Change?

sodbuster wrote:Emmanuel and Podesta are serving in nuts and bolts kind of jobs who just try to keep the trains running.

Have you not been reading the paper Sherman or are you not familiar with Emmanuel’s new job and what it entails?

He is the new White House Chief of Staff and as such the closest advisor to the President and thus has a very strong influence over ALL policy.

The one good thing I will say is that he is described as a fairly moderate democrat and in the words of George Snuffleupagus this weekend, will likely put the breaks on both Reid and Pelosi.

So you have no comments on President Elect Obama's potential cabinet members Terry or the fact that most come from within side the beltway?

Aaron would you agree with me that Hillary would bring substantial change at the Dept of State?

(not that I think there is any chance of that, but I was just responding to your speculation)

No more then anyone else would as the Secretary of State will press President Elect Barrack Obama's agenda, not their own.

And personally, I don't think Hillary can fill the current S.O.S's shoes but that's just personal as I think Rice is a remarkable woman who has achieved everything on her own.

I doubt that Hillary would want take over the State Dept., even if asked. She will be a much more viable candidate for Pres. in 2012 or 2016 as a Senator.

Before Obama, who was the last sitting U. S. Senator elected President?

JFK. We don't elect Senators becasue they have a voting record.

Obama was an exception.

Precisely. Staying in the U.S. Senate because it bolsters her chances may not be the best way...

bmd wrote:She will be a much more viable candidate for Pres. in 2012 or 2016 as a Senator.

She won't run in 2012 against an incumbent Democrat who happens to be the first African American to hold the post unless the next 4 years more disastrous then even the most partisan hack, which would be your counterpart on the Republican side, thinks they will be.

And by 2016, she'll be up there, almost 70 and an afterthought. You’re more likey to see someone like Rahm Emanuel run then you are here.

No, this was her one and only chance at the Presidency. She's shot her wad and is done in that aspect but I'm not surprised you don't realize that.

More change...

Obama asks Albright to meet delegations at G20
15 mins ago
CHICAGO (Reuters) – President-elect Barack Obama has tapped former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and a former Republican congressman to meet foreign delegations at the global financial summit in Washington this weekend.

Aaron wrote:

bmd wrote:She will be a much more viable candidate for Pres. in 2012 or 2016 as a Senator.

She won't run in 2012 against an incumbent Democrat who happens to be the first African American to hold the post unless the next 4 years more disastrous then even the most partisan hack, which would be your counterpart on the Republican side, thinks they will be.

And by 2016, she'll be up there, almost 70 and an afterthought. You’re more likey to see someone like Rahm Emanuel run then you are here.

No, this was her one and only chance at the Presidency. She's shot her wad and is done in that aspect but I'm not surprised you don't realize that.

Predicting the political landscape in eight, or even four, years is always dicey. That said, I doubt that she'll have all that much of a chance in either '12 or '16. However, Hillary is nothing if not ambitious-- she'll most likely want to keep her options open. Foregoing a Cabinet seat does just that.

bmd wrote:

Stephanie wrote:
Graduation requirements are not goals. They are mandates.

Could ya' point out where the POTUS-elect said anything about community service being a H.S. graduation requirement?

The site was cleansed. I knew it because I had read the original text and when I went back to quote it, as Jimmy did, it had been altered.

Well I came across a screen shot this evening....so here it is, bmd:

So you have no comments on President Elect Obama's potential cabinet members Terry or the fact that most come from within side the beltway?

Aaron, you still haven't made your case that I'm on the left, except to say that, because I hadn't kept up on the news and was ignorant of his appointments, I'm a "liberal".

Do that before I answer any of your questions.

BTW, Emmanuel, for all that he is a democratic partisan, pisses off people way to the left and way to the right. Gives me some hope.

For all that you claim to be a free-thinker, you toe the GOP line more than the Dem line you accuse me of toeing.

So, what issues do I espouse that put me on the "left"?

BTW, how many "beltway outsiders" did Bush pick and how well did that work for us?

My case that I’m supposed to make is my opinion Terry and like it or not, right or wrong, I’m entitled to it and thus I don’t feel the need to 'prove' anything to you.

I will say that I've developed my opinion of your political positions from conversations, with myself as well as others, over the past ~2 years. While I do acknowledge there are some things you are moderate on, for the most part, your arguments, imho, lean to the left and in some cases, go way out there.

Now if you don't want to comment on the topic of the thread, that's fine. I could honestly care less as we now know Obama's 'change' rhetoric, at least in who he said would work in his administration was just that, rhetoric.

Case in point being his statement during the campaign that there would be no place in his administration for anyone who has been a paid lobbyist and he was pretty adamant on that, going all the way back to Iowa.

And now it comes out that his administration will hire individuals who have been paid to lobby but that they will not work in an area in which they were a paid lobbyist.

At this point, there is one thing I would love to see form Obama and that is a promise he’s kept.

I don’t suppose you can think of any, can you Terry?

My case that I’m supposed to make is my opinion Terry and like it or not, right or wrong, I’m entitled to it and thus I don’t feel the need to 'prove' anything to you.

No, Aaron, it isn't.

You called me a "leftist", even though I espouse almost all of the classically conservative positions. I'll comment on the thread as soon as you explain why you put me there, on the left.

What issues have I espoused to put me there?

The fact is, you put me there so that you can attack me and not my arguments. That is because you appear to be intellectually lazy, but that is only my opinion.

I am not thrilled about Obama. I think, like any president-elect, he has promised a bunch of things and will now have to step away from some of them.

Remember when Bush was going to outlaw abortion and gay marriage?

TerryRC wrote:The fact is, you [Clyde/Aaron] put me there so that you can attack me and not my arguments. That is because you appear to be intellectually lazy, but that is only my opinion.

It's not just your opinion.

So you're entitled to your opinion but I don't get the same consideration.

I don't think so Terry.

I don’t have to prove anything to you but I will give you a couple of examples.

This reply is a classic example of why I think your leftist.

You excuse Obama for not following through on promises yet you ridicule Bush over two issues, whether you agree or not, he felt very strongly about.

Another example is your constant bombardment on Sarah Palin on every issue, including her decision to give birth to her youngest child, yet you never said anything that I can recall negative about Joe Biden.

And you wonder why I think you’re to the left.

Please Terry.

You excuse Obama for not following through on promises yet you ridicule Bush over two issues, whether you agree or not, he felt very strongly about.

Where did I excuse Obama? I just said that you give other people passes that you don't give him. I also said that he doesn't thrill me and that, like past presidents, like Bush, he will back away from some of his campaign promises. Did you slam Bush like you are slamming Obama?

Another example is your constant bombardment on Sarah Palin on every issue, including her decision to give birth to her youngest child, yet you never said anything that I can recall negative about Joe Biden.

Did I criticize her for giving birth to him? I said it was atrocious that she used him as a campaign tool. I stand by that. I also said that she campaigned on "family values" and then dragged her kids out of school to, again, use them as campaign props. My opinion, but one I think justified. What do I get for it? Sam attacks my relationship with my wife and you and Steph call me sexist, never once attacking my arguments, just my person.

What should I have criticized Biden for? Did he do something hypocritical? You will have to help me, I don't listen to Rush much.

Aaron, what issues do I espouse that make me a "leftist"?

You are entitled to your opinion. If it is an ignorant one, however, expect to be called on it.

From your constant attacks on democrats and the fact that you say little about republicans, I would assume you are a "rightist". I would assume that, that is, if I hadn't seen you speak out in support of different civil liberties and trash lacks of fiscal conservatism (just like me).

Grow up and play with the adults.

Haven't you learned by now that your rants don't work with me Terry.

I've told you why my opinion is of you what it is and I don't care what you think of it or me.

And I never called you sexist. I never thought her sex had a thing to do with why you hated her so bad. I believe your excessive hatred of Palin is because of her religious background.

You did question Palin on being VP but when confronted about Biden going right back to Congress after his wife died, you unttered nary a peep.

Dont let it get to you Terry.

Heck they call me leftist too....

Haven't you learned by now that your rants don't work with me Terry.

Aaron, how was anything I said a "rant"? Do you know the definition of the word?

The fact is that you just want to attack me, not my arguments, so you improperly rank me with those you oppose.

Like Palin, you look at the world as "them" and "us". "Them" is the enemy and it is OK to attack them in any way you want.

You never attack my arguments, just my person. You rarely cite anything, preferring to use your "observations" or made-up statistics.

Like I said, intellectually lazy. The fact is, Aaron, you know damn well that I am no more to the left on most issues than you are.

You did question Palin on being VP but when confronted about Biden going right back to Congress after his wife died, you unttered nary a peep.

But... but... but... Biden!

That is the best you can do?

Did Biden run on "family values"? Did he drag his kids around the country when they should have been in school? Did he preach abstinence-only education while having an unwed, pregnant daughter at home? Did he slam "wealth redistribution" while presiding over a state that gets more pork than any other state in the union?

Where have you ever heard me cheering Biden or Obama? Does your silence on the unsavory things that republicans have done signify tacit agreement with them?

As far as my hatred for Palin, it is because she is a hypocrite. Huckabee is frighteningly socially conservative and I would have voted for him in a heartbeat.

Grow up, Aaron. It doesn't bother me to be attacked. It does bother me to be attacked for the wrong reasons.

The fact is that you just want to attack me, not my arguments, so you improperly rank me with those you oppose.

That's because his highest goal in life is to be another SamCogar.

From what I know Frank, Sam's a better man then you.

Thank you.

From what I know Frank, Sam's a better man then you.

Uh, oh. You are in trouble, Zig. If Aaron "knows" something, it is usually solid enough to use as collateral for a bank loan.

Pretty much Terry. I'm old school in my word is my bond. If I shake someone's hand and tell them something, I follow through on it. That's how I am.

I'm also willing to admit when I don't know something and if I'm proven wrong, I'm willing to admit that as well. I've seen those traits in Sam during my time communicating with him.

I have not those traits in Frank. In him, I've seen dishonesty and lying.

I stand by what I I said. From what I KNOW, Sam is a better man then Frank.

Thank you.