The Final US Election Thread

[Marshal Murat]

[QUOTE]
Rural counties vote overwhelmingly Republican and they make up the majority of the country. The Purple counties are more likely to be either ones with large towns and some rural areas, or some usually Republican Suburban areas where McCain couldn't quite connect. The deepest blue areas are almost entirely Urban, often inner-city counties. [/QUOTE

Except in the South, where the majority of some counties are black, which voted almost overwhelmingly for Obama.

[CountArach]

The best "map" would be adjusted to depict counties not only by color (percentage of vote) but by relevant population of county (size). It would be much more blued then.
If you look at the Cartograms in Lemur's post, that is what they are. The more votes a region has the larger it is, and hence the map is distorted. The Mountain West in particular looks hilarious.

EDIT: Here's the one you want:
https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r44/CountArach/countycartpurple1024.png

[Banquo's Ghost]

Now that is art.

[Askthepizzaguy]

EDIT: Here's the one you want:
https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r44/CountArach/countycartpurple1024.png

If you ask me, Florida is so large because all the male seniors there are taking so much Viagra. It does make the United States look more virile and manly though.

Check out the size of that state! It's hung like a peninsula.

[CountArach]

Great, now I have the image of a really old united States with his Florida hanging out...




In actual Election news: Senator Stevens is going down the Tubes (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/begich-leads-by-814-going-into-thursday.html). He is down by 814 votes with the remaining votes being from districts Begich won.

[Askthepizzaguy]

You're welcome. :yes:

[Martok]

In actual Election news: Senator Stevens is going down the Tubes (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/begich-leads-by-814-going-into-thursday.html). He is down by 814 votes with the remaining votes being from districts Begich won.
Excellent news. While it's disturbing that so many Alaskans would vote for a convicted felon, at least they're not (quite) the majority. :2thumbsup:


Now if only I knew what the outcome was going to be in my Senate election. The recount for the Coleman-Franken race hasn't even started yet, and we won't know the results until next month sometime. :wall:

[CountArach]

Excellent news. While it's disturbing that so many Alaskans would vote for a convicted felon, at least they're not (quite) the majority). :2thumbsup:


Now if only I knew what the outcome was going to be in my Senate election. The recount for the Coleman-Franken race hasn't even started yet, and we won't know the results until next month sometime. :wall:
Nate is optimistic about Franken's chances (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/frankens-odds-of-winning-recount-may-be.html). Basically the theory is (Using data from other recounts, especially in independent recounts of Florida (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/minnesota-recount-number-of.html)) that the people who are most likely to make ballot errors (And hence not have their votes counted initially) are most often:
1) Working class
2) Minority
3) Elderly

Franken won the first 2 categories and tied in the third. The votes are more likely to be counted this time because often it is clearly marked who the person wanted to vote for, but they did not fill the ballot in correctly.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Great, now I have the image of a really old united States with his Florida hanging out...

....which would make Key West a :shocked2: ..... never mind.

[Strike For The South]

....which would make Key West a :shocked2: ..... never mind.

Thats two dirty jokes today!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Thats two dirty jokes today!

I really enjoy innuendo.




Hetero only of course. :cheesy:

[Askthepizzaguy]

Listen, if you're going to use jokes innuendo, then you really should use some kind of lubricant.

And I seriously don't see how that's not gay.

[Lemur]

Insane (http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20081113/NEWS01/811130314), just insane.


The priest at St. Mary's Catholic Church in downtown Greenville has told parishioners that those who voted for Barack Obama placed themselves under divine judgment because of his stance on abortion and shouldn't receive Holy Communion until they've done penance. [...]

At issue for the church locally and nationwide are exit polls showing 54 percent of self-described Catholics voted for Obama, as well as a growing rift in the lifestyle and voting patterns between practicing and non-practicing Catholics.

In a letter posted on St. Mary's Web site, Newman wrote that "voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exists constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil."

Catholics who did so should be reconciled to God through penance before receiving communion, "lest they eat and drink their own condemnation," Newman wrote, echoing a I Corinthians admonition for anyone who partakes "without recognizing the body of the Lord."

[Crazed Rabbit]

Nate is optimistic about Franken's chances (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/frankens-odds-of-winning-recount-may-be.html). Basically the theory is (Using data from other recounts, especially in independent recounts of Florida (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/minnesota-recount-number-of.html)) that the people who are most likely to make ballot errors (And hence not have their votes counted initially) are most often:
1) Working class
2) Minority
3) Elderly

Franken won the first 2 categories and tied in the third. The votes are more likely to be counted this time because often it is clearly marked who the person wanted to vote for, but they did not fill the ballot in correctly.

That and the places manufacturing votes out of whole cloth for him helps a lot.

CR

[Hooahguy]

Insane (http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20081113/NEWS01/811130314), just insane.


The priest at St. Mary's Catholic Church in downtown Greenville has told parishioners that those who voted for Barack Obama placed themselves under divine judgment because of his stance on abortion and shouldn't receive Holy Communion until they've done penance. [...]

At issue for the church locally and nationwide are exit polls showing 54 percent of self-described Catholics voted for Obama, as well as a growing rift in the lifestyle and voting patterns between practicing and non-practicing Catholics.

In a letter posted on St. Mary's Web site, Newman wrote that "voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exists constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil."

Catholics who did so should be reconciled to God through penance before receiving communion, "lest they eat and drink their own condemnation," Newman wrote, echoing a I Corinthians admonition for anyone who partakes "without recognizing the body of the Lord."
why should you be suprised? catholics are usually very pro-life.

[Strike For The South]

why should you be suprised? catholics are usually very pro-life.

Politics and religion should be separate. That is disgusting mixing the 2

[Martok]

That and the places manufacturing votes out of whole cloth for him helps a lot.

CR
:inquisitive:

Care to elaborate?

[Askthepizzaguy]

That and the places manufacturing votes out of whole cloth for him helps a lot.

CR

I didn't know we could do that. Dang!

Well, I know what my strategy is for 2012. I'm already setting up the manufacturing plant. I need some people to volunteer, preferably ones who can work 12 or more hours a day, and don't mind sleeping on shelves.

[Crazed Rabbit]

:inquisitive:

Care to elaborate?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,449334,00.html


When voters woke up on Wednesday morning after the election, Senator Norm Coleman led Al Franken by what seemed like a relatively comfortable 725 votes. By Wednesday night, that lead had shrunk to 477. By Thursday night, it was down to 336. By Friday, it was 239. Late Sunday night, the difference had gone down to just 221 -- a total change over 4 days of 504 votes.

Amazingly, this all has occurred even though there hasn’t even yet been a recount. Just local election officials correcting claimed typos in how the numbers were reported. Counties will certify their results today, and their final results will be sent to the secretary of state by Friday. The actual recount won’t even start until November 19.

Correcting these typos was claimed to add 435 votes to Franken and take 69 votes from Coleman. Corrections were posted in other races, but they were only a fraction of those for the Senate. The Senate gains for Franken were 2.5 times the gain for Obama in the presidential race count, 2.9 times the total gain that Democrats got across all Minnesota congressional races, and 5 times the net loss that Democrats suffered for all state House races.

Virtually all of Franken’s new votes came from just three out of 4130 precincts, and almost half the gain (246 votes) occurred in one precinct -- Two Harbors, a small town north of Duluth along Lake Superior -- a heavily Democratic precinct where Obama received 64 percent of the vote. None of the other races had any changes in their vote totals in that precinct.

To put this change in perspective, that single precinct’s corrections accounted for a significantly larger net swing in votes between the parties than occurred for all the precincts in the entire state for the presidential, congressional, or state house races.

The two other precincts (Mountain Iron in St. Louis county and Partridge Township in Pine county) accounted for another 100 votes each. The change in each precinct was half as large as the pickup for Obama from the corrections for the entire state.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune attributed these types of mistakes to “exhausted county officials,” and that indeed might be true, but the sizes of the errors in these three precincts are surprisingly large.

Indeed, the 504 total new votes for Franken from all the precincts is greater than adding together all the changes for all the precincts in the entire state for the presidential, congressional, and state house races combined (a sum of 482). It was also true that precincts that gave Obama a larger percentage of the vote were statistically more likely to make a correction that helped Franken.

There gets to be a point where coincidence just don't cut it.

CR

[Hooahguy]

Politics and religion should be separate. That is disgusting mixing the 2
well, cant do much about it but shake your head...
besides- free speech (not that im in favor of mixing politics and religion)....

[Askthepizzaguy]

Franken has never appealed to me all that much. His left-wing screed books are horrendously argued, overtly biased, blindly partisan, and on the same level as Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity.

Why anyone would make this man a Senator is beyond me.

That being said, if he votes with the Democratic majority, that's useful for the nation in getting legislation passed. We can toss him out if he becomes a problem, and if the legislation that gets passed is too extreme, it will be reversed by a less partisan congress. The beauty of elections is that they aren't permanent.

Finally, I have no problem with a full investigation into a race as close as this. I don't want Franken getting in due to any kind of funny business. I'd also be interested in a runoff election. Didn't both top candidates only get some 43% of the vote? I think the supporters of the third candidate should be given the option to weigh in on which one of the remaining candidates they would prefer.

However that's wishing, not a solution. Recount it by hand, and allow a Republican, a Democrat, and a non-partisan to review each individual ballot which is even remotely questionable. There should be clear guidelines as to what ballots should be counted and which ones should not.

The Dems already have a clear majority, so it doesn't bother me if Franken gets in or not. Just how he gets in.



EDIT: I do technically have to consider anything Faux News presents as a legitimate news story, but frankly they have serious bias and conflict of interest problems.

[CountArach]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,449334,00.html
:laugh4:

I'm sorry, but that's your source?

:laugh4:

I thought you were above that man...

[Lemur]

I'm sorry, but that's your source?
Note that the item CR linked to is not even categorized as "news" by Fox, but rather as "opinion." And as anyone who's sampled Fox News knows, once you get into the opinion category, anything—anything goes.

[Askthepizzaguy]

LOL

In my opinion, the Democrats won all the seats in the House and Senate. Even the ones which weren't being contested this year.

:grin:

[CountArach]

LOL

In my opinion, the Democrats won Republicans lost all the seats in the House and Senate. Even the ones which weren't being contested this year.

:grin:
Now you are a true Faux News reporter...

Remember the Democrats never win anything, the Republicans only lose it.

[Askthepizzaguy]

That's true. If I were to see things from the Republican side, every bit of power in government is theirs. They just have to hold onto it and gain it from the Democrats. If they lose seats, it's because they had a bad strategy this year, not because they have bad ideas which didn't work in practice, and it's time to give someone else a chance.

[Crazed Rabbit]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html

Read up on that and try again.

CR

[Askthepizzaguy]

While it's true that something Fox news says is not necessarily untrue, they have almost universally lockstep Republicans as paid commentators, hosts, and pundits. When something they say ends up in their opinion section, it should be treated as such.

That's not ad hominem or any other kind of fallacy.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Hey, here's an idea; why don't you try addressing the issues raised in the article?:idea2:

CR

[Askthepizzaguy]

I don't see the need.

I could spend all day, every day, addressing every opinion or news story presented by Fox. I won't change their minds, I'd have to correct a lot of misinformation, and it wouldn't get me anywhere even if I won the debate.

I'd be happy to respond to anything you write in your own words, because at least then you're as committed to the discussion as I am. You couldn't just send me articles to respond to, allow me to wear myself out replying, and send me some more, all written by paid professionals who have the time and resources to endlessly and fallaciously argue a point.

You, on the other hand, are a fellow orgah I respect and appreciate. I even have a soft spot for ya. What you argue I would take seriously, and I would do you the courtesy of responding to.

I could, if I had the time, which I don't, dissect and respond to exactly one article by Fox. Beyond that, I'd be directing energy somewhere it doesn't need to be, which is the brick wall of paid Republican commentary.

[Martok]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,449334,00.html



There gets to be a point where coincidence just don't cut it.

CR
Sorry CR, but Fox News is no more credible a source than MSNBC....and in many ways, it's even less so.

In any case, I think the answer is simpler than what the article implies: While overall we're fairly centrist, Minnesota does tend to lean to the left more often than to the right -- it's hardly a coincidence that both Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale hail from here. In any statewide race that's close enough to warrant a recount, simple Law of Averages is more likely to favor the Democratic candidate. Now whether Franken will benefit from that remains to be seen, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.



Franken has never appealed to me all that much. His left-wing screed books are horrendously argued, overtly biased, blindly partisan, and on the same level as Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity.

Why anyone would make this man a Senator is beyond me.
I'm not exactly enamored of him either, but I'll be damned if I was going to vote for the man who moved in lockstep with Bush 99% of the time (and only bailed when the situations with Iraq and the economy started visibly souring). This year's Senate race presented us Minnesotans with the classic "lesser of two evils" scenario -- pick your poison. :shrug:



That being said, if he votes with the Democratic majority, that's useful for the nation in getting legislation passed. We can toss him out if he becomes a problem, and if the legislation that gets passed is too extreme, it will be reversed by a less partisan congress. The beauty of elections is that they aren't permanent.

Finally, I have no problem with a full investigation into a race as close as this. I don't want Franken getting in due to any kind of funny business. I'd also be interested in a runoff election. Didn't both top candidates only get some 43% of the vote? I think the supporters of the third candidate should be given the option to weigh in on which one of the remaining candidates they would prefer.

However that's wishing, not a solution. Recount it by hand, and allow a Republican, a Democrat, and a non-partisan to review each individual ballot which is even remotely questionable. There should be clear guidelines as to what ballots should be counted and which ones should not.

The Dems already have a clear majority, so it doesn't bother me if Franken gets in or not. Just how he gets in.
Ditto that. At this point, my main concern is that whoever wins the seat will have done so legitimately -- no shenanigans for me, please. :whip:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Faux News is a rightwing rag and I refuse to comment on it and

This article (http://www.mnblue.com/norm+coleman+cannot+stop+lying) actually adresses the points raised by CR's article. Rather, convincingly debunks several.

[Lemur]

I think we're all thrilled to hear that Joe the Plumber now has his own blog (http://www.secureourdream.com/). Milk that 15 minutes of fame, baby!

[Hooahguy]

"Service Temporarily Unavailable"

[drone]

"Service Temporarily Unavailable"

The tubes are currently clogged. Some plumber this guy is... :rolleyes:

[LittleGrizzly]

http://secureourdream.com/index.html

That should work instead...

Joe's homepage incase your wondering..

Theres absolutley nothing there at the moment, a brief opening message about the election, and a bunch of attempts to get people to register or buy the book...

[Lemur]

The Slashdot effect has a known liberal bias. As does the Digg effect. Frankly, all network protocols are in the tank for Obama. IPv6 is practically owned by the DNC.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The tubes are currently clogged. Some plumber this guy is... :rolleyes:

:laugh4:




CR, there are many articles out there about how kerry won ohio and gore won florida. You dismissed those easily didn't you?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Franken has never appealed to me all that much. His left-wing screed books are horrendously argued, overtly biased, blindly partisan, and on the same level as Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity.

Why anyone would make this man a Senator is beyond me.

Minnesotans have a fairly long tradition of electing "unusual" politicos. In my opinion, they have a rather rich collective sense of humor and they do it for the entertainment value.

[CountArach]

I think we're all thrilled to hear that Joe the Plumber now has his own blog (http://www.secureourdream.com/). Milk that 15 minutes of fame, baby!
I'm willing to bet he is running for a Congressional race. Think about it - he probably has better name recognition than any potential opponent, the RNCCC will pump as much money into the race as he needs to get their symbol promoted and he is going to have a lot of people coming to help campaign for him.

He is in the perfect position to do this - all he needs is a basic knowledge of policy, which he appeared to completely lack throughout the campaign.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Lemur:

The Church deals in morality, not popularity.

Abortion has long been held, by the Church, to be little different than murder. Therefore, it considers it sinful to support a politician who unequivocally advocates/supports such a practice in the same fashion as it would decry -- on moral grounds -- a politician who wished to legalize manslaughter or agravated assault. To question the sanity of those following this line of reasoning is unkind -- it is neither poorly thought out nor done frivolously.

Catholics vote in the privacy of a voter's booth like anyone else. How they vote is their business. The Church renders judgement of the morality of one's choices -- including voting -- and encourages any who have 'strayed from the path" to seek Reconciliation.

Because the Church has (rightly) chosen to follow a neutral path on most political issues does NOT mean that the Church wishes to abrogate its responsibilities as a moral force for good.

[Lemur]

Because the Church has (rightly) chosen to follow a neutral path on most political issues does NOT mean that the Church wishes to abrogate its responsibilities as a moral force for good.
I just find it astonishing that on this, of all issues, the Church is telling its members that to vote in a certain way is a sin which one must atone for. Frankly, I think it's insane.

Are they pretending that a McCain administration would somehow have done away with abortion? Because that would not have happened. Are they imagining that an Obama administration will lead to a rise in abortions? If so, they should have the wherewithal to make that argument.

And to pretend that one political party holds the moral high ground is equally insane and selective. The Republicans authorized torture (http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2005/06/24/afx2110388.html) during their watch, not to mention a war which the Pope himself has condemned (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80875,00.html). I've yet to hear Catholics who voted for George W. Bush being asked to atone for that particular sin.

Frankly, the whole thing is arbitrary and ill-conceived, and only robs the Church of authority. I think they're just having an ecclesiastical hissy fit because a majority of Catholics voted for Obama, despite clerical pressure not to do so.

[Martok]

Minnesotans have a fairly long tradition of electing "unusual" politicos. In my opinion, they have a rather rich collective sense of humor and they do it for the entertainment value.
[/innocent]

My dear Seamus, whatever are you talking about? Surely I know know not of which you speak....

[/innocent]

[Lemur]

Another highly questionable move from another Catholic priest (http://www.mercurynews.com/presidentelect/ci_10968645):


Elizabeth Caster said the Rev. Sebastian Meyer humiliated her in front of the congregation at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church in Fairfield, saying from the pulpit, "We cannot have a car with Obama signs written on it on these premises. And I don't care who Obama is."

He continued: "I want this car off the premises in 10 minutes or it will be towed. Whoever's vehicle this is, I want it removed. I don't want to see that car anywhere around here," she said. [...]

Caster said the priest followed her and her 10-year-old son out of the church and refused to let her move her Toyota Sequoia, which was parked between two other cars in a loading zone outside the church, anywhere else in the parking lot.

Caster, who was contacted by many concerned church members the next day, believes it was the Obama slogans that riled the priest. Among those who watched Sunday's incident was Joanne Smith, who said she has seen vehicles parked in the yellow zone with signs supporting John McCain. She also was curious about why Caster's vehicle was singled out.

If you read the article, you'll see the priest also gets physical with a reporter who asks him about this incident.

It's not surprising that the Catholic Church contains some priests who are a few wafers short of communion; what's interesting is how they are dealt with by the Church hierarchy. Or not.

[Louis VI the Fat]

"It took a lot out of me to sit there and not walk out," Sherrod said.How about they do walk out then?

I mean, it's fine with me that people spend their weekends listening to grown up men prancing about in purple Roman toga-party outfits and telling them that wine is blood and Obama the antichrist. Why would anyone cry over it?

I once went to a hippie gathering. Lots of old guys in druid dresses who gave out magic potions that made me invincible and who told me to vote green or the sky would come falling down. Didn't mean I went crying to the press over it either.

What's next? People complaining that their Santa Claus at the shopping mall was collecting for the wrong charity?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I just find it astonishing that on this, of all issues, the Church is telling its members that to vote in a certain way is a sin which one must atone for. Frankly, I think it's insane.

Are they pretending that a McCain administration would somehow have done away with abortion? Because that would not have happened. Are they imagining that an Obama administration will lead to a rise in abortions? If so, they should have the wherewithal to make that argument.

And to pretend that one political party holds the moral high ground is equally insane and selective. The Republicans authorized torture (http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2005/06/24/afx2110388.html) during their watch, not to mention a war which the Pope himself has condemned (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80875,00.html). I've yet to hear Catholics who voted for George W. Bush being asked to atone for that particular sin.

Frankly, the whole thing is arbitrary and ill-conceived, and only robs the Church of authority. I think they're just having an ecclesiastical hissy fit because a majority of Catholics voted for Obama, despite clerical pressure not to do so.


I find your use of the term "insane" somewhat offensive. The Church is a part of my identity.

You are correct in assessing the likely efforts of a McCain administration on this issue, and you make telling points about how other inconsistencies undermine the efforts of the Church to communicate clearly and effectively on some moral issues. The Church does not agree with a number of the policy decisions made by the Bush administration and has spoken against them, but the pre-vote message from the bishops did not address this inconsistency -- which may well have washed out any effort made.

I certainly think you make a good point on the "hissy fit" comment, as your "parking lot priest" example in a later post underlines.

[Lemur]

I find your use of the term "insane" somewhat offensive. The Church is a part of my identity.
Hmm, I certainly don't mean that the Catholic Church is insane, but rather that this particular take on this particular issue* is insane. I never intend to insult or demean the Church, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression somehow.

Reading a bit further on the subject, it seems that what we have here is a few isolated priests allowing their political disappointment to overwhelm their good sense. There is a bit of movement from a certain Archbishop (http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/11/how-will-catholic-bishops-deal.html), but he's not the force behind these two priests' looniness.

I think the conclusion is obvious: Priests must not be allowed to watch Fox News immediately before services.

*And as it turns out, it was only a particular priest whose actions may or may not be within orthodoxy.

[Xiahou]

And to pretend that one political party holds the moral high ground is equally insane and selective. The Republicans authorized torture (http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2005/06/24/afx2110388.html) during their watch, not to mention a war which the Pope himself has condemned (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80875,00.html). I've yet to hear Catholics who voted for George W. Bush being asked to atone for that particular sin.

Frankly, the whole thing is arbitrary and ill-conceived, and only robs the Church of authority. I think they're just having an ecclesiastical hissy fit because a majority of Catholics voted for Obama, despite clerical pressure not to do so.Do the numbers. Yes, the church has come out against the war and torture, but we're still looking at around 1 million abortions a year aren't we? If those really are murders, as the church believes, why wouldn't that be the number 1 issue?

[Lemur]

Xiahou, as I have made clear in two posts since the one you quoted, it's now clear that these actions were the aberrant hissy fits of a couple of priests with no backing from the Church hierarchy. It's also clear that a few priests with Republican sympathies have become unhinged by the notion that a majority of their flock supported Obama.

Speaking of which, Joe Carter finds an interview (http://culture11.com/blogs/kuoandjoe/2008/11/12/the-faith-of-obama/) where Obama expresses views that diverge from the Nicene Creed, and concludes that the President-elect is a "fake Christian." Lovely. Never mind the fact that Mormons, Christian Scientists, Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses also fall outside the Nicene Creed. It seems to me that this is a nasty little road that has no ending, where Christians of no real standing or authority get to decide who is a "real" Christian and who is not.


Here are a few of my takeaways from reading the interview:

1. Obama is not a orthodox Christian. He may call himself a "Christian" in the same way that some Unitarians use the term to refer to themselves. But his beliefs do not seem to be in line with the historic definition.

2. In the 20 years that Obama attended Trinity, did he never hear a clear exposition of the Gospel? Did the Rev. Jeremiah Wright never once preach on the need for a saving faith in Christ? If not, then that is more scandalous than any of the anti-American remarks Wright made from the pulpit.

3. Although I already pray for Obama (as the Bible commands me to do) I now realize that I also need to pray for his eternal soul and not just that he be an effective leader of our nation. I also pray that he will find a spiritual leader who will help lead him to a true knowledge of Christ.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Here are a few of my takeaways from reading the interview:

1. Obama is not a orthodox Christian. He may call himself a "Christian" in the same way that some Unitarians use the term to refer to themselves. But his beliefs do not seem to be in line with the historic definition.

2. In the 20 years that Obama attended Trinity, did he never hear a clear exposition of the Gospel? Did the Rev. Jeremiah Wright never once preach on the need for a saving faith in Christ? If not, then that is more scandalous than any of the anti-American remarks Wright made from the pulpit.

3. Although I already pray for Obama (as the Bible commands me to do) I now realize that I also need to pray for his eternal soul and not just that he be an effective leader of our nation. I also pray that he will find a spiritual leader who will help lead him to a true knowledge of Christ.

What is wrong with that? He is entitled to his own opinion. Unitarians that I've met are rarely any more Christian than Muslims that I've met. The United Church of Christ is pretty much the official church of U.S. Progressives who don't want to give up Religious affiliation.

Obama doesn't seem to have an in-depth knowledge of his faith aside from a few key buzzwords. (I'm still in search of Dreams and Audacity). He's probably a "Sibboleth Sayer" - he wouldn't be the first US president to be one. His Religion is a socially progressive brand of U.S. Politics. He views God as a tool to communicate with constituents.

Christians need to pray for everyone's soul - from the murderous atheist to the Pious Pope.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I shall happilly leave their uneasy balance between church and state to our American patrons.

Meanwhile, Obama is surrounding himself with former (Bill) Clinton aides. There is even talk of naming that woman Secretary of State. I, for one, am quite happy with this recent turn of events. :knight:

Anybody else happy / disgusted at the prospect?

[ICantSpellDawg]

I shall happilly leave their uneasy balance between church and state to our American patrons.

Meanwhile, Obama is surrounding himself with former (Bill) Clinton aides. There is even talk of naming that woman Secretary of State. I, for one, am quite happy with this recent turn of events. :knight:

Anybody else happy / disgusted at the prospect?

Oh, utterly disgusted, but not suprised.

Obama's first 2 orders of business will be to appoint Emanuel and Clinton to his Cabinet. Congratulations people in the middle who voted for Obama in order to close the doors of the present to the social conflicts of the past 20 years.

I want Chuck Hagel to get a nod in this administration.

[Hooahguy]

clinton..... as secretary of state..... thats scary...
:ahh:

[Martok]

Oh, utterly disgusted, but not suprised.
Seconded. It's already bad enough that she's a Senator. The notion of her wielding even more power and influence is abhorrent to me.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Let's see... Clinton behaved like an spoiled child throwing a tantrum during the primaries, and provided John McCain with arguments (albeit bad ones) against Obama, using ad hominem arguments just like McCain did, and almost buried the Democrats in resentment over her failure to win the nomination, with many choosing not to support the ticket even though the policies were nearly identical, and instead sit out the election or support the rival ticket, which directly contradicted their stated philosophy.

Clinton is therefore an unwise choice in such a responsibility-bearing position in our government, because she's low, dirty, and unethical. She'd step over her own mother to seize power.

My first mark in the dissatisfied column for Obama thusfar. I hope I'm wrong.

[CountArach]

I hope the rumours are wrong and that he gives the Secretary of State position to Richardson instead. He is much more qualified and I think would make a great Secreatary of State.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I hope the rumours are wrong and that he gives the Secretary of State position to Richardson instead. He is much more qualified and I think would make a great Secreatary of State.

I'd be much happier with Richardson.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Agreed.

Richardson is experienced, qualified, and very good at what he does. I also don't get a lot of "partisan idealogue" from him.

I think Reps and Dems alike would prefer this man. Hillary is a bitter, divisive, fake politician.

[Lemur]

I don't understand the Clinton pick, if true. The two biggest organizational challenges she ever faced -- healthcare reform and her Presidential campaign -- were utterly dysfunctional. She has not demonstrated that she can organize a one-person parade without infighting. Sure, the Clinton name has tremendous cachet overseas, but last I heard the State Department was in bad need of rebuilding after the neglect and abuse the Bush administration heaped upon diplomats and diplomacy. Why would Hillary Clinton be the right person to rebuild?

Also, her hubby has gotten into a slew of shady deals around the world. Won't his business shenanigans create a series of conflicts-of-interest for Madame Secretary?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Trial balloon either by Clintonites and "we want them both" dem supporters who like her still OR by Obama's team trying to learn if he can stiff her without ticking off too many in the party. The current lack of enthusiasm suggests it will not be she.

Do you see him tapping McCain for a slot? SecDef?

[Martok]

Do you see him tapping McCain for a slot? SecDef?
An interesting question, Seamus. I personally would certainly have no objection, as I've long been a fan. Could cause some major head-butting between him and Barack, though, if he were offered (and accepted) the post.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I am most surprised at the lukewarm reception here of Hillary's possible promotion to SecState. ~;)


McCain for SecDef would be fantastic. A whopping bipartisan statement for one. And McCain would simply be an excellent SecDef. Some reasons that immediately spring to mind: credibility within his own ranks, no torture, he's usually right about Iraq.
I don't see it happening, but it would be great.


Sure, the Clinton name has tremendous cachet overseas, but last I heard the State Department was in bad need of rebuilding after the neglect and abuse the Bush administration heaped upon diplomats and diplomacy. Why would Hillary Clinton be the right person to rebuild?
She wouldn't be the right person. I think I am the only one abroad who likes Hillary. The name Clinton is remembered fondly, but remembered as a name of the past. Might as well send Carter. The rest of the world just wants to see Obama at the moment. It's Obama this and Obama that. A complete mania. If I were him right now, I'd seize the opportunity to get myself elected God and Eternal Overlord of all Man.

[drone]

I think Obama ought to keep Gates around for a little while at SecDef. He seems qualified and competent, but this might just be my reaction after having Rummy in the spot...

Hillary for State would be a disaster. She and Bill would try to steal the spotlight whenever possible. Pros would include more situations of "sniper dodging" though.

For this libertarian/conservative, Attorney General is the position I'm looking at closely. Justice is in serious need of an overhaul, and OLC need to be both completely exposed and disbanded. Hopefully he picks somebody with at least a vague working knowledge of the Constitution. ~:rolleyes:

[CountArach]

Do you see him tapping McCain for a slot? SecDef?
While I think he is a good man for a job, I would also be hoping a qualified Democrat could be found - it would help the party break out of the mould of being weak on national security and defence. Perhaps Wesley Clark could fit in well there? Love him or hate him, you have to admit he would be qualified.

[Kralizec]

I hope the rumours are wrong and that he gives the Secretary of State position to Richardson instead. He is much more qualified and I think would make a great Secreatary of State.

I quite liked Richardson at first; then his primary campaign when to :daisy: and he tried to gather scrap votes by promising that he'd pull back all troops from Iraq instantaneously when elected. The other democratic candidates reprimanded him for it.

I'd still pick him instead of Clinton, of course.

[Lemur]

A good, pithy summary (http://harpers.org/archive/2008/11/hbc-90003860) of why Hillary R. Clinton should not be SecState:


Hillary Clinton will have her own agenda (as will her husband). She’s not a team player and will bring in a crew of cronies whose chief aim will be to promote the boss, not the administration. Obama may wake up one day and discover that Hillary has decreed a new “Clinton Doctrine” of foreign policy.
It would be impossible, politically, to fire Hillary. No matter what she says or does, or how insubordinate, Obama will be stuck with her as long as she wants to stay.
Her husband is a walking conflict of interest (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all). Bill helps a Canadian businessman land a uranium contract in Kazakhstan, and soon afterwards the businessman contributes to the Clinton Foundation. Bill’s personal and business dealings are embarrassing enough without Hillary heading the State Department.
The Clinton style of management–for example, pitting one faction of staff against another–would be a disaster at the State Department. Just look at how well it worked on the campaign trail.
And the strongest strike of all (http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-11-16-voa17.cfm) against Hillary as secretary of state… look at who endorses her.

[m52nickerson]

A good, pithy summary (http://harpers.org/archive/2008/11/hbc-90003860) of why Hillary R. Clinton should not be SecState:


Hillary Clinton will have her own agenda (as will her husband). She’s not a team player and will bring in a crew of cronies whose chief aim will be to promote the boss, not the administration. Obama may wake up one day and discover that Hillary has decreed a new “Clinton Doctrine” of foreign policy.
It would be impossible, politically, to fire Hillary. No matter what she says or does, or how insubordinate, Obama will be stuck with her as long as she wants to stay.
Her husband is a walking conflict of interest (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all). Bill helps a Canadian businessman land a uranium contract in Kazakhstan, and soon afterwards the businessman contributes to the Clinton Foundation. Bill’s personal and business dealings are embarrassing enough without Hillary heading the State Department.
The Clinton style of management–for example, pitting one faction of staff against another–would be a disaster at the State Department. Just look at how well it worked on the campaign trail.
And the strongest strike of all (http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-11-16-voa17.cfm) against Hillary as secretary of state… look at who endorses her.


I would rather see Obama go across party lines and take some one like Dick Luger.

[Spino]

I don't understand the Clinton pick, if true. The two biggest organizational challenges she ever faced -- healthcare reform and her Presidential campaign -- were utterly dysfunctional. She has not demonstrated that she can organize a one-person parade without infighting. Sure, the Clinton name has tremendous cachet overseas, but last I heard the State Department was in bad need of rebuilding after the neglect and abuse the Bush administration heaped upon diplomats and diplomacy. Why would Hillary Clinton be the right person to rebuild?

Also, her hubby has gotten into a slew of shady deals around the world. Won't his business shenanigans create a series of conflicts-of-interest for Madame Secretary?

Well if you buy into the whole, 'time for change', 'audacity of hope', fresh start, new American era B.S. then Clinton's appointment makes absolutely no sense.

However, if you look at this using a purely political lens then Hillary Clinton's appoinment as Secretary of State makes total sense.

First and foremost it helps ease the pain of Obama's victory. People seem to forget that Obama's whirlwind campaign threw a giant wrench in the grand plans of the Democratic party (as orchestrated by the Clintons). Obama's nomination not only knocked the Democrat's favorite daughter out of the race but it also ran afoul of that same daughter's monstrous political machine. Let us also not forget that Hillary had great difficulty keeping her campaign funded in the latter stages of the primaries. Obama's piles of campaign money isn't enough to dull the pain but an appointment to the most prestigious cabinet position could do wonders to cure what ails Hillary's ego.

Secondly it shows Obama is thinking far enough into the future in that he is lining up his support ducks for when he runs for re-election in 2012. If Obama and his advisors have an eye for matters not related to running for office then they can see the writing on the wall which spells 'ONE TERM PRESIDENT' in big, black, bolded letters. This recession has just begun and things are going to get really nasty. The stock market is still floundering, the credit market is in shambles, massive layoffs have begun and to make an already terrible situation worse a giant question mark hangs over some of the cornerstones of America's shrinking industrial sector. The ill effects of this recession will easily melt through Obama's teflon coating and sticking to him like dried bird droppings as the country enters 2010/2011. Let us also not forget nobody has a clue what our orthodox & unorthodox enemies will do once Obama is sworn in. Some people expect the excrement will hit the fan the moment Obama wraps up his inauguration speech. Obama's team must know this so they are looking to stack the deck now so that it pays off during the next presidential election.

If anything we should be questioning Clinton's sanity if she accepts the appointment. Closely associating with a President who will preside over one of the worst recessions in the country's history as well as one that will inherit the messy situations in Iraq & Afghanistan can only bring bad things to someone who is still adamant about seeking high political office down the road. Hillary should steer clear of Obama in an official capacity and simply keep on being the dutiful Senator from NY until she gets another shot at the brass ring in 2016.

Things are going to get so nasty that I'm confident there is a part of Obama that wishes he had checked his ego and stayed in the Senate for 4-8 years while this thing blows over.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So much for real change:
the Guardian is saying Hillary Clinton will accept. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/17/hillary-clinton-secretary-of-state)

Hillary Clinton plans to accept the job of secretary of state offered by Barack Obama, who is reaching out to former rivals to build a broad coalition administration, the Guardian has learned.

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

This interview seems quite revealing:


Mr. Obama: Yeah. I’ve been spending a lot of time reading Lincoln. There is a wisdom there and a humility about his approach to government, even before he was president, that I just find very helpful.

Kroft: Put a lot of his political enemies in his cabinet.

Mr. Obama: He did.

Kroft: Is that something you’re considering?

Mr. Obama: Well, I tell you what, I find him a very wise man.

[Lemur]

Well, if they make Hillary Clinton SecState, I seriously hope they've got some managerial talent to back her up, 'cause so far Sen. Clinton has been a disaster at running organizations. Let's just say that the Assistant Secretary had better be sharp as a knife.

[PBI]

Obama "could stop using email". (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/us_elections_2008/7733210.stm)


The paper quotes aides saying that his e-mails, sometimes sent as late as 0100 or 0300, were "generally crisp, properly spelled and free of symbols or emoticons".

I find this somehow reassuring. Whatever kind of president Obama may turn out to be, he is not a LOLer.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, if they make Hillary Clinton SecState, I seriously hope they've got some managerial talent to back her up, 'cause so far Sen. Clinton has been a disaster at running organizations. Let's just say that the Assistant Secretary had better be sharp as a knife.

State, even more than most of the other bureacratic monoliths of our government, seems to do what it intends to do without much reference for the SecState.

[drone]

The tubes are safe, convicted felon Ted Stevens has lost his Senate reelection bid.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111803227.html?hpid=topnews

And apparently Eric Holder will be tapped for Attorney General.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111803505.html?hpid=topnews

As a former judge and top federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia, Holder has extensive experience with the criminal justice system. He is widely known within the city's legal community and for his philanthropic work on behalf of troubled juveniles detained at the Oak Hill facility. In recent years he defended corporations as a partner at the Covington & Burling law firm, and he took an active role in the presidential campaign after befriending Obama at a dinner party.

Over the course of his career, Holder has won praise from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, though his selection is likely to revive questions about his inability to prevent a last-minute pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich, who won relief from President Bill Clinton during his final day in office in 2001.

[Lemur]

And apparently Eric Holder will be tapped for Attorney General.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111803505.html?hpid=topnews
You say "attorney Eric Holder," I say "notorious space smuggler and outlaw refinery operator Lando Calrissian."


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/lando-justice.jpg

[drone]

You say "attorney Eric Holder," I say "notorious space smuggler and outlaw refinery operator Lando Calrissian."


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/lando-justice.jpg

:laugh4: Got any pics of Holder shilling for Colt .45?

[ICantSpellDawg]

I've changed my opinion on Hillary as Secretary of State. It means that she will be a White House mouthpiece - not her own creature.

It will also mean that her Senate Seat will be up for grabs in 2 years. Until then, we will have a an unelected Senator appointed by an unelected Governor in the State of NY. Weeeeee

I'd bet Cuomo the younger runs for her seat. Maybe Rudy would run for the GOP?

[CountArach]

It will also mean that her Senate Seat will be up for grabs in 2 years. Until then, we will have a an unelected Senator appointed by an unelected Governor in the State of NY. Weeeeee
Haha, that's awesome :laugh4:

I'd bet Cuomo the younger runs for her seat. Maybe Rudy would run for the GOP?
Yeah I wouldn't be surprised if Rudy runs - I also wouldn't be surprised if he gets utterly flogged.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Haha, that's awesome :laugh4:

Yeah I wouldn't be surprised if Rudy runs - I also wouldn't be surprised if he gets utterly flogged.

Rudy will poll both the Governorship and Senate. I bet he'll go for Governor, but if Bloomberg does too, Rudy may go Senate.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Rudy will poll both the Governorship and Senate. I bet he'll go for Governor, but if Bloomberg does too, Rudy may go Senate.

Bloomberg will run to knock Rudy out -- regardless of which office Rudy seeks -- and will do so. Giuliani is done -- but should earn nice money on the lecture circuit.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Bloomberg will run to knock Rudy out -- regardless of which office Rudy seeks -- and will do so. Giuliani is done -- but should earn nice money on the lecture circuit.

Is he done? I'm not sure - I know that he is a successful, 64 year old, NY Republican who is pro-abortion. Why is he a non-entity?

There are two major posts opening up as we speak. Democrats now control the Presidency, the Senate, The House, The State Senate, The State Assembly, the two NY National Senate Seats, 26 of 29 State congressional seats. NY is a one party state under the influence of a one party federal system.

The current Governor is transitional, the Second Senate spot will be transitional.

Giuliani is a big name. New Yorkers like him to this day often cross party. Republicans have no seats to screw up.

I think that New Yorkers will wake up to the reality that their leadership is half-unelected and all Democrat. Scandal will begin to take its toll.

I think that Giuliani has a shot in NY at any position that he wants. I thought he was dead in the water nationally.

If Bloomberg runs for Governor against Patterson I would suggest that Giuliani run for Senate.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Is he done? I'm not sure - I know that he is a successful, 64 year old, NY Republican who is pro-abortion. Why is he a non-entity?.

The Florida primary


There are two major posts opening up as we speak. Democrats now control the Presidency, the Senate, The House, The State Senate, The State Assembly, the two NY National Senate Seats, 26 of 29 State congressional seats. NY is a one party state under the influence of a one party federal system.

The current Governor is transitional, the Second Senate spot will be transitional.

Giuliani is a big name. New Yorkers like him to this day often cross party. Republicans have no seats to screw up.

I think that New Yorkers will wake up to the reality that their leadership is half-unelected and all Democrat. Scandal will begin to take its toll.

I think that Giuliani has a shot in NY at any position that he wants. I thought he was dead in the water nationally.

If Bloomberg runs for Governor against Patterson I would suggest that Giuliani run for Senate.

Giuliani has a shot, but I don't believe the odds favor him. He peaded in October of 2001 and has traded on it for too long. He isn't a conservative at a time when his party is likely to swing back in that direction and there are too many other actual liberals New Yorkers can vote for. The GOP will have to write off everything North of the Delaware for 6+ years -- I don't think Rudy will buck that trend.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The Florida primary



Giuliani has a shot, but I don't believe the odds favor him. He peaded in October of 2001 and has traded on it for too long. He isn't a conservative at a time when his party is likely to swing back in that direction and there are too many other actual liberals New Yorkers can vote for. The GOP will have to write off everything North of the Delaware for 6+ years -- I don't think Rudy will buck that trend.

I don't think so.

The Florida primary is not a reasonable gauge. It was closed primary for one, so only registered Republicans could vote. Republicans in Florida tend to be socially Conservative.

I never understood why Giuliani thought that he would do well there in the Primaries - the general maybe, but the primaries? Against Conservative Republicans?

NY is very different. We all like Giuliani. He is a Regional politician and is very good at it. Conservative Republicans WILL vote for Rudy and so will independents. Many Democrats will as well, especially against a no name. He doesn't infuriate anyone and most people like him.

He was chronically overestimated in the primaries and now people are going to chronically underestimate him in NY politics

[Crazed Rabbit]

Hee-hee, not even a month past the election and the netroots are already getting their panties in a bunch: (http://thenextright.com/patrick-ruffini/infighting-we-can-believe-in)

Kos:

But there's also disdain for the American electorate that voted in overwhelming numbers for change from the discredited Bush/McCain/Lieberman policies. But in a city known for tone-deafness, there clearly isn't a more tone-deaf group than the Senate Dems.

I'm done with Reid as Senate leader.

A Kos commenter:

I hope Reid is as forgiving

when we all support his primary challenger.

Stoller:

I sort of get tired of making this point, but Democratic leaders are often not on our side, they often don't agree with us, and it's foolish to consider them as teammates. They aren't.

Sirota:

With its congressional majority, the Democratic Party has refused to seriously try to end the war, to stop the bailout and to stop the trampling of civil liberties, just to name a few off the top of my head. In fact, with their votes, they have aggressively worked to start and continue the war, pass the bailout and destroy our constitutional rights to privacy. So, are we really surprised that they have rewarded Joe Lieberman with a chairmanship that he can use to investigate the president he said poses a danger to America?

Jane Hamsher, on the phone with Howard Dean:

JANE HAMSHER: With all due respect, Governor Dean, we were all just told to go screw ourselves. That our concern for Barack Obama and that our concern about the war and everything else that we fought so hard for within the Democratic Party is meaningless.

Those people are hilarious! Its like they think they, the left fringe, are the democratic party! And then there's the people who want Darcy Burner to run again against Reichert, after she lost twice in some of the biggest democratic years in recent decades! Guess you just can't fix stupid.

CR

[CountArach]

It reminds me of some infighting a certain party did after a certain Vice-President was picked...

Seriously CR - give it a rest. You accuse everyone else on this forum of Partisan hackery - take a good, hard look in the mirror.

[Hosakawa Tito]

I don't think so.

The Florida primary is not a reasonable gauge. It was closed primary for one, so only registered Republicans could vote. Republicans in Florida tend to be socially Conservative.

I never understood why Giuliani thought that he would do well there in the Primaries - the general maybe, but the primaries? Against Conservative Republicans?

NY is very different. We all like Giuliani. He is a Regional politician and is very good at it. Conservative Republicans WILL vote for Rudy and so will independents. Many Democrats will as well, especially against a no name. He doesn't infuriate anyone and most people like him.

He was chronically overestimated in the primaries and now people are going to chronically underestimate him in NY politics

I agree with Seamus that Giuliani's chances at Hillary's senate seat are not good. He lost that seat to Clinton and the Dems in 2000, and NY, especially NYC, is dominatingly Democrat Party territory.
Giuliani also angered his own party by endorsing Gov. Cuomo instead of backing Pataki in 1994, and party disloyalty is never forgiven. As mayor he was quite divisive, except for his handling of the 2001 WTC attack, so Rudy has made too many enemies within his own party. I think that like McCain, Rudy's time has past, and I don't think he can get it back.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I agree with Seamus that Giuliani's chances at Hillary's senate seat are not good. He lost that seat to Clinton and the Dems in 2000, and NY, especially NYC, is dominatingly Democrat Party territory.
Giuliani also angered his own party by endorsing Gov. Cuomo instead of backing Pataki in 1994, and party disloyalty is never forgiven. As mayor he was quite divisive, except for his handling of the 2001 WTC attack, so Rudy has made too many enemies within his own party. I think that like McCain, Rudy's time has past, and I don't think he can get it back.

Eh. Who could we run?

Republicans have thrown NY out the window. A few years without Bush in the White house and hopefully that will change.

[Hosakawa Tito]

If Hillary is offered, and accepts, a cabinet post, and right now that appears to be up in the air, Dem. Gov. Patterson will select her replacement who will serve till 2010. A special election will be held then to vote for a candidate to serve the rest of Clinton's term that expires in 2012.

I'm sure Guiliani is "kicking the tires" within the NYS Republican Party to determine if he can garner enough support to be the 2012 candidate, but that's almost 4 years off and anything can happen in that amount of time. As far as identifying another candidate goes...I have no idea. To have a chance in a liberal heavy State such as NY the Republican candidate will most likely have to be seen as a liberal Republican.

[Martok]

Update on the Coleman-Franklin recount: With 46% of the votes counted, Coleman's lead is down, but he's still ahead by 136 votes.

The way things are going, I suspect this is going to end up in court, no matter the official results of the recount.

[ICantSpellDawg]

If Hillary is offered, and accepts, a cabinet post, and right now that appears to be up in the air, Dem. Gov. Patterson will select her replacement who will serve till 2010. A special election will be held then to vote for a candidate to serve the rest of Clinton's term that expires in 2012.

I'm sure Guiliani is "kicking the tires" within the NYS Republican Party to determine if he can garner enough support to be the 2012 candidate, but that's almost 4 years off and anything can happen in that amount of time. As far as identifying another candidate goes...I have no idea. To have a chance in a liberal heavy State such as NY the Republican candidate will most likely have to be seen as a liberal Republican.

I think he has a shot - anyone else and it would be no contest.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Giuliani would be an excellent choice for nominee in 2012 -- a much better choice than Palin.




Of course, I'm saying that because whoever gets tapped for the GOP will lose, lose badly, and have their national career ended. Since Giuliani is past it and not much of a conservative, the GOP would be giving away very little. Palin strikes me as a better conservative (not saying much I know), but she also seems totally hapless in media interaction. What I'm hoping as that both will be off the scene when a conservative nominee comes forward in 2016.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Giuliani would be an excellent choice for nominee in 2012 -- a much better choice than Palin.




Of course, I'm saying that because whoever gets tapped for the GOP will lose, lose badly, and have their national career ended. Since Giuliani is past it and not much of a conservative, the GOP would be giving away very little. Palin strikes me as a better conservative (not saying much I know), but she also seems totally hapless in media interaction. What I'm hoping as that both will be off the scene when a conservative nominee comes forward in 2016.

Wow - you are becoming quite the defeatist. Lets leave the soothsaying to the left. Obama could bungle this thing pretty badly.

Why don't we just write off the next century while we're at it.

We need to start taking real risks and using our best to do it. No more McCain's - no more Dole's.
We'll see where we stand in 4 years.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Hee-hee, not even a month past the election and the netroots are already getting their panties in a bunch: (http://thenextright.com/patrick-ruffini/infighting-we-can-believe-in)


Those people are hilarious! Its like they think they, the left fringe, are the democratic party! And then there's the people who want Darcy Burner to run again against Reichert, after she lost twice in some of the biggest democratic years in recent decades! Guess you just can't fix stupid.

CR

To some extent I respect their attitude, which boils down to:

We did the work and won, so now lets go kick *** and push things the way we want them to change.

Bush's "new tone" was the opposite strategy when he had the presidency and a GOP congress. Since the Dems took his "new tone," folded it up until it was all sharp corners and then crammed it up his fundamental posterior orifice, I can't blame the Kos crowd too much for wanting the fruits of victory and to discard bipartisanship.

They see bipartisanship as something you do when you don't have the power to make the other party shut up and do what it is told. It's refreshingly honest if nothing else.

[Spino]

Keep in mind Giuliani lost to Clinton only because he dropped out of the race due to prostate cancer! Had he stayed in the race Giuliani would probably gone on to beat Clinton by a handsome margin. The fact that Giuliani's replacement, Rick Lazio, jumped into the race a few months before the election late and received 43% of the vote (despite being a virtual unknown) should tell you that Giuliani had that one in the bag.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/us/politics/22obama.html?_r=1&hp

According to the New York Times it appears that Hillary's 'confidants' are saying that she will accept the position. Andrew Cuomo aside (ugh) I don't see any big Democratic names moving in to vye for Hillary's Senate seat. True, Giuliani's star is not nearly as high in the sky as it used to be but there are still plenty of positive vibes around here for him. I think Giuliani has a good chance of winning.

As far as I'm concerned Giuliani's divisiveness was a simply reflection of his unpopular decisions rubbing an entrenched bureaucracy the wrong way. New York had been on liberal Democrat auto-pilot for so long (20+ years including Lindsay who switched teams in 70!) that most forgot what it was like to hear the word 'No' coming from a mayor on a regular basis. I'm an 'ends justify the means' sort and I fail to see how Giuliani could have accomplished what he did had he taken a gentler, more accomodating stance. Take note that Bloomberg is pretty much in the same mold as Giuliani, albeit with a slightly less combative nature. Last but not least New Yorkers are an awfully fickle bunch;, we grumble, complain and hurl expletives & epithets no matter who is in office.

The moral of the story is that Giuliani was a fool not to run for Senator or Governor when he had the chance. Had he done so he would have certainly won one or the other, thus keeping his political momentum fresh. Instead he opted to cash in on consulting & speech fees for several years and then gambled on his mayorship & 9/11 association being enough to carry the day in the Republican primaries.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Keep in mind Giuliani lost to Clinton only because he dropped out of the race due to prostate cancer! Had he stayed in the race Giuliani would probably gone on to beat Clinton by a handsome margin. The fact that Giuliani's replacement, Rick Lazio, jumped into the race a few months before the election late and received 43% of the vote (despite being a virtual unknown) should tell you that Giuliani had that one in the bag.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/us/politics/22obama.html?_r=1&hp

According to the New York Times it appears that Hillary's 'confidants' are saying that she will accept the position. Andrew Cuomo aside (ugh) I don't see any big Democratic names moving in to vye for Hillary's Senate seat. True, Giuliani's star is not nearly as high in the sky as it used to be but there are still plenty of positive vibes around here for him. I think Giuliani has a good chance of winning.

As far as I'm concerned Giuliani's divisiveness was a simply reflection of his unpopular decisions rubbing an entrenched bureaucracy the wrong way. New York had been on liberal Democrat auto-pilot for so long (20+ years including Lindsay who switched teams in 70!) that most forgot what it was like to hear the word 'No' coming from a mayor on a regular basis. I'm an 'ends justify the means' sort and I fail to see how Giuliani could have accomplished what he did had he taken a gentler, more accomodating stance. Take note that Bloomberg is pretty much in the same mold as Giuliani, albeit with a slightly less combative nature. Last but not least New Yorkers are an awfully fickle bunch;, we grumble, complain and hurl expletives & epithets no matter who is in office.

The moral of the story is that Giuliani was a fool not to run for Senator or Governor when he had the chance. Had he done so he would have certainly won one or the other, thus keeping his political momentum fresh. Instead he opted to cash in on consulting & speech fees for several years and then gambled on his mayorship & 9/11 association being enough to carry the day in the Republican primaries.

I'm glad that you see it, but we are NYC/Long Island Republicans. Hosa has a point that Rudy might not appeal to upstate New Yorkers.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Even though I am disgusted with the present Republican party, I voted Obama, and my views may be more centrist than "right-wing", I still hold out hopes that the Republicans can turn things around.

Right now, the Republicans will be idea-barren obstructionists who follow the legacy of Bush and Cheney, and that makes them the opponents of constructive change. There are very few in Congress I support, much less on the Republican side.

However, regardless of how Obama does (frankly I am impressed by his bipartisanship so far, and his treatment of his former rivals, very classy move and also quite calculated) the Democrats will have a large chance in 2012, because I am absolutely certain that Obama's administration will look absolutely indispensable, especially considering the likely comparison between his and Bush's.

The trouble is, the Christian Republicans and the big businesses of the nation will be gunning for Obama starting now until his first term ends, and it's possible they could win in 2012. But who will be their leader?

If we get more of Romney, Palin, Bush, Cheney, McCain, Huckabee, Giuliani, Thompson, and their ilk, the Republicans may gain enough votes to get in but they will not have new ideas or solutions.

I want a real choice in 2012 and every election. I don't want to be forced into voting Democrat because the Republicans have picked yet another atrocious candidate. I want a real debate, not a smear contest. I want a real choice. I want to be inspired by a good Republican leader, and actually have the greater of two goods, not the lesser of two evils, to choose between.

Republicans need to abandon the stench of McCain-Palin, and abandon the Bush-Cheney administration. They need to understand that they got thrown out of Congress for supporting Bush and never wavering from that position, even when the nation had decided Bush was leading us down the wrong path.

It would have been different if the Republicans had saved their own political hides and abandoned Bush and denounced his policies; then they could legitimately say that their party was about change as well, but a different kind of change. That would have been an interesting argument, and a real clash of ideas.
Bush's ideas had already been thrown out by the 2008 election, clinging to them was suicidal and stubborn.

Leaders don't need to flip-flop on issues, but when real-world events clearly indicate a chosen course of action is incorrect, they need to at least acknowledge that and chart a new course or find new solutions.





EDIT: PS I still think Clinton is a horrible leader. Obama had better options. However, she has exactly one last chance to impress me.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Governor Palin just keeps polishing those credentials (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-kjM1asH-8). I guess Thanksgiving is a Democratic tradition?

:laugh4:

[ICantSpellDawg]

That is very funny.

I just don't understand it. We all eat those turkeys, but we can't know where they came from - they have to just be pieces of food, as if they grew on trees.

Is it weirder to see the process or to simply have a charred corpse on your kitchen table? The world seems to have decided in a very confused and infantile way.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The Executive Director of EMILY's List has been chosen by the Obama administration to be the Communications director for the White House.

Damn it all.

http://mobile.politico.com/story.cfm?id=15886&cat=politics

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The Executive Director of EMILY's List has been chosen by the Obama administration to be the Communications director for the White House.

Damn it all.

http://mobile.politico.com/story.cfm?id=15886&cat=politics

Tuff:

Comm Director is a classic spot for a communications/rhetoric savvy person who was part of your campaign communication/rhetoric team. Moran certainly qualifies. What's with the angst?

[Marshal Murat]

Seamus, if you do a quick google for EMILY's List, you'll find it supports pro-choice Democrats

[ICantSpellDawg]

Seamus, if you do a quick google for EMILY's List, you'll find it supports pro-choice Democrats

Yes. If I learned anything from the West Wing it's that the Comm Director is in charge of getting the speeches written and controlling the White House message.

When that job is in the hands of someone who has made it their life's mission to obliterate any unborn life issues, my feathers get riled up.

[CountArach]

Seamus, if you do a quick google for EMILY's List, you'll find it supports pro-choice Democrats
You sound surprised... A pro-woman group supporting pro-choice people, who would have thought?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

You sound surprised... A pro-woman group supporting pro-choice people, who would have thought?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminists_for_Life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life_feminism

Pro-life doesn't mean anti-woman. :rolleyes:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Murat/TSM:

Hey guys, I wasn't saying I found Obama's stance on right-to-life acceptable, I was merely commenting that it was hardly surprising that someone with her skill set/political outlook would get tapped for that position. It doesn't make me any more/less upset with Obama on that issue. Short of him having a "road to Damascus" moment, he's going to pick someone with that frame of reference. I am going to oppose him (them) on that issue. Feels more of a "yeah, 'bout what I expected" moment to me.

[Strike For The South]

Obama in the prep room (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt_TnQqkVyk)

ROFLCOPPTER

[Lemur]

Wow, that guy does the best Obama I've yet seen. SNL should hire him immediately.

[Kralizec]

That's uncanny...he even looks almost exactly like Obama (about 15-20 years younger), moreso than Fey looked like Palin.

[CountArach]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminists_for_Life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life_feminism

Pro-life doesn't mean anti-woman. :rolleyes:
Of course not, but Abortion is truly a women's issue. Being pro-life is far more likely to mean you are pro-feminist. The idea that a woman can make her own choices overlaps between the two positions. I personally find pro-life Feminism to be somewhat hypocritical in that way, because they are saying that women can make their own choices and decisions in life, but that the government should control their birth right.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

personally find pro-life Feminism to be somewhat hypocritical in that way, because they are saying that women can make their own choices and decisions in life, but that the government should control their birth right.

The women can control their birth right, the government isn't saying they have to become pregnant. It isn't hypocritical at all - these organizations simply may not see the baby as part of the woman, but as a being in itself. Therefore, they are protecting the rights of the being that happens to be inside the woman as well as the woman herself.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Of course not, but Abortion is truly a women's issue. Being pro-life is far more likely to mean you are pro-feminist. The idea that a woman can make her own choices overlaps between the two positions. I personally find pro-life Feminism to be somewhat hypocritical in that way, because they are saying that women can make their own choices and decisions in life, but that the government should control their birth right.

Saying that abortion is a woman's issue is begging the question. By deciding that you are deciding that the unborn is not worthy of consideration.

Try to separate birth control from Abortion in your mind. One is a woman's rights issue, the other is a human rights issue.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Steer back on topic, gentlemen.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

[Lemur]

I thought I was done talking about the 2008 Presidential Election, but I was wrong.

It's nice to see Joe the Plumber finding gainful employment (http://www.velocitystore.com/?page=media), especially given that it turns out he wasn't a licensed plumber.

-edit-

As usual, Wonkette (http://wonkette.com/404598/joe-the-plumbers-life-officially-becomes-off-putting-david-lynch-film#more-404598) deals with the absurd and horrific quite well:


Unlicensed craftsman Samuel Wurzelbacher, who is also known as “Joe the Plumber,” is doing commercials for some cheap-*** electronics online scam store, in which he both stresses the importance of and promises to offer personal instructions for setting up an analog-to-digital teevee converter that the olds and the hobbits will all have to purchase before February 2009, or else they’ll miss new episodes of their favorite program, Numb3rs. [...]

We could type about this video for 500 hours. The production values are staggering. He reads in monotone. About the teevee. You see what’s going on here, right? The 24% of this country that will sob if a Palin/Plumber ticket doesn’t seize the White House in 2012 will do anything this man says. And he’s telling them to buy a space gizmo from a shady looking mail-in outlet if they want to have any chance whatsoever of not getting killed by Terrorists immediately.

[TevashSzat]

I've had a thought I've been pondering for a while now:

Why do all of these politicians always try to represent the "common man" or try to seem like "Joe the Plumber."

Come on, the mere fact that you are running for president and have a half decent shot at winning it means that you are anything but a "common man." I understand how they want to perceive as they understand the feelings and needs of the average person, but the thing is as politicans who have been in Washington for a few years, their perspective has already been changed. Yet again, their mere ability to be a politician distorts their perspective and seperates them from the "common man."

Another thing is why do the public want a president that seems like the common man? You are electing a person that will greatly impact the direction of the country for at least the next four years and is perhaps the most powerful person on the planet and you want a "common" guy to do it? I don't know about you, but I would move to a different country if some random cab driver or even Joe the Plumber gets the job.

The reason that don't everyone want a president who isn't just mundane? We want a charismatic leader, a smart one, someone who understands things that we don't. Thats why we have a government, because the average person cannot govern well.

Wanting a "common man" president is like wanting a mundane doctor. Can't you argue that a doctor who has much more in a common with a normal person will have greater empathy and thoughtfulness? I wouldn't care how different my doctor may be from myself. I just want the best doctor out there who went to a good school, studied alot harder than I did, and spent way too much money in medical school because I want to be cured and feel healthier, not be better comforted as I lay there dying.

Okay, semi-rant done there. Just some thoughts....

[Lemur]

Why do all of these politicians always try to represent the "common man" or try to seem like "Joe the Plumber."
It's just one of those quirks of democracy. You know in your head that the leadership should be comprised of the best and the brightest, but hey, aren't they kinda smug? Aren't they a lot like that egghead kid in class who always knew the answers and raised his hand before everybody else and went to a good college? And don't you kinda hate those elitist bastards?

That's how we wind up with either

Smart people who pretend to be folksy and common, or,
Genuinely ignorant anti-intellectuals

Sadly, the fakes are the better option here. (Examples: Mitt Romney, Barack Obama.)

The genuinely ignorant, incurious and common are just kind of ... whatever. They're great on your church charity board, but you really, really don't want the nation taking marching orders from them.

Or maybe you do. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBoJDXW-ly0)

(That video is insane, isn't it? What's tjhe story with the gay black Amish man thanking Sarah Palin for the "dignity she showed"?)

[Lord Winter]

Looks like Gates is staying as Secertary of Defence. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7749237.stm)
Kudos to Obama for keeping around a comptent guy instead of having to breif a new guy to the job just for the sake of partisen politics.

[Lemur]

Yet another Catholic pastor commands his flock to confess for the sin of not voting Republican (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/56697.html). This is getting to be a trend ...


"If you are one of the 54 percent of Catholics who voted for a pro-abortion candidate, you were clear on his position and you knew the gravity of the question, I urge you to go to confession before receiving communion. Don't risk losing your state of grace by receiving sacrilegiously," the Rev. Joseph Illo, pastor of St. Joseph's, wrote in a letter dated Nov. 21.

The letter was sent to more than 15,000 members of the St. Joseph's parish. It is one of 34 parishes in the Stockton Diocese, which has more than 200,000 members in Stanislaus, San Joaquin and four other counties. [...]

A Greenville, S.C., priest told parishioners earlier this month that those who voted for Obama risked placing themselves "outside of the full communion of Christ's church" by their vote.

That priest's action was supported by his diocese, the Diocese of Charleston, S.C., which said the priest was simply asserting church teaching.

But the Most Rev. Stephen Blaire, bishop of the Stockton, Calif., Diocese, said he disagrees with Illo. He said Catholics should not feel compelled to disclose how they voted to their priest.

Blaire said Catholics who carefully weighed many issues and settled on a candidate, such as Obama, who was supportive of abortion rights, were not in need of confession. He said confession would be necessary "only if someone voted for a pro-abortion or pro-choice candidate -- if that's the reason you voted for them."

"Our position on pro-life is very important, but there are other issues," Blaire said. "No one candidate reflects everything that we stand for. I'm sure that most Catholics who voted were voting on economic issues.

"There were probably many priests, and I suspect many bishops, who voted for Obama."

[Lemur]

Looks like the graphic design from the '08 U.S. election is getting ripped off by the French. Curse you, Gallic plagiarists!


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/dsc_0186.jpg

[Marshal Murat]

Lemur, what I want to know is why they create signs in English for a French general public?

[seireikhaan]

Well, if you notice the fine print above the slogan, that is actually in French.

[CrossLOPER]

Lemur, what I want to know is why they create signs in English for a French general public?
1. It's an effective slogan, best kept as is.
2. Dar sum reeeedin' peepole.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I must repeat what I asked Vladimir about that French army blog. How on earth did you come by this? ~:confused:
Are you all reading French blogs nowadays?

Sarkozy may desperately wish he was American, but even he realises that a president using an English slogan has the political life span of a US senator admitting he's been having a homosexual affair with Hugo Chavez. Or of an Arkansas governor who's been photographed with the works of Darwin. Or of a British PM who uses anti-terror laws to intimidate his parliamentary opposition. (Wait...not the last one. ~;p )

These 'Sarkobama' posters, as they have been dubbed, aren't official. They are quite the mystery!

They suddenly appeared all over Paris last week. Nobody has claimed them. The UMP was suspected at first, I myself suspect the Communist Party, both deny.
The slogans are leftist, environmentalist: 'Producing a clean ecological source of energy? Yes we can!', 'Create one million jobs? Yes we can!'
It is clearly a well-prepared and expensive campaign, not the work of a few students. Nobody has yet claimed responsibility. Does this mean there are more surprises in store then? Oh, the suspense of it all!!

[Hooahguy]

well, today is the run-off in GA for senate. everyones very antsy here.....

[CountArach]

well, today is the run-off in GA for senate. everyones very antsy here.....
Chambliss is polling anywhere from 3-6 points in public polling and I expect that will hold steady. That said the Democrats have an enthusiasm advantage that may be tough to overcome (Run-off generally have a 25% or so turnout). Also Martin will probably struggle to overcome the huge slump in African-American turnout.

[Hooahguy]

sexephil has something to say on obama (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jksnSf1jeyQ)

[CountArach]

Chambliss won, unsurprisingly.

Franken still (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/12/frankens-good-day-shifts-odds-on.html) in with a very strong chance after a very strong day's showing.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Oh, please no:
Bill Clinton mentioned for wife's Senate seat
(http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/01/clinton.replacement/index.html)

CR

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Oh, please no:
Bill Clinton mentioned for wife's Senate seat
(http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/01/clinton.replacement/index.html)

CR

Spouse serving out the balance of a resigned/deceased/promoted Senator is fairly traditional actually. Bill would make a pretty good senator too, very much in tune with NY politics. PLUS, from a party standpoint, he'd beat Giuliani like a drum in a re-elect should he wish to retain the seat, preventing a "steal" by the GOP.

[Lemur]

The Clintons are like some kind of unstoppable robot of doom. You know, the kind that you shoot with rockets and set on fire and dip in molten magma and it just keeps coming.

They're like the Terminator. But political.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Kinda wierd though, for me. Even though I'm closer to 45 than 44, there has been a Bush or a Clinton in the White House, the Administration, or the Cabinet for the entirety of my adult life! George 41 took the oath as VEEP in January of 1981 when I was a month short of my 17th birthday. With Barry now "Hot for Hillary (http://www.break.com/index/hot-for-hillary.html)" as SecState, this will continue!

[seireikhaan]

I'm 18 and there's been a Clinton or Bush in the White House for my ENTIRE life. :wiseguy:

[CountArach]

I'm 18 and there's been a Clinton or Bush in the White House for my ENTIRE life. :wiseguy:
I can't help but feel that this sort of thing is what has made the youth of today so apathetic.

[Lord Winter]

The Clintons are like some kind of unstoppable robot of doom. You know, the kind that you shoot with rockets and set on fire and dip in molten magma and it just keeps coming.

They're like the Terminator. But political.

Sigged

[Hooahguy]

I'm 18 and there's been a Clinton or Bush in the White House for my ENTIRE life. :wiseguy:
same here, but im only 16, almost 17 (2 more months!)

anyhow, hillary? as SecState?
im scrared. very scared. (kind of)

[Louis VI the Fat]

New revelations!

The British used enhanced interrogation techniques in a war on terror against.... Hussein Obama (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article5276010.ece).



And what does this all mean for Guantanamo, US foreign policy, and British / American relations?


Barack Obama is no admirer of British colonialism, to judge from his writings, but the discovery that the British authorities tortured his grandfather may well deepen any animosity.

In his bestselling memoir, Dreams from My Father, Mr Obama does not conceal his disdain for British imperialism and his anger at what he sees as the brutality of colonial rule in Kenya. Almost every reference to Britain or the British is negative.

He briefly describes Hussein Onyango Obama’s detention by the British, but in a way that suggests he either did not know, or did not wish to reveal, the extent of his grandfather’s suffering at British hands.
Tale of family torture may strengthen Barack Obama’s animosity (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article5276030.ece)

[LittleGrizzly]

I wouldn't imagine this would effect any relationship he would have with the british leader, though it might be nice to distance ourselves a bit anyway, fed up of britian being americas lackey...

[Crazed Rabbit]

Palin - helping the GOP?! (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16162.html) :dizzy2:

CR

[Askthepizzaguy]

Palin - helping the GOP?! (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16162.html) :dizzy2:

CR

Republicans in Georgia responding to a folksy conservative woman former VP candidate? I never would have guessed. :grin:

[Ronin]

Palin - helping the GOP?! (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16162.html) :dizzy2:

CR


“When she walks in a room, folks just explode,” he added.

I had heard she had that effect in republican males.....I hope that at least they went to the bathroom afterwards to clean up :wiseguy:

[Askthepizzaguy]

I had heard she had that effect in republican males.....I hope that at least they went to the bathroom afterwards to clean up :wiseguy:

I am going to gouge out my eyes now, and stick a red hot iron poker directly into my brain and swish it around for several minutes.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Palin - helping the GOP?! (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16162.html) :dizzy2:

CR

Palin is a good thing for the GOP. We need token draws for traditionally democratic voters - not as a fake ploy, but just to show people that the GOP isn't old, is looking towards the future and has a place for females and minorities in highest office.

I've been critical of her at the VP nominee level, but I think that given a few more maturing years she will be an amazing national level figure.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I sincerely hope the GOP isn't pinning its hopes on token minorities and women.

Frankly I think that Palin was a frightful VP candidate. She's the primary reason I began to abandon McCain. Then the gutter-worthy campaign tactics which followed sealed the deal for me. But let's not drag that up again.

Palin could not begin to articulate why she should be in line for the highest office in the land. Ignoring the damaging scandals for a moment, she couldn't answer basic questions about the bailout, and intentionally and blatantly avoided any questions besides ones about energy and the Iraq war, and her position on energy is to simply drill away which doesn't solve any immediate or long term problems. Given how many years it would take to drill, pump, refine, and sell the oil involved, it has no short term benefit, and long term we will need an alternative to oil anyway. Given that Obama supported offshore drilling as part of a comprehensive energy plan which aimed to move away from oil in the long term, she offered no superior strategy on energy, which was her supposed area of expertise.

She did not understand the Bush doctrine, and supported a policy of endless engagement in Iraq, while Bush, Obama, and the Iraqi government all agreed on the idea of a timetable. We now have that timetable. Wrong on energy, wrong on Iraq. She couldn't articulate a position on any other issue, and made some really dumb decisions while out on campaign and afterward. Her "strong" point for the Republicans was to energize their crazy base with blame speeches and fear tactics.

Let us assume for the moment that Obama is full of hot air, will do nothing he promised, and waged a campaign based purely on optimism and false hope. That's a big assumption that is unwarranted, but let's assume a worst-case scenario for Obama purely for comparison purposes. Which is better for the country?

1. An empty windbag politician who makes promises he cannot keep and talks about uniting this country based on bipartisanship, hope, and a better future; or

2. An empty windbag politician who makes no promises and admits that s/he cannot win on the issues, so therefore attacks the credibility of his/her opponent, undermining confidence in our eventual potential leader, and spreading fear, partisanship and division purely for political gain.

Personally I prefer the classier choice, because people are happier, more cooperative, more confident, and productive when they live in a country where the tone is optimistic and inclusive. People engage in pointless bickering, stonewalling progress, and fear and hate one another under a leadership which encourages hatred and distrust in their political rivals, and when the focus is on personal character rather than the issues, the issues aren't being discussed, and therefore the issues aren't being resolved.

If someone fails on understanding the issues, fails on articulating the issues, fails on coming up with better solutions to the issues, avoids the issues, and attacks with unfounded smear tactics while openly defying anyone who questions him or her on the issues, that person is objectively a bad candidate for any office. That's not a political conclusion or a partisan conclusion; that's a fact.

Palin may be effective at energizing a desperate, hateful, and partisan Republican base, but on every other measure as a politician she is a miserable failure and an embarrassment to the nation as a whole. I am personally thankful that I live a good distance away from Alaska, and that she isn't coming to visit Florida anytime soon.

The GOP (or any party) would do better with an honest candidate with integrity who actually discusses the issues and proposes solutions. Mindless partisan hacks belong on Fox News and MSNBC.

[Ronin]

I am going to gouge out my eyes now, and stick a red hot iron poker directly into my brain and swish it around for several minutes.

and with this gentleman....my work here is done!

*exits, stage left*

[ICantSpellDawg]

I sincerely hope the GOP isn't pinning its hopes on token minorities and women.

Frankly I think that Palin was a frightful VP candidate. She's the primary reason I began to abandon McCain. Then the gutter-worthy campaign tactics which followed sealed the deal for me. But let's not drag that up again.

Palin could not begin to articulate why she should be in line for the highest office in the land. Ignoring the damaging scandals for a moment, she couldn't answer basic questions about the bailout, and intentionally and blatantly avoided any questions besides ones about energy and the Iraq war, and her position on energy is to simply drill away which doesn't solve any immediate or long term problems. Given how many years it would take to drill, pump, refine, and sell the oil involved, it has no short term benefit, and long term we will need an alternative to oil anyway. Given that Obama supported offshore drilling as part of a comprehensive energy plan which aimed to move away from oil in the long term, she offered no superior strategy on energy, which was her supposed area of expertise.

She did not understand the Bush doctrine, and supported a policy of endless engagement in Iraq, while Bush, Obama, and the Iraqi government all agreed on the idea of a timetable. We now have that timetable. Wrong on energy, wrong on Iraq. She couldn't articulate a position on any other issue, and made some really dumb decisions while out on campaign and afterward. Her "strong" point for the Republicans was to energize their crazy base with blame speeches and fear tactics.

Let us assume for the moment that Obama is full of hot air, will do nothing he promised, and waged a campaign based purely on optimism and false hope. That's a big assumption that is unwarranted, but let's assume a worst-case scenario for Obama purely for comparison purposes. Which is better for the country?

1. An empty windbag politician who makes promises he cannot keep and talks about uniting this country based on bipartisanship, hope, and a better future; or

2. An empty windbag politician who makes no promises and admits that s/he cannot win on the issues, so therefore attacks the credibility of his/her opponent, undermining confidence in our eventual potential leader, and spreading fear, partisanship and division purely for political gain.

Personally I prefer the classier choice, because people are happier, more cooperative, more confident, and productive when they live in a country where the tone is optimistic and inclusive. People engage in pointless bickering, stonewalling progress, and fear and hate one another under a leadership which encourages hatred and distrust in their political rivals, and when the focus is on personal character rather than the issues, the issues aren't being discussed, and therefore the issues aren't being resolved.

If someone fails on understanding the issues, fails on articulating the issues, fails on coming up with better solutions to the issues, avoids the issues, and attacks with unfounded smear tactics while openly defying anyone who questions him or her on the issues, that person is objectively a bad candidate for any office. That's not a political conclusion or a partisan conclusion; that's a fact.

Palin may be effective at energizing a desperate, hateful, and partisan Republican base, but on every other measure as a politician she is a miserable failure and an embarrassment to the nation as a whole. I am personally thankful that I live a good distance away from Alaska, and that she isn't coming to visit Florida anytime soon.

The GOP (or any party) would do better with an honest candidate with integrity who actually discusses the issues and proposes solutions. Mindless partisan hacks belong on Fox News and MSNBC.

The GOP can't be a party for white males only. Palin is a good administrator and a popular governor. I don't see her as some hateful xenophobic moron like you do.

I don't think that she should have been propelled that quickly onto the national stage, but I don't see why her not being ready to be in the White House this year means she will not be ready to be in the White House at some point.

I like her, but I didn't like that McCain didn't seem to do the background. That goes more toward me not liking McCain than Palin.

[CountArach]

The GOP can't be a party for white males only.
True, but Palin won't be able to fix that. She suffered from far lower approval ratings amongst women than you would think.

[Hooahguy]

Congresswoman hangs up on obama. twice. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081203/pl_politico/26780_1)

[Crazed Rabbit]

The SCOTUS has dismissed a stupid lawsuit claiming Obama isn't a 'natural born citizen'. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081208/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_obama)

Good for them. We don't need a bunch of wing nuts (not necessarily right wing, but most are) to go on for years about how the election was stolen.

EDIT: In other news, "The World Famous Lawn Rangers from Amazing Arcola" will perform in the inaugural parade (http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2008/12/07/lawn_rangers_invited_to_perform_in_inauguration_parade) in January.

Here's a picture of Obama (http://blogs.herald.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/11/11/obama_2.jpg) with the performance group back in 2003.

CR

[CountArach]

:laugh4: @ The Lawn Mowers

[Lemur]

The Lawn Rangers are an unorthodox performance group, pushing elaborately decorated lawn mowers and twirling brooms in a coordinated routine. This "precision lawn mower drill team" has performed in dozens of parades, including parades for the Holiday Bowl in San Diego, the Fiesta Bowl in Tempe, Ariz., and the Indianapolis 500 parade.
Sah-weeeeeet!

[drone]

:laugh4: @ The Lawn Mowers

YouTube provides! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_wcEL1RhYs)

[Crazed Rabbit]

Andrew Sullivan, after continuing to insist (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/12/a-fourth-pictur.html) (Into December!) Palin wasn't really pregnant and Trig was really her daughter's child, gets smacked down on his own blog. (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/12/in-defense-of-s.html)

How appropriate for a spiteful man (What's that phrase Tuffstuff used?) who can't let go.

CR

[Lemur]

Andrew Sullivan, after continuing to insist (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/12/a-fourth-pictur.html) (Into December!) Palin wasn't really pregnant and Trig was really her daughter's child, gets smacked down on his own blog. (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/12/in-defense-of-s.html)
By the same author, a few posts later (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/12/talking-it-out.html):


I often select Dissents Of The Day for Andrew to keep him honest, and I make sure he links to bloggers who challenge him. LGF and Michelle Malkin are gleeful because I called Andrew out over the Palin baby rumors, but I can't imagine that either blog would ever allow this type of open debate.

[drone]

Obama's Senate seat is up for sale! (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/09/illinois.govenor/index.html)

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich is in federal custody on corruption charges, a law enforcement official said Tuesday.

Blagojevich and his chief of staff, John Harris, are charged with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and solicitation of bribery, according to a statement from the U.S. Attorney's office for the Northern District of Illinois.

Both men are expected in U.S. District Court in Chicago later Tuesday.

A news conference is expected at noon ET.

Federal prosecutors say Blagojevich, Harris and others conspired to gain financial benefits in appointing President-elect Barack Obama's Senate replacement, according to the statement.

"The breadth of corruption laid out in these charges is staggering," U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said in a statement. "They allege that Blagojevich put a 'for sale' sign on the naming of a United States Senator; involved himself personally in pay-to-play schemes with the urgency of a salesman meeting his annual sales target; and corruptly used his office in an effort to trample editorial voices of criticism."

According to the statement, Blagojevich is alleged to have discussed obtaining:

# a substantial salary for himself at either a non-profit foundation or an organization affiliated with labor unions;

# a spot for his wife on paid corporate boards, where he speculated she might garner as much as $150,000 a year;

# promises of campaign funds -- including cash up front;

# a Cabinet post or ambassadorship for himself.
Gotta love the Chicago machine. :2thumbsup:

[Hooahguy]

Obama's Senate seat is up for sale! (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/09/illinois.govenor/index.html)

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich is in federal custody on corruption charges, a law enforcement official said Tuesday.

Blagojevich and his chief of staff, John Harris, are charged with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and solicitation of bribery, according to a statement from the U.S. Attorney's office for the Northern District of Illinois.

Both men are expected in U.S. District Court in Chicago later Tuesday.

A news conference is expected at noon ET.

Federal prosecutors say Blagojevich, Harris and others conspired to gain financial benefits in appointing President-elect Barack Obama's Senate replacement, according to the statement.

"The breadth of corruption laid out in these charges is staggering," U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said in a statement. "They allege that Blagojevich put a 'for sale' sign on the naming of a United States Senator; involved himself personally in pay-to-play schemes with the urgency of a salesman meeting his annual sales target; and corruptly used his office in an effort to trample editorial voices of criticism."

According to the statement, Blagojevich is alleged to have discussed obtaining:

# a substantial salary for himself at either a non-profit foundation or an organization affiliated with labor unions;

# a spot for his wife on paid corporate boards, where he speculated she might garner as much as $150,000 a year;

# promises of campaign funds -- including cash up front;

# a Cabinet post or ambassadorship for himself.
Gotta love the Chicago machine. :2thumbsup:
makes me wonder if obama got in the senate through the same process...

[ICantSpellDawg]

makes me wonder if obama got in the senate through the same process...

He beat a lightweight, fair and square.

[Hooahguy]

then all the conspiracy theories are wrong, then..... :sad:
lol

[LittleGrizzly]

then all the conspiracy theories are wrong, then.....

yes its the unfortunate thing about CT's they are glamorous and entertaining but when it comes to facts they seem to fail...

Besides considering the sucess of Obama i find it hard to believe he would need to cheat to win...

[Crazed Rabbit]

By the same author, a few posts later (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/12/talking-it-out.html):


I often select Dissents Of The Day for Andrew to keep him honest, and I make sure he links to bloggers who challenge him. LGF and Michelle Malkin are gleeful because I called Andrew out over the Palin baby rumors, but I can't imagine that either blog would ever allow this type of open debate.

Uh, yeah, so what? I'm not talking about either of those sites. Your post has nothing to do with the fact that Mr. Sullivan has continued this relentless smear far beyond the time when there was actually any question about it. That's a red herring.

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Uh, yeah, so what? I'm not talking about either of those sites. Your post has nothing to do with the fact that Mr. Sullivan has continued this relentless smear far beyond the time when there was actually any question about it. That's a red herring.

CR

You can't say something bad about a democrat without saying something bad about republican's as well, sorry CR those are the rules :smash:

[Hooahguy]

You can't say something bad about a democrat without saying something bad about republican's as well, sorry CR those are the rules :smash:
reminds me of the Fairness Doctrine....

[Seamus Fermanagh]

then all the conspiracy theories are wrong, then.....

yes its the unfortunate thing about CT's they are glamorous and entertaining but when it comes to facts they seem to fail...

Besides considering the sucess of Obama i find it hard to believe he would need to cheat to win...

Obama played hardball to secure the Dem nomination (which in S Chicago was tantamount to election) for State Senate in 1996. The incumbent hand-picked him as her successor to try for a HoR seat, but after losing the nomination herself she wanted him to step aside and let her get her old seat back. Obama's team, supposedly, got her and his other nomination rivals knocked off the ballot by invalidating signatures supporting each of his opponent's candidacies. This is NOT cheating, by any means, but it is gaming the system to advantage.

He does not have a "cheater" reputation, but anyone who assumes he's above political rough and tumble hasn't looked at his record.

[CountArach]

He does not have a "cheater" reputation, but anyone who assumes he's above political rough and tumble hasn't looked at his record.
Spot on. He's a Chicago politician through-and-through.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You can't say something bad about a democrat without saying something bad about republican's as well, sorry CR those are the rules :smash:

Lol.

Anyways, I believe Lemur has referenced Andrew Sullivan as a conservative before.

CR

[Tribesman]

Anyways, I believe Lemur has referenced Andrew Sullivan as a conservative before.

Possibly because that is what Sullivan calls himself:idea2:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Sean Hannity is now the arbiter of who is and who is not a real conservative. :yes:

I'm sure I heard that somewhere, anyway. Now where did I put that memo.....:inquisitive:



:smartass2:

[Askthepizzaguy]

Sean Hannity is a......


I'm sorry. I would like to keep this civilized. :bow:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Sean Hannity is a......

thinly-veneered GOP shill cheerleading anybody who'll bust on the Dems for any reason.

Was that the finish you were looking for?

[ICantSpellDawg]

thinly-veneered GOP shill cheerleading anybody who'll bust on the Dems for any reason.

Was that the finish you were looking for?

I agree with a number of the concepts that he poorly copies and pastes, but I can't expect any well thought out objectivity from him, so there is nor purpose in watching him. Plus I'm pissed that Colmes is leaving.

I would love a Hanity and Colmes that had a reasonable and intelligent conservative in Hannity's seat. This failed experiment of an illogical loudmouth in one seat and a temperate liberal in the other is a failed one and it makes me wish I was a liberal for 1 hour per day.

Long story short, I have never learned anything from Sean Hannity.

[Tribesman]

Long story short, I have never learned anything from Sean Hannity.

Yes you have , you have learned that you have never learned anything from Sean Hannity:2thumbsup:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yes you have , you have learned that you have never learned anything from Sean Hannity:2thumbsup:

Touche

[CountArach]

I would love a Hanity and Colmes that had a reasonable and intelligent conservative in Hannity's seat. This failed experiment of an illogical loudmouth in one seat and a temperate liberal in the other is a failed one and it makes me wish I was a liberal for 1 hour per day.
That was always the problem. Colmes has never been aggressive enough at disputing Hannity and was always overshadowed. It makes you wonder if the board at Faux News set it up that way...

[ICantSpellDawg]

That was always the problem. Colmes has never been aggressive enough at disputing Hannity and was always overshadowed. It makes you wonder if the board at Faux News set it up that way...

No Count. The problem is that Hannity has no respect for Colmes. Hannity's style should have always been more like Colmes'. I've just said that Hannity's closed-minded, loud-mouthiness was the cause of my disdain.

Your solution was to make his liberal opposition equally as closed-minded and loud mouthy? How about the other option?

The problem with all people is that they take a real problem, focus correctly on what caused it and then proceed to make it worse. Ex: women have traditionally had a problem with male infidelity. Clearly people with common sense believed that infidelity and inequality were the problems that needed to be addressed. Unfortunately, the resolution was to make females feel "more equal" than males and increase the rate and tolerance of female infidelity. If females could go ahead and not cheat on their husbands it couldn't have been that hard to just not cheat on your wife out of egalitarian respect?

The exact wrong resolution. God forbid we deal sensibly with problems.

[CountArach]

No Count. The problem is that Hannity has no respect for Colmes. Hannity's style should have always been more like Colmes'. I've just said that Hannity's closed-minded, loud-mouthiness was the cause of my disdain.

Your solution was to make his liberal opposition equally as closed-minded and loud mouthy? How about the other option?
Either option would be fine by me. Think about someone like Keith Olbermann opposite Hannity. That would be awesome!

[ICantSpellDawg]

Either option would be fine by me. Think about someone like Keith Olbermann opposite Hannity. That would be awesome!

That would be horrible.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I'd rather have me opposing Colmes. Of course, ratings would suck since we'd actually discuss rather than froth at the mouth.

[Yoyoma1910]

Why don't you just watch the news hour with Jim Lehrer?


Then you can watch Shields and Brooks.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Either option would be fine by me. Think about someone like Keith Olbermann opposite Hannity. That would be awesome!

Sir, that is a recipe for the end of the world.

It'd be entertaining, though.

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

Why don't you just watch the news hour with Jim Lehrer?


Then you can watch Shields and Brooks.

I listen to Lehrer, but it is just him on the radio.

Leonard Lopate has pretty good political discussions during underreported. He challenges the interviewee regardless of the agenda.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Just put O'Reilly and Olberman on the same show. They would have to shout to each other over a telephone, since having them both in the same building could lead to violence.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I agree with a number of the concepts that he poorly copies and pastes, but I can't expect any well thought out objectivity from him, so there is nor purpose in watching him. Plus I'm pissed that Colmes is leaving.

I would love a Hanity and Colmes that had a reasonable and intelligent conservative in Hannity's seat. This failed experiment of an illogical loudmouth in one seat and a temperate liberal in the other is a failed one and it makes me wish I was a liberal for 1 hour per day.

Long story short, I have never learned anything from Sean Hannity.

Another instance where you and I will agree, Tuff.

I for one like the bare-bones idea of a moderate liberal and a genuine conservative analyzing the day's news events, and discussing issues. I'd be more pleased with actual debates, moderated of course.

But what Hannity and Colmes does is it pits a rather toothless liberal against a pundit who will overtalk, interrupt, get loud, and doesn't debate with any kind of fairness or objectivity. It's a shame, because like Crossfire, it had potential.

I don't mind the enthusiasm, I don't mind the commitment to one point of view. I just mind the unprofessionalism in the program from Hannity and the overall Fox slant. Colmes is often silent on that program, and lobs decent but hardly inspired questions at conservatives, and tends to drop things when they get heated.

I think there's room for a real debate between intellectuals who are either conservative leaning or liberal leaning, maybe even wingers. But the debate has to be more than shouting, opining, and cherry-picked news articles which always favor one side of an argument. However, to be fair, it often degraded into that with the previous US election thread, so we've learned from the masters.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Another instance where you and I will agree, Tuff.

I for one like the bare-bones idea of a moderate liberal and a genuine conservative analyzing the day's news events, and discussing issues. I'd be more pleased with actual debates, moderated of course.

But what Hannity and Colmes does is it pits a rather toothless liberal against a pundit who will overtalk, interrupt, get loud, and doesn't debate with any kind of fairness or objectivity. It's a shame, because like Crossfire, it had potential.

I don't mind the enthusiasm, I don't mind the commitment to one point of view. I just mind the unprofessionalism in the program from Hannity and the overall Fox slant. Colmes is often silent on that program, and lobs decent but hardly inspired questions at conservatives, and tends to drop things when they get heated.

I think there's room for a real debate between intellectuals who are either conservative leaning or liberal leaning, maybe even wingers. But the debate has to be more than shouting, opining, and cherry-picked news articles which always favor one side of an argument. However, to be fair, it often degraded into that with the previous US election thread, so we've learned from the masters.

I believe that partisans can do an excellent job of really hashing ideas out. Moderates rely on the fringe for their identity. Without something to moderate they wouldn't be "moderates", would they? The factor that makes the show unbearable is the lack of respect between the two men - caused primarily by Hannity.

Either way, I am a believer in fringe options. I consider myself a moderate, however, because I realize that it is usually more practical to just make a deal with the opposition since we have to share the planet. Not on everything, mind you.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Someone set fire to Palin's church (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/13/AR2008121302503_pf.html) up in Alaska.

How tolerant.

CR

[Askthepizzaguy]

Someone set fire to Palin's church (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/13/AR2008121302503_pf.html) up in Alaska.

How tolerant.

CR

Maybe they did it themselves trying to burn witches. :laugh2:

[Lemur]

Someone set fire to Palin's church (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/13/AR2008121302503_pf.html) up in Alaska.
That's seriously bad. I hope it's a lone loon, and not anyone with any political axe to grind. Church burnings are horrible enough without a larger partisan element.

[Tribesman]

Maybe they did it themselves trying to burn witches.
No that is her old church with the witchcraft thing , she left them a while back when she first ran for higher office .

[Askthepizzaguy]

I begrudgingly tolerate the kind of religions which I disagree with but don't harm anyone. So I am distressed that a church was terrorized in such a despicable fashion.

I personally view the organized religions as flawed, and wish people would voluntarily choose something else, but I do not now nor have I ever condoned such violence and extremism.

Kind of like Republicans and Democrats, myself and religious people have different views. But as long as the church doesn't harm anyone, I don't condone an *expletive deleted* burning it down. And I value the people who have religious faith more than I value my own aversion to what I consider flawed thinking. People are more important than ideological disagreements.

So, I may joke, but I take this nonsense very seriously, and I wish justice to come down upon whomever did this.

[Lemur]

And once again, parody speaks the truth like nobody else. From the world's finest news source (http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/area_woman_becomes):

Area Woman Becomes Republican Vice Presidential Candidate

December 17, 2008 | Issue 44•51

WASILLA, AK—In a dramatic capper to a year that already saw her son's hockey team go to district finals, a successful remodeling of the den, and her scoring of front-row tickets to a traveling production of the Broadway smash hit Les Misérables, Wasilla resident and former beauty queen Sarah Palin, 44, was chosen as the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee. The mother of five, who enjoys attending church potluck dinners with husband Todd, an unemployed commercial fisherman, reportedly "jumped at the chance" to become the second most powerful person in the country. "Oh, what a nice thing for [GOP running mate] Sarah [Palin]," said Debbie McInnes, who met Palin two years ago at an advanced step aerobics class at the Wasilla YMCA. "She's such a good person, and so pretty! I think she'd be super-enthusiastic to take on that job." Although Palin ultimately never got the chance to come within a heartbeat of ruling a global superpower and its 300 million citizens, she said she was happy enough to have beaten out the other potential Republican VP candidates, including a Nebraska receptionist and a congresswoman from Ohio with more than 20 years of political experience.

[Kralizec]

December 17, 2008?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beating_a_dead_horse

[Seamus Fermanagh]

December 17, 2008?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beating_a_dead_horse


A wiki cite.....come on, take it up a level. You're responding to The Onion for heaven's sake. I recall someone (Xiahou?) had a great graphic of somebody pounding on a dead horse. Give us a little OOmph please!


btw, since people started musing about Palin for President in 2012, this parodic character attack is not at all late -- the 2012 race began a while ago (God Help us, please, though we deserve it not).

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

https://img360.imageshack.us/img360/3796/beating2da2ddead2dhorsekf1.gif

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Why don't you just watch the news hour with Jim Lehrer?


Then you can watch Shields and Brooks.

Now we're talking. World in focus is quite good too.

Only channel I really care to watch unless I feel like going totally braindead (which happens about once every six month at the end of final exams :sweatdrop:)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

https://img360.imageshack.us/img360/3796/beating2da2ddead2dhorsekf1.gif

Thank you!

Now that, my dear Fenrig, is a PROPER backroom response. :laugh4:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Sarah Palin's daughter is due to give birth soon (http://www.nypost.com/seven/12182008/gossip/pagesix/alaskas_masculine_child_144680.htm).

No word yet if this will finally make Andrew Sullivan shut up.

Also, Caroline Kennedy is trying to get Hillary Clinton's old senate seat on the sole basis that her father was famous. :wall:

CR

[Lemur]

Sarah Palin's daughter is due to give birth soon (http://www.nypost.com/seven/12182008/gossip/pagesix/alaskas_masculine_child_144680.htm).

No word yet if this will finally make Andrew Sullivan shut up.
What does Bristol's illegitimate child have to do with Sullivan's specious contention that Trig was Sarah's baby? (Yikes, I got dizzy typing that sentence.) Meanwhile, Bristol's mama-in-law-to-be is having some problems with Johnny Law (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/254/story/58245.html).

Also, Caroline Kennedy is trying to get Hillary Clinton's old senate seat on the sole basis that her father was famous.
No more Kennedys. No more Clintons.No more Bushes. Death to dynasties! Down with inherited position! A republic has no room for hereditary aristocracy.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Also, Caroline Kennedy is trying to get Hillary Clinton's old senate seat on the sole basis that her father was famous. :wall:

CR

She'll get it on the sole basis that the Kennedy "free speech" generating machine will help our current un-elected Governor, *he who got promoted because of Spitzer's resignation*, with collecting enough "free speech" for his re-election campaign. What's one more clueless Manhattan elite in a State, the most dysfunctional State government in the union, going to matter? Every major political office in New York is dominated by New York City area politicians. Not one represents my area, Western NY, or any place north of Albany. We have been lucky to get the crumbs that fall off the New York City plate for years and it's never going to change. Better to take our hydropower and secede from New York State and form our own state, but that won't happen either. Plan B: join the exodus of Western NYS residents to another state after our retirement. You can't vote the bums out so vote with your feet.~:wave: and ~:flirt: my :daisy:.
The Supreme Court definition of free speech = legalized bribery.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Also, Caroline Kennedy is trying to get Hillary Clinton's old senate seat on the sole basis that her father was famous. :wall:

Look on the bright side: at least she's not going to get it on the sole basis she's the highest bidder...

[CountArach]

No more Kennedys. No more Clintons.No more Bushes. Death to dynasties! Down with inherited position! A republic has no room for hereditary aristocracy.
I know I shouldn't but I read polls every day anyway... as it turns out only 47% (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/47_worry_about_dynasty_politics) of Americans agree with you...

[ICantSpellDawg]

I know I shouldn't but I read polls every day anyway... as it turns out only 47% (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/47_worry_about_dynasty_politics) of Americans agree with you...

47% of Americans probably wish we had a queen. 47% of Americans most likely lie about being able to tie their own shoes.

I'm with Lemur - Down with dynasties. Does anyone here think Caroline as an appointed dynastic sucessor is a good idea? Let her run in 2 years like the rest of us, until then appoint someone who has put in the prerequesite work.

[Hosakawa Tito]

47% of Americans probably wish we had a queen. 47% of Americans most likely lie about being able to tie their own shoes.

I'm with Lemur - Down with dynasties. Does anyone here think Caroline as an appointed dynastic sucessor is a good idea? Let her run in 2 years like the rest of us, until then appoint someone who has put in the prerequesite work.

That's a nice idealistic sentiment, but the cold cruel reality of power politics, not to mention human nature, dictates that this Senate seat will also be bought. It won't be as crude as the Illinois Guv's ebay auction style of shake-down, but the result will be the same. The hardest part of being an adequate Senator is what? Generating campaign contributions for oneself & party? How hard will that be even for a rookie Democrat in a Democrat Dominated state like NY, especially with the Kennedy dynasty money generating political machine. For a Guv looking at his own re-election needs in 3 years it's a no brainer. He might be blind but he can see, and he certainly isn't stupid. Let the peasants eat cake.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That's a nice idealistic sentiment, but the cold cruel reality of power politics, not to mention human nature, dictates that this Senate seat will also be bought. It won't be as crude as the Illinois Guv's ebay auction style of shake-down, but the result will be the same. The hardest part of being an adequate Senator is what? Generating campaign contributions for oneself & party? How hard will that be even for a rookie Democrat in a Democrat Dominated state like NY, especially with the Kennedy dynasty money generating political machine. For a Guv looking at his own re-election needs in 3 years it's a no brainer. He might be blind but he can see, and he certainly isn't stupid. Let the peasants eat cake.

Have you guys seen that SNL skit BTW? It is absolutely spot on and hilarious. Watch the whole thing.

THis is a link to "black voices" blog (http://www.blackvoices.com/blogs/2008/12/15/gov-paterson-parodied-on-snl-reactions/) with a full skit linked

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Caroline Shlossberg (sp?) is qualified for the Senate -- U.S. citizen, resident of the state in question, 30+ years of age. She's been an active political operator for a couple of years now, with most of her experience on the important side (=$) of the political equation. She is also a Kennedy by birth, so it lets us maintain a connection with the glory that was Camelot even after her ailing uncle shuffles off this mortal coil.

We've had people in Congress before simply because they were a celebrity of sorts. Its not a guarantee that they'll be any good in the office, but it doesn't preclude the possibility either. After all, most of the British officers who "stood firm" at Waterloo had purchased their commissions -- some without much in the way of intervening experience.

[Lemur]

Look, I know almost nothing about Caroline Kennedy, and I know full well that she meets the requirements for the Senate, such as they are.

It's just that I get all worked up about dynasties. It's just so ... so unamerican.

[Ironside]

Look, I know almost nothing about Caroline Kennedy, and I know full well that she meets the requirements for the Senate, such as they are.

It's just that I get all worked up about dynasties. It's just so ... so unamerican.

To change the subject a bit, what do you consider Obama II:s cabinet choise? And how is that compared on what you would guess McCain III would've ran with? :mellow:

It's both a serious question and a note about the US tendencies to name people dynastically. ~;p

[Louis VI the Fat]

Half a dozen threads are competing for this. It deals with Bush' legacy, with his War on the Environment, the War on Ordinary Americans, and the War on Political Decency. I'll put it here because it deals with the transition of power to Obama as much as with anything else.



After spending eight years at the helm of one of the most ideologically driven administrations in American history, George W. Bush is ending his presidency in characteristically aggressive fashion, with a swath of controversial measures designed to reward supporters and enrage opponents.

By the time he vacates the White House, he will have issued a record number of so-called 'midnight regulations' - so called because of the stealthy way they appear on the rule books - to undermine the administration of Barack Obama, many of which could take years to undo.

The regulations cover a vast policy area, ranging from healthcare to car safety to civil liberties. Many are focused on the environment and seek to ease regulations that limit pollution or restrict harmful industrial practices, such as dumping strip-mining waste. The Bush moves have outraged many watchdog groups. 'The regulations we have seen so far have been pretty bad,' said Matt Madia, a regulatory policy analyst at OMB Watch. 'The effects of all this are going to be severe.'

Bush can pass the rules because of a loophole in US law allowing him to put last-minute regulations into the Code of Federal Regulations, rules that have the same force as law. He can carry out many of his political aims without needing to force new laws through Congress. Outgoing presidents often use the loophole in their last weeks in office, but Bush has done this far more than Bill Clinton or his father, George Bush sr. He is on track to issue more 'midnight regulations' than any other previous president.

Many of these are radical and appear to pay off big business allies of the Republican party.
Bush' parting gifts (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/14/george-bush-midnight-regulations).

Thank you very much you bastard and if the world ever hears of you again after January 21st it will be a billion years too soon. :shame:

[Crazed Rabbit]

What does Bristol's illegitimate child have to do with Sullivan's specious contention that Trig was Sarah's baby? (Yikes, I got dizzy typing that sentence.) Meanwhile, Bristol's mama-in-law-to-be is having some problems with Johnny Law (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/254/story/58245.html).

Ah, so classy. Throwing in "illegitimate" and referencing her fiance's mother.

And Sullivan contended Trig was not Sarah's baby - that was the point behind this whole thing. Surely that is clear. You seemed to understand it when I posted earlier about this. And that is why Bristol giving birth some eight months after Trig was born should finally put Sullivan's "Trig was Bristol's baby" argument to rest. Why are you putting up such a stiff defense of Sullivan?


Bush' parting gifts.

Thank you very much you bastard and if the world ever hears of you again after January 21st it will be a billion years too soon.

Calm down. That Guardian article is full of bull excrement.

Take this one example:


Allow people to carry loaded and concealed weapons in national parks.


That has nothing to do with Bush pushing through some last minute regulatory change. The Department of Parks (or whatever federal office controls the regulations on carrying guns in National Parks) opened up the possibility of a rule change earlier this year after years of activism by people trying to get rid of the stupid federal prohibition on loaded guns in national parks. The public comment period around summertime was extended beyond the usual time frame for people wanting to comment on the proposed change.

After all that the agency decided to change the regulation to have the legality of carrying weapons decided by applicable state law - basically making the law in national parks equal to the law in the rest of the state the park is in. The agency also issued a lengthy report on the subject a while ago that you can look up, in which they addressed numerous concerns from gun-control pansies like Guardian writers.

So now, when I'm walking in a national forest with my legally carried gun, I no longer have to worry about being thrown in jail when I cross the imaginary line into a national park.

CR

[Lemur]

Sullivan contended Trig was not Sarah's baby - that was the point behind this whole thing.
Not quite right, friend. Sullivan wanted Palin to release her medical records, a step she never took, but said she would take if she became VP. Kinda odd, you'll have to admit.

And yeah, Sully got suspicious about Trig's matrimony, a blind alley he spent a good deal of time barking at. I don't agree, although I understand why he was suspicious, seeing as Palin claims to have gone into labor in Texas and given birth in Alaska (http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/apr/22/palins-flight-labor-falls-under-scrutiny/), taking an eight-hour flight while in labor. Probably just another BS story from her, but Sully took it to a strange and unexpected place. And to repeat, she never released any medical records (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/palins-medical.html), so he wasn't being completely bat-guano crazy.


You seemed to understand it when I posted earlier about this. And that is why Bristol giving birth some eight months after Trig was born should finally put Sullivan's "Trig was Bristol's baby" argument to rest. Why are you putting up such a stiff defense of Sullivan?
"Understand" what? Did I not choose to engage you on one of your many anti-Sullivan rants? Does that mean I agree with you? Fascinating.

You don't appear to even understand the arguments you're disagreeing with, seeing as you've been incapable of summarizing Sullivan's arguments so far. I don't argee with him, but at least I understand what he's written. All you've got is the Malkin summary.

-edit-

Ah, doing some digging it seems that the McCain/Palin campaign released a two-page letter (http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/11/03/19/110308SHP.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf) from a physician on November 3rd, and then declared that it had released all relevant medical info about Palin. I suppose that should be enough to satisfy ardent partisans, but for normal people it raises more questions than it answers.

-edit of the edit-

Clearly, you're just trying to deistract yourself from your real issue: Uncontrollable attraction to our hot, black President-elect:


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/HotObama.jpg

I'm not sure I want our President to be cut like that ...

[Crazed Rabbit]

Not quite right, friend. Sullivan wanted Palin to release her medical records, a step she never took, but said she would take if she became VP. Kinda odd, you'll have to admit.

And yeah, Sully got suspicious about Trig's matrimony, a blind alley he spent a good deal of time barking at. I don't agree, although I understand why he was suspicious, seeing as Palin claims to have gone into labor in Texas and given birth in Alaska (http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/apr/22/palins-flight-labor-falls-under-scrutiny/), taking an eight-hour flight while in labor. Probably just another BS story from her, but Sully took it to a strange and unexpected place. And to repeat, she never released any medical records (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/palins-medical.html), so he wasn't being completely bat-guano crazy.

He was definitely dog-**** crazy though, even if it didn't rise to the same exotic level as bat-guano crazy. Not a 9/11 truther style crazy, but far out there nevertheless. The point is that this story should finally kill his suspicions.


"Understand" what? Did I not choose to engage you on one of your many anti-Sullivan rants? Does that mean I agree with you? Fascinating.

You don't appear to even understand the arguments you're disagreeing with, seeing as you've been incapable of summarizing Sullivan's arguments so far. I don't argee with him, but at least I understand what he's written. All you've got is the Malkin summary.

No, you said:

Sullivan's specious contention that Trig was Sarah's baby?

That wasn't his contention. And I haven't read anything from Malkin since before the GOP convention. Also; one of my many "anti-sullivan rants"? At my last count, I've posted twice about Sullivan's strange obsession with Trig's mother.


Ah, doing some digging it seems that the McCain/Palin campaign released a two-page letter (http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/11/03/19/110308SHP.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf) from a physician on November 3rd, and then declared that it had released all relevant medical info about Palin. I suppose that should be enough to satisfy ardent partisans, but for normal people it raises more questions than it answers.

I never really cared.


Clearly, you're just trying to deistract yourself from your real issue: Uncontrollable attraction to our hot, black President-elect:


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/HotObama.jpg

I'm not sure I want our President to be cut like that ...

There's a poll going on at Drudge and Putin, oddly, is winning. I love the link name for the photo, by the way.

CR

[Marshal Murat]

Putin is "built" where Obama is "athletic".

[Louis VI the Fat]

Calm down. That Guardian article is full of bull excrement.Well I am delighted for you that you can take a walk in a park fully armed. My ire is more over the War on the Environment midnight legislation, none of them quite as sustainable and biodegradable as bull excrement.


Many of these are radical and appear to pay off big business allies of the Republican party. One rule will make it easier for coal companies to dump debris from strip mining into valleys and streams. The process is part of an environmentally damaging technique known as 'mountain-top removal mining'. It involves literally removing the top of a mountain to excavate a coal seam and pouring the debris into a valley, which is then filled up with rock. The new rule will make that dumping easier.

Another midnight regulation will allow power companies to build coal-fired power stations nearer to national parks. Yet another regulation will allow coal-fired stations to increase their emissions without installing new anti-pollution equipment.

The Environmental Defence Fund has called the moves a 'fire sale of epic size for coal'. Other environmental groups agree. 'The only motivation for some of these rules is to benefit the business interests that the Bush administration has served,' said Ed Hopkins, a director of environmental quality at the Sierra Club. A case in point would seem to be a rule that opens up millions of acres of land to oil shale extraction, which environmental groups say is highly pollutant.

One more chips away at the protection of endangered species.
Not to mention, a War on the Health and Safety of the American people:

There is a long list of other new regulations that have gone onto the books. One lengthens the number of hours that truck drivers can drive without rest. Another surrenders government control of rerouting the rail transport of hazardous materials around densely populated areas and gives it to the rail companies.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Al Franken has taken a VERY narrow lead in the Minnesota recount.

This could be THE cinderalla story of the election. From Coke-crazed comic to civic centerpiece in 3 decades!

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well I am delighted for you that you can take a walk in a park fully armed. My ire is more over the War on the Environment midnight legislation, none of them quite as sustainable and biodegradable as bull excrement.


Not to mention, a War on the Health and Safety of the American people:

My point is, if they are so very wrong on that issue, the Guardian is likely to be very wrong on the other issues as well. So they all they say with a grain several pounds of salt.

CR

[Strike For The South]

Obama has gyno. Who knew?

[Tribesman]

So now, when I'm walking in a national forest with my legally carried gun, I no longer have to worry about being thrown in jail when I cross the imaginary line into a national park.

But you now have to worry about being thrown in jail if while carrying your legal gun in a national park you cross an imaginary line into another state that has different gun laws

[Crazed Rabbit]

Nah, you can't stumble across the Columbia River.

Anyway, here's a priceless quote from Caroline Schlossberg Kennedy that shows she doesn't understand the basic concepts of mathematics (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j1Ip3ozUR59_dUPZBfwDdRBUpbRgD95AIV5G0):

"I came into this thinking I have to work twice as hard as anybody else," she said. "I am an unconventional choice."

Ooo, sorry Caroline, but the word you were looking for is half. You have to work half as hard as anybody else to get the appointment.

Can we please get anybody but her in the seat?

CR

[Tribesman]

Nah, you can't stumble across the Columbia River.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
How many national parks contain more than one State Rabbit ?
But hey for a better one how far north of boundary creek would you walk to still be in a national park but not even in the same country ? or even better what natural barrier east of the lake is there to mark the border ?
Crossing imaginary lines with your gun :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I see most of the same old crew is still haning out here. Happy New Year guys


As to the elections why do we even bother. Its a sad joke.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Happy New Year to you too, Gawain. You have been much missed - it would have been especially interesting to have had your input in this thread.

[Lemur]

Gawain! An entire election passed without ye! Nice to see you back, pardner.

[Kralizec]

I see most of the same old crew is still haning out here. Happy New Year guys


As to the elections why do we even bother. Its a sad joke.

Happy new year, and welcome back!

[Hooahguy]

I see most of the same old crew is still haning out here. Happy New Year guys


As to the elections why do we even bother. Its a sad joke.
wow. over 13,000 posts.... :jawdrop:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

wow. over 13,000 posts....

Well Im slipping as ive been away a year or so. At least from here. Not in any trouble as good old Tribsy would infer
:)

Who do you want the old shmuck or the young shmuck.

[Hooahguy]

Well Im slipping as ive been away a year or so. At least from here. Not in any trouble as good old Tribsy would infer
:)

Who do you want the old shmuck or the young shmuck.
whichever shmuck is the best for the org :beam:

[Proletariat]

whichever shmuck is the best for the org :beam:

I think I speak for many when I vouch that both of these pains in the ass are very integral to the backroom, if not the org.

:bow:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I concur with milady. Both voices are of value.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I see most of the same old crew is still haning out here. Happy New Year guys


As to the elections why do we even bother. Its a sad joke.

GAWAIN! You've returned! Welcome back! Happy New Year!

I hope you're doing good and had a Merry Christmas.

Crazed Rabbit

[CrossLOPER]

I see most of the same old crew is still haning out here. Happy New Year guys


As to the elections why do we even bother. Its a sad joke.
Hello to you too!

[Hooahguy]

just curious, but will this thread be closed when obamas takes office?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Yes, I think we'll have done with it by then.

I had expected it to slowly fade from the scene, but people still find new information to slot in here. Anyway, I think I'm right in saying there is still a senatorial recount going on, and that strictly the Electoral College votes have not been counted and verified by Congress, so the presidential election is still in doubt? :book2:

[CountArach]

Anyway, I think I'm right in saying there is still a senatorial recount going on
Indeed, Franken has pulled ahead of Coleman in the recount, but it will not be completed until early to mid January.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The College of Electors have already cast their votes. This results of this vote will be reviewed and certified by Congress as their first act of business on 6 January 2009. Actually, Obama is only President-elect as of that certification, though that is really being picayune.

The 11/2008 elections will not be fully concluded until the finish of the MN recount and the certification thereof by the Minnesota legislature. Looks as though we'll be seeing Senator Franken -- his attorneys are doing a better job with ballots than are Coleman's.

[Lemur]

Looks as though we'll be seeing Senator Franken
I had my hopes pinned on the Lizard People. It's about time Minnesota sent a Sleestax-American (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071005/usercomments) to the Senate.


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/coleman-franken2.jpg

[Martok]

Al Franken has taken a VERY narrow lead in the Minnesota recount.

This could be THE cinderalla story of the election. From Coke-crazed comic to civic centerpiece in 3 decades!

....Which, incidentally, appears to be about how long this ****in' recount is going to take. :wall:


Seriously, it would be nice to have a Senator in time for the new session. [grumbles]

[Crazed Rabbit]

Blagofabitch has appointed someone to the Senate seat (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/12/blagojevich-to-name-burris-to-senate.html) - the former Illinois Attorney General, Roland Burris.

A former black panther, now Congressman from Illinois, Bobby Rush, approved on the grounds that Burris is black.

The Democrats and Obama are standing firm, right now, in opposition to any pick by Blagofabitch and are saying they will refuse to seat him.

CR

[CountArach]

Actually Reid has very few legitimate powers (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/12/reid-has-few-ways-to-block-burris.html) to block the appointment:

The notion that the Democrats can refuse to seat Roland Burris out of hand is, at best, constitutionally dodgy. This is because of the Supreme Court's 1967 Powell v McCormack decision, in which it ruled that the Congress's power to judge the qualifications of its members is expressly limited to the conditions mentioned in the Constitution (e.g. age, residency, and U.S. Citizenship). If the Congress wants to deny membership for any other reason, it has another power, which is expulsion. Although the power of expulsion is much broader than the power of exclusion, it comes with a higher price tag: two-thirds of the Senate must vote to expel one of its members rather than a simple majority.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Roland Burris, the appointee, is a scumbag worse than Blagofabitc (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/16981.html)h.

In 1992 he tried to get an innocent man executed while he was running for governor - maybe to look tough, maybe because he had no regard for law or justice, or maybe because he is startlingly incompetent. By that time another man had already confessed and a police detective and prosecutor had resigned in protest of the continued prosecution of Rolando Cruz.

In 1995 the prosecution continued even after DNA evidence showed Cruz didn't commit the crime. He was finally released after the state supreme court ordered a new trial which did not exclude the confession of the other man.

Blagofabitch took bribes. Burris tried to commit murder.

CR

[Lemur]

CR, could you just once post Blagodinnerjacket/Burris posts in the thread created for that purpose? (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=110368)

[Crazed Rabbit]

Hey, it has to do with the election as well, especially with the considerations of how the democrats say they are going to block the appointment. But I'll copy my post over there just for you.

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

CR, could you just once post Blagodinnerjacket/Burris posts in the thread created for that purpose? (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=110368)

Lemur just hates when you attack his side, because he is a notorious partisan. I'm suprised though, because even his side is against this appointment.

It would probably be well placed in the other thread as well, but we are trying to tie it into a larger narrative - since it is tied inexorably to the '08 election, I think it belongs here, as does the Franken/Coleman race and the Kennedy appointment.

Burris is being appointed because of the election of Barack Obama and will be a new Senator to be seated in the new Congress along with all of the other, slightly more elected newcomers.

[Lemur]

Yes, it's clearly my partisan bias, my mouth-frothing liberalism on the line when I ask that someone post in the thread Devastatin' Dave created about Blago. In fact, I got the idea of asking CR to post in there from MoveOn.org and the National Earth Shoe Appreciators' Lesbian Society, where I get my marching orders.

TuffStuff, what's gotten into you? You used to wait until you had some sort of basis before making the ad hominem assaults?

-edit-

Oh, I see, you can't possibly discuss the Illinois corruption explosion in the thread DevDave created for it, 'cause that wouldn't allow you to tie it in with all Democrats everywhere, which would violate your First Amendment rights or something. Claro que si.


Burris is being appointed because of the election of Barack Obama and will be a new Senator to be seated in the new Congress along with all of the other, slightly more elected newcomers.
And all of it is happening on Earth, which means that we should move these comments to the Science Forum.

I'm terribly sorry I asked anyone to move any posts to a more closely-related thread. I blame DevDave for starting a Blago thread in the first place. How dare he?

[ICantSpellDawg]

TuffStuff, what's gotten into you? You used to wait until you had some sort of basis before making the ad hominem assaults?


What discussion of the '08 replacement of Senator Obama is appropriate here, only that which shines neutrally of favorably on the Democratic party?

I don't care about the Blago nonsense - I just don't see why you deem it necessary to effect some restriction on an applicable topic. This is the Election thread - yet you've made it seem like associating Burris as a replacement to the Senate seat held, until now, by Obama is as unrelated as politics is to science?

[Lemur]

What discussion of the '08 replacement of Senator Obama is appropriate here, only that which shines neutrally of favorably on the Democratic party?
All I have done to excite the ire and vitriol of you and CR was to ask that the discussion of Blago be moved to the thread DevDave created for that purpose.

Show me where I have said that you must discuss Dems in a positive light. Show me where I have been a frothy partisan on this topic. Show us all, please.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Lots of adjectives

I never called you a frothing partisan. I was trying to say something simple.

The appointment of Burris applies to the election thread.

I'm off to "spew my vitriol" all over myself.

[Crazed Rabbit]

For cryin' out loud, how in the world did this become such a conflagration?

I guess my tone and inflection didn't translate well over the internet.

CR

[Lemur]

I never called you a frothing partisan.

Lemur just hates when you attack his side, because he is a notorious partisan.
I see, so the key difference is between "frothing" and "notorious."

[ICantSpellDawg]

For cryin' out loud, how in the world did this become such a conflagration?

I guess my tone and inflection didn't translate well over the internet.

CR

Tone and inflection rarely translate well over the internet.

I'm sorry for calling Lemur a notorious partisan. It is clear from his numerous posts in the Blago thread that he is capable of making fun of Democrats as well as Republicans. Although I believe that he clearly has biases as we all do; I understand that, like the rest of us, he is more interested in stifling corruption than simple partisanship.

While I don't care all that much about the Blago fiasco because I recognize that corruption follows both parties to an almost identical degree, I don't see why we can't talk about Burris in the election thread as well as the "Blago is a jerk" thread.

Although I shouldn't make unfounded ad-hominem attacks, I reserve my right to disagree with Lemur about where the topic is appropriate. I think my pettiness regarding the defense of the topic in the Election thread is comparable to his pettiness about it not being here. If someone doesn't think that is fair, please say so.