Obama’s Foreign Policy
According to Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria, Obama is the “conservative” when it comes to foreign policy, and McCain is the “liberal”:
Over the course of the campaign against Hillary Clinton and now McCain, Obama has elaborated more and more the ideas that would undergird his foreign policy as president. What emerges is a world view that is far from that of a typical liberal, much closer to that of a traditional realist. It is interesting to note that, at least in terms of the historical schools of foreign policy, Obama seems to be the cool conservative and McCain the exuberant idealist.
…snip…
Obama rarely speaks in the moralistic tones of the current Bush administration. He doesn’t divide the world into good and evil even when speaking about terrorism. He sees countries and even extremist groups as complex, motivated by power, greed and fear as much as by pure ideology. His interest in diplomacy seems motivated by the sense that one can probe, learn and possibly divide and influence countries and movements precisely because they are not monoliths. When speaking to me about Islamic extremism, for example, he repeatedly emphasized the diversity within the Islamic world, speaking of Arabs, Persians, Africans, Southeast Asians, Shiites and Sunnis, all of whom have their own interests and agendas.
Obama never uses the soaring language of Bush’s freedom agenda, preferring instead to talk about enhancing people’s economic prospects, civil society and—his key word—”dignity.” He rejects Bush’s obsession with elections and political rights, and argues that people’s aspirations are broader and more basic—including food, shelter, jobs. “Once these aspirations are met,” he told The New York Times’s James Traub, “it opens up space for the kind of democratic regimes we want.” This is a view of democratic development that is slow, organic and incremental, usually held by conservatives.
Obama talks admiringly of men like Dean Acheson, George Kennan and Reinhold Niebuhr, all of whom were imbued with a sense of the limits of idealism and American power to transform the world. “In his view of history, in his respect for tradition, in his skepticism that the world can be changed any way but very, very slowly, Obama is deeply conservative,” wrote Larissa MacFarquhar in her profile of him for The New Yorker. “There are moments when he sounds almost Burkean. He distrusts abstractions, generalizations, extrapolations, projections. It’s not just that he thinks revolutions are unlikely: he values continuity and stability for their own sake, sometimes even more than he values change for the good.”
…snip…
Ironically, the Republicans now seem to be the foreign-policy idealists, labeling countries as either good or evil, refusing to deal with nasty regimes, fixating on spreading democracy throughout the world and refusing to think in more historical and complex ways. “I don’t do nuance,” George W. Bush told many visitors to the White House in the years after 9/11. John McCain has had his differences with Bush, but not on this broad thrust of policy. Indeed it is McCain, the Republican, who has put forward some fanciful plans, arguing that America should establish a “League of Democracies,” expel Russia from the Group of Eight industrialized countries and exclude China from both groups as well.
The whole thing is worth the read. Cross-posted at SayUncle and TennesseeFree.
Quote: “Obama rarely speaks in the moralistic tones of the current Bush administration.”
Why should he? His only morals are win at any cost. Don’t worry. Obama will have 10 years to straighten out everything.
Realistic Obama slogan: “Change of mind that we can believe in.”
I believe Fred has precisely ilustrated why support for Obama is strong among the educated and the elite, whereas McCain does better among the “low information” voters. The Newsweek piece lays out in detail the thinking behind Obama’s foreign policy positions. An approach most educated people would agree with or at least be able to provide an intelligent argument against.
But it all goes right over the low information voter’s head. If it can’t be boiled down to a bumper sticker like “he will do anything to win” or “change of mind we can believe in”, then it just isn’t absorbed.
The good news? If Obama does win, and especially if he is in office for eight years, I don’t think elite, educated, intelligent, nuanced, and informed will be considered slurs any longer.
And for those who are offended by displays of the American flag, Obama has removed the American flag from his campaign plane. After his 10 years in office, he won’t have any American flags around him.
Why are conservatives so obsessed with plastering the flag all over everything in sight? It’s as if they’ve never heard of the US Flag Code. Perhaps why they’re so often found violating it.
Seriously, in all the flag-thumping of late, especially post-9/11, it seems we’ve done nothing but demean the flag. There are times when less is more. Display the flag properly, or not at all.
Tgirsch wrote: “Why are conservatives so obsessed with plastering the flag all over everything in sight?”
Because it’s an effective way of hijacking threads. You’ll note, once again, that Fred, Derf, Elohssa, whatever you want to call him, has succeeded in diverting discussion away from the original topic, indeed, he hasn’t addressed Obama’s foreign policy at all.
Identifying foreign policy as “conservative” or “liberal” can be difficult, iho. I tend to think of “conservative” foreign policy as either isolationist, or conversely, as militaristic (pretty much mutually exclusive). What is significant, is Obama seems to be a realist. He understands in a world as small as ours has become, that diplomacy is probably more effective than sabre-rattling, particularly if our military is already stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also seems to understand the diversity of the Islamic world, something the Bush administration, and most Americans, do not. If Bush had understood, he most likely would not have chose a military response to Iraq.
LOL @ Elohssa.
Fred – C’mon dude, I think we’re a pretty smart lot, at least hit us with an anagram!
Obama’s proposal to bring troops home can only be accomplished because of the success of the surge, which he opposed and still refuses to acknowledge worked. He gives credit for success in Iraq to everyone except the United States. He basically is trying now to pimp Bush’s ride.
BTW, I sure hope he sends more translators of Arabic to Afghanistan like he proposed a while back. By the time he leaves office in ten years maybe the Afghans will be speaking Arabic.
The man is an empty suit.
Why does Obama think that political action would have taken care of Iraq, but he thinks more military troops will be needed in Afghanistan? Why not use that superior intellect of his and his unsurpassed ability to persuade and talk Osama and the Taliban into giving up their fight? After all, Osama can certainly understand nuances.
I’m kind of ashamed at how long “Elohssa” took me.
US strategy has indeed been effective in reducing violence in Iraq, although that frankly has very little to do with the increased troop presence, and a lot to do with us paying off al-Sadr to lay low for a while.
Fred’s right, though: it would be useless to send Arabic translators to Afghanistan. It would be much better to do as McCain suggests, and send them to the border between Iraq and Pakistan.
A quick comment on the ten year thing fred keeps flogging. Go to the transcript. Read what Obama said. He said he expected to be dealing with foreign leaders for 8 to 10 years. He did not say he would be president for 10 years. This is not a gaffe. It is stupidity on the part of those that do not recognize the fact that after leaving office, some presidents continue to assist the new administration by meeting with leaders that they have established a rapport with. Not always, hence the language “8 to 10″.
Hmm, so by the Fred standard, Carter has been president for 31+ years!
“This is not a gaffe.”
Yeah, right. Just like there are 57 states.
“after leaving office, some presidents continue to assist the new administration by meeting with leaders that they have established a rapport with. Not always, hence the language “8 to 10″.”
Why would Obama deny us his wonderful expertise after 2 years of being out of office? Carter never limited his availability for service to his country to 10 years. Of course, Obama never makes a gaffe. Everybody picks on poor Obama. You really are stretching with that Obama was thinking about helping the new administration crap. Obama supporters will believe anything. Remember the slogan: “Obama, change of mind we can believe in.”
BTW, for those who want to match McCain’s gaffes with Obama’s gaffes, don’t waste your time. I’m not a fan of McCain.
“AMMAN, JORDAN–The Obama campaign is planning a big public rally in a major park in Berlin on Thursday. Thousands of Germans are anticipated to attend when presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) delivers what is being billed as a “substantive” speech on Trans-Atlantic relations. Yet campaign top advisors Robert Gibbs and David Axelrod insist this is not a campaign event though it is conceived, organized, financed and executed by the campaign.”
How can anyone believe anything the Obama campaign says. Obama’s trip is not a campaign trip. Yep. That’s the truth.
“Obama: Change of mind we can believe in.”
Anyone who doubts the depth of Obama’s understanding of the issues involved in the Middle East needs only to consider his profound statement: “It’s unrealistic to expect that a U.S. president alone can suddenly snap his fingers and bring about peace in this region.” Of course, with his leadership, the enemies of Israel will lay down their arms and the Palestinians will have all their dreams come true. How can anyone not vote for the messiah? Heaven on earth will be here for at least the next ten years.
Yes fred, 57 was a misstatement. However, I rather doubt anyone believes Obama does not know how many states there are in the US.
But, if your world is brighter thinking a magna cum laude from Harvard Law does not know how many states there are in the US, or how many years a presidential term is, hey, who am I to rain on your parade.
BTW, for those who want to match McCain’s gaffes with Obama’s gaffes, don’t waste your time. I’m not a fan of McCain.
Ooh, Fred’s favorite weasely disclaimer! Don’t bother pointing out McCain’s flaws because I’m no McCain fan! Apparently, for all of Fred’s blathering about 10-year-terms and 57 states and whatnot, he himself is apparently blissfully ignorant of the fact that there will only be two viable candidates for president, and that constant criticism of one candidate can be construed as tacit support for the other.
The question, then, isn’t whether Fred likes McCain, but whether he supports McCain over Obama. He clearly does, and he clearly lacks the stones to admit as much. Because, after all, if he actually admitted that preference, then he would be subject to being reminded about all of McCain’s gaffes, something he knows will overwhelm him in short order.
But no worries: Fred lacks the stones, and won’t admit any such thing. Instead, he’ll try and weasel his way out of having any accountability for any of the views he expresses, as always, continuing to play the holier-than-thou card without ever actually allowing himself to be nailed down on any particular point of view.
‘who am I to rain on your parade.’
I sure rained on your parade about that nonsense that Obama meant he was going to help out the next administration for two years after his eight year reign. Do you ever get embarrassed by the things you write? I’ve wondered what your profession is. I think you must be a professor of creative writing with an emphasis in humor.
“he himself is apparently blissfully ignorant of the fact that there will only be two viable candidates for president, and that constant criticism of one candidate can be construed as tacit support for the other.
The question, then, isn’t whether Fred likes McCain, but whether he supports McCain over Obama. He clearly does, and he clearly lacks the stones to admit as much.”
Yes, of course, I support McCain over Obama. I clearly do. It would be hard to find a less qualified candidate than Obama. That hardly means that I am happy about McCain being the only other choice. If you want to point out all the McCain gaffes, have fun. It doesn’t bother me. When Obama finishes his ten years of service to our country, who will remember all the gaffes the Annointed One has made?
Also, why does Obama think that political action would have taken care of Iraq, but he thinks more military troops (a surge) will be needed in Afghanistan?
Fred, no, you made no case at all. It was not a precise statement. The clear intention, and if you pay attention to presidential candidates, the do this all the time, was his commitment would not end when his term was up. They often do the same thing on the near side. Unless it is something that specifically requires them to be in the Oval Office, they frequently phrase thing in terms on now, not in terms of when they take office. Pay attention to the candidates themselves and spend less time in the echo chambers and you will figure some of this out for yourself. Well, maybe not.
In response to your #18. There are some rather basic differences between pre-invasion Iraq and Afghanistan today. The most significant being Iraq had a (hyper) stable government and was not a safe haven for terrorists. Afghanistan has a very unstable/ineffective government and has a pretty decent terrorist population. Given that difference, I’ll leave it to you to work out why different approaches in the two countries might be prudent.
Your explanation does not deal with the conditions in Iraq after the start of the war. What Iraq was or was not before the war does not answer the question as to why a surge was a bad thing in Iraq and a surge would be a good thing in Afghanistan.
“no, you made no case at all.”
Obviously no case can be made to you since you are bound and determined to excuse all the shortcomings of Barry. Your twisted mind has come up with an explanation for his obvious mistake that is laughable. Thanks for the laugh. Maybe Barry will serve his country for ten years. We’ll have to wait and see, but to attribute the meaning of his 8-10 years statement to some grand plan for the future is ridiculous. Go ahead and live your life in a Barry induced state of euphoria. You deserve it.
Obama: Change of mind we can believe in.
Fred: Copy and paste we can believe in.
If I thought you really wanted to get into a debate about the surge on the merits, I’d be willing to engage that. But you’re more interested in parroting talking points than in any substantive debate. If it would make it easier for you, I could limit myself to posting comments right before Rush Limbaugh comes on, so he can tell you what to think before you reply.
” Copy and paste we can believe in.”
The only copying and pasting I have done is in post #13. Although a lot of what you say is the same stuff you get at DailyKos, I believe that you agree with other liberals. I can think for myself and come up with the same views that … oops, got to go. It’s almost time to find out from Rush what I’m supposed to think.
Heh. I don’t actually read DailyKos.
And if you’re not copying and pasting, you should be. You keep saying the same things over and over again, and you’d save yourself a lot of time if you just copied and pasted it. Or at least set up a macro…
Anyway, if you believe we’re better off having a president who thinks there are “problems on the border” between two countries that are nearly 1,000 miles apart, that’s your prerogative. As long as we don’t have someone who says “fifty …. seven” when he obviously means “forty-seven,” the world will dodge a dangerous bullet.
Sorry Fred, when you said “why does Obama think that political action would have taken care of Iraq” I thought you meant in lieu of the war. That is when he was proposing political action. Obviously once the war starts, it’s a bit late for political action, what with the Iraq government being vaporized in the first couple of weeks. At that point, it’s how to best fix the mess that never should have been created.
We have now been in Iraq for longer than WWII. It is hard to find any measure by which our military actions in Iraq can be considered a success.
Also, at least Obama knows that “the surge” can’t be given credit for something that happened months before the surge was even announced. McCain, on the other hand, doesn’t. But remember, Obama is the naive, inexperienced, and unserious foreign policy candidate.
You gotta admire the McCain campaign though, putting out an ad complaining that the press likes Obama better than him. Especially in light of the fact that he used to refer to the press as “my base”. Guess it’s not so fun when the shoe is on the other foot.
And now McCain is saying the surge was actually a variety of things, not just troop build-up (so he can counter his mistake mentioned in #27 above). Funny. He’s robbing Peter to pay Paul with his defense. I guess Obama was not against the surge after all, just one component of it (ie troop build-up).
“But remember, Obama is the naive, inexperienced, and unserious foreign policy candidate.”
Your sarcasm actually speaks the truth. That’s a rare thing.
“I thought you meant in lieu of the war.”
The subject was the surge.
The, uh, foreign policies, uh, of Barry have, I want to make it clear, uh, have become, as I would like to say, ahem, (clear throat), somewhat clear, uhmm, during this trip, as I’ve often said, uh, uh, that you, as you remember I said last year, to all, uh, who are willing to accept everything, uh, I say. I hope that is perfectly, uh, uh, uh, clear.
We’ll have to wait and see, but to attribute the meaning of his 8-10 years statement to some grand plan for the future is ridiculous.
Right, because Occam’s Razor would dictate the more likely scenario is, as TG, said, a magna cum laude from Harvard Law does not know how many states there are in the US, or how many years a presidential term is.
*Note the efficient use of copy and paste – not to be confused with cut and paste (which would be a bad Occam’s Razor pun), or perhaps, on some double entendre shit, cut and run.
Fred, please cruise back on up to the top of the thread and recalibrate yourself. The topic of this thread is not the surge, but rather Obama’s foreign policy.
Digg, don’t you start attributing my comments to Tgirsch. The dude gets enough credit as it is
(I mentioned Obama’s graduation.) Of course McCain didn’t finish last in his class of 800 something. There were about five guys below him. But intelligence, education and achievement are over-rated. I want a prez I can drink a beer with. And McCain’s wife is in the beer biz, so you gotta figure he’d be buying.
“The topic of this thread is not the surge, but rather Obama’s foreign policy.”
The surge and his opposition to it is part of Barry’s foreign policy. Pay attention.
A is a subset of B does not imply A equals B. In fact it specifically determines that A does not equal B.
My bad, Ted.
@tgirsch
What a lemming.
http://www.anobamanation.net/ Long Live Fuhrer Obama!
Http://obamawtf.blogspot.com Enjoy
Http://obama-exposed.blogspot.com Enjoy more
Will Obama bring an end to the “ownership society”?
Enquiring minds would like to know. Two hundred thousand Europeans seemed to like Barry at that Berlin rally. Will
that hurt Obama in the home front? Two questions which beg
an answer.
“Two hundred thousand Europeans seemed to like Barry at that Berlin rally.”
Europe doesn’t have the greatest history of choosing their leaders. Why would anyone care who Europeans want our leader to be?
Europe doesn’t have the greatest history of choosing their leaders. Why would anyone care who Europeans want our leader to be?
How do you even remember to breathe on your own?
Great, intelligent comeback. Do you come up with those zingers on your own?
Nope. They’re underwritten by the Heritage Foundation.
Barry has once again gotten the cart before the horse and seems to think he is already president.
copied: Democrat Barack Obama, the first black candidate with a shot at winning the White House, says John McCain and his Republican allies will try to scare them by saying Obama “doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.”
In order not to look like the “other” presidents, he really needs to be one first. What a massive ego!
Barry promised not to insert race into the campaign. Now he has accused McCain of racism with Barry’s “doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills” comment. If it were not so sad, it would be amusing the way his adoring press is trying to say that it was not a comment about race. They even accuse McCain of raising the race issue by responding to Barry’s race comments. Of course, twisted minds come up with twisted explanations.
And yet you remain suspiciously silent on McCain’s demonstrably false allegations against Obama. I guess you only care about the transgressions of the guy you like less.
“And yet you remain suspiciously silent on McCain’s demonstrably false allegations against Obama”
What false allegations?
Start here.
Wow, if the Washington Post says it, I’m really impressed. They certainly did nothing to disprove the allegations. Now, why don’t you deal with the denial of Obama that his comment about the dollar bills was racial. Can you say with a straight face that it was not?
If all you get is that the Washington Post says it? The point is, the McCain campaign has provided no evidence that their allegation is true, despite repeated requests that they do so! Perhaps you prefer FactCheck.org’s take? No, you’re not big into facts, are you?
And, of course, if Obama had gone through with the visit instead of canceling it, the McCain camp had an attack ad for that ready, too:
So, basically, Obama’s wrong to cancel a visit to the troops, but he would have been equally wrong if he had gone through with the visit, according to them.
Now, why don’t you deal with the denial of Obama that his comment about the dollar bills was racial.
Last I saw, the Obama camp admitted that the remark was a reference to his race. Of course, it’s silly for Obama to think that there’s anything the least bit demeaning about being compared to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears.
“Last I saw, the Obama camp admitted that the remark was a reference to his race. Of course, it’s silly for Obama to think that there’s anything the least bit demeaning about being compared to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears.”
When did Barry’s campaign admit that they had accused McCain of using Barry’s race to scare people? It must have been very recent.
Of course, it is demeaning to compare Barry to Hilton and Spears. The ad is true. Barry is counting on his celebrity to take him to the White House. He has nothing of substance to run on.
If by “nothing of substance” you mean “more detailed policy proposals” and “better knowledge of the relevant issues,” then I suppose you’re right.
But none of that matters, of course. You prefer a candidate who can’t manage to keep Sunni and Shia straight, who thinks that the Anbar Awakening happened because of a troop surge that didn’t start until several months later, and that he can balance the budget by cutting an additional $300 billion per year in taxes.
Of course, now’s about the time when you’ll hide behind your “I don’t like/won’t defend McCain” nonsense, but the fact is you’re supporting him over Obama, and continue to refuse to justify that decision in anything other than vague terms that Sean Hannity told you to believe.
(Also note that now that I’ve firmly established that some of McCain’s allegations have been shown to be spurious, Fred has dropped that little canard and moved on, without acknowledging anything. Typical.)
“has dropped that little canard and moved on, without acknowledging anything.”
What was spurious was you defense of Barry for choosing to go to the gym instead of visiting troops. Your argument was so silly that it was not worthy of response.
Are you going to continue to say that Barry didn’t accuse McCain of racism with his dollar bill comment? Also, when and where did Obama’s campaign admit that Barry did so?
And with that little remark, you prove that you have neither integrity nor reading comprehension.
So you are not going to back up your claim that Barry’s campaign admitted that he was talking about race in his dollar comment? I don’t blame you. It does put a bad light on you and Barry.
I don’t see why I should. You haven’t backed up one damn thing you’ve said in all the years you’ve been commenting here. But again, double-standards from conservatives shouldn’t surprise me. Since I’m used to this double standard, and since the power of Google is obviously beyond your ken, here.
And, of course, you still have conceded nothing, even after FactCheck’s evisceration of the “went to the gym instead of seeing the troops” baloney. Your complete lack of integrity and honesty is on full display, for all here to see.
“I don’t see why I should.”
Okay, that’s up to you. Maybe it’s because you can’t.
It is true that Barry went to the gym instead of going to see the troops. That is not debatable. The debate is whether he cancelled his trip because he couldn’t take the press and his staff with him. If you are going to debate at least get the premise right.
Maybe it’s because you can’t.
Except that I just did, not that you noticed, apparently.
And it’s not true that Obama went to the gym “instead of” going to see the troops. He goes to the gym virtually every day, whether or not he sees the troops. And as to the press aspect, there’s no “debate” at all. Just a bunch of blind partisans making unsupported (and unsupportable) allegations with zero regard for whether or not they’re true. And I’m including you in that bunch by the way. For all your complaints about “lying” and “liars,” you don’t give a tinker’s damn about the truth — only about what you want to believe.
“Except that I just did”
Cite post #. I reread your posts and nowhere do you show that Barry’s campaign admitted that Barry had accused McCain of racism by trying to scare people because Barry doesn’t look like the “other” presidents. As of last night his spokesman was still denying that it was about race. I would be happy to see you tell me when they admitted what they had been denying. Instead of attacking me, why don’t you answer the question? Diversion is not an answer.
BTW, sorry to disappoint you, but I don’t get Hannity on my cable.
You wrote:
Now, why don’t you deal with the denial of Obama that his comment about the dollar bills was racial.
And I answered that. Why the spokesperson’s remark fails to meet the very standard you set when you asked that, I have no idea.
Instead of attacking me, why don’t you answer the question? Diversion is not an answer.
Coming from you, that’s hysterical. It’s like Gary Glitter saying “That guy’s a pedophile!”
I don’t get Hannity on my cable.
If you’re in a place so backward that they don’t even have AM radio, it might explain how ill informed you are about all manner of issues.
P.S. If there’s a cable network out there that doesn’t carry Fox News, sign me up!
“If you’re in a place so backward that they don’t even have AM radio, it might explain how ill informed you are about all manner of issues.”
I live in a very progressive place. Hannity comes on radio at night and I don’t listen to him. Why is it so important for you to think I listen to Hannity?
“P.S. If there’s a cable network out there that doesn’t carry Fox News, sign me up!”
I’m not surprised that you don’t want to hear any views that would make you actually think instead of spewing liberal venom.
The cable system here carries Fox News. However, I don’t get it because I just have basic cable, which does not include Fox News or CNN.
Derf: Now, why don’t you deal with the denial of Obama that his comment about the dollar bills was racial?
“And I answered that.”
Where? Why do you keep refusing to tell me where you answered it? If you could, you would.
Why is it so important for you to think I listen to Hannity?
It’s not that important to me, really. It’s more just curiosity about how you can be so badly misinformed all the time. If you were parroting Hannity, that would explain it. Although I suppose an alternate explanation is simply that the stupidity is all your own.
I’m not surprised that you don’t want to hear any views that would make you actually think instead of spewing liberal venom.
Only one of the two of us is “spewing venom” and — news flash! — it ain’t me.
In any case, I’m always interested in hearing opposing views, when those views are well-informed and well-reasoned. It’s part of the reason why I spend at least as much time reading conservative blogs as I do reading liberal blogs. It’s just that Fox News is an unashamed propaganda machine for the GOP, and I don’t view them as being a good source of such views — frankly, I’m surprised so conservatives would claim that they are.
Where? Why do you keep refusing to tell me where you answered it? If you could, you would.
In comment #50, you asked why the Obama camp wouldn’t acknowledge that the “dollar bill” remark was “racial,” and in comment #51, I said they already had done so. In comment #56, you asked me to “back up [my] claim that Barry’s campaign admitted that he was talking about race in his dollar comment,” so in comment #57, I linked to a story about an Obama spokesman acknowledging that Obama was referring in part to his race with the “dollar bill” remark. Seems to me that this certainly establishes that “the Obama camp admitted that the remark was a reference to his race,” which is precisely what I wrote up there in comment #51. What more do you want? Where will you move the goal post next?
Fred, if you understand links, you need to go back and click on the link Tgirsch provided in comment #57 before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
The whole hospital visit thing is odd in that Obama did that very thing a couple of days before, and of course did not take cameras or campaign staff to that visit. So to say he wouldn’t do it with out the cameras – when he did that very thing a couple of days previously is a difficult case to make.
I will say this, I think the Obama campaign made a mistake by cancelling the visit. Event though they anticipated it would be politicized if he went (because he was now on campaign time) – and a McCain staffer admitted they already had an attack mapped out if he did go, it would have been less damaging to go with absolute minimum number of people (as in alone) and do it and face those attacks rather than face these attacks. Plus the guys would have liked to see him. The campaign over thought it and made a big mistake in my opinion. The presidents on the currency is also a big mistake. I know they are trying to preempt the inevitable racist attacks, but it’s not a good strategy. At this point, focus on issues and let McCain stew in the negatives.
How about this for a debate format. Moderated, with questions. sort of the usual. Then a 15 minute break. Each candidate huddles with his team and gets a list of all the lies the other guy just told during the debate. Hash them out. Then another 15 minute break, and a final rehash.
Might be interesting.
“I know they are trying to preempt the inevitable racist attacks,”
Who is going to make those “inevitable” attacks? It is Obama who has injected race into this by implying that McCain is a racist. How does that lift the level of debate? As far as I know no serious person has ever charged McCain with being a racist. Why did Barry feel like he needed to play the race card? He must be getting desperate. No matter what he does, even with the adoring mainstream media carrying his water, he can’t pull away from McCain. In fact, in a number of polls he is slipping. When all else fails, play the race card.
Yes, I know how to use links. I also have indoor plumbing, can walk and chew gum at the same time, and have more than one tooth. You egomaniac liberals are really obnoxious. The link mentioned in #57 does not admit that Obama accused McCain of racism by saying McCain was trying to scare people because Barry didn’t look like the “other” presidents on the dollar bills. It is you who keeps ducking and weaving and trying to move the goal posts.
Fred: Now, why don’t you deal with the denial of Obama that his comment about the dollar bills was racial.
Tom: Last I saw, the Obama camp admitted that the remark was a reference to his race.
Fred: When did Barry’s campaign admit that they had accused McCain of using Barry’s race to scare people? It must have been very recent. (note subtle shift in Fred’s poition}
Tom: Since I’m used to this double standard, and since the power of Google is obviously beyond your ken, here. (link says: “Sen. Barack Obama’s chief strategist conceded that the Democratic presidential candidate was referring to his race when he said Republicans were trying to scare voters by suggesting Obama “doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.” )
Fred: Cite post #. I reread your posts and nowhere do you show that Barry’s campaign admitted that Barry had accused McCain of racism by trying to scare people because Barry doesn’t look like the “other” presidents. As of last night his spokesman was still denying that it was about race. I would be happy to see you tell me when they admitted what they had been denying. Instead of attacking me, why don’t you answer the question? Diversion is not an answer.
Nothing I can add to that.
You asked me to prove that the Obama camp admitted that the comment was “racial,” and I did so. Explicitly stating that he’s accusing McCain of racism is an entirely different thing.
Frankly, Obama’s remarks in context really don’t seem at all controversial to me:
The McCain camp has been guilty of pretty much all the things Obama accuses them of. Accusing Obama of not being “patriotic” enough? Check. Focusing on his “funny name?” Check. Accusing him of not being “presidential?” Check. Accusing him of being unproven/untested? Check.
It’s funny, though, that you seem to be a lot more sensitive to things supposedly implied by liberals than by things supposedly implied by conservatives. You get from the above statement to “McCain is a racist” awfully quickly. You’ve dismissively waved away far more explicit statements than that, when they’ve come from Republicans.
I think it will be fun to watch you, however, when President Obama gets sworn in. If people think you’re whiny and unhinged now, just imagine what it will be like when a Democratic president is sworn in, and easily outpaces the current president in popularity…
“The McCain camp has been guilty of pretty much all the things Obama accuses them of. Accusing Obama of not being “patriotic” enough? Check. Focusing on his “funny name?” Check. Accusing him of not being “presidential?” Check. Accusing him of being unproven/untested? Check.”
You left out the “racist” accusation. Why is that, since that is what the controversy is all about?
“just imagine what it will be like when a Democratic president is sworn in, and easily outpaces the current president in popularity…”
You can dream, can’t you? I believe that if Barry does get elected, after 4 years Jimmy Carter will breathe a sigh of relief. Finally, he will no longer be the worst president of the last 100 years.
(While we are imagining, imagine a democrat led Congress with the lowest approval rating in the history of polling. Those approval numbers are less than half of what GWB’s are.)
If Obama is so popular, why aren’t his poll numbers higher? I hope Obama keeps his high opinion of himself. His arrogance wears thin very quickly. His whiny demeanor also turns people away. Keep it up, Barry.
You left out the “racist” accusation. Why is that, since that is what the controversy is all about?
Beats me, because I keep looking for the purported “racist accusation,” and I don’t see it. Seems to me like a lot of hub-bub over not much, frankly. I mean, I don’t see where Obama says “McCain is a racist,” or, “McCain is mean to me because I’m black,” or anything of the sort.
after 4 years Jimmy Carter will breathe a sigh of relief. Finally, he will no longer be the worst president of the last 100 years.
He was already able to breathe that sigh by 2004, actually. Carter’s big downfall was that he didn’t have the presence of mind (or maybe he just had too much integrity) to secretly negotiate with terrorists and pay them off to wait on releasing hostages until inauguration day, as Carter’s successor did. Inheriting a recession, apparently, makes you one of the worst presidents in history, while negotiating with and selling arms to terrorists apparently makes you one of the best. I still don’t get that.
Finally, this early in the game, poll numbers don’t mean much. Talk to me again in October.
“I don’t see where Obama says “McCain is a racist,” or, “McCain is mean to me because I’m black,” or anything of the sort.”
Then you must be blind and dumb. He said that McCain would try to scare people because of Barry’s race (as acknowledged by his campaign).
“to secretly negotiate with terrorists and pay them off to wait on releasing hostages until inauguration day, as Carter’s successor did.”
Liar
He said that McCain would try to scare people because of Barry’s race (as acknowledged by his campaign).
Gee, that’s interesting. You said that my link didn’t have the campaign acknowledging any such thing. Now that it suits your purposes, however, you’re saying that they did. Which is it? Can’t you make up your mind?
Liar
You’re right, of course. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that the hostages were released the day Reagan was inaugurated.
“You said that my link didn’t have the campaign acknowledging any such thing. Now that it suits your purposes, however, you’re saying that they did. Which is it? Can’t you make up your mind?”
Hey, Doofus, look at what Obama said originally, not what his campaign said later. Good grief! At least I have a mind to make up.
“You’re right, of course. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that the hostages were released the day Reagan was inaugurated.”
That’s your proof? Even you should be able to do better than that. Perhaps the Iranians wanted to embarrass the imcompetent outgoing president. You know, other people besides Republicans can have nefarious motives.
And there were no future cases where Reagan negotiated with terrorists and provided them arms. Of course in that case, Reagan claimed he was to stupid to know what had occurred.
In any case, the main reason the congress has such low approval ratings is because they have fallen flat on overturning the Bush mistakes.
I have a feeling that McCain or Obama is going to have a very low approval rating as well. Economy is in the tank, huge deficits, energy and food prices rising fast. Historic divide between wealthy and everyone else. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran. Global warming, trade deficit, stock market down. Housing crisis. Not a lot of good things happening right now, and the next pres is going to take the brunt of all of that.
Woe is us! America is an awful country and is the root of all human problems. Right, liberals.
“the next pres is going to take the brunt of all of that.”
Already making excuses for Obama’s failures – It’s Bush’s fault. Whine, blame, excuse. The liberal way.
Have all you liberals inflated your tires?
“Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tuneups,” Obama said. “You could actually save just as much.”
Either Obama is an idiot or he thinks his supporters are. Maybe both.
How is Obama an idiot if what he’s saying is true?
Seems like the idiots are the ones who are ridiculing Obama for saying things that are true. As usual.
P.S. Have you ever met a GOP talking point that you didn’t mindlessly parrot? Based on your track record here, I’m guessing not. You have yet to demonstrate any ability to actually think for yourself.
Here is a reply to your “expert.”
Ken Shepherd, Managing Editor of NewsBusters.
“Just for fun, I did the math. Properly inflating your tires can improve gas mileage by 3%. Of course, many people already keep their tires properly inflated, and many more are at least close to being properly inflated. Let’s be generous and assume that one-half of the total possible savings would be realized if we all inflated our tires properly; that’s a net gain of 1.5% fuel efficiency.
Americans drive approximately 2,880 billion miles per year. If we average 24 mpg, we use around 120 billion gallons of gasoline in our vehicles. If, through perfect tire inflation, we improved our collective fuel efficiency by 1.5%, that would be 1.8 billion gallons. A barrel of oil produces around 20 gallons of gasoline, so the total savings available through tire inflation is approximately 90,000,000 barrels of oil annually.
How does this stack up against “all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling?”
ANWR: 10 billion barrels
Outer Continental Shelf: 18 billion barrels (estimated; the actual total is undoubtedly much higher, since exploration has been banned)
Oil shale: 1 trillion barrels
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Liberals need to advise Barry to stick to the teleprompter.
Assuming we accept Shepherd’s numbers, those figures are totals in those locations. Given current rates of oil consumption in the US, if we could magically have all of the oil from ANWR and the OCS (the areas where the GOP is talking about drilling right now), you’d have a whopping 2.3 year supply. Of course, we can’t just pull up all that oil at once, you’re looking at ten years before we get a single drop (say, what’s 90 million barrels per year times ten years?), and 20 years before we reach peak production. According to those commies over at the Wall Street Journal, you can expect ANWR to reduce gas prices by about 1¢-4¢ by the 2020’s. Oooh, that’s worth it, all right!
Please note that these figures come from a DOE report commissioned by that notoriously anti-drilling commie, Senator Ted Stevens. Quoth the report:
So remind me just exactly what we can expect to gain by drilling in ANWR? A savings of $1.44 per barrel, which will be realized in 20 years? How exactly is that going to help? (Mind you, that $1.44 per barrell is the most optimistic estimate given in the report.) Also, according to the most optimistic estimates, ANWR could meet at most 4% of our daily consumption needs — all of this assuming that our consumption stays level, and that demand from India and China doesn’t continue to increase. Wow, I can see the dollars just melting away from our gas prices.
Of course, if expanded drilling is likely to help, there’s nothing stopping the oil companies from drilling on the 68 million acres — including many off-shore acres — where drilling is already allowed.
Oh, and I forgot to address the oil shale — while it is indeed much more plentiful than crude, it’s also not nearly as versatile. It requires substantially more refining before it can be used in most applications (making it inherently a lot more expensive than crude) and isn’t at all suitable for uses like automotive fuel (gasoline).
Finally, more on the tire pressure thing:
Of course, Fred could actually sprout a pair and try to defend his guy’s position, actively, for once, rather than just throwing stones from within his own glass house. Then again, I’ve waited many times before for him to exhibit anything like courage or manhood, and I’ve always been disappointed. I don’t see why this will be different. If it can’t be summed up in a smarmy remark or a quick copy and paste, Fred wants nothing to do with it.
“If it can’t be summed up in a smarmy remark or a quick copy and paste, Fred wants nothing to do with it.”
I have no intention of spending hours composing a response to a blog that is read by very few people and which has only 3 or 4 active commenters. You are useful to me only as entertainment. I love the way you always defend the indefensible.
Justify your latest cop-out however you need to. Hell, I’d be surprised if you had any intention of spending even minutes to research an important issue, other than to find some hack who echoes what you already believe (and, frankly, I’d be surprised if you were even willing to go to that level).
Meanwhile, since you’ve admitted to having no interest in defending your point of view, I’ll take that to mean you concede the argument.
That last post from fred is interesting – given the fact he has actively circumvented measures to keep him off this site at least twice. He cares nothing about Lean Left, and will do anything to make sure people know it.
“I’ll take that to mean you concede the argument.”
Why not? Most of your assumptions are wrong anyway. Why change now? I know it makes you uncomfortable to know that your messiah is flawed. Deal with it.
Hey, he’s not a “messiah” by any means. He’s just nowhere near as bad as the GOP candidate, who claims foreign policy as a strength while repeatedly proving he knows nothing at all about it.
TG, (and I use that abbreviation pointedly here)
In #82 you suggest that courage is a feature of manhood. While this is an easy stumble into the delusions of the conservatives, it’s an unfortunate abetment of patriachy.
Dan M:
I know, but I was merely speaking their language in a futile attempt to communicate.
Barry was asked by a seven year old girl in Indiana why he wanted to run for president. His answer:
America, uh, is — is no longer, uh, what it — it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, “I don’t want that future for my children.”
Aside from the bumbling, nonsensical nature of the first sentence, why would a man running for president want to say such a negative thing about his country to a seven year old girl? He goes to Germany and runs down his country and he runs down his country to a child. Does he have anything positive to say about this country? We know his wife likes to run down this country. It appears Barry does, too.
BTW, when was the country better?
Perhaps the country would be a better place if Cindy McCain had simulated sex with a banana in front of thousands of horny bikers, as her husband suggested she should. That would send a positive message to seven-year-old girls everywhere!
Great non-reponse reponse.
Being an expert in crafting them, you’d know one when you saw one.
You just want all the attention on Obama, because you know once people actually start talking about what McCain says and does, it’s over for McCain (and you Republicans).