Printable View
John Stewert said something about this last night, namely that the Republicans never had such as large majority when George W. Bush "did whatever the **** he wanted", and that you have to go back to the 1920's in order to find such a majority.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
So, Democrats < Labour.
Were I an American, I would be upset. Obama had a clear mandate to introduce Health Care reform, and it's not just that the Republicans (Since they turned out more than Dems or Inds) of Mass. (Which has healthcare) should be able to decide whether the rest of the America has affordable healthcare or not. Republican politicians, feel ashamed of yourselves.
are you kidding yourself........
have you ever been to massachusetts the democrats have a huge nummbers advantage oover republicans. plenty of democrats who voted for obama and ted kennedy went with brown instead.
shame on democrats for losing an election in a state that even Mcgovern could win in the 60's
Gee, considering the sinking opinion of their state healthcare in Massachusetts, maybe they didn't want it nationwide. And IIRC only a minority supports the healthcare bill now - so this result is a mandate of the nation on that issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
Does Lieberman really affect you? :inquisitive: Anyway, I found an amusing post on dailykos, which suggested they would dump Lieberman at the earliest opportunity. And I thought wow, you just lost a seat in a state so blue their ketchup is purple, and your reaction is to start targeting other Democrats and those not ideologically pure enough? :laugh4:Quote:
I'm interested in what this will mean for the Senate tactics of the Dems. Hopefully less pandering to Liebermann because 60 is pretty much out of reach.
CR
Indeed, a destructive urge to purge seems to be infecting both sides of the aisle. I'd prefer not to see Dems engage in the left-wing equivalent of a RINO hunt. (I guess it would be a DINO hunt?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
No, Obama did not have a clear mandate to introduce health care. He had a clear mandate to not be George W. Bush.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
Then why did John McCain (Or Ron Paul hehe) not win?
Because Obama was able to successfully deliver the (untrue) message of McCain == Bush.
Sarah Palin didn't help either.
So, regardless of what Obama's policies were, he would have got elected?
Pretty much. I can say with a fair degree of certainty that without President George W. Bush there would have been no President Barack Hussein Obama.
People had had enough of the republicans and elected democrats instead is what you're saying?
No, not what he's saying. Obviously George W. Bush was seen as a sub-prime President by a large majority of the United States. I believe the final polling of his administration had something like a 25% approval rating, and I'm pretty sure his admin holds the U.S. record for highest disapproval rating for the longest period of time. That's no small thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
So it's not unfair to say that the '08 election was a very specific rejection of the Bush admin, not republicans in general.
I don't know that all the senators and representatives rode on obama's wings though. Some of them did for sure. Or that McCain lost because he was "just like bush", aka also republican. But then I missed the point of the argument in the first place, so...
You only have a clear mandate if it's the right thing to do, no matter if everyone who voted for you wants you to do it. Otherwise all the congressman have a clear mandate to hand out as much pork as they can, which is what was being complained about with the health care bill.
He doesn't affect me directly (well not on domestic issues at least), but in the interests of International solidarity, he does. He isn't a Democrat either, he ditched the party because he wasn't ideologically pure enough to win the primary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/...ex.html?hpt=T1
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Indiana) decides not to run for reelection, citing disgust with the Senate and Congress in general. Is he trying to get the stink off for a 2012 challenge to Obama? Now the Dems have to pay for another campaign to keep the seat.
What's with everybody who's supposed to challenge Obama in 2012? Rush has been banging the drum that it's Hillary, now it's Bayh? As I've said before, I cannot think of an example of a sitting President being unseated in a primary. Why would savvy politicians stake their careers on such an unlikely outcome?
That Hillary rumor first came up last month when she mentioned that she only wanted to serve one term as Sec. of State. Many Dems that are looking for re-election this year fear they will lose, and some aren't even going to run, choosing to "retire" instead. All those lost jobs aren't coming back anytime soon, and anti-incumbency fervor is as high as I ever remember it. Compared to Obama's policies the Republicans look like the anti-big guvmint party and Hillary looks like a conservative. Perceptions are reality in politics.
It probably depends on who the Republican candidate is going to be, but if Democrats feel Hillary or whoever has a better chance to hold the presidency...it could happen. Especially if Obama can't turn things around.
The quad-trillion dollar question is who will the Republicans run for President? Palin, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, ????
None was passed over during the primary era unless they opted out (Johnson 1968). The only time a sitting President who was eligible was not nominated was Franklin Pierce in 1856. We ended up with that most amazing of Presidents, Buchannan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I didnt even know he existed until last year in my ap us history class, most worthless president therefore in my book.Quote:
The only time a sitting President who was eligible was not nominated was Franklin Pierce in 1856.
So why do you guys think this Bayh actually drop from the senate? Is it really "fear"
I don't really think so. He had a pretty good chance at getting reelected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
I think any potential Democratic candidates for nominee are going to wait until very near when the primaries begin before they commit to running.
CR
cant argue with you there.
any takes on the multi show argument between biden and cheney.
i doo find it a little outrageous for obama-biden to claim any of the credit for iraq for themselves.