• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

WSJ on Obama

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Barack Obama likes to portray himself as a centrist politician who wants to unite the country, but occasionally his postpartisan mask slips. That was the case at Saturday night's Saddleback Church forum, when Mr. Obama chose to demean Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Pastor Rick Warren asked each Presidential candidate which Justices he would not have nominated. Mr. McCain said, "with all due respect" the four most liberal sitting Justices because of his different judicial philosophy.


Mr. Obama took a lower road, replying first that "that's a good one," and then adding that "I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don't think that he, I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution." The Democrat added that he also wouldn't have appointed Antonin Scalia, and perhaps not John Roberts, though he assured the audience that at least they were smart enough for the job.

So let's see. By the time he was nominated, Clarence Thomas had worked in the Missouri Attorney General's office, served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sat for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's second most prominent court. Since his "elevation" to the High Court in 1991, he has also shown himself to be a principled and scholarly jurist.

Meanwhile, as he bids to be America's Commander in Chief, Mr. Obama isn't yet four years out of the Illinois state Senate, has never held a hearing of note of his U.S. Senate subcommittee, and had an unremarkable record as both a "community organizer" and law school lecturer. Justice Thomas's judicial credentials compare favorably to Mr. Obama's Presidential résumé by any measure. And when it comes to rising from difficult circumstances, Justice Thomas's rural Georgian upbringing makes Mr. Obama's story look like easy street.

Even more troubling is what the Illinois Democrat's answer betrays about his political habits of mind. Asked a question he didn't expect at a rare unscripted event, the rookie candidate didn't merely say he disagreed with Justice Thomas. Instead, he instinctively reverted to the leftwing cliché that the Court's black conservative isn't up to the job while his white conservative colleagues are.

So much for civility in politics and bringing people together. And no wonder Mr. Obama's advisers have refused invitations for more such open forums, preferring to keep him in front of a teleprompter, where he won't let slip what he really believes.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
He was asked a question....he answered. Just cause you don't like the answer, dont' biatch about it.


Honestly, I think the whole thing was a farce. I mean, why go to a preacher and answer questions from him in front of his congregation?

It was demeaning to both candidates.


This preacher should kiss the azz of Brian Nichols. Google the name, see what you find, it's not pretty.

If there had not been a mass murder and then Warrens book read by a meth head chick....he'd( Warren) NOT be drawing as much attention as he does now.

It's just more of this religious right crap moving in on our democratic system. Obama is pandering to it just as much as McCain and they BOTH should be ashamed.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Who said I didn't like his answer? I like it because it's just more proof what a socialist, racist moron Obama is.

It seems all the libs are wailing about the Saddleback interview. They didn't seem to have a problem with it BEFORE, but they do AFTER. Maybe that's because even they recognize the change llama got torched?

Wait until the debates.......
 

Mike

Well-known member
The funny part of this "debate", if you will, is that Obama's camp has theorized/led the media to believe that McCain cheated.................................

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

This election shouldn't be close at all after watching Obama stammer, lie, and stutter the other night.

The part that scares me is that the Dems nominated this racist idiot. :roll:
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Who said I didn't like his answer? I like it because it's just more proof what a socialist, racist moron Obama is.

It seems all the libs are wailing about the Saddleback interview. They didn't seem to have a problem with it BEFORE, but they do AFTER. Maybe that's because even they recognize the change llama got torched?

Wait until the debates.......

The debates aren't going to change anything. He is recognized as a racist and communist now, and people still support him.

The guy didn't even know how many states are in the union and people think hs is qualified.

"Change" indeed. This idiot may actually be president of the U.S. I guess it is better than Hillary if that is any consolation.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
backhoeboogie said:
"Change" indeed. This idiot may actually be president of the U.S. I guess it is better than Hillary if that is any consolation.

Got to disagree with you on this one, I would take Hillary any day over Obama! She is smarter and has bigger balls than Obama does and would keep the country safer from terrorist, not much but a little bit more.

I have yet to see the debates in their entirety, but loved the concept of them, I do agree with Kolan on keeping the church and preachers out of it, but put that aside and it was nice to see a debate with a conservative coming up with some hard and unique questions!

Probably was a little unfair for Obama, since anyone that really follows politics knew a hard unscripted question was going to throw him and make him look bad. I am surprised Obama's Higher ups allowed him to attend this one.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Mike said:
The funny part of this "debate", if you will, is that Obama's camp has theorized/led the media to believe that McCain cheated.................................

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

This election shouldn't be close at all after watching Obama stammer, lie, and stutter the other night.

The part that scares me is that the Dems nominated this racist idiot. :roll:

I didn't see the program, but I do know that, if after a confrontation of any kind, one side is claiming the other cheated, they just got their ass handed to them.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Mike said:
The funny part of this "debate", if you will, is that Obama's camp has theorized/led the media to believe that McCain cheated.................................

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

This election shouldn't be close at all after watching Obama stammer, lie, and stutter the other night.

The part that scares me is that the Dems nominated this racist idiot. :roll:

I didn't see the program, but I do know that, if after a confrontation of any kind, one side is claiming the other cheated, they just got their ass handed to them.


I had just got in from a trip and saw maybe 1/2 of the program....just because it happened to be on and was a noise .

Honestly it annoyed me so bad once I realized exactly what it was.....I turned it to Discovery Channel. :lol:

What's this about cheating? I haven't heard this and how could they since it was a off the cuff' kinda set up?

Got a link or a " Reader's Digest" version of the so called " cheating" charges? Just curious is all.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Rev. Rick Warren strongly denied rumors GOP presidential candidate John McCain had “cheated” at a political forum he hosted at his church Saturday evening.

“That's absolutely a lie, absolutely a lie,” Warren said in an interview with BeliefNet. “That room was totally free, with no monitors--a flat out lie.”

Warren said Barack Obama’s supporters who are making the accusation McCain had knowledge of the questions Warren asked him ahead of time are “dead wrong.”

“That's just sour grapes,” Warren said. “They both did fantastically well. The only question he knew, I gave them the first question and I was changing the questions within an hour [before the forum began.] I talked to both of them a week before the debate and told them all the themes. I talked personally to John McCain and I talked personally to Barack Obama. I said, 'We'll talk about leadership, talk about the roles of government,' I said I'd probably have a question about climate change, probably a question on the courts. I didn't say, 'I'm going to ask which Supreme Court justice would you not [nominate]. They were clearly not prepared for that.”

Warren’s forum was the first time McCain and Obama both appeared at a presidential event. Warren questioned each candidate separately for an hour each. Obama’s session was held first, followed by McCain’s. Warren promised McCain was contained “in a cone of silence” during Obama’s allotted time to ensure McCain would not hear the questions ahead of time. Both candidates were asked the same questions.

Many political analysts agreed McCain outperformed Obama at the event, largely because of his directness in answering Warren’s questions, which ranged from abortion, to marriage, to poverty to social justice issues.

MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell said on Meet the Press Sunday, “The Obama people must feel that he didn't do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context, because that -- what they're putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama.”

“He seemed so well prepared,” she added.


The McCain campaign pushed back hard against MSNBC for perpetuating the rumor Monday morning. McCain Campaign Manager Rick Davis sent a letter to the NBC News President Steve Capus that said, “"Instead of examining the Obama campaign's spin for truth before reporting it to more than 3 million NBC News viewers, Andrea Mitchell simply passed along Obama campaign conspiracy theories.”

Davis also requested a meeting “with you as soon as possible to discuss our deep concerns about the news standards and level of objectivity at NBC.”
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Remember when the Dems were all torked off at a moderator that stuck Obama on capital gains taxes? They don't like it when the llama chokes on non-scripted questions. True to liberal form, it's somebody else's fault when Obama reveals himself as a moron.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
It is not that hard when you just answer the questions directly on how you really feel or believe. Obama is such a politician that he is trying to figure out how to answer to get elected or too not lose, that he can not say what he really feels. Just a typical politician!
 

VanC

Well-known member
It all goes back to the liberal mindset. The really hard core lefties are convinced that they're intellectually superior to any conservative, therefore it stands to reason that their candidate would be intellectually superior to a more conservative one. The press usually plays along with this. Remember how they wondered if Gore would alienate people because he would be seen as TOO smart? I remember laughing out loud when I first heard that one. :lol: Remember all the "dumb jokes" about Ford, Reagan, Quayle, and both Bushes?

The libs see conservatives as ignorant, toothless, gun toting rednecks driving an old beat up pickup with a Confederate flag in the back window. So when their candidate gets their butt handed to them in a debate, or says something stupid tryng to answer a question they're not prepared for, they see it as some kind of set up. Because as we all know, it couldn't possibly be that the liberal candidate is in over his head or is actually dumber than a box of rocks. :lol:
 
Top