The Foreign Policy Difference

[GaryC 7]

That is my answer. Obama is totaly out of touch with middle America. This is his opinion of a majority of America. We are all just a bunch of dumb hicks with our guns and religion.

He's perfectly right. Explain how they don't cling to guns and religion.

Keep in mind we also have rural areas in California who think the same way. California doesn't have 53 Democrats in the U.S. House. I've seen the same ###-backwards logic from people here as well.

Congrats, you have managed to insult half of America. Your a great spokesman for your party.

[IAMX 3,055]

That is my answer. Obama is totaly out of touch with middle America. This is his opinion of a majority of America. We are all just a bunch of dumb hicks with our guns and religion.

He's perfectly right. Explain how they don't cling to guns and religion.

Keep in mind we also have rural areas in California who think the same way. California doesn't have 53 Democrats in the U.S. House. I've seen the same ###-backwards logic from people here as well.

Congrats, you have managed to insult half of America. Your a great spokesman for your party.

What party is that?

And why do I need to speak for others?

Edited September 10, 2008 by SRVT

[Cassie 8]

great. we've got that settled. Now let's talk specifics of foreign policy proposals.

Ok. Tell me, who do you think has more experience dealing with other nations? McCain or Obama?

Oh Gary. You are surrounded by people who could give you legitimate insights and feedback on whether or not either candidate's foreign policy ideas would go over well in their home country and achieve the results the US expects/wants and you want to go back and argue about experience? Haven't we beaten that horse to death yet? You think Obama doesn't have experience, I think he has a perspective that I feel "gets it" when it comes to America's place in the world. Now can we move on to policy specifics?

Edited September 10, 2008 by Cassie

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Gary, can you answer in your own words, what is a liberal elitist? And if they exist, wouldn't that mean there are conservative elitists? Can you define what a conservative elitist is? How or when did Barack Obama become an elitist? In college? When he ran for office in Chicago?

To me, it's just another buzz word used by many on the Right to evoke an emotional response, but has no real substance to it.

Someone that says this:

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Ring a bell?

That's being taken out of context for one. Obama explained what he was saying and it wasn't elitism. He wasn't saying, "I'm better than these people"....he was attempting to define how their political views are shaped.

....

Obama's remarks at a San Francisco fundraiser Sunday, and they include an attempt to explain the resentment in small-town Pennsylvania that won't be appreciated by some of the people whose votes Obama's seeking:

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Obama_on_smalltown_PA_Clinging_religion_guns_xenophobia.html

.....

If you look at Obama's theme of change....that's a populist view. Now I know why the Republicans don't want to define him as a populist because that would imply that what he's campaigning for and the ideas he expresses actually resonate with the American people.

Dance, Dance, dance. It shows how out of touch he is with middle America. That is an elitist.

Come on, Gary. I articulated my response. At least show me the same in return.

That is my answer. Obama is totaly out of touch with middle America. This is his opinion of a majority of America. We are all just a bunch of dumb hicks with our guns and religion. That is the impression I have of him, that is what makes him an elitist and that is why I don't like him. He does not speak for me.

Well, I'm saying you're making a big assumption based on an out of context interpretation of what Obama said, meanwhile ignoring the volumes of things he's said and done that demonstrate he is a populist and not an elitist.

As an example, I could find quotes of McCain that I could draw the same conclusion of him being out of touch with the rest of Americans. McCain's big whoops moment of being out of touch with ordinary Americans was when he couldn't say how many homes he owns.

All politicians in general tend to be cushioned from the real lives of ordinary Americans (as Senators, they both have the best health insurance in the country, paid for by the tax payer). If at least they recognize that characteristic of being politicians, they could then reach out and spend time with ordinary Americans...listen to what they are saying. Both McCain and Obama have been doing just that so all this 'out of touch' finger pointing really doesn't amount to a whole lot. What voters are going to look at is which policies are 'out of touch' with America...that's what counts.

[GaryC 7]

great. we've got that settled. Now let's talk specifics of foreign policy proposals.

Ok. Tell me, who do you think has more experience dealing with other nations? McCain or Obama?

Oh Gary. You are surrounded by people who could give you legitimate insights and feedback on whether or not either candidate's foreign policy ideas would go over well in their home country and achieve the results the US expects/wants and you want to go back and argue about experience? Haven't we beaten that horse to death yet? You think Obama doesn't have experience, I think he has a perspective that I feel "gets it" when it comes to America's place in the world. Now can we move on to policy specifics?

At this point there are no specifics from either candidate on foreign policy. All we have to go on is experience. Unless your talking about the conduct of the war in Iraq and Afganistan. If that is what your talking about then both candidates have aproximatly the same stand. We will be bringing the troops home from Iraq and sending them to Afganistan. The details are just how fast we do it.

[peejay 327]

"Liberal elite": A term created to confuse people like Gary into believing the Republican Party is the party of the working class.

And the liberal Democrats are? Ha! Teddy Kennedy's older brother JFK didn't even know there was a depression going on when he was growing up. How could he?

Idiots like Teddy claim to be for the working class, but have done more to bring in cheap illegal labor than the Wall Street Journal and the US Chamber of Commerce combined. Teddy's unions now-a-days are more worried about dues in their coffers than whether their members are authorized to work legally. And the Dems are more worried about adding more amnestied Democratic voters than protecting American jobs.

With friends like that I don't need anymore enemies or backstabbers that claim to be working for my best interests.

[Cassie 8]

For reference, in their own words:

Obama: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/

The closest I can find for John McCain are blurbs on national security and Iraq, nothing specifically labelled as "Foreign Policy".

National Security: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues...4fcf66a1e68.htm

Iraq: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues...c7ea83f11d8.htm

[GaryC 7]

For reference, in their own words:

Obama: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/

The closest I can find for John McCain are blurbs on national security and Iraq, nothing specifically labelled as "Foreign Policy".

National Security: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues...4fcf66a1e68.htm

Iraq: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues...c7ea83f11d8.htm

I am at work so it's hard to sit down and discuss this point by point. But the gist of what I read is that Obama is dedicated to talking and McCain is dedicated to being prepared. Ok, talking is good when your dealing with a reasonable adversary. What worries me is the idea that Obama will talk to Iran "without preconditions". IMO it only validates them. Also, talking hasn't worked with Iran up to this point. We have offered incentives to them to stop their nuclear ambitions and have been met with a one finger salute. I am not sure what else will get through to them other than a club over the head.

What I got from the McCain site is that he wants to have the military might to take care of threats. I don't dissagree with that. It's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. In my experience I have seen that a strong defense is a better deterant than talking. While I wouldn't want to attack Iran unless there was no other choice I wouldn't want to stake my hopes on talking which is what Obama seems to be doing.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I have to laugh at idea that "elitism" is something that the left hold the monopoly on. Of course its not elitist to be a multi-millionaire with more property than you can remember off the top of your head and push for tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest.

Pretty much everyone in frontline politics is an "elite".

Making this the exclusive domain of the left serves one purpose only - to demonizing the enemy and justify preconceived ideas about their representatives.

[IAMX 3,055]

For reference, in their own words:

Obama: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/

The closest I can find for John McCain are blurbs on national security and Iraq, nothing specifically labelled as "Foreign Policy".

National Security: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues...4fcf66a1e68.htm

Iraq: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues...c7ea83f11d8.htm

I am at work so it's hard to sit down and discuss this point by point. But the gist of what I read is that Obama is dedicated to talking and McCain is dedicated to being prepared. Ok, talking is good when your dealing with a reasonable adversary. What worries me is the idea that Obama will talk to Iran "without preconditions". IMO it only validates them. Also, talking hasn't worked with Iran up to this point. We have offered incentives to them to stop their nuclear ambitions and have been met with a one finger salute. I am not sure what else will get through to them other than a club over the head.

What I got from the McCain site is that he wants to have the military might to take care of threats. I don't dissagree with that. It's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. In my experience I have seen that a strong defense is a better deterant than talking. While I wouldn't want to attack Iran unless there was no other choice I wouldn't want to stake my hopes on talking which is what Obama seems to be doing.

Pre-emptive striking is not "defense". Looks like you failed for the bullshit sophist explanation too.

Hell, at least the "Department of Defense" had it right in it's previous name -- "Department of War".

And yes, Clinton even had plans regarding war. Fret not, Gary, Obama would also take this country to war.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

ETA

A populist is someone that sticks his wet finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing. It shows a lack of core values. In that manner Obama is a populist.

So, Obama is a populist for moving to the center or for qualifying and adjusting positions but McSame, who's done a 180 on just about anything he ever stood for is a principled guy with solid set of unshakable core values. Excellent! Thanks for clearing that up.

[HAL 9000 96]

Gary, can you answer in your own words, what is a liberal elitist? And if they exist, wouldn't that mean there are conservative elitists? Can you define what a conservative elitist is? How or when did Barack Obama become an elitist? In college? When he ran for office in Chicago?

To me, it's just another buzz word used by many on the Right to evoke an emotional response, but has no real substance to it.

Someone that says this:

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Ring a bell?

That's being taken out of context for one. Obama explained what he was saying and it wasn't elitism. He wasn't saying, "I'm better than these people"....he was attempting to define how their political views are shaped.

....

Obama's remarks at a San Francisco fundraiser Sunday, and they include an attempt to explain the resentment in small-town Pennsylvania that won't be appreciated by some of the people whose votes Obama's seeking:

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Obama_on_smalltown_PA_Clinging_religion_guns_xenophobia.html

.....

If you look at Obama's theme of change....that's a populist view. Now I know why the Republicans don't want to define him as a populist because that would imply that what he's campaigning for and the ideas he expresses actually resonate with the American people.

Dance, Dance, dance. It shows how out of touch he is with middle America. That is an elitist.

Come on, Gary. I articulated my response. At least show me the same in return.

That is my answer. Obama is totaly out of touch with middle America. This is his opinion of a majority of America. We are all just a bunch of dumb hicks with our guns and religion. That is the impression I have of him, that is what makes him an elitist and that is why I don't like him. He does not speak for me.

But I thought you stated you liked him a couple of months back?

Nevertheless, do or don't... its once again a perception you are using to define based once again on your impression. Now if that doesn't show sloppy impressionism in you then I don't know what does.

[HAL 9000 96]

For reference, in their own words:

Obama: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/

The closest I can find for John McCain are blurbs on national security and Iraq, nothing specifically labelled as "Foreign Policy".

National Security: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues...4fcf66a1e68.htm

Iraq: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues...c7ea83f11d8.htm

I am at work so it's hard to sit down and discuss this point by point. But the gist of what I read is that Obama is dedicated to talking and McCain is dedicated to being prepared. Ok, talking is good when your dealing with a reasonable adversary. What worries me is the idea that Obama will talk to Iran "without preconditions". IMO it only validates them. Also, talking hasn't worked with Iran up to this point. We have offered incentives to them to stop their nuclear ambitions and have been met with a one finger salute. I am not sure what else will get through to them other than a club over the head.

What I got from the McCain site is that he wants to have the military might to take care of threats. I don't dissagree with that. It's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. In my experience I have seen that a strong defense is a better deterant than talking. While I wouldn't want to attack Iran unless there was no other choice I wouldn't want to stake my hopes on talking which is what Obama seems to be doing.

Diplomacy hardly validates an opponent. And an opponent remains an opponent until settling whatever problem.

Assuming Obama would make us militarily weak is not only ridiculous, but a weak argument knowing what our position on this planet is. From a military point of view.

[panamania79 2]

"Liberal elite": A term created to confuse people like Gary into believing the Republican Party is the party of the working class.

That is how Mitt Romney can stand up at the RNC and admonish the "East Coast elites" while he himself was governor of a wealthy East Coast state and son of a wealthy East Coast elite family. He did this with a straight face, too.

This is how entrenched Washington conservatives can claim they will throw out the old guard...apparently by electing the old guard for four more years.

They know you will swallow the lies without critical thinking, so they've become bold about spreading them. Every time the phrase "liberal elite" is used, and every time you buy it, you've failed to use your brain. Do not pass go.

Also, I might enjoy arguing some of these points, but if you look closely, you'll see this is the work of an unclear writer and sloppy thinker. It's difficult to tell just what it is he's saying half the time.

The irony, no?

Though not mutually inclusive, these two (in bold) tend to be redundant at times.

Liberal elites... I tell ya... Communists and all those Liberals... you'd figure the USA would be a Left Wing, Commie, beatnik, elitist nation by now.

Right on Daddy-O