Actually, I'm done with this subject matter. You and I both know (or should acknowledge) that we engage ourselves in political debates out of personal conviction rather than sheer intellectual exercise in banal confrontation, however differently it might be otherwise received.
Ah ok, I'll take the bait I don't have to "explain how that policy demonstrates strong leadership". Not everything a good leader does will demonstrate that trait. My point is not that it showed good leadership, but that it is pretty arbitrary when it comes to discerning if someone has that characteristic or not. In order to use the "present" vote as proof of bad leadership skills it seems to me you have to first establish the following: 1.That his number of "present" votes was abnormally higher than the majority of other senators. 2.That voting "present" indeed shows a lack of leadership ability 3. If the above are both true, you would then have to explain how "political opportunism" is also a trait shared only by those who lack leadership ability. So here goes. Number one is easily found on the internet I'm sure, although I'm not going to do it. If I had to guess I would say that his "vacant" votes arent that much higher than anyone else's. Which would prove my point then and there. But let's assume, for arguments sake, that his amount of vacant votes is higher than the vast majority of other senators. Assuming you get past 1 That takes us to number 2. I think what you are after here is a lack of decisiveness. A leader has to make decisions, and to not make one reflects your inability to choose and thus your inability to lead. Sounds fair. However I think you have to take into account how many decisions you are required to make. If my guess is correct, there are around 100 votes a month in the senate. How can one human being possibly be adept at all those issues at the same time. I don't think they can. These aren't no-brainer issues, but deep complex ones that im sure I would have trouble tackling 2 per month, let a lone 100. with that many important and complex decisions being made, it seems to me inevitable that quite a few would come a long that you simply didn't know enough about. Is it a trait of a good leader then to cast judgment on a issue on which you know nothing about? Hmmm. Assuming you get past 2 Number 3. Politicians by there very nature are opportunists. Lets take one politician that we all know, JFK. He was a pretty popular guy right? A pretty good president? Was he an opportunist? The biggest. I could go into why, but gosh I just don't feel like it. Just one example, to get his first seat in congress JFK's dad had to pay off the current congressmen in order for him to give up his seat so JFK could run. I could go on and on. Suffice to say all politicians are opportunists, they HAVE to be. If you really think you can have a positive affect on the world, if you really think YOU can do the job better than anybody else you have to do one thing first: get elected. So maybe Obama had to vote yes or no to pacify certain groups so he could have a better shot at the white house, you don't think john mccain does the same, and so does JFK, are they all bad leaders too? It's politics and the game has to played, whether your corrupt, and yes, even if you are the messiah himself you first have to get elected. Period.
Ahh it's a little of both for me. Hey if I'm wrong then I'm wrong and I'll change my mind. FWIW I did reply to your post in the other thread.
Replace homeless guy with "irresponsible lenders" and "the owners of the federal reserve" and the story makes even more sense.
I'm voting for Bob Barr; however, before I decided to vote for Bob Barr, I gave Obama some serious consideration. However, Obama flipped on FISA. That's when he lost my vote, never to be regained.
I've never seen what the big deal is on flip flopping. Unless of course they flip or flop to a position that you don't agree with. I think when politicians start to run for a major office they start getting hit with all sorts of new issues they never had to deal with before and to do with it new information on those issues. "when the facts change, my mind changes"...kind of thing. IMHO
Theres a BIG difference between changing your mind based on new facts (which I agree is fine), and changing your mind to get more votes, even if it means lying through your teeth...
My original point was that I disagreed with someone in the NY Times article who stated Obama demonstrated strong leadership by voting present so many times. So since you didn't agree with me, I was curious and asked you to explain why this would be trueâ¦(seems tough to do right?) Anyway, as expected, I disagree with the 3 points you made. 1. Whether or not his rate of voting present is higher than other politicians shouldn't be an issue. You're trying to justify a bad policy by saying its ok because everyone else is doing it. This isnât high school, he should be scrutinized because he is running for president, the others are not. The hypocritical aspect of this is how he preaches about âchangeâ, but if what you say is true, he hasnât really differentiated himself from any other politician. 2. My argument is not lack of decisiveness. He seems decisively far-left (which will only hurt him in general election, I donât care what the inaccurate polls say). It also seems he purposely avoided making definite decisions that would aggravate certain groups of people, withholding his true intentions. Doing the popular thing is not always the right thing. Just read ET, how many people would agree that it would be unpopular to fix current economic problems, but nobody wants to actually fix anything because they worry about reelection. How does this represent âchangeâ or a departure from the norm? Sounds like the same old to me. 3. There is nothing wrong with being an opportunist, but when you let it affect how you support issues it can become a problem, especially when pressured by lobbyists or special interests. If Mccain wanted to do the popular thing, he would NOT have supported the surge while the war/ and Bush were so unpopular. So by your own admission (according to the above and the other thread you started), the US invading Iraq is completely justified because the country needs more oil and Bush needed any excuse to invade Iraq under any means necessary? I'm just about finished with this thread. We aren't getting anywhere, which is pretty normal for these sort of debates.
I sincerely hope you're not one of those lukewarm independents who flip one year and flop the next. I find in your post a stark manifestation of so-called opportunistic realpolitik of the last century that translates into political impotence of this century.