OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 2

[wco81]

Bush is just a recent example.

Name any presidential candidate who campaigned exactly on what the agenda he pursued after getting in office.

The point is, no candidate does what he says on the stump.

Once they get in office, the circumstances have changed, he has to work with Congress and various interests, etc.

[Jackdog]

What candidate has been able to match campaign rhetoric with actions? Did Bush campaign on going to war in 2000 or winning the war in 2004? Did he talk about social security reform in the 2004 campaign, which is the first thing he attempted after his re-election?

And what makes you think I like Bush? I detest the man as a president.

But the difference between Bush and Obama is that Bush never was and never will be a skilled orator. It never has been a cornerstone of his political career. Bush's oratory, other than the "bullhorn speech" after Sept. 11, only has inspired the most rabid members of his party.

Obama, on the other hand, burst into the national spotlight based on a speech, at the Dems' convention in 2004. His campaign caught fire based on his early stump speeches. The guy doesn't have a long legislative record or a body of work as a politician, so he compensates with stirring oratory.

So yes, I think Obama faces more pressure to deliver on his oratory than a less-inspiring speaker since so much of his mojo is based on his ability to whip a crowd into a frenzy with his talk.

Seriously, what's one of the first things you think about when you ponder Barack Obama as a politician? For most people, it's either, "black dude" or "great speaker."

Take care,
PK

Obama does his best GW.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccJPj_1IOXg

If it's not scripted,he stuggles. Obama didn't do well in Rick Warren’s faith-based forum a couple of weeks ago.

[pk500]

Of course they don't deliver. But most candidates have either a track record of leadership in the executive branch as a state governor or a long record service in the U.S. Congress.

With Obama, we have neither. So swing votes -- which could determine this election -- for Obama may be based on people's belief that he can actually put that lofty rhetoric into action.

Now, if you say that's impossible, then what in Obama's past legislative record compels people to vote for him other than Bush/GOP fatigue? What has caused his rallies to become quasi-rock concerts at some stops? What has spawned his incredible fund-raising capacity?

His rhetoric, plain and simple.

Bush/GOP fatigue may not be a key issue with swing voters. They're willing to vote either way, so I think they need a reason to vote for McCain or Obama other than party allegiance. Belief that the ideals that Obama expresses eloquently in his oratory, and belief that he just might put some into action, could be an impetus for a swing vote to Obama.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

Jack-diggity:

One thing that YouTube video shows is the tremendous pressure and scrutiny that both Obama and McCain are under.

I believe Obama when he said he hasn't gotten much sleep. I bet both guys get five hours per night. Some people -- like you, I know! -- can function perfectly on that or less, but it shatters some people after a while.

All I know is that Obama had a full head of black hair 12 months ago, and now he's starting to show gray at the temples.

The campaign really is a grind, a marathon, mentally and physically. The stakes are so high -- can you imagine if Obama or McCain caught the flu or a bad cold in late October? That would be catastrophic for the campaign, yet these guys' immune systems must be taking a beating from the workload, lack of sleep, stress, pressure, bad food at rubber-chicken dinners, whistle stops, etc.

But hell, you already know that. You've worked on state and national political campaigns in the last three years!

Take care,
PK

[wco81]

Obama is more liberal than most of the country.

The country isn't drawn to health care reform or the quickest withdraw so much as driven away from the current admin's policies.

Clinton had the first shot at drawing on this discontent, even when Obama was drawing big crowds (despite trailing by huge margins in the polls) due more to curiosity factor than anything else.

There isn't this single-issue mantra that everyone gets like "It's the economy stupid" this time around.

In fact, some say the election is a referendum on Obama, not on the incumbent candidate/party as it has been in past elections.

The '92 and '96 elections were about the incumbency. This election may be about the challenger -- not what he proposes but whether the country will accept him.

McCain has no experience in executive branches of govt. at any level either. He can't keep track of personal assets like houses so you'd think there'd be questions about whether he could track the assets he'd be stewarding as president, combined with the various lapses he's demonstrated during the campaign.

But the experience is being turned on Obama and some of those citing it is using it as an alibi. Many of the same people citing Obama's lack of experience wouldn't have any such questions when they were raised about Bush in 2000.

[pk500]

Obama is more liberal than most of the country.

The country isn't drawn to health care reform or the quickest withdraw so much as driven away from the current admin's policies.

Clinton had the first shot at drawing on this discontent, even when Obama was drawing big crowds (despite trailing by huge margins in the polls) due more to curiosity factor than anything else.

There isn't this single-issue mantra that everyone gets like "It's the economy stupid" this time around.

In fact, some say the election is a referendum on Obama, not on the incumbent candidate/party as it has been in past elections.

The '92 and '96 elections were about the incumbency. This election may be about the challenger -- not what he proposes but whether the country will accept him.

McCain has no experience in executive branches of govt. at any level either. He can't keep track of personal assets like houses so you'd think there'd be questions about whether he could track the assets he'd be stewarding as president, combined with the various lapses he's demonstrated during the campaign.

But the experience is being turned on Obama and some of those citing it is using it as an alibi. Many of the same people citing Obama's lack of experience wouldn't have any such questions when they were raised about Bush in 2000.

All good points. But McCain does have a long track record in the U.S. Senate, which resonates with voters who cling to "experience" as a key issue.

Congressional experience must mean something to the Democrats, too. Otherwise, why choose Biden as the VP on the ticket?

As far as McCain forgetting how many houses he (check that -- Cindy) owns, that's not an issue of executive branch experience. That's an issue of the dude turning 72 this Friday and being 80 and sitting in the White House and leading the free world if he was a two-termer.

Take care,
PK

[Teal]

Many of the same people citing Obama's lack of experience wouldn't have any such questions when they were raised about Bush in 2000.

Bush was a two term Governor. I hardly think the comparison holds alot of water. He had experience governing.

Not that I think he's governed particularly well, domestically speaking...but that's beside the point. Obama's been running for president since the day he arrived in Washington.

[pk500]

Not that I think he's governed particularly well, domestically speaking...but that's beside the point. Obama's been running for president since the day he arrived in Washington.

Hillary has done the same since she brought her carpet bag to New York in 2000. That's why it will be very interesting to see if she can do anything effective for us here in the Empire State now that her presidential aspirations have been temporarily derailed, because she hasn't done sh*t for this state in the last eight years other than make a vain run for the White House.

Take care,
PK

[Teal]

Not that I think he's governed particularly well, domestically speaking...but that's beside the point. Obama's been running for president since the day he arrived in Washington.

Hillary has done the same since she brought her carpet bag to New York in 2000. That's why it will be very interesting to see if she can do anything effective for us here in the Empire State now that her presidential aspirations have been temporarily derailed, because she hasn't done sh*t for this state in the last eight years other than make a vain run for the White House.

Take care,
PK

I still think she'll call for a vote during the convention...it's the only reason she ever ran for a senate seat...

[SPTO]

I still think she'll call for a vote during the convention...it's the only reason she ever ran for a senate seat...

If Clinton does that she can kiss her political career goodbye. Doing something like that when the Dems are putting their full weight on Obama's run for the White House is akin to pointing a gun at oneself and demanding things go your way or else you'll pull the trigger.

Anyways as to Obama's lack of experience it's not like the US hasn't elected a guy with barely any experience. JFK was a one term senator who had a very pedestrian track record and look what happened there. Then again, he may have cheated with his connections to the Mob in Chicago. Also Kennedy basically lived up to what he promised during that election cycle. He's the last politician I can think of that has done that.

[pk500]

Anyways as to Obama's lack of experience it's not like the US hasn't elected a guy with barely any experience. JFK was a one term senator who had a very pedestrian track record and look what happened there.

What exactly did happen there, besides the race to the Moon? Dude put the world on the brink of nuclear war with the Cuban Missile Crisis, increased America's involvement in Vietnam, f*cked up royally with the Bay of Pigs. The Peace Corps and Alliance of Progress were arguably Kennedy's only accomplishments in foreign policy.

His results in domestic policy were mixed, too.

JFK is the most overrated U.S. president of the 20th century. His ambition and gloss far exceeded his results. You never know what might have been after Nov. 22, 1963, so examination of what happened is all there is.

Take care,
PK

[Inuyasha]

Anyways as to Obama's lack of experience it's not like the US hasn't elected a guy with barely any experience. JFK was a one term senator who had a very pedestrian track record and look what happened there.

What exactly did happen there, besides the race to the Moon? Dude put the world on the brink of nuclear war with the Cuban Missile Crisis, increased America's involvement in Vietnam, f*cked up royally with the Bay of Pigs. The Peace Corps and Alliance of Progress were arguably Kennedy's only accomplishments in foreign policy.

His results in domestic policy were mixed, too.

JFK is the most overrated U.S. president of the 20th century. His ambition and gloss far exceeded his results. You never know what might have been after Nov. 22, 1963, so examination of what happened is all there is.

Take care,
PK

CIA took advantage of his inexperience and screwed him on the Bay of Pigs. That's now pretty much accepted by historians. As for the Cuban Missile Crisis, one can argue if Nixon was President at that time instead of Kennedy, we would have probably had Nuclear war. Again, it's just speculation since we really wouldn't know what would have really happened. And LBJ, with all his experience going in, screwed up royally in Vietnam where at times he or his staff were allowed to make military decisions instead of letting the military.

Also remember Bush JR. was labeled with the inexperience tag against Gore. Bush Foreign policy was hijacked by the neocons and we're stuck with what we have today. Also, Reagan was criticized by Bush Sr. for lack of experience.

Overall, experience can be a plus or minus. Depends on the situation and the times. I like how Arnold handled the inexperience factor when he ran for California Gov. He put it back to them where he said look at all these guys with all these years of experience and look at the crisis we're in. Obama should take note of that in the debates.

[pk500]

Some of the comments in this Politico.com blog entry about Ted Kennedy's planned speech tonight at the convention are BRUTAL ... but oddly humorous:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... edule.html

Take care,
PK

[MACTEPsporta]

...look at all these guys with all these years of experience and look at the crisis we're in. Obama should take note of that in the debates.

Umm... you know that "CHANGE" thing you may have noticed during the last 18 months of Obama's campaign? That's it!

[RobVarak]

JFK was a one term senator who had a very pedestrian track record and look what happened there.

Exactly! See, you've only been here about a day and you're already coming around

Let's see, borderline nuclear annihilation because of amateurish brinksmanship? Check.

Increased involvement in Vietnam? Check.

Back corrupt South Vietnamese cabal in coup attempt? Check.

Bay of Pigs disaster? Check.

We'll stop there for now, leaving the smaller screw ups and personal "foibles" for another time.

But by all means, yes, let's order up another one of those! LOL

The Kennedy comparison really couldn't be more apt. Insubstantial, inexperienced cultural icon with a heretofore unimaginable impediment (JFK's Catholicism, Obama's race..and ears) runs a campaign focused on change, hope and a whole host of other ambigous platitudes. "High Hopes" = "Change We Can Believe In."

And you better believe that any last shred of subtlety with respect to this message will be discarded when they wheel Good Time Teddy out tonight and probably have him do everything but actually pass a real torch to the newbies. His scotch-stained hand will be passing the mantle of nanny-state liberalism from one generation to the next as clear as day.

[RobVarak]

CIA took advantage of his inexperience and screwed him on the Bay of Pigs. That's now pretty much accepted by historians.

No, it's really not "accepted by historians." Schlesinger has made that argument virtually since the day of the invation, but that conclusion hardly seems adequate. Kennedy personally oversaw changes to the plan which were militarily irresponsible and integral to the failure of the invation. He repeated this same mistake often, micromanaging both military and diplomatic endeavors without the skill, understanding or ability necessary to do so.

As for the Cuban Missile Crisis, one can argue if Nixon was President at that time instead of Kennedy, we would have probably had Nuclear war.

Well one can argue that the moon is made of cheese if one wishes, but that would not make one's argument likely to be an accurate portrayal of reality.

First and foremost, Krushchev admitted that he was more willing to play hardball with Kennedy because he was inexperienced and liberal. Secondly, it was Kennedy's rash willingnes to put missles in Turkey without expecting a response that predicated the USSR's move into Cuba.

It is unlikely that Nixon would have handled the Turkish situation the way JFK did, particularly since the Turkish deployment was of dubious military value...it was primarily to reassure the Turks and draw them closer to the West. Moreover, Kruschev's predisposition to go the the brink with JFK would almost certainly not have been present if he were dealing with Nixon...particularly given their personal history.

[MACTEPsporta]

If you continue to draw that comparison, you will eventually have to arrive at the fact that entire Obama family will have to be annihilated at some point to make this accurate. Oh, and you can pretty much assume that he won the election.

Seriously, though, I've heard Kennedy's speaches, and while he is no dummie, he isn't of Obama's level of intelligence. Not even close. If you actually had to have someone learn on the job - I'd prefer he was bright, very bright. Last eight years should serve as the best possible example.

[MACTEPsporta]

Moreover, Kruschev's predisposition to go the the brink with JFK would almost certainly not have been present if he were dealing with Nixon...particularly given their personal history.

Umm... their history? That began years after Cuban Crisis, so to assume their relationship would have been similar, if Nixon was president ten years earlier is a little naive. One of the reasons they got along so well, was because Khruschev viewed Nixon as a nice alternative to Kennedy and Johnson, and of course things were much quiter in the 70's. US wars were largely over, and Brezhnev was too busy handling problems within Politbyuro.

[RobVarak]

Moreover, Kruschev's predisposition to go the the brink with JFK would almost certainly not have been present if he were dealing with Nixon...particularly given their personal history.

Umm... their history? That began years after Cuban Crisis, so to assume their relationship would have been similar, if Nixon was president ten years earlier is a little naive. One of the reasons they got along so well, was because Khruschev viewed Nixon as a nice alternative to Kennedy and Johnson, and of course things were much quiter in the 70's. US wars were largely over, and Khruschev was to busy handling problems within Politbyuro.

Oh no, my friend. They quite famously went back to the Eisenhower years together. And many of Khruschev's references to JFK were clearly made to contrast him with Nixon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitchen_Debate

[pk500]

Moreover, Kruschev's predisposition to go the the brink with JFK would almost certainly not have been present if he were dealing with Nixon...particularly given their personal history.

Umm... their history? That began years after Cuban Crisis, so to assume their relationship would have been similar, if Nixon was president ten years earlier is a little naive. One of the reasons they got along so well, was because Khruschev viewed Nixon as a nice alternative to Kennedy and Johnson, and of course things were much quiter in the 70's. US wars were largely over, and Khruschev was to busy handling problems within Politbyuro.

Things definitely were much quieter for Khrushchev in the 70s: He died in 1971, so I don't think he was handling many problems in the Politburo during the 70s.

Take care,
PK

[MACTEPsporta]

I stand corrected. I didn't know he was VP under Eisenhower. That was a dead zone in Soviet-American relations.

[MACTEPsporta]

Things definitely were much quieter for Khrushchev in the 70s: He died in 1971, so I don't think he was handling many problems in the Politburo during the 70s.

Take care,
PK

My mistake, I meant Brezhnev, Khruschev wasn't in power for the second half of the 60's, let alone 70's.

[pk500]

Things definitely were much quieter for Khrushchev in the 70s: He died in 1971, so I don't think he was handling many problems in the Politburo during the 70s.

Take care,
PK

My mistake, I meant Brezhnev, Khruschev wasn't in power for the second half of the 60's, let alone 70's.

Dude's eyebrows used to freak me out when I was a kid:



Take care,
PK

[Rodster]

You don't see too many people sporting a unibrow. Andy Rooney must be jealous.

[RobVarak]

Those are clearly the eyebrows of a man who would nuke you without remorse. They should preserve those things like they do Lenin.