"I think he is a transformational figure, he is a new generation coming onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I'll be voting for Sen. Barack Obama,"
Really? Because he's young and so-called "transformational?" That's why CP endorsed him?
More...
Quote:
"Obama displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge," Powell said. "He has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president," he said.
How so? By missing all the votes or voting not present? Is that what makes a president successful or exceptional?
Unfortunately, with dumb statements like these, it's no wonder why people question the reall reason for CP's endorsement and assume it to be more about race than actual qualifications
I don't believe race was the key issue ... obviously CP has a beef with the Republican party and W's administration. But because of these ridiculous statements, it makes the endorsement appear only to be skin-deep.
Really? Because he's young and so-called "transformational?" That's why CP endorsed him?
More...
How so? By missing all the votes or voting not present? Is that what makes a president successful or exceptional?
Unfortunately, with dumb statements like these, it's no wonder why people question the reall reason for CP's endorsement and assume it to be more about race than actual qualifications
I don't believe race was the key issue ... obviously CP has a beef with the Republican party and W's administration. But because of these ridiculous statements, it makes the endorsement appear only to be skin-deep.
N David, that whole charge was one of the most over-hyped, over-repeated claims I think I've ever heard in modern politics. It's just crazy how when somebody comes up with a charge, it becomes the mantra of an entire party-line whether it adds up or not. It seems that most people who kept repeating that, never took the time to look into it. We beat it to death here on this forum in the past, though, so I don't think I have the energy anymore.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
Really? Because he's young and so-called "transformational?" That's why CP endorsed him?
More...
How so? By missing all the votes or voting not present? Is that what makes a president successful or exceptional?
Unfortunately, with dumb statements like these, it's no wonder why people question the reall reason for CP's endorsement and assume it to be more about race than actual qualifications
I don't believe race was the key issue ... obviously CP has a beef with the Republican party and W's administration. But because of these ridiculous statements, it makes the endorsement appear only to be skin-deep.
...also, you're certainly not suggesting that these are the only two things CP said about why he was endorsing Obama, or that these represent the totality of his reasoning. I seem to remember his explanations being much, much, much longer than two sentences.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
N David, that whole charge was one of the most over-hyped, over-repeated claims I think I've ever heard in modern politics. It's just crazy how when somebody comes up with a charge, it becomes the mantra of an entire party-line whether it adds up or not. It seems that most people who kept repeating that, never took the time to look into it. We beat it to death here on this forum in the past, though, so I don't think I have the energy anymore.
It's part of his record. He missed 24% of votes per govtrack and voted simply present for a large number of votes that he made. I don't have the count of the "present" votes but it was a large number.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tstew
...also, you're certainly not suggesting that these are the only two things CP said about why he was endorsing Obama, or that these represent the totality of his reasoning. I seem to remember his explanations being much, much, much longer than two sentences.
Those quotes were from his interview with CNN...
Read his quote again ...
Quote:
"I think he is a transformational figure, he is a new generation coming onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I'll be voting for Sen. Barack Obama,"
I'm sure he refined the endorsement later and said a few more things, but with his CNN interview, it was a very weak, very shallow endorsement.
To clarify, the missed votes were as a US Senator ... the "present" votes were as an Illinois Senator, which he did 131 times ... roughly once for every 30 votes.
That was something that Clinton, not the Republicans, first attacked with during the presidential primaries.
It's part of his record. He missed 24% of votes per govtrack and voted simply present for a large number of votes that he made. I don't have the count of the "present" votes but it was a large number.
Those quotes were from his interview with CNN...
Read his quote again ...
I'm sure he refined the endorsement later and said a few more things, but with his CNN interview, it was a very weak, very shallow endorsement.
As a general rule, when I hear charges (particularly in politics) I try to see for myself. In my opinion, for a charge that has been so repeated, this one is incredibly thin and when looked at on its whole was one of the things that made people think that the opponents of BHO were grasping at straws.
a. The charges of voting "Present" were strictly during his time in the Illinois House.
b. It is a practice that is pretty common in Illinois and there are reasons that the politicians do it.
c. (and very revealing) Go look at the number of present votes there were and compare that to the total votes. I think any objective person would have to recognize that the hype does not match the proportion.
d. I've never understood how BHO could be portrayed as never voting, but simultaneously labeled the most liberal Senator based on his voting record.
e. The study that we use to label him most liberal, has a threshold number of votes that have to be cast in order to qualify to be evaluated. Interestingly, that same study was unable to evaluate only one Presidential candidate due to a lack of voting...John McCain. If I remember correctly, he missed far too many votes in two of the three categories.
I just say this because in my opinion, the GOP misplayed its approach with many moderates and objective people in this election cycle. In particular, younger people will want to validate claims for themselves. There were too many instances where we heard something a million times...then when you looked into it, it just didn't hold up. The impression was that if this is such a major point of attack, and even it does not bear out, the GOP must not have much.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
The charge of voting present was first done by Hillary Clinton ... a fellow Democrat in the primaries ... not by the GOP.
Was it a political ploy first used at times in the primaries? Absolutely. However, it became a mantra for the GOP. People are still throwing it out there. It didn't work for Hillary either. My point is that if you are going to make something be that central to your attack, you better be sure that it has teeth. In a lot of people's opinion, this didn't.
If you're going to have people repeating blindly that your opponent did not vote in the Senate, you better be sure that he didn't out-vote your candidate.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
Was it a political ploy first used at times in the primaries? Absolutely. However, it became a mantra for the GOP. People are still throwing it out there. It didn't work for Hillary either. My point is that if you are going to make something be that central to your attack, you better be sure that it has teeth. In a lot of people's opinion, this didn't. If you're going to have people repeating blindly that your opponent did not vote in the Senate, you better be sure that he didn't out-vote your candidate.
Linear Mode
