Obama's speech last night

Honestly it gave me chills. He's obviously a dynamic speaker but I really appreciated that he directly addressed the failures of the last eight years (tax cuts for the wealthy while we're running a huge deficit, Iraq war, lack of diplomacy, torture, focus on oil instead of renewables, inept response to Katrina, etc.) and exactly what he would do correct them. I also liked that he actually called for individual responsibility and sacrifice in solving our nation's problems, something Bush has never done.

But I know there are a lot of conservatives on FTR so I'm curious to hear other reactions...

I thought it was pretty good. I also liked the "ask not what your country can do for you" bit.

link?

the part about getting away from saudi oil was utter horse shit. the only way to do that is to drill. sure, alternative energy is nice, but in the next 10 years there is no way it will make up for even 10% of the energy consumed. its just not that advanced. the only way is for more nuclear and drilling on our turf, atm. granted, he is for some nuclear.

also, the statistic he repeated a couple times about mccain and bush being 90% alike. thats a perfect example, as neil boortz points out of how you can shape a statistic to do anything you want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neil boortz

The Obama campaign is dedicated to the idea of chaining John McCain to George Bush. Once again last night we heard that bit about McCain voting with Bush 90% of the time. That line works because the dumb masses don't know any better. Has it occurred to you that George Bush doesn't have a vote in the Senate? So just how do you measure the percentage of times that McCain is voting "with" the president? Well, perhaps you could measure the number of times that a Senator votes with the Republican members. Ahhh ... but remember, as our Washington correspondent Jamie Dupree has told us many times, most Senate votes are unanimous. This would mean that the only way not to "vote with the president" would be not to vote at all. As Dick Morris wrote: "The fact that McCain backs commending a basketball team on its victory doesn't mean that he is in lockstep ideologically with the president."

Morris also points out a series of important issues on which Bush and McCain did not agree:

* McCain fought for campaign finance reform McCain-Feingold that Bush resisted and ultimately signed because he had no choice.
* McCain led the battle to restrict interrogation techniques of terror suspects and to ban torture.
* McCain went with Joe Lieberman on a tough measure to curb climate change, something Bush denies is going on.
* McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts when they passed.
* McCain urged the Iraq surge, a posture Bush rejected for years before conceding its wisdom.
* McCain favors FDA regulation of tobacco and sponsored legislation to that effect, a position all but a handful of Republican senators oppose.
* McCain's energy bill, also with Lieberman, is a virtual blueprint for energy independence and development of alternate sources.
* After the Enron scandal, McCain introduced sweeping reforms in corporate governance and legislation to guarantee pensions and prohibit golden parachutes for executives. Bush opposed McCain's changes and the watered-down Sarbanes-Oxley bill eventuated.
* McCain has been harshly critical of congressional overspending, particularly of budgetary earmarks, a position Bush only lately adopted (after the Democrats took over Congress).

---

I don't know how you can criticize a politician for misrepresenting statistics in their favor. I mean...I thought it was commonly accepted that all politicians do that :?:

It's like criticizing a whore for selling sex without questioning the system under which they operate.

Political campaigns make me sick. There's so much deceit. It almost comes down to which party's bullshit public relations & marketing can convince the uneducated masses better.

/jaded

One small criticism against his speech would be that most of the solutions he suggested are completely illegal. But why should a president care about the law?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up

One small criticism against his speech would be that most of the solutions he suggested are completely illegal. But why should a president care about the law?

---

Explain

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up

One small criticism against his speech would be that most of the solutions he suggested are completely illegal. But why should a president care about the law?

---

Explain

---

The US constitution is very clear what the federal government is and isn't allowed to do. The tenth amendment is very clear:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If a power is not explicitly granted to the federal government by the constitution, they don't have it. This actually invalidates most of todays federal powers and institutions, which should be handled at state level.

nothing is ever very clear when it comes to gov't

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up

One small criticism against his speech would be that most of the solutions he suggested are completely illegal. But why should a president care about the law?

---

Explain

---

The US constitution is very clear what the federal government is and isn't allowed to do. The tenth amendment is very clear:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If a power is not explicitly granted to the federal government by the constitution, they don't have it. This actually invalidates most of todays federal powers and institutions, which should be handled at state level.

---

This is a pointless argument... presidents have routinely exercised more power than the Constitution grants them and Bush took it further than anyone so the precedent is set. And with a Democratic Congress in place he'll have an easier time passing legislation than Bush did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up

One small criticism against his speech would be that most of the solutions he suggested are completely illegal. But why should a president care about the law?

---

Explain

---

The US constitution is very clear what the federal government is and isn't allowed to do. The tenth amendment is very clear:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If a power is not explicitly granted to the federal government by the constitution, they don't have it. This actually invalidates most of todays federal powers and institutions, which should be handled at state level.

---

I was kinda hoping for cliff notes on his solutions :sad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up

One small criticism against his speech would be that most of the solutions he suggested are completely illegal. But why should a president care about the law?

---

Explain

---

The US constitution is very clear what the federal government is and isn't allowed to do. The tenth amendment is very clear:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If a power is not explicitly granted to the federal government by the constitution, they don't have it. This actually invalidates most of todays federal powers and institutions, which should be handled at state level.

---

LOL.

The constitution, like the bible, can be, and is, interpreted in numerous ways. One major role of our Supreme Court is to give us their interpretation, which we are then forced to follow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zook

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up

One small criticism against his speech would be that most of the solutions he suggested are completely illegal. But why should a president care about the law?

---

Explain

---

The US constitution is very clear what the federal government is and isn't allowed to do. The tenth amendment is very clear:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If a power is not explicitly granted to the federal government by the constitution, they don't have it. This actually invalidates most of todays federal powers and institutions, which should be handled at state level.

---

This is a pointless argument... presidents have routinely exercised more power than the Constitution grants them and Bush took it further than anyone so the precedent is set. And with a Democratic Congress in place he'll have an easier time passing legislation than Bush did.

---

Two wrongs don't make a right (in this case it's more wrongs than 2 though). Certainly you can have opinions on what the powers of the government ought to be. But then you should change the law rather than ignoring it. A government that's above the law can't really be in the interest of the people can it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chardrian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up

One small criticism against his speech would be that most of the solutions he suggested are completely illegal. But why should a president care about the law?

---

Explain

---

The US constitution is very clear what the federal government is and isn't allowed to do. The tenth amendment is very clear:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If a power is not explicitly granted to the federal government by the constitution, they don't have it. This actually invalidates most of todays federal powers and institutions, which should be handled at state level.

---

LOL.

The constitution, like the bible, can be, and is, interpreted in numerous ways. One major role of our Supreme Court is to give us their interpretation, which we are then forced to follow.

---

How can you interpret that sentence any differently?

Necessary and Proper Clause-The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Commerce Clause-The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.

The two legal justifications for pretty much every expansion of federal power in American history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zook

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up

One small criticism against his speech would be that most of the solutions he suggested are completely illegal. But why should a president care about the law?

---

Explain

---

The US constitution is very clear what the federal government is and isn't allowed to do. The tenth amendment is very clear:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If a power is not explicitly granted to the federal government by the constitution, they don't have it. This actually invalidates most of todays federal powers and institutions, which should be handled at state level.

---

This is a pointless argument... presidents have routinely exercised more power than the Constitution grants them and Bush took it further than anyone so the precedent is set. And with a Democratic Congress in place he'll have an easier time passing legislation than Bush did.

---

Two wrongs don't make a right (in this case it's more wrongs than 2 though). Certainly you can have opinions on what the powers of the government ought to be. But then you should change the law rather than ignoring it. A government that's above the law can't really be in the interest of the people can it?

---

The Constitution is too hard to change. Start a separate thread if you want to talk about this... or talk about specific things Obama stated he would do that will be difficult or impossible b/c of the structure of our gov't (I noticed a few)... as it is, you're derailing my thread :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

link?

---

http://www.demconvention.com/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up

One small criticism against his speech would be that most of the solutions he suggested are completely illegal. But why should a president care about the law?

---

Explain

---

The US constitution is very clear what the federal government is and isn't allowed to do. The tenth amendment is very clear:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If a power is not explicitly granted to the federal government by the constitution, they don't have it. This actually invalidates most of todays federal powers and institutions, which should be handled at state level.

---

ummm this is the argument of liberalism v conservatism. up to intepretation imo

his ability to speak is one of the best things he has going for him

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zook

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zook

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2_Thumbs_Up

One small criticism against his speech would be that most of the solutions he suggested are completely illegal. But why should a president care about the law?

---

Explain

---

The US constitution is very clear what the federal government is and isn't allowed to do. The tenth amendment is very clear:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If a power is not explicitly granted to the federal government by the constitution, they don't have it. This actually invalidates most of todays federal powers and institutions, which should be handled at state level.

---

This is a pointless argument... presidents have routinely exercised more power than the Constitution grants them and Bush took it further than anyone so the precedent is set. And with a Democratic Congress in place he'll have an easier time passing legislation than Bush did.

---

Two wrongs don't make a right (in this case it's more wrongs than 2 though). Certainly you can have opinions on what the powers of the government ought to be. But then you should change the law rather than ignoring it. A government that's above the law can't really be in the interest of the people can it?

---

The Constitution is too hard to change. Start a separate thread if you want to talk about this... or talk about specific things Obama stated he would do that will be difficult or impossible b/c of the structure of our gov't (I noticed a few)... as it is, you're derailing my thread :)

---

Sorry for going off topic. I might come with more precise comments on his speech tomorrow, but as it's friday and getting late here in Sweden it's time to start drinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

his ability to speak is one of the best things he has going for him

---

don't forget his jumpshot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zook

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

his ability to speak is one of the best things he has going for him

---

don't forget his bowling skills

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

also, the statistic he repeated a couple times about mccain and bush being 90% alike. thats a perfect example, as neil boortz points out of how you can shape a statistic to do anything you want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neil boortz

The Obama campaign is dedicated to the idea of chaining John McCain to George Bush. Once again last night we heard that bit about McCain voting with Bush 90% of the time. That line works because the dumb masses don't know any better. Has it occurred to you that George Bush doesn't have a vote in the Senate? So just how do you measure the percentage of times that McCain is voting "with" the president? Well, perhaps you could measure the number of times that a Senator votes with the Republican members. Ahhh ... but remember, as our Washington correspondent Jamie Dupree has told us many times, most Senate votes are unanimous. This would mean that the only way not to "vote with the president" would be not to vote at all.

---

---

The statistic comes from Congressional Quaterly's Voting Studies, a nonpartisan publication. And you know he's voting with Bush b/c Bush makes his opinion known on all bills before the Senate. I don't know wtf Jamie Dupree is talking about b/c I just looked at the results of >30 roll call votes this year in the Senate (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...menu_110_2.htm) and not a single one of them was unanimous. Your man Neil needs a fact checker.

There was no "twisting" of this statistic. I agree with you that it's not as damning as it sounds at first, b/c even Obama voted with Bush 40% of the time, but 50% of the votes is still a big difference.

More from another nonpartisan source here: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...oted_with.html

It was a great speech, very rousing - I liked the bit about weaning the US off middle eastern oil . .

The numerous MLK references were very sharp, the only thing that worried me was that he didn't quite look like the leader standing on the stage - more a child at a christmas play.

I really sincerely hope he gets into power though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zook

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

also, the statistic he repeated a couple times about mccain and bush being 90% alike. thats a perfect example, as neil boortz points out of how you can shape a statistic to do anything you want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neil boortz

The Obama campaign is dedicated to the idea of chaining John McCain to George Bush. Once again last night we heard that bit about McCain voting with Bush 90% of the time. That line works because the dumb masses don't know any better. Has it occurred to you that George Bush doesn't have a vote in the Senate? So just how do you measure the percentage of times that McCain is voting "with" the president? Well, perhaps you could measure the number of times that a Senator votes with the Republican members. Ahhh ... but remember, as our Washington correspondent Jamie Dupree has told us many times, most Senate votes are unanimous. This would mean that the only way not to "vote with the president" would be not to vote at all.

---

---

The statistic comes from Congressional Quaterly's Voting Studies, a nonpartisan publication. And you know he's voting with Bush b/c Bush makes his opinion known on all bills before the Senate. I don't know wtf Jamie Dupree is talking about b/c I just looked at the results of >30 roll call votes this year in the Senate (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...menu_110_2.htm) and not a single one of them was unanimous. Your man Neil needs a fact checker.

There was no "twisting" of this statistic. I agree with you that it's not as damning as it sounds at first, b/c even Obama voted with Bush 40% of the time, but 50% of the votes is still a big difference.

More from another nonpartisan source here: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...oted_with.html

---

you say its not as damning as it sounds, yet you say its not "twisting". just then what do you call it? fwiw, i never said twisted. my point is that a statistic by itself isnt very useful, and the whole goal of obama hammering this point is to make ppl think mccain=bush, and that is misleading, which is basically a politicians job. so no harm no foul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

you say its not as damning as it sounds, yet you say its not "twisting". just then what do you call it? fwiw, i never said twisted. my point is that a statistic by itself isnt very useful, and the whole goal of obama hammering this point is to make ppl think mccain=bush, and that is misleading, which is basically a politicians job. so no harm no foul.

---

Oops, not sure where the hell I got "twisting", sorry. I would call it statistic selection. Yeah, I guess I was arguing more with Neil than with you.

I think it's blatantly obvious that a McCain administration would be a hell of a lot more like a Bush administration than an Obama one would. I mean, McCain's a military hawk, he supports making the Bush tax cuts permanent, he has a huge number of Bush people on his staff... given all of that I think it's completely fair for Obama to use Bush's record against McCain.

are there any brits on here that are pro-obama but old enough to follow politics pre 97?
Obama seems like Blair would of seemed before he got elected, young, clearly intelligent, very articulate, whilst running a good campaign (for which there party was not known for).
I can imagine myself being v pro Blair for the wrong reasons, like i am pro obama: 'change' 'hope' and all that other BS, that the oppostion espouses every election

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zook

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

you say its not as damning as it sounds, yet you say its not "twisting". just then what do you call it? fwiw, i never said twisted. my point is that a statistic by itself isnt very useful, and the whole goal of obama hammering this point is to make ppl think mccain=bush, and that is misleading, which is basically a politicians job. so no harm no foul.

---

Oops, not sure where the hell I got "twisting", sorry. I would call it statistic selection. Yeah, I guess I was arguing more with Neil than with you.

I think it's blatantly obvious that a McCain administration would be a hell of a lot more like a Bush administration than an Obama one would. I mean, McCain's a military hawk, he supports making the Bush tax cuts permanent, he has a huge number of Bush people on his staff... given all of that I think it's completely fair for Obama to use Bush's record against McCain.

---

idk, its just like, if you look at some of the things listed in my first post, those are some pretty big differences between mccain and bush. its not just a bunch of petty bullshit that congress votes for all the time. mccain opposed using torture for one. and of course his administration is going to be similar, he is a republican. the fact of the matter is that he would've used this tactic regardless of which gop member was nominated. not saying its a bad tactic, its good, he has 30% approval rate, which is still about 3x better than congress (ty very much ms. pelosi).

I thought the speech was tactically brilliant. This is gonna be a doozy of a campaign.

if obama does not win then i will likely move to a different country because a repub win will solidify the facts that US is run by the religious right and will always be run by the religious right. this is because all the repubs have in this election is the right, and if the dems will ever again pull it off its now.

it sickens me that fox news wins elections. repubs can be as hypocritical as can be, flip flop as much as they want, and enact egregious policies, but as long as enough voters get their information solely from fox news none of that matters since the spin zone spins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaulPaul

are there any brits on here that are pro-obama but old enough to follow politics pre 97?
Obama seems like Blair would of seemed before he got elected, young, clearly intelligent, very articulate, whilst running a good campaign (for which there party was not known for).
I can imagine myself being v pro Blair for the wrong reasons, like i am pro obama: 'change' 'hope' and all that other BS, that the oppostion espouses every election

---

Blair didn't necessarily win in 97 because of charisma, he won because John Major made massive, massive fuck ups with our tax system, so he was essentially the next best thing.

The last prime minister people were supremely confident in voting for was probably Thatcher, or possibly even Major before he turned into an idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

...and if the dems will ever again pull it off its now.

---

This is their mulligan for the joke that was the Kerry campaign. If they can't beat the least popular president in US history (the only one to break the 70% mark in disapproval rating... and only slightly better than Nixon's all-time low...), they will have proved two things for at least the short term. 1) They need to get away from letting the fringe liberal left hold as much control over their platform by moving towards the center and focusing on issues that independents and "non-right-wing-loony" fiscal conservative repubs really care about and can trust them on and 2) they're complete and utter ineptitude in running a campaign. If they fix both of these this time with Obama, I think they've actually got someone they can win with... but I think it will be the most interesting campaign we've had in a long time.

For context - I'm a Chris Rock independent... conservative on taxes, liberal on prostitution...

The Shorter Barack Obama

Jesse Walker | August 29, 2008, 12:00am
Government cannot solve all our problems. Just the ones involving energy, education, work, the weather, cities, the countryside, sick children, sick mothers, joblessness, hopelessness, and frightening foreigners who do not live in Iraq. Now if you'll all look under your seats, every one of you is going home with a new car!