[Jayhawk Bill]

Originally Posted by example1

I'm pretty sure he knows about that document.

I'm pretty sure that Obama knows about the Constitution, but his statements regarding Clinton balancing the budget are misleading because...

He was the first to do it in 30 years, and had the ability to stop it as well as significant input on its contents and priorities.

...President Clinton and Vice President Gore had zero votes on the budget. Yes, President Clinton could have vetoed a balanced budget that met his goals. He didn't. If you consider that to be credit, well, your standard is frighteningly low.

It was by no means solely a conservative venture.

Absolutely not! The Republican majority was thin, and several liberal Republicans joined the conservatives to make the balanced budget possible.

Furthermore, given the cuts necesary to balance the budget it was a pretty courageous political move.

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

OK, here are all of the budgets from 1962 through today, including those 1990's balanced budgets you credit to President Clinton. There's no cut in outlays (page 1); there's one cut in discretionary spending of 2.2% (page 5), overcome completely by increased spending the very next year, and composed almost entirely by a cut in defense...a cut in defense less than Bush's cut in defense in his 1992 budget, a cut overcome completely by increased discretionary spending from the Democratic Congress.

Note on page 9 that the mandatory spending (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) has increased by $461 billion since President Clinton left office. The total deficit is only $248.2 billion. Do you consider President George W. Bush $200 billion more "courageous" than President Clinton? If not, what category of mandatory spending should he have worked with a Republican Congress to cut?

***

Try words other than "courageous" if you want to avoid these comparisons.

What part of this do you find petty?

Never used that word.

He was talking about the job that he's applying for and giving credit to the man who was in that position when the budget was, in fact, balanced.

I give President Clinton as much credit for balancing the budget as I give to President Nixon in 1969. I don't hear Obama singing the praises of Nixon. But the times were similar: a divided Government reaped the benefits of a drawdown in conflict, Vietnam for Nixon and the Cold War for Clinton.

Would you have a problem acknowledging any particular senators taking credit for their role in that too, just because they didn't sign the document? I wouldn't. It is all part of the same process and certainly worthy of praise.

I'd happily credit the Republican Congress.

I like Richardson too, and have for awhile.

Common ground. Richardson is very qualified for service as Chief Executive. His positions are well-reasoned.

In some ways yes, he will undoubtedly be progressive.

Progressive? Others see movement to an evangelical Christian nation as "progressive." Try "left-wing," or "socialist."

He will try to get a better health care plan--because we're the only industrialized nation without one and that's a travesty.

"Travesty?" That's an opinion.

My opinion? Means-testing eligibility for Government-subsidized health care is a travesty. If we have Medicaid or a similar system for some, we should have it for all. Private health insurance and such could still be an option for the wealthy.

He will not discriminate against gays...

TELL ME THE NAME OF ONE CANDIDATE WHOSE POSITION IS "I SHALL DISCRIMINATE AGAINST GAYS."

Give a link. Last I checked, such discrimination is illegal.

Barring such a quoted link, you're veering into the range of either libel, absurdity, or irrelevance.

...or nominate people who will restrict science or abortion.

Cool. Gotcha.

He will address the environment and may have to do so radically.

What specific platform items of Barack Obama's do you support regarding the environment?

He's not hiding any of this. He's saying "We have enormous challenges, bigger than at any time in history, and we have to confront them immediately and forcefully."

I rather consider the challenges faced by the Continental Congress to have been greater. Lincoln had a tough moment; so did FDR. While we're at it, Gerald Ford had to handle a nation fractured by Watergate, an environment unrecovered from pre-Clean Air Act/Clean Water Act atrocities, hyperinflation from oil price shocks, a collapsing industrial sector, a peer competitor superpower with ICBMs targeted at our cities and a proverbial finger on a hair trigger, and an opposition Congress that had forced his predecessor into retirement with the viable threat of impeachment.

Can Obama top that?

To combat global warming there will have to be a radical intervention from the Federal government, demanding milage in cars, alternative energy, incentives to green companies, some form of carbon control, etc., People will need to change lightbulbs and recycle more. That movement will be progressive, certainly.

Global warming is global. Does Obama propose to use military force to enforce compliance from China? Failing that, any gesture from the US or the other Western Democracies is pointless and serves only to weaken ourselves relative to China.

If one believes that global warming exists and is manmade.

We will need a scientific revolution on par with our greatest mobilization movements in history. So in that sense, you're right--people will need to swallow the progressive pill because our society needs to change, badly.

Nah. That's your opinion. I disagree.

But while he is progressive in that sense, he is not a pacifist hippie. I feel confident that he will redeploy the military as needed, continuing to address the global war on terror.

Here we reenter common ground. I believe that Obama would be a competent Executive.

If Republicans are able to articulate themselves well enough to have enough Senators to block legislation, then they are entitled to stand up as much as they want. That's part of the process.

Remember that you posted this.

However, if Democrats have enough support to gain a supermajority--which could happen with Clinton or Obama--then Republicans better hope that he's willing to build bridges and extend an arm. I believe he will...

Barring enough Republicans to force cloture, Obama would enact changes comparable in scope to FDR's or LBJ's.

Despite your cynicism...

Me? Cynical?

...I don't hear you saying that you expect Clinton to reach out either. I know it is never a guarantee and that many politicians claim they will do it, but you can't think they are all equally unlikely to try, do you?

I regard these current active Presidential candidates most likely to attempt to "reach out:"

1) John McCain
2) Ron Paul
3) Rudy Giuliani
4) Barack Obama

I'll willingly give credit to Obama for apparent willingness to try to unify this nation...and I really don't object to his candidacy. If elected, I expect that he'd be the best Democratic President since the 19th Century, and that he'd be better than several 20th Century Republicans, too.

I'm just a bit more pragmatic than you are in my support of him, example1.