"Above my paygrade"

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I'm here to help folks.

You can catch more flies with honey, SU.

[Tex]

Just got around to reviewing the Saddleback "debate." Here's quick side-by-side answers to key questions.

Who are the three wisest people you know in your life, and who are you going to rely on heavily in your administration?
O: Mom, Grandma
M: David Petraeus, John Lewis, Meg Whitman
Note: Rick Warren said each candidate was told this question in advance; so this was not an off-the-cuff response.

What would be, looking over your life would be the greatest moral failure in your life?
O: Fundamental selfishness, being "obsessed with me"
M: The failure of my first marriage

At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?
O:"Above my pay grade"
M: "At the moment of conception"
Note: the question was NOT "when does life begin?"

Does evil exist? And if it does, do we ignore it? Do we negotiate with it? Do we contain it? Do we defeat it?
O: It exists, and it must be confronted squarely, "with humility."
M: "Beat it. ... Defeat it."

What is the most gut-wrenching decision you've ever had to make?
O: Opposing the war in Iraq
M: Declining early release from Vietnam

Wow. This needs very little commentary from me. Obama could hardly have done worse had McCain actually written his answers.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

I was just wondering if anyone else feels as used as I do. That's all. I'm raising a child that, based on stats, 90% of families would have chosen to terminate, so I kinda take the issue personally...

I realized belatedly the ambiguity in my statement.

Flash and I did not have a prenatal diagnosis for our son. So I in no way meant to suggest that we are among the brave 10% who choose to keep a child, knowing full well the difficulties that may lie ahead. All I meant was that it hurts me to think how many couples would have deliberately discarded a little person much like our son.

I just wanted to clarify that.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

I realized belatedly the ambiguity in my statement.

Flash and I did not have a prenatal diagnosis for our son. So I in no way meant to suggest that we are among the brave 10% who choose to keep a child, knowing full well the difficulties that may lie ahead. All I meant was that it hurts me to think how many couples would have deliberately discarded a little person much like our son.

I just wanted to clarify that.

If it means anything Barbara, I knew exactly what you were saying. Knowing what I know - the rest of the folks here may not know that I have a nephew with the same challenges as your son - I can say that, bottom line, your family most likely feels that it's been more of a blessing than a burden and you can't imagine it being any other way.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Tex

What is the most gut-wrenching decision you've ever had to make?
O: Opposing the war in Iraq
M: Declining early release from Vietnam

The more I think about Obama's answer, the more LOL it becomes.

Really? That's your most gut-wrenching decision? Honestly? There was no risk involved, no personal sacrifice, no real payoff or loss, yet it wrenched his guts.

Shows what a very vacuous life Obama has led.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

The more I think about Obama's answer, the more LOL it becomes.

Really? That's your most gut-wrenching decision? Honestly? There was no risk involved, no personal sacrifice, no real payoff or loss, yet it wrenched his guts.

Shows what a very vacuous life Obama has led.

No risk indeed. He represented the bluest part of one of the bluest states in the country.

The Saddleback forum showed that Obama just can't work without advance notice or a teleprompter. He actually had to think on the spot. Watching him was like watching Wylie E. Coyote missing the roadrunner and plummeting to the canyon floor below. It was great entertainment.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No risk involved? What about the risk that he is wrong and he is able to carry the day by taking his position? What if al-Qaeda and Iraq really were working together and really did have plans to destroy the US? If you can't see that as a gut-wrenching decision, you are blind. If anything, it reveals to us all how seriously he took the issue, and how certain he must have been that invading Iraq was a bad choice. It is a great answer, especially if true.

it was gut-wrenching because the nomination lay in his answer.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No risk involved? What about the risk that he is wrong and he is able to carry the day by taking his position? What if al-Qaeda and Iraq really were working together and really did have plans to destroy the US? If you can't see that as a gut-wrenching decision, you are blind. If anything, it reveals to us all how seriously he took the issue, and how certain he must have been that invading Iraq was a bad choice. It is a great answer, especially if true.

You doubt the veracity of the answer?

He made this decision as a Illinois state senator. He had no jurisdiction, nobody's life was impacted by his decision, few people were even listening. I fail to see the risk involved, or the significance. But you do. I can respect that.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I view his statement as meaning more than just the initial decision on whether or not to invade. His belief that Iraq is the wrong battle is one that has come into play several times in the US Senate, and his statements on Iraq, both before election to the Senate and afterwards, have helped shape the national debate on the topic. I can certainly see why it would be a tough issue for him (or for any elected leader). In fact, I would be highly disappointed if it wasn't.

I don't doubt the veracity of his statement, but I do realize that many statements are frequently politically calculated rather than true. I don't think this is one of them.

I'm happy to see you believe your own candidate.

The Obama campaign is very happy to point to his October 2, 2002 remarks opposing the war. Apparently it was before that time that he made his life's most "gut wrenching" decision. The timing isn't consistent with your view of "his statement as meaning more than just the initial decision on whether or not to invade." Obama was pretty clear in his answer. This all happened before he was a national politician, before he even had any jurisdiction over national policy. That he has repeated his decision after gaining a national platform is irrelevant in the context of "his most gut wrenching decision."

Or are you suggesting that he waivered in his conviction since becoming a U.S. Senator, took another look and then came back to his original decision? Is that the gut-wrenching decision we are talking about? Has he not been so steadfast in his judgement? If so, that would be interestinng to explore.

Obama's campaign has been pretty consistent on when and where he has stood on the war. It all goes back to October 2, 2002 and before.

[Tex]