WWTBAM Bored

William F. Buckley's son, Christopher, explains why he is voting Democratic for the first time in his life. --Bob

I find a lot in there to agree with - although I haven't made up my mind - I'm leaning toward Obama. It would be the 2nd time I've voted democratic.

After watching Bush for eight years, I've decided that my vote will not go to the person that has answers to the issues that I agree with. As a libertarian ex-republican those candidates are few and far between and neither of these guys meshes with my thoughts on much.

Rather I will vote for the guy who has shown the ability to respond to events that no one foresaw. The world is a random place - things will happen in the next four years that few can foresee. I think our economic challenges will be beyond anything we've seen in the last month (or last 75 years). No one today has the answers, because no one knows the questions.

So who has the intellect, temperament, integrity and energy to succeed? Who will surround himself with smart people, allow those smart people to challenge each other and develop solutions to new problems?

IMHO, Obama wins on all counts with the exception of integrity – some of his associations scare me – I think he has addressed Jeremiah Wright, but his explanations of Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers have not been as forthcoming as I would like. But I think he clearly wins on my other criteria.

We’ll see what happens in the next 23 days (although we have early voting in NC beginning next week – so I don’t have to wait until Nov 4th). I’d really rather have a clear cut decision by now and get the voting over with, but I think I’ll wrestle with this for a while.

Now, back to the Moratorium lounge for an NFL Sunday.

gotribego26 wrote:I find a lot in there to agree with - although I haven't made up my mind - I'm leaning toward Obama. It would be the 2nd time I've voted democratic.

After watching Bush for eight years, I've decided that my vote will not go to the person that has answers to the issues that I agree with. As a libertarian ex-republican those candidates are few and far between and neither of these guys meshes with my thoughts on much.

Rather I will vote for the guy who has shown the ability to respond to events that no one foresaw. The world is a random place - things will happen in the next four years that few can foresee. I think our economic challenges will be beyond anything we've seen in the last month (or last 75 years). No one today has the answers, because no one knows the questions.

So who has the intellect, temperament, integrity and energy to succeed? Who will surround himself with smart people, allow those smart people to challenge each other and develop solutions to new problems?

IMHO, Obama wins on all counts with the exception of integrity – some of his associations scare me – I think he has addressed Jeremiah Wright, but his explanations of Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers have not been as forthcoming as I would like. But I think he clearly wins on my other criteria.

We’ll see what happens in the next 23 days (although we have early voting in NC beginning next week – so I don’t have to wait until Nov 4th). I’d really rather have a clear cut decision by now and get the voting over with, but I think I’ll wrestle with this for a while.

Now, back to the Moratorium lounge for an NFL Sunday.

Maybe yesterday's Snopes will help with Rezko: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/money.asp

Like the wag said:

Undecided!! How can you be undecided? Are you waiting for McCain to get younger? Are you waiting for Obama to get whiter?

Maybe I read too much Mike Royko over the years, but the Rezko-Ayers-others associations don't bother me as much as they do other people, and here's why:

In Chicago area politics, if you don't at least pay lip service to the wealthy, behind-the-scenes powerbrokers, you don't go anywhere. If you're smart, you learn to limit your contacts, dance around the money, and generally not tick anyone off. That, to me, appears to be what Obama has done. Contrast that with the earlier story about Sarah Palin: I don't care that she won't meet with environmentalists and conservationists, because she clearly doesn't agree with them, and meeting with them would be a waste of her time, if not theirs. But the fact that she enthusiastically meets with and consults with, and then figures out a legit way to get money from, Big Oil tells me about what she would be like in the White House. In other words, Dick Cheney without the established old-boy network.

People who want to criticize Obama too much for his associations, especially with Rezko, should be reminded of another politician who promised change, then came with a whole new crew to "clean up" Washington, and who promptly got slapped down: Jimmy Carter. Smart politicians can effect change without arousing the old guard. I am hopeful (but not too much) that Obama might be able to accomplish such, which is why I'm leaning that way. I am not sold on many of his actual economic policies, though. Trouble is the alternative is even less coherent about his plans.

gotribego26 wrote:I'm leaning toward Obama.

So who has the intellect, temperament, integrity and energy to succeed? Who will surround himself with smart people, allow those smart people to challenge each other and develop solutions to new problems?

IMHO, Obama wins on all counts with the exception of integrity – some of his associations scare me

Am I missing something in the logic above?

Intellect, temperament, and energy trump integrity?

Then you go on and ask 'Who will surround himself with smart people, allow those smart people to .... develop solutions...?"

But you are concerned with Obama's past associations. I think it is pretty clear who he will surround himself with and allow to develop solutions.

That's what scares the hell out of me, and should you too.

ne1410s wrote:Like the wag said:

Undecided!! How can you be undecided? Are you waiting for McCain to get younger? Are you waiting for Obama to get whiter?

And all you hard-core sexists.....are you waiting for Palin to grow a penis? Oh wait -- that would make her "Spiro Agnew"!!!

[/Dick Cavett]

gotribego26 wrote:IMHO, Obama wins on all counts with the exception of integrity – some of his associations scare me – I think he has addressed Jeremiah Wright, but his explanations of Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers have not been as forthcoming as I would like. But I think he clearly wins on my other criteria.

Here's an analysis from Congressional Quarterly's Polifacts. The conclusion (at the end of page 3, after extensive factual analysis): the McCain ads are "Pants on Fire" lies. --Bob

rren buffet

BackInTex wrote:

gotribego26 wrote:I'm leaning toward Obama.

So who has the intellect, temperament, integrity and energy to succeed? Who will surround himself with smart people, allow those smart people to challenge each other and develop solutions to new problems?

IMHO, Obama wins on all counts with the exception of integrity – some of his associations scare me

Am I missing something in the logic above?

Intellect, temperament, and energy trump integrity?

Then you go on and ask 'Who will surround himself with smart people, allow those smart people to .... develop solutions...?"

But you are concerned with Obama's past associations. I think it is pretty clear who he will surround himself with and allow to develop solutions.

That's what scares the hell out of me, and should you too.

You know what?

Obama pals around with....Warren Buffet!!!!! http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/poli ... ory?page=1

Noooooo, hanging around with capitalists!!!! He's going to have capitalists running the White House!!!!!!!!

Bixby17 wrote:You know what?

Obama pals around with....Warren Buffet!!!!! http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/poli ... ory?page=1

Noooooo, hanging around with capitalists!!!! He's going to have capitalists running the White House!!!!!!!!

Yeah, Ted Bundy was nice to some people, too.

As a follow-up, in response to his column (at another Web site) endorsing Obama, Christopher Buckley was forced to resign from his position as columnist for the National Review, the magazine founded by his father. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:As a follow-up, in response to his column (at another Web site) endorsing Obama, Christopher Buckley was forced to resign from his position as columnist for the National Review, the magazine founded by his father. --Bob

CBuckley said they accepted his resignation "briskly."

Bob78164 wrote:As a follow-up, in response to his column (at another Web site) endorsing Obama, Christopher Buckley was forced to resign from his position as columnist for the National Review, the magazine founded by his father. --Bob

From the article: "So the next morning, I thought the only decent thing to do would be to offer to resign my column there."

He wasn't "forced to resign." He offered his resignation, and it was accepted. Different thing.

silvercamaro wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:As a follow-up, in response to his column (at another Web site) endorsing Obama, Christopher Buckley was forced to resign from his position as columnist for the National Review, the magazine founded by his father. --Bob

From the article: "So the next morning, I thought the only decent thing to do would be to offer to resign my column there."

He wasn't "forced to resign." He offered his resignation, and it was accepted. Different thing.

I don't think it's different. After all, whenever someone is forced to resign, it can be said that he or she offered his resignation, and it was accepted, the alternative being that he or she would be fired.

Note that Buckley himself describes the circumstance (in the title of the piece) as being "sacked." He was clearly forced to offer his resignation because he had the temerity to endorse Obama. If the National Review had any interest in diversity of opinion, it would have told Buckley that the magazine stood behind him and refused his resignation. --Bob

gotribego26 wrote: So who has the intellect, temperament, integrity and energy to succeed? Who will surround himself with smart people, allow those smart people to challenge each other and develop solutions to new problems?

Exactly when and where has Obama shown this brillian intellect of his? Other than a good ability to read moving speeches that other people have written off a teleprompter, he has accomplished nothing of note. As editor of the Harvard Law Review, he produced nothing. Word is coming out that his book was ghost written (possibly by his good buddy William Ayers). In these last two debates, I will give him credit for being able to memorize and regurgitate his canned talking points better than he has in the past, but he has been given softball questions and McCain hasn't really pushed him to get him off the talking points. I'd love to see Obama try to respond to the type of tough interview Hillary routinely got or Sarah Palin gets. The closest we've come to that was that fumbling rambling disaster at the Saddleback Forum or a few questions in the Philadelphia debate.

The last president we had who surrounded himself with "smart people" and allowed them to develop solutions to new problems was a guy named Bush who let a smart guy named Cheney do all his thinking for him. Obama's usual course of action has been to play it cautious until he can tell which way the political winds are blowing. That's not being prudent; that's dithering and playing to the crowd. That's not the type of temperment we need in the White House.

If you want to see a repeat of the My Pet Goat incident, wait until Obama's first crisis.

Bob78164 wrote:

silvercamaro wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:As a follow-up, in response to his column (at another Web site) endorsing Obama, Christopher Buckley was forced to resign from his position as columnist for the National Review, the magazine founded by his father. --Bob

From the article: "So the next morning, I thought the only decent thing to do would be to offer to resign my column there."

He wasn't "forced to resign." He offered his resignation, and it was accepted. Different thing.

I don't think it's different. After all, whenever someone is forced to resign, it can be said that he or she offered his resignation, and it was accepted, the alternative being that he or she would be fired.

Note that Buckley himself describes the circumstance (in the title of the piece) as being "sacked." He was clearly forced to offer his resignation because he had the temerity to endorse Obama. If the National Review had any interest in diversity of opinion, it would have told Buckley that the magazine stood behind him and refused his resignation. --Bob

I don't see the word "sacked" anywhere. The tone and wording of the column make it clear that Buckley tendered his resignation of his own accord and was not asked to resign.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

silvercamaro wrote:
From the article: "So the next morning, I thought the only decent thing to do would be to offer to resign my column there."

He wasn't "forced to resign." He offered his resignation, and it was accepted. Different thing.

I don't think it's different. After all, whenever someone is forced to resign, it can be said that he or she offered his resignation, and it was accepted, the alternative being that he or she would be fired.

Note that Buckley himself describes the circumstance (in the title of the piece) as being "sacked." He was clearly forced to offer his resignation because he had the temerity to endorse Obama. If the National Review had any interest in diversity of opinion, it would have told Buckley that the magazine stood behind him and refused his resignation. --Bob

I don't see the word "sacked" anywhere. The tone and wording of the column make it clear that Buckley tendered his resignation of his own accord and was not asked to resign.

The title of the article when I read it (as is reflected in the link leading to the story) was, "Sorry, Dad, I Was Sacked." It appears to have changed, and now reads, "Buckley Bows Out of National Review." I infer that the original title was not selected by Buckley, but by his editor, and was changed at Buckley's request. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:Note that Buckley himself describes the circumstance (in the title of the piece) as being "sacked." He was clearly forced to offer his resignation because he had the temerity to endorse Obama. If the National Review had any interest in diversity of opinion, it would have told Buckley that the magazine stood behind him and refused his resignation. --Bob

Why should it be interested in the diversity of opinion? That in itself is not a virtue in a magazine for those of a specific political viewpoint.

silverscreenselect wrote:

gotribego26 wrote: So who has the intellect, temperament, integrity and energy to succeed? Who will surround himself with smart people, allow those smart people to challenge each other and develop solutions to new problems?

Exactly when and where has Obama shown this brillian intellect of his? Other than a good ability to read moving speeches that other people have written off a teleprompter, he has accomplished nothing of note. As editor of the Harvard Law Review, he produced nothing. Word is coming out that his book was ghost written (possibly by his good buddy William Ayers). In these last two debates, I will give him credit for being able to memorize and regurgitate his canned talking points better than he has in the past, but he has been given softball questions and McCain hasn't really pushed him to get him off the talking points. I'd love to see Obama try to respond to the type of tough interview Hillary routinely got or Sarah Palin gets. The closest we've come to that was that fumbling rambling disaster at the Saddleback Forum or a few questions in the Philadelphia debate.

The last president we had who surrounded himself with "smart people" and allowed them to develop solutions to new problems was a guy named Bush who let a smart guy named Cheney do all his thinking for him. Obama's usual course of action has been to play it cautious until he can tell which way the political winds are blowing. That's not being prudent; that's dithering and playing to the crowd. That's not the type of temperment we need in the White House.

If you want to see a repeat of the My Pet Goat incident, wait until Obama's first crisis.

Obama went to Columbia and Harvard Law. For many, that's enough.

Of course, his record as a community organizer is miserable, and he's been successful only at running for office. People like to make comparisons to Lincoln, but Lincoln at least had an extremely successful legal practice (and indeed would have been viewed as a bit backwoods since he didn't go to elite schools). And he didn't have a teleprompter when he was debating Douglas for hours at a time.

well, this accounts for the 50 megahertz signal that has been detected somewhere in the earth near Stamford, Conn.

silverscreenselect wrote:If you want to see a repeat of the My Pet Goat incident, wait until Obama's first crisis.

C'mon SSS. How are we supposed to believe anyone who still thinks the book was called "My Pet Goat"? If you care about your crediblilty, start calling it "The Pet Goat."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pet_Goat

Sorry?

He certainly is!