Ok, so not only did Barack Obama recently make some fantastically stupid and inarticulate comments about small town Pennsylvanians (and all small town Americans really). Not only did he say such things at a fundraiser in San Francisco. He said it in a neighborhood so opulent it would make the Highlands blush, at least a bit.
Check out a description of the event that includes many a decent picture of the street in question. Also see an overhead shot of Broadway, the glitziest street in a stunning neighborhood.
Having stumbled upon this very street by chance while briefly touring San Francisco, this bloggers attests it is nothing like anything we have in new money-laden Seattle. Weather permitting, this is a neighborhood that has to be seen on foot to fully absorb and enjoy. Yes, we have the Highlands, Medina, Mercer Island, etc. We don't have a neighborhood of comparable, tightly-packed, urban uber-mansions at the height of their splendor - let alone one that can be viewed from up-close with such ease.
Some of the pictures at the link above tell part of the tale, including a couple of houses the size of apartment buildings. Even at that, it takes a stroll down the Lyon Street steps on the left/west side of the overhead view to give a sense of the homes on the north side of Broadway, including the featured Getty mansion. They rest on a virtual cliff, so as the overhead shots imply, the "houses" extend well back from Broadway, offering immense multi-story facades looking towards the water. Thus, a house looking comparatively modest in size - emphasis on "comparatively" - from a street view is in actuality quite often an urban palace of stunning proportions.
All this to say, if Obama were looking to say such things in a neighborhood more out of touch with the concerns of everyday Americans, he would be exceptionally hard pressed to accomplish such a task.
Posted by Eric Earling at April 15, 2008 07:21 AM | Email ThisHere's a great clip of Obama supporter trying to stammer his way past similar hypocrisy. This is MAJOR Obama supporter Senator Ted Kennedy being grilled by the new media. This is why more and more Americans are turning away from the MSM and getting their news elsewhere.
So, what's your point. Obama went to a fundraiser put on by very rich folks. How is this different than Bill Clinton going to Bill Gates home for a fundraiser. I believe Gates also had Bush over. The rich like to use their money to think they can buy influence. Politicians need money to run, so they go to these events. How is this new? The rich are still limited to $2300, and the average amount given to Obama from his million and half plus (almost--he is currently at 1.3M) donors is $100. If Obama was like the Clintons, or like McCain, now, who is only catering to the rich fund raiser crowds, he would have only earned about 1/10th the amount he has raised. It is the small donors who have propelled his campaign. To have the rich folk finally come around and support is welcome, but it doesn't dimish the fact that every day people (almost a million and a half) have given small amounts to the campaign.
Posted by: tc on April 15, 2008 07:39 AMHe ought to have stuck to parroting "hope" to every audience.
The real irony is the Republicans talk well to both demographics.
Are You Serious Clark - er, I mean 'Andy'?
Posted by: Duffman on April 15, 2008 08:03 AMHow seductive the nonsense. Barack (nmi) Obama personifies the extreme left and it amazes me that the rich who have the most to lose literally buy into it, hook, line and bankroll. Guess being rich doesn't mean being smart.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/04/mccain_proposes.html
While McCain hit the Democrats, he also hit a theme that Obama highlighted last week -- the growing gap between the pay of workers and corporate executives.
"Americans are also right to be offended when the extravagant salaries and severance deals of CEOs -- in some cases, the very same CEOs who helped to bring on these market troubles -- bear no relation to the success of the company or the wishes of shareholders," McCain said in prepared remarks provided by his campaign.
And the presumptive Republican nominee also has his share of criticism for the GOP, saying it has become too free-spending in Congress.
"In so many ways, we need to make a clean break from the worst excesses of both political parties. For Republicans, it starts with reclaiming our good name as the party of spending restraint. Somewhere along the way, too many Republicans in Congress became indistinguishable from the big-spending Democrats they used to oppose," he said.
McCain vows to veto excessive spending and to order a top-to-bottom review of the federal budget, with a one-year moratorium in increases in discretionary spending during the review.
"In my administration there will be no more subsidies for special pleaders, no more corporate welfare, no more throwing around billions of dollars of the people's money on pet projects, while the people themselves are struggling to afford their homes, groceries, and gas," McCain adds. "We are going to get our priorities straight in Washington -- a clean break from years of squandered wealth and wasted chances."
Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY), said on Saturday of Barack Obama "That boy's finger does not need to be on the button."
Posted by: dinesh on April 15, 2008 08:57 AMHe can start on day one by donating his 400k Presidential salary back into the general budget. =)
Liberals have made an amazing amount of quicksand. It's a pleasure to watch them sink in it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 15, 2008 09:06 AM"That boy's finger does not need to be on the button." That boy is scary.
I don't know what the one guy meant by "boy", but at my age, Obama is a boy who has no experience, is not fit for the job and is adept at double talk.
Funny, though, how the lefties, the colorblind part of society, read it as though Obama is an upstart slave. Forget it. That boy is scary.
When I said that the Rs should turn over the party to the young 'uns, I could have just as well said the boys, but that would have left out the more astute 1/2 of society- the girls. Since the rep. was referring to Obama personally, boy would have been fine for someone as immature as Obama.
Funny thing that dinesh, the resident liberal, knew the guy was an R. If that had been a D, the article wouldn't have mentioned party affiliation.
The comment above stands. End of story, except the guy should not be allowed to have his finger on the button.
Posted by: swatter on April 15, 2008 09:10 AMIt's because they do...such is the great fallacy of partisan arguments.
Liberals have made an amazing amount of quicksand. It's a pleasure to watch them sink in it.
Such is the way of Bill C. It's fine to bash the Liberals, just make sure we speak no ill of the Conservatives for they can do no wrong.
When I become President of the USA, you have my word I will donate my salary back to the general budget. =)
Choke-choke
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 15, 2008 09:27 AMHe fits all the criteria set forth by the Founding fathers...can you tell me in non-partisan terms why he is not qualified?
It's not military, we've had lots of non-military Presidents with their finger close to the button. It not age, since he's obviously old enough according to the Constitution. It's not experience, since no one but a current/former Presidents and possibly Vice-Presidents have that kind of experience.
I fail to see why any of the top-tier candidates would not be qualified. Please elaborate on that statement based on facts rather than partisan rhetoric.
Should we bring up Obama's wife pay??? LOL
Yeah let's talk about big pay shall we.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 15, 2008 09:30 AMI don't know. Does Dan Quail come to mind right now.
You know that saying (what comes around, goes around)
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 15, 2008 09:33 AMIs that why Bush Sr. didn't get a second term? =)
Hmmm, I see you failed to answer the question.
So in your statement, that's why Bush lost. Could not the same be said for the reason Obama won't make it?
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 15, 2008 09:48 AMSigh.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 15, 2008 10:03 AMI have no doubts Sen. Obama can spell Potato correctly...I would imagine you don't get to be President of the Harvard Law Review by being an intellectual lightweight.
If it's age Bill Clinton was 46 when he took office (Wikipedia lists Obama's age at 46), he was elected to two terms by the American people to keep his finger close to that button. He never used it.
Nixon was even younger (39 year old) when he entered the office of Vice-President. Dan Quayle was 41.
An e-mail from a reader said that, while Hillary Clinton tells lies, Barack Obama is himself a lie. That is becoming painfully apparent with each new revelation of how drastically his carefully crafted image this election year contrasts with what he has actually been saying and doing for many years.
Senator Obama's election year image is that of a man who can bring the country together, overcoming differences of party or race, as well as solving our international problems by talking with Iran and other countries with which we are at odds, and performing other miscellaneous miracles as needed.
There is, of course, not a speck of evidence that Obama has ever transcended party differences in the United States Senate. Voting records analyzed by the National Journal show him to be the farthest left of anyone in the Senate. Nor has he sponsored any significant bipartisan legislation -- nor any other significant legislation, for that matter.
Senator Obama is all talk -- glib talk, exciting talk, confident talk, but still just talk.
The rest is here:http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/04/15/a_living_lie
CNN.com - Situation Room blogJun 16, 2006 ... to Medina, Washington to headline a morning fundraiser for Rep. ... address the Montana State Republican Convention tonight in Billings. ...
www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/situation.room/blog/2006/06/elsewhere-in-political-world.html
Bush to attend fund-raiser for ReichertMay 31, 2006 ... President Bush will attend a private reception June 16 in Medina to raise money for the re-election campaign of Republican Rep. ...
seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/272175_bush31.html
Rove visit to aid ReichertSep 6, 2006 ... Rove visit to aid Reichert Closed fundraiser set for Medina. By NEIL MODIE P-I REPORTER. Rep. Dave Reichert is a Republican running for ...
seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/284007_rove06.html
Eastside News | Bush arrives today for Bellevue fund-raiser ...Aug 27, 2007 ... Dave Reichert and the state Republican Party. ... but at last year's Reichert fundraiser in Medina, he gave a 45-minute speech that touched ...
seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/eastsidenews/2003855558_webbushvisit27.html - 42k - Cached - Similar pages
Local News | Laura Bush to speak at Reichert fundraiser in Medina ...Feb 26, 2008 ... Laura Bush to speak at Reichert fundraiser in Medina ... Neither the Reichert campaign nor the state Republican Party would comment today ...
seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004244314_webbush26.html
Seattle Seahawks - Blog ToplistMedina, Washington - December 28, 2007. Warren Moon is known in the Seattle .... by showing up to a Republican fundraiser and, at President Bush's request, ...
www.blogtoplist.com/tags/Seattle+Seahawks - 34k
And this fundraiser for Senator Mc Cain in LONDON:
-Raiser - The Caucus - Politics - New York ...Mar 14, 2008 ... WASHINGTON--Senator John McCain has been averaging a fund-raiser a day ... that Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, ...
thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/mccains-london-fund-raiser
Candidates of both parties, like bank robbers go where the money is.
Posted by: WVH on April 15, 2008 10:22 AMObama does not have the experience necessary to be President. Period.
You may believe that he does - but that means that you believe that faciliting community meetings in a Legislative District of Illinois is germane experience for being the President and Commander in Chief of the USA. I don't believe that experience is relevant whatsoever.
Obama has been a US Senator - for less than one term. And it may surprise you to know - Obama might have an uphill battle to win his own state. Sure, Illinois has historically been Democratic due to Chicago and Cook County.
But having grown up in Illinois and still having many family members and friends there - I don't know a single person in that state who is really behind Obama at this point. Why? Because he never fulfilled his fiduciary duty to the state to actually BE a US Senator from Illinois. He began running for President during his US Senate campaign, and he has never stopped.
In fact, one of my family members is a high-ranking union official in Illinois, and can't stand Obama. He's an 'empty suit' as far as this person is concerned. He promises everything, delivers nothing, and then wants credit for any positive change that he did or did not have anything to do with.
He lacks the necessary experience to be POTUS. Doing nothing but running for POTUS during half a Senate term is not a winning resume for a candidate.
Posted by: Larry on April 15, 2008 10:25 AMMaybe you can tell me the proper experience needed to qualify for the President of the United States? Proper experience seems to be determined by the voters who choose to vote for said candidate. If a majority of voters choose Candidate X by winning enough Electoral Votes does that mean he/she had the right experience?
He began running for President during his US Senate campaign, and he has never stopped.
He's voted on various bills, his track record is there. I would consider that experience. What sort of governmental experience did Romeny have? Giuliani's main qualification seemed to be he was the out-going Mayor on 9/11.
Doing nothing but running for POTUS during half a Senate term is not a winning resume for a candidate.
I believe that's for the voters to decide, maybe they want freshness after 8 years of President Bush. What was Bush's qualification for President that did not involve his father? Does bankrupting oil companies count as quality experience a President should have?
I used to live in SF. Often I would stay at a friend's apartment near the mansions that are described here. I liked that street because I could always find a parking place in front of those mansions, and I knew that it would be secure.
Having been to both Canterwood and to the very spot on Broadway in the Satellite photo, I have to laugh at tc trying to compare the two. There is no comparison. The sweeping views of the San Francisco Bay in some of the most prime real estate in the world as compared with Canterwood? Are you serious?
I have not heard much commentary on one key element of these Obama gaffes. It's not so much any one of these gaffes, which pretty amazing in their own right, but the sum total. Voters are making a mental tally. This is an absolute fact. This is the way it works in American politics. When a voter starts to tally Michelle Obama' statements, Reverend Wright's statements, Obama's statements, Obama's education, etc. a trend starts to emerge. That trend is completely damaging to Obama. He is toast among any voting segment that has modicum of rationality.
OK, so there are those Progressives who are completely in the tank for Obama. And there are the Conservatives, that probably won't vote for Obama, except for the few who'd rather sacrifice four years of Obama running the country in to the ground than the more gradual Teddy Roosevelt style Progressivism of McCain.
But the vast majority of the rest of the voters who are undecided, or looking for someone stable who they consider as a good leader, and a good representation of America in general, are taking this recent Obama trend in to account and saying to themselves, there's no way I trust this guy with his random racist, arrogant views as the leader of the free world.
Ask your average Democrat friends. They will tell you, they are cringing at each new Obama revelation.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 15, 2008 11:11 AMAre Bush Sr. and Jr. elitist because they certainly have more money than Obama ever did. Bush Sr. went to Yale, Bush Jr. went to Yale & Harvard. They both could easily gain admittance to equivalent homes in Media or Yarrow Point. I have no doubt that both have during their respective campaigns.
I liked that street because I could always find a parking place in front of those mansions, and I knew that it would be secure.
You needed a car in SF?
When a voter starts to tally Michelle Obama' statements, Reverend Wright's statements, Obama's statements, Obama's education, etc. a trend starts to emerge.
What happens when you add up McCain's statements? You find a confused Liberal...repealing gas tax for a few months sounds like a very populist liberal thing to do.
McCain went to West Point, does that make him a Military elitist? He was a good boxer, does that mean he took too many blows to the head? He voted against MLK holiday, does that make him a racist? My guess is no on all counts yet this seems to be your method of reasoning.
there's no way I trust this guy with his random racist, arrogant views as the leader of the free world.
You don't believe people blame other for their problems? Just look on here, everything bad is Liberal, everything good is Conservative. It remains that way until you get someone gets in trouble like Jim West, then you claim he was never a true Conservative.
Liberals have managed to cover up their socialist elitism for years. Obama is revealing the left for who they really are.
The only thing that might be even more effective is if he'd march in one of those tiresome socialist sponsored anti-war protests hoisting a papier mache Dick Cheney puppet.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 15, 2008 11:27 AMThis is the message of the Obama defenders. It is a message of nonsense. The man said what he said, and it does not need translation, furthermore it should be taken in the context of the venue in which it was uttered. His views are transparently on display for all to see.
Posted by: JDH on April 15, 2008 11:30 AMAnd Eric is exactly right: It wasn't just the words Obama used in making this super-blooper, it was the whole context of WHERE and to who he said it. I remember driving around this part of San Fran a few years ago while a bunch of us were down there for the Hewlett-Packard user convention, and this is indeed about as far as you can get from ''middle America''; politically, financially, and socially.
SIDEBAR: I look at the aerials of those mega-McMansions crammed in there wall-2-wall in the middle of politically-hopeless San Fran, and I'll take my isolated 10 acres on the river out in the woods in Okanogan County any day (not that I have any choice).
And as far as what lasting effect the whole ''bitter-gate'' saga will have on the Clinton - Obama slug-fest for the (D) nomination:
Like I said over on Postman:
''Laissez les bons temps roule.''
...as in 'Come on baby....
Posted by: Duffman on April 15, 2008 11:41 AMI'm loving this.
I stated that I did not think that facilitating community meetings was not sufficient experience to be President. Now you ask what experience IS necessary. Could you please ask a MORE open-ended question?
Your question is moot - so hypothetical as to be meaningless. I can only deal with the candidates in question.
Hillary Clinton - First Lady, US Senator since 2000.
Barack Obama - US Senator since 2004.
John McCain - Naval aviator shot down on his 23rd bombing mission, POW, Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, and the Distinguished Flying Cross, US Representative 1982-1986, US Senator 1986-present
I believe that McCain's time in the military is more germane and salient to the position than Hillary's time as First Lady. And McCain obviously has the edge in Senate (and House) experience to both others.
I'd prefer a Governor of a large state - like California, New York, Texas, Florida, etc - but when forced to choose among Senators, there really is no choice - it's McCain all the way. Asking questions now about Romney and Giuliani is a non sequitur.
As to the questions of what experience GWB had - does the Governor of Texas mean anything to you? It's a state the size of France with a Gross Domestic Product the size of Canada. He defeated a popular incumbent Governor, and then was re-elected with even more votes the 2nd time (much like his Presidency!)
Meanwhile, you've switched the questions from me to you. I've answered your questions. Can you answer mine?
1. Who do you believe has the most relevant and salient experience to be POTUS - McCain, Hillary, or Obama? And please do not answer "It doesn't matter." It certainly DOES matter (to a majority of Americans, at least, if not you), and that answer would be a cop-out and admission that it is truly McCain.
2. Do you believe that a candidate with the Executive experience of facilitating community meetings in a Legislative District in Illinois has 'more' or 'better' experience for POTUS than the a candidate who was Governor of Texas?
WVH,
Republicans aren't scared at all of Obama. As a matter of fact, he's the candidate I've been hoping for. When he's up on stage next to McCain, it'll never be more apparent exactly how empty a suit Obama really is.
Posted by: Larry on April 15, 2008 11:43 AMYou mean like those Pro-Spots Stadiums and Teams we keep taxing ourselves for? Different groups have different vices. You pay taxes so a bunch of millionaires can play a sport that you can sit in a bar and watch it on the 50" HD. You don't get a single dime back for that privilege either.
The man said what he said, and it does not need translation, furthermore it should be taken in the context of the venue in which it was uttered.
He said what he said, but given that President Bush (an "elitist" Ivy League grad with an MBA) appears unaware that gas is closing in on $4/gal, he spoke to a group of reporters at a fancy mansion in Washington DC. Seems to to me the President of the USA is out of touch with the common man. The more you break it down the more ridiculous this line of arguing sounds.
Bet they make a lot more money off of sports fans than they ever make from the attendees of the city sponsored Gay Pride parade, or Hempfest.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 15, 2008 11:51 AMhttp://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/gallup_obama_has_his_biggest_l.php
Posted by: thehim on April 15, 2008 11:54 AMI felt this way with McGovern, too.
Posted by: swatter on April 15, 2008 11:59 AMI would agree. =)
Asking questions now about Romney and Giuliani is a non sequitur.
No it's not, the voters had a choice and they chose McCain much to the disappointment of many here who insulted him throughout his campaign. Many here would still prefer Romney over McCain.
As to the questions of what experience GWB had - does the Governor of Texas mean anything to you?
Governor of Texas like in most southern states is a relatively weak position. The Gov. of Texas has no real power like the one in Washington State does.
Who do you believe has the most relevant and salient experience to be POTUS - McCain, Hillary, or Obama?
Relevant - none, Salient - McCain
If you were running for office based on solely on experience than Nixon would top the charts, being a Senator, VP, but he wound being a lousy President due to his paranoia and ability to consider himself and his office above the law.
Do you believe that a candidate with the Executive experience of facilitating community meetings in a Legislative District in Illinois has 'more' or 'better' experience for POTUS than the a candidate who was Governor of Texas?
I believe that's for the voters to decide, not myself. I like Sen. Obama's experience, his elitist education and ability to face the truth and the ability to emerge from the consequences of those truths is very refreshing.
Many great prophets throughout history (including Jesus) have stressed the measure of a man is defined by his actions rather than the money he has made. McCain and Obama both have different kinds of experience, the choice of which is more pertinent is up to voters like myself to decide.
History has shown that prior experience has little or no effect on the governing style once in office. The office becomes a reflection of the man, since McCain is a angry, bitter and superstitious man I can't imagine this is a good thing for the country to experience.
This should be:
The Gov. of Texas has no real power unlike the Governors position in Washington State.
A good indicator of the magnitude of Obama's ''bittergate'' stumble is just to look at the RealClearPolitics home page:
Bittergate isn't just a big story:
It's the media feeding frenzy of the week.
I cannot speak for hordes of "leftist whiners", I can only speak for myself. I personally find the President intelligent, I feel that is does not comes across very well in his speech patters. I personally don't think his MBA prepared him well for the real world as he's bankrupted several companies and up until 2006 never met a pork loaded spending bill he didn't like.
Again, I don't know why you consistently retreat to the tit for tat in the expectation that I will defend one example for another. I agree, Bush has some of the same elitist background. But, they key difference is that Bush appears to be a regular guy to most people. He acts friendly, and does not affiliate himself with people like Reverrend Wright. And he never snubs voters in certain areas of the country. I believe too, that for his faults, he is generally a nice guy, that's reasonably intelligent. He's certainly not the monster he is portrayed as by the extreme left.
Obama has a much different set of problems based on what he said. That's a fact. Bush never said those things, or affiliated with those who did.
Similarly, McCain and his affiliates have not risen to anywhere near the extreme of Obama. And if he or Bush ever does, I will condemn it, but I'm sure that will be more than downed out by the chorus of MSM voices that are currently trying to whitewash Obama to an extent.
If you can't see the obvious difference in tone and content of Obama's remarks, and why they cross the line in to actually effecting his campaign, then you are not looking.
And as for why I needed a car in SF. Again, a huge assumption on your part. I worked in sales, and was based in Santa Clara, but my girlfriend, now wife lived in the city and we had many friends there. Real people actually use cars. And even if I had worked in the city, I would have had a car, because I am an avid skier, and there's no other easy way to get to the Sierras than by car. People like cars, and their convenience and use them frequently, they are not going away anytime soon despite what Mass Transit fans might wish.
True, he affiliates people who blame the American Left for 9/11. People like Jerry Fawell.
And he never snubs voters in certain areas of the country.
President Bush just snubs voters in certain areas through policy rather than words.
I believe too, that for his faults, he is generally a nice guy, that's reasonably intelligent. He's certainly not the monster he is portrayed as by the extreme left.
That's why they are considered extreme...much like I consider certain individuals here to be extreme despite their allegiance to the Republican Party.
Obama has a much different set of problems based on what he said. That's a fact. Bush never said those things, or affiliated with those who did.
Bush associated with people like Jack Abramoff and John "$2000 justice drapes" Ashcroft? Not to mention his good friend Alberto Gonzales who according to Drudge is having a hard time finding a job these days. Actions speak louder than words.
Similarly, McCain and his affiliates have not risen to anywhere near the extreme of Obama.
Personally accepting an endorsement from a guy who calls Catholics the "great whore of Babylon" seems pretty extreme to me. I'm sure that will go over well with Hispanics and the Pope. What will the Rev. Hagee say about the Dali Lama?
owned out by the chorus of MSM voices that are currently trying to whitewash Obama to an extent.
Sounds like he dug himself in a hole with his comments, much like McCain with his comments about "100 years" were taken out of context. I don't know where you live but these comments are being discussed endlessly by the candidates, the press, and on the web. In fact that we're talking about them right now seems to eliminate the idea of a whitewash. Besides this is just one week, it's a long way to November.
If you can't see the obvious difference in tone and content of Obama's remarks, and why they cross the line in to actually effecting his campaign, then you are not looking.
Maybe I vote on issues not on tone. If you want to talk tone look at President Bush who had everything in life handed to him by his father. Silver spoon family, political connections, elite private schools growing up, ivy league university, membership in a secret society, ownership of a baseball team. Can't get more elitist than that, yet he comes off as a down home folksy guy. If your looking at the average middle class American I would think Obama's background fits more in line of a guy who came from nothing to become something. He's not relying on his father or spouse for his name/accomplishments.
McCain has a quality background, he appears to be very self-reliant, but again not everyone has an grandfather & father who are Four-Star Admiral's (I have no clue if this helped him get into Annapolis).
Again, a huge assumption on your part.
Since I don't know you I don't assume anything. See the question mark at the end.
Real people actually use cars.
Real people also use public transportation,
People like cars, and their convenience and use them frequently, they are not going away anytime soon despite what Mass Transit fans might wish.
Owning a car in the city depends on your needs and your willingness to spend the extra money it takes to own the car. Some people choose it, others do not. I'm not faulting either choice, I personally know a few people in SF who rely solely on petal power and public transit.
Is that flower power?
Posted by: bh on April 15, 2008 03:34 PMPosit: And he never snubs voters in certain areas of the country.
Cato's Reply: President Bush just snubs voters in certain areas through policy rather than words.
Posit: If you can't see the obvious difference in tone and content of Obama's remarks, and why they cross the line in to actually effecting his campaign, then you are not looking.
Cato's Reply: Maybe I vote on issues not on tone.
Maybe Cato votes on issues and not on tone - but he is in the VAST minority of American voters. That's why Bush won; that's why Kerry lost. Kerry was condescending and politically tone-deaf.
Obama trashes the rich to the poor; then he trashes the poor to the rich the next day. Bush said the same thing every day, regardless of where or when or to whom he was speaking. Hopefully McCain picks up on this. This has actually been held against Bush, that he trumpets the same platitudes all the time. But Americans appreciate that much more than trumpeting different platitudes every day of the week, like Kerry attempted, and like Obama is trying to do.
Because BOTH the Democratic Party and the Republican Party will snub large groups of voters through policy, every day, every week, every year. It's just a fact of life, and American voters realize this. What Americans DON'T like is being snubbed verbally by a Presidential candidate. Gore did it; Kerry did it; Obama is doing it. And Cato actually acknowledged this, though in a round-about way.
When even Cato can't deny that his candidate verbally snubs large groups of American voters during a Presidential campaign, things can't be looking great for his candidate.
I wonder how greenies manage to get to the great outdoors for the camping and hiking trips they're so fond of if they've decided to rely solely on "petal power"(sic) and "public transit". The answer, of course, is that they sponge off of the very vehicle owning people they disdain.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 15, 2008 05:23 PMHillary Care is Dead!
It has 100 lives of massive taxation and expense, but once again will be declared DOA
Thank God!
then, recant it, cry, apologize to the world back to time immemorial for offending as all out of context and misquoted;
an old pol trick; bottom line--you got it out there; that's the goal;
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on April 15, 2008 11:51 PMIt has become increasing clear to most sane individuals that Obama's friends are America's enemies. The choice is November is a "no brainer".
Posted by: Rick D. on April 16, 2008 12:37 AMYou calling American voters stupid Larry? How dare you stereotype them as such!!
That's why Bush won; that's why Kerry lost. Kerry was condescending and politically tone-deaf.
In your view, sure. I personally think a lot American's found that we were winning the War in Iraq, economic times were good, people we're still fearful of terrorist attacks, and Kerry was downright dull compared to the folksy Bush. Maybe this time around people will be comparing four years ago today and thinking twice about who will do a good job going forward. Voter turnout seems to be very high this year (question is will the religious right turn out for McCain).
Obama trashes the rich to the poor; then he trashes the poor to the rich the next day.
McCain trashed the rich the other day when he threatened to interfere in CEO pay scales.
Because BOTH the Democratic Party and the Republican Party will snub large groups of voters through policy, every day, every week, every year.
So you acknowledge the GOP is at fault. That's a good starting point for recovery.
William Ayers- Domestic Terrorist of the "weather underground" back in the 1970's when he first got into Chicago politics.
They planted small pipe bombs in empty offices (which destroyed FBI files)....that's some hardcore terrorism there. That's the best you got?
It has become increasing clear to most sane individuals that Obama's friends are America's enemies
McCain's extremely generous suggestion of a gas tax holiday seeks only to enrich our enemies at the expense of the Federal Govt. Who is McCain fighting for these days...the US Taxpayer or OPEC?
The answer, of course, is that they sponge off of the very vehicle owning people they disdain.
They can go to a car rental agency where they rent a hybrid for the weekend. =) That way they only pay for the car with the small amount of time they actually use one. You against people using Car Rental agencies Bill?
I said that you vote on issues, not on tone, and that you are in the VAST minority of American voters. Your response? "You calling American voters stupid Larry? How dare you stereotype them as such!!"
I never stated that American voters are stupid - those are your words, not mine. So what if voters vote on tone? Maybe that gives them a true gut feeling for the candidate. Who cares if they don't vote on issues? Maybe they know that they'll be screwed by both parties, and they want to vote with the candidate that they most identify with.
To YOU - that makes them stupid. And you must think yourself highly intelligent, to assume that someone voting differently is stupid. You have John Kerry disease. You think the American electorate is stupid because they don't consider the issues in the same way that you do.
Posit: Obama trashes the rich to the poor; then he trashes the poor to the rich the next day.
Cato's response: McCain trashed the rich the other day when he threatened to interfere in CEO pay scales.
So the F what? Do you realize this is another non sequitur? The point was that Obama changes his tune and sings a different song to different audiences. Did McCain turn around the next day and say that CEO pay scales are fine? Did he change his tune?
That comment was so worthless I don't know how your little brain even felt it worth typing.
Posit: Because BOTH the Democratic Party and the Republican Party will snub large groups of voters through policy, every day, every week, every year.
Cato's response: So you acknowledge the GOP is at fault. That's a good starting point for recovery.
It's amazing that you don't even know the meaning of the word BOTH. Yet again, another typical Cato response. It's not funny, it's pathetic. It's not creative, it's ignorant. It's not whitty or cute, it's sad and it exemplifies the typical mind-set on that side of the aisle.
What a buffoon.
Your ignorance and lack of any type of logic or debating skills are par for the course, unfortunately. The positive side of this is that the American electorate is, on average, FAR more intelligent than you, Cato.
Posted by: Larry on April 16, 2008 04:29 PM