Barack "Hussein" Obama (that one's for you Kevin) and Joe "Robinette" Biden make the perfect running mates for the White House.
Barack Obama has been running the campaign message that there is now "Hope" in America for "Change". Joe Biden is the perfect candidate to add to this ticket of change, since he is 36 years new to Washington. This long-known advocate of reform...
I can't continue with this nonsense. Let's get down to the truth.
The couch potato of Washington change, Joe Biden, has done little, if any, throughout his many years as Senator to reform D.C.. Often reform refers to fighting the established powers. Its hard to do that when you, yourself, are a 36 year established power in Washington, D.C..
To make change truly happen, one must work across party lines. Biden and Obama have not worked across party lines. According to the National Journal's 2007 Vote Ratings, calculated by Polidata, a nonpartisan political data analysis firm, the Junior Senator Obama votes as the most liberal Senator of the United States. His vice-presidential nominee, the 36 year couch potato of the Washington change, comes in a close third in the rankings of most liberal Senators. In a Senate where there are 25 Senators more liberal than Ted Kennedy (26th by National Journal's 2007 Vote Rating), Barack Obama and Joe Biden are anything but moderate.
Barack Obama's plans with United States include raising taxes(as found in Obama's platform). This Junior Senator seems to be looking for any excuse to raise taxes. Be it a higher Social Security tax, a higher tax on capital gains, a higher tax on dividends, a higher tax on small businesses (the back-bone job creator of the economy), or the the higher income tax which Obama will have to raise to pay for his national health care plan, Obama never misses a step in his plan take "change" out of the citizens pockets and stick it into his ever-growing federal bureaucracy.
One thing which may unify Obama and Biden, besides their far left agenda, is their habit of habitual plagiarism. In 1988, Joe Biden plagiarized a speech by Neil Kinnock, a labor party leader in the House of Commons. After being exposed, Bidens resignation from the Democratic primary soon followed. Obama followed in his VP's footsteps. Check out Obama's plagiarism's of John Edwards and Deval Patrick below.
It is amazing that these two candidates of "Change" sound like the same old politicians of yesterday.
While the Obama Presidential campaign has focused on the issue of stating that they are for "Change" in the government, they have proven to be supporters of "changing" their minds. Obama and Biden have flip-flopped on many different issues.
Let us start with the 36 year couch potato of change. Biden changed his mind about Barack Obama and his readiness to be President of the United States.
Amazingly enough, Joe Biden changed his thoughts after receiving Obama's vice-presidential nomination.
Obama stated the day before his announcement of his VP choice that he wanted a vice president who would challenge his ideas. Obama failed by selecting flip-flopper Joe Biden. On Labor Day, before his vice-presidential pick, Joe Biden stated that he was not against offshore drilling. This type of elaborate energy plan for a Democrat was truly a "Change" America and the Democratic party needed. Amazingly enough, he gets the vice-presidential nomination by Obama and he "changes" his mind and conforms to Obama's viewpoints, stating that he is against drilling.
One issue that Obama flipped on was campaign finance. After agreeing to a new ethical standard with the republican nominee and beginning to "change" America, Obama went back on his word and "changed" his mind.
Obama also "changed" his mind on his stance on Jerusalem's sovereignty. He originally stated that Jerusalem,"must remain undivided". After pressure from Palestinian leaders, Obama "changed" his stance less than 24 hours later.
These candidates of "change" share many things in common. Hopefully after November they will share another: A failed attempt at the United States Presidency.
Just some food for your thought until the next blog entry:
11 comments:
There are tons of websites with this kind of stuff on it. Give us a new perspective, please. That is what I would expect out of you, Tim, not the same old rehashed non-issues where "facts" are casually mentioned. You are better than this kind of crud. That goes for both sides, btw. I just absolutely despise this kind of "politics"
you're wrong marcus, i did not know about obama stealing speeches or how many times he changes sides on different issues. i also thought this article was mostly facts.
Tim, I'm going to have to agree with Marcus. I always respected you freshman year--even with your very different viewpoints!--because I thought that you were both thoughtful and genuine. What you have written in this blog is not what I would've expected from the Tim that I knew. Republican? That's fine. But I thought that you were above the name calling and factually empty, sensational "news" stories. I would have so much more respect for you (and for your opinions) if you spent less time trying to play the politician and more time presenting straightforward facts. Flip-flopper? Plagiarist? Couch potato? Please. Prove to me that you know your facts, that you understand the issues our nation must confront, and I will be glad to read a political piece of yours. This, to me, is just a manipulative, mindless distraction from the problems and ideas that our country desperately needs to be discussing. I believe that you are capable of writing a piece that is substantial, honest, and intelligent; I hope that's while I'll see in the future.
Hey Claire,
I respectfully disagree with you. Obama changed his stance on ethics reform and important allies in today's post 9/11 world. My point to this story is to call into question Obama's rhetoric himself. He says he is for change to the public financed campaigns for president. He didn't back it up. In his term in the Senate, he has never once authored a law. He has co-sponsored, but co-sponsoring is merely stating you agree with something and that you support it. Authoring a law in D.C. would support his "change" rhetoric, but unfortunately he did not.
Often people having feelings towards one candidate or another is repulsed when someone attacks his/her candidate. This is natural. However, I am not sorry.
The candidate running for the office of President should be attacked on every issue. This protects America from having an inadequate President who will not act in America's best interest.
I attack Obama on changing his position, not just because of the issues he changed on, but also because Obama told America one thing, then "changed" his mind. I don't want a President that says one thing to the American public and then "refines" his position to something new.
Next, I bring up the plagiarism issue to show how Obama is not honest with America. He is often talked about being one of the best candidates in recent history to give speeches. Turns out, a lot of these speeches were actually other people's speeches. Not too honest, eh?
Couch potato. I use this rhetoric to talk about Joe Biden who has claimed to be an agent of "Change". He has been in the Senate 36 years and has not ever been known as a proponent of "Change".
When a politician claims one thing and does another, I hope someone will call them out on it and show it to the public. That is what I have done.
Tim,
I hope you realize that you have just indicted the Republican ticket for the Presidency as well. He was against off shore drilling before he was for it. He has changed his immigration policy. Sarah Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. So I guess you are voting for Nader or McKinney, because I know Bob Barr has changed his positions.
I like John McCain and one of things that I like about him is his flexibility with policy. Since when has a politician not been able to "refine" their policies? Do you thing that they all get it right the first time?
As for Biden, I can't argue that he has been an instrument for change. We both know that his selection was political, to appease the fear of foreign policy weakness. However, in the same token, you and I both know that Palin was a political pick as well. The purpose of both of these picks isn't who will be better in office, but who will help (or at least not hurt) win the office. But going back to the who will be better in office, I am scared to death of the thought of Sarah Palin as our President. The ONLY thing close to foreign policy experience that I have heard anyone give for her is "Alaska is close to Russia."
As for being offended, that I am not. I am, however, disappointed that you have stooped to such low rhetorical levels. I know that you have a much more refined view of politics than this, and to publicly denounce it in favor of rhetorical BS is extremely disappointing to me. I have plenty of critique of Obama myself, so that doesn't bother me. What does bother me is that such rhetoric is coming from someone who I know is so much better than this.
Marcus, you're right about a few things, but this article wasn't about McCain and Palin. It was about Obama and Biden. This is like complaining that a Science book doesn't have Chinese History in it. My arguments about specific policies will come about after the first presidential debate. That will give Obama plenty of time to "refine" his position to one that polls well.
Wait. Let me get this strait. Obama/Biden are running against McCain/Palin in an open election, but the two are as related as Chinese History and Science? Last I checked Chinese History and Science aren't running against each other for office.
For a more correct metaphor as to what you are doing, you should consider a forum (such as an election) where all major voices share a common characteristic (revising policy issues), yet you only chastise one of them for this characteristic. To put in a folksy rhetorical metaphor that seems to be the call of the day: "It's the pot calling the kettle black," or "when you point fingers, four of those fingers are pointing back to you."
I may have to apologize since Obama happens to be black. I mean this is about as insulting as the "lipstick" non-issue.
The bottom line is that the old defense that "this article is about Obama and not McCain" is ridiculous, because you are in fact writing it to draw comparisons to McCain, since they are in competition, that is, unless you support a third party. You are not operating in a vacuum and it's not for the sole purpose of trashing Obama, even if you claim it is. The only reason that your goal is to bring doubt about Obama's record is to support McCain by comparison (or in this case absence of likewise criticism). So, your blog is misleading (why would someone complain about something the opponent possesses when their candidate possesses the same characteristic?) and the same type of crap that makes people hate politics.
You always talked about how you wanted to do good. Well, this is the exact thing that is harming our country. It cheapens discourse and therefore adulterates the democratic process. Please, just leave the Machiavellian politics to the slime bags and scum and act like you have a little dignity.
Machiavellian Politics:
"Hope"
"Change"
"So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."when someone thought Small-town America wasn't listening
"Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000.... a heartbeat away from the presidency."- someone attacking small-town America again
You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig." (clearly about Palin)
"You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still gonna stink. (clearly about McCain)We've had enough of the same old thing."
You're right Marcus, Obama seems like a scum bag to me too.
So what exactly are you mad at? The fact my blog could possibly be biased? The fact of the matter is that I did not put one thing in my blog that wasn't true. Marcus, I know the truth hurts.
At first I had stuff on here that pointed out fallacies in your blog etc. but I realized it doesn't matter, because that is falling into the trap of arguing about the wrong kind of things. And because my concern isn't actually with the things that you are writing but the fact that you are the one writing them, I'll just give you this and leave it at that:
This isn't a grand "defend Obama" initiative on my part. I criticize him enough, but for the right reasons... you know... stuff that's relevant. I am not mad about anything. However, I have said repeatedly that I'm disappointed. You can play with semantics all you want, but you know exactly what I'm talking about. Sensationalist propaganda cheapens Democracy. It makes an election less dignified, less fair, and it puts the fate of the election not in policy or ability, but in which side can make the other side look the worst. My objection is with your foray into this sphere of "political" (really its closer to a cross between a soap opera and celebrity news) nonsense. I know that you know policy and I know you have damn good reasons to vote the way you do, that have theoretical and ideological backing. But that is not what you are presenting to us. Instead you give us the celebrity soap opera.
Exactly, Obama, the celebrity soap opera.
Post a Comment