theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Dec 19, 2007 8:33:29 GMT -5
www.barackobama.com/2007/12/18/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_37.phpObama gave a fairly vanilla foreign policy speech earlier today in Iowa. Iowa is more isolationist in outlook, so he wisely did not come out with anything too dramatic. Rather, it was more of the post-9/11 foreign policy of the Democratic Party (save the anti-war stance). Focus is put on loose nukes, multilateralism, and international issues like terrorism, climate change, and genocide. At the same time, it is nice to see Professor Lake highly involved in Obama's campaign. I found him to be thoughtful and reasonably independent as a professor. Before I take on this, DFW - Hispanics going for a center-left party seems too facile. Many appear to be social conservatives, if nothing else. Anyway. This speech. There's two things that this reminds me of. One is a Robert Fulghum story about a fiddling competition where people play behind a stage so as not to influence the judges. The other is a Dave Barry riff about car dealers refusing to tell you the price of a car. First. Barry. This speech is emptier than Diet Coke. Ok, we're not going to require an ideology test. And we'll get a clear voice that didn't vote for Iraq and that has traveled overseas. Am I missing a key point? What are you going to do about China? What about terrorism? Iraq? Iran? Europe? Russia? AIDS? Give me something. You'll talk with Congress and have good advisors. Ok. Maybe, however, it might be helpful to let us know what position you might, you know, take. On anything. This brings us to Fulghum. Obama seems to be the best speaker, and has lots and lots of personal charisma. But he's empty calories. If Hillary or Biden gave this speech, they'd be laughed out of the room. What is the Democratic foreign policy? Is it the foreign policy of Kucinich, who wants to create a Department of Peace? If not, then what is it? On domestic issues, there's a generic Republican and a generic Democratic approach. On foreign policy, the Democrats seem much more like the Opposition in Parliament - when we get elected, it's going to be "different" around here (without any explanation of what "different" is).
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Dec 19, 2007 16:00:58 GMT -5
We need at least another legit party, maybe 2 or 3. If you read the actual platforms of the greens and the libertarians -- not just the pejorative soundbites the media and dems/reps feed us -- either or both could fit that bill. Greens and libertarians are unlikely to ascend to a national third party status because their platforms are neither pluralistic nor appeal to the vast middle class that is needed to support a third party. Their candidates are, on the whole, vanity candidates instead of serious commitments. The only third party structures I could envision gaining a foothold are a German-style CDU party (morally and fiscally conservative but liberal on social justice) or a center-left party that would draw the support of the largely untapped Hispanic voter base. I disagree in the case of the Libertarian platform. I think the problem isn't the ideas and the foundational basis of the party, but rather how it is being administered. In all honesty, I am an honorary member of the party. I am not registered, simply because it is basically a wasted voice, since there are very few viable Libertarian candidates. Unfortunately, that is the catch-22. In a sense, it is almost like trying to get credit. The first thing the credit agencies do is look at your credit history. If you don't have any, then it is difficult to get credit to begin with. In a similar sense, I think a lot of people don't want to be a Libertarian, since you essentially are then irrelevant. But I think the basic ideals are very appealing to the middle. I know a lot of people that otherwise align with both the democrats as well as others with the Republicans that could and admittedly do find common ground on the Libertarian platform. Many on both sides of the aisle agree that we need a less intrusive but more efficient government and that government, especially at the Federal level, shouldn't be involved in much of our day-to-day life.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Dec 19, 2007 16:03:03 GMT -5
www.barackobama.com/2007/12/18/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_37.phpObama gave a fairly vanilla foreign policy speech earlier today in Iowa. Iowa is more isolationist in outlook, so he wisely did not come out with anything too dramatic. Rather, it was more of the post-9/11 foreign policy of the Democratic Party (save the anti-war stance). Focus is put on loose nukes, multilateralism, and international issues like terrorism, climate change, and genocide. At the same time, it is nice to see Professor Lake highly involved in Obama's campaign. I found him to be thoughtful and reasonably independent as a professor. Before I take on this, DFW - Hispanics going for a center-left party seems too facile. Many appear to be social conservatives, if nothing else. Anyway. This speech. There's two things that this reminds me of. One is a Robert Fulghum story about a fiddling competition where people play behind a stage so as not to influence the judges. The other is a Dave Barry riff about car dealers refusing to tell you the price of a car. First. Barry. This speech is emptier than Diet Coke. Ok, we're not going to require an ideology test. And we'll get a clear voice that didn't vote for Iraq and that has traveled overseas. Am I missing a key point? What are you going to do about China? What about terrorism? Iraq? Iran? Europe? Russia? AIDS? Give me something. You'll talk with Congress and have good advisors. Ok. Maybe, however, it might be helpful to let us know what position you might, you know, take. On anything. This brings us to Fulghum. Obama seems to be the best speaker, and has lots and lots of personal charisma. But he's empty calories. If Hillary or Biden gave this speech, they'd be laughed out of the room. What is the Democratic foreign policy? Is it the foreign policy of Kucinich, who wants to create a Department of Peace? If not, then what is it? On domestic issues, there's a generic Republican and a generic Democratic approach. On foreign policy, the Democrats seem much more like the Opposition in Parliament - when we get elected, it's going to be "different" around here (without any explanation of what "different" is). exorcist, I pretty much agree with all that you said. Pardon me, while I find a barf-bag.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Dec 19, 2007 17:55:51 GMT -5
www.barackobama.com/2007/12/18/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_37.phpObama gave a fairly vanilla foreign policy speech earlier today in Iowa. Iowa is more isolationist in outlook, so he wisely did not come out with anything too dramatic. Rather, it was more of the post-9/11 foreign policy of the Democratic Party (save the anti-war stance). Focus is put on loose nukes, multilateralism, and international issues like terrorism, climate change, and genocide. At the same time, it is nice to see Professor Lake highly involved in Obama's campaign. I found him to be thoughtful and reasonably independent as a professor. Before I take on this, DFW - Hispanics going for a center-left party seems too facile. Many appear to be social conservatives, if nothing else. Anyway. This speech. There's two things that this reminds me of. One is a Robert Fulghum story about a fiddling competition where people play behind a stage so as not to influence the judges. The other is a Dave Barry riff about car dealers refusing to tell you the price of a car. First. Barry. This speech is emptier than Diet Coke. Ok, we're not going to require an ideology test. And we'll get a clear voice that didn't vote for Iraq and that has traveled overseas. Am I missing a key point? What are you going to do about China? What about terrorism? Iraq? Iran? Europe? Russia? AIDS? Give me something. You'll talk with Congress and have good advisors. Ok. Maybe, however, it might be helpful to let us know what position you might, you know, take. On anything. This brings us to Fulghum. Obama seems to be the best speaker, and has lots and lots of personal charisma. But he's empty calories. If Hillary or Biden gave this speech, they'd be laughed out of the room. What is the Democratic foreign policy? Is it the foreign policy of Kucinich, who wants to create a Department of Peace? If not, then what is it? On domestic issues, there's a generic Republican and a generic Democratic approach. On foreign policy, the Democrats seem much more like the Opposition in Parliament - when we get elected, it's going to be "different" around here (without any explanation of what "different" is). Shorter the exorcist: Please look this stuff up for me, as I can't be bothered to check Obama's website or watch the news.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Dec 19, 2007 18:08:02 GMT -5
We need at least another legit party, maybe 2 or 3. If you read the actual platforms of the greens and the libertarians -- not just the pejorative soundbites the media and dems/reps feed us -- either or both could fit that bill. Greens and libertarians are unlikely to ascend to a national third party status because their platforms are neither pluralistic nor appeal to the vast middle class that is needed to support a third party. Their candidates are, on the whole, vanity candidates instead of serious commitments. The only third party structures I could envision gaining a foothold are a German-style CDU party (morally and fiscally conservative but liberal on social justice) or a center-left party that would draw the support of the largely untapped Hispanic voter base. The past few elections have seen Hispanics trend toward the Democrats. I predict this will continue as long the GOP is seen as anti-immigrant.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Dec 19, 2007 22:53:07 GMT -5
Greens and libertarians are unlikely to ascend to a national third party status because their platforms are neither pluralistic nor appeal to the vast middle class that is needed to support a third party. Their candidates are, on the whole, vanity candidates instead of serious commitments. The only third party structures I could envision gaining a foothold are a German-style CDU party (morally and fiscally conservative but liberal on social justice) or a center-left party that would draw the support of the largely untapped Hispanic voter base. The past few elections have seen Hispanics trend toward the Democrats. I predict this will continue as long the GOP is seen as anti-immigrant. Actually, it depends on which particular elections you are talking about, but I totally agree with your underlying idea, in that I think that a solid appeal to the hispanic vote, is not only wise, but would be tremendously effective. I can only hope that the "good guys" figure it out first.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Dec 19, 2007 23:02:36 GMT -5
The past few elections have seen Hispanics trend toward the Democrats. I predict this will continue as long the GOP is seen as anti-immigrant. Actually, it depends on which particular elections you are talking about, but I totally agree with your underlying idea, in that I think that a solid appeal to the hispanic vote, is not only wise, but would be tremendously effective. I can only hope that the "good guys" figure it out first. I'm certainly not a big praiser of Bush, but on this issue he was generally compassionate and farsighted politically. He and Rove saw that the Hispanic vote was somewhat up for grabs and didn't want to repeat Republican failures with African-Americans, so they tried to woo the Hispanic bloc and make it solidly Republican. The problem was that many in his party chose short-term gains with nativism at the expense of this long-term project. Even if someone like McCain gets elected President, I think the battle might have already been lost for the GOP and that Hispanics will remain in the Democratic tent for a long while (except for, of course, Cuban-Americans).
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Dec 20, 2007 0:34:54 GMT -5
"good guys" hifi? seriously?
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Dec 20, 2007 1:08:01 GMT -5
Actually, it depends on which particular elections you are talking about, but I totally agree with your underlying idea, in that I think that a solid appeal to the hispanic vote, is not only wise, but would be tremendously effective. I can only hope that the "good guys" figure it out first. I'm certainly not a big praiser of Bush, but on this issue he was generally compassionate and farsighted politically. He and Rove saw that the Hispanic vote was somewhat up for grabs and didn't want to repeat Republican failures with African-Americans, so they tried to woo the Hispanic bloc and make it solidly Republican. The problem was that many in his party chose short-term gains with nativism at the expense of this long-term project. Even if someone like McCain gets elected President, I think the battle might have already been lost for the GOP and that Hispanics will remain in the Democratic tent for a long while (except for, of course, Cuban-Americans). I know what you are saying, and also understand the logic. I wish I could say the same of McCain. (Half-hearted tongue in cheek) Seriously though, for a senator from Arizona, he sure has been totally concerned with anything and everything BUT the border issue. Regardless of what particular view any of us hold, his silence is virtually deafening on this issue. But then again, he was busy with much more important issues like internet gambling and steroids in baseball.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Dec 20, 2007 9:12:13 GMT -5
I'm certainly not a big praiser of Bush, but on this issue he was generally compassionate and farsighted politically. He and Rove saw that the Hispanic vote was somewhat up for grabs and didn't want to repeat Republican failures with African-Americans, so they tried to woo the Hispanic bloc and make it solidly Republican. The problem was that many in his party chose short-term gains with nativism at the expense of this long-term project. Even if someone like McCain gets elected President, I think the battle might have already been lost for the GOP and that Hispanics will remain in the Democratic tent for a long while (except for, of course, Cuban-Americans). I know what you are saying, and also understand the logic. I wish I could say the same of McCain. (Half-hearted tongue in cheek) Seriously though, for a senator from Arizona, he sure has been totally concerned with anything and everything BUT the border issue. Regardless of what particular view any of us hold, his silence is virtually deafening on this issue. But then again, he was busy with much more important issues like internet gambling and steroids in baseball. Ummm....you realize McCain was one of the big supporters of the Immigration bill in the Senate earlier this year, right? I think he had a lot to do with writing it, in fact (along with Jon Kyl, the other Senator from AZ). Oh, you didn't know that did you. Well, glad to see that didn't stop you from weighing in anyway!
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Dec 20, 2007 9:20:51 GMT -5
I just like the idea that what matters in this election is that the Republicans are seen as anti-immigrant. Yes, by God, don't worry about whether they actually are or not...... Frakkin' politics. Sorry, I normally don't chime in on these threads, except jokingly, but that issue ticks me off as probably the most misrepresented in all of this election. Well that, and MSNBC trying to imagine some sort of Holy War between Huckabee and Romney. I give it a week before Olbermann labels it a jihad.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,920
|
Post by Filo on Dec 20, 2007 9:30:28 GMT -5
I just like the idea that what matters in this election is that the Republicans are seen Well that, and MSNBC trying to imagine some sort of Holy War between Huckabee and Romney. I give it a week before Olbermann labels it a jihad. That would be a crusade, Boz
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Dec 20, 2007 12:22:14 GMT -5
I just like the idea that what matters in this election is that the Republicans are seen as anti-immigrant. Yes, by God, don't worry about whether they actually are or not...... Frakkin' politics. Sorry, I normally don't chime in on these threads, except jokingly, but that issue ticks me off as probably the most misrepresented in all of this election. Well that, and MSNBC trying to imagine some sort of Holy War between Huckabee and Romney. I give it a week before Olbermann labels it a jihad. Are you suggesting that they're not?
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Dec 20, 2007 13:58:13 GMT -5
I know what you are saying, and also understand the logic. I wish I could say the same of McCain. (Half-hearted tongue in cheek) Seriously though, for a senator from Arizona, he sure has been totally concerned with anything and everything BUT the border issue. Regardless of what particular view any of us hold, his silence is virtually deafening on this issue. But then again, he was busy with much more important issues like internet gambling and steroids in baseball. Ummm....you realize McCain was one of the big supporters of the Immigration bill in the Senate earlier this year, right? I think he had a lot to do with writing it, in fact (along with Jon Kyl, the other Senator from AZ). Oh, you didn't know that did you. Well, glad to see that didn't stop you from weighing in anyway! I am not sure what you are getting at. McCain was one of the sponsors of that bill which is largely toothless. He has not had a strong position on immigration though and that has been well documented. I would almost rather him be firm and on the wrong side of the issue, that wishy-washy and vague.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Dec 20, 2007 17:01:29 GMT -5
Are you suggesting that they're not? [/quote] Only in the eyes of people like Chris Matthews, who gets scared @#$%-less at any political figure with strong religious beliefs. Romney is campaigning against Huckabee on any number of issues, religion is the least of them. Huckabee is touting his own faith, to be sure, but he is not attacking Romney's, at least not directly. There is very little to that aspect of these two campaigns. It's all overblown by the media.....one television channel in particular.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Dec 20, 2007 17:26:02 GMT -5
Are you suggesting that they're not? Only in the eyes of people like Chris Matthews, who gets scared @#$%-less at any political figure with strong religious beliefs. Romney is campaigning against Huckabee on any number of issues, religion is the least of them. Huckabee is touting his own faith, to be sure, but he is not attacking Romney's, at least not directly. There is very little to that aspect of these two campaigns. It's all overblown by the media.....one television channel in particular. [/quote] Sorry, I was unclear. Are you suggesting the Republicans aren't anti-immigrant?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Dec 20, 2007 21:04:10 GMT -5
Let me chime in. The Republicans are not anti-immigrant, they are anti-illegal immigrant but the media continue to leave out the Illegal part when discussing things. Of course, that's just an accident. Yeh.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Dec 21, 2007 0:50:20 GMT -5
Let me chime in. The Republicans are not anti-immigrant, they are anti-illegal immigrant but the media continue to leave out the Illegal part when discussing things. Of course, that's just an accident. Yeh. I really don't think it's just a media thing. Legal, naturalized Hispanics and their progeny are voting Democratic. Proposals like mass round-ups, no amnesty, and strict quotas are turning them off the GOP. It's not just that the goshdarned librul media is lying to them.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Dec 21, 2007 14:23:09 GMT -5
Let me chime in. The Republicans are not anti-immigrant, they are anti-illegal immigrant but the media continue to leave out the Illegal part when discussing things. Of course, that's just an accident. Yeh. I really don't think it's just a media thing. Legal, naturalized Hispanics and their progeny are voting Democratic. Proposals like mass round-ups, no amnesty, and strict quotas are turning them off the GOP. It's not just that the goshdarned librul media is lying to them. I can only speak for myself. I am strongly against ILLEGAL immigrants because they are breaking the law. I believe the first order of business is to ensure that we try our best to prevent immigrants from entering illegally in the future through building "fences" and through finding a way to ensure that employers cannot hire illegals. Once we get these in place, and not before, then I am willing to consider what we do with those who are already here illegally. If that means giving a path to citizenship, then so be it. I can live with that. But if this is not preceded by "closing the border" and employer sanctions, we will merely be letting more into this country illegally. If you call my position bashing illegals, I can live with that, too. Incidentally, who is proposing quotas for immigrants? I support increased quotas and speeding up of the process.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Dec 21, 2007 17:00:16 GMT -5
I really don't think it's just a media thing. Legal, naturalized Hispanics and their progeny are voting Democratic. Proposals like mass round-ups, no amnesty, and strict quotas are turning them off the GOP. It's not just that the goshdarned librul media is lying to them. I can only speak for myself. I am strongly against ILLEGAL immigrants because they are breaking the law. I believe the first order of business is to ensure that we try our best to prevent immigrants from entering illegally in the future through building "fences" and through finding a way to ensure that employers cannot hire illegals. Once we get these in place, and not before, then I am willing to consider what we do with those who are already here illegally. If that means giving a path to citizenship, then so be it. I can live with that. But if this is not preceded by "closing the border" and employer sanctions, we will merely be letting more into this country illegally. If you call my position bashing illegals, I can live with that, too. Incidentally, who is proposing quotas for immigrants? I support increased quotas and speeding up of the process. Absolutely well said. That is exactly the position I have had for quite a while and also a large part of the reason I suggested that McCain isn't agressively addressing the issue. Any program that doesn't attempt to close the border so that we have some idea who is coming in and going out of our Country, isn't a good program.
|
|