posted
Nice job on ignoring everything that's been posted so far, malanthrop.
And the quote from Ayn Rand defines precisely what I believe to be wrong with most politics and just about all political commentary today. Someone who truly believes that has already shut their minds down to any sort of discussion.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a difference between compromise and lacking core principles.
The general must've changed his mind about what he really wanted or perhaps he was playing used car salesman, ask for twice what you hope to get. You forget, generals are politicians and military officers are legally forbidden from speaking against the commander and chief.
He wanted 60k and 40k minimum...are you saying 30k is what he wanted? He's a soldier and soldiers are of the mind that they will accomplish the mission with what they have. They are used to being underfunded and undermanned. They cannot afford to be negative. The general would never tell his troops that the presidents decision was insufficient to accomplish the mission. He will be quiet about his dissapointment. Would any leader project a message of immenent failure to those who follow?
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Obama knows nothing other than the political. He has accomplished nothing in any other pursuit.
He has a family and has well-raised children. I guess for the purposes of your monomaniac invective against a successful political career, that is "nothing."
I mean, really! Even for you, this is extraordinarily childish Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He's a successful father? That is rare in his community. I take it all back...he is qualified to be president. I was incorrect in stating he has no executive experience - he's been the executive of two children. Afterall, his party views the American people as children who do not know what is best.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: He's a successful father? That is rare in his community. I take it all back...he is qualified to be president.
I like the quality of your goalpost-shifting. It's like it is second nature for you. I catch you on your insinuation that he has 'accomplished nothing in any other pursuit,' and your defensive tactic relies on a sarcastic presumption that anyone at all was suggesting that being a father is an automatic qualification to be president.
Half the time, I have to ask if you just waltz into these gaffes for my amusement, but by now I know that it's really that you simply don't know any better.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about the qualifications to be a GOOD president of the United States? Here are some:
Not have any long-time past associates who are known to be criminals, terrorists, or fanatical denouncers of the United States of America. This would have mattered tremendously to all voters for any other candidate. Why did so many choose to shrug their shoulders and ignore or believe the provably false spins about Tony Rezko, William Ayers, Irreverend Jeremiah Wrong?
Must have moral and family values, and political views, in harmony with most Americans. According to polls, 40% of Americans describe themselves as conservative, 20% as liberal, and the rest as moderates. Barack Obama had the most liberal voting record in Congress, as judged by liberal groups who rate such votes. That puts him even further to the left than John Kerry and the late Ted Kennedy. Not to mention Congressman Dennis Kucinich, and "Governor Moonbeam" Jerry Brown (now Attorney General of California).
Have serious leadership experience, in government and/or business, involving real responsibility, preferably executive, with a good record of solid accomplishments to point to. Obama had none.
Have expertise in international affairs. Obama had none. That is why as representative of America, the Champion of Liberty and Democracy in the world, he commits such faux-paux as bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia, and to the supposedly divine Japanese Emperor Akihito. That is why he proclaims as a candidate he will meet with any problematic world leader "without preconditions," and since his election has only received laughing scorn and increased defiance and ridicule from the likes of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and North Korea's Kim Jong-Il.
Have comprehensive understanding of military principles and policy, especially on the strategic level. This is especially important for the person who would be Commander-In-Chief of the U.S. military. Obama had none. This is why every military decision he makes is only a political decision, designed to appease his core constituency without unduly alienating the much larger number who know America cannot afford to lose in Afghanistan. So he gives his field commander--whose recommendation he had pledged to follow--only three-fourths of the minimum increase in troop level he had requested. And this after dithering (the only honestly correct word) for three months, and not scheduling the troop increase until the spring of 2010.
He must have appreciation for and absolute loyalty to the constitutional principles which are the foundation of American government, which he swore to uphold at his inauguration (twice), including freedom of the press. Obama had the nerve to allow his administration to try to define top-rated Fox News as "not a news organization," which provoked even the left-leaning mainstream media into openly criticizing Obama to his face for intruding on freedom of the press.
Another such freedom is freedom of speech. Yet he had the nerve to denounce the many people who spoke out in criticism of his health care plan proposals at town hall meetings across the country, even saying "They should be silenced" or kept from speaking at such public venues.
All these tendencies could be seen in advance--and were seen--by those willing to open their eyes to objective reality and see what was really there to be seen.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not have any long-time past associates who are known to be criminals, terrorists, or fanatical denouncers of the United States of America.
Wow. Are there any presidents in my lifetime for whom that's been true? I can't think of any.
quote:Barack Obama had the most liberal voting record in Congress, as judged by liberal groups who rate such votes.
I've addressed this very recently, in a thread I know you read. When these studies say "liberal," what they mean is "most likely to vote the Democratic party line on votes that are heavily divided by party line." There is actually a significant distinction.
quote:Have serious leadership experience, in government and/or business, involving real responsibility, preferably executive, with a good record of solid accomplishments to point to.
Wow. Again, in my lifetime, I think we'd probably have to go back to Nixon.
quote:Have expertise in international affairs. Obama had none.
Hm. In my lifetime....Nixon, again.
quote:Have comprehensive understanding of military principles and policy, especially on the strategic level.
A comprehensive understanding of military strategy? I think we're going back before I was born -- to Eisenhower, now.
quote:He must have appreciation for and absolute loyalty to the consitutional principles which are the foundation of American government...
I'm confident that Obama cares more for the Constitution than Bush does, for what it's worth. But otherwise, no argument here. Of course, the last president who really cared about the Constitution was Carter.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Have expertise in international affairs. Obama had none.
Hm. In my lifetime....Nixon, again.
To be fair I think George H. W. Bush had foreign policy expertise having been ambassador to the UN, Envoy to China, and CIA director.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's see what there really is to be seen, then, shall we?
quote:Not have any long-time past associates who are known to be criminals, terrorists, or fanatical denouncers of the United States of America. This would have mattered tremendously to all voters for any other candidate. Why did so many choose to shrug their shoulders and ignore or believe the provably false spins about Tony Rezko, William Ayers, Irreverend Jeremiah Wrong?
Obama's dealing with Rezko have been documented through his tx returns, interviews and other sources: He bought a piece of property from him. Obama did not know Ayers very well, there's no indication that they ever discussed policy, and Obama has denounced Ayers' previous activities. (link) Rev. Wright is trickier, as Obama should have denounced Wright's specific statements immediately after they were brought to light.
quote:Must have moral and family values, and political views, in harmony with most Americans.
And since he won by popular vote, one imagines that enough people did feel he represented their values. However, the 40% conservative is a bit misleading, since the Republican Party drifted away from the conservative label over the last decade or so and now they don't necessarily represent the values of their own constituents either.
quote:Have serious leadership experience, in government and/or business, involving real responsibility, preferably executive, with a good record of solid accomplishments to point to. Obama had none.
Aside from the work he did in Chicago, of course. And his time as Senator, where he was the primary sponsor of 152 bills and resolutions introduced in the last Congress, where he sponsored three nonbinding resolutions that passed the Senate, and co-sponsored 14 bills that became law. And the campaign machine he built that outperformed every other candidate in every other way. On the plus side, he didn't have failed executive experience (Bush) or dismal governmental experience (Bush) and he comes to office without years of favors from lobbyists to pay back.
quote:Have expertise in international affairs. Obama had none.
Well, aside from actually living abroad at different times of his life. But that is a legitimate complaint, which was a big reason why Obama picked Biden as his running mate.
quote:That is why as representative of America, the Champion of Liberty and Democracy in the world, he commits such faux-paux as bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia, and to the supposedly divine Japanese Emperor Akihito.
Had you expressed similar outrage when Bush bowed to King Abdullah (and held his hand while walking together!), Clinton sort-of bowing to Emperor Akhito, or Nixon bowing low to Emperor Hirohito (who was Emperor when they bombed us, I'd probably care more.
Most of what Obama has done with foreign affairs has been to repair the actions of the previous administration, and if that means showing them some respect then I'm all for it.
quote:Have comprehensive understanding of military principles and policy, especially on the strategic level. [...] ...designed to appease his core constituency without unduly alienating the much larger number who know America cannot afford to lose in Afghanistan.
I believe he understands enough to know that we need to extricate ourselves from a war we should never have been in while doing as little additional damage on the way, and that we need to bring our time in Afghanistan to a mutually agreeable close. But the rest of your statements need some backing up. The majority of Americans polled want us out of Afghanistan. And I wish with all that's in me that Bush had dithered for three months before invading Iraq. Perhaps if he had considered the financial and emotional toil on our country, the impossibility of the task (described by Cheney himself 10 years previously as a quagmire we'd never attempt) and the loss of international support, we'd be better off now.
By the way, you have yet, after repeated requests, to define what "winning" in Afghanistan means. Please do so, if you expect me to take your pleas for it seriously. I even started a thread about it.
quote:He must have appreciation for and absolute loyalty to the consitutional principles which are the foundation of American government, which he swore to uphold at his inauguration (twice), including freedom of the press. Obama had the nerve to allow his administration to try to define top-rated Fox News as "not a news organization," which provoked even the left-leaning mainstream media into openly criticizing Obama to his face for intruding on freedom of the press.
Obama deserves criticism for the horrible handling of this "crisis," but he has never once suggested removing Fox News' freedom of speech. Freedom of speech includes freedom to speak your opinion, much as Bush did when criticizing MSNBC. Yes, this was an incredibly stupid PR failure, but it is not even close to being a constitutional breech.
quote:Another such freedom is freedom of speech. Yet he had the nerve to denounce the many people who spoke out in criticism of his health care plan proposals at town hall meetings across the country, even saying "They should be silenced" or kept from speaking at such public venues.
Please provide a link to validate that quote. I just googled it and found no instance of Obama ever saying that phrase.
However, I have seen several of those town hall meetings, and often the problem was that the people speaking were shouting down all attempts at conversation. They were rabble-rousing, plain and simple. Not everyone there against his plan were, mind you, but some definitely were. Is asking someone to please engage in a conversation and not a shoutfest a free speech issue?
None of this will make the slightest difference to you, I'm sure, but the constant repetition of invented controversies when there are plenty of actual issues to discuss infuriates me.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, the blanket term "liberal" these days in common usage is different from the classical meaning of "liberal," which today would be libertarian and non-collectivist. But if I attempt to use more precise terminology, some people do not understand what I mean. So liberal will have to do. And yes, it does mainly mean the left wing (majority wing now) of the Democratic Party. The only other Democrats are a relatively few moderates, also known as "Blue Dog." There used to be a conservative, but Joe Lieberman has since been forced out of the party and calls himself an Independent.
That is the only counterpoint you made that I will even acknowledge as seriously reasonable. But just so you won't feel I am just arbitrarily neglecting you, here are some counters to your points:
(1) Name any president in your lifetime (other than Obama, of course), and list a few "criminals, terrorists, or denouncers of the USA" who were long-time associates.
(2) Already addressed. Your point here I will grant to the extent noted.
(3) Why go back to Nixon to find a president with leadership experience involving real responsibility? Clinton was a governor before coming to the presidency. He brought disrepute on his office with his personal philandering and his "Wag-the-Dog" use of the military, but he did have some solid accomplishments in his first term. And George Bush, the last president, was a governor for two terms as well. At least by the second term, he was qualified. And he did succeed in Iraq.
(4) You don't have to go back to Nixon for expertise in international affairs. The first President Bush was previously head of the CIA for many years. As such, he probably had the best resumé of any candidate for president in history (that was why I voted for him), and knew more about foreign leaders than those leaders knew about themselves.
(5) For a comprehensive understanding of use of the military, both president Bushes did very well, the first in driving Iraq out of Kuwait while building one of the best coalitions in history to do it, and the second in allowing the military to show its capabilities by defeating the Iraqis in a ground invasion so quickly they didn't even have time to blow any bridges or dams. And though he did not leave enough troops in to accomplish the pacification and nation building that was needed, he eventually saw the light and allowed a fully effective surge, which turned the corner, and brought eventual success in Iraq by virtually anyone's measure, however grudging some of them might be. I might also point out that President Reagan was so effective in international expertise and understanding of the military, that he brought about the collapse of the Soviet Empire and the Fall of the Berlin Wall, without the U.S. military having to fire a shot.
(6) Again, I must ask for an example of how you feel the most recent President Bush was not properly careful in upholding the U.S. Constitution. That is not obvious to me. And I am also curious as to why you single out Carter for praise as someone who really cared about the Constitution. When I recall his presidency, that is not one of the things that I would say stand out.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
If we cared about qualifications to be a good president then Palin wouldn't have made it onto the ticket.
IP: Logged |
quote:Not have any long-time past associates who are known to be criminals, terrorists, or fanatical denouncers of the United States of America. This would have mattered tremendously to all voters for any other candidate. Why did so many choose to shrug their shoulders and ignore or believe the provably false spins about Tony Rezko, William Ayers, Irreverend Jeremiah Wrong?
Obama's dealing with Rezko have been documented through his tx returns, interviews and other sources: He bought a piece of property from him. Obama did not know Ayers very well, there's no indication that they ever discussed policy, and Obama has denounced Ayers' previous activities. (link) Rev. Wright is trickier, as Obama should have denounced Wright's specific statements immediately after they were brought to light.
I'm only going to respond to this one for now.
Why is "not have any long-time past associates who are known to be criminals, terrorists, or fanatical denouncers of the United States of America" a criteria for judging what makes a "good" president?
Does my association with you make me a bad liberal? Did Jesus' association with the poor, prostitutes, etc. make him a bad God?
If anything, I would think having associations with a wide range of people, including criminals or even former terrorists, would broaden Obama's understanding of America and society - which I think can only be a good thing for a president. If he hasn't encouraged or actively participated in illegal activities with those associates (and I've seen nothing that suggests he has), I have no issues with him having them.
Posts: 1295 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:For a comprehensive understanding of use of the military, both president Bushes did very well
So we count on the job training now?
By the by, I think it's "Presidents Bush" rather than "President Bushes." That makes it sound like a hedge row was running the country.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
President GW Bush is given credit for--listening to his military advisers about the conduct of a war that lasted a few weeks, then not listening to them as he left too few troops in both countries to do the jobs that should have been done. President GW Bush will go down in history as one of the most Non-Military Minded War Presidents ever.
You criticize President Obama for taking the time to listen to his military advisers, then for taking a firm stand in Afghanistan, with their approval, and putting in a drop dead date for the Afghanistan Government to get its act together, as suggested by the military.
quote:Did Jesus' association with the poor, prostitutes, etc. make him a bad God?
Come now. Democratic propaganda to the contrary, Obama is not the Messiah.
I wasn't trying to say he was. And I don't think more than a handful of liberal fringe elements come close to making that claim.
Posts: 1295 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hear far more refutations of that point from the right, than I do attempts to assert it from the left.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's because if you exaggerate the left's claims into something no human could attain, you can then point to the inevitable less-than-godlike actual person and declare him worthless.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris, you are merely going by the attempts made by Democrats, the left, and other Obama apologists, to "spin," or explain away the negative publicity about Obama's past associations. Obama had more involvement with Rezko than just buying a house.
As for his association with William Ayers, what you seem to choose to believe are pure lies. Obama flat out lied when he referred to Ayers as "just some guy down the street." It has been proven by testimony of eyewitnesses who were there that Obama did in fact launch his polical career in the living room of William Ayer's home. Obama explicitly denied this on national TV, and thus he is a proven liar, and all his other denials should be discredited. Evidence of a continuing relation with Ayers continues to come forward. There are even charges that Obama's 1995 book, Dreams of[sic] My Father, was in fact ghost-written by William Ayers.
quote:Let me just cite a few matches between Ayers’ work and Dreams that I found intriguing. Rather astonishingly, as Mr. West points out, at least six of the characters in Dreams have the same names as characters in Ayers’ books: Malik, Freddy, Tim, Coretta, Marcus, and "the old man." Many of the stories involving these characters in Dreams seem as contrived as their names.
Some of the tie-ins are built on mistakes appearing in both books: misquoting Carl Sandburg in exactly the same way, or misspelling the name Frantz Fanon (Ayers writes Franz, so does Obama).
Interestingly, Obama’s other book, The Audacity of Hope, was not written by Ayers. All the clever literary devices disappear.
Mr. West independently came to the same conclusion that I did, namely that Ayers was not meaningfully involved in Audacity. These two Obama books almost assuredly had different primary authors. What should be transparent to any literary critic is that the author of Audacity lacked the style and skill of the author of Dreams. There are a few pockets in Audacity that evoke the spirit of Dreams but without the same grace.
Obama is a literary pretender. Case closed. The evidence is overwhelming that Bill Ayers ghost-wrote Dreams from my Father, the book which established Obama’s pose as a brilliant writer (and therefore a fine mind, in the estimation of many). The stylistic resemblance between the Dreams and Ayers’ work is stunning. Now we know, thanks to Chris Andersen’s new book,that Obama hit a brick wall trying to fulfill his contract to produce a book, and shipped off his notes and tapes to Ayers. That is the classic description of a ghost writer’s assignment. And it completely fits the theories Cashill had inferentially reasoned from the data of his literary studies. The revelation that Chris Andersen had two separate sources means that this fact meets the journalistic standard of reliability, provided by a respected, established bestselling author. Obama’s dismissal of Ayers as “just a guy in the neighborhood” has been shown to be an outright lie.
....
The image of Obama packing boxes full of tapes and notebooks and hauling them over to Ayers’ house a couple of blocks away, is simple and compelling evidence of a ghost writer being put to work. Jack’s literary detective work made the case, and Andersen’s two neighborhood sources confirm it.
Anyone who refuses to deal with this issue is willfully avoiding topics that make Obama look bad. The facts are in the public domain.
As for the Irreverent Jeremiah Wrong, I note that you were unable to swallow the "spin" about that. The statements made by Obama's pastor were horrendous, and Obama sat in that church and heard them without protest for 20 years! I would suggest to you that you should not swallow the other "spin" offered about the other things, either.
Obama may have won by popular vote, but the whole point I am making is that many who voted for Obama were not responsible in the way they decided whom to vote for. They willfully ignored clear and compelling evidence that he was not fit to be president. Many people today still believe the utter lies that the mainstream media tried to snow everyone with concerning the negatives about Obama, and concerning the deliberate attempts to demonize Sarah Palin, repeating endlessly negative stories about her (NONE of which were true).
Chris, it is hard to find a specific original quote, even when it is often repeated. But here is a similar quote of Obama during the campaign, where Obama revealed his intolerance toward critics:
quote:At an August campaign rally in Virginia, he pronounced, "I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them just to get out of the way."
I would also point out that the recent calls from the Obamanites for a renewed imposition of the "Fairness Doctrine" is really an attempt to put a muzzle on Fox News, or on anyone who would criticize Obama, by implying that if they could not give equal time to opposing views, they should be prohibited from airing the conservative criticisms. The real problem here is that liberal talk shows have never been able to make it economically because their ratings are so poor, while conservative talk shows are very popular with high ratings. Also Fox News, which actually does make a concerted effort to present all views, "Fair and Balanced," as their slogan goes, is the highest-rated cable news network of all, often higher than all the others (including CNN and MSNBC) combined. The left is trying to use the law in a sneaky way to force the public to receive their propaganda, even if the public does not want it, and prevent them from hearing the conservative viewpoints.
Obama's personal involvement in this is seen in the fact that he has placed a "chief diversity officer" on the Federal Communications Commission, a person who favors fining broadcasters up to $250 million a year if they don’t "balance" the airwaves with less conservative talk. And how will it be judged what talk is too conservative and needs to be balanced? Obviously anyone who disagrees with Obama is too conservative. So Obama is the standard. Those of you who voted for a virtual "Messiah" have gotten a false god. Bow down or be beaten down.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And yes, it does mainly mean the left wing (majority wing now) of the Democratic Party.
But that's not how you're using it. You're saying "Obama is out of touch because he's more liberal than the population, which identifies as conservative more than it does liberal." But THEIR usage of the word "liberal" is not "votes overwhelmingly with the Democratic Party on the most partisan issues of the day."
quote:Name any president in your lifetime (other than Obama, of course), and list a few "criminals, terrorists, or denouncers of the USA" who were long-time associates.
Good Lord. I could list the criminals and terrorists who associated with Nixon, Bush, and Reagan, many of whom are quite famous for, well, being criminals and terrorists. But perhaps you'll concede that Clinton and Carter associated with criminals and terrorists without my even having to Google some names for you...?
quote:Clinton was a governor before coming to the presidency....he did have some solid accomplishments in his first term. And George Bush, the last president, was a governor for two terms as well.
How are we defining "solid accomplishments," then? Which of Clinton's accomplishments as governor do you believe were solid?
quote:The first President Bush was previously head of the CIA for many years.
Hm. I personally wouldn't consider that "expertise in foreign affairs," but I suppose you can make an argument for it. So I'll concede that the elder Bush met that criteria, by some standards.
quote:For a comprehensive understanding of use of the military, both president Bushes did very well...
Heh. So we're assuming that presidents who used the military as you believe it should be used had a "comprehensive understanding of military strategy," even prior to their election(s)? Forgive me if I don't concede that definition to you.
posted
Blayne, Sarah Palin had far more real executive experience as mayor, chairman of the Alaskan Petroleum Regulatory Commission, and governor (who had to deal with Russia, Canada, China, Japan, and other nations in direct trade relations) with real responsibilities--and solid, significant accomplishments--than most people who have ever run for president. Certainly more than Obama. She also succeeded in bringing real reform to politics in her state, which included defeating the corrupt political machine of her own party. When she won the governorship, she defeated the sitting Republican governor in the Republican Primary, then went on to win the general election by a wide margin. She forced recalcitrant major oil companies to abide by the contracts they had signed but had been getting around, winning case after case before the Alaskan Supreme Court to do it.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I would certainly sleep better if she were president. Have you read her book, Going Rogue? It is great, fascinating, interesting reading, and she is a good writer. (One of her degrees was in journalism.)
By the way, one of Clinton's significant accomplishments was getting NAFTA passed. A lot of unions don't like it, and try to blame it for our recession. But that was a genuine attempt to put fairness into our trade relations with our partners in the Western Hemisphere, and was one of the truly statesmanlike things Clinton did.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't read Going Rogue, actually. I'm not a fan of Lynn Vincent, her ghostwriter, and Palin herself makes me cringe. If I start hearing about fascinating insights or perspectives available in the book, I might pick it up -- but until then, there are more interesting things out there to read.
----------
quote:one of Clinton's significant accomplishments was getting NAFTA passed
He didn't do that as governor of Arkansas. What significant accomplishments did he have as governor?Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Tom, I would certainly sleep better if she were president. Have you read her book, Going Rogue? It is great, fascinating, interesting reading, and she is a good writer. (One of her degrees was in journalism.)
By the way, one of Clinton's significant accomplishments was getting NAFTA passed. A lot of unions don't like it, and try to blame it for our recession. But that was a genuine attempt to put fairness into our trade relations with our partners in the Western Hemisphere, and was one of the truly statesmanlike things Clinton did.
quote:Chris, you are merely going by the attempts made by Democrats, the left, and other Obama apologists, to "spin," or explain away the negative publicity about Obama's past associations.
And you are of course not at all influenced by the attempts made by Republicans, the right, and other Obama attackers to "spin" or make more of a relationship than actually existed?
I would argue more, but your gushing approval of Sarah Palin -- someone I consider to be at best a political lightweight and at worst a focal point for everything that is unhealthy about the current political system -- leaves me aware of the divide between us. We simply do not see the same world and are possibly incapable of it.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Tom, I would certainly sleep better if she were president. Have you read her book, Going Rogue? It is great, fascinating, interesting reading, and she is a good writer. (One of her degrees was in journalism.)
By "one of her degrees" do you intend to imply that she has more than one?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: As for his association with William Ayers, what you seem to choose to believe are pure lies. Obama flat out lied when he referred to Ayers as "just some guy down the street." It has been proven by testimony of eyewitnesses who were there that Obama did in fact launch his polical career in the living room of William Ayer's home. Obama explicitly denied this on national TV, and thus he is a proven liar, and all his other denials should be discredited.
April 16: An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?
Obama: George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about.
This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.
And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George. --------------------- Is this the quote you are referring to? He didn't answer the question (perhaps answering the questions voters wanted answered? ), but that's a bit different from flat out lying.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Few ghostwriters, no matter how good, can rise above the material they are given. But by most accounts, Vincent and Palin worked well together, and were quite sympatico in their political views. You can hear Palin speaking in her own voice in the book, making clear her own inner feelings. Vincent could not have done this without getting a lot of contribution from Palin.
Palin gives us a behind-the-scenes look at everything, including the two hours of interview with Katie Couric--who then edited out everything substantive, and just included things that seemed unflattering to Palin. Palin, who had written op-ed pieces for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and many other publications prior to becoming a VP candidate, and was in fact very widely read, was understandably annoyed at Couric's question about how many magazines she read. In fact, Couric would sometimes ask Palin virtually the same question several times in slightly different words when Palin's answers were too good and informative, and did not provide the sound bites Couric seemed to be looking for.
Palin tells about the town crank, and the defeated political adversary, and the rebellious police chief who refused her repeated orders to cut his budget and was then fired by her and made up a story that grew up into the totally false story called "Troopergate," all of whom were taken by the national news media as "credible" news sources, who never bothered to verify any of their facts.
One thing that strikes you as you read her book, is her complete honesty about everything, including what she thought and felt at each turn of events, and her real struggles of faith in trials, where her faith eventually helped her to prevail.
The book is proving to be a real hit, breaking all kinds of sales records. Even before publication, Going Rogue: An American Life became the best-selling book ever in the history of Newsmax for pre-publication sales. Over a million copies have already been sold, 700,000 in the first week, according to the publisher, HarperCollins. That beat out Dan Brown, Stephen King, James Patterson, and Alex Cross, for sales ranking for their new books, and exceeded the first week sales of the memoir by Hillary Clinton. Palin's book sold 300,000 copies on the first day. The initial print run was 1.5 million. The publisher has announced a second printing of one million copies.
If you don't want to pay the price, most libraries have the book. I read mine by checking it out of the public library. I got my hold in early, and was second on the hold list when the library got their copies in. So I got to read mine only a few weeks after it was published.
[ December 03, 2009, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As is frequently the case, Obama did not himself host the event at which "his political career was launched". It was indeed held at the Ayers's home, but it was hosted by then State Senator Alice Palmer.
If anyone is really interested in what Trinity UCC is really about, check out their website. http://www.tucc.org/
Yes, they are "Unashamedly Black" and they do focus on empowering black people but they are not anti-white. They have a good relationship with my (very white) parish and their ministers are often guest preachers (and always quite wonderful). I have been welcomed by their congregation as well. They do powerful good work in this city. The Rev. Wright has, IMO, gone off the deep end in recent years, but he has not always been that way.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmboots, I should have said that Palin graduated with a degree in communications/journalism. That was probably a major in communications with a journalism minor. At the time, she wanted to be a sports reporter/writer, and she did work in that field for a broadcast station in Alaska. Some people criticize her for taking six years to graduate from college. But as she explains, she earned her way.
As for Jeremiah (to whom I refuse ever to refer to as "Reverend"--only God is Reverend, anyway), the poison that he revealed in his heart and soul does not develop overnight.
Tom, something else of some interest, perhaps. In that final season of high school basketball, she was determined that her team, the Wasilla Warriors, would win the state title. In a game shortly before the final game, she came down on one foot wrong, and heard something pop. Her coach had to carry her off the court. But she refused even to see a doctor or have X-rays, for fear she would be told it was broken. She toughed it and and played in the final game where they won the championship--even making the winning basket herself, despite being in great pain. She says to this day, her ankle is someone knobby and misshapen. This gives you an idea of what kind of drive and determination she has, her capacity to play through pain, and prevail despite opposition.
[ December 03, 2009, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
ETA: How do you know his heart? I can imagine the "poison" of living through the times he lived through seeping in after a while. I can imagine a man who served his country yet couldn't get served at certain restaurants to build up some resentments. I can imagine a man who lived through the revelations of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and who made caring for black people with AIDS a priority when they were shunned and forgotten by most everyone else seeing conspiracy.
I know well people who people who know him well. He has not always been like what we have seen on TV. Again, what do you know other than that?
ETA: Drive and determination - and crappy priorities. Great attributes for a president. "I don't care what I wreck; I want to win this game."
posted
kmboots, Sarah Palin paid for one or two years with scholarships earned by winning a city beauty contest, and by becoming second runner-up in a regional beauty contest. She also worked as a waitress, and as a sports writer.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmboots, "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." (Mat. 12:34) It is valid to judge people by the venom they spew. Especially when they refuse to repent, or acknowledge any need to.
You cannot atone for sin, no matter how much good you do. Benedict Arnold probably did some good things too. Adolph Hitler probably did some good things in his life. But one was a traitor, and the other a monster. And Jeremiah has earned utter contempt.
And you forget, it was her own ankle she risked wrecking, not someone else's. You may call it crappy priorities. But she was willing to pay a great price in self-sacrifice to attain a goal that meant a lot to her and to her teammates, who had sat on the bench as the "B" team for years, until the last year when they were finally seniors, and had the chance to prove who they really were. Don't knock the self-sacrifice of others unless you are able to equal it for a cause you deem worthy.
[ December 03, 2009, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't think that people change (for better or worse) over time?
And forgive me, but I am not all that impressed by beauty contest scholarships or waiting tables. Nothing wrong with doing any of that, but it is hardly noteworthy. Most people have odd jobs when they are in college.
ETA: Re: Wright. SO saying some hateful things wipes out any of the good he has done? I can imagine if he killed millions of people, but a couple of examples of ugly rhetoric? Really? And President Obama was supposed to see into the future to know that Rev. Wright was going to become angry and crazy as he got old?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tom, something else of some interest, perhaps. In that final season of high school basketball, she was determined that her team, the Wasilla Warriors, would win the state title. In a game shortly before the final game, she came down on one foot wrong, and heard something pop. Her coach had to carry her off the court. But she refused even to see a doctor or have X-rays, for fear she would be told it was broken. She toughed it and and played in the final game where they won the championship--even making the winning basket herself, despite being in great pain. She says to this day, her ankle is someone knobby and misshapen. This gives you an idea of what kind of drive and determination she has, her capacity to play through pain, and prevail despite opposition.
I'm sorry, is this supposed to make me think Palin is smart OR sensible?
She refuses to get her foot looked at so she can pretend to herself that she can keep playing a game, and then she permanently maims herself as a result?
This is supposed to be inspirational?
It makes me think she's a flipping idiot.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Tom, something else of some interest, perhaps. In that final season of high school basketball, she was determined that her team, the Wasilla Warriors, would win the state title. In a game shortly before the final game, she came down on one foot wrong, and heard something pop. Her coach had to carry her off the court. But she refused even to see a doctor or have X-rays, for fear she would be told it was broken. She toughed it and and played in the final game where they won the championship--even making the winning basket herself, despite being in great pain. She says to this day, her ankle is someone knobby and misshapen. This gives you an idea of what kind of drive and determination she has, her capacity to play through pain, and prevail despite opposition.
Seriously? A high school basketball game? Not to knock high-school athletes, but I'm not impressed. At all.
Posts: 1295 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, don't forget, it was her own ankle she risked wrecking, not someone else's. You may call it crappy priorities. But she was willing to pay a great price in self-sacrifice to attain a goal that meant a lot to her and to her teammates, who had sat on the bench as the "B" team for years, until the last year when they were finally seniors, and had the chance to prove who they really were. Don't knock the self-sacrifice of others unless you are able to equal it for a cause you deem worthy.
As for the way she earned her way through college--very few people pay all their own bills. Most have their tuition paid by parents, or rely on student loans. As Palin said in her book, paying your own way through school used to be looked upon as honorable.
Do you not view it as such?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really think, Ron, that the fact that you would uphold that story as an example of positive Palin traits really says a lot about you, given the way you argue. You are championing a story where Palin relies on *willful ignorance* in order to commit to an action without regard for the consequences, and she ends up permanently gimped as a result.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did she pay all her own bills? Or did she supplement student loans and help from her parents with some part time work (and by being pretty?)
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Repeat my previous post. You just aren't looking at it correctly. What she did was striking because it was such a unique example of extreme dedication. Perhaps it makes you feel shown up by her example. When you call it "crappy priorities," that is really just "sour grapes."
And fortunately she was not "permanently gimped." She ran in a few marathons after that, and always--even to the present--loves to go out and run when she gets the chance. She says it helps her to regroup and focus.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So she got lucky and the sacrifice wasn't all that great. Still reckless. Something that is understandable in a teenager but disastrous in a president.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmboots, yes, she says she paid all her own bills. Didn't I already say that? And how dare you denigrate her for winning a couple of beauty contests. That is really "sour grapes."
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Not being impressed" is not denigrating. I said there was nothing wrong with it - it just isn't impressive.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
), but that's a bit different from flat out lying.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
