Where is all of "O's" big bipartisan rhetoric now?
Posted By: sam on 2008-09-24
In Reply to:
Obviously that is all it was....rhetoric. Preached we had to work across the aisle...bipartisanship...to get things done. And now, with the biggest crisis this country has faced in decades, and he has a chance to put his money where his mouth is...what does he do? Decides what is best for Barack, and that is the tack he takes. ANY credibility he had left with me is gone.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
rhetoric rhetoric - just tell people what they want to hear, it worked in 2000 and 2004 right?
xx
Not saying it is not truly bipartisan, but...
it is almost entirely funded by the Annenberg Foundation..
FactCheck.org is a nonprofit website[1] that describes its own goal as "[reducing] the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics". In its efforts, FactCheck claims to be nonpartisan.[2] It is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, and is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.[2]
I found this on Annenberg:
Annenberg Foundation to Make Documents Related to Chicago Challenge Available
The Annenberg Foundation has announced that, along with the Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University, it will make available all materials related to its Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC).
CAC was part of the $500 million Annenberg Challenge for School Reform that, in the 1990s, brought together civic, business, and university leaders with foundations and other groups in support of school-improvement projects. Following recent news reports that have raised questions about Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's role in the $50 million CAC project and the availability of materials related to it, the foundation has agreed to make all CAC-related documents available to the public by appointment. The majority of the documents are archived at the University of Illinois at Chicago, while others are located at the Annenberg Institute and the foundation's offices in Radnor, Pennsylvania.
Three summative studies of the Annenberg Challenge for School Reform published by the foundation and institute are available on the Annenberg Institute Web site: The Annenberg Challenge: Lessons and Reflections on Public School Reform (61 pages, PDF), Research Perspectives on School Reform: Lessons from the Annenberg Challenge (14 pages, PDF), and The Arts and School Reform: Lessons and Possibilities from the Annenberg Challenge Arts Projects (52 pages, PDF).
Not saying this would make them lean one way or the other...but this is where the money comes from.
If you were really bipartisan you would not have to ask that question...sm
Just campare their experience and their records. I just hope that I won't eventually have to say I told you so.
They said instead of all the talk about it being a bipartisan
effort, it turned out to be a partisan effort (dems against pubs again).
Speaker Pelosi struck the tone of partisanship in this. Failure of Speaker Pelosi .... failure to listen, failure to lead.
94 dems voted NO!
They're going back to the drawing table.
Bipartisan politics at its best! LOL
n
May I be the first to offer resounding bipartisan
x
JM credibility on moderate inclusive bipartisan
nm
One would imagine so he can get bipartisan 1st-hand info
It is appropriate that he continues exactly on the course he is following for the moment...cabinet building, prioritizing and preparing initiatives for day one so as to hit the gound running.
Knew it would happen. Bipartisan, my foot.
McCain's amendment that would only cost $450B and provide almost everything for the people failed. Ayes-40, Nayes 57. That's how much the Naysayers care for the people of this country. 
I'd join the grassroots movement but I don't even have a car that would get me to D. C.
Do you know what bipartisan is? Both sides made concessions in order to .sm
make it a reflection of bipartisanship so that both parties would be able to vote for it. Of course there will always be some people that will not be satisfied. That is the nature of things. However, to say that because Nancy Pelosi is responsible for the loss of votes because she made harsh statements about the Bush administration is just ridiculous.
On a lighter note, a bipartisan funny card (sm)
http://www.americangreetings.com/ecards/view.pd?i=474735065&m=2086&rr=y&source=ag999
When you have a bipartisan version of the bill to view...please enlighten us. nm
x
A bipartisan prayer request viewed as provoking hate.
by taking this kind of position and posting these kinds or rants.
Rhetoric?
I don't know what posts you have been reading, friend Lurker, with the anything to do with hatred, loving terrorists, etc., are directed at the post containing just that thing. One poster who shall remain nameless stated emphatically that investigating Bush took precedence over terrorism. To me, that is a statement supporting terrorism, and while maybe not idiotic, does not seem to me to be a very smart thing to say, considering Amadinejad stated this morning he wanted the next group of Al Qaeda leaders to come from Iran and that he was sending the US a message soon. And then this afternoon, we find out that the nuclear watchdog group found plutonium in the nuclear waste at the Iranian nuclear plant. But your liberal friend who proudly calls herself so wants to investigate Bush rather than concentrate on terrorism. That would be laughable if it were not that a great number of liberals are in full agreement with her. Which is concerning to say the least. Several who post the liberal board and on the conservative board who clearly identify themselves as liberals do hate democracy (evident in their posts), make frequent statements in support of terrorism (taking attention off them is supporting them), spout socialist policies (why they are called socialists)...if you don't fall into any of those categories, should be no big deal to you. You are including yourself in the group saying we. Liberals come to the conservative board too. Conservatives are not the only ones who cross over boards.
Rhetoric
Per Onelook:
▸ noun: study of the technique and rules for using language effectively (especially in public speaking) (hmmm...yep)
▸ noun: using language effectively to please or persuade (okay, I get it)
▸ noun: high flown style; excessive use of verbal ornamentation (ohh, for sure!)
▸ noun: loud and confused and empty talk (that's the nuts and bolts of it)
As far as rhetoric is concerned, I would say O has it mastered.
Palin was speaking the truth, plain and simple, and she has the record to prove it. Get over it. If you are so embarrased, go live somewhere else.
Bipartisan (well, kind of) funny video on Hillary. Hope it works.
http://www.michaelhodges.com/hillary.html
Hope this works for you all, it's worth it!!
Admit what? Your rhetoric?
BTW, brush your teeth - your breathe stinks - I know where your head has been.
This pub party rhetoric is at least 50 years old.
applies to the 21st century please?
Guess not. 50-year-old rhetoric
fu
Here's the deal. This kind of rhetoric is exactly
and does absolutely nothing to advance the cause of your broken down party and the dirth of leadership you are currently experiencing. This kind of disconnect between your party and the rest of us is exactly what you should be spending your time trying to come to terms with.
Being a democrat, it is fine with me if you persist along these lines, since it would serve to ensure similar election results next time around, but for your own sakes, you guys really do need to GET A GRIP.
Bitter self-serving rhetoric?
I have absolutely no personal ties whatsoever to the middle east, so exactly why would I be bitter, and what would I have to gain? Your statement makes no sense. The main benefit of actually recognizing the history of the region (as opposed to the Israeli version of the *truth*) would be for better political relations with the middle east. Have you noticed that the rest of the world sees what's going on? Why do you think there is so much resentment in the middle east for the US? Israel (or rather our empowering of it and it's abuse of that power) is one of the main problems over there.
Why would I care about your opinion? I don't. There are very few people's opinions that I actually value on this board. Those would be the ones who can actually discuss a subject with reasonable viewpoints, and guess what? Most of them disagree with me on most everything. LOL
I'm simply trying to get you to stay on the subject, which is obviously a lost cause.
Your rhetoric was meaningless months ago...
and it is just as meaningless today. I supported Obama then, and I support him now, as do all of the people who voted for him. It must be miserable to live with such hate in your heart. I would pity you, but it seems that you are doing a pretty good job of that on your own.
No difference. Fact is that primary rhetoric
whenever you try depict rhetoric reversals as LIES, the challenge of your own candidates reversals will be waiting for you. Lame game and pointless.
Yes Sam, Biden is running with O. JB is a 35-year veteran in the Senate and if he felt O was not prepared for office, why then is is willing to place himself on the same ticket? JB knows what he is doing. There is no stronger statement of support than that. No brownie points for you on that one.
Day by day, we will be seeing dems, pubs and indies surface from Alaska who have bones to pick with SP. Wonder why that is? You can try to discredit and dismiss them to your heart's content, but you cannot ignore the fact that the public is never that forgiving and these types of testimonials will have impact on voter confidence. Funny how the verifiable facts that are a matter of public record included in Kilkenny's comments seem to have completely escaped your notice. Those facts will stand for what they are...challenges to the claims that she and the party are making about her fiscal responsibility and evidence of her tendency to want to run the show, run over anybody who gets in her way and take revenge on those would would oppose her. Not such a breath of fresh air after all, and looking a bit on the hypocritical side...a trait that some people associate with dishonesty. So yeah, whose lies and whose truths are not for you or I to decide. We have no choice here except to do our homework, put our views out there and leave it up to the voters to decide.
Actually, nasty, tacky, low-class rhetoric is exactly that,
You seem mighty sure of yourself while you presume to speak for a complete stranger.
I would think with all your anti-semetic rhetoric that you would be a big fan of Hitler's!
Oh the hypocrasy!
Denounce Fox News Outrageous Rhetoric
Fox News Crosses the Line
Target: Fox News Sunday Host Chris Wallace
Sponsored by: Media Matters
For news coverage to be "fair and balanced," there has to be a line separating news from political activism – a clear boundary between legitimate commentary and demagoguery.
Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace repeatedly characterizes his network as "fair and balanced" – a source of news that should be taken seriously. However, several recent actions on Fox News illustrate that the network is contributing to a culture of conservative paranoia and anti-Obama political activism.
For example, since launching his Fox News show, Glenn Beck has engaged in increasingly outrageous rhetoric that promotes a culture of conservative paranoia – from imitating President Obama pouring gasoline onto the "average American" to mocking Obama's aunt's "limp."
If Wallace wants to continue to portray his network and influential Sunday show as a credible source of news, he owes it to his viewers to speak out publicly against Fox News' recent behavior. So please join us in asking Chris Wallace to publicly denounce Fox News' recent actions and repair the damage done to his network's credibility.
Link below to sign petition.
No, work for a living, and have heard all the liberal rhetoric before.
x
Bush just casually reverses 5 years of rhetoric. sm
How many more lies before everyone wakes up?
Editorial Toledo Blade: Another lie on Iraq
WHEN President Bush declared last week that nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a large segment of the American public must have been very surprised.
They would be the die-hard supporters of the war in Iraq, the one-quarter to one-third of Americans who, according to opinion polls, believe to this day that Saddam was somehow involved in 9/11.
No one likes to think that their President is lying, but for Mr. Bush to casually reverse five years of rhetoric is like Bill Clinton claiming I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.
No, there is no DNA evidence that we know of to indict Mr. Bush for perjury. But the public record includes repeated statements by the President, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and other administration officials that linked responsibility for the 9/11 attacks to Iraq, both directly and indirectly.
The alleged connection was the administration's strongest selling point for the war, slaking the American people's thirst for revenge for the 2001 attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C.
As Mr. Bush put it on Oct. 7, 2002, We know that Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy - the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al-Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. … We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.
Here he is again, in his 2003 State of the Union address: And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda.
And in his Mission Accomplished photo op, May 1, 2003: In the war on terror, Iraq is now the central front.
Mr. Cheney was even more specific: In 2003, the vice president claimed that the government was learning more and more about links, before 9/11, between Iraq and al-Qaeda. This came even after the CIA had debunked any such claims. In 2004, the veep said flatly that Saddam had long-established ties with al-Qaeda.
Now, you can argue all day about whether faulty U.S. intelligence misled Mr. Bush, or about what the meaning of suggested is, but this much is clear: The administration relentlessly blurred what was a clear distinction between the militantly secular regime of Saddam and Islamic extremists like the 9/11 hijackers so as to create a laser-beam connection in the public mind that they were one and the same.
So for Mr. Bush to now claim that nobody has ever suggested that the Sept. 11 attacks were ordered by Iraq, as he did last week, is yet another lie in the chain of mendacity that shackles the Bush presidency.
Bush starts changing his tune/rhetoric.....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061112/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq
I understand the moral stance, but feel the rhetoric is over-the-top.....sm
This man is NOT pro-abortion, as many of us are not. He is preserving the right of choice for ALL women, and does not believe that a poor woman who has undergone a rape, incest, domestic violince/intimidation situation, or even has just accidentally gotten pregnant with a child she cannot carry for medical, emotional, or financial reasons....I hate abortion also, but if Americans are to be equal, then a poor woman needs to have resources available to her which would be available to others, or you are damning her to the back-alley abortionists. That is reality. I, Myself, married 18 years, vigilantly spacing my children and on birth control, came up with an unexpected, very difficult pregnancy. Yes, we made the choice to love and take this baby into the world, but we also had SOME resources and family, some girls do not.
There are not many folk who are PRO ABORTION, but preserving the individual choice, though abhorrent to many of us, is part of true liberty. And God Himself will judge as appropriate.
And I do feel that those few who use abortion as a means of birth control, well there should be restrictions and a definite "no."
You're a good little communist/socialist/marxist in your rhetoric..nm
Translation: I watch a lot of Fox News and stick strictly to party rhetoric.nm
z
Non-stop hate rhetoric for weeks and weeks on end
Red camp has been making character the issue by their own choice. They copped out on the national crisis and decided to go with the culture war. Well, now they have it and I am sure that GP is not the only one who is feeling a bit surly at this point. What is the O camp (and I am not assuming that GP is going that way since she has not said so) supposed to do? Did you think that they would simply quietly sit back and take lash after lash after lash and wait for the tribal warriors to suddenly develop a conscience and call a cease fire?
Blah, blah, blah . . . same old tired rhetoric.
"changed their minds to save our lives". Wow, you really believe that crap don't you? Yea, that's right, let's be like all the other barbaric countries that use torture. Two wrongs don't make a right. By the way, I do believe that ANYONE involved in giving the go ahead on "enhanced interrogation" should be prosecuted -- pubs and Dems alike.
It's been proven time and time again that torture does not give reliable results. In fact, one of the most reliable pieces of information was obtained from giving a diabetic a cookie. Yea, I guess treating someone like a human being just doesn't work.
I am much less terrified by the "terrorists over there" than I am by the crazy rightwing loonies here in the country. Those are the ones you really should be concerned about!!
|
