![]() |
Quote:
Done? I was hearing about this on NPR on my way home last night. In fact they quit merely saying that Wright had made inflamatory statements, and finally started playing the sound bytes. This isn't over. If NPR has gotten off of the fence on that side of the issue. I don't think it is off of the radar today. |
Quote:
+1 And I'm even more confident about the "never" part. |
Breaking news from CNN: Hillary Clinton's passport file was breached in 2007.
|
Quote:
Well, we DID see it back in 1992, but that was a Republican political appointee as opposed to contract employees like we have here. I know they're out there, but I have yet to meet a Republican civil servant or bureaucrat since I moved here. And considering I run in largely conservative social circles, that's kinda surprising. |
Not going to church makes sure you are not taken down by your own preacher. :D
|
Michigan apparently won't be re-doing their primary, either.
|
Now they are reporting that Mcain's passport file was breached too.
|
Clearly, agents of Ralph Nader are behind this.
|
Quote:
All three presidential candidates had their passport files breached. The conspiracy theorists need to move on to something else. |
So I'm assuming it's just some curious folks passing the time. When I was a freshman at Michigan I worked for the Admissions office, and I looked up information on just about everyone I knew -- so I can understand.
|
Maybe it's Ron Paul and Nader teaming up to form a super secret alliance. It happens on Big Brother.
|
Maybe this is from the brilliant mind of Aston Kutcher and they are getting punked.
|
Quote:
No, I just read a post elsewhere that the McCain thing was either made up or purposely done to make it LOOK like it wasn't targeting the Dems. :rolleyes: |
My money's on a secret coalition between Mitt Romney and John Edwards to retake the presidency as the real "dream ticket". ;)
|
Roland Martin makes some good points here.
|
I think he also posted somewhere the entire 9/11 speech given by the Pastor just to show how out of context everything was, and how the speech was basically about violence breeding violence (our violence towards Native Americans, Mexicans, Japanese-nuke, etc). But, some people want to make it a straw man and bring the focus away from a never ending war and sagging economy. Not that any of the candidates has really gone in to detail on anything...
|
Quote:
This is a YouTube link to the full sermon (about 10 minutes long): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ |
The 9/11 speech doesn't contain any of the comments I've been reading about or specifically objected to. It doesn't even have the GD America comment, which is what I thought started this whole thing. How does this speech become the focal point on Wright?
|
Quote:
does he talk about the aids stuff? |
The only AIDS-related comment I recall from that speech was something about how little money the government is spending on AIDS research, education, and healthcare, yet they just paid out $40B to rebuild NY.
|
Well, Richardson's endorsement of Obama is helpful but maybe not as much in PA as Edwards would.
|
Quote:
I sorta see it at this point to being likened to a situation where you sign a player so your opponent can't. The rumor on the street is Edwards to Clinton, but conventional wisdom was Richardson to Clinton due to the ties. Maybe he's waiting until after the primary there? Who knows what he's doing. Maybe he's changing his chameleon outfit again. |
Interesting story on the black liberation theology I mentioned earlier. Frankly, I'm glad to see a newspaper talk about this rather than comb through more sermons from Rev. Wright or Rev. Moss. It'll be interesting to see how many of the McClatchy papers run this and how many other press entities use it as a springboard for stories of their own.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/v-print/story/31079.html Quote:
|
Quote:
The dastards! SI |
![]() Means nothing I know but I thought it was worth posting. |
Is this the thread where we mention that Reagan seriously consulted with astrologers?
|
Quote:
Only if we can mention that at the time that was seen as awfully controversial, right? |
Quote:
and then ultimately overlooked, right? |
It didn't become a controversy until 1988. Were you expecting a third term?
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16...880516,00.html Besides which, astrology, while kooky, doesn't claim that the Libra is keeping the Scorpio down, nor does it proclaim that rich white Aries are creating deadly viruses and addictive drugs to give to the Virgos. But I believe the basic point of "I don't find this to be a big deal" vs. "I do find this to be a big deal" has kind of been beaten into the ground. I don't think you can rationally make the statement that "most people don't believe this is a big deal". Obama's poll numbers over the past couple of days indicate it IS a story people are interested in, regardless of how big an issue it will be on Election Day. |
Quote:
Like the polls from today that showed a marginal tick up for Obama? Not the free-fall that was expected. http://www.gallup.com/poll/105559/Ga...Obamas-45.aspx |
Quote:
I think you can rationalize this because "most people" in the U.S. right now are paying attention to politics in March, and couldn't care less what's going on in the primaries. It will be all but forgotten or explained away by November. |
I haven't heard this discussed anywhere, so I figured to post it anyway.
Politico talks about The Clinton Myth. Quote:
|
Cartman,
I was actually thinking about the Survey USA polls when I wrote that, but hell, even Gallup notes that Obama's support has fallen from 50% a week ago to a low of 42% (and now back up to 45%). Yes, Obama's taken a hit in his public support no matter how you slice it. Quote:
I won't waste any energy trying to persuade you otherwise, but I think you're wrong on both counts. |
Quote:
Roland Martin always makes some good point (he's by far my favorite columnist). |
I found this interesting....
|
One more, which helps me understand "God Damn America" much better. Nice to see the comments in context.....
The key line is at the end, but the build up makes you understand it, especially the last couple minutes. |
Quote:
Story Quote:
|
Ah, a Jimmy Carter connection. Probably says it all.
|
President of the United Church of Christ at Trinity UCC. Comments might surprise you.
|
Ward Churchill also used the "chickens are coming home to roost" line too, but I don't think it's fair to characterize it as "pseudo-Native American rage".
Peck is also a "Truther" (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...1026093059633), so I'm not sure that he adds any legitimacy to Rev. Wright. It seems to me the tone of that piece is to try to say that since in this case, Wright quoted a white guy, he can't possibly be a racist. But Wright himself took pains to point out that Peck is white. Who the hell cares what color his skin is? This is what I mean about EVERY action or comment having to be seen through the prism of race. |
And no, the comments don't surprise me. UCC is a socially liberal church and has been for years. I'm sure the church leadership doesn't see anything particularly controversial about Rev. Wright's comments, nor would they see a need to step in and tell the church what to say. To do so in this case would probably be seen as abhorrent in the context of liberation theology.
|
I've been wondering why nobody has reported on the Clinton almost ZERO chance of winning the standard delegate count. Even if she takes 60 percent of remaining delegates, she can't beat Barack. And the re-votes would do nothing but further solidify Barack, and may just give him enough votes to clinch the nomination. The rest of the supers aren't going to break 100 percent to her, I mean there's basically no reason she's still in this race. It makes her look more like the egotistical whore that she is.
|
Cam: Since nobody else will answer I'll ask you. What's fundamentally different between saying America's chickens are coming home to roost and blaming 9/11 on our sins and immorality? That's a position held by hundreds of thousands or millions of largely Republican voters.
On church leadership, I think UCC operates roughly the same as The Disciples of Christ. I know we have a lot of connections and I think "management" works the same way. In Disciples churches the idea is that the congregation develops the church. We have wildly liberal and more conservative churches. My church in Silver Spring was multi-racial and politically diverse. One of the big downtown Disciples churches was almost all black and more liberal. If you go farther towards Gaithersburg they're almost all white. If the UCC works the same way it has much less to do with liberal politics and much more in a fundamental belief in the autonomy of individual churches. |
Quote:
In an honest attempt to understand your position on this I am asking these questions. Hopefully it comes out sounding like I mean it, non-confrontational or even biased one way or the other..... Do you believe the whole speech as it is is still controversial and borderline hate speech? If yes, then what is it that you feel is so wrong about it, that it is in a church? That it is talking about (in an angry tone?) the wrongs of our past to present governments as seen by him (and many others in this country)? |
Quote:
By re-votes, I guess you're talking about Michigan and Florida, but I thought they would be expected to break Clinton's way with a re-vote. |
Quote:
Stephen Colbert: Quote:
Good stuff. As you were. |
got a chuckle out of this:
![]() And, for a little balance on both dem candidates: ![]() |
Quote:
Do you find Obama's relationship to Wright as concerning or more concerning compared to McCain's "relationship" with Falwell/Robertson? |
Quote:
Unless they are future cabinet members or will be consulting on policy decisions, what does it really matter? Really, all this is getting old and has no bearing on anyone's "fitness" to be president. People can chase this strawman all they want, but this overreaction just hurts the party (part of the reason Hillary has stayed silent). I mean, of course the people who support Bush/McCain will jump all over it, but in the grand scheme of things, nothing this guy said is really that much different from some other guys like Falwell/Robertson. |
|
Quote:
I find McCain's willingness to compromise his principles in pursuit of electoral success more concerning than Obama's relationship to his pastor, which he's explained fully now. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
That figures. On the flip-side, I find McCain's "relationship" with Falwell to be miniscule and irrelevant compared to Obama's relationship to his pastor of 20 years and I believe that Obama will tell you everything and anything and is willing to let words shroud his true principles. So we're both a couple of partisan hacks. Great! |
Quote:
Ultimately it matters a lot if he asks Reverend Wright who should be in cabinet positions. As one of Obama's dearest long-time friends and a very politically charged person, I don't doubt Rev Wright will be putting his two cents into the cabinet process. Quote:
The content of one's character should be investigated if they are running for President, even if they are liberals. Quote:
Hillary is not staying quiet for the Party's sake as much as she is hoping to be the winner of a lot of serious scrutiny of Obama Barack. Much like McCain won the day when the press scrutinized newcomers Huckabee and Romney. Quote:
People who support Obama should jump all over this thing instead of closing their eyes and ears. Obamamaniacs should stop getting down on their knees and crying and instead seriously investigate this newcomer. That's what this time period is for. The reason we have a process before we vote is to investigate the candidates, not get "tired" of the scrutiny and wish election day was already here. |
Quote:
I agree. |
Let's try something.
Imagine there was a religious figure who has been accused of brainwashing his followers. Imagine this man is a convicted felon. Imagine his son, who he referred to as "Perfect Adam" was married to a teenager who claims she was beaten, raped, and held against her will on multiple occasions. Imagine that he has prearranged marriages for thousands of people worldwide. Now imagine this man calls himself the True Father and believes he is the messiah. Imagine that he calls for the abolition of the Constitution and desires dictatorial powers for himself. Imagine that he says God hates freedom. Imagine he says he is gaining access to prominent politicians to further his goals. Imagine this man gives tens of thousands of dollars to politicians and millions to past politicians and politically connected figures. Imagine he opens media outlets designed to further his chosen politicians and his faith. Imagine he becomes so politically influential that he meets with Presidents and former Presidents and has an event where American politicians crown his as the Messiah. Imagine this man has billions of dollars that he uses to further his goals. Imagine that he has business dealings with a prominent member of the Axis of Evil and may have given them billions of dollars. Shouldn't a political party's relationship with that guy be just as important as Obama's relationship with Wright? You'd think the same people who are frothing over Wright would at least have taken some time in the past to condemn the host of politicians and party faithful willing to take that guy's money and knowingly help him further his agenda. But, of course, we can't talk about Rev. Sun Myung Moon and his ties to the Republican party and the Bush family in particular. |
Quote:
So we should take Wright into consideration for this or not? Help me out, here. |
I don't really care, but if Wright, who has comparatively little influence, is important shouldn't Moon, who donates millions, has his own conservatively aligned media empire, gives money to the North Koreans, and is connected to virtually every conservative politician in the U.S., be just as important?
|
Quote:
Firstly, I'm not an Obamamanic, I even voted Hillary in this poll. I've stopped caring after all those debates. But I don't see anything that suggests Wright has a major influence on policy, in fact it would seem as though Obama started distancing himself before that even came out. People who support Hillary/McCain will just add this to something they can chase, and these little annoying spats are just hurting politics. I mean, CNN felt the need yesterday to make an article about how the CEO of the contractor who was caught snooping at files had donated to Obama's campaign. Buried in the article was the fact that the CEO of the other contractor was a Hillary supporter. But the headline was "CEO of state dept. breach an Obama donor!!!!!!" I saw the comments on this article and it was nothing but Hillary/McCain supporters talking about how this CEO obviously instructed his worker to go through the files to distract from the current "scandal" (despite the fact the first breach took place 2+ months ago). My point is, people like to make mountains of out molehills, especially this early in the process. If you think Obama is somehow going to bring some white-hatred thing to the office, or consult Wright before making his decisions (we all know that won't happen now), then you are seriously partisan-delusional. Do I have to remind people who GWB selected to be his medical advisor/FDA guy? Who was he consulting on that? |
Pat Buchanan wonders where the gratitude is:
Link Quote:
|
So now it's time for everyone to turn partisan hacks? *sigh*
|
Quote:
I just don't see it. Obama's entire campaign has been on bringing different people, parties and races together based on hope. Then, we find out his closest advisor on a personal level says these things about race. It really does matter and is different. Still, if he can get past it and get the focus back on his message, he should be OK for the primaries. IMO, we may be looking back in November thinking "If Obama would have just distanced himself from the rev a little more back in March, he may be president". |
His rhetoric (Buchanan) has really gotten ugly in recent years. I mean, he's just regurgitating talking points from the nationalist right at this point and so, so paying him any mind at this point is really silly. The main difference of course, is that he gets a forum on national television as an opinion commentator.
Of course, Jesse Jackson had a show on CNN for a while. So...I guess whatever works. But this stuff isn't so much vitriol as it does repeat the oft-cited and falsely noted myth that social service programs in this country were devised by altruism intended to help colored folks out of their bleak situations. It would almost be comedic if there weren't millions of folks who truly believe this to be the case. But I guess will believe what they'll believe. I thought it was actually surprisingly caustic from him, so that's why I posted it. |
Quote:
You folks are overstating the influence and the personal relationship of Rev. Wright and Obama. The media spins "spiritual adviser" to mean something beyond what the true intent was. Even if you claim he's playing politics on this one, to me, it's akin to a close family member that you don't want coming out and saying something crazy, because he's old and can be prone to say crazy thing. I think Barack looked up to Rev. Wright in terms of his Christianity and given that last year, the debate was whether the Democrats could convert some of the "moral majority" to their side, I think he was trying to carve out a way to let folks know that he had a spiritual backbone. Rev. Wright isn't going to torpedo this candidacy. It's lunacy to suggest otherwise. Other things might do it, but this isn't the thing. Not in a week here you all swore it'd kill his campaign and he ended up regaining the lead in the polls and getting a major superdelegate to come to his side of the aisle. He should've been dead in the water and instead, he took the worst week of his campaign and effectively neutralized it by using those oft-cited 'words' and gave a blunt speech on a conversation that most folks would rather gloss over or completely ignore with a simply stroke of a magic wand. I think the general election will be a very stark contrast in conversations. The problem for the Dems is all of this "John McCain is an American hero" talk that they keep spewing before they decide to attack him. That's going to stick with folks who don't know Obama well and who already know all they need to about Hillary. But this entire race was unpredictable in January, so to act as if it's all played now in March is very premature. |
Considering the overall US budget just passed the $1 trillion mark for the first time in 1987, it is pretty safe to say his estimate of $40 trillion spent on social programs is way off. In any event, he seems to be overlooking the fact that white Americans make up about 60% of those on welfare. Hardly a program set up to exclusively help the black community, as Buchanan seems to be intimating.
|
Arles: You're way off limiting Moon to a donor who went to a banquet. He's kept in the background, but from his early relationship with Reagan and company and the founding of the Washington Times he's been one of the most important sources for cash in the entire conservative movement. That cash has paid off by giving Moon the legitimacy he's so eagerly desired.
Bush I has received millions in speaking fees from Moon and has praised his vision and principles. Neil Bush has also spoken in praise of Moon and done other work for some of Moon's shadow companies. Bush II has appointed a few Moonies to prominent positions in the government. During Bush's first term millions in abstinence only education funds were given to a Moon front group. The pinnacle was the crowning ceremony held in the Dirksen Senate office building a couple of years ago. A number of congressmen were in attendance, although not surprisingly no one is willing to take credit for booking the event. In effect everything you worry that Wright could do, Moon has done. In the end I don't really believe that Moon is anything for these politicians but an ATM. I don't really worry about Bush declaring Moon the dictator of the US, just as I don't believe Obama is going to throw whitey down a well. The point is that unless you're willing to condemn Moon and his political allies as vigorously as you do Wright and Obama, you really are just taking an opportunity to damage a political opponent with no higher principles than personal destruction. |
Quote:
Except that is was spearheaded by an Illinois Democrat? The thing that makes what Wright said and his alledged influence is the fear of violence, as we have seen in the past and what I remembered growing up seeing the race riots personally. It's one thing to be influenced by money and its evils, but it is another thing to want to purposely do harm to another group. You know it won't take much to have race clashes in certain parts of the country. That is a fear contemplated if Hillary steals the nomination. That is why any kind of race-baiting, hatemongering should be categorically shutdown and not allow to fester. |
Moon wants to convert or kill anyone who doesn't believe he's the Messiah. He's actively supporting the North Koreans. In the seventies thousands of young American were brainwashed by Moonies to the point where deprogramming them was relatively prominent.
I stand by my belief that if you aren't willing to apply the same scrutiny to people connected with Moon that you are to people connected Wright you're engaging in nothing more than an opportunistic political attack. If the concern is influence by people who are so radical as to be potentially dangerous how can you not see that connections to Moon are at least equally troublesome? As to the Crowning ceremony, I don't think it's clear who setup the event as it may have been Curt Wheldon, but it's true that some Democrats were also in attendance. Over the past few years Moon has been pouring a lot of money into primarily African-American churches and a few politicians. In the grand scheme of things his influence in the black community is minimal, but his Tear Down the Cross initiative has been primarily aimed at black churches. And for the record, I absolutely have problems with politicians of all stripes connected to a man as dangerous as Moon. |
Honestly, I'd feel a lot better about Wright if it was shown he donated a ton of money to Obama. Then, atleast, we could write this whole thing off as fundraising. But, with Wright not giving that much money, why has Obama stood so close to him for these many years?
|
Arles: Thanks for proving my point.
|
Has Wright donated a ton to Obama? If not, something Wright has been saying must resonate with Obama for him to stay close to him this long.
|
Obama's Talk Fuels Easter Sermons
A snippet: Quote:
|
Quote:
...depending on what side of the political spectrum you are on. |
Quote:
Any chance it might be the message in the other hundreds of hours of sermons Wright has given outside of the snippets that have been over focused on? No, that can't be it, can it? Obama must have had the patience of Job to sit through years of "boring" religious sermons to get to the "juicy" parts he just knew would be taken out of context and plastered all over the place. |
Quote:
Wait, you've just figured this out? :eek: :p |
Rev. Otis Moss took over recently as senior pastor and was in an Obama ad a while back, explaining what their church is all about. Well before there was all of this hullabaloo.
Here's the Easter Sunday sermon from today at Trinty UCC. Pt. 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQJPV1VMRqo) Pt. 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEcnR3woihU) Pt. 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kCfUxKoDGQ) Pt. 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XonscQyCkHI) Pt. 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsywwUk3TRU) |
I caught a few minutes of Mark Levin's show on Friday night and just had to roll my eyes. Levin was off, so I have no idea what he's been saying about the Wright matter, but his fill-in is a guy named Chris Plant who's also the 9-noon host on WMAL in D.C.
This guy made me want to throw things at my radio. First he starts off with the heavily edited soundbites of Wright, then takes a call from someone who is trying to reasonably disagree about Wright and his influence on Obama. Plant starts yelling at him, accuses him of trying to change the subject, and then hangs up on him. Sometimes I hate talk radio. And frankly, if THAT'S the level of discourse about Wright, then it really will be a non-issue in a matter of weeks. Which is sad, because I think it could really be fascinating radio to have a serious debate about black liberation theology, politics and the pulpit, etc. And yes, if I were doing that show I would talk about Hagee and McCain. Hell, I might even reference the Moonies. |
Quote:
That would be cool, if it wasn't for the gun thing. :) |
Quote:
I think if you could expand on that a bit I'd love to hear it. I've generally been frustrated by the idea that faith is of utmost importance for our politicians, but the tenets of that faith are generally considered out of bounds for discussion. I'm bothered by the idea that the media is so accepting of an undefined faith when it's the specific beliefs within that faith that determine it's role on the individual. There are real differences between faiths, be they Black Liberation, Muslim, Mormon, Prosperity Gospel, etc. If faith is going to be an issue at all it should be as an examination of the tenets of that faith. IMO once a person says their faith is important it demands the question, what do you believe? I would warn you though that me listening probably won't make up for all the other listeners that want a more black and white discussion. |
Quote:
Did you miss the part where Obama spent about 40 minutes a week ago explaining it. |
Quote:
In trying to determining who Obama is, we only have 3 sources of information: 1. His words 2. His actions in political life 3. Who he chooses to have close relationships with If you don't buy completely into 1 and feel item 2 is not enough to get a full picture of what he stands for. I think it's fair for people to look at item 3 when trying to determine who Obama will be as a president. |
Quote:
Now that's a show I might actually listen to. Even though you're a right-wing gun nut. :p Quote:
But it's not necessarily his political views, and that's what I think Obama was getting at (in fact he said this very clearly). I think this happens a lot in real life. For instance, the rabbi who married my wife & I is a really great guy. Really open and liberal about a lot of things (inter-faith marriage, for one), and really helped us with a lot of questions a Jew and non-Jew have when they ge married. I have a lot of respect for him. On the other hand, he's also pretty militantly pro-Israel, in a sort of "bash the Palestinians" kind of way. It's a political viewpoint to which I (and my wife) are very opposed. But political views don't necessarily equal pastoral care, and that, to me, is the incredibly important distinction everyone who's bashing Obama is missing. Quote:
Obama's message isn't just hope. It's also unity and the belief that Americans can come together, regardless of their partisan backgrounds, and develop solutions that achieve success. If you want unity it's easy to get the illusion of it by simply disassociating yourself with anyone who disagrees with you. Obama, from the Illinois Senate to the U.S. Senate, has instead sought out the other side and sought compromise. And what he's said with Wright is that it would be easy to throw him under the bus, but that's not what getting to the middle ground is all about. It would be easy to ditch Wright, and Buchanan, and Jackson, and Falwell, and Farrakhan, and Robertson, and then come up with some sort of "unity" that doesn't unite the whole country. And, you know, maybe you can't, anyway. But maybe it's worth trying. But Obama at least doesn't want to take the easy way out. |
Quote:
That's a wonderful generalization. When he starts getting into particulars about what specific policies he's going to implement that will facilitate those solutions, then I'll start listening. Until then, he's a 'hope' candidate with no firm comments on record as to how he will unite the country as president through government policies. Quote:
The last thing I want from a president is to promise that his 'unity' will include the wackos on either extremist wing. They SHOULD be throwing some of these ideas 'under the bus' because they make little sense and don't represent the beliefs and needs of most U.S. citizens. There's a reason their views don't gain any traction in most government policy. It's a representative government and few people hold those extremist beliefs. |
Quote:
For a parallel, imagine a scenerio where it came out that McCain's closest economic advisor for the past 20 years was very anti-tax cut and in favor of bigger government spending and higher taxes to build jobs/economy. Now, it very well could be that McCain simply liked the guy as a person and didn't always agree with his tax policy, but I would fully expect much of the media to hammer him hard on inconsistencies between his stump speaches (keeping the Bush tax cut) and the views of his close advisor. Quote:
|
Quote:
And when he talks about his general policies, you KNOW there will be significant pushback from the other side on them. True he isn't for "universal" health care, but according to his campaign, he's going to dramatically increase spending on health. He will try to pull back from Iraq in a relatively substantial way. He will be backing programs that will increase spending... at least if he follows what he's been saying on the campaign. He will try to revisit NAFTA. When that happens, you aren't going to have the other side think everyone should sit down and compromise. Instead, they'll do what they normally do and fight to the last man. Then what happens to "unity"? |
Quote:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/ There are a lot of reasons to not like Obama. But it is not true that he has not gone on record with specific policies. |
Quote:
There are a lot of specifics here. Seriously. Quote:
That's not what I'm saying, and if you read again what Obama said when he disavowed Wright's comments, that's not quite what he's saying. I don't want to speak for Obama, but I think what he's saying is that you need to at least try to find a piece of common ground with those with which you disagree, and bring them to the table based on that common ground in an effort of shaping a common vision for the future. This really isn't such a far out concept. In my work as a project manager I do this all the time. One of the key problems in managing teams (especially teams over which you have no managerial control - which is true for most PMs) is when you have opposing people (or camps) who are diametrically opposed to each other and won't work together. The way I bring these groups back into line is finding out the common demoniator upon which they agree, and use this as a way to bring them back to the table. Starting with this as the goal, we can then articulate a workable compromise that then allows the entire team to achieve whatever the objective of the project is. That's the concept. Now yes, it's different if the "team" is a country. You can't refer to a higher power and simply get team members removed from the team, for instance. But I think the concept is good. It's about inclusion. Acceptance of a plan by stakeholders is a very important prerequisite for that plan's success. The greater the percentage of your stakeholders (and these include team members) who accept this plan, the (usually) greater the plan's chance of success. Quote:
If by "few" you mean the millions who follow(ed) Falwell, Robertson, Farrakhan, ministers like Wright, Jackson, Hagee, etc.... |
Quote:
Those are VERY general statements. I certainly wouldn't categorize those as being very specific. With that said, I don't see much even in those policies that speaks to 'unity'. If anything, it appears that the policies speak more to benefitting only certain classes of people. That's certainly fine if he'd like to implement those policies as president, but don't feed me this line of 'unity' if those policies are truly your intentions. He's going to have to find the funds to pay for all those programs, but he doesn't cite the negative impact of that part of the programs for obvious reasons. His ideas on trade policies could quickly drive a wedge between the U.S. and other countries rather than 'unify'. His employment policies could also create resentment among workers rather than 'unify'. |
Quote:
I'm a manager in an IT group, so I'm certainly aware of those dynamics and you are correct in that regard. That works fine in a smaller setting. A group of 300M+ holds no comparison to that setting and a leader that thinks otherwise is profoundly in error if they treat the two scenarios as similar. Quote:
If we are to believe Mr. Obama and take his comments at face value, most of the congregation in attend doesn't actually hold to those beliefs that the minister is preaching, correct? :) |
Quote:
You and I disagree on the meaning of "general" and "specific" to such an extent that any further discussion of the issue would serve merely to waste our time. Quote:
Sure. Like I said, there are plenty of reasons to dislike Obama. The man has plans, and those plans differ significantly from those of George W. Bush (re-elected, as people seem to forget, by a signficant popular vote margin in 2004). Lots and lots and lots of Americans will object to a lot of what Obama wants to do. All of the leftists who expect him to be the Regan of the left and win an electoral college/popular vote landslide are, in my very humble opinion, wrong. |
At the risk of being a bore, I haven't read one single thing in this thread or anywhere that makes me think the revwright affair will be a big deal in the GE. Conversely, I haven't read one single thing here or anywhere else that makes me think that what happens with the Florida and Michigan delegates won't be a HUGE issue in the GE - unless either Obama or Clinton concedes before the decision is made.
|
Quote:
To be honest, I think they're more specific than what we see most years. For instance, here's Obama on Home Ownership & Mortgage Fraud: Quote:
Quote:
Which was exactly my point, and, I suspect, Obama's. ;) Despite what the demagogues of the world might say, the vast majority of Americans share common ground on a lot of basic, real world, day-to-day issues. Instead of exploiting the sensational differences for cheap partisan political gain, let's instead gather people on the common ground and see where the country can go from there. Such a concept. |
Quote:
That reads harsher than I intended it. Indeed, I didn't intend for it to be harsh at all. Just one of those "agree to disagree" points. |
Quote:
That's my feeling as well. Barring something truly catastrophic, there appears to be no way Clinton can overcome Obama's delegate lead. So if Obama hits the convention with the delegate lead, the superdelegates have a choice of reversing the "regular" delegate count and going with Clinton (which probably sinks her in the GE due to the discontent it would sow amongst a lot of Democrats), or just going along with the flow. I could be wrong, but I don't really see a lot of other scenarios. |
Quote:
The problem is, even if they go with Obama, there will be questions about his legitimacy as a nominee, because of what happened in Florida/Michigan. So, either way, its a big problem. |
Quote:
"The Democratic Party, showing how to screw up elections since 2000." |
Quote:
Sure, that's a fine policy. But where does it differ from what any of the other candidates will do? My guess is that both candidates on either side would argue for similar mandates. My point being that it's not a bad idea, but it's likely very similar to reform that either candidate will likely have to pass. I would note that I checked the McCain site and I don't see any specific mention of any mortgage policies. I'll have to look a bit more and see if he's got something on record in that regard. Quote:
Gathering 300M people on common ground is a non-starter IMO. I'm all for uniting people, but it isn't going to happen from a realistic standpoint. I'd say that he should be honest and say that he's going to do his best to unite everyone, but political protocol would say that would be an open door for the opposition candidate to say, 'See, he's not going to help everyone!'. Politics are a beautiful thing. :) |
Something will be done for FL and MI before the convention, likely either a 50/50 split or cutting the delegates in half. If the Supers break as I expect after the April and May primaries the FL and MI delegations may be seated as is because it won't matter.
I think the FL/MI issue won't matter much because if it gets to a floor fight the party likely won't recover by November regardless of what happened to those delegates. |
Quote:
Along this same line, I found this story to be pretty amusing this morning: http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...143263249/1001 Quote:
To put this into context, the city of Philly has been pushing to pass a crapload of gun control laws for the past couple of years, but the law in Pennsylvania is that the state legislature is the body that deals with firearm laws. The Philly Dems have tried going through the legislature, but there is little to no public support for the gun control laws. They can't even get them out of committee. So now the Philly leaders will try to make it an issue, and will likely alienate a lot of Democrats outside of Philly who are gun owners. What makes it even MORE amusing is that through a procedural move, the PA House was set to vote on one gun control bill last week, but had to adjourn because the Philly delegation stayed in Philly to attend Obama's big speech on race, rather than go to Harrisburg to do their job. |
Quote:
Maybe the Michigan/Florida issue won't be a huge in the GE, but unless Michigan voters get a say in the election (no evenly splitting the delegates crap) my Michigan vote is going to McCain or Nader. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.