Obama's acceptance speech

[erfalf]

I could only muster through about 10-15 minutes. The amount of straw men and future broken promises in that span was enough for me to conclude it was going to be nothing new.

On the specifics thing, I was watching Morning Joe this morning and the Mayor of Charlotte was on there exclaiming how excited he was that Obama was big on the specifics in his speech, where Romney wasn't. He didn't just say he was going to create xx amount of jobs. Joe, says "How". "He's going to create 1 million manufacturing jobs". "How". He's going to invest in education". "How". "Well ....". Maybe he wasn't as specific as they would like to portray him as. Unlikely anyone will question anyone else about it though.

[nathanm]

How so?
They aren't available on the Obama campaign website.

They're available as bills sitting in Congress and budgets on the White House website.

Every bugget "speech" and proposal he has offered has ended up as a "framework" that even the CBO complains about, and his own party won't accept.

I see you haven't let go of the redirection gambit. Excellent!

His foreign policy is always reactive, giving people the impression that he "leads from behind."

This is an outright fabrication. You may have some of the brass Clinton spoke about, though.

I like that he seeks the advice of experts, but he refuses to take it.

The part after the comma is an outright fabrication. His speech last night specifically mentioned the Simpson-Bowles plan, which I'll remind you once again Paul Ryan voted against.

The one A policy he has taken up with a fury is his personal drone war, but he wont' toute that.

This is accurate.

As far as the economy is concerned he's skated on old Bush policy for the past three years

This is an outright fabrication, and quite the doozy.

He has continued to offer vague plans to cut spending and reduce the debt, but his actions have been exactly the opposite.

This is also an outright fabrication.

His intensions have no detail, and his results are non-existant.

The first part of this is a complete fabrication, and the second is an opinion which flies in the face of reason. When Obama took office, we were losing what, 850,000 jobs a month? When Obama took office, we still had hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq. When Obama took office, gays couldn't serve openly in the military. When Obama took office, health insurance companies were spending less than 80% of your premium dollar on health care. When Obama took office, Medicare was projected to run out of money in the Hospital Insurance trust fund in 2019 (or 2016, if you take the May 2009 report), and thanks to the health care law you complain about so bitterly, it now will last until 2024 without further action.

Results don't vanish just because you happen to not agree with the policy.

[erfalf]

To date, I'm not sure if any of Obama's budgets have received a single vote yet. At least the ones brought up to vote by a friendly Senate Majority leader that is. I'm not sure how you can say with a straight face that this President is serious about any of his proposals (To be clear I am saying the President not all Democrats in general). Even the healthcare bill was largely hashed out in the House and Senate, with little input by the President. I recall even thinking that I thought this was going to be Obama's thing, but he seemed to not want to get his hands dirty. This is where the "lead from behind" meme started.

To this day, I still don't know why Democrats are voting against these budgets. If Obama was playing politics (when is he not), he would want to paint the Republicans as obstructionist, but in this case, nobody is voting for it. It has been one of the very few things that there is bipartisan support against.

[nathanm]

Funny how Bush wasn't leading from behind on Part D.

[erfalf]

Funny how Bush wasn't leading from behind on Part D.

Just because Bush may or may not have "lead from behind" has no bearing on what Obama is or isn't doing. Don't criticize Gas for redirecting and then follow it up by doing the same.

[Hoss]

Just because Bush may or may not have "lead from behind" has no bearing on what Obama is or isn't doing. Don't criticize Gas for redirecting and then follow it up by doing the same.

Sounds like we have a slumber party in the making.

Sorry, I was channeling my inner Gweed there...

[nathanm]

Just because Bush may or may not have "lead from behind" has no bearing on what Obama is or isn't doing. Don't criticize Gas for redirecting and then follow it up by doing the same.

It's not redirecting to call into question the double standard being applied. Beyond that, it's still not a reasonable assertion given the number of town hall events Obama had, speeches he gave, and arms he twisted to get it done. Yeah, he let Congress hash out the details, but that looks more like keeping some respect for the separation of powers than anything else to me, although the argument could be made that it was left up to Congress for political reasons. Either way, that doesn't change the amount of involvement he did have. It was enough that some complained about him focusing on health care to the exclusion of other issues.

[Conan71]

He was definitely on his "A" game with delivery last night, but I found it curious how many of the pundits were saying last night and this morning that he had a tough act to follow with Clinton's speech the night before and even some saying his speech paled in comparison- usual suspects who gush over Obama not the Faux talking heads.  Sounds like Clinton is going to go out a stump for him over the next couple of months.  People need to remember though that Clinton isn't running, Obama's economic policies are less than Clintonian, and that Clinton had the privilege to preside over an unprecedented tech bubble.

He continues to demonize the wealthy.  I'd hope that's starting to ring hollow with his followers since he's continued the tax policies of Bush II and had the opportunity to let the Bush era tax cuts expire when the Dems had the House and Senate.  Perhaps I'm too cynical but I still hear in his speeches that one person's failure is begat by someone else's success.

I wish him much luck in the election.  He's a likable guy and good speaker, but he's simply not a natural leader.  I expect he will have a great career on the speaking circuit when he leaves office.

[Gaspar]

Ok Nate,
Here's the challenge.  Pick an issue, and present President Obama's detailed plan.  Don't give me the regular Obama one liner BS, like "I'm going to put 100,000 firemen and teachers to work."  I want to understand HOW he is going to do things.  That seems to be his weakness, the HOW.  He has plenty of wonderful intensions but no plans.  

Economy
Unemployment
Energy
Medicare
Reduce The Debt
Tax Code
Middle East

[Gaspar]

He was definitely on his "A" game with delivery last night, but I found it curious how many of the pundits were saying last night and this morning that he had a tough act to follow with Clinton's speech the night before and even some saying his speech paled in comparison- usual suspects who gush over Obama not the Faux talking heads.  Sounds like Clinton is going to go out a stump for him over the next couple of months.  People need to remember though that Clinton isn't running, Obama's economic policies are less than Clintonian, and that Clinton had the privilege to preside over an unprecedented tech bubble.

He continues to demonize the wealthy.  I'd hope that's starting to ring hollow with his followers since he's continued the tax policies of Bush II and had the opportunity to let the Bush era tax cuts expire when the Dems had the House and Senate.  Perhaps I'm too cynical but I still hear in his speeches that one person's failure is begat by someone else's success.

I wish him much luck in the election.  He's a likable guy and good speaker, but he's simply not a natural leader.  I expect he will have a great career on the speaking circuit when he leaves office.

He could have given the same speech in 2008.  In fact, I think he did!
Nothing new.  Nothing exciting.

[RecycleMichael]

He continues to demonize the wealthy. 

Please show what part of his speech "demonizes" the wealthy.

Here is a transcript.

http://www.npr.org/2012/09/06/160713941/transcript-president-obamas-convention-speech?ft=1&f=1014

[RecycleMichael]

He could have given the same speech in 2008.  In fact, I think he did!
Nothing new.  Nothing exciting.

You really should get your hearing fixed.

[nathanm]

People need to remember though that Clinton isn't running, Obama's economic policies are less than Clintonian, and that Clinton had the privilege to preside over an unprecedented tech bubble.

True, not really true, also true, but fails to capture the broad range of the expansion. Sorry, I'm just Mr. Truthometer this morning.

Gaspar, it is not my responsibility to inform you. You, as a voter, have a responsibility to inform yourself. However, you should know just from reading the news that there is legislation before Congress, proposed by the administration, covering much--if not all--of your list.

[Conan71]

Please show what part of his speech "demonizes" the wealthy.

Here is a transcript.

http://www.npr.org/2012/09/06/160713941/transcript-president-obamas-convention-speech?ft=1&f=1014

But when Governor Romney and his friends in Congress tell us we can somehow lower our deficits by spending trillions more on new tax breaks for the wealthy, well — (boos) — what'd Bill Clinton call it? You do the arithmetic. (Laughter, cheers, applause.) You do the math.

I refuse to go along with that, and as long as I'm president, I never will. (Cheers, applause.) I refuse to ask middle-class families to give up their deductions for owning a home or raising their kids just to pay for another millionaire's tax cut.

[nathanm]

You really think that saying that millionaires shouldn't get a tax cut paid for largely by a tax increase on the middle class, as any Romney plan that fulfills the criteria Romney himself has laid out would do, is "demonizing the wealthy?" It's not as if there's not a serious proposal from his opponent that would do exactly that.