[quote]100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Looks as if Obama is courting the Jewish vote, but he’s been studying at the Clinton school of biography massage:
Yes, they’ll be greatly offended that it just turned out to be some other concentration camp.
You seem so desperate about this campaign.
You’ll excuse every McCain gaffe, sunni/shia, al qaeda/iran, not knowing who controls Iran, Phil Gramm as economic advisor, Iraq will be easy, etc…
but get all worked up over the name of a concentration camp. Odd.[/quote]
Obama is a one man gaffe machine. Don’t be hypocritical if McCain said anything as dumb you would be all over it.
[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Looks as if Obama is courting the Jewish vote, but he’s been studying at the Clinton school of biography massage:
Yes, they’ll be greatly offended that it just turned out to be some other concentration camp.
You seem so desperate about this campaign.
You’ll excuse every McCain gaffe, sunni/shia, al qaeda/iran, not knowing who controls Iran, Phil Gramm as economic advisor, Iraq will be easy, etc…
but get all worked up over the name of a concentration camp. Odd.
Obama is a one man gaffe machine. Don’t be hypocritical if McCain said anything as dumb you would be all over it.
Man up and just admit it. Your man already did.
[/quote]
Exactly, I’ve seen this game over 30 years now and it’s always the same.
Actually, on most of these gaffes I agree with this take by Jim Geraghty:
[i]Dan Quayle gets defined by one foolish moment where he misspells “potato,” and George W. Bush is forever mocked as a dunce for his (admittedly classic) “Too many OB-GYNs aren’t able to practice their love with women all across this country.”
If the MSM would either A) be more forgiving of Republican officials who they don’t like or B) be a little tougher on Democratic officials they do like, the world would be a better place. In this case, I don’t think Barack Obama is deliberately lying, or trying to pull a fast one. It sounds like a family “legend” in which the specific horrors of war witnessed by his uncle are mistaken as the years go by. It happens, and Obama only deserves the lightest of metaphorical slaps on the wrist for it. But it would help if his fans in the press actually paid attention to what he says. [/i]
Bush is smarter ( http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/kerry_iq_lower.htm ) than most of the people who make fun of him. I’m sure Quayle was too. But lazy reporters really only have a few memes for portraying popular Republican politicians: dumb and/or unsophisticated (look how they portrayed Reagan for the archtype) and genial; or devious and shifty intelligence combined with lack of morals (look at Nixon for the archtype, or Cheney) - or sometimes smart but mean (Dole; what they’re trying to do to McCain). Only Dems are portrayed as smart and moral (though as the Clintons found, they don’t always get the moral tag - though I can’t recall any getting the “dumb” tag - probably because that would mean journalists would need to label as “dumb” someone who shared their belief systems, rather than someone who held belieft to which they were opposed). It would be nice if the mainstream media would move away from its simplistic caricatures.
Now, those little mis-speakings are separate from the policy gaffes, such as the one highlighted in the original post, or Obama’s seeming refusal to take a trip to Iraq with McCain and meet with Petraus. BTW, McCain really seems to be focusing in on Iraq - kind of puzzling if you think it’s a negative for him, no?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
George W. Bush is forever mocked as a dunce for his (admittedly classic) “Too many OB-GYNs aren’t able to practice their love with women all across this country.”[/quote]
Never heard that one before. But it sure is hilarious.
Actually, on most of these gaffes I agree with this take by Jim Geraghty:
[i]Dan Quayle gets defined by one foolish moment where he misspells “potato,” and George W. Bush is forever mocked as a dunce for his (admittedly classic) “Too many OB-GYNs aren’t able to practice their love with women all across this country.”
If the MSM would either A) be more forgiving of Republican officials who they don’t like or B) be a little tougher on Democratic officials they do like, the world would be a better place. In this case, I don’t think Barack Obama is deliberately lying, or trying to pull a fast one. It sounds like a family “legend” in which the specific horrors of war witnessed by his uncle are mistaken as the years go by. It happens, and Obama only deserves the lightest of metaphorical slaps on the wrist for it. But it would help if his fans in the press actually paid attention to what he says. [/i]
Bush is smarter ( http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/kerry_iq_lower.htm ) than most of the people who make fun of him. I’m sure Quayle was too. But lazy reporters really only have a few memes for portraying popular Republican politicians: dumb and/or unsophisticated (look how they portrayed Reagan for the archtype) and genial; or devious and shifty intelligence combined with lack of morals (look at Nixon for the archtype, or Cheney) - or sometimes smart but mean (Dole; what they’re trying to do to McCain). Only Dems are portrayed as smart and moral (though as the Clintons found, they don’t always get the moral tag - though I can’t recall any getting the “dumb” tag - probably because that would mean journalists would need to label as “dumb” someone who shared their belief systems, rather than someone who held belieft to which they were opposed). It would be nice if the mainstream media would move away from its simplistic caricatures.
Now, those little mis-speakings are separate from the policy gaffes, such as the one highlighted in the original post, or Obama’s seeming refusal to take a trip to Iraq with McCain and meet with Petraus. BTW, McCain really seems to be focusing in on Iraq - kind of puzzling if you think it’s a negative for him, no?[/quote]
It’s not puzzling, you have to pump up your weaknesses (perceived or otherwise) so he’ll be talking about lobbyists are bad, economy will be better, Iraq will be over soon, etc.
Barry will presumably wear his flag pin from here on out, and get a skin lightening treatment.
Barry will presumably wear his flag pin from here on out, and get a skin lightening treatment.[/quote]
Democrats’ worst mistake - thinking Obama’s race is his biggest problem.
I suspect you will have to learn the hard way that a crypto-Marxist naif with no experience and no policy substance could be purple with green polka dots and his biggest problem still wouldn’t be his color in a general election in the US.
Do you even read the threads you post in? The complaint here is that Obama is naive and unserious with an idealistic and yet dangerous foreign policy approach - no one is saying Obama is evil, we are saying Obama is wrong.
Good Lord.[/quote]
What a fucking joke.
What you are quoting is scare-mongering spin.
Most of the people in these threads, which is what I’m referring to, throw out an incredible amount of blatant spin.
If you guys were even slightly as tough on Bush and his inability to say the right things all the time you’d never have been able to support him at all.
The ISSUE is whether or not it is appropriate to have discussions with various world leaders. In fact, the current administration is pursuing conversations and diplomacy at various levels with just about every group that isn’t a terrorist organization… and those are probably in contact via clandestine paths.
So, before we jump into the OMG Barack is dangerous, let’s get into the matter of who should be met with and how. Then, let’s make sure we are comparing that result to what is actually being said by the candidates.
Also, let’s define what is “dangerous” about talking to various parties that are not currently friendly to US interests. Talking is not the same as giving things away. Anyone who is married understands that if you don’t communicate you won’t have a relationship… which in the international arena simply means that your enemies will stay your enemies.
These are some of the important underlying issues. Instead of talking about them we get hyperbole proclaiming Obama is .
Finally, to be sure, I’ll grant that there will be a wide disagreement concerning whether or not it is appropriate to pull out of Iraq and what those consequences will be. Hopefully, we can both agree that the country is well known to be largely divided on this issue and simply focus on areas of discussion that might actually allow meaningful introspection.
Do you even read the threads you post in? The complaint here is that Obama is naive and unserious with an idealistic and yet dangerous foreign policy approach - no one is saying Obama is evil, we are saying Obama is wrong.
Good Lord.
What a fucking joke.
What you are quoting is scare-mongering spin.
Most of the people in these threads, which is what I’m referring to, throw out an incredible amount of blatant spin.
If you guys were even slightly as tough on Bush and his inability to say the right things all the time you’d never have been able to support him at all.
The ISSUE is whether or not it is appropriate to have discussions with various world leaders. In fact, the current administration is pursuing conversations and diplomacy at various levels with just about every group that isn’t a terrorist organization… and those are probably in contact via clandestine paths.
So, before we jump into the OMG Barack is dangerous, let’s get into the matter of who should be met with and how. Then, let’s make sure we are comparing that result to what is actually being said by the candidates.
Also, let’s define what is “dangerous” about talking to various parties that are not currently friendly to US interests. Talking is not the same as giving things away. Anyone who is married understands that if you don’t communicate you won’t have a relationship… which in the international arena simply means that your enemies will stay your enemies.
These are some of the important underlying issues. Instead of talking about them we get hyperbole proclaiming Obama is .
Finally, to be sure, I’ll grant that there will be a wide disagreement concerning whether or not it is appropriate to pull out of Iraq and what those consequences will be. Hopefully, we can both agree that the country is well known to be largely divided on this issue and simply focus on areas of discussion that might actually allow meaningful introspection.[/quote]
The problem here seems to be that Thunder is trying to have a discussion with you, in good faith, and you won’t address any of his valid, substantiative criticisms. In all honestly it doesn’t seem like you really want to have any kind of discussion.
Republicans feel they can manufacture various swift-boat style campaigns to mischaracterize Obama’s statements in their traditional divisive and negative campaigning style.[/quote]
This is off topic but, can you remind me what the swift boat vets for truth said about John Kerry that was untrue?
I ask that as someone who campaigned for John Kerry in 2004.
What you are quoting is scare-mongering spin.[/quote]
No, that’s what you want it to be. What it really is is making a distinction between candidates’ approaches to foreign policy.
Is there not an argument saying McCain shouldn’t be elected because he is more of a warmonger than Bush? That he will simply deliver more years of Bush-esque aggression in the world?
Is that criticism of McCain, suggesting he ought not be elected, scare-mongering spin? Or is it part of trying to figure out who would be the best Commander in Chief come 2008?
Spin, spin, spin - you’ve abuse the term so much you don’t even know what it means anymore. Any criticism directed by conservatives by your lights is nothing but “spin”.
Learn some new banalities.
Ridiculous. Obama doesn’t get a pass on his statements because he wants to have it both ways - no more, no less. The original question at the Democratic debate gave Obama a chance to distinguish himself from Bush. He did, and did so in a very drastic manner. He got called on his extreme position, and now he is being challenged on it. Obama has not handled it well, trying to obfuscate definitions, worried his original statement won’t play well with the political center.
Wrong - the ISSUE is how you deal with leaders. Discussions are going on all the time, at many levels. That isn’t the issue, and it never has been.
Obama was asked if he would have presidential communications with a President of Iran without preconditions, not at lower “clandestine” levels. Get up to speed.
Welcome to the debate, Vroom - that is exactly what is…wait for it…being evaluated: who should be met with and how, and comparing it to Obama’s comments.
Great advice, Vroom - too bad it is several weeks and many articles later doing exactly that.
I beg you - go read the commentary. Boston is not going to post every single article. These things are being debated back and forth. Whether you have availed yourself of that information before commenting here is not our problem to fix.
Also, there is no “marriage” with the thugs of the world. We may or may not want a relationship with certain thugs - and there are often negative consequences to privileging relationships that don’t deserve it.
Your problem, not atypical for you, is that you are delivering great advice to a problem that doesn’t exist. The rest of us interested in this issue have been paying attention to the commentary and the developing responses from Obama.
Your proffered “wisdom” on how to measure the information is about three weeks too late - and what you blindly deride as “scare-mongering” (what isn’t scare-mongering that you disagree with?) is actually analysis of the very issues you think are so important.
Suggesting that Obama might be “dangerous” because of his answers to foreign policy questions isn’t “scare-mongering” - the information and analysis is there, and as to those that oppose Obama’s approach, it isn’t their job to make Obama’s argument for him. Obama’s approach warrants criticism, and to openly criticize his approach is not only allowed, it’s necessary before we give him the job - that is the job of democracy.
Or, perhaps, the “unwashed masses” with “simple preferences” should simply recognize they aren’t smart enough to get the brilliant Obama’s “nuanced” approach, so they should just keep quiet? Anyway, kidding aside, Obama has made his mess, and it isn’t “spin” to challenge him on it.
Barry will presumably wear his flag pin from here on out, and get a skin lightening treatment.
Democrats’ worst mistake - thinking Obama’s race is his biggest problem.
I suspect you will have to learn the hard way that a crypto-Marxist naif with no experience and no policy substance could be purple with green polka dots and his biggest problem still wouldn’t be his color in a general election in the US.[/quote]
Thunder, I think YOU should be President of this country. You’re a helluva lot smarter than any of the 3 candidates. Why the hell can’t our President be someone who knows his shit like you?
The thought of Obama as POTUS is downright frightening.
The delicious irony here is that the libs who helped teach white people to feel ‘guilty’ get voted out or passed over by those very same people. Between black people who would vote for a candidate just because he’s black and ‘guilty whitey’, Obama will be the Dems guy.
Of course, just as Affirmative Action promotes the incompetent over the competent, we all have to pay for this ‘Frankenstein’ the libs have created.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The delicious irony here is that the libs who helped teach white people to feel ‘guilty’ get voted out or passed over by those very same people. Between black people who would vote for a candidate just because he’s black and ‘guilty whitey’, Obama will be the Dems guy.
Of course, just as Affirmative Action promotes the incompetent over the competent, we all have to pay for this ‘Frankenstein’ the libs have created.[/quote]
I think you are missing the nuance the (Libs) are trying to teach you. They do not want you to feel guilty; they want you to be empathetic.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The delicious irony here is that the libs who helped teach white people to feel ‘guilty’ get voted out or passed over by those very same people. Between black people who would vote for a candidate just because he’s black and ‘guilty whitey’, Obama will be the Dems guy.
Of course, just as Affirmative Action promotes the incompetent over the competent, we all have to pay for this ‘Frankenstein’ the libs have created.[/quote]
The white people who will vote McCain or not at all because Obama is black and “Muslim” far outnumber the black people voting FOR Obama because he’s black.
Americans Favor President Meeting With U.S. Enemies
That’s very very bad news for BB’s theory about independents eventually favoring McCain for his foreign policy views.
100meters wrote:
Actually in the wacky world of republican politics, even this will be cited that Obama is out of touch with the mainstream.
or Boston will defer back to “marxist preachers” or something.[/quote]
No, the only thing one needs to point out is that this was a survey of adults, not of likely voters, and it was also a very broad question, which won’t really impact the actual discussion, which was focused on the “without preconditions” part of Obama’s statements, not the possibility of a meeting. Nice try though.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
lixy wrote:
The latest Gallup poll shows,
Americans Favor President Meeting With U.S. Enemies
That’s very very bad news for BB’s theory about independents eventually favoring McCain for his foreign policy views.
100meters wrote:
Actually in the wacky world of republican politics, even this will be cited that Obama is out of touch with the mainstream.
or Boston will defer back to “marxist preachers” or something.
No, the only thing one needs to point out is that this was a survey of adults, not of likely voters, and it was also a very broad question, which won’t really impact the actual discussion, which was focused on the “without preconditions” part of Obama’s statements, not the possibility of a meeting. Nice try though.[/quote]
The “without preconditions” part is essential to the discussion. Right now, Washington’s attitude is “you give us what we want before we can sit down and talk about it”. That is, they want Iran to stop enriching before they talk about enrichment.
Which, any way you look at it, is insane. The good news here is that threats of violence don’t work on Iran anymore now that the American military is tied up in the Iraq quagmire.
[quote]lixy wrote:
… The good news here is that threats of violence don’t work on Iran anymore now that the American military is tied up in the Iraq quagmire. [/quote]
Why would you think such a thing is good news unless you supported Iran’s development of a nuke and Iran’s goal to wipe out Israel?