We need talking points against Obama

[SlapItHigh]

Obama is not easy to take on. His political platform is on 'change', anti-status quo, which bears much similarity to Ron.

I disagree...Obama is extremely easy to take on. You are correct in that his big thing is "change" but that is total surface and very easy to shine light on. Everything he says is "change" but everything he does is status quo. You can very easily point that out with real life examples to no end.

 

[quantized]

I disagree...Obama is extremely easy to take on. You are correct in that his big thing is "change" but that is total surface and very easy to shine light on. Everything he says is "change" but everything he does is status quo. You can very easily point that out with real life examples to no end.

Oh well.. Let me put it this way. Obama is "percieved" to be an agent of change and a very efficient politician. He advocates "change" but create consensus through compromise where necessary. In other words, he is for pragmatic change and not a radical overhaul of the political system.

My response to this thread was that, of the 3 front runner on the democratic side, i would not choose to launch an internet-based attack ads on Obama. First off, his political platform is closest to ours. One for practical change, ours for fundamental change. It will end up to being a debate over philosophical sophistication vs. political pragmatism.

I say pick Hillary. She is a no-brainer. Everyone attacks her anyway, so we will not be percieved as the only 'bad guy'.

 

[SlapItHigh]

Oh well.. Let me put it this way. Obama is "percieved" to be an agent of change and a very efficient politician. He advocates "change" but create consensus through compromise where necessary. In other words, he is for pragmatic change and not a radical overhaul of the political system.

My response to this thread was that, of the 3 front runner on the democratic side, i would not choose to launch an internet-based attack ads on Obama. First off, his political platform is closest to ours. One for practical change, ours for fundamental change. It will end up to being a debate over philosophical sophistication vs. political pragmatism.

I say pick Hillary. She is a no-brainer. Everyone attacks her anyway, so we will not be percieved as the only 'bad guy'.

While I still don't agree with you (I don't think he offers any practical changes either - only takls about practical changes but his actions are consistent status quo with no change at all however practical), I see what you are saying and that is certainly one way to look at it. You could also look at it from the angle that you are more likely to succeed in getting supporters to switch sides if you target Obama v say hillary. If folks are looking for any kind of change and they support Obama, you are more likely to get them to switch over to Paul by showing how Paul's actions support change while Obama's do not. With hillary, you first have to convince people that change would be a good thing which is a lot harder to do.

 

[erin moore]

I've always been a democrat. I voted for Gore and Kerry. I'm in my 20s, I'm a student... I porbably would have voted for Obama, I just happened to see a debate and looked Paul up. Yes, we can focus on getting to that later, but a lot of dems will switch, even hardcore dems...

I went from liberal to libertarian.

 

[RP=RonPaul=RedPill]

HR 1959 is no such thing. Read the actual bill. You are being lied to.

Focus on his Patriot Act vote.

My bad. There is no HR 1959. It's actually HR 1955 / S 1959 the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.

Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add provisions concerning the prevention of homegrown terrorism (terrorism by individuals born, raised, or based and operating primarily in the United States). Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to: (1) establish a grant program to prevent radicalization (use of an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically-based violence) and homegrown terrorism in the United States; (2) establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States; and (3) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.

this could drive a stake into the heart of the Constitution farther than the Patroit Act did.

My question is...How does a candidate that promotes "change" support these types of legistion, ie Patroit Act, Homegrown Terrorism Act, Amnesty etc. etc. etc.? He talks the talk, but he doesn't walk the walk. He doesn't have much of a record, but looking at his record so far, he's no different than the other status quo candidates.

 

[Arek]

Well I believe that Hillary will buy the election. After having a slump she's gotten back up in Iowa over Obama. Obama is the best front running democrat there is, however I'd say Kucinich is probably the best Democratic candidate.

 

[VoteRonPaul2008]

This is well written from a girl on my Y/A

Obama fans need a reality check

"According the NY Times, he has missed 70% of Senate votes & the votes he actually bothered to show up for were marked present.. His sixth and seventh important acts as a senator were to vote for a bill that made it nearly impossible for ordinary people to sue giant corporations who rob & defraud. He voted for President Bush's energy bill, sending more than $13 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to oil, coal, and nuclear companies. He voted to allow credit card companies to raise interest rates over 30 percent. He spoke out against the Patriot Act, only to vote in favor of reauthorizing it, he cannot commit to have all troops out of Iraq by 2013, supported Bush's sanctions against Iran and co-sponsored a bill designating the Iranian National Guard a terrorists organization, he implied he'd invade Pakistan, he favors amnesty for illegal immigrants, he is for entitlement programs that will increase the deficit leaving the burden on taxpayers.. He has no consistency on the issues of social security and taxes, in the very beginning he was for raising the cap, then having all options on the table, then appointing a bipartisan commission, now he's back to raising the cap.. he also accepts money from lobbyists & PAC's while claiming he doesn't."

 

[BillyDkid]

Isn't it a little early to be concerned about Obama? Don't you think we have to first win the fight we're in?