Senator Obama may run

[Deegan]

Until he actually has a record, what else is there to say?

A record of what...........100 days a year at work, 1.5 days a week average? No thanks, he has a record, and it looks pretty good.

Let's just not let some get us disfocused, Bush's IQ is irrelevant here!

 

[Deegan]

Except....to go to Yale you most definitely need a much higher score which again underscores the special treatment Bush received throughout his life...How many people do you know of that were admitted to Yale with an SAT score of 1200?

Hell...If that were the standard I could have applied but my SAT score of 1310 wasn't nearly good enough to apply to Yale...

Enough Champs, I mean really, what has this to do with this thread.......................aw f**k it, this thread is over:roll:

 

[TurtleDude]

Except....to go to Yale you most definitely need a much higher score which again underscores the special treatment Bush received throughout his life...How many people do you know of that were admitted to Yale with an SAT score of 1200?

Hell...If that were the standard I could have applied but my SAT score of 1310 wasn't nearly good enough to apply to Yale...

well you are wrong on a couple counts

1) when Bush applied, Yale was still a place that gave Prep School graduates a big big edge. My father's class of 1944 at Hotchkiss sent almost every one of its graduates to Yale, Princeton or Harvard. Robert Bork, IIRC was one of the few who didnt go IVY-he went to the U of Chicago.

This did not change until Inslee Clark became Dean of Admissions-a year or two after Bush was accepted at Yale.

2) even when I was there (1977-1981) prep schools still got preferential treatment. However, the phi beta kappa society had plenty of Exeter and similar schools-far more than say parochial schools.

3) al gore (St Albans), JFKerry (St Pauls) JFK (Choate) all were beneficiaries of the prep school favoritism. Tim Shriver (St Albans) was in my class at Yale-btw. If he had gone to say New Trier or one of the other tough public schools (you probably know Bronx HS of Science of Stuyvesant (sp)) would he have gotten in? who knows

4) my class average SAT score was about 1360 (this was before the big inflation). MANY Preps had lower than that. 1206 was not unusual. At my prep school 1200 was basically the minimum they suggested to think about an Ivy. a legacy with 1200 scores and two generations of prominent grads would normally be admitted and Bush was thus no different than hundreds of other men who went to Yale in the mid sixties

BTW one of my roommates had 1600 scores and he didn't make it past first term (too much Coke). of course, my one of my very best friends did too and he's now up for John Roberts old seat.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

from what I recall reading, JFK had the lowest IQ in modern history. Bush has a higher IQ than Kerry does. People who whine about Bush's intelligence have two problems

1) they think that public speaking skills are the only measure of intelligence and
2) they often supported two men who had lower academic records than BUsh and in Kerry's case, a lower IQ

Or of course, they are lying and make this up.

You are quoting an urban myth.

One can be a poor public speaker and still be an individual of remarkable intelligence. Bush's problem is that even according to his friends, he has no thirst for knowledge at all, and when he conducts unscripted interviews (which are fairly rare with him), he unlike any other president in modern history, tends to make an *** out of himself.

I do not think the man is stupid. I simply do not believe him to be nearly as intelligent as Clinton, Bush Sr, or Reagan, and I don't think he has any desire to correct that.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

How did you arrive at this assessment? With what criteria do you make this judgment, other than your opinion and dislike for him?

I do not dislike President Bush as a person. In fact as a person I think he is quite likable. I based my judgment on the fact that he displays little to no intellectual curiosity at all. Unlike Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton, President Bush simply has little to no thirst for knowledge at all. This is evidenced by his poor grasp of many issues during unscripted interviews, and the fact that while his administration seems to be quite good at politics, they tend to do a poor job of actually governing.

 

[RightinNYC]

To me standardized testing is not a measure of adult intelligence. I judge people's intelligence by their actions and accomplishments, their CV.

IQ tests, especially are meaningless when it comes to everyday life. You posted that Nixon had a very high 144 yet was there ever a stupider President if you judge him by his behavior? I'm referring to taping himself comitting crimes and then continuously participating in multiple crimes. If that's not utter stupidity what is?

I'm glad that you agree that all this claptrap about Bush having a lower IQ than Kerry, or the lowest IQ ever, or whatever the latest claim is, is just ridiculous.

 

[Stinger]

Are you telling that he changed his mind in a matter of days?

Yes, read more carefully. And as was discussed yesterday on another radio show I listened to he was saying all summer that he had not even thought about it and let's not forget he PROMISED when he ran for the Senate he would serve his full 6 years.

 

[aps]

Yes, read more carefully. And as was discussed yesterday on another radio show I listened to he was saying all summer that he had not even thought about it and let's not forget he PROMISED when he ran for the Senate he would serve his full 6 years.

I agree--I erred yesterday. Nevertheless, I honestly do not see a problem in his changing his mind. Since he made that statement, he has gone on multiple trips throughout the US and seen that people want him to run. To me, that provides a valid basis for him changing his mind. But the right will find ways to attack his changing his mind. *yawn*

 

[CurrentAffairs]

But the right will find ways to attack his changing his mind. *yawn*

They will? And as the President alters his opinion of what needs to be done to execute this war, you'll say what?

 

[Stinger]

I agree--I erred yesterday. Nevertheless, I honestly do not see a problem in his changing his mind. Since he made that statement, he has gone on multiple trips throughout the US and seen that people want him to run. To me, that provides a valid basis for him changing his mind. But the right will find ways to attack his changing his mind. *yawn*

When you make a direct statement on week and then say the opposite next week, when you break your promise to your constitutents. That will be an issue.

And typical of Dems he's not running because HE wants to because of HIS stated principles and goals, but because people like him and want him to run. I want a President who wants nothing more and his singular goal is to be leader of this country. If there is any doubt he/she should not be in that office. Wishy-washy don't make it. Obama should sit back, be a Senator for his term, get some legislation under his belt, decide where he stands on issues and decide if he REALLY wants to be President, and if he does decide he wants to be President the unequivically state it and state why.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

When you make a direct statement on week and then say the opposite next week, when you break your promise to your constitutents. That will be an issue.

And typical of Dems he's not running because HE wants to because of HIS stated principles and goals, but because people like him and want him to run. I want a President who wants nothing more and his singular goal is to be leader of this country. If there is any doubt he/she should not be in that office. Wishy-washy don't make it. Obama should sit back, be a Senator for his term, get some legislation under his belt, decide where he stands on issues and decide if he REALLY wants to be President, and if he does decide he wants to be President the unequivically state it and state why.

Oh for crying out loud. Every Senator in the history of the United States that ran for the Whitehouse started out saying they would serve a full term and "changed their minds". This is a total non-issue.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Of for crying out loud. Every Senator in the history of the United States that ran for the Whitehouse started out saying they would serve a full term and "changed their minds". This is a total non-issue.

Agreed. It happens all the time.

 

[Stinger]

Of for crying out loud. Every Senator in the history of the United States that ran for the Whitehouse started out saying they would serve a full term and "changed their minds". This is a total non-issue.

Statement without evidence. Not every Senator who runs for the Senate is even asked that question. Ifn fact most aren't. Obama was asked directly, it was an issue when he ran for the seat, he promised not to and just last week he was saying he hadn't even thought about it and now he says the opposite.

The guy has a lot to learn.

 

[Iriemon]

Statement without evidence. Not every Senator who runs for the Senate is even asked that question. Ifn fact most aren't. Obama was asked directly, it was an issue when he ran for the seat, he promised not to and just last week he was saying he hadn't even thought about it and now he says the opposite.

The guy has a lot to learn.

Ooooo naughty Obama. Changed his mind! That's enough of a reason to not vote for him for me!

LOL

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Statement without evidence. Not every Senator who runs for the Senate is even asked that question. Ifn fact most aren't. Obama was asked directly, it was an issue when he ran for the seat, he promised not to and just last week he was saying he hadn't even thought about it and now he says the opposite.

The guy has a lot to learn.

The only people who this will be an issue with are partisan Republicans like yourself, and its not like you would vote for the guy anyway. I don't know whether I would vote for him or not. If the election were held tomorrow, at this point I would probably end up voting for McCain.

However, I would be willing to bet that the people of Illinois who did vote for Obama would rather him be their President than just their Senator.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

I would be willing to bet that the people of Illinois who did vote for Obama would rather him be their President than just their Senator.

whew, I need to get me one of those crystal balls.

 

[aps]

When you make a direct statement on week and then say the opposite next week, when you break your promise to your constitutents. That will be an issue.

And typical of Dems he's not running because HE wants to because of HIS stated principles and goals, but because people like him and want him to run. I want a President who wants nothing more and his singular goal is to be leader of this country. If there is any doubt he/she should not be in that office. Wishy-washy don't make it. Obama should sit back, be a Senator for his term, get some legislation under his belt, decide where he stands on issues and decide if he REALLY wants to be President, and if he does decide he wants to be President the unequivically state it and state why.

You know, Stinger, you make some valid points as to his experience and his promise. I hadn't thought about his breaking his promise to his consituents, but my guess is that they would love to see him run for Prez. I also think that when he made his promise, he had every intention of fulfilling it. I don't like it when soemone makes a promise knowing they won't keep it. You can argue that's what he did, but I have not found any basis to doubt him.

 

[TurtleDude]

I also think that when he made his promise, he had every intention of fulfilling it. I don't like it when soemone makes a promise knowing they won't keep it. You can argue that's what he did, but I have not found any basis to doubt him.

true enough-if someone intends to do something when they said it, they are not lying if they LATER change their minds. For example, I believe GHWB really intended not to raise taxes or allow anymore gun rights intrustions when he campaigned in 1988. When he tried to compromise to the dems by raising taxes and banning the import of scary looking guns he did not "lie" and one can argue if he broke a promise. Same with Obama and perhaps Hillary

 

[aps]

true enough-if someone intends to do something when they said it, they are not lying if they LATER change their minds. For example, I believe GHWB really intended not to raise taxes or allow anymore gun rights intrustions when he campaigned in 1988. When he tried to compromise to the dems by raising taxes and banning the import of scary looking guns he did not "lie" and one can argue if he broke a promise. Same with Obama and perhaps Hillary

OMG, I actually agree with TurtleDude. :shock:

 

[t125eagle]

well, the forum didnt collapse. lol.

 

[Stinger]

Ooooo naughty Obama. Changed his mind! That's enough of a reason to not vote for him for me!

LOL

It's not JUST a change of mind, especially something as important as running for the highest elected office. To say on one week that you haven't thought about it and then the next week to say

"SEN. OBAMA: The—I would say that I am still at the point where I have not made a decision to, to pursue higher office, but it is true that I have thought about it over the last several months."

is a direct contradiction.

He'd better learn to make up his mind and speak what he thinks not what he thinks everyone else wants to hear him say.

Just read this execerpt

"MR. RUSSERT: You talk and write a lot about bipartisanship, and I was quite taken by this comment about federal judges. Let me share it with you. “Because federal judges receive lifetime appointments and often serve through the terms of multiple presidents, it behooves a president—and benefits our democracy- -to find moderate nominees who can garner some measure of bipartisan support.” John Roberts, chief justice of the Supreme Court, confirmed 78 to 22. That’s some measure of bipartisan support.

SEN. OBAMA: Right.


MR. RUSSERT: And yet you voted against him.


SEN. OBAMA: Yeah. But I, but I—the—I did not support a filibuster in that situation. So the—I mean, there’s a situation where I thought John Roberts was a highly legitimate nominee. I anguished over that vote. I thought he was highly qualified for the job. I had some concerns about his record on the margins. I chose to vote against him, but I would not have supported a filibuster in that instance, because I think that he was a good nominee on the part of the Bush administration. So the point I’m making there was in the context of judicial nominations, it’s important to distinguish between somebody that you may not vote for because you’re not sure that their views on the Constitution comport with yours. That doesn’t mean that you take extraordinary measures to block their appointment, and that is a good example of it."



And it is more dramatic when you hear him stumbling through the nonsense he was saying. This was for the highest judicial position in the country and he wants to have it both ways, "I voted against him before I would have voted for him", that doesn't win the Presidency.

 

[Iriemon]

It's not JUST a change of mind, especially something as important as running for the highest elected office. To say on one week that you haven't thought about it and then the next week to say

"SEN. OBAMA: The—I would say that I am still at the point where I have not made a decision to, to pursue higher office, but it is true that I have thought about it over the last several months

."

is a direct contradiction.

He'd better learn to make up his mind and speak what he thinks not what he thinks everyone else wants to hear him say.

Are you trying to make some new point by regurgitating this?

Just read this execerpt

"MR. RUSSERT: You talk and write a lot about bipartisanship, and I was quite taken by this comment about federal judges. Let me share it with you. “Because federal judges receive lifetime appointments and often serve through the terms of multiple presidents, it behooves a president—and benefits our democracy- -to find moderate nominees who can garner some measure of bipartisan support.” John Roberts, chief justice of the Supreme Court, confirmed 78 to 22. That’s some measure of bipartisan support.

SEN. OBAMA: Right.


MR. RUSSERT: And yet you voted against him.


SEN. OBAMA: Yeah. But I, but I—the—I did not support a filibuster in that situation. So the—I mean, there’s a situation where I thought John Roberts was a highly legitimate nominee. I anguished over that vote. I thought he was highly qualified for the job. I had some concerns about his record on the margins. I chose to vote against him, but I would not have supported a filibuster in that instance, because I think that he was a good nominee on the part of the Bush administration. So the point I’m making there was in the context of judicial nominations, it’s important to distinguish between somebody that you may not vote for because you’re not sure that their views on the Constitution comport with yours. That doesn’t mean that you take extraordinary measures to block their appointment, and that is a good example of it."



And it is more dramatic when you hear him stumbling through the nonsense he was saying. This was for the highest judicial position in the country and he wants to have it both ways, "I voted against him before I would have voted for him", that doesn't win the Presidency.

I don't get it. He apparently didn't support Roberts based on his judicial interpretations, maybe he didn't think he was moderate enough, but we wasn't against him enough to support a filibuster. So what?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

You know who is no Flipflopper? You know who has stood rock solid in their convictions longer than any other world leader on the face of the earth?

Answer: Fidel Castro.

Sometimes its not a good thing you know.

 

[Kandahar]

It's not JUST a change of mind, especially something as important as running for the highest elected office. To say on one week that you haven't thought about it and then the next week to say

"SEN. OBAMA: The—I would say that I am still at the point where I have not made a decision to, to pursue higher office, but it is true that I have thought about it over the last several months."

is a direct contradiction.

He'd better learn to make up his mind and speak what he thinks not what he thinks everyone else wants to hear him say.

Who the hell cares? He changed his mind at some point. Stop nitpicking just because he has a D next to his name.

And it is more dramatic when you hear him stumbling through the nonsense he was saying. This was for the highest judicial position in the country and he wants to have it both ways, "I voted against him before I would have voted for him", that doesn't win the Presidency.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Obama thought John Roberts was a qualified nominee, but felt that he didn't agree with Obama on important constitutional issues and that that was fair game for casting his vote.

 

[Stinger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
It's not JUST a change of mind, especially something as important as running for the highest elected office. To say on one week that you haven't thought about it and then the next week to say

"SEN. OBAMA: The—I would say that I am still at the point where I have not made a decision to, to pursue higher office, but it is true that I have thought about it over the last several months."

is a direct contradiction.

He'd better learn to make up his mind and speak what he thinks not what he thinks everyone else wants to hear him say.

Who the hell cares? He changed his mind at some point. Stop nitpicking just because he has a D next to his name.

Read slowly, it is NOT a change of mind, it is a direct contradiction in his statements that I am pointing out. If he had said, "Last week I had never thought about it but I did over the weekend and decided I just might try it" that would be one thing, still not great. Better if he had not said anything at all about it the last year and NOW announced that after months of reflection he may open the door, still breaking his promise but better. Those things will kill him in a national campaign. He said unequivically he would serve his full term. He didn't say he just wasn't think ing about running for president, that it may happen later but not now. He said under no uncertain terms he would serve out his full term. When you promise the public something about the office you are being elect to, to serve the people voting for you to the term you are asking for, to then tell them tough, it's not good on the "can you be trusted" scale.

And if he comes out with that phoney "I'm not doing this not because I want to but because I have to because the PEOPLE want me to" thing then even more not to elect him. If someone doesn't want it themselves, more than anything else, they shouldn't be in the office.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Obama thought John Roberts was a qualified nominee, but felt that he didn't agree with Obama on important constitutional issues and that that was fair game for casting his vote.

What important constitutional issues? He didn't name any, he tried to have it both ways. And he was bumbling through the whole thing. If he can't clearly state the reason for the most important vote he has probably cast, if he can't clearly state the principles he was upholding to take such a drastic action as not voting for a nominee to be the CJoSCOTUS he has a lonnnnnnnng way to go before he should ask people to elect him to the highest office.

He needs to complete his term and get some experience and accomplishment behind and learn to say what he means and mean what he says.