More Change to Believe In

[pBills]

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.

 

 

How is McCain campaigning?

[/dev/null]

Do you notice the difference between these two websites?

 

McCain's got stars in his background (and his site took longer to load)

[Kelly the Dog]

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?

Going against your party is change.

 

I think people in general and his critics in particular have a much different standard and opinion of what he means by change in Washington. And they are holding him to outlandish standards that he never intended to or believed he could "completely change".

 

And yes, I know he is gathering a lot of support by the sweeping statements of change in his speeches. I just think you and others and most people are smarter than that, and know what he is really saying. He's a shrewd politician. If he's going to be the leader of the (previously) free world, you want him to be a very shrewd politician. And yes, he can change the way we do business in Washington and still be a shrewd politician. They are not mutually exclusive like his critics are implying.

 

Actually, I rarely visit liberal sites and I don't like moveon.org at all, or have much idea what they are doing at any time. I just avoid them, even though I know in theory that they stand for several things I believe in. I don't like stuff like that and I don't think those kind of organizations are good, or fair.

[Chilly]

How is McCain campaigning?

 

From what I've seen and am familiar with, on a small platform of governmental reforms and an appeal to issues in the middle.

 

Here's the difference:

 

Reforming Government. Americans have lost trust that their government and its elected officials will serve the Nation's interest and not their own. Special interests have too much influence in Washington. John McCain will bring spending under control, veto wasteful, pork-barrel spending bills every time, and keep taxes low. He will reform a tax code that is too complex and too burdensome. John McCain will modernize Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. He will bring accountability, choice and competition to underperforming schools, so our children are equipped to take the best jobs of the 21st century. John McCain is the only leader willing to make the hard calls necessary to restore faith in our government and build a brighter future for our children and grandchildren.

- JohnMcCain.com

 

Americans of every background and belief are hungry for a new kind of politics -- a people's politics that reconnects them with their government; one that offers not just a vote at the ballot box, but a voice in Washington and an assurance that the leaders we send there will hear it.

- Barack Obama

[GG]

Going against your party is change.

 

I think people in general and his critics in particular have a much different standard and opinion of what he means by change in Washington. And they are holding him to outlandish standards that he never intended to or believed he could "completely change".

 

I think in fairness, the critics have been few to date, because the GOP was having a field day watching the Dem primary (and taking notes), while the Clintons' efforts to take a hard line were met with disdain and sour grapes cries.

 

 

 

And yes, I know he is gathering a lot of support by the sweeping statements of change in his speeches. I just think you and others and most people are smarter than that, and know what he is really saying. He's a shrewd politician. If he's going to be the leader of the (previously) free world, you want him to be a very shrewd politician. And yes, he can change the way we do business in Washington and still be a shrewd politician. They are not mutually exclusive like his critics are implying.

 

Actually, I rarely visit liberal sites and I don't like moveon.org at all, or have much idea what they are doing at any time. I just avoid them, even though I know in theory that they stand for several things I believe in. I don't like stuff like that and I don't think those kind of organizations are good, or fair.

 

The change standard is something that he has embraced, but I have absolutely zero expectation that things will be as dramatically different as they're painted out to be. He's come a long way for a relative nonentity 2 years ago and illustrated himself to be be a prime opportunist well worthy of a Senate seat. But, now that he's on the big stage he and his supporters should not be surprised that he gets called out on almost immediate policy reversals (or as you may call them - clarifications).

 

As for moveon.org etc, they are rightly pissed because they formed a big spring board for his early support. Of course it also shows how really stupid they are in believing that he would be their agent of change.

 

Maybe Shaq can pen a song for moveon.org from Obama.

[pBills]

From what I've seen and am familiar with, on a small platform of governmental reforms and an appeal to issues in the middle.

 

Here's the difference:

 

- JohnMcCain.com

 

- Barack Obama

 

 

So one seems to be more detailed than the other, however both are about change.

[Wacka]

It's really, really getting crowded under the wheels of the Obama bus.

[Chilly]

(and his site took longer to load)

 

Thats because its not "Powered by Hope" like the Obama site.

 

Going against your party is change.

 

You mean like the 96.5% of the time he voted with the Democrats in the current congress?

 

I think people in general and his critics in particular have a much different standard and opinion of what he means by change in Washington. And they are holding him to outlandish standards that he never intended to or believed he could "completely change".

 

And yes, I know he is gathering a lot of support by the sweeping statements of change in his speeches.

 

You know why people are holding him to those standards? Because he's making "sweeping statements of change in his speeches." Those are the standards that he, himself, is laying out in his speeches.

 

I know its not realistic, you know its not realistic, and he knows its not realistic. The problem arises when you contradict your platform of honest government with dishonest language.

 

I just think you and others and most people are smarter than that, and know what he is really saying. He's a shrewd politician. If he's going to be the leader of the (previously) free world, you want him to be a very shrewd politician. And yes, he can change the way we do business in Washington and still be a shrewd politician. They are not mutually exclusive like his critics are implying.

 

The difference between us is you call his dishonesty being a shrewd politician, I call it bull sh-- and "more of the same".

[Chilly]

So one seems to be more detailed than the other, however both are about change.

 

Newsflash: All politicians in one way or another are about "change".

 

There is a huge difference between some small, specific changes to the system or policy issues and a large, grandiose vision of change for the entire governmental system.

[Kelly the Dog]

I think in fairness, the critics have been few to date, because the GOP was having a field day watching the Dem primary (and taking notes), while the Clintons' efforts to take a hard line were met with disdain and sour grapes cries.

 

 

 

 

 

The change standard is something that he has embraced, but I have absolutely zero expectation that things will be as dramatically different as they're painted out to be. He's come a long way for a relative nonentity 2 years ago and illustrated himself to be be a prime opportunist well worthy of a Senate seat. But, now that he's on the big stage he and his supporters should not be surprised that he gets called out on almost immediate policy reversals (or as you may call them - clarifications).

 

As for moveon.org etc, they are rightly pissed because they formed a big spring board for his early support. Of course it also shows how really stupid they are in believing that he would be their agent of change.

 

Maybe Shaq can pen a song for moveon.org from Obama.

One of the major elements of the change mantra, the one he actually says, is that he doesn't want these kinds of things like moveon to run politicians like they have in the past. people should applaud the fact he is going against them. And should acknowledge that he hasn't been bought by them. That is much if not most of what he talks about when he speaks of change, keeping moveon.org out of positions of dictating policy. There is no problem in the world in people or groups donating money to politicians and causes, or lobbying. There is only problems of undue influence. Is he going to rid Washington of it? Of course not. But not doing what these groups or lobbyists want you to do is a very good start and the change he means.

[pBills]

Newsflash: All politicians in one way or another are about "change".

 

There is a huge difference between some small, specific changes to the system or policy issues and a large, grandiose vision of change for the entire governmental system.

 

 

thnks for the news flash... I knew that thanks for helping though.

[Chilly]

One of the major elements of the change mantra, the one he actually says, is that he doesn't want these kinds of things like moveon to run politicians like they have in the past. people should applaud the fact he is going against them. And should acknowledge that he hasn't been bought by them. That is much if not most of what he talks about when he speaks of change, keeping moveon.org out of positions of dictating policy. There is no problem in the world in people or groups donating money to politicians and causes, or lobbying. There is only problems of undue influence. Is he going to rid Washington of it? Of course not. But not doing what these groups or lobbyists want you to do is a very good start and the change he means.

 

Oh, you're talking about this type of change:

 

Ordinary people, that is, if your definition of ordinary people includes bundlers who can collect six- and even seven-figure sums for your campaign. Because even as he was rhapsodizing in public about "the grass-roots values that have already changed our politics and brought us this far," Obama was privately cozying up to Hillary Clinton's major fundraisers.

 

Earlier this month, he dispatched his campaign manager, David Plouffe, to woo Clinton bundlers in Washington and New York. This week, Clinton will introduce Obama to nearly 200 of her major bundlers, including some who have raised $1 million or more, in a meeting at the Mayflower Hotel.

 

"This group could represent 50 million, if not 100 million, bucks," said one top Clinton strategist.

 

Their money is central to Obama's bet that he will do better raising money on his own than taking the $84 million in public financing for the general election. The Obama campaign is aiming to bring in another $300 million for the candidate -- $200 million of that from smaller donations, $100 million from the big players -- plus $150 million for the Democratic Party, much of which would also come in big contributions.

 

Donors can give $2,300 each to Obama's primary and general election campaigns. So can their spouses. Each can also give $28,500 to the party. So you and your spouse are welcome to write a check totaling $66,200. So much for the campaign truly funded by "ordinary people."

 

The Obama campaign likes to point out that 93 percent of its 3 million contributions have been $200 or less; nearly half have been $25 or less. Those numbers are impressive, and they reflect a healthier mix of small donors than the McCain and Clinton campaigns. But they are also misleading. One-third of Obama's cash has come in the form of contributions of $1,000 or more. Even in the age of the Internet, those don't tend to arrive courtesy of the Check Fairy. Bundlers help.

[Chilly]

thnks for the news flash... I knew that thanks for helping though.

 

Yet you continue to miss the point. I'm SHOCKED, SHOCKED I say.

[Kelly the Dog]

Oh, you're talking about this type of change:

Actually, that's sweeping change.

[Chilly]

Actually, that's sweeping change.

 

My point is that he hasn't done anything to remove undue influence from politics, he's just shifted how it gets done, and embraced the other way, to make it appear as though he's done something to remove undue influence.

[/dev/null]

My point is that he hasn't done anything to remove undue influence from politics, he's just shifted how it gets done, and embraced the other way, to make it appear as though he's done something to remove undue influence.

 

So what you're saying is that Obama has actually brought about change.

Just not constructive change.

 

Kind of like when the Bills ran the 3-4 defense and hired some hotshot coach who had a better idea and changed to a halfassed 4-6 then to a 4-3

[Chilly]

So what you're saying is that Obama has actually brought about change.

Just not constructive change.

 

Kind of like when the Bills ran the 3-4 defense and hired some hotshot coach who had a better idea and changed to a halfassed 4-6 then to a 4-3

 

Yup.

 

Sticking to his original promises and actually being honest by taking public financing would have negated the impact of the bundlers, and would have represented actual change, as he could have easily raised that money from individual contributors and the matching program. I would have been pretty damned impressed if he had actually done that.

 

Instead, he creates a bull sh-- argument how his rejecting public financing is somehow a better publicly financed campaign.

[Kelly the Dog]

My point is that he hasn't done anything to remove undue influence from politics, he's just shifted how it gets done, and embraced the other way, to make it appear as though he's done something to remove undue influence.

His job is NOT to remove undue influence from politics. He can't. That's just total bullschit and why I think people like yourself are asking way too much of him and not coming close to being fair.

 

His job is to NOT be unduly influenced. He's supposed to turn down all money that comes in $2300 checks from donors?

 

If you don't think the kind of money he raised, the way he raised it and how 50-80% of the hundreds of millions automatically cuts out any possibility of undue influence, you're just being ridiculous. You complain he kowtows to big money organizations and then he does just the opposite and you complain about that, too. His job now is to NOT be unduly influenced by the remaining 20-50% of the money that didn't come in $25-$50 donations.

 

His campaign has already turned the donation system on its ear, in a great way, and he should get a lot of credit for it.

[Chilly]

His job is NOT to remove undue influence from politics. He can't. That's just total bullschit and why I think people like yourself are asking way too much of him and not coming close to being fair.

 

Then he shouldn't lay out grandiose visions of American government where he has removed all undue influence from politics.

 

Its not total bull sh-- by the way - its called a completely, 100%, publically financed campaign system, with bans on lobbiests giving jobs to former politicians, and lobbyists becoming politicians or working in their offices. Anything short of that is not good enough from the guy who claims he's going to instutue a new kind of politics.

 

Look,

 

His job is to NOT be unduly influenced. He's supposed to turn down all money that comes in $2300 checks from donors?

 

Do you understand who bundlers are? Do you understand what they do?

 

Bundlers are corporate CEOs, bundlers are lobbyists, bundlers are hedge fund managers, bundlers epitomize everything thats wrong with American politics.

 

They get around the disclosure laws by not ever touching the money, so that they don't have to report it. They are performing the same exact function as the "Special Interests" and lobbyists that he blasted Clinton for. The same lobbyist money he claims to not have accepted.

 

If you don't think the kind of money he raised, the way he raised it and how 50-80% of the hundreds of millions automatically cuts out any possibility of undue influence, you're just being ridiculous.

 

Really? Planning on raising 100-150 million from bundlers cuts out "50-80% of the undue influence"? It does no such thing - it just narrows down who the power players are to a smaller number.

 

You complain he kowtows to big money organizations and then he does just the opposite and you complain about that, too.

 

No, he hasn't done just the opposite. He simply has shifted HOW he kowtows to big money organizations.

 

Doing just the opposite would be only accepting donations that are given by individuals. Accepting absolutely no money from the DNC, no money from bundling, no money from PACs, no money from corporations, no money from anything other than individuals.

 

He has NOT done this, and he is NOT planning on doing it.

 

His job now is to NOT be unduly influenced by the remaining 20-50% of the money that didn't come in $25-$50 donations.

 

Great, so we'll just trust the guy. Given that he's a politician (by your own admission), do you really think this is likely to happen? Especially since its already reported that he's cozying right up to Clinton's bundlers?

 

His campaign has already turned the donation system on its ear, in a great way, and he should get a lot of credit for it.

 

Really?

 

Is this why Barack Obama has 14 lobbyist bundlers working for him, after claiming he doesn't accept lobbyist money?

 

Is this why Barack Obama has 358 bundlers raising tons of money for him?

 

Sure, he's done a fine job of turning the donation system on its ear.

[SD Jarhead]

Damn BF...Nice Smackdown! That website is very informative...I learned quite a bit on it.

 

Good Luck convincing Kelly the Fair and Balanced Lefty or his kid brother pbills though. I think they're gone...they've already looked into His eyes. One you do that-it's all over.

 

Oh, shoot! KTFABL is going to report me now for not being fair.