Obama's Cabinet looking hawkish

[Cancel 2016.2]

So basically the idea is that in 2002 Obama took a position on the war that was contrary to virtually everyone save the leftiest lefties with an eye towards the future because he knew that, while he secretly supported the war or was indifferent to it, his ticket to the presidency was to oppose an extremely popular war with the knowledge that the war would go to shit and everyone would hate it in 2008?

If that were actually true I think I would like Obama more than if he simply opposed the war. He'd be one prescient motherf*cker.

No you moron. His position was taken because he thought the Iraq war would blow up on Bush. He thus took the opposing position early on. The rest of your idiotic rant above was unneccesary.

The point we were making is that HAD he been in DC at the time, we do not think he would have taken a stand on the issue.

Do try to pay attention to what people are ACTUALLY writing.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You folks actually Obama would have been one of 4 members of Congress and the only Senator to not vote on the AUMF and that in doing so he would have improved his electoral prospects?

The ODS is catching quicker than I thought.

You truly are retarded. Saying that Obama was calculated or that he avoided major issues while in the Senate is not 'ODS'. Hell Darla posted a thread during the primaries highlighting the major votes in the Senate that Obama missed.

At this point, I think Obama has done pretty well with his appointments and has certainly been more moderate than I thought he would be. Obviously it is still early in the game as he hasn't even taken office yet. But I don't think many of us are running around with 'ODS' (which I assume is your pathetic attempt to try to divert the discussion)

 

[blackascoal]

100% positive that you think he would have skipped the vote?

I definitely maybe think you're way off base.

Obama, the most calculated man in human history, has consistently skipped or declared "Present" on important votes and avoided making tough decisions throughout his entire political career.

This is no secret my brother .. it's a matter of record. If you voted for him you should have been aware of his propensity to duck. It's one of the things I wrote about and one of the reasons why I jumped off his bandwagon.

It’s Not Just ‘Ayes’ and ‘Nays’: Obama’s Votes in Illinois Echo

In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature — to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate.

In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted “present,” effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html?fta=y

Obama Ducks Vote then Attacks Clinton
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/obama-ducks-vote-then-att_b_68128.html


He wanted to skip the bailout vote, but realized he couldn't get away with it.

 

[Bonestorm]

No you moron. His position was taken because he thought the Iraq war would blow up on Bush. He thus took the opposing position early on. The rest of your idiotic rant above was unneccesary.

The point we were making is that HAD he been in DC at the time, we do not think he would have taken a stand on the issue.

Do try to pay attention to what people are ACTUALLY writing.

I'm really trying to follow along. Seriously, I am.

Let me get this straight. So had Obama been in DC at the time you think he would have been the only Senator to not take any position on the AUMF at all and one of only 4 members of Congress out of 535 (3 Representatives didn't vote)? And you think that he would have done this to improve his future electoral prospects? Are you fucking serious? Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic and a rodeo and that's the stupidest thing I've ever read on a message board.

And as I said, if Obama had the prescience to know in 2002 that going against Bush on the Iraq War (note that this assumes that Obama was really either for the war or indifferent) while Bush had a 70% approval rating was going to win him the election in 2008 because the war went to shit than that's a guy I really want to have as president. He can see the future.

 

[Onceler]

The posts here are pretty funny.

Taking a position against the war, at the time Obama did, was putting yourself as out there politically as you could. I would wager that most of the Dems who voted for the resolution went against their instincts, because they were politically expedient, and opposing the war was a vastly unpopular thing to do. No one thought that Saddam wouldn't be toppled quickly, and no one wanted to be on the wrong side of the victory parade.

To say now that Obama was calculating because he "knew it would fail"...I mean, I'm speechless. Nothing but hater talk.

 

[Bonestorm]

The posts here are pretty funny.

Taking a position against the war, at the time Obama did, was putting yourself as out there politically as you could. I would wager that most of the Dems who voted for the resolution went against their instincts, because they were politically expedient, and opposing the war was a vastly unpopular thing to do. No one thought that Saddam wouldn't be toppled quickly, and no one wanted to be on the wrong side of the victory parade.

To say now that Obama was calculating because he "knew it would fail"...I mean, I'm speechless. Nothing but hater talk.

No shit.

 

[Bonestorm]

Obama, the most calculated man in human history, has consistently skipped or declared "Present" on important votes and avoided making tough decisions throughout his entire political career.

This is no secret my brother .. it's a matter of record. If you voted for him you should have been aware of his propensity to duck. It's one of the things I wrote about and one of the reasons why I jumped off his bandwagon.

It’s Not Just ‘Ayes’ and ‘Nays’: Obama’s Votes in Illinois Echo

In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature — to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate.

In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted “present,” effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html?fta=y

Obama Ducks Vote then Attacks Clinton
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/obama-ducks-vote-then-att_b_68128.html


He wanted to skip the bailout vote, but realized he couldn't get away with it.

Even assuming that Obama is the most calculated man in human history, saying that speaking out against the Iraq War in 2002 was the calculating thing to do is complete horseshit. It was the most unpopular thing for any politician anywhere to do at the time.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I'm really trying to follow along. Seriously, I am.

Let me get this straight. So had Obama been in DC at the time you think he would have been the only Senator to not take any position on the AUMF at all and one of only 4 members of Congress out of 535 (3 Representatives didn't vote)? And you think that he would have done this to improve his future electoral prospects? Are you fucking serious? Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic and a rodeo and that's the stupidest thing I've ever read on a message board.

And as I said, if Obama had the prescience to know in 2002 that going against Bush on the Iraq War (note that this assumes that Obama was really either for the war or indifferent) while Bush had a 70% approval rating was going to win him the election in 2008 because the war went to shit than that's a guy I really want to have as president. He can see the future.

Again you twit... pay attention to what is being written. Yet again you have tried to put forth my position in a manner that I did not. Let me try to be clear for you. Try to pay attention....

YES... I believe he would have been a fourth no vote. I base this off his past track record.

NO... I do not believe he thought that one position would win him the Presidency 6 years later.

YES... I do believe he had the foresight to see that taking a position against the Iraq war would benefit his political future.

NO.... his taking the position of being against the war does not mean he was indifferent or that he secretly supported the war.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Even assuming that Obama is the most calculated man in human history, saying that speaking out against the Iraq War in 2002 was the calculating thing to do is complete horseshit. It was the most unpopular thing for any politician anywhere to do at the time.

Listen dipshit.... The CALCULATED part is the fact that he went AGAINST popular opinion at the time. Because he was CALCULATING the probability that in the end it would be the correct position to have taken.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The posts here are pretty funny.

Taking a position against the war, at the time Obama did, was putting yourself as out there politically as you could. I would wager that most of the Dems who voted for the resolution went against their instincts, because they were politically expedient, and opposing the war was a vastly unpopular thing to do. No one thought that Saddam wouldn't be toppled quickly, and no one wanted to be on the wrong side of the victory parade.

To say now that Obama was calculating because he "knew it would fail"...I mean, I'm speechless. Nothing but hater talk.

So in one breath you state... "I would wager that most of the Dems who voted for the resolution went against their instincts, because they were politically expedient"

Then you mock those who state Obama might have just gone with his instincts?

Again you, like Dung, try to paint those who disagree with you as 'haters' or possessing 'ODS'. These are pathetic on your part.

 

[Onceler]

Listen dipshit.... The CALCULATED part is the fact that he went AGAINST popular opinion at the time. Because he was CALCULATING the probability that in the end it would be the correct position to have taken.

Good lord; how many flaming hoops do you have to ride that unicyle through to make that "case"?

Pathetic.

 

[Onceler]

So in one breath you state... "I would wager that most of the Dems who voted for the resolution went against their instincts, because they were politically expedient"

Then you mock those who state Obama might have just gone with his instincts?

Again you, like Dung, try to paint those who disagree with you as 'haters' or possessing 'ODS'. These are pathetic on your part.

What are you even talking about?

Yes, what I'm saying is that Obama chose not to take the politically expedient position, and went with principle to oppose the war at a time when it & Bush were extremely popular.

Thanks for the help.

 

[Bonestorm]

Again you twit... pay attention to what is being written. Yet again you have tried to put forth my position in a manner that I did not. Let me try to be clear for you. Try to pay attention....

YES... I believe he would have been a fourth no vote. I base this off his past track record.

NO... I do not believe he thought that one position would win him the Presidency 6 years later.

YES... I do believe he had the foresight to see that taking a position against the Iraq war would benefit his political future.

NO.... his taking the position of being against the war does not mean he was indifferent or that he secretly supported the war.

1. I guess you can take that position, unlikely as it is.

2. OK, then what was he calculating for?

3. OK.

4. This is where I call bullshit. Either he was against the war because he was against the war or he was against the war because he is a calculating prognosticator who wasn't really against the war but thought it would benefit his political future.

 

[Bonestorm]

This shit pisses me off because it is so fucking easy for a politician to be in favor of a popular war against a regime believed to have lots and lots of WMD and conncections to 9/11 whereas speaking out against the war gets you branded an appeaser that supports Saddam Hussein, his torture regime and terrorists and, if you are wrong and Saddam really did have WMD, your political future is down the fucking toilet.

Being against the war was not the politically calculating thing to do unless you were sure as shit that Saddam had no WMD. And if you were sure as shit that Saddam had no WMD then you had to be against the war, political expediency has nothing to do with it.

 

[Canceled2]

Conclusion drawn by me:

He is not going to be nearly as bad as the far right thought/think and not nearly what the far left wanted. He will govern center/left.

Though I disagree with him greatly on some things I am anxious to see how he governs.

I will not be ordering any Obama commemorative plates though.

On foreign policy I think reality is ruling the day for the idealouge Obama. On domestic policy reality likewise has won the day.

The presidency often forces leaders into new realities that differ from their long held positions. Bush was not neo-conservative when taking office. I think his cabinet changes over the last 3 years of his presidency shows he has pulled back from what I believe was a reality push after 9/11 by various power players in the neo-conservative movement. Looking at his Texas record, and the ideals that formed his spending initiatives, it's easy to see he was a staunch social conservative and a fiscal moderate willing to spend much more freely on education and other typically fiscal moderate programs.

The presidency is bound to change a mans politics. With Obama however it just seems so stark when compared to his rhetoric.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Good lord; how many flaming hoops do you have to ride that unicyle through to make that "case"?

Pathetic.

You do realize the above was right in line with what you in turn state in your following post?

 

[blackascoal]

Even assuming that Obama is the most calculated man in human history, saying that speaking out against the Iraq War in 2002 was the calculating thing to do is complete horseshit. It was the most unpopular thing for any politician anywhere to do at the time.

Obviously my brother, you do not have Obama's vision of his road to glory. And, he made his speech in October of 2002, before the war began .. when there were millions of people and lots of politicians saying the same thing.

I assume you now acknowledge that Obama has a history of skipping important votes and avoiding making tough decisions. Even when he makes a decision, he nuances it so he can take the other position if he feels the need. But then again, that's what centrists do.

 

[Onceler]

You do realize the above was right in line with what you in turn state in your following post?

Not at all, imbecile. I'm not the one making all kinds of assumptions about Obama's clairivoyance that no WMD's would be found & the war would be a quagmire.

 

[blackascoal]

This shit pisses me off because it is so fucking easy for a politician to be in favor of a popular war against a regime believed to have lots and lots of WMD and conncections to 9/11 whereas speaking out against the war gets you branded an appeaser that supports Saddam Hussein, his torture regime and terrorists and, if you are wrong and Saddam really did have WMD, your political future is down the fucking toilet.

Being against the war was not the politically calculating thing to do unless you were sure as shit that Saddam had no WMD. And if you were sure as shit that Saddam had no WMD then you had to be against the war, political expediency has nothing to do with it.

Are you sure you understand how politics works?

Political expediency is the first order of business.

Europe debunked Colin Powell's presentation before the UN in about five minutes.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

1. I guess you can take that position, unlikely as it is.

2. OK, then what was he calculating for?

3. OK.

4. This is where I call bullshit. Either he was against the war because he was against the war or he was against the war because he is a calculating prognosticator who wasn't really against the war but thought it would benefit his political future.

1) When a candidate has shown a history of ducking the bigger issues, then I find it amusing that you seem to believe it would be 'unlikely' for him to do so on this issue.

2) Again, he was calculating that it was the correct position to take in the long run, despite the fact that it would be unpopular in the short term.

4) Ok... we just saw Lorax state that he beleives many Dems went AGAINST their instincts when voting for the war. Obama's position of being against the war does not change just because he was also using foresight. Many Dems, like Clinton, Edwards etc... could have benefitted from using that same foresight. Because I think Lorax is correct. I think many Dems voted for the war simply because they didn't want to appear weak and/or go against popular opinion. I think Obama correctly saw the error in that for the long run... despite the short term unpopularity.