Obama Will Win!

[Southern Buddhist 1]

Okay. The earlier post was just phrased in such a way that I was confused about what you were saying.I love that Clinton ran surpluses, too, and I think that not only is balancing the budget important, but paying down the debt rather than just treading water on it is what all candidates should be aiming for. It makes me sad when candidates talk about taking the "savings" that would come from withdrawing from Iraq and using them for anything. There won't be any savings -- every penny being spent on this war is borrowed money. We're going millions of dollars deeper into debt every single day thanks to our f*ckwit in chief.Sure it's nice when everyone knows everyone's name, but frankly, that still is a "gotcha" question that doesn't impress me much.For me, there were two good arguments for Hillary: one, she would be the first woman President; and two, that she could return us to the surpluses, peace, and prosperity of her husband's term. I don't think voting for her is a guarantee of a return to the 1990s, though. Although she's talking up her experience now, the fact is that she was never more than an informal advisor at best and not always fully in the loop. Plus, some of his advisors didn't care for her personally and would likely not come back to serve under her. The main issue for me is that all she's about is looking backward. Her politics were formed in the crucible of the 1960s, her feminism in the 1970s, her anything-it-takes ambition probably in the 1980s, her bitterness about Republicans in the 1990s, and the policies she promises are almost literally just "I'll go back to what we were doing before." Yes, they worked before. But 2009 isn't 1992. McCain is all about the past -- outdated attitudes, continuing failed policies, an old man with his best years gone. That only leaves one candidate who actually cares about shaping the future. He may not be perfect, and he may be untested, but so were some of our best presidents. It's a chance I'm willing to take.

[gradin123 0]

He may not be perfect, and he may be untested, but so were some of our best presidents. It's a chance I'm willing to take.

No recent president was as untested as Obama is. Even Bush had 6 years experience as the governor of one of the biggest states. Beyond being limited though Obama's track record is also confusing. Looking at his track record shows he has a history of trying to play both sides of the fence. That may sound like a good thing but in truth has had more to do with not wanting to commit on tough issues than it does in trying to form cooperation amongst the two parties.He avoided some tough votes as a State Senator and has missed a lot of his votes in his limited time as a Senator in Washington.To give an example of how he tries to play both sides look at his recent vote(or lack thereof) and comments on the Farm Bill. He said he supported it but he didn't actually vote on it.The bill is a completely pork laden Imo and even though Obama campaigns on being against Washington politics as usual and pork laden bills specifically, he chose to publicly support this bill. Of course he had to put caveats in his support statement to make it look like he was concerned about the pork in it (he mentioned it was far from perfect). But instead of standing against his party on this subject he towed the party line. Obama likes to target very popular legislation like the GI Bill as ones he likes to be strongly in favor of. After all, who could be against GI's getting more benefits? McCain disagrees about when the benefits should kick in but no one is against GI's getting more benefits per se. It also makes Obama look more patriotic to be strongly behind a bill like that. My major concern with Obama is that he is very untested and if he wins he is likely to get a democratic house and a democratic senate. There will be a lot of pressure on him to support all kinds of democratic spending bills and based on his track record it is very unlikely he will use the veto option against any of his party's legislation and he also will probably push some spending Bills of his own.If Hillary were to have won, I would have been somewhat concerned because she appears to be less fiscally conservative than Bill was (Of course Bill also had to fight with a strong republican congress on many issues which helped control both spending and tax cuts). I just think she would have had more of a willingness to stand up against her party as a President than Obama. Obama's one claim to fame was that he came out against the Iraq war before it happened. Of course he didn't have a chance to actually vote on that though because he was in the State Senate at the time. If he was in Washington it might have been a different story.

[gradin123 0]

I certainly don't agree with David Brooks of the NYT on everything but I do agree completely with him on the challenges Obama will face as president.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/opinion/20brooks.htmlTalking Versus DoingInterest groups turn every judicial fight into an ideological war. They lobby for more spending on the elderly, even though the country is trillions of dollars short of being able to live up to its promises. They’ve turned environmental concern into subsidies for corn growers and energy concerns into subsidies for oil companies.The $307 billion farm bill that rolled through Congress is a perfect example of the pattern. Farm net income is up 56 percent over the past two years, yet the farm bill plows subsidies into agribusinesses, thoroughbred breeders and the rest. My colleagues on The Times’s editorial page called the bill “disgraceful.” My former colleagues at The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page ripped it as a “scam.”Barack Obama talks about taking on the special interests. This farm bill would have been a perfect opportunity to do so. But Obama supported the bill, just as he supported the 2005 energy bill that was a Christmas tree for the oil and gas industries.Obama’s support may help him win Iowa, but it will lead to higher global food prices and more hunger in Africa. Moreover, it raises questions about how exactly he expects to bring about the change that he promises.If elected, Obama’s main opposition will not come from Republicans. It will come from Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill. Already, the Democratic machine is reborn. Lobbyists are now giving 60 percent of their dollars to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The pharmaceutical industry, the defense industry and the financial sector all give more money to Democrats than Republicans. If Obama is actually going to bring about change, he’s going to have to ruffle these sorts of alliances. If he can’t do it in an easy case like the farm bill, will he ever?AND FROM ANOTHER OP/ED OF HIS.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/27/opinion/27brooks.htmlThe Running Mate ChoiceIf Barack Obama is elected, his chief challenge will be that he hopes to usher in a new style of politics, but he has no real strategy for how to do that.He will find himself surrounded by highly partisan Democratic politicians, committee chairmen and interest groups thrilled to finally seize power. Some of them might have enjoyed his lofty rhetoric about change, but in practice, these organization types have no interest in changing politics. They just want to take the money and patronage that has been going to Republican special interests and give it to Democratic special interests.These entrenched Democrats are more experienced than Obama. They know how to play the game better. The effect of their efforts will be to turn his into a Potemkin administration filled with great speeches but without great accomplishments or influence over legislation.

[hblask 1]

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/obama-t...2023106-tax-senSoaking the rich and discouraging investment is worth it for its own sakeBy SALLIE JAMESThe debate between the Democratic candidates last week proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that voters face a choice between two starkly different visions. Barack Obama made one particularly startling statement that puts him well to the left of the already leftist Hillary Clinton.In a discussion over whether and how far to increase the capital-gains tax, ABC anchor Charles Gibson pointed out to Sen. Obama that a 1980s hike in the tax actually saw revenue fall, presumably a worry for a candidate who wants to increase government spending on social programs and "infrastructure" projects. Astonishingly, Obama replied: "I would look at raising the capital-gains tax for purposes of fairness."In other words, to Barack Obama, soaking the rich and discouraging investment is worth it for its own sake, even if it can't raise more money. The objective isn't to raise revenue, it's to inflict pain on those perceived as relatively well-off.How could this sentiment possibly satisfy the residents of Pennsylvania, Michigan or anywhere else? If raising tax rates will slow down the economy without increasing government revenue, they probably wondered, what's in it for them?[continued in link]

[copernicus 0]

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/obama-t...2023106-tax-senSoaking the rich and discouraging investment is worth it for its own sakeBy SALLIE JAMESThe debate between the Democratic candidates last week proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that voters face a choice between two starkly different visions. Barack Obama made one particularly startling statement that puts him well to the left of the already leftist Hillary Clinton.In a discussion over whether and how far to increase the capital-gains tax, ABC anchor Charles Gibson pointed out to Sen. Obama that a 1980s hike in the tax actually saw revenue fall, presumably a worry for a candidate who wants to increase government spending on social programs and "infrastructure" projects. Astonishingly, Obama replied: "I would look at raising the capital-gains tax for purposes of fairness."In other words, to Barack Obama, soaking the rich and discouraging investment is worth it for its own sake, even if it can't raise more money. The objective isn't to raise revenue, it's to inflict pain on those perceived as relatively well-off.How could this sentiment possibly satisfy the residents of Pennsylvania, Michigan or anywhere else? If raising tax rates will slow down the economy without increasing government revenue, they probably wondered, what's in it for them?[continued in link]

Hes an economic lightweight, a foreign policy no-weight, anti-wealth and anti-white. And he still has a better chance vs. McCain than Shrillary. Frightening.

[fedor1 0]

anyone who saw McCain's speech and Obama's speech the night he clinched would really be stratching it to say McCain has a chance.

[Balloon guy 158]

Just a little note to Checky, yes I am going to vote Obama as the terms of the bet are met and I am found loser.Just to let you know that I regret the possible pain and suffering you are inflicting on the world via this bet and my forced vote for Obama.He will probably achive only one positive thing during his presidency if he wins. That is taking Jimmy Carter off the top of the list for absolute worst failure of a president ever.I do believe though that you democrats will never lose the top 3 spots on this list though.Ever.

> Snow White &The Seven Dwarfs (A Political Fable)> > The seven dwarfs always left to go work in the mine early> each> morning. As always, Snow White stayed home doing her> domestic chores.> As lunchtime approached, she would prepare their lunch and> carry> it to the mine.> > One day as she arrived at the mine with the lunch,> she saw that there had been a terrible cave-in.> > Tearfully, and fearing the worst, Snow White began> calling out, hoping against hope that the dwarfs had> somehow> survived.> > 'Hello!..Hello!' she shouted. 'Can anyone hear> me? Hello!'> > For a long while, there was no answer. Losing hope, Snow> White again> shouted,> > 'Hello! Is anyone down there?'> > Just as she was about to give up all hope,> she heard a faint voice from deep within the mine, singing> .> > 'Vote for Barack Obama! - Vote for Barack Obama!'> > Snow White fell to her knees, crossed herself and prayed,> 'Oh, thank you, God! At least Dopey is still alive...

[Balloon guy 158]

anyone who saw McCain's speech and Obama's speech the night he clinched would really be stratching it to say McCain has a chance.

LOLHe BARELY beat a woman who had a 50% hatred level in this country.Yea..you might want to stick to the Utube thingy there big guy.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Obama will win, and here's why. Because the Vote in california will be deadlocked. as in a literally tie. So they will have to do multiple recounts. And, upon close study, they will discover that they forgot to count the one vote, Balloon Guy's vote. And that one vote will push Barrack over the top, and into the white house. Thank God for degenerate golfers who care more about gambling than their civic duties.

[Potomophobia 17]

To balloon guy:From reading the posts on this thread I have surmised a few things:I am considerably older than you.Also an inch or two shorter.We both like cigars.We both enjoy life.Oh yeah... I have been around the world a bit myself. You can be a great person and a lot of fun to be around.We have differing views on politics.BUT......For you to not put our current president (and I purposely spelled it with a small p) at the top of the list of the worst presidents in OUR country's history means that your party affiliation has completely blinded you to any rational arguments.Have a great life.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

For you to not put our current president (and I purposely spelled it with a small p) at the top of the list of the worst presidents in OUR country's history means that your party affiliation has completely blinded you to any rational arguments.Have a great life.

Come now, lets not talk crazy... he was no Andrew Johnson or Warren Harding. Though he may have been a bit of a Grant.

[Balloon guy 158]

Obama will win, and here's why. Because the Vote in california will be deadlocked. as in a literally tie. So they will have to do multiple recounts. And, upon close study, they will discover that they forgot to count the one vote, Balloon Guy's vote. And that one vote will push Barrack over the top, and into the white house. Thank God for degenerate golfers who care more about gambling than their civic duties.

This is my deepest fear

[Balloon guy 158]

To balloon guy:From reading the posts on this thread I have surmised a few things:I am considerably older than you.Also an inch or two shorter.We both like cigars.We both enjoy life.Oh yeah... I have been around the world a bit myself. You can be a great person and a lot of fun to be around.We have differing views on politics.BUT......For you to not put our current president (and I purposely spelled it with a small p) at the top of the list of the worst presidents in OUR country's history means that your party affiliation has completely blinded you to any rational arguments.Have a great life.

Well if it helps, I am mostly upset with the repubs, and to be honest I am not sure how I rate this pres.Mainly because I have been stuck defending him from unfounded and unwarrented attacks, which has left me skewed to look at his presidency less as objectively as possible. I totally agree that I am not judging him honestly, but more from a defense of the accusations of him being a liar etc than from any love for the repubs. Even McClellan in his new book said he believes Bush was honest about his belief that there were WMDs.Going to need a few years to really get a look at how I rate Bush. But his fiscal policies are pretty bad. So I have no doubt he will be in the lower end of the scale.I may even switch to libertarian if they ever drop that legalizing drugs section of their platform.End of the day I am probably more of a panican anyway. It'll all pan out

[Southern Buddhist 1]

He will probably achive only one positive thing during his presidency if he wins. That is taking Jimmy Carter off the top of the list for absolute worst failure of a president ever.I do believe though that you democrats will never lose the top 3 spots on this list though.Ever.

You're ranking presidents according to a very idiosyncratic method. In the poll of historians conducted by (I think) AP polling -- the ranking that the newspapers generally report -- the worst are, in ever-worsening order, James Buchanan (a Democrat), Warren G. Harding (a conservative Republican) and Richard M. Nixon.The top three are Washington (pre-two-party system/Federalist), Jefferson (Democrat, baby!), and Lincoln, the great Republican that even the GOP concedes it hasn't lived up to since.

[copernicus 0]

To balloon guy:From reading the posts on this thread I have surmised a few things:I am considerably older than you.Also an inch or two shorter.We both like cigars.We both enjoy life.Oh yeah... I have been around the world a bit myself. You can be a great person and a lot of fun to be around.We have differing views on politics.BUT......For you to not put our current president (and I purposely spelled it with a small p) at the top of the list of the worst presidents in OUR country's history means that your party affiliation has completely blinded you to any rational arguments.Have a great life.

Given that Iraq has turned around and the goal of a regional defense against Iran is likely, and given that despite the liberal medias' proclamation we are not yet in and may well not be headed toward a recession, or if headed toward one it is likely to be shallow and shortlived (see Clinton's legacy), given that unemployment is lower than it was during the Clinton years it is your party affiliation blinding you to the fact that he may wind up as one of the best Presidents in US History for recognizing and dealing with Islamic terrorism for the first time since Jimmy Carter screwed the pooch. No one in our lifetimes will ever surpass Carter for shortsighted policies and inept implementation. BHO promises a return to Carterism, god help us all.

[Balloon guy 158]

You're ranking presidents according to a very idiosyncratic method. In the poll of historians conducted by (I think) AP polling -- the ranking that the newspapers generally report -- the worst are, in ever-worsening order, James Buchanan (a Democrat), Warren G. Harding (a conservative Republican) and Richard M. Nixon.The top three are Washington (pre-two-party system/Federalist), Jefferson (Democrat, baby!), and Lincoln, the great Republican that even the GOP concedes it hasn't lived up to since.

AP? I think my criteria for which President is best is easily more accurate.when picking the best and the worst presidents in American history I use:First, does the picking of this person cause the other side more or less angst? (Therefore Reagan top 5 choice ...shoe in.)Second, does the exclusion of this person cause the other side more or less angst? ( Leave out Bush when discussing worst Presidents...shoe in )Third, Is it likely that picking this person will cause the other side to acutally move to Canada, instead of just threaten in then never come though? ( Richard Nixon..top 3 ...eh )Fourth, How tall is he? ( Lincoln...shoe in)Fifth, Extra points if he doesn't cheat on his wife hours after attending Easter Services in the Oval Office. ( Kennedy..looking bad my brother )So as you can see my poll is much more likely to be based on my truth and not some idiot reporter that makes $26K a year and is on his 3rd marriage.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

Ohhhhh, well in that case:Best:FDRFDRClintonWorst:Nixon (because he has to be there)Reagan, and......darn, who else DO you people like? Ike? Hoover?

[hblask 1]

Worst:1. FDR2. FDR3. FDR4. LBJ5. GW BushBest:HahahahahahahahahahahaOK, I guess someone had to be least bad.. I'll go with William Henry Harrison, who had the good sense to die before he did any harm.I'd have to give a nod to Jefferson for his philosophical greatness, even though he didn't walk the walk as well as he could have. Madison was also a great thinker. Reagan brought life to common sense in politics, then immediately abandoned it for political expediency. So these three are up there not for their actual behavior in office, but for their effect on the clarity of thought in this country.

[JustDoIt 10]

Life with Obama, our Savior - Funnyhttp://www.townhall.com/video/HamNation/1450_06052008Also Funnyhttp://www.youtube.com/user/newsbusted?ob=4

[AmScray 355]

I may even switch to libertarian if they ever drop that legalizing drugs section of their platform.

Ugh... We don't need or want any more "Protest Republicans". They're already crapping all over the party as it stands. If you feel the need to switch affiliations, go join the Democrats, please. Or understand that allowing people to make their own decisions is the best course of action, see the error of your partisan ways and then come aboard, but only after being philosophically born again. You thinking "you know best" about people making personal choices to use drugs is just as bad as those on the left thinking "they know best" as far as commandeering and spending the money you earned.(God, I swear, out local LP meetings have gone from being a group of bizarre eccentrics with high ideals and equally high IQ's to a bunch of douchebag beer-swilling "Republican" circus watchers who haven't a ****ing clue as to why they're now "Libertarians", other than it's the only alternative to the Republicans that won't take their guns away)

[Balloon guy 158]

Ugh... We don't need or want any more "Protest Republicans". They're already crapping all over the party as it stands. If you feel the need to switch affiliations, go join the Democrats, please. Or understand that allowing people to make their own decisions is the best course of action, see the error of your partisan ways and then come aboard, but only after being philosophically born again. You thinking "you know best" about people making personal choices to use drugs is just as bad as those on the left thinking "they know best" as far as commandeering and spending the money you earned.(God, I swear, out local LP meetings have gone from being a group of bizarre eccentrics with high ideals and equally high IQ's to a bunch of douchebag beer-swilling "Republican" circus watchers who haven't a ****ing clue as to why they're now "Libertarians", other than it's the only alternative to the Republicans that won't take their guns away)

You're not the boss of me!But you're right, I wouldn't want to upset the Mensa candidate school that is so instrumental in today's politics...

[Marchione 0]

the level of blind ignorance this quote possesses is over the top even for Balloon guy

[DonkSlayer 1]

The rankings are dumb. I love when crazies on both sides of the aisle list the biggest demagogue of each party's history as the "worst".A president is the leader of the executive offices and the armed forces. FDR was a good president. So was Reagan. We may not agree with all of their policies, but they weren't bad presidents, at all. Suck it up.My top 5 "worst":1. Buchanan (ez game)2. Andrew Johnson (corrupt and fostered the carpetbagging of the South)3. Harding (corrupt)4. Carter (ineffective at everything)5. LBJ (bad at everything)Dishonorable Mention: Dick Nixon

[DonkSlayer 1]

When I disagree I just spew crap instead of put together a reasoned argument.

fyousp

[Nimue1995 1]

The rankings are dumb. I love when crazies on both sides of the aisle list the biggest demagogue of each party's history as the "worst".A president is the leader of the executive offices and the armed forces. FDR was a good president. So was Reagan. We may not agree with all of their policies, but they weren't bad presidents, at all. Suck it up.My top 5 "worst":1. Buchanan (ez game)2. Andrew Johnson (corrupt and fostered the carpetbagging of the South)3. Harding (corrupt)4. Carter (ineffective at everything)5. LBJ (bad at everything)Dishonorable Mention: Dick Nixon

Wow my ancestor, U.S. Grant didn't make the list? I'm surprised. Actually I'd put Nixon in instead of Carter. Carter might have been ineffective but he wasn't a criminal.