Obama, the Consummate Politician?

[Steve R.]

Hannity and Colmes interviewed Joe the Plumber tonight. Hannity noted that Joe's remarks resonated with the American people, but that Joe had also become the target of a campaign to discredit him. The ensuing discussion concluded that the campaign to discredit Joe was an attempt to get a negative media spotlight on Joe so that Obama's response to Joe would "recede" from the public conscious.

Obama has made two position statements that have failed capture the scrutiny of the news media. In the first position statement, McCain and Obama (at the second debate) were asked how they would cut the budget deficit. Obama response that we can not blindly cut programs from the budget but that we would need to carefully evaluate all programs since some programs, like childcare, would need to be increased. Obama clearly failed to answer the question and morphed it into an appeal to save-the-children. I do not recall the news media pointing out this non-answer to the public and demanding that Obama answer the question.

In the second position statement, Obama has called for a withdrawal from Iraq. Recently he has now come out in favor of an increased troop presence in Afghanistan. I suspect that Obama's statement to increase our presence in Afghanistan was made so he could look tough without appearing to contradict what he has been saying about Iraq. Assuming that he wins the election, I would speculate that he would conveniently "reassess" the situation and conclude that we shouldn't be there. Again I am surprised that the news media has apparently overlooked this dichotomy. Obama has provided a superficial response, but the media has not appeared to be too concerned about digging deeper.

I surmise that the news media is more interested in making Joe's story a sordid soap opera rather than providing an in-depth analysis of Obama's positions.

 

[Banana]

A while ago I cited a survey that showed how people on both side will see only what they want to see. Partisans on both side are quick to point sins of other side while glossing over the same sins of their parties. Quite mind-boggling.

 

[georgedwilkinson]

I surmise that the news media is more interested in making Joe's story a sordid soap opera rather than providing an in-depth analysis of Obama's positions.

I gotta go with you on this. I saw Joe on Huckabee last night and he's just a regular guy that Obama is trying to destroy along with his puppets in the media.

The news media is complicit in us getting what seems like will be the worst president ever, thanks to their distortions and the sheep who follow them. His policies, if he can implement them, might throw us into a depression that will make the Great Depression look like a little dip. Of course, then he can declare a state of national emergency and martial law. Just like Hitler all over again.

 

[Steve R.]

Banana, quite true. I have been overlooking McCain's faults. Against Monopoly has written "McCain wants party right to copy as fair use". Also see "Will Either McCain Or Obama Commit To Reforming The DMCA?" Evidently McCain voted for "stronger" copyright that had the effect of diminishing fair use and now he wants to use fair use and can't. Another example of a clueless politician not realizing the implications of what they voted for.

 

[Banana]

just Like Hoover/fdr All Over Again.

T, Ftfy.

 

[Banana]

Banana, quite true. I have been overlooking McCain's faults. Against Monopoly has written "McCain wants party right to copy as fair use". Also see "Will Either McCain Or Obama Commit To Reforming The DMCA?" Evidently McCain voted for "stronger" copyright that had the effect of diminishing fair use and now he wants to use fair use and can't. Another example of a clueless politician not realizing the implications of what they voted for.

I don't know if you've heard of DownsizeDC.org, but their long term mission is to get Congress pass few simple bills that would help stop this kind of crap:

1) Read the Bill Bill
2) Write the Law Bill
3) Cite the Constiution Bill
4) One Subject at a Time Bill

There's more but suffice to say that the Congress never took them seriously, despite that this is a common-sense, nonsense and noncontroversial issue.

 

[ajetrumpet]

A while ago I cited a survey that showed how people on both side will see only what they want to see. Partisans on both side are quick to point sins of other side while glossing over the same sins of their parties. Quite mind-boggling.

Welcome to the political world. Did someone say CO-EXIST? I'm afraid that's not possible with weirdos like this...

 

[georgedwilkinson]

Banana, quite true. I have been overlooking McCain's faults. Against Monopoly has written "McCain wants party right to copy as fair use". Also see "Will Either McCain Or Obama Commit To Reforming The DMCA?" Evidently McCain voted for "stronger" copyright that had the effect of diminishing fair use and now he wants to use fair use and can't. Another example of a clueless politician not realizing the implications of what they voted for.

I haven't been overlooking McCain's faults. He has plenty (like we all do).

However, since there are really only 2 candidates, I can compare the 2 and come to the conclusion that one has a history of making decisions and taking action (right or wrong) and the other has a history of avoiding decisions and talking about how the people who acted did it wrong. Put another way, McCain is a leader (with faults) and Obama is a leach (with even more faults).

On the economy, there is a clear leader, too. McCain wants to keep the successful Bush tax cuts. Obama wants to talk bad about a guy (a regular Joe) who asked him a tough question (and then raise our taxes, including letting Bush tax cuts lapse). Raising taxes in our current economic climate would be catastrophic.

On national security, McCain wants to win the war on terror. Obama wants to run with his tail between his legs. Presumably, he'll negotiate with the terrorists to beg them not to harm the US again. I've never seen that tactic work with bullies.

 

[georgedwilkinson]

I never have either George. The bullies in my school were always dicks to me until I slapped them upside the head. At that point, they sat back and looked like "WHAT'S GOING ON!? YOU MEAN, WE'RE NOT RIGHT IN DOING THIS!?" Give them an inch, they'll take a mile...

Agreed, a real-world example of this was Carter's wimping down of our military and how that was received by our (at that time new) enemies, contrasted to Reagan's very strong stance, which eventually led to the end of the Iron Curtain and the Cold War. In my mind, Obama is like Carter (worse, because Carter was fundamentally an ethical guy which is questionable to me about BHO) and McCain is like Reagan...he's just not gonna take a lot of crap. That's the kind of leadership we need and that I appreciate.

 

[David Eagar]

Hannity and Colmes Fair & Balanced? Chalk & Cheese

 

[Alisa]

In the second position statement, Obama has called for a withdrawal from Iraq. Recently he has now come out in favor of an increased troop presence in Afghanistan. I suspect that Obama's statement to increase our presence in Afghanistan was made so he could look tough without appearing to contradict what he has been saying about Iraq. Assuming that he wins the election, I would speculate that he would conveniently "reassess" the situation and conclude that we shouldn't be there. Again I am surprised that the news media has apparently overlooked this dichotomy. Obama has provided a superficial response, but the media has not appeared to be too concerned about digging deeper.

You have completely mischaracterized Obama's position on Iraq and Afghanistan, which just goes to show that you aren't interested in his *actual* position at all, talk about not digging deeper. But just in case you are actually interested, his position all along has been that we prematurely drew down our troops in Afghanistan in order to invade Iraq, that Afghanistan is and always has been the central front in the war on terrror, and that Iraq is a distraction that actually hurts the overall mission.

I actually disagree with his position. Invading Afghanistan was never a good idea either, and none of the countries that have tried it in the past have "succeeded", whatever that means. I do think we should have gone after bin Laden, and we should still do that if it isn't too late to track him down, but I don't think adding more troops in Afghanistan as Obama proposes is going to help that situation, especially since the terrorists appear to just be moving into the border region of Pakistan to escape the troops we've already got in there. But the point is, you should criticize him on his actual position, and not your fictional version of his position.

 

[Rich]

contrasted to Reagan's very strong stance, which eventually led to the end of the Iron Curtain and the Cold War.

The people within brought an end to the cold war, not Raygun

 

[Rich]

IObama wants to talk bad about a guy (a regular Joe) who asked him a tough question

Joe isn't a regular guy and didn't ask a question about a regular guy, unless you're suggesting the majority of plumbers in the US are likely to earn in excess of $250,000 a year, if you are then provide the facts and graphs etc

 

[georgedwilkinson]

Joe isn't a regular guy

Seriously? Have you seen this guy and his family? They are just as regular as you can get.

and didn't ask a question about a regular guy, unless you're suggesting the majority of plumbers in the US are likely to earn in excess of $250,000 a year, if you are then provide the facts and graphs etc

It is the goal of every business in the United States to make money. The more the merrier. If Joe had aspirations of running his own plumbing business, I would think his goal would be to make $250K a year or more. Maybe he was being overly optimistic in his belief, which is typical of a regular guy (which you say he's not, which is justification for Barack Hussein Obama to sick his thugs on Joe). You wouldn't expect Joe the Plumber or Joe the anything else to understand the complications of running a business.

But you would think that if you had 20-50 plumbers working for you, you certainly would make in excess of $100K, after expenses...not too far of a stretch to make $250K...it's all big numbers to people who've never made more than $80K. I would certainly not go through all the trouble for less.

Why on earth would anyone go into business, get all the licenses, pay for all the equipment and marketing, etc. if they didn't expect to make a load of money from it all? Easier to just sit back and let Obama give someone else's money to you.

Spread the wealth. I'll give my excess money to Obama so he can give it to you.

 

[Alisa]

George, you consistently talk about GROSS instead of NET. There are very very few small businesses that NET over 250k. Think about it. A typical profit margin is 5 or 10%, if you are lucky. That means to net over 250,000, you would have to have gross revenue of 2,500,000 to 5,000,000. That is no small plumbers business that I've ever heard of.

 

[chergh]

Yep Joe is a regular guy who isn't called Joe, isn't a licensed plumber, is unlikely to be buying a business, is a registered republican and according to the BBC would likely benefit from Obama's tax plans.

 

[Alisa]

Yep Joe is a regular guy who isn't called Joe, isn't a licensed plumber, is unlikely to be buying a business, is a registered republican and according to the BBC would likely benefit from Obama's tax plans.

Now now, stop reporting the facts. That is just irresponsible "slandering" of a "regular" guy

 

[chergh]

On the economy, there is a clear leader, too. McCain wants to keep the successful Bush tax cuts.

Successful tax cuts???

Your country is $10,000,000,000,000 dollars in debt and in recession yeah they're a great success.

 

[Rich]

Successful tax cuts???

Your country is $10,000,000,000,000 dollars in debt and in recession yeah they're a great success.

George like Bush wants to blame Clinton for the mess Bush got the country into

 

[chergh]

Clinton was 8 years ago and on top of that for the last part of his presidency the republicans had veto proof majorities in the senate and congress.