Obama’s Debating Skillz
I’m sure that Scott would disagree with this.
Which Barack Obama will show up for the first presidential debate?
It could be the tone-deaf debater who condescendingly told Hillary Rodham Clinton during a Democratic debate that she was “likable enough.”Or perhaps the confident candidate who absorbed a jab from Clinton about using her husband’s former advisers and responded with a devastating one-liner of his own: “Hillary, I’m looking forward to you advising me as well.”
For a man known as a powerful speaker, Obama has rarely wowed people in political debates. He can come across as lifeless, aloof and windy.
I stand behind my assertion from earlier in the week, that Obama cannot form an original thought without it being fed to him beforehand.
It seems like each and everytime the man says something off the cuff and aloof, it gets chalked up to him being “tired” only to find out later that the teleprompter malfunctioned or he could not read off his notes.
Not that there is anything wrong with that, hell we all suffer from babbleitis some of the time, and others are not good at speaking in public -I include myself in that group- But when you are running for POTUS, there will be times when you are caught off guard, and need to answer questions off the top of your head. And that IS NOT one of his strengths.
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on September 20, 2008 at 1937 hrs
Obama without a teleprompter is slightly better than Bush.
It’s no wonder Obama refused 10 town hall debates where he’d have to think on his feet.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 20, 2008 at 2111 hrs
Look like the McCain campaign is the one with the most concerns. From the Times:
“The Obama and McCain campaigns have agreed to an unusual free-flowing format for the three televised presidential debates, which begin Friday, but the McCain camp fought for and won a much more structured approach for the questioning at the vice-presidential debate, advisers to both campaigns said Saturday.
At the insistence of the McCain campaign, the Oct. 2 debate between the Republican nominee for vice president, Gov. Sarah Palin, and her Democratic rival, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., will have shorter question-and-answer segments than those for the presidential nominees, the advisers said. There will also be much less opportunity for free-wheeling, direct exchanges between the running mates.
McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Ms. Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive.”
Or maybe she just doesn’t, you know, know as much.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 20, 2008 at 2141 hrs
Nice redirection, NYT.
I’m not worried in the least. That’s a classic bit of expectation-lowering that’s done by every campaign every four years leading up to the debates. She’ll do just fine against Slow Joe.
The three presidential debates are much more important.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 20, 2008 at 2150 hrs
“The Obama and McCain campaigns have agreed to an unusual free-flowing format for the three televised presidential debates, which begin Friday, but the McCain camp fought for and won a much more structured approach for the questioning at the vice-presidential debate, advisers to both campaigns said Saturday.
Nice try NYTexan but I Don’t see that as being any big deal, and obviously neither does the Obama camp.
Because if Obama thought that the VP debate was a BIG issue they would have held out until OBAMAS camp got the format THEY wanted.
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on September 21, 2008 at 0204 hrs
I actually think Obama will do quite well, but regardless of the quality of his actual performance, the media will say he came out on top.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 21, 2008 at 1139 hrs
Oh yeah. Just like at the last round of debates here Bush sounded either like his lights were out or like a kid called on in class who didn’t do his homework and would try to bull shit way through as answer. Then the analysts afterwards would talk about his brilliant answers, making me wonder if I had watched a different program.
Think McCain can keep track of where Spain is?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 21, 2008 at 1426 hrs
This whole discussion is built on fantasy and molehill sized mountains. The only true and noteworthy thing followers of the 2008 election can really come away with is this: Obama is a terrific orator who delivers soaring speeches to large crowds really well. McCain showed he wasn’t great in similar settings, looking extremely uncomfortable with the use of his teleprompter. There simply IS nothing noteworthy to say about either of their performances in the primary debates, and one assumes that they will perform similarly in the general election debates. There’s no story here. At all. Except maybe that Palin, while being a quick thinker and well spoken, may draw a blank in a debate, as she’s not as experienced at this national politics thing. That’s pretty much it. The rest of it is trumped up bullshit.
Posted by scott on September 21, 2008 at 1630 hrs
I agree. Obama will be terrible in the debates.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 21, 2008 at 1641 hrs
uh I think uh McCain got uh exactly what he uh wanted. After uh listening to uh Obama stammer his way uh through a three minute uh answer people will be really uh annoyed. On the other hand Biden is incapable of answering a question in less than 15 minutes; he’ll never get to the point. Not that it will hurt him, the VP debates never amount to a hill of beans.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 21, 2008 at 1704 hrs
I think the debates will very much be an overall plus for Obama, because the electorate will finally get a chance to more or less see the candidates’ policies side by side, and that’s certain to be in Obama’s favor, as most of McCain’s policies are in disfavor in most of the country.
Of course, that depends entirely on whether or not the moderators center the debates on the issues or if they spend the entire time talking about inane BS like flag pins, lipstick, and who hates earmarks and/or terrorism the most. If I were going to bet, I’d likely bet on the inane BS.
As to the VP debate, sometimes they’re as memorable as the presidential debates. Nobody remembers anything that Bush or Dukakis said but everybody remembers “...Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.” And hey, the last time Dick Cheney was gracious in public (even if it was grudging) was when John Edwards said nice things about his daughter during the ‘04 debate.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 21, 2008 at 1909 hrs
I disagree. Presidential debates have very little to do with the candidates’ policies. Those who are actually voting based on their policies will look them up. Debates are all about style, gaffes, and personality.
Think of it this way… does anyone remember the policies debated between Nixon and Kennedy? Bentsen and Quayle? Reagan and Carter?
I didn’t think so.
Posted by Owen on September 21, 2008 at 1914 hrs
I think the debates will very much be an overall plus for Obama, because the electorate will finally get a chance to more or less see the candidates’ policies side by side, and that’s certain to be in Obama’s favor, as most of McCain’s policies are in disfavor in most of the country.
Obama, and his policies, are to the left of the majority of the electorate. If he is able to bring attention to that fact during the debates, he’ll be worse off for it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 21, 2008 at 1948 hrs
Debates are all about style, gaffes, and personality.
Yeah, ask Jerry Ford about gaffes. This beaut during the 2nd debate cost him the ‘76 election:
“There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford administration.”
The candidates will be focused on not making a similar mistake. The rest of us can pretend we’re watching a NASCAR race, just waiting for the crashes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 21, 2008 at 2009 hrs
Perhaps the teleprompters could debate each other.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 22, 2008 at 0952 hrs
Owen, up to a point, I think you’re right. But I think we may have already reached that point this year.
What I mean when I say that is that I think people are well and truly fed up with the status quo. 80% of Americans think we’re on the wrong track and are looking for someone to at least slow down this aircraft carrier and start the long tedious process of turning it around. Not only that, many signs point to people being more than fed up with politics as usual, including, I think (but by no means certain) the usual no-content debates.
Like I alluded to before, entirely too much of this is in the hands of the debate moderators. Personally, I’d like to see Bill Moyers and George Will do all three of them. Fat chance.
Tony, I disagree. Obama may be to the left of the majority of the electorate, but not nearly to the degree you think. Despite all the “he’s a socialist” rhetoric around here, I think he’s solidly in the mainstream of most Americans’ thinking. In fact, McCain is much, much further to the right of the electorate than Obama is to the left. Nearly every poll shows the Democratic position on most issues to be the solid favorite over the Republican position.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 22, 2008 at 1044 hrs
I’m just praying for Crazy Joe at the end of the debate to shake Palin’s hand, tap her on the upper chest, and tell her she ‘needs to work on her pecs’!
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Travels_with_Joe.html?showall
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 22, 2008 at 1325 hrs
Obama may be to the left of the majority of the electorate, but not nearly to the degree you think. Despite all the “he’s a socialist” rhetoric around here, I think he’s solidly in the mainstream of most Americans’ thinking. In fact, McCain is much, much further to the right of the electorate than Obama is to the left. Nearly every poll shows the Democratic position on most issues to be the solid favorite over the Republican position.
That’s just what I think, too. One caveat, however: Senator McCain was quite a bit more centrist than candidate McCain.
Posted by scott on September 22, 2008 at 1331 hrs
That’s just what I think, too. One caveat, however: Senator McCain was quite a bit more centrist than candidate McCain.
Remember that line, it is a good one. All candidates move toward the center of their perceived electorate to get elected, not necessarily a single center. McCain is campaigning toward his center, his record is further to the left than he is campaigning and the same goes for Obama. He IS considerably more left than he has been campaigning. Unfortunately for conservative thinkers, especially fiscal conservatives, we have a lose/lose situation coming up. For all you ‘change is good’ pro-Obamaites, McCain’s maverick record and clean up politics attempts show that he knows what to change, he just hasn’t been able to. Obama comes from and has the full support of the Chicago Democratic machine, the most corrupt political entity in the US.
Both sides take special interest monies, but real (positive)change is more likely under McCain. I define positive change as cleaning up even some of the corruption and bad regulation that has inhibited US growth and education. Obama will raise taxes more and attempt to balance the budget(maybe). McCain will raise taxes less and continue to deficit spend(probably).
And there was much rejoicing…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 23, 2008 at 0855 hrs
Both sides take special interest monies, but real (positive)change is more likely under McCain.
We often see eye-to-eye on some things, but I couldn’t disagree more on this. McCain’s “maverick” record is far in the past and recedes farther every day. He has more or less completely capitulated to the lobbyists and his campaign staff is essentially run by lobbyists. The maverick that once decried “agents of intolerance” has crawled into bed with them. The man who cosponsored McCain-Feingold has a team of lawyers trying to figure out ways to circumvent it. The man who so steadfastly endured five years of torture as a POW sttod by while the president of his own party gutted a bill that would prohibit torture.
He’s voted with the president more than 90% of the time and has promised to continue most of the same policies. He’s run one of the most dishonest campaigns in history. Just the fact that someone as smart as you has bought into the “Obama will raise your taxes” meme shows that. Unless you make more than $250,000, your taxes will go down.
That’s not in any way, shape, or form positive change.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 23, 2008 at 1001 hrs
apc, in general I trust your sources. I do not know how to look something up. Can you or anyone else reading this find out how many times Obama or HRC ‘voted with the President’? See, I think Bush has spent like a school girl buying her prom outfit. I agree that Bush and the current congress of which McCain is a part have overspent and overspent on things you, I, or the Democrats would not have spent on. However, I have not heard one peep out of the Democrats on how they opposed any spending with the notable exception of the Iraq war. And even on that, there was generally unanimous approval to ‘support the troops’ because no one wanted to seem ‘unpatriotic’. Both sides just added a lot of pork to appease each other. How can someone as smart as you have fallen for a gold star product of the Chicago machine?
I would rather have my taxes raised to balance the budget than deficit spend(On this I agree with Democrats). My meme, however, has been consistently that neither party is even promising (much less acting) to lower spending. Step outside the partisan box for a moment. Do you think that Obama won’t raise my taxes? My ‘household’ will bring in $75,000 this year. Two modest salaries from two modest jobs. The sources I trust say that Obama will raise overall taxes on every household making more than $42,000.
What you say about McCain may be true (hey, I am not voting for him, I really am non-partisan), but Obama is a 100% politician’s politician. If you ever read the original McCain-Feingold act, it was a good bill that would have helped the situation. Then both parties descended like carrion, amended, added, detracted to the end product which actually worsened the problem. Neither of the progenitors of the bill should have voted for the final product (both did), but such is current political life.
All I meant (and still mean) is that at least McCain has offered positive change in the past, despite obviously having deep enough pockets to get elected Senator multiple times. He might surprise people(certainly me, as I expect him to act like 97% of all the other politicians). Especially since at his age it is unlikely he would seek a second term. He might pay back all his ‘debts’, but he might not. Obama is young and would expect a second term. He will pay his debts back in full.
When I say ‘more likely’ I mean 2.2% vs. .001%. hence the reference to Monty Python’s much rejoicing…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 23, 2008 at 1511 hrs
Obama is not a “gold star product of the Chicago machine”. He was a reformer who took on the machine’s favored candidate in the US Senate election in 2004 (along with a multimillionaire) and won.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 23, 2008 at 1525 hrs
Really? I will have to look that up. That would change my opinion of him somewhat. Did he reform anything? At any level? If not, really… so what?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 23, 2008 at 1542 hrs
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_john_mccain_voted_with.html
“Obama’s votes were in line with the president’s position 40 percent of the time in 2007.”
Posted by Owen on September 23, 2008 at 1559 hrs
You can start here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 23, 2008 at 1638 hrs
Obama is not a “gold star product of the Chicago machine”. He was a reformer who took on the machine’s favored candidate in the US Senate election in 2004 (along with a multimillionaire) and won.
I think that’s the same campaign where he said he wasn’t qualified to be president:
You know, I am a believer in knowing what you’re doing when you apply for a job. And I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket, I would essentially have to start now, before having served a day in the Senate. Now there’s some people who might be comfortable doing that, but I am not one of those people.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 23, 2008 at 1648 hrs
It’s from the same campaign where his opponents underestimated him. As they did in this year’s primaries and continue to do in the general election.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 23, 2008 at 1745 hrs
Don’t forget Obama circa 2004.
Maybe he’s become comfortable being “one of those people” since then.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 23, 2008 at 1822 hrs
Well Steve-O, I think I may have to put you down as an Obama nut job. Obama won his race after the incumbent (R Peter Fitzgerald) said he was not going to seek re-election. Then the Democratic party clear leader(Yes, I believe Blair Hull was the Chicago machine choice) in the primary became embroiled in domestic abuse scandals (no charges were ever filed) and the machine picked up Obama as their choice. From that point on, the spiffy commercials were all for him. Then suddenly released California records embarassed the lead Republican candidate (Jack Ryan) about embarassing child support problems and he dropped out of the race…
Hmmmm, no incumbent, the leader in the Dem primary suddenly embroiled in domestic abuse scandal that involved an unresolved threat(nobody is ever guilty of that), the State of California after the primaries embarassing the new leader in the polls by releasing documents just at the right time. (If Jack Ryan stopped paying child support he desrved it, but wow! Stupid Republicans in the primary)
Yep, I wonder what campaign ace in the hole BO has coming up? Some old Hanoi Hilton guard who will tell us about how he and JM used to play poker and smoke cigars while pissing on the heads of other prisoners?
And Steve…come on, the Washington Post? Why not send me right to MeetBarack.com. Besides that, it had nothing to do the 2004 election it told us about 1 piece of legislation. Let me write as Fox News for a minute without changing a real fact.
‘Barack Obama is soft on crime. It took a lot schmoozing and back room promises at illegal gatherings, but BHO did get one piece of legislation actually through the State senate while he was there. The law requires videotaping of confessions to cut down or prohibit any potential abuse during the confession. The police lobby was his strongest opponent, but concessions and other legislation promised by Obama bought them off as well…’
Of course Fox would likely have printed the legislation the police wanted if it made Obama look bad, I did not bother. The Democratic optimist can read the Washington Post at face value. A cynic like me would ask, how much other legislation passed with how much pork to get the one thing he wanted? I know that is how ‘it works’, but as long as you partisan frothers are willing to point at the other guy only instead of looking at your own, it will continue to work that way.
And there was much rejoicing….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 24, 2008 at 0801 hrs
Yep, I wonder what campaign ace in the hole BO has coming up? Some old
Hanoi Hilton guard who will tell us about how he and JM used to play poker
and smoke cigars while pissing on the heads of other prisoners?Whoa, there. It simply has to be said that it’s your side who has no problem lying about or otherwise disrespecting a man’s military service.
Posted by scott on September 24, 2008 at 0805 hrs
Right Scott.
Number 1: Whose side is that? My candidate has not been lying.
Number 2: The man who was elected while two other men lost their political careers to scandals during the campaign had nothing to do with bringing those scandals to light? Sure it could have happened that way.
Number 3: Sorry, but if it so ingrained in you that side is the important thing to defend and your defense is that the other side is guilty or more guilty, you are not part of the solution, you are partisan of the problem.
Number 4: The comment was about the potentially seedy way in which Obama got elected, refuting naive comments by Steve-O and all you can answer is my (hopefully) obvious sarcasm at the end? As if it were factual??? Ok, just for you… I was being sarcastic at the end. I don’t believe Obama will find a Hanoi Hilton guard. It was a non-factual jibe not a serious accusation in any sense AT ALL.
What I am saying in all seriousness is that I will not be surprised if there is some major attempt to embarass either McCain or Palin with a skeleton of some sort, because it has happened in other Obama elections. Or maybe the ‘baby scandal’ was the best they had. I doubt it. McCain is old enough to have something that can be trotted out. And oh yes Scott, I know… Republicans are looking equally hard for a nail to put in Obama’s coffin.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 24, 2008 at 0826 hrs
Your candidate says governor Palin is a paragon of fiscal responsibility by virtue of her opposition to earmark spending, and that she killed the infamous bridge to nowhere. This claim is so obviously bogus that I think it should be characterized as an outright lie.
Your candidate says Obama will raise everyone’s taxes. You can try to dodge it all you want, but my middle-income self will be getting a much larger tax cut under president Obama than McCain. And unless you’re making upwards of a quarter mil annually, so will you.
Your candidate says Obama wants to teach sex ed to preschoolers. I don’t even know where to start with not only the wrongness of the claim, but also just the sheer low down nature of it.
These things, TUERQAS, are dishonest. Or, what some people would call lies. This, I guess, is where you chime in and tell us about Obama’s out-of-context “100 years” ad or something as evidence that we’re just as guilty. Fine if you want to do that. But don’t pipe in with claims that my candidate is lying while yours is not.
Posted by scott on September 24, 2008 at 0834 hrs
Huh? Dan Hynes was the Chicago machine candidate. Obama was the reformer candidate and Blair Hull was the self-financed candidate, and Obama was already beating both of them by the time of the Hull revelation, with a much better ground operation in place. And Obama was beating Fitzgerald by double-digits when the media dug up his divorce records - why would Obama try to knock Fitzgerald out of the race and chance the IL Republican Party coming up with a better candidate?
As for the Post article, it’s an editorial by someone who favors Obama. If you want a more neutral source, or even a source not inclined to be favorable to Obama, try this similar description of the exact same set of events.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 24, 2008 at 0906 hrs
And the whoops award goes to: (drum roll) SCOTT!!!!!!! (Streamers fall) My candidate, the one I am voting for, has said none of things nor does he have a running mate named Palin.
Although I have looked at several tax fact websites and while income taxes may(different places conflict on this) be less under the O, the overall tax and fee burden will go up more under the O. Also Obama may not want to teach Kindergartners sex ed., but the bill that he worked on had the k-12 amendment added by his team from 6-12. You can give him all the ‘I didn’t mean it that way’ breaks you want, but that is what the black and white bill proposed by the team Obama was on had on it.
Pipe yourself boyo, I have always said they were both liars and cheap shot artists, or(for you partisans) expert manipulators of the facts. I have been trying (unsuccessfully) to find positive things about either of them. I love the face of Obama’s commercials on energy, but I believe the truth is he will not get past the special interests of his own party. he won’t fast track anything past greenpeace and the host of similar orgs that give Democrats money.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 24, 2008 at 0915 hrs
All right Steve, where did you get the info that Dan Hynes was the Chicago plotical machine choice? I have seen only references by non-neutral sources that BHO was its choice. I am perfectly willing to be wrong… and apologize to you, but I can’t find a direct reference.
AP, not much better as a source and 100% certainly not neutral, but it is a much better article.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 24, 2008 at 0947 hrs
Um, you might want to check the bill again. It gives guidelines for schools to implement age-appropriate sex ed, which in the case of children is basically just teaching them about inappropriate touching.
As for taxes, income taxes would drop for most American families, especially for those $100,000 or less. Other sorts of taxes, like capital gains taxes, would rise slightly, but not for most families. Basically, unless you make more than $250,000, your tax rates would sink, even including capital gains taxes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 24, 2008 at 0957 hrs
And Scott, it would not only be ridiculously stupid to believe taxes won’t go up more under Obama, it is against your own party’s best feature. They argue against deficit spending. So if they try to balance the budget, of course we will be paying more to the Government than idiots who think it is ok to mortgage the future. Democrats are not going to start cutting even bad programs, they are not going to cut the billions in their fully paid healthcare (in fact, just the upgrade in the pay and auto benefits of all the bureaucrats that would be needed to start a Universal healthcare system will make the whole project untenable as a money saver). They will cut spending in military and raise taxes on the rich. Of course, with universal healthcare, they will be taking away a major segment of the rich (doctors) because every national healthcare system in the world is accused of underpaying the doctors compared to the US. Those 2 areas could not possibly pay for all the programs he wants to employ, much less reduce the deficit.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 24, 2008 at 1001 hrs
My friend the Archpundit, who got his obsession with IL politics from his father, a GOP committeeman in Southern Illinois. Archpundit is a Democrat now, but he hates Rod Blagojevich and has no love for the Madigans or the Daley machine politics. It’s difficult to find newspaper articles specifically citing the Daley machine, because political machines hardly like to be described that way, but it’s worth noting that Michael Madigan, then speaker of the IL House and a heavyweight in Chicago, John Daley, the mayor’s brother and the Cook County Commissioner, and John Stroger, president of the Cook County board, all were big supporters of Hynes. Hynes’ father is a powerful alderman in Chicago, too.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 24, 2008 at 1014 hrs
Um, TUERQAS, taxes will go up under Obama, just not the taxes of ordinary working people. If you make $50 million a year, your taxes might go up by $550,000, but don’t try to scare the rest of us with “Boo! Obama’s going to raise your taxes” lines.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 24, 2008 at 1016 hrs
I think this graph says it all. McCain gives the biggest percentage cuts to the richest earners, a higher and higher percentage as your income climbs. Obama’s cuts go the other way.
McCain’s tax cuts favor the wealthy. I don’t see any other conclusion to draw from that.
Posted by scott on September 24, 2008 at 1023 hrs
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html
Posted by scott on September 24, 2008 at 1024 hrs
A quick read of the proposed legislation, however, indicates that it’s much more than teaching young children the difference between bad touches and good touches. The term “sexual predator,” never appears in the document. 57 lines in the 14-page, 455-line document (a 19-line section repeated almost verbatim two more times) address “unwanted” and “nonconsensual sexual advance,” but even this section is aimed principally at resisting “peer pressure,” not child molesters. The great majority of the bill addresses a variety of sex education issues, most prominently removing socially conservative language about abstinence before marriage from Illinois sex ed curricula.
Just as the McCain ad said, SB 99 would have lowered the beginning of “age-appropriate” comprehensive sex education from sixth grade down to kindergarten. Here’s how the proposal appears in the bill itself. Proposed additions to the code’s language are bolded, and deletions italicized:
22 Sec. 3. Comprehensive Health Education Program.
23 (a) The program established under this Act shall
24 include, but not be limited to, the following major
25 educational areas as a basis for curricula in all elementary
26 and secondary schools in this State: human ecology and
27 health, human growth and development, the emotional,
28 psychological, physiological, hygienic and social
29 responsibilities of family life, including sexual abstinence
30 and prevention of unintended pregnancy until marriage,
31 prevention and control of disease, including age appropriate32 instruction in grades K 6 through 12 on the prevention of
33 sexually transmitted infections,
The media left it to a handful of guests on news programs and two Fox News personalities to explain that McCain’s characterization of Obama’s stance on sex education for children was correct.Colleen Raezler
The last line is partisan bull, but he was a part of the ones responsible for changing the wording from 6-12 to k-12 and it is not explicit on what would or would not ever be taught at 5th , 4th or earlier. It purposely left it open. For the record, I did not bring this up, nor do I believe Obama has any thoughts more progressive than Scott on early sex ed. He brought it up.
For the last time (today anyway, I remember your tenacity at beating dead horses… but do you have to beat imaginary dead horses?) Scott, this is not about McCain! Thank you for staying on topics Steve-O. I think you are impossibly, blindly, dead wrong about the topics, but thank you. That sounds like a good source so I will believe your statements have good grounds and if true, like I said, makes me feel somewhat better about Obama, the man.
If you do not think taxes will rise significantly for everyone above poverty level to cover the programs Obama wants to institute, go ahead, believe that. If he does promise to balance the budget and carries it out (something I agree with!) the huge ‘revenue source’ Republicans have been using will be gone. The increased taxes on the rich will not cover the old expenses, much less the new expenses. (Why do you think so many celebrities are being reported from other countries? They have already moved their wealth.) With the technologies of today, what will make a crooked CEO (sorry for the redundancy) not do all his business from Argentina by vid phone? How could he possibly force companies to stay in the US without something drastic? The way in the past is to (Grrrrrgh) give them tax breaks. I think that sucks on the face of it, but that is what Obama is campaigning on. He conveniently does not mention the reason corporations get those tax breaks, inferring Gov’t fat cats get kick backs (and I am sure they do) instead of the real reason. ‘If you don’t give us those tax breaks, see ya.’
How? How will Obama both stop companies moving everything overseas while forcing them to give their low skill employees more money? Obama says he will do a lot of things. I have not yet seen a practical ‘how’ for any of these promises of wonder. At least we know where McCain will get the money, deficit spending has no limit!
I was never saying ‘boo’ (is that racist?) there is absolutely no question in any true independent’s mind that taxes will rise significantly, if nothing else from all the bail outs that both sides are responsible for. McCain is a spender too. Neither of them seriously even mentions fiscal responsibility except to point out the other’s lack of it. Neither is saying they are fiscally responsible while the other is not.
And there was ever so much rejoicing…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 24, 2008 at 1130 hrs
My meme, however, has been consistently that neither party is even promising (much less acting) to lower spending.
You’re right, but let’s face it, in a general sense, winning elections is about promising things, not promising to take things away. (Oh, and sorry, meme is kind of a silly-looking and sounding word, but it’s come into common usage, and it’s hard to find another way to convey the same meaning without using a long, wordy phrase.)
You ask me step outside my partisan box. I wish it were that easy. Yes, I’m a partisan Democrat, a precinct chair as a matter of fact, and a paid staffer on many Democratic campaigns. But our system makes nonpartisanship extremely difficult, especially if you want get elected and actually effect change.
All I meant (and still mean) is that at least McCain has offered positive change in the past, despite obviously having deep enough pockets to get elected Senator multiple times.
Again, you’re right, but let me add this: for many years, John McCain has been a senator who stood unequivocally for certain things. I disagreed with him on a lot of those things, but that’s OK; disagreement and working around it are the backbone of our system. I simply think he’s lost his center. Even as a Democrat, I could have voted for the John McCain of 2000. The John McCain of 2008 bears no resemblance to that man.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 24, 2008 at 1153 hrs
I agree with you on the ‘no resmblance’ as well. I believe he changed to get elected. Would he continue on or revert is a question. Not enough for me to vote for him, but it is a question. Even if BHO is 100% what he tries to appear to be, I do not agree with welfaring towards fiscal equality for all(you guys seem to hate the word socialism), especially at the cost of all the values that make society cohesive. I know that is an entirely new can of worms and I do not really want to get in to that right now. I wish I could remember where I read a great article by a liberal democrat. It was the most thoughtful piece I have read in a long time. If I find it I will post a link.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 24, 2008 at 1216 hrs
TUERQAS, here are a couple of thoughtful conservatives on John McCain:
http://www.dmagazine/com/ME2/default.asp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092202583.html
Of course, I’m in no way saying this is a definitive sample, any more than yours would be a definitive sample of liberal opinion.
It gets harder and harder to get past the absolutely wretched campaign coverage, past the lipstick references, past the gotcha questions, past the “who’s more elitist” bullshit, and past the “who do you more want to have a beer with” bullshit.
To get back to partisanship for just a second, I really believe that overall, the Democratic Party’s positions will better serve the country. Do we really want to assume that John McCain’s brand new change mantra is sincere or that, as he’s more or less maintained all along, he’ll continue the same policies we’ve been stumbling along with for the last eight years?
I’m no Obama Kool-Aid drinker, but I sincerely believe he offers the best hope of pulling the country back up from the cliff the Republicans have driven it over.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 24, 2008 at 1331 hrs
Sorry, that should be
http://www.dmagazine.com/ME2/Default.asp
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 24, 2008 at 1336 hrs
I’m no Obama Kool-Aid drinker, but I sincerely believe he offers the best hope of pulling the country back up from the cliff the Republicans have driven it over.
Fair enough, but I think the problem starts with where you say:
pulling the country back up from the cliff the Republicans have driven it over.
I just don’t see any rationale based on facts that argues that the word “Republicans” fits better than the phrase “current Government officials”.
I believe that is the biggest problem. If you blame the entire Government for all the waste, pork, over/under regulating of businesses etc. and know that the only ‘oversight’ is more Government, you would have no hope for change. Everyone needs hope, therefore they must believe only one side is wrong so that ‘Government’ can fix the problems. That is a heck of a lot more likely(offers more hope) than our current form of Government either falling or being truly revamped from within.
You can see where I stand with all the irnoic rejoicing… Friends of mine used to accuse me of pessimism some times and ‘flip-flopping’ to an optimist at others. For better or worse, I believe I have just stepped passed it. The Government is a problem in my eyes and it is depressing, but my life, really, is pretty great. I don’t have cable, dish or the internet(can’t afford it), but I have a great wife, cool friends, five horses, and enough money to take a good vacation every year. As far as politics go, I am a pessimist and it does affect my daily life some, but I would still rather live in the US than any other country in the world. I think the already ‘Over the cliff’ believers or people who believe whether it will go over is dependent on who is elected do not step back enough to see the big picture enough.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 26, 2008 at 1457 hrs
‘Over the cliff’ believers…..........do not step back enough to see the big picture enough.
I am one of those “over the cliff” believer’s from a financial and economic perspective.
Now it maybe 10’ or 1K’, that remains to be seen.
Does that mean life as we know it will end, absolutely not.
Does that mean there will probably continue to be a reallocation of resources on an individual level and in the aggregate, absolutely yes.
I would still rather live in the US than any other country in the world.
Yep.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 26, 2008 at 1547 hrs
I am one of those “over the cliff” believer’s from a financial and economic perspective.
Yes, but do you really blame only Republicans? Do you believe if Democrats control both houses and the Presidency, for the next 10-12 years the lot of the entire country will improve? Is it fact or fiction that Barney Frank was the biggest single political beneficiary from the Fannie/Freddie mismanagement? Is it fact or fiction that liberal special interest groups have been the primary block on alternative energy sources and drilling off shore?
Now it maybe 10’ or 1K’, that remains to be seen.
Get pedantic on me, I don’t get what this means.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 29, 2008 at 0838 hrs
Do you believe if Democrats
control both houses and the Presidency, for the next 10-12 years the lot of
the entire country will improve?Yes, yes! A thousand times yes!
By then everyone will have health insurance and the expense of it will be a much smaller percentage of our GDP. The nations of the world will probably respect us again as they used to do. We’ll probably have returned to a balanced federal budget, too.
Posted by scott on September 29, 2008 at 0859 hrs
Whoa there! Wipe yourself off. You forgot a free organic chicken in every pot. no war anywhere, and cheap energy for all, Scott.
Y’know, it is good thing Obama will bring in “millions of new jobs” creating all that alternative energy he is promising, because the only way universal healthcare will ever approach equal cost (much less cheaper) is if quite literally millions of jobs are lost in the clerical field of healthcare. Or, of course, we could make janitorial staff and surgeon’s pay equivalent…Really, could you let apc answer…please?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 29, 2008 at 0917 hrs
Yes, but do you really blame only Republicans?
Sorry if I gave that impression. From a political perspective the bus driver was clearly a bipartisan fellow.
Get pedantic on me, I don’t get what this means.
I simply meant that I don’t believe the current situation and the $700 billion troubled asset relief program is the end of the economic dilemma we have managed to spend ourselves into.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 29, 2008 at 0942 hrs
Like citizens, like Government…
Why should Government act any differently than its citizens as individuals? Or, to turn it around, why should ordinary citizens not take the inferred advice of our ‘elite’?
That brings us back full circle, except Steve’s point that at least he was not the choice of the Chicago machine (I believe ya Steve, your source sounds more credible than mine). I won’t be crying if Obama is elected and I certainly prefer a balanced budget, but it doea not change my initial opinion that actual Governmental change, (like the Reagan tax re-write) or a disruption of corruption, is still a tiny bit more likely under McCain than Obama. I think age preventing McCain from re-election may have some value in his policies. I think Obama will help certain problem areas, but he will take a lot more money from more than just people making over 250,000 to do so.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 29, 2008 at 1103 hrs
Do you believe if Democrats control both houses and the Presidency, for the next 10-12 years the lot of the entire country will improve?
Short answer to what is actually a really complex and multi-part question: Yes. But with caveats.
When I say that, I mean the Republican Party as it has been constituted for the last 12-15 years. I’d also like to a major shake-up in the legislative leadership of the Democratic Party. I’ve never thought Nancy Pelosi was particularly effective, although she’s had her moments. Harry Reid, as far as I’m concerned is completely feckless, and should step down as majority leader yesterday.
T, I’m going to use an argument that gun enthusiasts use all the time. The government is a tool like any other. In and of itself, the government is not “a problem.” It’s merely another way of addressing whatever situation we as a nation may face. The government may handle the problem well or handle it poorly or handle it not at all, but seeing a government solution as bad simply because it’s a government solution doesn’t do anyone any good.
There are certain things only government can do, like voting rights, or gigantic things like the economic mess that’s going on now. There are things government has no particular business in, like steroids in baseball or subsidies for ethanol.
Oh, and I nearly forgot the other part of your question. Do I only blame Republicans? Of course not. An opposition party worthy of the name could have at least blunted some of the worst abuses instead of rolling over like a cur about to be kicked at every available opportunity. And let’s not kid ourselves—they’re all, Democrats and Republicans alike, feeding at the same corporate trough, but until the last year or so, the Republicans were getting much fatter.
As to your last question there, I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to ask. I’d disagree (surprise!) on who would be more likely to effect change in the coming years. I’m also not sure where you get the one-term idea simply because of his age; he’s certainly not implied he wouldn’t run for reelection. But about the taking advice from ““elite.”” I put double quotation marks around elite on purpose. Why is it now a bad thing to be among the best of the best? I want the best and brightest to be our leaders. After eight years of the guy everybody wanted to have a beer with, I’d kinda like to see the really smart guy have the job.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 30, 2008 at 1614 hrs
The government may handle the problem well or handle it poorly or handle it not at all, but seeing a government solution as bad simply because it’s a government solution doesn’t do anyone any good.
The problem is though that over the years Government has started Many a program with the best of intentions that have just ended up being gigantic money grabbing, black holes.
Things like:
The war on Poverty. and
The war on Drugs.
And just to be fair I’ll throw in, Iraq,even though I agree with the larger purpose…
Why is it now a bad thing to be among the best of the best?
This is an easy one to answer:
Its because the left loves to go around spouting off about just how bad America is, and to suddenly have a man who quite frankly has bought into all the media hype about him is something that most people are finding quite offensive.
He is a man who doesn’t not have a speck of middle class in him, and yet he claims he is one of us.
He went to Harvard Law school, and became a community organizer, got elected to the Illinois State house, and then to the U.S. Senate, and what do all of these jobs have in common? We as taxpayers have financed his standard of living for his ENTIRE adult life, and yet he claims to know the struggles of the middle class?
I THINK NOT!
I also found it most telling when asked at the debate on Friday, how this economic downturn will affect his plans as President he did not once mention CUTTING GOVERNMENT SPENDING.
Now on the other side is John McCain, who in 1976 becomes the Navy Liaison to the Senate until 1981, when he retires, marries Cindy, moves to Phoenix, works P.R. at his Father-in-laws business, then runs for the house, wins, gets re-elected, serves until 1986, runs for senate and the rest is history. I certainly think McCains resume is much more impressive, (And yes I do acknowledge that the same argument I made against Barack could also be used against McCain)
Now I realize that none of what I said will change anybodys mind about who they vote for in November, but if you truly wanted the “smart guy” to have the job (And I don’t think you do apc, your voting for the party in November, NOT the smartest guy IMO) you would vote McCain.
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on September 30, 2008 at 1800 hrs
Michael said much of what I think. The “elite” are fine things and I have shortened it to the detriment of understanding. I too want the “elite” to run Government if some one has to. However, I really meant those with an ‘elitisit attitude’ and I usually do not shorten that, so I apologize.
I am pretty sure you know the difference I mean, but since others are still reading this I will define for no further misunderstanding. An ‘elite’ is the best at something. They work the hardest in addition to having the most natural talent. Most (at least 98% IMO) politicians are not ‘elite’ politicos in any sense I desire. They do seem to have the ‘elitist attitude’ that believes that because they were elected it proves they are the best and once they feel that they are better than others, it is hard to then listen to those people(their contituents) and take their opinions seriously. Especially when you have a party agenda that all those other ‘elites’ have already come up with that does not happen to agree with the majority in your contituency. Who are they going to vote with? Most politicians already have the elitist attitude firmly in their persona even before they are elected. They come from money and they have graduated from the most prestigious schools. The election seems to be the proof of ‘elite’ status, not their record while in office.
A politician today may be the ‘best’ at manipulating the system that makes up our current Government, but that system includes so much backscratching in the form of big cash that all they really seem qualified for is masseuse or philanthropic trillionaire. A true political “elite” would not likely be either major party because they would not operate in the current system, they would seek to change the system. And they would never evince elitism(a speed skater might pump his fist in victory, an elite ‘politician’ would always show modesty and humility either because he genuinely is, or because he knows diplomatically it is the strongest place to come from). Others would recognize them as the best.
To me, then, someone who clearly thinks that he is so much better and smarter than others (I would be willing to bet a significant amount of money my IQ is higher than OBama’s) can only come off as ‘elitist’ not an ‘elite’. Especially in politics where you should only be judged elite by your past record. Obama does not have a long enough record in politics to be considered an ‘elite politician’ so elite should not be associated with him in the positive sense you are using the term.
Indeed, you are no less than the fourth liberal/Democrat who has tried this argument on me in the last 2 weeks. It seems the entire Democratic/media front has recognized that ‘elitist’ will stick to Obama no matter what and are trying to get the spin to change to ‘Don’t you want the elites to run our country?’ It is a good spin and will catch a few independents on the ‘Sarah Palin is clearly not an elite’ schtick. Clearly that is accurate. At the same time, however, all the ‘greedy CEOs’ that have run Wall Street in to the ground are fellow elitists and frat brothers with most politicians and liberals are calling for their heads as if they are a different brand of person entirely.
I have no less respect for you because you believe Obama represents a better chance at positive change. In fact, I have much greater respect for you that you can admit that there are significant problems with your own party. In the last 8 years, only disaffected(disenfranchised?) conservatives have seriously complained about their own party.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 01, 2008 at 0940 hrs
Michael, the only thing I’m going to say in reply to your diatribe is that the man you claim “does not have a speck of middle class in him” just paid off his college loans while your “now on the other side is John McCain” is a man whose only non-government job was working for his multi-millionaire father-in-law’s PR firm for a couple of years. It seems you’re refuting your own point.
TUERQAS, I think we agree on more than you think we do. I think the elitist attitude you speak of has indeed been very damaging to our country. I simply don’t think Obama possesses it. I can certainly see how it could be attributed to him; his bearing is a little detached, and he’s certainly made his Ivy League education a highlight on his resume. But let’s not kid ourselves either; every Democratic politician for the last 20 years has been tagged as an elitist the moment they gain any kind of prominence.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 01, 2008 at 1051 hrs
What does the right even mean by elitist? Does it mean you were born into wealth? No. Does it mean you’re presently wealthy? Clearly not. Does it mean you’re well educated? Nope. Does it mean you’re irreligious? No. Does it mean that you are an intellectual person in possession of critical thinking skills and a lot of factual knowledge? It seems so. Thus, when I hear someone accusing a candidate of elitism, what I really hear is someone making a virtue out of anti-intellectual know-nothing-ism.
Posted by scott on October 01, 2008 at 1100 hrs
Ithink maybe we do. If he really isn’t ‘elitist’ that would be great. Maybe he has to come off that way just from the perch that the Democratic platform stands upon looking down from above. In their heart of hearts, I believe most every American does not want handouts or redistribution, they want to be the next ‘make it big’ story, the next Bill Gates. Fear of trying or gall of having failed once or more(or laziness), puts them in the position of needing help. They still resent being talked down to even as they take someone else’s money. Of course, the people whose money it was don’t feel all that great about it either unless they volunteered the money. Logically, the people who make the handouts happen will be looked upon with mixed feeling by all sides. One of my biggest peeves is that politicians take the giddy happiness feeling and the credit that you get when you help out others for themselves... as if it was their money. One small step later and all the money in Government is theirs.
I can believe that is a tough hurdle for anyone of any party. That is why I believe there should be maximum terms for all Governmental positions above dog catcher. The extra confusion every 4-12 years of having ‘rookies’ is preferable to me than the ‘elite’ career model politician of today.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 01, 2008 at 1136 hrs
Comment 56 was right over your head, huh Scott. Or are you assuming (correctly for once) that I am not representative of the ‘right’?
An Elitist is someone who believes they are better than other people using rationales rather than facts to support their belief. An ‘elite’ person is someone who is the best, like Michael Phelps. Most people do not outwardly believe that wealthy Yale grads are superior to them, it is contrary to political correctness for one thing. Smart people realize that those advantages are more likely to make a person ‘elite’ at something, but it in no way guarantees it. Therefore, to actually be elite at something, you have to prove it. Sports are easily measurable. Elitists tend to think just being rich and or going to Ivy league schools makes you elite.
Rationale: Ivy league schools give better education producing better people.
Refutation: Bush and Obama graduated from Yale and Harvard.
Virtually no one in the world believes both of those men are superior to themselves.Clearly the prevailing attitude in politics is that just getting elected is what makes an elite. If that belief were not true, elected officials would be spending their time proving how beneficial they could be, not on their next campaign. Their works would get them re-elected. Problem is, with the slime politics of today, it is not even a marginally good rationale.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 01, 2008 at 1204 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 123
Total anonymous users: 2
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/11/2012 10:09 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).