Verkiezing in de VS #43: Obama party time vanacht

quote:

Op zaterdag 27 september 2008 11:45 schreef Monidique het volgende:
McCain: Obama wil met Iran praten. Waarom zei Obama niet: "Uhm... inderdaad. Net zoals alle andere voormalige ministers van Buitenlandse Zaken. John, het is gemakkelijk, en misschien ben je er daarom voor, om iedereen te negeren die het niet met je eens is, maar president zijn is niet gemakkelijk." Tsja...

quote:

LEHRER: Senator, what about talking?

MCCAIN: Senator Obama twice said in debates he would sit down with Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Raul Castro without precondition. Without precondition. Here is Ahmadinenene [mispronunciation], Ahmadinejad, who is, Ahmadinejad, who is now in New York, talking about the extermination of the State of Israel, of wiping Israel off the map, and we're going to sit down, without precondition, across the table, to legitimize and give a propaganda platform to a person that is espousing the extermination of the state of Israel, and therefore then giving them more credence in the world arena and therefore saying, they've probably been doing the right thing, because you will sit down across the table from them and that will legitimize their illegal behavior.

The point is that throughout history, whether it be Ronald Reagan, who wouldn't sit down with Brezhnev, Andropov or Chernenko until Gorbachev was ready with glasnost and perestroika.

Or whether it be Nixon's trip to China, which was preceded by Henry Kissinger, many times before he went. Look, I'll sit down with anybody, but there's got to be pre-conditions. Those pre-conditions would apply that we wouldn't legitimize with a face to face meeting, a person like Ahmadinejad. Now, Senator Obama said, without preconditions.

OBAMA: So let's talk about this. First of all, Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran. So he may not be the right person to talk to. But I reserve the right, as president of the United States to meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing if I think it's going to keep America safe.

And I'm glad that Senator McCain brought up the history, the bipartisan history of us engaging in direct diplomacy.

Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who's one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran -- guess what -- without precondition. This is one of your own advisers.

Now, understand what this means "without preconditions." It doesn't mean that you invite them over for tea one day. What it means is that we don't do what we've been doing, which is to say, "Until you agree to do exactly what we say, we won't have direct contacts with you."

There's a difference between preconditions and preparation. Of course we've got to do preparations, starting with low-level diplomatic talks, and it may not work, because Iran is a rogue regime.

But I will point out that I was called naive when I suggested that we need to look at exploring contacts with Iran. And you know what? President Bush recently sent a senior ambassador, Bill Burns, to participate in talks with the Europeans around the issue of nuclear weapons.

Again, it may not work, but if it doesn't work, then we have strengthened our ability to form alliances to impose the tough sanctions that Senator McCain just mentioned.

And when we haven't done it, as in North Korea -- let me just take one more example -- in North Korea, we cut off talks. They're a member of the axis of evil. We can't deal with them.

And you know what happened? They went -- they quadrupled their nuclear capacity. They tested a nuke. They tested missiles. They pulled out of the nonproliferation agreement. And they sent nuclear secrets, potentially, to countries like Syria.

When we re-engaged -- because, again, the Bush administration reversed course on this -- then we have at least made some progress, although right now, because of the problems in North Korea, we are seeing it on shaky ground.

And -- and I just -- so I just have to make this general point that the Bush administration, some of Senator McCain's own advisers all think this is important, and Senator McCain appears resistant.

He even said the other day that he would not meet potentially with the prime minister of Spain, because he -- you know, he wasn't sure whether they were aligned with us. I mean, Spain? Spain is a NATO ally.

MCCAIN: Of course.

OBAMA: If we can't meet with our friends, I don't know how we're going to lead the world in terms of dealing with critical issues like terrorism.

quote:

Op zaterdag 27 september 2008 14:02 schreef Wheelgunner het volgende:
Mensen hebben al van te voren besloten dat hun favoriet het debat gewonnen heeft, en alleen een enorme blunder zou daar iets aan kunnen veranderen, wat dus niet gebeurd is.

quote:

Uncommitted voters include those who say they have a preference, but
also say they could still change their minds. Before the debate, 36%
favored Obama and 34% favored McCain. Obama now leads by 12 points
among uncommitted debate watchers -- 41% to 29% -- in their choice for
president in November. But nearly three in 10 remain undecided, and
most of those with a choice now say their minds could still change.

quote:

UPDATE: Kissinger agrees: “Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality.”

quote:

Op zaterdag 27 september 2008 14:07 schreef Monidique het volgende:

[..]

Die CBS-poll was onder 'uncommitted', hè.

Die PDF er nog maar eens bij:
[..]

Obama-mensen vinden Obama beter, McCain-mensen vinden McCain beter. Klopt. Maar dat is heus niet alles (volgens deze cijfers, afwachten dus hoe representatief ze zijn).

quote:

Economic stimulus package founders in Congress
Sat Sep 27, 2008 4:52am IST Email | Print | Share| Single Page[-] Text [+] By Andy Sullivan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A multibillion-dollar stimulus package that aims to create jobs by funding new construction projects foundered in Congress on Friday as Republicans said the hastily crafted measure was a waste of taxpayer money.

The Democratic-backed package would have extended unemployment benefits and increased money for food stamps as the U.S. Congress is wrestling with an unpopular $700 billion Wall Street bailout shortly before the Nov. 4 elections.

The House of Representatives passed its package, which carries a $60.8 billion price tag, by a vote of 264 to 158.

But a similar $56.2 billion bill was blocked in the Senate, rendering moot a White House veto threat. The 52-42 Senate vote fell short of the 60 votes needed in the 100-member body to clear a procedural hurdle.

The measure is unlikely to be resurrected as Congress wraps up its legislative business before the Nov. 4 elections, a Senate aide said.

The Democratic-controlled Congress in January passed a $168 billion stimulus package that relied mostly on tax rebates to spark consumer spending.

While that measure has been credited with contributing to economic growth, consumers have been hurt by rising food and energy prices, a higher unemployment rate and continued home foreclosures.

The second measure would have extended unemployment benefits by up to 20 weeks and boosted funding for food stamps. It would have helped states pay health-care costs and provided billions to fix highways, airports and schools.

With elections looming, Democrats painted the stimulus package as a chance to help consumers more directly than the Wall Street bailout.

"What about the honest, hard-working, play-by-the-rule citizens at the bottom of this pyramid left in the ruins after years of mismanagement and outright malpractice by the titans of the financial industry?" said Iowa Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin.

Republicans decried the package as a political gimmick. They said the increased spending could lead to higher taxes and questioned whether the construction projects, for everything from sewer systems to a Coast Guard icebreaker, would actually create new jobs in a timely manner.

"Saddling taxpayers with tens of billions in unscrutinized spending simply to fulfill an election year agenda is the height of irresponsibility," said House Republican leader John Boehner.

They also said Democrats had not given them an opportunity to change the bills or examine them in detail. The Senate bill was introduced on Thursday and the House bill on Friday morning.

Some Republicans also objected to a provision in the Senate bill that would have kept in place a ban on development of domestic oil shale deposits that expires next week.

Republicans have pressed for more domestic energy production amid high gas prices but many Democrats and environmental groups say oil-shale development requires too much water in western states with scarce water resources.

quote:

Op zaterdag 27 september 2008 14:22 schreef popolon het volgende:
Wat ik mis is het echte one on one wat je in NL wel had in de tijd van Fortuyn, zelfs twee houten klazen als Melkert en Balkenende wisten er toen wat van te maken. Geen vast stramien, weinig moderatie, huppetee gaan met dat debat.

Is dat nu nog zo?

quote:

Op zaterdag 27 september 2008 14:45 schreef popolon het volgende:
Dat Nederland geen president heeft, dat weet ik nog wel.

quote:

Op zaterdag 27 september 2008 15:23 schreef Klopkoek het volgende:
Jij zou een president willen?

quote:

Op zaterdag 27 september 2008 13:50 schreef Wheelgunner het volgende:

[..]

Het onderwerp van het debat was foreign relations en national security, dan lijken me dat legitieme spreekpunten.

quote:

Op zaterdag 27 september 2008 15:31 schreef Wheelgunner het volgende:

[..]

_{Voordat ik op jou reageer ga ik, wanneer mogelijk, voortaan jouw posts bijwerken tot er een normaal en redelijk beleefd iets uitkomt. Discussieert een stuk prettiger dan die bittere, trollerige, eenzijdige en zwakzinnige onzin waar je posts meestal van overlopen...}


Ik ben er vrij onverschillig over, maar ik ben niet meer zo'n fan van de Oranjes als vroeger.

Jij dan?

quote:

Op zaterdag 27 september 2008 15:57 schreef Hamilcar het volgende:

[..]
. Obama praat openlijk over zijn plannen en ideeën, en McCain reageert en valt vooral de persoon Obama aan en niet zijn plannen. Als McMain moest openen, ging het nergens over. Hij begon over veteranen, mensen die hij gekend heeft en zijn persoonlijke geschiedenis en hoopte hier de tijd mee te vullen, hopend dat Obama hem iets zou geven om op te reageren.

McCain is zwak en laf bezig, en Obama weet dat hij geen fouten mag maken wilt hij deze verkiezing winnen. Het is dan ook niet verwonderlijk, dat het geheel behoorlijk traag en slaapverwekkend is.

quote:

Op zaterdag 27 september 2008 14:02 schreef Wheelgunner het volgende:


Objectief gezien moet ik net als vannacht zeggen dat het ongeveer gelijk op ging, dat Obama het aardig deed, maar dat McCain zelfverzekerder en dominanter overkwam. Had ik niet verwacht door zijn leeftijd, maarja.

quote:

Op zaterdag 27 september 2008 16:37 schreef Verbal het volgende:

[..]

http://www.huffingtonpost(...)ains-f_n_129831.html

V.

quote:

Op zaterdag 27 september 2008 16:58 schreef Monidique het volgende:
Wat is dat 'objectief'-geleuter toch de hele tijd? .

quote:

Op zaterdag 27 september 2008 16:55 schreef Wheelgunner het volgende:

[..]

Tsja, HP.. Interessant, maar de objectieve waarde van hun interpretaties?

quote:

Op zaterdag 27 september 2008 17:02 schreef Verbal het volgende:

[..]

Zij vatten samen wat bepaalde nieuwsmedia oordelen

V.

quote:

Op zaterdag 27 september 2008 17:01 schreef Wheelgunner het volgende:
Haha, ik zou eens met de interpretatie van een conservatief blog moeten komen, kan me niet voorstellen dat jij het dan niet over bias gaat hebben.