Author Topic: Politics  (Read 511244 times)

Think_Long

  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 877
Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
« Reply #250 on: August 29, 2008, 09:53:09 AM »
It's not meaningless; it's just a bit clumsy. Which is odd considering he must have one of the best speech writers in the business.

I was under the impression that he was one of the few politicians that actually wrote their own speeches with minimal aid from speech-writers.

he's written some of his own - i think his "race" speech was at least partially. mostly i think that's just a myth that the obamanauts would like to spread. in today's political scene it would be impossible for the politician to have time to simply write the speech, much less fact check/ run it by test audiences/ edit/ include and exclude certain bits based on recent polling data. it's all marketing essentially. unless someone has a source to prove me wrong? this is what i mosty assume to be the case

Wowser

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2249
Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
« Reply #251 on: August 29, 2008, 09:55:42 AM »
I am with Think_Long on this.

lise

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
« Reply #252 on: August 29, 2008, 09:56:08 AM »




Strikeouts are boring - besides that, they're fascist.  Throw some ground balls.  More democratic.

FroHam X

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17792
  • “By any seeds necessary.”
    • justAtad
Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
« Reply #253 on: August 29, 2008, 09:59:15 AM »
It's not meaningless; it's just a bit clumsy. Which is odd considering he must have one of the best speech writers in the business.

I was under the impression that he was one of the few politicians that actually wrote their own speeches with minimal aid from speech-writers.

he's written some of his own - i think his "race" speech was at least partially. mostly i think that's just a myth that the obamanauts would like to spread. in today's political scene it would be impossible for the politician to have time to simply write the speech, much less fact check/ run it by test audiences/ edit/ include and exclude certain bits based on recent polling data. it's all marketing essentially. unless someone has a source to prove me wrong? this is what i mosty assume to be the case

I believed that he wrote his speeches and simply had aids working with him to perfect/fact-check etc. Unlike McCain who most likely has his speeches written for him and he simply goes over them and helps with the revisions.
"We didn't clean the hamster's cage, the hamster's cage cleaned us!"

Can't get enough FroHam? Read more of my musings at justAtad

Wowser

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2249
Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
« Reply #254 on: August 29, 2008, 10:02:03 AM »
Either way, when he's president he'll certainly have to rely on a speech writer more.

Colleen

  • Hot Fuzz
  • Godfather
  • *
  • Posts: 5906
  • Let's be careful out there!
Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
« Reply #255 on: August 29, 2008, 10:05:00 AM »
sarah palin?

--- very conservative ---

But young, good looking, and female, with a cute family.  And has a newborn Downs syndrome baby who she did not abort after prenatal testing....way to mobilize the base.  Not as cynical as I sound, I actually have a lot of respect for her for that.  And an article I just read said she was in the weeds with the Republican party in Alaska after crossing them on ethics issues on a powerful gas/oil board or somesuch, came back to win as governor, 90% approval rating.

Other than the lack of experience thing (and the higher likelihood that given McCain's age/health issues, she really could find herself as president) she looks like an awesome pick and could influence some undecideds and even some Hillary dead-enders.

gateway

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1621
  • Boom De Ah Da.
Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
« Reply #256 on: August 29, 2008, 10:14:55 AM »
I wouldn't necessarily paint her as very conservative... a solid conservative most definitely, but I really wouldn't put her on the fringe either, despite her very rigid stance against abortion (it is only one issue after all). She's actually been fairly moderate in some of her viewpoints, particularly in her efforts to curb oil usage and signing a bill into law implementing same-sex benefits. Very good pick in my opinion, balances out the age concerns with McCain, satisfies the base, and steals some of the thunder of Obama's historic candidacy. I think Palin helps McCain considerably more than Biden helps Obama (who I really felt should have gone with Tim Kaine).
"I hope someday to be rich enough to smoke giant cigars while cackling maniacally."
- Nathan Rabin (echoing my thoughts exactly)

philip918

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4580
Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
« Reply #257 on: August 29, 2008, 11:13:46 AM »
A 2-year governor from a state with a population of 683,478 who is younger than Obama and completely unknown.  There go most of the arguments the Republicans have been leveling at Obama about his qualifications to lead.

For your consideration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ys4HGbiONY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKwZNwdowa4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4iCDBIAde8&feature=related

I'm sure the McCain camp will make sure she never utters the word "hope" again.

St. Martin the Bald

  • Lurker
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11205
Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
« Reply #258 on: August 29, 2008, 11:14:53 AM »

Anyone able to tell me what this actually means? Because I don't actually think it means anything at all:

"John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell - but he won't even go to the cave where he lives."

Other than that, nice one.
That he's all talk and no action on Bin Laden. Who must be dead now, anyway, really.

How is a Senator from Arizona supposed to take action on Bin Laden? How has Obama taken any more or less action?

I'm not bashing just for the sake of it - this was a totally meaningless (as far as I can see) statement that sounds exactly like something Dubya would say...

That's the point - the whole point of Obama's speech was to tie him to GWB's policies and actions. We stopped looking for Bin Laden and focused on Iraq and McCain supported all of these actions. So while the real perpetrator of 9/11 got away in Pakistan -we chased phantom WMD's in Iraq.

In May of 07 McCain said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_-rnJxo0Fo

But yet he won't endorse actually stepping up the hunt for him - rather he would lead down a path of failure for an unjustfied war in Iraq.
The Senator from AZ is attempting to shoulder the mantle of GWB - he supports his actions and his policies - so he needs to own his failures as well - which are legion.

It's not meaningless; it's just a bit clumsy. Which is odd considering he must have one of the best speech writers in the business.

It wasn't clumsy or meaningless - you just missed the point.
Hey, nice marmot!

Wowser

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2249
Re: US Elections 2008 Edition
« Reply #259 on: August 29, 2008, 11:17:40 AM »


It wasn't clumsy or meaningless - you just missed the point.

I never said it was meaningless. And pardon me for not following American politics inch by inch  ::)

 

love