Jump to content

Obama Watch


Texsox
 Share

Recommended Posts

Dear Jim, (I guess we're tight)

Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007: Today, we sadly find ourselves at the very point in Iraq I feared most when I opposed giving the President the open-ended authority to wage this war in 2002 – an occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences in the midst of a country torn by civil war.

 

We have waited and we have been patient. We have given chance after chance for a resolution that has not come, and, more importantly, watched with horror and grief the tragic loss of thousands of brave young Americans.

 

The time for waiting in Iraq is over. The days of our open-ended commitment must come to a close. And the need to bring this war to an end is here.

 

That is why today, I’m introducing the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007. This plan would not only place a cap on the number of troops in Iraq and stop the escalation, it would begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces with the goal of removing of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by March 31st, 2008 – consistent with the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that the President ignored.

 

The redeployment of troops to the United States , Afghanistan , and elsewhere in the region would begin no later than May 1st of this year, toward the end of the timeframe I first proposed in a speech more than two months ago. In a civil war where no military solution exists, this redeployment remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi government to achieve the political settlement between its warring factions that can slow the bloodshed and promote stability.

 

The U.S. military has performed valiantly and brilliantly in Iraq . Our troops have done all we have asked them to do and more. But no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else’s civil war, nor settle the grievances in the hearts of the combatants.

 

When it comes to the war in Iraq, the time for promises and assurances, for waiting and patience, is over. Too many lives have been lost and too many billions have been spent for us to trust the President on another tried and failed policy opposed by generals and experts, Democrats and Republicans, Americans and even the Iraqis themselves.

 

It is time to change our policy.

 

It is time to give Iraqis their country back.

 

And it is time to refocus America ’s efforts on the challenges we face at home and the wider struggle against terror yet to be won.

 

Sincerely,

U.S. Senator Barack Obama

 

I really dislike "I'm running for office" legislation. I doubt he gets to be the sponsor of this bill if he isn't running. They would have put a different face on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its interesting, the way he is positioning his "history" about the war. He says he "opposed" the effort in 2002, giving the impression he voted against it - which of course he did not, since he was not in Congress yet at that point. Subtle conditioning of the truth there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 31, 2007 -> 09:15 AM)
I think its interesting, the way he is positioning his "history" about the war. He says he "opposed" the effort in 2002, giving the impression he voted against it - which of course he did not, since he was not in Congress yet at that point. Subtle conditioning of the truth there.

 

How else would he write that? People here were for or against the war then, but they didn't vote for it. :huh

 

What it does show is he has free reign to claim almost anything. Of course every reporter worth their Selectric will be trying to uncover some objective evidence that he supported the war effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Pale Hose Jon @ Jan 31, 2007 -> 09:27 AM)
I believe that he is referencing his vote in a resolution against the war during his time in the Illinois legislature.

I searched for that before I posted, but I couldn't find any info on that. Maybe I didn't dig far enough. I'd be curious to see if he actually did vote on such a thing.

 

 

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 31, 2007 -> 09:27 AM)
How else would he write that? People here were for or against the war then, but they didn't vote for it. :huh

 

What it does show is he has free reign to claim almost anything. Of course every reporter worth their Selectric will be trying to uncover some objective evidence that he supported the war effort.

There is a subtle grammatical difference between "opposed" and "was opposed to". If he was against he war, he "was opposed to" it. If he actually voted or did something against it, then he "opposed" it.

 

That is the savvy marketing I was referring to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 31, 2007 -> 10:02 AM)
There is a subtle grammatical difference between "opposed" and "was opposed to". If he was against he war, he "was opposed to" it. If he actually voted or did something against it, then he "opposed" it.

 

That is the savvy marketing I was referring to.

 

Too subtle for me. But like I said, it does highlight a couple things. First, He's not alone in a short national policy voting record, Governors also do not have a voting record like this, so they can use some of the same techniques and claim to be for or against something without having been put to a test via a vote. The second is how we all should be vigilant in reading these releases and be certain our impressions are grounded in some reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Obama rakes it in from Hollywood A-listers

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Checks from Hollywood's A-list stars such as George Clooney, Eddie Murphy and Barbra Streisand added up to an expected, one-night take of $1 million for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

 

Three of the entertainment industry's biggest names -- DreamWorks studio founders Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen -- planned a private, Beverly Hills fundraiser for the freshman senator from Illinois.

 

The lineup of celebrities writing checks read like a red carpet's who's who -- Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington and Ben Stiller among others.

 

Tickets to the fundraiser are $2,300, the maximum individual donation to a federal campaign, or $4,600 for a couple. A later, private dinner at Geffen's home is being held for fundraisers who brought in at least $46,000 for the evening.

 

The fundraiser underscored the intense competition among the party's leading 2008 candidates for Hollywood dollars and endorsements. The entertainment industry is a perennial source of cash for Democrats, with big names often donating to multiple campaigns while withholding formal endorsements until later.

 

More at link. Of course money is almost everything. This is only the early money, wait for the big events to kick in once a candidate is decided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a cable access TV interview Obama did right after the Senate vote in which he said he would vote like Durbin, which was nay. He spoke at length about the issue, but he left no doubt that he would vote against it. C-Span re-aired immediately following his Presidential announcement in Springfield.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Chet Lemon @ Feb 20, 2007 -> 07:42 PM)
There was a cable access TV interview Obama did right after the Senate vote in which he said he would vote like Durbin, which was nay. He spoke at length about the issue, but he left no doubt that he would vote against it. C-Span re-aired immediately following his Presidential announcement in Springfield.

Nay on what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all the critricism that Bush gets for being so religious, how come noone has really brought up Obama's church and his religion at all? Imagine if the following credo was for a white church:

1. Commitment to God

2. Commitment to the White Community

3. Commitment to the White Family

4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education

5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence

6. Adherence to the White Work Ethic

7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect

8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”

9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community

10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions

11. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System

12. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System

 

Substitute black for white, and you have TRinity United Church of Christ, Obama's church. The paragraph that preceedes the list is this one:

“Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts: "

 

Why are there two sets of ethics, one white and one black?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And my local Korean Presbyterian Church has a similar credo that involves strengthening the Korean community in the area. Churches minister to a specific audience and strive to improve that community and the lives of those members.

 

My Church speaks of belief in one "Catholic and Apostolic Church". We try and improve the lives of Catholics, why a separate Catholic and non Catholic? My employer asks it's members to recite a Oath that begins A Scout is Trustworthy, Loyal, etc. Why just say Scout?

 

You may feel it is wrong for a Church to minister to, and market to, a specific audience. I don't see a problem with that. If their Mission is to strenghten the Black community in their area, then God bless them and my prayers are with them along with all God's Ministries around the world.

 

And, at least in my book, religion is one area I have zero criticism of Bush. I believe it is genuine and sincere, unlike many of the other candidates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 22, 2007 -> 07:00 AM)
And my local Korean Presbyterian Church has a similar credo that involves strengthening the Korean community in the area. Churches minister to a specific audience and strive to improve that community and the lives of those members.

 

My Church speaks of belief in one "Catholic and Apostolic Church". We try and improve the lives of Catholics, why a separate Catholic and non Catholic? My employer asks it's members to recite a Oath that begins A Scout is Trustworthy, Loyal, etc. Why just say Scout?

 

You may feel it is wrong for a Church to minister to, and market to, a specific audience. I don't see a problem with that. If their Mission is to strenghten the Black community in their area, then God bless them and my prayers are with them along with all God's Ministries around the world.

 

And, at least in my book, religion is one area I have zero criticism of Bush. I believe it is genuine and sincere, unlike many of the other candidates.

Tex, your scouts don't start off saying "A WHITE scout is Trustworthy, Loyal...", do they? As for preaching to your audience, I wouldn't expect Catholics to preach to Jews, or Muslims to preach to Mormans. But when race comes into it, it is always a double standard. If a church had those same credos with 'white' in them, they would be vilified across the country as the next version of the KKK. As for Bush'es religiosity, I agree that at least it seems genuine, where you can tell that others only see the inside of a church when they are stumping for votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Feb 22, 2007 -> 07:32 AM)
Tex, your scouts don't start off saying "A WHITE scout is Trustworthy, Loyal...", do they? As for preaching to your audience, I wouldn't expect Catholics to preach to Jews, or Muslims to preach to Mormans. But when race comes into it, it is always a double standard. If a church had those same credos with 'white' in them, they would be vilified across the country as the next version of the KKK. As for Bush'es religiosity, I agree that at least it seems genuine, where you can tell that others only see the inside of a church when they are stumping for votes.

 

The challenges that face blacks in this country are different than for whites, Christianity has always ministered to specific audiences. I don't see that as any different as a group I respect:

 

Promise Keepers’ mission is to ignite and unite men to become passionate followers of Jesus Christ through the effective communication of seven promises to God, their fellow men, family, church and the world. Promise Keepers’ vision is simply put in three words: “Men Transformed Worldwide.”

 

Why just men?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 22, 2007 -> 07:42 AM)
The challenges that face blacks in this country are different than for whites, Christianity has always ministered to specific audiences. I don't see that as any different as a group I respect:

 

Promise Keepers’ mission is to ignite and unite men to become passionate followers of Jesus Christ through the effective communication of seven promises to God, their fellow men, family, church and the world. Promise Keepers’ vision is simply put in three words: “Men Transformed Worldwide.”

 

Why just men?

Probably because you can have a women's only congregation and not cause a national uproar. Try having a whites only congregation, or one dedicated to helping the 'white community'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Feb 22, 2007 -> 07:46 AM)
Probably because you can have a women's only congregation and not cause a national uproar. Try having a whites only congregation, or one dedicated to helping the 'white community'.

 

And a Korean only, and a Polish only, and a Black only . . . You can have groups for breast cancer survivors, Catholic War Veterans, etc.

 

I don't have a problem with Obama being a member of a Church that ministers to the Black Community. I'd have a problem if Edwards joined one. An interesting bit of information would be how his Church handles Communion. Is everyone welcome? As a Catholic, I am troubled that we restrict Communion to Catholics. I believe we should all be in Communion as a Christian Church, but I guess I won't be influencing the Vatican anytime soon.

 

We've gone through a chapter in our history with Whites Only. We had water fountains, bathrooms, hotels, sections on buses. It isn't something I believe most Americans would be proud of. Heading back in that direction isn't something that should be viewed as positive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Feb 21, 2007 -> 11:03 PM)
With all the critricism that Bush gets for being so religious, how come noone has really brought up Obama's church and his religion at all? Imagine if the following credo was for a white church:

1. Commitment to God

2. Commitment to the White Community

3. Commitment to the White Family

4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education

5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence

6. Adherence to the White Work Ethic

7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect

8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”

9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community

10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions

11. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System

12. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System

 

Substitute black for white, and you have TRinity United Church of Christ, Obama's church. The paragraph that preceedes the list is this one:

“Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts: "

 

Why are there two sets of ethics, one white and one black?

I agree with you 100% on this one. I can't say it changes my view of Obama in a huge way, because every religion/church/political party I have been affiliated with has some stands I don't agree with. But I do find it a little disappointing that he would be a part of something like that.

 

 

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 22, 2007 -> 08:12 AM)
See I really believe the these things runs both ways. If you really want to breakdown barriers, you need to stop making distinctions for both good things and bad things. The more walls you put up, even with good intentions, the more you separate people.

Bingo. Perfect. If you really want race to become a non-issue, then everyone has to do that. You can't be racist on things just because there is some good intention behind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 22, 2007 -> 08:12 AM)
See I really believe the these things runs both ways. If you really want to breakdown barriers, you need to stop making distinctions for both good things and bad things. The more walls you put up, even with good intentions, the more you separate people.

Hug a Cub fan.

 

America is not a melting pot, it is a fruit salad. The whole is better for the individual parts. Different communities have different needs, I don't have a problem with ministering to those special needs. Just because there isn't signs and credos doesn't mean there are no "Whites Only" organizations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 22, 2007 -> 08:18 AM)
Bingo. Perfect. If you really want race to become a non-issue, then everyone has to do that. You can't be racist on things just because there is some good intention behind it.

 

So Churches should not minister to a specific community?

 

Let's use this example. Someone feels the calling to minister to Native Americans, to help their community. That is wrong? They have to help every community? Why not address the specific needs of that community?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 22, 2007 -> 08:31 AM)
So Churches should not minister to a specific community?

 

Let's use this example. Someone feels the calling to minister to Native Americans, to help their community. That is wrong? They have to help every community? Why not address the specific needs of that community?

Those guidelines are not ministering to a community. They are trying to prop up a race of people, ultimately, at the expense of everyone else. There is a difference. The latter is not OK with me. A community, in this day and age, should not be a race.

 

Now, let me add something. I do think churchs should be able to be whatever they want in the legal sense - including all black or all white. But I would never, ever attend a church with a set of principles like the one listed earlier, for white or for black. I find it closed-minded and offensive.

 

Racism in insidious, in that even good intentions cause ill effects when these sorts of delineations occur. The only way to combat it is to make it irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 22, 2007 -> 08:41 AM)
Those guidelines are not ministering to a community. They are trying to prop up a race of people, ultimately, at the expense of everyone else. There is a difference. The latter is not OK with me. A community, in this day and age, should not be a race.

 

Now, let me add something. I do think churchs should be able to be whatever they want in the legal sense - including all black or all white. But I would never, ever attend a church with a set of principles like the one listed earlier, for white or for black. I find it closed-minded and offensive.

 

Racism in insidious, in that even good intentions cause ill effects when these sorts of delineations occur. The only way to combat it is to make it irrelevant.

 

Same with Native Americans, prisoners, newly immigrated, etc.? Sermons in Polish, Spanish, French, etc.?

 

A community is about a lot of things, one is a shared struggle. Blacks have a much different experience living in America than whites. That experience, those struggles, bind them together into a community. That is a natural part of the human experience.

 

Eliminating racism isn't about destroying what makes us unique, it's about accepting those differences. I know some great people who attend the McAllen Korean Presbyterian Church. They aren't racist, they want to join together with other Koreans who live in the area. They hold events that appeal to first generation Koreans. The services give them an opportunity to hear their native tongue. They put there efforts into helping that community. They can't do everything for everyone, but they can help a small group, and they choose to help Koreans. I can't believe anyone would think that is a bad thing.

 

How does their mission statement harm anyone? Isn't a stronger black community, one that embraces all those ideals, good for America?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 22, 2007 -> 08:18 AM)

Hug a Cub fan.

 

America is not a melting pot, it is a fruit salad. The whole is better for the individual parts. Different communities have different needs, I don't have a problem with ministering to those special needs. Just because there isn't signs and credos doesn't mean there are no "Whites Only" organizations.

 

I'm probably being idealistic when I say something like that, but I think the road to hell is paved with good intentions. There are unintended consequences when it comes to everything. I do understand the need that people have to help like minded groups, and I can't imagine taking that away from people. Now that being said, I do think that the good these groups do is undermined by these unintended consequences. Many organizations are settting themselves up as a "separate but equal" format, without even realizing they are doing it.

 

In reality many studies have been done to indicate that while race, sex, etc type gaps still exsist, you chances in life are much more handicapped by being born poor, versus any other factor. Your young age socioeconomic status is the truest indicator of your future life. Why no NAAPP? Because it wouldn't get attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 22, 2007 -> 08:51 AM)
Same with Native Americans, prisoners, newly immigrated, etc.? Sermons in Polish, Spanish, French, etc.?

 

A community is about a lot of things, one is a shared struggle. Blacks have a much different experience living in America than whites. That experience, those struggles, bind them together into a community. That is a natural part of the human experience.

 

Eliminating racism isn't about destroying what makes us unique, it's about accepting those differences. I know some great people who attend the McAllen Korean Presbyterian Church. They aren't racist, they want to join together with other Koreans who live in the area. They hold events that appeal to first generation Koreans. The services give them an opportunity to hear their native tongue. They put there efforts into helping that community. They can't do everything for everyone, but they can help a small group, and they choose to help Koreans. I can't believe anyone would think that is a bad thing.

 

How does their mission statement harm anyone? Isn't a stronger black community, one that embraces all those ideals, good for America?

I think eliminating racism is about focusing on people and what they bring to the table as individuals. If it happens to be that part of who Bob is comes from his Irish ancestry, so be it. Me putting him in the Irish category and making assumptions about him based on that helps no one. Better for me to focus on Bob for the complete package that is Bob.

 

Does that make more sense? Yes, our differences are key, and I personally like having people around me from a variety of experiences and backgrounds. But I could care less of they are black, white, red, purple or rainbow-colored, because that doesn't define who they are. Their actions define them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...