Conservatives finding new direction

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Dec 1 2006, 12:29 PM) [snapback]356259[/snapback]</div>

Frankly I have been surprised at how someone with such little experience as Obama can be a serious contender.He hasn't accomplished much ,if anything,and his main attribute is that he has huge charisma.
When I think of all the things John Kerry has done in his career ,its embarrassing to compare the 2.
You have seen the rightwing media promoting him to dilute Hillarys strength?Id be very interested in a link.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Dec 1 2006, 09:29 AM) [snapback]356259[/snapback]</div>

OK, please name which neocon is promoting Obama and for what, President?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/11/27/175749.shtml

Wildkow

 

The key sentence of the above story:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Dec 2 2006, 06:31 AM) [snapback]356647[/snapback]</div>

Actually the key is that Kerry is in dead last place. Much more relevant and current to the situation today.

Wildkow

 

Whenever I ask, I get a different list of people considered "neocons". Usually, the VP is included, as well as folks like Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard and George Will. As far as I can tell, they have had three different opinions on the war all along; the VP is a fan of "staying the course", Kristol has long been a critic calling for the firing of Rumsfeld and "going big" in Iraq with doubling the troops, and George Will has, IIRC, opposed the war from the beginning.

As far as Obama and Hillary are concerned, I like Obama as a fresh face, and the press is always looking for the new, fresh face. Does he have enough experience? Probably. The next Democrat administration is likely to look a lot like the last one (if you look back, Carter used plenty of people from the Johnson administration, and the two Bush Presidents borrowed heavily from the Reagan administration).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Dec 2 2006, 01:58 PM) [snapback]356758[/snapback]</div>

The Lowry article talks about Obama but does not promote or endorse him as a presidential candidate. Maybe I misunderstood the orginial post. If anything Lowry points out that Obama has no credentials/experience to be President. That being said I think Obama will also be a candidate in 08 but please don’t read this as a promotion or endorsement just an observation.

Wildkow

p.s. The second article requires a subscription, something I usually don't do for any online media even if it is free. Just two old-school I guess.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Dec 2 2006, 02:43 PM) [snapback]356770[/snapback]</div>

To me Lowry's article sounds highly promotional towards Obama. I'd list some quotes, but practically the whole article sounds like that. I don't see how you don't see that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Dec 2 2006, 08:06 PM) [snapback]356846[/snapback]</div>

The first and second paragraph does not mention Obama at all. It only covers the Clinton-Bush era and the reasons why there is so much negativity associated with those names.

Obama is mention in the third paragraph as the only name up that has any palpable excitement behind it and the only reason is because it is not associated with Bush-Clinton.

The fourth and fifth paragraphs don’t mention Obama at all. The fourth covers why Hillary is not a good candidate and the fifth covers why Jeb Bush is sitting out a Presidential bid in 08.

The sixth paragraph does mention that only sweetness and light are associated with the Obama name mainly because 1) he is a creation of the media (something most pol’s have to spend millions to achieve) and 2) he has no record of accomplishment but that once and if he does in the next two years he will probably be as unappealing as the rest of the hopefuls in the 08 election.

The seventh paragraph points out that Obama has a pure 100% liberal voting record. Not a really good endorsement as it would seem that he should have some votes more towards the center or right if he wants to convince the independent conservatives to vote for him. It does point out that he has charisma and is able to “speak the language of religious believers in a non-focus-group-tested, genuine way.†But also points out that some of this sheen will be lost when he announces his candidacy.

The last paragraph mentions Obama but only in the context as to why he is on the national stage not as an endorsement.

I don't see it because its not there does the paragraph by paragraph synopsis help? Because from what I see there are 8 paragraphs Obama is mentioned in 4. The entire article never says Barack Obama should/would/ or could be a good president. In fact the first paragraph where he is mention says the reason he is on the stage is because his last name is Obama not Bush or Clinton. The second says more negative things about him than good (i.e. lack of experience/accomplishments, is only a media creation and with two more years in the senate will be as unappealing as the rest of the senatorial candidates.) The last two paragraphs mentions that he has a 100% liberal voting record (see above comment) and the rest points out that he has charisma that is not bought or faked, does not seem noxiously partisan, is willing to say that republicans are wrong, not evil. These are all positive things to say about him I guess but not one of them could be construed as promoting or endorsing his candidacy.

Which article did you read?

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Dec 3 2006, 01:55 AM) [snapback]356915[/snapback]</div>

You went to an awful lot of work to avoid the obvious. Saying positive things about him == promotion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Dec 3 2006, 08:09 AM) [snapback]356962[/snapback]</div>

Therefore, saying negative things == non-promotion, non-endorsement. All in all a fairly balanced report but still not an endorsement or promotion. Besides this is only one article and I welcome Hillary as a candidate for the 08 election because IMO she will never make it to the Oval Office.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Dec 3 2006, 08:09 AM) [snapback]356962[/snapback]</div>

Do you really think so?

I like Obama, based on his speeches. I don't support him, and wouldn't vote for him unless his opponent was even farther from my views, but I like him. (But then, I liked Clinton in the same way, and never voted for him).

If I were to write an Op-ed article about Obama, I would want to frame it exactly the way NRO did, with explanations of the man and why he appeals to Democrats. I don't see that as promotion as much as analysis form a single writer's point of view.

I do think that Obama is in the "puff" stage of his ascendency, where the press will give him a pass. I don't think he is like black "novelty" candidates that the press gives a pass to (did Jesse Jackson really deserve to be on stage in a debate with the top two Dem candidates a few years ago?) The "novelty" candidates never really get the tough questions, because they have no chance of winning, and no one wants to appear mean. But because Obama is already a Senator, and actually has a chance, individual reporters will be eager to find some dirt on him that can make their name in the business regardless of their own personal political beliefs.

 

Thanks for the link.The right wing promotion reminds me of the GOPs 2004 financial support for Nader,purely as an election spoiler .
Funny that Alan Keyes is featured on the National Reviews website.Part of the reason Obama is being taken so seriously is because he won his seat with a huge 75% of the vote .
Obamas GOP opponent had withdrawn right before the election and was replaced by Alan Keyes at the last minute.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Dec 4 2006, 03:00 PM) [snapback]357476[/snapback]</div>

Yes. Obama's opponent, Jack Ryan, got into something of a scandal. His divorce papers revealed that Jeri Ryan (Star Trek's Seven of Nine) said her then-husband Jack took her on three "surprise trips" in the spring of 1998 to New Orleans, New York and Paris, during which he took her to sex clubs. He wanted her to have sex with him there with another couple watching. More moral values from Republicans. The Alan Keyes - Obama race was really quite entertaining. The Republicans imported Keyes from out-of-state, 3 months before the election, and Keyes had no real campaign budget, so he kept saying outrageous things to get on the news. We had a lot of fun watching it here in Illinois.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Dec 4 2006, 11:41 AM) [snapback]357511[/snapback]</div>

There are plenty of Republicans who are social libertarians, such as one of only two "officially declared" candidates for Pres in 2008, Michael Charles Smith (a pro-choice, pro-science, pro-drug decriminalization and pro-gay marriage candidate). I give his chance of making it through the primaries as 22:1 because there's 22 other candidates that are being considered. But, back to Jack and Jeri, what they decide to do as a married couple, even with people watching, doesn't "phase" me (inside Star Trek joke!)

Alan Keyes, however, was probably not making up that outrageous stuff: he really believes it, and he was saying it in the Republican primaries in 2000 (he was a candidate for the Rep. nomination for President). He's a good public speaker, and he gets the ultra conservative wing stirred up, but I hate to see all that energy wasted on such a lost cause.