More Change to Believe In

[GG]

Most likely is... I would like for it to happen here as well. If we're going to talk politics, why question only one candidate?

 

Perhaps you can ask Pasta Joe how he feels about your point from the Dem primaries' POV.

[pBills]

Perhaps you can ask Pasta Joe how he feels about your point from the Dem primaries' POV.

 

 

 

Of course he is or was bitter. Most people who back someone to only have their candidate lose feel that way. No big deal.

[Chilly]

I see it as most people love to attack Obama and Democrats in general. And love everything but. Hardly a negative posts on McCain. Just funny to me.

 

:wallbash:

 

McCain: Doesn't have much of a following, and people understand he's a typical politician, so him acting as a typical jackass doesn't really make for much discussion.

Obama: Has a ton of people who believe he's the second coming of Jesus Christ himself because of his anti-typical politician ways.

[GG]

Of course he is or was bitter. Most people who back someone to only have their candidate lose feel that way. No big deal.

 

Way to miss the point (yet again)

[PastaJoe]

Of course he is or was bitter. Most people who back someone to only have their candidate lose feel that way. No big deal.

 

I'm not bitter, just disappointed. Obama is facing many of the questions now that should have been asked at the beginning of the primaries, but being the fresh face, he got a pass from the press early on. I said from the start he wasn't the agent of change he said he was, and recent policy shifts have made him more mainstream, thus the increased scrutiny. But even so, he's a change from the Bush/McCain policies, which is the change I'm most interested in. I don't care about how the sausage gets made, as long as it gets made to my taste.

[erynthered]

I'm not bitter, just disappointed. Obama is facing many of the questions now that should have been asked at the beginning of the primaries, but being the fresh face, he got a pass from the press early on. I said from the start he wasn't the agent of change he said he was, and recent policy shifts have made him more mainstream, thus the increased scrutiny. But even so, he's a change from the Bush/McCain policies, which is the change I'm most interested in. I don't care about how the sausage gets made, as long as it gets made to my taste.

 

 

I'm not sure about that metaphor, Joe.

[pBills]

I'm not bitter, just disappointed. Obama is facing many of the questions now that should have been asked at the beginning of the primaries, but being the fresh face, he got a pass from the press early on. I said from the start he wasn't the agent of change he said he was, and recent policy shifts have made him more mainstream, thus the increased scrutiny. But even so, he's a change from the Bush/McCain policies, which is the change I'm most interested in. I don't care about how the sausage gets made, as long as it gets made to my taste.

 

 

People asked the questions... how many debated did they have? He simply had a better campaign strategy than Hillary.

[PastaJoe]

People asked the questions... how many debated did they have? He simply had a better campaign strategy than Hillary.

 

Let's not rehash the primaries, but I'll just say he was never vetted to the degree he should have been, otherwise Rev Wright and other issues would have come to light sooner. And if the Clintons had brought them up, they would have been labelled as racists (again). The media dropped the ball. That's my last word and I'm stickin' to it.

[pBills]

Let's not rehash the primaries, but I'll just say he was never vetted to the degree he should have been, otherwise Rev Wright and other issues would have come to light sooner. And if the Clintons had brought them up, they would have been labelled as racists (again). The media dropped the ball. That's my last word and I'm stickin' to it.

 

 

I think both candidates could have been pushed harder. Fair enough on letting it go.

[SilverNRed]

I see it as most people love to attack Obama and Democrats in general. And love everything but. Hardly a negative posts on McCain. Just funny to me.

Maybe that's because McCain isn't running on a platform of "Vote for me and it will be recorded in history books as the greatest accomplishment by this or any other society in human history."

 

Maybe that's also because the media already gives Obama every benefit of the doubt possible.

[pBills]

Maybe that's because McCain isn't running on a platform of "Vote for me and it will be recorded in history books as the greatest accomplishment by this or any other society in human history."

 

Maybe that's also because the media already gives Obama every benefit of the doubt possible.

 

 

 

McCain is planning change as well, not going to be the same politics as GW. Seems like he's getting the free pass at least around here.

[Chilly]

McCain is planning change as well, not going to be the same politics as GW. Seems like he's getting the free pass at least around here.

 

Maybe typing it in all caps will work:

 

OBAMA'S "CHANGE" ISN'T SIMPLY DIFFERENT POLICIES, ITS SUPPOSED TO BE A DIFFERENT FORM OF POLITICS ALTOGETHER.

 

If you want to talk about McCain, start the frickin thread.

[pBills]

Maybe typing it in all caps will work:

 

OBAMA'S "CHANGE" ISN'T SIMPLY DIFFERENT POLICIES, ITS SUPPOSED TO BE A DIFFERENT FORM OF POLITICS ALTOGETHER.

 

If you want to talk about McCain, start the frickin thread.

 

 

Different policies and a different approach to politics... EVERYTHING should be looked over.

 

 

NEVER SAID a thread needed to be started!!! I SAID I FOUND IT BE FUNNY. How was that?

[SilverNRed]

McCain is planning change as well, not going to be the same politics as GW. Seems like he's getting the free pass at least around here.

Because Obama's entire campaign slogan is the word "CHANGE" in all capital letters. McCain isn't doing that.

 

This can't possibly be hard to understand.

[Kelly the Dog]

What I don't like, specifically, is that after saying he wouldn't support any bill with retroactive telecom immunity, he's decided to go ahead and do just that.

 

Who gives a flying !@#$ if there is a provision to investigate what happened? There is still no liability here if a crime was committed.

 

A real candidate of change would have had a backbone and stood up for what he had previously said he believes in.

Bills change and then positions change. Politicians on both sides make strong statements to get as far as they can on something, and then at some point decide they either need to hold out longer or they compromise on what they can get. That's the way the system works. He has never said he isn't going to change his vote after a bill has been altered.

 

For the record, I have no idea what is really in that bill, and whether it's good or not. Or his vote is a good one. For all I know, his earlier stance was better and now he's making a huge mistake.

 

What I take issue is the gotcha stuff that ruins the discussions on the merits of the actual moves. Of course, he is going to compromise at time and change his views depending on what the new version says, and how far he thinks other legislators will go. He's a politician. His "candidate of change" is not expected to completely transform the political system or the way things get done in Washington. That's foolish, and foolish to hold him to it.

 

And yes, he is going to flip-flop on some issues for political advantage. And it's very fair to criticize him for it. Although it MUST BE done at times by everyone.

 

He has to vote on what he believes is the right thing at the time. Blame his vote if you wish. Again, I don't know if it's the right thing but I do like that he isn't going with his party all the time.

 

And no, a real candidate doesn't always stand up for what he believes in. A real candidate often times decides how much he can get. If you hold out for what you believe in when it is 10-20-30% of the bill, you can easily get 0% forever instead of 70-80-90%

[GG]

Because Obama's entire campaign slogan is the word "CHANGE" in all capital letters. McCain isn't doing that.

 

This can't possibly be hard to understand.

 

It is to Brian Fellows

[Chilly]

Different policies and a different approach to politics... EVERYTHING should be looked over.

 

Do you notice the difference between these two websites?

 

NEVER SAID a thread needed to be started!!! I SAID I FOUND IT BE FUNNY. How was that?

 

And I quote, which you can read from scrolling up in this very thread:

 

"I would like for it to happen here as well. "

[GG]

What I take issue is the gotcha stuff that ruins the discussions on the merits of the actual moves. Of course, he is going to compromise at time and change his views depending on what the new version says, and how far he thinks other legislators will go. He's a politician. His "candidate of change" is not expected to completely transform the political system or the way things get done in Washington. That's foolish, and foolish to hold him to it.

 

And this is where I disagree. His campaign is all about change. The whole reason he's been able to gather so much grass roots support solely because people believe he'll be an agent of change. So, it's not unreasonable to hold him accountable for the major theme of his campaign.

 

I'm sure you've seen the non-subtle grumblings at Moveon & other liberal sites this week starting petitions condemning Obama's embrace of conservative views?

[Chilly]

What I take issue is the gotcha stuff that ruins the discussions on the merits of the actual moves. Of course, he is going to compromise at time and change his views depending on what the new version says, and how far he thinks other legislators will go. He's a politician. His "candidate of change" is not expected to completely transform the political system or the way things get done in Washington. That's foolish, and foolish to hold him to it.

 

And yes, he is going to flip-flop on some issues for political advantage. And it's very fair to criticize him for it. Although it MUST BE done at times by everyone.

 

He has to vote on what he believes is the right thing at the time. Blame his vote if you wish. Again, I don't know if it's the right thing but I do like that he isn't going with his party all the time.

 

There's a big difference between:

 

1.) Stating that you are completely, positively against something, winning votes from it, and coming to a compromise that doesn't jeopardize these values (honest way)

2.) Stating that you are completely, positively against something, winning votes from it, and then once the political capital you gained from doing so runs out, coming to a compromise that completely throws these values under the bus (dishonest, old way)

 

Obama was campaigning as #1, his actions are #2.

 

EDIT: What GG said.

[pBills]

One is designed better than the other? :-)