New and Not Improved

[RY62]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The whole bit from loki8481 about voting for the person rather than the party is silly in ways that are hard to describe. The vast majority of today's repub politicians are creations of the party and the rightwing thinktanks- they didn't get where they are through independent thought but rather through being formed into what they are through the use of a recipe and a cookie cutter...
Few would have the vaguest idea what to say or where to stand w/o the RNC and their trusty heartland foundation policy papers to tell them how to act...

I find it strange that those on the left can clearly see this on the right and those on the right can clearly see the same thing from the left but few can see that it's happened on both sides

Please. It's the repubs who are famous for their solidarity and discipline- they're like the political version of Stepford wives.

Dems simply don't have the interlocking structures of thinktanks, foundations, charities, pacs and longtime big money support as repubs. Nor do they use the DNC as a money laundering and favor currying mechanism anywhere near as well as repubs organize the RNC.

Keeping Dems together on any subject is like trying to herd cats. Well, any subject other than the idea that the repubs have to go before we're all ruined...

What you're saying was true until a few years ago. There's a new coalition and today's Dem party, with Soros backing, is quickly catching up to the Republicans in all ways.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ it is a liberal rag...

No, it's not. It's a mix of 'mainstream' journailism, with some right-wing and left-wing 'bias' creeping in occassionally.

The right loves to brag ahold of any bit of evidence that there is occassionally 'liberal bias', like the one Ombudsman's commentary - while not noting the very difference that you certainly shouldn't expect to see any such 'Ombudsman' criticize the 'bias' at the Washington Times or Fox or most papers, not that the NY Times is their 'counterpart', but rather that their very vigilance is an indication that they're different.

Attacking the NY Times is nothing but 'trying to move the goalposts'. There are no 'liberal' major papers I know of in the US now. Liberals have very few media outlets.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ it is a liberal rag, which is why this OP-Ed is so interesting. When you base starts to call you a flip-flopper you have problems.

It's in no way a 'liberal rag'. It is the newspaper of record for the United States and has won more Pulitzer Prizes then any other newspaper in American history.

If the NYT is a 'rag' then so is every other paper in print in the US. Considering newspapers frequently have significantly higher standards then broadcast or web journalism this would make all other news sources of nearly apocalyptic disrepute.

I know it's a common right wing talking point to hate on the NYT, but surely even the most biased person can see through it.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ it is a liberal rag, which is why this OP-Ed is so interesting. When you base starts to call you a flip-flopper you have problems.

Sorry, but I'm not sure it works that way. Either the NYT is a reliable paper with opinions that should be taken seriously, or it's not. You can't bleat about "liberal media bias" when they say something you don't like, yet suggest their editorial is "interesting" when it takes a position you agree with.

And in any case, eskimospy is right. The NYT is, bar none, the best paper in the country and has impressive credentials to back up their journalistic integrity. As opposed to, say, their conservative commentator detractors who have an obvious motivation to discredit the paper.

 

[Jhhnn]

Please, RY62- It was the DLC under the guidance of your heroes, the Clintons, who first attempted to discipline Dems- see where it's gotten them today. Soros? How lame. It'll take 30 years of concentrated effort and a helluva lot more money than Soros to even come close to what the conservative funders have done with the Repubs.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders.php

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Please, RY62- It was the DLC under the guidance of your heroes, the Clintons, who first attempted to discipline Dems- see where it's gotten them today. Soros? How lame. It'll take 30 years of concentrated effort and a helluva lot more money than Soros to even come close to what the conservative funders have done with the Repubs.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders.php

As you well know, the DLC are not the ones I was refering to. The truth is in the middle. The DNC (extreme left side of the party) are quickly catching up to the Republicans in tactics and in attempting to "discipline" the Dems. The DNC caught most of us off guard with how well organized and powerful they have become. The DNC was able to pretty much force Obama to the front.

Democrats who reject the extreme left ideologies had better wake up soon. Joining with Republicans who reject the extreme right would be "Real Change" that's better than the extremes of either party.

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh. The "Extreme Left" policies of the DNC, (led by Howard Dean) is completely laughable, and echoes the usual rightwing talk radio blather. Anybody who isn't of your own particular persuasion is an obvious "Leftist", right? Kee-rist, you're starting to sound like some of the more rabid wingnuts who post here regularly.

You're revealing yourself and the rest of the sour grapes over Hillary crowd for what it really is- a disguise, and a deliberate attempt to sabotage Dems in general. I can appreciate why moderate repubs were more likely to support Clinton than Obama, and why repubs picked McCain to run against her. But they miscalculated, and are now stuck with a mismatch and an opponent they didn't want, hadn't had 15 years to cultivate a hate club over... With a Clinton- McCain match, they could muddy the waters, eliminate policy as an issue, turn it into a straight up popularity contest, maybe even win.

Not now. It'll take a miracle to put McCain into the Whitehouse, and the sour grapes you're spitting out are just an attempt to help that miracle happen...

Quit living in the past, telling us about how Hillary is really the "better" candidate- in the current climate, she was only ever better for the repubs, something I'm sure you're well aware of... Instead of trying to give real Dems the reacharound, reach across the aisle and embrace Mr McCain... you know, be honest...

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ it is a liberal rag, which is why this OP-Ed is so interesting. When you base starts to call you a flip-flopper you have problems.

Sorry, but I'm not sure it works that way. Either the NYT is a reliable paper with opinions that should be taken seriously, or it's not. You can't bleat about "liberal media bias" when they say something you don't like, yet suggest their editorial is "interesting" when it takes a position you agree with.

And in any case, eskimospy is right. The NYT is, bar none, the best paper in the country and has impressive credentials to back up their journalistic integrity. As opposed to, say, their conservative commentator detractors who have an obvious motivation to discredit the paper.

At least you got what I was getting at, Rainsford

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Heh. The "Extreme Left" policies of the DNC, (led by Howard Dean) is completely laughable, and echoes the usual rightwing talk radio blather. Anybody who isn't of your own particular persuasion is an obvious "Leftist", right? Kee-rist, you're starting to sound like some of the more rabid wingnuts who post here regularly.

You're revealing yourself and the rest of the sour grapes over Hillary crowd for what it really is- a disguise, and a deliberate attempt to sabotage Dems in general. I can appreciate why moderate repubs were more likely to support Clinton than Obama, and why repubs picked McCain to run against her. But they miscalculated, and are now stuck with a mismatch and an opponent they didn't want, hadn't had 15 years to cultivate a hate club over... With a Clinton- McCain match, they could muddy the waters, eliminate policy as an issue, turn it into a straight up popularity contest, maybe even win.

Not now. It'll take a miracle to put McCain into the Whitehouse, and the sour grapes you're spitting out are just an attempt to help that miracle happen...

Quit living in the past, telling us about how Hillary is really the "better" candidate- in the current climate, she was only ever better for the repubs, something I'm sure you're well aware of... Instead of trying to give real Dems the reacharound, reach across the aisle and embrace Mr McCain... you know, be honest...

Dean isn't leading anything. He's just another pawn in the game.
The rest of your post reflects the DNC tactic for this election. "Get over it", "quit living in the past". There can be no dissention in the ranks. You're either on the Obama bandwagon or you're republican. To be a Democrat, you must assimilate.

Party Unity My Ass!

I've been a "Real Democrat" for longer than most of the Obama supporters have been alive but, if this is where the party is heading, I'll gladly walk across the aisle. I've said it before and I have been honest.

Hillary is far from perfect but she is the better candidate. She just isn't someone to be easily controlled by the far left.

 

[OrByte]

imho

This flip-flopping thing is really just a manufactured controversy by the media.

I mean really.

You cant talk about flip-flopping without talking about BOTH canidates. And you can't hammer one candidate on flip-flopping without appearing partisan. Both have done it, actually come to think of it ALOT of politicians do it.

So what is the point? So now all of a sudden Obama is less trustworthy? is he less trustworthy than McCain? Will I use flipp-flopping as a litmus test of some sort? If thats the case then I will keep my vote in my pocket because BOTH candidates do it.

So when taking that into account, what is the real point of the Op-ed from the NYT? I guess thanks for sharing, but on the isssue of flip-flopping its a fvcking waste of my time worrying about it.

In the end I am still going to vote for a politician that shares the same opinion on the ISSUES that I do...well, mostly

 

[ProfJohn]

NY Times not a liberal paper?

Are you guys fucking crazy?

From the paper itself.
link

s The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?

OF course it is.

The fattest file on my hard drive is jammed with letters from the disappointed, the dismayed and the irate who find in this newspaper a liberal bias that infects not just political coverage but a range of issues from abortion to zoology to the appointment of an admitted Democrat to be its watchdog. (That would be me.) By contrast, readers who attack The Times from the left - and there are plenty - generally confine their complaints to the paper's coverage of electoral politics and foreign policy.

I'll get to the politics-and-policy issues this fall (I want to watch the campaign coverage before I conclude anything), but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed.

But if you're examining the paper's coverage of these subjects from a perspective that is neither urban nor Northeastern nor culturally seen-it-all; if you are among the groups The Times treats as strange objects to be examined on a laboratory slide (devout Catholics, gun owners, Orthodox Jews, Texans); if your value system wouldn't wear well on a composite New York Times journalist, then a walk through this paper can make you feel you're traveling in a strange and forbidding world.

Start with the editorial page, so thoroughly saturated in liberal theology that when it occasionally strays from that point of view the shocked yelps from the left overwhelm even the ceaseless rumble of disapproval from the right.

Across the gutter, the Op-Ed page editors do an evenhanded job of representing a range of views in the essays from outsiders they publish - but you need an awfully heavy counterweight to balance a page that also bears the work of seven opinionated columnists, only two of whom could be classified as conservative (and, even then, of the conservative subspecies that supports legalization of gay unions and, in the case of William Safire, opposes some central provisions of the Patriot Act).

and from the same article an example of their liberal views

The gay marriage issue provides a perfect example. Set aside the editorial page, the columnists or the lengthy article in the magazine ("Toward a More Perfect Union," by David J. Garrow, May 9) that compared the lawyers who won the Massachusetts same-sex marriage lawsuit to Thurgood Marshall and Martin Luther King. That's all fine, especially for those of us who believe that homosexual couples should have precisely the same civil rights as heterosexuals.

But for those who also believe the news pages cannot retain their credibility unless all aspects of an issue are subject to robust examination, it's disappointing to see The Times present the social and cultural aspects of same-sex marriage in a tone that approaches cheerleading. So far this year, front-page headlines have told me that "For Children of Gays, Marriage Brings Joy," (March 19, 2004); that the family of "Two Fathers, With One Happy to Stay at Home," (Jan. 12, 2004) is a new archetype; and that "Gay Couples Seek Unions in God's Eyes," (Jan. 30, 2004). I've learned where gay couples go to celebrate their marriages; I've met gay couples picking out bridal dresses; I've been introduced to couples who have been together for decades and have now sanctified their vows in Canada, couples who have successfully integrated the world of competitive ballroom dancing, couples whose lives are the platonic model of suburban stability.

Every one of these articles was perfectly legitimate. Cumulatively, though, they would make a very effective ad campaign for the gay marriage cause. You wouldn't even need the articles: run the headlines over the invariably sunny pictures of invariably happy people that ran with most of these pieces, and you'd have the makings of a life insurance commercial.

This implicit advocacy is underscored by what hasn't appeared. Apart from one excursion into the legal ramifications of custody battles ("Split Gay Couples Face Custody Hurdles," by Adam Liptak and Pam Belluck, March 24), potentially nettlesome effects of gay marriage have been virtually absent from The Times since the issue exploded last winter.

The San Francisco Chronicle runs an uninflected article about Congressional testimony from a Stanford scholar making the case that gay marriage in the Netherlands has had a deleterious effect on heterosexual marriage. The Boston Globe explores the potential impact of same-sex marriage on tax revenues, and the paucity of reliable research on child-rearing in gay families. But in The Times, I have learned next to nothing about these issues, nor about partner abuse in the gay community, about any social difficulties that might be encountered by children of gay couples or about divorce rates (or causes, or consequences) among the 7,000 couples legally joined in Vermont since civil union was established there four years ago.

On a topic that has produced one of the defining debates of our time, Times editors have failed to provide the three-dimensional perspective balanced journalism requires. This has not occurred because of management fiat, but because getting outside one's own value system takes a great deal of self-questioning. Six years ago, the ownership of this sophisticated New York institution decided to make it a truly national paper. Today, only 50 percent of The Times's readership resides in metropolitan New York, but the paper's heart, mind and habits remain embedded here. You can take the paper out of the city, but without an effort to take the city and all its attendant provocations, experiments and attitudes out of the paper, readers with a different worldview will find The Times an alien beast.

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: OrByte
imho

This flip-flopping thing is really just a manufactured controversy by the media.

I mean really.

You cant talk about flip-flopping without talking about BOTH canidates. And you can't hammer one candidate on flip-flopping without appearing partisan. Both have done it, actually come to think of it ALOT of politicians do it.

So what is the point? So now all of a sudden Obama is less trustworthy? is he less trustworthy than McCain? Will I use flipp-flopping as a litmus test of some sort? If thats the case then I will keep my vote in my pocket because BOTH candidates do it.

So when taking that into account, what is the real point of the Op-ed from the NYT? I guess thanks for sharing, but on the isssue of flip-flopping its a fvcking waste of my time worrying about it.

In the end I am still going to vote for a politician that shares the same opinion on the ISSUES that I do...well, mostly

Well, that's the issue .... perhaps BOTH candidates have agreed and disagreed (strongly, publicly in many cases). So, do you choose the one that currently agrees with you strongest voting points today, or what their opinion/view/inclination is for the General Election?

If they swapped positions, would you also swap candidates and vote for the (at least for now) other guy?

What about the "He's changed his stance today, to something I like, maybe he/she'll change again after the vote is cast and they'll pimp me out" ... Do you really want a {political position} filled by a candidate that will change their stance without any substantial motivation beyond "I want to get elected" ?

You need to move to Chicago, Cook County, Illinois. Here every politician will make you completely warm & fuzzy with {false} promises, then seriously screw you over once they're in office.

You'd like it here.

Personally, I want to hear what the motivation was for the change in stance and see if it passes the smell test.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
NY Times not a liberal paper?

Are you guys fucking crazy?

From the paper itself.
link

s The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?

OF course it is.

The fattest file on my hard drive is jammed with letters from the disappointed, the dismayed and the irate who find in this newspaper a liberal bias that infects not just political coverage but a range of issues from abortion to zoology to the appointment of an admitted Democrat to be its watchdog. (That would be me.) By contrast, readers who attack The Times from the left - and there are plenty - generally confine their complaints to the paper's coverage of electoral politics and foreign policy.

I'll get to the politics-and-policy issues this fall (I want to watch the campaign coverage before I conclude anything), but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed.

But if you're examining the paper's coverage of these subjects from a perspective that is neither urban nor Northeastern nor culturally seen-it-all; if you are among the groups The Times treats as strange objects to be examined on a laboratory slide (devout Catholics, gun owners, Orthodox Jews, Texans); if your value system wouldn't wear well on a composite New York Times journalist, then a walk through this paper can make you feel you're traveling in a strange and forbidding world.

Start with the editorial page, so thoroughly saturated in liberal theology that when it occasionally strays from that point of view the shocked yelps from the left overwhelm even the ceaseless rumble of disapproval from the right.

Across the gutter, the Op-Ed page editors do an evenhanded job of representing a range of views in the essays from outsiders they publish - but you need an awfully heavy counterweight to balance a page that also bears the work of seven opinionated columnists, only two of whom could be classified as conservative (and, even then, of the conservative subspecies that supports legalization of gay unions and, in the case of William Safire, opposes some central provisions of the Patriot Act).

and from the same article an example of their liberal views

The gay marriage issue provides a perfect example. Set aside the editorial page, the columnists or the lengthy article in the magazine ("Toward a More Perfect Union," by David J. Garrow, May 9) that compared the lawyers who won the Massachusetts same-sex marriage lawsuit to Thurgood Marshall and Martin Luther King. That's all fine, especially for those of us who believe that homosexual couples should have precisely the same civil rights as heterosexuals.

But for those who also believe the news pages cannot retain their credibility unless all aspects of an issue are subject to robust examination, it's disappointing to see The Times present the social and cultural aspects of same-sex marriage in a tone that approaches cheerleading. So far this year, front-page headlines have told me that "For Children of Gays, Marriage Brings Joy," (March 19, 2004); that the family of "Two Fathers, With One Happy to Stay at Home," (Jan. 12, 2004) is a new archetype; and that "Gay Couples Seek Unions in God's Eyes," (Jan. 30, 2004). I've learned where gay couples go to celebrate their marriages; I've met gay couples picking out bridal dresses; I've been introduced to couples who have been together for decades and have now sanctified their vows in Canada, couples who have successfully integrated the world of competitive ballroom dancing, couples whose lives are the platonic model of suburban stability.

Every one of these articles was perfectly legitimate. Cumulatively, though, they would make a very effective ad campaign for the gay marriage cause. You wouldn't even need the articles: run the headlines over the invariably sunny pictures of invariably happy people that ran with most of these pieces, and you'd have the makings of a life insurance commercial.

This implicit advocacy is underscored by what hasn't appeared. Apart from one excursion into the legal ramifications of custody battles ("Split Gay Couples Face Custody Hurdles," by Adam Liptak and Pam Belluck, March 24), potentially nettlesome effects of gay marriage have been virtually absent from The Times since the issue exploded last winter.

The San Francisco Chronicle runs an uninflected article about Congressional testimony from a Stanford scholar making the case that gay marriage in the Netherlands has had a deleterious effect on heterosexual marriage. The Boston Globe explores the potential impact of same-sex marriage on tax revenues, and the paucity of reliable research on child-rearing in gay families. But in The Times, I have learned next to nothing about these issues, nor about partner abuse in the gay community, about any social difficulties that might be encountered by children of gay couples or about divorce rates (or causes, or consequences) among the 7,000 couples legally joined in Vermont since civil union was established there four years ago.

On a topic that has produced one of the defining debates of our time, Times editors have failed to provide the three-dimensional perspective balanced journalism requires. This has not occurred because of management fiat, but because getting outside one's own value system takes a great deal of self-questioning. Six years ago, the ownership of this sophisticated New York institution decided to make it a truly national paper. Today, only 50 percent of The Times's readership resides in metropolitan New York, but the paper's heart, mind and habits remain embedded here. You can take the paper out of the city, but without an effort to take the city and all its attendant provocations, experiments and attitudes out of the paper, readers with a different worldview will find The Times an alien beast.

Uhh PJ, the point is that you discredit the paper's views ALL the time, except when something is written that fits exactly with your agenda.

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Heh. The "Extreme Left" policies of the DNC, (led by Howard Dean) is completely laughable, and echoes the usual rightwing talk radio blather. Anybody who isn't of your own particular persuasion is an obvious "Leftist", right? Kee-rist, you're starting to sound like some of the more rabid wingnuts who post here regularly.

You're revealing yourself and the rest of the sour grapes over Hillary crowd for what it really is- a disguise, and a deliberate attempt to sabotage Dems in general. I can appreciate why moderate repubs were more likely to support Clinton than Obama, and why repubs picked McCain to run against her. But they miscalculated, and are now stuck with a mismatch and an opponent they didn't want, hadn't had 15 years to cultivate a hate club over... With a Clinton- McCain match, they could muddy the waters, eliminate policy as an issue, turn it into a straight up popularity contest, maybe even win.

Not now. It'll take a miracle to put McCain into the Whitehouse, and the sour grapes you're spitting out are just an attempt to help that miracle happen...

Quit living in the past, telling us about how Hillary is really the "better" candidate- in the current climate, she was only ever better for the repubs, something I'm sure you're well aware of... Instead of trying to give real Dems the reacharound, reach across the aisle and embrace Mr McCain... you know, be honest...

Dean isn't leading anything. He's just another pawn in the game.
The rest of your post reflects the DNC tactic for this election. "Get over it", "quit living in the past". There can be no dissention in the ranks. You're either on the Obama bandwagon or you're republican. To be a Democrat, you must assimilate.

Party Unity My Ass!

I've been a "Real Democrat" for longer than most of the Obama supporters have been alive but, if this is where the party is heading, I'll gladly walk across the aisle. I've said it before and I have been honest.

Hillary is far from perfect but she is the better candidate. She just isn't someone to be easily controlled by the far left.

Damn, RY62, that's damned near a reprint of what Zell Miller had to say at the 2004 repub convention...

Unlike your heroine, who's graciously conceded victory to her intraparty opponent, and now campaigns on his behalf... because her platform and his are very much the same. If she was good enough to follow before, why isn't she good enough to follow today?

Methinks it's because that support never was genuine in the first place...

 

[fskimospy]

PJ all you are showing is that you didn't read what other people wrote. First of all no one was attempting to argue that the NYT doesn't come from a metropolitan, east coast perspective. (since they are from a metropolitan east coast city and all... shocking.)

You called them a 'rag', that's a pejorative term that disparages the credibility of the NYT's reporting. The finest newspaper in the country, and you're trying to trash it.

Not only that, but it's an OP-ED man. Tony Snow has written OP-EDs for the NYT. Why should one bashing Obama be so shocking?

EDIT: Now that I think about it they have 1-2 a week (depending on how many Kristol writes... he's a special guy)

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Blah,blah,blah..talking out my ass..blah,blah,blah.

:roll: You just don't get it. People aren't voting for Obama as much as they are voting against 4 more years of the last 8 years. Americans are sick to their stomachs over what you and your party did to our great country and want no part of you guys anymore.

You just don't get it.

When the NY Times starts to attack a liberal such as a Obama it IS a big deal. It is one thing for me or people on the right to call him a flip-flopper, but it is a TOTALLY different thing when the NY Times does the same thing.

That is why I posted this OP-ED.

That's because Obama isn't your typical liberal. He has a conservative streak in him.

TY for the laugh.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: ScottMac

Originally posted by: OrByte
imho

This flip-flopping thing is really just a manufactured controversy by the media.

I mean really.

You cant talk about flip-flopping without talking about BOTH canidates. And you can't hammer one candidate on flip-flopping without appearing partisan. Both have done it, actually come to think of it ALOT of politicians do it.

So what is the point? So now all of a sudden Obama is less trustworthy? is he less trustworthy than McCain? Will I use flipp-flopping as a litmus test of some sort? If thats the case then I will keep my vote in my pocket because BOTH candidates do it.

So when taking that into account, what is the real point of the Op-ed from the NYT? I guess thanks for sharing, but on the isssue of flip-flopping its a fvcking waste of my time worrying about it.

In the end I am still going to vote for a politician that shares the same opinion on the ISSUES that I do...well, mostly

Well, that's the issue .... perhaps BOTH candidates have agreed and disagreed (strongly, publicly in many cases). So, do you choose the one that currently agrees with you strongest voting points today, or what their opinion/view/inclination is for the General Election?

If they swapped positions, would you also swap candidates and vote for the (at least for now) other guy?

What about the "He's changed his stance today, to something I like, maybe he/she'll change again after the vote is cast and they'll pimp me out" ... Do you really want a {political position} filled by a candidate that will change their stance without any substantial motivation beyond "I want to get elected" ?

You need to move to Chicago, Cook County, Illinois. Here every politician will make you completely warm & fuzzy with {false} promises, then seriously screw you over once they're in office.

You'd like it here.

Personally, I want to hear what the motivation was for the change in stance and see if it passes the smell test.

hear hear! I'd agree with that!

 

[ProfJohn]

^ You guys better plug your noses then.

All of Obama's best known and more recent flip-flops all have the smell of political opportunism.

Campaign finance = he can raise more money than the government will give him
Gun bans = the Supreme Court ruled against his previous views
Iraq War stance = will most likely change so that his position takes into account the progress we have made in the last two years and so he can appear strong on defense

At least McCain can say he changed his position on tax cuts because he saw the economic benefit of them or that he doesn't think we should raise taxes during bad economic times.
On immigration thought he is certainly taking the politically popular road as opposed to his previous position. He can claim that he changed his views to more closely match those of America. Which makes me want to ask: The opinions of America hasn't changed on this issue, why has yours?


BTW while it is true that Obama has yet to change his position on Iraq I think it is a certainty that he will have to eventually. There is no way he can enter the prime election season with a position that he adopted a year ago before the surge and the massive drop in violence. Not showing 'flexibility' will cast him as a political ideologue who refuses to take realty into consideration when making decisions.

 

[fskimospy]

His Iraq war stance has not changed... do you even read these threads? He also didn't flip flop on the gun ban. He said he thought it was constitutional, the USSC disagreed. (with 4 justices taking his view by the way)

Stop with the hackery PJ. Come on... you can do better then this.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ You guys better plug your noses then.

All of Obama's best known and more recent flip-flops all have the smell of political opportunism.

Campaign finance = he can raise more money than the government will give him
Gun bans = the Supreme Court ruled against his previous views
Iraq War stance = will most likely change so that his position takes into account the progress we have made in the last two years and so he can appear strong on defense

At least McCain can say he changed his position on tax cuts because he saw the economic benefit of them or that he doesn't think we should raise taxes during bad economic times.
On immigration thought he is certainly taking the politically popular road as opposed to his previous position. He can claim that he changed his views to more closely match those of America. Which makes me want to ask: The opinions of America hasn't changed on this issue, why has yours?


BTW while it is true that Obama has yet to change his position on Iraq I think it is a certainty that he will have to eventually. There is no way he can enter the prime election season with a position that he adopted a year ago before the surge and the massive drop in violence. Not showing 'flexibility' will cast him as a political ideologue who refuses to take realty into consideration when making decisions.

this is just stoopid. And I bolded the hypocrisy. You are the strongest partisan on these boards PJ, and there are some pretty serious partisans around here.

 

[dahunan]

Is there really a reason to trust obama, hillary, mccain or bush supporters?

Come on people after all these decades of fake politicians who only say what gets them votes.. why do you really think anything has changed.. .the only people not flipflopping and saying this like this are DICTATORS..

I think they are all fakes... but I do think their are some values that differentiate each party .. one values humanity and human life whereas another values corporations and the military industrial complex.. NOT THE HUMAN MILITARY... the War Profiteering Military... that part.. they don't give a fuck about the human side of the armed forces... only the cash to be made

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Damn, RY62, that's damned near a reprint of what Zell Miller had to say at the 2004 repub convention...

If you say so...I wasn't there and can honestly say I don't recall ever hearing Zell speak.

Unlike your heroine, who's graciously conceded victory to her intraparty opponent, and now campaigns on his behalf... because her platform and his are very much the same. If she was good enough to follow before, why isn't she good enough to follow today?

Methinks it's because that support never was genuine in the first place...

Hillary is a politician. In this country, she can only wage a legitimate fight for for what she believes as a member of either the Democrat or Republican party. She will do what she has to do to continue and fight another day. I don't give a damn about party unity. I can fight from either side of the aisle and still stay close to center.

Calling everyone who didn't support Obama a racist wasn't working out too good, huh? Now, they were just Republicans all along. What happened? Did people get called racist so often that they began to embrace it? Maybe we'll begin to embrace being called Republicans too.

 

[First]

Obama's stance on Iraq won't change just as McCain's won't. McCain will reference the "success" of the surge pointing to the drop in violence in Iraq, while Obama will reference the increase in violence in Afghanistan, to its highest level ever last month, and use that as merely additional fuel to refocus on the criminals that actually attacked us on 9/11. He'll win the presidency going away and maybe we'll finally get out of that hell hole. It'll also be enjoyable to poke fun at those who say Iraq will spiral into chaos without us once this misguided and short-sighted prediction is proven false. A prediction without precedent, btw.

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Damn, RY62, that's damned near a reprint of what Zell Miller had to say at the 2004 repub convention...

If you say so...I wasn't there and can honestly say I don't recall ever hearing Zell speak.

Unlike your heroine, who's graciously conceded victory to her intraparty opponent, and now campaigns on his behalf... because her platform and his are very much the same. If she was good enough to follow before, why isn't she good enough to follow today?

Methinks it's because that support never was genuine in the first place...

Hillary is a politician. In this country, she can only wage a legitimate fight for for what she believes as a member of either the Democrat or Republican party. She will do what she has to do to continue and fight another day. I don't give a damn about party unity. I can fight from either side of the aisle and still stay close to center.

Calling everyone who didn't support Obama a racist wasn't working out too good, huh? Now, they were just Republicans all along. What happened? Did people get called racist so often that they began to embrace it? Maybe we'll begin to embrace being called Republicans too.

Desperation doesn't look good on you, RY62. I haven't engaged in the whole racist/ not racist song and dance routine wrt Hillary and Obama. Bringing it up just shows you're out of arguments, left only with your own irrational emotional investments, which seem contrived, anyway.

Stated policy differences between Clinton and Obama have been quite small all along. Depending on the issue, each could be said to be slightly more left or right of the other, but the total difference could be covered with my pinky finger... yet you rave on about how Obama and the DNC are "Leftists"- which makes no sense except to the usual wingnuts.

Before us lies a watershed event- the 2008 election. We, as a people, have to decide if we're going to continue with the flimflam policies of the financial elite, the lootocracy, and the class warfare they've instituted against the rest of America, or if we're going to reject it in favor of something else. That's really very straightforward, and something that Hillary Clinton, herself, understands all too well. Of the two Dem contenders, she had the greater visible disdain for the repub opposition, rightfully so, having been a target of their smear campaigns for over 15 years. Yet you're all too willing to reject her analysis and go over to the other side, just because she won't be the nominee. That choice defies logic.

Had she won the nomination, I would be supporting her today, because I'm willing to place principles above personalities, to readily admit that she stands against much of what's gone wrong under republican rule. And she's shown me that by supporting Obama in what may be the most important election of our lifetimes. Thank You, Mrs Clinton, for placing principles ahead of personal ambition, and for showing that you are a true Democrat.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
it's an OP-ED man. Tony Snow has written OP-EDs for the NYT. Why should one bashing Obama be so shocking?

EDIT: Now that I think about it they have 1-2 a week (depending on how many Kristol writes... he's a special guy)

it's not an OP-ED.