pageok
pageok
pageok
Weighing In On Obama's Speech:

I want disagree with David Bernstein's somewhat tepid praise and second Jim Lindgren's more effusive praise of Barack Obama's acceptance speech. Everyone knows Obama can give a good speech, but this was his best. Three highlights: (1) Directly challenging John McCain on national security. Obama forcefully made the case that judgment matters more than experience. (2) Juxtaposing his aggressive agenda of government programs with a call for personal responsibility — critical for appealing to centrists. (3) Identifying common ground on the polarizing issues of abortion, gay marriage, and gun control — critical to his agenda of bringing people together. Moving the event to the football stadium, identified by pundits as a risky move, proved to be a masterstroke. The visual affect was awesome. By comparison, McCain is bound to look small, unimportant, and unpopular when he gives his acceptance speech next week.

There were two weaknesses of the speech, one of commission, one of ommission: (1) Claiming that he could pay for his domestic proposals by closing tax loopholes and eliminating unnecessary government programs (without even naming the targets) was utterly unconvincing. Better to say nothing about the financing than to call attention in this way to the fact that his proposals are expensive. (2) Failing to attack the Bush administration for trampling the Constitution, trashing privacy rights, and mistreating prisoners of war. It might have made sense not to highlight Bush's support of torture, since McCain clearly opposed this and can use that issue to distance himself from the President, but there is lot more in this area Obama could have gone after.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Weighing In On Obama's Speech:
  2. Obama's Speech:
J. Aldridge:
Where is the CHANGE we can believe in?
8.29.2008 2:36am
Perseus (mail):
Directly challenging John McCain on national security. Obama forcefully made the case that judgment matters more than experience.

It was striking that he went back to FDR and Kennedy to show that the Democratic Party could defend the nation. No mention of LBJ, Carter, or Clinton, i.e., the last three Democratic presidents. The latter two can't be very pleased.
8.29.2008 2:44am
therut:
Why do liberals always state that accepting their ideas of abortion, gun control and gay rights is accepting common ground. He said absolutely nothing about gun control that has not been said by every supportor of liberal gun control laws in order to decieve people. You can not have a constitutional right that is more protected in urban vs rural areas. Good grief. He did not fool me. It is always if you would just shut up about abortion, gun control and gay rights and accept or position we could then get along. Not gonna happen.
8.29.2008 2:46am
Jim Hu:
"This was his best"

Really?!! I thought the 2004 keynote was much better. But I confess that he lost me in the really long thank you's while the crowd went wild at the very beginning. I was already wondering what the score was in the Stanford-Oregon State game by the time he started.
8.29.2008 2:51am
Dan M.:
I didn't watch the speech, but...

"The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals."

We sure wouldn't want those people in Cleveland to be able to protect themselves, would we? The Only Ones will keep them safe! It sure is nice when fundamental liberties vary not only across state lines but from city to city.

Perhaps they could start by making it illegal for felons to possess guns, and making it illegal to transfer a gun to a felon? Or, isn't that stuff already illegal? Or is Obama saying we all need FOID cards? Do we need an "assault weapons" ban in cities, and a handgun ban, and safe storage and gun theft reporting laws that can't be applied to actual felons?

Of course, I don't see why released felons should be prohibited from owning guns. If you aren't allowed to have the means to defend yourself and can't be trusted, you might as well be back in prison. Or hanged.

I don't really see what Obama has to offer. Just another gun grabber taking his cue from scum like AHSA.

Unfortunately, I don't really see what McCain has to offer, either, except that he might allow himself to be influenced by NRA lobbyists. But that didn't keep him from trying to regulate gun shows or from championing campaign finance reform.
8.29.2008 3:01am
Franklin Bynum (www):

It might have made sense not to highlight Bush's support of torture, since McCain clearly opposed this and can use that issue to distance himself from the President

Excuse me?

How about:


Mr. McCain, of Arizona, said he believed it would be a mistake to limit C.I.A. interrogators to using only those techniques that were enumerated in the Field Manual, which he noted was a public document.

"When we passed the Military Commissions Act, we said that the C.I.A. should have the ability to use additional techniques,"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/us/politics/17torture.html

You can complain that it's the nyt (and many will, I'm sure) but the above quotation is from the man himself. McCain hasn't sufficiently distanced himself from Bush on torture.
8.29.2008 3:03am
torrentprime (mail):
therut: Just not gonna accept those gay rights anytime soon, huh?
8.29.2008 3:10am
a guest:
The most stinging portion of the speech -- where Obama claimed that McCain said we have become a "nation of whiners" -- was false. I'm pretty sure he was thinking about Phil Gramm, not John McCain.

Too bad the media will parrot that line for the next 2 months instead of calling Obama out on his inaccuracies.
8.29.2008 3:24am
illspirit (www):
His "common ground" bits will only demonstrate that his idea of center is far left of most people. That he defines his position as the reasonable middle ground everyone else must agree to will just make him seem that much more arrogant.

With regards to gun control, his "compromise" position would ban every single firearm I own (eeevil black rifles and plastic pistols with "high capacity" magazines). What exactly would I be getting out of the deal?

I don't have a dog in the hunt on the abortion or gay marriage issues, but how exactly can there be a compromise there? Either they're wrong or they're not. Does he expect his opponents to meet in the middle and say "okay, fine, you can kill some babies" or "sure, lesbians can get married, just not gay men?" Or maybe settle on only allowing them on every third Wednesday?

All in all, he would have probably been better of not mentioning them. The more he tries to sound "reasonable," the more I'm tempted to vote Republican instead of voting for a third-party as planned when McCain won the primary.
8.29.2008 3:26am
dr:
a guest,
it wasn't an inaccuracy. he wasn't quoting mccain. he was quoting mccain's close economic advisor -- i.e., gramm.
8.29.2008 3:31am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
McCain hasn't sufficiently distanced himself from Bush on torture.


Yes. And McCain should know better, because he claims that he was tortured, and the claim is true. But according to the Bush definition of "torture," McCain was not tortured.
8.29.2008 3:49am
Bruce Hayden (mail) (www):
(1) Directly challenging John McCain on national security. Obama forcefully made the case that judgment matters more than experience. (2) Juxtaposing his aggressive agenda of government programs with a call for personal responsibility — critical for appealing to centrists. (3) Identifying common ground on the polarizing issues of abortion, gay marriage, and gun control
You obviously hear what you want to hear. As noted above, it is frankly silly to claim a middle ground on these polarizing issues when his positions are so out of the mainstream. As pointed out by many, his definition of common ground is accepting his position.

Yes, his call for aggressive government programs is what labels him as a fairly to the left of center liberal. But, of course, the big problem is funding all those programs. Only way that he could possibly think of funding them is to raise taxes - there just aren't that many loopholes, and even if there were, he couldn't close them fast enough. We are talking in the high billions if not trillions of dollars of extra spending, and raising taxes like that, esp. in what many consider a weak economy is worth than feckless.

And his judgment? Opposing the "Surge" even after it was showing great strides? Or even after it turned the war in Iraq around? Just where has he shown great judgment? In opposing the Iraq war in a state district where probably 90% of his constituents also opposed it? I am still waiting for anyone to really show that his judgment is even that of the average person, or even average Senator? Would you also consider his attending Rev. Wright's church for 20 years good judgment? Or being friends and business acquaintances with two avowed domestic terrorists good judgment? Or chairing a charity that wasted some $150 million on feckless attempts to better Chicago education (sending some to his domestic terrorist friends) good judgment? Or accepting help from an indicted racketeer in buying his house good judgment?
There were two weaknesses of the speech, one of commission, one of ommission: (1) Claiming that he could pay for his domestic proposals by closing tax loopholes and eliminating unnecessary government programs (without even naming the targets) was utterly unconvincing. Better to say nothing about the financing than to call attention in this way to the fact that his proposals are expensive. (2) Failing to attack the Bush administration for trampling the Constitution, trashing privacy rights, and mistreating prisoners of war. It might have made sense not to highlight Bush's support of torture, since McCain clearly opposed this and can use that issue to distance himself from the President, but there is lot more in this area Obama could have gone after.
The suggestion that the Bush Administration "trampled" the Constitution marks you as having more BDS than insight and spending too much time around other BDS sufferers. This is just plain silly.

But yes, he can't fund his programs through eliminating tax loopholes and unnecessary programs - unless he actually would. But I would suggest that he isn't about to touch the more wasteful government programs, but is rather very willing to expand them as part of the core of his attempt to spend the country into poverty far worth than our feckless current President has. And note that Obama's government programs are far more open ended than Bush's, where much of his deficit spending went to expenses that we can see an end to (notably the Iraq war, where we now see the light at the end of the tunnel approaching quickly).
8.29.2008 3:58am
Ohio Scrivener (mail):
Obama's speech may have appealed to partisans, but it also struck several false notes. To me, the worst was when Obama accused senator McCain of being unwilling to apprehend Osama bin Laden.

"John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell - but he won't even go to the cave where he lives."

Does anyone actually believe that? McCain, who supported the successful surge in Iraq, is not someone I would accuse of being unwilling to pursue America's enemies. Nor is this the type of accusation I would make in a speech that denounces attacks on a candidate's patriotism:

"Because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other's character and patriotism."

Yet, it's ok to accuse your opponent of being unwilling to apprehend the worst terrorist in American history?

I also got a kick out of Obama's simultaneous opposition to drilling and support for taping natural gas reserves:

"drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close . . . As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power."

I wonder how Obama thinks we are going to tap natural gas reserves without drilling.

Obama also made a very weak attempt to finesse the issues of abortion, gay marriage, and gun control. Rather than clearly set forth his positions, he treated listeners to such platitudes as: (1) "surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies,"; (2) "don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals"; and (3)."our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital." Apparently giving clear answers on social policy is still above his paygrade.

Finally, the speech, like many by politicians, deserves an F in accounting. Can anyone tell me how we are going to pay for all the new spending Obama has proposed while only raising taxes on the top 5% of all Americans and giving tax cuts to the remaining 95%? Faith trust and pixie dust.
8.29.2008 5:24am
jbb:
@Dan M.:

I am a gun owner, a proud concealed-carry licenseholder, and even I will fully admit without complaint that I don't need or want an AK-47. If you want one, or think you need one to defend yourself, that speaks far more ill of you than it does of Senator Obama.

@a guest:

Despite the fact that he clearly cited Phil Gramm, McCain's "top economic advisor" when he read the quote? Yikes. The cognitive dissonance, it burns.

@Ohio Scrivener:

Yes, I do believe that. What does the surge have to do with Osama bin Laden, which is your complaint from his speech? Obama was clearly referencing the fact that McCain was a cheerleader for the rush to war in Iraq, taking our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, which was actually, you know, related to 9/11 (unlike Iraq), and where Osama was living and Al Qaeda was based out of?
8.29.2008 5:47am
jbb:
@Dan M.:

I am a gun owner, a proud concealed-carry licenseholder, and even I will fully admit without complaint that I don't need or want an AK-47. If you want one, or think you need one to defend yourself, that speaks far more ill of you than it does of Senator Obama.

@a guest:

Despite the fact that he clearly cited Phil Gramm, McCain's "top economic advisor" when he read the quote? Yikes. The cognitive dissonance, it burns.

@Ohio Scrivener:

Yes, I do believe that. What does the surge have to do with Osama bin Laden, which is your complaint from his speech? Obama was clearly referencing the fact that McCain was a cheerleader for the rush to war in Iraq, taking our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, which was actually, you know, related to 9/11 (unlike Iraq), and where Osama was living and Al Qaeda was based out of?
8.29.2008 5:47am
jbb:
@Dan M.:

I am a gun owner, a proud concealed-carry licenseholder, and even I will fully admit without complaint that I don't need or want an AK-47. If you want one, or think you need one to defend yourself, that speaks far more ill of you than it does of Senator Obama.

@a guest:

Despite the fact that he clearly cited Phil Gramm, McCain's "top economic advisor" when he read the quote? Yikes. The cognitive dissonance, it burns.

@Ohio Scrivener:

Yes, I do believe that. What does the surge have to do with Osama bin Laden, which is your complaint from his speech? Obama was clearly referencing the fact that McCain was a cheerleader for the rush to war in Iraq, taking our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, which was actually, you know, related to 9/11 (unlike Iraq), and where Osama was living and Al Qaeda was based out of?
8.29.2008 5:47am
Steve in CT:
jbb: So you're the decider as to what firearms people should want or need? Just because you own a firearm doesn't mean you are well versed. If you were, you would know that the 'AK-47 style' rifles that can be purchased in the US are semi-auto only &not the real thing. Not significantly different than any semi-auto hunting rifle except in appearances.

How did Iraq take our 'eye off the ball in Afghanistan'? They are 2 different theaters &require different methods of warfare. You can't just dump 100K troops into Afghanistan &expect better results, ask the Soviets. Besides, it is more than likely that OBL is over the border in the tribal areas of Pakistan. What happened with Iraq that would have changed things in Afghanistan?
8.29.2008 7:24am
llamasex (mail) (www):
John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell - but he won't even go to the cave where he lives."

Does anyone actually believe that? McCain, who supported the successful surge in Iraq, is not someone I would accuse of being unwilling to pursue America's enemies. Nor is this the type of accusation I would make in a speech that denounces attacks on a candidate's patriotism:


This is a referernce to McCain saying that he would not attack Bin Laden in Pakistan without the ok from Pakistan even if we had actionable intelligence.

Obama assumes Bin Laden is in Pakistan, but that is a fair assumption to make.
8.29.2008 8:08am
common sense (www):
I wonder what kind of reaction Obama would have received if he had advocated a full invasion of Pakistan, especially as they are just now recovering from a coup and trying to put together a more liberal democratic government.
8.29.2008 9:10am
plutosdad (mail):
"judgement is more important than experience" I agree with that, and it's why I support McCain more on those issues. Obama shows a real lack of judgement when he says he'll sit down and Ahmadinejad and uses Kennedy's meeting with Khrushchev as evidence for his position, reversing history to put the meeting AFTER missles were put in Cuba.

The history of Kennedy getting us in Vietnam and Johnson not pulling out when his campaign practically ran on pulling out is not exactly something I would be proud of or bring up if I were him.
8.29.2008 9:13am
Justin (mail):
Perseus, when McCain wants to echo Republicans, I doubt very much he'll call on the memories of the last 2 Republican Presidents, or 4 of the last 5.

Indeed, McCain probably has mentioned Kennedy or FDR (favorably) as much as Obama. At least Obama isn't saying he's the next Reagan.
8.29.2008 10:36am
Sarcastro (www):
The important question about Obama's speech is how it will make Bill Clinton feel!
8.29.2008 10:45am
VectorAK (mail):
@jbb:
"I am a gun owner, a proud concealed-carry licenseholder."

Whoops.....Obama voted against and does not support concealed carry for anyone except retired police officers:

"When I queried him about the vote, he said, "I didn't find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done--and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms." End quote

Source: http://www.ontheissues.org/Promise_to_Power.htm click on the issue gun control

"Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:

Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.

Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998

Obama sought gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month (it did not pass). He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense, but also voted in2004 to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns.

Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.148 Oct 30, 2007

So will you be turning in your CCW liscense to the Lightworker anytime soon? As well as any sem-automatic pistols you own? Obama is clueless about guns, his comment about AK-47s proves it.....I am sure he is refering to a cosmetically similar semi-automatic rifle that LOOKS like a AK-47 but in fact is not. An AK-47 is a select fire weapon capable of firing in fully automatic mode. To my knowledge Cleveland has NEVER seen a real AK-47 used in a crime....as they have NEVER prosectued anyone for violating there silly "assuault weapons" ban the entire time it has been in effect.
8.29.2008 10:52am
stan (mail):
"Failing to attack the Bush administration for trampling the Constitution, trashing privacy rights, and mistreating prisoners of war."

You pretty much trampled the facts, trashed your credibility, and mistreated your readers.
8.29.2008 11:09am
Deoxy (mail):
(1) Directly challenging John McCain on national security. Obama forcefully made the case that judgment matters more than experience.


And you call that a GOOD thing for him to have done in his speech? McCain is ridiculously far ahead in both experience AND judgement, at least with regard to national security matters. This is a losing TOPIC for Obama - every position I've heard or come up with for Obama is worse than McCain.

Also, this is exactly right:


As noted above, it is frankly silly to claim a middle ground on these polarizing issues when his positions are so out of the mainstream. As pointed out by many, his definition of common ground is accepting his position.


This was a good-SOUNDING speech, as expected. Yay, he's an awesome teleprompter speaker. Is that supposed to be news?
8.29.2008 11:11am
Ohio Scrivener (mail):
jbb - I disagree with your interpretation of Obama's remarks. Obama stated that McCain was unwilling to "even go to the cave where he lives." This is not a past tense accusation about the decision to start the Iraq war (which, by the way, commenced some time after OBL likely left Afghanistan). It is a present tense (and rather ugly) accusation that McCain is unwilling to capture OBL. While the accusation may appeal to partisans, it does nothing to convince me that either candidate, if he became President and learned of OBL's whereabouts, wouldn't try to go after him. Also, my original comment referenced the surge as an example of McCain's willingness to finish the conflicts in which the US is already involved. McCain has repeatedly said that he rather loose an election than a war. I have no reason to think that this statement would not also apply to Afghanistan.

Commenter llamasex above suggests that Obama's quote was "a reference to McCain saying that he would not attack Bin Laden in Pakistan without the ok from Pakistan even if we had actionable intelligence." This interpretation is more consistent with the fact that Obama made his accusation against McCain in the present tense. However, if this interpretation is true, it could have some pretty profound implications. If Obama is suggesting that he would launch an attack in Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons and a leadership vacuum, without that country's support, he needs to spell that out clearly for the public. Obama has made at least one saber rattling quote towards Pakistan in the past, but I had thought he had backed off that position. Perhaps not.
8.29.2008 11:27am
therut:
Yes, the Democrat propaganda goes like this-----If you would all just agree with us on gun control, gay marriage, God and abortion these silly wedge issues the Republicians use to keep the middle class (really the poor) voting aganist socialism (their economic self interests as understand by us) we could CHANGE the world as we see fit.(we would give you "FREE" college, houses, cars, food, clothing, health care, abortions and condoms and take your children at age 2 away from you and raise them according the the liberal social gospel). They would then proclaim you are now FREE. Why anyone would buy such stupidity is beyond me. Howard Dean made such a stupid statement when he was running for President. He even threw in pick-up trucks and the Confederate flag as he was screaming at us little folks.
8.29.2008 11:30am
Deoxy (mail):
Here's a great example on Obama's "common ground" regarding gun control:
"We can keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals." All right, then! Can I have an AK-47? I'm not a criminal. He's trying to say we can accommodate gun rights and gun regulations, but he won't admit to anything near the level of gun regulation he'd support, so he ends up sounding silly.


from Althouse via Instapundit.
8.29.2008 11:36am
Sarcastro (www):
Republicans are well known to be big fans of compromise. While liberals are so doctrinaire, Republicans listen to other points of view.

Well, except for social programs, which are creeping Marxism.
And abortion, which is murder (and I'm not sure about condoms...)
And taxes, cause every raise is evil.
And gay adoption, marriage, special rights etc. cause God hates them.
And guns, cause that's in the Constitution, yo!
And anything liberals propose, cause they hate America and want to turn it into some kind of Euro-weenie/islamofascist hybrid.
And any thing Democrats propose, cause they're all liberal.
And anything those RINO Republicans propose.

But mostly, there's lotsa room for compromise

And Dean totally hated on the average voter when he said "I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks."

Such unthinking, doctrinaire bigotry!
8.29.2008 11:45am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
bruce:

of course, the big problem is funding all those programs


I guess you must be talking about McCain. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center figured out that there's a $2.8 trillion gap in McCain's economic plan. The gap is so obvious that the McCain campaign had to admit that he's been making statements that shouldn't be considered "official." In other words, "McCain may not speak for the McCain campaign." Inspires confidence, right?

Or accepting help from an indicted racketeer in buying his house good judgment?


There is no evidence that Obama received "help" from Rezko. And why are you lying about the chronology? Obama bought his house and extra land before Rezko was indicted.

Anyway, if this kind of thing fascinates you, we should talk about McCain's long, close personal relationship (video) with someone who became a convicted felon and ended up costing the taxpayers $125 billion. Rezko has a long way to go before he catches up with Keating's achievements.

By the way, Cindy McCain "and her father had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986." But Cindy's tax returns are a deep, dark secret, so we don't know how much stuff like that is still going on.
8.29.2008 12:13pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ohio:

"John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell - but he won't even go to the cave where he lives."

Does anyone actually believe that? McCain, who supported the successful surge in Iraq, is not someone I would accuse of being unwilling to pursue America's enemies.


The people who "actually believe that" are the people who are paying attention to what McCain has actually said. When Obama talked about going into Pakistan to get OBL, McCain criticized this. See here.

I see now that llama already explained this.
8.29.2008 12:14pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
deoxy:

McCain is ridiculously far ahead in both experience AND judgement, at least with regard to national security matters


Sure thing. That's why he said this about the war (9/24/02):

I believe that the success will be fairly easy


And this (1/22/03):

We will win it easily


Of course the fun thing about those statements is that he later pretended that he never made them.

And it's very comforting to know that McCain can't get his facts straight unless Lieberman is there to whisper in his ear. That's yet more proof that McCain is "far ahead" in these matters.
8.29.2008 12:14pm
Jay Myers:

This is a referernce to McCain saying that he would not attack Bin Laden in Pakistan without the ok from Pakistan even if we had actionable intelligence.

Good for McCain. Launching a military operation into Pakistan without their approval would be an act of war.

What kind of judgment is Obama showing when he says that we should listen to and respect the wishes of the new Pakistani government but be willing to invade their country without permission in order to get OBL?
8.29.2008 1:46pm
Ohio Scrivener (mail):
"Good for McCain. Launching a military operation into Pakistan without their approval would be an act of war.

What kind of judgment is Obama showing when he says that we should listen to and respect the wishes of the new Pakistani government but be willing to invade their country without permission in order to get OBL?"

Well said.
8.29.2008 1:52pm
Pug (mail):
"John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell - but he won't even go to the cave where he lives."

Does anyone actually believe that?


I do. Osama bin Laden is not in Hell, where he should be, he is in Pakistan and everybody, including John McCain, knows it.

Not long ago when Obama stated he would attack bin Laden inside Pakistan if we had "actionable intelligence", McCain jumped all over him and said he wanted to "invade Pakistan", our great ally. So McCain may be willing to go to the "gates of Hell" but he isn't willing to go to Pakistan.

The truth is McCain uses the line about pursuing bin Laden to the gates of Hell as a cheap applause line. It's nothing more than tough-guy posturing.
8.29.2008 2:23pm
Pug (mail):
What kind of judgment is Obama showing when he says that we should listen to and respect the wishes of the new Pakistani government but be willing to invade their country without permission in order to get OBL?

So your going to pursue him to the "gates of Hell" or you're not. If not, just shut up about it.

Furthermore, no one is talking about an invasion, but strikes against specific targets just as has been done by the Bush administration.
8.29.2008 2:25pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
What kind of judgment is Obama showing when he says that we should listen to and respect the wishes of the new Pakistani government but be willing to invade their country without permission in order to get OBL?


If a Dem had made a statement referencing the idea of "permission," in a few nanoseconds we would hear a statement something like this:

George W. Bush will never seek a permission slip to defend the American people


Hollow posturing and sloganeering is one of the few things that the GOP does well.
8.29.2008 2:30pm
Thales (mail) (www):
"Obama shows a real lack of judgement when he says he'll sit down and Ahmadinejad and uses Kennedy's meeting with Khrushchev as evidence for his position, reversing history to put the meeting AFTER missles were put in Cuba."

Um, what's the present analogy to the nuclear missiles being in Cuba?
8.29.2008 2:36pm
Dan M.:
jbb:

Do you think I would give credence to a position against "cheap" guns just because it was promoted by a major manufacturer, who just so happens to not sell any of those "cheap" guns? Do you think I would give credence to a position that private gun sales need to be regulated just because some gun dealers supported it, when they would stand to earn $50 from every single "private" transaction that they process? And do you think I care what you think about rifles just because you think that selling out the rights of others will keep your precious permit safe? It's especially funny that you'd chime in when Obama has consistently said that he doesn't believe that concealed carry should be legal, and I would just about guarantee that he doesn't believe that open carry should be legal, either. So does Obama believe in the 2nd amendment, or does he believe that we have a (very limited) right to keep (not bear) some guns, that is subject to the strictest local regulation?
8.29.2008 6:25pm