Bishop Hedd Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...chris-matt.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...chris-matt.html The problem with the argument is that this person endorsing him was a member of Congress. Surely, if Obama had made any impactful legislation, he would have heard about it. Its like Obama's plan to "end earmarks." If you read his site, all he wants to do is make the process more transparent. Sure, its not a BAD thing, but it doesn't equal what he said he would do.... all while claiming he's running a "different" campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Hedd Posted March 14, 2008 Author Share Posted March 14, 2008 The problem with the argument is that this person endorsing him was a member of Congress. Surely, if Obama had made any impactful legislation, he would have heard about it. Its like Obama's plan to "end earmarks." If you read his site, all he wants to do is make the process more transparent. Sure, its not a BAD thing, but it doesn't equal what he said he would do.... all while claiming he's running a "different" campaign. I'm not exactly sure of whom you are referring to? Is it Watson, who was never a congressman, mayor of Austin sure, but never a congressman. or... ...noted Conservative/libertarian gadfly and the author of the piece Andrew Sullivan whom I believe is British. Either way it doesn't negate the accomplishments in just one term that Sullivan has listed. I think George Bush was elected for a helluva lot less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 The problem with the argument is that this person endorsing him was a member of Congress. Surely, if Obama had made any impactful legislation, he would have heard about it. Its like Obama's plan to "end earmarks." If you read his site, all he wants to do is make the process more transparent. Sure, its not a BAD thing, but it doesn't equal what he said he would do.... all while claiming he's running a "different" campaign. He was a member of the Texas State Senate. Come on BlueFire, you should know that! At any rate, while it was foolish of this guy to go on TV to support a candidate about who he knew very little, like the artcile said, Matthews is a wind-bag, just looking for those 'gotcha' moments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 He was a member of the Texas State Senate. Come on BlueFire, you should know that! At any rate, while it was foolish of this guy to go on TV to support a candidate about who he knew very little, like the artcile said, Matthews is a wind-bag, just looking for those 'gotcha' moments. Haha. D'oh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VRWC Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Various bills concerning the response to Hurricane Katrina, including an amendment putting strict limits on the use of no-bid contracts after disasters. That's a great Bill Obama! I'm swimming in a cesspool, my house is destroyed and now I have to wait until the government generates and RFP, sends it out to industry, waits until the proposals come back, evaluates them, them awards a contract. By then, I would have either died or rebuilt my house myself. Great Bill Obama! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 At any rate, while it was foolish of this guy to go on TV to support a candidate about who he knew very little, like the artcile said, Matthews is a wind-bag, just looking for those 'gotcha' moments. The same windbag who when he was reacting to Obama's speech? I see this as Matthews simply trying to regain some self-respect as a journalist and try to at least bring some objectivity to his, and MSNBC's, election coverage. The funny part is I agree with you and the article that his attempt is lame and completely without substance, which just proves that he will say anything to try to cover his Obama man-crush. When Saturday Night Live is doing better election coverage than MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC, and ABC, something is desperately wrong. And yes, I left Fox News out of that because their coverage has been surprising good, informative and objective this time, even if it is accomplished by mostly talking heads yelling at each other. At least both sides of each issue is being addressed, and you don't have idiots like Matthews rooting for candidates as part of their "analysis". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 I don't for a second think what Matthews was doing was to show that Obama is a lightweight. I have seen him go gaga over Obama numerous times. What Matthews was doing was to show that a lot of people who are gaga over Obama don't know all that much about him, even a state senator speaking on his behalf, and it's true. But they don't have to. If you want to, you can look it up. But to me, the bills he sponsors in four years as a junior Senator are not that representative of what kind of President he will make, good or bad. People want to know his stances on the major issues, if he is smart, if he is a straight shooter, if they feel he is concerned about them, how he responds in the primaries, if what he says is something they can believe in. No one cares about what Hillary did, what Obama or what John McCain did as Senators. In fact, how many Senators have become President in any of your lifetimes? None? One? Two? So I think where Matthews went wrong is thinking the gotcha moment proved anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Hedd Posted March 14, 2008 Author Share Posted March 14, 2008 I've been hearing from the corporate media talking heads and others on the right that Obama has no accomplishments. One of Sean Hannity's favorite running tricks is to go in the middle of Times Square and shove a microphone at an anonymous passerby asking what has Barack done for us lately. They then go back to the studio and air the people who hem or haw and look confused. Great gotcha journalism there Sean. I don't remember these questions or anything like them being asked of Bush. I mean can anyone think of any Bush accomplishments outside of being an alcoholic cheerleader at Yale, protecting the Texas borders from Charlie during Nam, failing in a congressional run, failing in a business venture-Harkin, winning the governorship of Texas...a largely ceremonial position, and depending on corporate welfare as owner of a MLB team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 I've been hearing from the corporate media talking heads and others on the right that Obama has no accomplishments. One of Sean Hannity's favorite running tricks is to go in the middle of Times Square and shove a microphone at an anonymous passerby asking what has Barack done for us lately. They then go back to the studio and air the people who hem or haw and look confused. Great gotcha journalism there Sean.I don't remember these questions or anything like them being asked of Bush. I mean can anyone think of any Bush accomplishments outside of being an alcoholic cheerleader at Yale, protecting the Texas borders from Charlie during Nam, failing in a congressional run, failing in a business venture-Harkin, winning the governorship of Texas...a largely ceremonial position, and depending on corporate welfare as owner of a MLB team. The national press, including the liberal bias press, has somewhat admitted to blowing it by not vetting Bush, and being somewhat of a cheerleader for the war. So this time they are not going to do that. Plus, the world of journalism has changed quite a bit in the last four years because of "the internets", and the blogosphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Various bills concerning the response to Hurricane Katrina, including an amendment putting strict limits on the use of no-bid contracts after disasters. That's a great Bill Obama! I'm swimming in a cesspool, my house is destroyed and now I have to wait until the government generates and RFP, sends it out to industry, waits until the proposals come back, evaluates them, them awards a contract. By then, I would have either died or rebuilt my house myself. Great Bill Obama! Maybe if you had actually read the bill, you would notice that the bi-partisan legislation was authored by Obama AND Tom Coburn (R-OK). Here is the interesting part: After Hurricane Katrina, the Federal Emergency Management Agency used emergency authority to enter into open-ended, no-bid contracts. What was meant to be temporary stop-gap authority ballooned into wasteful contracts that lasted many months and wasted significant federal resources. Obama and Coburn legislation will stop this practice by restricting the use of emergency contracting authority only to urgent needs in the immediate response to emergencies. In other words, FEMA can give a no-bid contract to fish you out of the cesspool and get you to safety, but will require open-bidding to house your ass for the next year, instead of just putting you up at the Marriott for a year at the rack-rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 Great Bill Obama! Who is this Bill Obama guy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts