Guess who was completely shut out of yesterday's news cycle, focused as it was on Obama vs. Bush/McCain? Here's a hint: she's running for President and doesn't wear dresses. Yesterday proved that Obama is the Democratic Party nominee for President. Bush's disgraceful performance before the Knesset gave Obama the equivalent of 200 superdelegates.
DCinDC
· 1 year ago
Bush and McCain both gang up on Obama.
Obama Responds:
“They’re trying to fool you. They’re trying to scare you. And they’re not telling you the truth [because] they can’t win a foreign policy debate on the merits,” Obama said. He went on to call the Bush/McCain approach “naive and irresponsible.”
And grudgingly admits he makes more sense than G.W.
vkobaya
· 1 year ago
During a spontaneous punning contest on NPR, one of the contestents used this one:
This just in, Hillary took another state, the state of denial.
Bush_Bites
· 1 year ago
Good counter punch! Welcome to the Majors!
-----
Now the rest of the Dems need to pile on Bush and McCrazy.
Where they fuck are they?
Bush_Bites
· 1 year ago
Headline of the Brooks article is misleading, by the way.
Obama said good things about Bush's Dad's foreign policy, not Bush Jr.'s
DCinDC
· 1 year ago
You are right Bush Bites.....
David Brooks in my opion actually admired Obama. He would never say it out right but you can see it in his writing. A portion of which is here and a link follows. Interesting.
That didn’t strike me as right, so I spoke with Obama Tuesday to ask him what he meant by all this.
Right off the bat he reaffirmed that Hezbollah is “not a legitimate political party.” Instead, “It’s a destabilizing organization by any common-sense standard. This wouldn’t happen without the support of Iran and Syria.”
I asked him what he meant with all this emphasis on electoral and patronage reform. He said the U.S. should help the Lebanese government deliver better services to the Shiites “to peel support away from Hezbollah” and encourage the local populace to “view them as an oppressive force.” The U.S. should “find a mechanism whereby the disaffected have an effective outlet for their grievances, which assures them they are getting social services.”
The U.S. needs a foreign policy that “looks at the root causes of problems and dangers.” Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that “they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims.” He knows these movements aren’t going away anytime soon (“Those missiles aren’t going to dissolve”), but “if they decide to shift, we’re going to recognize that. That’s an evolution that should be recognized.”
Obama being Obama, he understood the broader reason I was asking about Lebanon. Everybody knows that Obama is smart (and he was quite well informed about Lebanon). The question is whether he’s seasoned and tough enough to deal with implacable enemies.
“The debate we’re going to be having with John McCain is how do we understand the blend of military action to diplomatic action that we are going to undertake,” he said. “I constantly reject this notion that any hint of strategies involving diplomacy are somehow soft or indicate surrender or means that you are not going to crack down on terrorism. Those are the terms of debate that have led to blunder after blunder.”
Obama said he found that the military brass thinks the way he does: “The generals are light-years ahead of the civilians. They are trying to get the job done rather than look tough.”
I asked him if negotiating with a theocratic/ideological power like Iran is different from negotiating with a nation that’s primarily pursuing material interests. He acknowledged that “If your opponents are looking for your destruction it’s hard to sit across the table from them,” but, he continued: “There are rarely purely ideological movements out there. We can encourage actors to think in practical and not ideological terms. We can strengthen those elements that are making practical calculations.”
Obama doesn’t broadcast moral disgust when talking about terror groups, but he said that in some ways he’d be tougher than the Bush administration. He said he would do more to arm the Lebanese military and would be tougher on North Korea. “This is not an argument between Democrats and Republicans,” he concluded. “It’s an argument between ideology and foreign policy realism.
Ignore the title. I think Brooks just could not bring himself to title his piece, "Obama knows what he is talking about!"
DCinDC
· 1 year ago
McCain, Bush to appear together in Phoenix for fundraiser
President George W. Bush will join John McCain for a fundraiser in the Arizona senator's hometown later this month, McCain's campaign confirms.
May 27th
If you want more of the same vote McCain!
Bush = McCain = Bush!
grandma
· 1 year ago
After listening to the blubberings of Bush and McWar what a statesman Obama is
A real statesman for President.....who'd a thunk !
grandma
· 1 year ago
Wolcott on the state of the GOP:
.....the almost touching devotion, tinged with desperation, that one can witness almost every day over at NRO's Corner, where one lunchtime slacker or another relays with excitement Rush Limbaugh's latest mouthblast of derision against spineless Republicans and gutless liberals--Rush was "on fire" today, they quiver, sounding like Nanny Hawkins huddled around the wireless marveling how Mr. Churchill just gave that Mr. Hitler quite a talking-to. Rush is the only last troop-rally'er this tired-blood brigade has left and their clinging to the backward tug of his stale certitudes (global warming is an enviromental-wacko socialist sham, etc) only widens the distance between them and the reality of how much damage kneejerk conservatism and blind Bush loyalty has inflicted on the Republican Party.
From breaking his toys, to shilling for the MIC, to an inability to negotiate his famous piece of bipartisan Campaign Finance legislation for 7 years, to passing his famous unconstitutional Line Item Veto bill, McCain has, at best a checkered career in the US Senate.
When you add to that his attempts to shield Jack Abramof from his nefarious dealing with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and his refusal to dig deeper into the Marians Islands violations of human rights when he served on the Commerce Committee, we are left with a picture of a man who is careless, incompetent, and severely challenged.
Again, I ask. Where is all of this "strong foreign policy experience" that has become inexorably linked with the name of John McCain? Is this just another case of our vaulted Free Press demonstrating an inability to do their homework. Are they accepting, uncritically, the "talking points" handed out on the Straight Talk Express?
All Comments
Obama Responds:
“They’re trying to fool you. They’re trying to scare you. And they’re not telling you the truth [because] they can’t win a foreign policy debate on the merits,” Obama said. He went on to call the Bush/McCain approach “naive and irresponsible.”
Good counter punch! Welcome to the Majors!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/opinion/16bro...
And grudgingly admits he makes more sense than G.W.
This just in, Hillary took another state, the state of denial.
-----
Now the rest of the Dems need to pile on Bush and McCrazy.
Where they fuck are they?
Obama said good things about Bush's Dad's foreign policy, not Bush Jr.'s
David Brooks in my opion actually admired Obama. He would never say it out right but you can see it in his writing. A portion of which is here and a link follows. Interesting.
That didn’t strike me as right, so I spoke with Obama Tuesday to ask him what he meant by all this.
Right off the bat he reaffirmed that Hezbollah is “not a legitimate political party.” Instead, “It’s a destabilizing organization by any common-sense standard. This wouldn’t happen without the support of Iran and Syria.”
I asked him what he meant with all this emphasis on electoral and patronage reform. He said the U.S. should help the Lebanese government deliver better services to the Shiites “to peel support away from Hezbollah” and encourage the local populace to “view them as an oppressive force.” The U.S. should “find a mechanism whereby the disaffected have an effective outlet for their grievances, which assures them they are getting social services.”
The U.S. needs a foreign policy that “looks at the root causes of problems and dangers.” Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that “they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims.” He knows these movements aren’t going away anytime soon (“Those missiles aren’t going to dissolve”), but “if they decide to shift, we’re going to recognize that. That’s an evolution that should be recognized.”
Obama being Obama, he understood the broader reason I was asking about Lebanon. Everybody knows that Obama is smart (and he was quite well informed about Lebanon). The question is whether he’s seasoned and tough enough to deal with implacable enemies.
“The debate we’re going to be having with John McCain is how do we understand the blend of military action to diplomatic action that we are going to undertake,” he said. “I constantly reject this notion that any hint of strategies involving diplomacy are somehow soft or indicate surrender or means that you are not going to crack down on terrorism. Those are the terms of debate that have led to blunder after blunder.”
Obama said he found that the military brass thinks the way he does: “The generals are light-years ahead of the civilians. They are trying to get the job done rather than look tough.”
I asked him if negotiating with a theocratic/ideological power like Iran is different from negotiating with a nation that’s primarily pursuing material interests. He acknowledged that “If your opponents are looking for your destruction it’s hard to sit across the table from them,” but, he continued: “There are rarely purely ideological movements out there. We can encourage actors to think in practical and not ideological terms. We can strengthen those elements that are making practical calculations.”
Obama doesn’t broadcast moral disgust when talking about terror groups, but he said that in some ways he’d be tougher than the Bush administration. He said he would do more to arm the Lebanese military and would be tougher on North Korea. “This is not an argument between Democrats and Republicans,” he concluded. “It’s an argument between ideology and foreign policy realism.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/opinion/16bro...
Ignore the title. I think Brooks just could not bring himself to title his piece, "Obama knows what he is talking about!"
President George W. Bush will join John McCain for a fundraiser in the Arizona senator's hometown later this month, McCain's campaign confirms.
May 27th
If you want more of the same vote McCain!
Bush = McCain = Bush!
A real statesman for President.....who'd a thunk !
.....the almost touching devotion, tinged with desperation, that one can witness almost every day over at NRO's Corner, where one lunchtime slacker or another relays with excitement Rush Limbaugh's latest mouthblast of derision against spineless Republicans and gutless liberals--Rush was "on fire" today, they quiver, sounding like Nanny Hawkins huddled around the wireless marveling how Mr. Churchill just gave that Mr. Hitler quite a talking-to. Rush is the only last troop-rally'er this tired-blood brigade has left and their clinging to the backward tug of his stale certitudes (global warming is an enviromental-wacko socialist sham, etc) only widens the distance between them and the reality of how much damage kneejerk conservatism and blind Bush loyalty has inflicted on the Republican Party.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/blogs/wolcot...
From breaking his toys, to shilling for the MIC, to an inability to negotiate his famous piece of bipartisan Campaign Finance legislation for 7 years, to passing his famous unconstitutional Line Item Veto bill, McCain has, at best a checkered career in the US Senate.
When you add to that his attempts to shield Jack Abramof from his nefarious dealing with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and his refusal to dig deeper into the Marians Islands violations of human rights when he served on the Commerce Committee, we are left with a picture of a man who is careless, incompetent, and severely challenged.
Again, I ask. Where is all of this "strong foreign policy experience" that has become inexorably linked with the name of John McCain? Is this just another case of our vaulted Free Press demonstrating an inability to do their homework. Are they accepting, uncritically, the "talking points" handed out on the Straight Talk Express?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/17/02037/0...