Sarah Palin's a Brainiac

[PaloAltoCougar]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Not trying to be difficult, but what evidence can you cite that Obama does this. Obama is generally accepted as intelligent, but the second point, I've not been privy to.

I've read several things over the past few months, but the most recent (and I'm not proud of this) is the current issue of Time. The cover, which includes the announcement "Joe Klein Grills Obama" without a hint of sarcasm or irony (Klein has been an Obama supporter for some time, and I expect his to be Barack's hagiographer down the road), still has some useful reports about how Obama addressed the credit crisis and how he discussed Iraq/Afghanistan with General Petraeus. Given the author, it's a bit like recommending The Daily Worker for an analysis of Brezhnev, but even after applying the necessary filters, it provides an interesting summary.

And his team of economic advisers is similar to Clinton's, and I thought they were pretty good, considering my original fears about a leftward shift.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Not trying to be difficult, but what evidence can you cite that Obama does this. Obama is generally accepted as intelligent, but the second point, I've not been privy to.

He is very well known on Capitol Hill for his habit of encouraging discussion and inviting dissenting views to be expressed. This has been a pattern throughout his life (and was most recently documented in an article about his time as president of the Harvard Law Review).

I attended an event a while back with Obama's general counsel. He told me a story about when Obama was first elected to office as a Senator. Obama was interested in gun control, so he invited the typical liberal groups to his office for a meeting (Brady Center, etc.). Before Obama arrived, representatives from the NRA entered the room and sat down. All parties seemed upset at the presence of the other groups and wondered aloud why the others were present. Obama finally arrived, and one of the liberals who had been invited asked Obama for a moment in private. They spoke for a few minutes and finally came back in, with the liberal looking upset but resigned to participate in the meeting. Obama's GC later asked him what they spoke about. Obama told him that the liberal threatened to leave unless the NRA left. Obama told him that he would view that as an admission that the NRA had superior arguments and that the liberal was afraid of a debate. Everyone stayed.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by PaloAltoCougar

Do positions matter? Sure, to an extent. But candidates' positions tend to change once in office. In my lifetime, I can't recall a president whose performance was more to the outward extreme than what he campaigned under; rather, each moved toward the center. I thought Clinton proved to be a lot less of a lefty than had been prophesied, and you can't tell me GWB has performed even remotely close to the principles and positions real conservatives hold dear. Obama won't be studying Up From Liberalism, but he's got an impressive group of advisers, the smarts to seek and consider opposing views, and the wisdom to know that an excessive leftward drift will ensure a one-term presidency, which he'll want to avoid at all costs.

I'm not sure Clinton and Bush are good examples, because I don't think either were really charter members of their respective ideological movements. Clinton was an opportunist who would sell anyone out for his own gain, and Bush always had just a tad too much of his father's blue blood in him. A better comparison for Obama would be Jimmy Carter, or even better, LBJ.

Originally Posted by PaloAltoCougar

And btw, I'm fine with being compared with Buckley, Jr. By no means am I completely comfortable with Obama. I've expressed concern for many weeks about what a Reid/Pelosi/Obama trifecta might wreak. And part of my Obama vote is born of an immense huge dissatisfaction with W and the neocons whose hubris got us into multiple messes that could have been avoided had they stuck to genuine conservative principles.

That strikes me as just silly. Bush isn't going to be in office no matter who is elected. Way to teach those neocons a lesson!

Originally Posted by PaloAltoCougar

I have yet to hear any compelling arguments for supporting McCain, other than the faint praise that he's better than Vladimir Obama. That's not enough for me, and so, with misgivings, I'm voting for a candidate more liberal than any I've ever supported before.

This is the most inexplicable part of your post. No compelling arguments? At all?

[PaloAltoCougar]

Originally Posted by Tex

This is the most inexplicable part of your post. No compelling arguments? At all?

Good sir, I tee it up for you and all you can do is express incredulity? Disregarding, for the nonce, the downside risk of Obama and a Democratic congress (which I've conceded may be substantial), what is the most compelling argument you can offer for electing John McCain? Seriously, I'm sure there are some, but all I've heard are anti-Obama screeds. Why is John McCain a great candidate?

[landpoke]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

He is very well known on Capitol Hill for his habit of encouraging discussion and inviting dissenting views to be expressed. This has been a pattern throughout his life (and was most recently documented in an article about his time as president of the Harvard Law Review).

I attended an event a while back with Obama's general counsel. He told me a story about when Obama was first elected to office as a Senator. Obama was interested in gun control, so he invited the typical liberal groups to his office for a meeting (Brady Center, etc.). Before Obama arrived, representatives from the NRA entered the room and sat down. All parties seemed upset at the presence of the other groups and wondered aloud why the others were present. Obama finally arrived, and one of the liberals who had been invited asked Obama for a moment in private. They spoke for a few minutes and finally came back in, with the liberal looking upset but resigned to participate in the meeting. Obama's GC later asked him what they spoke about. Obama told him that the liberal threatened to leave unless the NRA left. Obama told him that he would view that as an admission that the NRA had superior arguments and that the liberal was afraid of a debate. Everyone stayed.

I heard he shook hands with this guy at a rally who had chronic back pain. After the handshake the guy's back was fine and he went on to win the Indiana State Cornhole championships.

Ok, I'm sorry but that screamed out for a smart-ass reply. I hope this sort of thing is true. I'll admit his move toward the center after his primary campaign has been swift and sudden to say the least. Until I see him in action, off the election trail, just color me skeptical.

As has been discussed here before, he won't be the worst thing that ever happened to this country (that'd be Taft) but it also remains to be seen whether he'll be, as his admirers proclaim, the best.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Tex

This is the most inexplicable part of your post. No compelling arguments? At all?

I actually kinda agree (with Tex??). Even I could come up with a couple if you pressed me.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by PaloAltoCougar

Good sir, I tee it up for you and all you can do is express incredulity? Disregarding, for the nonce, the downside risk of Obama and a Democratic congress (which I've conceded may be substantial), what is the most compelling argument you can offer for electing John McCain? Seriously, I'm sure there are some, but all I've heard are anti-Obama screeds. Why is John McCain a great candidate?

I thought surely you must be joking. Even I can come up with reasons someone might want to vote for Obama.

A few reasons off the top of my head for McCain:
- Credible on national security in the face of further Islamic extremism, America engaged in two wars, and a potentially nuclear armed Iran
- Promises SCOTUS nominees in the mold of Roberts and Alito
- Make Bush personal tax cuts permanent, cut corporate tax rate
- Hawkish against government spending, particularly earmarking and pork barrel

Now you may like or dislike those positions, but it's hard to find them uncompelling.

Charles Krauthammer made his endorsement of McCain quite convincing last week.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...302867_pf.html

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

you asked for evidence of a willingness to bring in opposing points of view, no?

So those are they.

He can only do so much. Rush Limbaugh would not accept an invite, even if offered.

Hypo: which big name in the cabinet would offer you comfort of Obama's willingness to listen? What would Obama have to do? You ask for evidence....give me a few examples of what you are looking for.

First, I am extremely dubious anybody does this. The primary exception to this tenet of skepticism involves if one has a personal rapport with somebody of the opposite political bent. So if he went to school with an Arch conservative, or fiscal restraint advocate, or an OSU financier, then I could see that. Today, everybody tends to surround themselves with yes man, not people who will disagree with them. For example, during the turn of the 19th/20th centuries, many Harvidians had great minds of many disciplines surrounding, knowing William James and the like. But those days seem long past us. It is for this reason, that university professors have the great life, you get to explore subjects to your heart's delight, have great minds in and out of your discipline to challenge you. Politicians no longer seem to do that. And if they did, they wouldn't be ultra-radical as Obama is. He doesn't hold a conservative position that I can find on anything. Usually, if i have a circle of friends they do modify my harsh positions.

Second, it could also be a publicity stunt. One lone voice may achieve nothing, especially if he or she is not respected and liked by Obama. I'm skeptical of politics in general as you might have derived by now.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by landpoke

I heard he shook hands with this guy at a rally who had chronic back pain. After the handshake the guy's back was fine and he went on to win the Indiana State Cornhole championships.

Ok, I'm sorry but that screamed out for a smart-ass reply. I hope this sort of thing is true. I'll admit his move toward the center after his primary campaign has been swift and sudden to say the least. Until I see him in action, off the election trail, just color me skeptical.

As has been discussed here before, he won't be the worst thing that ever happened to this country (that'd be Taft) but it also remains to be seen whether he'll be, as his admirers proclaim, the best.

Remind me of his centrist positions, I'm not familiar with them.

[landpoke]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Remind me of his centrist positions, I'm not familiar with them.

I'm not suggesting he's centrist, just that he's moved toward the center. His stated platform is nowhere near as left as what it was when he was trying to win the nomination.