Obama said McCain is "right" nine times
The Republicans have been glowing about the fact that Obama repeatedly acknowledged that McCain is right about certain points during last night's debate. Great fodder for people who thrive on talking points and don't believe in the concept of context. Just another distraction from the truth of the matter. On a quick glance, the two candidates are spouting some of the same basic concepts, which is what Obama was pointing out. However, what Obama was really doing was digging deeper into those issues than McCain does. McCain's right about needing to cut spending...it's a pretty good idea, no matter who says it. But what is being left out in postings like the one linked above are the specifics about how McCain is going to do it. People need to focus less on the fact that Obama agrees with McCain on some issues, and more on the ways they differ.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
2008 Election - Presidential Debate #1
i am fan of this summary of last night's debate:
A Calm Obama Weathers a Storm of Sarcasm
By Bill Boyarsky
Sen. John McCain tried to roll over Barack Obama with condescending sarcasm in their first debate but in the end the Democratic presidential nominee stood up to him in a calm, presidential manner.
Was he too calm? Did he pull his punches in an effort to look presidential? Not really. The viewers got a clear choice: a reasoned and reasonable Obama versus an old-fashioned Cold Warrior who would keep us in Iraq endlessly and extend the boundaries we must defend to Georgia and Ukraine.
I was disappointed at the beginning. Moderator Jim Lehrer tried to force these prospective presidents to open up and tell the country what they would do to solve the nation’s worst financial crisis since the 1930s.
McCain mumbled that he would vote for the rescue bill being written in Congress. “Sure,” he said. Obama said he wanted to see the details. There should have been more. Will the taxpayers get an equity share of companies receiving aid? How will mortgage holders facing foreclosure be protected? These and other questions have been well debated in recent days, and there is enough information around for both men to have said more.
Obama did not hammer McCain for his long support of deregulation. Nor did Obama plaster McCain with the Bush label, as he did so well in Denver when he accepted the Democratic nomination. No doubt Obama’s supporters wanted him to slam McCain on the issue and were disappointed that he did not. But his reasonable approach worked when the two candidates got to the announced subject of the debate at the University of Mississippi, national security and foreign affairs.
McCain emerged as a die-hard advocate of the neocon philosophy that mired the United States in a senseless war in Iraq, insisting that the nation will attain its goal of coming “home with victory and honor.” It was as if he did not know that thousands of American troops had died in a war that was started under false pretenses.
He voiced the neocon line of going it alone—or at least not going with any other nation unless it unconditionally supported the United States.
He attacked Obama for wanting to kill Osama bin Laden if we found him hiding within Pakistan’s boundaries. McCain said he would not make such a statement. He spoke warmly of the deposed president of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, saying he had saved “a failing state.”
McCain’s game plan was clear. He tried to treat Obama as a rookie or even a schoolboy. His attacks were blunt and humorless. When the camera caught him listening to Obama’s replies, he had sort of a smirk, as if he were all-knowing. His attitude toward Obama was something like “kid, you don’t know what you are talking about.”
McCain pandered like mad, especially to supporters of Israel. Obama had said he would talk to the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in conjunction with other countries and after his aides had settled on conditions with lower-level Iranian officials. McCain said Obama wanted to “sit across the table with someone who called Israel a stinking corpse.”
Obama replied in a deliberate, thoughtful manner. He noted that the Bush administration was now working with Russia and European allies to stop a nuclear Iran. The United States, he said, “cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran.” But he added that the “notion of by not talking to people you are punishing them doesn’t work.”
The McCain camp, researching past debates, obviously came to the conclusion that aggression wins. John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan were aggressive when they won their debates, but their attacks were tempered by their charm.
McCain had no charm Friday night. He was snide. He was mean. He was all attack, and all over the lot. It is easy to see that his demeanor could have put off a lot of people.
Obama was calm but passionate in the way he stood his ground. He answered McCain but didn’t sink to his level. He looked like a man who could be president, which undoubtedly was his goal when the debate began.
A Calm Obama Weathers a Storm of Sarcasm
By Bill Boyarsky
Sen. John McCain tried to roll over Barack Obama with condescending sarcasm in their first debate but in the end the Democratic presidential nominee stood up to him in a calm, presidential manner.
Was he too calm? Did he pull his punches in an effort to look presidential? Not really. The viewers got a clear choice: a reasoned and reasonable Obama versus an old-fashioned Cold Warrior who would keep us in Iraq endlessly and extend the boundaries we must defend to Georgia and Ukraine.
I was disappointed at the beginning. Moderator Jim Lehrer tried to force these prospective presidents to open up and tell the country what they would do to solve the nation’s worst financial crisis since the 1930s.
McCain mumbled that he would vote for the rescue bill being written in Congress. “Sure,” he said. Obama said he wanted to see the details. There should have been more. Will the taxpayers get an equity share of companies receiving aid? How will mortgage holders facing foreclosure be protected? These and other questions have been well debated in recent days, and there is enough information around for both men to have said more.
Obama did not hammer McCain for his long support of deregulation. Nor did Obama plaster McCain with the Bush label, as he did so well in Denver when he accepted the Democratic nomination. No doubt Obama’s supporters wanted him to slam McCain on the issue and were disappointed that he did not. But his reasonable approach worked when the two candidates got to the announced subject of the debate at the University of Mississippi, national security and foreign affairs.
McCain emerged as a die-hard advocate of the neocon philosophy that mired the United States in a senseless war in Iraq, insisting that the nation will attain its goal of coming “home with victory and honor.” It was as if he did not know that thousands of American troops had died in a war that was started under false pretenses.
He voiced the neocon line of going it alone—or at least not going with any other nation unless it unconditionally supported the United States.
He attacked Obama for wanting to kill Osama bin Laden if we found him hiding within Pakistan’s boundaries. McCain said he would not make such a statement. He spoke warmly of the deposed president of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, saying he had saved “a failing state.”
McCain’s game plan was clear. He tried to treat Obama as a rookie or even a schoolboy. His attacks were blunt and humorless. When the camera caught him listening to Obama’s replies, he had sort of a smirk, as if he were all-knowing. His attitude toward Obama was something like “kid, you don’t know what you are talking about.”
McCain pandered like mad, especially to supporters of Israel. Obama had said he would talk to the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in conjunction with other countries and after his aides had settled on conditions with lower-level Iranian officials. McCain said Obama wanted to “sit across the table with someone who called Israel a stinking corpse.”
Obama replied in a deliberate, thoughtful manner. He noted that the Bush administration was now working with Russia and European allies to stop a nuclear Iran. The United States, he said, “cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran.” But he added that the “notion of by not talking to people you are punishing them doesn’t work.”
The McCain camp, researching past debates, obviously came to the conclusion that aggression wins. John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan were aggressive when they won their debates, but their attacks were tempered by their charm.
McCain had no charm Friday night. He was snide. He was mean. He was all attack, and all over the lot. It is easy to see that his demeanor could have put off a lot of people.
Obama was calm but passionate in the way he stood his ground. He answered McCain but didn’t sink to his level. He looked like a man who could be president, which undoubtedly was his goal when the debate began.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
bailin'...
Can someone please explain why anyone in the government would actually think just giving $700 billion to bail-out investment banks without attaching provisions is a good idea? "Mr. Paulson... [conceded] that he would ensure oversight and enforce conflict-of-interest policies" (Wall Street Journal, 9/24/08) is not an acceptable provision...especially! when it's coming from the Bush Administration.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
people are people, so why should it be...
this is a few days late, but i just got around to watching rev. jeremiah wright's NAACP speech from the other day. you can watch it here (right-brained) or read it here (left-brained). it's a fantastic and entertaining speech. of course, we can nitpick every word he says and every comparison he makes by saying this line is racist and that line is angry, but what about discussing the overall point? what about discussing the lines he repeats throughout the speech: "I believe that a change is going to come because many of us are committing to changing how we see others who are different" and "I believe a change is coming. It's not deficient, it's just different."
we need to change the way we view one another AS PEOPLE (and i don't mean just in america, but all over the world). we need to be taught to see one another's differences as something to learn from and enjoy, not something that separates us. whether we like it or not, we live in a global society. and in order to survive, we need to learn how to live together. one idea, under god doesn't work. we need to identify our commonalities and let the petty differences die. we need to identify our major differences and work them out. we need to be willing to compromise. and this needs to happen, not only between governments and world leaders, but on an everyday basis, between everyday people.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Great Lesson for the Kids...
This is just pure ridiculousness...
Kids turn to lawyers in battle for Beckham jersey
Frivolous lawsuit anyone? This jersey should be donated to charity, and the parents involved in this stupid situation need to be whacked in the face with a little perspective. It's a soccer jersey, people. A soccer jersey.
Kids turn to lawyers in battle for Beckham jersey
Frivolous lawsuit anyone? This jersey should be donated to charity, and the parents involved in this stupid situation need to be whacked in the face with a little perspective. It's a soccer jersey, people. A soccer jersey.
Monday, February 18, 2008
military industrial complex much?
If you've seen "Why We Fight," read this CNN article. If you haven't seen it, read this article, watch the movie, and then think about it.
Generals warn of 'geriatric Air Force'
* Story Highlights
* Jet fighters, bombers, cargo aircraft at the breaking point, Air Force officials say
* Expensive, ultramodern replacements are needed fast, they say
* Air Force's appetite for more money is far greater than other military branches
* Yet the prospects for huge infusions of cash seem dim
Read the Article
It'll be interesting to see if congress keeps it's balls on this one. The Air Force wants more money so they can buy better planes. Now, I'm obviously not that educated on aircraft, but aren't we currently fighting enemies who don't even have planes? And I haven't heard any recent news about defective air craft causing deaths. So, what do we need new planes for? Where are we going with them and what will we be doing with them? Are we planning on being in a major world war with advanced militaries any time soon?
I hope congress takes a good look into this before it approves more money. It begs many questions. With all the politicians talking about ending the war, bringing home our troops, and cutting our military funding, this is an opportunity to prove that they are actually interested in working on it. With the shadow of the contractor scandels that have occurred over the past few years, there's no reason we shouldn't look closely into our own military as well. Money is money. Even if the difference in the Air Force's request and the Bush Administration's proposed allotment is only $20 billion, imagine if we redirected that money to education. Think of how much our school districts could do with $20 billion! If the Air Force needs new planes for a real, reasonable reason, then I can understand giving them the money (even though I think a lot of the "protecting our nation" messages are propaganda). But, if there are holes in this request - there are better places in the budget to put this money.
Generals warn of 'geriatric Air Force'
* Story Highlights
* Jet fighters, bombers, cargo aircraft at the breaking point, Air Force officials say
* Expensive, ultramodern replacements are needed fast, they say
* Air Force's appetite for more money is far greater than other military branches
* Yet the prospects for huge infusions of cash seem dim
Read the Article
It'll be interesting to see if congress keeps it's balls on this one. The Air Force wants more money so they can buy better planes. Now, I'm obviously not that educated on aircraft, but aren't we currently fighting enemies who don't even have planes? And I haven't heard any recent news about defective air craft causing deaths. So, what do we need new planes for? Where are we going with them and what will we be doing with them? Are we planning on being in a major world war with advanced militaries any time soon?
I hope congress takes a good look into this before it approves more money. It begs many questions. With all the politicians talking about ending the war, bringing home our troops, and cutting our military funding, this is an opportunity to prove that they are actually interested in working on it. With the shadow of the contractor scandels that have occurred over the past few years, there's no reason we shouldn't look closely into our own military as well. Money is money. Even if the difference in the Air Force's request and the Bush Administration's proposed allotment is only $20 billion, imagine if we redirected that money to education. Think of how much our school districts could do with $20 billion! If the Air Force needs new planes for a real, reasonable reason, then I can understand giving them the money (even though I think a lot of the "protecting our nation" messages are propaganda). But, if there are holes in this request - there are better places in the budget to put this money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)