The Luckiest Man in the World

[Elvado]

has to be Senator Barack Obama. When asked about the toughest decision he ever had to make, he cited his opposing the Iraq War.

That was truly gutsy from a man serving in the Illinois State Senate at the time, who had no vote on the matter.

If this is the toughest decision he's ever faced, he may truly be the Chosen One.

[hifigator]

Luckiest man in the world ... I thought for sure this was going to "another" thread about John Oates.

[Bando]

So Rush just finished up his morning broadcast, I gather?

HiFi, this will change your opinion of Oates forever.

[hifigator]

I don't get the Rush reference, but I can't view the link here at work since I am on slow dial up. Maybe it will be evident when I view the link from home.

[Elvado]

Bando: You are so very clever. Contrary to your opinion, I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. It is no great feat to discern the inherent hollownesss of Barack Obama. While I am certainly not nearly as brilliant as you appear to be, realizing that Obama's answer to that simple question was nonsense was not even above "my pay grade".

However, the most disturbing part of your reply is that as per Liberal rote, you ignore the substance and attack the messenger.

Do you believe that was an honest answer? I think you're smarter than that.

[hifigator]

Elvado wrote:

Bando: You are so very clever. Contrary to your opinion, I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. It is no great feat to discern the inherent hollownesss of Barack Obama. While I am certainly not nearly as brilliant as you appear to be, realizing that Obama's answer to that simple question was nonsense was not even above "my pay grade".

However, the most disturbing part of your reply is that as per Liberal rote, you ignore the substance and attack the messenger.

Do you believe that was an honest answer? I think you're smarter than that. [/b]

Ah, but that's where you are wrong.


On Edit: You know, the more I think about it, the more it somewhat irritates me. Whenever someone makes a conservative statement or criticizes a liberal, almost immediately, the responses (by liberals of course) is something about listening to Rush or watching Fox news again. That, in and of itself, illustrates the liberal bias of the mainstream media which has agitated so many of us on the right for so long. Liberals have tried to deny such a liberal bias for years, in spite of it being so patently obvious to anyone even remotely attempting to be objective. Now I don't deny the conservative slant of Rush or many of the Fox hosts, but I think you have to have it both ways or neither.

Brit Hume is, in my opinion, very neutral when he covers the news. Conversely, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Barbara Walters and most of the other prominent "journalists" for the alphabet networks are admitted liberals and it shows in their choice of words among other things. You can't have it both ways. Either the ABC's, NBC's and CBS's of the world are in fact liberal (and they are), or Fox News (Not obvious editorials like Sean Hannity), but Fox News with Brit Hume is actually fair and balanced. As I said, you can't have it both ways. The reason that Hume would appear to have a right slant is because of the familiarity and almost expectation of the leftward slant of which we have become accustomed.

[DrumsGoBang]

At lunch today I had to choose between a BLT and nuking a former soviet republic. I choose the BLT because I like bacon.

[Bando]

Aug 19, 2008 13:46:04 GMT -5 hifigator said:

I don't get the Rush reference, but I can't view the link here at work since I am on slow dial up. Maybe it will be evident when I view the link from home.

It's just a Yacht Rock episode, with a funny reimagining of the Hall-Oates songwriting relationship.

[Boz]

Aug 19, 2008 14:47:52 GMT -5 DrumsGoBang said:

At lunch today I had to choose between a BLT and nuking a former soviet republic. I choose the BLT because I like bacon.

You chose...........poorly.

;D

Mmmmmmm.....baaaacccccooooonnn!

[Bando]

Aug 19, 2008 13:47:03 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Bando: You are so very clever. Contrary to your opinion, I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. It is no great feat to discern the inherent hollownesss of Barack Obama. While I am certainly not nearly as brilliant as you appear to be, realizing that Obama's answer to that simple question was nonsense was not even above "my pay grade".

However, the most disturbing part of your reply is that as per Liberal rote, you ignore the substance and attack the messenger.

Do you believe that was an honest answer? I think you're smarter than that.

Wow, the lack of self-awareness here is completely astounding. Pot, kettle, black, and all that. Or am I just a filthy communist and not worth listening to? Demonizing your opponents is the GOP's bag, baby.

And while Obama of course wasn't in the Senate during the time of the AUMF, he did have an opinion on the matter and did make that opinion quite known. I believe this judgment contrasts quite well with John McCain, who thinks we should have started additional wars with Iran and Russia by now.

[Bando]

Aug 19, 2008 14:04:08 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Elvado wrote:

Bando: You are so very clever. Contrary to your opinion, I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. It is no great feat to discern the inherent hollownesss of Barack Obama. While I am certainly not nearly as brilliant as you appear to be, realizing that Obama's answer to that simple question was nonsense was not even above "my pay grade".

However, the most disturbing part of your reply is that as per Liberal rote, you ignore the substance and attack the messenger.

Do you believe that was an honest answer? I think you're smarter than that.

[/b]

Ah, but that's where you are wrong.


On Edit: You know, the more I think about it, the more it somewhat irritates me. Whenever someone makes a conservative statement or criticizes a liberal, almost immediately, the responses (by liberals of course) is something about listening to Rush or watching Fox news again. That, in and of itself, illustrates the liberal bias of the mainstream media which has agitated so many of us on the right for so long. Liberals have tried to deny such a liberal bias for years, in spite of it being so patently obvious to anyone even remotely attempting to be objective. Now I don't deny the conservative slant of Rush or many of the Fox hosts, but I think you have to have it both ways or neither.

Brit Hume is, in my opinion, very neutral when he covers the news. Conversely, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Barbara Walters and most of the other prominent "journalists" for the alphabet networks are admitted liberals and it shows in their choice of words among other things. You can't have it both ways. Either the ABC's, NBC's and CBS's of the world are in fact liberal (and they are), or Fox News (Not obvious editorials like Sean Hannity), but Fox News with Brit Hume is actually fair and balanced. As I said, you can't have it both ways. The reason that Hume would appear to have a right slant is because of the familiarity and almost expectation of the leftward slant of which we have become accustomed.[/quote]

It amazes me how conservatives can run country for eight years and still claim to be an oppressed minority. Oh, woe is you, HiFi! The liberal media is trying to trying to pierce your bubble of jingoism with reality! How dare they! Except when they were all cheerleading the Iraq war, then they were cool. And just because Fox lists scandal-plagued Republicans like Mark Foley as Democrats is just an innocent mistake.

Additionally, I think you picked the wrong board to question a Hoya's intellectual credentials, Gator boy.

[Boz]

I think the point is not to evaluate whether Obama's judgment was good or bad in opposing the war. You think it was good; others, like me, disagree and - as is patently obvious by now - never the twain shall meet.

I think the issue is that this was a decision of no demonstrable real world consequence, given Obama's position at the time. Is something like that really the toughest decision he has ever made? I'm guessing even he doesn't think it was.

Not only that, but Obama has admitted himself that he did not have access to the intelligence data that Congress did, so while it was a principled decision, by his own admission, it was not an educated one.

I would have been more impressed if Obama talked about his support or opposition to legislation that he personally was involved in and could affect or, alternatively, shared a personal life decision. How about stopping using drugs? My guess is that is the toughest decision he has ever had to make for himself. And clearly, he made the right one.

But it doesn't matter. The only reason people are saying McCain did better was because he cheated.

[hifigator]

Aug 19, 2008 15:05:32 GMT -5 Bando said:

Aug 19, 2008 14:04:08 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Elvado wrote:

Bando: You are so very clever. Contrary to your opinion, I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. It is no great feat to discern the inherent hollownesss of Barack Obama. While I am certainly not nearly as brilliant as you appear to be, realizing that Obama's answer to that simple question was nonsense was not even above "my pay grade".

However, the most disturbing part of your reply is that as per Liberal rote, you ignore the substance and attack the messenger.

Do you believe that was an honest answer? I think you're smarter than that.

[/b]

Ah, but that's where you are wrong.


On Edit: You know, the more I think about it, the more it somewhat irritates me. Whenever someone makes a conservative statement or criticizes a liberal, almost immediately, the responses (by liberals of course) is something about listening to Rush or watching Fox news again. That, in and of itself, illustrates the liberal bias of the mainstream media which has agitated so many of us on the right for so long. Liberals have tried to deny such a liberal bias for years, in spite of it being so patently obvious to anyone even remotely attempting to be objective. Now I don't deny the conservative slant of Rush or many of the Fox hosts, but I think you have to have it both ways or neither.

Brit Hume is, in my opinion, very neutral when he covers the news. Conversely, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Barbara Walters and most of the other prominent "journalists" for the alphabet networks are admitted liberals and it shows in their choice of words among other things. You can't have it both ways. Either the ABC's, NBC's and CBS's of the world are in fact liberal (and they are), or Fox News (Not obvious editorials like Sean Hannity), but Fox News with Brit Hume is actually fair and balanced. As I said, you can't have it both ways. The reason that Hume would appear to have a right slant is because of the familiarity and almost expectation of the leftward slant of which we have become accustomed.[/quote]

It amazes me how conservatives can run country for eight years and still claim to be an oppressed minority. Oh, woe is you, HiFi! The liberal media is trying to trying to pierce your bubble of jingoism with reality! How dare they! Except when they were all cheerleading the Iraq war, then they were cool. And just because Fox lists scandal-plagued Republicans like Mark Foley as Democrats is just an innocent mistake.

Additionally, I think you picked the wrong board to question a Hoya's intellectual credentials, Gator boy. [/quote]


Let's be fair here. While GWB has been in the WH for the better part of 8 years, he certainly hasn't had free reign for the past 3 1/2. The democrat gains in Congress limited his abilities to do quite a lot. Most would probably agree that is a good thing, but that isn't the point.

Secondly, who is in the WH has very little if any bearing on the mainstream media. So your point in that case is 100% irrelevant.

Thirdly, I wasn't the one who questioned your intellect, although I did correct Elvado on his conclusion. I know that is a very subtle difference, but difference nonetheless. And regardless, those comments were quite clearly tongue-in-cheek. I thought you were smart enough to know that, but maybe I was wrong.

Lastly, are you denying a general leftward bias among most of the mainstream media outlets, such as ABC, CBS, NBC and the AP?

[Elvado]

Not to beat a dead horse, but how was the choice to speak out against the Iraq War difficult for a Democrat State Senator from a Chicago district? What did he risk?

I reitierate my initial point. If this was thge hardest choice he's ever had to make, he has lived a charmed life.

[jerseyhoya34]

Elvado, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on what you think McCain is running on this campaign.

Frankly the Iraq War decision had to have been a very tough decision for anyone with political ambition, and, so you are aware, McCain has admitted to the very thing he's accused Obama of having - ambition in a presidential run. (This argument is also tough to swallow coming from somebody who is seriously considering Joe Lieberman as a running mate (to the point of polling state parties), who decides his party after he figures out the easiest way to win. One year, he's a Democrat. Give him another year, and he's an Independent Democrat. Another year, he's an Independent. Now, he's an Independent who campaigns with a Republican.)

If the Iraq War had panned out as Bush/Cheney expected it would (greeted as liberators/WMD all over the place/Jefferson reincarnated in Baghdad), Obama's future as a serious politician would have been over. He would have been the person who opposed the modern day equivalent of a war against Nazi Germany. Even people who voted with Bush/Cheney on the IWR were accused of this (see Kerry, John). Except, in Obama's case, it would have been true.

As it turned out, unfortunately, Obama's take on Iraq was empirically correct, which is why it becomes easy to call it an easy decision after the fact, especially for traditional Republicans (those with a little more meat on their resumes than "neoconservatives"). Knowing what we know now, I think most Americans would view his approach as common sense.

I would suggest that the following assessment lines up more with what we found than the mushroom-cloud, ICBM missiles at the ready model drawn up by Bush/Cheney --

"But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or
to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of
its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be
contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history."

[strummer8526]

Aug 19, 2008 13:47:03 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Bando: You are so very clever. Contrary to your opinion, I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. It is no great feat to discern the inherent hollownesss of Barack Obama. While I am certainly not nearly as brilliant as you appear to be, realizing that Obama's answer to that simple question was nonsense was not even above "my pay grade".

However, the most disturbing part of your reply is that as per Liberal rote, you ignore the substance and attack the messenger.

Do you believe that was an honest answer? I think you're smarter than that.

I could just call you an obnoxious jerk, but instead, I'll attack the OBVIOUSLY flawed premise in your argument here.

You are asserting the following:
1. Barack Obama was asked during an unscripted televised interview/"debate" what the most difficult decision he ever made was.
2. He answered by referencing his opposition to the war in Iraq. (I don't believe that either candidate had any advantage as far as knowing the questions, so let's assume that he was unaware he'd be asked that exact question.)
3. THEREFORE Barack Obama has lived on easy street like some kind of elitist intellectual snob who has never held a position challenging enough to force him to make more difficult decisions. (You didn't say this exactly, but we all know that this is what you think of him.)

Here's where you go wrong: The fact that Barack Obama referenced Iraq when answering a question about his most difficult decision does not necessarily mean that it was LITERALLY his MOST difficult decision. It means that in 2003, it took courage for him as an aspiring young politician to reject the ignorant war-mongering and childish flag-waving that was prevalent nationally. Before our President decided to take every shred of international good will from 9/11 and flush it down the Iraq toilet*, there was massive national support for Bush and his War on Terror. Obama had to look ahead and say "No, I believe that Iraq is a bad idea. But if it ends up a success, it will kill me politically." That IS a difficult decision. "Most" difficult? Maybe not. Difficult? Yes. So on the spot at a "debate," Obama referenced a "difficult" moment. Maybe it's not "difficult" enough for you, but in my opinion, it took courage, and it was a reasonable thing for him to be thinking about given the "debate" context. Does that make him a liar? No. It means that going into the "debate," he was thinking about major political issues, and so he referenced a very difficult political decision. Every one of us would have done the same thing. You discuss something that answers the question AND is relevant/appropriate, not necessarily the actual answer to what could be a very personal question.

* This is assuming Iraq had running water at the time we deemed them a major national threat.

So anyway, maybe his "most difficult" decision was to turn down a high-paying law firm straight out of law school. Maybe his "most difficult" decision was to move away from home at whatever age he did so. Maybe his "most difficult" decision was to lease an Impala rather than buy. What exactly were you looking for? How inane and personal did you want him to get? Or was it ok that he addressed a very difficult decision that was actually relevant to his political position.

As a totally unrelated side note, I very much enjoyed Obama's non-racially-influenced answer regarding Justice Thomas. He very easily could have attacked Alito--the junior-most justice who isn't exactly a "celebrity" amongst the common man, isn't especially powerful on the Court, and who is firmly conservative. He could have gone after obvious pinata-for-liberals Scalia. But he was honest in saying that the weakest, least qualified Supreme Court Justice also happens to be the one black Justice.

[SirSaxa]

Aug 19, 2008 14:04:08 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Brit Hume is, in my opinion, very neutral when he covers the news. Conversely, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Barbara Walters and most of the other prominent "journalists" for the alphabet networks are admitted liberals and it shows in their choice of words among other things.

HiFi..
Dan Rather-- left CBS 3-4 years ago
Tom Brokaw -- retired
Peter Jennings -- Dead
Barbara Walters -- does a coffee clatch with a bunch of girls talking about nothing, hasn't been a serious news reporter/anchor in decades

Was there a time when the mainstream media leaned a little left, possibly. But no , I don't think today's media is liberal at all. Not even close.

Fox "News" is not a slightly right leaning organization. It's entire business plan is based on being a mouthpiece for the Republicans and the Admin -- just the way Republican Party Insider and Fox News President Roger Ailes and Newscorp CEO Rupert Murdoch drew it up. There is nothing remotely balanced about it. Their approach is to mock and belittle everything the Democrats say or do, right down to endorsing the misuse of the name of the party. It is the Democratic Party, not the Democrat party. I will say this, the business plan has been carried out exceedingly well and very profitably, if shamefully cynically. But that doesn't make it a news organization.

Suggesting it is a little to the right, as CNN used to be a little to the left, is not in the least bit accurate.

[jerseyhoya34]

Aug 19, 2008 21:29:38 GMT -5 SirSaxa said:

Aug 19, 2008 14:04:08 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Brit Hume is, in my opinion, very neutral when he covers the news. Conversely, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Barbara Walters and most of the other prominent "journalists" for the alphabet networks are admitted liberals and it shows in their choice of words among other things.

HiFi..
Dan Rather-- left CBS 3-4 years ago
Tom Brokaw -- retired
Peter Jennings -- Dead
Barbara Walters -- does a coffee clatch with a bunch of girls talking about nothing, hasn't been a serious news reporter/anchor in decades

Was there a time when the mainstream media leaned a little left, possibly. But no , I don't think today's media is liberal at all. Not even close.

Fox "News" is not a slightly right leaning organization. It's entire business plan is based on being a mouthpiece for the Republicans and the Admin -- just the way Republican Party Insider and Fox News President Roger Ailes and Newscorp CEO Rupert Murdoch drew it up. There is nothing remotely balanced about it. Their approach is to mock and belittle everything the Democrats say or do, right down to endorsing the misuse of the name of the party. It is the Democratic Party, not the Democrat party. I will say this, the business plan has been carried out exceedingly well and very profitably, if shamefully cynically. But that doesn't make it a news organization.

Suggesting it is a little to the right, as CNN used to be a little to the left, is not in the least bit accurate.

The whole "media as liberal" argument isn't even worth a response anymore. Just because a network does not republish the Rove talking points for the day under a different title and author does not make a network/organization liberal. The media's job, as it always has been, is to report the truth.

[Elvado]

Or his answer clearly demonstrated that without his trusty teleprompter, he is the empty suit I've always believed him to be.

[strummer8526]

Aug 20, 2008 6:12:28 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Or his answer clearly demonstrated that without his trusty teleprompter, he is the empty suit I've always believed him to be.

Who is that a response to? If it was to my mention of his Clarence Thomas answer, it would help for you to indicate that as there are now 2 posts between mine and yours.