Short on Judgment

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Gary,

All the Obama supporters on this site will immediately discredit or discount any information about their candidate that is contrary to his uplifting and hope filled message. You really cant reason with them with facts.

If someone would post "facts" rather than (poorly written) op-ed pieces, there would be a basis for a reasonable discussion.

As it stands - confusing fact with fiction doesn't really put you on the side of right and reason.

[Ggreen 12]

Short on Judgment

An experience experiment for Obama.

By Jonah Goldberg

It looks like the presidential battle will be about one overarching theme: judgment versus experience. And Exhibit A will be the Iraq war.

Barack Obama insists that judgment is more important than experience. Truth be told, he’s right. A wise leader with no experience is preferable to a moron with plenty. But that’s not really our choice.

John McCain argues that experience yields good judgment. The battle-scarred soldier, the trial-tested lawyer, the accomplished surgeon: They make the right calls because they’ve clocked field time. McCain contends he’s walked through the fire and learned valuable lessons as a result.

Obama’s people frame things differently. Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod recently told the Huffington Post: “It is not a question of longevity in government. It is a question of judgment, it is a question of a willingness to challenge policies that have failed. And (McCain) seems just dug in.”

On the surface, this all sounds like a perfectly reasonable disagreement — indeed, it sounds like precisely the sort of debate we should be having during a presidential election.

The problem is that it doesn’t reflect reality. Obama, who was a young state senator from a very liberal district in Chicago and a star parishioner of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ when the country was debating invading Iraq, would have voters believe that he carefully weighed the pros and cons and concluded it would be a bad idea.

You may be willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. I am not. A far more plausible explanation is that Obama took the position you would expect him to take. Just as it never occurred to him that his pastor would be an albatross in a national election, it never dawned on him that he should take a stance other than the one expected of anyone on the far Left of the Democratic Party, never mind on the far Left of the Chicago Democratic machine. This doesn’t necessarily obviate Obama’s bragging rights, but the idea that in 2002 he would have taken any other stance strikes me as unlikely as Michael Moore siding with the pro-Bush camp.

Even if you want to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, it’s hard to give him the benefit of the facts.

As a candidate for U.S. Senate in 2003, Obama said he would “unequivocally” oppose President Bush on the war. But once in office, he voted for every war-funding bill — until he decided to run for president.

After the invasion, Obama did not favor an immediate pullout from Iraq. Right around the time he delivered his brilliant keynote address to the Democratic National Convention in July 2004, he told the Chicago Tribune that when it came to the war, “there’s not much of a difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.”

In other words, while he opposed the war, he was committed to Bush’s initially flawed military strategy. That was not the position of Moveon.org.

During the long battle for the Democratic nomination, however, Obama’s position evolved (or devolved) into a consistent call for withdrawal in order to differentiate himself from Hillary Clinton. When the Bush administration finally surged troops last year, it was Obama who “dug in,” insisting that it wouldn’t work — and in fact would make things even worse.

By last November, the success of the surge was obvious to all open-minded observers, yet Obama insisted that the gains had come merely in a few “certain neighborhoods.” Anbar and Diyala provinces are somewhat larger than mere “neighborhoods” (ditto the “Triangle of Death”). In January, Obama’s denial took a new form. During a debate, he suggested that progress was attributable to the Democratic congressional victories in 2006, because Sunnis saw that America would soon bug out.

Meantime, there was the supposedly dogmatic McCain challenging Bush’s approach to Iraq nearly from the get-go. In the summer of 2003, in response to the upswing in violence, he called for “a lot more military” in order to win in Iraq. He said he had “no confidence” in Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. In May 2004, McCain told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that “we’ve got to adjust to the realities of the situation as it exists and that means doing whatever is necessary and acting decisively.”

McCain was challenging Bush when Obama was assuring voters there wasn’t “much difference” between his position and Bush’s. And now Obama is locked into a position despite the facts on the ground. Obama may indeed have great judgment, but his record shows little experience employing it.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWE3N...TY2MzFjZTcxOTc=

[Jack and Barbara 0]

I find it interesting how those who obviously voted for the current president back in 2004 (and not McCain) when Bush's Karl Rove-backed campaign smeared McCain are now supporting McCain.

If these same people who believed that McCain fathered an illegitimate child and allowed that to be sufficient enough to vote for Bush based off of those dirty campaign tricks, then why vote for the person they smeared? Even if you don't believe in the lies created about McCain then, why vote against him then and now vote for him?

[rebeccajo 14]

Common sense fact -

Voting for a 'war funding bill' isn't the same thing as voting for the war.

Unless you want to have your constituents believe you would have their sons and daughters in harms way without the machinery of war, that is.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Gary,

All the Obama supporters on this site will immediately discredit or discount any information about their candidate that is contrary to his uplifting and hope filled message. You really cant reason with them with facts.

What facts, specifically, have been presented by Gary?

[GaryC 7]

God this is fun to watch. Every story that discredits Obama is met with vitriol and hate. I gonna love the next few months of kicking the anthill. Thats some strong koolaid Obama is passing out.

[Ban Hammer 13,575]

God this is fun to watch. Every story that discredits Obama is met with vitriol and hate. I gonna love the next few months of kicking the anthill. Thats some strong koolaid Obama is passing out.

ain't that the truth? it's like he has no faults according to his supporters. maybe time to coin the phrase "obama denial derangement syndrome" (ODDS) when they can't see anything wrong with their chosen one.

Edited June 5, 2008 by charlesandnessa

[GaryC 7]

God this is fun to watch. Every story that discredits Obama is met with vitriol and hate. I gonna love the next few months of kicking the anthill. Thats some strong koolaid Obama is passing out.

ain't that the truth? it's like he has no faults according to his supporters. maybe time to coin the phrase "obama denial derangement syndrome" (ODDS) when they can't see anything wrong with their chosen one.

The funniest part of it is their sincerity in their undying love for their messiha. It's as if a spell has been cast over them. Like I said, some strong koolaid out there.

[Ggreen 12]

mmmmmmmm...koolaid

[Marilyn. 340]

geez louise...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Still short of the facts, Gary?

[Peikko 1,575]

God this is fun to watch. Every story that discredits Obama is met with vitriol and hate. I gonna love the next few months of kicking the anthill. Thats some strong koolaid Obama is passing out.

ain't that the truth? it's like he has no faults according to his supporters. maybe time to coin the phrase "obama denial derangement syndrome" (ODDS) when they can't see anything wrong with their chosen one.

The funniest part of it is their sincerity in their undying love for their messiha. It's as if a spell has been cast over them. Like I said, some strong koolaid out there.

If that's all you guys have to contribute, I for one am not impressed. The idea that McCain has had a more consistant viewpoint regarding Iraq is perfectly valid and worth putting forward particularly as it shows he is certainly not McSame. However, to do so with such faulty journalism isn't very convincing.

Edited June 5, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As I said - if posting inflammatory articles of dubious provenance is the goal here, then it totally isn't about having an honest discussion about the merits (or lack thereof) of a particular candidate. Pretty dishonest at the end of the day.

[Cassie 8]

As I said - if posting inflammatory articles of dubious provenance is the goal here, then it totally isn't about having an honest discussion about the merits (or lack thereof) of a particular candidate. Pretty dishonest at the end of the day.

exactly. I'm amused at the "you can't handle the facts" argument when there hasn't been any real facts presented, only opinion.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As I said - if posting inflammatory articles of dubious provenance is the goal here, then it totally isn't about having an honest discussion about the merits (or lack thereof) of a particular candidate. Pretty dishonest at the end of the day.

exactly. I'm amused at the "you can't handle the facts" argument when there hasn't been any real facts presented, only opinion.

Yup - somehow its surprising when there's a negative reaction to the posting of spurious tripe off the internet. As though the reaction proves that Obama's supporters are deluded.

Its easy to provoke an angry emotional response - perhaps we should post a few articles trashing the military and see how that goes down.

"Look how angry they get". As if its a surprise...