• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"This is my last election"

Unabogie said:
You don't see the difference between the two? I'll let you take a moment. Twisting into that pretzel shape has got to hurt.

....

Ok, on the one hand, you have the President saying he has no flexibility in an election year to take up the contentious issue of missile defense. This is obviously true. Obama isn't telling the public he supports missile defense while telling Russia he doesn't. It's an issue Russia wants to resolve and so does the President, but he told them he can't do it in an election year.

Romney's guy, who I grant you isn't Romney, was giving voice to what we've all witnessed. Romney has swapped sides of every issue and then lied about it.

Whether it's Planned Parenthood and abortion, or health care, or taxes, or pretty much anything, he's swung "severely" to the right. His strategist says that he'll pretend none of this ever happened and they'll claim they never held the views in the first place. That's different from agreeing to compromise. That's lying. When Romney changes positions again on an issue he's already changed on, what should our reaction be? I'm not talking about George Sr.'s "evolution" to becoming anti-abortion after being pro-choice or Obama's "evolution" on same sex marriage. I'm talking about a person who jumps around on an issue 3 times in one year. I can't recall any politician ever doing this.

How does that compare to what the President said about waiting to negotiate until election season was over?
Click to expand...

Why can't he do it in an election year. Be honest about what he wants to do and do it without concern for the elections.
This is the president saying after he is elected he can say and do different things. Very similar to what Romney's aide said.
I did not expect you to see it as similar.


His strategist says that he'll pretend none of this ever happened and they'll claim they never held the views in the first place.
That is not what his strategist said.
 
RandFan said:
I get the comparison, but is it fair to accuse Obama of saying anything? I don't think Obama has the track record of prevarication that Romney has. I don't think it is even close. Romney hasn't simply changed his mind on things over the years. He has a pattern of changing back and forth effortlessly. And looking into the camera and saying what is obviously untrue comes so easy to him.
Click to expand...

Can you enlighten me on this? Could be true.
 
eeyore1954 said:
Can you enlighten me on this? Could be true.
Click to expand...
I don't know how to document the proposition that Obama is not a prevaricator. As for Romney, the best source, perhaps unfortunately in your case if you don't like her politics/style, is Rachel Maddow. Like her or not she makes a devastating case, IMO.

Rachel Maddow: Mitt Romney 'Lies All The Time' (VIDEO)

I don't like it when others simply argue via link so if you don't want to watch it then I'll distill it later.
 
Tricky said:
I think one reason that foriegn leaders respect Obama in a way that they didn't Bush is that he doesn't just spout rhetoric with them. He talks to them like one politician might talk to another.
Click to expand...


Or, as Comrade Dmitry put it today:

Dmitry to Mitt said:
“I would advise all pretenders to the U.S. presidency…to use their heads. This is not a bad thing for a presidential candidate.”
Click to expand...

;)
 
Tricky said:
Obama himself has already made jokes about this. And yeah, it was careless to let it get caught on open mike, but really not surprising, as many have pointed out. But there's one other thing. This is the outgoing president of Russia. He'll have not much power, and Obama is not going to have to tell him the truth, or even tell him everything, much less honor a remark in a off-the-record conversation.

I think one reason that foriegn leaders respect Obama in a way that they didn't Bush is that he doesn't just spout rhetoric with them. He talks to them like one politician might talk to another.
Click to expand...

I did not know that was true.
 
cwalner said:
Its amazing. We complain about lack of transparency in government. However, when we do see the ugly reality of politics (either in this case or the Romney Etch-A-Sketch) we howl with indignation.

Yes, America does seem to get the government that it deserves.
Click to expand...
But not the one it needs.

Shame about Harvey Dent. If it hadn't been for the accident, he probably could've run eventually.
 
Given the number of time Putin and his avatar have run for office and then run again for the others job and then back again I thought it was pretty funny that President Obama told him, "This is my last election." A concept those two could hardly grasp.
 
You may recall that the Federal Election Commission determined that the Obama 2008 campaign illegally accepted foreign contributions. Apparently, our President is selling US foreign policy to the Russians, for help in his 2012 campaign.

Treason doth never prosper. What's the reason?
If it prosper, none dare call it treason.
 
Last edited:
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
You may recall that the Federal Election Commission determined that the Obama 2008 campaign illegally accepted foreign contributions. Apparently, our President is selling US foreign policy to the Russians, for help in his 2012 campaign.

Treason doth never prosper. What's the reason?
If it prosper, none dare call it treason.
Click to expand...

No, I don't recall that happening. Evidence please?
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
You may recall that the Federal Election Commission determined that the Obama 2008 campaign illegally accepted foreign contributions. Apparently, our President is selling US foreign policy to the Russians, for help in his 2012 campaign.

Treason doth never prosper. What's the reason?
If it prosper, none dare call it treason.
Click to expand...

That's kind of a leap.
 
000063 said:
That's kind of a leap.
Click to expand...

I agree, but what is Obama's actual calculus, here?

To me it reads like, "I'm willing to give you more of what you want, but first I need you to give me something I can sell to my electorate, so I can get reelected."

There's at least the appearance that Obama is negotiating based on what is best for his reelection campaign, rather than what is best for the nation.

And to be honest, I'm not a big fan of ceding even an inch of ground to Vladimir Putin, unless it's absolutely necessary. Signaling concessions based on electoral calculations seems particularly craven to me.
 
theprestige said:
I agree, but what is Obama's actual calculus, here?

To me it reads like, "I'm willing to give you more of what you want, but first I need you to give me something I can sell to my electorate, so I can get reelected."

There's at least the appearance that Obama is negotiating based on what is best for his reelection campaign, rather than what is best for the nation.

And to be honest, I'm not a big fan of ceding even an inch of ground to Vladimir Putin, unless it's absolutely necessary. Signaling concessions based on electoral calculations seems particularly craven to me.
Click to expand...
I think Obama is signaling that after the election he is willing to unilaterally disarm and give dictatorial power over the red states to Russia. And that certainly is craven. But really though, that's okay since I live in California.

On the other hand, call me crazy, perhaps Obama is suggesting that this isn't the best time for negotiations as the election gives him less latitude for negotiations. It could be kinda true.
 
RandFan said:
I think Obama is signaling that after the election he is willing to unilaterally disarm and give dictatorial power over the red states to Russia. And that certainly is craven. But really though, that's okay since I live in California.

On the other hand, call me crazy, perhaps Obama is suggesting that this isn't the best time for negotiations as the election gives him less latitude for negotiations. It could be kinda true.
Click to expand...

That is my interpretation. He is just saying, there is no use in negotiating now since nothing will get done. It is also pragmatic because it doesn't assume that he will have a senate that would approve any agreements.
 
theprestige said:
And to be honest, I'm not a big fan of ceding even an inch of ground to Vladimir Putin, unless it's absolutely necessary. Signaling concessions based on electoral calculations seems particularly craven to me.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of ceding an inch to Putin either. I hate to break it to you though, but that's how negotiations normally work. We get something we want in exchange for letting the other side get something they want.
 
ravdin said:
I'm not a fan of ceding an inch to Putin either. I hate to break it to you though, but that's how negotiations normally work. We get something we want in exchange for letting the other side get something they want.
Click to expand...
You obviously never heard of the wild west method of negotiations. If you start with the proposition that you are always right and the opposition is always wrong and that having the worlds most expensive military will ensure that the opposition will always back down in the face of force then you will always be the world leader and you will get whatever you want.

Anything else is cowardice and appeasement. You don't want to be accused of being a Nevil Chamberlain now do you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom