Cult of Obama (1 Viewer)

[TPS]

...She was the anointed after New Hampshire too and only lost that when Bill decided to try and turn Obama into Toby. Now, the Republicans will certainly be tougher...

"Your name is Barack HUSSEIN Obama." /crack

TPS

 

[JimEverett]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-crawford/how-the-media-destroys-ob_b_83460.html

 

[tenordas]

Tons of specifics here.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Having been on his newsletter for 3 years I kind of have an unfair advantage on knowing his specifics though.

Well, having just read through his education platform on that site, I still feel the same way. He talks a lot about providing more early child education, funding NCLB so that schools waning are better funded to catch up rather than punished and put further behind, about providing more funding to school districts with high drop out rates to curb that trend, about rewarding teachers with better pay, about tax credits for college, about better funding for high school programs, about doubling funding for after school programs, etc., etc., etc.

All roses, no fertilizer. Where is all this money coming from to do these things? Not anywhere does he talk about how to make any of this viable financially. It all sounds great on paper, but unless a way is figured to make the funds appear, it's all talk. Heck, I could go to my elementary school with a plan for every child to have their own personal tutor and how that greatly benefit the learning process, but if I don't have a way to pay those tutors, I'm just blowing smoke.

Problem is, I see this in almost every plan for every issue: The Obama plan will fund x and such, will provide more funds for this, will double funds for that.
I ask again, "Where's all this money coming from?"
"Who's paying for this?"
"If the money's already there, why wouldn't anyone have done a lot of this already?"

Until I see some answers on those questions, I can't get the the Huey P. Long resemblance out of my head.

 

[dapperdan]

Actually look at the polls. Obama was on his way down before Bills attacks. Hillary had stretched to her widest lead (20 pts.) in the polls before Bill attacked. California was a lock with Hillary up by more than 30 pts. before Bill screwed it up.

excellent point.

 

[DMaestro]

But stereotyping the poor as easily prone to cultish behavior is fine

Nope. But the poor and uneducated are far less likely to have access to information resources that counter cultish behavior.

Your article is mistaking enthusiasm for mindlessness. Once again, I don't need a CNN segment to explain to me a candidate's shortcomings when a quick Google search can cover everything I need to know --- good and bad.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Well, having just read through his education platform on that site, I still feel the same way. He talks a lot about providing more early child education, funding NCLB so that schools waning are better funded to catch up rather than punished and put further behind, about providing more funding to school districts with high drop out rates to curb that trend, about rewarding teachers with better pay, about tax credits for college, about better funding for high school programs, about doubling funding for after school programs, etc., etc., etc.

All roses, no fertilizer. Where is all this money coming from to do these things? Not anywhere does he talk about how to make any of this viable financially. It all sounds great on paper, but unless a way is figured to make the funds appear, it's all talk. Heck, I could go to my elementary school with a plan for every child to have their own personal tutor and how that greatly benefit the learning process, but if I don't have a way to pay those tutors, I'm just blowing smoke.

Problem is, I see this in almost every plan for every issue: The Obama plan will fund x and such, will provide more funds for this, will double funds for that.
I ask again, "Where's all this money coming from?"
"Who's paying for this?"
"If the money's already there, why wouldn't anyone have done a lot of this already?"

Until I see some answers on those questions, I can't get the the Huey P. Long resemblance out of my head.

Is any candidate different though?

That's the way the game is played. He has explained how he'll pay for his Health Care program but like every other candidate specifics are the Debil. You want to see them. So do their opponents so they can misconstrue them and use them to tear them up. He gave specifics on Social Security. Hillary used it to send out a mailer taking his statement and misrepresenting it to claim he was going to raise SS taxes by a trillion dollars.

No candidate wants to give specifics and none of them do. The media keys on that fact with Obama because he's inexperienced and it's a good angle to play a negative. I've read the position papers of every major candidate though and they are all just as vague.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-crawford/how-the-media-destroys-ob_b_83460.html

I do agree somewhat with this. I think he's risking a popularity backlash (people love to be different) and is risking some pop sensation like over exposure. He should find a way to slow some of the excitement down so he has something to ratchet up when he needs it. This is one of the many mistakes I think he's making that show his political inexperience.

 

[tenordas]

"A chicken in every pot" was Hoover

"Everyman a King" was Long

Oops. Well spotted, that!

 

[xpuma20x]

Is any candidate different though?

That's the way the game is played. He has explained how he'll pay for his Health Care program but like every other candidate specifics are the Debil. You want to see them. So do their opponents so they can misconstrue them and use them to tear them up. He gave specifics on Social Security. Hillary used it to send out a mailer taking his statement and misrepresenting it to claim he was going to raise SS taxes by a trillion dollars.

No candidate wants to give specifics and none of them do. The media keys on that fact with Obama because he's inexperienced and it's a good angle to play a negative. I've read the position papers of every major candidate though and they are all just as vague.

SBTB I think you've hit on this rather well, just like in all your posts. The problem is that those that view Obama (EDIT: Or whoever they are talking about) in a negative light will -never- admit this because then it doesn't give them a reason to hate him. They like to say "Oh Obama doesn't explain X Y and Z" but when asked about other candidates its suddenly not relevant or its time to change the subject to something else they've read in a chain email.

 

[tenordas]

Is any candidate different though?

That's the way the game is played. He has explained how he'll pay for his Health Care program but like every other candidate specifics are the Debil. You want to see them. So do their opponents so they can misconstrue them and use them to tear them up. He gave specifics on Social Security. Hillary used it to send out a mailer taking his statement and misrepresenting it to claim he was going to raise SS taxes by a trillion dollars.

No candidate wants to give specifics and none of them do. The media keys on that fact with Obama because he's inexperienced and it's a good angle to play a negative. I've read the position papers of every major candidate though and they are all just as vague.

A fair point - and one of the reasons I dislike so very many politicians...

Conversely, the Hildebeast has explained many things thoroughly enough that I want to run screaming and start hunting for a house in Toronto just in case she's elected. Ah, the joy of politics...

 

[St. Widge]

Tons of specifics here.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Having been on his newsletter for 3 years I kind of have an unfair advantage on knowing his specifics though.

Alright, I finally did what I have intended to do for a long time and read through his positions on his web site. Overall, he is far to populist for my Libertarian point of view, but he's not as populist leaning as I thought he was. (That of course assumes that what is on the site is not just rhetoric.) I actually might consider voting for him if McCain chooses Huckabee (or someone just as bad). Although I will probably just vote Libertarian again. But, I'm not as concerned about an Obama Presidency as I once was.

As for specific issues, I disagree with him on his health care plan, his poverty plan and desire to raise the minimum wage (when you raise the minimum wage, you just raise prices, it's a zero sum game) and I'm concerned about his claim to end tax cut for "wealthy" Americans and give tax cuts the "poor and middle" class. He never defines those terms so I don't know what to think about them. Overall, these are important issues and show his willingness to engage in class politics and to use the government to solve problems, all of which I disagree with. In addition, although he gives "plans" about a lot of things, he never says how he will fund them and most of those plans are very vague.

On the other hand, I agree with him on his foreign policy position, the funding of community block grants, the Iraq War, his Immigration plan, stance of separation of church and state (his odd church membership concerned me), promotion of the free and open internet and his technology plan.

His plan on economics is confusing. He starts off by saying he supports our free market economy and that it has made America great. Then he goes on to propose government controls of the economy like raising the minimum wage, changing NAFTA to "our advantage" and putting restriction on free trade with other nations. I'm not sure those things can be reconciled with a free market economy. And that at the core is my biggest problem with Obama.

Anyway, at least I finally got to look at the specifics and I have to admit that I think he is a better candidate than I've seem from the Dems in years. Between he and McCain, I might actually vote for one of them instead of voting Libertarian. I don't completely agree with either and I do agree almost completely with the Libertarians, but to be realistic, a Libertarian will never get elected and if I can actually make a vote for a Dem or Rep that is not just a lesser of two evils vote, it would be a nice change.

 

[DMaestro]

I do agree somewhat with this. I think he's risking a popularity backlash (people love to be different) and is risking some pop sensation like over exposure. He should find a way to slow some of the excitement down so he has something to ratchet up when he needs it. This is one of the many mistakes I think he's making that show his political inexperience.

He doesn't have much choice. He needs to keep pulling new people into the process, particularly since he relies so heavily on grassroots efforts. There's only so much headway he can make amongst old-line dems, esp. since many of them are probably convinced he'll be a better, more well-seasoned presidential prospect in 8 years after Hillary's done.

 

[St. Widge]

No candidate wants to give specifics and none of them do. The media keys on that fact with Obama because he's inexperienced and it's a good angle to play a negative. I've read the position papers of every major candidate though and they are all just as vague.

No doubt about it. That's why I tend to look at the overall philosophy that a candidate follows. None of them will give real specifics and if they did, the compromising nature of our system would likely make them a liar if they did. What I do see in Obama is a reliance of having government programs to solve a lot of our problems with ecnomics and poverty and I personally fundametally disagree with him there because I don't see how you reconcile middle class tax cuts, tax increases on the "welathy" and government spending programs. The majority of tax money comes from the "middle class" and if you over tax the "wealthy" you hurt the economy and that will hurt the "middle" class in the end.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Alright, I finally did what I have intended to do for a long time and read through his positions on his web site. Overall, he is far to populist for my Libertarian point of view, but he's not as populist leaning as I thought he was. (That of course assumes that what is on the site is not just rhetoric.) I actually might consider voting for him if McCain chooses Huckabee (or someone just as bad). Although I will probably just vote Libertarian again. But, I'm not as concerned about an Obama Presidency as I once was.

As for specific issues, I disagree with him on his health care plan, his poverty plan and desire to raise the minimum wage (when you raise the minimum wage, you just raise prices, it's a zero sum game) and I'm concerned about his claim to end tax cut for "wealthy" Americans and give tax cuts the "poor and middle" class. He never defines those terms so I don't know what to think about them. Overall, these are important issues and show his willingness to engage in class politics and to use the government to solve problems, all of which I disagree with. In addition, although he gives "plans" about a lot of things, he never says how he will fund them and most of those plans are very vague.

On the other hand, I agree with him on his foreign policy position, the funding of community block grants, the Iraq War, his Immigration plan, stance of separation of church and state (his odd church membership concerned me), promotion of the free and open internet and his technology plan.

His plan on economics is confusing. He starts off by saying he supports our free market economy and that it has made America great. Then he goes on to propose government controls of the economy like raising the minimum wage, changing NAFTA to "our advantage" and putting restriction on free trade with other nations. I'm not sure those things can be reconciled with a free market economy. And that at the core is my biggest problem with Obama.

Anyway, at least I finally got to look at the specifics and I have to admit that I think he is a better candidate than I've seem from the Dems in years. Between he and McCain, I might actually vote for one of them instead of voting Libertarian. I don't completely agree with either and I do agree almost completely with the Libertarians, but to be realistic, a Libertarian will never get elected and if I can actually make a vote for a Dem or Rep that is not just a lesser of two evils vote, it would be a nice change.

I disagree with him greatly on economic issues as well. FTR his middle class "cap" is 75k taxable income. He's said that in the debates a few times. He wants to cut taxes at that level and increase taxes (roll back the tax cuts which is an increase) at the 250k level. Between 75 - 250k he wants to keep the same.

I don't like that plan, but it's better than Hillary. He says the money will go to fund his Health Care plan which I actually like much better than Hillary's too since it doesn't make it mandatory. My support of his health care plan is a bit selfish. I want to start my own business but have to have group insurance so my sons stroke related issues are covered. No individual plan will cover it at a reasonable rate. Obama's plan would allow me to still be self sufficient (i.e. not take from Uncle Sam) but be part of a National group plan that would cover my sons pre-existing. Selfish I know but it really is a huge issue for me.

In the end though as long as he doesn't tag some ultra social conservative I'll be voting McCain. My politics are just closer to his (Conservative Populist or left of center as TPS points out). I just want Obama to remove even the possibility of a Hillary presidency.

 

[Eeyore]

Middle class stops at $75K?

Does that mean after $75K you're rich?

In the Chicago area that is solidly middle class. Upper middle class probably doesn't even start until $125-150K.

I guess that it all depends on where you live.