Great Jumping Horny Toads! Kennedy Endorses Obama

[warch]

helloooo Booobooo!

[aimeecc]

I am disappointed with the shallowness of many Americans to take a drunkards endorsement of a candidate and comparison to JFK.

First and foremost, Americans have always romanticized the Kennedy presidency. He is the youngest President, the first to skillfully manipulate the media. Beautiful wife, darling children - women wanted him and men wanted to be him. He had incredible approval ratings - never below 50%, and once as high as 80%. However, during his short presidency we had the failed Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile crisis - the closest we have come to nuclear war. I often wonder if the media had covered his extramarital affairs like they did Clinton if he would have had the same approval ratings and if America would still have the Camelot image. I also don't know if our love affair would have continued had he not been assisinated, and became an old man like the rest of the Presidents.

In truth, Kennedy's depth and experience (or should I say lack of)before Presidency is similar to Obama's. He won because he was able to manipulate the media. He "won" television debates because of his appearance, not his answers. Radio listeners felt Nixon won the debates, not Kennedy, but television viewers saw Nixon as tense and uncomfortable, and deemed Kennedy the winner. He was poetic, speaking of change and service. It was a new message then. Obama has dusted off this campaign trick and is using it wisely. He seems to transcend politics and bring hope to those desparate for a message of hope. But is it real?

His voting record indicates he is not an agent of change. In an effort to avoid any challenges to his votes, he has chosen not to make a decision. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us...cs/20obama.htm

In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature — to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate. In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted “present,” effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator.... An examination of Illinois records shows at least 36 times when Mr. Obama was either the only state senator to vote present or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way... Among those, Mr. Obama did not vote yes or no on a bill that would allow certain victims of sexual crimes to petition judges to seal court records relating to their cases. He also voted present on a bill to impose stricter standards for evidence a judge is permitted to consider in imposing a criminal sentence. On the sex crime bill, Mr. Obama cast the lone present vote in a 58-to-0 vote.

He has gained momentum in the African American community, but the funny thing is - he does not have the traditional "African American" experience and has not had the trials and tribulations as those that are supporting him. He is not the descendent of slaves - but his mother's side were slave owners. He did not grow up in a prejudiced society - he went to a Catholic elementary school in Indonesia, followed by being raised by white grandprents in a very racially diverse and much more accepting state of Hawaii. He has little in common with the African American voters he is swaying. I heard on the radio a Mexican immigrant (legal) stating he was supporting Obama because Obama was from a family of immigrants like him. Ummm, Obama's father was not an immigrant, he was a foreign student who went back to Kenya, and his mother's family has been in America for centuries. People see what they want to see in Obama; they don't see what he actually is.

Obama's message of hope, while uplifting, is too shallow to survive a Presidency in which he has to make vital decisions, and appoint experienced leaders in key positions. We need someone who can lead us out of Iraq, back into international diplomatic graces, and back into an economic prosperity. He lacks the experience and the ability to make decisions. It takes more than poetry to lead.

Just my thoughts.

[classicman]

So who are you endorsing aimee? Who is the proponent of change? Who is going to make the majority of Americans proud of this country again?
I'm all ears - I have no real draw to any of these candidates.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Hmmmm

[aimeecc]

That's a funny cartoon.

Originally Posted by classicman

So who are you endorsing aimee? Who is the proponent of change? Who is going to make the majority of Americans proud of this country again?
I'm all ears - I have no real draw to any of these candidates.

Given the choices of Obama (no), Clinton (yes), McCain (yes) and Romney (won't get nomination)...
I'm either voting for Clinton or McCain. Clinton is a Washington insider - which is not a bad thing at this point in time. Under her hubby, we were in good graces with our allies, and had a good economy. Is she another Bill? No. But does she know the right people to appoint to key positions? Yes. That was GWBs fatal error - appointing his fathers Cold War croonies in an era that needed Globalization experience or at least knowledge, not leaders who thought in terms of "we won the Cold War our way". But I digress. Anyway, Clinton knows who to appoint. She listens to advisors. She doesn't just change her position on the whim of the population, but she does change when she facts and opinion support a different approach. Do I think she'll bring, hmm, I can't think of the right word, but something like pride and 'Camelot' into the White House? No. Would that be nice? Yes. Is it the most important thing now? No. McCain - I don't believe in all of his positions, but he's a straight shooter, follows his heart and gut instinct. He has the experience. There is a bit of fear he'll be another cowboy diplomat... but I think he's learned from GWB. Overall, I think McCain makes sound, solid, reasonable decisions. He makes decisions - period.
I don't dislike Romney... I just don't think he'll get the nomination.

I was listening to CSPAN radio on y horrid morning commute today. Several callers in a row stating they dislike McCain and Clinton, like Obama and Romney. It got to the point I thought CSPAN was only putting on callers who thought that way. However, there was one caller that I had to go "huh?" He was a conservative republican that thinks McCain is "horrible. A liberal." The caller went to his appearance (I want to say Missouri) only in the hope of being able to tell him to his face that he was "a horrible person". So already a bit of a lunatic. But he said he would vote for Obama if McCain got the nomination because McCain is really a liberal. Huh? Another caller really liked Obama, likes his message of unity. When asked if Clinton got the nomination, would he vote for her, all he said was he would support the democratic party because thats what we need to do. Refused to say her name.

Another funny thing was my husband and I were talking - and I can't remember which one of us said it first - but Romney is the candidate that looks like a President. And we both agreed on it. My new cube mate, Rhiannon, said the exact same thing. I think Romney would have a Presidency appearance of, hmm, not Camelot, but the closest to it in a while. I just honestly don't think he'll get the nomination. I could be wrong. But a lot of people have issues with him being a Mormon.

I honestly believe it will be McCain versus either Clinton or Obama (too close to call right now). And I think McCain will win. If Edwards was the democratic nominee, I think he would win. The primary process unfortunately doesn't choose who would be the best opposition to a viable republican candidate - it just chooses who the democrats like the most. I didn't know a lot about Biden, but he seemed to be a viable candidate as well.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by classicman

So who are you endorsing aimee? Who is the proponent of change? Who is going to make the majority of Americans proud of this country again?
I'm all ears - I have no real draw to any of these candidates.

Candidate of change? Seriously? Classic you are smarter than that. None of the candidates are really proponents for change. Not in the way you mean it, anyway. The only real change any of them are interested in is seeing their address change. Real proponents of change wouldn't survive in politics long enough for you to even learn their names. Every person in the race has been around long enough and compromised enough that the only hope for change you'll find is in their rhetoric. Once the winner moves into the White House they will begin their reelection campaign so they won't want to make too many enemies.

If you need a president to make you proud of the country then the country isn't worth being proud of anyway. Our nation is a great nation because of the people you meet everyday - not the douchebags on tv. The people that wake up every day, go to work, and try to improve life for their families. The people that have to make hard decisions everyday (are getting new tires more important than replacing the refrigerator this month?) are far more important than the people who talk year in and year out about medical care. The family that weighs the risk and decides it is better to start their own small business than spend another day working for someone else, contribute more to our economy than all the suits talking about tax code combined. The woman who is worried about paying for the kids' school supplies but still manages to give a couple bucks to the guy on the corner is doing more for the poor than all the jokers debating the size and scope of tax rebates.

Be proud of the country based on the real people in it, not the assholes that get elected.

[warch]

If you need a president to make you proud of the country then the country isn't worth being proud of anyway.

Hmmm. Its a bit more complicated isn't it? If you are truly a swell people in a representational republic, worthy of a sense of pride, yet misrepresented at best, incompetently and dangerously around the globe for years, you have a duty to change it. That's where the pride of country comes in... a peoples' civic ability to peacefully alter their government to best represent their values and interests.

Its messy but its worth working on. See, on levels big and small, that's why most people get up in the morning and go to work. They somehow manage to balance the cynicism with a little hope.

As to amieecc good comments- I'm convinced of depth and ability beyond Obama's pretty face and rhetoric. But a lot of my friends are desperate for their best shot at universal healthcare and are solid for Clinton. I can understand that.

[aimeecc]

There's nothing wrong with wanting a President you'd be proud to have. A lot of people do a lot for America - but guess who's face we see and the rest of the world see's every day? Its none of the every day heroes. Its the President, and Britney Spears.

I'm proud of me and my husband. I'm proud of my brothers and sisters. I'm proud of my son. I'm proud of the people who volunteer their time to help others. I'm proud of those that serve our nation - whether its the Marine Corps or Peace Corps or diplomatic corps. But I, like a lot of Americans, want a leader I can be proud of, a leader who will lead our nation through this tough time, put us on the right footing with other nations, and make our economy strong again. He (or she) doesn't need to be handsome and debonair, doesn't need a chest full of medals, and doesn't need a sqqueky clean family picture to make me proud. Just needs leadership ability.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by aimeecc

Just needs leadership ability.

I'd add that they need to lead in the right direction. I don't want to follow a strong leader off a cliff.

[skysidhe]

I am not looking for a savior or to resurrect JFK. I want a change for the good but I am either a sceptic or a realist. I don't think someone can change a system like ours just because they say they can. (HOW) change can be accomplished hasn't been answered.


good points aimeecc 'cept McCain scares me. Is he going to be a war monger too? Or revert to the McCain of long ago? He's got bushy all over him.

[aimeecc]

I think McCain scares a lot of people. People see Bush in him. I can understand why. But there is absolutely no love lost between him and Bush. The two can't stand each other.

My opinion, based on what I see (and we all view things through our own experiences) is that McCain will not be as diplomatic as Clinton or Obama. And that is needed. Desparately needed. But he won't be as bad as Bush. Maybe its that I hope he won't be anywhere near as bad as Bush. I'd like him to support troop withdraw, don't like his statements that we'll be there 100 years if that's what it takes (he really should not have said that), but he does defend his position on staying in Iraq well (in short, we need to ensure the Iraqi gvernment can survive before we withdraw). I don't agree with his reasoning, but the reasoning isn't flawed or wrong. I just disagree with it.

I do not believe he'll be a cowboy diplomat. However, other nations may percieve him to be another Bush, another cowboy diplomat. Which won't help.

[aimeecc]

I found this on PolitiFact.com http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...onomic-policy/

I cut out those that were no longer contenders. Romney seems to have the most extensive plan. Both McCain's and Obama's is weak. I like Clinton's, particularly increasing child-care credit. I spent over $8,000 in child care for 8 months (and not at an expensive academy - just the going rate here) - but the max allowable to claim is $3,000, and then depending on your tax bracket, only a percentage of that (for me, 20% of $3,000 = $600).

FACT SHEET: Economic policy
By Angie Drobnic Holan
Published on Wednesday, January 30th, 2008 at 06:43 p.m.

SUMMARY: We check out the latest on President Bush's economic stimulus package and where the candidates stand on economic issues.

As stock markets shudder and government officials fear the nation is headed for recession – or perhaps is already in one – the political candidates have touted their plans both for short-term stimulus and long-term economic well-being.

President George W. Bush recently agreed with the U.S. House in principle on a $146-billion economic stimulus package. It would include tax rebates of $600 for individuals, $1,200 for couples, and $300 per child. There would be faster tax writeoffs for corporate investment as well as tax deductions for small business investment. The House passed the plan on Jan. 29, 2008, but the Senate has taken up its own version. Congressional leaders hope to meet a Feb. 15, 2008, deadline to get the package signed.

Here are some of the indicators that have officials concerned the U.S. economy is off track:

Homes sales down:

Existing U.S. home sales dropped to 4,890,000 in December 2007 from 6,270,000 in December 2006, down 22 percent.

Home prices down:

Median home sales price dropped to $208,400 in December 2007 from $221,600 in December 2006, down 6 percent.

Inflation growing:

Consumer Price Index (a measure of inflation) grew 4.1 percent for the year ending December 2007 versus 2.5 percent for the year ending December 2006.

Dollar falling:

A U.S. dollar buys 0.68 euro on Jan. 25, 2008, vs. 0.76 euro on Jan. 25, 2007.

Federal budget deficit growing:

Actual budget deficit for 2007 is $163-billion; projected budget deficit for 2008 is $219-billion, up 34 percent.

Public outlook gloomy:

Sixty-one percent of respondents believe the United States is in recession, according to a nationwide CNN poll conducted Jan. 9-10, 2008.

WHERE THE CANDIDATES STAND

REPUBLICANS

Mitt Romney: Romney has said he supports the Bush package and would like to see it go further. Romney has one of the most detailed plans for economic stimulus. For individuals, he wants to permanently lower the tax rate for the lowest income tax bracket, from 10 percent to 7.5 percent. (In general, this would reduce taxes on about the first $7,825 of earnings for everyone.) He wants to eliminate payroll taxes for working seniors over the age of 65 and make savings for the middle class tax-free. As a way to promote savings, any taxpayer with adjusted gross income under $200,000 would pay no taxes on income earned from savings, capital gains and dividends.

For businesses, Romney wants to institute immediate 100 percent expensing of new equipment purchased by a business for a two-year period retroactive to Jan. 1, 2008. He wants to permanently reduce corporate tax rates from 35 percent to 20 percent over a two-year period. Romney also seeks to reform and expand Federal Housing Administration loan portfolio limits to allow larger loans to homeowners.

Among his longstanding economic positions, he wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, cut tax rates across the board, eliminate the estate tax, make permanent the research and development tax credit for corporations. He also opposes any increases in Social Security taxes and would like to curtail the growth of the Alternative Minimum Tax.

John McCain: McCain has said he intends to vote for the Bush economic stimulus package. His longstanding positions on the economy include eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax and making the Bush tax cuts permanent. He wants to maintain current rates on dividends and capital gains. For businesses, McCain wants to permanently reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent; to allow first-year expensing of equipment and technology investments; and to make permanent the research and development tax credit for corporations.

Among other issues, he seeks to lower Medicare premiums and ban Internet and cell phone taxes. He emphasizes reducing spending by curtailing earmarks, subsidies and “pork-barrel” spending.



DEMOCRATS

Hillary Clinton: Clinton said she is "heartened" that Bush intends to negotiate a stimulus package with Congress, but has not yet committed to voting for it. As a short-term stimulus, Clinton supports home heating and mortgage subsidies, as well as a $40-billion tax rebate. She has said that if the government approves tax rebates, it should also provide relief for Americans who don’t pay income taxes, such as seniors and the working poor. She proposes an expansion of unemployment benefits.

For individuals, Clinton seeks to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and roll back the cuts for those with incomes over $250,000. She also wants to offer up to $1,000 in matching tax cuts to help families save for retirement. She wants to expand the earned income tax credit, increase tax credits for child care, and provide a new $3,500 tax credit for middle-class college expenses. She plans to offer tax credits for energy efficiency and alternative energy measures.

She also wants to create a fund to prevent foreclosure for at-risk homeowners. She wants a 90-day freeze on foreclosures for subprime mortgages and a five-year freeze on interest rates for subprime mortgages.

Barack Obama: Obama has criticized the Bush stimulus package for not extending benefits for the unemployed and for not giving aid to workers with low incomes who don't pay taxes. He has not committed to voting for or against the stimulus package. Obama’s own short-term plan calls for an immediate $75-billion tax rebate, which would be a $250 tax cut for workers and a $250 bonus to seniors in their Social Security checks. He allows for the possibility of repeating these cuts if the economy does not respond. He also wants to create a fund to prevent foreclosure for at-risk homeowners. He wants to extend and expand unemployment insurance.

As part of his overall economic package, Obama supports a $500 tax credit that would reimburse workers for payroll taxes. He also supports expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and a mortgage interest deduction for nonitemizing taxpayers. He wants to eliminate taxes on seniors making less than $50,000. He supports tax credits for college tuition and child care targeted to low- and middle-income families. He seeks to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

For business, he wants to make permanent the research and development tax credit for corporations. He wants to eliminate capital gains taxes for start-up businesses.

[warch]

Right on!

[TheMercenary]

Good discussion. Hillary is not the answer. Obama, maybe, McCain, maybe. I don't know. If Hitlery gets the nod from the Dems I will vote for Donald Duck if he is the Repub canidate.

[xoxoxoBruce]

But Wesley Snipes like Hillary's tax cut proposal.