The Democrat replacing Santorum is far more liberal, even if he is personally anti-choice. Cherry picking single issues can be used to support any kind of dumb spin.
Santorum was the conservative movement’s poster boy, and he was replaced.
Santorum was ripe for the picking because of his support for Iraq and the Dems still had to run a conservative to beat him.
You seem to be fooling yourself here.[/quote]
He was also a arch-conservative zealot that no one liked. So my conservative friends still in Pennsylvania tell me. Many of whom so disliked Santorum and his policies that they voted for a more conservative democrat to boot him out of office.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
The liberal who becomes a conservative in their old age (or vice versa) is a relatively rare phenomenon.
Oh yeah? I’d be interested in some empirical proof of this. Not saying it is wrong - just curious as to the foundation of the assertion.
…young voters once again disproportionately identified themselves as liberals and gave a supermajority to Democrats. Unless basic findings of political science have been repealed, these formative experiences of early adulthood are likely to influence electoral behavior throughout the life of this cohort. http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/06postelection/galston.php
…
Don’t forget this old quote attributed to Winston Churchill:
“Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.”
[/quote]
Ya. Most people do become more conservative throughout their lives wherever they start. This does not mean that liberals end up conservative [not saying this is what you were implying] but people do tend to become more centrist as their life goes on.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
hedo wrote:
Untrustworthy…failure. They are view held by liberals not the mainstream.
Sunday, December 24, 2006
“Poll: Bush not trustworthy, doesn’t share values, no longer inspires confidence”
[i]"President Bush faces some discouraging poll numbers as the year many have called the most challenging of his presidency comes to an end.
A majority of the American people, 55 percent, no longer believe Bush shares their values. They also are not sure if he is honest and trustworthy or if he understands complex issues, a CNN poll released Thursday reports. The poll was conducted for CNN by the Opinion Research Corporation and has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.
Nearly 53 percent say he is not honest and trustworthy, and the same number believes he does not understand complex issues. Fifty-one percent also say he is not a strong leader.
Only 37 percent believe that the president inspires confidence, compared to 61 percent who say that he does not."[/i]
The Democrats are not the party the country trusts with it’s defense. they haven’t for years and aren’t about to start now.
“Which political party, the (Democrats) or the (Republicans), do you trust to do a better job handling the U.S. campaign against terrorism?”
Democrats 46%
Republicans 38%
(question #6)
Hardly “wildly unpopular” when close to 40% of the poll, from CNN of all places, disagree with you. You don’t think that CNN would frame that question with a built in bias do you?
Interesting Post poll. It does show a small majority. I seriously doubt it. Democrats win polls though, you have to give them that. They even won a majority in the last election. Too small to actually acomplish anything but who knows?
Economic issues…well let’s see after the Democratic running points have been implimented and the economy starts to skid what the people think of them. Democratic economic policies have always tanked the economy.
[/quote]
Yeah. Nice fabrications and groundless suppositions. Roosevelt and his initiatives sure shot the economy to shit. You’re aboslutely right. Clinton was sure disastrous for the economy. You’re absolutely right. Especially exaserbating the welfare state. Oh, wait-that’s right. It was moderate, centrist Clinton who accomplished welfare form and initative workfare and education initiatives. Not a liberal. And not a conservative. And forget about the boom times and surplus experienced during that administration. Even legitimate criticisms of true spend-and-tax liberals [who I detest] no longer hold the weight they once did. Given the broad departure from conservative values. And that so-called conservatives of late are spend-and-NOT-tax ‘conservatives’.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
hedo wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
hedo wrote:
Untrustworthy…failure. They are view held by liberals not the mainstream.
Sunday, December 24, 2006
“Poll: Bush not trustworthy, doesn’t share values, no longer inspires confidence”
[i]"President Bush faces some discouraging poll numbers as the year many have called the most challenging of his presidency comes to an end.
A majority of the American people, 55 percent, no longer believe Bush shares their values. They also are not sure if he is honest and trustworthy or if he understands complex issues, a CNN poll released Thursday reports. The poll was conducted for CNN by the Opinion Research Corporation and has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.
Nearly 53 percent say he is not honest and trustworthy, and the same number believes he does not understand complex issues. Fifty-one percent also say he is not a strong leader.
Only 37 percent believe that the president inspires confidence, compared to 61 percent who say that he does not."[/i]
The Democrats are not the party the country trusts with it’s defense. they haven’t for years and aren’t about to start now.
“Which political party, the (Democrats) or the (Republicans), do you trust to do a better job handling the U.S. campaign against terrorism?”
Democrats 46%
Republicans 38%
(question #6)
Hardly “wildly unpopular” when close to 40% of the poll, from CNN of all places, disagree with you. You don’t think that CNN would frame that question with a built in bias do you?
Interesting Post poll. It does show a small majority. I seriously doubt it. Democrats win polls though, you have to give them that. They even won a majority in the last election. Too small to actually acomplish anything but who knows?
Economic issues…well let’s see after the Democratic running points have been implimented and the economy starts to skid what the people think of them. Democratic economic policies have always tanked the economy.
Yeah. Nice fabrications and groundless suppositions. Roosevelt and his initiatives sure shot the economy to shit. You’re aboslutely right. Clinton was sure disastrous for the economy. You’re absolutely right. Especially exaserbating the welfare state. Oh, wait-that’s right. It was moderate, centrist Clinton who accomplished welfare form and initative workfare and education initiatives. Not a liberal. And not a conservative. And forget about the boom times and surplus experienced during that administration. Even legitimate criticisms of true spend-and-tax liberals [who I detest] no longer hold the weight they once did. Given the broad departure from conservative values. And that so-called conservatives of late are spend-and-NOT-tax ‘conservatives’.[/quote]
As opposed to mindless suppositions presented as fact…
We may have come out of the depression a lot faster without government interference. It’s been proposed that Roosevelt prolonged the depression by stifling small business and corporate access to capital. The boom of the late 90’s happened when government did the least and innovation took over (internet). It was also fueled by good old fashioned specualtion following the end of the cold war and a new technology. Remember? Clinton had little if anything to do with it. His welfare work was good and I give him credit for that. It’s not what he wanted of course, I’m sure you remember if you worked for Specter, but it’s better then what we had.
Government rarely does anything as well as the private sector. The GOP doesn’t mirror conservative idealogy but it’s a hell of a lot closer then the Democrats.
[quote]hedo wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
hedo wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
hedo wrote:
Untrustworthy…failure. They are view held by liberals not the mainstream.
Sunday, December 24, 2006
“Poll: Bush not trustworthy, doesn’t share values, no longer inspires confidence”
[i]"President Bush faces some discouraging poll numbers as the year many have called the most challenging of his presidency comes to an end.
A majority of the American people, 55 percent, no longer believe Bush shares their values. They also are not sure if he is honest and trustworthy or if he understands complex issues, a CNN poll released Thursday reports. The poll was conducted for CNN by the Opinion Research Corporation and has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.
Nearly 53 percent say he is not honest and trustworthy, and the same number believes he does not understand complex issues. Fifty-one percent also say he is not a strong leader.
Only 37 percent believe that the president inspires confidence, compared to 61 percent who say that he does not."[/i]
The Democrats are not the party the country trusts with it’s defense. they haven’t for years and aren’t about to start now.
“Which political party, the (Democrats) or the (Republicans), do you trust to do a better job handling the U.S. campaign against terrorism?”
Democrats 46%
Republicans 38%
(question #6)
Hardly “wildly unpopular” when close to 40% of the poll, from CNN of all places, disagree with you. You don’t think that CNN would frame that question with a built in bias do you?
Interesting Post poll. It does show a small majority. I seriously doubt it. Democrats win polls though, you have to give them that. They even won a majority in the last election. Too small to actually acomplish anything but who knows?
Economic issues…well let’s see after the Democratic running points have been implimented and the economy starts to skid what the people think of them. Democratic economic policies have always tanked the economy.
Yeah. Nice fabrications and groundless suppositions. Roosevelt and his initiatives sure shot the economy to shit. You’re aboslutely right. Clinton was sure disastrous for the economy. You’re absolutely right. Especially exaserbating the welfare state. Oh, wait-that’s right. It was moderate, centrist Clinton who accomplished welfare form and initative workfare and education initiatives. Not a liberal. And not a conservative. And forget about the boom times and surplus experienced during that administration. Even legitimate criticisms of true spend-and-tax liberals [who I detest] no longer hold the weight they once did. Given the broad departure from conservative values. And that so-called conservatives of late are spend-and-NOT-tax ‘conservatives’.
As opposed to mindless suppositions presented as fact…
We may have come out of the depression a lot faster without government interference. It’s been proposed that Roosevelt prolonged the depression by stifling small business and corporate access to capital. The boom of the late 90’s happened when government did the least and innovation took over (internet). It was also fueled by good old fashioned specualtion following the end of the cold war and a new technology. Remember? Clinton had little if anything to do with it. His welfare work was good and I give him credit for that. It’s not what he wanted of course, I’m sure you remember if you worked for Specter, but it’s better then what we had.
Government rarely does anything as well as the private sector. The GOP doesn’t mirror conservative idealogy but it’s a hell of a lot closer then the Democrats.
[/quote]
Oh, yes. Of course. It’s been proposed. It’s a nice theory. There’s also a lot of other nice theories detailing the link between Roosevelt’s initiatives and economic growth. I think it’s pretty hard to argue that many of those programs and initiatives haven’t been good for the country in any case. From an economic standpoint, what are you using to justify the statement that Republican polcies are absolutely better economically than Democrat polcies other than party dogma? Are you going to point to some direct polices of particular leaders and administrations and provide some comprehensive explanations of how they benefited the economy? I think Republicans and Democrats have both made positive contributions to the country economonically and otherwise, and different things are needed at differnt times. As far as the current administration being closer to conservative values than the Democrats, I think it’s debateable. Certainly if you are defining conservative values as hands-off, smaller-government, with no interest in nation-building. Especially moderate, centrist democrats. But I would certainly say that both Democrats and Republicans have policies that would be much better for the country than those that have been pursued the last 5 years.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
hedo wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
hedo wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
hedo wrote:
Untrustworthy…failure. They are view held by liberals not the mainstream.
Sunday, December 24, 2006
“Poll: Bush not trustworthy, doesn’t share values, no longer inspires confidence”
[i]"President Bush faces some discouraging poll numbers as the year many have called the most challenging of his presidency comes to an end.
A majority of the American people, 55 percent, no longer believe Bush shares their values. They also are not sure if he is honest and trustworthy or if he understands complex issues, a CNN poll released Thursday reports. The poll was conducted for CNN by the Opinion Research Corporation and has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.
Nearly 53 percent say he is not honest and trustworthy, and the same number believes he does not understand complex issues. Fifty-one percent also say he is not a strong leader.
Only 37 percent believe that the president inspires confidence, compared to 61 percent who say that he does not."[/i]
The Democrats are not the party the country trusts with it’s defense. they haven’t for years and aren’t about to start now.
“Which political party, the (Democrats) or the (Republicans), do you trust to do a better job handling the U.S. campaign against terrorism?”
Democrats 46%
Republicans 38%
(question #6)
Hardly “wildly unpopular” when close to 40% of the poll, from CNN of all places, disagree with you. You don’t think that CNN would frame that question with a built in bias do you?
Interesting Post poll. It does show a small majority. I seriously doubt it. Democrats win polls though, you have to give them that. They even won a majority in the last election. Too small to actually acomplish anything but who knows?
Economic issues…well let’s see after the Democratic running points have been implimented and the economy starts to skid what the people think of them. Democratic economic policies have always tanked the economy.
Yeah. Nice fabrications and groundless suppositions. Roosevelt and his initiatives sure shot the economy to shit. You’re aboslutely right. Clinton was sure disastrous for the economy. You’re absolutely right. Especially exaserbating the welfare state. Oh, wait-that’s right. It was moderate, centrist Clinton who accomplished welfare form and initative workfare and education initiatives. Not a liberal. And not a conservative. And forget about the boom times and surplus experienced during that administration. Even legitimate criticisms of true spend-and-tax liberals [who I detest] no longer hold the weight they once did. Given the broad departure from conservative values. And that so-called conservatives of late are spend-and-NOT-tax ‘conservatives’.
As opposed to mindless suppositions presented as fact…
We may have come out of the depression a lot faster without government interference. It’s been proposed that Roosevelt prolonged the depression by stifling small business and corporate access to capital. The boom of the late 90’s happened when government did the least and innovation took over (internet). It was also fueled by good old fashioned specualtion following the end of the cold war and a new technology. Remember? Clinton had little if anything to do with it. His welfare work was good and I give him credit for that. It’s not what he wanted of course, I’m sure you remember if you worked for Specter, but it’s better then what we had.
Government rarely does anything as well as the private sector. The GOP doesn’t mirror conservative idealogy but it’s a hell of a lot closer then the Democrats.
Oh, yes. Of course. It’s been proposed. It’s a nice theory. There’s also a lot of other nice theories detailing the link between Roosevelt’s initiatives and economic growth. I think it’s pretty hard to argue that many of those programs and initiatives haven’t been good for the country in any case. From an economic standpoint, what are you using to justify the statement that Republican polcies are absolutely better economically than Democrat polcies other than party dogma? Are you going to point to some direct polices of particular leaders and administrations and provide some comprehensive explanations of how they benefited the economy? I think Republicans and Democrats have both made positive contributions to the country economonically and otherwise, and different things are needed at differnt times. As far as the current administration being closer to conservative values than the Democrats, I think it’s debateable. Certainly if you are defining conservative values as hands-off, smaller-government, with no interest in nation-building. Especially moderate, centrist democrats. But I would certainly say that both Democrats and Republicans have policies that would be much better for the country than those that have been pursued the last 5 years. [/quote]
Well it sounds like we agree on at least some points. My time horizon is also a lot more broad. I voted for Reagan, twice, if that’s any indication.
The explanation you gave is exactly what I would define as conservative value. Yes it used to be Republican dogma but it isn’t any longer, at least since 1994. Conservative values are what I support and would vote for. In all honestly the Republican have drifted but they are far closer to those ideals then the Democrats have been since 1960.
Economic policies are only one measure of a parties prowness in governing. The Democrats have been doves since Vietnam. Kerry voted against every major weapon system put before him for 20 yrs. before he ran for president and then tried to claim he’d be a hawk if elected. Almost comical. Social issues such as crime and gun control have also backfired on the Democrats. They were wrong and ill timed.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Well, you are all over the place, so I will address one issue - Bush isn’t dumb. He is not articulate or well-spoken. Is he truly dumb? No - this is the lazy slur that gets peddled by those who can’t quite articulate things all that well themselves. Bush’s opponents - those that actually have to tangle with him - routinely say he is not an idiot. I trust their word over yours.[/quote]
I was not all over the place, I simply took issue with your implication that politics tends to be a meritocracy. You implied that when you suggested that GWB cannot be dumb (and he is dumb, any honest person can deduce this from watching the man speak, and there are countless videos out there of GWB illustrating to us how simple-minded… and fucking DUMB he is!) simply because he had been the Governor of Texas. It’s interesting to see your faith in the political system. Most of us, however, realize that people are elected to power not exclusively on merit, bur rather on how effectively they can dumb down the campaign with one-liners and rhetoric, and smear their opponents.
Bush’s opponents routinely state that he isn’t an idiot? Since when? I don’t think GWB is an IDIOT. But he is dumb, and he’s definitely below what rational and intelligent people should be expecting from the President of the US.
Like I said, watch him on video when answering questions. The man can barely read a speech. Like I said, watch any video, and you can see that he cannot think on his feet. I also suspect that you are hypcritical, as I’m sure you’d denigrate many other individuals as dumb or idiotic for far less than we’ve seen from GWB.
I do not even know you yet it is clear to me that you are a partisan republican who fancies himself as a man of conservative values (which I doubt you really are, there is a difference between how you perceive yourself and what you really are), and all this from only two posts of yours in a thread about Barak Obama…
[quote]
Good idea - now go through the litany of Abraham Lincoln’s decisions and get back to me.[/quote]
Huh? What are you talking about? I’m telling you that if you want benchmarks of stupidity from GWB, they can be provided. From his own description of himself as a mediocre student, to his drunk-driving arrest, to his Hollywood-esque ‘born-again-Christianity’, to his questionable military service, to some of his poor business decisions (he’s also made good business decisions), we can go on and on. But none of this matter to me. People make mistakes. I’m not judging Bush on that. But I am judging him on his easy-to-see stupidity in public. Listen to the man speak. If a Democratic candidate were to be as obviously stupid as GWB, I am certain you’d be the first to attack him/her.
I just realized how much I do NOT want to continue this with you… because as far as I can tell, you are a hypocritical partisan who makes excuses for shortcomings of those leaders of the party you support, but would happily attack leaders of the party you oppose for those very same shortcomings.
Maybe you don’t consider public speaking skills an indicator of intelligence. I do.
Wow, so it’s a main talking point among the media who we all know ALWAYS stays focused on the relative issues? Don’t confuse the media’s talking points with the public’s interest. This very same question about substance can be asked of any candidate for leadership.
[quote]We aren’t talking about having detailed files - we are talking about candidates who have some kind of a policy game plan. No more, no less. This is basic stuff.
The point was Kerry was effectively attacked as being a ‘do nothing’ candidate who offered up little substance and just opted for an ‘I’m not Bush’ campaign. The man serves as a Senator for 20 years and he wants his entire campaign to focus on his 4 months in Vietnam. More plainly stated - his lack of substance hurt him in 2004. These things that you say don’t matter - Kerry’s track record - was considered one of the primary weaknesses of his campaign by many Democratic pundits assessing the loss.[/quote]
I’m too bored to continue this. If you were intellectually honest and not blatantly partisan, maybe this discussion would actually be heading somewhere… have fun regurgitating conservative radio talking points in the future.
[quote]disciplined wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Well, you are all over the place, so I will address one issue - Bush isn’t dumb. He is not articulate or well-spoken. Is he truly dumb? No - this is the lazy slur that gets peddled by those who can’t quite articulate things all that well themselves. Bush’s opponents - those that actually have to tangle with him - routinely say he is not an idiot. I trust their word over yours.
I was not all over the place, I simply took issue with your implication that politics tends to be a meritocracy. You implied that when you suggested that GWB cannot be dumb (and he is dumb, any honest person can deduce this from watching the man speak, and there are countless videos out there of GWB illustrating to us how simple-minded… and fucking DUMB he is!) simply because he had been the Governor of Texas. It’s interesting to see your faith in the political system. Most of us, however, realize that people are elected to power not exclusively on merit, bur rather on how effectively they can dumb down the campaign with one-liners and rhetoric, and smear their opponents.
Bush’s opponents routinely state that he isn’t an idiot? Since when? I don’t think GWB is an IDIOT. But he is dumb, and he’s definitely below what rational and intelligent people should be expecting from the President of the US.
Like I said, watch him on video when answering questions. The man can barely read a speech. Like I said, watch any video, and you can see that he cannot think on his feet. I also suspect that you are hypcritical, as I’m sure you’d denigrate many other individuals as dumb or idiotic for far less than we’ve seen from GWB.
I do not even know you yet it is clear to me that you are a partisan republican who fancies himself as a man of conservative values (which I doubt you really are, there is a difference between how you perceive yourself and what you really are), and all this from only two posts of yours in a thread about Barak Obama…
Good idea - now go through the litany of Abraham Lincoln’s decisions and get back to me.
Huh? What are you talking about? I’m telling you that if you want benchmarks of stupidity from GWB, they can be provided. From his own description of himself as a mediocre student, to his drunk-driving arrest, to his Hollywood-esque ‘born-again-Christianity’, to his questionable military service, to some of his poor business decisions (he’s also made good business decisions), we can go on and on. But none of this matter to me. People make mistakes. I’m not judging Bush on that. But I am judging him on his easy-to-see stupidity in public. Listen to the man speak. If a Democratic candidate were to be as obviously stupid as GWB, I am certain you’d be the first to attack him/her.
Perhaps the most important measure you seem to skip is his performance as twice elected governor of Texas and his decisions in that job. You don’t have to like his tenure as governor or even agree with his policies - but let’s stop pretending that somehow that we are dealing with someone as dumb as you have depicted.
I just realized how much I do NOT want to continue this with you… because as far as I can tell, you are a hypocritical partisan who makes excuses for shortcomings of those leaders of the party you support, but would happily attack leaders of the party you oppose for those very same shortcomings.
Maybe you don’t consider public speaking skills an indicator of intelligence. I do.
If this be absolutely true, then why are so many people discussing whether or not Barack Obama lacks substance? Why would anyone care? I don’t expect ‘the public’ to have actual wonkish knowledge, but it is ‘the public’ that is actually wondering aloud about Obama’s substance.
Wow, so it’s a main talking point among the media who we all know ALWAYS stays focused on the relative issues? Don’t confuse the media’s talking points with the public’s interest. This very same question about substance can be asked of any candidate for leadership.
We aren’t talking about having detailed files - we are talking about candidates who have some kind of a policy game plan. No more, no less. This is basic stuff.
The point was Kerry was effectively attacked as being a ‘do nothing’ candidate who offered up little substance and just opted for an ‘I’m not Bush’ campaign. The man serves as a Senator for 20 years and he wants his entire campaign to focus on his 4 months in Vietnam. More plainly stated - his lack of substance hurt him in 2004. These things that you say don’t matter - Kerry’s track record - was considered one of the primary weaknesses of his campaign by many Democratic pundits assessing the loss.
I’m too bored to continue this. If you were intellectually honest and not blatantly partisan, maybe this discussion would actually be heading somewhere… have fun regurgitating conservative radio talking points in the future.
I was not all over the place, I simply took issue with your implication that politics tends to be a meritocracy. You implied that when you suggested that GWB cannot be dumb (and he is dumb, any honest person can deduce this from watching the man speak, and there are countless videos out there of GWB illustrating to us how simple-minded… and fucking DUMB he is!) simply because he had been the Governor of Texas. It’s interesting to see your faith in the political system. Most of us, however, realize that people are elected to power not exclusively on merit, bur rather on how effectively they can dumb down the campaign with one-liners and rhetoric, and smear their opponents.[/quote]
Countless videos recounting Bush’s verbal missteps does not demonstrate his intelligence or lack thereof. That said, you have made a mistake assuming that I support Bush across the board. I don’t and have said so. My point was simply that Bush is not dumb, and that your only evidence that he is ‘dumb’ is apparently your favorite web videos of the man.
Perhaps you should expand your scope and watch other things other than your pet videos. You don’t have to like the guy - I don’t particularly care for Bush at the moment. I am argiung that he isn’t dumb as the cartoonish Left likes to paint. And, yes, his opponents have admitted that indeed he is not dumb, which is what is being discussed. You might have to go beyind a source other than your favorite YouTube video, but the information is there.
Well, you’d be wrong again, because I have made it clear I am not a partisan Republican and I have criticized Bush and the GOP on several fronts. And as for doubting whether I am a ‘man of conservative values’ - do tell, why would you doubt that? What insight do you have?
As for my critique of Barack Obama, you have just exposed yourself as a fraud - I have not criticized Obama on any partisan grounds at all; I have criticized him on personal issues that I think will hurt him as a candidate. By virtue of by being critical of the liberal wonderboy that is Barack Obama inclines you to think you have me figured out politically - there are many threads here, but my comments on Obama don’t say much about me.
Try again - I have said I don’t support the GOP. I have no cross to bear for the party. It may be convenient for your argument, but it is incorrect. I have a list of Bush criticisms as the day is long - we are talking specifically about whether he is ‘dumb’ or not.
Amazingly, I wasn’t focused on the mainstream media - I was actually talking about - wait for it - liberal Democrats who are questioning whether Obama would be the right candidate for the Democratic nomination. It was they who were bringing up Obama’s limitations, not some imagined conservative group that makes you feel better. The point is and has been - can Obama win the Democratic nomination first? Some liberal Democrats are wondering aloud if he has any substance compared to Clinton, Edwards, etc. Go read up and stop inventing positions.
The lazy way out. My points on Obama have focused on perceived weaknesses getting through the Democratic field of nominees long before the 2008 election - relevant and relatively non-partisan stuff. You seemed to have your feelers hurt over the fact that I won’t label Obama a political messiah - too bad.
And as for regurgitating conservative talking points, another lazy, cheap move, but common around here - if I was regurgitating anything at all, it was liberal talking points, courtesy of Slate magazine and Mickey Kaus. Better luck next time.
I won’t deny that I am being lazy based on my speculation as to what type of person you are. From what I can tell, you seem to resemble a political internet archetype that I’ve come across several times before.
If I’m incorrect about you I apologize, but I’d be interested in hearing what your criticisms of Bush and his administration are.
Intelligent, rational people take issue with Bush being a liar and being dumb. I imagine your beefs with Bush are probably with him not maintaining his image properly enough. Or not spinning the issue enough to his and his party’s advantage. Not being tough enough with the war. Things of that nature.
My opinion of Bush has been developed over far more than simply a few Youtube videos. I’ve seen many many many hours of the man speak. He’s a dumb guy. It’s really no secret. It’s plain for any honest, intelligent person to see.
When you go for a job interview, your communication skills will largely determine whether or not you get the job, assuming your job will involve interaction with other people. Those candidates vying for the Office of the President, among many other things, must maintain strong communication skills. This is fundamental skill that intelligent people expect from their leader. And most of us would have no problem with regarding public speaking skills as an indicator of intelligence. Bush is a horrible public speaker. He has said a ridiculous amount of stupid things. He even looks stupid. His body language is beyond inappropriate. Do I really need to go on? I, and many other people, have no problem labelling him as stupid after seeing countless hours of his stupidity in public. This isn’t one public fluke I’m talking about, I’m talking about every single situation in which Bush is asked unrehearsed questions, he always seems stupid. 100% of the time. And sadly, he even seem stupid in almost every situation in which he’s simply reading a speech.
My main concern is that I’m skeptical if you would be as forgiving of prominent Democratic party leaders if they had the same shortcomings as GWB. I doubt you would be as apologetic for them. I could be wrong, but this is my strong suspicion.
And you’re not fooling anyone with your ‘substance’ line of questioning. We can ask for substance from any leadership candidate. They’re all the same. One-liners. Rhetoric. Denigrating their opponents. Pretending to be honest. Pretending to have integrity. It’s just another stupid talking point from our ADD media. Why ask a question that can’t be answered before the next commercial break? The media needs to ask simple questions with simply answers. Nothing too complicated. So please, don’t insult my intelligence by suggesting that the media’s questions are reflective of the public’s interest or are even valid concerns to begin with.
There’s only one thing that leadership candidates are consistently in favor of: they’re always in favor of getting elected.
I’m not even sure why I replied. But if I am wrong about you, I’ll admit it after I see it.
I agree that he’s perhaps overly-idealistic, but I think our country is in need of some idealism and optimism. Also, when he speaks, he seems to be coming from a more truthful place than the politicians I’ve come to disrespect and distrust. He understands that you can’t sum up a war rationale with a catchy phrase like “stay the course” or whatever the hell he’s saying now.
As far as race, he admits: “I am a prisoner of my own biography: I can’t help but view the American experience through the lens of a black man of mixed heritage… but that is not all that I am.”
If you read more of the book (Audacity of Hope), you will see that his platform has more strength than you’ve suggested.
I’m just worried that he’s too young, which I understand could launch a whole discussion of age instead of race. But I’m more trusting of someone who’s been around the block a few times.
[quote]phelan wrote:
I agree that he’s perhaps overly-idealistic, but I think our country is in need of some idealism and optimism. Also, when he speaks, he seems to be coming from a more truthful place than the politicians I’ve come to disrespect and distrust. He understands that you can’t sum up a war rationale with a catchy phrase like “stay the course” or whatever the hell he’s saying now.
As far as race, he admits: “I am a prisoner of my own biography: I can’t help but view the American experience through the lens of a black man of mixed heritage… but that is not all that I am.”
If you read more of the book (Audacity of Hope), you will see that his platform has more strength than you’ve suggested.
I’m just worried that he’s too young, which I understand could launch a whole discussion of age instead of race. But I’m more trusting of someone who’s been around the block a few times. [/quote]
Some could argue that growing up and succeeding as a minority in America, especially coming from mixed heritage and all that entails, has allowed him to have “been around the block” where others would come up short.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
phelan wrote:
I agree that he’s perhaps overly-idealistic, but I think our country is in need of some idealism and optimism. Also, when he speaks, he seems to be coming from a more truthful place than the politicians I’ve come to disrespect and distrust. He understands that you can’t sum up a war rationale with a catchy phrase like “stay the course” or whatever the hell he’s saying now.
As far as race, he admits: “I am a prisoner of my own biography: I can’t help but view the American experience through the lens of a black man of mixed heritage… but that is not all that I am.”
If you read more of the book (Audacity of Hope), you will see that his platform has more strength than you’ve suggested.
I’m just worried that he’s too young, which I understand could launch a whole discussion of age instead of race. But I’m more trusting of someone who’s been around the block a few times.
Some could argue that growing up and succeeding as a minority in America, especially coming from mixed heritage and all that entails, has allowed him to have “been around the block” where others would come up short.[/quote]
Sounds like a cheap talking point that Obama might use to his advantage when campaigning! You should be a political mastermind.
[quote]disciplined wrote:
I won’t deny that I am being lazy based on my speculation as to what type of person you are. From what I can tell, you seem to resemble a political internet archetype that I’ve come across several times before.
If I’m incorrect about you I apologize, but I’d be interested in hearing what your criticisms of Bush and his administration are. [/quote]
Well, I don’t want to hijack the thread, but I will throw a few out just for the sake of it:
Bush, all too often, has acted in the best interest of party rather than in the best interest of the nation
Bush is too apt to cronyism
Bush has an inverse ratio to taking the lead when things are diciest - as in, the more difficult Iraq has gotten, the less he has been out championing his cause. Regardless of where you stand on the merits of the war, the opposite should be true - when things are at their worst, the President should be out there twice as much, rather than twice as less.
Some, yes, but you have a guilty pleasure in assuming too much, probably for therapeutic reasons. See my criticisms above.
And I would be careful appointing yourself as the spokesperson for ‘intelligent, rational people’ - when you have an opponent who is both intelligent and rational but happens to take a different approach than you, it makes you look like an ass.
Again with the ‘intelligent person’ thing? I think you may be overusing this.
My point was never that Bush was a rocket scientist - my only point was that the criticism of Bush being dumb, and I mean truly dumb, suffered from partisan overreach. You can believe what you want and that is fine, I doubt anyone could change your mind - nor do I really want to. After all, Bush isn’t running in 2008.
This, despite the fact that I keep informing you that it is not pure conjecture driving the questions about Obama’s substance - it is coming from the Democratic kingmakers. You can be generally skeptical of politicians, I have problem with that - but stop pretending the questions about Obama are the machinations of the ‘media’. They are the concerns of those liberals and Democrats getting ramped up for picking their 2008 candidate.
And since they are presumably worried about it, kinda seems like it must be a big deal. And that is where the debate is happening.
At what point have I invoked the mainstream media as the cause of all this?
And, I actually think you have it wrong - while we are a sound-byte generation, we are also a generation that loves analysis and overanalysis. Don’t think so? Witness the number of news analysis shows and the rise of blogs. You think people aren’t interested in picking issues and candidates apart to death? Then how do you explain the raging demand for news analysis and weblogs that we can’t get enough of?
Simple, disposable explanations like “people are dumb and don’t think about candidates” is belied by the constant assault of media - mainstream and independent.
Well, I really won’t lose any sleep over it. But back to the original point - Obama will continue to be questioned and unless he develops a platform soon, his Democratic rivals will do it for him - and he won’t like the results.
What I suspect - and this is where I take the liberty of making an assumption myself - is that you are a fan of Obama and you really have no interest in someone objectively criticizing him. I haven’t actually attacked the man himself. My criticisms have been above water and have no partisan edge to them. For example, I personally like Obama much better than Hillary Clinton, but I think that Hillary is far better prepared for a run at the 2008 candidacy.
It is even-handed objective criticism - no need to worry.
How can someone become President of the United States and be ‘dumb’? The whole notion is simply ludicrous. (Bush is not ‘Chance the Gardener’. Bonus points for who can name the movie!).
How can someone get Ivy League degrees and be dumb? Bush is not dumb in any sense of the word.
He is not a conservative and he didn’t get his buddies to enact the Contract with America but calling him dumb is asinine.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
There has been a fair amount of criticism lately regarding Obama, particularly in liberal quarters. The primary complaint is that he is about nothing except the fascinating tale of ‘being Obama’ - as in, he has no substance.
He seems very likable, but completely unqualified for the presidency. If people have to consistently ask what the hell you want to accomplish from a policy perspective, it means you haven’t seriously considered the job enough.
Obama is obsessed with his own story and really nothing more. He is not a policy wonk and he has no ideas. [/quote]
To be fair, he sounds like a liberal George W.
Likability is probably the deciding factor in most elections.
How can someone get Ivy League degrees and be dumb? [/quote]
Goodness. Like his family name had NOTHING to do with what university he was accepted into.
Everyone who thinks Bush would be where he is WITHOUT the name BUSH, raise your hand.
Dumb is relative. He sure as hell doesn’t “speak so eloquently”. It doesn’t surprise me at all that people question his intelligence. I also doubt that ANY of you would be willing to listen to one word Barack had to say if he spoke anywhere near the same as the current president regardless of his stance on issues.
I will say that while he may not be “stupid”, I don’t believe he would have ever made it to even the same general universe in terms of success on his own merits alone.