That's funny, but the real case against Obama is this: If Obama is elected, every politician from now on is going to attempt to emulate his campaigning method. We will witness legions of candidates, not just for president, but for Congress, for state office, and for local school board giving soaring speeches completely devoid of any meaningful content.
A vote for Obama is a vote for the perpetuation, and indeed the proliferation, of vacuous political rhetoric. American politics will become even more transparently like American Idol.
I want to reassure all my supporters and potential supporters that Robert Duvall is alive and well, and is on standby to actually save the East Coast this time (and Bruce Willis is his backup- also miraculously found alive floating in Earth orbit).
However, I wish to also make an argument for Morgan Freeman. He did his best on the budget he was given by the producers. It isn't easy to save the Earth on a budget of only $95 million dollars, and he had to deal with all those Hollywood union types to boot. And, in any case, it is hardly his fault that morons, knowing months in advance that a comet would hit the ocean, were still in New York City, or even Washington D.C. Or that there were fathers who were happy that their only daughter chose to join him in his idiotic suicide.
Not to bring partisanship in here but here's a good case against him as well (from Instapundit). I'm sure there will be an equivalent for Hillary if she ends up winning the Democratic nod.
Unfortunately, GWB didn't keep track of his own and his congressional cronies spending in the same fashion.
I think it all comes down to where one comes down on the question of who did more to pass the civil rights and voting rights acts, Paul Winfield or Randy Quaid.
Unfortunately, GWB didn't keep track of his own and his congressional cronies spending in the same fashion.
Fortunately though the likely GOP nominee isn’t George W Bush but John McCain who has been excellent on the issue of trying to reign in federal spending.
Unfortunately, GWB didn't keep track of his own and his congressional cronies spending in the same fashion.
You make is sound like GWB temporarily lost his car keys or something. Instead, he willingly and repeatedly went along -- he had the veto power, remember? -- with huge gobs of unnecessary federal DEFICIT spending as long as his own party was proposing it (and thus, in theory, would be able to buy the voters' affection with it). So the reality now unfortunately is that many lifelong Republicans no longer have faith in the GOP on issues of fiscal responsibility. The last eight years have eliminated what had been a major GOP selling point.
adu is completely right, but it's important to learn the full lesson from what happened. Single-party rule is not simply conducive to fiscal responsibility.
That's why, assuming the next Congress is in Democratic control, anyone in favor of fiscal restraint ought to vote Republican for President. Gridlock is the only proven way to keep government spending in check.
The last eight years have eliminated what had been a major GOP selling point.
You're right in the sense that voters can no longer take it "on faith" that the GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility.
Here's how I rank the remaining candidates on the subject:
1. Paul - Epitome of small government guy
2. McCain - Track record fighting earmarks and spending in general, cut subsidies, anti-protectionist
3 (tie). Clinton - Increase health care spending but accepts raising taxes
3 (tie). Obama - Same as Clinton
5. Huckabee - Won't raise taxes, no idea about spending priorities, assume worse
Come on, Eli... The death of serious political dialogue happened when Paul Tsongas happened to mention that there was no Santa Claus when it came to American politics and economic policy.
He got trounced.
So unless you are ready to defend all political discourse from 1988 until now on both sides of the political spectrum, then I don't really want to hear about it.
And you were bitching about someone asking you to do her homework.
What's next. Links to recipes?
That's funny, but the real case against Obama is this: If Obama is elected, every politician from now on is going to attempt to emulate his campaigning method. We will witness legions of candidates, not just for president, but for Congress, for state office, and for local school board giving soaring speeches completely devoid of any meaningful content.
A vote for Obama is a vote for the perpetuation, and indeed the proliferation, of vacuous political rhetoric. American politics will become even more transparently like American Idol.
It makes this guy seem ever more appealing.
I think we as voters agree that we want some kind of "change." The problem is that word means different things to different people.
Personally I'm looking forward to the debates between Obama and McCain that will hopefully lay out which types of changes the citizens are voting for.
I want to reassure all my supporters and potential supporters that Robert Duvall is alive and well, and is on standby to actually save the East Coast this time (and Bruce Willis is his backup- also miraculously found alive floating in Earth orbit).
However, I wish to also make an argument for Morgan Freeman. He did his best on the budget he was given by the producers. It isn't easy to save the Earth on a budget of only $95 million dollars, and he had to deal with all those Hollywood union types to boot. And, in any case, it is hardly his fault that morons, knowing months in advance that a comet would hit the ocean, were still in New York City, or even Washington D.C. Or that there were fathers who were happy that their only daughter chose to join him in his idiotic suicide.
Not to bring partisanship in here but here's a good case against him as well (from Instapundit). I'm sure there will be an equivalent for Hillary if she ends up winning the Democratic nod.
Unfortunately, GWB didn't keep track of his own and his congressional cronies spending in the same fashion.
http://www.gop.com/obamaspendometer.htm
I think it all comes down to where one comes down on the question of who did more to pass the civil rights and voting rights acts, Paul Winfield or Randy Quaid.
Fortunately though the likely GOP nominee isn’t George W Bush but John McCain who has been excellent on the issue of trying to reign in federal spending.
You make is sound like GWB temporarily lost his car keys or something. Instead, he willingly and repeatedly went along -- he had the veto power, remember? -- with huge gobs of unnecessary federal DEFICIT spending as long as his own party was proposing it (and thus, in theory, would be able to buy the voters' affection with it). So the reality now unfortunately is that many lifelong Republicans no longer have faith in the GOP on issues of fiscal responsibility. The last eight years have eliminated what had been a major GOP selling point.
adu is completely right, but it's important to learn the full lesson from what happened. Single-party rule is not simply conducive to fiscal responsibility.
That's why, assuming the next Congress is in Democratic control, anyone in favor of fiscal restraint ought to vote Republican for President. Gridlock is the only proven way to keep government spending in check.
The last eight years have eliminated what had been a major GOP selling point.
You're right in the sense that voters can no longer take it "on faith" that the GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility.
Here's how I rank the remaining candidates on the subject:
1. Paul - Epitome of small government guy
2. McCain - Track record fighting earmarks and spending in general, cut subsidies, anti-protectionist
3 (tie). Clinton - Increase health care spending but accepts raising taxes
3 (tie). Obama - Same as Clinton
5. Huckabee - Won't raise taxes, no idea about spending priorities, assume worse
"giving soaring speeches completely devoid of any meaningful content."
why does Obama get a pass on this?
"Yes, we can!" is nice, and all, but, I can never figure out, what it is that 'we can' (?)
Come on, Eli... The death of serious political dialogue happened when Paul Tsongas happened to mention that there was no Santa Claus when it came to American politics and economic policy.
He got trounced.
So unless you are ready to defend all political discourse from 1988 until now on both sides of the political spectrum, then I don't really want to hear about it.
In other words being against Obama is as funny as smoking dope. Good luck, bro.
Whereas being in favor of him makes about as much sense as snorting coke.