Tickling the Ivories


Here is a very interesting article about Obama's appeal.


I'm not making any comment here, only that I found it to be a real eye-squincher.

10 Comments:

Eric Danley said...

Wow...that was an incredibly inaccurate and biased article. There is some legitimacy in what he said about the Obama Jackson relationship, but beyond that not much more than Limbaugh-esque trash.

"Already he has flip-flopped on campaign financing, wire-tapping, gun control, faith-based initiatives, and the terms of withdrawal from Iraq."

Obama has been consistant on every one of those issues:

Campaign Financing: Will accept Public Financing and only public financing if his republican opponent does the same. McCain refused to reign in RNC or 527 spending groups. Before you bring up MoveOn, Obama recently asked MoveOn to pull an ad with a mother questioning McCain's 100 year Iraq war, and MoveOn pulled the ad.

Wire-Tapping: I disagree strongly with Obama's decision in this, but he was consistant with his position.

Gun Control: Hes always been a gun-control candidate, but yes he has moderated his stance here.

Faith-Based Initatives: I'll be honest, I haven't paid much attention here.

Iraq: Go back to every single speech hes made, read what he actually said and he has always said the same thing. We aim for withdrawl over about 16 months, but that can change depending on what the commanders in the field say.

"John McCain is simply a man of considerable character, poor guy."

Seriously? Let me list just a few of this guys flops:

1. Campaign Finance - The McCain Feingold Campaign Reform Act makes the practice of using corporate jets for the cost of one coach airline ticket illegal. This is a law he wrote, championed and still points to, as he flys around in a corporate jet owned by his wife's company. Why is this not against the law? Oh, because his wife owns the company.

2. Social Security - McCain fought against the privatization of social security saying it does not fix the problem. Now, hes all for it in an attempt to shore up his republican base.

3. Support out Troops? - He voted against Senator Webb's bill to increase veterans benefits though he even later claimed that he voted for it.

McCain is a product of old american politics. He says whatever he thinks will make that crowd happy and expects the media to give him a pass. This time though, thanks to the internet he won't get that pass.

Check this out if you haven't seen it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

Obama, is a new politician. Not just a politician that makes white people not feel guilt about slavery. But a politician that has funded his campaign with almost entirely sub-$200 donations. That is interested in fighting in all 50 states, not just the 6 "swing states" and that really wants to make America a leader once again on the state of world morality. Demonstrating Freedom, Equality, and Prosperity for everyone who lives here regardless of race or class or religion.

/rant

Eric

bluetablepainting said...

Thanks, Eric. More information is always good!

For my part, I am voraciously devouring all the information I can.

Anyone else?

bluetablepainting said...

As usual with Eric's comments, I can't stop thinking about it. Now that's good discourse!

Having read Obama's book, it is clear that he does indeed change his position on occasion. I think characterizing it as flip-flopping is not very fair. In fact, Barack is very much a human, very three dimensional.

I'm a bit of an Obama sympathizer. I certainly resent efforts to flatten him into a cardboard cutout. Some of the stuff coming off the McCain youtube channel is just plain silly.

The question is: could I accept a man as my country's leader even though I don't agree with all of his positions? Of course I could.

McCain and Obama are both Statists in my book. Both of them interpret the constitution too liberally for my taste. Still way too much power.

James said...

It's just interesting to read about the Auther, one "Shelby Steele"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_Steele

who is, " a self-described Black conservative "

so, I'm not really suprised that he is opinion article is Pro McCain, Anti-Obama, albiet rather veiled.

Personally - Race shouldn't be mentioned at all in this ellection, America should vote it's pocket book - We need jobs, money in our pockets, gas in our cars, affordable health care, and a stronger dollar. The American Middle class needs to be "Middle" again.

Bottom Line: We need a candidate that can do that, and I for one don't care if he's green with pink-poka dots.

Ryan Navarro said...

Hey Shawn,

First time poster and long time reader. Although neither candidate really gets me excited I thought I would add this article from the BBC in regards to "Flip Flops". I just felt the need to comment after Eric's post about Mr. Obama.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7474558.stm


And please don't stop opining on the political process. I truly appreciate your candor and openness about the issues. I still think it is a shame Ron Paul got bullied/ignored out of the race.

E said...

So re-reading that comment I left, let me speak in a more rational voice. It irritates me when an article like the one linked is reported as news, instead of opinion. I do see that this article is in the opinion section, but the effect is the same. I'm also a bit peturbed at what Rupert Murdoch has done to the Wall Street Journal. Hes turning it into Fox News, which and we can argue about this is not a news station but an entertainment one.

As Shawn said, it is not wrong for a politician to change his or her mind. Times change, people's beliefs change, and different bills do different things. Its the term "flip-flopper" or insinuation of such that is wrong. The attacks on John Kerry were mean spirited, and often flat out lies spread by an american media that is complacent and unwilling to bring out the truth for fear of the tag "Liberal Bias."

Now, in regards to the issues mentioned. I do not believe that Obama changed his mind on Campaign Financing, hes requirements were simply that he would use only public financing and not PACs or 527s if his opponent made the same claim. McCain refused to make that Pledge.

Iraq, he has always been against the war but always recognized that the president can't simply call up the pentagon in late January and say, "Alright bring them home now." Its not realistic, and dangerous to US troops and would be devastating to Iraq's sovereign government. A phased withdrawal is what he has always promised, and it is the right solution.

FISA - Obama said, he would never support any bill that included immunity for the telecoms. And he did break that pledge, so I guess this is technically a position change. However, it is consistent with he overall position and an example in his belief in measured change.

McCain is not an example of a politician who changes his mind, but a politician who panders. He says what he thinks that crowd wants to hear and hope no one notices. He has been caught again and again in this, and it will continue to haunt him on the campaign trail.

Support Ron Paul? Vote for Bob Barr, he has a decent chance of hitting the 5% mark this election getting him federal funds in the 2012 election. That being said, I think he would be a horrible president. (Expecting pushback on that comment.) However, if you live in a swing state and don't want McCain to win, you need to vote for Obama.

bluetablepainting said...

I would like to reiterate that I posted this article because I found it interesting and thought-provoking, not because it reflected my own opinion.

I will comment on something Eric said on an earlier post, (paraphrasing) that Bob Barr's website didn't have his position on a various issues listed. That's just the point: I don't want a president who's going to run my life.

"Bungling" is a word I think describes the Federal Government. Sending money to Washington is like water in the swamp. It breeds all sorts of unpleasant critters. Don't fight the mosquitos; drain the standing water.

My one criteria is "Will this man uphold the Constitution?"

Eric Danley said...

Shawn, I've been meaning to ask you. You have previously stated that you are not a fan of John McCain. Does this change if Mitt Romney is his Veep pick?

By the way the "e" comment was me if you didn't already know that :-) Not sure why it didn't show my whole name.

Eric

bluetablepainting said...

Eric: You mean, vote for McCain just because his running mate is a Mormon? Of course not.

I don't think that any of these candidates (except maaaybe Barr-- who I still have to study) are going to reduce the size of the federal government.

Matt said...

I found your previous comment interesting because the President *can't* reduce the size of government. That the job of Congress.
One of our countries primary problems is lobbying. Every company on the Fortune top 100 spends money lobbying because it’s so efficient. $100,000 spent lobbying nets $2,000,000 in tax breaks. The company I work for does it, and when I asked they said ‘because if we don’t we are at a serious competitive disadvantage’.
I think the real (and realistic) solution is to disperse the US Houses. Make all Congressmen and Senators permanently reside in their districts. Hold all of the House’s meetings via electronic conference (secure, if necessary) and have votes all take place online. Of all things in our government, the way our politicians vote should be public.
Right now our elected representatives are a lot more available to large business interests. Let’s change that and go from there.
Once our representatives are more available, accountable and in-touch with their constituents I think we'll be taking the first steps to a better government.

 

blogger templates | Make Money Online