It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Clinton? Obama? or Edwards? Who Will It Be?

page: 44
12
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


I agree with you about Huckabee but so far from what I have seen of the McCain campaign if there is a way to shoot themselves in the foot, they will find it. And when you consider that Huckabee's name hasn't even been floated in the blogs and news I have read... well then it makes you wonder why not.

Personally I think McCain has a real antipathy for the religious right and that is in part why he gave almost robotic rote answers at that religious forum whereas Obama gave serious and well considered responses even if they weren't the one's his audience wanted to hear.

In fact, the fact that Obama did not give safe, pat answers to them raised my estimation of him considerably, when after all giving them the "safe" answers were all they were looking for anyway.




posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   
I thin kwe saw the real John McCain be-for he began this Presidential run. The real John McCain is mistrustful of the extreme right ,and he really is what the mainstream would chacterize as a liberal Republican. His prior stance on immigration prove that beyond any shadow of a doubt.

In many respoects, McCain is trying tobe a composite, and he's just not pulling it off. Too many deals, for the sake of success. He's not the first poliitcal figure to fall in to that trap, and he won't be the last. Obama himself will have to make a lot deals and compromises, if he wants the Presidency.

As we sit here and type, you and I have the luxury of being who and what we are. Too many politicians are willing to shake ahnds with the praverbial Devil in order to win high office. Tehre's nothing wrong with changing your mind, but few politicians are willing to admit that they actually did have a change of ehart about anything.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 



Personally I think McCain has a real antipathy for the religious right . . the fact that Obama did not give safe, pat answers to them raised my estimation of him considerably, when after all giving them the "safe" answers were all they were looking for anyway.


I will say this for the last time here, no politician can tell the truth and win an election. Whether this is an American phenomenon or is universal in the democratic world I do not know. Maybe this is what Ben Franklin meant when he replied the Philadelphia convention was bequeathing us a REPUBLIC if we can keep it?

I will continue to argue we have TOO much democracy in America. It’s killing us.

[edit on 8/25/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



I think we saw the real John McCain before he began this Presidential run. The real John McCain is what the mainstream would characterize as a liberal Republican. His prior stance on immigration prove that beyond any shadow of a doubt. McCain is trying to be a composite and he's just not pulling it off. Obama himself will have to make a lot deals and compromises, if he wants the Presidency . .


I do not mean to constantly harangue or denigrate Americans, but I cannot help but wonder how uninformed people can possibly make important decisions correctly? That is why I am a party man. I say vote the party that shares your own personal values and advances your interests. You cannot possibly vote the man. That is as they say in medicine, contra-indicated. A cop-out.



Too many politicians are willing to shake hands with the proverbial Devil to win high office. There's nothing wrong with changing your mind, but few politicians are willing to admit that they actually did have a change of heart about anything.


Well, that is our Nielsen driven MSM. Those rich and famous who take full advantage of the First Amendment to screw us daily. Wholly forsaking the implicit bargain made in the Constitutional guarantee of a free press. In return, they owe us to be informed about important issues. NONE of them are doing that to my best knowledge.

[edit on 8/25/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 10:34 PM
link   
There's no doubt in my mind that we are seeing an all time low in American politics. Obama's lack of substance is excused by the media, and MCain's inconsistent compromises are just two examples. If we could hear just one thing from Ben Franklin today, it might be "you're about to get what you deserve."



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


Politicians world wide have a deserved reputation for being untruthfulness at times . Come election time this can be particularly the case or they will avoid giving direct answers to questions more then usual . Popularism is the flavour of the month world wide . John Key and the National part don't stand for anything and yet with voters drifting back towards the two major party's . This could result in National governing alone .



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Forty acres and a mule. Politicians are going to tell every group what they want to hear. Always have, always will.

To "paraphrase" Michelle Obama from her convention speech last night:
Obama is the THREAT that connects us.


[edit on 8/26/2008 by TheAvenger]



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 



Politicians world wide have a deserved reputation for being untruthfulness at times. Popularism is the flavor of the month world wide. John Key and the National party don't stand for anything and yet with voters drifting back . . This could result in National governing alone.


I dunno Mr X11. I’ve come to the conclusion successful politicians have their finger exactly on our pulse. It is us, the electorate, that want to believe the unbelievable, maybe a reversion to our old days of religion? The pols will answer any question we want answered. Oh, we gripe and complain endlessly, but I’m still of the opinion that pols do what the public “wants” done.

Up here, were are still divided about 49/49. 2 “I don’t give a dam.” Red v. Blue. Pro death penalty anti death penalty. There is no middle ground. Pro choice, anti abortion. Again, there is no middle ground. Raise taxes or lower taxes. You cannot have it both ways at the same time.

End the Iraq war or extend the Iraq war. Dick Cheney said the War on Terror would be perpetual. Bush43 wants to stay in Iraq until they are certified democrats. Neither Cheney nor Bush43 has even begun to deal with the $2 b. a week it is costing us. Our future is being mortgaged to China. Yet RED voters love’em, and BLUE voters hate’em.

We get the government we deserve.

[edit on 8/26/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAvenger
 



Forty acres and a mule. Politicians are going to tell every group what they want to hear. Always have, always will.

To "paraphrase" Michelle Obama from her convention speech last night: Obama is the THREAT that connects us.


I missed that one.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   
We do get the government we deserve. There's just no two ways about that. AS far as the first night of the Dems convention goes, I think that we did see a changing of the guard. Old handing off to new. New packaging for those who are still involved. In Michelle Obama's case, lots of new packaging.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



New packaging for those who are still involved. In Michelle Obama's case, lots of new packaging.


Calm. Dispassionate. Factual. Familial. Rational. Thoughtful. Confident. All of the above?

But not contrite. Not apologetic. Or as we LOVE to harangue convicted persons just before sentencing, NO REMORSE!

On that issue - remorse - there are 2 things that puzzle me: 1) How do you show remorse? 2) How do you know the remorse being shown is genuine?



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAvenger
 


So according to your signature Avenger, you must really be ticked off at all the lies the bush administration has told.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


Q. Can we now begin to deal with the COMMANDER IN CHIEF issue? I never have understood that as an “issue.” Let’s begin with the US Con. Article 2, Section 2. “The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States . .

Why was this choice made? All the writers I have read and who discuss the Founding Fathers on this point suggest it was a means chosen to discourage if not prevent a military take-over of the Government. America has never favored a large standing army. In a fair context one really should read Article 1, Section 8 which lays out the powers of Congress. See Foot Note 1.

Commander in chief is NOT Dictator for Life as Bush43 seems to think. Bush - short on facts but long on faith - was probably encouraged in that misconception by both Alberto Gonzales and Dick Cheney as it suited well their own personal ambitions or agenda.

Presidents in the 20th century. TR Roosevelt was a cavalry man in the Spanish American war. Woodrow Wilson never served in the Army. FDR was an Assistant Secretary of the Navy under Wilson. Harry Truman was a captain of artillery in WW1. Dwight Eisenhower was the 5 star general of Operation Overlord that ultimately ended the war in Europe. JFK was a Lt. In the USN. LBJ held some rank but I don’t know what. RMN was a Lt Cdr in Navy. Gerald Ford may not have served in WW2? Jimmy Carter commanded a nuclear sub, so I guess his rank was Cdr. Reagan did not serve in the Armed Forces. Bush41 was a Lt in the Navy and was shot down in a Grumman TBF. Bill Clinton did not serve in the Armed Forces. Bush43 was a Lt in the Texas/Alabama Air National Guard. John McCain retired after 20 years service in the Navy at the rank of Captain. O6.

To my best knowledge W.H. Taft, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan did not serve in the Armed Forces before becoming Commander in Chief. Ford gets good marks for the SS Mayaguez incident with Cambodia. Carter got bad marks for his handling of the Tehran Hostage Incident. Reagan gets poor marks for Granada IMO. I credit neither Reagan nor Pope JP2 with winning the Cold War. After a half century, the West overpowered the East. Rule 1. Correlation is not causation.

In all honesty I cannot say that military service BETTER prepares a man to be Commander in Chief than native intelligence, and the ability to absorb information from subordinates would. Despite the Republican’s shrill efforts to the contrary, America is not at war. And the current Commander in Chief has made EVERY MISTAKE known or unknown to the mind of man! Once stung, we surely don’t want another Air National Guard grounded lieutenant who may or may not have been AWOL, for our Commander in Chief. (He still refuses to show us his pilot’s log book, the proud and prized possession of every pilot).

This is the FIRST campaign in my memory where the question of Commander in Chief has risen to the level of an ISSUE. To put it as some street smart people would, IT IS WHAT IT IS.

Which to me is INCONSEQUENTIAL. A non-issue. A Republican ploy to play to the war hero status of John McCain. I think the Republicans purposely want to confuse the post of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff with the responsibility vested in the presidency, Commander in Chief.

What say you?


Foot Note 1.
Us. Con. Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have power to 1) lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
2) To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
3) To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
4) To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
5) To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
6) To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
7) To establish post offices and post roads;
8) To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
9) To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
10) To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
11) To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
12) To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
13) To provide and maintain a navy;
14) To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
15) To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
16) To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
17) To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
18) To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. END


[edit on 8/27/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   
The "commander in chief" test is a media myth. It's an over-blown way of saying Leadership or, "ability to make decisions of great importance under pressure." Can you order men and women to do something that will in all likelihood result in their deaths? That's the real nub of the thing, but nobody wants to say it.

"He/She looks so Presidential." I've lost count of how many times I've head people say that. In the private sector, we hear people say, "he/she sounds like they know what they're talking about." The cold hard reality of the thing is that leades of all stripes need to put on a good show. that's particularly true for Presidents.

When the media blathers on about the CiC tst, they are really saying "he/she looks and sounds good in the role of an executive leader." In my opinion, ronald Reagan's biggest contribution to American life was his ability to act and sound like the kind of ledaer that we wanted. His policies were a different story, but he put on the right kind of show.

It's rare to find a man or woman who can act the part of the leader that we want. That's why the media can make up this "test" and talk about it for weeks on end. They don't want to call if for what it really is.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



In my opinion, Ronald Reagan's biggest contribution to American life was his ability to act and sound like the kind of leader that we wanted. His policies were a different story, but he put on the right kind of show.


Absolutely! And, it can be well argued that as we continued into the era of stagflation, that was what the country needed. I deny that approach was the ONLY way out of the economic morass but that gets into the area of “what if” guessing on speculations. And I’ll also say, whether Reagan intended it or not, he began the Conservative Revolution in America that changed the public’s concept of the proper relationship the government should have towards the people. Or put this way, what fraction of the US public was born after 1962? Them being old enough to vote for Reagan in 1980. The oldest would be 46 this year.

Privatizing the military began with SAC - Strategic Air Command - and Gen. LeMay. Mid or late 1950s. It was the first and for a long time the only Command in the AF that replaced the much abhored Kitchen Police duty with contract civilians. That was regarded as both a necessity to retain lower ranking EMs from whose ranks KP duty was required and as a reward to the Command for being the BEST of the AF.

SAC also was first to abandon annual parades of the troops past a reviewing stand. We were “technicians” and “professionals” and not toy soldiers to be paraded about. Gradually that idea spread throughout the Armed Forces of the United States. The AFUS as opposed to the USAF. United States Air Force.

Recall how LeMay singlehandedly "adopted" the Colt AR15 that morphed into the ubiquitous M16?



It's rare to find a man or woman who can act the part of the leader that we want. That's why the media can make up this "test" and talk about it for weeks on end. They don't want to call if for what it really is.


J/O, you nailed down this (humble) effort to add a new facet to the thread on your first shot. How can I keep up the debate when I have to agree with everything you say?! Consider: Who would have guessed the rich playboy womanizing junior senator from MA would rise to the occassion in the Cuba Missile Crisis barely 21 months into his presidency? Perhaps the most dangerous period the world has faced after VJ Day? All the more for following on the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

Do you doubt that Bush43 would have nuked Havana?

Thank you, Mr J/O, for putting the C-in-C issue to rest.


[edit on 8/27/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
J/O, you nailed down this (humble) effort to add a new facet to the thread on your first shot. How can I keep up the debate when I have to agree with everything you say?!


I think we have a mandate/obligation to bring our best arguments to the table, each time we take up these discussions. We can't win hearts and change minds if we do less. I can't speak to the consiratorial elements of government if I can't speak to the nuts and bolts that hold it all together. Thanks for the compliment.


[edit on 27-8-2008 by Justin Oldham]



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Well I have to say it was an interesting convention. I have to hand it to Hillary. She pulled it off with considerable grace and aplomb... especially when she closed the roll call. She could have been less graceful or more grudging but did what she had to do and more... even ole Bill behaved himself and did well... I see Bill as ambassador to the UN and Hillary heading Health and Human Services. Both would do well in those positions.

As for Obama... I really have no illusions about him... in fact besides the one he gave in 2004, this was the first full speech of his I had heard and the man can talk... and despite his naysayers comments about that being his only draw... they lie, if a person can talk well they can persuade and if they can persuade then they can govern.... its really as simple as that... you govern either though coercion or persuasion and of the two persuasion is the most effective.

I have no illusions about him because he is after all a politician but I do believe he is sincere. And he is far more moderate and mainstream than his detractors would have you believe.

If Obama can do half of what he proposes then he will be a great president, even if he just does a third of it, he will still be far better than bush minor and his corrupt cohorts.

In retrospect... in 2000 people said of bush minor that he seemed like an average guy, someone you could sit down and have a beer with. Now think about it clearly for a moment... would you want any of your buddies you sit down and have a few brews with anywhere near the halls of power? I love my friends dearly but I have also promised them all that if any of them ever decide to go into politics I am going to put a contract out on them.
(just kidding if the FBI and CIA are reading this
)

As for Obama he strikes me as the type of man you can sit down with and have a serious discussion with, even if you disagree, you know it will be civil because he is civil. Which really worries me because the hard right and the Republicans are going to (and started some time ago) probably run the ugliest campaign in modern history because really they have nothing to run on other than fear. AND considering how they have behaved over the past eight years, I honestly do believe that this time it will blow up in their faces, and its about time. Still Obama can't sit back and pull a John Kerry and let himself be defined and smeared by the opposition... he is going to have to fight back and fight back hard or he runs the chance of being buried. Still the currents are pulling in his favor... people are sick of the bullhooey.

As for McCain. I respected the McCain of 2000, even though I wouldn't vote for him even then. However he sold his soul by sucking up to bush minor and the party for this chance... and especially after the crappy way he was treated in the South Carolina primary in 2000 when surrogates for the bush minor campaign sent out those mailings and calls suggesting that McCain's Bangledeshi daughter was the result of a tryst with a black prostitute... we saw Rove at his vilest. (there is a special place in hell for the Karl Roves of the world, soulless bastards with no sense of simple human decency) I was expecting McCain to tell bush minor and company to sit on it and rotate after that but no.

He lost all my regard and respect after that and as he has gotten older the more he has hewed to the party line and bush minor's policies... there is no maverick there to bet on now.

Obama will win... the tides are in his favor... the real question now is by how much.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by grover]



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 



Well I have to say it was an interesting convention. I have to hand it to Hillary. She pulled it off with considerable grace and aplomb... especially when she closed the roll call . .even ole Bill behaved himself . . Bill as ambassador to the UN and Hillary heading Health and Human Services.


America does not pay its ambassadors well. A high profile job like that needs a millionaire to do it right. Well, a multi-millionaire. Bill cannot spare that much of his wealth. I see him as Ambassador at Large. To do special assignments. To go to hot spots. To take getting too old Jimmy Carter’s spot.

Hillary is too smart to give up her sinecure as NY’s junior senator.
Next time she runs is 2012. If Obama muffs it this time, she’ll be there ready to run for the top slot one more time.



As for Obama . . besides the one he gave in 2004, this was the first full speech of his I had heard and the man can talk and despite his naysayers comments . . they lie, if a person can talk well they can persuade and if they can persuade then they can govern . . its really as simple as that . . you govern either though coercion or persuasion and of the two persuasion is the most effective.


Exactly, Grover.



I have no illusions about him because he is after all a politician but I do believe he is sincere. And he is far more moderate and mainstream than his detractors would have you believe. Obama strikes me as the type of man you can sit down with and have a serious discussion with, even if you disagree, you know it will be civil because he is civil. Which really worries me because the hard right and the Republicans are going to (and started some time ago) probably run the ugliest campaign in modern history because really they have nothing to run on other than fear.

Obama can't sit back and pull a John Kerry and let himself be defined and smeared by the opposition . . he is going to have to fight back and fight back hard or he runs the chance of being buried. Still the currents are pulling in his favor . . people are sick of the bullhooey. However he [McCain] sold his soul by sucking up to bush minor and the party for this chance .. and especially after the crappy way he was treated in the South C arolina primary in 2000 when surrogates for the bush minor campaign sent out those mailings and calls suggesting that McCain's Bangladesh daughter was the result of a tryst with a black prostitute . . we saw Rove at his vilest.

Obama will win . . the tides are in his favor . . the real question now is by how much.


Well put! My sentiments exactly.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   
What does everyone think about the choice of Sarah Palin as McCain's VP? A lot of people here in Alaska thought she'd be a good choice, but nobody thought she would get picked.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


My first reaction was one of surprise. McCain and his advisor's are working on the basis that the religious right is dead at least for now . The naivety of pro lifers is rather amusing . They don't seem to grasp that Republicans only pay lip service to there beliefs come election time . Anyway I might have more thoughts on this matter as I learn more .



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join