Obama's Candidacy


by Pythagorean
Tags: candidacy, obama
WhoWee
WhoWee is offline
#343
Mar1-12, 09:16 PM
P: 1,123
Does anyone know the history of this program - was it originated or expanded under President Obama?

https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&m...rint_preview=1

"The United States Government, as represented by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Mission to Indonesia, is seeking proposals from qualified local Indonesian non-governmental organizations that are interested in implementing the USAID-funded program entitled "Program to Extend Scholarships and Training to Achieve Sustainable Impacts, Phase Two (PRESTASI II)". USAID plans to award one Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee completion-type contract, with a total estimated cost in the range of $16 to $20 million, covering a period of five years.

Through short- and long-term training in the United States and Indonesia as well as other training-related activities in the Mission, PRESTASI Phase II will provide opportunities for Indonesia's emerging leaders to earn advanced degrees, professional accreditation and specific technical and other skills. The Contractor shall manage more than 100 selected participants currently training in the United States and Indonesia from PRESTASI Phase I. The Contractor's responsibilities shall include the recruitment, identification, and placement of Indonesian professionals in training programs that will maximize their skills and potential as leaders and managers within their communities and technical fields. The Contractor shall be responsible for providing related technical assistance for a variety of Indonesian nationals and targeted institutions, which is an additional key element of the program."


It appears the program (Page 11 - Background) began after a report was released in 2010 and follows another initiative from 2009?
https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=29...02b9ab0b6988ee
thorium1010
thorium1010 is offline
#344
Mar2-12, 02:13 AM
P: 198
I am not participant in this thread, but i thought this was interesting -

mheslep
mheslep is offline
#345
Mar2-12, 03:03 AM
PF Gold
P: 3,021
Quote Quote by daveb View Post
However, Democrats, unlike Republicans, do not tend to tow the party line. There is frequent enough crossover from the likes of Ben Nelson and others. How the ACA got passed is beyond me.
Maybe the ACA got passed because your premise is wrong.
daveb
daveb is offline
#346
Mar2-12, 08:00 AM
P: 927
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
Maybe the ACA got passed because your premise is wrong.
Maybe, or maybe not:

Ben Nelson
Nelson's votes in the Senate have often placed him at odds with the leadership of his party. A National Journal congressional vote rating from 2006 placed him to the right of five Senate Republicans (Gordon Smith, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, Susan Collins, and Lincoln Chafee). Mary Landrieu was the only other Democrat to place to the right of any Republicans (she placed to the right of Chafee).[50] A similar 2007 National Journal congressional vote rating went even further, placing him to the right of eight Senate Republicans (the above five as well as Richard Lugar, Norm Coleman, and Mike DeWine), with Landrieu once again placing to the right of Chafee and being the only other Democrat to place to the right of any Republicans.[51] Most recently, the American Conservative Union rated his overall performance for 2010 at 48 percent, the highest given to any Democratic senator.[52]

Nelson was one of only two Democratic senators to vote against the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Nelson is strongly opposed to replacing the income tax with a national sales tax, a position that finds favor with increasingly many conservatives. He has voted with Republicans on matters of bankruptcy reform, environmental protection, lawsuit reform, and trade. In 2004 he was one of only three Democratic senators to vote to invoke cloture on the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment; in 2006 he was one of only two Democratic Senators to vote that way.[53][54] He was the only Democratic senator to vote against a 2006 bill that would have extended federal funding for Stem Cell Research. He has, however, voted consistently against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He has also opposed President Bush's plan to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq.[55] Early in Bush's first term he voted with the majority of his party against scrapping President Bill Clinton's expansive new rules on ergonomics regulation for workers; many of his fellow conservative Democrats like John Breaux, Max Baucus, Blanche Lincoln, and Zell Miller voted with Republicans on the issue. On April 26, 2010, Nelson was one of two Democratic senators in attendance to vote against the motion to move a financial regulations bill forward, siding with Senate Republicans. The other was Harry Reid, who voted against his own proposed bill out of procedure.

On August 5, 2010, Nelson was the only Democrat to vote against Elena Kagan for confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court.[56]

On December 18, 2010, Nelson voted in favor of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010.
That seems like the voting record of someone who doesn't always tow the party line (and whie it might make an interesting exercise to analyze every republican, that's way to much work).
WhoWee
WhoWee is offline
#347
Mar2-12, 10:47 AM
P: 1,123
This headline - IMO - seemed to infer the President is being very tough on Iran.
http://news.yahoo.com/interview-obam...130532562.html
"In interview, Obama says he's not bluffing on Iran"


However, the story seems to indicate the comments were directed towards Israel?

"His comments appeared aimed more at Israel and its supporters in the United States than at Iran. Obama addresses the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee on Sunday and meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Monday at the White House. Netanyahu will also address AIPAC.

"I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff," he said in the interview. "I also don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But (both) governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."

Obama will try to convince Netanyahu to postpone any plans his government may have to unilaterally attack Iran's nuclear facilities in coming months. An attack that soon would not carry U.S. backing, and the U.S. would probably not be involved in planning or executing it.

Nonetheless, it could force the United States into a new conflict and an arms race in the Middle East, as Obama made clear in the lengthy interview. It also could allow Iran to paint itself the victim and draw new support that would undermine rather than enhance Israel's security, Obama warned."


Is anyone else confused?
turbo
turbo is offline
#348
Mar2-12, 11:08 AM
PF Gold
turbo's Avatar
P: 7,367
By the way, folks, the phrase is "toe the line". It comes from dart competitions, when the toes of your leading foot aren't allowed to cross the throwing line. The rule is there to keep competitors from inching closer to the dart-board. Off-topic, I know, but sometimes these things grate on my nerves.
Jimmy Snyder
Jimmy Snyder is offline
#349
Mar2-12, 11:09 AM
P: 2,163
The journalist who writes the headline is not the journalist that writes the article. Did the President say which particular bluff wasn't a bluff?
WhoWee
WhoWee is offline
#350
Mar2-12, 11:19 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by Jimmy Snyder View Post
The journalist who writes the headline is not the journalist that writes the article. Did the President say which particular bluff wasn't a bluff?
WhoWee
WhoWee is offline
#351
Mar2-12, 11:22 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by turbo View Post
By the way, folks, the phrase is "toe the line". It comes from dart competitions, when the toes of your leading foot aren't allowed to cross the throwing line. The rule is there to keep competitors from inching closer to the dart-board. Off-topic, I know, but sometimes these things grate on my nerves.
As in darts, it's fun some times to watch the participants "stand" on the side of their foot with one leg in the air for balance and their entire upper body leaned forward over the line - just saying. ()
turbo
turbo is offline
#352
Mar2-12, 11:33 AM
PF Gold
turbo's Avatar
P: 7,367
BTW, in regard to the Gitmo soccer field's cost, how many soccer-fields has anybody in the US built in a communist country that doesn't want us there? Everything has to be shipped in and done on-site, as noted previously, but when you build a soccer-field in the US, you don't normally have to install air-conditioned guard towers, chain-link fences topped with razor-wire, etc. Unless somebody here has detailed knowledge of what was involved in building this field, I suggest that we drop this red herring now.

I know this thread is for the express purpose of bashing Obama, but it's not reasonable to blame him for the Pentagon's every expenditure on every military base around the world.
WhoWee
WhoWee is offline
#353
Mar2-12, 12:07 PM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by turbo View Post
BTW, in regard to the Gitmo soccer field's cost, how many soccer-fields has anybody in the US built in a communist country that doesn't want us there? Everything has to be shipped in and done on-site, as noted previously, but when you build a soccer-field in the US, you don't normally have to install air-conditioned guard towers, chain-link fences topped with razor-wire, etc. Unless somebody here has detailed knowledge of what was involved in building this field, I suggest that we drop this red herring now.

I know this thread is for the express purpose of bashing Obama, but it's not reasonable to blame him for the Pentagon's every expenditure on every military base around the world.
President Obama promised to close this location within one year - in his 3rd year more than $700k was spent re-store soccer games. This isn't a red herring -it's a broken campaign promise with questionable spending.
Gokul43201
Gokul43201 is offline
#354
Mar2-12, 12:18 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Gokul43201's Avatar
P: 11,154
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
Waste of time? I doubt that. It think trade off is the more likely reasoning. I was aware of the lopsided vote on the defense spending bill when I made that previously post. That vote is far from indicative of a veto override from a Nancy Pelosi House and a Harry Reid Senate in the first ~year of his presidency. No, if Obama was determined to fulfill a campaign pledge, regardless of the political consequences, he likely could have had his way on Gitmo. One consequence might be a loss of the pull needed to get the pending health care bill though. I think it more likely that he saw the large political cost and backed down.
This is all plausible, but to do what you think he should have done, the veto would only have been the first step. He'd still need to get Congress to appropriate the funds to shut down Gitmo and transfer prisoners stateside. And there's no way that's going to happen.
turbo
turbo is offline
#355
Mar2-12, 01:03 PM
PF Gold
turbo's Avatar
P: 7,367
Quote Quote by Gokul43201 View Post
This is all plausible, but to do what you think he should have done, the veto would only have been the first step. He'd still need to get Congress to appropriate the funds to shut down Gitmo and transfer prisoners stateside. And there's no way that's going to happen.
100% true. There is fear-mongering on both sides of the aisle regarding bringing the Gitmo prisoners to the US, housing them in our prisons, and trying them in our court-system. Also, there is the little detail that many of them can't be re-patriated, because the countries that they originated in won't take them back.

Obama's campaign statement re: Gitmo was unrealistic, though he probably thought he could drum up support for closing that prison if the public got behind it. He was wrong. There is only so much a sitting president can do. He is not a dictator, and in some cases, he can only be a cheerleader for causes when he needs the cooperation of Congress to achieve goals.
mheslep
mheslep is offline
#356
Mar2-12, 01:15 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,021
Quote Quote by daveb View Post
Maybe, or maybe not:

Ben Nelson


That seems like the voting record of someone who doesn't always tow the party line (and whie it might make an interesting exercise to analyze every republican, that's way to much work).
Every Republican? Ever heard of a guy called Ron Paul?

But never mind him, I'm curious where, in general, you get the idea that Republicans "toe the party line" as compared to Democrats.
daveb
daveb is offline
#357
Mar2-12, 01:20 PM
P: 927
Quote Quote by turbo View Post
By the way, folks, the phrase is "toe the line". It comes from dart competitions, when the toes of your leading foot aren't allowed to cross the throwing line. The rule is there to keep competitors from inching closer to the dart-board. Off-topic, I know, but sometimes these things grate on my nerves.
I stand corrected!
Jimmy Snyder
Jimmy Snyder is offline
#358
Mar2-12, 01:37 PM
P: 2,163
I was in on the negotiations, so I'm in a good position to tell you exactly what happened. Originally, the bid was a conservative $50,000. As usual, the military did everything in it's power to keep costs down. However, the liberal press put their hands into the process and the price tag went up to $100,000. Then the Israeli lobby had their say and it went to $200,000. Next the Gay-Lesbian alliance spoke up and it went to $400,000. Finally President Obama said it should be $744,000 and that's where we are today.
WhoWee
WhoWee is offline
#359
Mar2-12, 01:39 PM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by Jimmy Snyder View Post
I was in on the negotiations, so I'm in a good position to tell you exactly what happened. Originally, the bid was a conservative $50,000. As usual, the military did everything in it's power to keep costs down. However, the liberal press put their hands into the process and the price tag went up to $100,000. Then the Israeli lobby had their say and it went to $200,000. Next the Gay-Lesbian alliance spoke up and it went to $400,000. Finally President Obama said it should be $744,000 and that's where we are today.
Insightful
mheslep
mheslep is offline
#360
Mar2-12, 01:43 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,021
Quote Quote by Gokul43201 View Post
This is all plausible, but to do what you think he should have done, the veto would only have been the first step. He'd still need to get Congress to appropriate the funds to shut down Gitmo and transfer prisoners stateside. And there's no way that's going to happen.
Back in 2009 with Pelosi Obama only needed a repeat of the previous non-specific funding bill. He declined to push for it in this case, though has done so in other very similar circumstances*. I suspect the flaws in his Gitmo plan - civilian show trials, AQ in the prison population - would have become painfully apparent for years should he have stayed the course.

* Obama threatens veto if pipeline decision is added to payroll tax cut

Obama Threatens Veto of Defense Authorization Bill


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Ron Paul's candidacy Current Events 578
Rick Santorum's candidacy ... Current Events 492
Jon Huntsman's Candidacy Current Events 47
Evo's candidacy... Current Events 23