• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF Interim Thread of USA General Elections (DAWN OF THE VEEP)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gaborn

Member
reilo said:
He's not speaking directly on political issues. He is posing a question as to why McCain's POW status is a qualifier to be commander-in-chief. If that was one of the prerequisites, then Wesley Clark, a 4-star general, ought to be the more qualified, no?

That strikes me as a bit of a non sequitur, because McCain's military is a plus it does not follow that just because someone is of higher rank or has greater military experience is on the whole more qualified than him (it doesn't exclude the possibility but it doesn't concede it) because McCain's done more than just be a POW during Vietnam. (not that he's running against Clark in the first place)
 

Tamanon

Banned
Verano said:
Your premise contradicts since the surge DID reduce violence in Iraq.
Rhetorically spaking, wasn't that the goal?? To reduce the violence in Iraq, not completely eradicate radicals??

No, the surge's goal was to allow the Iraqi government to take over the occupation andd reinstall a complete government, none of which is even approaching completion.
 

NewLib

Banned
reilo said:
He's not speaking directly on political issues. He is posing a question as to why McCain's POW status is a qualifier to be commander-in-chief. If that was one of the prerequisites, then Wesley Clark, a 4-star general, ought to be the more qualified, no?

Its a qualifier? How many of our past presidents have been POWs?

Look, McCain is using the fact that he was a POW to his political advantage. It might seem distasteful but its just a condition that defines him. Every other politician uses pieces of themselves to project themselves favorably among a group of people. Its like asking Barack Obama not to use the fact he is Black when it would be politically beneficial.

You don't think if Clark was running he wouldnt use the platform, "I was a 4 Star General and thus am better qualified in foreign affairs and keeping you and your family safe"? Of course he would. This argument is ludicrous.
 
Back to Veeps:

For once I agree with many in the media.

McCain needs a 'wow' factor and Obama needs someone with more experience.

McCain: Palin or Watts

Obama: Webb or Richardson
 
NewLib said:
Its a qualifier? How many of our past presidents have been POWs?

Look, McCain is using the fact that he was a POW to his political advantage. It might seem distasteful but its just a condition that defines him. Every other politician uses pieces of themselves to project themselves favorably among a group of people. Its like asking Barack Obama not to use the fact he is Black when it would be politically beneficial.

You don't think if Clark was running he wouldnt use the platform, "I was a 4 Star General and thus am better qualified in foreign affairs and keeping you and your family safe"? Of course he would. This argument is ludicrous.

4 Star General and POW are miles a part in reality.

McCain's back story is more emotional so it is very effective. But it shouldn't seep into every question about him on defense. And he did relent to the torture and did a written statement lie or whatever. And now he's against banning it? Look and the shit storm Obama takes for any half back track he does on something.

And Clark avoided any inflation of his greatness when he was campaigning for president. Not that McCain does it cause the media is all over that. But I think he did use the POW pics in an ad.
 
What the fuck is this shit? I hope to god this is just pandering in order to win office . . . as a constitutional law professor, he knows this is unconstitutional bullshit.

Obama to expand Bush's faith based programs By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer
48 minutes ago

CHICAGO - Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans to expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and — in a move sure to cause controversy — support some ability to hire and fire based on faith.

Obama was unveiling his approach to getting religious charities more involved in government anti-poverty programs during a tour and remarks Tuesday in Zanesville, Ohio, at Eastside Community Ministry, which provides food, clothes, youth ministry and other services.

"The challenges we face today ... are simply too big for government to solve alone," Obama was to say, according to a prepared text of his remarks obtained by The Associated Press. "We need all hands on deck."

Obama's announcement is part of a series of events leading up to Friday's Fourth of July holiday that are focused on American values.

The Democratic presidential candidate spent Monday talking about his vision of patriotism in the battleground state of Missouri. By twinning that with Tuesday's talk about faith in another battleground state, he was attempting to settle debate in two key areas where his beliefs have come under question while also trying to make inroads with constituencies traditionally loyal to Republicans.

But Obama's support for letting religious charities that receive federal funding consider religion in employment decisions could invite a storm of protest from those who view such faith requirements as discrimination.

Obama does not support requiring religious tests for recipients of aid nor using federal money to proselytize, according to a campaign fact sheet. He also only supports letting religious institutions hire and fire based on faith in the non-taxypayer funded portions of their activities, said a senior adviser to the campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe the new policy.

Bush supports broader freedoms for taxpayer-funded religious charities. But he never got Congress to go along so he has conducted the program through administrative actions and executive orders.

David Kuo, a conservative Christian who was deputy director of Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives until 2003 and later became a critic of Bush's commitment to the cause, said Obama's position on hiring has the potential to be a major "Sister Souljah moment" for his campaign.

This is a reference to Bill Clinton's accusation in his 1992 presidential campaign that the hip hop artist incited violence against whites. Because Clinton said this before a black audience, it fed into an image of him as a bold politician who was willing to take risks and refused to pander.

"This is a massive deal," said Kuo, who is not an Obama adviser or supporter but was contacted by the campaign to review the new plan.

Kuo called Obama's approach smart, impressive and well thought-out but took a wait-and-see attitude about whether it would deliver.

"When it comes to promises to help the poor, promises are easy," said Kuo, who wrote a 2006 book describing his frustration at what he called Bush's lackluster enthusiasm for the program. "The question is commitment."

Obama proposes to elevate the program to a "moral center" of his administration, by renaming it the Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and changing training from occasional huge conferences to empowering larger religious charities to mentor smaller ones in their communities.

Saying social service spending has been shortchanged under Bush, he also proposes a $500 million per year program to provide summer learning for 1 million poor children to help close achievement gaps with white and wealthier students. A campaign fact sheet said he would pay for it by better managing surplus federal properties, reducing growth in the federal travel budget and streamlining the federal procurement process.

Like Bush, Obama was arguing that religious organizations can and should play a bigger role in serving the poor and meeting other social needs. But while Bush argued that the strength of religious charities lies primarily in shared religious identity between workers and recipients, Obama was to tout the benefits of their "bottom-up" approach.

"Because they're so close to the people, they're well-placed to offer help," he was to say.

He also planned to talk bluntly about the genesis of his Christian faith in his work as a community organizer in Chicago, and its importance to him now.

"In time, I came to see faith as being both a personal commitment to Christ and a commitment to my community; that while I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work," he was to say.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/ap_on_el_pr/obama_faith
 

syllogism

Member
yawn

Per an email today from the campaign, “Obama does not believe that faith-based groups are an alternative to government or secular nonprofits, or that they’re better at lifting people but. But what he does believe is that we all have to work together to meet the challenges of the 21st Century.” In addition, it says that Obama’s proposal won’t violate the separation of church and state. “First, if an organization gets a federal grant, it will not be permitted to use that grant money to proselytize to the people it serves, and the group will forbidden to discriminate against them on the basis of their religion. And groups will be required to comply with federal anti-discrimination laws in their hiring practices—including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques will only be allowed to go toward secular programs. And Obama will ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.”

This has been his position all along, perhaps you don't know your candidate very well.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/01/1177170.aspx[
 

gkryhewy

Member
syllogism said:
yawn

This has been his position all along, perhaps you don't know your candidate very well.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/01/1177170.aspx[

That's actually kinda bullshit though. Receiving federal grant $$ simply frees these organizations' other dollars to be used for proselytizing. The compartmentalization of such budgets is illusory.

Many religious institutions do fill a vital social service niche, however. But I hope obama doesn't get carried away with pandering to evangelical nutjobs.
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
RyanDG said:
...I'm beginning to lose the faith. Help me GAF. :(

Just read and stop flipping out.

I swear you people have no idea what he stands for. If you read either of his books this would not only *not* be a shock it would be *expected*.

Same as the gun issue. Same as the death penalty issue.

We have a moderate, strong military democrat not completely unlike an LBJ. He is very socially liberal but unwilling to force it down people's throats.
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
gkrykewy said:
That's actually kinda bullshit though. Receiving federal grant $$ simply frees these organizations' other dollars to be used for proselytizing. The compartmentalization of such budgets is illusory.

Many religious institutions do fill a vital social service niche, however. But I hope obama doesn't get carried away with pandering to evangelical nutjobs.

Wait, so you are arguing by using federal grants to help people out, it will encourage the religious groups to spend their other money on religious stuff? Well no joke, its a church, that is what they do. You cant condemn a church for being a church.

But if public money is going to secular causes like ending poverty and they are using the church's community ties and infastructure to piggyback onto, what is so wrong with that?
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
gkrykewy said:
That's actually kinda bullshit though. Receiving federal grant $$ simply frees these organizations' other dollars to be used for proselytizing. The compartmentalization of such budgets is illusory.
as someone who's worked in the past with many church groups seeking out federal and local grants for their emergency food programs, the uptick in faith-based federal grants have helped stabilize or improve operations. in urban areas with large food-insecure populations this type of funding isn't that bad
 
StoOgE said:
Wait, so you are arguing by using federal grants to help people out, it will encourage the religious groups to spend their other money on religious stuff? Well no joke, its a church, that is what they do. You cant condemn a church for being a church.

But if public money is going to secular causes like ending poverty and they are using the church's community ties and infastructure to piggyback onto, what is so wrong with that?

What he is saying is that there is a crossover with money. Money received from the government will be able to be used instead of money from the church for things like poverty. Then, the money that would have been used from the church, for example, for things like poverty, can be used for all sorts of non-awesome stuff.
 

RyanDG

Member
StoOgE said:
Just read and stop flipping out.

I swear you people have no idea what he stands for. If you read either of his books this would not only *not* be a shock it would be *expected*.

Same as the gun issue. Same as the death penalty issue.

We have a moderate, strong military democrat not completely unlike an LBJ. He is very socially liberal but unwilling to force it down people's throats.


No trust me, I know what he stands for. I've been willing to accept certain things I consider flaws under the guise that you should support the candidate that is closest to your own political spectrum. I will also continue to support him since the alternative right now is not an alternative I'd be willing to embrace (John McCain). But this is just another piece that shows just how different (and opposed) even the same side of a political spectrum may be...
 

Door2Dawn

Banned
speculawyer said:
What the fuck is this shit? I hope to god this is just pandering in order to win office . . . as a constitutional law professor, he knows this is unconstitutional bullshit.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/ap_on_el_pr/obama_faith
I don't understand this. Can someone please explain this?

Edit: Ok,I read most of the article,I think its a pretty good idea. But the Hire and fire based of faith thing doesn't sit well with me,perhaps I don't understand it very well.
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
blue-dog dems pounded the drum of pay-go spending, but there's little momentum in either party so see that through - especially in the Senate.

i forgot the link, but both Obama and McCain's economic plans project a further deficit in the future. Obama's plan is dramatically less in the red though.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
Door2Dawn said:
I don't understand this. Can someone please explain this?

Edit: Ok,I read most of the article,I think its a pretty good idea. But the Hire and fire based of faith thing doesn't sit well with me,perhaps I don't understand it very well.
The Obama campaign says the AP's first report this morning that Obama supports "their [faith-based organizations'] ability to hire and fire based on faith" is incorrect. In fact, Obama's plan, they say, would prevent organizations from discriminating based on faith.

Note: The second version of AP story says Obama would support "some ability to hire and fire based on faith."

The change is of one word, from "their" to "some."

But the campaign says the second version is still inaccurate.
Looks like AP fucked up. I'll wait for the actual speech.
 
Xeke said:
How can you guys be talking about this stuff every day. I blows my mind.:lol
Untitled-2.gif


Less weed in your system helps. :p

I kid I kid.
 
scorcho said:
i forgot the link, but both Obama and McCain's economic plans project a further deficit in the future. Obama's plan is dramatically less in the red though.

Yeah, I know what you're talking about. Its a 10-year projection of the deficits each candidate plans to run based on their economic proposals:

$4.5 trillion for McCain
$3.3 trillion for Obama (not including the costs for his healthcare proposal)

Mandark has issues with how they're calculated though. Its a bit beyond my understanding. Maybe he can explain it.
 
Disregarding my man-crush on Obama, even if he does do crazy pandering to the religious folk, any negatives he might take on in liberal's eyes would be overshadowed by the fact that he single handedly destroyed the largest, most powerful Republican coalition ever.

If he can turn the evangelicals blue, or at least put them in play, then this will affect elections for many years to come. Even though Obama may not be the most liberal, this opens the door.

Think beyond Obama and into the future. This, coupled with his 50-state strategy, has serious potential to make the Democratic party the power player in future elections, as well as this one.
 

Door2Dawn

Banned
Frank the Great said:
Disregarding my man-crush on Obama, even if he does do crazy pandering to the religious folk, any negatives he might take on in liberal's eyes would be overshadowed by the fact that he single handedly destroyed the largest, most powerful Republican coalition ever.

If he can turn the evangelicals blue, or at least put them in play, then this will affect elections for many years to come. Even though Obama may not be the most liberal, this opens the door.

Think beyond Obama and into the future. This, coupled with his 50-state strategy, has serious potential to make the Democratic party the power player in future elections, as well as this one.
And who might that be?
 
No, no he's asking who or what was destroyed.

The religious coalition. Obama's helping break them up. Just as Democrats relied on the black bloc, Republicans relied on the religious right.
 
Barack Obama aligned himself with welfare reform on Monday, launching a television ad which touts the way the overhaul "slashed the rolls by 80 percent." Obama leaves out, however, that he was against the 1996 federal legislation which precipitated the caseload reduction.

"I am not a defender of the status quo with respect to welfare," Obama said on the floor of the Illinois state Senate on May 31, 1997. "Having said that, I probably would not have supported the federal legislation, because I think it had some problems."

Obama's transformation from critic to champion of welfare reform is the latest in a series of moves to the center. Since capturing the Democratic nomination, the Obama campaign has altered its stances on Social Security taxes, meeting with rogue leaders without preconditions, and the constitutionality of Washington, D.C.'s, sweeping gun ban.

The shift in Obama's rhetoric on welfare reform has proceeded in stages. When Clinton was poised to sign welfare reform while running for re-election in 1996, Obama called it "disturbing." A decade later, as an underdog running for president against Clinton's wife, he spent 2007 avoiding the subject. By the time Obama emerged as the Democratic frontrunner in the spring of 2008, he began leaving the impression that he was for it all along.

ABC News


Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who previously said the issue of gay marriage should be left up to each state, has announced his opposition to a California ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriages.

In a letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club read Sunday at the group's annual Pride Breakfast in San Francisco, the Illinois senator said he supports extending "fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law."

"And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states," Obama wrote.

Obama had previously said he opposes same-sex marriage but that each state should make its own decision.

Sacramento Bee
 
Wow. Being against a couple of bills doesn't mean he's against all welfare reform. That's a pretty shallow interpretation at best.

2nd link, he's never supported any kind of ban on Gay marriage, or any kind of constitutional ammendmant against it.
 
The shattering of the Obama Myth was inevitable, I just didn't expect him to sprint to the center so blatantly. I understand some concessions are inevitable, but I'm getting tired of the "oh i voted against it because i didn't agree with one part of the bill, but i'm actually in favor of the issue overall" excuses. He's wasting his political capitol far too early imo. He certainly has built up a shit ton.

Obama could be the ultimate one term president: when (it's perceived that you) promise the moon and don't deliver, the excitement dies and people begin to become complacent again.

That being said, I still support him, he's a far better canddiate than McCain and will be a good president, but these flip flops are making me shake my head.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
PhoenixDark said:
The shattering of the Obama Myth was inevitable, I just didn't expect him to sprint to the center so blatantly. I understand some concessions are inevitable, but I'm getting tired of the "oh i voted against it because i didn't agree with one part of the bill, but i'm actually in favor of the issue overall" excuses. He's wasting his political capitol far too early imo. He certainly has built up a shit ton.

Obama could be the ultimate one term president: when (it's perceived that you) promise the moon and don't deliver, the excitement dies and people begin to become complacent again.

That being said, I still support him, he's a far better canddiate than McCain and will be a good president, but these flip flops are making me shake my head.
What are you talking about, specifically?
 

bob_arctor

Tough_Smooth
:lol 1997? Awesome. Good to see Obama objects to discrimination being put into California's constitution btw. I wonder what it's like to not agree with something but not agree to the point of being willing to officially screw over other human beings.

But yes, let's make "flip-flops" an issue. Surely such a move won't remind the American people about the 2004 election and what a fucking disaster that ended up being. Swift-boat? Hey, that sounds familiar too! Hell, we'll even agree to completely ignore all of McCain's "evolving" positions since the media has convinced me that they either don't exist, don't matter or are actually a good thing.
 
Obama had previously said he opposes same-sex marriage but that each state should make its own decision.
In other words, he's against gay marriage, but he won't try to stop its forward momentum.

Or he's for gay marriage, but he doesn't want to push for it himself because it's a touchy issue for religious folk.
 
GhaleonEB said:
What are you talking about, specifically?

Finance reform comes to mind. I understand not accepting public finance is a good idea, but he should have said as much the first time. Everyone knows the problems with both systems; why constantly champion one, then once it's obvious you'd have an advantage by using the other...switch and then start criticizing the system you previously championed?

And also the DC issue, which just seemed like him blatantly being ambiguous despite past comments in support of the ban, then coming out in support of the court's decision
 

bob_arctor

Tough_Smooth
Snooty windbag Olbermann had a great segment on McCain's evolving positions just last night and I wondered why he hadn't mentioned Obama's refusal to evolve or adapt in any way. It's just like a liberal to gloss over or selectively ignore the rigidity of their chosen one.
 

bob_arctor

Tough_Smooth
siamesedreamer said:
Length of time since comment/event took place is a legitimate excuse then.

Just trying to lay some ground rules for when Keating Five rears its ugly head.

Who? Regardless, I find it amazing that any relatively young person would find McCain remotely interesting enough to vote for him. You are kind of young, no? I guess I can believe your anti-Obama posts are on some altruistic shit meant to point out he wouldn't be good for our country though this doesn't gel with your voting for Bush. Or maybe you didn't vote for him. Maybe you only mocked us for Kerry's loss at the time because you're petty. And why do you need to be told the ground rules? The media has laid them out pretty clearly, at least when it comes to Pancake Mac, who is clearly better than Obama for the country. Somehow.
 

Tamanon

Banned
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008/07/01/webb-mccain-should-calm-down-on-using-military-service/

Wow, talk about twisting a quote from Sen Webb to try and make it something its not by Drudge.

Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) waded into the debate over John McCain's military service Monday to say that the Republican should avoid using military service in politics.

Webb, a Barack Obama supporter, was on MSNBC's "Countdown" to talk about his G.I. Bill to increase education benefits for returning veterans which is now law. Webb criticized both McCain and President Bush for not supporting the bill. Then, unprompted, Webb weighed in on the debate over retired Gen. Wesley Clark's remark that "riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down" isn't "a qualification to be president."

"I think what we really need to work on over the next four, five months, and it goes back to the speech that Sen. Obama gave [Tuesday] and this little fight that I've been watching and that is, we need to make sure that we take politics out of service," Webb said. "People don't serve their country for political issues."

He continued: "And John McCain's my long-time friend, if that is one area that I would ask him to calm down on, it`s that, don't be standing up and uttering your political views and implying that all the people in the military support them because they don't, any more than when the Democrats have political issues during the Vietnam War. Let's get the politics out of the military, take care of our military people, or have our political arguments in other areas."

So what's the headline on Drudge? "First Clark, Now Webb: McCain should "calm down" on using military service"
 

GhaleonEB

Member
Tamanon said:
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008/07/01/webb-mccain-should-calm-down-on-using-military-service/

Wow, talk about twisting a quote from Sen Webb to try and make it something its not by Drudge.

So what's the headline on Drudge? "First Clark, Now Webb: McCain should "calm down" on using military service"
He's acting like it's some kind of pile on. TPM covered it as well:

The truth is that there's zero evidence that there's any coordination going on or that the Obama campaign wants this conversation to be taking place. Not that this matters: The McCain campaign is very determinedly pointing to anything it can -- Webb's comments included -- to drive the message that Obama is demeaning McCain's military service.

But no one -- not Obama, not Clark, not Webb -- has done this. No one.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/mccain_campaign_accuses_obama_1.php

It's really becoming hysterical. Literally no one has said anything bad about McCain's military service, but they're freaking out trying to convince everyone that there's this big coordinated assault against him. Talk about faux indignation.

Also, PPP (yeah) does Florida:

Poll: Obama Pulls Into Narrow Lead In Florida

Barack Obama's support has significantly risen in Florida -- a place where John McCain is thought to have an advantage -- to the point where he's taken the lead in a new poll.

The latest numbers from Public Policy Polling (D): Obama 46%, McCain 44%, within the ±3.6% margin of error. In their last poll from March -- taken right in the middle of the first Jeremiah Wright controversy -- Obama trailed 50%-39%.

For now, the polls are mixed on Florida. PPP, Quinnipiac and ARG have given Obama a narrow lead, while Rasmussen puts McCain ahead.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/poll_obama_pulls_into_narrow_l.php
 

pxleyes

Banned
siamesedreamer said:
Length of time since comment/event took place is a legitimate excuse then.

Just trying to lay some ground rules for when Keating Five rears its ugly head.
It is a legitimate excuse when the political or social climate for an issue has change dramatically in the time frame being examined.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom