Obama campaign Supporter STUMPED on legislative accomplishments

Obama campaign Supporter STUMPED on legislative accomplishments.

Amazing that the spokesman in the media for the Democrats, Chris Mathews of Softball, asked this question.

Obama is a 2 year Senator. No experience. He claims to have opposed the war from the start, but the guy was not even in the US Senate when the war vote was taken, so all we have is is word.

The guy goes to a church for 22 years where week after week the reverend spews anti-American hate speech but he states that he never heard it.

My sense is it that most Obama supporters would probably be unable to cite any of his legislative accomplishments. He is a novelity.

It's like I said in a different thread, you ask a candidate supporter why they like that candidate and they don't have much to say [that matters].

Obama is the great orator of change and as long as he keeps feeding his supporters bs they'll like him no matter what.

I agree with your sentiment.

Still it's better than Mr 100 years in Iraq/Bush 2.0. And at least Obama can think and speak in an organized and very powerful way. Something of a relief after Bush.

Also he won't die of old age in the middle of his term.

If McCain wasn't so stubborn about the war, and wasn't that old, I'd vote for him. He's fairly moderate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx

Still it's better than Mr 100 years in Iraq/Bush 2.0. And at least Obama can think and speak in an organized and very powerful way. Something of a relief after Bush.

---

If you read McCains entire comment about the “100 years” thing you will understand what he was trying to say. He does not want nor does he think combat operations are going to last 100 years. What he was talking about is it is highly likely that the US will have troops inside Iraq for many years, much the same way the US has troops in Germany and South Korea, in a purely peacekeeping role.

Unfortunately this has been spun (by Obama and Clinton with their willing accomplices in the media) into meaning McCain wants to fight the war in Iraq for the next 100 years. Anyone believing this is just a victim of spin and propaganda. It is unfortunate that so many people never look into anything anymore, but instead assimilate and accept for fact any and all sounds bytes that come out of the media.

As far as Obama he is excellent when reading a prepared speech from a teleprompter. However when he receives hard questions he stumbles and bumbles just like GWB. No one knows who Obama is because for most of his legislative career he has avoided any tough vote by missing it or voting present. The more I learn about Obama the less I like of him. I personally would love to see him and McCain do town hall meetings where people can ask each candidate off the cuff questions, I think everyone will begin to see Obama isn’t what the packaged and polished version everyone thinks he is now.

X

I think that Obama would make a great President in 8 or 12 years time. I love what he stands for, but I don't think he's got the clout or the experience to pull it off yet and his term would be more of a waste than it should be because he'd get blocked by bull**** more often than he'd need to.

Clinton and McCain would both make adequate one-term filler Presidents who can get a start on cleaning up the mess made left by Bush and Clinton would do a better job of that than McCain, but neither would be anything more than a historical footnote to the Bush legacy of inadequacy and incompetence. I hope that Clinton gets the nomination just so that Obama can come back and run in 8 years and not have to spend his time shovelling Shrub's garbage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xanith

If you read McCains entire comment about the “100 years” thing you will understand what he was trying to say. He does not want nor does he think combat operations are going to last 100 years. What he was talking about is it is highly likely that the US will have troops inside Iraq for many years, much the same way the US has troops in Germany and South Korea, in a purely peacekeeping role.

Unfortunately this has been spun (by Obama and Clinton with their willing accomplices in the media) into meaning McCain wants to fight the war in Iraq for the next 100 years. Anyone believing this is just a victim of spin and propaganda. It is unfortunate that so many people never look into anything anymore, but instead assimilate and accept for fact any and all sounds bytes that come out of the media.

As far as Obama he is excellent when reading a prepared speech from a teleprompter. However when he receives hard questions he stumbles and bumbles just like GWB. No one knows who Obama is because for most of his legislative career he has avoided any tough vote by missing it or voting present. The more I learn about Obama the less I like of him. I personally would love to see him and McCain do town hall meetings where people can ask each candidate off the cuff questions, I think everyone will begin to see Obama isn’t what the packaged and polished version everyone thinks he is now.

X

---

I don't care, I don't even want non-combat troops in Iraq, not for a 100 years.

The cost of that is horrendous, and America already has commitments all over the world, having to fund bases in Germany, Japan, Korea and Saudi Arabia.

Frankly America should consider getting rid of or reducing bases in Germany, Japan and Saudi Arabia. The only base we should keep is in South Korea because of the threat from the North.

Whatever happened to the Republican stance of fiscal responsibilty, and not being the world's police? No the Republicans are spending us into a depression and bankrupting this country.

At the VERY least, you know McCain will drag the war on, combat wise, for another four years, regarldess of whether there is progress.

Also, he jokingly told a student "you're drafted" when that student made fun of his age in an town-hall meeting. This is very distrubing, even as a joke, and I can't believe it didn't make bigger news.

I seriously believe McCain will prolong the Iraq war by as long as he is in office. I also believe he is much more likely to start another war with Iran then any of the Candidates we've seen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx

Whatever happened to the Republican stance of fiscal responsibilty?

---

republicans <> conservatives anymore.

Quote:

---

I seriously believe McCain will prolong the Iraq war by as long as he is in office.

---

Well, I think McCain will be more aggressive with an Iraq stance if he gets in, but this whole thing is a HUGE mess and no matter who gets in will be stuck with the unpopular decision to stay there.

Let's face it, no matter what your stance on Iraq is, the outcome is the same. If it was a mistake to be there, then we need to fix our mistake. It does suck to say that, but I don't think we have a choice. Leaving a country in mere anarchy would put the United States in a terrible, terrible position.

You know perfectly well that you're not going to leave the country in anything except a state of anarchy. The only other possible outcome is an Islamic theocracy. You've messed the place up too badly for anything else. You can spend another trillion dollars to fund however many terrorists you'd like, but it's not going to change anything.

Eventually, you're going to declare victory and run away in abject failure and there's not a whole lot of point in throwing more money down the drain before that, except that you want to avoid looking weak. Try to be men about it and go earlier, so you can put the money towards getting universal health care or knocking a trillion or so off your debt.

One trap this country has gotten into shows up in this thread. It is downright dangerous for a politician to speak in anything other than platitudes, and dangerous for them to have a defined record. Somebody pointed out that this years race is nearly unique in that no matter who gets elected it will be a senator. Senators often try for the presidency, but their success rate is abysmal. One theory as to why this is rest simply on the fact that having a history in the senate means that people actually know where you stand.

For example, Hillary had a plan for health care, and to run for office, it had to be popular or she was dead before the race because she was too well defined on the subject. McCain was considered dead because he was too well defined on Iraq, but when violence decreased in Iraq and the whole mess moved off the front pages, having a solid plan to remain in Iraq began to appear to be less of a liability, so McCain prospered.

From that perspective, Obama is doing well precisely because he lacks a definite record. Everybody can pin their hopes and dreams on him, because they can't know for certain that he won't support them. Alternatively, find any issue that the candidates can remain on the fence about, and all three of them are squarely on that fence. The few exceptions that might be cited could be the general position on the Bush tax cuts. All three candidates have what appears to be positions on the subject, but when you look closer, what you see is that they have all taken positions on a symbol of Bush, while leaving sufficient room that any resulting proposed legislation could be nearly anything.