Campaign 08, The way I see it

Cypress said:
I said nothing about you being a parrot.

Tons of people have bought the line of Obama's alleged "inexperience". Its an MSM narrative that is prevalent among plenty of people, including smart ones. I'm suggesting that you've bought into it.

As I demonstrated, Obama has at least as much relevant "experience" as one- term governor Romney. And certainly Obama has more foreign policy credentials than Mitt, having served on the two most prominent foreign policy and national security committees in the US government.

Obama just doesn't have the type of experience you prefer. Its clear that you're enamored with Romney's gig as an investment banker.

As for another post, where you point out Edwards experience - I haven't made a premium of experience like you have. I put more emphasis on judgement, values, and policy solutions. But, even from the experience angle, if you're going to give Mitt props for years of experience in private industry, likewise you'd have to do the same for Edwards. Edwards ran his own company, and became one of the top laywers in the country: certainly a testment to a man that is driven, ambitious, and with an ability to succeed at the highest levels of his chosen profession.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between a Trial lawyer and an individual who was enormously successful as a Venture Capitaist along with being Governor of a State. Its like comparing a Car Salesman to the CEO of Toyota.
 
klaatu said:
There is a difference between a Trial lawyer and an individual who was enormously successful as a Venture Capitaist along with being Governor of a State. Its like comparing a Car Salesman to the CEO of Toyota.
Click to expand...

Edwards was "enormously successful" as a trial lawyer, and became a United States Senator.

It's nothing like your car salesman analogy.

Careful Klaatu, your slip is showing again.
 
klaatu said:
There is a difference between a Trial lawyer and an individual who was enormously successful as a Venture Capitaist along with being Governor of a State. Its like comparing a Car Salesman to the CEO of Toyota.
Click to expand...


Its merely your opinion that a successful investment banker trumps a succesfull lawyer.

BTW: How much foreign policy experience does Mitt have? Zero?
 
Darla said:
Edwards was "enormously successful" as a trial lawyer, and became a United States Senator.

It's nothing like your car salesman analogy.

Careful Klaatu, your slip is showing again.
Click to expand...


does he remind of of the flabba-dabba-do dance, on democrats? :cof1:
 
Cypress said:
does he remind of of the flabba-dabba-do dance, on democrats? :cof1:
Click to expand...

Nobody reminds me of that whore, to be honest! :)

But Klaatu can't keep the undecided moderate, not really a republican, bush went too far, i might vote for a democrat (when hell freezes over) act up. His skirt keeps riding up and you see the big R on his slip.

Pull down that skirt Klaatu!
 
Nah Darla.... the Dems have completely lost me. Yeah I admit I did consider a Dem or two (Richardson) for a minute... but as soon as they went into the Direction of Mediscare 2008 and Global Warming is responsible for everything including sweaty armpits..... you lost me baby.... the light has come back to me. Yeah... I wont be voting Dem in 2008 and I will most likely vore Repub... again.

But...and this is a big one.... Im still waiting for a comprehensive plan on Alternative Energy....
 
Cypress said:
Its merely your opinion that a successful investment banker trumps a succesfull lawyer.

BTW: How much foreign policy experience does Mitt have? Zero?
Click to expand...

How much foreign policy does any of the top 3 candidates from both Party's have? And dont give me Obama or Edwards.... they spent the majority of their one term as Senators campaigning for President. Sitting in on a couple of foreign policy meetings doesnt mean jack.
 
klaatu said:
Nah Darla.... the Dems have completely lost me. Yeah I admit I did consider a Dem or two (Richardson) for a minute... but as soon as they went into the Direction of Mediscare 2008 and Global Warming is responsible for everything including sweaty armpits..... you lost me baby.... the light has come back to me. Yeah... I wont be voting Dem in 2008 and I will most likely vore Repub... again.

But...and this is a big one.... Im still waiting for a comprehensive plan on Alternative Energy....
Click to expand...

Why?
 
I think moderates scared by more healthcare coverage and a clean environment are extreemly week individuals.
Does anyone with half a brain of fiscal matters think anyone could possibly piss away nearly as much as Bush has in the last 6yrs.
Let's say they accomplish 10% more spending but we get a much improved cleaner environment and universal healthcare. That would be a steal by comparison.
 
Topspin said:
I think moderates scared by more healthcare coverage and a clean environment are extreemly week individuals.
Does anyone with half a brain of fiscal matters think anyone could possibly piss away nearly as much as Bush has in the last 6yrs.
Let's say they accomplish 10% more spending but we get a much improved cleaner environment and universal healthcare. That would be a steal by comparison.
Click to expand...


Your best post of the month topper
 
WOW, 1,002 post with no intellectual redeaming value and some topspin envy to boot.
You can still go to school, it's never to late MR GED
 
Darla said:
Why?
Click to expand...


Because I believe energy is our number one issue... the most serious problem facing the future.

Candidates should be running with it not from it. It is a solid win ... Its about National Security, Its about freeing us from the shackles of an Industry where 60% of our dependency is coming from regions that are in perpetual disarray. Its about a cleaner environment and creating new industries and new technologies .. its a win win.
 
klaatu said:
Because I believe energy is our number one issue... the most serious problem facing the future.

Candidates should be running with it not from it. It is a solid win ... Its about National Security, Its about freeing us from the shackles of an Industry where 60% of our dependency is coming from regions that are in perpetual disarray. Its about a cleaner environment and creating new industries and new technologies .. its a win win.
Click to expand...
Hella... QFT.

It was only one of a number of huge disappointments that I had with Bush. Instead of using this to springboard us toward the future it became, "Just buy stuff and act as if we aren't fighting a war." instead of, "We must remove ourselves from the dependency... I propose that we set a national goal... " You know.
 
klaatu said:
Ive stayed away from the forums for several months... making one brief return under another moniker. This has helped me clear my head and focus on the candidates rather than other peoples opinions.

Unless Bush does something really assinine... like attack Iran .. the REPUBLICANS stand a good chance of retaining the White House. Here's why:

Democrats will Implode...

Like the Republicans... the Dems have 3 serious candidates; that being Clinton, Obama and Edwards. All 3 candidates have serious flaws and campainging on fear rather than Idea's. 2 of these 3 are total light weights.
Flaws... Clinton is divisive rather than decisive... , her negatives are still way to high to win the general...and she is a horrible debater..which will ruin her come the Generals. Her Health Care Plan is going to be ripped to shreds. Everything that comes out of her mouth is Government Expansion. She'll get beat up when she attempts to position her self as an Anti War candidate.

Clinton will win the primary's...she is way too far ahead and has mountains of money. Obama is too darn inexperienced and as crunch time nears its becoming more and more obvious. He too is proposing a ridiculous National Health Care Plan.... and other Government Expansions. Playing into the Scare tactic vote. Along with Edwards.... these two are trying to keep up with Hillary in the buy the vote scheme ... a tactic that his killed the Democrats in past Presidential Campaigns.

The Dems have once again gone back to the old liberal hand book.... Health Care and the Bleak Outlook of the Future... with no rational (original idea's) to bring to the table of debate.

Once Hillary wins the primaries...she will have to square off agianst Romney or Giuliani .... either one of these two cats will destroy her in a one on one debate.... one is a financial genius...the other a wizard in Government law. Both are articulate and play well in front of the camera.

When Hillary wins the primaries... I look for her to nab General Clark as her running mate... this will move her to the center and give her a shot at Republican votes.

I believe Thompson is in the race to become the running mate of the eventual winner.
Click to expand...

A number of problems with your analysis Klat. Oh I admit it will play well in rural america and the south. Clinton is devisive, though that has more to do with perception built by the Republican attack propaganda machine than reality. I see nothing so far to indicate that Clinton is indecisive. Quite the opposite of all the major candidates running at this time, on either side of the asile, she is running the best, most well organized and well funded campaign. This is indication of desiveness. This evidence here is probably the strongest indicator that she will win.

You're analysis is also built on the premise that the Democratic candidates are far left and built upon a national health care plan that the nation will reject out of hand. That's a false assumption. There is a time and a place for socialized programs when the people decide that it is in our best interest. Education and our Military are excellent examples of such socialized programs. Considering the run away cost and the lack of availiability of quality health care to a vast number of Americans who can not afford it and the debilitating cost to businesses and corporate America of providing health care coverage to their employees and that time may just be now to explore some form of socialized health care and by the will of the people no less.

Another flaw in you analysis is that health care and a bleak outlook are the Dems old playing hand. That sounds like somethinc comming out of Fox news and not thoughtful analysis on your part. I see the exact opposite happening. I see the democrats offering to lead us in a better direction. One with competent and affective governance, one with vital strategic planning in the middle east. One that is engaged with the rest of the world and not a disengated "Might makes right" mentality. I see the Dems having a better understanding of the Delemna that the inept and incompetant Bush administration has landed us in Iraq. I see the Dems talking the truth about Iraq and that is was a destraction from the "War on Terrorism" and is essentially a failing war for oil hegemony.

You also over estimate the impact of that the debates will have. First, your making a false premis that Hilliary is a terrible debator. Hilliary is a master policy wonk. There is not an issue that she cannot go into detail about in greater detail then either Guilliani or Romney. You grossly underestimate her in this respect as she is a very capable debater. But so what? The debates impact on elections is very over rated. Al Gore beat W pretty soundly on policy issues and only beat W by a slim margin in the election and John Kerry just absolutely savaged W in their debates and lost a close election to W. Bush 1 blew it in his debate with Clinton and Perot, not on the issues but because he gave the impression that he didn't really give a flying fuck and had more important things to do, but that aint why he lost to Clinton!

You can pretty much bank this. The next election will be primarily on two issues. Disengaging from Iraq and Competance in governance.

The Republicans are at a huge disadvantage here with the mainstream American public due to the extremism of their base, their anti-government philosophy that is a self fullfilling profphecy for inept government and their hawkish refusal to deal with reality on the ground in Iraq, engage with Iraqs neighbors diplomatically to end the present debacle.

The main advantage with Hilliary, and this is going back to another one of your false premises, is that she is the most moderate of the major candidates in either party. So in a general election she has less distance to cover to run back to the middle in the General. That means less oppurtunity to hang herself with extreme positions. The major Republican candidates don't have that option. Even though it's obvious that Romney and Guilliani are moderate, they have to buy into extremely conservative positions to win the republican base. This will hang them in a general election.

Hilliary certainly has her down side. As a right wing whiping post she is devisive (but from a propaganda stand point only and not from a policy one). She also represents, to a large degree, the other side of the status quo. What this country needs is to break away from the present partisan devisiveness. More political inbreeding in the form of Hilliary Clinton will hardly end that.

However, baring something unforseen, like Al Gore throwing his hat in the ring, Hilliary will be the next US President.

And maybe, considering how the rightwing nuts have so badly served this nation and how greatly they villify her, this is an appropriate "just dessert".
 
Topspin said:
I think moderates scared by more healthcare coverage and a clean environment are extreemly week individuals.
Does anyone with half a brain of fiscal matters think anyone could possibly piss away nearly as much as Bush has in the last 6yrs.
Let's say they accomplish 10% more spending but we get a much improved cleaner environment and universal healthcare. That would be a steal by comparison.
Click to expand...

I'd vote for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top