PDA

View Full Version : Change....or more of the same?



lakersrock
11-19-2008, 01:50 AM
The new AG was just behind Reno under Clinton. He's also looking at Hillary for SOS. Why in the world does he say he's gonna bring a change to Washington and yet hire people who've been there? Ohhhhh yeah, he's just changing back to Clinton. Ok, I get it now. :rolleyes:

CubsGirl
11-19-2008, 02:01 AM
The new AG was just behind Reno under Clinton. He's also looking at Hillary for SOS. Why in the world does he say he's gonna bring a change to Washington and yet hire people who've been there? Ohhhhh yeah, he's just changing back to Clinton. Ok, I get it now. :rolleyes:
Clinton =/= Clinton

You assume they're the samy politically because they're married. That's pretty insulting to the individual ideology of both of them.

Also, what, exactly, did the last attorney general do wrong under Bill Clinton to warrant not bringing him back?

lakersrock
11-19-2008, 02:05 AM
Clinton =/= Clinton

You assume they're the samy politically because they're married. That's pretty insulting to the individual ideology of both of them.

Also, what, exactly, did the last attorney general do wrong under Bill Clinton to warrant not bringing him back?

Maybe when he arranged pardons for terrorists from the Weather Underground for Bill to sign? I don't know....that just seems a little odd. It is funny how Bill Ayers' terrorist group won't leave Obama alone though.

On the same politically comment....my point was, she's been in Washington for years. He said change. Bringing in ANYONE who's been in Washington for years that is clearly left or right is completely opposite of what he promised. If he wants someone from Washington, he should go for guys like Joe L because he plays it down the middle. Unfortunately, he didn't vote for Obama, so we know it ain't gonna happen.

CubsGirl
11-19-2008, 02:07 AM
Maybe when he arranged pardons for terrorists from the Weather Underground for Bill to sign? I don't know....that just seems a little odd. It is funny how Bill Ayers' terrorist group won't leave Obama alone though.

On the same politically comment....my point was, she's been in Washington for years. He said change. Bringing in ANYONE who's been in Washington for years that is clearly left or right is completely opposite of what he promised. If he wants someone from Washington, he should go for guys like Joe L because he plays it down the middle. Unfortunately, he didn't vote for Obama, so we know it ain't gonna happen.
So you want to persecute the him because he drafted pardons that the president asked for? Because he did his job?

And for your second point, you want Obama to bring in an ENTIRE CABINET full of people with no experience?

DenButsu
11-19-2008, 02:10 AM
Eric H. Holder Jr., Deputy Attorney General during the Clinton administration, asserted in a speech to the American Constitution Society (ACS) that the United States must reverse “the disastrous course” set by the Bush administration in the struggle against terrorism by closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, declaring without qualification that the U.S. does not torture people, ending the practice of transferring individuals involuntarily to countries that engage in torture and ceasing warrantless domestic surveillance.

“Our needlessly abusive and unlawful practices in the ‘War on Terror' have diminished our standing in the world community and made us less, rather than more, safe,” Holder told a packed room at the ACS 2008 Convention on Friday evening. “For the sake of our safety and security, and because it is the right thing to do, the next president must move immediately to reclaim America's standing in the world as a nation that cherishes and protects individual freedom and basic human rights.”
Time (http://thepage.time.com/release-from-the-american-constitution-society/)(via Sullivan (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/obamas-ag.html))

Max Power
11-19-2008, 02:11 AM
Change is just a marketing term that people fall for.
W ran on the change and "bring dignity back to Washington" platforms in 2000, then hired a bunch of his daddy's buddies.

In all fairness it would be pretty foolish to appoint a group of novices to some of the most improtant jobs in the world.

lakersrock
11-19-2008, 02:18 AM
So you want to persecute the him because he drafted pardons that the president asked for? Because he did his job?

And for your second point, you want Obama to bring in an ENTIRE CABINET full of people with no experience?

Good lord...persecute, ENTIRE CABINET? Do we really need to go as far to the extreme as possible?

First, my tax money shouldn't pay a man's salary that drafts pardons for men that were in a group that bombed the Pentagon and other Government buildings. Maybe that's just the American in me.

When did I say anything about no experience? I said he promised change and is bringing Washington people into his Cabinet. It's becoming more apparent he's just gonna hire Clinton hirees. There are people all over this country in Government work that have experience.

CubsGirl
11-19-2008, 02:19 AM
Good lord...persecute, ENTIRE CABINET? Do we really need to go as far to the extreme as possible?

First, my tax money should pay a man's salary that drafts pardons for men that were in a group that bombed the Pentagon and other Government buildings. Maybe that's just the American in me.

When did I say anything about no experience? I said he promised change and is bringing Washington people into his Cabinet. It's becoming more apparent he's just gonna hire Clinton hirees. There are people all over this country in Government work that have experience.

Just fighting fire with fire. If you approached this with more rationality, I'd be more predisposed to do the same.

DenButsu
11-19-2008, 02:20 AM
Maybe that's just the American in me.

:laugh2:

Anyone else in there with him?

lakersrock
11-19-2008, 02:21 AM
Just fighting fire with fire. If you approached this with more rationality, I'd be more predisposed to do the same.

I say the guy he's picked worked under Clinton and drafted pardons for people in a group that bombed the Pentagon.

You say I'm persecuting him.

Tell me, which one sounds more extreme.

ink
11-19-2008, 02:25 AM
The new AG was just behind Reno under Clinton. He's also looking at Hillary for SOS. Why in the world does he say he's gonna bring a change to Washington and yet hire people who've been there? Ohhhhh yeah, he's just changing back to Clinton. Ok, I get it now. :rolleyes:

Maybe because "change" doesn't necessarily refer to the people but to the process and the values.

k_rock923
11-19-2008, 09:58 AM
Am I going to have to sit through four years of people desperately trying to find a problem with everything Obama does and creating problems if none exist?

behindmydesk
11-19-2008, 10:03 AM
As much as I dislike the policies of what I think Obama is going to bring, I would have a real problem if he brought all new people to Washington, and said hmm, lets start fresh. I know what you are saying, and you are looking at ways to knock Obama. But change really means it was a marketing tool, and he wants to change some policy and the direction of the country. Not saying that change is going to be for the better. Because if I thought that, I would have voted for him. But we can't really knock Obama much till he takes office. We have to let him do things we dont' agree with then we can knock him.

behindmydesk
11-19-2008, 10:05 AM
BTW since this thread is weird. How awesome is my signature. It's from 1930 advertising. Those crazy depression people!

You know what would be an awesome thread, since we are a bit slow in here.

Past political ads! Those should be funny/what the heck were they thinking/I can't believe that worked/that still is an awesome ad today.

k_rock923
11-19-2008, 10:10 AM
As much as I dislike the policies of what I think Obama is going to bring, I would have a real problem if he brought all new people to Washington, and said hmm, lets start fresh. I know what you are saying, and you are looking at ways to knock Obama. But change really means it was a marketing tool, and he wants to change some policy and the direction of the country. Not saying that change is going to be for the better. Because if I thought that, I would have voted for him. But we can't really knock Obama much till he takes office. We have to let him do things we dont' agree with then we can knock him.

Yes, exactly. At least wait until he actually does something wrong to bash him.

ari1013
11-19-2008, 10:30 AM
So you want to persecute the him because he drafted pardons that the president asked for? Because he did his job?

And for your second point, you want Obama to bring in an ENTIRE CABINET full of people with no experience?
Of course. If his cabinet is terrible, he'll do a bad job and then the GOP can take over in 2012.

They're just pissy that Obama's going to do a much better job than the farce that Bush has done.

PHX-SOXFAN
11-19-2008, 12:23 PM
Am I going to have to sit through four years of people desperately trying to find a problem with everything Obama does and creating problems if none exist?

yes you are. that is the goal of the am radio host/rightist/extreme conservatives. that is all they have to do right now. they dictate nothing in terms of legislation and have no identified priorities on a national stage. therefore they will be resorting to the exact same things that comprised the recent campaign, ie tear down every little thing about about the opposition, create controversy where there is none, and completely demonize them before any policy has been made.

this is how they keep the hate and fear churning in those who listen and regurgitate the spin.

PHX-SOXFAN
11-19-2008, 12:24 PM
Yes, exactly. At least wait until he actually does something wrong to bash him.

that's not how hannity and rush fill three hours a day, get people pissed off, and get callers to pat them on the back:rolleyes:

Seppuku
11-19-2008, 01:00 PM
The new AG was just behind Reno under Clinton. He's also looking at Hillary for SOS. Why in the world does he say he's gonna bring a change to Washington and yet hire people who've been there? Ohhhhh yeah, he's just changing back to Clinton. Ok, I get it now. :rolleyes:


Bumpersticker: McCain/Palin 08: Don't change horsemen mid-apocalypse!

Time to tear that one off the Hearse. Change is coming.

k_rock923
11-19-2008, 02:27 PM
yes you are. that is the goal of the am radio host/rightist/extreme conservatives. that is all they have to do right now. they dictate nothing in terms of legislation and have no identified priorities on a national stage. therefore they will be resorting to the exact same things that comprised the recent campaign, ie tear down every little thing about about the opposition, create controversy where there is none, and completely demonize them before any policy has been made.

this is how they keep the hate and fear churning in those who listen and regurgitate the spin.

:cry: Well, I'm not even sure what to say. Hopefully some people will see through it.

gcoll
11-19-2008, 02:29 PM
I would say that it is a valid criticism.

His whole campaign was centered on changing Washington....and he's not exactly bringing in any new blood.

But it's not really his fault.

1) He's not really all that knowledgeable about the way government works. Basically, he has to rely on the knowledge of others to fill these cabinet posts...because he doesn't know what he's talking about.

2) Or...he's just taking some safe picks because he doesn't want to upset anything. If you go with known variables, you lessen the risk.

I don't really have all that much of a problem with it, but I always looked at his message of "change" as nothing more than a slogan anyhow.

tomno00
11-19-2008, 03:00 PM
yes you are. that is the goal of the am radio host/rightist/extreme conservatives. that is all they have to do right now. they dictate nothing in terms of legislation and have no identified priorities on a national stage. therefore they will be resorting to the exact same things that comprised the recent campaign, ie tear down every little thing about about the opposition, create controversy where there is none, and completely demonize them before any policy has been made.

this is how they keep the hate and fear churning in those who listen and regurgitate the spin.

haha whats wrong man? dont like people expressing their opinion? you sound like hitler sometimes.

BroadwayJoe
11-19-2008, 03:03 PM
haha whats wrong man? dont like people expressing their opinion? you sound like hitler sometimes.

couldn't it be argued that expressing one's distaste for another's opinion falls into the same mold of sharing one's own opinion?

now wouldn't that make you exactly what you seem to be bemoaning in the previous post?

tomno00
11-19-2008, 03:05 PM
couldn't it be argued that expressing one's distaste for another's opinion falls into the same mold of sharing one's own opinion?

now wouldn't that make you exactly what you seem to be bemoaning in the previous post?

as is every other single post ever written on PSD...

and no... people should be allowed to express their opinions even if phxsox disagrees with them.

one love.

BroadwayJoe
11-19-2008, 03:13 PM
as is every other single post ever written on PSD...

and no... people should be allowed to express their opinions even if phxsox disagrees with them.

one love.

exactly... we're essentially agreeing from different sides of the spectrum. phxsox has every right to criticize and belittle hannity, rush, et-al the same way you have the right to bemoan phxsox for doing that... the same way i am now bemoaning you for bemoaning him.

and the cycle continues :up:

abe_froman
11-19-2008, 03:15 PM
I would say that it is a valid criticism.

His whole campaign was centered on changing Washington....and he's not exactly bringing in any new blood.

But it's not really his fault.

1) He's not really all that knowledgeable about the way government works. Basically, he has to rely on the knowledge of others to fill these cabinet posts...because he doesn't know what he's talking about.

2) Or...he's just taking some safe picks because he doesn't want to upset anything. If you go with known variables, you lessen the risk.

I don't really have all that much of a problem with it, but I always looked at his message of "change" as nothing more than a slogan anyhow.
watch what he does/is doing.don't be caught up in picks(remember they sall have to carry out his policies).what would you rather he pick people who have never served in government in any capacity?

saving liberman from party fighting,take rep's that supported him were seen as traitors to rep's,some even losing their jobs because.so isn't that a change from the usual party divide?

having people with different views to surround him instead of yes men and getting caught up in the echo chamber,isn't that a change?

having a change in policy,everything from how to deal with the mid east,environment.well?

picking people based on other things than political favors,no job for john kerry,getting a top job just for being a backer,as has been the case


are these things not a change from the norm?

don't be so shallow to only look at the surface....ahh being less shallow and quick to judgment calls would also be change

tomno00
11-19-2008, 03:17 PM
ahh yes. But i wasnt bemoaning phxsox for bemoaning rush or hannity. Im just saying he shouldnt bash other people who like listening to them b/c we all have different opinions on things.

ari1013
11-19-2008, 03:17 PM
I would say that it is a valid criticism.

His whole campaign was centered on changing Washington....and he's not exactly bringing in any new blood.

But it's not really his fault.

1) He's not really all that knowledgeable about the way government works. Basically, he has to rely on the knowledge of others to fill these cabinet posts...because he doesn't know what he's talking about.

2) Or...he's just taking some safe picks because he doesn't want to upset anything. If you go with known variables, you lessen the risk.

I don't really have all that much of a problem with it, but I always looked at his message of "change" as nothing more than a slogan anyhow.
Or...

3) The nation is in the midst of a 4-pronged crisis and he knows he better off with a brain trust rather than purely bringing in fresh blood.

ink
11-19-2008, 03:21 PM
Or...

3) The nation is in the midst of a 4-pronged crisis and he knows he better off with a brain trust rather than purely bringing in fresh blood.

And the process he's using is an indication of change. There are lots of changes beyond the people that are chosen. In fact, the greatest change would be to have the same qualified people behave differently in government and in Congress and become more productive. That kind of change would mean not wasting the talents of all of these democratically elected officials. Surely that's noteworthy.

BroadwayJoe
11-19-2008, 03:26 PM
ahh yes. But i wasnt bemoaning phxsox for bemoaning rush or hannity. Im just saying he shouldnt bash other people who like listening to them b/c we all have different opinions on things.

i don't wanna derail this thread, so i'll try to lay this out as clearly as i can:

his bashing other people for listening to them is the same as any other bashing... it's HIS opinion. an opinion will always have supporters and detractors, but it is still a rightful opinion nonetheless. for instance, you bashing him for bashing people who listen to rush is one and the same. the only difference is the side of the spectrum you both stand on regarding this topic.

ari1013
11-19-2008, 03:28 PM
btw, Tom Daschle accepted HHS. I was right about that one at least.

tomno00
11-19-2008, 03:32 PM
i don't wanna derail this thread, so i'll try to lay this out as clearly as i can:

his bashing other people for listening to them is the same as any other bashing... it's HIS opinion. an opinion will always have supporters and detractors, but it is still a rightful opinion nonetheless. for instance, you bashing him for bashing people who listen to rush is one and the same. the only difference is the side of the spectrum you both stand on regarding this topic.

your forgot to say IMO....

I dont have a side of the spectrum... i dont even listen to them and i rarely watch anything about politics..

IMO, nobody should bash others for having a different opinion from their own.... Now if that sounds just as bad than what he is saying than im sorry.

GO Dawgs.

BroadwayJoe
11-19-2008, 03:34 PM
your forgot to say IMO....

I dont have a side of the spectrum... i dont even listen to them and i rarely watch anything about politics..

IMO, nobody should bash others for having a different opinion from their own.... Now if that sounds just as bad than what he is saying than im sorry.

GO Dawgs.

i'm sorry, but i can no longer respond to you now :p

tomno00
11-19-2008, 03:37 PM
:laugh:

hey do you know if urban's daughter is available? that girl is f-ing hot.

DenButsu
11-20-2008, 09:34 AM
Orin Kerr (http://volokh.com/posts/1227121128.shtml):


Responding to the National Review on Eric Holder:
The National Review Online (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmM1OGM4OGRiNTI5NTIzOTFkMDAwMTJiNGFlYWFiZGI=) has posted an editorial criticizing Obama's apparent pick of Eric Holder as Attorney General. NRO's bottom line: "To be blunt, Holder is a terrible selection. If there’s any Obama cabinet nomination that Republicans feel moved to oppose, this should be it."

NRO makes two basic arguments against Holder. First, he is a "conventional" liberal. According to NRO,


[Holder] is convinced justice in America needs to be “established” rather than enforced; he’s excited about hate crimes and enthusiastic about the constitutionally dubious Violence Against Women Act; he’s a supporter of affirmative action and a practitioner of the statistical voodoo that makes it possible to burden police departments with accusations of racial profiling and the states with charges of racially skewed death-penalty enforcement; he’s more likely to be animated by a touchy-feely Reno-esque agenda than traditional enforcement against crimes; he’s in favor of ending the detentions of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay and favors income redistribution to address the supposed root causes of crime.
In any other time, Holder would simply be an uninspired choice. But these are not ordinary times — we face a serious, persistent threat from Islamist terrorists. At the same time, Democrats have expressed outrage over both the alleged politicization of the Justice Department and the reckless disregard of its storied traditions. For these times, it is difficult to imagine a worse choice for AG than Eric Holder.

I don't know Holder well (I once shook his hand, I think), and I don't have any particular reason to defend him. But I don't quite follow the argument here. Holder's views sound a lot like President-Elect Obama's, which are in turn more or less the views you might expect to be held by a Democrat appointee. Isn't that what you would expect from a Democratic President? Of course, you don't have to vote for the Democratic nominee: I didn't. But the Democrat won, and surely the standard for measuring who would be a good pick for AG has to factor this into account. Also, to the extent the NRO is arguing that Holder is too political or somehow has "recklessly disregarded" DOJ's traditions, the editorial hasn't even bothered to provide evidence for it. (Having served under Holder myself at DOJ for 2 and a half years, I can say that I never thought of him as political.)

Next, NRO argues that Holder played too much of a role in controversial pardons and commutations that President Clinton granted. The lead example is of the Marc Rich pardon, which was the subject of a Congressional report that labeled Holder's role "unconscionable." But the NRO leaves out that the report was directed by Dan Burton, a ferocious Clinton critic (http://www.time.com/time/daily/special/look/burton/) who was famous for believing that Vince Foster was murdered (you may recall Burton as the guy who reenacted Foster's death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Burton#Vincent_Foster) in his backyard by shooting a pumpkin that was supposed to stand in for Foster's head in order to help show Foster must have been murdered). A report championed by Dan Burton hardly seems like a neutral source for a judgment like that.

More broadly, the idea that Holder somehow furthered the Rich pardon to help himself become AG never quite made sense to me. Holder was already a natural pick for AG in a Democratic administration, and it's unclear why he would have thought that helping Jack Quinn with a private client would help get him that job — or how giving the pardon that the President wanted to grant a "neutral leaning favorable" review would be a way of helping Quinn. The story just doesn't make sense. I am certainly open to hearing more about it: Maybe there are details to the story that remain unknown that make the criticism of him more understandable. I trust the confirmation hearings will go through these issues again, and that certainly seems fair. But based on what we know so far, the case that Holder's conduct was "unconscionable" seems pretty weak to me.

I recognize, based on yesterday's post on Holder, that this post is likely to enrage a number of our more partisan Republican readers. Holder is a "Dem," after all, and some Republicans are eager to get back in the aggressive posture of attacking the Dems with whatever they can. But in my experience, Holder was an honorable and apolitical public servant. It might serve Republican party interests to go on the attack against him, but it doesn't strike me as either fair or honorable to do so.

canigetawitness
11-20-2008, 10:10 AM
This is a stupid thread. Obviously, change is in the eye of the beholder and the term itself is so ambiguous that it lends itself to every imaginable definition/explanation under the sun.

However it's obvious [to most people] that the "change" is from Bush's policies to whatever these new policies are going to be. Let's actually wait and SEE WTF the change in the policies are going to be before we start throwing people under the bus.

ink
11-20-2008, 10:49 AM
This is a stupid thread. Obviously, change is in the eye of the beholder and the term itself is so ambiguous that it lends itself to every imaginable definition/explanation under the sun.

However it's obvious [to most people] that the "change" is from Bush's policies to whatever these new policies are going to be. Let's actually wait and SEE WTF the change in the policies are going to be before we start throwing people under the bus.

Thank you. :clap:

Randy West
11-20-2008, 12:19 PM
Change is just a marketing term that people fall for.
W ran on the change and "bring dignity back to Washington" platforms in 2000, then hired a bunch of his daddy's buddies.

In all fairness it would be pretty foolish to appoint a group of novices to some of the most improtant jobs in the world.

Kind of like electing a person president that has exactly how much experience??

Seppuku
11-20-2008, 12:37 PM
Kind of like electing a person president that has exactly how much experience??

Well, now the silver spooner has almost 8 years of experience but fortunately our laws tell us that he must move on to other endeavors. Time for the curtain call. Get off the stage. :clap:

Randy West
11-20-2008, 01:17 PM
Well, now the silver spooner has almost 8 years of experience but fortunately our laws tell us that he must move on to other endeavors. Time for the curtain call. Get off the stage. :clap:

I am not real sure what that has to do with Obama's inexperience

can you connect the dots for me?

Uncle Funster
11-20-2008, 01:36 PM
Time will tell all. We all have our hopes or fears, but only the next four years will show which of the two are justified.

gcoll
11-20-2008, 01:38 PM
I am not real sure what that has to do with Obama's inexperience

can you connect the dots for me?

Liberals are still in that whole bush-hate mode.

Basically...any criticism of someone they like, will be met with a snide remark about President Bush.

Randy West
11-20-2008, 01:51 PM
Liberals are still in that whole bush-hate mode.

Basically...any criticism of someone they like, will be met with a snide remark about President Bush.

And I am not trying to be critical of Obama........he didn't elect himself

but you are correct instead of staying on topic and answering or trying to answer the question it is easier to bash Bush

Seppuku
11-20-2008, 03:42 PM
And I am not trying to be critical of Obama........he didn't elect himself

but you are correct instead of staying on topic and answering or trying to answer the question it is easier to bash Bush

There are only two people with presidential experience that are electable right now. Carter and Bush Sr. Since neither was running, your point was futile. You Bushies sure are quick to jump defensively with the whole "bash Bush" mantra. I didn't say ANYTHING that bashed Bush. Applause, he is now a lame duck, let's move on. Perhaps you are taking yourselves a little too seriously with the "Obama bashing". He is one of the great minds in our country with experience in one of the great universities in our country who happened to specialize in Constitutional Law. Horrors! A motivational speaker who is very intelligent. We must be doomed.

gcoll
11-20-2008, 03:47 PM
There are only two people with presidential experience that are electable right now.
You don't need "presidential" experience. Foreign policy experience, experience as an executive are usually the two things that get touted as experience when talking about contenders for president.

Randy West
11-20-2008, 04:34 PM
There are only two people with presidential experience that are electable right now. Carter and Bush Sr. Since neither was running, your point was futile. You Bushies sure are quick to jump defensively with the whole "bash Bush" mantra. I didn't say ANYTHING that bashed Bush. Applause, he is now a lame duck, let's move on. Perhaps you are taking yourselves a little too seriously with the "Obama bashing". He is one of the great minds in our country with experience in one of the great universities in our country who happened to specialize in Constitutional Law. Horrors! A motivational speaker who is very intelligent. We must be doomed.

Motivational speaker???

So I guess Deepak Chopra or Zig Ziglar would be ok as well in your eyes??

Most former presidents have been governors involved in state or federal service for a number of years before becoming president.

I have voted independent or libertarian for about twenty years now so please explain how I seem to be a Bushie?

Oh wait I simply pointed out the FACT that Obama does not have that much experience. Can you at least admit that or are you to blinded by his motivational speaking to admit it?

What is futile is you trying to derail what I had said in the first place. I simply stated he lacked experience..........instead of agreeing with that and than adding some points of your own ................you bash Bush

see I can add these litte do hickies as well

:clap::mad::rolleyes::o:speechless:

k_rock923
11-20-2008, 08:11 PM
There is little correlation between experience and presidential success. I feel like a broken record.

I'm forever indebted to whoever posted that link before the election.

BroadwayJoe
11-20-2008, 08:12 PM
what's so great about experience? what has it gotten us the past 8 years? that's not meant as a "bush bashing" statement, so much as it's meant to point out that an "experienced" candidate was twice elected into office and our country is no better off for it. i think the "experience" argument is just a way for anti-obamaites to spew venom before anything substantial even happens. it's their way to legitimize in their minds that his administration is already doomed before it even takes place. the truth is, none of know one way or another how obama's prior experience (or lack thereof) will effect his presidency. hell, we don't even know the specifics of what he'll have to deal with as president yet! did any of us think bush would have to deal with one of the worst events ever to occur on american soil within the first year of his first term?

like many people (both left and right) have said... only time will tell. until then, we're all just hypothesizing and we all sound like a bunch of ignorant douchebags for thinking our baseless hypotheses are anything more than that.

ink
11-20-2008, 08:45 PM
There is little correlation between experience and presidential success. I feel like a broken record.

I'm forever indebted to whoever posted that link before the election.

:D

Thank you. Here's some of the text re-posted yet again ...


How Good Are Experienced Presidents?

Suppose you had to choose between two Presidential candidates, one of whom had spent 20 years in Congress plus had considerable other relevant experience and the other of whom had about half a dozen years in the Illinois state legislature and 2 years in Congress. Which one do you think would make a better President? If you chose #1, congratulations, you picked James Buchanan over Abraham Lincoln. Your pick disagrees with that of most historians, who see Lincoln as the greatest President ever and Buchanan as the second worst ever, better only than Warren "Teapot Dome" Harding. Both served in what was probably the most difficult period in American history, where slavery and secession tore the nation asunder.

From the same web page:


All experience is not the same. How do you compare being governor of a small state with being governor of a big state? Is being Vice President worth a pitcher of warm beer or any other fluid? Is being a state senator more or less relevant to being president than being Secretary of Commerce? Impossible to say for sure, so I have just added up the total number of years of experience as a proxy for experience. If you want to weight the columns differently, the data are available in both Excel format and .csv format so you can slice and dice them as you wish. Before becoming a data analyst though, you should a first read the Notes on presidential experience document David wrote.

Now for the test. In the table below, the Presidents are sorted on experience. The most experienced President was James Buchanan, with Lyndon Johnson and Jerry Ford getting the silver and bronze medals, respectively. Chester A. Arthur had a mere 1.5 years experience before he was elevated to the Presidency upon the assassination of President Garfield. If experience and greatness correlate, one would expect the top half of the table (the most experienced Presidents) to be mostly green (good) and the bottom half (inexperienced) to be mostly red (bad). If there is no correlation, the red and green should be random. Indeed, the latter seems to be the case. The top half in terms of experience (above the gray bar) has 11 bad Presidents and 10 good ones, essentially no correlation between greatness and experience. If you don't like this result and want to try for a better one, just get the spreadsheet and start weighting the columns. Undoubtedly you will be able to get a different result if you try hard enough. But the point remains, the Presidents with a lot of experience have not been more outstanding than those with little experience.

There is also a scatterplot graph that plots the relationship between greatness of president and experience.


Here is a scatterplot of rank vs. experience. If more experience makes you a better President, the dots, each of which is one President, should fall somewhere along the blue theoretical curve--more experience gives you a higher rank (1 being the highest rank). The two Bushes and Clinton are not shown since it is much too early to draw historical judgments on them. One needs a very vivid imagination to perceive the data points falling along the blue line. There does not appear to be any relation between experience and greatness.

Source: electoral-vote.com (http://electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/experience.html)

(scroll down to the bottom of the page for scatterplot graph)

Seppuku
11-21-2008, 04:12 AM
You don't need "presidential" experience. Foreign policy experience, experience as an executive are usually the two things that get touted as experience when talking about contenders for president.

Thank you for reinforcing my point. I applaud you for stating what type of "experience" you are looking for. At the very least it makes you stand out and away from the parrots around here.

Seppuku
11-21-2008, 04:31 AM
Most former presidents have been governors involved in state or federal service for a number of years before becoming president.

That worked out well for us recently.


Oh wait I simply pointed out the FACT that Obama does not have that much experience. I simply stated he lacked experience..........instead of agreeing with that and than adding some points of your own ................you bash Bush




Your "facts" are lacking. When you can't find a fact with your eyes closed while screaming falsehoods, don't expect the rest of us to start off by agreeing. Please read the articles posted previously. There is a different point of view for you. Here is the big part (and the topic of the thread): CHANGE. Perhaps your version of what equals experience is the wrong kind of experience to have. CHANGE: Experience of a different kind.

Randy West
11-21-2008, 04:44 AM
The articles posted don't prove or disprove that the type of experience Obama has is going to make him any better or any worse than anyone else

You know the America that voted Bush into office.......you know you keep referring to how well it has worked out.........well they just voted Obama into office to didn't they??

Oh they were just wrong that time.......they got it right this time though of course

I hope he does well ........the country needs it

I for one am not going to crown him best president ever before he even takes office.......I will leave that to the BLANK

DenButsu
11-21-2008, 04:58 AM
the sheep

Is that really necessary? :eyebrow:

Randy West
11-21-2008, 05:02 AM
Is that really necessary? :eyebrow:

Just as necessary as his parrot comment........I know Den it is all good when a liberal is dissing ...lol

But really no biggie to me........I hope the Pres elect does well he is going to have a tough uphill road to climb as we have a bit of a mess on our hands

DenButsu
11-21-2008, 05:30 AM
Just as necessary as his parrot comment........I know Den it is all good when a liberal is dissing

Actually, I didn't see that, but no, it's not all good, that's equally unnecessary.

I don't mod this forum anymore, but I imagine that CG and APT will be maintaining the same standards as before, which means that blanket insults of "all Republicans/all Democrats/all anything" - they all need to stop.

DenButsu
11-21-2008, 05:39 AM
BTW, RW, your poll in the Nugs forum is now Billups 11, AI 0.

k_rock923
11-21-2008, 08:02 AM
The articles posted don't prove or disprove that the type of experience Obama has is going to make him any better or any worse than anyone else

That's the whole point. . .

gcoll
11-21-2008, 11:09 AM
There is little correlation between experience and presidential success. I feel like a broken record.

I'm forever indebted to whoever posted that link before the election.

Yes, but there is nothing that correlates to being a great president, so...what can you base it on? Hunch? Vote based on a hunch?


I don't see what is so bad about the "sheep" comment Randy made. He didn't call all Democrats or all liberals sheep. He called the people declaring Obama the "best president ever" before he takes office, sheep.

ink
11-21-2008, 11:49 AM
^ This is interesting. Who is saying he will be or already is the best president ever? If some of you are going to be up in arms about something, at least I'd like to know who said it. :shrug:

Randy West
11-21-2008, 12:01 PM
I am not sure anyone is up in arms..........just a discussion that got a little sideways

I will edit my post if you like........I did not see the big issue with it

Randy West
11-21-2008, 12:02 PM
Actually, I didn't see that, but no, it's not all good, that's equally unnecessary.

I don't mod this forum anymore, but I imagine that CG and APT will be maintaining the same standards as before, which means that blanket insults of "all Republicans/all Democrats/all anything" - they all need to stop.

I didn't know you were not modding anymore

And yes it is pretty obvious who the Nuggets fans are liking in the point roll

gcoll
11-21-2008, 12:03 PM
^ This is interesting. Who is saying he will be or already is the best president ever? If some of you are going to be up in arms about something, at least I'd like to know who said it. :shrug:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008367161_appresidentsincrises.html?syndication=r ss

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rutten19mar19,0,5754610.column

http://dekerivers.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/bofdr.jpg

FDR, and Lincoln are considered 2 of the greatest presidents right? With Lincoln usually being unanimously hailed as the greatest, right? And how many times have you heard Lincoln brought up in relation to Obama? What exactly do you think the implication is?

ink
11-21-2008, 12:19 PM
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008367161_appresidentsincrises.html?syndication=r ss

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rutten19mar19,0,5754610.column

http://dekerivers.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/bofdr.jpg

FDR, and Lincoln are considered 2 of the greatest presidents right? With Lincoln usually being unanimously hailed as the greatest, right? And how many times have you heard Lincoln brought up in relation to Obama? What exactly do you think the implication is?

I only skimmed the first two. Didn't read the third. Doesn't sound like much more than historical context than me. You know, these complaints I'm hearing from some of you guys really remind me of the worst of the Laker fans who were upset when their team wasn't competitive.

Randy West
11-21-2008, 12:23 PM
^ who is complaining??

I thought it was kind of the American thing to do, question your government and the ability of those in it to govern?

If not I will head back to my cave in Iran

k_rock923
11-21-2008, 12:26 PM
I'm just tired of hearing that Obama isn't experienced enough. It just doesn't matter.

gcoll
11-21-2008, 12:27 PM
I only skimmed the first two. Didn't read the third. Doesn't sound like much more than historical context than me. You know, these complaints I'm hearing from some of you guys really remind me of the worst of the Laker fans who were upset when their team wasn't competitive.

What complaint did I make?

Randy called the people going overboard with their praise of Obama "sheep".

People called that unnecessary due to the "sheep" implying that it's a blanket assertion.

I claimed it wasn't a blanket assertion, due to the parameter of it applying to people going overboard with their praise of Obama.

You asked to see some of this "overboard" stuff. I provided it. You claimed it was simply for historical context. I would disagree. If it is for historical context, they would need a history lesson.

But it's not for historical context. You don't superimpose Obama's face, onto a picture of FDR for "historical context".

gcoll
11-21-2008, 12:27 PM
I'm just tired of hearing that Obama isn't experienced enough. It just doesn't matter.

What does matter?

ink
11-21-2008, 12:32 PM
What complaint did I make?

Randy called the people going overboard with their praise of Obama "sheep".

People called that unnecessary due to the "sheep" implying that it's a blanket assertion.

I claimed it wasn't a blanket assertion, due to the parameter of it applying to people going overboard with their praise of Obama.

You asked to see some of this "overboard" stuff. I provided it. You claimed it was simply for historical context. I would disagree. If it is for historical context, they would need a history lesson.

You're saying that people like Doris Kearns Goodwin need history lessons? Come on. A lot of this talk centers on her book about Lincoln. She sees the historical parallels too in the situations facing the new administration.

I might point out that in the Seattle Times article, Nixon was also brought up. I doubt they're saying literally that Obama is Nixon too.

k_rock923
11-21-2008, 12:33 PM
What does matter?

You're changing the point of my argument. My argument was 'experience doesn't matter'. You've done nothing to refute this.

What matters is up to personal opinion, I suppose. So, if you think that experience is important, you're free to believe that - but you'd be mistaken.

edit: It's not as if Obama is some bum off the street or anything. You're acting like we just elected Joe Sixpack.

gcoll
11-21-2008, 12:34 PM
You're saying that people like Doris Kearns Goodwin need history lessons? Come on.
Isn't she accused of plagiarism?

If they feel our current financial crisis is comparable in scope to the Great Depression, yes.

If they feel our current political climate, is comprable to the political climate that Lincoln was involved in, yes.

gcoll
11-21-2008, 12:35 PM
You're changing the point of my argument. My argument was 'experience doesn't matter'. You've done nothing to refute this.

What matters is up to personal opinion, I suppose. So, if you think that experience is important, you're free to believe that - but you'd be mistaken.

I'm not looking to refute it. The facts seem to back it up. There is no correlation between experience, and success. I'm simply asking, is there anything that is quantifiable, that does have a correlation to success?

Your second paragraph, seems to contradict itself.

ink
11-21-2008, 12:37 PM
^ who is complaining??

I thought it was kind of the American thing to do, question your government and the ability of those in it to govern?

If not I will head back to my cave in Iran

:pity:

k_rock923
11-21-2008, 12:37 PM
No contradiction. You're free to believe whatever you want. You're free to believe the world is flat, but you'd be mistaken.

ink
11-21-2008, 12:38 PM
Isn't she accused of plagiarism?

If they feel our current financial crisis is comparable in scope to the Great Depression, yes.

If they feel our current political climate, is comprable to the political climate that Lincoln was involved in, yes.

I haven't heard about plagiarism in her case. Is so, whatever. You are just trying to attack her credibility as means of weakening another point altogether. Even if she plagiarized her whole book, if the facts are accurate, the book is still instructive.

Randy West
11-21-2008, 12:43 PM
No contradiction. You're free to believe whatever you want. You're free to believe the world is flat, but you'd be mistaken.

Just like you are free to believe Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread

He has yet to prove it

So you would be mistaken

Randy West
11-21-2008, 12:43 PM
:pity:

don't tell me your Iranian or something??

It is getting to the point that people can't even have a conversation here

Did PSD move to Iran or something??

ink
11-21-2008, 12:44 PM
You're acting like we just elected Joe Sixpack.

But Joe Sixpack is a Republican. That would be OK. :laugh2:

k_rock923
11-21-2008, 12:44 PM
Just like you are free to believe Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread

He has yet to prove it

So you would be mistaken

When did I say he's the greatest thing since sliced bread? All along, I've said "I know he has the potential to be great. I hope that he lives up to it".

edit: http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7264978#post7264978 I first said it on November 9th

You're actually agreeing with me.

ink
11-21-2008, 12:45 PM
don't tell me your Iranian or something??

It is getting to the point that people can't even have a conversation here

Did PSD move to Iran or something??

You seriously call that wanting to have a "conversation"?

Randy West
11-21-2008, 12:47 PM
You seriously call that wanting to have a "conversation"?

So I guess we are not conversing??

or I could just run around and put these things after peoples posts:clap:

I guess the government in Iran is a pretty open book then

I know you know what I was getting at

Randy West
11-21-2008, 12:48 PM
When did I say he's the greatest thing since sliced bread? All along, I've said "I know he has the potential to be great. I hope that he lives up to it".

You're actually agreeing with me.

No I will actually wait for Obama to do something before I fall all over him

k_rock923
11-21-2008, 12:49 PM
:confused:

How am I falling all over him?? I said he has to do something before I proclaim him as great. All I said was that he has good potential.

Randy West
11-21-2008, 12:53 PM
:confused:

How am I falling all over him?? I said he has to do something before I proclaim him as great. All I said was that he has good potential.

Never said you were........I replied to your post with a statement

And here we are right back at the crux of the issue.......what has he done to make you believe his potential is so outstanding?

Look I want him to do well I have stated a couple different times that the US needs a strong leader now more than ever. For jimminey christmas I am mulatto.......not that it matters but I have something in common with the guy.......I don't want him to fall flat on his face he needs to do well

ink
11-21-2008, 12:57 PM
So I guess we are not conversing??

or I could just run around and put these things after peoples posts:clap:

I guess the government in Iran is a pretty open book then

I know you know what I was getting at

I really don't have any idea.

This thread started out being about "change" and how having some of the same people in cabinet meant that "change" was somehow a ridiculous farce. Then the thread seemed to be largely about experience, and then it veered towards Obama getting over-hyped. Now we're supposed to talk about Iran. :shrug: You've lost me.

k_rock923
11-21-2008, 12:59 PM
Obama took this campaign and transition by the 'nads. He saw what it would take to get elected and did that - disregarding that it's not how a campaign is normally run.

He's doing the same with his transition to power.

I realize that was a short post, but I have to go to a meeting soon and I haven't showered yet. I'll post more when I get back.

k_rock923
11-21-2008, 01:00 PM
I really don't have any idea.

This thread started out being about "change" and how having some of the same people in cabinet meant that "change" was somehow a ridiculous farce. Then the thread seemed to be largely about experience, and then it veered towards Obama getting over-hyped. Now we're supposed to talk about Iran. :shrug: You've lost me.

Ink, what are you talking about? A cabinet member that served under Clinton isn't change!

ink
11-21-2008, 01:02 PM
:confused:

How am I falling all over him?? I said he has to do something before I proclaim him as great. All I said was that he has good potential.

I have exactly the same feeling. It's like the loaded "have you stopped beating your wife" question. It's a logical fallacy, but some people seem determined to press the point and prove that all Democrats are drinking Kool-Aid. Somehow it's making people more comfortable believing that all Obama supporters are drones blindly following along with no clue about politics, history or reality.

Randy West
11-21-2008, 01:04 PM
I really don't have any idea.

This thread started out being about "change" and how having some of the same people in cabinet meant that "change" was somehow a ridiculous farce. Then the thread seemed to be largely about experience, and then it veered towards Obama getting over-hyped. Now we're supposed to talk about Iran. :shrug: You've lost me.

lol

Yes and I believe I brought up the Biden situation as VP not being much about change. Or Clinton being involved with anything Obama, and yes the positions he is filling seems to be the Washington norms I guess.

The Iran reference was more about the ability to not question your government or those running it without dire consequences especially with such a liberal media love fest for the guy

ink
11-21-2008, 01:08 PM
lol

Yes and I believe I brought up the Biden situation as VP not being much about change. Or Clinton being involved with anything Obama, and yes the positions he is filling seems to be the Washington norms I guess.

The Iran reference was more about the ability to not question your government or those running it without dire consequences

The change isn't limited to the people that are selected.

People can question the government all they like -- though I hope there's more to being American than that -- but what's wrong with ensuring that the questions are good ones?

Randy West
11-21-2008, 01:12 PM
Ok so I will ask it again

What has he done to make you believe that he will be a good president?

We are talking about the same American voters that voted Bush into office........and got it wrong according to so many.

I was always told there are no bad questions.......just bad answers

gcoll
11-21-2008, 01:18 PM
No contradiction. You're free to believe whatever you want. You're free to believe the world is flat, but you'd be mistaken.

I asked what matters.

You said what matters is up to personal opinion. But, if you think experience matters, you'd be wrong.

So..again...I ask. What matters?

gcoll
11-21-2008, 01:21 PM
I haven't heard about plagiarism in her case. Is so, whatever. You are just trying to attack her credibility as means of weakening another point altogether. Even if she plagiarized her whole book, if the facts are accurate, the book is still instructive.

I'm not trying to attack her credibility. I was trying to demonstrate that I knew who she was. Didn't recognize the name at first, "googled" her...and recognized who she was.

Didn't read her book, but I have seen her on a few talk shows.

I don't really care about her credibility to tell you the truth.

But you're pigeon holing the argument. The "team of rivals" stuff, is not what is being brought up in the articles I provided.

One was comparing the dilemmas Obama faces, to those of FDR and Lincoln. That is the part where the "history lesson" would be necessary.

The last one is Obama's face superimposed onto FDR's body...not sure what to make of that one for the "historical context" aspect.

ink
11-21-2008, 01:42 PM
Ok so I will ask it again

What has he done to make you believe that he will be a good president?

We are talking about the same American voters that voted Bush into office........and got it wrong according to so many.

I have no idea what the future holds for Obama or the rest of us. None of us do. I'm reassured by his intelligence and the efficient way he goes about his work.

There are traits I don't care for, sure, but I don't have to be his friend, I just have to know that he's going to be rational. That alone is comforting. I think I'm like a lot of people who feel reassured that he's not a hair-trigger personality or an ideologue. Despite his love for grandiose things, his working mentality seems down-to-earth, and not in the bull **** Joe the Plumber way. He seems all business, and we're overdue for someone like that.


I was always told there are no bad questions.......just bad answers

A loaded question is a bad question. For example. I have no problem with questions being asked, but I'll ask you again, do you think that questioning government is the be-all and end-all like so many? And if so, why is it legitimate for conservatives to question authority, but cast as "unpatriotic" when liberals do the same thing?

In other words, questioning authority is a "virtue" when conservatives do it, and a "vice" when liberals do.

gcoll
11-21-2008, 02:10 PM
In other words, questioning authority is a "virtue" when conservatives do it, and a "vice" when liberals do.
Not sure about this one.

It's got me a bit stumped. Gonna have to think on this one. I'll come up with something to try and answer the question...

It may just be the stereotypes the different sides like to label each other. It may be for a reason though..I'm not sure what the reason could be...again, I'll think on it. Doubt I'll come up with anything.

Randy West
11-21-2008, 02:36 PM
I have no idea what the future holds for Obama or the rest of us. None of us do. I'm reassured by his intelligence and the efficient way he goes about his work.

There are traits I don't care for, sure, but I don't have to be his friend, I just have to know that he's going to be rational. That alone is comforting. I think I'm like a lot of people who feel reassured that he's not a hair-trigger personality or an ideologue. Despite his love for grandiose things, his working mentality seems down-to-earth, and not in the bull **** Joe the Plumber way. He seems all business, and we're overdue for someone like that.



A loaded question is a bad question. For example. I have no problem with questions being asked, but I'll ask you again, do you think that questioning government is the be-all and end-all like so many? And if so, why is it legitimate for conservatives to question authority, but cast as "unpatriotic" when liberals do the same thing?

In other words, questioning authority is a "virtue" when conservatives do it, and a "vice" when liberals do.

I never said a liberal was wrong for asking questions of the government. Why do people seem to have such a problem when an independent such as myself does it? I guess I have ideas or thoughts that would be considered liberal and conservative not at the same time of course but I don't toe a party line.

You would actually have to ask a liberal and than a conservative for your answer on that one...........and then prepare for a whole bunch of different answers I am sure.

Of course it is not the be-all end-all but that being the case should we just stop asking if we think something is not quite right? Our government should have to answer to us.........and in order to do that we have to question the abilities of those that govern and the choices they make. And everyone that votes and chooses to participate should be able to do the same........brown, white, red or green for that matter.

The only power I have as a person in this country as far as politics go is with my voice and my vote......so the questions have to be asked as I have no other alternative.

And I agree with some of your reasons for believing Obama will be a good president........hopefully he will be able to do a good job and get those things that need to be taken care of accomplished.

It was not really a loaded question.........you are just the first person to actually answer it as you saw fit and with something other than the "anything is better than Bush" or something similar.

ink
11-21-2008, 03:05 PM
I never said a liberal was wrong for asking questions of the government. Why do people seem to have such a problem when an independent such as myself does it? I guess I have ideas or thoughts that would be considered liberal and conservative not at the same time of course but I don't toe a party line.

You would actually have to ask a liberal and than a conservative for your answer on that one...........and then prepare for a whole bunch of different answers I am sure.

Of course it is not the be-all end-all but that being the case should we just stop asking if we think something is not quite right? Our government should have to answer to us.........and in order to do that we have to question the abilities of those that govern and the choices they make. And everyone that votes and chooses to participate should be able to do the same........brown, white, red or green for that matter.

The only power I have as a person in this country as far as politics go is with my voice and my vote......so the questions have to be asked as I have no other alternative.

And I agree with some of your reasons for believing Obama will be a good president........hopefully he will be able to do a good job and get those things that need to be taken care of accomplished.

It was not really a loaded question.........you are just the first person to actually answer it as you saw fit and with something other than the "anything is better than Bush" or something similar.

Sorry, I should have been clearer with the point about the loaded question, and about questioning authority. I was speaking generally.

About questioning authority though, I really think Americans overdue this aspect of being a citizen. Unlike some other countries, yours was begun with revolution. That affects tendencies and attitudes in so many ways, and not always in a positive sense. It polarizes people over issues, in the sense that people often seem unable to agree on what is "good" for the nation. That is paralyzing for a government.

I'm treading very carefully here because rejecting authority and institutions seems to be so central to your culture. It must be incredibly difficult to actually build or maintain those institutions. Here's where I think Obama is different. Rather than taking part in the stalemate -- "my rejection of authority is better than your rejection of authority" -- he seems to actually want to work with authority. He's drawing status quo figures into his government to get them to work on new terms. That seems sensible and productive to me.

k_rock923
11-21-2008, 03:46 PM
I asked what matters.

You said what matters is up to personal opinion. But, if you think experience matters, you'd be wrong.

So..again...I ask. What matters?

I apologize for not getting to this sooner. I have a busy day.

Your calling it a contradiction doesn't make it one. Sorry.

As far as what matters, what matters to me so far is the way he's handling things. He's surrounding himself with experts, he's asking opinions of respected members of academia and the corporate world. What I really like about him is that after he asks all of these people for their opinions, I think he's smart enough to sort out what to do based on all of them and not simply parrot the idea of the person he likes best.

As I said earlier, he took the campaign and is taking the transition by the balls. He saw what it would take to get elected and did that.

In short, his intelligence and initiative matter to me most.