Early Obama LEFT Test

[TENAC]

Obama is tapping his foot, not yet doing the dance. 

He better lace up his dancing shoes.

At this link, the moveon.org crowd, who feel they truly made obama the presidential democrat nominee is demanding he actually live up to a campaign promise.  Before the holy senator became a senator, he expressed his opposition to the Iraq war, with no vote, no accountability. 

Its a new day.  He IS a senator.  He HAS a vote.  But he PROMISED to filibuster  this legislation.

But that was during the heat of the campaign battle for the nomination.  I mean, uh, you might say anything and obama's campaign has said as much.

Moveon is calling out his holiness.  It is a different day with victory in Iraq within sight.  Will obama step up and filibuster this legislation, as he promised to?  Moveon means to make good on it.

This could be a highwater mark for the libs.  This legislation is headed toward passage, and I believe the American people in light of the current Iraqi situation want it passed. The dems are poised to take multiple seats in both houses and perhaps the WH.  To go against this legislation is a throw of the dice. 

(I can hear Kenny Rogers whispering the words to "The Gambler", You got to know when to hold them.....know when to fold)......

The libs in general will certainly forgive him if no filibuster occurs and continue to blame Bush.  But moveon.org isnt your daddy's liberal.

Dear MoveOn member,

On Friday, House Democrats caved to the Bush administration and passed a bill giving a get-out-of-jail-free card to phone companies that helped Bush illegally spy on innocent Americans.1 

This Monday, the fight moves to the Senate. Senator Russ Feingold says the "deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation."2 Barack Obama announced his partial support for the bill, but said, "It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses."3

Last year, after phone calls from MoveOn members and others, Obama went so far as to vow to "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."4 We need him to honor that promise.

Can you call Senator Obama today and tell him you're counting on him to keep his word? Ask him to block any compromise that includes immunity for phone companies that helped Bush break the law.

Obama's presidential campaign: (866) 675-2008

Then, help us track our progress by clicking here

http://pol.moveon.org/immunity/080621obama.html


LOLOL....count on obama to keep his word??    Like accepting campaign funding?..LLOLOLOL...or immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq?.lololol.......what all else?

How many of our posting libs here are willing to call it just politics?

[Faithfulee]

Obama is a closet socialist and has a singular goal of buying the Presidency.

He will say and do anything to achieve that end.

But this campaign will be about what are his principles and it is in that area that he is failing.  I am not concerned about Moveon.org because the and their followers will still get out the vote for Obama. 

We need to let the independents and democrates who are not socialists know what Obama stands for and the kind of government that he would, God forbid, run.

[SquirleyWurley]

I agree that independent thinkers need to become aware of Obama's track record, principles, ideas, associations.

I also think there needs to be a serious consideration of how McCain may or may not rely upon certain kinds of Republican Party influence or advisors similar to those of the Bush Administration.

Each has various liabilities, raises certain concerns, to an independent thinker.  The pros and cons can only be properly evaluated by a serious consideration of these things.

[Faithfulee]

I agree that independent thinkers need to become aware of Obama's track record, principles, ideas, associations.

I also think there needs to be a serious consideration of how McCain may or may not rely upon certain kinds of Republican Party influence or advisors similar to those of the Bush Administration.

Each has various liabilities, raises certain concerns, to an independent thinker.  The pros and cons can only be properly evaluated by a serious consideration of these things.

The Obama record is out there for all to see.  And it is the most liberal, left wing of all congress.  He isn't even backing away from it,   . . . . . nor is he promoting it.

McCain has a different record and it too should be examned.  But in the most important issue,  Iraq and the war on terror,  McCain is right,  and Obama is wrong.  McCain has a difficult task of gaining support and avoiding the dims false image of him as a "Bush clone".  However as events are shaping in Iraq,  President Bush is proving to have made the right decisions and hopefully, by November the American public will wake up and realize this.

[Acumen]

This may be an interesting read. 

http://beliefcorner.com/Latest/The-Audacity-of-Compromise-Why-McCain-Is-Better-For-America-Than-Obama.html

[Faithfulee]

Obama is a proud and admitted lefty.  Not what we need during these difficult times.

But mostly, national security is our most serious threat today and Obama has no executive credentials.  His position on the surge is an obomanation.  He cannot admit that he was wrong and he contiues to ignore the need to support Iraq in the establishment of a democracy.

He isn't learning a thing in his trip overseas.  But the rest of the world is.  The lesson is that he is a liberal with no qualifications to lead a great nation. 

[Acumen]

His position on the surge is an obomanation.

You know, eventually you're going to have to use a different word than Obamanation. 

[Faithfulee]

His position on the surge is an obomanation.

You know, eventually you're going to have to use a different word than Obamanation. 

I like the sound of it now and God forbid that we become an Obamanation.

[SquirleyWurley]

I'm still undecided.  I would consider voting for McCain if I could be convinced that his alleged 'anger issues' weren't really a big deal.  He sounds like the sort of hot head that might be trouble, I don't like the sound of some of the things I've heard about that.  Otherwise I would lean towards him a bit more.

[Faithfulee]

I'm still undecided.  I would consider voting for McCain if I could be convinced that his alleged 'anger issues' weren't really a big deal.  He sounds like the sort of hot head that might be trouble, I don't like the sound of some of the things I've heard about that.  Otherwise I would lean towards him a bit more.

So tell me about McCain's anger issues"

If I had to bace the assault of Obama and the dims, I would get angry myself.  I certainly would be angry about Obama's position on Iraq, where he refuses to acknowledge the success of the surge.

[SquirleyWurley]

There are reports of McCain loosing his cool over something as petty as the size of a podium, there are reports of him grabbing people angrily by their ties to get their attention.

Sounds like sometimes he goes spaz.  (This is how he sometimes reacts to his own campaign staff, to other republicans, etc.).  I hope it's not so bad, but I'm not sure yet.

[Acumen]

There are reports of McCain loosing his cool over something as petty as the size of a podium, there are reports of him grabbing people angrily by their ties to get their attention.

Sounds like sometimes he goes spaz.  (This is how he sometimes reacts to his own campaign staff, to other republicans, etc.).  I hope it's not so bad, but I'm not sure yet.

If small bursts of anger is McCain's biggest issue, then we don't have much to worry about. 

What we should worry about is tax paying dollars paying and reinforcing addictions to government programs like welfare or subsidized insurance, efforts to end world poverty by forcing tax payers to increase spending 3 times the current rate, or using environmentalist policies to stunt the productivity of capitalism, which ultimately harms the working class much more than the middle and upper classes. 

Poor policies are far more dangerous than occasional and momentary fits of anger.

[Faithfulee]

If small bursts of anger is McCain's biggest issue, then we don't have much to worry about. 

What we should worry about is tax paying dollars paying and reinforcing addictions to government programs like welfare or subsidized insurance, efforts to end world poverty by forcing tax payers to increase spending 3 times the current rate, or using environmentalist policies to stunt the productivity of capitalism, which ultimately harms the working class much more than the middle and upper classes. 

Poor policies are far more dangerous than occasional and momentary fits of anger.

How about Obama's huge bursts of absurdity.  Like failing to reconsider his opinion of the surge??

Obama will lead to a huge increase in taxes, to support his policies and those of the dim congress.  The taxayer is about to assume up to ONE TRILLION DOLLARS IN LIABILITY for the bailout of Freddy and Fannie May.  We are headed for a  period of more regulation and with it will come more taxes and more government bumbling and corruption.  Did you know that the former head of Freddie Mac (a dem of course) gave himself a $20 Million dollar bonus??  Other board members only got $1 Million.  We should get that back. 

[SquirleyWurley]

IMNSHO you are making very good points.

I think Democrats can contribute to some solutions, along with Republicans.  I think regulation can help stave off corrupt corporate behavior, I think it's important to encourage initiative and responsible, productive risk-taking, and to wean people off dependency when possible, while keeping in mind the need for social stability (i.e., not having tons of people all of a sudden even more vulnerable and unequipped to survive through legal and responsible channels, but instead really trying to prepare people with job education in certain cases, effective rehabilitation in others, a clearly defined and explained temporary and flexible safety net in other situations), I think there are people in either party who think enough like this to support such reforms and who may help change either party to help either party focus productively and effectively on such matters.  Unfortunately, there is resistance in both parties.

Re: idiotic politicians vs. spaz politicians...

Both really stink, and the lines blur at some point, often there is a little bit of both in a politician.

[Faithfulee]

IMNSHO you are making very good points.

I think Democrats can contribute to some solutions, along with Republicans.  I think regulation can help stave off corrupt corporate behavior, I think it's important to encourage initiative and responsible, productive risk-taking, and to wean people off dependency when possible, while keeping in mind the need for social stability (i.e., not having tons of people all of a sudden even more vulnerable and unequipped to survive through legal and responsible channels, but instead really trying to prepare people with job education in certain cases, effective rehabilitation in others, a clearly defined and explained temporary and flexible safety net in other situations), I think there are people in either party who think enough like this to support such reforms and who may help change either party to help either party focus productively and effectively on such matters.  Unfortunately, there is resistance in both parties.

Re: idiotic politicians vs. spaz politicians...

Both really stink, and the lines blur at some point, often there is a little bit of both in a politician.

This congress is controlled by Democrats and has instuted proceedures and programs that serve mostly to win elections for Democrats and keep the congressional boondogles and perks.  As I write this I understand that the dems are meeting with business leaders to tell them what they must contribute to the dim party in order for their voice to be heard. 

Obama is the topic and he is an imature, untested young congressperson who has not record of doing anything.  If he gets elected, he will be the stooge of this Democrat congress and God help us.

[SquirleyWurley]

I'm hoping whoever wins gets some good advice and is corrected by others, checked by others, sufficiently to avoid a mess.  I'm not confident that either would be either all that great or all that bad.

I do like McCain's strait talk, he strikes me as someone I could get along with despite disagreements, and that's a good thing.  Obama strikes me as someone who'd annoy me too much with rhetoric and evasions, hooplah, etc.

[Faithfulee]

I'm hoping whoever wins gets some good advice and is corrected by others, checked by others, sufficiently to avoid a mess.  I'm not confident that either would be either all that great or all that bad.

I do like McCain's strait talk, he strikes me as someone I could get along with despite disagreements, and that's a good thing.  Obama strikes me as someone who'd annoy me too much with rhetoric and evasions, hooplah, etc.

The threat of Obama is that he has no executive experience and he would be a pawn of the dim leaders in Congress. 

In matters of national security his judgement stinks.  He opposed the surge and wanted to surrender in Iraq.  Even today he doesn't have the character to admit that the surge worked.  That disgraceful position gives dishonor to our troops, our president, and the country.

[Acumen]

How is that Firefox working for you, Faithfulee?

[Some Darn Xian]

The Obama record is out there for all to see.  And it is the most liberal, left wing of all congress.  He isn't even backing away from it,   . . . . . nor is he promoting it.

McCain has a different record and it too should be examned.  But in the most important issue,  Iraq and the war on terror,  McCain is right,  and Obama is wrong.  McCain has a difficult task of gaining support and avoiding the dims false image of him as a "Bush clone".  However as events are shaping in Iraq,  President Bush is proving to have made the right decisions and hopefully, by November the American public will wake up and realize this.

Okay, for all of the conservatives out there, find a new line. This one has been used against every Democratic candidate since Mondale in 84. And, for the record, Ted Kennedy has been universally acknowledged as the most liberal. This title is based not only on position, but the tenure of that position.

McCain is right, Obama is wrong.   Wow. I guess that is the only argument one can make without actually going through his record and seeing his position. Prior to this run for president, McCain was considered to be one of the most LIBERAL of all republicans. YES. This is true. His position on campaign finance reform, leading to the McCain Feingold bill was considered by most conservatives to be a liberal sell out on his part. His position on gay marriage, prior to 2002, was that it was a State's decision. Same on abortion. His tax reform agenda in the past was not as generous as W's tax wellfare for the rich. He was in favor of a higher tax rate for the top 5% of earners in the US. His position on lobbies and PACs was to get rid of them. Yet, today his campaign is run mostly by lobbiests who are currently still lobbying in DC.

Oh, one more thing--Prior to the start of the Iraq mistake McCain was a vocal opponent of the Bush plan because it was wrong. His position of wrong wasn't based on a moral position, but on one of a practical matter--too few troops, not enough equipment, no clear exit strategy, and he also had expressed a question as to the true motivation. He was derided by the conservatives as a liberal sympathizer.

Yeah. McCain is right and Obama is wrong.

McCain is a flip-flopper. That much is right.

No withdrawal timetable. That was McCain in the beginning of July. Obama has been consistent with the message of a timetable matched to conditions on the ground. Fast forward to the end of July, and viola, there we have McCain endorsing what is essentially the Obama timetable, almost verbatim. Wow. McCain is right, Obama is wrong.

Oh, and the latest add from McCain is actually right too. Obama didn't go to Landstuhle because he couldn't bring in his cameras. How about the fact that the diplomatic part of the trip had officially ended when they went to Germany, and prior to the trip the DOD had informed him that the political trip didn't have clearance to enter the base, and the political detachment that had traveled through the middle east with Obama had flown back to the US, not to Germany. It was at this point the DOD informed Obama's campaign that the political detachment would be permitted. TOO LATE. The schedules had already been made, and the decisions had been committed.

The work out that is cited in the ad shows a basketball shoot made, with the image grayed and fuzzed. Nice try. The video is of Obama at the Kuwait base, shooting around with the troops. Yep, he was only working out in front of an audience. That's how everyone exercises.

And what decisions did W make that were right? Going there in the first place? What WMD? Iran has them. Pakistan has them. India has them. Why not there? Fighting a war on the cheap? Yeah, that's really worked well. If this was such a determined threat against the US, why not get the draft going? That is how the US has handled such threats in the past.

Yeah. Right is right. Left is wrong. That is an old battle cry of the closed-minded and the paranoid. The next thing we might see is the terror threat level raised. Yep, that would be a good indication that McCain is right.

[Some Darn Xian]

But mostly, national security is our most serious threat today and Obama has no executive credentials.  His position on the surge is an obomanation.  He cannot admit that he was wrong and he contiues to ignore the need to support Iraq in the establishment of a democracy.

He isn't learning a thing in his trip overseas.  But the rest of the world is.  The lesson is that he is a liberal with no qualifications to lead a great nation.

What good is national security if you cannot buy the food to feed your family, or the health care, or the fuel to keep warm or go to work.

As for EXECUTIVE CREDENTIALS, what are McCain's? When has he ever been in any position other than what he was told to do, or what he had to do to keep getting elected?

As for the surge, what part of McCain's talking points are you using? Are you citing McCain's failure to remember the timeline of events? The Sunni awakening was occurring 2 months prior to the proposal for the surge was introduced. The many experts on the ground in Iraq, to whom McCain continually defers for guidance, largely credit this as the reason the violence decreased. It was falling prior to the full surge strength being reached. Is was falling prior to the first troops landing in country. Did the surge have an effect of calming some groups? I would say yes. Obama has said as much. But the full-blown McCain was right on the whole thing and only he could have done this admission is not only incorrect, but is morally questionable. Are the Iraqi people a sovereign nation or not? If they are, then they get the lionshare of the credit. If they are not, then even the surge cannot be called successful as the basic premise of the surge has not been accomplished.

As for supporting a country to develop its democracy, you cannot have an occupying force within the their borders for that to occur. Removing our troops is the biggest support you can offer to a country to stand up for itself.

As for Obama not learning a thing, please. You really need to lay off the Fixed Noise channel. It seems to be that the fact W cannot be seen with a large crowd or a pleasant welcoming in a foreign country that has soured the right-wingers opinions. What Obama has or hasn't learned is a question that no one on this board is qualified to answer. I won't play that game. But, what I have learned is the rest of the world is waiting to engage in conversations with the US that have been missing since the Iraq debacle started.

Isolationism didn't work prior to WWI. Why would you think it has a chance today, especially when we are more dependent on the rest of the world today than back then.