The Respectfully Republican Conversation

Rosemary44

Sheri,

My sister told me a story about her neighbor being at a fund raiser, and there was this tall man in front of him and he couldn't see, the man turned around to apoligize to him, and it was Bill, he said it was the way he looked at you, you felt special.

Paulette531

Saluki...good article on Jindel...he looks promising...I googled him as well.

FEB

It amazes me that people paid Clinton over 50 million to hear him talk. Are these people  crazy or what!! I just couldn't wait for him to shut up! The thought of listening to him and Hillary again. . . UGH!

saluki

Wanted to set a few things straight in case anyone really believes Amy's

repeated and consciously misleading mantra of McCain Hundred years.

 OBAMA HYPOCRISY ON IRAQ



    Obama Claimed He Has Been Accurately Re-Stating McCain's "100 Years"
Comment, But Non-Partisan Groups And Media Outlets Disagree:

    Obama: "John McCain got upset today apparently because I had repeated
exactly what he said, which is that we might be there [Iraq] for 100 years
if he had his way." (MSNBC's "Hardball," 4/2/08)



Columbia Journalism Review's Zachary Roth: "[L]ately, Barack Obama in
particular has stepped up his attacks on McCain's '100 years' notion. But
in doing so, Obama is seriously misleading voters -- if not outright lying
to them -- about exactly what McCain said." (Zachary Roth, Op-Ed, "The
U.S., Iraq, And 100 Years," Columbia Journalism Review, 4/1/08)



    Slate's Christopher Beam: "In context, McCain's statements seem clear:
He doesn't want the war to continue for 100 years. But he's willing to keep
a few brigades there as long as they're not getting killed. ... [F]or Obama
and others to paint McCain's stance as a war without end doesn't quite hold
up." (Christopher Beam, "The '100 Years' War," Slate's "Trail Head" Blog,
http://www.slate.com, 4/1/08)



    Non-Partisan Politifact.Com Calls Obama Attacks On "100 Years" Comment
"False." "Obama twisted McCain's words in the Cleveland debate. He said,
'We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for
another 100 years.' As we explain above, McCain was referring to a
peacetime presence, not the war. So we find Obama's statement False."
(Politifact.Com Website, http://www.politifact.com, Accessed 3/25/08)



    In The Course Of Two Weeks, Obama Shifted His Position On Whether Or
Not He Would Keep Troops In Iraq Three Times:

    On Tuesday, Fox News Reported That Obama Campaign Said Strike Force
Would Not Be In Iraq. Fox News' Carl Cameron: "Senator McCain has accused
Mr. Obama of twisting his words. And the Obama campaign is arguing that
Sen. McCain has got Obama's policies wrong. The strike force that Obama
says he would keep would be in the region, not in Iraq. So the battle
continues between Obama and Clinton and Obama and McCain over national
security." (Fox News' "Live," 4/1/08)



    One Day Earlier, Obama Claimed That He Would Keep A Strike Force In
Iraq Or "Perhaps Outside Of Iraq" To Protect Civilians And Respond To
"Potential Problems." Obama: "What I've said is that we will have troops
looking after our embassy there [in Iraq], which we do everywhere. ... We
have some military personnel that ensure that our diplomatic forces are
taken care of. We have troops to make sure that our civilian populations
are cared for. And what I've said is I would have a strike force in the
region, perhaps in Iraq, perhaps outside of Iraq, so that we could take
advantage or we could deal with potential problems that might take place in
the region." (Sen. Barack Obama, Press Conference, 3/31/08)



    As Recently As Two Weeks Ago, Obama Said A Counter-Terrorism Strike
Force Would Remain In Iraq. Obama: "In order to end this war responsibly, I
will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. We can responsibly
remove 1 to 2 combat brigades each month. If we start with the number of
brigades we have in Iraq today, we can remove all of them 16 months. After
this redeployment, we will leave enough troops in Iraq to guard our embassy
and diplomats, and a counter-terrorism force to strike al Qaeda if it forms
a base that the Iraqis cannot destroy." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On
Iraq, Fayetteville, NC, 3/19/08)



    NOTE: Today, The New York Sun Reports That A Key Adviser To Obama Is
Recommending That 60,000 To 80,000 Troops Remain In Iraq As Late As 2010.
"A key adviser to Senator Obama's campaign is recommending in a
confidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in
Iraq as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois
senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking
office." (Eli Lake, "Obama Adviser Calls For 60,000-80,000 U.S. Troops To
Stay In Iraq Through 2010," The New York Sun, 4/4/08)

Rosemary44

"NOTE: Today, The New York Sun Reports That A Key Adviser To Obama Is Recommending That 60,000 To 80,000 Troops Remain In Iraq As Late As 2010.
"A key adviser to Senator Obama's campaign is recommending in a
confidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office." (Eli Lake, "Obama Adviser Calls For 60,000-80,000 U.S. Troops To Stay In Iraq Through 2010," The New York Sun, 4/4/08)"

I heard the talking heads barely mention Obama's new stance of staying longer in Iraq, only to state that this might hurt him in November.  Unless McCain makes an issue of this during the campaign, it will go mostly unnoticed.

Paulette531

I think it will slowly come into play that he will be keeping troops in Iraq (if elected) he will need to save face...I am sure he knows by now it was idiotic to even assume there could be an instant pull out of troops...another example of his back peddling.

SheriH

I would rather see the candidate be realistic and not set a definite pull out date, but plan to get the job done as quickly as possible.  Those such as Obama who get caught up on a "date" are going to find themselves having a hard time living up to their promises.

PuppyFive

so true Sheri,

Paulette531

Puppy...that is hilarious!

FEB

Puppy

Thanks again for keeping us all laughing!!

I look forward to everything you post! I just wish  I knew how you did it!!

Linda

PuppyFive

{{Linda}}

Ya gotta be crazy like me to do "IT"

XOXOXO

Puppy

saluki

There is a publication in the Philly area called the Jewish Exponent.

The Obama supporters are trying to mobilize a write in campaign to get the editor thown out because of this article.

I, obviously am the wrong person to send these arm twisting tactics to---but they don't give up!

----------------------------------------------------------------

Don't Blame Me, I Just Pray Here!
Obama's seminal speech on race was a beaut, but does it answer our questions?
March 27, 2008 - Jonathan S. Tobin, Executive Editor

Every time his foes think they've got Sen. Barack Obama in a tight spot, he turns to his strong suit: the ability to communicate complicated subjects in a way that combines high-toned eloquence with a common touch that makes it feel as if he is speaking to every one of his listeners as individuals.

When the Democratic Party's presidential front-runner began to speak here in Philadelphia at the Constitution Center on March 18, by quoting the preamble to the Constitution, the hot topic was why Obama chose to belong to an institution that promoted toxic hate for America and Israel. When he finished, the discussion had, as he intended it to do, radically changed.

By disassociating himself from the positions of Rev. Jeremiah Wright while attempting to place them in the context of the history of American racism, Obama performed a rhetorical form of jujitsu, whereby the onus of the discussion fell upon those who questioned his connections to a hate-monger, not the association itself.

Our Original Sin
As Obama rightly pointed out, racism is America's original sin. Slavery still haunts us -- and it should. But has any American politician ever skillfully touched all the bases of America's various hurts and grievances as the senator from Illinois did?

Obama asked us to view race not as a spectacle, but as an opportunity to genuinely bring the country together in the spirit of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., while acknowledging that we have made great progress toward that goal.

It was, as writer Timothy Noah wrote on Slate.com, "about rejecting identity politics while honoring the nobler aspirations of the identity politicians." He did this while, as Noah added, "without displaying an ounce of false piety, or bitterness, or sentimentality, or denial, or self-righteousness."

Thus, it is little wonder that many were soon lauding it as if it was the best speech given in this state since Abraham Lincoln began a cemetery dedication with the words, "Four score and seven years ago."

But before the text of the Constitution Center speech is etched in stained glass, it behooves us to ask whether, in fact, the premise of this grand and beautiful summary of American race sensitivity is the issue we should be discussing instead of some more mundane queries.

Such as, for instance, why the heck someone as obviously as thoughtful as Obama would choose to belong to a place that thinks Hamas manifestoes are suitable fodder for their church newsletter, or employ a pastor who blamed the 9/11 attacks on American support for Israel and disseminated lies about the U.S. government being behind the scourges of AIDS and inner-city drug use. It's all well and good to condemn these things, as Obama has done, but why would he choose to raise his daughters in a place that has promoted such libels?

He tells us that he can no more disown Wright and the church than he would his white grandmother, whom he claims has uttered comments about blacks that made him cringe.

Leave aside his willingness to throw, as many have noted, the grandma who helped raise him under the bus, or the false analogies between her or former Democratic vice-presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro and Wright.

The salient point here is that, for all of his eloquence and rectitude, Obama simply can't draw a bright line between himself and those who hate because "these people are a part of me. And they are part of America, this country that I love."

It's a nice turn of phrase, but still a problem since as, Anti-Defamation League head Abraham Foxman noted, by giving Wright and Trinity a pass because of past injustices, what he was doing was "excusing and rationalizing bigotry."

Many of Obama's defenders have said, with justice, that anyone who raises these issues should look not only at the things their own priests, pastors and rabbis say but the presence of other divisive figures within the ranks of supporters of other candidates.

Have we held the (mostly Republican) candidates who cozied up in the past to Rev. Pat Robertson or the late Rev. Jerry Falwell accountable? Both political evangelicals who have uttered scores of screwy pronouncements on world events and other faiths.

Republican Sen. John McCain, who will oppose Obama in the fall if he wins the Democratic nomination, hasn't rejected the support of Rev. John Hagee, a pro-Israel evangelical who thinks the pope is the anti-Christ.

In other words, the critics of Obama's connections to Wright and his Trinity Church are being told that they should shut up or face condemnation for being, at best, politically motivated, or, at worst, racist.

But are these fair analogies?

McCain, who condemned Hagee's anti-Catholicism, isn't a member of Hagee's church nor is he the Arizonan's mentor. And it is doubtful that any presidential candidate who belonged to, say, Falwell's Liberty Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Va., for as long as Obama belonged to Wright's would escape condemnation.

Which brings us to the key word about religious affiliation in 2008: choice.

A Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life survey published in February showed that nearly half of all Americans have either left the faith of their childhood or switched denominations. Even more are likely to jump from one church or synagogue to another depending on the circumstances, including a distaste for the politics or theology of their religious leader.

That is not to say that Americans won't attend a church or synagogue whose spiritual head says things they disagree with. But it does illustrate that dropping out of a religious community because of issues far less weighty than Wright's hateful (and not merely "controversial") sermons is quite common.

Unsatisfactory Answer
We have all, as Obama said, "cringed" when we heard some in our own community say awful things. But if we called the people who said these things our mentors, and if we refused to join another house of worship once it was clear that it was a place where racially motivated lies were disseminated, then people would have a right to ask us why.

Obama doesn't believe in Wright's "liberation theology" and appears willing to condemn the man's statements about Israel, his ties to Louis Farrakhan, and anything else he has ever said as often as anyone likes. But his responses about his choice of Wright and his church are ultimately unsatisfactory.

Race is a good answer to many questions that can be posed about America. But it was not an apt reply to those put to Obama.

The senator has flawlessly jumped through the hoops set for him about support for Israel and other issues. But those who seek to hold a man who might be president accountable for ties to a professional demagogue are not all racists or even die-hard Republicans. Even after an undeniably brilliant speech, we are all entitled to a better answer than that. 

FEB

Susie -it always amazes me how liberals feel that freedom of speech only applies to them. From shouting down republicans who try to speak on college campuses to condemning a publication that dares to criticize. . .

It is true, that any republican who would have associated with such a minister as Rev. Wright would have been done. Yet, Obama is allowed to make excuses. There is such a double standard. The thing that worries me most about an Obama presidency is that anyone who criticizes him for anything, will be accused of being racist, and I fear that rather than unite us as he says he will, it will escalate into a race war that will tear us all apart.

Did anyone see Chris Wallace's interview this morning with McCain and Kerry? What I liked about McCain was that he answered the questions without trying to dance around or spin, and is always willing to admit when he was wrong. On the other had, Kerry kept trying to evade questions by changing the subject and blaming others. He will never get it. This is why he never won. He would never give a straight answer. Obama is doing the same thing, and I think eventually, people will see through it. I can't wait to hear them debate. Obama does pretty well on talk shows like Letterman. We'll see if he can think on his feet when he is asked tougher questions.

Anonymous

I believe those who are Obama lovers will not change their minds NO MATTER WHAT!  They will always believe what Obama wants them to believe.

And, yes, if a person belonged to Jerry Falwell's church.....LOOK OUT!  As many of you know I liked Falwell.  He did not preach hate.  Yes, he stood AGAINST things that he thought the Bible taught.  That is so much different than preaching hate.  You can compare him to someone who belongs to the Catholic faith as far as abortion is concerned.  He was against abortions, but he also had a home for girls who were pregnant.  He schooled them and they had counsel whether or not to keep their babies...adoptions, not abortion.  He has a home for alcoholic men (I don't think women).  And when this man preached (as much as you may not have agreed with him) he did it in love, not hate.

There were things he said that I cringed at.  Like the Teletubies (sp).  Or the remark he made about 9/11 for which he apologized.  He apologized for other things he had said as well.  Sometimes we do say things in the "heat of the moment."  But, has Wright apologized?

Republicans are held to higher standards when it comes to political correctness.  The liberal, mainstream media does not hold the liberals to the same standards.

I also realize we here on this thread will have different beliefs on different social issues even though we lean right.  That's the precise problem that McCain is having with the hardcore conservatives. 

Shirley

Anonymous

Puppy, loved your "fairy tale" graphic!  But, doggone if it isn't true! 

Shirley

shokk

Pupster I am so glad you have join us here on the Republican thread.........ladies she is a jewel............Shokk

Rosemary44

Hillary will be on Ellen's show today talking about her war on breast cancer.  She wants to eradicate it in 10 years. 

On another note, Condie Rice stories abound in the press which means we might have a V.P. choice afterall.  They usually float these stories before an announcement.

FEB

I still wonder if Condie is too much on the same page with the whole Iraq issue to help get McCain any  new votes. Plus she does not have any connection to a toss up state to bring him  any votes. But I really like her, and I would love to hear her take on the race issue. That would take some of the wind out Obama's sails. And it would be interesting to hear all the women's libbers try to undermind her candidacy.

Chicago has now had 23 school children killed by violence this year, in spite of tough gun control laws. Our Democratic run city, and state, do nothing. Why didn't Obama do anything in Illinois when he had the chance? They talk and talk, and don't do a damn thing. How does this guy think he can lead the country. He showed no leadership in the Chicago city council. He showed no leadership as a state legislator, and he has done nothing as my senator, except spend his time making public appearances to push his books, which got him into the presidental race. If he was a Rebpulican, the fact that he has done nothing to fight the violence in our city schools would be a headline. Obama can sure talk the talk, but he can't walk the walk!

ijl

I think McCain would need someone to bring him southern states, where he did not fare as well. But of course the though of Condie being a woman and an African American (from both sides of parents) is very interesting. However those liberals will not give her the votes because she is still a republican. The only ones that could "swing" would be more moderate democrats.

Rosemary44

I think Obama voted "Present" when the anti-gun legislation near schools was being voted on in Illinois. It passed.  He wouldn't take a stand.  The story was in the Washington Post, he voted "present" 130 times during his stop there on the way to his Presidency run.

saluki

Rosemary and Linda-

Just a followup to Obama's voting record of Present and- Oops--I hit the wrong button.

--------------------

Obama said oops on 6 state Senate votes

He pushed the wrong button, he asserted at the time. Two of the admitted flubs were on hotly contested issues.

By Peter Wallsten
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

January 24, 2008

Barack Obama angered fellow Democrats in the Illinois Senate when he voted to strip millions of dollars from a child welfare office on Chicago's West Side. But Obama had a ready explanation: He goofed.

"I was not aware that I had voted no," he said that day in June 2002, asking that the record be changed to reflect that he "intended to vote yes."

That was not the only misfire for the former civil rights attorney first elected to the state Senate in 1996. During his eight years in state office, Obama cast more than 4,000 votes. Of those, according to transcripts of the proceedings in Springfield, he hit the wrong button at least six times.

The rules allow state lawmakers to clear up a mishap if they suffered from a momentary case of stumbly fingers or a lapse in attention. Correcting the record is common practice in the Illinois Legislature, where lawmakers routinely cast numerous votes in a hurry.

But some lawmakers say the practice also offers a relatively painless way to placate both sides of a difficult issue. Even if a lawmaker admits an error, the actual vote stands and the official record merely shows the senator's "intent."

No one has accused Obama, now a U.S. senator and a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, of changing votes to play both sides, and an Obama spokesman called that idea "absurd."

But Obama has come under fire from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina for his frequent use of another oddity of Illinois politics: voting "present" rather than casting up-or-down votes on controversial measures.

"It is very difficult having a straight-up debate with you, because you never take responsibility for any vote, and that has been a pattern," Clinton told him in a debate Monday.

Tommy Vietor, an Obama spokesman, said the mistaken votes were not meaningful. "In Illinois, legislators often have just a few seconds to cast a vote, so after thousands of votes they're bound to make a few mistakes," he said. Referring to Clinton's vote to authorize the war in Iraq and her support for a bankruptcy measure, Vietor added, "The real problem is when Democrats vote like Republicans."

Four of Obama's admitted flubs drew little controversy.

On March 19, 1997, he announced he had fumbled an election-reform vote the day before, on a measure that passed 51 to 6: "I was trying to vote yes on this, and I was recorded as a no," he said. The next day, he acknowledged voting "present" on a key telecommunications vote.

He stood on March 11, 1999, to take back his vote against legislation to end good-behavior credits for certain felons in county jails. "I pressed the wrong button on that," he said.

Obama was the lone dissenter on Feb. 24, 2000, against 57 yeas for a ban on human cloning. "I pressed the wrong button by accident," he said.

But two of Obama's bumbles came on more-sensitive topics. On Nov. 14, 1997, he backed legislation to permit riverboat casinos to operate even when the boats were dockside.

The measure, pushed by the gambling industry and fought by church groups whose support Obama was seeking, passed with two "yeas" to spare -- including Obama's. Moments after its passage he rose to say, "I'd like to be recorded as a no vote," explaining that he had mistakenly voted for it.

Obama would later develop a reputation as a critic of the gambling industry, and he voted against a similar measure two years later. But he was clearly confused about how to handle the issue at the time of his first vote, telling a church group on a 1998 campaign questionnaire that he was "undecided" about whether he backed an expansion of riverboat gambling. And, months earlier, he had voted in favor of a version of the bill.

The senator who led the opposition to the gambling measure, Republican Todd Sieben, said he took Obama at his word that the initial vote was an error. But Sieben also said the thin margin of victory was a sign that perhaps there was more to the vote than met the eye. "He was obviously paying attention to this vote. It was a major, major issue in the state, and it was a long debate," Sieben said. "The inadvertent 'Oops, I missed the switch' -- I'd be kind of skeptical of that."

On June 11, 2002, Obama's vote sparked a confrontation after he joined Republicans to block Democrats trying to override a veto by GOP Gov. George Ryan of a $2-million allotment for the west Chicago child welfare office.

Shortly afterward, Obama chastised Republicans for their "sanctimony" in claiming that only they had the mettle to make tough choices in a tight budget year. And he called for "responsible budgeting."

A fellow Democrat suddenly seethed with anger. "You got a lot of nerve to talk about being responsible," said Sen. Rickey Hendon, accusing Obama of voting to close the child welfare office.

Obama replied right away. "I understand Sen. Hendon's anger. . . . I was not aware that I had voted no on that last -- last piece of legislation," he said.

Obama asked that the record reflect that he meant to vote yes. Then he requested that Hendon "ask me about a vote before he names me on the floor."

Hendon declined to discuss the episode. "I try to block out unpleasant memories," said Hendon, who has endorsed Obama. "If I tried really hard to remember it, I probably could, but I'm not going to try hard because I'm supporting the senator all the way."

Hendon said "it happens" that senators press the wrong button. But he was quick to add: "I've never done it."

peter.wallsten@latimes.com

The Ever-'Present' Obama

By Nathan Gonzales

Finally and officially, Barack Obama is running for president. His symbolic announcement, in the Land of Lincoln, called for a new era in politics. Obama downplayed his thin federal experience while championing his record on the state and local level, and he talked about the need to change Washington, set priorities, and "make hard choices."

"What's stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics - the ease with which we're distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions," Obama said in his announcement speech. But a closer look at the presidential candidate's record in the Illinois Legislature reveals something seemingly contradictory: a number of occasions when Obama avoided making hard choices.

While some conservatives and Republicans surely will harp on what they call his "liberal record," highlighting applicable votes to support their case, it's Obama's history of voting "present" in Springfield - even on some of the most controversial and politically explosive issues of the day - that raises questions that he will need to answer. Voting "present" is one of three options in the Illinois Legislature (along with "yes" and "no"), but it's almost never an option for the occupant of the Oval Office.

We aren't talking about a "present" vote on whether to name a state office building after a deceased state official, but rather about votes that reflect an officeholder's core values.

For example, in 1997, Obama voted "present" on two bills (HB 382 and SB 230) that would have prohibited a procedure often referred to as partial birth abortion. He also voted "present" on SB 71, which lowered the first offense of carrying a concealed weapon from a felony to a misdemeanor and raised the penalty of subsequent offenses.

In 1999, Obama voted "present" on SB 759, a bill that required mandatory adult prosecution for firing a gun on or near school grounds. The bill passed the state Senate 52-1. Also in 1999, Obama voted "present" on HB 854 that protected the privacy of sex-abuse victims by allowing petitions to have the trial records sealed. He was the only member to not support the bill.

In 2001, Obama voted "present" on two parental notification abortion bills (HB 1900 and SB 562), and he voted "present" on a series of bills (SB 1093, 1094, 1095) that sought to protect a child if it survived a failed abortion. In his book, the Audacity of Hope, on page 132, Obama explained his problems with the "born alive" bills, specifically arguing that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. But he failed to mention that he only felt strongly enough to vote "present" on the bills instead of "no."

And finally in 2001, Obama voted "present" on SB 609, a bill prohibiting strip clubs and other adult establishments from being within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, and daycares.

If Obama had taken a position for or against these bills, he would have pleased some constituents and alienated others. Instead, the Illinois legislator-turned-U.S. senator and, now, Democratic presidential hopeful essentially took a pass.

Some of these bills may have been "bad. They may have included poison pills or been poorly written, making it impossible for Obama to support them. They may have even been unconstitutional. When I asked the Obama campaign about those votes, they explained that in some cases, the Senator was uncomfortable with only certain parts of the bill, while in other cases, the bills were attempts by Republicans simply to score points.

But even if that were the case, it doesn't explain his votes. The state legislator had an easy solution if the bills were unacceptable to him: he could have voted against them and explained his reasoning.

Because it takes affirmative votes to pass legislation in the Illinois Senate, a "present" vote is tantamount to a "no" vote. A "present" vote is generally used to provide political cover for legislators who don't want to be on the record against a bill that they oppose. Of course, Obama isn't the first or only Illinois state senator to vote "present," but he is the only one running for President of the United States.

While these votes occurred while Obama and the Democrats were in the minority in the Illinois Senate, in the Audacity of Hope (page 130), Obama explained that even as a legislator in the minority, "You must vote yes or no on whatever bill comes up, with the knowledge that it's unlikely to be a compromise that either you or your supporters consider fair and or just."

Obama's "present" record could hurt him in two very different ways in his bid to win the Democratic presidential nomination and, ultimately, the White House. On one hand, those votes could anger some Democrats, even liberals, because he did not take a strong enough stand on their issues. On the other hand, his votes could simply be portrayed by adversaries as a failure of leadership for not being willing to make a tough decision and stick by it.

Obama is one of the most dynamic and captivating figures in American politics at this time, and he has put together an excellent campaign team. He clearly is a factor in the race for the Democratic nomination in 2008.

But as Democrats - and Americans - are searching for their next leader, the Illinois senator's record, and not just his rhetoric, will be examined under a microscope. As president, Obama will be faced with countless difficult decisions on numerous gray issues, and voting "present" will not be an option. He will need to explain those "present" votes as a member of the Illinois Legislature if he hopes to become America's commander-in-chief.

Nathan L. Gonzales is political editor of The Rothenberg Political Report.

Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/the_everpresent_obama.html at April 07, 2008 - 10:03:05 AM PDT

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Anonymous

Saluki, in reading one of the articles above, I wonder why more people aren't asking Obama why he isn't changing churches. That article was right on target. The Rev Wright may have other good sermons but he has not apologized for this white-hating racist message. To me, that should tell Obama that Rev Wright meant what he said.

......

Shirley said, and I agree with this:  

Republicans are held to higher standards when it comes to political correctness.  The liberal, mainstream media does not hold the liberals to the same standards.

FEB

Susie

Doesn't the president have his finger on the "nuclear button", so to speak.

I wonder how Obama would explain it if he "accidently" pressed that one!:

"Oh sorry, Russia, I pressed the wrong one. I was trying to page my wife."

Rosemary44

If he said he pressed the wrong button, he could easily have changed his vote.  I'm wondering about that ooops excuse especially when it came to tough legislation that might haunt him in his run for President.  He likes to define himself by saying he used poor judgement on things he's done.  I've read this a couple of times already.  Ok, we get it.

saluki

Here is an exerpt from Michelle Malkins blog---and a little insight of what is going on in Pa-----No wonder Hillary is having such a hard time.

Senator Obama is now selling himself to rural Pennslvnania as the Pro-gun

candidate--------

------------------------------------------

"The gall of this man. Here’s a clip from my post from Thursday, where’s he’s talking tough on guns for urban Democrats in Philly and Pittsburgh:

“I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Obama said. “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.

But then Politico looked at Obama’s strategy to woo blue-collar pro-gun voters in rural PA:

Barack Obama did not hunt or fish as a child. He lives in a big city. And as an Illinois state legislator and a U.S. senator, he consistently backed gun control legislation.

But he is nevertheless making a play for pro-gun voters in rural Pennsylvania.

By highlighting his background in constitutional law* and downplaying his voting record, Obama is engaging in a quiet but targeted drive to win over an important constituency that on the surface might seem hostile to his views.

You know, sometimes I start to suspect that liberals think we’re stupid. ‘Yeah, I’m tough on guns, and…a great fan of the Second Amendment! Hope! Change! Arugula!’ Alas, apparently, we’re not:

Melody Zullinger, the executive director of the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs who received the Obama campaign e-mail on his gun record, said Obama sounds like he is “speaking out of both sides of his mouth.”

“I was at one of our county meetings last night and I mentioned this to [federation members],” Zullinger said Friday of the Obama outreach. “Everyone basically blew it off and weren’t buying it.”

They also quote a pro-gun Democratic state legislator who’s all ga-ga for Obama and trying to tell everyone who’ll listen what a great Second Amendment advocate Obama is. His name’s Dan Surra, and I’ll bet this really hurts his credibility. His constituents now know that his long commitment to gun rights is for sale when the Obamessiah turns on the charm."

saluki

By the way guess who endorsed McCain today----Allen Greenspan--

Thats a pretty hefty endorsement in the Economics area-also considering that Greenspan and Bush have frequently been at odds.

Paulette531

Rocktobermom...I think at this point if he changed churches he would be really crucified. And believe me I am not defending the man because I think he is full of himself! But, if he changed churches he would be admitting the great pastor Wright was wrong and then he would be wrong as well and it appears like his strong suit is back pedaling! I also think that church is his wifes church and her and her family have a history there.

Anonymous

Doesn't the president have his finger on the "nuclear button", so to speak.

I wonder how Obama would explain it if he "accidently" pressed that one!:

"Oh sorry, Russia, I pressed the wrong one. I was trying to page my wife."

Linda...ROFLMAO!   

Anonymous

I'm going to have to come back and read or copy all that stuff.  I have to start cleaning again..kids coming Wednesday night...so tired..hurt...OOOEEEYY!  Yep, the AI is turning me into a man!

BTW, while I was mopping the kitchen floor and foyer floor and mudroom floor (now do you understand the OOOEEEYYY?) I heard on the TV that Condi wasn't asking to be VP.  I just heard it, so not sure if I heard right.  I don't think I'm deaf YET.  It said something about her not wanting it or wanting to be prez.  She probably wants to go home and play her piano. LOL

Oh, and did you hear in D.C. they are going to go to homes and check for guns IF people let them in.  And they will be given amnesty if they find a gun.  PUULLLEEEEASSSEE, don'tcha think people with illegal guns know they have one and will not give permission for a cop to come in and search your home.  And, if there are drugs found in that home no amnesty.  And, I heard that even though it was illegal to own a gun the crime is still very high.  Just goes to show you CROOKS will get a gun if they want one.  Don't forget, I heard all this stuff while cleaning.

Okay, gotta get off here.

Shirley

Anonymous

Right, like the drug dealer with guns and drugs is going to just let the cops in.  Maybe, he'll even say, "Check under the carpet, under the couch, I used to keep guns and drugs there in a secret removable floor board."