View Full Version : U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions
KukriKhan
02-07-2008, 04:25
After consulting with several of the usual posters in the previous US election-threads, consensus was reached that we would keep US election-related information in a single thread - at least until the major party conventions in late summer.
So: here it is.
I'll now close the other threads.
Happy hunting. May the best candidate win!
KukriKhan
02-07-2008, 04:32
p.s. Moderators can add and remove polls, as requested. So let us know if you think one (poll) is appropriate.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-07-2008, 10:38
Funny story, Clinton loaned her campaign $5 Million from her personal fortune yesterday, and Obama raised $6.5 Million through donations yesterday. The next 10 states favor him pretty heavily two. Most of them are either caucases or heavily black states.
You can read up on Billary's sleazy contributors here (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=076fd56f-4aca-4683-a9d1-3c55d748946e). Good article.
Vladimir
02-07-2008, 16:00
Obama: The lesser of the two greater evils. :devil:
Obama: The lesser of the two greater evils. :devil:
So sayeth the people who voted for George W. Bush twice.
Good video interview with Richard Brookheiser (http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=147182), Senior Editor of National Review.
-edit-
A couple of threads ago, Xiahou linked to National Journal's predictable press release (http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/) that Obama and Hillary are teh most liberal Senators evar. He also linked to what they claimed was their methodology, which just happens to result in the Dem frontrunners being the most liberal people two presidential campaigns in a row. Doubtless they'll do the same thing in 2012, since it's working so well for them.
I linked to a liberal group (http://progressivepunch.yvod.com/members.jsp?search=selectScore&chamber=Senate&scoreSort=current_close), which also monitors Senate votes for the benefit of its granola-eating constituency, and which came to very different conclusions. Xiahou denounced this as "linking to a liberal blog," sniffed meningfully, re-donned his ascot and went back to his cognac.
To once again demonstrate how empty the National Journal's rankings are, I now present you with the American Conservative Union's ratings (http://www.conservative.org/archive2/2008potus.asp). Of particular interest: Their Senate Standouts (http://www.conservative.org/archive2/Senate_standout.asp). Note that their "Best of the Best" and "Worst of the Worst" don't include any of the candidates currently running for office. Interesting, is it not, that a group devoted to conservatism would arrive at such variant conclusions?
So we have the possibility that National Journal is just doing honest vote counts, and somehow wound up nominating the Democratic frontrunners as the most liberal Senators ever; or we have the possibility that National Journal (a well-respected magazine in a state of perpetual subscriber decline (http://atlanticmedia.files.cms-plus.com/NationalJournal/2006/PDFs/NJ%20BPA%20June%202007.pdf)) got a nice bump when its ratings were used as national talking points four years ago, and is looking for the same thing this year.
Vladimir
02-07-2008, 18:29
I'll take squishy over evil any day.
:unitedstates: PEOPLE OF THE WORLD UNITE! Break the mod monopoly! :unitedstates:
Rumors from the GOP party have it that Romney is going to "suspend" his campaign.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/07/romney.campaign/index.html
(CNN) -- Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney will suspend his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, GOP sources tell CNN.
Romney had won 270 delegates in through the Super Tuesday contests, compared with front-runner John McCain's 680.
Suspending a campaign has a different meaning depending on the party.
On the Republican side, decisions on how to allocate delegates is left to the state parties.
...
Romney is expected to announce his decision Thursday afternoon at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, three Republican sources told CNN.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/02/romney_considering_dropping_ou.html?hpid=topnews
Seamus Fermanagh
02-07-2008, 18:50
So sayeth the people who voted for George W. Bush twice.
Lemur, be fair.
Dubya won twice because time #1 he faced A wooden indian who couldn't even charm a small majority of his home state and Nader siphoned off the really whackoid fringe. Didn't help that Billary had polarized everything and tarred Gore with their brush.
Duya then won time #2 facing a classic NE liberal patrician whose message, not surprisingly, fell on nearly deaf ears between the rockies and appalachians and anywhere south of the Mason-Dixon line (and still would have lost if 50k worth of votes shifted in ohio alone)
ANY compelling democrat who wasn't a rabid liberal would have beaten George in either contest. Gore wasn't compelling and Kerry was a waste of electoral time.
Dubya won twice because time #1 he faced A wooden indian who couldn't even charm a small majority of his home state and Nader siphoned off the really whackoid fringe.
How many time do I have to say it? Gore won his home state, he got all 3 electoral votes from DC. ~D
Edit-> and it's official, Romney in a speech told the Conservative Political Action Committee that's he's out to help the GOP's chances in the national election.
Vladimir
02-07-2008, 20:49
Why is Hick-a-bee still in?
Why is Hick-a-bee still in?
Because unlike Romney who was sensible enough to read and acknowledge the writing on the wall the Huckster's raging hidden ego won't let him quit...
Or... the Huckster is hanging around for a VP nod from McCain, which depending on the variables, could prove to be beneficial or harmful to McCain in the general election. McCain will get the Religious Right's vote no matter who he nominates as his running mate so I'm guessing the Huckster and all his political baggage would be a bad choice. The one luxury McCain has going for him against Billary or the Magic Negro is that the thought of either of them (or *shudders* both of them) running the Executive Branch makes conservatives of all stripes collectively crap their pants...
Yet another presidential election determined by fear of the alternative... how sad.
Someone please tell me what happened to the moderate voice of the Democratic Party? Was Lieberman the last of that breed before he jumped ship?
Seamus Fermanagh
02-07-2008, 21:06
Because unlike Romney who was sensible enough to read and acknowledge the writing on the wall the Huckster's raging hidden ego won't let him quit...
Or... the Huckster is hanging around for a VP nod from McCain, which depending on the variables, could prove to be beneficial or harmful to McCain in the general election. McCain will get the Religious Right's vote no matter who he nominates as his running mate so I'm guessing the Huckster and all his political baggage would be a bad choice. The one luxury McCain has going for him against Billary or the Magic Negro is that the thought of either of them (or *shudders* both of them) running the Executive Branch makes conservatives of all stripes collectively crap their pants...
Someone please tell me what happened to the moderate voice of the Democratic Party? Was Lieberman the last of that breed before he jumped ship?
McCain Huckabee may well be necessary. McCain is not young, and the guy "a heartbeat" away will carry a hint more importance than sometimes.
McCain may well need him not because the RR is likely to vote Dem -- it ain't gonna happen -- but becaues they might look at McCain and stay home figuring that 4 years of Obama or Clinton will re-energize the right wing by providing a shock treatment reminder.
Do NOT underestimate Obama. He is charming, he is glib, the values he advocates are universal (even if conservatives like myself disagree ENTIRELY with his methods for fuflilling them) and he does not have a lengthy track record or polarizing style that makes him an easy electoral target. If you want an easier --not easy, just easier -- "target" for McCain to go against, then start working for Hil's nomination. Obama will take McCain by 3 points in the general in a head to head.
Seamus Fermanagh
02-07-2008, 21:08
How many time do I have to say it? Gore won his home state, he got all 3 electoral votes from DC. ~D
Edit-> and it's official, Romney in a speech told the Conservative Political Action Committee that's he's out to help the GOP's chances in the national election.
Well, ostensible home state then -- he really was a total inside-the-beltway creature wasn't he. Probably got jittery whenever he was too far away from Foggy Bottom and People's Department of State.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-07-2008, 22:26
https://img340.imageshack.us/img340/6733/clintonob8.png
https://img340.imageshack.us/img340/9035/cfv0207021749110abtt1.png
McCain Huckabee may well be necessary. McCain is not young, and the guy "a heartbeat" away will carry a hint more importance than sometimes.
McCain may well need him not because the RR is likely to vote Dem -- it ain't gonna happen -- but becaues they might look at McCain and stay home figuring that 4 years of Obama or Clinton will re-energize the right wing by providing a shock treatment reminder.
Do NOT underestimate Obama. He is charming, he is glib, the values he advocates are universal (even if conservatives like myself disagree ENTIRELY with his methods for fuflilling them) and he does not have a lengthy track record or polarizing style that makes him an easy electoral target. If you want an easier --not easy, just easier -- "target" for McCain to go against, then start working for Hil's nomination. Obama will take McCain by 3 points in the general in a head to head.
I do not underestimate Obama. His ridiculous popularity only cements my already low opinion of the common man and his penchance for resembling a moth when confronted with a flickering flame. I guess Charles Dickens and PT Barnum really knew their stuff, eh? When it comes down to it all one needs is bloated rhetoric, bright colors, flashy style and graceful hand gestures to win the hearts and minds of John Q. Pleb. I refer to Obama as the Magic Negro because he somewhat embodies the term coined by Spike Lee when referring to the depiction of blacks in American cinema. What is a Magic Negro? A troubled, downtrodden, noble and wisened black character, typically male, who possesses a deep, spiritual insight into the workings of the world and demonstrate a willingness to sacrifice themselves for the white protagonist(s). Obama with his broken family history, rumors of drug abuse and dealing in his youth, impressive education, poetic rhetoric and 'lifetime of public service' to America (read: career politician) should be on his knees thanking his God for Hollyweird stereotypes and everything it has done for his career.
Seriously now, at some point Obama will have to dispense with the rhetoric and deal with the specific issues that are at the forefront of political discussion in this country. McCain is going to have a field day calling Obama on his less savory positions such as drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, universal healthcare, total withdrawal from Iraq, open dialogue with states (Iran) that openly call for the destruction of our allies, elimination of tax cuts, etc. If Obama relies purely on rhetoric he is going to run the risk of looking like someone who would rather duck the question than face the music. If he contradicts his established positions he's going to look like a liar and a political opportunist. On the other hand Obama cannot call McCain on his political and idealogical inconsistencies because many of them jibe with conventional Democratic thinking. Doing so will force Obama to run the risk of persuading undecided voters that McCain is actually Democrat friendly and thanks to his political resume, is more qualified to solve problems in a manner they find more agreeable.
Yes, Obama is charming, glib and the values he advocates are universal... but so was Kerry and he got whooped when he ran against GW Bush, a man loathed by liberals, barely tolerated by moderates and considered a reluctant bedfellow of true conservatives. GW Bush was a president who could have been easily unseated if a moderate Democrat ran against him. Despite the fact that George fumbled and bumbled his way through the debates, demonstrating his infamous 'Cindy Brady on camera' imitation, he still pulled off a stunning victory. A victory due to the fact that the average American is more afraid of a radical liberal than a hardcore conservative.
McCain is not loathed by liberals, in fact he is considered by the left to be the most likable and palatable Republican of the current lot. Add to the mix Naval officer, decorated war hero, tortured POW, experienced Senator, etc. and he's much more bankable than he appears.
True, Obama may not have a track record to attack but that is as much a failing as it is a strength. The expression "What have you done for me lately?" comes to mind.
Spino's list of hush hush, politically incorrect variables that make voters choose John McCain to be next president of the United States.
Shock! Surprise! Race will be a deciding factor. Obama is black, or half-black, and according to the fabled 'one drop rule' that makes him all black?!? And being black is what will lose him the Southern states, select Midwestern states, the Hispanic vote and possibly much more than 50% of Asian vote (which typically splits down the middle between parties for general elections). The Hispanic vote is not debatable, there is open animosity between blacks and Hispanics (especially the Central American variety) who happen to compete for low paying jobs and government benefits. The most rabidly anti-black racism I have ever heard has consistently emanated from the mouths of Hispanics of all ages. Add to the mix the fact that Hispanics are more likely to be practicing, dedicated Catholics and that Obama has a Muslim name... Intellectualize this all you like but this has already played out in the primaries. Obama will not win Florida in a general election. He may take the big point states like California or New York but he'll be fighting tooth and nail for them and will probably only come away with one (I think New York is a safe bet). It is conceivable we could be looking at a landslide victory for McCain. No? Again, remind me who Gore and Kerry lost to in the last two elections?
Barack Hussein Obama. Muslim name. Muslim name. Muslim name. Last but not least please consider the fact that Obama has a Muslim name, hails from a Muslim family and experienced a childhood where he was raised and educated as a Muslim in a Muslim environment. I don't care how much of a Christian he says he is or how much loves Jesus from the pulpit of southern black churches his background WILL play on people's subconscious minds come election time. 10-15 years of Islamic extremism is dancing about in American's collective subconscious and the mere hint of association can easily sour the mind of an undecided voter.
Hey Sasaki, this is a Republic, not a Democracy. Those same marvelous polls showed Gore and Kerry beating GW Bush in the general election, and we all know how those elections turned out, especially the latter...
The possibility of seeing The Obamination in the white house really scares me. I don't understand what is it that people see in him.
Vladimir
02-07-2008, 22:57
What the hell is Survey USA? :inquisitive:
GW Bush, a man loathed by liberals, barely tolerated by moderates and considered a reluctant bedfellow of true conservatives.
Actually, you don't hit and maintain a 32% approval if you're "tolerated" by moderates (http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1057a2BushFinalYear.pdf). Indies and moddies don't like GWB any more than anybody else.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled rant ...
Vladimir
02-08-2008, 00:04
Actually, you don't hit and maintain a 32% approval if you're "tolerated" by moderates (http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1057a2BushFinalYear.pdf). Indies and moddies don't like GWB any more than anybody else.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled rant ...
Something which you know all about...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=18
How's 18%? Better or worse than 32?
Well, if Congress has a lower approval rating, then everything's alright then. Glad you cleared that up.
woad&fangs
02-08-2008, 00:47
Shock! Surprise! Race will be a deciding factor. Obama is black, or half-black, and according to the fabled 'one drop rule' that makes him all black?!? And being black is what will lose him the Southern states, select Midwestern states, the Hispanic vote and possibly much more than 50% of Asian vote (which typically splits down the middle between parties for general elections). The Hispanic vote is not debatable, there is open animosity between blacks and Hispanics (especially the Central American variety) who happen to compete for low paying jobs and government benefits. The most rabidly anti-black racism I have ever heard has consistently emanated from the mouths of Hispanics of all ages. Add to the mix the fact that Hispanics are more likely to be practicing, dedicated Catholics and that Obama has a Muslim name... Intellectualize this all you like but this has already played out in the primaries. Obama will not win Florida in a general election. He may take the big point states like California or New York but he'll be fighting tooth and nail for them and will probably only come away with one (I think New York is a safe bet). It is conceivable we could be looking at a landslide victory for McCain. No? Again, remind me who Gore and Kerry lost to in the last two elections?
Ummm, Obama won the Deep south Primaries, not Hillary. You are right about the hispanic vote. They'd be split in a Hillary vs McCain contest but a large majority would vote Mcain if the race was Obama vs McCain. I agree that Obama will not take Florida. New York is a question mark. California will go to the democrat nominee no matter what.
So in my Opinion-
Obama takes the deep south, California, Massachusetts(unless Romney is the VP candidate), Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, Hawaii, Oregon and a few others.
Mcain takes the Northeast, Texas, the great plains and rockies and the midwest aside from the states already mentioned.
One last thing. If Obama chooses Hillary or Edwards as his running mate then he loses. Hillary as VP destroys his message of change. Edwards as VP bolsters the accusations of inexperience.
McCain will probably choose Huckabee so he can steal the south from Obama.
Obama takes the deep south...
Woad, I just don't see Obama taking any red state. Obama won the Democratic primaries there because of the black vote which always goes to dems anyway. If anything, his candidacy in that region might help galvanize local conservatives to show up in numbers and help McCain carry the South.
imho.
Marshal Murat
02-08-2008, 01:40
While the 'South' may seem a conservative hot-bed to many, it has broken the back of a 'Southern' candidate named Clinton. If anything, I think it'll be split in most states. While it's easy to say that Obama will galvanize the conservatives into action, the situation in the South is far more complicated.
Also, from what I hear, Crist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Crist) may be McCain's running mate, rather than Romney or Huckabee.
Tristrem
02-08-2008, 02:37
As far as the Demcrats go, I really only see one option, and that is Obama winning the nomination. Think of the movement he has started, all the new people he has brought into the political arena. These are people who are fed up with the system and want whole sale change. People are realizing that we need change, and he is inspiring a new generation to participate in politics. If it comes down to the super delegates they will have to choose him. He, or his idea of change will not fade into the background, and Billary and McCain will not change anything. So these people will stop campaigning for this movement and move on to protests in washington dc. Marches on washington have happened before, and they can happen again. The establishment don't want this, therefore they win let him win and try to control his actions once he gets into office.
A little idealistic I know, but one can dream of this happening.
I refer to Obama as the Magic Negro because he somewhat embodies the term coined by Spike Lee when referring to the depiction of blacks in American cinema. What is a Magic Negro? A troubled, downtrodden, noble and wisened black character, typically male, who possesses a deep, spiritual insight into the workings of the world and demonstrate a willingness to sacrifice themselves for the white protagonist(s).
I think the Magic Negro reference is silly. Obama is doing well because he does not look troubled and downtrodden - he appears optimistic and successful, without some of the baggage often associated with African Americans. He's looking surprisingly strong against Hilary because - quite contrary to the cinematic archetype - he is not subservient to whites. (His jibe that he would welcome her as one of his foreign affairs advisors being exhibit A here). And it's an inappropriate term because there is nothing "magic" about making a decent speech, although perhaps 7 years of GW have made Americans forget that. (Bill Clinton was/is no slouch at public speaking, nor was Reagan, nor was Nixon, Kennedy ...) Really, when people like Rush Limbaugh use "Magic Negro" to label Obama, I don't think there is any content to it other than the obvious racial one - just cross out the word "Magic" and it would serve as well.
McCain is going to have a field day calling Obama on his less savory positions such as drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, universal healthcare, total withdrawal from Iraq, open dialogue with states (Iran) that openly call for the destruction of our allies, elimination of tax cuts, etc.
Maybe, although I suspect it is such "unsavory" things as support for universal healthcare that account for his popularity with many non-American Orgahs. Who knows, perhaps Americans are ready for a change? The fact that they probably know in their heart of hearts that they will withdraw from Iraq, they will (and are) in dialogue with Iran, they will have to deal with the budget deficit etc means that Obama's strong positions on these issues may not seem so far out and may even be seen as providing leadership.
Spino's list of hush hush, politically incorrect variables that make voters choose John McCain to be next president of the United States.
....Race will be a deciding factor. ....Muslim name. Muslim name. Muslim name. ...
At this point, I don't really care about Obama's virtues. Put it like that, and I hope he wins just because it would show America is not the place you think it is.
McCain is not loathed by liberals, in fact he is considered by the left to be the most likable and palatable Republican of the current lot. Add to the mix Naval officer, decorated war hero, tortured POW, experienced Senator, etc. and he's much more bankable than he appears.
Yes, as a liberal albeit a Euro, McCain seems the most televisual and charming of the candidates. Far from being "magical", Obama seems rather distant and cool. I suspect these days people often vote for the person they like the most, where "like" is taken literally and refers to personal charisma, warmth etc. It was in those aspects that GW Bush scored over Gore and Kerry (as did Clinton and Reagan before him).
At this point, I don't really care about Obama's virtues. Put it like that, and I hope he wins just because it would show America is not the place you think it is.
Whoa, whoa, wait a moment here. America is not trying to prove anything to anybody. America is trying to decide what is best for America. The fact that the guy is *in* the race shows very well that in backward racist Amurca a man of color can be considered a serious candidate for the presidential post while in the enlightened and tolerant Europe I do not ever remember seeing a black man standing a snowball's chance in Hell to get the post of either Prez or a PM. America doesn't need to prove anything to anybody, we're doing just fine here.
ICantSpellDawg
02-08-2008, 04:10
So now that Romney is out, I wuldn't vote in November unless he were to personally ask me to. I live in NY, so it doesn't matter anyway.
Billary and McCain will not change anything.
I disagree. McCain will not equate a third GWB term. McCain is a deficit hawk, for one thing, and believes in balancing the budget. This alone would be a massive shift in policy. Also, we can depend on McCain to be an abolitionist when it comes to torture, another massive shift.
Quite a lot would change under President McCain, and all of it for the better. But Billary? I'm with you there. More of the same.
Tristrem
02-08-2008, 04:46
Now in light of your post, I can't say that McCain wouldn't change a thing. He would defintly be an improvement over what we have now, but I think he would fall very short on the type of wholesale change many Obama supporters want. That being said, I personally think that McCain is like the safe choice, not very flashy, but he would be very dependable and I think he has shown great character. He has to know that even though Iraq might of not been the best choice, If we are going to be over there we have to do it right. We have to commit to it wholy or not commit at all. It was him who called far more troops on the ground long before Bush had even thought of it. That in itself shows great vision. I usually do not like most republican canidates, but he does have me warming up to the GOP. If it was between him and Obama, I would have a great dilema. I would be satisfied with the choices, but, i would not know who to choose. If Billary wins the nomination, I'd vote McCain without blinking an eye, and if she won the general election, i'd move to canada till she was gone.
Marshal Murat
02-08-2008, 04:50
That's the interesting thing about this race. Most of my policy positions lie with McCain (except for illegal immigration), and I would oppose most of Obama's positions. If it comes down to one or the other, I'm going Obama. If it's McCain vs. Billary, then it's going to be McCain, no matter what his previous record.
I've stated (to the surprise of others) that McCain will win vs. Hillary. Evidently, many of my friends are under the impression that Hillary, if and when she wins the Democratic nomination, will send out a subliminal shockwave that will turn all those Obama supporters into Hillary-bots. I was surprised, since most of Hillary's attacks have alienated younger voters, African-Americans, and anyone independent. I am under the impression that anyone who would support Obama would rather McCain than Clinton.
Thoughts of anyone north of the Mason-Dixon line?
Actually, you don't hit and maintain a 32% approval if you're "tolerated" by moderates (http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1057a2BushFinalYear.pdf). Indies and moddies don't like GWB any more than anybody else.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled rant ...
GW Bush had a higher approval rating (~45-50%) when he ran for re-election and his disapproval rating was around the same mark, thus my 'barely tolerated by moderates' line. His approval and disapproval ratings went from tepid to awful after he was re-elected.
As far as the Demcrats go, I really only see one option, and that is Obama winning the nomination. Think of the movement he has started, all the new people he has brought into the political arena. These are people who are fed up with the system and want whole sale change. People are realizing that we need change, and he is inspiring a new generation to participate in politics. If it comes down to the super delegates they will have to choose him. He, or his idea of change will not fade into the background, and Billary and McCain will not change anything. So these people will stop campaigning for this movement and move on to protests in washington dc. Marches on washington have happened before, and they can happen again. The establishment don't want this, therefore they win let him win and try to control his actions once he gets into office.
A little idealistic I know, but one can dream of this happening.
Ah the movement, the time for change, the encompassing of the young and disenfranchised and bringing them into the fold... They said the same thing about Clinton back in 1990. Rock the vote, smiles and good feelings all to the tune of Fleetwood Mac's greatest hits. A young candidate with new ideas and a fresh approach, no more 'politics as usual'.... utter BS. Clinton turned out to be one of the most corrupt Presidents in recent history.
They also said the same thing about Kerry when he ran against GW Bush. Kerry was the Ivy League scholar who would deliver us from GW's reign of terror! As Jesse Jackson so eloquently put it "Get out the Bush!" As MTV and P Diddy said "Vote or Die!" Change for what? Personally I found the argument against Bush when he ran for re-election to be far more persuasive than the one which currently touts Obama or Clinton as the next President and yet that Neo-Con goober defied the odds and took Kerry to the cleaners at election time. As I stated earlier, radical left wing politics makes the average American more worrisome than the right wing variety. But now that King Bush's reign is almost over what are we desperate to change to? Who is the boogie man going to be this time around? A name? A philisophy? The status quo? Do you not question why Hillary Clinton, the 'better half' of one of the most popular liberal presidents in recent history, a president who was absolutely beloved by the media, is being kicked to the curb by the party and the media who groveled at her feet up until a few months ago? Does this not tell you something about how the party operates and the caliber of the candidates it pushes to the forefront?
I think the Magic Negro reference is silly. Obama is doing well because he does not look troubled and downtrodden - he appears optimistic and successful, without some of the baggage often associated with African Americans. He's looking surprisingly strong against Hilary because - quite contrary to the cinematic archetype - he is not subservient to whites. (His jibe that he would welcome her as one of his foreign affairs advisors being exhibit A here). And it's an inappropriate term because there is nothing "magic" about making a decent speech, although perhaps 7 years of GW have made Americans forget that. (Bill Clinton was/is no slouch at public speaking, nor was Reagan, nor was Nixon, Kennedy ...) Really, when people like Rush Limbaugh use "Magic Negro" to label Obama, I don't think there is any content to it other than the obvious racial one - just cross out the word "Magic" and it would serve as well.
It is not whether Obama actually matches the definition of the term but it is the public's perception of him that compels me to define him as such.
Maybe, although I suspect it is such "unsavory" things as support for universal healthcare that account for his popularity with many non-American Orgahs. Who knows, perhaps Americans are ready for a change? The fact that they probably know in their heart of hearts that they will withdraw from Iraq, they will (and are) in dialogue with Iran, they will have to deal with the budget deficit etc means that Obama's strong positions on these issues may not seem so far out and may even be seen as providing leadership.
The point is do we need universal healthcare? It is a contentious issue because there hasn't been a serious and/or reasonable attempt by either party or a bi-partisan effort to reform the current system. Suddenly it's ok to toss caution into the wind and socialize the whole damn thing?
At this point, I don't really care about Obama's virtues. Put it like that, and I hope he wins just because it would show America is not the place you think it is.
Well it is, and the big wide world outside the west is even more unsettling when you get to know it better. You must be terribly depressed to learn that Obama carried the overwhelming majority of the black vote in ever primary so far despite the fact that the Clintons were previously loved by African-American voters. Clearly blacks are voting for Obama simply because he's black (and to be honest, not a raving lunatic like previous black candidates such as Sharpton).
Yes, as a liberal albeit a Euro, McCain seems the most televisual and charming of the candidates. Far from being "magical", Obama seems rather distant and cool. I suspect these days people often vote for the person they like the most, where "like" is taken literally and refers to personal charisma, warmth etc. It was in those aspects that GW Bush scored over Gore and Kerry (as did Clinton and Reagan before him).
Agreed but GW didn't win against Kerry because he was more likeable, he won because more voters were scared of Kerry than they were of GW.
It is not whether Obama actually matches the definition of the term but it is the public's perception of him that compels me to define him as such.
Oh come now, do you really need excuses for cribbing from Rush Limbaugh? 'Cause let's face it, the L.A. Times didn't popularize the connection; the fat boy did.
Oh come now, do you really need excuses for cribbing from Rush Limbaugh? 'Cause let's face it, the L.A. Times didn't popularize the connection; the fat boy did.
I first heard it from Al Sharpton's infamous song which I am sure is still all over youtube.
Ye lord, how misinformation takes on a life of its own. Here's the timeline:
March of 2007, L.A. Times columnist David Ehrenstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ehrenstein) writes a column about how he thinks Obama fits into the Magical Negro archetype. FWIW, Ehrenstein is a black man.
Never one to miss a chance to dance on the edge of a racial slur, fat boy Rush Limbaugh has a song recorded to the tune of Puff the Magic Dragon, in which an impersonator plays Al Sharpton bemoaning the rise of Obama, the "magic negro." Because a black dude said it first, he gets away with it.
And now people think Al Sharpton actually sang it. Ugh. A lie goes 'round the world while the truth is still getting its shoes on.
Ye lord, how misinformation takes on a life of its own. Here's the timeline:
March of 2007, L.A. Times columnist David Ehrenstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ehrenstein) writes a column about how he thinks Obama fits into the Magical Negro archetype. FWIW, Ehrenstein is a black man.
Never one to miss a chance to dance on the edge of a racial slur, fat boy Rush Limbaugh has a song recorded to the tune of Puff the Magic Dragon, in which an impersonator plays Al Sharpton bemoaning the rise of Obama, the "magic negro." Because a black dude said it first, he gets away with it.
And now people think Al Sharpton actually sang it. Ugh. A lie goes 'round the world while the truth is still getting its shoes on.
umm....https://youtube.com/watch?v=NgRFzALj7UQ
I assure you, rvg, that song came directly from Rush Limbaugh's show. And shocker of shockers, that isn't really Al Sharpton singing. Don't trust me, Google it for yourself.
seireikhaan
02-08-2008, 05:06
I do not underestimate Obama. His ridiculous popularity only cements my already low opinion of the common man and his penchance for resembling a moth when confronted with a flickering flame. I guess Charles Dickens and PT Barnum really knew their stuff, eh? When it comes down to it all one needs is bloated rhetoric, bright colors, flashy style and graceful hand gestures to win the hearts and minds of John Q. Pleb. I refer to Obama as the Magic Negro because he somewhat embodies the term coined by Spike Lee when referring to the depiction of blacks in American cinema. What is a Magic Negro? A troubled, downtrodden, noble and wisened black character, typically male, who possesses a deep, spiritual insight into the workings of the world and demonstrate a willingness to sacrifice themselves for the white protagonist(s). Obama with his broken family history, rumors of drug abuse and dealing in his youth, impressive education, poetic rhetoric and 'lifetime of public service' to America (read: career politician) should be on his knees thanking his God for Hollyweird stereotypes and everything it has done for his career.
Seriously now, at some point Obama will have to dispense with the rhetoric and deal with the specific issues that are at the forefront of political discussion in this country. McCain is going to have a field day calling Obama on his less savory positions such as drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, universal healthcare, total withdrawal from Iraq, open dialogue with states (Iran) that openly call for the destruction of our allies, elimination of tax cuts, etc. If Obama relies purely on rhetoric he is going to run the risk of looking like someone who would rather duck the question than face the music. If he contradicts his established positions he's going to look like a liar and a political opportunist. On the other hand Obama cannot call McCain on his political and idealogical inconsistencies because many of them jibe with conventional Democratic thinking. Doing so will force Obama to run the risk of persuading undecided voters that McCain is actually Democrat friendly and thanks to his political resume, is more qualified to solve problems in a manner they find more agreeable.
Yes, Obama is charming, glib and the values he advocates are universal... but so was Kerry and he got whooped when he ran against GW Bush, a man loathed by liberals, barely tolerated by moderates and considered a reluctant bedfellow of true conservatives. GW Bush was a president who could have been easily unseated if a moderate Democrat ran against him. Despite the fact that George fumbled and bumbled his way through the debates, demonstrating his infamous 'Cindy Brady on camera' imitation, he still pulled off a stunning victory. A victory due to the fact that the average American is more afraid of a radical liberal than a hardcore conservative.
McCain is not loathed by liberals, in fact he is considered by the left to be the most likable and palatable Republican of the current lot. Add to the mix Naval officer, decorated war hero, tortured POW, experienced Senator, etc. and he's much more bankable than he appears.
True, Obama may not have a track record to attack but that is as much a failing as it is a strength. The expression "What have you done for me lately?" comes to mind.
Spino's list of hush hush, politically incorrect variables that make voters choose John McCain to be next president of the United States.
Shock! Surprise! Race will be a deciding factor. Obama is black, or half-black, and according to the fabled 'one drop rule' that makes him all black?!? And being black is what will lose him the Southern states, select Midwestern states, the Hispanic vote and possibly much more than 50% of Asian vote (which typically splits down the middle between parties for general elections). The Hispanic vote is not debatable, there is open animosity between blacks and Hispanics (especially the Central American variety) who happen to compete for low paying jobs and government benefits. The most rabidly anti-black racism I have ever heard has consistently emanated from the mouths of Hispanics of all ages. Add to the mix the fact that Hispanics are more likely to be practicing, dedicated Catholics and that Obama has a Muslim name... Intellectualize this all you like but this has already played out in the primaries. Obama will not win Florida in a general election. He may take the big point states like California or New York but he'll be fighting tooth and nail for them and will probably only come away with one (I think New York is a safe bet). It is conceivable we could be looking at a landslide victory for McCain. No? Again, remind me who Gore and Kerry lost to in the last two elections?
Barack Hussein Obama. Muslim name. Muslim name. Muslim name. Last but not least please consider the fact that Obama has a Muslim name, hails from a Muslim family and experienced a childhood where he was raised and educated as a Muslim in a Muslim environment. I don't care how much of a Christian he says he is or how much loves Jesus from the pulpit of southern black churches his background WILL play on people's subconscious minds come election time. 10-15 years of Islamic extremism is dancing about in American's collective subconscious and the mere hint of association can easily sour the mind of an undecided voter.
Hey Sasaki, this is a Republic, not a Democracy. Those same marvelous polls showed Gore and Kerry beating GW Bush in the general election, and we all know how those elections turned out, especially the latter...
Am I the only one who's sensing the irony that you're practically begging for a moderate liberal to run?
Frankly, sir, I disagree with you on pretty much every single thing you've stated, with only a few exceptions. Tell me, if Obama will enflame hispanic voters, then why is it that he basically tied New Mexico, and still got roughly 35-40% of the hispanic voters in California? Muslim name? It sure hasn't stopped people from voting for him so far. And frankly, to even compare him to Kerry is mostly ridiculous. Kerry had limited appeal, as a rich, old, NE democrat. This year, Dems are turning out in RECORD numbers for primaries and caucusi. As for Obama's rhetoric and speeches. Have you even watched any debates? Have you ever even gone to his website? His policies, which have actually included an INCREASE in the size of the military, are outlined quite clearly.
And as for why McCain would lose: You're underestimating just how much people are loathing the Bush administration. A whole slug of people will turn to the Democratic candidate regardless of who it is, just because they don't want another Republican president. Furthermore, I'd say there is considerable evidence that a lot of conservatives are not satisfied with the field this year, and especially McCain. Tell me, how many of the traditional Republican states not named Arizona has McCain won? Hmm... That would be one, Oklahoma. McCain's bigger appeal to undecideds and independant voters would be all but canceled out by Obama's charisma, message, and youthful vibe. Meanwhile, he'll have to rely on his VP, Huckster, to try and make sure the southern states wouln't swing Obama's way. And lastly, just as some food for thought... What if Obama, if he gets the nomination, picked Richardson for his VP? Still think the Hispanic vote wouldn't turn out for him?
I assure you, rvg, that song came directly from Rush Limbaugh's show. And shocker of shockers, that isn't really Al Sharpton singing. Don't trust me, Google it for yourself.
well, either way, it's a funny song.
Another thing Spino is overlooking in his rush to judgment: Obama's rural pull. He does exceptionally well in rural areas, as one reporter noted (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2249501,00.html) in the Nevada campaign:
To see it clearly, you have to look closely at the results of the Nevada caucuses, which Obama narrowly lost to Clinton because he failed to carry Clark County, site of Nevada's only big metropolitan city, Las Vegas, with its enormous population of Hispanic voters. But in more rural counties he beat Clinton decisively - 63% to her 37% in Elko, 51% to 34% in Humboldt, 50% to 40% in Washoe (the missing percentages belong to John Edwards). I've been to those counties, their miles of lonely roads where you can drive for half an hour before encountering another vehicle, their scattered ranches and isolated towns, their seasonal creeks marked by lines of spindly cottonwood trees, the overwhelmingly Caucasian cast of their people. Out there in the mountains, sagebrush and high desert, Obama carried the day by far greater margins than his overall loss of the popular vote to Clinton across the state, and came out of the caucuses with one more delegate than she did.
Remember that in 2004 every American city with a population over 500,000 voted Democrat, and the Republicans won by taking the countryside and the outer suburbs. The blue state/red state division is better expressed in terms of the persistent conflicts between the big cities and their rural hinterlands, over land use, water rights and environmental, class and cultural issues. Red states are simply those where the country can outvote the urban centres, while in blue states the opposite is true. The perception that America has liberal coasts and a conservative interior merely reflects the fact that the coastal states are home to the largest metropolitan areas with the most electoral muscle. Last time around, for instance, Bush easily won the heartland state of Missouri, but was as crushingly defeated by Kerry in St Louis as he was in the cities of New York, Boston, San Francisco and Seattle.
So Obama's victory over Clinton in rural Nevada says something important about his ability as the apostle of national reconciliation. To win against Clinton in Elko County (black population: 0.8%), he had to convert not only white Democrats, but a large number of independents and people who had voted Republican until caucus day; a feat he pulled off with dazzling facility. Any Democrat nominee who can do that, deep in Republican country, is likely to gain the presidency; and Obama has proved that he can. Clinton, laden with the moral, cultural and political baggage of the 1990s, is likely to fare as badly in Elko County as Kerry did in 2004, when he collected just 20% of the vote.
Oh come now, do you really need excuses for cribbing from Rush Limbaugh? 'Cause let's face it, the L.A. Times didn't popularize the connection; the fat boy did.
Yeah, I remember Rush calling Obama a 'Magic Negro' some time ago because it popped up on Drudgereport. I did not know the details because I didn't read the article so I have no idea how he applied it to Obama. But there was a song? What?
All I really know about the term is Spike Lee was the one to coin it and defined it in one of his usual rants against Hollyweird in an interview or press junket or something.
Tell me, if Obama will enflame hispanic voters, then why is it that he basically tied New Mexico, and still got roughly 35-40% of the hispanic voters in California?
The fact remains that he has not won a single state with a significant Hispanic population.
Muslim name? It sure hasn't stopped people from voting for him so far. And frankly, to even compare him to Kerry is mostly ridiculous. Kerry had limited appeal, as a rich, old, NE democrat. This year, Dems are turning out in RECORD numbers for primaries and caucusi.
The real campaign hasn't yet begun. These are just the primaries and everyone is playing nice.... once the nominees are picked and the real race begins, Obama will be best by the vultures in commercials on every major network. If Rove decides to help out, Obama will feel the pain.
As for Obama's rhetoric and speeches. Have you even watched any debates? Have you ever even gone to his website? His policies, which have actually included an INCREASE in the size of the military, are outlined quite clearly.
Pardon me if I am mistaken, but I believe he still advocates hasty withdrawal from Iraq. Not a prudent move when the results of the surge are more or less favorable.
And as for why McCain would lose: You're underestimating just how much people are loathing the Bush administration. A whole slug of people will turn to the Democratic candidate regardless of who it is, just because they don't want another Republican president.
Or perhaps you are overestimating it. Besides, people remember that McCain never passed up a chance to use Rumsfeld as a punching bag for Bush's failures in Iraq. The Age of the Neocons is over, that is true. But McCain is not a neocon and people know that.
Furthermore, I'd say there is considerable evidence that a lot of conservatives are not satisfied with the field this year, and especially McCain. Tell me, how many of the traditional Republican states not named Arizona has McCain won? Hmm... That would be one, Oklahoma.
Republicans would still prefer McCain to anything on the Dem side. They will rally to support him.
McCain's bigger appeal to undecideds and independant voters would be all but canceled out by Obama's charisma, message, and youthful vibe. Meanwhile, he'll have to rely on his VP, Huckster, to try and make sure the southern states wouln't swing Obama's way. And lastly, just as some food for thought... What if Obama, if he gets the nomination, picked Richardson for his VP? Still think the Hispanic vote wouldn't turn out for him?
I think it is still quite difficult to say who will pick whom as a VP.
imho.
These are just the primaries and everyone is playing nice....
The Clintons are playing nice? Do they ever play nice? Do I need to point out that they have not lost an election in twenty-eight years?
Think what you want about Karl Rove, but please, don't put him on the same level as the Clintons, not in terms of political muscle. Karl was angling (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/17/AR2007081701713.html) for a "permanent Republican majority," and he fell far, far short of the mark. If you think he's some magical wizard of election cycles who can make anything happen, you're way behind in your reading.
Anybody who can beat the Clintons is a person to be reckoned with.
Another thing Spino is overlooking in his rush to judgment: Obama's rural pull. He does exceptionally well in rural areas, as one reporter noted (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2249501,00.html) in the Nevada campaign:
To see it clearly, you have to look closely at the results of the Nevada caucuses, which Obama narrowly lost to Clinton because he failed to carry Clark County, site of Nevada's only big metropolitan city, Las Vegas, with its enormous population of Hispanic voters. But in more rural counties he beat Clinton decisively - 63% to her 37% in Elko, 51% to 34% in Humboldt, 50% to 40% in Washoe (the missing percentages belong to John Edwards). I've been to those counties, their miles of lonely roads where you can drive for half an hour before encountering another vehicle, their scattered ranches and isolated towns, their seasonal creeks marked by lines of spindly cottonwood trees, the overwhelmingly Caucasian cast of their people. Out there in the mountains, sagebrush and high desert, Obama carried the day by far greater margins than his overall loss of the popular vote to Clinton across the state, and came out of the caucuses with one more delegate than she did.
Remember that in 2004 every American city with a population over 500,000 voted Democrat, and the Republicans won by taking the countryside and the outer suburbs. The blue state/red state division is better expressed in terms of the persistent conflicts between the big cities and their rural hinterlands, over land use, water rights and environmental, class and cultural issues. Red states are simply those where the country can outvote the urban centres, while in blue states the opposite is true. The perception that America has liberal coasts and a conservative interior merely reflects the fact that the coastal states are home to the largest metropolitan areas with the most electoral muscle. Last time around, for instance, Bush easily won the heartland state of Missouri, but was as crushingly defeated by Kerry in St Louis as he was in the cities of New York, Boston, San Francisco and Seattle.
So Obama's victory over Clinton in rural Nevada says something important about his ability as the apostle of national reconciliation. To win against Clinton in Elko County (black population: 0.8%), he had to convert not only white Democrats, but a large number of independents and people who had voted Republican until caucus day; a feat he pulled off with dazzling facility. Any Democrat nominee who can do that, deep in Republican country, is likely to gain the presidency; and Obama has proved that he can. Clinton, laden with the moral, cultural and political baggage of the 1990s, is likely to fare as badly in Elko County as Kerry did in 2004, when he collected just 20% of the vote.
Not bad but that's a Guardian article and the writer seems a tad overzealous in his estimate. How does Obama 'convert' White Democrats?!? Because they chose him over the wicked witch of the west? His defeat of Billary in Democrat/Independent territory is probably a better reflection of people's hatred of Billary than their love for Obama.
Not bad but that's a Guardian article ...
I know, and I quoted it anyway. Forgive me.
How does Obama 'convert' White Democrats?!?
Maybe by getting them to vote for him, I dunno, that's how political "conversions" usually work ...
seireikhaan
02-08-2008, 05:46
The fact remains that he has not won a single state with a significant Hispanic population.
The fact still remains that he'll garner more than enough hispanic votes to win traditional democratic stomping grounds such as Cali and N.Y.
The real campaign hasn't yet begun. These are just the primaries and everyone is playing nice.... once the nominees are picked and the real race begins, Obama will be best by the vultures in commercials on every major network. If Rove decides to help out, Obama will feel the pain.
Pardon me, but I'm not quite perceiving what your point is here. Are you saying he's not a good candidate because you believe that ultra conservative nut jobs in the media will "tear him apart"? I fail to see what that would even have to do with how effective he'll be as a President, which, of course, is what this whole thing is ultimately about.
Pardon me if I am mistaken, but I believe he still advocates hasty withdrawal from Iraq. Not a prudent move when the results of the surge are more or less favorable.
Well, here is the 'official' plan for Iraq. Linkie ("http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/#bring-home)
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda. On account of the fact that keeping Al Qaeda bases out of Iraq could very well be a constant job, it indicates to me that Obama isn't so much along the lines of "get out now, get out now!" Plus, I'd say that roughly 16 months(over a year) is fairly reasonable timing, based on our current progress and when he would be taking office.
Or perhaps you are overestimating it. Besides, people remember that McCain never passed up a chance to use Rumsfeld as a punching bag for Bush's failures in Iraq. The Age of the Neocons is over, that is true. But McCain is not a neocon and people know that.
Well, I think its somewhat debatable as to whether people "know" whether or not McCain is a neocon. Frankly, a lot of American voters are none to bright, and, whether reasonably or not, a lot of the Republican party will still be tarred by Bush's brush, at least for a few more years. And if McCain gets Huckster as his VP, well...that doesn't speak well to the folks claiming McCain is against the neocons.
Republicans would still prefer McCain to anything on the Dem side. They will rally to support him.
Oh, by no means am I suggesting hordes of them would go vote Obama or Hildabeast(certainly not her). More that they will instead not vote at all, and figure they'll let the Dems "take the hit" with whoever get the nomination.
I think it is still quite difficult to say who will pick whom as a VP.
imho.
Well certainly. I was just suggesting a possibility, and its by no means clear that Obama will win. However, I do think it would negate a lot of anti-black hostility towards Obama from the Hispanic community if Richardson became the VP candidate. Of course, the other candidates also offer pluses and minuses, and this is a long ways off, so its mostly conjecture at this point anyways.
The Clintons are playing nice? Do they ever play nice? Do I need to point out that they have not lost an election in twenty-eight years?
Think what you want about Karl Rove, but please, don't put him on the same level as the Clintons, not in terms of political muscle. Karl was angling (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/17/AR2007081701713.html) for a "permanent Republican majority," and he fell far, far short of the mark. If you think he's some magical wizard of election cycles who can make anything happen, you're way behind in your reading.
Anybody who can beat the Clintons is a person to be reckoned with.
Billary may be a two'fer but loving Bill and loving Hillary are two entirely different things. This is Hillary's game and that's what people are basing their votes on. If this were Bill magically going for the hat trick in an alternate universe the Democratic party and the media would be right at their side and Obama would have been knocked out of the race before or on Super Tuesday.
It must be painfully obvious by now that I am not buying the 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington' model everyone is trying to apply to Obama. Nice movie starring a nice guy movie star but come on now, it's a movie for chrissakes. Fat chance I'm giving a career politician the benefit of the doubt.
seireikhaan
02-08-2008, 05:54
Fat chance I'm giving a career politician the benefit of the doubt.
:inquisitive: So who are you voting for, then? Last I checked, everyone else has been in politics waaaay longer than Obama. Crusty the Clown, perhaps?
It must be painfully obvious by now that I am not buying the 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington' model everyone is trying to apply to Obama.
Well, the dude came from nowhere, built a political machine to rival the Clintons' in one year, has deadlocked the party favorite, is raising money faster than any other candidate without taking a dime from lobbyists or special interest groups ... I mean, these are all facts. They aren't glassy-eyed bits of wishful thinking. It's an extraordinary story well before any embellishing goes on.
I'm curious -- what aspect of his campaign or support strikes you as fanciful or illusory? What's yanking your chain on this guy? You seem to be offended by the notion that he might be a contender.
KukriKhan
02-08-2008, 06:43
Moderator's Note:
Race may become an issue in this US election. Perhaps it already is. Therefore, it is important that the topic be discussed and dissected, in true backroom form, here.
The phrase "Magical Negro" has academic, archetypal, and artistic referents and applicability, along with its cohorts: 'noble savage', 'the man who knows indians', 'wise man who educates Hero', and others. I refer those interested to Joseph Campbell's works on art, archetypes, and mythology. The stories are legion, from all cultures.
That said, kindly note that any use of the phrase to hurl as an insult (toward any human, org member or not) will incur negative sanction here.
Translation for my California friends: No n-bombs of any kind allowed here.
Am I the only one who's sensing the irony that you're practically begging for a moderate liberal to run?
I'd need proof that one actually exists before answering the question.
:inquisitive: So who are you voting for, then? Last I checked, everyone else has been in politics waaaay longer than Obama. Crusty the Clown, perhaps?
Nice. Crusty would certainly prove to be far more entertaining than the current lot and I really dig the hair.
I'm voting for McCain, not that it will make a difference living in NY. I gave my vote to Badnarik in the previous election out of my disgust for the Neo-Con movement within the Republican party (and to find a satisfactory way of dealing with the futile gesture of voting anything but Democrat in NY). I like McCain on the economy and foreign policy and can deal with him despite his lackluster efforts in the Senate to effectively deal with illegal immigration.
Yes, way longer than Obama but most of them (yes, even Hillary) were actually quite successful in either the private sector for a considerable amount of time prior to running for major political office. Those who didn't or had a mixed career in the private and public sector (Giuliani) actually had to perform given the demands of the job. And those who became Governors or mayors actually had to run a state/city.
Well, the dude came from nowhere, built a political machine to rival the Clintons' in one year, has deadlocked the party favorite, is raising money faster than any other candidate without taking a dime from lobbyists or special interest groups ... I mean, these are all facts. They aren't glassy-eyed bits of wishful thinking. It's an extraordinary story well before any embellishing goes on.
I'm curious -- what aspect of his campaign or support strikes you as fanciful or illusory? What's yanking your chain on this guy? You seem to be offended by the notion that he might be a contender.
All true. I'm not judging his rise to fame and fortune. I'm questioning what the man might really be about. Is this a genuine 'campaign for change' or the ultimate ego bid? Given the nature of politics and the generation running the country I'm inclined to believe the latter. Maybe it was the carefully timed release of Obama's autobiographies just prior to running for two separate political offices. Maybe it's the questionable business ties with Tony Rezko who also, curiously enough, 'worked with' the Clintons. Maybe I don't equate impressive speechcraft with leadership. Maybe I don't equate political office with 'public service'. Maybe I equate crusading for 'real change' with culture instead of politics. Maybe it's the usual je ne sais quoi I get with politicians who seem too clean or too slick.
I can accept all this if the man didn't seem to orchestrate his entire adult life towards the achievement of political office to sate a hidden ego that has been never satisfied. And if he is fine... but give me an impressive record as an attorney, give me a successful career as an entrepreneur or executive, give me a talent or skill set that doesn't necessarily translate directly into politics!
Maybe I just want a genuine leader who already made a name for himself in the private sector or the military to come forward and cut the Gordian knot. Since we all know that ain't going to happen the best we can do is to stop believing 'pie in the sky' rhetoric, hedge our bets and hope for the best.
Vladimir
02-08-2008, 14:39
Damn, I go to sleep and miss all this? I haven't heard the fat man Limbaugh insults in ages. When you have nothing else go after someone's (outdated) appearance I guess. :shrug:
ICantSpellDawg
02-08-2008, 15:49
Moderator's Note:
Race may become an issue in this US election. Perhaps it already is. Therefore, it is important that the topic be discussed and dissected, in true backroom form, here.
The phrase "Magical Negro" has academic, archetypal, and artistic referents and applicability, along with its cohorts: 'noble savage', 'the man who knows indians', 'wise man who educates Hero', and others. I refer those interested to Joseph Campbell's works on art, archetypes, and mythology. The stories are legion, from all cultures.
That said, kindly note that any use of the phrase to hurl as an insult (toward any human, org member or not) will incur negative sanction here.
Translation for my California friends: No n-bombs of any kind allowed here.
It's a problem only if it benefits you to make it one this time around. You saw it from the Clintons already, but I don't think you'll see it from the Republican leadership.
Is anyone who uses the back room black anyway? When we posted our pictures a while back i remember being blinded by the light.
I'll be honest, if it's McCain v. Obama in the general election, I'll be a very happy lemur. Both men are pragmatic, neither is an ideologue. In a very real sense, I can't lose. Yes, they have some wildly different policy positions, but they're mostly sensible. Take Iraq as an example:
We need to either commit to Iraq indefinitely, as with South Korea, or begin an orderly withdrawal immediately. Either way could work, either way could be a disaster; but nothing could be as bone-headed as the crony-based, corruption-friendly, ideology-driven, reality-ignoring mess we created previous to Petraeus. So even though McCain and Obama have what appear to be opposite intentions on Iraq, the two men outline the two viable courses. Stay forever or start getting out soon. I'll take either option over the Rumsfeld/Cheney hodge-podge (http://www.apple.com/trailers/magnolia/noendinsight/trailer/).
Going back to the assertions about how Obama will get chopped up like liver in the general election, I refer you to today's column (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120241915915951669.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries) by Peggy Noonan, a level-headed political mind if ever there was one:
Mrs. Clinton is stoking the idea that Mr. Obama is too soft to withstand the dread Republican attack machine. (I nod in tribute to all Democrats who have succeeded in removing the phrase "Republican and Democratic attack machines" from the political lexicon. Both parties have them.) But Mr. Obama will not be easy for Republicans to attack. He will be hard to get at, hard to address. There are many reasons, but a primary one is that the fact of his race will freeze them. No one, no candidate, no party, no heavy-breathing consultant, will want to cross any line--lines that have never been drawn, that are sure to be shifting and not always visible--in approaching the first major-party African-American nominee for president of the United States.
He is the brilliant young black man as American dream. No consultant, no matter how opportunistic and hungry, will think it easy--or professionally desirable--to take him down in a low manner. If anything, they've learned from the Clintons in South Carolina what that gets you. (I add that yes, there are always freelance mental cases, who exist on both sides and are empowered by modern technology. They'll make their YouTubes. But the mad are ever with us, and this year their work will likely stay subterranean.)
With Mr. Obama the campaign will be about issues. "He'll raise your taxes." He will, and I suspect Americans may vote for him anyway. But the race won't go low.
Mrs. Clinton would be easier for Republicans. With her cavalcade of scandals, they'd be delighted to go at her. They'd get medals for it. Consultants would get rich on it.
The Democrats have it exactly wrong. Hillary is the easier candidate, Mr. Obama the tougher. Hillary brings negative; it's fair to hit her back with negative. Mr. Obama brings hope, and speaks of a better way. He's not Bambi, he's bulletproof.
The biggest problem for the Republicans will be that no matter what they say that is not issue oriented--"He's too young, he's never run anything, he's not fully baked"--the mainstream media will tag them as dealing in racial overtones, or undertones. You can bet on this. Go to the bank on it.
The Democrats continue not to recognize what they have in this guy. Believe me, Republican professionals know. They can tell.
Ser Clegane
02-08-2008, 17:50
Is anyone who uses the back room black anyway? When we posted our pictures a while back i remember being blinded by the light.
a) not everybody posted his/her pic
b) it is not really relevant if any of the Backroom regulars are black or not
Sasaki Kojiro
02-08-2008, 17:54
I remember at least one anyway. A-something.
Big King Sanctaphrax
02-08-2008, 18:22
Wasn't Big_John black?
ICantSpellDawg
02-08-2008, 18:23
a) not everybody posted his/her pic
b) it is not really relevant if any of the Backroom regulars are black or not
Well, technically it is relevant. Why would we avoid hurting the feelings of those who might not even exist when speaking about a topic from which the N word is inexorable?
I'll go ahead and not use it, but I don't understand why simple words would offend anyone, particularly those who don't exist. I doubt if anyone here would go on a race-baiting extravaganza anyway, so why the censure? If the word applies to a discussion, leave it alone.
Damn, I go to sleep and miss all this? I haven't heard the fat man Limbaugh insults in ages. When you have nothing else go after someone's (outdated) appearance I guess. :shrug:
To my knowledge, Lemur has never made mention of Limbaugh without some sort of fat reference. He's cool like that.
I do live how he gives the original author of the "magical negro" story a pass and attributes all of the racism connotations to the person who parodied it. :juggle2:
Translation for my California friends: No n-bombs of any kind allowed here.Just for clarity, are we now saying "negro" is a prohibited word? :inquisitive:
Vladimir
02-08-2008, 18:58
To my knowledge, Lemur has never made mention of Limbaugh without some sort of far reference. He's cool like that.
I do live how he gives the original author of the "magical negro" story a pass and attributes all of the racism connotations to the person who parodied it. :juggle2:
Just for clarity, are we now saying "negro" is a prohibited word? :inquisitive:
Oh come now, do you really need excuses for cribbing from Rush Limbaugh? 'Cause let's face it, the L.A. Times didn't popularize the connection; the fat boy did.
Ye lord, how misinformation takes on a life of its own. Here's the timeline:
March of 2007, L.A. Times columnist David Ehrenstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ehrenstein) writes a column about how he thinks Obama fits into the Magical Negro archetype. FWIW, Ehrenstein is a black man.
Never one to miss a chance to dance on the edge of a racial slur, fat boy Rush Limbaugh has a song recorded to the tune of Puff the Magic Dragon, in which an impersonator plays Al Sharpton bemoaning the rise of Obama, the "magic negro." Because a black dude said it first, he gets away with it.
And now people think Al Sharpton actually sang it. Ugh. A lie goes 'round the world while the truth is still getting its shoes on.
I assure you, rvg, that song came directly from Rush Limbaugh's show. And shocker of shockers, that isn't really Al Sharpton singing. Don't trust me, Google it for yourself.
Lemur on roid rage. This (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7189341.stm) was originally a harmless, innocent little lemur too.
Heaven forfend that I should speak disparagingly of an authoritarian demagogue who never appears in any setting except one he controls, who tolerates no guests who don't agree with him, and whose talking points are repeated endlessly by the faithful as gospel truth. As for pointing out his obesity, may I remind you that this is a man who advocates self-reliance and self-control, and yet he allows himself to be grossly fat. Let's not even start on the addiction to drugs, the lenient treatment for same, and the contradiction with his lock-em-all-up rhetoric.
Demagogues annoy me. Hypocritical authoritarian ideologues who call themselves "conservative" annoy me even more.
Now if either of you authoritarians (http://pruningshears.squarespace.com/pruning-shears/2008/2/7/the-new-authoritarians.html) would care to get back to talking about the Presidential race, we're all ears.
Ser Clegane
02-08-2008, 19:14
Well, technically it is relevant. Why would we avoid hurting the feelings of those who might not even exist when speaking about a topic from which the N word is inexorable?
Very interesting that you believe the "N word" is "inexorable" in this topic.
Our forum rules do not link the acceptability of terms with negative racial connotations to the likelihood of someone of the group the term is directed at being able to read it.
Any further discussion about what words are acceptable under which circumstances should be continued in the Backroom Watchtower (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=114)
Thanks
:bow:
I'll be honest, if it's McCain v. Obama in the general election, I'll be a very happy lemur. Both men are pragmatic, neither is an ideologue. In a very real sense, I can't lose. Yes, they have some wildly different policy positions, but they're mostly sensible. Take Iraq as an example:
We need to either commit to Iraq indefinitely, as with South Korea, or begin an orderly withdrawal immediately. Either way could work, either way could be a disaster; but nothing could be as bone-headed as the crony-based, corruption-friendly, ideology-driven, reality-ignoring mess we created previous to Petraeus. So even though McCain and Obama have what appear to be opposite intentions on Iraq, the two men outline the two viable courses. Stay forever or start getting out soon. I'll take either option over the Rumsfeld/Cheney hodge-podge.
Pulling out soon without leaving a sizeable, permanent presence in the region will prove to be a disaster. Even if we assume that Iraq will not rip itself apart and function on its own it will still be extremely weak and prone to Persian, Turkish and radical Muslim intrigues. Mark my words, if we pull out cold turkey we will be back there within a decade or possibly less. We were there in 1990 because of a certain wildcard called Saddam and should another like him or Ahmadinejad threaten the stability of the region the world will be screaming at us to go back again. All industrial nations rely on the black gogo juice to function and there is too much of it in that region to allow that many wildcards to stack the deck. Besides, even if we assume the most aggressive and effective alternative fuel policies will be implemented by a bi-partisan Congress without a fight (lol, good luck with that one) keep in mind this isn't WW2 where everyone sacrificed the luxuries of life so we could slaughter Nazis and Imperial Jap fascists by the millions. Even the most optimistic outlook has us looking at a process that will take at least 10 years to implement. So people want change? So the kids want to make a difference? How much are they willing to sacrifice to get it? Markedly higher retail prices? Enormous utility bills? Will rural conservatives give up their SUVs? Will liberals pay through the nose for carbon credits so they can keep their own luxury items? Can liberals survive without their Macs? Can America afford to continue shopping at Whole Foods or pay $10 for a Grande Latte enema to fuel its addiction to overpriced, cleverly marketed 'organic' produce (taking into account markups due to bloated transportation costs)? Can a country whose citizens are already steeped in mountains of unnecessary personal debt afford radical change that involves more government 'pie in the sky' programs?
Going back to the assertions about how Obama will get chopped up like liver in the general election, I refer you to today's column (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120241915915951669.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries) by Peggy Noonan, a level-headed political mind if ever there was one:
Mrs. Clinton is stoking the idea that Mr. Obama is too soft to withstand the dread Republican attack machine. (I nod in tribute to all Democrats who have succeeded in removing the phrase "Republican and Democratic attack machines" from the political lexicon. Both parties have them.) But Mr. Obama will not be easy for Republicans to attack. He will be hard to get at, hard to address. There are many reasons, but a primary one is that the fact of his race will freeze them. No one, no candidate, no party, no heavy-breathing consultant, will want to cross any line--lines that have never been drawn, that are sure to be shifting and not always visible--in approaching the first major-party African-American nominee for president of the United States.
He is the brilliant young black man as American dream. No consultant, no matter how opportunistic and hungry, will think it easy--or professionally desirable--to take him down in a low manner. If anything, they've learned from the Clintons in South Carolina what that gets you. (I add that yes, there are always freelance mental cases, who exist on both sides and are empowered by modern technology. They'll make their YouTubes. But the mad are ever with us, and this year their work will likely stay subterranean.)
With Mr. Obama the campaign will be about issues. "He'll raise your taxes." He will, and I suspect Americans may vote for him anyway. But the race won't go low.
Mrs. Clinton would be easier for Republicans. With her cavalcade of scandals, they'd be delighted to go at her. They'd get medals for it. Consultants would get rich on it.
The Democrats have it exactly wrong. Hillary is the easier candidate, Mr. Obama the tougher. Hillary brings negative; it's fair to hit her back with negative. Mr. Obama brings hope, and speaks of a better way. He's not Bambi, he's bulletproof.
The biggest problem for the Republicans will be that no matter what they say that is not issue oriented--"He's too young, he's never run anything, he's not fully baked"--the mainstream media will tag them as dealing in racial overtones, or undertones. You can bet on this. Go to the bank on it.
The Democrats continue not to recognize what they have in this guy. Believe me, Republican professionals know. They can tell.
Actually I agree in that I believe Billary would be a pushover in the general election but I have a hard time Obama is going to be teflon coated. Again, I hearken back to the previous presidential elections, especially the last one, where GW Bush was expected to get his clock cleaned. There is alot more for McCain to beat Obama with other than 'he'll raise your taxes'. Driver's licenses for illegals is an awfully hard issue to dodge. Universal healthcare went over like a lead balloon when Hillary tried her hand at it. All McCain needs to do is cut through the hype and expound on Obama 's inconsistencies and the hot potato issues which run contrary to his rhetoric. Obama can call McCain a conservative, sure. But everyone knows McCain didn't like GW bush and is not a Neo-Con and that will be a big boost. Obama will have a hard time calling out McCain on 'tax cuts for the rich' because, surprise, McCain did not support GW's tax cuts and is a notorious enemy of deficit spending. McCain, being a military man and far more experienced in foreign policy matters also has far more credibility in those areas. As to Iraq, I believe acknowledging defeat by pulling out and leaving the region to its own fate is still a hard sell for moderate America. Everyone acknowledges that GW Bush and Rumsfeld screwed up but I'm not convinced everyone is keen on chalking up another loss, especially since Iraq is not Vietnam where several years and ~60K dead soldiers accomplished absolutely nothing. The Surge actually seems to have worked, Iraq is much much quieter than it was a year or so ago. The terror issue is still an 800lbs gorilla sitting in the corner and like Kerry, Obama can offer nothing but the same empty 'i'll go after these guys' promises that no Democrat since Carter has been taken seriously on.
Should Obama decide to run the risk of dirt flinging to weaken McCain's standing then it will be open season and undecided voters may react in favor of McCain if they feel the media is painting an unfair picture of him. Obama can invoke the Keating 5 (but may be considered ancient history in modern political terms) and McCain can invoke Tony Rezko and the Clinton connection.
And don't get too sweet on Peggy Noonan, back in the day she was pretty happy about GW Bush and all his works. She quickly jumped on the bandwagon when it became fashionable for conservatives to decry him as the Neo-Con he really was.
ICantSpellDawg
02-08-2008, 19:30
And don't get too sweet on Peggy Noonan, back in the day she was pretty happy about GW Bush and all his works. She quickly jumped on the bandwagon when it became fashionable for conservatives to decry him as the Neo-Con he really was.
She claimed that Bush was a mistake. IN HINDSIGHT. What's wrong with that? If you look at his term in office, see how divisive he was, notice his inability to successfully defend legitimate policies, or see how much spending has increased NOT INCLUDING the Iraq war - I don't think that the statement "mistake" is unfair or only to be used by conservative wagon jumpers.
Iraq would have been a major success if Saddam still had nuclear arms, which nearly everyone believed him to have. Unfortunately for the Bush administration and the G.O.P., he didn't. What is the problem with looking at past personal actions and deeming some things to be mistakes? Flip-Flopper! Burn her at the stake! How dare she learn things from hindsight?!!!
BTW - I like the tax cuts that Bush pushed through in the face of understandable opposition. I have benefited from the cuts even though I only make $40k a year.
here are a few reasons (not including the idea of minimal government intrusion into our lives).
The Tax Threat to Prosperity
By ARTHUR B. LAFFER
January 25, 2008; Page A15
Over the past 30 years, the U.S. has seen large changes in income tax rates as well as other tax rates. And, as would be expected, the budgetary implications of these tax changes have once again become a hotly debated partisan issue.
But missing from the discussion are the huge differences in how the top 1% of income earners respond to changes in tax rates versus, say, the bottom 75% or 80% of taxpayers -- the so-called middle class and lowest income groups. The "rich" quite simply are not like the rest of us.
From the standpoint of logic, the supply of their taxable income should be far more sensitive to changes in tax rates than the supply of taxable income of the middle class and poor. In the highest tax bracket, 100% of all taxpayers have the highest tax rate as their marginal tax rate. And it's the marginal tax rate that elicits supply-side responses.
Of course, if you look at a tax schedule, it's obvious that people with the highest taxable income also pay taxes in every other tax bracket. These lower tax rates are "inframarginal" and don't affect behavior. From the standpoint of the rich alone, a cut in these lower tax rates reduces tax revenues.
Some 99% of all taxpayers paid taxes at the 10% rate in 2005, for example. Yet only 25% of all taxpayers had 10% as their marginal tax rate. Thus a cut in the 10% tax rate would have a supply-side impact on a relatively small portion of all those who pay the 10% rate -- while for the rest who pay the 10% rate, a tax cut would result in a deadweight revenue loss.
On these grounds alone one should expect a greater supply-side response with a change in the highest tax rate than any other tax rate.
In addition, low-income earners have a lot less flexibility to change the form, timing and location of their income -- and the avenues open to them to reduce their tax liabilities are far fewer. The avenues open to higher-income and highest-income earners include 401(k)s, IRAs, Keogh plans, itemized deductions, lifetime gifts, charitable gifts, all sorts of deferred income compensation plans, trusts, tax free bonds, etc.
[Soaking the Rich]
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AH001_laffer_20080124225214.gif
Moreover, the culture surrounding low income earners is not nearly as focused on tax avoidance as it is in higher income earners; fewer lower-income earners, therefore, even avail themselves of the limited programs, laws and other opportunities to reduce their tax liabilities. This means that the supply of taxable income in the highest tax bracket should be far more responsive to incentives than it is in the lower tax brackets, all other things being equal.
Many tax-avoidance methods require expert advice and counsel from people such as tax accountants, lawyers, deferred compensation experts and, yes, even economists. Higher-income people find tax accountants and lawyers and other financial professionals far more cost-effective than do people with lower incomes, not only because the costs are spread over larger sums, but because the pursuit of tax avoidance is, dollar of income for dollar of income, more profitable at higher tax rates. This makes the taxable incomes of those who earn more, more variable, and the taxable incomes of those who earn less, less variable.
Academicians and politicians have finally come to understand that it's the after-tax rate of return that determines people's behavior. Even though statutory tax rates are far lower today than they were when, say, Kennedy or Reagan took office, it is still very true that for every dollar of static revenue change there is a much larger incentive affect in the highest tax bracket than in the lowest tax bracket.
But what actually happens to tax receipts by income tax bracket when tax rates change?
Since 1980, statutory marginal tax rates have fallen dramatically. The highest marginal income tax rate in 1980 was 70%. Today it is 35%. In the year Ronald Reagan took office (1981) the top 1% of income earners paid 17.58% of all federal income taxes. Twenty-five years later, in 2005, the top 1% paid 39.38% of all income taxes.
There are other ways of looking at tax receipts by income bracket. From 1981 to 2005, the income taxes paid by the top 1% rose to 2.96% of GDP, from 1.59% of GDP. There was also a huge absolute increase in real tax dollars paid by this group. In 1981, the total taxes paid in 2005 dollars by the top 1% of income earners was $94.84 billion. In 2005 it was $368.13 billion.
In 2000 this teeny, tiny group -- 1% of all taxpayers -- actually paid income taxes equal to 3.75% of GDP, which is why President Clinton had a budget surplus. Much of this huge surge in tax payments by the top 1% of tax filers resulted from the huge increase in realized capital gains resulting from President Clinton's capital gains tax rate cut to 20% from 28% in 1997.
Let's take a look at the bottom 75% of taxpayers over this same time period -- the group current Democrats refer to as middle- and lower-income earners. From 1981 through 2005, the share of all income taxes paid by the bottom 75% of all income earners (as reported on the individual income tax returns) declined to 14.01% from 27.71%. As a share of GDP, total taxes paid by the bottom 75% fell to 1.05% from 2.50%. The bottom 75% of all taxpayers today pay less than 35% of all the taxes paid by the top 1% of all income earners.
Over the last 25 years, the bottom 75% of all taxpayers' tax payments fell and their tax rates fell. This is the group the Democrats are targeting for tax cuts.
The important point here is that, over the last 25-plus years, the only group that experienced an increase in income taxes paid as a share of GDP was the top 1% of income earners. Even the top 2%-5% of income earners saw a decline in the GDP share of their income taxes paid.
But now we get to the secret sauce, and the essence of what really happens in the realm of tax rates, incomes and tax payments by the rich.
We have accurate data on both the total taxes paid by the top 1% of income earners, and on their comprehensive household income as measured by the Congressional Budget Office. From these two data series we can calculate the effective average tax rate for the top 1% of all income earners.
Surprise, surprise: The effective average tax rate for the top 1% of income earners barely wiggles as Congress changes tax codes after tax codes, and as the economy goes from boom to bust and back again (see chart).
The question is, how can that effective average tax rate be so stable? The answer is simply that the very highest income earners are and have always been able to vary their reported income and thus control the amount of taxes they pay. Whether through tax shelters, deferrals, gifts, write-offs, cross income mobility or any of a number of other measures, the effective average tax rate barely budges. But this group's total tax payments are incredibly volatile.
For the low- and middle-income earners, the effective average tax rate has tumbled over the past 25 years, and so have tax revenues no matter how they're measured.
Using recent data, in other words, it would appear on its face that the Democratic proposal to raise taxes on the upper-income earners, and lower taxes on the middle- and lower- income earners, will result in huge revenue losses on both accounts. But some academic advisers to Democratic candidates have a hard time understanding the obvious, devising outlandish theories as to why things are different now. Well they aren't!
In the 1920s, the highest federal marginal income tax rate fell to 24% from 78%. Those people who earned over $100,000 had their share of total taxes paid rise -- from 29.9% in 1920 to 48.8% in 1925, and then to 62.2% in 1929. There was no inflation over this period.
With the Kennedy tax cuts of the 1960s, when the highest tax rate fell from to 70% from 91%, the story was the same. When you cut the highest tax rates on the highest-income earners, government gets more money from them, and when you cut tax rates on the middle and lower income earners, the government gets less money from them.
Even these data grossly understate the total supply-side response. A cut in the highest tax rates will increase lots of other tax receipts. It will lower government spending as a consequence of a stronger economy with less unemployment and less welfare. It will have a material, positive impact on state and local governments. And these effects will only grow with time.
Mark my words: If the Democrats succeed in implementing their plan to tax the rich and cut taxes on the middle and lower income earners, this country will experience a fiscal crisis of serious proportions that will last for years and years until a new Harding, Kennedy or Reagan comes along.
Trained economists know all of this is true, but they try to rebut the facts nonetheless because they believe it will curry favor with their political benefactors.
Mr. Laffer is president of Laffer Associates.
With Mr. Obama the campaign will be about issues. Well, that would certainly be a refreshing change. :laugh4:
More seriously, I think exposing his record would actually meet with some success in driving "moderate" voters to McCain. His campaign thus far has been about a cult of personality- drawing him out on his actual positions would likely hurt him. Will it be enough for him to lose? Meh- we'll see.
No one, no candidate, no party, no heavy-breathing consultant, will want to cross any line--lines that have never been drawn, that are sure to be shifting and not always visible--in approaching the first major-party African-American nominee for president of the United States.She's apparently forgotten about 527s, push polls, robo calls and other groups that aren't directly associated with a campaign. They get to do the dirty work while the candidates officially condemn such attacks.
She claimed that Bush was a mistake. IN HINDSIGHT. What's wrong with that? If you look at his term in office, see how divisive he was, notice his inability to successfully defend legitimate policies, or see how much spending has increased NOT INCLUDING the Iraq war - I don't think that the statement "mistake" is unfair or only to be used by conservative wagon jumpers.
Iraq would have been a major success if Saddam still had nuclear arms, which nearly everyone believed him to have. Unfortunately for the Bush administration and the G.O.P., he didn't. What is the problem with looking at past personal actions and deeming some things to be mistakes? Flip-Flopper! Burn her at the stake! How dare she learn things from hindsight?!!!
BTW - I like the tax cuts that Bush pushed through in the face of understandable opposition. I have benefited from the cuts even though I only make $40k a year.
here are a few reasons (not including the idea of minimal government intrusion into our lives).
The Tax Threat to Prosperity
By ARTHUR B. LAFFER
January 25, 2008; Page A15
Over the past 30 years, the U.S. has seen large changes in income tax rates as well as other tax rates. And, as would be expected, the budgetary implications of these tax changes have once again become a hotly debated partisan issue.
But missing from the discussion are the huge differences in how the top 1% of income earners respond to changes in tax rates versus, say, the bottom 75% or 80% of taxpayers -- the so-called middle class and lowest income groups. The "rich" quite simply are not like the rest of us.
From the standpoint of logic, the supply of their taxable income should be far more sensitive to changes in tax rates than the supply of taxable income of the middle class and poor. In the highest tax bracket, 100% of all taxpayers have the highest tax rate as their marginal tax rate. And it's the marginal tax rate that elicits supply-side responses.
Of course, if you look at a tax schedule, it's obvious that people with the highest taxable income also pay taxes in every other tax bracket. These lower tax rates are "inframarginal" and don't affect behavior. From the standpoint of the rich alone, a cut in these lower tax rates reduces tax revenues.
Some 99% of all taxpayers paid taxes at the 10% rate in 2005, for example. Yet only 25% of all taxpayers had 10% as their marginal tax rate. Thus a cut in the 10% tax rate would have a supply-side impact on a relatively small portion of all those who pay the 10% rate -- while for the rest who pay the 10% rate, a tax cut would result in a deadweight revenue loss.
On these grounds alone one should expect a greater supply-side response with a change in the highest tax rate than any other tax rate.
In addition, low-income earners have a lot less flexibility to change the form, timing and location of their income -- and the avenues open to them to reduce their tax liabilities are far fewer. The avenues open to higher-income and highest-income earners include 401(k)s, IRAs, Keogh plans, itemized deductions, lifetime gifts, charitable gifts, all sorts of deferred income compensation plans, trusts, tax free bonds, etc.
[Soaking the Rich]
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AH001_laffer_20080124225214.gif
Moreover, the culture surrounding low income earners is not nearly as focused on tax avoidance as it is in higher income earners; fewer lower-income earners, therefore, even avail themselves of the limited programs, laws and other opportunities to reduce their tax liabilities. This means that the supply of taxable income in the highest tax bracket should be far more responsive to incentives than it is in the lower tax brackets, all other things being equal.
Many tax-avoidance methods require expert advice and counsel from people such as tax accountants, lawyers, deferred compensation experts and, yes, even economists. Higher-income people find tax accountants and lawyers and other financial professionals far more cost-effective than do people with lower incomes, not only because the costs are spread over larger sums, but because the pursuit of tax avoidance is, dollar of income for dollar of income, more profitable at higher tax rates. This makes the taxable incomes of those who earn more, more variable, and the taxable incomes of those who earn less, less variable.
Academicians and politicians have finally come to understand that it's the after-tax rate of return that determines people's behavior. Even though statutory tax rates are far lower today than they were when, say, Kennedy or Reagan took office, it is still very true that for every dollar of static revenue change there is a much larger incentive affect in the highest tax bracket than in the lowest tax bracket.
But what actually happens to tax receipts by income tax bracket when tax rates change?
Since 1980, statutory marginal tax rates have fallen dramatically. The highest marginal income tax rate in 1980 was 70%. Today it is 35%. In the year Ronald Reagan took office (1981) the top 1% of income earners paid 17.58% of all federal income taxes. Twenty-five years later, in 2005, the top 1% paid 39.38% of all income taxes.
There are other ways of looking at tax receipts by income bracket. From 1981 to 2005, the income taxes paid by the top 1% rose to 2.96% of GDP, from 1.59% of GDP. There was also a huge absolute increase in real tax dollars paid by this group. In 1981, the total taxes paid in 2005 dollars by the top 1% of income earners was $94.84 billion. In 2005 it was $368.13 billion.
In 2000 this teeny, tiny group -- 1% of all taxpayers -- actually paid income taxes equal to 3.75% of GDP, which is why President Clinton had a budget surplus. Much of this huge surge in tax payments by the top 1% of tax filers resulted from the huge increase in realized capital gains resulting from President Clinton's capital gains tax rate cut to 20% from 28% in 1997.
Let's take a look at the bottom 75% of taxpayers over this same time period -- the group current Democrats refer to as middle- and lower-income earners. From 1981 through 2005, the share of all income taxes paid by the bottom 75% of all income earners (as reported on the individual income tax returns) declined to 14.01% from 27.71%. As a share of GDP, total taxes paid by the bottom 75% fell to 1.05% from 2.50%. The bottom 75% of all taxpayers today pay less than 35% of all the taxes paid by the top 1% of all income earners.
Over the last 25 years, the bottom 75% of all taxpayers' tax payments fell and their tax rates fell. This is the group the Democrats are targeting for tax cuts.
The important point here is that, over the last 25-plus years, the only group that experienced an increase in income taxes paid as a share of GDP was the top 1% of income earners. Even the top 2%-5% of income earners saw a decline in the GDP share of their income taxes paid.
But now we get to the secret sauce, and the essence of what really happens in the realm of tax rates, incomes and tax payments by the rich.
We have accurate data on both the total taxes paid by the top 1% of income earners, and on their comprehensive household income as measured by the Congressional Budget Office. From these two data series we can calculate the effective average tax rate for the top 1% of all income earners.
Surprise, surprise: The effective average tax rate for the top 1% of income earners barely wiggles as Congress changes tax codes after tax codes, and as the economy goes from boom to bust and back again (see chart).
The question is, how can that effective average tax rate be so stable? The answer is simply that the very highest income earners are and have always been able to vary their reported income and thus control the amount of taxes they pay. Whether through tax shelters, deferrals, gifts, write-offs, cross income mobility or any of a number of other measures, the effective average tax rate barely budges. But this group's total tax payments are incredibly volatile.
For the low- and middle-income earners, the effective average tax rate has tumbled over the past 25 years, and so have tax revenues no matter how they're measured.
Using recent data, in other words, it would appear on its face that the Democratic proposal to raise taxes on the upper-income earners, and lower taxes on the middle- and lower- income earners, will result in huge revenue losses on both accounts. But some academic advisers to Democratic candidates have a hard time understanding the obvious, devising outlandish theories as to why things are different now. Well they aren't!
In the 1920s, the highest federal marginal income tax rate fell to 24% from 78%. Those people who earned over $100,000 had their share of total taxes paid rise -- from 29.9% in 1920 to 48.8% in 1925, and then to 62.2% in 1929. There was no inflation over this period.
With the Kennedy tax cuts of the 1960s, when the highest tax rate fell from to 70% from 91%, the story was the same. When you cut the highest tax rates on the highest-income earners, government gets more money from them, and when you cut tax rates on the middle and lower income earners, the government gets less money from them.
Even these data grossly understate the total supply-side response. A cut in the highest tax rates will increase lots of other tax receipts. It will lower government spending as a consequence of a stronger economy with less unemployment and less welfare. It will have a material, positive impact on state and local governments. And these effects will only grow with time.
Mark my words: If the Democrats succeed in implementing their plan to tax the rich and cut taxes on the middle and lower income earners, this country will experience a fiscal crisis of serious proportions that will last for years and years until a new Harding, Kennedy or Reagan comes along.
Trained economists know all of this is true, but they try to rebut the facts nonetheless because they believe it will curry favor with their political benefactors.
Mr. Laffer is president of Laffer Associates.
It took her and many conservatives quite some time to reach that point, far too much time for my tastes. Denial was the likely cause of their malaise.
I really liked McCain back during the 2000 primaries and was disappointed when he lost to Bush. Despite his obvious lack of savoir faire in public I thought GW Bush would be more of a true conservative, how wrong I was. I was a huge fan of the Bush tax cuts but it was the subsequent reckless spending and Bush's refusal to use his veto power to curtail big government programs and kill pork laden bills that quickly soured me. Any Republican that supports the creation of a bureaucratic nightmare called the Dept. of Homeland Security ought to have his/her credentials checked and shown to the door. Not that the Democrats weren't quietly celebrating Bush's contribution to bigger government, barring the tax cuts and Iraq Bush did more to further their cause on the domestic front than Clinton ever did (i.e. that Medicare bill and No Child Left Behind).
I admit I was a total fence sitter on the Iraq war. I was an agnostic on the WMD argument but appreciated the underlying geopolitical motivation to remove Saddam from power. I appreciated the tactic but the execution was simply awful.
Spino, with that latte enema rant, are you attempting to fill the Devastatin' Dave-sized hole in our lives?
Current polling (http://www.srbi.com/4328-Final%20Report-2008-02-05--8.15am.pdf), for what it's worth (and yeah, it don't mean too much this far out):
McCain 46; Clinton 46. And McCain 41; Obama 48. The difference? Obama wins the independents against McCain (48 to 36) in an almost mirror image of the way McCain wins independents against Clinton (49 to 39).
Not that the Democrats weren't quietly celebrating Bush's contribution to bigger government, barring the tax cuts and Iraq Bush did more to further their cause on the domestic front than Clinton ever did (i.e. that Medicare bill and No Child Left Behind).IIRC, their main gripe was that the new government bureaucrats might not be allowed to unionize, that the new Medicare plan didn't spend enough money, and that NCLB placed too many restrictions on the new largess being handed to failing schools.
Bush may have been a disappointment, but I'd be a fool to think a Democrat would improve on any of the issues I was disappointed with. They'd only change much of what I already didn't like for the worse. :no:
Spino, with that latte enema rant, are you attempting to fill the Devastatin' Dave-sized hole in our lives?
Current polling (http://www.srbi.com/4328-Final%20Report-2008-02-05--8.15am.pdf), for what it's worth (and yeah, it don't mean too much this far out):
McCain 46; Clinton 46. And McCain 41; Obama 48. The difference? Obama wins the independents against McCain (48 to 36) in an almost mirror image of the way McCain wins independents against Clinton (49 to 39).
I think the latte enema bit comes from Fight Club.
Now I have a conundrum. Virginia primary coming up Tuesday. It's open, so I can vote in either. Do I vote for Hillary, to keep her campaign going and poison the Democrats in the national election (Virginia is going to go GOP anyway)? Do I vote for Obama and "Change"? Or do I vote for Paul, like I planned months ago?
Spino, with that latte enema rant, are you attempting to fill the Devastatin' Dave-sized hole in our lives?
I would never dare to dream so big. Such lofty pursuits are beyond my mortal means...
I confess, I always look for an excuse to quote select tidbits from Chuck Palahniuk's "Fight Club".
Vladimir
02-08-2008, 20:31
Heaven forfend that I should speak disparagingly of an authoritarian demagogue who never appears in any setting except one he controls, who tolerates no guests who don't agree with him, and whose talking points are repeated endlessly by the faithful as gospel truth. As for pointing out his obesity, may I remind you that this is a man who advocates self-reliance and self-control, and yet he allows himself to be grossly fat. Let's not even start on the addiction to drugs, the lenient treatment for same, and the contradiction with his lock-em-all-up rhetoric.
Demagogues annoy me. Hypocritical authoritarian ideologues who call themselves "conservative" annoy me even more.
Now if either of you authoritarians (http://pruningshears.squarespace.com/pruning-shears/2008/2/7/the-new-authoritarians.html) would care to get back to talking about the Presidential race, we're all ears.
Current year: 2008
Year on the Lemur callender: 1989.
When's the last time you heard the show much less saw a picture of the man. Should I take his rants more seriously than yours?
When's the last time you heard the show much less saw a picture of the man.
God, you really won't let this go, will you? my last job involved a lot of driving, so I listened to more talk radio than I ever want to hear again. Yaeh, that included Rush.
Should I take his rants more seriously than yours?
Vladimir, I'm not aware of you taking anything I say seriously, except insofar as you need to load up on ammo for sniping from the edges.
For pete's sake, if you really want to go on and on and on about Rush and the Lemur, do the courteous thing and take it to PM. Defend your hero in private, or start your own thread about the glorious Limbaugh. Stop attempting to derail a thread about the Presidential primaries, kid.
ICantSpellDawg
02-08-2008, 21:04
I don't even know why we look at national popularity polls in elections anymore.
We should look at polls in each state in relation to the electoral college votes.
CountArach
02-09-2008, 00:49
https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r44/CountArach/mccaind-j.jpg
The Democratic Nomination is all wrapped up!
woad&fangs
02-09-2008, 00:51
LOL, Fox "News" sucks at life.
Louis VI the Fat
02-09-2008, 02:20
Do I vote for Hillary, to keep her campaign going and poison the Democrats in the national election (Virginia is going to go GOP anyway)? Wait a second...so that was what Seamus was up to.
That sneaky bastard! He sold me his vote. He promised to vote Hillary in the primary in exchange for certain...services rendered. Now I understand why, Hillary doesn't stand a chance in Virginia (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/poll_obama_up_by_20_in_virgini.php).
I've been had! :wall:
A video of one of those emotional, illogical Obama supporters (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kica8hmSdAM). Very amusing, actually.
-edit-
And as long as I'm being contrarian, here's a good essay (http://blog.oup.com/2008/02/john_mccain/) about McCain's conservatism.
Self-proclaimed conservative purists also attack McCain for his vote to block drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. It was for this affront that Romney labeled McCain as being outside the conservative mainstream. Once again, it was McCain who was true to conservative principles and Romney who was off-base. Barry Goldwater, the founder of the modern conservative movement, devoted an entire lengthy chapter in his book “The Conscience of a Majority” to “Saving the Earth”. Russell Kirk, one of conservatism’s leading scholars, wrote: “the modern spectacle of vanished forests and eroded lands . . . is evidence of what an age without veneration does to itself and its successors.”
Over and over again, John McCain has found himself attacked by self-enthroned “conservative leaders” who have no clue as to what conservatism is really all about.
A video of one of those emotional, illogical Obama supporters (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kica8hmSdAM). Very amusing, actually.Amusing as a propaganda piece I guess. I like how the interviewer angrily throws out the cliched Obama attacks and the anonymous man on the street knocks them all down without so much as an "umm". Viral marketing at its finest....
Actually, if you check the due's web site, you'll see he does that to everybody (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htD8v2t81h4). It's his schtick (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfMz45BPjGU&feature=user).
Actually, if you check the due's web site, you'll see he does that to everybody (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htD8v2t81h4). It's his schtick (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfMz45BPjGU&feature=user).
All I saw were 2 other videos of Clinton supporters where they look like morons. Makes a nice contrast to the ultra-informed Obama supporter. Viral Marketing. :wink:
Think it's working? Just look at the hit counts.
I guess it's time for Hillary to cry again, since it looks as though Obama swept three states (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7236230.stm) today.
But what to make of Huckabee winning Kansas by two to one? I don't think Kansas counts as a Southern state, now does it? And what's motivating his continuation? A show of strength, setting him up for a 2012 run?
Yes, Hillary got crushed today. She better win TX by a comfortable margin or her presidential bid is over. As for Huck winning KS.....I think McCain should just forget Huck exists. If by some miracle HUck still wins and gets nominated, then GOP deserves to lose in November.
CountArach
02-10-2008, 05:11
I guess it's time for Hillary to cry again, since it looks as though Obama swept three states (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7236230.stm) today.
Lousiana has a large African-American population and the other two were Caucus states, which favour the fanatical support that Obama can attract from young voters.
But what to make of Huckabee winning Kansas by two to one? I don't think Kansas counts as a Southern state, now does it? And what's motivating his continuation? A show of strength, setting him up for a 2012 run?It's still the bible belt isn't it?
As to the Democrat race, I think the Clinton people were expecting to lose those states anyhow. But with the media jabbering on constantly about "momentum" a sweep like that still helps Obama.
Crazed Rabbit
02-10-2008, 07:12
I guess it's time for Hillary to cry again, since it looks as though Obama swept three states (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7236230.stm) today.
But what to make of Huckabee winning Kansas by two to one? I don't think Kansas counts as a Southern state, now does it? And what's motivating his continuation? A show of strength, setting him up for a 2012 run?
When you wrote this did you know Hillary actually cried?
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//080209/480/37e15e00cf584d47971c72ac6b53fa95/
Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., wipes her eye as she listens to a disabled U.S. veteran in the audience tell his story during a campaign stop at The City of Lewiston Memorial Armory in Lewiston, Maine., Saturday, Feb. 9,
CR
Banquo's Ghost
02-10-2008, 10:09
A question, if I may.
At this stage of the primary contest, do voters take into account the possible permutations for Vice-president?
For example, I would suggest that this is an important question in relation to Senator McCain's candidacy. The possibility that a man of 71 might die in office has to be taken seriously, surely. (I know his mother is pretty sprightly, but men tend to die before women - and his father died at 70). Thus whoever is considered for his v-p may stand a very good chance of succeeding to the presidency. Vote McCain, get Huckabee is not a prospect that is likely to appeal to the people who seem to be keen on the former.
Do people take this into account? Do the candidates?
Ser Clegane
02-10-2008, 10:21
A question, if I may.
At this stage of the primary contest, do voters take into account the possible permutations for Vice-president?
For example, I would suggest that this is an important question in relation to Senator McCain's candidacy. The possibility that a man of 71 might die in office has to be taken seriously, surely. (I know his mother is pretty sprightly, but men tend to die before women - and his father died at 70). Thus whoever is considered for his v-p may stand a very good chance of succeeding to the presidency. Vote McCain, get Huckabee is not a prospect that is likely to appeal to the people who seem to be keen on the former.
Do people take this into account? Do the candidates?
hehe ... I am pretty sure that at least whichever Democrat candidate will run against McCain will see to it that people are made very aware of this situation (and should Huckabee be the candidate for VP I would not be surprised if that would even be a key element of the Democrat's campaign).
Could get rather ugly if a campaign starts to focus on age and potential health issues of a candidate...
Marshal Murat
02-10-2008, 16:15
I figured this had something to do with the campaigns....
Reporter Defends Chelsea Comment (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8408.html)
The Politico does a fine job of covering the event, and I actually can't decide whether to defend the reporter or not.
While calling Chelsea 'pimped-out' is not Politically Correct, it does sorta get the message across. If he had used another term, then he would still have his job, and my respect.
However, it does seem to be ironic that it highlights the exact action of the Clinton campaign. Chelsea calls the super-delegates, but refuses to have any press, and when the press does talk about her, the Clinton campaign gets upset. Like they did after the comment.
When you wrote this did you know Hillary actually cried?
Nope. Had I known it, I would have come at it from a different angle, been a little more oblique. But it's funny anyway.
Speaking of things that are amusing at Mrs. Clinton's expense (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/09/AR2008020902140.html):
A campaign staffer took the stage with a big pile of T-shirts to give to those who answered trivia questions about Hillary Clinton.
Her birthplace? Got it. Her law school? Piece of cake. How much of the country would Clinton's health plan cover? "All," came the answer. Okay, final question: "This person is the next president of the United States . . ."
Suddenly, all around me, the bleachers in the Washington-Lee High School gym shook with shouts of "Obama!"
"Oh, no," said Linda Cooper, a Chantilly homemaker and Hillary fan who was sitting next to me. "I guess she doesn't have the young people."
ICantSpellDawg
02-10-2008, 17:00
I still think that Hillary will get the nomination.
But even if she has more delegates from winning the "right" states, the Democratic party should realize what they have with Obama as a communicator. One that wins states that are unheard of for the Democratic party in the past 30 years.
Hillary won NY - whopedeedoo. Won't Barack by default? California? Same thing.
The real variables are the red states which Obama tore through in landslides. Those are the states that matter this time around - If he can take a few of them from McCain in November, a democratic presidency is in the bag.
A question, if I may.
At this stage of the primary contest, do voters take into account the possible permutations for Vice-president?
For example, I would suggest that this is an important question in relation to Senator McCain's candidacy. The possibility that a man of 71 might die in office has to be taken seriously, surely. (I know his mother is pretty sprightly, but men tend to die before women - and his father died at 70). Thus whoever is considered for his v-p may stand a very good chance of succeeding to the presidency. Vote McCain, get Huckabee is not a prospect that is likely to appeal to the people who seem to be keen on the former.
Do people take this into account? Do the candidates?
The short answer is no.
Now for the long answer. If the primaries are close the possiblity of the second place candidate being the vice president nominee becomes possible, especially if the primary candidate does not have the necessary delegates to capture the nomination outright. This is the back room deals that often happen prior to the conventions in the old days, and rumors of what happened in West Virginia for the Republicans this year. If McCain does not capture enough delegates prior to the convention - Hucklebee will most likely be a vice president candidate because of his staying in the race. If McCain capture enough votes then the party gets to decide who they believe is the best possible support to McCain's Bid. My feeling is that Hucklebee will most likely be the vice-presidental candidate because of this reason - that he will help capture states that McCain would not win on his own.
Primarily the convention and the party leaders look to a vice candidate that will help the presidental candidate capture states that he might not be able to do by himself.
A McCain/Huckabee ticket would be truly frightening.... :sweatdrop:
ICantSpellDawg
02-10-2008, 19:27
A McCain/Huckabee ticket would be truly frightening.... :sweatdrop:
To me also. I thought Condi would have been a decent choice, it would clip the wings of those who tried to equate the G.O.P. with racism.
A McCain/Huckabee ticket would be truly frightening.... :sweatdrop:
Then are you voting for the democrate candidate if this happens?
:oops:
To me also. I thought Condi would have been a decent choice, it would clip the wings of those who tried to equate the G.O.P. with racism.From what I've heard/seen from Condi, I think she'd make a strong presidential candidate. Too bad she didn't run.
Then are you voting for the democrate candidate if this happens?Probably not, but I wouldn't be voting GOP either.
Probably not, but I wouldn't be voting GOP either.
For a third viable party. How much America needs one with the choices we have for President, Senator, and Representive in our Federal Government.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
02-10-2008, 20:59
For a third viable party. How much America needs one with the choices we have for President, Senator, and Representive in our Federal Government.
If more people started thinking that voting for a third party could be a good choice, and stopped thinking that it was throwing their vote away, then a vote for a third party would matter.
CountArach
02-10-2008, 23:31
To me also. I thought Condi would have been a decent choice, it would clip the wings of those who tried to equate the G.O.P. with racism.
It would also play well with the whole National Security thing that McCain would have to run on.
KukriKhan
02-11-2008, 00:41
She (C. Rice) has said that her 'dream job' was Commissioner of the Nat'l Football League, and that this gov't gig was just a stepping-stone to that end.:laugh4:
GWB has said similar things about being baseball commissioner.
Condi would be a strong ticket-mate for any Repub candidate. We The People don't get much say in the selection, tho'. That task gets the old-time 'smokey back room' treatment.
Condi would be a strong ticket-mate for any Repub candidate. We The People don't get much say in the selection, tho'. That task gets the old-time 'smokey back room' treatment.
That's not entirely a bad thing. :yes:
A McCain/Rice ticket would be formidable, formidable. Excellent idea.
Meanwhile, Obama takes Maine with a 15% margin (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/10/politics/main3813759.shtml), echoing the last four contests. But for my money the funniest bit (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2008/02/scenes_from_the_jj_dinner.html?hpid=topnews) buried in the reporting:
Earlier, the Hillary Clinton "visibility rally" outside the Siegal Center [in Richmond, VA] got off to a bad start. A rental truck carrying the campaign signs struck a BMW driven by an Obama supporter, causing considerable damage.
"This just makes us even stronger Obama supporters," said Rich Garries of Hampton Roads, as he looked at his car.
Why do Hillary supporters hate fine Bavarian automobiles?
Tristrem
02-11-2008, 03:19
I would like to say that i participated today in the Maine caucus, for the town of Orono. We had a record turnout, and the overall vote was almost 3 to 1 for Obama. I saw him speak at the Bangor rally yesterday and i have to say he is the real deal, and has me sold.
I also got elected as a state delegate for my precinct, so I am representing a part of my campus in May at our state convention. I can't wait, it's going to be a blast. It feels good to know that i'm doing my part and my voice will be heard.
Congratulations on being selected, Tristrem. Should be interesting to see it from the inside.
Interesting first-hand accounts (http://letters.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/10/virginia/permalink/be47ce73c0409ecea49615c6ae2c87e2.html) coming from Maine ...
I drove for two hours yesterday to Bangor with my sister and daughter to see Barack speak in Maine. I figured it would be interesting to see a candidate speak, when Maine is typically forgotten. We made the mistake of getting there about an hour before the doors opened to the Bangor Auditorium, as the population of the city had increased by a third for his speech. We waited in the longest line I had ever seen in my life for almost two hours. We met some wonderful people, many younger and surprisingly many quite a bit older.
After all of that waiting, we were only a few hundred feet from the auditorium when we were told that the main room had filled to capacity as well as the overflow room. Just when we were ready to turn back, we were told that Barack would speak to us outside, and would do so FIRST.
So imagine a scene like the stump speeches only read about in books, people jostling on snowbanks, climbing fences, trees, even each other in the calm cold that was Maine yesterday to hear and see Barack, for only a few minutes. And did he deliver. There was excitement, there was hope, and there were specifics. Talk of new ways to use our old industrial centers, dead and forgotten by the establishment. Talk of help with college tuition. Talk of thinking about our children and grandchildren first.
He then spent time talking to and shaking hands with the crowd before going in. I could not believe this was happening. No crowd control, no checking of bags, Barack in a potentially dangerous setting with no way for Secret Service to cover him. And he did it without hesitation.
Anyone who will do this in a state with a population likely to vote for Hillary, a tiny, white, poor, lost in the back woods near Canada population, and for those foolish enough to show up "late", is someone who clearly gives a damn. He was comfortable with a chaotic situation, worked it to his advantage on the fly, and did it with grace and aplomb.
Hillary speaks of worries about Barack being a likable guy, same as George Bush. She's right, and also dead wrong. Likable they both can be, yes. But George Bush is the man who drinks you under the table, then drives you all home and thusly off a cliff. Barack is the guy you follow into battle, ready to do what needs to be done to save a country in danger.
This life-long Independent is ready to sign on to the Democratic party, participate in today's caucus, and follow this leader all the way to November and beyond. I exhort everyone else here to consider the same.
Tristrem
02-11-2008, 03:56
I also did not get in the building yesterday. We left at 2:00 because we were only 15 minutes away. It took over an hour to just get off the highway. It was quite the spectacle. I was one of those guys standing on the fence jostling for position just to see him. He gave a great 10 minute speech for us. He was very inspiring, and really makes you feel like you can make a difference. It was worth the wait just to get a glimse of him.
ya i told my parents back home that i was a delegate for part of the university, and my mom told me she volenteered to be an alternate delegate for my home town. I have to say it is awesome to know I will be seeing how this whole election process works from the inside. Words can't describe how excited i am
interesting though, there were over 10,000 people at his rally, and only 1700 at hillary's which was on campus
Looks like the Huck also took Louisiana (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/huckabee_pulls_1.html). Cui bono?
Looks like the Huck also took Louisiana (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/huckabee_pulls_1.html). Cui bono?
I hope Huckabee gets the nomination- then I won't have to agonize over whether or not I should vote for McCain against whichever Democrat wins. :2thumbsup:
Of course, a Huckabee VP nomination would have the same effect I guess. :shrug:
Advanced poll-smoking. Like many Orgahs, I have been dismayed at how useless the polls have been for the Democratic race. On the Republican side they've been pretty good, but attempting to get a grip on the Dem primary has felt like trying to box a cloud.
Finally, some young math whiz has waded through the demographics and come up with a model that matches observed reality. Take a look (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/9/13227/22519/239/453361) for yourselves. Yes, it's a blogger at Kos, but I'm willing to forgive him, considering the amount of effort and time he must have put into this analysis.
If you're at all interested in the outcome of the Dem primary, I suggest you give it a read.
Condi would be a strong ticket-mate for any Repub candidate. We The People don't get much say in the selection, tho'. That task gets the old-time 'smokey back room' treatment.
I don't know about this. Strategy wise Condi Rice as a running mate has the potential to open up some seriously large holes for the Democrats to exploit. Rice would be a very good selection for the VP nod and a McCain/Rice ticket would be a solid team and an easy sell in a different time and during a different election year. However McCain is faced with the task of persuading moderates and undecided voters that he is not a Neo-Con and not a standard bearer for the Bush administration. Come the general election McCain must follow the example of Al Gore in 2000 and downplay his professional association with the fellow currently sitting in the White House. With Rice on the ticket McCain runs the serious risk of constantly having to fend off questions and accusations that he is going to be nothing more than four more years of GW Bush. Yes, that is a weak sauce argument to anyone with half a brain but the sheeple will eat it up (take note of the rabid anti-Bush fanaticism emanating from the mouths of plebs these last 8 years). McCain must find himself a running mate present who is an easy sell to undecided moderates.
Last but not least, given the double standard that applies to anything conservatives do that encroaches territory claimed by 'progressives' and liberals you can bet your bottom dollar that the media, the Democrats and the Obama campaign would use a Condi Rice VP nod as an attempt to 'pander' to the black and liberal vote (even though the Republicans almost always lose the lion's share of the former).
Despite the grumblings emanating from core conservatives and evangelicals McCain will get a huge turnout by conservatives because once again, they will be confronted with the prospect of two serious liberals in the form of either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. The political stripes of the former are unquestionable, the latter puts up a good smokescreen but anyone who is familiar with his core beliefs and and knows he is cut from the same ideological sheet as Bill Clinton, Gore or Kerry.
Obama wins a Grammy. (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ia3ilncJM9HOibDxYWfGdj4PNXnA)
Yes, I'm serious. :inquisitive:
Spino, you know I love you, but man, you've got a jaundiced, cynical, backwards-looking view on race relations, which is too damn bad, since there have been so many encouraging developments in the last few years.
President Bush has appointed one of the most diverse cabinets in the history of the U.S.A., a point for which he gets very little credit.
Secretary Rice has served as both the National Security Advisor and Secretary of State. If you were to suggest that a black woman could do such a thing forty years ago, you would have been laughed out of the room.
Senator Obama is very close to gaining the Democratic nomination for President, and has done so largely by running a campaign that explicitly does not pander to black victimhood. Given the rhetoric of '80s and '90s black representatives such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, this is a welcome reversal.
And all of this adds up to nothing for you. It's all about "pandering" to the black and liberal vote, it's all about the "sheeple." It's all about the same hard-coded limits that you can't or won't see shifting.
The race equation is changing. Time to notice, friend.
On a completely different note, since Clinton is the last person in the race whom I oppose (besides Huckster, but he ain't serious, is he?), here are some examples of her leadership:
Clinton as Manager: (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/maine_caucuses_barack_obama_to.html)
Over the last seven years, Clinton had raised $175 million for her reelection and her presidential campaign. But Solis Doyle didn't tell Clinton that there was next to no cash on hand until after the New Hampshire primary.
"We were lying about money," a source said. "The cash on hand was nothing."
In turn, Clinton didn't tell Solis Doyle that she was lending her own money to keep the campaign afloat. Solis Doyle found out third-hand. And when she asked Clinton about it, the senator told her she couldn't understand how the campaign had gotten to such a point.
Clinton as Manager Part Deux: (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/more-news-about.html)
[T]he Obama campaign arguably had more reason than the Clinton campaign to focus on the earliest contests and slight the later ones. Obama, after all, was coming from behind. He had to win some of the early contests. If he had lost every state through Super Tuesday, it would have been all over for him. He therefore had a pretty strong reason to put everything he had into those states, and hope that whatever momentum he got would carry him through in places like Maine and Nebraska. Clinton, by contrast, only had to anticipate that Obama might win enough states to keep going to know that she had to focus on the post-Super Tuesday states. She has a lot less excuse for making this misjudgment than Obama did. But she made it, and he did not. That tells me something.
Obama has so far run a better campaign than Hillary and is very likely to be the next Dem nominee. That doesn't endear him to me a single bit, but I have to acknowldge that he's been playing his cards right. I'm still voting for Mac though. Mac should take ROmney as his veep to appease the right wing, then let loose all of the attack pit-bulls and send them against Obama.
ICantSpellDawg
02-11-2008, 22:16
I wouldn't want to see Romney as V.P.
I want him to stay far away from this impending train wreck. There is no way the G.O.P. is going to keep the white house this year unless something major happens with the Dem nominee.
Romney is a leader, he needs to run on his own steam.
Good piece (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/should-conserva.html) on McCain (from Mr. Liberal Fascism himself):
But that raises an interesting and remarkably undiscussed question for McCain's detractors: Who are you really mad at? [...]
Conservatives supported Bush in 2000 for numerous reasons, including the fact that he seemed the best candidate to win back the White House. But one reason for his success in winning conservative support was that he just seemed like "one of us." He carried himself like a conservative. He spoke like a conservative. He was an evangelical Christian and pro-life Texan, who reassured much of the base by telegraphing that he was on the right side of the culture wars. As political positioning, this was brilliant stuff. Aesthetically, he played to the hearts of the right while politically he promised to be something of a centrist, almost Clintonian, president without the seedy soft-core porn baggage. [...]
But substantively, the differences between McCainism and Bushism are very narrow, and the question of who is more conservative is more open than many on the right are comfortable asking. Hence, projection and guilt might explain at least some of the venom toward McCain. A lot of powerful emotions can be conjured by the sentiment: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
I think he's being more than a little unfair to McCain, but he asks some good questions.
Just put my two cents into the equation. Not too many people at the polling station, but a steady trickle nonetheless. First time in a while that the VA primary meant anything. Campaigning was light this week, got phone calls from the McCain folks, Obama had quite a few radio spots, looked like Hillary had more TV commercials. Not too much roadside pollution, mainly Paul placards.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-13-2008, 01:27
CNN is calling Virginia for Obama with 0% reporting. He must have won really big.
If Hillary doesn't get both Ohio and Texas with a decent lead she's sunk.
Tristrem
02-13-2008, 01:57
ya, their calling it 61% to 38% for obama right now
Seamus Fermanagh
02-13-2008, 02:58
Option #1 Clinton wins big in TX etc., holds the superdelgates and ekes out a narrow win on the first ballot. She then picks Richardson as VPnom.
Result = McCain victory in close fought election, maybe as close as 2002.
Option #2 Clinton wins on superdelegates in convention, takes obama as running mate to keep enough superdelegates to win.
Result = anybody's guess
Option #3 Obama wins on 2nd plus convention ballot as delegates of all stripes bolt the Clinton candidacy. Obama takes Richardson or "neutral" dem as VPnom
Result = narrow win for Obama
Option #4 Obama wins on first round in convention with some superdelegates bolting Clinton for him.
Result = solid win for Obama
I consider this last option most likely.
ICantSpellDawg
02-13-2008, 04:00
http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.htm
This is a pretty good one. For some reason I got 94% with Huckabee even though I dislike him thoroughly. I got 89.9% with Mitt.
It doesn't tell you where you differ, just that you differ.
I can't seem to get the link to work, or I'd give it a try. :sweatdrop:
http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.htm
This is a pretty good one. For some reason I got 94% with Huckabee even though I dislike him thoroughly. I got 89.9% with Mitt.
It doesn't tell you where you differ, just that you differ.
Here's the corrected link (http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html).
Mike Huckabee? I didn't see that coming. :inquisitive:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
02-13-2008, 04:45
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/12/potomac.primaries/index.html
Looks like Obama's won all three primaries today.
CountArach
02-13-2008, 05:13
CLINTON!?!?!?!?
BLEUGH!!! :sick:
But seriously - of the 3 remaining Democrats I am closest to Gravel.
Crazed Rabbit
02-13-2008, 06:34
Gravel? Ha! I bet most democrat voters don't know about him.
In Maryland, Obama became a juggernaut;
In the Chesapeake Rout, according to exit polls in Maryland, Obama won:
Latino Voters By Six Points: 53-47
All Religions (Including Catholics)
All Age Groups (Including Seniors)
All Regions
All Education Levels
And Women by TWENTY ONE POINTS...
He's like the Clinton machine six months ago, but not fueled by ambition, greed, and spite.
I just hope the battle goes on to the convention so they have to keep fighting each other. If Obama keeps a narrow lead, I don't see Clinton giving up.
CR
ICantSpellDawg
02-13-2008, 15:36
Good showman-ship from the psycho hose-beast (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/12/clinton-still-no-congratulations-for-obama/)
I was going to post a sound bite from the wizard of OZ; you know, when the wicked witch is flying around the house in the cyclone?
It is copyrighted.
I'll admit, I've been kinda anti-Hillary. But thanks to this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FvyGydc8no), I am now a huge supporter. Rawk on to the White House!
ICantSpellDawg
02-13-2008, 20:53
I'll admit, I've been kinda anti-Hillary. But thanks to this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FvyGydc8no), I am now a huge supporter. Rawk on to the White House!
Damn it. I thought I could hold out longer too before I embraced her inevitable goodness. God she is awesome - And I thought words couldn't express it!!??!!?!
I'll admit, I've been kinda anti-Hillary. But thanks to this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FvyGydc8no), I am now a huge supporter. Rawk on to the White House!
That's 2 minutes 36 seconds of my life I won't get back. :thinking:
She got owned. The message is clear: Go back to Arkansas, or New York, or wherever else you want to sleaze your way into power, but we don't want you living around here!
Crazed Rabbit
02-14-2008, 01:59
I'll admit, I've been kinda anti-Hillary. But thanks to this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FvyGydc8no), I am now a huge supporter. Rawk on to the White House!
Wow. Wow. I mean, really? Good grief. When Obama fans turn out stuff like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY you know why Hillary's losing.
CR
LittleGrizzly
02-14-2008, 02:06
Damn that Obama thing was actually pretty good... the hilary thing was laughable
ICantSpellDawg
02-14-2008, 04:39
Wow. Wow. I mean, really? Good grief. When Obama fans turn out stuff like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY you know why Hillary's losing.
CR
I heard that song on the radio and I liked it. Then I got home and realized that celebrities had made it and it very much soured the deal. I will never be on the same side as Hollywood in anything substantial - except for their wholesale rejection of Hillary. The difference is that they reject her for being too "conservative"... I have different reasons.
I can understand you not being a Black Eyed Peas kinda guy, Tuff. Elephunk, I mean really, who's into that these days?
You're all being very mean about the Hillary video. It converted me! I was dead set against the Clinton Restoration, but now I'm all for it.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/r1797012930.jpg
Crazed Rabbit
02-14-2008, 07:55
Why I wouldn't count the Clintons out yet:
Bill granted clemency to terrorists who hadn't asked for clemency to pander to Hispanics. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120277819085260827-search.html?KEYWORDS=clintons%27&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month)
And it turns out Obama might be a very average speaker without his teleprompter:
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/728ofzey.asp
CR
Seamus Fermanagh
02-14-2008, 17:30
I'm not a big McCain fan -- he's a classic C.C.GOPper (Conservative on fopo and military, anti-tax but pro government involvement in econ, liberal on most but not all social issues). However, his stance on Life and on the WoT makes him, for me, a palatable choice compared to the Dems.
SO....
I want Obama to get to the convention with a narrow delegate lead and have Clinton beat him for the nom on superdelegates and calling in every favor/skeleton the Clintonians know! This will leave the Dems in total disarray and let Johnny step into the oval.
Instead, I'll get B.H.O. in a small-to-modest first ballot win over Clinton followed by his picking Richardson and then waxing McCain by 0.5-1.5 points in the popular vote and about 300 to 230 in the E.C.
Hope the international "love" he gets for his permanent tan is enough to offset the 24 months of OJT.
ICantSpellDawg
02-14-2008, 17:41
Obama could turn out to be a straw man, but people are notorious for masturbating themselves with words in the face of reality. Both candidates have massive weaknesses and massive strengths.
Obama has a tremendous amount of charisma in his speeches. He is also the black man that the world has been waiting for. Mainstream, Charismatic, well-spoken and not full of bigoted hatred against white people. Like it or not, that mix has not really existed in U.S. politics much before him. Blacks in U.S. politics have traditionally been largely been characterized as race baiting (Jackson, Rangel, Sharpton) OR stuffy old codgers (Powell, Rice, Thomas). Call that racist if you wan't, but it is pretty true. I'd like people - white, black and everything in between - to stop being racists, but contemporary black politicians have made that very difficult. Obama may be able to change that.
Clinton has an ongoing pact with Satan, so that clearly gives her an edge in any national election.
ICantSpellDawg
02-14-2008, 19:35
Romney is scheduled to endorse McCain today. If he does it, I do it. I freakin' love that guy.
Looks as though some on the far left (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=02&year=2008&base_name=out_for_themselves) are waking up to what the Clintons are about:
If Hillary Clinton does not win delegates out of a majority of contested primaries and caucuses, her aides are willing to rip the party apart to secure the nomination, to cheat in a way that will rend the Democratic coalition and probably destroy Clinton's chances in the general election. Imagine the fury in the African-American community if Barack Obama leads in delegates but is denied the nomination because the Clinton campaign is able to change the rules to seat delegates from Michigan, where no other candidates were even on the ballot, and from Florida, where no one campaigned. Imagine the anger among the young voters Obama brought into the process, and was making into Democratic voters. Imagine the feeling of betrayal among his supporters more generally, and the disgust among independents watching the battle take place on the convention floor. Imagine how statesmanlike John McCain will look in comparison, how orderly and focused the Republican convention will appear.
This demonstrates not only a gross ruthlessness on the part of Clinton's campaign, but an astonishingly cavalier attitude towards the preservation of the progressive coalition. To be willing to blithely rip it to shreds in order to wrest a nomination that's not been fairly earned is not only low, but a demonstration of deeply pernicious priorities -- namely, it's an explicit statement that the campaign puts its own political success above the health of the party and the pursuit of progressive goals, and one can't but help assume that's exactly the attitude they would take towards governance, too.
woad&fangs
02-14-2008, 22:15
^^^^
I fully expected Obama to go into the convention with a narrow lead in delegates and then have to fight Clinton for the superdelegates. If Clinton wins that fight then the democrats will be destroyed as a party for the next 6 to 8 years due to the reasons that were mentioned above. The Super delegates need to side with Obama if they really care about their party.
Tuff, I still think that Romney is slimy but his bowing out of the race when he did seemed very classy to me. I hope that he gets the VP nomination on the republican side. At the very least I think that he'd balance the federal budget.
I realized something today. The next president will be sworn into office on January 20th, 2009. The very next day, I will turn 18. That's just something that I found interesting.
Seamus Fermanagh
02-15-2008, 04:11
Looks as though some on the far left (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=02&year=2008&base_name=out_for_themselves) are waking up to what the Clintons are about:
If Hillary Clinton does not win delegates out of a majority of contested primaries and caucuses, her aides are willing to rip the party apart to secure the nomination, to cheat in a way that will rend the Democratic coalition and probably destroy Clinton's chances in the general election. Imagine the fury in the African-American community if Barack Obama leads in delegates but is denied the nomination because the Clinton campaign is able to change the rules to seat delegates from Michigan, where no other candidates were even on the ballot, and from Florida, where no one campaigned. Imagine the anger among the young voters Obama brought into the process, and was making into Democratic voters. Imagine the feeling of betrayal among his supporters more generally, and the disgust among independents watching the battle take place on the convention floor. Imagine how statesmanlike John McCain will look in comparison, how orderly and focused the Republican convention will appear.
This demonstrates not only a gross ruthlessness on the part of Clinton's campaign, but an astonishingly cavalier attitude towards the preservation of the progressive coalition. To be willing to blithely rip it to shreds in order to wrest a nomination that's not been fairly earned is not only low, but a demonstration of deeply pernicious priorities -- namely, it's an explicit statement that the campaign puts its own political success above the health of the party and the pursuit of progressive goals, and one can't but help assume that's exactly the attitude they would take towards governance, too.
Engendering such a democratic debacle was one of the two reasons I voted for Clinton in the VA primary. The other was to honor a promise to Louis.
Note: Louis pushed, politely, for my vote in November for Clinton. Once my laughter died down I politely declined.
Lemur, I cannot share your love of McCain. I see another Bush administration growing the power and role of the Federal government if he gets in. I will admit that, if he keeps to his "no goverment waste/no earmarks" pledge -- I'm doubtful -- it would be an improvement of the domestic efforts of the current occupant.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-15-2008, 04:29
Let's play guess the candidate (some appear more than once):
https://img171.imageshack.us/img171/3649/billhillaryclintonbw1.jpg
https://img171.imageshack.us/img171/9545/obama20tricycleae7.jpg
https://img171.imageshack.us/img171/7685/fred20and20wifeyw7.jpg
https://img171.imageshack.us/img171/2949/ypaulsk3.jpg
https://img160.imageshack.us/img160/1268/ygiulwn0.jpg
https://img171.imageshack.us/img171/429/hillaryka6.jpg
https://img171.imageshack.us/img171/4572/209408119687ea5d4808nk0.jpg
https://img511.imageshack.us/img511/1096/ythompkq1.jpg
https://img511.imageshack.us/img511/4904/hillaryclinton1960sxc8.jpg
https://img212.imageshack.us/img212/9489/clintondo1.gif
https://img179.imageshack.us/img179/7008/mittromneywagonnc2.jpg
https://img215.imageshack.us/img215/9549/mccainjw4.jpg
Last one should probably be hosted in the "hunk" thread as well...
Crazed Rabbit
02-15-2008, 04:58
My Guesses:
Bill+Hill
Obama
Fred Thompson
? Huckabee ?
No Linking from that host
Hillary
?
?
Hillary (gah!)
Bill
Romney
McCain
Looks as though some on the far left are waking up to what the Clintons are about:
Well boohoo. They cared diddly when the Clintons did it to the country, but now that they are going to do it to the democrat party and take down Obama they cry. Or maybe its only now that they can see it.
CR
seireikhaan
02-15-2008, 05:01
And it turns out Obama might be a very average speaker without his teleprompter:
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/728ofzey.asp
CR
Well, perhaps instead of just listening what one writer says, perhaps it would be better to just post a vid of the speech and let everyone decide for themselves? LINKIE (https://youtube.com/watch?v=7hUngQ8-wLU)
Note: Vid's a bit long, 30 minutes, just as a headsup.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-15-2008, 05:14
* Bill+Hill (yes that's bill "I didn't inhale" clinton)
* Obama (yup)
* Fred Thompson (yup)
* ? Huckabee ? (ron paul actually)
* No Linking from that host (oops)
* Hillary (kind of obvious I suppose)
* ? (edwards)
* ? (thompson)
* Hillary (gah!) (heh)
* Bill (band nerd in high school?)
* Romney (yup)
* McCain (yup, years haven't done him that well)
I can't seem to get the link to work, or I'd give it a try. :sweatdrop:
Not Found
The requested URL /candidate_calculator.htm was not found on this server.
Apache/2.0.52 (Red Hat) Server at www.vajoe.com Port 80
The requested URL /candidate_calculator.htm was not found on this server.
Apache/2.0.52 (Red Hat) Server at www.vajoe.com Port 80
No problem if you don't want to read the whole thread, but at least you could check out the same page you're posting to (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1831789&postcount=121). All TuffStuff did was miss the "l" in .html.
-edit-
Am I the only one who winces when I read posts about the "democrat" party? Go ahead and kick me for being a grammar nazi, but isn't that equivalent to talking about the "republic" party? Aren't the correct terms "Democratic" and "Republican"?
I know it's insanely trivial, but it always distracts me when I see it in a post. Makes me itch to get out my editor's pencil ...
Well, perhaps instead of just listening what one writer says, perhaps it would be better to just post a vid of the speech and let everyone decide for themselves? LINKIE (https://youtube.com/watch?v=7hUngQ8-wLU)
Note: Vid's a bit long, 30 minutes, just as a headsup.
I don't think it's an entirely unfair assessment. He is constantly referring to his notes and it breaks his rhythm on many occasions. He's definitely capable of reading good speeches though. What I don't understand is how that uniquely qualifies him for president. :shrug:
I do think the Weekly Standard goes a bit wrong in singling out liberal commentators for their unadulterated praise of Obama- I've heard "conservatives" do the same. Why? Apparently he's inspirational and a uniter. How is he a uniter? Well... he does an impressive job reading speeches. :inquisitive:
seireikhaan
02-15-2008, 05:37
I don't think it's an entirely unfair assessment. He is constantly referring to his notes and it breaks his rhythm on many occasions. He's definitely capable of reading good speeches though. What I don't understand is how that uniquely qualifies him for president. :shrug:
I do think the Weekly Standard goes a bit wrong in singling out liberal commentators for their unadulterated praise of Obama- I've heard "conservatives" do the same. Why? Apparently he's inspirational and a uniter. How is he a uniter? Well... he does an impressive job reading speeches. :inquisitive:
And this is precisely why I think its better for us to see a speech, rather than a newspaper/writer tell us how it/what happened. We, ourselves can make our own judgements, as you have just done. Yes, he does refer to notes. Who wouldn't, in a 30 minute speech? Even the most gifted oraters need notes for a beast that long. Certainly, it could have been done better, but frankly, I think there's other things opponents of Obama can point to instead of him having to refer to notes during a speech. :shrug:
I think there's other things opponents of Obama can point to instead of him having to refer to notes during a speech. :shrug:
I agree, but for many the main reason to support him is his being inspirational (ie: he gives good speeches), so it's probably a worthwhile effort to point out that he's only reading them and not coming up with it off the cuff. Naturally, anyone who thinks about it would realize this, but the fact seems lost on some of his more starry-eyed supporters.
kamikhaan, actually, there are people capable of giving extemporaneous speeches of great length. It's a particular gift, and it exists; I've seen it in action. However, given the media environment, I can also see why a person campaigning for POTUS would not want to wing it for an extended period. No telling what phrase might get sound-byted to hell and back.
This bit of gossip (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/mccain_adviser_cannot_campaign.html) may belong in News of the Weird, but since it's political, I guess it goes here:
McCain adviser won't campaign against Obama
Earlier today, the Swamp noted that Mark McKinnon, a senior campaign adviser to both President Bush and Sen. John McCain of Arizona, had said some time ago that he could not serve McCain if Sen. Barack Obama became the Democratic presidential nominee.
And now this evening, the Republican consultant is reaffirming his stance that he will have to step out of his advisor's role for the campaign if Obama wins the Democratic nomination. He explained his aversion to campaigning against Obama in an interview aired by National Public Radio, where Michele Norris interviewed him for All Things Considered:
"You told Cox Newspapers last summer – and you repeated this in a new Texas Monthly interview published soon – that you would, quote,' not work in the general election' if Barack Obama is the opponent. Why?'' Norris asked.
"That’s referring to a confidential communication that I had with the McCain campaign when I came abroad, and I don’t really want to say much more than that, except to say that under any circumstances, depending on who the nominee is, I will be supporting 100 percent John McCain,'' McKinnon said.
"But I just want to clarify... that you wouldn’t work in the general election, you’d be supporting him on the sidelines?'' Norris asked.
'I will be supporting from the sidelines,'' McKinnon said.
"Why... sit this out if you have such strong feelings for John McCain, if Barack Obama is the opponent. What is it you’re concerned about?'' he was asked.
"I met Barack Obama, I read his book, I like him a great deal,'' McKinnon said. "I disagree with him on very fundamental issues. But I think, as I said, I think it would a great race for the country, and I would simply be uncomfortable being in a campaign that would be inevitably attacking Barack Obama. I think it would be uncomfortable for me, and I think it would be bad for the McCain campaign.''
seireikhaan
02-15-2008, 05:50
I agree, but for many the main reason to support him is his being inspirational (ie: he gives good speeches), so it's probably a worthwhile effort to point out that he's only reading them and not coming up with it off the cuff. Naturally, anyone who thinks about it would realize this, but the fact seems lost on some of his more starry-eyed supporters.
Well, first, as far to my knowledge, its quite possible Obama is writing his speeches. Its also quite possible he's not. I have never heard any evidence stating to either side regarding it. As for the 'starry-eyed' supporters, well, I doubt you're really going to convince them otherwise. Many of them are simply too taken in by the message. The message is just as important as how fluently he carries it out, and that message rings well particularly with young people and people who are simply sick of Washington.
CountArach
02-15-2008, 05:50
Am I the only one who winces when I read posts about the "democrat" party? Go ahead and kick me for being a grammar nazi, but isn't that equivalent to talking about the "republic" party? Aren't the correct terms "Democratic" and "Republican"?
I know it's insanely trivial, but it always distracts me when I see it in a post. Makes me itch to get out my editor's pencil ...
I understand that, but isn't it because members of the Democratic party are Democrats? Hence it is the Democrat's race.
seireikhaan
02-15-2008, 05:53
kamikhaan, actually, there are people capable of giving extemporaneous speeches of great length. It's a particular gift, and it exists; I've seen it in action.
:jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop: A 30 minute extemp? Dear God! That's insane! I do extemp for speech and debate, and I gotta say its tough enough doing 7 minutes!
Lemur, I cannot share your love of McCain. I see another Bush administration growing the power and role of the Federal government if he gets in. I will admit that, if he keeps to his "no goverment waste/no earmarks" pledge -- I'm doubtful -- it would be an improvement of the domestic efforts of the current occupant.
The only person running on a strict Constitutional platform this round was Ron Paul, and look where that got him. Let's be honest here -- neither party has an interest in seeing the Federal role reigned in. Heck, it's hard to get them interested in just balancing the powers they already have. Congress, in particular, has been a study of spinelessness and weakness. I haven't read about it in depth, but apparently they can't even grow a pair to enforce their own subpoenas these days. Something about how they won't even enact contempt proceedings for ex-Executive advisers who thumb their noses at the bicameral mob.
Anyway, of the three valid contestants for the White House, Clinton would be the worst choice by far in terms of advancing the Imperial Presidency. Hillary's penchant for secrecy and "us versus them" scenarios reminds me of Dick Cheney and perhaps Richard Nixon. I really can't picture her allowing any of the extra-legal tools the Bush Administration created to go fallow. Warrentless wiretapping? You know she would. Unilateral, unreviewable right to declare anyone, anywhere to be an enemy combatant? Heck yeah. My lord, she would have a field day. And with a Democratic congress, who would check her?
The hope I hold out for McCain is basic decency. Sure, he's an egotist, but who puts themselves through the brutal hazing we call a Presidential campaign unless they already are? Sure, he has a temper, but that doesn't make him a loon. I believe McCain has a core of rational, pragmatic decency. And that would make all the difference.
McCain would not be a third Bush term. If nothing else, at least McCain has some basic level of respect for our Republic and its laws. And he's a deficit hawk, which gives him oodles of credit in the Lemur household.
P.S.: If there were to be a viable third party, perhaps a Constitutionalist hue would bring the voters in? I keep reading about how the demographics trend toward the young 'uns being financial conservatives and social liberals. A hard-core live-within-your-means and live-and-let-live party might find a wide swathe of support. Just thinkin'.
I understand that, but isn't it because members of the Democratic party are Democrats? Hence it is the Democrat's race.That's how I see it. Republican party->Republicans, Democrat party->Democrats. The only way I'll call it the Democratic party is if I call their members Democratics. :beam:
McCain adviser won't campaign against ObamaI suspect a little bit of the "I don't want to campaign against a black man" is at play here. Let's not forget that this guy is a former Democrat(ic?), iirc.
McCain would not be a third Bush term.Meh, that remains to be seen. I think they're similar in many ways, except McCain seems to suffer from more acute arrogance.
That's how I see it. Republican party->Republicans, Democrat party->Democrats. The only way I'll call it the Democratic party is if I call their members Democratics.
I'm glad to see someone standing up against the well-known liberal bias of grammar and usage.
Crazed Rabbit
02-15-2008, 06:38
I'm glad to see someone standing up against the well-known liberal bias of grammar and usage.
Well someone's got to or the reds will have won. Are you a commie-lover? :inquisitive:
CR
The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/do_we_really_want_another_black?utm_source=onion_rss_daily) asks the right questions, as usual:
Do We Really Want Another Black President After The Events Of Deep Impact?
I am not prejudiced. Far from it. What I am—or, I should say, who I am—is a man who loves his country so deeply that he is unwilling to stand idly by while our nation allows itself to be completely annihilated by another incoming comet.
Have we learned nothing from the tragic events of 1998, when, under the watch of President Morgan Freeman, this nation was plunged into chaos, and hundreds of millions of people died at the hands of the deadly Wolf-Beiderman space rock? The mere fact that this country is even considering putting another black man, Barack Obama, in the Oval Office proves that we have not.
We can't deny the facts, people. All we will get by electing an African-American is Texas-size space particles crashing into the Earth's surface, mega-tsunamis that barrel into the Appalachian Mountains, and 6.6 billion dead people.
I'm not suggesting that President Freeman was directly responsible for the creation of the Wolf-Beiderman comet or its Earth-bound path. That would be ridiculous. What I am saying is that under the watch of a black man that comet destroyed the entire Eastern seaboard. So, if history is any indicator, a vote for Barack Obama in 2008 is essentially a vote for the complete and total obliteration of the human race.
Don't we owe it to our children, and our children's children, to use this upcoming election to guarantee the Earth's existence rather than dooming it for eternity?
To even risk putting Mr. Obama in a position where he would insist, as past black presidents have, that our nuclear arsenal is powerful enough to divert the incoming comet would be foolish, to say the least. Any decision like that would only break the fast-approaching space rock into two very powerful asteroids, both of which would end up heading straight for Earth, leaving all of us who aren't on the small list of people picked to live in the government-sponsored protective caves to burn, drown, or die while in the arms of our estranged fathers. The only difference is, this time around, the late astronaut Robert Duvall will not be alive to save millions of lives by conducting a suicide space mission to destroy the larger of the two asteroids before it enters the Earth's atmosphere.
In my book, any possible repeat of this extinction-level event is reason enough not to elect another African-American president. Consider that later that same summer, just two months after the first deep impact, this very country once again faced Armageddon in the form of another comet hurtling toward Earth. In this instance, under the watch of a white president who sort of looked like an older Dennis Quaid, that catastrophe was avoided entirely.
As if that is not enough, history shows us that, besides carrying the baggage of a guaranteed asteroid strike, black heads of state also give terrorists extra motivation to destroy the United States. During the presidency of 24's David Palmer, there were no fewer than four nuclear bombs smuggled into this country. That's four more than under any white president. Though we should have known better than to elect President Palmer in the first place (he was elected three years after President Freeman left office), the U.S. populace made him the commander in chief because it was swayed by then-Senator Palmer's commitment to change, his no-nonsense approach, and his ability to inspire. Sound familiar?†
Asteroids and nuclear bombs—that's what this nation can expect from an Obama White House.
Need I even mention that former President Chris Rock and his administration's slogan was "The only thing white is the house"? Though this attitude broke down the stuffiness typically associated with proper White House decorum, President Rock's laissez-faire approach not only made a mockery of the office at home, but made the United States look like a joke abroad.
I concede that the United States has had a competent African-American president in the huge black guy from the The Fifth Element, who did great things for this country by keeping the evil Mr. Zorg at bay. But that is years from now. There is no denying that by 2236, when we have flying taxicabs, this country will be ready for a black president. But until then, if we want life in this great land to continue as we know it, we owe it to ourselves to make the right choice and reelect Kevin Kline.
Too amazing not to share:
So we all agree that Obama gives good speeches. You know who else gave good speeches? Adolf Hitler! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBlm6-hSnuU) Tom Sullivan, of Fox News Radio, goes there. In a big way. Unbelievable.
Vladimir
02-15-2008, 21:31
Obama the prophet (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzliZThmMTA4YTM1NzlhN2E2MTdjZTQ1ZjhhZWQ0ZWQ=).
This kind of sale is hardly new. Organized religion has been offering a similar commodity — salvation — for millennia. Which is why the Obama campaign has the feel of a religious revival with, as writer James Wolcott observed, a “salvational fervor” and “idealistic zeal divorced from any particular policy or cause and chariot-driven by pure euphoria.”
:laugh4: :grin:
Here's an IBD editorial (http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=287969471192801) on Obama that gave me a chuckle.
If this presidential thing doesn't work out, Obama might consider joining the NASCAR circuit. It's the only occupation we can think of where you win by turning faster to the left than anybody else.:beam:
The biggest upside to a McCain-Obama race that comes to mind is the schooling that McCain will give Obama on foreign policy debates. That should make for some good TV. :2thumbsup:
What do you care, Xiahou? It's not as though you support McCain either. I'm kinda at a loss to see your interest in this contest, seeing as nobody meets the conservative purity test.
And I'm thrilled to see that you've gone from quoting the National Journal's MOST LIBRUL EVAR! article to quoting articles that quote the National Journal. This is probably the most publicity NJ gets per decade.
ICantSpellDawg
02-16-2008, 18:38
Lemur - you are going to see a big about face on opinions about mccain in the near future by conservatives.
Once a one on one campaign gets underway conservatives will support mccain. I knew this all along, but i wanted to put in a big fight before he won the nod. Huckabee is a tool, so McCain pretty much has it.
If a third party runs again (like a nader or bloomberg) we will have some serious advantages. If Clinton is the nominee, those third party runners will be almost inevitable AND the democratic party will be in shambles. It will be the most humiliating defeat that they have ever experienced in a general election.
Who would have thought that just 2 months of primaries could reveal holes in the hull just bebeath the surface. The mighty democratic ship of inevitabilty may just be a potemkin.
KukriKhan
02-17-2008, 03:32
Once a one on one campaign gets underway conservatives will support mccain. I knew this all along, but i wanted to put in a big fight before he won the nod.
I admit... you had me fooled. "He's just like my Dad; I love this guy!", are some of the words I remember, and 'tool' being hurled at McCain (and others).
When I heard the story on the radio that Romney had endorsed McCain, I immediately thought: "OMG, Tuffy's gonna be spittin' nails mad by the time I get home!".
Didn't happen.
So, actually, rather than an idealistic young conservative supporter of a staunch conservative, what you are is a hard-knuckle, realpolitik capital-R Republican.
Nothing wrong with that; and much to be admired. It's just that I'll take your expressed youthful, emotional exuberance for any candidate with an extra grain of salt, from now on.
So, thanks for the revelation. :bow:
ICantSpellDawg
02-17-2008, 06:47
I admit... you had me fooled. "He's just like my Dad; I love this guy!", are some of the words I remember, and 'tool' being hurled at McCain (and others).
When I heard the story on the radio that Romney had endorsed McCain, I immediately thought: "OMG, Tuffy's gonna be spittin' nails mad by the time I get home!".
Didn't happen.
So, actually, rather than an idealistic young conservative supporter of a staunch conservative, what you are is a hard-knuckle, realpolitik capital-R Republican.
Nothing wrong with that; and much to be admired. It's just that I'll take your expressed youthful, emotional exuberance for any candidate with an extra grain of salt, from now on.
So, thanks for the revelation. :bow:
hehehe
Now don't take my sincerity for anything less than it is. I'm a decent human first, a Conservative second and a Republican third.
If there is no real conservative candidate left and we are forced to compimise, I will take the more conservative of the two (presumably between Obama and McCain). There is the option of holding out until te G.O.P. runs a "real" conservative, but that was really a (truly felt) scare tactic when we were losing and a fuming punitive one after we lost.
I am a registered conservative but this election has convinced me to shift my party indentity to Republican for the next round in 4 or 8 years. I view the G.O.P. with a very critical lens and if either party crosses my ideological line, I will reconsider my allegiance.
I try to be pragmatic while voicing my ideological principles strongly while they matter. I belive that Mitt and guys like Mitt are the future of the G.O.P. - outside of the box thinkers that bot have new ideas AND understand the concept of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
My consolation prize has been that Mitt has made a tremendous showing for a 1 term governor and a newcomer to the mainstream media. He has a very real shot at a possible 2012 run (if McCain doesn't do it this year.)
I think that we have a better shot with McCain at the moment - particularly since the democrats are destroying any credit that they recieved thoughout the Bush debacle. I mean, have you seen what Hillary is trying to do? 2000 election all over again, enough to eliminate any chances of a strong independant showing and increases the risk of a Nader or Bloomberg third party. Mitt had a steady rise over the past year and I believe he would have done much better in november given 9 months of steady pan-G.O.P. support.
anyway, thanks for thinking about me and my political ramblings...:wizard:
What do you care, Xiahou? It's not as though you support McCain either. I'm kinda at a loss to see your interest in this contest, seeing as nobody meets the conservative purity test.I don't support McCain, but vs Obama, I could see myself maybe voting for him. Against Hillary... I don't feel as pressing a need. She's tougher on foreign policy, and outside abortion, shares a fair number of his views (according to track record and not the red meat she throws at the primary voters). She would have the added bonus of letting us get a GOP do-over in 4yrs as opposed to 8yrs should McCain win.
And I'm thrilled to see that you've gone from quoting the National Journal's MOST LIBRUL EVAR! article to quoting articles that quote the National Journal. This is probably the most publicity NJ gets per decade.And I'm glad to see you're still dismissing it out of hand despite it being conducted in a blind/impartial manner. :smash:
Yeah, I can see how Hillary Clinton would be exactly your kind of politician. And by that same token, I can see how McCain and Obama would not be your cup of tea. Party before nation, eh?
As for the joy you take in National Journal's talking points, I'm not going to suggest that you budge from a sound byte that serves you so well, but you might want to do some other reading (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html) sometime.There are people who actually research what legislators do, and I'm not aware of any of them suggesting that Obama is TEH MOST LIBRUL EVAR. Although I suppose some of the "conservative" purveyors will change their tune if he gets the nomination, just as some left-wing sites are now slamming McCain.
I do follow legislation, at least on some issues, and I have been surprised by how often Senator Obama turns up, sponsoring or co-sponsoring really good legislation on some topic that isn't wildly sexy, but does matter. His bills tend to have the following features: they are good and thoughtful bills that try to solve real problems; they are in general not terribly flashy; and they tend to focus on achieving solutions acceptable to all concerned, not by compromising on principle, but by genuinely trying to craft a solution that everyone can get behind.
His legislation is often proposed with Republican co-sponsorship, which brings me to another point: he is bipartisan in a good way. According to me, bad bipartisanship is the kind practiced by Joe Lieberman. Bad bipartisans are so eager to establish credentials for moderation and reasonableness that they go out of their way to criticize their (supposed) ideological allies and praise their (supposed) opponents. They also compromise on principle, and when their opponents don't reciprocate, they compromise some more, until over time their positions become indistinguishable from those on the other side.
This isn't what Obama does. Obama tries to find people, both Democrats and Republicans, who actually care about a particular issue enough to try to get the policy right, and then he works with them. This does not involve compromising on principle. It does, however, involve preferring getting legislation passed to having a spectacular battle. (This is especially true when one is in the minority party, especially in this Senate: the chances that Obama's bills will actually become law increase dramatically when he has Republican co-sponsors.)
So my little data point is: while Obama has not proposed his Cosmic Plan for World Peace, he has proposed a lot of interesting legislation on important but undercovered topics. I can't remember another freshman Senator who so routinely pops up when I'm doing research on some non-sexy but important topic, and pops up because he has proposed something genuinely good. Since I think that American politics doesn't do nearly enough to reward people who take a patient, craftsmanlike attitude towards legislation, caring as much about fixing the parts that no one will notice until they go wrong as about the flashy parts, I wanted to say this. Specifics below the fold.
-edit-
By way of contrast, an examination (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html) of his Illinois record.
More refuting with blog posts, eh Lemur? ~:handball:
If you were going to do that you could at least pick one that actually goes so far as to list specific examples to go along with their fawning praise. More importantly, you could take the time to notice that the post was written in Oct 2006, when it was during 2007 that Obama compiled his most liberal voting record to date. And they're hardly "talking points" the rated votes are selected without knowing what, if any, vote a particular politician made. The selected votes are then sent to a 3rd party to be tabulated against senators' actual records. But yeah, they're GOP shills....
Here's OnTheIssues.org's (http://ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm) assessment, submitted for your dismissal:
Barack Obama is a Hard-Core Liberal. Both are saying the same thing, Obama="Librul", but I think the NJ is more nuanced in how they go about determining it. :shrug:
If you were going to do that you could at least pick one that actually goes so far as to list specific examples to go along with their fawning praise.
If you had bothered to follow the link, you'd see that's exactly what it does. But don't let me get in your way.
-edit-
OnTheIssues is interesting, although I'm left scratching my head at some of their conclusions. By their tally, Obama is a centrist liberal, whilst Hillary is more of a libertarian liberal. Which, if you know the slightest thing about their positions, is just wacky. Most of Hillary's proposals involve mandates, while most of Obama's use voluntary involvement.
Oh, and since you probably can't be bothered to read the blog link (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html), here are the issues the guy was researching where he found Obama to have been putting out legislation: nuclear non-proliferation, avian flu containment policy, regulation of genetic testing (turns out there is none), and reducing medical malpractice suits. None of which strike me as inherently "liberal" or "conservative" issues, just things that need some work.
It's interesting to me that when someone expresses general support for Obama, to you they're mindless zombie following an empty suit. When they express concrete reasons they're engaging in "fawning praise."
I return to theme: You support Hillary because (a) she's more likely to be beaten in the general, and/or (b) she's more likely to be a one-term Prez who will help Republicans recover after a relatively short period in the wilderness. Your position is based entirely on damage control and cynicism. The very metrics that you embrace put Clinton (at least) on par with Obama for dreaded liberalism, and yet you claim to support her because she's more conservative. I think you and Ann Coulter (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuTqgqhxVMc) have a lot to talk about.
woad&fangs
02-18-2008, 00:37
*gasp*!!!!
Obama is a liberal!!!!:fainting:
Say it ain't so!!!~:eek:
He is a liberal. In fact he's pretty far to the left, but that doesn't change the fact that he can unite the congress and the American people.
Besides, who ever said that being a liberal was a bad thing. I looked at his policies on his website and I agree with all of them except for his stance on firearms.
Edit:
Hey Lemur, how many calls from the candidates supporters have you been getting? I've gotten 1 Huckabee, 2 Clintons(voice recordings, go figure), and 1 Obama.
No calls in the Lemur household; I guess the campaigns haven't cracked the Vonage (http://www.vonage.com/index.php?ic=1) system yet.
He is a liberal. In fact he's pretty far to the left
That's all I'm saying- some people seem to be in denial over this. :shrug:
As I've said, whether someone thinks being a liberal is good/bad is separate issue, I am just pointing out the fact that he is quite liberal.
The very metrics that you embrace put Clinton (at least) on par with Obama for dreaded liberalism...OnTheIssues seems to give rhetoric equal weight to action. The sad fact is that almost all politician will throw red meat to the base for votes, so rhetoric does not impress me- action (ie votes) do. Socially, Obama and Hillary are very similar. In economic and foreign policy terms Hillary has been much more moderate- a fact that I'm sure is playing no small part in her primary troubles. I don't believe for an instant that Hillary would abandon Iraq if president despite her primary rhetoric- Obama, could be a different matter. I've explained all this before...
I've also explained that after Thompson, I didn't like any of the GOP nominees. Yes, I think McCain would be marginally better than either Democrat- but I don't like him. Much the same way I thought Bush was better than Gore or Kerry, but I don't like him. I settled for Bush, and was less than pleased with the results so I really don't want to settle for another marginal conservative- Memories of Medicare expansions, NCLB, McCain-Feingold, ect are all still too fresh (he would've screwed up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_miers) SCOTUS nominations too, were it not for a conservative uprising). So what's a conservative to do? Support McCain and be stuck with him for 8yrs, or choose the Democrat(ic) who you think would do the least damage and take another shot at a real conservative in 4yrs instead of 8? At least when Hillary comes up with something stupid ala Medicare expansion, you can count on partisan Republicans to oppose it- if McCain comes up with it, experience tells us they'll go along like the party sheep they are. :sweatdrop:
Marshal Murat
02-18-2008, 18:57
Well it seems Obama the 'Prophet' has lifted some words from another leader...
Obama lifts certain sentiments from another speech. (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/did_obama_plagiarize_clinton_t.html)
Evidently Mr. Obama has used a speech from another African-American gubernatorial candidate. The same candidate now gives Obama the rights to the aforementioned speech, and the Clinton campaign calls Plagiarism...
'Grasping at Straws?'
Here's the speech (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ffwY74XbS4) in question.
Crazed Rabbit
02-18-2008, 19:25
Well it seems Obama the 'Prophet' has lifted some words from another leader...
Obama lifts certain sentiments from another speech. (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/did_obama_plagiarize_clinton_t.html)
Evidently Mr. Obama has used a speech from another African-American gubernatorial candidate. The same candidate now gives Obama the rights to the aforementioned speech, and the Clinton campaign calls Plagiarism...
'Grasping at Straws?'
They started grasping when they published his kindergarten essay.
CR
KukriKhan
02-18-2008, 19:26
After Marshal Murat's article, there followed the usual bickering between HRC & BHO supporters, PLUS my favorite "quote of the week: "Democracy is not a Spectator Sport!".
Excellent. One of the candidates ought to use it.
Another Clinton adviser turns on his former masters (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_commentary/commentary_by_dick_morris/hillary_clinton_goofs_again):
Hillary’s claim to be the solution-person won’t work either for the same simple reason: She hasn’t passed any. If she were McCain, she could tout a long history of legislative success on key issues and herald her ability to pass bills and engineer progress. But she hasn’t done that. She hasn’t walked the walk so now she cannot talk the talk.
As a first lady, Hillary’s sole important legislative involvement came during the first two years of her husband’s presidency when she sought to pass her ill-conceived health care reform, an effort that failed so miserably that it cost her party control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. Between 1995 to 1997, she was largely absent from the White House, traveling the world, promoting her best selling book and helping to raise funds. She never attended strategy meetings and her only intervention in the singular legislative achievements of Bill’s administration — welfare reform and the balanced budget deal — was privately to urge a veto of the former and to oppose the latter because it provided for a cut in the capital gains tax. Hillary returned to the White House in 1998 to oversee the defense to the Lewinsky scandal and the impeachment attempt, but the Clinton administration essentially folded its legislative efforts during those years and hung on for dear life. No portfolio of accomplishments there.
In the Senate, she has largely spent her time raising funds for herself and other Democrats (in hopes of attracting the votes of super delegates) and promoting her best selling memoir Living History. In part because of a lack of attention and also because of the Democrats’ minority status during much of her Senate tenure, she has passed very, very little of note.
Her legislative accomplishments in her first term in the Senate were almost entirely symbolic. She renamed a courthouse after Justice Thurgood Marshall. She passed a resolution honoring Alexander Hamilton and another celebrating the win of a Syracuse University lacrosse team. She renamed post offices, founded a national park in Puerto Rico and expressed the sense of the Senate that Harriet Tubman should have gotten a federal pension 150 years ago.
Her only actual legislation included one bill to increase nurse recruitment, another to aid respite time for Alzheimer’s care givers and another to expand veterans’ health benefits, a paltry output for six years’ service.
In her second term, she has spent full-time campaigning for president and has the worst attendance record of the three senators now still in the presidential race.
So who is she kidding? If she wants to hit Obama with a negative based on his inexperience and limited legislative record, she should go right ahead. But to pretend that she is the “solutions” and “answers” person while he gives speeches is absurd.
ICantSpellDawg
02-18-2008, 23:40
Another Clinton adviser turns on his former masters (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_commentary/commentary_by_dick_morris/hillary_clinton_goofs_again):
Hillary’s claim to be the solution-person won’t work either for the same simple reason: She hasn’t passed any. If she were McCain, she could tout a long history of legislative success on key issues and herald her ability to pass bills and engineer progress. But she hasn’t done that. She hasn’t walked the walk so now she cannot talk the talk.
As a first lady, Hillary’s sole important legislative involvement came during the first two years of her husband’s presidency when she sought to pass her ill-conceived health care reform, an effort that failed so miserably that it cost her party control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. Between 1995 to 1997, she was largely absent from the White House, traveling the world, promoting her best selling book and helping to raise funds. She never attended strategy meetings and her only intervention in the singular legislative achievements of Bill’s administration — welfare reform and the balanced budget deal — was privately to urge a veto of the former and to oppose the latter because it provided for a cut in the capital gains tax. Hillary returned to the White House in 1998 to oversee the defense to the Lewinsky scandal and the impeachment attempt, but the Clinton administration essentially folded its legislative efforts during those years and hung on for dear life. No portfolio of accomplishments there.
In the Senate, she has largely spent her time raising funds for herself and other Democrats (in hopes of attracting the votes of super delegates) and promoting her best selling memoir Living History. In part because of a lack of attention and also because of the Democrats’ minority status during much of her Senate tenure, she has passed very, very little of note.
Her legislative accomplishments in her first term in the Senate were almost entirely symbolic. She renamed a courthouse after Justice Thurgood Marshall. She passed a resolution honoring Alexander Hamilton and another celebrating the win of a Syracuse University lacrosse team. She renamed post offices, founded a national park in Puerto Rico and expressed the sense of the Senate that Harriet Tubman should have gotten a federal pension 150 years ago.
Her only actual legislation included one bill to increase nurse recruitment, another to aid respite time for Alzheimer’s care givers and another to expand veterans’ health benefits, a paltry output for six years’ service.
In her second term, she has spent full-time campaigning for president and has the worst attendance record of the three senators now still in the presidential race.
So who is she kidding? If she wants to hit Obama with a negative based on his inexperience and limited legislative record, she should go right ahead. But to pretend that she is the “solutions” and “answers” person while he gives speeches is absurd.
beautiful
I have been feeling much better about Republican chances in this election lately.
Another Clinton adviser turns on his former masters (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_commentary/commentary_by_dick_morris/hillary_clinton_goofs_again)You mean Dick Morris? ~:confused:
He's been making a career over bashing the Clintons ever since he resigned from their campaign after his toe-sucking prostitute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Morris#Scandals) scandal in '96. That's not to say that I don't enjoy hearing him bash them and air all their dirty laundry though. :beam:
Oh, it's not just the Dems behaving strangely. Apparently their's some weird stuff (http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_28039612468+0) in the contract McCain signed when he took out a loan for his campaign. This clause is interesting:
"Additional Requirement. Borrower and lender agree that if Borrower [McCain's campaign commitee] withdraws from the public matching funds program, but John McCain then does not win the next primary or caucus in which he is active (which can be any primary or caucus held the same day) or does not place at least within 10 percentage points of the winner of that primary or caucus, Borrower will cause John McCain to remain an active political candidate and Borrower will, within thirty (3) days of said primary or caucus (i) reapply for public matching funds, (ii) grant to Lender, as additional collateral for the Loan, a first priority perfected security interest in and to all Borrower's right, title and interest in and to the public matching funds program, and (iii) execute and deliver to Lender such documents, instruments and agreements as Lender may require with respect to the foregoing."
Kinda strange, seems as though the lender has the say-so over whether and how McCain stays in the race. One analysis (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=02&year=2008&base_name=the_pete_rose_of_politics):
Is this illegal? Who knows. Note that it took several days of discussion among top lawyers and former FEC commissioners to figure out whether it was even possible to opt out of the public financing system after opting in and qualifying for funds. No one's ever done that. And therefore, no one's ever opted back in, after opting out, after opting in. And therefore, no one's ever borrowed on the basis of a promise to opt back in, after opting out, after opting in. Is your head exploding yet?
What we know is that McCain found a way to use the public funds as an insurance policy: If he did poorly, he would use public funds to pay off his loans. If he did well, he would have the advantage of unlimited spending.
Admittedly, fancy-footwork with loans and financing is a lot less funny than Hillary's desperation rhetoric, but still, it's worth scratching your head a little, especially when it looks as though people are about to fire off a lot of charges about who is taking public financing.
KukriKhan
02-19-2008, 01:21
USA Today article (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-02-18-mccain-roosevelt_N.htm) speculates on the possible make-up of McCain's Cabinet - and makes some pretty good picks, in my opinion.
-Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., in a prominent job, possibly even secretary of state.
• Former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., as attorney general.
• Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani as homeland security secretary.
• Former Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas as treasury secretary.
• Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee as health and human services secretary.
So... if YOU were McCain's chief talent scout, who are YOUR picks for prominent positions?
Here's mine:
VP: Condi Rice
SecState: Lieberman
SecDef: some puppet (McCain will be his own de facto SecDef); maybe Clarke, to claim bi-partisanship
Ch, JCS: Gen Petreaus (the 'surge' guy)
Atty Gen'l: Fred 'IANALbIpooTV' Thompson
H'land Scty: Giuliani
H&HS: Huckabee
FBI:
CIA: Pappa Bush (GHWB)
Dir, DOT: Fred Smith (of FedEX)
FEMA: Warren Buffet
Treasury: Gramm
Nat'l Scty Advisor: Colin Powell
Crazed Rabbit
02-19-2008, 01:56
I thought Fred Thompson actually started off as a lawyer before playing himself in a movie about some law case? Course, that was a while ago.
I like your cabinet picks for McCain. Haven't thought much about it myself.
CR
KukriKhan
02-19-2008, 02:15
I thought Fred Thompson actually started off as a lawyer before playing himself in a movie about some law case? Course, that was a while ago.
I like your cabinet picks for McCain. Haven't thought much about it myself.
CR
I looked it up, and you're right; he had a small practice, and was appointed an Asst DA in Tenn. Thanks. I learn sumpin' ev'r day here. :)
Last I heard the Joint Chief is not picked by the President - but is selected by Senior General Officers from all the Branches, a rotation basis among the services.
USA Today article (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-02-18-mccain-roosevelt_N.htm) speculates on the possible make-up of McCain's Cabinet - and makes some pretty good picks, in my opinion.
So... if YOU were McCain's chief talent scout, who are YOUR picks for prominent positions?
I'm voting libertarian if McCain is making Rudy his Homeland Security Secretary.
I'll probably vote 3rd party anyway. I can't really stand either party much anymore. The bull excrement is everywhere.
Alexander the Pretty Good
02-19-2008, 08:49
Yeah, really, Guiliani for DHS is precisely the thing I wanted to avoid. He's exactly the kind of person how should be given as little power as possible.
"Freedom is submitting to authority." Yeesh.
KukriKhan
02-19-2008, 14:14
Last I heard the Joint Chief is not picked by the President - but is selected by Senior General Officers from all the Branches, a rotation basis among the services.
According to this wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairman_of_the_Joint_Chiefs_of_Staff), and what I thought I remembered from my 'old days':
The Chairman is nominated by the President for appointment and must be confirmed via majority vote by the Senate. By statute, the Chairman is appointed as a four-star officer.
--------------------
Yeah, really, Guiliani for DHS is precisely the thing I wanted to avoid. He's exactly the kind of person how should be given as little power as possible.
So Giuliani gets Assistant Deputy Postmaster General? :)
I looked it up, and you're right; he had a small practice, and was appointed an Asst DA in Tenn. Thanks. I learn sumpin' ev'r day here. :)
Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_thompson#Career_as_an_attorney) more. :wink:
I'd be mildly surprised if Thompson accepted an AG role though. It'd be tough to implement any real policy change as AG(which was his stated reason for running) and acting pays more. Who knows though?
Alexander the Pretty Good
02-19-2008, 20:31
So Giuliani gets Assistant Deputy Postmaster General? :)
Assistant to the Deputy Postmaster General. ~;)
I do wish you gentlemen would find a cabinet position for Ron Paul. Ambassador to the U.N., perhaps?
Kralizec
02-19-2008, 22:41
Yeah, really, Guiliani for DHS is precisely the thing I wanted to avoid. He's exactly the kind of person how should be given as little power as possible.
"Freedom is submitting to authority." Yeesh.
"We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for thirty or forty or fifty years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."
What he meant (I think, anyway) is that a total lack of interference of the government would not lead to freedom, except in a survival-of-the-fittest sense of the word. What we call freedom depends in large measure upon the government upholding democraticly established law.
He could have been more careful in his wording though, and I agree that he's a rather authoritarian ruler regardless of what he meant by his statement.
I do wish you gentlemen would find a cabinet position for Ron Paul. Ambassador to the U.N., perhaps?
:laugh4: or maybe Secretary of the Treasury.
How's the voting in Wisconsin today? Aside from cold, that is.
Don Corleone
02-19-2008, 23:02
:laugh4: or maybe Secretary of the Treasury.
How's the voting in Wisconsin today? Aside from cold, that is.
The guy who wants to put us back on the gold standard?
Is there a 'court jester' at the cabinet position level? Perhaps Secretary of Labor? :jester:
I'm finding the Democratic race much, much more interesting these days. Is it just me, or is everyone else waiting for Barrack and Hillary to break into the 'byatch', '<racial epithet>' phase at any moment? I'm waiting for Bill to challenge Barrack to a fistfight.
All that aside, I've got to say, I'm actually really impressed with Barrack Obama through all of this. This whole latest dustup, did he plagarize Duvall Patrick or not... He's handled it perfectly. He's not denying it and claiming nonsense, he's not sweeping it under the rug, and he's not claiming he had some secret permission. He's doing what any of us would do "Uh yeah, maybe I heard him speak and it stuck in my mind. My bad, sorry Duvall. Next question?" Perfect answer.
The guy who wants to put us back on the gold standard?
Is there a 'court jester' at the cabinet position level? Perhaps Secretary of Labor? :jester:
And don't forget he wants to abolish the IRS. (I did put a smiley in that post, didn't I?)
I'm not sure there is a cabinet level position for Dr. Paul, seeing as how most of the executive branch offends his constitutional leanings. If we want a department eliminated, that would be the one he should get. :yes:
Ha... Ha... Ha... It must be bash Ron Paul day.
Proletariat
02-19-2008, 23:46
Ron Paul seemed like a much sillier choice when the field was a little larger.
:sweatdrop:
Ha... Ha... Ha... It must be bash Ron Paul day.
Ron Paul seemed like a much sillier choice when the field was a little larger.
:sweatdrop:
Hey, I voted for him, but I just don't think he would do well in the Cabinet (or the UN). He would not play well with the administration.
How's the voting in Wisconsin today? Aside from cold, that is.
It was kinda nippy today, that's the truth. I think our high was nine degrees or so. (That's -13 to you Communists who use the metric system.) I ducked in when I figured the least people would be there, and it was still pretty crowded. Big turnout, I guess.
Oh, and I got stopped by an ABC/CNN pollster. Hooray! Today I am a statistic!
Evil_Maniac From Mars
02-20-2008, 03:59
Obama Wins Wisconsin (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7252205.stm)
CountArach
02-20-2008, 04:13
OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST!
So-called "Article" (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmM2NDQ3ZWQ1YWM0Y2QyZTUxMDdkY2M2OTJlNGE5MWE=)
Until I came across this article by Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media, which I regard as factual — with all that that implies — the questions about Obama's background that should have come naturally never quite rose to the surface of my mind. Barack Obama is the new man, of course. His mixed race is a symbol of that. Just like Tiger Woods — as we have read, endlessly. What's to wonder about?
But maybe it's not so simple. Obama and I are roughly the same age. I grew up in liberal circles in New York City — a place to which people who wished to rebel against their upbringings had gravitated for generations. And yet, all of my mixed race, black/white classmates throughout my youth, some of whom I am still in contact with, were the product of very culturally specific unions. They were always the offspring of a white mother, (in my circles, she was usually Jewish, but elsewhere not necessarily) and usually a highly educated black father. And how had these two come together at a time when it was neither natural nor easy for such relationships to flourish? Always through politics. No, not the young Republicans. Usually the Communist Youth League. Or maybe a different arm of the CPUSA. But, for a white woman to marry a black man in 1958, or 60, there was almost inevitably a connection to explicit Communist politics. (During the Clinton Administration we were all introduced to then U. of Pennsylvania Professor Lani Guinier — also a half black/half Jewish, red diaper baby.)
I don't know how Barak Obama's parents met. But the Kincaid article referenced above makes a very convincing case that Obama's family, later, (mid 1970s) in Hawaii, had close relations with a known black Communist intellectual. And, according to what Obama wrote in his first autobiography, the man in question — Frank Marshall Davis — appears to have been Barack's own mentor, and even a father figure. Of course, since the Soviet Union itself no longer exists, it's an open question what it means practically to have been politically mentored by an official Communist. Ideologically, the implications are clearer.
Political correctness was invented precisely to prevent the mainstream liberal media from persuing the questions which might arise about how Senator Obama's mother, from Kansas, came to marry an African graduate student. Love? Sure, why not? But what else was going on around them that made it feasible? Before readers level cheap accusations of racism — let's recall that the very question of interracial marriage only became a big issue later in the 1960s. The notion of a large group of mixed race Americans became an issue during and after the Vietnam War. Even the civil-rights movement kept this culturally explosive matter at arm's distance.
It was, of course, an explicit tactic of the Communist party to stir up discontent among American blacks, with an eye toward using them as the leading edge of the revolution. To be sure, there was much to be discontented about, for black Americans, prior to the civil-rights revolution. To their credit, of course, most black Americans didn't buy the commie line — and showed more faith in the possibilities of democratic change than in radical politics, and the results on display in Moscow.
Time for some investigative journalism about the Obama family's background, now that his chances of being president have increased so much.
OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST!
So-called "Article" (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmM2NDQ3ZWQ1YWM0Y2QyZTUxMDdkY2M2OTJlNGE5MWE=)
He's not a communist, but a socialist lite. However, his values will surely lead us to the beginning of that path.
CountArach
02-20-2008, 04:59
He's not a communist, but a socialist lite. However, his values will surely lead us to the beginning of that path.
If by Socialist-lite you mean Social-Democratic, then yes I suppose you are right. Also, it wouldn't lead you down the path to Communism. Communism will never have the popular appeal that Social Democracy does.
If by Socialist-lite you mean Social-Democratic, then yes I suppose you are right.
Whatever.
Also, it wouldn't lead you down the path to Communism. Communism will never have the popular appeal that Social Democracy does.
It doesn't need to.
It doesn't need to.
What's that supposed to mean? That the commies will seize power regardless of the popular will? Or ... what, exactly?
If you think about it, there are already a lot of semi-Socialist institutions in the U.S.A. Medicare, for example. A graduated income tax. Social security. Subsidized postal system. Subsidized mass transit. You can't call any nation a pure example of capitalism -- there are just too many places where the public's real or perceived interest falls contrary to a market solution.
So calling someone "Socialist lite" clarifies not much of anything. One could justifiably call Ronald Reagan a "Socialist lite," since he allowed so many intrusive elements of State control to survive and flourish under his guidance. And with even more justice we could call George W. Bush "Socialist lite," since he championed and passed the biggest expansion of Medicare/Medicaid in a quarter century.
Nope, I'm gonna need some more specifics before I accept that as a damning label.
Crazed Rabbit
02-20-2008, 06:05
I think just plan socialist would fit better anyway.
CR
What's that supposed to mean? That the commies will seize power regardless of the popular will? Or ... what, exactly?
Gradual socialization will one day lead to a communist like state.
If you think about it, there are already a lot of semi-Socialist institutions in the U.S.A. Medicare, for example. A graduated income tax. Social security. Subsidized postal system. Subsidized mass transit. You can't call any nation a pure example of capitalism -- there are just too many places where the public's real or perceived interest falls contrary to a market solution.
Sometimes the market solution isn't the easiest, and sometimes it really isn't feasible (like an army, navy, etc). However, competition should also be encouraged as it cuts corruption and allows for the best possible price.
So calling someone "Socialist lite" clarifies not much of anything. One could justifiably call Ronald Reagan a "Socialist lite," since he allowed so many intrusive elements of State control to survive and flourish under his guidance.
Perhaps. I really don't know too much about Reagan other than star wars, supply side tax cuts, and defense spending against the USSR.
And with even more justice we could call George W. Bush "Socialist lite," since he championed and passed the biggest expansion of Medicare/Medicaid in a quarter century.
Bush also cut taxes and attempted to do a few things to decrease the scope of the government. He also, like you said, expanded the government. He's not really a socialist lite, more of just a big government moron to be more precise.
Nope, I'm gonna need some more specifics before I accept that as a damning label.
Go find as many as you need, or don't, I don't care. My own classification fits me just fine.
I can't puzzle out whether an Obama presidency will lead to a Communist American or an Islamic America. The rhetoric points in all these confusing directions.
On a lighter note, am I the only one who has to suppress a sophomoric giggle every time I read an account (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8597.html) of how Obama "split white women" in the Wisconsin primary?
-edit-
He's not really a socialist lite, more of just a big government moron to be more precise.
What would you say is the difference between a "big government moron" and a "Socialist lite"?
Crazed Rabbit
02-20-2008, 06:17
A big government moron may support big government for reasons other than those traditionally associated with socialism, while a 'socialist-lite' - to use Ice's term - would support big government for socialist reasons.
That's how I see it, anyway.
CR
A big government moron may support big government for reasons other than those traditionally associated with socialism, while a 'socialist-lite' - to use Ice's term - would support big government for socialist reasons.
That's how I see it, anyway.
CR
Pretty much.
A big government moron... creates more big government.
A socialist lite creates creates more big government... except most of it, if not all, is aimed at pursuing socialist goals. (increasing taxes, social services, etc)
I can't puzzle out whether an Obama presidency will lead to a Communist American
I'm not saying 4-8 years of Obama would yield a communist America. Like I said, in the long run these types of policies will most likely continue to take us down the path of good intentions and big brother knows what's best for you.
KukriKhan
02-20-2008, 06:27
Subsidized postal system
Not true, since the early 70's.
Otherwise, I agree.
Not true, since the early 70's.
ORLY? (http://www.lunewsviews.com/psnews.htm) Last I checked, the USPS wasn't turning a profit ...
Man you guys are funny - Obama a communist. HA! What a laugh!
Hmmm, yes, because the talk of believing in the free market, lowering taxes for the middle class and cutting taxes for big business are so out of the communist manifesto. Marx and Engles would be proud.
The right wing smear operation out in force already, next it will be he is a rabid Muslim, oh yeh, think that one has been done too. Who would have thought it....
Ironside
02-20-2008, 13:06
He's not a communist, but a socialist lite. However, his values will surely lead us to the beginning of that path.
Ironside's economic hypothesis:
As the agricultural and industrial sector has already shown, increased efficency will in time reduce the number of employed in that sector. When the service sector will be hit by this, where will the new jobs develop?
If it by current standards are a shotage of jobs, what currently known system will be best of handling this situation?
This equals that unless you can find out something else, capitalism will in the end make itself obsolete from it current form and end up quite socialistic (or a very class based society that will probably fall into dictorship due to the suppressing of the more or less constant unrest).
See, you're screwed anyway :laugh4:
Vladimir
02-20-2008, 13:19
This equals that unless you can find out something else, capitalism will in the end make itself obsolete from it current form and end up quite socialistic (or a very class based society that will probably fall into dictorship due to the suppressing of the more or less constant unrest).
See, you're screwed anyway :laugh4:
Translation from Swedish: Join us. Join us or DIE! :skull:
I got your dictatorship right here buddy. :boxing:
Really though. Obama could be the best thing for the Republicans in a long time. Let's hope they learned their lesson instead of adopting an "It's our turn" approach.
LittleGrizzly
02-20-2008, 13:21
I'm not saying 4-8 years of Obama would yield a communist America. Like I said, in the long run these types of policies will most likely continue to take us down the path of good intentions and big brother knows what's best for you.
Just like electing a conservative president would eventually lead to facism ?
the slippery slope is a logical fallacy, a somewhat liberal (wouldn't really class obama as a socialist) does not lead to communism otherwise there would probably be a lot of communist countrys in europe
Edit: Bush will the patriot act and the like has actually brought you closer to communism (or stalinism is what i think your on about)
KukriKhan
02-20-2008, 13:54
ORLY? (http://www.lunewsviews.com/psnews.htm) Last I checked, the USPS wasn't turning a profit ...
With respect, old buddy, there's no subsidizing going on there - just a lot of reimbursement for stuff like un-funded congressional mandates, pay-back for congressional "borrowing" against postal employee pension plans (one of their favorite 'slush funds', after Social Security, that they start tapping 5-6 months away from the fiscal year-end, when they've yet again overspent), and the like.
USPS isn't supposed to turn a profit. Over successive 3-year periods, they're supposed to achieve "beak-even", which they've mostly done since the late 80's.
However, to your larger point
You can't call any nation a pure example of capitalism -- there are just too many places where the public's real or perceived interest falls contrary to a market solution.
I have no argument.
I'm not saying 4-8 years of Obama would yield a communist America. Like I said, in the long run these types of policies will most likely continue to take us down the path of good intentions and big brother knows what's best for you.
Just like electing a conservative president would eventually lead to facism ?
the slippery slope is a logical fallacy, a somewhat liberal (wouldn't really class obama as a socialist) does not lead to communism otherwise there would probably be a lot of communist countrys in europe
Edit: Bush will the patriot act and the like has actually brought you closer to communism (or stalinism is what i think your on about)
You seem to think I like neo conservatives and George Bush.
Yup, I do agree, neoconservatism will lead us to the path of something very ugly too.
LittleGrizzly
02-20-2008, 15:30
Ive seen your views, your basicallly a moderate ? or in American terms at least ? I now your not a bush fan..
It was mainly the whole slippery slope thing i was having a go at..
Vladimir
02-20-2008, 16:21
Ive seen your views, your basicallly a moderate ? or in American terms at least ? I now your not a bush fan..
It was mainly the whole slippery slope thing i was having a go at..
If Bush 43 was rated "most conservative" you should worry. Just like you should worry when you have a Senator (that's another issue) who's considered the most liberal. He's en extremist but one that makes you feel good about it. Sound familiar to anyone?
LittleGrizzly
02-20-2008, 16:28
Im not nessecerily saying the whole most liberal thing is false but it seems to come round every 4 years... i also wouldn't be too worried about if Obama was the most liberal as US isn't very liberal anyway...
ICantSpellDawg
02-20-2008, 17:29
What does "most liberal" even mean? Is it just a liberal organization's way of saying "our favorite" or does it take into account ideology and actual votes. If so, what are these qualifying votes and why have we not heard about them.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm
He just sounds like a relatively party line democrat. Sure, his stance on abortion is insane, but his stance on gay rights approaches reason and on business taxes is prudent and progressive.
He is no "liberal" like people in Berkeley. He is a Democrat who, because he is a democrat, votes some things in that are left of center.
I will be voting for McCain in November and have had no use for the current Democratic leadership over the past years. Obama is not a die hard liberal thought, and if his policies on abortion were reversed, I would consider voting for him.
Progressivism isn't a bad thing as long as it doesn't undermine individuals and life in general. New ways of looking at the world and our future should be celebrated as long as they don't "throw the baby out with the bath water".
We should also learn to not try to destroy and build from scratch what works well and only needs minor adjustments for optimal performance.
These criticisms are the ones that the harpy uses against him. If he wins the election in November, the consolation prize will be that he slayed the evil Hillary monster in the Spring.
Vladimir
02-20-2008, 17:36
It's saying that he is the most extreme of one of the two dominant political philosophies in the US. (or at least, relative to those in the Senate)
That and his wife's recent comments are enough for concern.
What a load of crap. We have to choose between so many senators this year.
ICantSpellDawg
02-20-2008, 18:07
It's saying that he is the most extreme of one of the two dominant political philosophies in the US. (or at least, relative to those in the Senate)
That and his wife's recent comments are enough for concern.
What a load of crap. We have to choose between so many senators this year.
His wife's comments?
Let me let you in on a little secret. I haven't been proud to be an American either since the Democrat James K. Polk annexed the Oregon, California and New Mexico territories through War with Mexico and a nut kicking session with the U.K.
just kidding, but technically she said ""I haven't been REALLY proud". That could mean that she was proud, but not really proud. Nothign wrong with that. When Clinton was the President, I was proud to be and American, but not really proud.
When Reagan and Bush senior were in office, I was a baby, so it doesn't apply to her "adult life" qualifier. Bush Jr has bungled his way through office a bit and not articulated any of his great achievements. Again, proud, but not "REALLY" proud - maybe for a little while when we were slamming through Iraq.
In her adult life, she saw LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr.
That's a piss poor lineup for a Democrat.
Many people on both the right and left may feel as though the country is ass backwards and making us look foolish; some think we look foolish through wars that havn't gone 100% as planned, others are embarrassed of some of the people and ideas that the nation protects or the direction that we are being taken in. We are all proud, as anyone should be, but we become "really" proud when we see things happen that transcend the average. In her case, a black man receiving mainstream support and a good chance of becoming president on his own merits over a calculating and possibly evil woman and her dynasty.
Vladimir
02-20-2008, 18:40
His wife's comments?
Let me let you in on a little secret. I haven't been proud to be an American either since the Democrat James K. Polk annexed the Oregon, California and New Mexico territories through War with Mexico and a nut kicking session with the U.K..
~:eek: Why to you hate theft by force of arms freedom? :unitedstates:
but technically she said ""I haven't been REALLY proud".Well, technically, technically she said "proud" and then toned it down to "REALLY proud" in a later speech after the first comment started getting some bad press.
linky (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGjR81pFJI4&feature=related)
CountArach
02-20-2008, 22:07
I don't see the big deal. Its not like she will have legislative power anyway...
Ive seen your views, your basicallly a moderate ? or in American terms at least ? I now your not a bush fan..
It was mainly the whole slippery slope thing i was having a go at..
I'm moved from moderate to classical liberal.
I'm not a libertarian. Some of those guys scare me. (Just think of Ron Paul times 100)
NYT smears McCain (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080221/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_lobbyist)
It's not that I find the idea of McCain having an affair impossible to believe (iirc, that's what destroyed his first marriage), but this is just yellow journalism and it smacks of partisan bias. There's similarly unsubstantiated attacks against Obama, but the NYT only seems fit to print a hit piece against McCain.
You can read the actual story here (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?ei=5065&en=30275248afff65bf&ex=1204174800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print) . They're careful to not literally accuse him of having an affair, but they certainly imply the hell out of it. If he did something inappropriate, I DO want to hear about it- but come back when you have something concrete and save the scurrilous rumors for the 527 groups.
I've been reading the WaPo's take on it. Looks like McCain's staff was worried about the "relationship" enough to try to keep her away from him in public. The big question is, of course, "Is she hot?"
seireikhaan
02-21-2008, 17:54
It's not that I find the idea of McCain having an affair impossible to believe (iirc, that's what destroyed his first marriage), but this is just yellow journalism and it smacks of partisan bias.
:coffeenews: Xiahou, this is major American media, no? What in past experiencs made you think that American news actually published non-partisan news stories? And that speaks for both sides, too.
The big question is, of course, "Is she hot?"You decide. She's certainly better looking than the person Obama is alleged to have an affair with (http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56626). :clown:
https://img229.imageshack.us/img229/5025/vickika6.jpg
KukriKhan
02-21-2008, 17:59
...a Washington attorney representing McCain, told NBC's "Today" show that McCain's staff provided the Times with "approximately 12 instances where Senator McCain took positions adverse to this lobbyist's clients and her public relations firm's clients," but none of the examples were included in the paper's story.
That bit is very disturbing, speaking as a consumer of political news. Deliberately ignoring and omitting contrary evidence does not smack of good (or even responsible) journalism. Makes me throw out the whole story as hogwash, even if any parts might be true.
You decide. She's certainly better looking than the person Obama is alleged to have an affair with (http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56626). :clown:
https://img229.imageshack.us/img229/5025/vickika6.jpg
Our head of state will be competing with the likes of Sarkozy. He has to do better than this. :no:
Seems to me like a non-story (and a hatchet job). If there is something going on, McCain better fess up to it now, because there will be lots of scrutiny in the next few weeks and leaks will happen.
In other election news, Obama blows his nose- crowd applauds (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/even_blowing_his_nose_obama_ge.html). :inquisitive:
Even blowing his nose, Obama gets applause
by John McCormick
DALLAS – It's probably safe to say that you have arrived as a politician when your audience applauds when you blow your nose.
Yes, just a day before a debate in Texas, Sen. Barack Obama has a head cold.
And about a half-hour into a speech here, the Illinois Democrat announced that he had to take a quick break. "Gotta blow my nose here for a second," Obama said.
Out came a Kleenex (or perhaps it was a hankie), and he wiped his nose.
The near-capacity audience at the Reunion Arena, which his campaign said totaled 17,000, broke out in a slightly awkward applause.
Despite the cold, Obama's voice seems as strong as ever. He has a light schedule today and some time to rest up before his debate Thursday evening with Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York.
Don Corleone
02-22-2008, 02:09
Our head of state will be competing with the likes of Sarkozy. He has to do better than this. :no:
Seems to me like a non-story (and a hatchet job). If there is something going on, McCain better fess up to it now, because there will be lots of scrutiny in the next few weeks and leaks will happen.
And what makes you think he didn't leak the story himself? (Or his staff anyway) :inquisitive:
Wouldn't right now, with Barrack and Hillary are kicking each other in the goonies to see who has a bigger pair :argue: be the IDEAL time for a member of the other party to float information out there, then claim "we've covered this already, and it's been debunked, several times" when the press can actually pay attention for a little while a month or two from now?
ICantSpellDawg
02-22-2008, 03:16
Hillary is the Devil.
The Democratic Nominee is like medicine. We may have to swallow it. Barack Obama is a spoonful of sugar. Hillary Clinton is a spoonful of broken metal and jagged pebbles.
And what makes you think he didn't leak the story himself? (Or his staff anyway) :inquisitive: Highly doubtful. Although, I think it probably will help immunize McCain to future attacks- baseless or not. This seems to be backfiring pretty big on the Times.
KukriKhan
02-22-2008, 03:45
In other election news, Obama blows his nose- crowd applauds (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/even_blowing_his_nose_obama_ge.html). :inquisitive:
Even blowing his nose, Obama gets applause
by John McCormick
DALLAS – It's probably safe to say that you have arrived as a politician when your audience applauds when you blow your nose.
Yes, just a day before a debate in Texas, Sen. Barack Obama has a head cold.
And about a half-hour into a speech here, the Illinois Democrat announced that he had to take a quick break. "Gotta blow my nose here for a second," Obama said.
Out came a Kleenex (or perhaps it was a hankie), and he wiped his nose.
The near-capacity audience at the Reunion Arena, which his campaign said totaled 17,000, broke out in a slightly awkward applause.
Despite the cold, Obama's voice seems as strong as ever. He has a light schedule today and some time to rest up before his debate Thursday evening with Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York.
So which do you object to: the hankie or kleenex?
Watching the dem debate in Texas, Hil'ry just played the "Bill" card: "everybody knows I've been through a lot in my life..."
:laugh4: :laugh4:
and she's all but thrown in the towel, stopping just short of endorsing Obama in her final remarks.
Great political theater. Almost Kabuki in its predictability.
-edit-
Obama should nurse and encourage that headcold, IMO. His voice had more timber, and was about an octive below his usual tone.
If the NY Times can't back up their smear on McCain, they're in for a world of well-earned hurt. I heard some gabbering today that this is the first of a series, but who knows if that's for real. Seems to me if they had hard facts and named sources they would have used them right away.
Personally, my favorite news item from today came straight from the Aspen Times: Don’t forget Angry White Men! (http://www.aspentimes.com/article/2008198091324) It's just like The Onion, only for real.
-edit-
Why do I enjoy these cheesy campaign videos (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fd-MVU4vtU) so much? This one isn't as wonderfully awful as the Hillary 4 U & Me (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FvyGydc8no), but it's got its own kind of cheesetastic charm.
Well, I guess Dallas really is where we send Presidents to die (http://www.star-telegram.com/251/story/486413.html).
Security details at Barack Obama's rally Wednesday stopped screening people for weapons at the front gates more than an hour before the Democratic presidential candidate took the stage at Reunion Arena. [...]
"Sure," said Lawrence, when asked if he was concerned by the great number of people who had gotten into the building without being checked. But, he added, the turnout of more than 17,000 people seemed to be a "friendly crowd."
And by the same logic, I'm sure that 99.99999% of the people in Dallas in 1963 were also friendly ...
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/312.jpg
LittleGrizzly
02-22-2008, 16:51
I'm sure that 99.99999% of the people in Dallas in 1963 were also friendly ...
JFK must really draw the crowds out ;)
Vladimir
02-22-2008, 17:07
Well, I guess Dallas really is where we send Presidents to die (http://www.star-telegram.com/251/story/486413.html).
Security details at Barack Obama's rally Wednesday stopped screening people for weapons at the front gates more than an hour before the Democratic presidential candidate took the stage at Reunion Arena. [...]
"Sure," said Lawrence, when asked if he was concerned by the great number of people who had gotten into the building without being checked. But, he added, the turnout of more than 17,000 people seemed to be a "friendly crowd."
And by the same logic, I'm sure that 99.99999% of the people in Dallas in 1963 were also friendly ...
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/312.jpg
:jawdrop: Wow. So much to say but no idea where to start.
Louis VI the Fat
02-22-2008, 19:03
Personally, my favorite news item from today came straight from the Aspen Times: Don’t forget Angry White Men! (http://www.aspentimes.com/article/2008198091324) It's just like The Onion, only for real.Doesn't that article give a fairly acurate description of what the average American white male voter thinks?
What I read in it, was not an attempt at writing an accurate portrayal of contemporary America, but a portrayal of the minds and thoughts of a large mass of white male voters. In this respect, I have never fortgotten what Gawain once wrote: 'Me and Devastating Dave are stil the majority in America, and DD is making sure it stays that way'. I've always thought that Gawain was very right in that, certainly in the first observation of the two.
(Oh, and go Texas and Ohio! Do what's right for America!)
ICantSpellDawg
02-22-2008, 19:23
Doesn't that article give a fairly acurate description of what the average American white male voter thinks?
What I read in it, was not an attempt at writing an accurate portrayal of contemporary America, but a portrayal of the minds and thoughts of a large mass of white male voters. In this respect, I have never fortgotten what Gawain once wrote: 'Me and Devastating Dave are stil the majority in America, and DD is making sure it stays that way'. I've always thought that Gawain was very right in that, certainly in the first observation of the two.
(Oh, and go Texas and Ohio! Do what's right for America!)
This forum is literally chock full of that voting block. I think proletariat and Strike for the south (along with 2 other asian guys) are the only ones who it doesn't apply to.
Wow. So much to say but no idea where to start.
They're saying the order came from the Secret Service, which I find almost impossible to believe. The SS is known for excessive paranoia, not for bending the rules to fill a stadium more quickly. Bad bit of business, but at least it's come to light. I can think of many ways I would like to see people eliminated from the race for the Presidency, and none of them involve assassination.
In McCain-related news, his campaign's finances seem to be in a terrible tangle (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022103141.html?hpid=topnews). The loan he took out with federal matching funds as collateral may be a real problem. Hate to see a candidate hobbled like this ...
McCain's attempts to build up his campaign coffers before a general election contest appeared to be threatened by the stern warning yesterday from Federal Election Commission Chairman David M. Mason, a Republican. Mason notified McCain that the commission had not granted his Feb. 6 request to withdraw from the presidential public financing system.
The implications of that could be dramatic. Last year, when McCain's campaign was starved for cash, he applied to join the financing system to gain access to millions of dollars in federal matching money. He was also permitted to use his FEC certification to bypass the time-consuming process of gathering signatures to get his name on the ballot in several states, including Ohio.
By signing up for matching money, McCain agreed to adhere to strict state-by-state spending limits and an overall limit on spending of $54 million for the primary season, which lasts until the party's nominating convention in September. The general election has a separate public financing arrangement.
Vladimir
02-22-2008, 22:48
The Secret Service would be a nice place to start but that opens up a whole new series of questions. Was there precedent? Who made the call? Was it against regulations? And many more.
If there is precedent and this happens often then forget what I said. I still don't like it :angry: !
2nd
I think McCain will get a good funding boost after this NYT, curiosity. His campaign already sent out e-mails to try to exploit it.
Grrr, I'm angry and white? :clown:
This forum is literally chock full of that voting block. I think proletariat and Strike for the south (along with 2 other asian guys) are the only ones who it doesn't apply to.
Grrr, I'm angry and white? :clown:
Apparently I am too whatever that means.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.