04-14-2008, 02:18 PM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
|
|
04-14-2008, 02:21 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
|
Tex, as an Obama supporter, I have to say your sig is hillarious.
__________________
太初有道 |
04-14-2008, 02:49 PM | #13 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 69
|
You're stretching Cali, and I'm sure you know it. You've failed to show that there is any link bt guns and bitterness. And the linkage bt religion and bitterness is hardly direct - it might be that people default more to the traditions they know when times are hard, but that's not because of "bitterness." Stretchy stretch.
As for Obama adviser Austain Goolsbee - dude is a highly respected U of Chicago economist with no incentive to lie about the content of his conversations with the consulate. If you can't see through the public protocols and ass-covering going on when the Obama campaign scrambles to disavow the posturing claim and the Canadian consulate (whose role is DIPLOMACY after all) does the same, then you're more than a touch naive. There are several problems for Obama here. One is his first reaction - to deny that a senior adviser had met with the Canadian consulate. Goolsbee is, in fact, a senior adviser. So, oops. Then there's the problem of the notes taken by one of the consulate's staffers. Now is it more credible that a respected professor of economics at one of the best universities in the land had this meeting and did in fact say what a memo written by a responsible party at the Canadian consulate say he did? Or more credible that the publicity machine of a presidential campaign which initially misrepresented that the meeting didn't happen at all and then defaulted to a diplomatic understanding with the consulate and the necessary opaqueness of what went on in the meeting - w/o ever credibly saying what actually DID transpire (which would have been awkward since it initially said NOTHING happened at all) is giving an accurate accounting? Here's your hint: consulates, esp Canadian ones, don't make stuff up. That said, here's a few links: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-t...ma_advise.html http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com /post/?q=ZmViMjk1ZDQxNmM1ZDU5OTRmOTQ3MjMwODIyMjE5NTM= http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../02/019916.php http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...l-meeting.aspx |
04-14-2008, 03:00 PM | #14 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 69
|
This is the actual memo
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...l-meeting.aspx
And worth a look. It simply is not a credible claim that this is not an accurate reporting of the meeting. |
04-14-2008, 03:26 PM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
Just don't provide them from the Financial Times of London, the Wall Street Journal, or the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, oxcoug.
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
|
04-14-2008, 04:12 PM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
I appreciate your statement that consulates, especially Canadian ones, don't make stuff up. As such, you may find their following statement helpful (issued after any of your links above were published, which makes me wonder if you stopped following the story or just wanted to portray a very slanted version of events): Statement by the Canadian Embassy: The Canadian Embassy and our Consulates General regularly contact those involved in all of the Presidential campaigns and, periodically, report on these contacts to interested officials. In the recent report produced by the Consulate General in Chicago, there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA. We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect. The people of the United States are in the process of choosing a new President and are fortunate to have strong and impressive candidates from both political parties. Canada will not interfere in this electoral process. We look forward, however, to working with the choice of the American people in further building an unparalleled relationship with a close friend and partner. Source: Statement by the Canadian Embassy, 3 March 2008. Here is a good summary of what actually happened. http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle19469.htm Also, what the Canadian media reported: http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/vsu/wmv-...memo080303.wmv You may want to update your links so they are actually, I don't know, accurate. |
|
04-14-2008, 05:49 PM | #17 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
---- This was a great article on the Politico about "What Clinton Wishes She Could Say": Quote:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9564.html
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
||
04-14-2008, 08:08 PM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
|
Quote:
I have no idea what will happen this fall. You would think that any Democrat should cake walk this fall. On the other hand, I think that Obama and Clinton both have glaring weaknesses. Hillary is interesting, isn't she? At this point she is doing nothing but keeping herself in it hoping that sometime between now and the convention Obama will blow his foot off. I think he might do it. Who knows. I have never been a McCain fan, he bothers me on a number of levels. But I think oxcoug makes a great point that Dems may be overreaching if they nominate the most liberal Senator in the bunch. This will be particularly tough because the counter-charge can't be made against McCain. He is as centrist as you get without crossing party lines. In some ways Obama is a much better match up for McCain than Clinton. On the other hand, it may be that no Republican can win this fall.
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo |
|
04-14-2008, 08:20 PM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
The label of "most liberal" isn't hurting Obama either, and it won't in the general. He comes across as reasonable and moderate, much like Bill Clinton did in his elections. The common theme for all politicians is to make themselves slant much more to the extremes in the primaries, and much more to the center in the general. Just look at McCain's campaign for a textbook example. Obama will win this thing, of that I have no doubt (barring some crazy development, like another terrorist attack which makes everything unpredictable). |
|
04-14-2008, 08:25 PM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
|
Its not hurting him yet. That is because Hillary can't play that card and McCain has no reason to at this point. It will get played and it will hurt him, of that I have little doubt. Whether it will hurt him enough to cause him to lose is a question that involves too many variables. McCain is going to spend a fair amount of time on the defensive as well in ways that he has not yet.
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo |
Bookmarks |
|
|