Explaining Obama's 'Shift to the Center'

[mcpapa]

I would be one of those, as you know. I don't agree with McCain on everything, for example I think we should be drilling in ANWR (any one seen that e mail floating around, explaining where ANWR is actually located?). I'm still not quite as confident in global warming as he is (although I do think we need to objectively study it more, come to a good understanding of it and then weigh the costs/benefits of actions that may be needed to address it if it truly is a problem). I think corporate tax rates should be cut even lower than what he is proposing. I think the govt needs to attack our energy crisis the way that we joined the race to the moon. I have my differences with him, but that's one of the reasons I like him so much to be our next President. I do feel that this country definitely needs someone not ideologically fixated with either extreme; someone willing to work with the people on the other aisle to find compromise on issues. Yes there are some issues that I don't think can be compromised. As a lawyer, I know that the best compromise, the best settlement, is one where neither side walks away completely happy, but feels that they didn't get jobbed. I believe McCain can do that more than Obama can. I will concede that Obama is a much more dynamic speaker and such can be very helpful in bringing the country together. But my concern is that at some point the motivational speeches have to stop and action has to occur and that's when I get worried about Obama based on his past voting record.

 

But there are plenty of things that I do agree with McCain on. He's against pork barrel spending; he's in favor of low tax rates; he's in favor of a strong military but has the personal experience to use restraint in using the military; he's in favor of free trade; he's a strong death penalty supporter; he's opposed to abortion; he's in favor of off shore drilling; he's pro-nuke power; he's pro gun; he's pro business but willing to bust the knuckles of abusive corporate practices; he's for campaign funding reform; he's got the foreign policy experience needed to lead this country in a very, very dangerous world, on and on. And with some exceptions (his initial opposition to Bush's tax cuts for example) he has the voting record to support his campaign rhetoric.

 

I agree wholeheartedly on the bolded (attacking our energy crisis in a manner similar to the way that we raced to the moon).

 

One of the reasons that we so willingly joined that race was that we had a charismatic leader telling us that we should do so, and wholeheartedly offering his (and implicitly, the government's) support. Another reason was that the Russian Bear had gotten a headstart, and we couldn't have that.

[AcesFull]

I would be one of those, as you know. I don't agree with McCain on everything, for example I think we should be drilling in ANWR (any one seen that e mail floating around, explaining where ANWR is actually located?). I'm still not quite as confident in global warming as he is (although I do think we need to objectively study it more, come to a good understanding of it and then weigh the costs/benefits of actions that may be needed to address it if it truly is a problem). I think corporate tax rates should be cut even lower than what he is proposing. I think the govt needs to attack our energy crisis the way that we joined the race to the moon. I have my differences with him, but that's one of the reasons I like him so much to be our next President. I do feel that this country definitely needs someone not ideologically fixated with either extreme; someone willing to work with the people on the other aisle to find compromise on issues. Yes there are some issues that I don't think can be compromised. As a lawyer, I know that the best compromise, the best settlement, is one where neither side walks away completely happy, but feels that they didn't get jobbed. I believe McCain can do that more than Obama can. I will concede that Obama is a much more dynamic speaker and such can be very helpful in bringing the country together. But my concern is that at some point the motivational speeches have to stop and action has to occur and that's when I get worried about Obama based on his past voting record.

 

But there are plenty of things that I do agree with McCain on. He's against pork barrel spending; he's in favor of low tax rates; he's in favor of a strong military but has the personal experience to use restraint in using the military; he's in favor of free trade; he's a strong death penalty supporter; he's opposed to abortion; he's in favor of off shore drilling; he's pro-nuke power; he's pro gun; he's pro business but willing to bust the knuckles of abusive corporate practices; he's for campaign funding reform; he's got the foreign policy experience needed to lead this country in a very, very dangerous world, on and on. And with some exceptions (his initial opposition to Bush's tax cuts for example) he has the voting record to support his campaign rhetoric.

:thumb: I agree 90%+. The only area where I disagree somewhat with what you said is on McCain's record matching his campaign rhetoric. When it comes to campaign finance reform, I believe that McCain has exploited the large loopholes in McCain-Feingold as well as most politicians.

 

However, in comparison to McCain, Obama has been all hat and no cattle when it comes to matching his liberal record to his moderate rhetoric.

[leatherneck]

I agree wholeheartedly on the bolded (attacking our energy crisis in a manner similar to the way that we raced to the moon).

 

One of the reasons that we so willingly joined that race was that we had a charismatic leader telling us that we should do so, and wholeheartedly offering his (and implicitly, the government's) support. Another reason was that the Russian Bear had gotten a headstart, and we couldn't have that.

 

See, the left and the right can agree on some things if we don't get stuck on dogma. :thumb:While I generally agree with the Right's philosophy that almost anything the govt does gets messed up and wastes money likes its not their's (oh, that's right, its not:D) there are a couple of things like the military, foreign policy and energy that I think our national interest mandates govt involvement because of the complexities involved. While the $300 mm incentive proposal of McCain's is a step in the right direction, I don't think it goes far enough.

 

By the way, and I apologize if I am jacking the thread, what do you think of T. Boone's energy proposal?

[AcesFull]

The fact of the matter is on this website there are probably twice as many negative posts about Obama. That's probably why you think you see people ready, willing, ad eager to defend any gaffe he makes.

 

But there are people here ready to do the same for McCain as well.

 

And everyone knows Obama wasn't my first choice out of the Democratic party. I've posted that numerous times.

There may be a few casual posters who support McCain who have not taken issue with him on an issue or two but I cannot recall any regular posters who fit that category.

 

OTOH, the number of Obama supporters who have sang his praises, defended Jeremiah Wright's statements (even more passionately than Obama himself), ignored his questionable associations with convicted felon Tony Rezko and other shady characters, and generally dismissed Obama's meager qualifications for the office that he seeks is fairly substantial.

[mcpapa]

See, the left and the right can agree on some things if we don't get stuck on dogma. :thumb:While I generally agree with the Right's philosophy that almost anything the govt does gets messed up and wastes money likes its not their's (oh, that's right, its not:D) there are a couple of things like the military, foreign policy and energy that I think our national interest mandates govt involvement because of the complexities involved. While the $300 mm incentive proposal of McCain's is a step in the right direction, I don't think it goes far enough.

 

By the way, and I apologize if I am jacking the thread, what do you think of T. Boone's energy proposal?

 

Renewable energy? Absolutely. Wind? I've seen widely differing estimates as to what percentage of our energy need/demand can be met with this resource.

 

I've thought for a long time that nuclear is the way to go.

[4chs]

I can explain his shifting..............................he's trying to get elected.