My Sincere Hope For Obama

[jmdrake]

good for you. and i appaud you for the determination and dedication to the movement. i am probably going to settle for a lesser of evil this time round unless RP campaign promise a third party run. Our country is at a crossroad where we really need to do something to the current state of affair. We cannot sustain the war anymore. We cannot have a McCain. i am sick and tired of the Clinton's secretive administration. i confess that i am also holding on to the unfounded hope that Obama promises. i am hoping that he bring our troops home from iraq. i am hoping that he will reduce lobbyist influence in washington. i am hoping that he will increase governance transparency and engage the americans people in policies. i am hoping that voting in a political newbie like Obama can send a messge to the political establisment that we are tired of the usual washinton politics for the powerful and rich. You are right. the RP movement and message will take more than one election cycle.... but our nation cannot wait. So i am left with the only hope.. i hope Obama delivers what he promised.. i am hoping..

So you'll support Ron Paul as a third party candidate and nobody else? Why is that exactly?

 

[amy31416]

you all are hopeless. i dont think any of you see the big picture. everyone who is bashing obama:
would you rather have mccain or clinton win?

You don't see the forest for the trees, so to speak. Obama has no substance, no experience, is a socialist and is THE BIGGEST SPENDER. Even worse than CLINTON. Sad to say, but Clinton would be better than Obama.

All you people who are schmoozed by this guy are vapid and superficial and don't require any substance in a candidate.

Why are you here? Obama is not an alternative to any real RP supporter.

 

[quantized]

So you'll support Ron Paul as a third party candidate and nobody else? Why is that exactly?

Unless that someone has a decent chance of winning. This primary cycle had garnered RP some substantial support that will propel him to having a good chance of competiting with the top-dogs.

 

[dawnbt]

There is no way in hell I'll vote for Obama! I'll write in Ron Paul. It doesn't matter if it is Obama, Clinton, or McCain, we are equally screwed and I'm not attaching my vote to that!

 

[jmdrake]

Unless that someone has a decent chance of winning. This primary cycle had garnered RP some substantial support that will propel him to having a good chance of competiting with the top-dogs.

Well maybe that's the difference between us. I didn't join this expecting to win. Halfway through I did get my hopes up sure. But it was always about principle for me. In 2004 I initially voted for Dean (though I never joined a Meetup or anything) only to see Dean get skewered by the MSM. (Only a truly bought and paid for media would have made such a big deal out of a scream.) Then I went along with John Kerry. Oh sure, he and Bush were cousins. (Obama and Cheney are cousins by the way). Sure Bush and Cheney were both members of the skull and bones. Sure Kerry said he'd expand the Patriot Act. Sure Kerry "voted for the war before voting against it." But I supported him as the "lesser of two evils". Then Kerry rolled over on his promise to "count every vote" and I felt stupid. I promised myself I'd never do THAT again. There are some other people I might vote for besides Ron Paul in November (I really don't see the point of a write in), but it's got to be based on principle. Obama can't even decide if we can get out by 2009 or 2013. I don't trust him. Last nights "debate" solidified that even more.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[quantized]

Well maybe that's the difference between us. I didn't join this expecting to win. Halfway through I did get my hopes up sure. But it was always about principle for me. In 2004 I initially voted for Dean (though I never joined a Meetup or anything) only to see Dean get skewered by the MSM. (Only a truly bought and paid for media would have made such a big deal out of a scream.) Then I went along with John Kerry. Oh sure, he and Bush were cousins. (Obama and Cheney are cousins by the way). Sure Bush and Cheney were both members of the skull and bones. Sure Kerry said he'd expand the Patriot Act. Sure Kerry "voted for the war before voting against it." But I supported him as the "lesser of two evils". Then Kerry rolled over on his promise to "count every vote" and I felt stupid. I promised myself I'd never do THAT again. There are some other people I might vote for besides Ron Paul in November (I really don't see the point of a write in), but it's got to be based on principle. Obama can't even decide if we can get out by 2009 or 2013. I don't trust him. Last nights "debate" solidified that even more.

Regards,

John M. Drake

If winning is not in the equation, why bother to vote? When i joined this RP movement, I sincerely believe RP can win the nomination. When it starts to dawn on me that this is no longer possible, i started to consider who of the remaining is a better candidate.

 

[acptulsa]

"Laugh about it, shout about it, when you have to choose
Any way you look at it you lose"

--Paul Simon, Mrs. Robinson

If we truly can't win in the short term, we'll just have to win in the long term. If that means putting up two digits for Ron Paul on the election results in an independent run he didn't ask for, but which we gave him by putting him on ballots with petitions, then there will be more to join us next time.

We have had enough of the lesser of evils. But until we stand by our line in the sand, that is all we'll be given.

 

[jmdrake]

If winning is not in the equation, why bother to vote? When i joined this RP movement, I sincerely believe RP can win the nomination. When it starts to dawn on me that this is no longer possible, i started to consider who of the remaining is a better candidate.

I'm not saying it's not part of the equation. I'm saying it's not the motivating factor. I'm a principles guy, not a bandwagon guy. Like I said, been there, done that, ain't doing it again. All four "top tier" candidates are equally bad IMO. And no I'm not talking some abstract "he's a socialist" BS. I'm talking about the concrete principles I laid down for myself before the race began. I'm a 3 issue (well 4 or 5 issue now) voter. Beyond that there really is no point. Any of the top four candidates will destroy this country. It's just a matter of how stylistically they do it.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[quantized]

I'm not saying it's not part of the equation. I'm saying it's not the motivating factor. I'm a principles guy, not a bandwagon guy. Like I said, been there, done that, ain't doing it again. All four "top tier" candidates are equally bad IMO. And no I'm not talking some abstract "he's a socialist" BS. I'm talking about the concrete principles I laid down for myself before the race began. I'm a 3 issue (well 4 or 5 issue now) voter. Beyond that there really is no point. Any of the top four candidates will destroy this country. It's just a matter of how stylistically they do it.

Regards,

John M. Drake

i see your point. You talked much sense. Maybe i should frame it this way. Winning must be an entity in the equation if i decided to vote for him but 'winning' is an end and cannot be a motivating factor. When it comes to politics, i am usually apathetic... this has much to do with my profession as a scientist. But this election cycle is different to me. i sincerely believe the iraq war is wrong and is destroying the country. This is my 'motivating factor' to want to be part of this election and starting to tune in to what all candidates has to say and offer. So i am definitely not a bandwagon guy merely hitching a ride to a winning election. This is stupid and not what election should be about.

 

[Kade]

Obama is the least dangerous. When Obama saw Ron Paul talking on the MTV debate, he was literally speechless and gave a poor performance.

I think Obama is actually going to support Ron Paul in his soul. He is a muslim and he heard Ron Paul. Obama is brilliant enough to see the truth when he hears it. And hopefully Obama hasn't been corrupted by W. politics yet.

what do you think? If not Ron Paul, I want Obama

Obama is not a Muslim... where on Earth do you people get this stuff?!

 

[acptulsa]

i see your point. You talked much sense. Maybe i should frame it this way. Winning must be an entity in the equation if i decided to vote for him but 'winning' is an end and cannot be a motivating factor. When it comes to politics, i am usually apathetic... this has much to do with my profession as a scientist. But this election cycle is different to me. i sincerely believe the iraq war is wrong and is destroying the country. This is my 'motivating factor' to want to be part of this election and starting to tune in to what all candidates has to say and offer. So i am definitely not a bandwagon guy merely hitching a ride to a winning election. This is stupid and not what election should be about.

I too hope Dubya's splendid little quagmire is over soon. I just don't see much in Obama's soaring rhetoric to make me believe he's not as beholden to the military industrial complex as the rest. Firstly, he's for phased withdrawal and none too specific about when. Secondly, he's rather open about being willing to punch whatever other tar baby he's presented with. Charisma or not, that doesn't sound promising to me.

 

[INforRP]

Obama is not a Muslim... where on Earth do you people get this stuff?!

He does not practice the muslim religion, but I understand his biological father and the second man his mother married (who raised him for part of his life), were both muslims. I believe that is where many people get this idea.

Does anyone know if Muslims would consider him a Muslim, since he was raised that way?

 

[quantized]

He does not practice the muslim religion, but I understand his biological father and the second man his mother married (who raised him for part of his life), were both muslims. I believe that is where many people get this idea.

Does anyone know if Muslims would consider him a Muslim, since he was raised that way?

source?

my understanding is Muslim in most country requires the wife to also be muslim. Does it means Obama's mother is muslim?

 

[Kade]

He does not practice the muslim religion, but I understand his biological father and the second man his mother married (who raised him for part of his life), were both muslims. I believe that is where many people get this idea.

Does anyone know if Muslims would consider him a Muslim, since he was raised that way?

No, of course not. He is American, born in America. That his father was a muslim atheist means nothing... does that make him an atheist too? Why isn't he WHITE then? His mother was white... should he then be considered WHITE?

What kind of rampant insanity is this... REASON people.. REASON.

Reality, It works bitches.

 

[jmdrake]

i see your point. You talked much sense. Maybe i should frame it this way. Winning must be an entity in the equation if i decided to vote for him but 'winning' is an end and cannot be a motivating factor. When it comes to politics, i am usually apathetic... this has much to do with my profession as a scientist. But this election cycle is different to me. i sincerely believe the iraq war is wrong and is destroying the country. This is my 'motivating factor' to want to be part of this election and starting to tune in to what all candidates has to say and offer. So i am definitely not a bandwagon guy merely hitching a ride to a winning election. This is stupid and not what election should be about.

Ok. I think I understand your position now. Iraq is your litmus test. It's just one of mine. And to be honest as far as I'm concerned Barack failed it when he said he wouldn't promise to have the troops out by 2013. I know he's saying 2009 now but I don't trust him. When given the chance to explain the discrepancy he didn't give a rational answer. And while I trust neither Obama nor Clinton on the war issue (or any issue) at least they are giving lip service to a pull out. McCain has no chance in November. My only hope is that his implosion completes before the convention. It would take a miracle I know.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[Elijah]

Dude he sponsored the patriot act.

Patriot act is what you want?

 

[Kade]

Dude he sponsored the patriot act.

Patriot act is what you want?

No, it is not.


Senator Obama:

"Mr. President, four years ago, following one of the most devastating attacks in our nation's history, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act to give our nation's law enforcement the tools they needed to track down terrorists who plot and lurk within our own borders and all over the world - terrorists who, right now, are looking to exploit weaknesses in our laws and our security to carry out even deadlier attacks than we saw on September 11th.

We all agreed that we needed legislation to make it harder for suspected terrorists to go undetected in this country. Americans everywhere wanted that.

But soon after the PATRIOT Act passed, a few years before I ever arrived in the Senate, I began hearing concerns from people of every background and political leaning that this law didn't just provide law enforcement the powers it needed to keep us safe, but powers it didn't need to invade our privacy without cause or suspicion.

Now, at times this issue has tended to degenerate into an "either-or" type of debate. Either we protect our people from terror or we protect our most cherished principles. But that is a false choice. It asks too little of us and assumes too little about America.

Fortunately, last year, the Senate recognized that this was a false choice. We put patriotism before partisanship and engaged in a real, open, and substantive debate about how to fix the PATRIOT Act. And Republicans and Democrats came together to propose sensible improvements to the Act. Unfortunately, the House was resistant to these changes, and that's why we're voting on the compromise before us.

Let me be clear: this compromise is not as good as the Senate version of the bill, nor is it as good as the SAFE Act that I have cosponsored. I suspect the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel the same way. But, it's still better than what the House originally proposed.

This compromise does modestly improve the PATRIOT Act by strengthening civil liberties protections without sacrificing the tools that law enforcement needs to keep us safe. In this compromise:


* We strengthened judicial review of both National Security Letters, the administrative subpoenas used by the FBI, and Section 215 orders, which can be used to obtain medical, financial and other personal records.

* We established hard time limits on sneak-and-peak searches and limits on roving wiretaps.

* We protected most libraries from being subject to National Security Letters.

* We preserved an individual's right to seek counsel and hire an attorney without fearing the FBI's wrath.

* And we allowed judicial review of the gag orders that accompany Section 215 searches.

The compromise is far from perfect. I would have liked to see stronger judicial review of National Security Letters and shorter time limits on sneak and peak searches, among other things.

Sen. Feingold has proposed several sensible amendments - that I support - to address these issues. Unfortunately, the Majority Leader is preventing Sen. Feingold from offering these amendments through procedural tactics. That is regrettable because it flies in the face of the bipartisan cooperation that allowed the Senate to pass unanimously its version of the Patriot Act - a version that balanced security and civil liberties, partisanship and patriotism.

The Majority Leader's tactics are even more troubling because we will need to work on a bipartisan basis to address national security challenges in the weeks and months to come. In particular, members on both sides of the aisle will need to take a careful look at President Bush's use of warrantless wiretaps and determine the right balance between protecting our security and safeguarding our civil liberties. This is a complex issue. But only by working together and avoiding election-year politicking will we be able to give our government the necessary tools to wage the war on terror without sacrificing the rule of law.

So, I will be supporting the Patriot Act compromise. But I urge my colleagues to continue working on ways to improve the civil liberties protections in the Patriot Act after it is reauthorized.

I thank the chair and yield the floor."


Please people. I'm begging you... can you please think before you post?

 

[Laja]

Who cares whether obama is a muslim. there are many wonderful people who are muslims. he's not a muslim and he's not a wonderful person. he's a shill for zbignew brzezensky and his anti-russia agenda.

 

[mmink15]

thx kade for post #77-very informative
May I ask where you found that speech. I think it would be interesting to read other speeches given on the floor about the Patriot Act by other politicians.

Edit: After seeing alot of Obama love on the forums today, I want to add that I cannot vote for Obama because he is the lesser of 2 evils. I'm through voting for the lesser of 2 evils I'm voting for Ron Paul even if I have to write him in.

 

[jmdrake]

No, it is not.

Yes. You are correct. Barack wasn't in the Senate when the Patriot Act was passed. Hyperbole helps no one. Continue.

This compromise does modestly improve the PATRIOT Act by strengthening civil liberties protections without sacrificing the tools that law enforcement needs to keep us safe. In this compromise:

* We strengthened judicial review of both National Security Letters, the administrative subpoenas used by the FBI, and Section 215 orders, which can be used to obtain medical, financial and other personal records.

So the government can still look at your private records without you EVER being informed about it.

* We established hard time limits on sneak-and-peak searches and limits on roving wiretaps.

So there's a time limit on how long they can "sneak and peak"...that is until they stop... then start sneaking and peaking again.

* We protected most libraries from being subject to National Security Letters.

Without telling the American people WHICH libraries ARE still subject to NSLs the chilling effect on checking out and reading "controversial" material remains.

* We preserved an individual's right to seek counsel and hire an attorney without fearing the FBI's wrath.

Empty rhetoric. The first patriot act didn't stop someone from seeking lawyers. It just eviscerated attorney client privilege. That remains.

* And we allowed judicial review of the gag orders that accompany Section 215 searches.

The gag orders still exist. This simply is a cheap attempt to protect the Patriot Act from being thrown out all together.

The compromise is far from perfect. I would have liked to see stronger judicial review of National Security Letters and shorter time limits on sneak and peak searches, among other things.

More window dressing.

Please people. I'm begging you... can you please think before you post?

Indeed. Please think. And please don't be swayed by some smooth talking politician "cherry picking" what he thinks is "new and improved" about the Patriot Act. Further Barack Obama supported the Homegrown Terrorism act which creates a new government agency to "study Americans" to predict who might become "radicalized". Can you say "thought police"?

Wake. PLEASE wake up!

Regards,

John M. Drake