Dallas-Mavs.com Forums - View Single Post

aquaadverse · 03-09-2009, 03:54 PM

you were alluding to carter? yikes.

carter didn't run a campaign against nixon, he never uttered nixon's name. carter ran a campaign against the "washington establishment", which btw included his own party.

your point is wrong.

Nope. There are many similarities, mishandling of an unpopular war, trampling of constitutional rights etc...He didn't have to use his name.

Saying Watergate, the Saturday Night Massacre, his very new practice of taping conversation etc....had little to do with Carter getting elected is wrong. I voted in that election and remember it well. People didn't vote for Carter as much as they showed disgust with the actions of the Nixon administration. He continually hammered on scandals, broken faith. Ford pardoning Nixon sealed a loss. Saying he got elected because of a general campaign against the Washington establishment is ludicrous.

The fact that he didn't want to seem unpresidential by savaging Nixon and his staff directly doesn't change the fact it didn't require mastery of nuance and the fine points of subtle inference to know what he was referring to with a reference of mishandling a tragic and wasteful war, loss of trust because of secrecy and scandal, and people in high office feeling above the law.

http://www.observer.com/2008/turning-obama-jimmy-carter

There are numerous similarities in the dynamics between the two campaigns. I'm not saying they are exactly the same or that Obama is going to end up like Carter.

what the heck are you saying? the economic "meltdown"? it was in full swing in november, and is one of the reasons obama won (remember mccain ceasing his campaign due to the "severity of the crisis"?)

I'm saying if the events of September had happened at the end of October or July Obama might have lost. The race was a statistical dead heat with McCain making up ground after the DNC. If the big crash that saw Lehman Brothers going under and the huge drops in the market had occurred after the election instead of the end of September it would have been closer. Obama got a break when the issue bitched slapped the public and the time frame was perfect for him. He got to point the finger of blame without needing to float a solution.

pelosi is almost inmvisible right now, and I do not know how you have missed the weekly press interviews and public speeches obama has been conducting. you even take one of his quotes...odd that on the one hand you'd say he "has no contact with the press" while you then turn around and produce a quote.

there's a fairly long interview in fact on the nyt wesite today.

obama's ratings have stayed up because he is communicative and getting lots of time in the news

Pelosi is invisible because the bill is done. Obama is still trying to appear a centrist and a uniter. Pelosi was styling herself as the keeper of change. This is not a new strategy and there are many examples in our history with different parties in power.

And I don't know how you missed this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28808756/

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17833.html

He hasn't made any meaningful explanation that ties this huge round of back loaded deficit spending to a recovery. He talks about making federal building energy efficient and replacing the Federal Fleet with hybrids because it's difficult to argue against it. He didn't address the subject of housing in detail because he didn't want to preempt his Treasury Secretary press conference two days later. He continues to toss out slogans about 4 million jobs and other highly generalized comments because he doesn't want follow ups. Try to find any widely distributed comments by him addressing the lack of positive reaction by the financial sector to his strategy. Try to find any widely distributed comments about his seeming inability to find senior staff without tax issues. Try to find comments by him justifying waivers clearing people with lobbyist ties to serve on his staff.

I'm not really slamming him over it. It's a smart strategy and it obviously works.

He remains popular because a large chunk of our population are unable to name any of his cabinet besides Hillary and Biden and probably couldn't find Afghanistan on a map if their lives depended on it. Millions buy boy band and Hanna Montana music and concert tickets but it hardly means it's because they have demonstrated great depth in interviews.

There is a difference between exposure and access. He is very intelligent and media savvy. That is very different from communicative. Quotes by him are easy to come by. Answers of any depth aren't. He is popular because he is very careful of what he says and the image he portrays. If you think a photographer was just kind of wandering by and got lucky snapping pictures of him frolicking in the surf in Aloha land you're mistaken.

03-09-2009, 03:54 PM	#90
aquaadverse Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 317	you were alluding to carter? yikes. carter didn't run a campaign against nixon, he never uttered nixon's name. carter ran a campaign against the "washington establishment", which btw included his own party. your point is wrong. Nope. There are many similarities, mishandling of an unpopular war, trampling of constitutional rights etc...He didn't have to use his name. Saying Watergate, the Saturday Night Massacre, his very new practice of taping conversation etc....had little to do with Carter getting elected is wrong. I voted in that election and remember it well. People didn't vote for Carter as much as they showed disgust with the actions of the Nixon administration. He continually hammered on scandals, broken faith. Ford pardoning Nixon sealed a loss. Saying he got elected because of a general campaign against the Washington establishment is ludicrous. The fact that he didn't want to seem unpresidential by savaging Nixon and his staff directly doesn't change the fact it didn't require mastery of nuance and the fine points of subtle inference to know what he was referring to with a reference of mishandling a tragic and wasteful war, loss of trust because of secrecy and scandal, and people in high office feeling above the law. http://www.observer.com/2008/turning-obama-jimmy-carter There are numerous similarities in the dynamics between the two campaigns. I'm not saying they are exactly the same or that Obama is going to end up like Carter. what the heck are you saying? the economic "meltdown"? it was in full swing in november, and is one of the reasons obama won (remember mccain ceasing his campaign due to the "severity of the crisis"?) I'm saying if the events of September had happened at the end of October or July Obama might have lost. The race was a statistical dead heat with McCain making up ground after the DNC. If the big crash that saw Lehman Brothers going under and the huge drops in the market had occurred after the election instead of the end of September it would have been closer. Obama got a break when the issue bitched slapped the public and the time frame was perfect for him. He got to point the finger of blame without needing to float a solution. pelosi is almost inmvisible right now, and I do not know how you have missed the weekly press interviews and public speeches obama has been conducting. you even take one of his quotes...odd that on the one hand you'd say he "has no contact with the press" while you then turn around and produce a quote. there's a fairly long interview in fact on the nyt wesite today. obama's ratings have stayed up because he is communicative and getting lots of time in the news Pelosi is invisible because the bill is done. Obama is still trying to appear a centrist and a uniter. Pelosi was styling herself as the keeper of change. This is not a new strategy and there are many examples in our history with different parties in power. And I don't know how you missed this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28808756/ http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17833.html He hasn't made any meaningful explanation that ties this huge round of back loaded deficit spending to a recovery. He talks about making federal building energy efficient and replacing the Federal Fleet with hybrids because it's difficult to argue against it. He didn't address the subject of housing in detail because he didn't want to preempt his Treasury Secretary press conference two days later. He continues to toss out slogans about 4 million jobs and other highly generalized comments because he doesn't want follow ups. Try to find any widely distributed comments by him addressing the lack of positive reaction by the financial sector to his strategy. Try to find any widely distributed comments about his seeming inability to find senior staff without tax issues. Try to find comments by him justifying waivers clearing people with lobbyist ties to serve on his staff. I'm not really slamming him over it. It's a smart strategy and it obviously works. He remains popular because a large chunk of our population are unable to name any of his cabinet besides Hillary and Biden and probably couldn't find Afghanistan on a map if their lives depended on it. Millions buy boy band and Hanna Montana music and concert tickets but it hardly means it's because they have demonstrated great depth in interviews. There is a difference between exposure and access. He is very intelligent and media savvy. That is very different from communicative. Quotes by him are easy to come by. Answers of any depth aren't. He is popular because he is very careful of what he says and the image he portrays. If you think a photographer was just kind of wandering by and got lucky snapping pictures of him frolicking in the surf in Aloha land you're mistaken.