when the letter writer comes to the message baord to defend
Mark,Thanks. I really appreciated reading your comments. It's easy
to be negative when you are called being called delusional or a traitor. I
always get a few looks when I tell someone I intend to vote for Jon Huntsman,
Jean Welch Hill, and Barack Obama. It is odd to them that I would be voting for
a Republican and a Democrat and they always ask why. I always answer
that question with I agree with Jon Huntsman, with Jean Welch Hill and with
Obama and it's highly likely that I could have chosen to vote for their
opponents because I vote based on issues and not on false labels such as "most
liberal" when such labels are impossible to define. Is he liberal based social
issues, on fiscal issues or on specific bills I agree with. Putting
labels on people is bound to get me into a lot of trouble since I may be voting
for someone I don't agree with if I vote based on a label and not the issues. I
know of at least one Democrat running right now that I would never vote for. I
wish we all could say the same.Edward L. Lalone
Hey, Edward L. Lalone, thanks for coming on this thread and providing your
reasoned comments. A breath of fresh air.
it's hard to find even 99 votes where Obama didn't vote "present"
If their rating is based on a mere 99 votes then it is no wonder that Obama has
a high probability to be ranked the most liberal Senator based on their
subjective decision of which votes to rate Senators on.Four years
ago Senator Kerry had the honor of being the most liberal Senator but this year
Barack Obama and Joe Biden, whose fairly conservative, are at the top and come
out ahead of both Kerry and Bernie Sanders who is an openly gay socialist. This rating doesn't make any sense but of course if you take 99 votes
that you handpick you can choose the Senator you want to be the most liberal.
This year it's going to be the presidential candidates that the National Journal
don't want to win who get this distinction. Next year Obama won't even make it
to the top 3 like he didn't last year which Dick Durbin was followed by Barbara
Boxer.Edward L. Lalone
Not surprised that Obama tags along on some of McCains legislation.McCain
is and has for years been Mr BiPartisian.That has gotten him in trouble
with GOP true believers (including myself) but if working across the aisle rocks
your world then McCain is the man.Obama legislative record is a joke
in general, and if you're trying to make the case that he reaches out it is a
total gut buster.
JMR,Obama has been far from vague on mainstream issues ranging from
foreign to domestic policy and he has clearly stated his positions on most
issues ranging from the war in Iraq to energy policy. It's not our duty to
provide you with this information which is readily available. To
claim that Obama is vague because you have not taken the time to study his
positions and details provided by his campaign is fallacious. It is not our duty
or the duty of the candidate to re-state his positions a hundred times when
those positions are available for individuals and the media.The
burden of who you choose to vote for is on your shoulders and not Obama's or
those of us who intend to vote for him. I have taken the time to study his
positions and find out the details. Now, it is your duty to do the same. If you
don't want to study his positions then don't and base your vote on whatever
criteria you choose but don't expect the rest of us who have studied the
positions of the candidates to agree with you.Edward L. Lalone
"In January of this year the National Journal published its rankings of all U.S.
Senators. What they found has given Barack Obama his new title: the most liberal
Senator of 2007. This was a careful analysis of ninety-nine votes."
I couldn't cite actual legislation in the letter due to length restrictions but
will attempt to do so here.First, Obama sponsored the Obama-Coburn
(R) bill that I referenced in my letter. This is a major piece of ethics and
transparency legislation which has made federal spending more transparent and
has been heralded by open-government groups.Second, Obama was a
co-sponsor with Senator Lugar (R) of the Lugar-Obama Act which is a major piece
of foreign policy legislation dealing dealing with the non-proliferation of
nuclear weapons.Third, Obama working with Senator Hagel (R) was able
to successfully pass legislation that requires the President to develop a
comprehensive plan ensuring that all nuclear weapons and material at vulnerable
sites in the world are secured by 2012.In addition to these he's
sponsored bills that were passed into law in appropriations bills, other
legislation and as part of conference reports. I doubt very much
that Obama has the most liberal voting record in the Senate regardless of what a
special interest group has said considering that he has sponsored major
bi-partisan legislation and has been a co-sponsor of several bills with John
McCain himself.Edward L. LaloneDemocratic precinct Chairman,
Thank you for your comments and insights.Coming from such an impeccable
impartial source they carry great weight with me.
You're setting the bar pretty low, aren't you?I will admit, though, that
it will be a blessing for the nation if only 1% of Obama's agenda gets enacted.
Edward, spit it out!it's not too late to wake up!
I am sure Obama will bring about change, in fact much of it will happen whether
he likes it or not. He is likely to bring change that causes serious damage as
well as some good. No president no matter how bad has been able to destroy the
country yet within four years. Jimmy Carter tried, but the voters got rid of
him. Bush tricked us into a second term, and yet the country survives. I doubt
he would do any more harm than Clinton or McCain. The real danger is a congress
that fails to represent the people. If what Obama proposes fails the people, he
will be gone in four years, along with much of the congress. Then we try again.
Well, the anti-Obama forces are out in full measure in this thread today. We
see all manner of criticism from realistic "Obama has been extremely vague about
what "change" actually entails" (9:38) to the weird "an un- necessary war is
small potatos compared to his going to the wrong church" (8:35).Since no one here knows Barack Obama personally, I assume their knowledge is
based upon watching speeches and debates on television, reading stories in the
newspapers, and, most likely, listening to talking heads on TV and the radio.
All of this viewed through a very partisan political perspective.It
is assumed that some will be against Obama (and Clinton, for that matter) just
because they are Democrats, much as others will oppose McCain because he is a
Republican. The reasons given to justify these positions are convenient to
support that person's prejudices without having to examine each issue. Broad
strokes of invective like liberal, socialist, inexperienced, and wolf in sheep's
clothing are hurled without specifics.It is good to know the
thoughts and abilities of a candidate so we don't make the same mistake that was
made in 2000. Talk about "inexperienced" and "wolf in sheep's clothing"!
Ed, you are the perfect delusional Democrat. Obama is the MOST
LIBERAL senator in Congress.Obama wants to repeal DOMA.Obama wants
to repeal Don't Ask don't TellObama wants to legalize marriage for all
LGBT'sObama is against abortion, even partial-birth abortion.Obama
is against giving a baby life-supporting assistance when the abortion when
wrong.Obama wants to raise taxes.Obama wants to solidify income
redistribution.Name 1 piece of legislation that was bi-partisan.
Name 1 issue that Obama will move to the right.Can't do it
friends...Oh yes, Obama is the empty suit who will bring about
change alright. Can you say, communism here we come?
Late last winter when Obama cancelled a scheduled campaign trip to Utah in
deference to President Hinkley's funeral this page was filled with accolades and
praise for his thoughtful actions. The vast majority of commenters assumed that
Mitt Romney would be the ultimate GOP nominee and so they freely praised Obama
while they had nothing but disdain for McCain. Now that Obama looks like the
eventual nominee and McCain has won the GOP nomination, the tides have turned.
The thought that they might have to actually stand by their words and support a
Democrat is just too much to take in. Then consider that the Democrat is of a
mixed race and the thought becomes even more distasteful. The bigots in West
Virginina who couldn't stomach voting for Obama because he was black (partially)
at least had the courage to admit it. Why don't you folks step up to the plate
and admit it yourself.
I love the concept of transparency the letter writer talks about. But like 4:54
and 4:58 said, McCain is the one with the record on his side, not Obama.I want the 2000 McCain for president, not so much the 2008 version. But
I think it's clear that while McCain has had to change his talking points since
2000 in order to get to where he is today in the GOP, his long record indicates
that he could be a visionary leader for this country.Most people see
a straight line in today's politics, leading from left to right, and everyone
lines up on the line somewhere. I hope there's a triangle possible, and McCain
is just the type that can be that executive point off-setting the linear
Congress to create a better government. He's shown that he can and
will work from the outside. He's working right now from the inside because he
has to in order to get elected. I'd like to see what a Pres. McCain
Please, Mr. Lalone, cite one piece of major legislation with Obama's name on it
as the sponsor. There aren't any. And with the most liberal rated voting
record in the Senate, the bipartisanship argument does not hold water.Someone once said that America is the greatest country the world has ever
known. Help me change it! That someone was Barak Obama.
Change is all that Obama would LEAVE us, after all of the new programs and taxes
that would be imposed.
Mr. Chairman-While the change in transparency you're describing is a step
in the right direction, and interests politically-oriented people such as
yourself (and myself, for that matter), I don't think it's the change most
people envision when Sen. Obama speaks. (I have yet to see supporters at his
rallies jumping up and down, shouting, "Wahoo! No more free meals for
politicians!")And before we crown Obama as the scourge of special
interest groups, let's remember that his proposed policy would force members of
labor unions to declare to tell their union how they voted. I don't think that's
a kind of transparency that anybody (save labor unions) would be crazy about.On broader, more mainstream issues, Obama has been extremely vague about
what "change" actually entails, and stutters and backpedals when questioned
about it in debates. This is the beef that most Obama naysayers have with
him.There is certainly a need for change in Washington, but until
Obama can come up with something rock-solid and viable, people shouldn't give
him any more creedance than they do to any other candidate.
is always the best poicy. except in the political realm.it is transparent
that some major funny business has gone on in Obama Huseins political and
personal life. I love that real estate deal for his house!put your
blinders on and keep repeating: change, yes we can.
Obama will bring good change? Nonsense .. his going to an cantankerous preacher
is much more important of an issue than his willingness to pull us out of Iraq
sooner than 100 years from now like McCain.The fact that our boys
(and girls) are dying un-necessarily and national treasury is being depleted on
an un- necessary war is small potatos compared to his going to the wrong church.
Right on, Edward!Right on!
Obama is all talk and no action too vague. If he gets his way when elected will
bring back socialist programs we fought for over a half a century to get rid of.
Barack Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is only in this for himself. I
am no great fan of John McCain but I will say this about the man: He has never
wavered in his fundamental beliefs about the nature of government and foreign
policy. At least you know what you will be getting. And, I am a registered
I like how everyone thinks bipartisanship is so great. However, it is only
"bipartisan" when the R's move to the D's. If a D moves to an R, then the other
D's disown them. I know, I know, talking points right. Please, then, explain
Joe Lieberman, and why the D's threw him under the bus.
What is transparent is Obama's lack of legislative accomplishment in Illinois or
the US Senate. Voting "present" is seldom the path of leaders.Talking a
good show has gotten Obama far among Democrats, for sure. It will get him to the
nomination in Denver.American voters, however, are a little more
discerning.Obama's talkathon will come up a little short of the White
>>"working in a bi-partisan manner and passing major ethics and transparency
legislation IS change"Yeah, and that is exactly what McCAIN has been
doing for 20 years!You didn't think this one out, Edward.Obama talks a good show.Obama has done SQUAT.McCain is famous for
just the sort of aisle crossing bipartisan legislation Obama wishes he had
thought of.Obama is famous for voting "present".Thanks for
pointing out a HUGE ADVANTAGE action McCain has over talking Obama.Come November voters will be sending your boy back to the showers, hope he
enjoys his brief stint in the majors!