A lot of conservatives complain that Obama gets more news coverage. While it is, of course, true that Obama gets a lot more coverage, the point of news coverage is to try to tell us things we don't know, and as we still have no idea what Obama actually stands for, the extra news coverage is warranted, isn't it?
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at July 27, 2008 02:39 PM | Email ThisHe doesn't hesitate to exploit his family, including his children.
As McCain pointed out, this guy will do anything to win an election. The press seems to feel it is required to help him. Even the interviews that were hard hitting didn't have any resonance. It is as if everyone has just given the election to Obama, and called it a day. What more do we need to know?
Posted by: janet s on July 27, 2008 03:30 PMhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/john-mccain-and-the-rick-_b_88299.html
Shhhh..... Don't tell the press.....
As far as press coverage is concerned, what would you like watching more? Listening to someone willing to do what it takes to take America to a better place, for all, and talking about it, or someone that only seems to be complaining, lying, and getting things mixed up on a daily basis.....
Personally McCain may want to say something besides "the surge, the surge, the surge", don't you think? Of course he better not let Phil Graham (the economic genius) speak for him any time in the near future.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on July 27, 2008 03:32 PMI just love how McCain talks about the surge non stop. It keeps him from having to talk about the disaster/nightmare in Iraq he supported completely.
Good strategy!
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on July 27, 2008 04:52 PMYou're a liar.
As far as press coverage is concerned, what would you like watching more?
Telling us what OBAMA ACTUALLY WOULD DO AS PRESIDENT would be a nice start. Maybe also telling us what PRINCIPLES HE BELIEVES IN that would be behind those actions as President would be a good second step.
Listening to someone willing to do what it takes to take America to a better place, for all, and talking about it
Yes, it would be nice if Obama would actually do something similar to that. Granted, he does talk about making America a better place for all. But he doesn't talk about how he is actually going to do it, other than "tax the rich to pay for my health care program which pretty much everyone agrees won't work as I say it will, and which wouldn't make a big difference in most people's lives anyway."
... or someone that only seems to be complaining, lying, and getting things mixed up on a daily basis.....
Yes, Obama would do well to stop doing that. Every time I turn around Obama is complaining about "unfair" accusations against him, and mixing things up. The reason his father came to the U.S., 57 states, his own positions on pretty much everything ... he needs to get his story straight. Although many meatheads in this country don't seem to care, because well, um, you know, CHANGE! HOPE! We don't know what we are changing to, and we don't hope for anything specific apart from change, but you know. Pass the bong.
Obama almost never actually says anything of substance. He is the most substance-less candidate -- not even nominee, just candidate -- for President I have ever seen in my lifetime. Morry Taylor had more substance, on pretty much every issue, than Obama does.
Oh, and if you think Bush doesn't know how many states there are, then you are even dumber than I could have possibly guessed. Bush is smarter than about 99 percent of the people who think he is a moron (obviously including you).
Personally McCain may want to say something besides "the surge, the surge, the surge", don't you think?
Such as? What is Obama saying? Today, I mean.
We now know that his position -- for now -- is EXACTLY like McCain's on Iraq: we should leave as quickly as possible, without jeopardizing either our own forces, or the security of Iraq. That has been McCain's position for a long time, and it has recently become Obama's position. Please stop pretending that Obama The Rookie actually has something interesting or useful to add to the conversation.
Of course he better not let Phil Graham (the economic genius) speak for him any time in the near future.
Shrug. Gramm was right: Obama, and you, and many other people are a bunch of whiners who have absolutely no sense of perspective, and no understanding of the economy. Obama does not have EVEN ONE solution to the economic problems we face. He is just parrotting Bill Clinton's "I feel your pain," but he has no plan to actually do anything about it.
Oh right, he wants to renegotiate trade deals. Except he doesn't.
If you want more of the same in the economy, Obama's your man. More borrowing, more consumer debt, continued increased unemployment and decreased dollar. Obama is the definition of status quo on the economy. There's only three ways out of the mess we're in: one is to grow the economy, which is McCain's plan. The second is the Ron Paul plan, which is to basically do a massive overhaul of the whole monetary system. The third is a bloody revolution.
Obama is, presumably, for none of the above. He might say he is for the former, but as he wants to raise taxes on businesses, we know he is lying.
Change, my foot.
Please tell us why you want to see the Iraqui people enslaved by monstrous dictators like Sadaam or Al Queda. Obviously you, like your bretheren Democrats, hate America, and want to see us lose the conflict there. Please explain why. I am willing to bet that if Algore or Kerrytraitor were President you would not be here complaining.
Posted by: NW Denizen on July 27, 2008 05:20 PMGod, if we had only know what Geo W Bush "WOULD DO AS PRESIDENT", we never would have elected him twice.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on July 27, 2008 05:31 PMHello ? Bush is not running again - Get over it... Actually, that is a good point. You have illustrated a big reason why all Americans owe it to themselves to be vigilant about this guy, Obama. The slicker he is, the more we need to probe and find out about the background and surrounding his positions. A lot of conservatives/others were duped by Bush and it is even more vital that this does not happen in this election for POTUS. It may seem like voting for the lesser of two evils, but believe there is a significant difference between the two candidates. There is more evidence to add to why I and other supporters of smaller government would never, ever vote for Obama.
Posted by: KS on July 27, 2008 05:54 PMSo "Facts" you liar, and Unkl your simpleton, what experience does Obama have that qualify him for the Presidency?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 27, 2008 06:25 PMThe experience necessary to qualify Obama for presidency is simply the experience necessary to run an effective campaign to get himself elected by a majoritiy of the electorate in those states needed to maintain a majoriy of the electoral votes.
So far, he's been up the task.
If I am a simpleton, so be it.
You just need to get your head around the fact that, right now, it looks like Obama will be the next President of the United States of America.
Can you deal with that?
Posted by: Unkl Witz on July 27, 2008 08:54 PMSo that means you'll vote for Ralph Nader, since he's run THREE campaigns for the Presidency, right?
And of course it means you completely agree that President George W. Bush was fully qualified to be President since he ran a successful campaign twice.
Thanks for your endorsement of W!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 27, 2008 09:23 PMI think Witz is basically saying "Democracy says that if you are legally qualified and the people choose you, you are therefore qualified."
And there's something to be said for that, but as I pointed out, it avoids the actual point, and as you pointed out, it means Bush was well-qualified.
This is actually a recurring theme: the double-standard for Obama. Bush was an idiot who had to surround himself with people much smarter than himself, but when Obama has a similar need for more experienced people, well, that's just fine. It was terrible for Bush to (allegedly) do drugs and drink, but that Obama did drugs and smokes cancer sticks is A-OK.
And this is all justified very simply and clearly: he is The Obama. He is a Lightbringer. He means well. He cares. He gives hope. He wants change.
And other utter tripe.
All Facts Support My Positions whines: "Doc. Do you think Bush knows how many states there are? Really? Obama was talking about contests. He just said states. P.R. Guam etc....
I just love how McCain talks about the surge non stop. It keeps him from having to talk about the disaster/nightmare in Iraq he supported completely"...
Is this yet another pathetic fool who easily apes the stuttering dim-wit regardless of the facts?
Sadly there are far to many All Facts Support My Positions type douche nozzles out there...
Have you ever considered that the United States Constitution does not allow for most of what Obama is an advocate for? The same goes for McCain.
It seems to me that the Republicrats and Democans are to factions in the same party. They have both decided that it is OK to use government to take money by force from citizens to funnel to their pet projects/constituencies. The only difference between the the Republicrats and Democans is that the disagree on who should receive the money they stole.
By calling yourself "All Facts Support My Positions" you just make yourself look like a complete idiot because the facts do not support your positions. Try reading the Constitution some time and show me where in there does it grant the federal government the power to create a national health care system, FAA, FDA, EPA, etc. If you want a hint, try reading Article 1, Section 8, it clearly enumerates the powers of Congress and in traditional English common law (which is what the Constitution uses as it's language and styling basis), enumerated lists are considered exhaustive which means Article 1, Section 8 was clearly meant to list exactly the powers of Congress. The Constitution is not a "living document" up for interpretation by whomever happens to be in office.
Even if you disagree with me, just consider this: if the government can ignore article 1 section 8, then why can't it ignore amendments 1 through 10? If you agree with ignoring the parts of the Constitution you disagree with, they you deserve no protection under the parts you do agree with (e.g. 1st amendment, 4th and 5th amendments).
If you're still in doubt about that the Constitution was meant as an explicit enumeration of what the federal government was allowed to do, just read amendments 9 and 10.
You know what, I know you won't go read them because they're an inconvenient truth. So I'll list them here for you:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Notice how "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are reserved to...the people." That right there means that what is listed in the Constitution is *all* the feds are allowed to do. Case closed.
'bout time for a revolution again I think.
Posted by: blindman on July 27, 2008 10:31 PMHave you ever considered that the United States Constitution does not allow for most of what Obama is an advocate for?
True.
The same goes for McCain.
Not true. Not even close to "most."
Also, I don't know why you bring up this example anyway: what if all of what Al Gore says IS true? What if the sea levels are going to rise two feet in the next 20 years? Is it reasonable to say that Illinois must cut emissions in order to not harm New York or California's coastlines? I think a case can be made there. It's not about whether it is junk science, some of it very well may be warranted, if it is true (which both of us are skeptical of).
Further, I should point out that we are not talking about constitutional mandates, but what powers are ALLOWED to the federal government, AND ALSO prohibited to the states. Perhaps a minor semantic point, but not necessarily, if one could make the case that California is prohibited from forcing Illinois to cut its emissions, and those emissions are causing harm to California ... then it could fall under federal jurisdiction.
My point here is that your example is, IMO, not a very good example of a breach of federalism, although a case could be made either way.