a point for showing us what kind of spin and propaganda the NRA will surely be setting in motion against Obama that will be sure to strike terror into the hearts of gun nuts everywhere.

Of course, most of us on the Left ever bother to entertain the idea that the NRA and militia types are likely to vote for a Democrat anyway.
Even if our candidate was a concealed carrier and fond of elk hunting in Montana every year, I’m certain they’d find a way the scare and brainwash the crap out of their respective memberships and make sure the GOP party line would continue to be strictly upheld - just as it always has.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at February 29, 2008 10:58 PM
Comment #246812

Spin and propaganda? Fear mongering?

I’m simply pointing out Obama’s public voting record and his stated positions of policy. Is there something so special about Obama that makes it wrong to talk about his actual public record? Some seem to regard him as some kind of Jesus figure and think it’s low down and dirty to even bring up his policy proposals.

You make it sound like I’m talking about pictures of him in Muslim garb, drug use, and all that stuff put out by the Clinton campaign.

You’re dead wrong about the NRA, and constantly saying “the NRA and militia types” is way off the mark.

The NRA is the single most powerful nonprofit political group in the country, and they have literally millions of members, not to mention millions more sympathizers. And there are TONS of Democrats who belong as well—including many prominent Democrat leaders, some of whom have also served in leadership roles in the NRA.

You can’t discount the affect the NRA can—and will have—on the election. And so far, they haven’t even weighed in. Don’t believe me if you don’t want to. But don’t be surprised by what’s coming either.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at February 29, 2008 11:24 PM
Comment #246841

Veritas Vincit

“What I was reading said that double-action firearms can indeed be considered semi-automatic (maybe they’re wrong about that)”

from technical standpoint yes they are.


“Of course, most of us on the Left ever bother to entertain the idea that the NRA and militia types are likely to vote for a Democrat anyway.”


depends on the democrat. take a look at montana and some of the other states, you’ll find many of them represented by pro gun democrats. not all democrats are liberal, or progressives, that is just the wing of the party that makes the most noise, and is seen by most to embody the modern democrat party.

“Even if our candidate was a concealed carrier and fond of elk hunting in Montana every year, I’m certain they’d find a way the scare and brainwash the crap out of their respective memberships and make sure the GOP party line would continue to be strictly upheld - just as it always has.”

thats not needed the majority of americans are not gun cotrol zealots, like the dem party leaders on the far left. thats why you were able to take control of the house. most elected to former rep seats are blue bog dems with mostly traditional values thats why they won, and thats why pelosi, and the liberal gang still can’t get thier gun control agenda through the house.


Posted by: dbs at March 1, 2008 11:59 AM
Comment #246848

093_SB1524

LRB093 11016 SJM 11675 b

1 AN ACT in relation to taxation.

2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
3 represented in the General Assembly:

4 Section 5. The Illinois Income Tax Act is amended by
5 changing Section 101 as follows:

6 (35 ILCS 5/101) (from Ch. 120, par. 1-101)
7 Sec. 101. Short title. This Act shall be known and may
8 be cited as the “Illinois Income Tax Act.”
9 (Source: P.A. 76-26

We should ask Barack Obama what the purpose of this bill is.

093_SB1584

LRB093 09354 SJM 09589 b

1 AN ACT concerning dividends.

2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
3 represented in the General Assembly:

4 Section 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the
5 Dividend Act.

We should also ask him to expand his thinking. This bill seems rather open ended. What was the intent of filing this bill in the first place?

093_SB1585

LRB093 09371 SJM 09606 b

1 AN ACT concerning taxes.

2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
3 represented in the General Assembly:

4 Section 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the
5 Corporate Accountability for Receipt of Tax Breaks Act.

I’ll bet this one is related to the former. We should ask him.

Here’s one he got passed! TAX EXPENDITURES COMMISSION

OOPS!


Rod Blagojevich
Governor
August 18, 2003
To the Honorable Members of the
Illinois Senate
93rd General Assembly
Senate Bill 1765 creates another Illinois commission. In order to remain consistent with efforts to reduce the multiple boards and commissions in Illinois, I hereby veto Senate Bill 1765. Pursuant to Article IV, Section 9(b) of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, I hereby veto and return Senate Bill 1765 “AN ACT to create a commission to study tax expenditures in Illinois.
Sincerely,
Rod R. Blagojevich
Governor


Gov.-Elect Blagojevich Names Members of Budget Advisory Panel
Team charged with goal of identifying top fiscal problems, scope of challenges

It looks like the governor saw ADD instead of CHANGE come out of Mr. Obama’s efforts!

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 1, 2008 12:54 PM
Comment #246874

What seems absolutely clear to us is often just us getting it wrong.

I believed that Hillary and Bill Clinton could never be beat. Hillary was inevitable. That the democrats would stand behind them 100% and recent republican failures would swing America into their arms. They believed it to.

But heaven and earth moved and progressive liberals abandoned Hillary over Iraq and started attacking the Clintons. Unthinkable. Obama became their man. Political correctness was redefined in a moment and Hillary was out and she didn’t even realize it.


I believe this nation wants change. And I believe that even though the congress that is presently failing us is a democratic party congress, into it’s second year of failure…it’s the long tenure of the failing Republicans that is uppermost in the publics minds. So wanting change from the failed Republicans, in the face of failing democrats, the majority will vote for Obama because he is NOT a Republican.


But then again, the earth moved and Hillary was out and smeared by those who once protected the Clinton’s from their own crimes….so anything can happen.

Posted by: Stephen at March 1, 2008 4:15 PM
Comment #246892

Stephen:

I agree that Americans want change. It’s obvious in the polling data. Change does not equal mandate for Liberalism however.

Posted by: Stephen at March 1, 2008 10:06 PM
Comment #246893

Stephen Daugherty,

Quigley sat in the chair behind the upturned table and awaited his chosen fate.

He saw no enemy in the guy that whacked him in the head with a shovel but that guy did save his life.

Quigley was between a rock and a hard place. He left a country that was slaughtering it’s native population in hopes of using his skills aquired in the military.

I believe Mr. Quigley aquired his weapon while fighting for the republic we now call the U.S.A. I believe Mr. Quigley left this country because he didn’t believe in this country any longer. He believed he could start again.

Quigley arived in the western part of Austrailia to find himself being asked to do the same thing he was expected to do in the U.S.A.

He decided to throw the guy out of his house and wait.

The native, seeing this big american guy throw his master out of his own house, saw an asset.
This native, instead of hiding until it was over, decided to take a shovel and whack Quigley over the head to rendering him unconsious, allowing the coward land owner the opportunity to extract a more desparate and, in his opinion, a more deserving demise for this american that threw him out of his house.

What did Quigley do to survive? He used the land owner’s gold as bait to lure his captor to his demise.

Quigley aligned himself with the native population he was unknowningly hired to eliminate. The native population realized this and hit him in the head to preserve their asset.

This is obvious when the authorities are surrounded and back down while Quigley stand defiant and bleeding.

Go ahead, Stephen Daugherty. Go ahead and say this is just theatrics. You should know. Your party and your polity created this type of propaganda.

Quigley won. The authorities didn’t. As much as you, Stephen Daugherty, don’t like that idea. It’s happened over and over in our society and it will continue to do so.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 1, 2008 10:21 PM
Comment #246900

Weary Willie-
Servant does the will of his master, endangers the life of the hero, renders him helpless, ensures his capture. Hero eventually slays the master, which frees the servant. Servant returns the weapon to the hero making him less helpless, then sheds his identity as a servant. As a free man, he returns with help that saves the life of the hero. The account balances. It’s simple. It’s elegant. It’s all the plot you need for one such minor character as he.

Quigley’s never given a real deep backstory. I’m not sure he’s explicitly made out to be a former military officer, much less even designated as union or confederate. He’s evidently a sharp-shooter. He thought he’d be employed for legitimate means, instead he finds himself made into a hired killer of innocent men women and children. He rebels against that.

In its way, it’s at least a spiritual brother to Dances With Wolves. It’s a non-traditional western, where the hero sides with the Indians instead of the cowboys, so to speak. When he’s rescued, it’s the Indians coming to the rescue, to drive off the cavalry!

If you had to ask me, this movie has more to do with Australia than it has to do with America. The subtext has more to do with who Quigley sides with than who he sides with. He’s an everyman sort of surrogate with a skill that makes him interesting in his own right. The filmmaker constructs things so that his cause become ours.

Reading your personal politics into it is your business, but I really doubt that this film, directed by an Australian, and concerning a largely Australian cultural matter, was meant to be interpreted as a libertarian/paleoconservative manifesto.

As for my motives, or what I do or do not dislike, you’re not getting that any better than you’re getting the film.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 1, 2008 11:52 PM
Comment #246932

VV said:“Of course, most of us on the Left ever bother to entertain the idea that the NRA and militia types are likely to vote for a Democrat anyway.
Even if our candidate was a concealed carrier and fond of elk hunting in Montana every year, I’m certain they’d find a way the scare and brainwash the crap out of their respective memberships and make sure the GOP party line would continue to be strictly upheld - just as it always has.”

Then why did the NRA give Ted Strickland(D)OH, an “A” rating, effectively endorsing him for governor here in OH in 2006?

Posted by: Duane-o at March 3, 2008 12:05 AM
Comment #246936

You put up a good fight Weary Willie, please continue.

Posted by: dobropet at March 3, 2008 1:27 AM
Post a comment