Well It Looks Like Barack Obama Is Running For President

Status
Not open for further replies.
Incognito said:
What's the word. I swore I learned about it in my govt. class. Hrmmm, starts with a G and ends with errymandering. Damn, I've lost my head.

Oh right, massive fraud. Refuse to admit your shortcomings, claim voter fraud/tampering/he cheated!

Although I dont doubt many republicans will try the same trick if/when they lose big this fall. It's politics after all.
 
Enron said:
hahaha.

Up until the Foley scandal, the Senate wasn't that close and the house wasn't a sure thing. Now the house looks like a sure thing and the Senate is now in play. Bush's poll numbers have been terrible for a long while now. And yet the fall elections were still not certain until Foley and Hastert have been in every news cycle.

Ok, I think everyone knows that you shouldn't be taken seriously anymore.
 
Incognito said:
Ok, I think everyone knows that you shouldn't be taken seriously anymore.

Yeah, im the one that shouldnt be taken seriously. I'm not the one throwing around juvenile attacks.

Please. People polled before Foley indicated favoring democrats, but not by a landslide. Many of those polled expressed disgust with Congress as it stood today, but also a majority of those polled thought THEIR congressman was doing a good job and they would vote for them again. Therefore, "Congress is F'd up but my rep is not" Now that's all changed.

I have no idea what about I have said is so upsetting to you guys, but that's what has happened. Republicans were already headed to a disappointment at the polls in these final months, but now it looks like it could be a landslide against them and the numbers spiked hard after Mark Foley.

If anything all of this proves what I, and I suspect you as well know about the american populace. They care about issues to a point; all it takes is something sensational and emotional to sway opinion one way or the other. If it was about issues and the republicans are as repugnant as you say, this would have been decided long ago.
 
I know I'm a little late here - but both parties are full of bafoons, and Obama won't be elected because he is black...

Although I'm definately not a Dem, I'd vote for him and throw a lot of my own politics out the window because I think he has the charisma to lead our country and the world, and that is more important to me than how he feels on other ultimately trivial issues. As long as he is big on Civil Liberties, I can deal with the absolutely frickin' riduclous ideas the Dems harbor as far as big government is concerned (and I'm not sure he's a huge Welfare State kinda guy either). If McCain ran, however, I'd vote for him. After he spent 6 years in the Hanoi Hilton serving our country, I have nothing but the utmost trust that he would serve the country well again. In my opinion, both would be excellent choices that could garner a lot of support in the center of American politics, and that is ultimately what we need.
 
chadums90 said:
I know I'm a little late here - but both parties are full of bafoons, and Obama won't be elected because he is black...

Although I'm definately not a Dem, I'd vote for him and throw a lot of my own politics out the window because I think he has the charisma to lead our country and the world, and that is more important to me than how he feels on other ultimately trivial issues. As long as he is big on Civil Liberties, I can deal with the absolutely frickin' riduclous ideas the Dems harbor as far as big government is concerned (and I'm not sure he's a huge Welfare State kinda guy either). If McCain ran, however, I'd vote for him. After he spent 6 years in the Hanoi Hilton serving our country, I have nothing but the utmost trust that he would serve the country well again. In my opinion, both would be excellent choices that could garner a lot of support in the center of American politics, and that is ultimately what we need.

Well said. Although I personally would never vote for Obama (even though I don't know much about him, I'm pretty sure he and I would not see eye to eye on many things important to me) but he IS full of charisma, that's for sure. And he doesn't have baggage (real or perceived) that many other of the top democrats have. Although you can't just lead on charisma alone.
 
Right when Obama first started getting hot (I think the 2004 Democratic Convention when he made that speech), I wanted him to run for Prez. I knew, even w/o any experience, he would be 10x better than Bush or whoever the Dems elect (Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, etc). The only other candidate who would be = or better is Gore.

If Dems don't either have Gore or Obama as their candidate, it's over... pubs will win
 
White people wouldn't vote for him because he's black.

Black people would vote for him because he's black.

Kinda polarizing figure.:P
 
ToxicAdam said:
Bush's win was strictly because of his money raising ability and "born again" status. Two key factors in winning the Republican nomination nowadays.
which all means crap without his daddy's name and political pedigree.
 
I think you guys are being a little too cynical about people electing a black guy to office.
 
sp0rsk said:
I think you guys are being a little too cynical about people electing a black guy to office.

213_chappelle_blackbush_m4.jpg


Btw be careful about using the search terms "Black Bush" at work.....I just learned a lesson.
 
sp0rsk said:
I think you guys are being a little too cynical about people electing a black guy to office.
Quick! How many black:

Senators?

Governors?

Presidential or Vice Presidential nominees by major parties?



Obama is just the latest Political Magical Negro, the black person with a competent, moderate persona, and a small enough record that people can project their own feelings and opinions onto him. Like Powell and Rice, he would poll very, very well until he had to start telling people what he believed on non-consensus issues.

His appeal is a bit similar to McCain, where people latch on to a few biographical details and a general impression of the candidate's personality (see chadums90's post), and decide that he's A Decent Guy. McCain has had a backlash where Obama hasn't, because he's been forced to make political choices that people didn't like.
 
I always joked the type of black president that could win would be someone I would never want to be President. Someone so odious to my personal views that they would basically have to be a Clarence Thomas type.


Obama is probably the best chance I've ever seen for such an event happening and not being a Rice or Powell type which I would be extremly happy about. My gut tells me living in this country for my entire lifetime though so far it won't/can't happen. My hope springs eternal and maybe he could surprise me in the future but my head tells a different story. If it ain't white, it ain't right for a large number of people in this country. :)
 
Stoney Mason said:
I always joked the type of black president that could win would be someone I would never want to be President. Someone so odious to my personal views that they would basically have to be a Clarence Thomas type.


Obama is probably the best chance I've ever seen for such an event happening and not being a Rice or Powell type which I would be extremly happy about. My gut tells me living in this country for my entire lifetime though so far it won't/can't happen. My hope springs eternal and maybe he could surprise me in the future but my head tells a different story. If it ain't white, it ain't right for a large number of people in this country. :)
I'm not exactly in touch with the mainstream on many things, but Obama wouldn't just be a great black person to vote for, he'd be a great candidate period - one of the few who I would vote for and actually feel good about it, and not like I was choosing the lesser of two evils. He is set apart from the average politician in people's minds - I think there's more to it than "magical negro" syndrome (as Mandark put it) or even just a political Honeymoon, like McCain. It's real - this man is the real deal.

I knew something was up with him when he reunited Extra Golden!
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/news/38536/Barack_Obama_Unites_Extra_Golden_for_Tour

I mean seriously, how ****ing cool is that?

Anyway. Other people must surely have that kind of gut feeling about him. As I said, the problem is making sure he doesn't rise too fast, which would give conservatives the chance to define him before he gets to properly introduce himself. Black politicians, even people as charismatic as Obama, aren't allowed many mistakes if they want to win elections. I mean, shit, that George Allen guy is still winning in Virginia. :(
 
I'm not really experienced politically, but here's my opinion;

He looks like a good man. That's what we need really. Someone with a clear head that knows what is good for the country. As far as I'm concerned he doesn't have to have that much experience, as long he realizes he needs and acquires a good cabinet. Let Obama be the face of America, let the cabinet carry out his ideals.

And also, I hope this guy isn't afraid to tell it like it is.
 
FECordeau said:
I'm sorry, but you seem to know very little in the history of American politics, as evidenced by your reliance on data from the recent decade to prove your point.

From 1933-1995, Democrats controlled the House every Congress, except for the 80th and 83rd ('47-'49 & '53-'55).

From 1933-1995, Democrats controlled the Senate every Congress, except for the 80th, 83rd, 97th, 98th, and 99th (years listed above + '81-'87 Reagan years).

Edit: Years listed are years in office, not election years.

What do those have to do with anything? My argument is that the democratic party has alienated voters in the last 10+ years, so i was DISCUSSING the last 10+ years.

Plan to win internet political argument:

1. accuse opponent of not knowing facts
2. quote a bunch of facts that don't pertain to the point the other guy is trying to make
3. profit \o/

Now, If i said LOLWTFZHAYGUYZ REPUBLICANS HAVE OWNED YOU FOR 200 YEARS then yeah, your numbers would mean something.
 
Enron said:
What do those have to do with anything? My argument is that the democratic party has alienated voters in the last 10+ years, so i was DISCUSSING the last 10+ years.
As interesting as that is, which is not very, I suppose you truly believe there's nothing but the Foley scandal to blame for Republicans about to lose both houses of Congress, even though it's not important to voters:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/16/foley/index.html

I mean, if you don't, I'd love to hear your theories on how Republicans have alienated voters in the last 2+ years. Hell, 5+! I mean, GWB used to have a 90% approval rating!
 
terrene said:
As interesting as that is, which is not very, I suppose you truly believe there's nothing but the Foley scandal to blame for Republicans about to lose both houses of Congress, even though it's not important to voters:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/16/foley/index.html

I mean, if you don't, I'd love to hear how Republicans have alienated voters in the last 2+ years. Hell, 5+! I mean, GWB used to have a 90% approval rating!

But Rush and Bill O'Reilly said.....


Oh forgot it. It's too easy at this point.
 
Geez, I didn't realize so many people are so pessimistic about the possbility of a black president. :( Being a black person who's lived both in the South and now the West coast, I'm aware that there are still racist out there but I thought they're mostly relegated to the fringes and backwater areas. But this thread is now giving me the impression that there is still a very large segment of people who are opposed to black people in power. Aside from a few backwards states, I honestly thought we had moved beyond that.

But I guess you guys are right. Chris Matthews on Hardball has brought up several times about how black candidates almost always poll better than the actual election results. People like to think they're equal opportunist and will tell the pollster they'll vote for the black candidate. But once they're alone in the election booth, they tend to side with the white candidate. I definitely would like to hear more evidence that supports this.
 
A lot of white people are uncomfortable with voting for a black person who acts black, for lack of a better term. If the black candidate has a bunch of social facts signifying that he or she is part of white American culture (which a lot of us honkeys tend to think of as just plain American), the skin isn't as big an issue.

So while it's fine for Bush, Clinton, etc. to have regional dialects, even ones associated with poor or working class people, a black presidential candidate would have to speak Standard English the whole time. Biographical details like Condi Rice playing the piano help, too.

It matters that Powell and Condi Rice are both foreign policy specialists. Technocrat good, populist bad. A black political figure whose calling card is advocacy of the inner-city poor and working classes, who are mostly minorities? That's kind of scary to a lot of white people; if a politician is making decisions primarily with "those people" in mind, it might come at the expense of middle class suburbanites.

Anthony Williams is a very good example of a black politician who gets support from white voters. He was elected on the basis of being an egghead who would sort out DC's finances.

Surreal said:
He looks like a good man. That's what we need really. Someone with a clear head that knows what is good for the country.
This sounds like a good idea, but it's a pretty bad one.

The picture you're going to get of a politician's personality is going to be very incomplete, and very skewed. There are issues where people of integrity, courage, and morals, defined any number of ways, are going to disagree. You have to first make sure the person you're voting for you agrees with you generally on the things that you find to be important.

You absolutely should not buy the media's portrayal of someone as having good character, or use a third-hand judgement about personality as the main criterion for electing someone.

The desire for a Good Man to take care of everything and make the hard decisions is understandable, but in a democracy, the responsible thing is to educate yourself, make up your own mind, then support whoever matches your own opinions.
 
Mandark said:
A lot of white people are uncomfortable with voting for a black person who acts black, for lack of a better term. If the black candidate has a bunch of social facts signifying that he or she is part of white American culture (which a lot of us honkeys tend to think of as just plain American), the skin isn't as big an issue.

So while it's fine for Bush, Clinton, etc. to have regional dialects, even ones associated with poor or working class people, a black presidential candidate would have to speak Standard English the whole time. Biographical details like Condi Rice playing the piano help, too.

It matters that Powell and Condi Rice are both foreign policy specialists. Technocrat good, populist bad. A black political figure whose calling card is advocacy of the inner-city poor and working classes, who are mostly minorities? That's kind of scary to a lot of white people; if a politician is making decisions primarily with "those people" in mind, it might come at the expense of middle class suburbanites.

Anthony Williams is a very good example of a black politician who gets support from white voters. He was elected on the basis of being an egghead who would sort out DC's finances.


This sounds like a good idea, but it's a pretty bad one.

The picture you're going to get of a politician's personality is going to be very incomplete, and very skewed. There are issues where people of integrity, courage, and morals, defined any number of ways, are going to disagree. You have to first make sure the person you're voting for you agrees with you generally on the things that you find to be important.

You absolutely should not buy the media's portrayal of someone as having good character, or use a third-hand judgement about personality as the main criterion for electing someone.

The desire for a Good Man to take care of everything and make the hard decisions is understandable, but in a democracy, the responsible thing is to educate yourself, make up your own mind, then support whoever matches your own opinions.

That was about the most cogent and honest written thing analzying racial politics from a white person I've read in quite a while. Pat yourself on the back.
 
chadums90 said:
I know I'm a little late here - but both parties are full of bafoons, and Obama won't be elected because he is black...

Although I'm definately not a Dem, I'd vote for him and throw a lot of my own politics out the window because I think he has the charisma to lead our country and the world, and that is more important to me than how he feels on other ultimately trivial issues. As long as he is big on Civil Liberties, I can deal with the absolutely frickin' riduclous ideas the Dems harbor as far as big government is concerned (and I'm not sure he's a huge Welfare State kinda guy either). If McCain ran, however, I'd vote for him. After he spent 6 years in the Hanoi Hilton serving our country, I have nothing but the utmost trust that he would serve the country well again. In my opinion, both would be excellent choices that could garner a lot of support in the center of American politics, and that is ultimately what we need.
McCain? MCCAIN? That guy is more of a hack than Bush. The man has gone against everything he stood for just to win the 2008 primaries. He is groveling at the religious right in desperation to win. He is selling his soul to gain votes. At least Bush stood his ground. :lol All McCain does is change positions totally in his desperation to win primary votes.

And you guys realize he is a HUGE hawk for the Iraq War? One of the strongest in the senate. If he wins we will NOT leave under his guard no matter the situation. He is Bush 2.0 but is able to speak like a human.
 
Mandark said:
Quick! How many black:

Senators?

Governors?

Presidential or Vice Presidential nominees by major parties?



Obama is just the latest Political Magical Negro, the black person with a competent, moderate persona, and a small enough record that people can project their own feelings and opinions onto him. Like Powell and Rice, he would poll very, very well until he had to start telling people what he believed on non-consensus issues.

His appeal is a bit similar to McCain, where people latch on to a few biographical details and a general impression of the candidate's personality (see chadums90's post), and decide that he's A Decent Guy. McCain has had a backlash where Obama hasn't, because he's been forced to make political choices that people didn't like.
*claps*
 
Powell's personal views are actually quite liberal. I think alot of people confuse the fact that he is and always be a good soldier to the end following orders from his superiors. His behavior would probably be quite different if he were at the top.
 
a lengthy term in the senate could be the kiss of death for him if he waited till 2012. Senators/congressmen rarley get elected to presidential office because they have all those votes that can be picked apart and sometimes even misrepresented by their opponents.

I think he should run now, while he's still untarnished. He will look green and his chances are slim, but extra time in the senate will probably not help him. If he wants to wait till later, he would be better off seeking some other kind of office.... Governer or some secretary position under the next president (assuming a democrat wins, which is not looking likley if it's hillary vs Mccain)
 
Cheebs said:
McCain? MCCAIN? That guy is more of a hack than Bush. The man has gone against everything he stood for just to win the 2008 primaries. He is groveling at the religious right in desperation to win. He is selling his soul to gain votes. At least Bush stood his ground. :lol All McCain does is change positions totally in his desperation to win primary votes.

And you guys realize he is a HUGE hawk for the Iraq War? One of the strongest in the senate. If he wins we will NOT leave under his guard no matter the situation. He is Bush 2.0 but is able to speak like a human.


McCain has always been a conservative, both socially and fiscally. After his first run he realized he couldn't alienate the religious right and he's tried harder not to burn bridges, but he's hardly governing like a theocrat and he still butts heads constantly with the neocons. His primary issue is an anti pork stand and he thinks big business gets too many favors due to campaign issues. The neocons framed him as a social liberal during the election and people actually bought it, but it's not true. At the very most he's slightly more socially moderate than bush, so any flip/flop is more a matter of tone in his recent speeches than his actual position or votes. Keep in mind that Bush's support of the religious right has mostly been lip service anyway.... he's not really a hardliner on social issues when it comes to his actions.

As a person McCain is nothing like bush and his governance would have no comparison. He's more passionate and more of an iconoclast. He's been through more in real life and he's a natural born leader. He wouldn't be a puppet and he would serve his own agenda.

Having a person of true character in office is much more important than any particular issue (which I think has been proven during the bush presidency). Presidents never get to choose the issues that will define their presidency. Outside issues always end up taking over and the presidents main function is in foreign policy. When a crisis happens you either need somebody shrewd or somebody that can cut through the red tape and act. Katrina comes to mind as the prime bush failure in this regard. He was too dependant on his underlings to make decisions and he didn't have the natural ability to lead in a crisis and take control when the situation turned bad. McCain would not have operated that way in a situation like that. These kinds of situations are the reason presidents exist. They are for times when you need a temporary dictator. Any effect that presidents have on domestic issues is incidental in comparison to their importance during a crisis.

Yes McCian is a hawk on the Iraq war, but at least he's not a chicken hawk and I don't think he would heistate to change tactics when the situation became difficult. He's spoken often of his frustration with the tactics used during the Vietnam war and the inflexibility of the leaders in washington during that time. He would not want to prezide over a war that ended up like that. He currently advocates an increase in troops. At least that's some kind of change...

I would support him, even if I don't always agree with him. He's a politician and he's learned to play the game over the years, but he's less comfortable with it than most of them and generaly comes across as more of a real person.
 
There is many reasons why I could never vote for him. One simple one is this:
Supreme Court Nominations.


We are losing liberal court members quickly and we need more to even it out, more than nearly any other issue out there this is important to me.
 
Cheebs said:
There is many reasons why I could never vote for him. One simple one is this:
Supreme Court Nominations.


We are losing liberal court members quickly and we need more to even it out, more than nearly any other issue out there this is important to me.

I can certainly see your point, but I personaly don't think McCain would put ideologs on the court although i think he has enough politician in him to suggest that he will.

Also i'm just as opposed to liberal ideolog judges as I'm conservative ones, so either way i'm going to be annoyed.

I just want to keep politics out of the court and put in judges that believe in the law without much of a slant. The status quo would be preferable to massive change from the supreme court in either direction.
 
Cheebs said:
There is many reasons why I could never vote for him. One simple one is this:
Supreme Court Nominations.


We are losing liberal court members quickly and we need more to even it out, more than nearly any other issue out there this is important to me.


This was the same type of scare tactics that I heard during the past two elections. But even with Bush nominating numerous judges, there hasn't been this radical shift like people have feared.
 
ToxicAdam said:
This was the same type of scare tactics that I heard during the past two elections. But even with Bush nominating numerous judges, there hasn't been this radical shift like people have feared.
Well yeah. Bush got two. He replaced a moderate conservative and a conservative. Not much shift there. Its 4 conservatives, 4 liberals, 1 moderate currently. But Stevens the most liberal member is very old and won't be around much longer. A republican nominating a conservative would shift it to 5 conservatives, 3 liberals, 1 moderate. That would change EVERYTHING.
 
Sandra Day O'Connor is now a moderate conservative? Does that make Scalia the Fuhrer?


7 of the 9 current justices are Republican appointed. By your count, only 4 are true conservatives. So, exactly what is your beef again?
 
Doc Holliday said:
Has there even been a president that was single, not religious? Shit it's a big deal that Kennedy was Irish catholic. I hope the guy becomes President, never really liked Hillary as much as Bill.


Obama was one of the few Democrats in the public eye defended Christians instead of mocking them ala Dean in the public eye (in terms of mainstream coverage which does not reflect the deeper meaning, as in not really being anti-religion compared to the press ready soundbites) like in this article (possible bias warning from possible source).

I think it is high time that middle America is tired of this whole war on terror nonsense. The rest of the country wasn't attacked, only New York, Washington, and that plane over Pennsylvania. The country is relatively secure and we need a new direction in this country.

As long as Obama is against the whole selling out our soveriengity to Canada and Mexico
.
 
Cheebs said:
Well yeah. Bush got two. He replaced a moderate conservative and a conservative. Not much shift there. Its 4 conservatives, 4 liberals, 1 moderate currently. But Stevens the most liberal member is very old and won't be around much longer. A republican nominating a conservative would shift it to 5 conservatives, 3 liberals, 1 moderate. That would change EVERYTHING.

How about everyone starts analyzing judicial policies/appointments like the founders did? Everyone would do well to find those Federalist Papers and start choosing judges like that. The last thing I want is some ideological lawyer deciding what's best for my country and me. There opinions, while POSSIBLY worth more than the average opinion, are irrelevant - we really should find justices that judge the way the founders intended. Basically, I'm with Krowley on this one.

Also, Cheebs, I do not see how you can say half the stuff you say about McCain. The man has unmatchable high ground when it comes to service to the country. I know I can trust my country's livelihood in his hands because he entrusted his life for it to the tune of 6 years of POW imprisonment. And that's precisely what sets him apart from other politicians - I know I can trust the man, I know he will do everything for this country and I know the man has a solid moral compass. If these aren't the most important things to you, Cheebs, then I would start to question whether you should even be filling out a ballot in a few weeks here.
 
At the most I think he could run as VP on the 2008 ticket, and then run in 2012.

He isn’t that experienced, but has great potential it would be a shame to waste it by running early.
 
FECordeau said:
I merely stated the facts and didn't express my opinion on this debate at all, since I have no need to enter it. Whether Democrats have alienated voters the past decade or not is a topic I'll let others debate. I simply want to point out that there's a lot more to using historical data to make a point than taking a small sample and using it to your advantage, all the while ignoring that the vast majority of the rest of the data destroys your argument.

It simply infuriates me to watch people throw around these numbers repeatedly to make a point, blatantly ignoring history -- whether they're modern Democrats complaining that Democrats never win elections or Republicans acting invincible.


Maybe I should have quoted this earlier, but my reply was to this also:



History has shown repeatedly that this is extremely incorrect. It's simply not true. Americans have consistently voted Democrats into office and especially into the majority of Congress.


Once again, where did I say that democrats dont get elected into office EVER? Oh, right, i didn't. Im talking about the democrats inability to beat the weakest republican party in history in any election in the last 10-15 years.

Me: I'm talking about recently.

You: Ha! you're an idiot! Democrats historically control congress! Ha! Ha!

Me: they haven't for the last 10 years. Why is that, do you think?

You: Ha! You are picking and choosing your points! You can't argue that! You have to look at ALL OF HISTORY!

Me: Even if I'm talking ONLY about the recent past?

This is retarded.
 
terrene said:
As interesting as that is, which is not very, I suppose you truly believe there's nothing but the Foley scandal to blame for Republicans about to lose both houses of Congress, even though it's not important to voters:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/16/foley/index.html

I mean, if you don't, I'd love to hear your theories on how Republicans have alienated voters in the last 2+ years. Hell, 5+! I mean, GWB used to have a 90% approval rating!

Oh really? where did I say that? In fact, I believe i've said more than a few times that republicans were in trouble, but not trouble enough to deliver the democrats a LANDSLIDE until after foley.

You are no better than this other idiot that keeps quoting stats from 50 years ago to disprove my point about THE LAST TEN YEARS.

The last page of this thread has mostly been 3 of you trying to put words in my mouth. No one can tell me why democrats have such a tough time beating the most hated, morally corrupt, warmongering political party in modern history (according to them, anyways). It's hilarious. Well, not really. Sad, mostly.

It appears that will be changing this time. And the sad thing is that it still took a major scandal not related to the War, or to anything else in the Democratic platform to deliver what will likely be the killing blow. Look at any of the pre/post polling, there was a 6% bump or higher in democrats favor after the Foley thing.

American politics SHOULD be healthy when both parties have effective messages. As it stands now, one party has a message and the other one's message is "We aren't these guys". That's not to say the Democratic party HAS no message, but most people have no idea what it is, and their recent (there's that word again!) defeats bear that out.
 
Enron said:
Well said. Although I personally would never vote for Obama (even though I don't know much about him, I'm pretty sure he and I would not see eye to eye on many things important to me) but he IS full of charisma, that's for sure. And he doesn't have baggage (real or perceived) that many other of the top democrats have. Although you can't just lead on charisma alone.

Why are you sure?
 
Ichirou_Oogami said:
Why are you sure?

Mostly because I would say I am right of the center; I am pro-business, pro-tax cut, pro-privitization of Social Security, anti-abortion (although that one ranks real low on my list of important things) kinda guy.

I know what you were hoping to get at, though. :lol
 
ToxicAdam said:
Sandra Day O'Connor is now a moderate conservative? Does that make Scalia the Fuhrer?


7 of the 9 current justices are Republican appointed. By your count, only 4 are true conservatives. So, exactly what is your beef again?

ZOMG NAZIS IN THE SUPREME COURT!!1!

Hey Democrats; maybe if you could WIN an election, you can appoint Supreme Court Justices as well!

I thought it was quite funny to hear all the biatching and whining over the SCOTUS nominees the last few years. Acting like the Bush administration has hoodwinked the public and run an end-around to get their evil justices on the court. Last time i checked, that's one of the perks of being the party in power. You get to do things like that. Something tells me a democratic administration wouldn't be holding pow-wows with the Repubs over their nominations either.

Nominate 'em up and let 'em run through confirmation hearings.
 
Enron said:
Something tells me a democratic administration wouldn't be holding pow-wows with the Repubs over their nominations either.
Orrin Hatch said:
[It] was not a surprise when the President called to talk about the appointment and what he was thinking of doing.

President Clinton indicated he was leaning toward nominating Bruce Babbitt, his Secretary of the Interior, a name that had been bouncing around in the press. Bruce, a well-known western Democrat, had been the governor of Arizona and a candidate for president in 1988. Although he had been a state attorney general back during the 1970s, he was known far more for his activities as a politician than as a jurist. Clinton asked for my reaction.

I told him that confirmation would not be easy. At least one Democrat would probably vote against Bruce, and there would be a great deal of resistance from the Republican side. I explained to the President that although he might prevail in the end, he should consider whether he wanted a tough, political battle over his first appointment to the Court.

Our conversation moved to other potential candidates. I asked whether he had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit Court of Appeals or Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. President Clinton indicated he had heard Breyer’s name but had not thought about Judge Ginsberg.

I indicated I thought they would be confirmed easily. I knew them both and believed that, while liberal, they were highly honest and capable jurists and their confirmation would not embarrass the President. From my perspective, they were far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democrat administration.

In the end, the President did not select Secretary Babbitt. Instead, he nominated Judge Ginsburg and Judge Breyer a year later, when Harry Blackmun retired from the Court. Both were confirmed with relative ease.

Yeah, O'Connor's a moderate conservative. Is there anything even remotely controversial about that statement? For that matter, what's so crazy about the idea that a Supreme Court dominated by Bush appointees would make different decisions than one that wasn't?

I don't get how this is a "scare tactic," especially coming from someone who's said a withdrawal from Iraq would create a base for terrorists who would suddenly decide to attack the US. C'mon, now.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/AP-Obama-2008.html?hp&ex=1161576000&en=978a88252d7bd6cc&ei=5094&partner=homepage

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged Sunday he was considering a run for president in 2008, backing off previous statements that he would not do so.

The Illinois Democrat said he could no longer stand by the statements he made after his 2004 election and earlier this year that he would serve a full six-year term in Congress. He said he would not make a decision until after the Nov. 7 elections.

''That was how I was thinking at that time,'' said Obama, when asked on NBC's ''Meet the Press'' about his previous statements.

''Given the response I've been getting the last several months, I have thought about the possibility'' although not with any seriousness or depth, he said. ''My focus is on '06. ... After November 7, I'll sit down and consider it.''


Obama was largely unknown outside Illinois when he burst onto the national scene with a widely acclaimed address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

In recent weeks, his political stock has been rising as a potentially viable centrist candidate for president in 2008 after former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner announced earlier this month that he was bowing out of the race.

In a recent issue of Time magazine, Obama's face fills the cover next to the headline, ''Why Barack Obama Could Be The Next President.'' He is currently on a tour promoting his latest book, ''The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.''

On Sunday, Obama dismissed notions that he might not be ready to run for president because of his limited experience in national politics. He agreed the job requires a ''certain soberness and seriousness'' and ''can't be something you pursue on the basis of vanity and ambition.''

''I'm not sure anyone is ready to be president before they're president,'' Obama said. ''I trust the judgment of the American people.

''We have a long and vigorous process. Should I decide to run, if I ever decide to, I'll be confident that I'll be run through the pages pretty well,'' Obama said.

Seems a bit more likely, given this, that he may run.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom