[shrug] As a nation, we’ve had worse dates.
Vote Obama - for the sexy blond who shares your values and desires you met on e-harmoney after your starter-marriage.
I think we just got done having the most expensive beer we’ve ever had, and we got stuck with the tab.
Just charge it to the kids’ accounts instead.
“Dad, I got this charge here from Slutz 'R Us? A Budweiser and two roofies? So I’m wondering…”
Blond?
Regards,
Shodan
And sidewalk!
I find it hard to separate the Repubs from the neocons. The neos do not believe in a small government. They have said deficits do not matter. They believe that corporations should be free to do any thing they want. They want war after war. (i am not sure if it is a self enrichment thing or a conquering thing). They are dangerous to the world as a whole.
Is McCain able to toss these maniacs aside or is he beholden to them. Does he believe in taking care of the debt, which these called tax and spend Dems did. We were far more financially stable then. I think the neos too close to the power base and they must be avoided. Therefore nothing could entice me to vote Repub.
Trust me, gonzo, few things are more reinforcing to my opinions than the knowledge that some people do not share them.
Regards,
Shodan
It doesn’t, but it matters that their principles differ. As I explained.
Because one of his principles, as I sense it, is to examine his principles routinely for weakness and soundness. A person so inclined is more likely eventually to find good principles. Especially when contrasted against a person who has none at all.
That’s the meaning I’m clearly using, and what you said is what I would say about Hillary and McCain. Their both authoritarians hell bent on making our decisions for us IN A WAY THAT BENEFITS THEM. That is the crucial difference, in my view, between their principles and Obama’s. That’s why Hillary voted for the war, and Obama voted against it. That one vote alone is a lot wider than a dime.
Good on you, then. I would decline the same thing.
I believe that the facts of the matter contradict you. Kerry was a standard issue Democratic politician — boring, slightly stuck up, and wealthy beyond one’s wildest dreams. Hillary, same same. But Obama has roused the populace like no Democrat since Kennedy.
You’re wrong. Bush has proved that a president may act unilaterally in a capacity to both execute and interpret law. This isn’t 1970s America when politicians felt beholden to the Constitution. They are sheltered from the people, writing their laws to protect themselves from us. Obama has noted this, and his principles drive him to tear it down.
As for Carter, one could argue that Reagan was the reason we survived. It was the same sort of time. The same malaise. The same national shame. The same pessimism. This nation needs Barack Obama, and for the sake of our grand children my wife and I — nearly lifelong libertarians — are voting for him if he makes it to the general.
I was talking primarily about their positions on the issues. Although nobody on the SDMB really cared about Kerry’s positions - he just wasn’t Bush. Likewise, nobody seems to care what Obama’s positions are on the issues - he’s so inspiring!
The Dems ran an empty suit against a weak candidate, and lost. Whether they can run a much more charismatic candidate against a much stronger candidate and win, remains to be seen.
He hasn’t, in my opinion, but as this will instantly hijack the thread back to sixteen million repetition of “BUSHLIEDOMGMONSTEREVILgollumgolllum” from the Usual Suspects (yourself NOT included) I will let it lie.
In what way, specifically, do you mean, and in what way different from Hilary? Or is it “He’s a nicer person than Hilary so he would never do such a thing”.
I can certainly see another strong and principled candidate arising to clean up the Obama mess. And since Obama (if he makes it) will have a clear majority in Congress, it will be quite difficult to blame his hypothetical fiascoes on the Republicans, although doubtless many on the SDMB will do their damndest.
But I will continue to believe that Reagan had actual ideas that he wanted to implement, as well as being inspirational. Obama is inspirational, but lacks ideas (as a core focus of his campaigns). Hilary has ideas, but no charisma. If the Dems could come up with a candidate who combined both - I would still complain about the lack of real conservatives in the race.
Regards,
Shodan
Thinking you’re right despite others’ disagreement is intellectually courageous. Thinking you’re right because others disagree is grounds for some serious self-examination.
Underlinging mine - on what basis do you say this? Have you been on his website to read what his specific ideas are?
That is a leading question sir. He would never have posted what he did if he actually spent 10 minutes on Obama’s site.
Jim
There appears to be kind of a meme going around on the right that Obama does not offer any substantive plans or ideas or details for anything. All it really means is that the person saying it has made no effort to find out what Obama’s specific ideas are.
To be fair, I did not know what his platform was until early last month. When I checked back in September his website was very sparse. McCain was ahead of everyone this election cycle for having a robust Internet presence early. HRC was ahead of Obama back in September, but he has really got up to speed since then.
Jim
Depends on who the others are.
Well, we were talking about Reagan as a candidate who was inspirational and had ideas. The core ideas of Reagan’s first run were to cut taxes and rebuild the military. (The second time he ran on his record - you can do that if you are an incumbent.)
What are Obama’s core ideas? Not the stuff on his website - every candidate has a website. What are the core ideas that Obama is pushing?
AFAICT, it’s “change”. Well, that’s fine as far as it goes. But what specifically does he mean by it?
The most common response I have gotten has been the same for Kerry - 'he’s a change from Bush". As I have mentioned a time or two, that goes over big on the SDMB, and always has. But as far as the general electorate, I seem to remember a certain amount of surprise when it didn’t seem to go over as much in 2004.
Feel free to argue that Obama is focused like a laser beam on issues, and is hammering on a few key proposals that he would like to implement in his first term of office. But I can pretty much guarantee that any thread that tries to discuss his position on the issues is going to drift almost ineluctably back to “he’s better than Hilary” followed by “he’s better than Bush”.
OK, I’ve got the advantage over you because the SDMB is made up of so many for whom “Bush sux” constitutes the sum and pinnacle of their political thought. But I don’t see a concerted effort by Obama to try to make his ideas for the future of America real clear.
I grant you, if he can get the nomination by smiling and making nice speeches, he would be dumb to do anything else. And I don’t think he is dumb - politically naive (if he genuinely thinks he is going to be able to do more in Washington than other inexperienced Presidents have done) perhaps, inexperienced in the pitfalls of leadership, certainly. But not dumb.
But as Starving Artist has mentioned hereabouts, there is going to come a time when Obama is going to be required to be specific. Maybe he can make it to the White House by adding his personal charm to standard-issue Democratic boilerplate - I don’t know. But for the first time since, what, Eisenhower, there is no incumbent in the race (unless you count Hilary). Change? We’re gonna get that, no doubt about it.
But in what way?
Regards,
Shodan
You keep saying that as though repeating it will make it true. I care that he’s left on economic issues. I also care that McCain is right on social issues. And I care that Hillary is on whatever side she believes to be politically expedient. I do care about those things. But they are all three authoritarians, and my decision making process is something I already explained in quite some detail. You elected to parse that explanation into separate chunks and respond as though they were all unrelated paragraphs. The fact that you made that decision after directly asking me to explain myself leaves me to wonder whether the query was in fact sincere.
He’s much more than just a nice person. Again, I’ve explained this now to a fare-thee-well. The contrast between them could not be sharper — she is a conniving wealth seeker, while he is a person who desires to lead America out of her funk. That is how I see it, and I don’t know why you keep rephrasing what I’m saying as “He’s a nice guy and talks good”
Honestly, I have no dog in that fight. I’ll grant you that the SDMB is left-leaning, probably overwhelmingly so. But as a liberal, I favor both economic liberty and social liberty. If Obama messes up the economy or if McCain continues moving us toward a police state or if Hillary does both, there is still, in my opinion, as I’ve explained over and over, a need in this country for head-of-state leadership. Inspiration is important. You keep trivializing it as though it doesn’t matter. But lifting a people’s spirit is the first step in restoring their vigilance. Our nation could not have had a revolution without that kind of inspiration. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see Obama become fiscally conservative over the course of time.
We’ve had enough social conservatism. All it has done is to make people suspicious of religious faith and cynical about the motives of government. The social conservatives have used fear as a political tactic, and they are the reason that Americans have lost their courage and their goodness. They are like preachers who use God to line their pockets with wealth and power, except that they have used God, freedom, and patriotism. Patriotic Americans don’t give a damn about those pissing contests. Obama is the only patriot in the race. Patriotism doesn’t mean worshipping rags with printed stripes and making laws to define marriage; it means securing the liberty and prosperity of the people. In my opinion, that is Obama’s overarching principle: his belief in the goodness and potential of every American.
It’s classic politics- Obama’s standout strength in this field is his oratory and his personal charm, so, well, time to attack it as if it is a weakness.
Obama’s book on public policy (um, yes. He wrote a 300-page book on public policy that became a New York Times bestseller and includes multiple ideas) is evidence that the man does not lack plans, principles, or ideas.
Reagan’s magical duo of ideas are superior to Obama’s detailed and thoughtful platform only in this: When you only have a few ideas, it is very very easy to describe them to people. By this standard, the Taco Bell Chihuaua would have been twice as good a president as Reagan.
Obama’s challenge is not that he has too few ideas, it is that he has too many.
Reagan’s one “idea” was the thoroughly discredited and disastrous attack on the working class that was “Trickle-Down Economics.” He was essentially just an affable B-movie actor who manged (with the help of the media) to maintain an illusion of likeability and decency despite the runaway corruption of his administration and the abject failure of his economic policies to do anything but destroy the middle class. Nothing shows the right wing’s capacity for self-delusion and self-pacifying fantasy in the face of brutal reality than the mythologization of Reagan. The denial of evolution almost seems rational compared to reimagining of Ronald Reagan as a visionary – or even lucid — President.
You want ideas from Obama? Immediately ending the occupation of Iraq, UHC and energy independence (and at least starting to try to wean the country off the oil tit) are three ideas I can think of off the top of my head which are all completely necessary, all long overdue and all of which would continue to be ignored under another Republican regime.