Thread: Why Obama Will Lose The Election?

Originally Posted by britmaveric

^perhaps line item veto should be put back into plan for McCain's presidency?

I will never forgive the Supreme Court for striking down the line item veto. And just when I was beginning to like those guys.

Obama staffer gave warning of NAFTA rhetoric

Updated Wed. Feb. 27 2008 11:45 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
Barack Obama has ratcheted up his attacks on NAFTA, but a senior member of his campaign team told a Canadian official not to take his criticisms seriously, CTV News has learned.

CTV.ca | Obama staffer gave warning of NAFTA rhetoric

Well, it's not like Obama hasn't spoken out of both sides of his mouth before or won't ever again. We'll have to see how this Iraq story plays out.

I think he might just clinch the presidency but he will die a death of a 1000 pin pricks or a couple of bullets. Americans aren't ready for a BLACK man in the WHITE HOUSE

^ Certainly not one with no leadership experience, an inability to come to a decision, and a wife who thinks their kids' first week back in school is more important than paying respects at the 9/11 memorial in NYC.

Originally Posted by Bugs

In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said.

He is correct in his caution to rushing to agreement. Once signed the agreement would commit the US to a position that could be detrimental to it's interests. As a member of Congress, Obama was simply stating what others in Congress have been saying. Congress needs to be involved in the formulation of the final agreement.

"Several Members of Congress responded with demands that Congress be
involved in creating the planned Agreements, from negotiation to implementation, and took action to ensure such involvement. Congress has proposed numerous pieces of legislation that would increase its role in creating these Agreements, from calling for executive-branch consultation and reporting to requiring formal congressional approval."

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL34568.pdf

^ And the Democratic Congress will conveniently delay the decisions until (as they hope) Obama becomes Prez. But, that ain't gonna happen.

I can certainly understand congresses concerns over the issue. IMO this should be considered a treaty and thus would require the approval of the Senate anyway. But this does not appear to be a clear cut issue. I think this might be because this involves the military and since the executive branch is considered to be the commander and chief that maybe he can sign something that would not need Senate approval.

In that since Congress has taken the only step they have to counter that approach - restrict funding. This basically makes any agreement meaningless until congress approves it anyway.

I don't really agree with members of congress interfering in negotiations by going directly to the party the US is in negotiations with. Congress has made it pretty clear already that what ever gets signed will have to get their approval one way or the other anyway.

I might dig around a bit more and find out why this agreement may or may not be considered a treaty - from a legal standpoint. The congressional response touched upon this a bit. And it seems pretty clear regardless of the treaty issue that constitutionally the president is the one that should be negotiating this deal. Generally speaking this would also mean he needs to "consult" with at least the Senate - but consultation does not mean that anyone from congress has to be directly involved in the negotiations.

There has been quite a bit of a power struggle going on over the powers of the executive vs the legislative branches of government as of late. And generally speaking the executive seems to have been winning. Many times when I think they should not. But in this case I think the power to negotiate this deal is clearly an executive power, a power that should eventually require at a minimum Senate approval of any agreement, but one that should be handled on the front lines directly be the executive branch (without meddling between anyone in the legislative branch and the party the US is negotiating with).

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

And the Democratic Congress will conveniently delay the decisions until (as they hope) Obama becomes Prez.

No matter who becomes President, Congress has legitimate concerns. Spin it the way you like but read the concerns they have. They are concerns either party would have. Basically they concern issues already in law that could be overridden by a unilateral decision by the President. You know, separation of powers and other trivial matters of the same ilk that haven't seemed to slow down GWB in the past.

Congress trumps State Department when there's something in it for them?

Don't think so.

Hmmm. I think the Dem Congress would shift to suit their prez nominee. How many vetoes has GWB made, anyway?

Originally Posted by Texpat

Congress trumps State Department when there's something in it for them? Don't think so.

Think again. Congressional oversight, finding approval and in cases of treaties, approval has and always will be fundamental to appropriate separation of powers. Last time I checked, the State Department is not omnipotent.

How could a State Dept decision overide that of Congress?

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

How could a State Dept decision overide that of Congress?

All Congressional concerns as to preventing State from doing just this are contained in the bill.

A hint you haven't actually read the Congressional bill I provided in the link!!

No. Been busy and now anticipating analyst report on AIG. Bladdy hell. Fed $85 bil loan for 80%. Yikes. What are they doing down there?

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

. Bladdy hell. Fed $85 bil loan for 80%. Yikes. What are they doing down there?

No shit! This is pretty scary. The whole world is on edge over this.

Great deal for yank govt - 80% ownership in a 1.1trillion dollar corporation....

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

Bladdy hell. Fed $85 bil loan for 80%. Yikes. What are they doing down there?

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

No shit! This is pretty scary. The whole world is on edge over this.

What they are doing is witnessing chicken's coming home roost. We shouldn't expect anything but disaster if "wall street" is allowed to operate using greed driven unethical business practices with no visible oversight. Throw in high unemployment, inflation, record deficits, house foreclosures, and government bailing out failed companies with bad business practices and what we get is what we have.

But not to worry. Don't pay any attention. "The fundamentals of the economy are sound" according to GWB and McCain.

So, what's your fix, Norts? It was a domino effect. Or maybe a plot by the Chinese to take over?

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

So, what's your fix, Norts? It was a domino effect.

Yes, a domino effect indeed. Without going into detail, the "fix" is to eliminate the number of dominoes that lead to economic downturns by addressing each one separately.

How each of the issues I point out in my previous post are resolved will be a combination of government and private business initiatives. Given many of the issues have been ignored for far to long, it will take a long time to a fix.

IMO, neither the current administration, Obama or McCain have the answer.

RC - Cheers mate I agree BO running the dirtiest and most shameless campaign to win which will make him lose.

Originally Posted by britmaveric

RC - Cheers mate I agree BO running the dirtiest and most shameless campaign to win which will make him lose.

Good article in the Straits Times today about the McCain campaign being caught out in a series of lies.

he's sold his soul.

and that's probably why he's dodging the media.

McCain: "I will hold weekly press conferences." [McCain speech, Columbus, OH, 5/15/08]

"He used to be the most accessible presidential candidate in modern American history, and he prided himself on that. No longer. The last time he took questions from his press corps was on Aug. 13." [ABCNews, 9/11/08]

Fox News: McCain Skips Media Avails for Staged Rallies. "Today marks the four-week anniversary since McCain held his last press conference (8/13 in Birmingham, MI) and three weeks since his last public town hall meeting (8/20 in Las Cruces, NM)." [Foxnews.com, 9/10/08]

MSNBC: McCain Hasn't Spoken to Reporters Since August 13. "McCain has not spoken to the press since August 13 in Birmingham, MI [MSNBC.com, 8/25/08]

Politico.com