Save the OBAMA Drama-and Complaints, too

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2008
Save the OBAMA Drama-and Complaints, too
133
Wed, 11-19-2008 - 10:47pm

Save The Obama Drama
By Paul Devlin | TheRoot.com


Stop with the ridiculous expectations already;

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-19-2008
Sun, 11-23-2008 - 3:41am

>>> And I could equally say that, of course you are entitled to your opinion, but the fact remains that 64% of the Republican base, energized or not, is not enough to put Palin in the White House.

"Ninety-one percent (91%) of Republicans have a favorable view of Palin, including 65% who say their view is Very Favorable. Only eight percent (8%) have an unfavorable view of her, including three percent (3%) Very Unfavorable.

When asked to choose among some of the GOP’s top names for their choice for the party’s 2012 presidential nominee, 64% say Palin. The next closest contenders are two former governors and unsuccessful challengers for the presidential nomination this year -- Mike Huckabee of Arkansas with 12% support and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts with 11%."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2012/69_of_gop_voters_say_palin_helped_mccain

Even just a few months ago, I doubt that Obama could claim the support of 64% of Democrats. Four years out, Palin has 91% favorables and the endorsement of 64% of her party...that's pretty impressive.

>>> In light of the fact that she's got several pesky cases of ethics charges to deal with:

Not even an issue, all BS drummed up by the Democrats and the MSM to try and tarnish her just like they've been doing since she stepped forward.

>>> things aren't going to well for Governor Palin. Republican Governors showed her little love at the Republican Governor's conference.

I'm sure they were a little miffed when the press all but ignored them, but since few have Presidential aspirations themselves, I doubt they're gunning for Palin.

>>> Add to that her drop in approval ratings IN HER HOME STATE (Even in Alaska, Palin's popularity is taking a tumble, Centredaily.com, http://www.centredaily.com/206/story/952675.html)

I'll stick with Rasmussen, thanks.

>>> and it's beginning to look like she may have a hard time getting re-elected to Governor two years from now (or to the House of Representatives, should she take that route). Should she lose a bid to either in 2010, her chances of a sucessful presidential run in 2012 will be very low indeed.

with 91% approvals, 64% approvals from Republicans and at least 64% approvals of the Alaskan people (which will rise once the press stops attacking her), I doubt that she'd have much trouble getting re-elected, but even if she did, I'm sure the Republican party would keep her afloat until 2012.

>>> Let's face it... Palin is the perfect living example of the Peter Principle.

It appears that Obama is about to prove that principle...again.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-20-2008
Sun, 11-23-2008 - 9:07am

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/sources-say-sar.html


Sources Say Sarkozy Finds Obama's Iran Policy ‘Arrogant,’ ‘Utterly Immature’

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-20-2008
Sun, 11-23-2008 - 9:18am

Interesting that your article both supports and refutes the assertion. Also interesting that unnamed sources are the source of your assertion. I wonder why unnamed sources are discounted when criticizing Palin, but acceptable if criticizing Obama - double standard here?

This fact: "French intelligence has concluded that Iran has already obtained up to 40% of the enriched uranium it needs for a bomb, the newspaper reports, and will have obtained the rest next summer." leads me to conclude that this strategy has been very ineffective:

"Until now, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany have tried to maintain a united front on Iran. But according to the senior Israeli source, Sarkozy fears that Obama might 'arrogantly' ignore the other members of this front and open a direct dialogue with Iran without preconditions."

So, perhaps a new approach is in order.

Perhaps you did not read the foot note to the article?

"UPDATE: The Obama campaign passes along this comment from a spokesman for the French government: "The remarks attributed by the newspaper Haaretz to the President of the French Republic concerning Senator Obama's positions on Iran are groundless. To the contrary, the in-depth discussions between the President of the Republic and Senator Obama on Iran during their meeting in Paris in July demonstrated a broad convergence of views on this issue. President Sarkozy and Senator Obama agree to oppose Iran's development of a military nuclear capability."

.
.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-21-2008
Sun, 11-23-2008 - 9:31am
By the way the "balanced budget" "budget surplus" is actually propaganda. Clinton handed Bush a mild recession and the *projection* of a budget surplus which never materialized. Bush brought us out of the recession with tax cuts, even with all the other major things (9-11, hurricanes, etc.) that were happening at the time. These things were never taken into consideration, or credited to Bush by the left in their thirst for power.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-03-2008
Sun, 11-23-2008 - 10:07am
And just why have they been stopped? Because his threats are being taken seriously, none of this actionable bull that I have read here time after time.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-20-2008
Sun, 11-23-2008 - 10:08am

>>Motivations are important to know"why" he was elected. It also tends to make more sense of the votes considering his inexperience. But the whole "race" factor went well beyond blacks...there were a lot of whites, as well as blacks, who were looking to make this election "historic."<<

I never said that motivations aren't important in understanding why somebody got elected. I'm sure race played a part for many people but as there is no way of knowing for sure the true impact of it, it is mostly speculation. He may have only been elected because he was black but there is no true way to prove that and I have a feeling that the general dissatisfaction with the Republican party in the US also played a part.

>>Both McCain and Palin have a record of bipartisanship, reform and even going against their own party when they thought it was the right thing to do. Obama, on the other hand, is the Congress' most liberal Senator (no mean feat when you consider he's only served around 150 days), has NO record of bipartisanship and has voted along party lines 97% of the time. I'm not sure what kind of "convincing" you require, but the comparisons are very telling.<<

I didn't need much convincing to not vote for Obama as I didn't vote for him. I'm still not a fan of Palin though.

>>There's a big difference between "rape" and "the health of the mother." Using "rape" to justify abortion is just trading one excuse (convenience) for another (rape)...both are simply reasons the mother doesn't want the child. Palin believes in the sanctity of human life, so using rape to justify abortion would be hypocritical...and hypocritical she is not.<<

Having an abortion because of rape isn't the same as simply not wanting a child or using abortion as a means of birth control (convenience). Darn straight many women wouldn't want to carry the child of an assailant and then be solely responsible for caring for the child. What about the health of the child if it is carried to term? A mother that is raped might not necessarily be able to take care of it. Foster care is not always a good option for a child either.

>>I've heard that before and it's a ridiculous proposition, probably invented by the anti-death penalty crowd. The minute you kill someone...with about $2 worth of chemicals...they stop being a financial burden on the system...unlike letting them live for another 20 or 30 years at taxpayers expense. Personally, I don't have any problem with the death penalty as long as it's "guilty beyond ANY doubt."<<

So you're only pro life when it comes to abortion? How is that not hypocritical? In order to put somebody to death, they wind up sitting on death row sometimes for 20+ years. Add to the expense of taking care of them for that long to the cost of lawyers and the money for legal proceedings, DNA tests etc to ensure that they aren't putting an innocent person to death and it adds up. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty#FromDPIC

>>> And although we have made great advances in DNA testing there are still innocent people that have spent 20+ years in jail for a crime they didn't commit. That stays with them forever and makes it harder for them to get jobs, etc.

Solution?<<

It's not the death penalty.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-20-2008
Sun, 11-23-2008 - 10:26am

>>Actually, abstinence is the only thing that works 100%...but unfortunately it requires community support and the teaching of values beyond "me, me, me," things in short supply these days when schools teach kids about sex, then hand out condoms and say..."uh...but please don't use them."<<

Abstinence does work 100% of the time, but as statistically most kids aren't abstinent they need to be educated. Your values on this are also probably not the same as other adults in the community. Even the most well intentioned kid might screw up and they need to have the knowledge to protect themselves.

>>Why would a governor of Alaska, or any governor, have extensive knowledge of foreign policy? Where did Obama get his expertise on foreign policy?...living in Jakarta at age 10? He has zero...in fact, he's got so little experience that his VP and his Secretary of State BOTH called him inexperienced AND he's gotten EVERY foreign policy issue wrong in the past several years. Palin, on the other hand, has energy expertise...which is extremely valuable...and executive experience...which, again, is pertinent to the Presidency. Obama...has none.<<

Again, I didn't vote for Obama so you don't have to tell me about his lack of experience, etc. His inexperiences do not make up for the fact that Palin doesn't have foreign policy experience either. I wasn't as terrified of her being VP as I hoped she'd at least pick up on something, but as a president with no foreign policy experience it would be terrifying. Again, I don't need any more about Obama's inexperience in this area as I did not vote for him.

>>Or it could be that McCain chose one of the few eligible candidates that has truly conservative values, executive experience and has a reputation for bipartisanship and being a "maverick." Obviously the choice has resonated with a large number of conservatives.<<

I'm not a far right leaning conservative and she still does not appeal to me. I do not consider her short time as governor in a state with a very small population enough to make her an expert in the field of executive experience either.

>>As opposed to Biden...the human gaffe machine...who has also been on the wrong side of every foreign policy issue in the last decade? Palin was thrust onto the world stage with 24 hours notice, while all of the other have had years to prepare. It's hardly fair to judge her on two "gotcha" interviews and then give a pass to Stuttering Barry who sounds like an imbecile when he's off-prompter or Biden who sounds stupid so often that the press barely mentions it any more. I don't think I've ever seen the level of media bias and attacks that were thrown at Palin...it was simply disgusting.<<

I never once refuted the statement that media coverage was biased in this election.

>> But what I can say, is that everyone who's met her (that's appeared on a news program) has said they were impressed with her intelligence, how engaged she was, and how genuine she was.<<

What news program?

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-20-2008
Sun, 11-23-2008 - 10:48am

((Interesting that your article both supports and refutes the assertion. Also interesting that unnamed sources are the source of your assertion. I wonder why unnamed sources are discounted when criticizing Palin, but acceptable if criticizing Obama - double standard here?))


I guess I should ask you the same question.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Sun, 11-23-2008 - 10:53am

...and they did!


;o)

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-20-2008
Sun, 11-23-2008 - 10:58am

I haven't said that I do believe any unnamed sources - for or against either Palin or Obama. I prefer named sources unless there is independent corroboration. As to Sarkozy is there even any evidence that he had read this article? Or knows of it's existence? I would venture to guess that he has better things to do than troll news sites looking for articles to support or refute.

Personally, I think a change is in order in regards to Iran - we will have to wait for Obama to actually be sworn in and see what he does before criticizing what he 'might' or 'might not' do. I think that thus far he has demonstrated a willingness to surround himself with knowledgeable and experienced people and has demonstrated a willingness to listen to their views and consider them when taking action. I have faith that this pattern of behavior will continue to be the case. Until then it is nothing more than speculation and assumptions. You do know the saying about making assumptions is don't you?

.
.

Pages