Well, by O2C's apparent standards, I suppose they are. I would say by the same logic, they are all candidates of the status quo because if one wants to keep even one thing the same. By my definition, a person is a candidate of change if the overall effect of his policies would be to make a break with the current status quo. Obama, at least rhetorically, seems to want to do that. Other candidates in the past, such as Gore and George H.W. Bush, didn't want to do that so much. Not being particularly expert in Obama's policies, I would say little to none. I would also say what change he's brought to those bodies is fairly irrelevant. It doesn't necessarily serve to show his ability or willingness to bring change because legislatures operate on compromise. Being one of 100 (or more or less) voices is different from being the main voice.
Funds aquired through illegal means should not be considered contributions. I don't see anyone classifying the money made by drug runners and contributions to the economy.
I'm trying to figure out how my reply to Volpone not only appeared three times, but *before* the post I was replying to.
Shhhh... Mustn't tell the Market Is God folks that all capitalism is is one company luring customers away from another, and then the other company luring them back ad infinitum. It'll break their little hearts.
Wait a second, so there is no evidence for believing that Obama has brought change, but a belief that when he finally gets there he will bring it about? That doesn't sound like hope as much as it sounds like faith.
He's definitely a cult figure. It's all about personality and "change" even though there's no record of him actually having changed anything. Heck, Jesse Jackson's got more cred in that area than does he. I'd love to be able to point to his accomplishments and debate them but there's just nothing there.
In fairness, what has McCain, Romney, Paul or any candidate you could point to accomplished? Answer: not much. What had George W. Bush accomplished prior to the White House? Running a few corporations into the ground and keeping the Texas governor's chair out of Ann Richards' hands. What had Clinton accomplished as governor? I think you could charitably point to Arkansas going from dead last in a bunch of categories to like the mid 30s. I think it's unrealistic to expect people to have accomplished tons of things, or at least, it's unfair to hold Obama to the standard of "He hasn't done much yet" when the American people certainly haven't held a number of past presidents or current candidates to that same standard.
All of them, good and bad, had records you could point to. Clinton, Romney, Huckabee, and Bush all have executive-level government experience. McCain's been a Senator for a long time now. Heck, even Paul has Washington experience. They all had issues they had worked before they ran. They all have records you could and can point to. Obama's got less than a term in the Senate and very little actual leadership experience on issues there. His record in his state was good enough to get him to D.C. but that's hardly telling for someone who wants a national job. The only thing that he's got going is a promise of "change" which they all make. Heck, even Hillary's trying to pretend she's got experience working for her. She's only got slightly more than him but she's got a long record of issues she's advocated. It's not unrealistic at all to pin him down on his accomplishments. He's got great rhetorical skills but that doesn't cut it. He's got some ideas for the future but his background doesn't tell me that he'll be able to accomplish them. I'm glad, though, because some of his ideas are, to me, lunacy.
McCain has some legislative achievements to look back on. (No matter how much I despise them) Didn't Romney turn around the Olympics or some such? Paul? Not much, but he does have a consistent voting record, as well as a track record as a medical doctor. Dubya? Wiki says he pushed through a 2 billion dollar tax-cut plan. Something he ended up doing as president as well. (He also declared a "Jesus Day". ) You don't think it's reasonable to question a candidate's history of "change" when hope for that change appears to be the basis for his candidacy? Obama is not running on his accomplishments. And I'm not calling him on them. I'm calling him on his claims of "change". If Obama represents such a movement, then there ought to be a wake of "change" behind him. Because as I said before, if there no history of bringing "change", then what else is that hope but faith?
I don't like him all that much, but he DOES have a legislative record, and it's quite extensive considering his short term. The following link leads to a somewhat matter-of-fact article on a completely partisan site -- dailykos, for crying out loud --, but it has a handy collection of facts that can be easily verified in the loc or elsewhere: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633
So point me to stuff in their records that they have accomplished. It shouldn't be too hard, right? Such as? He was apparently CEO of the Olympics. I'm not of the school that successfully running a company isin and of itself an accomplishment paving the way to be president. What has he accomplished as Mass governor? If we're going to say, "Well, Paul was a good doctor," then let's say Obama was a good lawyer and legal scholar. I don't think that past performance is always a predictor of future performance, no. Like I said, there were limits to what any one legislator can do in any body. That's why even though McCain has been a powerful senator for a long time, you can't really point to too many single-handed accomplishments. He may not have felt change was needed before the Bush presidency. The positions he advocates are on his web site, and they clearly represent a change from what we have now in many respects. What is any hope but faith?
Campaign Finance Reform? My god, it's literally the elephant in the room. The main reason that he will not be receiving my vote. I'm sure there are others, but that one is enough for me. Yearning for an outcome is not the same as believing it to come about, in spite of the evidence.
I thought I'd specifically mentioned McCain-Feingold earlier. Guess my memory's going down the tubes.
From the dailykos: S.1151 - he was a cosponsor - McCain was actually the sponsor. Big deal, he signed his name S.2132 co sponsort - Feingold was the sponsor. S.115 - ditto but Feinstein was the sponsor S.133 - Sponsor of a piece of legislation that might be interesting but last major action: "1/4/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance" S. 453 Sponsor, 20 cosponsors S.1084 Sponsor, 10 cosponsors - LMA 4/10/2007 S.1324 Sponsor, 2 co sponsors - LMA introduced and referred to committee on same day, 5/7/2007 S.2030 Sponsor, 1 co sponsor, no further action. S.2044 Sponsor, 6 cosponsors S.2433 Sponsor, 9 cosponsors S.1977 Sponsor, 2 cosponsors Nothing specifically saying they were passed by the Democratic Senate, though. Plus a lot of amendments to other bills. These were all researched on Thomas.loc.gov So, I still stand by my statement that he doesn't have much of a record.
The constitution and the bill of rights? Something the demoncats and ratpublicans have been wiping their asses on for decades. It seems that to be president one only has to be a good con man and shyster.
I just posted Obama's "accomplishments" based on research which was prompted by an Obama partisan. You dig up McCain's legislative record. It's fairly conservative but not quite what I want but it's out there. The Republican front-runners for the nomination all had pretty extensive backgrounds. Much more so than Obama. But, as has been said, Obama's not running on his record. Good thing, too, because there's just not much there. He's running on change. But, as I've said before, they're ALL running on change. He's got nothing to set him apart from the rest of the pack but his charisma. I'll admit he's got that but I'm not going to run before him and clear his path like Halle Berry has promised to do.
Think of it this way: If you want to reshape a government to reflect your philosophy of good government, is that easier to accomplish from inside or outside said government? Particularly when you've got a bipartisan Congress. For the kind of change you want, you all are going to have to step away from your keyboards, git yer guns and march to Washington with Dr. Paul and stage a coup. Then Dr. Paul can play Mushareff for a few years, and when he's gone the populace will retrench. Just look at what Dubya has done for the Democrats.
I think people are looking at the presidency the wrong way. Do you want someone that knows how to manage things well (i.e. a manager) or do you want a leader? I've read lots of material on leadership theory, and some delineate between both of these, while others say you have to be both. It is generally the manager that has an extensive records of accomplishments, but that doesn't always translate to a good leader. In any case, I see a definite application here for Obama, as opposed to people that have "extensive records of 'accomplishments'", such as McCain. Even if McCain has more gov't experience, that doesn't make him a better or more qualified leader, just as a lack thereof on Obama's part make him a poorer qualifier. How many people throughout history have been thrusts into leadership positions w/o much specific experience to that cause? Wasn't Joan of Arc a kid? In any case, I believe Obama exhibits many leadership qualities and I think he has a good head on his shoulders, which puts him leagues ahead of other "more qualified" candidates. That he doesn't have a laundry list of gov't accomplishments doesn't really matter to me when you are applying for the job as leader of the free world.
I'm sure it was unintentional Xerafin, but your choice of Joan of Arc as an example ties in nicely with my comments on faith.
Interesting, though. "Leadership qualities" seems to be a very subjective thing by which to judge someone. It's almost like asking us to take it on faith that he would be a good president. If he had demonstrated his leadership style or those qualities in some way in the past, I might be more willing to disregard his relative lack of actual accomplishment.
Why? I'd say it's on you to show that McCain has accomplished something (besides McCain-Feingold and the unconstitutional line-item veto) rather than me to show that he hasn't. It's impossible to prove a negative. They aren't all running on change, if by "they" you mean actual politicians still in the race, and by "change" you mean "a substantial departure from what's now in place." McCain isn't saying "I'm going to change things from the Bush administration's way of doing things." In fact, as near as I can tell he's saying we have to stay the course on virtually every policy of the Bush administration. Then there's the matter of what kind of change is needed. Yes, Ron Paul wants things changed as well. Reasonable people can differ as to whether the changes Obama (or any other candidate) wants are good, bad or indifferent. Reasonable people can differ on how likely he is to actually achieve the change he seeks. But to treat the kinds of changes he wants as the equivalent of what Obama or Hillary or even a Huckabee wants is disingenuous at best. There's essentially now a three person pack: Obama, Hillary and McCain. Obama and Hillary agree far more often than they disagree, I think it's safe to say. But McCain and Obama have obviously different platforms. Neither is as substance-free as you would make it sound. And so it's more than mere charisma that separates the two.
