Even more on the messiah err Obama
Headline screaming at Yahoo.com: Is Obama unstoppable?
Well, an object at rest cannot be stopped.
Update: Ya know, with no legislative accomplishments, he could be pandering to the Libertarian vote?
Another update: say, can anyone name a Hillary legislative accomplishment? I mean, other than pork.
February 20th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Doing nothing isn’t enough. I want to see some laws he revoked.
February 20th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Well, ignoring that nearly every liberal legislative accomplishment tends to be pork, that’s probably a difficult one. There aren’t many bills out there she was both the original sponsor of, and became law. There are some lists out there of stuff she’s been a major sponsor of, although I can’t swear by their accuracy. I think at least a couple were minor enough to not count as pork.
Neither Democratic individual has much successful legislation under their name. Given the names of those Dems which have done a lot, and how destructive those actions tend to end up being, I think I can guess why this sorta thing happens.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
“…pandering to the Libertarian vote? Surely not. Since when have Libertarians become neo-Marxists? Or has “Libertarian” become synonymous with simply “not a Democrat or a Republican” since I last heard?
Wouldn’t that be a bit like a jihadist pandering to the Jewish vote, or the Church of Satin pandering to the evangelicals? It could be done I suppose, so long as the “panderees” were inattentive to the extreme. What do I know? Ted Bundy “Pandered” to nice young women, after all. So there you go– Obama could be pandering to Libertarians in the same way that Ted Bundy Pandered to young women. That would make perfect sense.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
She tried to pass legislation making it a felony to sell games rated ‘M’ to people under 18.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
err not felony, but federal crime
February 20th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
fun to talk about, but its already over thanks to mccain feingold. obama is the favorite of the media and he will easily win. easily. hunker down.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
From Dick Morris:
As a first lady, Hillary’s sole important legislative involvement came during the first two years of her husband’s presidency when she sought to pass her ill-conceived health care reform, an effort that failed so miserably that it cost her party control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. Between 1995 to 1997, she was largely absent from the White House, traveling the world, promoting her best selling book and helping to raise funds. She never attended strategy meetings and her only intervention in the singular legislative achievements of Bill’s administration — welfare reform and the balanced budget deal — was privately to urge a veto of the former and to oppose the latter because it provided for a cut in the capital gains tax. Hillary returned to the White House in 1998 to oversee the defense to the Lewinsky scandal and the impeachment attempt, but the Clinton administration essentially folded its legislative efforts during those years and hung on for dear life. No portfolio of accomplishments there.
In the Senate, she has largely spent her time raising funds for herself and other Democrats (in hopes of attracting the votes of super delegates) and promoting her best selling memoir Living History. In part because of a lack of attention and also because of the Democrats’ minority status during much of her Senate tenure, she has passed very, very little of note.
Her legislative accomplishments in her first term in the Senate were almost entirely symbolic. She renamed a courthouse after Justice Thurgood Marshall. She passed a resolution honoring Alexander Hamilton and another celebrating the win of a Syracuse University lacrosse team. She renamed post offices, founded a national park in Puerto Rico and expressed the sense of the Senate that Harriet Tubman should have gotten a federal pension 150 years ago.
Her only actual legislation included one bill to increase nurse recruitment, another to aid respite time for Alzheimer’s care givers and another to expand veterans health benefits, a paltry output for six years’ service.
In her second term, she has spent full-time campaigning for president and has the worst attendance record of the three senators now still in the presidential race.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330830,00.html
February 21st, 2008 at 12:22 am
What has Hillary DONE? She’s prompted millions of gun owners, including me, to stock up on firearms and ammunition. That is one hell of an accomplishment.
February 21st, 2008 at 1:42 am
Didn’t she invent the Internet?
February 21st, 2008 at 3:27 am
Even more on the messiah err Obama
So why the messiah bit..I’m totally confused why Obama supporters are likened to a cult. The only difference that I see between his supporters and supporters of other campaigns is quantity.
February 21st, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Perhaps it’s because there’s no there there. No substance to the speeches, nothing driving the campaign other than a slick guy and some vague good sounding catchphrases.
Even though I’m far from the political spectrum of these people, I could see what “two-americas” Edwards stood for. I could see why the people who want both medical privacy and Hillary-care would chose Clinton, (and likely receive neither), but tell me, what the fuck is Obama for? “Change?”
When you see a large group of flaky people following around a leader that really doesn’t stand for anything, cult pops into the head.
February 21st, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Hey SM,
On the surface of it, how is that different from George W. Bush? There wasn’t a lot of there there either with him, but no one was calling his followers as part of a cult. McCain had far more there there as well.
Beyond that, Obama has lots of policy proposals, including ending the war, healthcare, national service, etc.
February 21st, 2008 at 2:52 pm
I really, really don’t understand the ‘no substance’ bit. Yeah, you don’t hear specifics in speechs. They’re not policy speeches, they’re stump speeches.
And while I do (mostly) support the guy, and I’m ok with people disagreeing with his ideas, to say he has none just boggles my mind.
I mean, they’re not perfectly fleshed out, but http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf gives a lot of info.
February 21st, 2008 at 3:02 pm
As I keep saying, if you keep pointing out there is some substance to him, people will realize he’s a socialist.
February 21st, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Obama, like most politicians, has too much substance…wanting the government to do more and impose more on us . I want the government restricted so that it does less and stops taking away our liberties. The government should be limited to the “delegated powers” in thte Constitution and should be restricted, especially by the Bill of Rights.