John Edwards may soon be toast after failing to win in Iowa. But he has been raising a new criticism of Barack Obama — that Obama is too nice and, thus, doesn’t have the gumption to deal with Washington’s special interest monster.
“Barack is not angry or confrontational enough to get it done,†Edwards said recently. “He’s too nice a guy; he’s too conciliatory. He can’t bring change about. I do not need lectures about how to bring about change. I have not just talked about change. I’ve made it happen.â€
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Daniel on Open thread 11/22
101 Comments
“I am looking forward to getting your advice, too, Hillary” —
He made a point, against one of the harshest politicians in history, and he did it with class.
As a Republican, Obama worries me, because he knows how to win by making his opponents look silly.
Being nice in an election wards off the effectiveness of negative ads. At least Huckabee or any of the other Rethuglicans will never get the “too nice” criticism.
It’s a bit soon to write off Edwards, or even Hillary, don’t ya think?
If Iowa always determined the general election, we would have seen Dick Gephardt vs. Bob Dole.
“I guess, so goes Iowa, so goes Iowa!”
Johnny Carson, 1988
I think Edwards is desparate. Instead of being too nice, I think Obama has “grace under fire”. What impresses me about his ability to govern is how smart, yet personable he is. I think his ability to bring change to Washington has been demonstrated by his reputation already ingrained in the halls of Congress as a “maverick” thinker. This is what is said about you in Congress if you make good decisions and promote good legislation and compromises regardless whether you are toeing the Party line.
I have been referring to Obama as having his heart in the right place but at times seems lost in the woods.
I hope he is smart enough if he becomes lost he can always find his way out. OMG ECON paid a real complement to a Democrat! Yes it was at that point with Hillary I knew this guy has it going for him!
I have been worried all along that Barak Obama was too nice.
Worse? Republican posters, even the most vile among them hereabouts, are ok with him. There is a reason for that. They see Obama as weak or even as one who could be turned to their side.
The right does not speak “nice” and I will not vote for a candidate that my enemy is ok with.
Edwards looks better and better to me for calling the weak sister Obama out.
Remember 2000. Remember what Republicans have done to America. Bill Clinton was more than enough of “Republican lite”. Defeat Obama.
Writerdog – the only occasions when I have seen Sen. Obama appearing to be unsure of himself is in extemporaneous speaking situations. But I don’t think this is a fault. I believe that he is intelligent enough to know that there are not always pat answers to questions posed by the public and the press, and that he searches sometimes for the right words to answer the question in a brief statement. Polished politicians like President Clinton and perhaps candidate Clinton have “been there, done that” so many times that “smooth-talking” is routine. While being admitted to the Harvard Law School and serving as editor of the Harvard Law School Law Review are not fool-proof evidence of intelligence, I am confident that he will be able to analyze difficult issues of nat’l security and domestic policy, and will be able to fill his cabinent with the “best and the brightest”.
The sign below him says “change we can believe in”
Not me Barack. Not me.
Just because he is not a scoundrel, criminal or wife beater/wife cheater does not mean he cannot get nasty if he feels he has too. Believe me, when Obama is sitting across the table from somebody like Putin in Russia, Putin will know Obama is not to be messed with very quickly. I am more than sure that he can deal with the Congress and with foreign leaders effectively. And I would say that about any of the 3 front runners. None of them are Jimmy Carter- who was too nice.
Yea, I think Obama would play it safe and not get much done. He’s would be the first black president so I doubt he would try anything to drastic to start out with for fear of tarnishing his race, which shouldn’t even be an issue.
Or it could be that Obama is just good at acting nice all the time, when he’s prez the the mean no nonsense street justice side of Obama will come out.
I don’t think Obama is too nice. My only real criticism of him is his tendency to start sounding like a minister preaching to the masses.
I believe that Obama would have a way with making others see it HIS way, rather than compromise something he felt strongly about.
But he needs someone who can play real dirty if need be…he needs Hillary.
Of course, my dream ticket would be Hillary as the front runner, and Obama in the VP spot.
I think they can both learn a lot from each other.
Edwards said recently. “He’s too nice a guy; he’s too conciliatory. He can’t bring change about. I do not need lectures about how to bring about change. I have not just talked about change. I’ve made it happen.”
———-
What “change” do you suppose the inexperienced is Edwards talking about he made happen? He had time for a cup of coffee or two in the Senate.
Obama isn’t too nice. He can come on strong when he wants to or thinks he needs to. We need a leader who can stay composed, articulate his arguments, and respond to criticsm with tack and intelligence.
He comes across as the better man (even against that guy Hillary).
“As a Republican, Obama worries me, because he knows how to win by making his opponents look silly.”
Paul, your guys do that for themselves without any help.
Political-mamma, yea, I know what you mean, I wish I could tell Obama to tone it down a little, he sounds a little bit preachy at times. I don’t think we need any more preachy political figures, just down to earth people. He dosen’t need to work himself up into a cult type of person by being so preachy.
I “hear” many of the candidates talk about change. Change seems to be the catch word. But! What change exactly, and exactly how!?
I don’t hear any talk about that.
Kelly’s in love, Kelly’s in love with Obama.
Remember, Alberto Gonzales also went to Haaarrvard Law, and look how he turned out.
Obama is too nice? We should all have that kind of problem. Maybe Obama would be a real “uniter”. Wouldn’t it be something if we elected a president who represented all Americans, Democrat and republican?
It’s hard not to like the fact that the democrats are marching out candidates with an eye on making history: first woman presidential candidate and first viable black candidate.
However, I think neither can win in November. Thankfully. America just isn’t going to elect either one for the same reasons listed above.
Now, if they were BOTH on the ticket together? =) Landslide GOP victory.
She wants to be like Bill, but she wants to be the giver and not the getter
Thank God that America is still too racist to elect a black man and too sexist to elect a woman president.
If the good Lord intended for blacks and women to run the country, He would have made them as good as a white man like me.
Time to take my vacation for sunny Florida for 36 holes every day. Hey, Uncle Tom, get yer ass over here and freshen up my cognac.
The Republicans have had quite enough and more representation thank you.
I want a nominee that gives Republicans panic attacks.
Appears that Trolls are intent on making this new blog format a failure. Someone has trolled KSGolfnut twice now.
It would be refreshing if someone who isn’t into divisive politics could get the nomination and win the election. I’m so sick of the “us vs them” mentality that has divided our country. I’m ready for someone who will actally work on solutions to the overwhelming problems caused by the last 7 years of incompetent leadership rather than just bashing their opponents. I’m so sick of politics as usual..it’s really time for a change.
I wish Obama wouldn’t try to sound like a preacher when he speaks. He sounds to much like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton..and no one takes them seriously anymore.
In politics, you don’t really “win” until you can get the other side to agree with you. Not in this country, anyway.
Those who dream of the complete destruction of their opponents, on the left or the right, are delusional.
Some, on the left, call Bush “arrogant” for not listening, enough, to Democrats. (McCain Finegold, Bush signed it, Kennedy Education Bill, Bush signed it) It is no secret that, in fact, Bush got in trouble with his base for listening, too much, to Democrats.
However, the fact remains, if you want PERMANENT policy changes, you have to cross party lines, at times.
If an issue is “political” it means that the matter has not been decided, yet.
No issue is put to rest until there is some victory, or some compromise.
Politics is the art of compromise.
Hillary has no talent, in that field.
Obama is far too liberal, for my tastes, but I like the guy. I won’t vote for him, but I would try to listen to him, if he asked for my help. (not likely) My point is, I think lots of Republicans will feel the same way about him.
I don’t get the impression that Obama is out to destroy the Republican Party. He seems sincere. WRong, but real.
My more moderate and Democratic friends must remember, it was the stated goal of Karl Rove to marginalize (read destroy) the Democratic party for the forseeable future.
Too, the right has suceeded these last 13 years of reversing much of the progress of the last 70.
There is a reason why those on the right are open to discussion and pretending at accommodation.
They know it is payback time. Now suddenly, they want to “let’s us all be Americans!”
No, we won’t be burying the hatchet. We know who is holding it.
“It is no secret that, in fact, Bush got in trouble with his base for listening, too much, to Democrats.”
Yea, right. The education bill was under-funded. McCain/Feingold had to be signed after all the scandals; then he just never enforced it. Bush likes to make a show of being a ‘uniter’ but the Rove side of him dictates what he actually does.
JR – right on!
Thanks Ben,
I do wish we could work with those people. They just don’t play well in groups.
More proof? Rush Limbaugh was giving his take on bipartisanship here recently. I think we are all familiar with his politics.
(Paraphrasing) “Bi-partisanship means you are losing! Partisanship means you are winning.”
Moderate and Democratic Americans always TRY to be better and more accomodating people. In the field of politics we can’t afford to be. There is not a lot left to lose.
Some of you sound as if you want a Pol Pot or Idi Amin for president. You’re not looking for a statesman; you want a father figure who tells you what you’re supposed to think and do. Maybe you just can’t cope with the chaos and compromise of democracy. If that’s the case, I can recommend several other countries that would be more to your liking.
Those who dream of the complete destruction of their opponents, on the left or the right, are delusional.
Econ101
Posted January 5, 2008 at 11:37 am |
Paul, I agree. Personally, I’ve had enough of politicians who put their party ahead of their country (Translate: nearly all of them). We need to stop concentrating on what divides us and get behind what unites us.
“Paybacks” are for grade school kids. If Democrats really want to accomplish something, maybe they should concentrate on reuniting our fractured country. It’s all about America, not just republicans or Democrats. If Democrats want to prove that they’re better than republicans, let them show that they can represent all Americans, not just Democrats.
(Oops. I posted this to the wrong thread.)
I remain strong for John Edwards although I’m realistic enough to think there won’t be enough time to overcome Obamarama in time to succeed in New Hampshire. Senator Clinton’s traditional approoach of campaign bucks and organization might give her a rebound and Edwards will have a tough time if she finishes second.
That said, I remain strong for Edwards because he’s the stronger advocate for getting things done that need to be done in America. Obama inspires our better angels, but a President Edwards would get those angels back to work.
I don’t need a President to hope for me, I want a President to fight for me.
“In politics, you don’t really “win” until you can get the other side to agree with you. Not in this country, anyway.
Those who dream of the complete destruction of their opponents, on the left or the right, are delusional.”
Tell us again Paul – just how was the extremely partisan impeachment a good idea for America?
Econ101
Posted January 5, 2008 at 11:37 am | Permalink
Politics is the art of compromise.
—
:) Uh huh. You don’t mind if we just ignore what you say, and watch only what you do, do you?
As one who commuted daily between northern McPherson County and Wichita from 1992-1999 (and who often listened in transit to AM talk radio in the early years, up to about 1995, including Rush Limbaugh), I was always dumbstruck at just how in the heck Americans would passively subject themselves to radio “hosts” whose only aim was to inflame their listeners. It was, and probably still is, just hate, hate, hate from these guys. I’ll never forget the March day in 2003 when Limbaugh’s show began running an advertisement for the Christian Chronicles, replete with narration by Jerry Falwell. This surely marks a low in civil discourse, I thought, as I listened to a man reportedly “of the cloth” accuse the Clintons of extortion, blackmail, fraud, theft, even murder. Murder! I really thought we had reached the nadir of American culture, when those who disagree with the president’s politics resort to baseless accusations of all manner and type, up to and including murder.
Well, that was sure wrong. Five years after I thought we’d hit the bottom, we impeached a president for lying under oath about personal conduct. Then we elected a president who claimed to be struck, like I was, with how low and partisan political discourse had become and who pledged to unite the country.
Then things became surreal. This guy not only didn’t unite us, he actively divided us…for partisan gain. He did this often, but his most spectacular successes were in 2002 & 2004. Finally Americans caught on, and a 3rd spectacular success was turned into a moderate one (nominally, he lost control of Congress but realistically he lost very little power, due largely to the partisan home runs of 2002 & 2004). Not only that, but his party’s cheap impeachment of Clinton serves innoculates him from being removed from power. It’s like night is day, black is white. The old checks and balances no longer work, they’ve been killed by over-zealous partisanship.
If like me you found yourself (1) non-partisan in 1993*, and (2) paying attention ever since, then you too would find it extremely difficult to disagree with JR’s rebuttal to Econ101’s comment above, “No, we won’t be burying the hatchet. We know who is holding it.” The Democrats deserve to lose if they pull another 2004, and nominate a candidate that they hope the 28% will approve of. Those in the 28% will always prefer using the hatchet. For them politics is zero-sum: they only win when the other side loses. They NEVER compromise.
JR also wrote “They know it is payback time. Now suddenly, they want to “let’s us all be Americans!” The Democrats are crazy if they fall for it again, if they conclude that Republics have perceived a rebuke sufficient to result in Econ101’s convenient “revelation” above. If they do, and a Republic wins, then it’s 2000/2004 redux. And America will have wasted 12 years and learned nothing.
Whoever the Democrats nominate, that nominee can’t be soft on the Republic nominee. The Republics certainly won’t be soft, and in fact things will only get worse, much worse, after the Democrat convention this summer.
*–I voted for GHW Bush, aka 41, in 1992. It was the last time I voted for a Repubic nominee for POTUS.
I’m not really a troll master, although I’m testing the trolling capabilities of the new we blog format. It seems very troll friendly. wth is going here?
I want the Democrats to nominate Hillary, because Hillary is a combative, scorched Earth, dirty political hack.
Republicans would then win, hands down.
However, I think, if Obama wins the nomination, that will force the Republican nominee to talk about issues.
That would be a good thing, for a change.
We need this race to be about issues, and not personal attacks.
Pedant – very well put. I too have listened to Rush – along with Savage, O’Reilly, Hannity and the rest of that far-right cabal. Be bi-partisan with the likes of them?! NOT!
Paul – Hillary would lose about as bad as Raj did.
Pedant, Your 1:45 post is inspiring! I really appreciate the reminders of where we’ve been and how impossible compromise with those 28 per centers is! I was ready to make nice even with those who will always take advantage. May I print your post? I need to reread it often over the next several months.
Pedant,
Not much to add to your definitive post. Repukes have unilaterally been engaged in absolute, partisan war for a couple of decades now, and it’s the DEMOCRATS who are supposed to make nice? Please. And given that Bush has rooted out all sorts of career folks in the Federal government in favor of partisan moles, a large part of the next Presidency will consist in restoring party equilibrium to the Federal bureaucracy.
If Obama becomes President but doesn’t do this, his will be a failed Presidency. Repukes have proven, time and again, that they’d rather burn down the Federal Government than not run. They consistently put party before country. Obama ignores that at his–and our–peril. That’s why I continue to send money to John Edwards.
Democrats run the govt in the ground and blame Republicans.
Trollmaster, WE dont want to control trolls, they would have to ban 90% of the regular liberal and conservative posters.
Ben
Posted January 5, 2008 at 9:11 am | Permalink
“As a Republican, Obama worries me, because he knows how to win by making his opponents look silly.”
Paul, your guys do that for themselves without any help
Republicans learned these tricks from the Democrats.
I suspect that no matter who is in charge of the government, you will be able to point to many examples of excesses and partisanship. In fact, it is naive to think that one party would be any different than another. After all, people are involved.
So why do you hear of more abuses, real and imagined? Well, there is more out information out there, especially if you are internet savvy, and more true believers who eagerly swallow anything that supports there pre-existing prejudices. Is this good or bad? Personally, I think it is, on balance a bad thing because it promotes partisan ship.
:) Thanks linda, and sure, please feel free to do with it what you please.
Oh, and thank JR, too!
<b<”Econ101″ offers:
“…if Obama wins the nomination, that will force the Republican nominee to talk about issues.
That would be a good thing…”
No, that would be a miracle on the order of the loaves and fishes.
The Swift Boaters are back and reorganized, just waiting to assault whomever the Democrats nominate. The Limbaugh-tomized Masses aren’t going to sit back and play nice. Bill Orally and the rest of the Fixed Noise Channel aren’t going to live up to their claimed nonpartisanship and encourage a fair and open discussion of the issues. You know that, “Econ101,” and to claim anything else belies your ignorance or your veracity.
I’d rather have a fighter lead the Democratic ticket. I like Obama a lot, but I don’t want him to go all Rodney King when the Republic attack machine turn Medieval on his ass.
Would some of you who have the features figured out be wiling to offer lessons? Maybe I’m the only one who is this challenged by the technological. How do you insert those cute smiley faces, Pedant? How did you make the quote you referenced print in italics, MonkeyHawk? And, what are Trackbacks? I’ll try to be an apt pupil but ask for patience with my stupidity.
old fashioned smiley face: ;-)
I still operate at 33 rpm but am willing to try!
So we don’t mess up the thread topic maybe anyone willing to share could offer help on an Open thread?
Would you look at that! I typed an old fashioned smiley face and it appeared as one of those cute ones! Well, isn’t that special!?
I am troubled to say this but if he became President……
You just gotta know that some wingnut would try to do him in. Sad world indeed. :-( I hope it never happens again in my life time
Does anybody have any track records on this Obama?
I make my decision based on their past history of work, not on present glamour.
And the party thing, what the hell does that has to do with problem solving abilities?
No one can lecture Obama on getting things done. He was a community organizer in Chicago after the steel mills there shut down and worked as a civil rights lawyer. In the Illinois senate he helped sponsor and pass health care legislation. In the US senate he was the co-sponsor of the recently signed ethics reform bill, which passed overwhelmingly.
He can get things done, and doesn’t need to apologize for being civil.
It’s halftime at the Republic Party debate.
Nobody’s winning, probably, but Mittens is sure losing.
Ron Paul keeps rubbing the others’ noses in conservative rhetorical s#it, even Fredrick of Hollywood woke up like a deaf fire house dog to drill Romney on Massachusetts healthcare mandates which is identical to Senator Clinton’s proposal, and John McCain started off on Big Pharma as if he’d cribbed John Edwards’ notes.
And Mittens rose to the bait to defend pharmaceutical companies!
lindainks55
Posted January 5, 2008 at 6:17 pm | Permalink
Would some of you who have the features figured out be wiling to offer lessons? Maybe I’m the only one who is this challenged by the technological. How do you insert those cute smiley faces, Pedant? How did you make the quote you referenced print in italics, MonkeyHawk? And, what are Trackbacks?
——————————————
linda, check today’s Open thread for the “trick.”
Trackbacks are a way for WEblog to link to any other website that’s posted about the topic (by “posted about,” I mean that the other website has published a link to relevant topic on WEblog). This is also known by some as “acknowledgement,” and by others as “a way to share advertising revenue.” :lol:
Mittens is imploding.
The only constituency he’ll have left after tonight is the Rich and Stupid vote.
The only way to bring Republicans back into the fray is to beat them so soundly that they have to reconcile that their policies are bad. I have no problem with pounding them into the ground.
That’s why I want someone who will keep them down. I don’t want someone who will try to play by their rules.
I’m kinda watching the debate – Guilliani is poking his finger at me and I think it hurts! – and reading the Open Thread with admiration! You guys are good at this fun stuff! Guess I should try to do one thing and concentrate. I’ll watch the debate and try to avoid that pokey finger by ducking and such!
Well they’re all huggin’ and shoulder pattin’ and stuff. (Best Church Lady voice) How nice! All the candidates get along soooo well.
The Huckster’s come up with a red-meat Republic Party phrase: un-tax.
It’s not that he’s all that impressive, but Mittens has been so bad. McCain got his digs in and has a solid base in New Hampshire.
McCain first, Huckabee second, and Romney a poor third in Tuesday’s election. That’s my prediction.
I thought Huckabee, Romney and McCain all did fine. No major impact. I did want to slap Fred a couple of times to see if I could get the words unstuck.
I bet JR was hoping for a stabbing when Charlie Rose had the Dems and Repubs on the stage at the same time. Chuckle…
“outlander” –
Romney “did fine?!”
Mittens was road-kill from McCain, the Huckster, Rudy, Paul…
Maybe you were impressed by his hair. It wasn’t mussed.
Outlander
Agreed.
The truth is, reasonable Democrat candidates are more worried about their own nutty base than they are about any of the reasonable Republicans on the ballot.
When they were all on stage, together, they had more in common with each other than they had in commmon with some of the nuts on this Blog.
It is such a contrast! Now the adults are speaking. And speaking about the important subjects that will improve our world. The children who were on this stage earlier were busy taking pot shots at one another. How refreshing to move on to people who could all be good presidents!
linda
You are speaking WAY too soon.
By the way, Hillary just sent out a nasty attack mailing, against Obama.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8U00P7O0&show_article=1
Yes Paul, they are disagreeing and in their disagreement explaining their positions on very important issues. Making it clear there are differences and here is what those differences are. And even with those disagreements, all four people currently on the stage would make good presidents. I personally would like to hear more from Richardson as he is my favorite. But, the contrast between these candidates and the ones who were on stage first is clear and remarkable!
Hillary’s voice is becoming shrill and angry. I don’t like listening to that! I am disappointed and if she doesn’t calm down I think she will (and should) face consequences that are as negative as she sounds.
linda
Thank you for being honest.
Did I miss a debate?
Heh
Give Romney abd McCain just a LITTLE more time at each other and they’d be ready for a cage match!
Gotta get back to the Dems. But…
“We need to stop concentrating on what divides us and get behind what unites us.”
Sure X.
Let THEM start.
Oh and what is it their side says about foreign policy?
Negotiate from a position of strength? Something like that?
So let’s beat the Republicans into bloody, whimpering submission. THEN we can let them make nice with us.
Reach back and remember how you felt when the Supreme Court gave the office to bush. Then you’ll know what to do.
Still on. Check ABC. Missed the Republic candidates who were the first half and started at 6 p.m., missed a little over half of the Democratic candidates who came on for the second half.
LOL
The Juvenile is an independent anyway.
He said, a few days ago, that he is voting green.
By the way, Richardson just said he was AGAINST a carbon tax.
He is for some things I dont like, but NONE of them are really in favor of a carbon tax.
Paul, Why can’t YOU be honest? J R DID NOT say that!
YES
HE did.
At the very least someone claiming to be him said it.
Hey X?
You want me to make and play nice with paulecon?
Thanks, no.
He is the ESSENCE of the new Republicans. Here again he posts about me with half truths.
Well, we’ll need to let him clear this up. I won’t / can’t speak for him. But I suspect you’ve left out the “if” in his post. Any way you cut it, I will trust him farther than you. I’ve read enough to know how you twist words and meanings.
J R, what did you really say?
You said you were voting green.
I admit it was in a moment of frustration for you, but you said it.
You call it a half truth.
How so?
I understand the problem:
You are on the fringe.
You want to mine the Mexican border.
You want to abolish the state of Israel.
You want to repeal NAFTA.
You want to start a trade war with tariffs.
You have every right to your beliefs, but nobody in your party, running for President, agrees with you.
haha, some of those admissions of ‘goofs’ by the candidates are pretty funny. :D
Ok paulecon.
Just like I have invited you to before…
Here is your chance to prove your own post.
That’s on you. I got better things to do.
Hey thanks the kudos Pedant. High praise coming from a better writer than me.
More? Consider Senator Clinton. Right wing hate radio started in on trashing her in earnest 4 YEARS ago.
Hannity has his “stop Hillary express” Levin calls her “her Thighness”.
I already told you about Rush.
Mike Savage says that liberalism is a mental disorder. And he’s the one among them I most respect!
Show me a hate machine like that on OUR side?
True story here. When George Bush 41 became President, my journey from right to left had already begun. I didn’t vote for Bush.
But when he addressed the nation, he said “For those who did not vote for me, I want to be your President too.” Now that touched me.
Consider the reception Bill Clinton got 4 years later. The right set on him the minute he took office.
And of course bush the lesser was considerably more arrogant when he stole office.
“A President of the United States is a President of ALL the people.”
(with the undertone “whether they like it or not, Nyahh!”)
No it is the rights turn to pay the piper. I’m gonna want a whole tune from them before I sing in harmony. If I ever could.
Linda?
Thanks.
You can tell when paul is lying. It’s when he is posting. I speculated that given what I know, Obama is too nice and that if he were the nominee I would vote Green. Paul took license with that as he often does.
Oh I also never said I wanted to abolish the state of Israel.
I said its location was a diplomacy hardship. It is. Wanna lie some more Paul?
Oh and frustrated is what I do to you there paulie.
Oh and my beliefs? Yup they are honest. They are also more than the millimeter deep yours are paulthecon. That’s about the thickness of a buck aint it? No I don’t have a candidate that thinks exactly as I do.
You do. Yeah your hero bush can’t run again but McCain and the rest of the GOP field aint a stone’s throw from bush.
Linda
Actually, it went kind of like this:
I posted, before, that a Dem on this Blog had said he wanted to plant land mines on the Mexican border.
Ben got mad at me, and told me that “never” happened, and then told me to “prove” it.
The Juvenile then came back and said that, while he DID once hold that view, he was going Independent, so my statement wasnt really, completely, true.
I would rather not get into a huge fight, but many liberals on this Blog call Republicans “racist” over the immigration issue. It is very clear that the Democrat Party is the party of “open borders” — at the same time, there are some liberals (Can’t be sure of party affiliation, can I) on this Blog, that are true radicals on the immigration issue.
Me? I am a moderate on Immigration. I want to seal the borders. I do not want to give any taxpayer support to illegals. However, I do not think it is practical to deport them all. Deport those that actually commit property crime or violent crime. Also, I have pointed out that the baby boomers are starting to retire, and that we are facing a very real labor shortage. It is time to control the borders while improving and increasing LEGAL immigration.
For this, I have been attacked, on this Blog. I have been accused, by this radical “liberal” of favoring “open borders” And not by any Republicans, mind you!
Anyway, the last time the Juveniles party membership came up, it was over the fact that I said a Dem, on this Blog, had suppored putting land mines on the Mexican border.
It is possible that I am wrong.
It is possible that he changed his registration, made his statement as an independent, then changed back.
Regardless, he said it.
The democratic debate was intellectually stimulating and refreshing, I only caught part of the tail end of the Republicans so I can’t speak to what came earlier.
I’d predict dems. are going to come out in very good numbers much like the did in Iowa, they have 4 very good, strong candidates to motivate them.
I (kinda) watched it all Phantom and I predict you are right. None of the six Republic candidates did as good a job as the four Democratic candidates. There were a couple times I was disappointed during the Democratic half but they recovered the fumble and went on well. the Republic candidates behaved like children and picked at one another so much they didn’t have time to address any of the issues. We’ve currently have a child as POTUS, we don’t need another!
Yup linda it is true I am not a registered Democrat.
That’s also a long way from the rest of the line paul is peddling.
And in the same thread you mention, I also said that I was in favor of total amnesty for illegals if it would stop them being a sublimating force on American worker pay and treatment.
Yup I want the problem solved. Mines or total amnesty I don’t care.
Paul just wants to kick the issue down the road and do nothing.
I’m thinking George b.’s name came up more during the second half than the first!
Oh and too clarify, I did not say I was going independent. I said I already was. THEN I said I would even favor total amnesty if it would help AMERICAN workers.
See the deal is paul? I can go back and look and stand by my words.
Hey XXX and others who favor accomodating these people? See why we can’t? Ya can’t play to the good in them. For MOST of them, there isn’t any.
J R, I’m not a registered Democrat either (I think, not sure, need to check what was the latest registration). I live in Kansas and like to vote in the primaries, the choices aren’t usually in the Democratic candidates. I can change my registration as often as I choose and am very careful to do it in time. When it comes general election time I get to vote as I choose no matter how I’m registered.
Reach back and remember how you felt when the Supreme Court gave the office to bush. Then you’ll know what to do.
SCOTUS did not give the office to Bush. Every, and I do mean every [at least one a month for more than a year and these were done by liberal groups], recount did the way Gore wanted it showed Bush winning. There was one recount done in a way Gore did not want showed he MIGHT have won maybe, but it couldnt conclusive state he would have won.
Throw in the numerous NY voters also voting in Florida and you have 10,000+ more NY Democrats than NY Republicans voting illegally in Florida.
I am not a fan of Bush, but I do tire of people using the SCOTUS card on the 2000 election. Dont get me started on that butterfly ballot, designed by a Democrat. I saw it and it was obvious who to vote for. If the voter couldnt figure it out, they deserved to lose their vote. I watched the court case with Gore’s expert witness explaining the rules listed on the voting machine with the hanging chad issue. The machine had explicit instructions the voter was supposed to read. Again, if the voter did not read them, their vote got what it deserved. I vote using the write in option [try it some time if you dont want to wait in line OR if you want a paper trail for your ballot] and if I mark the wrong person, my vote doesnt count or it goes to the wrong person. In this instance, I deserve my vote’s results.
Well this one wasn’t about me but it deserves the hammer…
“I would rather not get into a huge fight, but many liberals on this Blog call Republicans “racist” over the immigration issue.”
They DO? Um….Where? Go in the archives and get a link. Or apologize.
Heh, I’m gonna start calling you pinata paul.
CF2, for one, I as I recall, has made the claim that Republicans have a problem with “Brown People” — (And CF, I am sorry If I confused you with someone else, but I know I saw that term, recently, from a lib poster)
By and large, the problem with the libs on this Blog is that you put blinders on.
A liberal can say anything he or she wants, and as long as he is attacking a conservative, the facts don’t matter.
Yeah? Close election I give you. But can anyone argue Gore was the people’s choice there “get real”?
And tell me bush did not handle it VERY badly.
Clinton was Republican lite. But he disrupted the succession of Ronald Maximus. So he earned the undying hate and persecution of the GOP. And we fell back. Then bush stuck his finger in our eye and …well did all the things he did. And some still want to fall back.
No. There’s too little left to lose.
Some have a very overinflated understanding of what a President can do.
99% of your current condition and position in life is due to you and you alone.
A President can help keep us from getting nuked.
A President can help us keep more of what we earn.
However, a President can NOT protect us from a bad attitude or from bad personal decisions.
That’s classic paul. Shoot at CF and then say I’m sorry if I was wrong to shoot at you! Post with proof or post stuff you don’t have to prove pinata Paul. And THEN paul whines about liberal attacks!
Damn paul, if you didn’t post here we’d have to write you in.
And we’d probably do it better too.
Paul, The “bad personal decisions” the current president has made have affected me and every American in a negative way. I have lived over SIXTY years and never experienced anything like the current president. He is an embarrassment, he has made our world much more dangerous, he has no interest in anyone who isn’t among the haves and have mores. I don’t want to continue as it makes me so angry when I think about the poor decisions he has made. He is a very bad president. Maybe he isn’t a very bad man but he has never shown me anything to like or admire or even believe. I just want him to go away without causing further damage.
JR,
Check your inbox or Tracy’s blog.
No workday tomorrow – missing needed supplies that need to be specially ordered.
J R
Posted January 5, 2008 at 10:31 pm | Permalink
Yeah? Close election I give you. But can anyone argue Gore was the people’s choice there “get real”?
And tell me bush did not handle it VERY badly.
I wont disagree with your other points, but that is not what I pointed out. I thought Gore should have won because he had the most votes, but the law isnt written that way. It will happen again and a smart candidate will take advantage of the rules of the EC.
Yes, Gore was the people’s choice, but the EC system does not work that way. It is the fourth time in our history the EC has allowed the person with the most popular votes to lose. I want to see four pres elections in a row in which two Rep win and two Dem win. In each case, the loser should be the one with the most popular votes. Only then will you see the EC die the death it needed to die a long time ago.
Econ is correct on how much a pres can do. Congress has the real power in the country. Which would you rather be: pres or senate/house majority or minority leader? I would choose the latter because I would have more power and could blame the pres for everything that goes wrong and take credit for everything that goes right. I could run until I died or retired and not only 2 terms or 10 years.
Oh a President can do a whole lot more than that paulie.
He can start a war so certain business interests can benefit. (bush)
He can give most favored trading status to a nation like China that uses slave labor thus attacking American workers and unions. (bush)
He can forgo his most important responsibility to protect the nation and its borders if he sees it in the interest of commerce. (bush, Reagan)
And I could go on. But thing is? I don’t need to. IF a President was as inconsequential as you say, well why are you even here posting? Hobby?
Compensation?
That you are ok with Obama is enough for me to be against him.
And in the words of Forrest Gump “That’s all I got to say about that.”
I got ya Julie. Keep me informed.
On your comment about Clinton, I dont know too many Repubs who hate Clinton. They may dislike him, but thats it. I dont hate either one. Why should I give them power over me? If I hate or am angry at them, I give them power of my emotions, same as those of you who hate others, be they Bush, Clinton, or someone else.
I was undecided before the debates, but I would support an Obama/Edwards or Edwards/Obama ticket. They worked well together. One has the experience, the other has the people skills needed to win.
He can give most favored trading status to a nation like China that uses slave labor thus attacking American workers and unions. (bush)
You conveniently forget to mention he renewed Clinton’s earlier MFN status.
He can forgo his most important responsibility to protect the nation and its borders if he sees it in the interest of commerce. (bush, Reagan)
Clinton did any better?
And I could go on. But thing is? I don’t need to. IF a President was as inconsequential as you say, well why are you even here posting? Hobby?
Compensation?
Several of you seem stuck on this issue. Do you honestly believe people are paid to be here, other than the WE staff? The WE and WEBlog are insignificant in the grand scheme of things. If Kansas was a swing state, maybe it would make sense for someone to work this blog for money, but I doubt it. There are much cheaper ways to achieve much better results. I have yet to see any major switching of peoples attitudes on these kind of blogs over the last seven years of involvement in more than two dozen blogs. Group A argues with Group B and noone changes anything.
Check out last nights news, or was it 20/20. Both parties and most of the candidates admitted to having groups in charge of smear campaigns. They used other terms, but call a spade a spade.
On CNN last night there was a poll that said 61 percent of REPUBLICANS (and almost all Democrats) like Obama and 15 percent like Hillary. Likability isn’t necessarily the key to being a good president, but it is certainly doesn’t hurt in the process of getting there. As a Republican I think Obama is a good guy; I think other thoughts about Hillary and Edwards, two polarizing figures – a corrupt schemer and a divisive ambulance chaser. (The flip side was that lots of Democrats like McCain, but very few like Romney.)
Liking someone and nominating someone to run for President are two different things.
I like a lot of people and think they are tops as friends. However, I don’t think any of them would stand the rigors and trials of being President – neither would I.
The Presidential race will boil down to capability as it always does in November. It is not a popularity contest.
“As a Republican I think Obama is a good guy”
Yeah we are seeing alot of that. That is why Obama must NOT be the nominee.
Word is rumbling on the right. Hannity is hinting at it. Rush and that little troll Robert Novak too.
Rumors that Senator Clinton has a real nasty bomb to throw at Obama.
Now while I don’t like to see Democrats fight each other, (save it for the Republicans) IF there is a bomshell on Obama, I prefer Senator Clinton drop it soon. If she doesn’t the Republican nominee surely will later. We don’t need any October surprises.
3 Trackbacks
[...] WE Blog » The Wichita Eagle Editorial Department Blog placed an interesting blog post on Is Obama too nice?Here’s a brief overview [...]
[...] WE Blog » The Wichita Eagle Editorial Department Blog put an intriguing blog post on Is Obama too nice?Here’s a quick excerpt [...]
[...] Obama too nice? January 5th, 2008 unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptobama John Edwards may soon be toast [...]