The Two Obamas

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: bamacre
I hope Obama will be a good president, because he will be president.

But I fear that he will not. And if this becomes reality, there's going to be a much larger group of apologists around here. I imagine we'll often hear "well, what was I supposed to do, vote for McCain?"

The worst part about an Obama presidency will be a democratic Congress. Basically, we'd see the democratic version of the Bush administration... all checks no balances. The only difference is that Obama wouldn't be a bumbling idiot.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: bamacre
I hope Obama will be a good president, because he will be president.

But I fear that he will not. And if this becomes reality, there's going to be a much larger group of apologists around here. I imagine we'll often hear "well, what was I supposed to do, vote for McCain?"

The worst part about an Obama presidency will be a democratic Congress. Basically, we'd see the democratic version of the Bush administration... all checks no balances. The only difference is that Obama wouldn't be a bumbling idiot.

And that's all the difference in the world. Especially as Bush isn't so much of an idiot as he is just lazy and entitled. The laziest President since Coolidge IMO. I doubt he gets up before 10am every morning.

Something to keep in mind is that the Dems are going to sweep into Congress next session with enough seats to override most any Presidential veto. So it's going to be all checks no balances even in the unlikely event that McCain gets elected. So why bother with that? Especially when McCain is just as much of a lazy, entitled, bumbling doofus as Bush is.
Let's get someone in there who is a proven principled hard worker.

edit: BTW there are not 2 Obamas. There's just the Obama the Pubs wish he would be and the real Obama.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

1. He barely beat the Clinton's. And as some astute political types have pointed out he only beat her because of how the states lined up. Move PA, WV and KY up a month and Maryland, Virginia and Wisconsin back a month and Hillary is most likely the nominee.

2. A no-name senator who just happened to give the key note speech at the 2004 convention...

1.) Yeah guys, he barely beat a candidate with worldwide name recognition, a gigantic fundraising apparatus, the support of the party rank and file, with an incredibly popular and charismatic former president on her side. Like we all couldn't do that.

2.) Pro-Jo, do you have to be this transparent? Every once in awhile you poke your head out and actually make some interesting and well thought out posts. When you do, it's great to have you around because we could use some thinking right wing people. Then the rest of the time you post dumb things like this.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: bamacre
I hope Obama will be a good president, because he will be president.

But I fear that he will not. And if this becomes reality, there's going to be a much larger group of apologists around here. I imagine we'll often hear "well, what was I supposed to do, vote for McCain?"

The worst part about an Obama presidency will be a democratic Congress. Basically, we'd see the democratic version of the Bush administration... all checks no balances. The only difference is that Obama wouldn't be a bumbling idiot.

And that's all the difference in the world. Especially as Bush isn't so much of an idiot as he is just lazy and entitled. The laziest President since Coolidge IMO. I doubt he gets up before 10am every morning.

Something to keep in mind is that the Dems are going to sweep into Congress next session with enough seats to override most any Presidential veto. So it's going to be all checks no balances even in the unlikely event that McCain gets elected. So why bother with that? Especially when McCain is just as much of a lazy, entitled, bumbling doofus as Bush is.
Let's get someone in there who is a proven principled hard worker.

edit: BTW there are not 2 Obamas. There's just the Obama the Pubs wish he would be and the real Obama.

Just a note. There was a documentary on Bush in the 2004ish era I believe with interviews with media people. One thing they all say is Bush's timetables were much more stringent and early in the morning than Clinton.

He is up at 4:30 every morning with the first meetings starting at 5:00 and on a tight time schedule all day. Apparently he hates people being late and will skip over you if you dont make it on time. Something that is a 180 from Bills administration apparently. Which was much more laid back and started later in the morning.

/shrug

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic
Let's get someone in there who is a proven principled hard worker.

I believe that guy only got about 4% of the vote.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
-snip-

Obama Top Ten Donors:

Goldman Sachs $571,330
University of California $437,236
UBS AG $364,806
JPMorgan Chase & Co $362,207
Citigroup Inc $358,054
National Amusements Inc $320,750
Lehman Brothers $318,647
Google Inc $309,514
Harvard University $309,025
Sidley Austin LLP $294,245
Skadden, Arps et al $270,013
Time Warner $262,677
Morgan Stanley $259,876
Jones Day $250,725
Exelon Corp $236,211
University of Chicago $218,857
Wilmerhale LLP $218,680
Latham & Watkins $218,615
Microsoft Corp $209,242
Stanford University $195,262

Hmm... I think I might be on to something here..

Wait! That's it. No wonder Obama is raising money so easily. He has at least 20 donors in his top 10 list.

My God, with an advantage like that he'll be unbeatable.



Fern

 

[Tab]

Anyone have McCain's list of Donors?

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Tab
Anyone have McCain's list of Donors?

it was in BBs post...

McCain Top Ten Donors:

Merrill Lynch $230,310
Citigroup Inc $219,551
Blank Rome LLP $189,226
Greenberg Traurig LLP $157,487
AT&T Inc $153,005
Goldman Sachs $139,520
Morgan Stanley $136,651
JPMorgan Chase & Co $129,400
Credit Suisse Group $110,725
Lehman Brothers $96,050
UBS AG $93,815
US Government $91,551
Bank of New York Mellon $87,500
IDT Corp $83,150
Blackstone Group $82,600
Bear Stearns $79,900
Wachovia Corp $76,725
MGM Mirage $76,050
Univision Communications $75,700
PricewaterhouseCoopers $71,050

though it should really be edited to Top 20.

Goldman Sachs just invested a shitload of money into my company, so I guess now I really have no choice but to follow through with my plan to vote for Obama.

 

[Vic]

Those lists are not actual donors. They're a list of donors' employers.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Tab
Anyone have McCain's list of Donors?

it was in BBs post...

McCain Top Ten Donors:

Merrill Lynch $230,310
Citigroup Inc $219,551
Blank Rome LLP $189,226
Greenberg Traurig LLP $157,487
AT&T Inc $153,005
Goldman Sachs $139,520
Morgan Stanley $136,651
JPMorgan Chase & Co $129,400
Credit Suisse Group $110,725
Lehman Brothers $96,050
UBS AG $93,815
US Government $91,551
Bank of New York Mellon $87,500
IDT Corp $83,150
Blackstone Group $82,600
Bear Stearns $79,900
Wachovia Corp $76,725
MGM Mirage $76,050
Univision Communications $75,700
PricewaterhouseCoopers $71,050

though it should really be edited to Top 20.

Goldman Sachs just invested a shitload of money into my company, so I guess now I really have no choice but to follow through with my plan to vote for Obama.

heh... Obama's list is much more prestigious... I guess I won't be staying at the MGM Grand ever

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Tab
heh... Obama's list is much more prestigious... I guess I won't be staying at the MGM Grand ever

Butterbean left out the bolded information at the top of the document:

The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

I'd bet good money that nearly 100% of the companies on each side are represented high in both candidates' contributor rankings. Partisanship makes for bad business; playing both sides doesn't cost all that much more and ensures your access the the corridors of power no matter who gets in.

 

[Tab]

Oh God... AT&T Too? I guess I'm going with a blackberry

 

[RedChief]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Just a note. There was a documentary on Bush in the 2004ish era I believe with interviews with media people. One thing they all say is Bush's timetables were much more stringent and early in the morning than Clinton.

He is up at 4:30 every morning with the first meetings starting at 5:00 and on a tight time schedule all day. Apparently he hates people being late and will skip over you if you dont make it on time. Something that is a 180 from Bills administration apparently. Which was much more laid back and started later in the morning.

/shrug

I believe this was the doc called Journeys with George which was actually made by Nancy Pelosi's daughter.

 

[RedChief]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Tab
Anyone have McCain's list of Donors?

it was in BBs post...

McCain Top Ten Donors:

Merrill Lynch $230,310
Citigroup Inc $219,551
Blank Rome LLP $189,226
Greenberg Traurig LLP $157,487
AT&T Inc $153,005
Goldman Sachs $139,520
Morgan Stanley $136,651
JPMorgan Chase & Co $129,400
Credit Suisse Group $110,725
Lehman Brothers $96,050
UBS AG $93,815
US Government $91,551
Bank of New York Mellon $87,500
IDT Corp $83,150
Blackstone Group $82,600
Bear Stearns $79,900
Wachovia Corp $76,725
MGM Mirage $76,050
Univision Communications $75,700
PricewaterhouseCoopers $71,050

though it should really be edited to Top 20.

Goldman Sachs just invested a shitload of money into my company, so I guess now I really have no choice but to follow through with my plan to vote for Obama.

heh... Obama's list is much more prestigious... I guess I won't be staying at the MGM Grand ever

Maybe you out to look at the lists again. It seems several companies are donating to both (aka hedging their bets).