Obamoron?

Obama does better when he does nothing and simply lets the media shill for him. Not only does he keep Wright in the news, it appears he's lying, too.

Dumb ... just dumb. Or Dumbo, if you prefer, given his ears.

Comments

[Worst Present Ever]

Yeah, those Media's shills for Obama have been playing the Wright video over and over and over and over. In the meantime McCain, who has his own problem preacher, actually does get a pass by the media. Hagee - pass, can't tell the difference between Sunni and Shia, pass, doesn't know anything about the economy, pass. Etc.

And how much has the whole Wright thing hurt Obama? Not much it turns out:

The new polling suggests that the Wright affair has not hurt Obama's standing, in part because his response to the controversy has been viewed positively by voters who favor him over Clinton. Obama's handling of the Wright controversy also won a favorable response from a substantial proportion of Clinton supporters and even from a third of Republican voters.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=407

[Realist]

You want to talk about passes???.. How about the fact the the wrong pastor Wright recently got a loan secured from his church for 1 mil to buy a 10,000 sq ft home in a gated community. How about the fact that the Obama's only gave an average of under 1% to charity for the last 10 years until 2005/06 when they bumped that up to the high rate of just over 4%, when he decided to run. How about the pass that Michelle Obama got when was making in excess of 250k, and complins that she was "struggling" to pay her school loans off. How about the pass Obama gets at the fact that all he has ever done is run for office. Lets see, local legislator for a few years, then US Senator before running for office. He has also gotten a pass to the fact that no one can point to a single thing he has done to ready him for the presidency, oh wait, I am sorry there is Hope, I forgot. How about the pass that he was a member of a church for 20+ years where the pastor is a bigot, but he never heard anything racial, or yeah, and the man is like an uncle to him. But they never discussed those racist issues, and even though the reverened hates America and thinks we deserved 9/11, you say McCain is getting the pass when some obscure pastor who he doesn't really know endorses him. Your right, there have been a lot of passes from the media, but they have all been for the Obama's....

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Or Dumbo, if you prefer, given his ears. --"

Lulz. Really, Dan? You're going to go after Obama on his ears? The least you could do is grow some balls and attack him on his policies.

But, alas, that is far too much work for a would-be political pundit. You're like the Tucker Carlson of the internet these days. Talk about someone's pastor. Talk about someone's wife. Talk about someone's funny-looking ears.

But if we want to discuss the merits of Iraqi foreign policy. Or if we want to get REALLY daring and perhaps discuss trade relations with China and Europe, the Dollar-Euro exchange rate, perhaps NAFTA deregulation... man are we all on the wrong freak'n blog.

Red State will - occasionally - stand up and discuss why a universal health plan is a bad idea. Power Line has been known to parse the numbers on troop strength and long term troop deployment viability. But not Dan Riehl. Around this blog, its all about a candidate's ears.

Move over WSJ, step aside Weekly Standard, back up New Republic! Profound commentator coming through! Deep thoughts, people. Deep thoughts.

[chris]

"McCain, who has his own problem preacher, actually does get a pass by the media. Hagee - pass, can't tell the difference between Sunni and Shia, pass, doesn't know anything about the economy, pass. Etc."

He wasn't much of a student or pilot either. Good thing he (re)married money.

[Worst Present Ever]

So when's McCain going to release his tax returns - like Obama has already done?

Hagee unknown? I guess you have a pretty, uh, liberal definition of unknown:

“Since Hagee and his wife, Diana Hagee, founded GETV 25 years ago, the organization has gone from a back-room operation broadcasting Sunday sermons to San Antonio area viewers to a 50,000-square-foot multimedia studio broadcasting to 127 television stations and 82 radio stations nationwide...

.... According to the 990 forms for GETV, the organization in 2001 netted $12.3 million from donations, $4.8 million in profit from the sales of books and tapes, and an additional $1.1 million from various other sources, including rental income.

That makes him known enough, and rich enough, that McCain sought out his endorsement. And he's a bigot. Just like republican darlings Robertson and Falwell. But I guess being rich and controlling millions of votes washes away all that bigotry.

Obama's got more legislative experience than George Bush did when he ran.

[Worst Present Ever]

"Or Dumbo, if you prefer, given his ears."

Now that's some SERIOUSLY insightful commentary.

[Scrapiron]

Yes, lay off the Dumbo ears since they are worthless. Hussein O sat in church for 20 years and never heard a thing, all the while he was using the weekly church bulletin to do crossword puzzles. The media is not giving Hussein a month and he will be saying he doesn't really know racist Wright, but saw him in line one time at McDonalds.

[Scrapiron]

All Hussein knows about the economy is 'Chicago style economics', 10%+ of every dollars goes in my pocket or we can short the next building a few sq feet of concrete, your body will fill the space.

[Techie]

Is it possible for the three resident trolls to say anything that isn't a repeat of what they've spat out on other threads?

[chris]

Hussein's ears are almost as big as that thing growing on grandpa's cheek.

[Scrapiron]

Hussein may also know and practice 'Islamic' economics. Give me my 10% or we'll hang your head on the front gate for your family to view.

[IslamoLlama]

I like how Scrapiron has given up even the pretension of using Barack's first and last name. Of course, repeatedly chanting "Hussein! Hussein! Hussein!" really only conjures up images of Iraq. And as Iraq isn't the most winning Republican issue right now, this might not be their most savy political move.

Aren't there some gay abortionists you could vilify instead?

[Fred Beloit]

Not hearing or not understanding plain English. And not being able to read and understand, even something one wrote oneself. This is currently a serious epidemic. Foe example, our dear friend Harpo wrote these mutually contradicting statements in one, single comment under the San Diego heading recently:

"I think long and often about the energy future of the U.S.

Something I think that will HAPPEN THOUGH NOT IN OUR LIFETIMES [my caps for emphasis] is a dramatic shift in the design of our cities.

The cities (close to downtown) will be for the well to do. Suburbs for the not so well to do. Much less reliance on the auto.

Think Manhattan, Hong Kong, London, Paris. MOST OF THE WORLD LIVES AS SUCH NOW [MY CAPS]."

So, Harpo, this won't happen in our lifetimes though it is this way now? Do I understand your point correctly?

No wonder this person can make the kinds of goofy accusations he/she does.

[Fred Beloit]

I love it when Moe plays the I am morally superior to you, and everybody else for that matter, card. Reminds me of Carl Gordon:

"Aren't there some gay abortionists you could vilify instead?"

[chris]

The funniest thing about Scrapiron is that his sorry, uneducated ass is paying $4 for gas. THAT is funny!

[Realist]

"Obama's got more legislative experience than George Bush did when he ran."

Sorry, not quite true, at least Bush was a Governor.

[Techie]

How is legislative experience necessary for an EXECUTIVE position.

IIRC, we've only elected one sitting Senator or Rep to the Presidency in the last century.

[Worst Present Ever]

No, it's true. Obama's served 12 years in state and federal legislative bodies. Governor is in the executive branch, not the legislative. So Bush has 0 years in legislative bodies. And even then, the Texas governor is a weak position relative to other states.

[tally]

"And even then, the Texas governor is a weak position relative to other states."

Bull shit.

[Worst Present Ever]

No it's true. You can read all about it at the University of Texas.

http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu/html/exec/

"The main source of the relative weakness of the Texas Governor can be found in the historical conditions surrounding the Texas Constitution of 1876."

"Unlike the federal system, where the cabinet secretaries and the other top executive officers serve at the pleasure of the President, the voters elect the corresponding officials in the Texas system, giving the Governor no direct authority over them."

[IslamoLlama]

"-- The funniest thing about Scrapiron is that his sorry, uneducated ass is paying $4 for gas. THAT is funny! --"

Gas money says he's still driving around in an SUV and blaming liberals cause he can't make his adjustable rate mortgage payments.

"-- How is legislative experience necessary for an EXECUTIVE position. --"

I love this line of reasoning because it disqualifies John McCain just as quickly. I guess all the wingnuts in the audience will be writing in Hillary for President as she's been the closest to the White House out of all of them.

It's also worth noting that Abraham Lincoln had all of one term in Congress before being elected to the Presidency. But... you know... blah, blah experience, blah blah ready on day one, blah blah can't have a cokehead who's never seen a day of military combat (and isn't named George W) in the White House. But we all know old Lincoln wouldn't last five minutes in the modern GOP.

[templar knight]

"But we all know old Lincoln wouldn't last five minutes in the modern GOP."

True, but the Democrats would have kicked him out as well, as he proposed the return of all the slaves to Africa. And then, there was that thing where he suspended habeus corpus, and his suspension and takeover of the Maryland legislature was embarassing as well.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- True, but the Democrats would have kicked him out as well --"

So you're saying the Democrats are worse?

[templar knight]

Nah, about the same.

[seekeronos]

"--- Lulz. Really, Dan? You're going to go after Obama on his ears? The least you could do is grow some balls and attack him on his policies. ---"

You see, IL... we would, *IF* Obama had any unique policies that he could call his own which have had some earthshakingly grand *change* in our lives.

So far, all the talk of Change! and Hope! seems a bit empty without the legislative landmarks to back it up. And peddling pork for his constituency really deosn't count, either.

[Worst Present Ever]

How do you define change? Because getting out of Iraq, passing universal health care, getting a comprehensive energy policy, cutting the deficit, getting rid of no-bid contracts, targeting tax cuts to the middle class and away from the rich all sound like pretty damn major changes to me.

You can read what he wants to do here - it's 64 pages long - http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

A competent president that can string two sentences together would be a nice change.

But let look at McCain's record. I'm sure you'll LOVE these:

McCain-Feingold, the campaign finance reform act.
McCain-Kennedy, immigration reform
McCain-Kennedy-Edwards, Patients Bill of Rights
McCain-Lieberman, gun bill.
McCain-Lieberman, global warming.

[seekeronos]

Concerning Fred's mention of Harp's quote... I don't get the full context of it, but what I *think* she is trying to say is:

1) We are much more urbanized today than in the past (many folks do live in cities and major metro areas of those cities).

The caveat here is in defining what the limits of a "city" really is. There are "conurbations", "exurbs", "megalopolises" and other interesting words with various nuances.

By one standard of measure, New York City may have anywhere from 8 million citizens (Manhattan and the other four boroughs) and upwards of 30 million if you factor all the exurban/commuter/feeder communities in southwest CT, northeast NJ, southeast NY state and even parts of PA in a semicircle extending about 150mi from Times Square.

That makes a big difference... the same goes for Metropolitan Tōkyō (typically the 23 wards inside the Yamanote Line - about 15 million souls, or the entire Kantō plain for about 40 million souls whose lives are strongly connected to Metro Tōkyō. So to say that "this many" or "that many" people live in the megacities of the world is somewhat subjective.

2) What is less subjective is the trend of increased urbanization, with which I find myself in agreement with Harp's thesis: that eventually, there will be a significant concentration of the wealthy and upper middle classes back to very urban dwellings. Although the wealthy, not being limited as much for transportation by tightening fuel supplies, will likely keep (certainly more well appointed) secondary residences out in the countryside by choice, and urban primary residences for the convenience of doing business.

I believe that today's McMansions may become tomorrow's ghettos, packing in quite a few more people per square unit than what they were originally planned for. The poor design of these communities in terms of traffic access and distance from city jobs will present an uncomfortable barrier for the commutation distance involved, but once which they may be compelled to face, as they might find themselves priced out of the nicer, urban, "green-gentrified" living quarters.

Of course, this need not be the "future that will be", but barring a radical re-thinking of how we lay out our subdivisions... we will only be hurting ourselves down the road.

Why not rather think about a reclamation of existing suburban zones away from the massed McMansions miles away from the big-box store zones into something more walkable or bikeable with pedestrian friendly access and smaller neighborhood stores and smaller, higher density living spaces with plenty of green areas and built-in amenities like solar water heating or other energy-efficient features?

Or for areas with a lower population density, developing single family residences that take the best advantage of lay of land and mixing these in with lower volume, localized shopping and localized food production might be beneficial as well.

So what I believe what Harp is trying to say is that we are both heavily urbanized, but that the prevailing distribution of wealth tends to favour the wealthier citizens living in suburbia and the poorer people living in urban ghettos.

Barring any future sea change in how we (especially here in the USA) prefer to live, we might find ourselves surprised in about 50 years to see that suburbia is much less affluent than today, and that the market will favor the wealthy developing greener, nodular, neighborhood communities built for the pedestrian and rail traveler, which in turn lead to inner urban areas being green-designed.

[seekeronos]

"--- But let look at McCain's record. I'm sure you'll LOVE these:

McCain-Feingold, the campaign finance reform act.
McCain-Kennedy, immigration reform
McCain-Kennedy-Edwards, Patients Bill of Rights
McCain-Lieberman, gun bill.
McCain-Lieberman, global warming. ---"

Can't say that I am too enthused about any of those of his ideas. Nor am I terribly enamored of Obama's policy ideas.

No matter how the dice rolls, we are getting a liberal president in November. It is more the matter of center-leftist vs. European-style social democrat vs. hardcore socialist.

Given the choices, I'm most likely going for the center-leftist (McCain) although my (R) presidential vote in NY is practically a throwaway vote no matter who I vote for.

In which case I might vote for Alan Keyes if he picks up the Constitution Party nomination, or maybe Chuck Baldwin (no relation to the Baldwin acting clan - he ran as Mike Peroutka's VP mate for the CP in 2004).

Taking a gander at Obama's plan though... it really is a sockdologer of a plan...

...for a supremely huge government.

We really do not need bigger government ...

... Why can we not agree to have less government and less taxes thereby?

End the war, mine the coal mines and oil shale, tap the ANWR and offshore fields of methane clathrates and nat.gas and oil in thre Gulf of Mexico and Bering Straits, stop tossing money at the Bridge to Nowhere, and about the only "big government" thing that really needs doing is what we hired the government to do - to mind the roads and the bridges. Set the redeployed military - SeaBees and Red Horse Squadrons and Army Corps of Engineers to inspecting and refurbishing our infrastructure (since the interstates were originally designed of interstate transport of armed forces materiel).

Health Care? SCHIP - monitored and handed on the state level, not the federal - would seem appropriate. Beyond that, I am only convinced that nationalizing health care along the socialist model will only lead to unfavorable results. By scaling down the size ofgovernment in general, and the scope of interference in federal government and our involvement in undeclared foreign wars, and in our lives generally... we will have enough money for nearly everyone to afford health care.

On the other hand side, I do agree that preventive medicine is far more effective than curative. I believe that both the insurance industry, the healthcare industry, and the market in general will come around to see this, given time and liberty to make that adaptation.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

LLama why do you keep touting Lincoln as if he did anything but cause the deaths of almost 3/4 million Americans? Just be happy that it was his Democrat VP (and a Republican congress) that freed the slaves.

"You can read what he wants to do here." Hey WPE, where do we find out who's going to pay for all these "changes"?

[Worst President Ever]

All politicians - Obama, Hillary AND McCain - promise more than we can afford. But the first thing Obama / Hillary / McCain has to do is fix the economic mess Fiscal Conservative / Run the Government Like A Business George Bush will leave behind. Record deficits, the weakest dollar ever, a slumping economy, an energy mess, and, of course, the War. We simply can't afford to continue spending $12 billion a month in Iraq.

Politicians love to talk about how they're going to save money by cutting waste, well you can actually do it with the health care system. The US pays the most per capita of any country in the world for health care - almost twice as much in fact. And something like 30% of each health care dollar goes to "administrative" costs. Strangely enough, the government delivers the same health care and only takes about 5 cents of each dollar. So you really can save billions by cutting those administrative costs. Yes, that means some sort of national health care system.

The Bush Tax Cuts - cutting taxes when you go to war, how creative - get rolled back. You want to go to war, enact big social programs as Bush did, AND build up the military, somebody has to pay for it.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"AND build up the military, somebody has to pay for it."

Wow way to evade a question, but unlike normally, you at least strung some BDS words together. The question was who is going to pay for Obama's big plans? And so you know, GWB and his pal Rummy were cutting defense until the war came along. I worked for DoD then so dont try linking a bunch of leftist rags to "prove" otherwise.

[Worst President Ever]

No, the defense budget went up every year under Bush. He NEVER cut it.

It's McCain that admits he doesn't understand economics. That's certainly reassuring.

Read what I wrote again - they're ALL over-promising. And with the deficit George Bush is leaving behind, the next president isn't going to have much discretionary budget to spend. But there is a good chance we'll get some sort of national health care if Hillary or Obama are elected. And much of that can be paid for by fixing the inefficiencies in the system.

Look at the historical record - Democrats are better at balancing budgets than Republicans. Elect a Fiscal Conservative and you can bet they're going to blow the budget out of the water. Elect a tax and spend liberal and there's a good chance they'll balance the budget. So yeah, I'm for Obama first, Hillary second.

"Until the war came along" -- now there's a euphemism.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"He NEVER cut it."

I was THERE sparky and Rummy was continuing BRAC and they were cutting all sorts of stuff. No, it did not continue because of these wars, it couldn't because Clinton had cut a lot already and they were having to scramble to go to war. You people tend to forget that GW had been in office all of 9 months when 9/11 came along. As for Clinton's balancing the budget. One of his ideas was to remove billions from Federal Employee retirement funds.....looked good on paper though huh?

[Worst President Ever]

FY 2001: Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen today released details of President Clinton's Fiscal Year (FY) 2001 defense budget. The budget requests $291.1 billion in budget authority and $277.5 billion in outlays for the Department of Defense (DoD).

FY 2002: Press release is from June, 2001 - pre 9/11. WASHINGTON, June 29, 2001 – Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said a $38.2 billion increase in the DoD budget request is necessary because the military is suffering from years of underfunding.
The total budget request is $328.9 billion.

FY 2009: $668.8B -- Doesn't include Iraq supplementals.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

While Rummy *may have asked* for such an increase, the administration was cutting where the money is spent. Realignment was the order of the day because we could barely fight Cubans in Grenada again. The comprimise was to bring O/S troops back, close bases, cut funding to "social programs" and re-build a two front military. So maybe cuts&realignments are like taxes and fees. Two words meaning the smae thing.The soldiers that you are soooo concerned about were having to tow/then repair vehicles enroute (post 9/11) to the gulf. I worked for those people, I had to make budgets of my own and I had to justify people's jobs. SO call it a prom queen but it's really just a pig in a prom dress.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/brac.htm

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"Yet the bulk of the equipment that the military operates now and plans to buy in the future - most prominently, short-range fighters and big-hulled ships - remains the same as it was under Clinton,"

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040625-military-stretched.htm

By the way WPE, this was one of my valid reasons against the war. I didn't have to wait for a case of BDS infection.

[Worst President Ever]

I didn't wait either. I marched against the war before it started for a number of reasons. And guess what - pretty much everything I believed has come true.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, priorities change in any organization. But bottom line is the budget went UP by almost $40 billion. Again, Bush NEVER cut the defense budget.

I work for private companies - I have to justify the people that work for me and how I use them every year. And if I can't, my budget gets cut. BFD. With the amount of money poured into DoD, there's no reason managers there shouldn't have to play by the same rules.

Our Iraq problems stem from brain-dead leadership and strategy not because we're fighting an enemy with superior equipment.

[Fred Beloit]

WPE, it is clear why you would be the worst president ever. You seem unable to grasp a simple fact about our government. The Congress, not the President, approves or disapproves spending. You are shooting at the wrong target, goofy.

[Worst President Ever]

The fact is the President submits the budget - see previously posted PR releases - and the Congress then can amend and approve.

2001, Republicans controlled the presidency, had a solid majority in the House and Democrats had a one vote majority in the Senate thanks to former Republican Jim Jeffords.

In 2002, Republicans took control of both houses. So they had complete control of the budget process.

The budget was set by Bush and the House and Senate republicans weren't about to do anything President Bush was set againt.

Again, Bush NEVER submitted and Congress NEVER approved a budget cutting Defense.