DM's Beatles forums

Other forums => Current Affairs => Topic started by: Joost on September 04, 2007, 06:48:22 AM

Title: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Joost on September 04, 2007, 06:48:22 AM
I don't know the candidates that well yet, I'll have to see some debates before I can really form an opinion, but so far I think Obama looks like a very decent guy.

I already think it's great that there's a chance that the USA will get a black or a female president after 43 straight white males in a row.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: somedude210 on September 04, 2007, 01:10:33 PM
democratic - obama/edwards ticket, or richardson

republican - ron paul cause hes not like past republicans because he still follows ideals of real republicans

just anyone but hillary. we may be ready for a female president, but shes not it
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Whoever on September 04, 2007, 02:24:50 PM
Don't matter who it is they're still gonna murder loads of people.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: legthi on September 04, 2007, 07:51:35 PM
ohhh, touche.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Flaming Pie in the Sky on September 04, 2007, 08:16:19 PM
Quote from: 343
just anyone but hillary. we may be ready for a female president, but shes not it

I know, honestly

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Sondra on September 05, 2007, 04:27:47 AM
I don't think we've really heard them speak enough to come to any sort of conclusive decision. At least I haven't. But I have my leanings.

Someone should start a thread about the new prime minister or something. Or is that not a big deal over there? Doesn't really seem to be. Which is interesting. I'd start one, but I know nothing about the guy. I can't even think of his name at the moment. Gordon?
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Sondra on September 05, 2007, 04:28:44 AM
Quote from: 343

just anyone but hillary. we may be ready for a female president, but shes not it

Why not?
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: The End on September 05, 2007, 11:44:58 AM
Quote from: 216
Gordon?

Brown.

Not Gordon Blair as one Congressman referred to him in an interview on UK TV recently! LOL ;D
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Joost on September 05, 2007, 11:53:02 AM
Quote from: 216

Why not?

I think Hillary has a good chance. Bill was a popular president and I think that people expect Hillary to be pretty much identical to her husband politically. I also think a lot of women will vote for her simply because she's the first woman who's got a chance to become president.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: somedude210 on September 05, 2007, 05:28:45 PM
the problem with hillary is that shes trying to appease to many people at once and is losing the focus of the campaign.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Whoever on September 05, 2007, 05:40:56 PM
Don't matter who we get in to lead they will order us to kill. In an election I choose to vote for myself. The system is evil but just because there are no better ones don't mean that I should vote for an evil one. Only you can lead yourself.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Sondra on September 06, 2007, 01:02:14 AM
I'd like to know what people think of Giuliani. What he did for NYC was amazing. I mean, if you were there in the 70's and 80's, it was a real crap hole. Now it's like Disney. The guy can get things done and he's pretty liberal for a republican. I still haven't made my mind up one way or the other though. I'm trying not to let the fellow New Yorker Italian thing bias me, but you know.  ;)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: somedude210 on September 06, 2007, 02:17:48 PM
hes milking 9/11 dry and hes trying to cover up his liberalness. i dont know about him, i still like ron paul for the republican seat, hes at least a republican by defination
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Mairi on September 06, 2007, 07:10:34 PM
I actually like Hilary for the most part, although I don't agree with her stance on gay marriage. (I think civil unions are kind of lame. Just let them get married already!) However, I don't think she will win. The United States might be ready to elect a black president, but not a woman one. Especially not one with so much baggage.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: fendertele on September 06, 2007, 09:47:01 PM
or her pro war stance :S
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Mairi on September 07, 2007, 01:15:13 AM
I wouldn't exactly call it a pro war stance. From what I've heard, she thinks that getting into the war in the first place was a big mistake, but to withdraw now would cause more problems. I don't agree with that either, but like I said, not exactly a pro war stance.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Sondra on September 07, 2007, 01:21:39 AM
Quote from: 218
The United States might be ready to elect a black president, but not a woman one. Especially not one with so much baggage.

This I don't know about. I think she has a real shot. If she's able to develop some sort of personality in the months to come I'd say she has a damn good chance of being our first female president. Plus some people think it's a two for one thing with Bill.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Mairi on September 07, 2007, 01:25:58 AM
I don't know. It seems Britain is just so ahead in these things. I don't think Canada will elect a woman PM either. I mean, we have had one already (Kim Campell) but she wasn't elected, she was appointed because Brian Mulroney resigned.

You do have a point about the two-for one thing, though. That was a big part of Bill's campaign.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Joost on September 07, 2007, 06:34:33 AM
Quote from: 218
(I think civil unions are kind of lame. Just let them get married already!)

Yeah!

Marriage is something between a man and a woman two people that love each other.

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: somedude210 on September 07, 2007, 11:29:12 AM
heres something i always wondered, if all the jokes about marriage were true, wouldnt they want to let them get married since they were gonna end up as miserable as every other married person? ;D
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Sondra on September 12, 2007, 02:14:48 AM
Isn't gay marriage recognized in Massachusetts? Hey one state out of 50! Not bad! But I mean considering the history of tolerance in this country that's actally a miracle in itself. Do you think any of us will live to see the day when gay marriage is recognized in say Mississippi? Ha.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: somedude210 on September 12, 2007, 04:01:22 PM
yes yes, i live in the bay state, now known as the gay state. but also remember that massachusetts is still the most liberal state in the country
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Sondra on September 13, 2007, 04:06:48 AM
Massachusetts is the most liberal state? I thought that was California. I mean, that's what most people would think but I guess not.  
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Sondra on September 13, 2007, 04:08:23 AM
Quote from: 360

Brown.

Yeah, you guys don't seem at all phased that your country just changed leaders after, what, ten years or so? Must be nice.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Whoever on September 13, 2007, 01:09:12 PM
It's because they all seem to cock it up in there own inmitable way.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Klang on September 13, 2007, 09:36:31 PM
Quote from: 216
Massachusetts is the most liberal state? I thought that was California. I mean, that's what most people would think but I guess not.  

Cali does have medical marijuana, whereas Mass still treats it like it's heroin or something. Those good, Calvinistic puritan values still cling, generations later.

 :)

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: somedude210 on September 13, 2007, 10:18:25 PM
yea yea, but in the grand scheme of things, we're both the most liberal states, we have gay marriage, you have weed
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Sondra on September 14, 2007, 12:05:24 AM
Yeah, weed. That's okay. But don't you DARE lite up a REAL cigarette while your here! This is the non-smoking state you know.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Mairi on September 14, 2007, 12:46:19 AM
Sandra, do you feel like a New Yorker or a Californian?
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Klang on September 14, 2007, 02:54:16 AM

Noam Chomsky.

 :)

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Sondra on September 14, 2007, 05:07:43 AM
Quote from: 218
Sandra, do you feel like a New Yorker or a Californian?

A New Yorker. I'm not a Californian in any way. Except maybe the accent change.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Sondra on September 14, 2007, 05:12:18 AM
Quote from: 343
hes milking 9/11 dry and hes trying to cover up his liberalness. i dont know about him, i still like ron paul for the republican seat, hes at least a republican by defination

He's milking 9/11? I haven't really seen this. He was amazing through that whole thing though and I think if he wants to mention it he has the right. He was down there as it was happening watching people jump for God's sake. I mean, if that didn't have a profound impact on him then I don't know what would. I won't fault him for bringing it up.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Klang on September 14, 2007, 06:22:54 AM
Quote from: 216

He's milking 9/11? I haven't really seen this. He was amazing through that whole thing though and I think if he wants to mention it he has the right. He was down there as it was happening watching people jump for God's sake. I mean, if that didn't have a profound impact on him then I don't know what would. I won't fault him for bringing it up.

Interesting, because a friend of mine from another forum who is a New Yorker feels differently. She wrote this...

Quote
'May I remind all you good folks that Rudy Giuliani was NOT a hero to New Yorkers. Much of the human sacrifice was caused by his poor planning, and all his grandstanding in the days after the attack can't erase that. If any of you were thinking of voting for him as president, DON'T.'

Differing perceptions. Interesting.

 :)

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Pasta Cheif on September 14, 2007, 09:26:38 AM
Ron Paul is for sure the best Republican candidate I think.


He wants to impeach Bush
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: somedude210 on September 14, 2007, 01:27:03 PM
well put Pasta

and gulianni is milking 9/11 dry. every speech, he manages to say it 3 or 4 times. if it wasnt for that, he would've never ran for president in the first place
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Mairi on September 14, 2007, 10:47:57 PM
^Reminds me of that Family Guy episode where Lois is running for mayor and her answer to everything is "9/11" and the people love it.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Sondra on September 15, 2007, 12:49:17 AM
Quote from: 843

Interesting, because a friend of mine from another forum who is a New Yorker feels differently. She wrote this...



Differing perceptions. Interesting.

 :)


I'd like to know how someone could have planned for something like 9/11. Blaming someone after the fact for not having a plan in place for something so out of left field is pretty much a waste of time. Not every New Yorker loves Rudy that's for sure. With people like him you either love him or hate him. That's just the way it is with strong personalities. But they can't deny what he did for the City and I doubt they'd ever want to go back to living in a pre Rudy city. If the person saying this even remembers what that was like. I'm not saying I'd vote for him cuz like I've said I haven't started listening enough, but I don't think him mentioning 9/11 would prevent me if I agreed with him on most other things. That would be sort of petty. But whatever.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Sondra on September 15, 2007, 12:51:41 AM
Quote from: 343
well put Pasta

and gulianni is milking 9/11 dry. every speech, he manages to say it 3 or 4 times. if it wasnt for that, he would've never ran for president in the first place

Not true. People were asking him to run before 9/11. It was always a possibility. As for the 9/11 stuff. Why does that annoy you so much? I mean, seriously, I haven't listened to him speak that much but what's he saying that gets you?
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Klang on September 15, 2007, 01:51:19 AM

Good points.

 :)

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on September 17, 2007, 11:36:29 PM
I got this email today, and I'm interested in comments on it. It's from MoveOn org. (The numbers represent footnotes linking to the source. I'm only reproducing the beginning of the message here. I can copy in the whole thing if anyone's interested.)


This weekend, Rudy Giuliani launched a series of attacks on us (MoveOn) for exposing the White House spin on the "surge."

Giuliani is hoping to scare war critics into staying silent. But that isn't going to happen. We've put together a rapid-response ad which demonstrates that Giuliani doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to leadership on Iraq: He was booted from the Iraq Study Group after missing meeting after meeting so he could make millions of dollars giving speeches.

We want voters to know that Giuliani can't be trusted on Iraq. Can you help with $250 to get this ad on the air in Iowa? Click here to see the ad and contribute:

https://pol.moveon.org/donate/giuliani.html?id=11257-3207800-5KEQ_f&t=3

The facts are very clear: When it really mattered, Giuliani chose to make big money from speeches rather than helping figure out a strategy for Iraq.

The Iraq Study group (ISG) was a bipartisan panel appointed by Congress in March of 2006 to evaluate the situation in Iraq and make policy recommendations on the war. Sometimes it's referred to as the Baker-Hamilton commission.

Giuliani originally said that he looked forward to participating in the group,1 but then he never showed up to any of the meetings.

Newsday reported earlier this year that, "Rudolph Giuliani's membership on an elite Iraq study panel came to an abrupt end last spring after he failed to show up for a single official meeting of the group, causing the panel's top Republican to give him a stark choice: either attend the meetings or quit, several sources said."2

Giuliani later said that he couldn't participate in the group because of "time constraints." A close look at his financial records shows that those time constraints actually consisted of a series of speeches that he made millions of dollars on.3

* In April of last year. Giuliani skipped a meeting and made $200,000 giving a keynote speech at an economic conference in South Korea.4
* The next month he skipped another meeting to give a $100,000 speech on "leadership" in Atlanta. Later that day, he attended a $100-a-ticket political fundraiser for conservative activist Ralph Reed.5
For Giuliani to claim any authority on handling the war in Iraq when he abdicated his responsibilities to the Iraq Study Group is a plain betrayal of the nation's trust. In fact, Stephen Hess, who served on the panel and has served in Republican and Democratic administrations, said, "Leaving that study group was not exactly an act of courage."6
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Sondra on September 18, 2007, 01:28:57 AM
Mudslinging. Each and every candidate can have an e-mail like that written about them. You just have to use common sense.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: somedude210 on September 18, 2007, 03:13:58 AM
im still going to vote ron paul for republican candidate. at least he has common sense
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Sondra on September 18, 2007, 03:41:46 AM
Just don't go voting for someone who doesn't have a chance and is there to basically f-up the elections like that whole Ralph Nader farce. Again, go with your common sense. The lesser of two evils. It's all we've got. You can fantasize about the perfect candidate, but don't let your idealism get in the way of actually accepting the fact that we've basically got two choices and you need to pick the best of those two. Nice as it is to say you were different, but it gets us nowhere.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Joost on September 18, 2007, 09:30:13 AM
I really don't care who the republican candidate will be, cause I don't want the next president to be a republican anyway.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: somedude210 on September 18, 2007, 03:47:40 PM
actually, ron paul may have a chance. not a huge chance, but its still possible.


and ill probably vote obama or edwards for the democratic candidate. just no hillary
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: pc31 on September 20, 2007, 07:26:15 PM
hilary!!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Klang on September 20, 2007, 07:41:57 PM

Dillary!

 :P
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: pc31 on September 20, 2007, 07:57:24 PM
hilary dillary dang!!!thats what we'll be saying in a few years...
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: BlueMeanie on September 30, 2007, 03:39:21 PM
Neocon 'godfather' Norman Podhoretz tells Bush: bomb Iran

ONE of the founding fathers of neoconservatism has privately urged President George W Bush to bomb Iran rather than allow it to acquire nuclear weapons.

Norman Podhoretz, an intellectual guru of the neoconservative movement who has joined Rudolph Giuliani
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: somedude210 on September 30, 2007, 10:09:37 PM
intellectual guru and he wants to bomb iran off the map? isnt that kinda an oxymoron?
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: BlueMeanie on September 30, 2007, 10:16:39 PM
Quote from: 343
intellectual guru and he wants to bomb iran off the map? isnt that kinda an oxymoron?

Well, some kind of moron, anyway.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: on October 01, 2007, 09:20:16 AM
Hilary and i hope she finds a stud intern and gets some action in the Oval office   ;D ;)

DaveRam :P
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: WaMoZ on January 10, 2008, 03:49:55 AM
As an Aussie, I'm too far away to make a judgement and I don't get a vote anyway. But I love to keep informed on politics and I desparately want to see someone with a brain get elected after 8 years of the Dubya Shrub.

On the democratic side it looks like there will be a titanic battle between Obama and Clinton. While philosophically I am more "democrat" than "republican" I feel no great desire to see either elected. A moderate Republican would do fine. I hear McCain won the latest primary, which was a bit of a shock to me. I thought he was a spent force. What do you US forum members think of McCain?
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Paul Doherty on January 11, 2008, 10:14:37 AM
Homer Simpson?

I think i prefer Barack Obama to the other runners.But i think his campaign needs a bit more back-bone instead of the constant 'change' speeches ringing out.But lets be honest,George bush is the devil on earth........they cant get much worse.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: BlueMeanie on January 11, 2008, 01:27:41 PM
I don't usually pay much attention to the primaries, but the Democratic race looks like being pretty interesting. Is the average American ready for a black president? I doubt it. Is the average American ready for a female president? Probably not, though I give Hilary a better chance. I think they're going to cancel each other out, which will lead to more votes for Edwards. It's his for the taking.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on January 11, 2008, 05:32:47 PM
John Kerry has just thrown his weight behind Barack Obama today, so that might make a difference.

My friend had an interesting take on the Iowa Republican caucuses, where Fundamentalist Mike Huckabee won receiving 34% of the electorate and Mitt Romney (Latter Day Saints) finished second with 25%. At first blush this looks terrible; America is well on its way towards establishing a theocracy under the American Taliban. But perhaps the real answer is more encouraging: more and more people who used to vote Republican have simply abandoned the party. They've finally realized that these extremists do _not_ represent their views, and plan to vote Democratic this term.

I've talked to many of these converts myself. For women, the Katrina disaster was a big motivator. For some, Bush's unauthorized spying on Americans (when methods legally available were not used) was a deciding factor. The Republicans successfully appealed to their most radical base for the last few elections. But most Republicans don't hold these radical views. They want health care and a decent education and, oh, jobs would be nice. I don't think they want a holy war with the Mideast-- can anyone who considers him/herself a moderate Republican comment on this?

I really don't know. I'm living in a country that elected Bush twice, thinks reality TV is entertaining, and wants to get rich so they can treat everyone else like crap, just like the rich people are doing today. Not a healthy place. But I really do think that the majority of my fellow Americans are finally waking up to the fact that the unholy alliance between government and corporate interests is designed to shut them out of that piece of the pie that they'd give _anything_ to get, so they'd better settle for some responsible government before they find themselves taking the bus to work in our crappy excuse for a mass-transit system and wondering what the hell happened to their discretionary income.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Kevin on January 11, 2008, 05:45:13 PM
From this distance all I can say is that it is a good sign that this election is generating such real interest in the voters. The higher the turnout the more credable the result, regardless of whether it goes for or against you. It's about the best you can ask for in a democracy.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on January 11, 2008, 05:57:38 PM
Absolutely! I spent most of my efforts in the last election not supporting a specific candidate, but getting out the vote-- registering people, calling them, knocking on doors, following up on election day. I have my views, obviously, but for a representative democracy to be "representative", it ought to reflect the views of the majority-- which our government clearly does not. I've been fed up for 8 years, but other people are reaching their individual "enough" lines. I hope it's not too few or too late.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: WaMoZ on January 12, 2008, 02:26:22 AM
No-one's told me what they think of McCain yet, He seems like a really decent guy, and apparently he has strong personal links to our Aussie politicans, so that's a big thumbs up from my viewpoint. I really hope the Republicans go for a moderate candidate this time. Actually, I think they'll have to, because after 8 years of the Dubya Shrub surely the Democratic candidate will wipe the floor with any Neo-con the Republicans may nominate.  
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: somedude210 on January 12, 2008, 06:33:05 AM
if i vote republican (highly unlikely) i'd go for McCain because hes actually honest...well as much as one for a politician

for democrats, which i'm going to end up voting for, i want Edwards to win, he has some interesting and actual plans. i wouldve voted for richardson if he had a shot and didnt drop out. Obama has the charisma and can talk the talk, and hillary is just hillary.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: BlueMeanie on January 12, 2008, 10:47:23 AM
I'm wondering how long it will be before Edwards starts pulling into the lead, once the novelty of a black man, and a woman has worn off.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: An Apple Beatle on January 12, 2008, 01:30:29 PM
As chris rock said last night on UK TV...'Bush must have messed things up real bad that we got a black man & a woman in the running.' lol
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on January 12, 2008, 05:24:10 PM
Answering the McCain question-- he started strong last time, offering a moderate or compromise view that was appealing to many Americans. But he got crushed by his party because he wasn't playing ball. They withdrew support, ran false ads, the works (same thing they do to the democratic candidates). So a tame McCain revised his opinions to suck up to the (then) powers that be, in hopes to not end his political career.

The Democrats are always like herding cats; that's why "divide and conquer" works so well on them. They tend to be more thoughtful and independent. The Republicans are your power block; you're with us or against us, and if the latter, then you're all the way out.

That's why, even though I think McCain isn't a bad person, he caved before and he will cave again to the tyranny of his party. He can't be trusted, because he runs with jackals, literally back-room politicians who decide everything. I'm sick of a powerless puppet figurehead.

As far as smarts, all our contenders are smarter than Bush. That's a pretty low bar, but a reaction is understandable. Hilary did appeal to me for her keen intelligence and experience, but she's been running a very dirty campaign. In Iowa, a series of push-polls went out to voters ("Would you vote for Obama if you knew he was raised in a terrorist camp?" that sort of thing)-- to all the toprunners except Clinton. My, I wonder who was behind that?  ::) My sister reports people following Edwards volunteers around and taking their literature off the door to leave their own handouts (saves finding the sympathetic base on your own). Just dirty pool. From an experienced politician like Clinton, I expect she knows these tactics are successful. But I'm sick of corruption. I want someone more upright, not just another brand of sleaze.

I also see Clinton as too willing to compromise. As has been pointed out with Bill's administration, he saved his "campaign promises" to fight pollution, enact social advances, etc. until the end of his term, so he wouldn't offend his corporate buddies. Then the new administration came in and repealed all of them. So Bill could pretend he acted in good faith, while he was just another one snacking at the executive feed trough. I don't expect Mrs. Bill to be any different. I want change, not a new flavor of more of the same.

Obama talks well, but I'm not sure he has the spine to pull off actual change. I would hope he'd get a lot of excellent support from people who are eager to see him succeed. It could be good. But I think for a real hard-line stance against the corporate interests who are poisoning our government, I'd back up Edwards. Obama is inspirational; Edwards is p*ssed.  ;D I'm p*ssed. We're a match made in heaven!

Seriously, either of these guys would be great, and a vast improvement (need I say) over the dangerous outlaws we have now. I don't worry so much about the Democrat selections. What I worry about is a third party (which we desperately need) coming in and splitting the vote, a la Ross Perot. Many people (myself included) are hideously disappointed with the Democrats -- they are such wimps! So populist voters could easily be seduced into making a different choice-- and that would leave the old power-block Republicans in place, which is what keeps getting them in. I don't see them abandoning their winning formula now.

I can hope the Democrats start to act as if they have conviction -- as presidential candidate Chris Dodd did when he left his Iowa campaign to lead (successfully) a filibuster in Congress. At stake was a controversial measure that would give special legal protections to the telecom industry-- prevent them from being investigated for unlawful spying (another in-advance pardon, folks), and renew no-acccountability government spying powers. I mean, hello! Yes, this is the kind of action free citizens want. I wish they would realize that people want this behavior and would support them more for doing it.

Quote from: 15
As chris rock said last night on UK TV...'Bush must have messed things up real bad that we got a black man & a woman in the running.' lol
Love it! Chris rocks! :D
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: zipp on January 12, 2008, 06:26:29 PM
I still think Ringo has a good chance.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: WaMoZ on January 13, 2008, 08:05:36 AM
Thank you, harihead! That was fascinating, if a little depressing as well! ;D
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: somedude210 on January 14, 2008, 04:43:44 AM
welcome to reality
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on January 14, 2008, 04:23:15 PM
George Bush. He has shown he has the right stuff, and is the kind of man we all need for these times of troubles. Besides, he's always been a good boy, and has trouble keeping friends.

Signed, Barbara Bush
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Bobber on January 14, 2008, 06:36:56 PM
Popularity polls over here in the Netherlands tell that Hillary is our #1, followed closely by Obama. Nevertheless, when asked who the Dutch expect to be the next president, Obama won.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on January 16, 2008, 05:24:10 AM
Quote from: 216
I'd like to know what people think of Giuliani. What he did for NYC was amazing. I mean, if you were there in the 70's and 80's, it was a real crap hole. Now it's like Disney. The guy can get things done and he's pretty liberal for a republican. I still haven't made my mind up one way or the other though. I'm trying not to let the fellow New Yorker Italian thing bias me, but you know.  ;)


Giuliani is the true Bush/Cheney heir, peddling fear being his strongest suit.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: bobbydylanlover on January 21, 2008, 01:29:37 AM
I would hope Ron Paul
He actually has some sense..
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Beatlemaniac64 on February 01, 2008, 05:57:13 PM
I like Mitt Romney, he's the smartest one out there.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: BlueMeanie on February 01, 2008, 06:18:21 PM
Quote from: 483
I'm wondering how long it will be before Edwards starts pulling into the lead, once the novelty of a black man, and a woman has worn off.

What a smart arse I am then! ;D
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: DaveRam on February 02, 2008, 02:02:02 PM
According to the news this morning Obama is Irish well at least part of him is , His Great Great Great Grandfather came from Moneygall :)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Joost on February 04, 2008, 10:05:05 AM
I hope Obama will win. He seems like a smart, reliable, decent and reasonable man.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: BlueMeanie on February 04, 2008, 07:50:16 PM
Quote from: 56
I hope Obama will win. He seems like a smart, reliable, decent and reasonable man.

Oh please. He's a politician! ;)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on February 05, 2008, 04:57:24 AM
Reposting the link here because it's such a great song:

Yes, We Can! - Si, Se Puede!

The "Yes We Can" song is a great song. Play it and cry. Here's a link to the song & video, featuring a star cast, by Will.i.am of The Black Eyed Peas. Inspired by Barack Obama's 'Yes We Can' speech.

http://www.yeswecansong.com

http://www.barackobama.com/
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Joost on February 06, 2008, 06:51:38 PM
Quote from: 483

Oh please. He's a politician! ;)

I meant smart, reliable, decent and reasonable for a politician.  ;)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: JimmyMcCullochFan on February 21, 2008, 04:54:27 PM
We had a little political discussion in class today and this one girl said something that made everybody go  :o  :-/

She said that O'Bama wasn't going to get elected because 1. He's black 2. He'll get assassinated because he's black and 3. His name is too close to Osama.

 :-/ Yikes
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on February 21, 2008, 05:02:15 PM
I think this person is voicing a lot of the common fears. A friend recently saw Obama speak and she reported she was relieved to see that he was very well guarded. Still, when a very charasmatic individual emerges, you always have the danger of some fool trying to off him or her.

As far as the "he's black" and "his name sounds like", there are plenty of dead-ignorant Americans to whom this will make a difference. Our election process often shows off the intelligence of our great nation to the rest of the world, and we haven't been holding up too well in that regard.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: BlueMeanie on February 21, 2008, 05:06:50 PM
Quote from: 682
We had a little political discussion in class today and this one girl said something that made everybody go  :o  :-/

She said that O'Bama wasn't going to get elected because 1. He's black 2. He'll get assassinated because he's black and 3. His name is too close to Osama.

 :-/ Yikes

That's actually pretty observant. An awful lot of people will not vote for him because he's black.

Clinton and Obama both have a different but absolutely equal advantage and disadvantage. Some people will vote for Obama because he's not female, some will vote for Clinton because she's not black.

Get used to saying 'President McCain'.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: BlueMeanie on February 21, 2008, 08:18:43 PM
Sorry to come over all clueless like, but why does Hillary Clinton's web site only list 49 states?
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on February 21, 2008, 09:05:26 PM
Quote from: 483
Get used to saying 'President McCain'.
If that happens I'll go live in whatever 50th state is sliding under the radar...

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Sondra on February 22, 2008, 02:29:54 AM
A couple of friends of mine were just talking about Obama and assassination. I was shocked. I hadn't even given the possibility a thought! Personally, I don't think this country is in that place anymore. The two I was chatting with are both older people and were around in the sixties, so I guess to them it's more of a reality. I just don't believe people in this country have that intense level of hatred towards African American's anymore. Not to that extent. I mean, there's always a faction and I believe that faction is very small and stupid and not a threat. I also believe that he's got one hell of a security team and will not put himself at such risk. But that's just me trying to have faith in humanity. Probably just being naive and stupid though as was pointed out to me by my baby boomer friends!  :P

Anyway, I think if anything the hatred aimed at us from outside the country has brought a feeling of closeness with one another regardless of race. At least it felt that way right after you know what. I still think those feelings prevail on some level. But then I live in a VERY liberal city where people are extremely accepting of one another. Maybe that's affected my judgment.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on March 16, 2008, 03:13:21 AM
Quote from: 216
A couple of friends of mine were just talking about Obama and assassination.

That thought occurred to me, too, I'm sorry to say. It's not the racist angle that concerns me so much as it is the loser looking for his fifteen minutes of fame bit.

As for the broader question of who should become president, I'm still naively idealistic enough (just) to hope that a guy like Obama could make a difference. I'm also cynical enough to know where I'd place my bet on his chances of succeeding.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on March 19, 2008, 04:08:44 AM
Obama made another terrific speech, this time addressing the unpopular racial question. In my mind, he handles these types of divisive issues beautifully.

You can watch or read the whole speech here:

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3511&id=12333-1263300-H1Mh81&t=546

If you're busy, here's a highlight from the speech:

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3510&id=12333-1263300-H1Mh81&t=547
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on March 19, 2008, 04:14:29 AM
I have the dreadful impression that Jeremiah Wright just tilted this race back towards Senator Clinton, perhaps decisively.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/us/politics/18wright.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Bobber on March 19, 2008, 08:26:55 AM
After watching a documentary on television about the Iraq swindle, I have lost all faith in politicians. In the end, it's all just a bunch of liars.
Sorry, no offence intended, but it was another drop in a full bucket.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: An Apple Beatle on March 19, 2008, 11:47:31 AM
I watched Obamas speech on BBC and I liked what he said but...I reckon Hilary got to Jeremiah.

I mostly agree Bobber...I also saw that an ex-CIA agent of 20 years experience is releasing a book on Iraq...In the interview he pretty much declares that Sunny's & Muslims should be left to civil war by pulling American troops out and his other big statement is that the US should not rely on Gulf oil. It's all a bloody mess.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: BlueMeanie on March 19, 2008, 12:05:49 PM
Quote from: 15
and his other big statement is that the US should not rely on Gulf oil. It's all a bloody mess.

What an original thought! And let's not forget all the fresh water they pipe in from Canada.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Bobber on March 19, 2008, 12:11:32 PM
Don't know if we watched the same.  :)  My main thing is that in order to go to war, lies were collected and presented as the truth. It is proven that Bush and Blair went to war (and other countries as well because 'if you are not with us, you are against us') based on lies. The complete statement Colin Powell made in the UN meeting was a big lie. He might not have known that himself, but probably he was used. To me, it is still unbelievable that George W Bush is the American president and one of the most powerful men on Earth to this very day. And our own administration over here still has some of the same people on high posts, who were involved in getting along with these lies. They have never been called to justice. In the documentary it was proven that the press and the public were manipulated by the militairy and so administrations of the US and (in a lesser degree) the UK. In the first days of the Iraq War they were told nothing but a few positive points in order to make us believe that it would all soon be over without much loss of lives. And once again, the lie has been proven a lie. Now, how can I be convinced of the credibility and integrity of ANY politician anywhere on this planet? It looks like a complete set up. The Dutch administration went along with Bush and a short time later, the Dutch minister Jaap de Hoop Scheffer (then of Foreign Affairs) became the new secretary general of the NATO. It is all planned, they all shake hands and have a few laughs together. There might be some politicians who are truely working on the people's case, but even in my own village, it's mostly for their own good that they base their decisions on.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: BlueMeanie on March 19, 2008, 12:18:58 PM
The Danes also went along with it. But just before the last election, when the Prime Minister - Anders Fogh Rasmussen - realised he was behind in the polls, he pulled the Danish troops out.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: An Apple Beatle on March 19, 2008, 01:03:59 PM
Quote from: 483

What an original thought! And let's not forget all the fresh water they pipe in from Canada.

Well I did think that they would preserve Alaska's oil supplies first by draining the middle east. lol

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: An Apple Beatle on March 19, 2008, 01:06:59 PM
Quote from: 63
Don't know if we watched the same.  :)  My main thing is that in order to go to war, lies were collected and presented as the truth. It is proven that Bush and Blair went to war (and other countries as well because 'if you are not with us, you are against us') based on lies. The complete statement Colin Powell made in the UN meeting was a big lie. He might not have known that himself, but probably he was used. To me, it is still unbelievable that George W Bush is the American president and one of the most powerful men on Earth to this very day. And our own administration over here still has some of the same people on high posts, who were involved in getting along with these lies. They have never been called to justice. In the documentary it was proven that the press and the public were manipulated by the militairy and so administrations of the US and (in a lesser degree) the UK. In the first days of the Iraq War they were told nothing but a few positive points in order to make us believe that it would all soon be over without much loss of lives. And once again, the lie has been proven a lie. Now, how can I be convinced of the credibility and integrity of ANY politician anywhere on this planet? It looks like a complete set up. The Dutch administration went along with Bush and a short time later, the Dutch minister Jaap de Hoop Scheffer (then of Foreign Affairs) became the new secretary general of the NATO. It is all planned, they all shake hands and have a few laughs together. There might be some politicians who are truely working on the people's case, but even in my own village, it's mostly for their own good that they base their decisions on.

I agree Bobber....it sounds like my local council......Corruption at every level and those in power only care about career/wage enhancement.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on March 19, 2008, 02:02:12 PM
Quote
To me, it is still unbelievable that George W Bush is the American president
Yes, our Congress has no backbone. They should have impeached the creep.

I do think there are fair-minded people who get into politics. I think it's easy to be corrupted, but I do think a lot of people are sincere and community minded when they start.

As for Wright, I watched one news clip from Fox with his supposed "anti-American" comments, and he was saying things like, "We were lied to about weapons of mass destruction" (does anyone doubt this now?) and "America is controlled by rich white people" (does anyone doubt _that_ either)? To me, this is the kind of passionate preaching that goes on in these types of churches, intended to fire up the congregation. I don't know. I only watched it once, but I suppose I'm missing what it is that has everyone in an uproar. (For what it's worth, I never understood the wild enthusiasm over the Da Vinci Code, either. I read the book and said, "Um, was this the bit that had everyone worked up?")
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: PaulieBear on March 20, 2008, 10:22:33 PM
Hilary
but I can't vote so oh well
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on March 21, 2008, 11:48:29 PM
Warning: USA-centric post to follow, no offense intended to all the wonderful people on this forum that hail from elsewhere ...

Either one is fine (Hillary or Obama), as long as they win in November!

If I knew for sure that Obama had the cojones to be tough when needed, he'd have my full support, for what it's worth. He has more upside potential than Hillary in my opinion, with the possibility that politics can truly be changed, maybe to a noble calling (think JFK and Peace Corps, motivating a generation of Americans to give to their country). But the downside is higher too ... will he be able to be get things done when his opponents spit in the hand he extends in partnership?

Hillary is tough and competent, nothing to be taken for granted after the last 8 years of hell. If I knew for sure that as President she wouldn't be so polarizing to her opponents that there would be NO chance of breaking the gridlock in D.C. strangling the entire nation, SHE'd have my full support. But heaven forbid, what if she is the ONLY thing that could mobilize the radical rabid repulsive right to get over their self-pity and off their couches to vote in the election?!!!

I don't know any of those things for sure, so I'm not really sure who of the two would be the best president. All I know is that it CAN'T be a Republican. That would be like giving the OK for the Republicans (and their empowering cla$$) to twist the knife that Bush has already stabbed into the heart of our fine country (and soul, if that is possible). (Sorry for the sad meta4, harihead feel free to edit...)

FWIW, when I voted in the Democratic primaries (TX), I voted for Hillary. I suppose that was an "old person's vote" for the known with less upside, over the unknown with more upside but more also downside.

 :)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on March 22, 2008, 02:14:13 AM
Quote from: 568
He has more upside potential than Hillary in my opinion, with the possibility that politics can truly be changed, maybe to a noble calling (think JFK and Peace Corps, motivating a generation of Americans to give to their country). But the downside is higher too ...

Obama's real problem is that he is raising expectations that aren't going to be met. "New" politics always becomes "old" as soon as it clashes with the simple reality of having to get something done, and Obama's task is going to be managing that transition. In other words, either before the election or some time soon after (assuming that he is the nominee and wins), he is going to need a second act. He is a marvelously gifted rhetorician, but he cannot simply keep going on about "change." He is going to need specific goals, and a realistic political strategy for achieving them.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: An Apple Beatle on March 22, 2008, 11:28:18 AM
If Hilary learnt from Bill, then she learnt that you postpone all decision making to the end of your term and what was that flouride water thing he passed?....Obama all the way....strengthened by Hilary's assaults hopefully! lol
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on March 22, 2008, 12:56:22 PM
Quote from: 15
....Obama all the way....strengthened by Hilary's assaults hopefully! lol

Some commentators over here have been saying the same thing: that Obama's biggest test is surviving the Clintons' Lee Atwater style brick-to-the-head tactics. John McCain and the congressional Republicans are small potatoes by comparison. There's an old joke about lawyers that also suits the Clintons:

Three reasons why scientists would rather use lawyers instead of rats in their lab experiments:
1) There are more of them.
2) You don't have to worry about your lab assistants becoming attached to them.
3) There are some things that rats will just refuse to do as a matter of principle.
 ;)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on March 22, 2008, 01:40:36 PM
Thanks, Geoff, you made my morning.

Agree with  An Apple Beatle that Bill Clinton postponed his vital legislation until the very end of his term-- that way he wouldn't upset his corporate buddies. He could say to his base, "I tried" and say to his funders, "You'll only have to put up with this for 6 months, then the next guy will repeal everything" (which Bush did).

We have _got_ to get private interest money out of our government.

I see Hillary as "old school, more of the same". I wanted to get behind her, but she has completely lost my respect. If she wins the election, I might actually have to sit out, as I can vote for neither "Forever War" McCain or Clinton. And I have never missed an election.

Re: Obama:
Quote
He is going to need specific goals, and a realistic political strategy for achieving them.
Everyone says this, but I have to ask, when did Bush have the same? Did he ever have a specific plan? I know he's a dope, but he's also our president and as far as I can tell, he doesn't have plans for anything. Upon entering office, he hadn't any plans except "How the heck can we get our hands on more MidEast oil?" which never went anywhere until after 9/11, and then the world gave him a pass. His only "plan" since then has been "stay the course", even when the course has been proven disastrous, and the mass murderer who started it, Bin Laden, walks free. Did you ever see a more incompetent attempt at follow-up than the United States' arthritic response to Afghanistan? Except Katrina; we couldn't handle Katrina either and it was right here.

I can't believe people still want more of the same, but that's what you'll be getting with McCain. At least Clinton will do some things I approve of, but her liplock with big business will mean America will continue to go down the tubes.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on March 22, 2008, 02:19:10 PM
Quote from: 551

Everyone says this, but I have to ask, when did Bush have the same? Did he ever have a specific plan?  

I think you can see what Bush was essentially about in some of his pre-911 agenda items, especially his tax cuts. He's really the most ploddingly conventional of Republican politicians: reduce high-end tax rates; investment and growth follow; everybody's better off. There is probably a grain of truth in this, and anyway if you leave your tax rates comparatively high the money just goes offshore, but I'd prefer tax cuts to go to the middle classes myself. They're most likely to invest in homes, spend the cash on consumer goods, or invest it in the form of education for themselves or their kids. This is all to the good. Tom Daschle and the Senate Democrats insisted on this during the fight over the 2001 round of tax cuts, and I think they were right.

Politically, he was utterly ordinary, too: his electoral strategy simply consisted of rounding up the Republican base with post-1980 boilerplate, and offering a few goodies to sway suburban voters in swing states like Ohio and Florida. ("No Child Left Behind," etc.) Karl Rove is considered a masterful political tactitian, but that strategy is in fact the simplest and most obvious one to use if your base is the numerically larger one.

But please go vote: whatever I think of Hillary Clinton's miserable tactics (and noticeably self-dramatizing posturing), I'll still go vote for her (nose definitely held if not held high) because she could well achieve some things. Another Clinton presidency probably won't be any more edifying than the first, but she's intelligent and capable- even likable, according to some, when she isn't performing for the cameras.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on March 22, 2008, 03:20:51 PM
Thanks, Geoff. Perhaps I didn't see Bush spell out his platform because he didn't need to; everyone already knew what he wanted to do. Thank you for the great summary.

Yes, I will vote for whatever candidate the Dems put forward. I like your phrase: nose definitely held if not held high. I'll be thinking that when I cast my ballot (of course, never knowing if that vote will count, the way the voting machines are rigged).

Oh, Thomas Jefferson. If you could see us now...
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on March 22, 2008, 03:39:16 PM
Quote from: 551
  
   ...   We have _got_ to get private interest money out of our government...
 

I know you were just abbreviating, it's really not that simple of course. We all agree that one of the major flaws of the political system is the apparently unfettered and exclusive access that big donors (corporations and the like) have to Congress and the President, indeed to government at all levels.

But each of us are citizens, each with our own "private" interests. What if my uncle wants to keep a proposed highway from running through his  farm, one that has been in the family for generations? The highway happens to be $trongly $ponsored by the consortium of small oil refiners in the southern part of the state looking to reduce their transportation costs. They don't give a hoot what properties the highway goes through, or the damage to the way of life building the highway will cause - it's just a simple dollars and cents issue to them.

As it turns out, one of the candidates on the election ballot is also strongly against the higway, so my uncle contributes to his campaign, and actually organizes many other like-minded property owners to contribute as well. Then when the candidate is elected (yipee!), my uncle's group hires someone with experience in government to work to get on the legislator's schedule and convince him to make it a priority to block the legislation funding the highway. This person my uncle's group has hired, yes a lobbyist  :D (angry2) , even buys ads on local TV and radio in the legislator's district, to sway people against the highway. My uncle invites the legislator to his farm, (transportation at my uncle's expense), shows him around and takes him hunting, to show him a way of life that would be lost if the proposed highway is not blocked.

My hypothetical uncle is a "special", or "private", interest, as are his partners in that effort, as we all are. So, yes, we all agree buying legislators' votes by corporations is wrong and immoral.  But we have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater in terms of allowing democracy to work as intended - citizens having access to legislators, and legislators voting to reflect the will of the people. Likewise, not all money spent in the process is inherently evil, as maybe the examples above show.

It seems to me that "special interest" has come to mean nothing more than a derogatory term to be applied to a group of people whose political views we disagree with  (the unsaid to follow of course is: "burn her"!). Where I work, the majority of the people (or at least the loudest) are radical right Republicans, and so Fox News is on in the lunch room. I hear the bubbleheads there talk about money that the "Environmental Special Interests" or "Anti-War Special Interests" spend, with the same disdain/hatred we may talk about "Big Oil" or the NRA.  It's too simple to tar everyone we don't agree with with the same brush, calling them a "special interest" . All the candidates, Obama and Clinton included, are guilty of this type of pandering, apparently having low expectations of their supporters ("Let's toss them red meat here, they'll cheer loudly at this point of the speech").

The hard part is precisely defining at what point the process moves from reasonable into sleazy. The candidates don't seem to address that very often, and as long as their constituents don't hold them to task, they never will. Our responsibility as citizens is to make our government better (like life in general, complaining about it while doing otherwise doesn't carry much weight). Voting for the candidate who comes closest to the ideal, and then working with them and the process from there, seems a good place to start.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on March 22, 2008, 03:42:04 PM
Quote from: 551
(of course, never knowing if that vote will count, the way the voting machines are rigged).


You'll be fine if you're not in Florida! ;)

By the way, have a look at Maureen Dowd's Bushworld: Enter At Your Own Risk. It's culled from her NYT columns. Not the last word on W's presidency, of course, but better than most and definitely readable (sez the shamelessly partisan Democrat).

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on March 23, 2008, 10:12:41 AM
Quote from: 568
It seems to me that "special interest" has come to mean nothing more than a derogatory term to be applied to a group of people whose political views we disagree with  
I agree, which is why I tried (and failed!) to use a different term. I enjoyed your example of citizen involvement in government. I tried (along with the rest of the neighborhood) to get a highway rerouted from going in back of my house. No luck. We all showed up-- all of us-- and it was, "Sign this piece of paper to say you're protesting, but the deal is done and you're getting this road whether you like it or not." Most of us sold and got out before the highway went in. It just ruined the town, cutting it in two. So it's a double-edged sword; you have to have enough people to make your protest meaningful, but you get too many and suddenly you're a "special interest" and not representing the citizen population anymore. Tough call!

Geoff, thanks for the reference to Maureen Dowd's Bushworld. I'll give that a look.

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: BlueMeanie on March 23, 2008, 12:58:16 PM
Quote from: 551
Did you ever see a more incompetent attempt at follow-up than the United States' arthritic response to Afghanistan? Except Katrina; we couldn't handle Katrina either and it was right here.

This was either hysterically funny, or tragically sad. Let's mobilise the military to deal with the after effects of a hurricane, and nobody shows up. I bet Iran are quaking in their boots!!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on March 23, 2008, 05:01:17 PM
All the candidates, Obama and Clinton included, are guilty of this type of pandering, apparently having low expectations of their supporters ("Let's toss them red meat here, they'll cheer loudly at this point of the speech").

Pandering takes more entertaining forms, too: in Ohio, Clinton was playing Dolly Parton's '9 to 5' at her rallies and dropping her 'g's' (as in thinkin', goin', etc.). It seems to me her campaign was running TV ads that tried to make her out to be just another workin' girl, too. All conjured up by her campaign team after feeding a whack of demographic reports into a computer, of course. Mitt Romney, whose campaign tried and failed with just this sort of focus-grouped nonsense, must be banging his head in frustration.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on March 23, 2008, 11:42:34 PM
Quote from: 551
... I tried (along with the rest of the neighborhood) to get a highway rerouted from going in back of my house. No luck. We all showed up-- all of us-- and it was, "Sign this piece of paper to say you're protesting, but the deal is done and you're getting this road whether you like it or not." Most of us sold and got out before the highway went in. It just ruined the town, cutting it in two. So it's a double-edged sword; you have to have enough people to make your protest meaningful, but you get too many and suddenly you're a "special interest" and not representing the citizen population anymore. Tough call!

...



Oh my gosh, that is just horrible! As much as we like to think we have some rights, in the end if the government wants something, it will be satisfied. I remember hearing about an example of eminent domain (that term makes it sound so majestic!) recently where a town basically evicted a whole neighborhood, stating they needed the land for public use, sorry guys! They then went and SOLD IT TO A CONDO DEVELOPER! When they were sued, they said well, just because the condo developer got rich doesn't mean it was the wrong thing to do. Needless to say, the original inhabitants were not amused. I think this one went all the way to the Supreme Court (a.k.a. "Bushworld"!), does anyone remember how it turned out?
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on March 24, 2008, 12:57:05 AM
Did you mean Kelo v. New London from 2005?

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/domaindebate.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/24/scotus.property/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30314-2004Sep17.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/nyregion/08domain.html?scp=2&sq=kelo+suzette&st=nyt
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on March 24, 2008, 03:48:24 PM
Quote from: 1161
Did you mean Kelo v. New London from 2005?

[url]http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/domaindebate.html[/url]

[url]http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/24/scotus.property/[/url]

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30314-2004Sep17.html[/url]

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/nyregion/08domain.html?scp=2&sq=kelo+suzette&st=nyt[/url]


Yes that was it, thanks!

I remember now that David Souter, not one usually considered part of "Bushworld" (aka US Supreme Court), actually voted for this bizarre interpretation of eminent domain. He has a house up in Maine or somewhere, and I remember that the people in his small town tried to get the local city council to vote to "acquire" Souter's property for the "public benefit" of the town. It never did ultimately come off, I wonder if it made any impression on him or not...?
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on March 24, 2008, 05:30:34 PM
Quote from: 568

Yes that was it, thanks!

I remember now that David Souter, not one usually considered part of "Bushworld" (aka US Supreme Court), actually voted for this bizarre interpretation of eminent domain. He has a house up in Maine or somewhere, and I remember that the people in his small town tried to get the local city council to vote to "acquire" Souter's property for the "public benefit" of the town. It never did ultimately come off, I wonder if it made any impression on him or not...?


It was in New Hampshire, actually. As I'm sure you know, the state motto there is "Live Free Or Die," and you mess with those people at your own risk.

Scroll down to the "Personal" section here; there's a line or two about it:

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



Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on March 27, 2008, 12:09:24 PM
Too good not to post:


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8BfNqhV5hg4&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed>

I'm going to miss the Clintons when they're finally gone.

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Sondra on March 30, 2008, 10:41:06 PM
I think the Democrats or screwing themselves right now. Too much double talk going on. Obama trying to defend his affiliation with his minister and yet somehow pretend he didn't know he felt that way all those years? And Hillary was pretty stupid for the I was fired on lie. What was she thinking??? I hope they get it together soon. This is disheartening and the Republicans are loving it.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on March 30, 2008, 11:31:32 PM
Quote from: 216
This is disheartening and the Republicans are loving it.

You bet. I haven't got the polls handy, but according to this morning's Meet The Press (the Brooks-Beinart segment), McCain's positives are now in the sixties and independents, who had been leaning heavily Democratic, are now tilting Republican. In straight up electoral matches, McCain edges Clinton and Obama comes out slightly ahead of McCain. This at a time when the incumbent Republican president is at historic lows in the popularity polls, the economy is sliding, and we are stuck in a war nobody knows how to end. Hillary Clinton is threatening to fight all the way to the delegate credentials committee at the convention if necessary. As the old joke goes, the Democrats' idea of a firing squad is to form a circle.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on March 31, 2008, 05:23:29 AM
My favorite non-story of the campaign:


Senior Democrats Mull Al Gore's Nomination

By Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 2:02am BST 31/03/2008

Plans for Al Gore to take the Democratic presidential nomination as the saviour of a bitterly divided party are being actively discussed by senior figures and aides to the former vice-president.

The bloody civil war between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has left many Democrats convinced that neither can deliver a knockout blow to the other and that both have been so damaged that they risk losing November's election to the Republican nominee, John McCain.
 
Former Gore aides now believe he could emerge as a compromise candidate acceptable to both camps at the party's convention in Denver during the last week of August.

Two former Gore campaign officials have told The Sunday Telegraph that a scenario first mapped out by members of Mr Gore's inner circle last May now has a sporting chance of coming true.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/30/wuspols130.xml


The sources are all former Gore retainers, you'll notice. ;D
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on March 31, 2008, 02:12:36 PM
Geoff, stop depressing me!!!!

Okay, you can depress me. I'm really enjoying your political commentary. This p*sses me off: "The bloody civil war". Democrats fracturing in all directions is not what we need more of!

I blame Clinton and her all-consuming ambition for the degree of division we now have. I don't think she wants so much to do good for the country as to do good for Hillary. Can we call back the Founding Fathers and have do-overs?
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on March 31, 2008, 03:05:25 PM
Quote from: 551


I blame Clinton and her all-consuming ambition for the degree of division we now have. I don't think she wants so much to do good for the country as to do good for Hillary.


I've actually made at least some effort to try to keep an open mind about the Clintons despite all the evidence, but after that Bosnia business I came to the same conclusion Peggy Noonan did the other day in the WSJ:


Getting Mrs. Clinton
March 28, 2008; Page W18

I think we've reached a signal point in the campaign. This is the point where, with Hillary Clinton, either you get it or you don't. There's no dodging now. You either understand the problem with her candidacy, or you don't. You either understand who she is, or not. And if you don't, after 16 years of watching Clintonian dramas, you probably never will.

That's what the Bosnia story was about. Her fictions about dodging bullets on the tarmac -- and we have to hope they were lies, because if they weren't, if she thought what she was saying was true, we are in worse trouble than we thought -- either confirmed what you already knew (she lies as a matter of strategy, or, as William Safire said in 1996, by nature) or revealed in an unforgettable way (videotape! Smiling girl in pigtails offering flowers!) what you feared (that she lies more than is humanly usual, even politically usual).

But either you get it now or you never will. That's the importance of the Bosnia tape.

Many in the press get it, to their dismay, and it makes them uncomfortable, for it sours life to have a person whose character you feel you cannot admire play such a large daily role in your work. But I think it's fair to say of the establishment media at this point that it is well populated by people who feel such a lack of faith in Mrs. Clinton's words and ways that it amounts to an aversion. They are offended by how she and her staff operate. They try hard to be fair. They constantly have to police themselves.

http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html


I'd just add that this is the Clintons as we've known them since 1992; Bill being the guy who made himself famous that year for claiming that he'd tried- but not inhaled, God forbid!- the weed.  ;D
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on April 07, 2008, 03:20:17 PM
From this morning's New York Times. Kristol's best column for them so far, I think:


The Shape of the Race to Come
 
By WILLIAM KRISTOL
Published: April 7, 2008
I
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on April 07, 2008, 04:01:32 PM
I don't think Hilary's problem is that she wants this too much, to an "unhealthy" degree in some fashion. Her problem is that she can't hide it as well as the others in the race. IMO, nobody goes through the living torture of running unless they want to win very much. She's behind, she's desperate, her campaign is falling apart and she's sleep-deprived - all things guaranteed to let things pass through the "filters" that all the candidates try to keep in place at all costs.

Kristol doesn't impress me, given his track of support for policies aimed almost exclusively at enriching the very very most wealthy in this country at the expense of everybody else. Unsaid in his article is how Obama could paint McCain in more than one unflattering light:

1) "He's not who he says he is" - McCain actually has many documentable interactions with lobbyists that bely his squeeky clean image. Maybe the leopard really can't change his spots (can you spell Keating 5?).

2) "Military experience" - If that's what it takes to say we will stay in Iraq for 100 years, and to be clueless about the major alliances in the region ("Al Qaeda and Iran are working closely together..."), well give me less of that military experience please!

3) "Are you better off than you were before the McCain/Bush/Republican machine took over"?

Say no more!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on April 07, 2008, 04:19:09 PM
I'm not a conservative myself, and many of Kristol's other columns for the Times have left me cold, but as an assessment of how the campaign may go, I think there's a lot of sense in there.

Speaking of McCain, Frank Rich had a good take on him in yesterday's Times:


Tet Happened, and No One Cared

By FRANK RICH
Published: April 6, 2008

REALLY, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for libeling John McCain. As a growing chorus reiterates, their refrains that Mr. McCain is
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: DarkSweetLady on April 07, 2008, 08:41:25 PM
I think I am too young to talk, but as just merely an opinion NOT TO CAUSE TROUBLE....my vote would have gone to Mitt Romeny prior to his dropping out...now my vote is with John McCain.....
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on April 07, 2008, 09:30:43 PM
Quote from: 668
I think I am too young to talk, but as just merely an opinion NOT TO CAUSE TROUBLE....my vote would have gone to Mitt Romeny prior to his dropping out...now my vote is with John McCain.....


Hi DSL - no trouble caused, I think all are welcome on this forum!

Remember to always ask yourself - WWGD?
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on April 08, 2008, 02:30:28 AM
Quote from: 668
I think I am too young to talk, but as just merely an opinion NOT TO CAUSE TROUBLE....my vote would have gone to Mitt Romeny prior to his dropping out...now my vote is with John McCain.....

Perfectly all right; just say whatever you think. All I'm doing here is throwing my two cents worth in, and it may be overvalued at even that price! :)

But keep an eye on Romney, though: he gives every sign of wanting to run again, and may well do so in 2012 or 2016. He's 61 right now, I think.

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: theBEATLESrock_on on April 08, 2008, 03:04:17 AM
anyone but bush :) ;) :P ;D
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on April 08, 2008, 03:10:26 AM
Quote from: 1213
anyone but bush :) ;) :P ;D

He's done, but don't forget about brother Jeb.

Just a heads up.... ;D

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: theBEATLESrock_on on April 08, 2008, 03:14:31 AM
hehe...i am so sick of having to call bush mr. president. i have been waiting for this moment for along time
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on April 08, 2008, 03:34:08 AM
I can't wait to see the memoir we finally get out of him. Bet Cheney ghost writes it. ;D
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: theBEATLESrock_on on April 08, 2008, 03:37:31 AM
 ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on April 08, 2008, 03:58:54 AM
Quote from: 1161
I can't wait to see the memoir we finally get out of him. Bet Cheney ghost writes it. ;D

Working title:
"How I got my heart rate in the cardio range, and stayed in shape despite a bum knee, during my Presidency. Oh, and some of that other stuff, you know."
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on April 08, 2008, 04:08:40 AM
How about: "Everything I know about hunting I learned from Dick Cheney."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney_hunting_incident
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: theBEATLESrock_on on April 08, 2008, 04:11:41 AM
bang bang, you're dead! (well, almost)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on April 18, 2008, 04:43:08 AM
One more campaign turn for anyone keeping track... :)



How Obama Fell to Earth

By DAVID BROOKS
Published: April 18, 2008

Back in Iowa, Barack Obama promised to be something new
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: BlueMeanie on April 18, 2008, 11:55:30 AM
I think both Obama and Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for their quite appalling behaviour. If these were children we'd send them to bed early without any supper. In fact  I've seen children behave better than that. Frankly I feel sorry the teaching profession that does it's best to establish good values amongst it's pupils, and send them out into the world as responsible adults, only for them to go home and see these two poor excuses for human beings on the TV. Bloody shocking. And let's not forget that these two are handing the title of Leader of The Free World to a Republican. Again! I do hope that the rest of the free world can think up some good ways of repaying them!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on April 18, 2008, 01:52:50 PM
I don't believe David Brooks' gloom saying anymore than I believed the earlier dazzle-eyed excitement. It's a long, wearing race, and commentators are trying to turn this into a soap opera as opposed to an effort to inform the public. And the candidates are apparently (to my disappointment) pitching their appeals on that level.

What's really digusting is the state of American integrity is so bad I have no confidence in the voting system. Right now it's down to who can rig the machines the best. Since I really believe the Republicans are behind most of the hinkey sh*t, that means how well can the Democrats counter with paper trails etc., and how ugly will the arguing be. I really think the United States needs to be supervised like the childish country it's become. We aren't adults anymore, we're spoiled children. It shows in our values and in our political process.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on April 18, 2008, 02:41:42 PM
Quote from: 551
I don't believe David Brooks' gloom saying anymore than I believed the earlier dazzle-eyed excitement.

A sensible stance, and we're going to see some more turns in the conventional wisdom about this campaign and its candidates before this is over. But I have noticed that some of my Republican friends are feeling downright perky these days: I was talking to a guy the other day who said we (meaning his side) either get to run against a condescending Adlai Stevenson liberal or a serial liar who's married to another serial liar. I told him that after Labor Day his guy was going to have to start defending his Iraq War policy and explain why he couldn't keep his Sunnis and Shiites and Al Qaeda straight. He asked me who I thought working class voters in Ohio would go for: the guy who wants to win that war or the guy who just called them all losers for having guns and being religious?
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Sondra on April 19, 2008, 12:53:22 AM
Quote from: 1161

It was in New Hampshire, actually. As I'm sure you know, the state motto there is "Live Free Or Die," and you mess with those people at your own risk.

Scroll down to the "Personal" section here; there's a line or two about it:

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Souter[/url]




I love that motto for some reason. It cracks me up. That and Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death! Those revolutionaries weren't playing. Oh, Fight or Die was another great one. Been watching the John Adams Bio on HBO. Love the scene where the battered rebels walk by carrying those flags.

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on April 19, 2008, 05:55:17 PM
From this morning's NYT


Road Map to Defeat

By BOB HERBERT
Published: April 19, 2008
The Democrats are doing everything they can to blow this presidential election. This is a skill that comes naturally to the party. There is no such thing as a can
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on April 21, 2008, 01:44:16 PM
Politics as theater; or should I say gesture?

AuFIDJkZ7NQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuFIDJkZ7NQ)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on April 21, 2008, 02:39:39 PM
Sorry Geoff, I'm skipping one post back to BOB HERBERT. He makes some good points, and I think the Democrats seriously need to get their act together (but I've thought that for a long time).

But let us not overlook the fact that both Obama and Clinton are up against someone who is apparently clueless about the issues, not a particularly clever man and a morally weak character to boot. Flawed as either Democrat may be in certain ways, they can't come close to McCain's shortcomings, and I think it's only fair to bring McCain's strengths and weaknesses into the debate.

Let's pick a recent interview, where McCain made such outrageous statements that your coworkers would jeer you out of the coffee room for being an idiot. Despite that fact that the interviewer neglected to follow-up with any tough or pertinent questions, McCain manages to hang himself anyway. Here, in all its glory is:


John McCain thinks you don't deserve the same healthcare he's got.

You can read a more complete article here:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/20/this-week-bringing-up-mccains-life-long-federally-provided-health-care-is-a-cheap-shot/

A friend provided a summary, which I edited slightly:


Asked "what's wrong with government-run healthcare" (which McCain has) he responds:

"What's wrong with it? Go to Canada. Go to England and you can find out what's wrong with it. Governments don't make the right decisions. Families make the right decisions."

WHAT IS THIS IDIOT TALKING ABOUT!?!?

"Families" are NOT making healthcare decisions in this country. Healthcare decisions are being made by corporations THAT HAVE NO INTEREST IN HEALTHCARE. THAT IS THE PROBLEM!

Where are all these "families" who have the option of making healthcare decisons for themselves and their loved-ones? I don't know any. Everyone I know is just like me -- I get a "choice" of ONE insurance plan -- the one that my employer offers. I can "decide" to have access ONLY to those doctors, medications and procedures that THE INSURANCE COMPANY agrees to pay for. Everything else comes out of my own pocket and my pockets are not deep. And if I got dropped by my insurance company, I would get to "decide" on...paying full price for healthcare or not. In other words, having healthcare or not. That is the only "decision" I would get to make.

What a jerk.


===
Me, again. I will add for myself that I am self-employed and therefore _all_ my healthcare costs come out of my own pocket. I get _no_ assistance or insurance of any kind-- full price for everything (except a true "catastrophic" event that will likely bankrupt me anyway, as it's doing for Americans all over our country-- and yes, I know some of them.)

This ill-informed statement is coming from someone who has had government-provided health care all his life, first from the military and then from the Senate. So he doesn't even have to pay for his care, despite marrying a multi-millionaire which is the only way you can really afford "choice" in this country. Unfortunately, most of us haven't done that.


I enjoyed reading the comments below the (lack of) health care article as well. Several Canadians and Brits (can I say that here?) weighed in with their view. Let me just say, they are not envying our fine system of "feed the insurance companies even more when they are increasingly refusing to pay for any health care whatsoever."

Even better, I found a great link to a true conservative who is bashing McCain as

THE MOST FLAWED PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN HISTORY

http://www.wcltam.com/news/special/articledetail.cfm?articleid=23261

So Republicans might want to read this one, and see how far short of traditional conservative values this candidate falls.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on April 21, 2008, 03:32:55 PM
"What's wrong with it? Go to Canada. Go to England and you can find out what's wrong with it. Governments don't make the right decisions. Families make the right decisions."

This is about as fatuous as political rhetoric gets, which is saying something. What he's getting at, of course, is the idea that nationalized health care systems are usually underfunded because of accelerating costs and that health care in these countries is therefore rationed: everybody's in the system, but they have to wait. It's an appeal to the Republican Party's anti-government base, notably stripped of any real argument and presented instead as pious twaddle about virtuous families standing against Big Bad Government. The idea is to slide by any politically hazardous substantive debate about how people are to access the health care system and switch the rhetorical ground to whether you want the government to run the health care system or not. The simpler proposition is usually the winning one in politics, and if you can reduce a complex subject to a simple emotionally laden yes-or-no slogan, you'll usually win. That's what McCain is trying to do here.

As I suggested above, I think that Obama's going to be the nominee and that the Democrats will almost surely win in November barring a catastrophic outbreak of stupidity or incompetence on their own part. It's only April, after all. It will take a major terrain-altering event, not internal political rivalries, to change that, I think. :)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on April 21, 2008, 04:53:26 PM
Re: "Socialized medicine" - the root of all evil in terms of health care per the foaming mouth crowd:

Just ask these guys who want to purge our health care system of socialized medicine where they are going to get the $ to pay for the health care that Medicare was covering for them.

Of course the ones who are in favor of doing just that don't worry about not being able to afford health care, they are rolling in it. And those who really need help from "Government Socialized Medicine" like Medicare and Medicaid - they seem to consistently vote against their economic self interests, for reasons I don't fully understand. "He's a good guy, he likes to hunt and has a ranch", or "Hey, he's a war hero!", seem to be good reasons to vote for a candidate to some people. I think this country has a very strong hunter-gatherer bent, to the degree that any candidate that can't pretend to be a (wo)man of the earth has one or two strikes against them from the get go. I guess that is probably very predictable, given the large (though getting smaller?) percentage of voters who live in areas of the country where there isn't a lot of urban opportunity (or blight, depending on one's point of view).

It's taken me a while to get to this point, but I realize now that "factual-based reasoning" (as opposed to the non-factual-based variety) is not considered the gold standard by MANY people in this country. "I've just got a feeling about this" often trumps facts. It's like religion - just because one group of people believe, ahem, strongly that facts have value, doesn't mean that others are ever going to leave their comfort zone because of a few facts here and there. [For more info, please Google: Kansas School Board of Education ... evolution ... theory] !

Obama bowled a 36? Geesh. Give me a candidate who can belt 'em down, and still show up for work - hung over, but still there ... that's strong !
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Sondra on April 22, 2008, 03:00:32 AM
Okay, you people are making me read way too much.











 ;)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: theBEATLESrock_on on April 22, 2008, 03:12:49 AM
hehe...i don't get why some people on here actually pay attention to our silly politics when they live in other places! granted, most of the people on this thread are americans, but for those who aren't: why do you know more about the society i live in than i do???
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on April 22, 2008, 05:29:05 AM
they seem to consistently vote against their economic self interests

This is a crucially important issue for the Democrats going forward, and for the liberal/left generally. There are two points to make here, I think: 1) Economic interests by no means determine how people vote; and 2) People's own notions of their own particular economic interests are almost as varied as the ideologies they embrace, if any.

Let's go in order: the idea that economics determines the whole social order and people's perceptions of their own position within that order is a bad oversimplification of the actual state of things which goes back at least as far as Karl Marx: "all history is the history of class struggle," right? And what defines class? Your economic position. Far too simple a proposition, and it's extraordinary that people still, at whatever intellectual remove, buy it.

Lots of things determine how you think besides "your objective economic position," and you might act on any of them when you get into the voting booth. Anyway, economics might have nothing with to do with how you vote at all in any particular election. Maybe you just voted for the guy because he looked cool playing the sax on Arsenio Hall. It's happened.

Which leads to point #2: your notion of my "objective economic interests" might look nothing at all like my notion of them. Say I make $40,000 a year: is it in my interest to have a lot of government programs? Maybe; maybe not: maybe I figure that if I just got a big tax cut I could make a better go of it myself. Or maybe I decide a lot of government services is a good idea for everyone's sake. The decision can go either way, and the factors that shape  it and the mode of thinking behind it are not purely, or even necessarily, economic.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on April 22, 2008, 06:33:45 AM
Oh yes, and speaking of John McCain, the same paper that endorsed McCain for the Republican nomination a month or so ago succinctly made the case against him on Sunday:

Senator McCain Digs In
Published: April 20, 2008

Senator John McCain
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on April 22, 2008, 01:00:53 PM
Well, thank goodness some people are starting to employ critical thought! I get so sick of soundbites and "image" projection I could just scream.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on April 22, 2008, 01:19:50 PM
Quote from: 1161
they seem to consistently vote against their economic self interests

This is a crucially important issue for the Democrats going forward, and for the liberal/left generally. There are two points to make here, I think: 1) Economic interests by no means determine how people vote; and 2) People's own notions of their own particular economic interests are almost as varied as the ideologies they embrace, if any.

Let's go in order: the idea that economics determines the whole social order and people's perceptions of their own position within that order is a bad oversimplification of the actual state of things which goes back at least as far as Karl Marx: "all history is the history of class struggle," right? And what defines class? Your economic position. Far too simple a proposition, and it's extraordinary that people still, at whatever intellectual remove, buy it.

Lots of things determine how you think besides "your objective economic position," and you might act on any of them when you get into the voting booth. Anyway, economics might have nothing with to do with how you vote at all in any particular election. Maybe you just voted for the guy because he looked cool playing the sax on Arsenio Hall. It's happened.

Which leads to point #2: your notion of my "objective economic interests" might look nothing at all like my notion of them. Say I make $40,000 a year: is it in my interest to have a lot of government programs? Maybe; maybe not: maybe I figure that if I just got a big tax cut I could make a better go of it myself. Or maybe I decide a lot of government services is a good idea for everyone's sake. The decision can go either way, and the factors that shape  it and the mode of thinking behind it are not purely, or even necessarily, economic.

The points made here are good, but I think they address subtleties that, even if they once were relevant, are no longer in play here. We're not talking about "Gee, I sure am glad I got that whopping $300 stimulus package from Uncle Sam, now I wonder if I should put it in the Roth IRA or just buy a few kegs and have a big party...". Good old George, Dick, and Co. have gotten us to the point where it's becoming frighteningly more usual for someone in the middle class to be saying "OK, now I'm losing my house, I can't afford to fill up the truck with gas, and I can't get a loan for my kid's community college tuition". And yet, if things go true to form, a lot of those same people will wind up voting for a Republican because they buy into the "I'm more like you than that egg-headed lily-livered quiche-eating liberal" branding that the Republicans are so good at (or is it that their "marks" are so easy?). That's what I mean about voting against one's economic self interest.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on April 22, 2008, 03:19:31 PM
Quote from: 568
And yet, if things go true to form, a lot of those same people will wind up voting for a Republican because they buy into the "I'm more like you than that egg-headed lily-livered quiche-eating liberal" branding that the Republicans are so good at (or is it that their "marks" are so easy?). That's what I mean about voting against one's economic self interest.

That's what journalists mean by "culture wars" and why the Republicans are seven for ten in presidential elections since 1968. Nixon got the idea first; he opposed "normal values" to sixties radicalism and knocked a chunk off the Democratic Party's working class base in industrial states like Ohio and Michigan. It's been in play ever since. In a less savory way, it more consistently delivered a large piece of the southern white vote (until then a Democratic preserve since the civil war) to the Republicans as well. George McGovern, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry were all done in by variants of the same approach: we're the party of "regular Americans," and the Democrats are the party of radicals or are just plain yucky and can't even bowl worth a damn. Never mind who ended up cashing in at budget time.

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on April 22, 2008, 06:02:57 PM
I personally would never vote for a president who couldn't bowl. After all, it's such a big part of his duties once he assumes office.

My all-time favorite inane remark came from one of our most prestigious columnists here in Denver (local guy) who said, deliberating between Bush and Gore, he decided to go for Bush because he would feel more comfortable "shaking his hand alone in the middle of a big field." Now, we all know how standing around in empty fields consumes acres of a president's time, so this is a very logical decision. (I hope my sarcasm is coming through here.) It made me want to scream, THAT IS THE BASIS FOR YOUR DECISION!?!? YOU MORON!!!

It's what Alexis was talking about re: "factual-based reasoning" or the absence thereof. Successful manipulators know that you make an appeal to the emotions; that's how you get the numbers. I believe their research (can't be refuted), but I'm still irritated. What is it, are facts too hard? Is it too much work to look up whether the person you are voting for is even remotely qualified, or do you just swallow the sound bite and go waddling off to your next reality TV show?  

America really is getting the government it deserves. It's just frustrating to me that so much that was really excellent is going down the drain, and taking a lot of good people with it. But we "egg-headed lily-livered quiche-eating liberals" have always been in the minority anyway...
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on April 23, 2008, 06:01:51 AM
It made me want to scream, THAT IS THE BASIS FOR YOUR DECISION!?!? YOU MORON!!!

I know; I've launched more than one spleen doing the same thing myself. Just last week I had an argument with a guy who insisted, in all seriousness, that we should replace the income tax system with a single ten percent VAT tax. He wasn't a Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee guy, either. Ten percent, eh?(crosseyed2)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on April 23, 2008, 03:49:36 PM
 ;D

Wilting Over Waffles
 
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: April 23, 2008
He
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on April 23, 2008, 07:18:50 PM
^^^^

  I'm really of two minds about whether Hillary is handing the country over to the Republicans for 4 years by continuing to wound Obama, with little to no chance of her actually getting the nomination.

Another way to look at this, besides what Dowd and the other talking head Cassandras moan about so much, is that Hillary is in effect making Obama stronger for the post-convention epic battle. First, she is slowly but surely teaching him that when he gets punched in the mouth, if he seems too fragile to punch back he will lose votes (sad, but true). Next, she is (I hope) getting all his dirty laundry out now. As bad as it is to read now about Reverend I Hate America, or Obama's "Middle Class is Bitter (But I'm Better than That!)" Manifesto, or his relationship with the "Let Me Help You Out and Get You a Bigger Back Yard - No Strings, Dude!" developer, it would have hurt him a lot more if this came out in September. By then, when (not if) McCain brings it up, it will have lost most of its punch.

So, maybe she is effectively innoculating him with Swift Boat virus so he'll be so much stronger in the fall when it really counts!

Just my 2 cents ...

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on April 24, 2008, 04:12:37 AM
Quote from: 568
So, maybe she is effectively innoculating him with Swift Boat virus so he'll be so much stronger in the fall when it really counts!

I agree with this; actually: Clinton ran what was essentially a Republican campaign against Obama in Pennsylvania, playing experience, toughness, and traditional values against moralizing liberal effeteness, and won. The voters Obama lost to her are precisely the sort of Democrats who in elections since 1968 or so have been trending Republican and swinging elections in the industrial states. Obama had better face this now and start retooling his campaign.

I'm hard put to see how a Democrat could lose in the fall, but the broader issue beyond November is how a new Democratic President proposes to govern and succeed: I think this was the crucial failure of the Clinton presidency in the nineties. Bill won, but he changed very little and in fact governed largely along the trajectory set by Reagan in the eighties. Obama ought to start thinking of the political coalition he wants to put together and what sorts of broad agenda items or principles could hold it together. If he wants to change the political direction of the country, he has to change the terms of the political debate and lash together a new or at least modified Democratic electoral coalition that will support him.

What he saw from Hillary Clinton was the line of attack that has split working class voters away from the Democratic Party since 1968. What he has to do now is either figure out how to lure those voters back to him (and by implication the Democratic Party in the fall) or replace them with other voters. There are really intriguing possibilities here: should the Democrats try to recreate some modernized version of their old industrial era coalition (the Pennsylvania/Clinton version of the party, in other words), or would they be better off looking, say,  to the Southwest where the population and wealth are growing and look for a new political alignment based on conditions there?




Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on April 26, 2008, 05:25:54 AM
File under: Conventional Wisdom Watch/Bloviators:   8)


Media Jump Ship From Obama to Clinton

by Thomas B. Edsall
April 24, 2008 10:02 PM

In a blink of an eye, the media has jumped ship from the Obama campaign and become a crucial Clinton ally, pressing just the message -- that Obama is a likely loser in the general election -- that Hillary and her allies have been promoting for the past six weeks.

The new tenor of media coverage is visible almost everywhere, from Politico, Time and The New Republic to The Washington Post and The New York Times.

For Hillary, the shift is a potential lifesaver as she struggles to keep her head above water; without it, she would, metaphorically, drown.

Until now, she, her husband, and her campaign aides have been trying, with little success, to make the case that Obama has potentially fatal flaws. For the first time, reporters working for magazines, newspapers and web sites have abruptly decided that she might well be right, and the results for Obama have been brutal:

The first hard punch was thrown by my friend and colleague John Judis in a widely distributed piece on The New Republic web site, filed sometime around 3AM Wednesday, seven hours after polls closed in Pennsylvania. In the article titled, "The Next McGovern," Judis wrote:

    "f you look at Obama's vote in Pennsylvania, you begin to see the outlines of the old George McGovern coalition that haunted the Democrats during the '70s and '80s, led by college students and minorities....Its ideology is very liberal. Whereas in the first primaries and caucuses, Obama benefited from being seen as middle-of-the-road or even conservative, he is now receiving his strongest support from voters who see themselves as 'very liberal.'...[H]e is going to have trouble in Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia, where he will once again be faced by a large white working class vote. He can still win the nomination and lose these primaries. Pennsylvania was the last big delegate prize. But if Obama doesn't find a way now to speak to these voters, he is going to have trouble winning that large swath of states from Pennsylvania through Missouri in which a Democrat must do well to gain the presidency."

Joe Klein, in his weekly column for Time magazine, noted that Clinton has taken a beating,

    "But that was nothing compared with the damage done to Obama, who entered the primary as a fresh breeze and left it stale, battered and embittered - still the mathematical favorite for the nomination but no longer the darling of his party [ Klein could have added, 'no longer the darling of the press.'] In the course of six weeks, the American people learned that he was a member of a church whose pastor gave angry, anti-American sermons, that he was "friendly" with an American terrorist who had bombed buildings during the Vietnam era, and that he seemed to look on the ceremonies of working-class life - bowling, hunting, churchgoing and the fervent consumption of greasy food - as his anthropologist mother might have, with a mixture of cool detachment and utter bemusement."

Politico's Mike Allen describes the changed approach to Obama as a "paradigm shift," specifically citing the "seminal" [Allen is not one to mute his compliments] report of former colleague Chris "The Fix" Cillizza on WashingtonPost.com, the headline of which undoubtedly brought tears of joy to the Clinton campaign: "How Clinton Can Win It."

"A path does exist for Clinton," Cillizza wrote. "The best argument Clinton has at her disposal right now is that Obama cannot win over blue collar, white voters who have been hit hard by the economic slowdown and are looking for a politician to look out for them."

The critical chorus is even resonating across the Atlantic. Under the headline "The Democrats must admit it: Obama would lose to McCain," London Times columnist Anatole Kaletsky wrote: "the conclusion would be fairly obvious, were it not for the political correctness that makes it almost impossible for American politicians or commentators to express such a view: Mr Obama may by unable to carry large industrial states with socially conservative white working-class populations simply because of his race."

The New York Times, never so declarative in a news story, poses the issues as questions. Adam Nagourney writes, "Why has he (Obama) been unable to win over enough working-class and white voters to wrap up the Democratic nomination? ... Is the Democratic Party hesitating about race as it moves to the brink of nominating an African-American to be president?"

While Nagourney raised questions reinforcing doubts about Obama's credibility as a general election candidate, his colleague at the New York Times, Patrick Healy was one of the few reporters to write favorably of the Obama bid in light of recent criticisms. Healy wrote:

"[E]xit polling and independent political analysts offer evidence that Mr. Obama could do just as well as Mrs. Clinton among blocs of voters with whom he now runs behind. Obama advisers say he also appears well-positioned to win swing states and believe he would have a strong shot at winning traditional Republican states like Virginia."

Healy, however, is the exception. While reluctant to speak on the record, Clinton supporters are very pleased with the overall switch in tone of the coverage, particularly the willingness of the media to explore the question of whether Obama could be a loser in November.

The Clinton critique of Obama, and now the critique of much of the press, was further reinforced from another source, Republican strategist Karl Rove, writing in the Wall Street Journal:

    "Mr. Obama is befuddled and angry about the national reaction to what are clearly accepted, even commonplace truths in San Francisco and Hyde Park. How could anyone take offense at the observation that people in small-town and rural American are 'bitter' and therefore 'cling' to their guns and their faith, as well as their xenophobia? Why would anyone raise questions about a public figure who, for only 20 years, attended a church and developed a close personal relationship with its preacher who says AIDS was created by our government as a genocidal tool to be used against people of color, who declared America's chickens came home to roost on 9/11, and wants God to damn America? Mr. Obama has a weakness among blue-collar working class voters for a reason."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/24/media-jump-ship-from-obam_n_98545.html
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on May 03, 2008, 03:51:19 AM
Good David Brooks column from Tuesday, when I was too busy (lazy) to post it:  ;D


Demography Is King

By DAVID BROOKS
Published: April 29, 2008

Fifty-five years ago, 80 percent of American television viewers, young and old, tuned in to see Milton Berle on Tuesday nights. Tens of millions, rich and poor, worked together at Elks Lodges and Rotary Clubs. Millions more, rural and urban, read general-interest magazines like Look and Life. In those days, the owner of the local bank lived in the same town as the grocery clerk, and their boys might play on the same basketball team. Only 7 percent of adult Americans had a college degree.

But that
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on May 03, 2008, 04:34:23 AM
You know, I understand what David is trying to say here, but I really can't agree with his last sentence. An educational hierarchy? Please. America's educational standards are eroding faster than its topsoil. Florida is shutting down schools and letting go hundreds of educators to deal with a tight budget. Our education system is so gutted, it's a joke.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: theBEATLESrock_on on May 03, 2008, 05:26:32 AM
i don't care for politics, and i can't vote, so i naturally have no opinion one way or another
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on May 03, 2008, 05:47:04 AM
Quote from: 551
You know, I understand what David is trying to say here, but I really can't agree with his last sentence. An educational hierarchy? Please. America's educational standards are eroding faster than its topsoil. Florida is shutting down schools and letting go hundreds of educators to deal with a tight budget. Our education system is so gutted, it's a joke.

You're perfectly correct about our educational system, but Brooks is making a different point: that people with a lot of education have a different world view from those who don't, and that education has become one of the great divides within the Democratic Party. Highly educated Democrats tend to be more liberal and secular than blue collar ones, a fact which can be seen in the political coalitions Clinton and Obama have assembled behind themselves and in how the candidates maneuver for votes. Hillary Clinton, that graduate of Wellesley and Yale, and lawyer by profession, was pumping gas for a trucker and appearing at a John Deere dealership the other day for a reason.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on May 03, 2008, 02:18:30 PM
Quote
people with a lot of education have a different world view from those who don't, and that education has become one of the great divides within the Democratic Party.

Yes, very well phrased. My quibble was twofold (and it is just a quibble): first, that this divide is a new thing, and second, that the notion of an educational hierarchy connotes a respect for education that is by no means a normal facet of American life. On the contrary, Americans going back to the pioneers tend to be suspicious of education. Even today, if somebody looks smart, they'd better reach for that beer pretty quick or they will be shunned. Weren't you ever teased at school for being the smart kid? Most Americans hate and fear "smart" people, and education could be a telltale indicator of that (not 100% reliable, but an effective guide).

It's funny, because the Founding Fathers were intellectual snobs (just making my point with a short word) and they did a pretty darned good job of setting up the country. You know, smart people are good for some things. I don't know where we got off on the path of believing smart is bad; you can have smart criminals and dumb criminals, so it wouldn't seem to be a self-protection thing. But at some point the American people decided to celebrate dumb. I think people were actually _pleased_ that GW Bush was a C student (with help). It made him less threatening or more sociable in their minds. Just a good old boy! After seeing the wreck he made of the country, they are now deciding _some_ smarts aren't necessarily bad, but please, let's try to keep it understated and to a minimum!

Am I wrong here? Don't we ridicule smartness with a lot of out geek jokes, or get surly and angry if someone is "talking over our heads"? I just think most Americans want smart people safely tucked away in laboratories making wonder drugs or designing cute gadgets, but don't let them into the "real" world. That is far too threatening to _their_ world view.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on May 03, 2008, 04:15:46 PM
I think people were actually _pleased_ that GW Bush was a C student (with help).

It didn't hurt him at election time, that's for sure. Our collective disdain for intellectuals may be a form of vanity, really; most of us want to be exceptional in some sort of way, but we're afraid we're not so we elevate the common as a sort of psychological defense mechanism: it's our way of talking ourselves into accepting our own ordinariness, which we really don't like. As practiced in the mass media, this "ordinary is the best" attitude is usually deeply patronizing to the very people it means to appeal to; just have a look at how your local newspaper is written or what's on a prime time TV schedule. "Dumbing down," a patronizing neologism if their ever was one, is just an I'm-smarter-than-you-are media manager's way of saying that's how you get a larger audience of ordinary people.

Not that intellectuals don't set themselves up for ridicule or worse often enough; political ideologies like socialism and neoconservatism are products of the classroom more than they are real human experience or a consideration of simple facts, and a lot of the literary and drama criticism of the eighties and nineties is so determinedly capital "T" theoretical that its "texts" (a literary theorist's favorite word) very nearly vanish in the fog of their own abstract reasoning. One might hope that more ordinary sorts of people (the best hope here) would be the first to toss all this in Comrade Marx's dustbin of history.  :)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Sondra on May 03, 2008, 04:53:15 PM
I think there are some generalizations going on here.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on May 03, 2008, 06:21:59 PM
Quote from: 216
I think there are some generalizations going on here.

Guilty as charged; but you have to generalize to make almost any argument, and the same goes for rebuttals. That's why nothing is ever settled (one more bloody generalization) and why windbags like me stay in business!  ;D
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on May 07, 2008, 01:55:47 PM
Another Wednesday morning brings another campaign Day After...  ;D

An End in Sight, At Last
The arithmetic is now so firmly against Mrs Clinton that it would take a miracle for her to win the nomination

Gerard Baker, US Editor

In headline terms it might have looked like a split decision. In the latest instalment of the long-running Democratic primary election saga on Tuesday, Barack Obama won North Carolina and Hillary Clinton won Indiana. These results went roughly as expected - one for each camp.

So at least in terms of the state-wide winners it was a tie, and the race looks set to go on through the final few primaries in the next month.

But beneath the headlines, this was clearly a triumphant night
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on May 08, 2008, 01:01:52 AM
My big fear is that if Hillary wins, she will get very little of the black vote (it will take a lot to keep them from staying home because they will feel they were robbed once again); if Obama wins, the huge working middle class vote may well go to McCain (war hero, "straight talker", more like "us" than that "Hussein guy").

Anyone know the racial breakdown of yesterday's vote? Specifically, how many blacks in NC voted for Clinton, and how much of the white middle class working voters did Obama get in Indiana?
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on May 08, 2008, 03:39:37 AM
Clinton's share of the African American vote in North Carolina was in the 7-9% range, if memory serves: she was simply blown out. Obama, on the other hand, didn't fare too badly in Indiana, despite losing:

[from MSNBC's First Read:]
One thing that jumps out at us is his performance in mostly white Indiana counties north of Indianapolis. He either won them or did much better than we expected. While he still struggled against Clinton in areas south of Indianapolis, his performance north of the city demonstrated his potential in the Midwest. Also, Obama improved with Catholics. After losing that group 70%-30% in Pennsylvania and 63%-36% in Ohio, Obama narrowed that margin to 59%-41% in Indiana; in fact, he won the county that includes South Bend. And the gas-tax debate also appears to have been a winner for Obama. Besides overshadowing (a bit) the Wright story over the days leading into last night
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on May 08, 2008, 03:49:39 AM
The question is, can Obama win - against McCain?
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on May 08, 2008, 04:30:58 AM
He can- it's by no means a sure thing, but it's about as likely as something can be in politics, I think. The economy's sliding (although not into recession yet), the housing market is on the skids, and we're stuck in a war that in my judgment can't be won or even fought to a sustainable stalemate. All great material for an opposition candidate. John McCain, the Republican heir apparent- and war supporter- was in Iraq a few weeks ago with Joe Lieberman making some extraordinarily goofy statements about Iran and the Shia and Sunni factions in Iraq, which suggested to me that he'd be better off refraining from that sort of ad libbing and start reading from a script instead, unless it was all was his attempt at being "Reaganesque" (i.e. ingratiatingly clueless). He may be off his game, and the media are about to start taking an interest in his campaign again.

This is almost surely going to be the Democrats' year, and the biggest problem for President Obama is not going to be winning November 4th, it's going to be governing afterward.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on May 08, 2008, 12:25:14 PM
I'd say George F. Will understands the Clinton method pretty well:  ;D

Yankee Fan Go Home
     
By George F. Will
Thursday, May 8, 2008; Page A23

Hillary Clinton, 60, Illinois native and Arkansas lawyer, became, retroactively, a lifelong Yankee fan at age 52 when, shopping for a U.S. Senate seat, she adopted New York state as home sweet home. She may think, or at least would argue, that when she was 12 her Yankees really won the 1960 World Series, by standards of "fairness," because they trounced the Pirates in runs scored, 55-27, over seven games, so there.

Unfortunately, baseball's rules -- pesky nuisances, rules -- say it matters how runs are distributed during a World Series. The Pirates won four games, which is the point of the exercise, by a total margin of seven runs, while the Yankees were winning three by a total of 35 runs. You can look it up.

After Tuesday's split decisions in Indiana and North Carolina, Clinton, the Yankee Clipperette, can, and hence eventually will, creatively argue that she is really ahead of Barack Obama, or at any rate she is sort of tied, mathematically or morally or something, in popular votes, or delegates, or some combination of the two, as determined by Fermat's Last Theorem, or something, in states whose names begin with vowels, or maybe consonants, or perhaps some mixture of the two as determined by listening to a recording of the Beach Boys' "Help Me, Rhonda" played backward, or whatever other formula is most helpful to her, and counting the votes she received in Michigan, where hers was the only contending name on the ballot (her chief rivals, quaintly obeying their party's rules, boycotted the state, which had violated the party's rules for scheduling primaries), and counting the votes she received in Florida, which, like Michigan, was a scofflaw and where no one campaigned, and dividing Obama's delegate advantage in caucus states by pi multiplied by the square root of Yankee Stadium's Zip code.

Or perhaps she wins if Obama's popular vote total is, well, adjusted by counting each African American vote as only three-fifths of a vote. There is precedent, of sorts, for that arithmetic (see the Constitution, Article I, Section 2, before the 14th Amendment).

"We," says Geoff Garin, a Clinton strategist who possesses the audacity of hopelessness required in that role, "don't think this is just going to be about some numerical metric." Mere numbers? Heaven forfend. That is how people speak when numerical metrics -- numbers of popular votes and delegates -- are inconvenient.

Gen. Douglas MacArthur said that every military defeat can be explained by two words: "too late." Too late in anticipating danger, too late in preparing for it, too late in taking action. Clinton's political defeat can be similarly explained -- too late in recognizing that the electorate does not acknowledge her entitlement to the presidency, too late in understanding that she had a serious challenger, too late in anticipating that she would not dispatch Barack Obama by Super Tuesday (Feb. 5), too late in planning for the special challenges of caucus states, too late in channeling her inner shot-and-a-beer hard hat.

Most of all, she was too late in understanding how much the Democratic Party's mania for "fairness," as mandated by liberals like her, has, by forbidding winner-take-all primaries, made it nearly impossible for her to overcome Obama's early lead in delegates. If Democrats, who genuflect at the altar of "diversity," allowed more of it in their delegate selection process, things might look very different. If even, say, Texas, California and Ohio were permitted to have winner-take-all primaries (as 48 states have winner-take-all allocation of their electoral votes), Clinton would have been more than 400 delegates ahead of Obama before Tuesday and today would be at her ancestral home in New York planning to return some of its furniture to the White House next January.

Tuesday night must have been almost as much fun for John McCain as for Obama. The Republican brand has been badly smudged by recent foreign and domestic policies, which are the only kinds there are, so McCain's hopes rest on the still-unattached cohort called "Reagan Democrats," who still seem somewhat resistant to Obama.

McCain's problem might turn out to be the fact that Obama is the Democrats' Reagan. Obama's rhetorical cotton candy lacks Reagan's ideological nourishment, but he is Reaganesque in two important senses: People like listening to him, and his manner lulls his adversaries into underestimating his sheer toughness -- the tempered steel beneath the sleek suits.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/07/AR2008050703190.html
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: BlueMeanie on May 08, 2008, 01:18:16 PM
Quote from: 1213
hehe...i don't get why some people on here actually pay attention to our silly politics when they live in other places! granted, most of the people on this thread are americans, but for those who aren't: why do you know more about the society i live in than i do???

Because what happens in America affects the rest of the western world. You have a recession, we have a recession. You have a war, we get dragged into it. The price of oil is skyrocketing because the dollar is so week. Everyone pays. Well, except the Norwegians. Because of America's declared 'War On Terror', and subsequently Britain's more or less enforced involvement, the UK is once again subjected to terrorist attacks (7/7). And you wonder why we're interested in your "silly politics"?

From what I can see the American electoral system is a playground for rich incompetent buffoons to carry out their very public slanging matches. I'd rather not be interested, but I have to be.

And by the way, six of the top ten posters on here are European.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on May 08, 2008, 02:50:25 PM
This must be cheering Hillary Clinton's supporters:  ;D

Did Rush Limbaugh Tilt Result In Indiana?

By Alec MacGillis and Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, May 8, 2008; Page A01

Even as Barack Obama's campaign celebrated Tuesday's primary results, aides charged yesterday that they would have had an even stronger showing were it not for meddling by an unlikely booster of Hillary Rodham Clinton: the popular conservative radio host and longtime Clinton family nemesis Rush Limbaugh.

The impact of Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" emerged as an intriguing point of debate, particularly in Indiana, where registered voters could participate in either party's primary, and where Clinton won by a mere 14,000 votes. As he had before several recent primaries, Limbaugh encouraged listeners to vote for Clinton to "bloody up Obama politically" and prolong the Democratic fight.

Limbaugh crowed about the success of his ploy all day Tuesday, featuring on-air testimonials from voters in Indiana and North Carolina who recounted their illicit pleasure in casting a vote for Clinton. "Some of the people show up and they ask for a Democrat ballot, and the poll worker says, 'Why, what are you going to do?' He says, 'Operation Chaos,' and they just laugh," Limbaugh said Tuesday.

But Limbaugh called off the operation yesterday, saying he wants Obama to be the party's pick, because "I now believe he would be the weakest of the Democrat nominees."

He added: "He can get effete snobs, he can get wealthy academics, he can get the young, and he can get the black vote, but Democrats do not win with that."

The Obama campaign and many of its supporters condemned Limbaugh's intervention tactic yesterday, calling it a major factor in Clinton's narrow Hoosier State win.

"Rush Limbaugh was tampering with the primary, and the GOP has clearly declared that it wants Hillary Clinton as the candidate," Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), an Obama supporter, told reporters on a conference call. On the same call, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said Limbaugh "had a clear factor in the outcome."

Whether that is true remains in question. Even if Limbaugh's exhortations brought as many of his listeners to the polls as he says, his operation did not cripple Obama, who emerged stronger from the day's primaries after better-than-expected showings with some key groups of voters.

Those looking for evidence of Limbaugh's influence pointed to Clinton's edge among Republicans in Indiana and North Carolina. In Indiana, 10 percent of Democratic primary voters described themselves as Republicans, a higher rate than in any state but Mississippi, and they went for Clinton by eight percentage points, according to exit polls. In North Carolina, they were 5 percent of the electorate, and went for her by 29 points.

By contrast, Obama won Republican voters, often by very large margins, in seven of the eight states where exit polls were able to report the group before the Texas and Ohio primaries on March 4, when Limbaugh first coaxed listeners to vote for Clinton.

Also notable was that in Indiana, six in 10 Republicans who supported Clinton on Tuesday said they would vote for presumptive GOP nominee John McCain over Clinton in the fall, if that were the matchup. By contrast, most Republicans who voted for Obama said they would back him against McCain. And a slight majority of Republicans who voted for Clinton in Indiana told pollsters that she does not share their values, raising further questions about why they supported her.

But at least as much data suggested that many Republicans voted for Clinton because the Democratic primary was the more meaningful one and because they simply preferred her to Obama. In Indiana, about nine in 10 GOP Clinton voters said she would make a better commander in chief, and more than six in 10 said she would have a better shot at beating McCain.

And Clinton's edge among Indiana Republicans was relatively small, if set against the broader racial divisions in the contest. Her eight-point advantage among Republicans, nearly all of whom are white in the state, was much narrower than it was among white Democrats, whom she won by nearly 2 to 1 over Obama.

Edward Carmines, a political scientist at Indiana University, said that he concluded from the data that while Operation Chaos "existed to some extent, I don't think it was a major factor."

Indiana defied easy analysis from the start, having not held a competitive Democratic presidential primary in decades. Clinton had a demographic edge, with the state's low proportion of black voters and its mix of Rust Belt workers, farmers and Southern transplants. Obama's primary advantage was that he hailed from next door, and many voters were familiar with him.

The Clinton campaign credited its narrow win to the organization of Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.) and the more than 100 campaign stops made by Clinton and her husband and daughter. Robby Mook, Clinton's Indiana director, said she did better than expected in Indianapolis and in northwestern Indiana, where Obama was expected to benefit from his exposure on Chicago television.

But he fared better than the final polls predicted by cutting into Clinton's huge margin among several key groups in Ohio and Pennsylvania, such as white women and white voters without college degrees. He racked up big totals in college towns and with African American voters in Gary and Indianapolis, as expected. But he also won by 22 points in Hamilton County, an affluent Republican-leaning suburb north of Indianapolis; by 12 points in the county that includes Fort Wayne, after losing similar Rust Belt cities elsewhere; and lost by only four points in Evansville, on the southern border.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/07/AR2008050703932.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008050703934

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on May 10, 2008, 01:31:25 PM
Some necessary and overdue blunt talk:

Seeds of Destruction

By BOB HERBERT
Published: May 10, 2008

The Clintons have never understood how to exit the stage gracefully.

Their repertoire has always been deficient in grace and class. So there was Hillary Clinton cold-bloodedly asserting to USA Today that she was the candidate favored by
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on May 10, 2008, 01:38:19 PM
Richard Nixon's "southern strategy;" the Clinton variant:

PfidftLe5Z0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfidftLe5Z0)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on May 10, 2008, 09:01:15 PM
LOL! Go, Hills! "Hard-working Americans" are white, and obviously are those who have not completed college think she's the bee's knees. She may very well be right in that the broadest base of Americans are less-educated white people, but it doesn't make them dumb. Argh, she annoys me. (I know, it's all "political" speak and not remotely genuine, but it's so phony and calculated, it grates on my nerves.)

Geoff, thanks for posting all this. I'll try to catch up. I wrote a response to one of your articles a couple of days ago, and cleverly erased it before posting. So clearly I'll be swinging over to the Clinton camp.

I'm still fangirling on Glenn Greenwald. He demonstrates by quoting articles out of various newspapers (such as the NYT) that whichever Democratic candidate is behind gets the better press. It's all part of trying to divide the party further. So when Clinton looked like the winner, Obama was gold. When it's reversed, the world has unfairly evaluated poor Clinton. I really fear that our mass media is so controlled and manufactured these days that no one will get a good picture of ANY issue unless they dig into it themselves. Between the two jobs and no vacation scenario that McCain has so temptingly offered us as our future, I just don't see many average citizens having that kind of time. Our country is determined to shoot itself in the foot. I only hope the people will look around early enough to say, "Hey! I didn't put this system in place!" and kick it out before the old US of A falls into pieces.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on May 11, 2008, 04:45:06 AM
Thanks for reminding me of Glenn Greenwald; I haven't thought of him in a while. As for the rest of the media (Fox News likely proving to be the exception, as usual), I rather expect that with the Democratic race settled in everyone but Bill and Hillary Clinton's minds, they'll soon turn their guns on John McCain, who's been going out of his way to provide large and easy to hit targets lately. I would love to hear McCain explain how he plans to offset the revenue lost by his proposals to extend Bush's tax cuts, repeal the alternative minimum tax, and cut the corporate tax rate by- surprise!- closing loopholes and cutting pork. That load of rubbish makes Hillary Clinton's summer gas tax suspension plan (swiped from McCain anyway) look like sensible policy.



Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on May 11, 2008, 06:59:34 AM
Have you seen Jon Stewart's "magic wand" send-up? Clearly McCain is following Bush's magic wand theory of governing; just wave your magic wand and make it so! It beats having an actual plan.

As someone who's against women's rights and rates a 0 on environmental issues, he's going to be tough to beat. He also has amazing self-possession, as when he had a melt-down due to a college student persisting in asking him about waterboarding as torture. (For the record, it isn't--not unless the water is "forced"-- thank you, Senator McCain). I like a man who isn't afraid to be intimidated by a college student. He should do well in world government. All he needs is a stern nanny to steady him and scold all those meanie questioners on his behalf, and everything will be fine.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on May 11, 2008, 02:16:56 PM
McCain's temper, like Clinton's, is legendary on Capitol Hill.

Here's one melt down:

XCXOZpwT2ek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCXOZpwT2ek)

And a minor Bill classic; complete with sophistry, wagging finger, and self righteousness passed off as concern for the Little People, for comparison:

zqSFFU8rrWQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqSFFU8rrWQ)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: theBEATLESrock_on on May 13, 2008, 12:35:09 AM
Quote from: 483

Because what happens in America affects the rest of the western world. You have a recession, we have a recession. You have a war, we get dragged into it. The price of oil is skyrocketing because the dollar is so week. Everyone pays. Well, except the Norwegians. Because of America's declared 'War On Terror', and subsequently Britain's more or less enforced involvement, the UK is once again subjected to terrorist attacks (7/7). And you wonder why we're interested in your "silly politics"?

From what I can see the American electoral system is a playground for rich incompetent buffoons to carry out their very public slanging matches. I'd rather not be interested, but I have to be.

And by the way, six of the top ten posters on here are European.
sorry. that was a stupid thing of me to say. i wasn't thinking of all the things that affect all of the rest of the world. And you're right: the electoral system is a playground for rich incompetent buffoons.

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on May 13, 2008, 12:37:33 AM
... and here comes Ron Paul. This could be a thing of beauty.  ;D

 
Ron Paul's Forces Quietly Plot GOP Convention Revolt Against McCain

Virtually all the nation's political attention in recent weeks has focused on the compelling state-by-state presidential nomination struggle between two Democrats and the potential for party-splitting strife over there.

But in the meantime, quietly, largely under the radar of most people, the forces of Rep. Ron Paul have been organizing across the country to stage an embarrassing public revolt against Sen. John McCain when Republicans gather for their national convention in Minnesota at the beginning of September.

Paul's presidential candidacy has been correctly dismissed all along in terms of winning the nomination. He was even excluded as irrelevant by Fox News from a nationally-televised GOP debate in New Hampshire.

But what's been largely overlooked is Paul's candidacy as a reflection of a powerful lingering dissatisfaction with the Arizona senator among the party's most conservative conservatives. As anticipated in late March in The Ticket, that situation could be exacerbated by today's expected announcement from former Republican Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia for the Libertarian Party's presidential nod, a slot held by Paul in 1988.

Never mind Ralph Nader, Republican and Democratic parties both face potentially damaging internal splits that could cripple their chances for victory in a narrow vote on Nov. 4.

Just take a look at recent Republican primary results, largely overlooked because McCain locked up the necessary 1,191 delegates long ago. In Indiana, McCain got 77% of the recent Republican primary vote, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, who've each long ago quit and endorsed McCain, still got 10% and 5% respectively, while Paul took 8%.

On the same May 6 in North Carolina, McCain received less than three-quarters of Republican votes (74%), while Huckabee got 12%, Paul 7% and Alan Keyes and No Preference took a total of 7%.

Pennsylvania was even slightly worse for the GOP's presumptive nominee, who got only 73% to a combined 27% for Paul (16%) and Huckabee (11%).

As Politico.com's Jonathan Martin noted recently, at least some of these results are temporary protest votes in meaningless primaries built on lingering affection for Huckabee and suspicion of McCain.

Given the long-since settled GOP race, thousands of other Republicans in these states, who might have put up with a McCain vote, crossed over to vote in the more exciting Democratic primaries, on their own for Sen. Barack Obama or at the urging of talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, who sought to support Hillary Clinton and prolong Democratic bloodletting.

According to a recent Boston Globe tally, Paul has a grand total of 19 Republican delegates to Romney's 260, Huckabee's 286 and McCain's 1,413.

In the last three months, Paul's forces, who donated $34.5 million to his White House effort and upward of a million total votes, have, as The Ticket has noted, been fighting a series of guerrilla battles with party establishment officials at county and state conventions from Washington and Missouri to Maine and Mississippi. Their goal: to take control of local committees, boost their delegate totals and influence platform debates.

Paul, for instance, favors a drastically reduced federal government, abolishing the Federal Reserve, ending the Iraq war immediately and withdrawing U.S. troops from abroad.

They hope to demonstrate their disagreements with McCain vocally at the convention through platform fights and an attempt to get Paul a prominent speaking slot. Paul, who's running unopposed in his home Texas district for an 11th House term, still has some $5 million in war funds and has instructed his followers that their struggle is not about a single election, but a long-term revolution for control of the Republican Party.

So eager are they to follow their leader's words, that Paul's supporters have driven his new book, "The Revolution: A Manifesto," to the top of several bestseller lists.

While Paul has consistently refused a third-party bid, he has vowed not to endorse McCain, a refusal mirrored by hundreds of his supporters who have left comments on The Ticket in recent weeks. And, no doubt, they'll flock back here today to spread the gospel below.

-- Andrew Malcolm

 http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/ronpaulgop.html
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Sondra on May 13, 2008, 12:58:45 AM
Quote from: 483

Because what happens in America affects the rest of the western world. You have a recession, we have a recession. You have a war, we get dragged into it. The price of oil is skyrocketing because the dollar is so week. Everyone pays. Well, except the Norwegians. Because of America's declared 'War On Terror', and subsequently Britain's more or less enforced involvement, the UK is once again subjected to terrorist attacks (7/7). And you wonder why we're interested in your "silly politics"?

From what I can see the American electoral system is a playground for rich incompetent buffoons to carry out their very public slanging matches. I'd rather not be interested, but I have to be.

And by the way, six of the top ten posters on here are European.

I might find this a bit unfair. But oh well. I think I will continue to stay away from the current affairs forum because I don't want to be accused of attacking anyone. Again. It's just no fun.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: theBEATLESrock_on on May 13, 2008, 01:19:35 AM
^^^what she said. it gets a bit annoying for me when people take things too literally and start accusing people of insulting them.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: douglasleee on May 14, 2008, 06:24:39 AM
This is one of MANY reasons that I wish Lennon were still around. To hear his views on the war, the Goverment, etc., but why do I see a "rerun" here - a repeat of the 1970's
(a war that doesn't have an ending, gas prices going crazy, etc.)  I think John might be
shouting the same things today as in the early 70's.

This isn't a solution and I'm more than willing to hear any and all voices, solutions, etc, but to me, it's the rich getting rich and unless you have money, you're not getting into office to "change" anything, just to get "richer". And once the rich have the middle class money - it's out to get the "lower rich" money. They have to have it all or nothing!!! The U.S. government has chanced from "of the people, by the people, for the people" to "of the money, by the money, for the money". I've been voting since 1976 and yes, Reagan was a pretty good President (sorry for those whom think he was "great", but I didn't vote for him either time and I have no political ties to any party.), but I've not "seen" anyone that made me think - "Damn - now that person would make a GREAT President". I'm just seeing rich
people wanting to get into office for their own "hidden" reason, get wealthier and hold on to
that as long as possible (Ted Kennedy, Carl & Sandy Levin in Michigan, - these 3 have been
in office almost as long as I've been alive!!) Let me at least say, the best bumper sticker
I've seen said "I love my country, it's my government that I can't stand."
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on May 14, 2008, 01:42:01 PM
Quote of the day, from Roger Simon of The Politico:


If a tree falls in the forest when everybody expects it to fall, does it make a sound?

Yes, says Hillary Clinton. It makes a deafening roar, says Hillary Clinton.

SHE WON THE WEST VIRGINIA PRIMARY BY A KAZILLION PERCENTAGE POINTS TUESDAY NIGHT, AND THAT, SHE SAYS, HAS TO MEAN SOMETHING!

Except the press doesn't think so. The press is unimpressed. This may be the first time in election history in which the press has withdrawn from a race before the candidate.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10332.html
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on May 14, 2008, 02:03:01 PM
Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe last night. I love this guy. He was pitching the same line with only slightly less vigor to Tim Russert on Meet The Press last Sunday:

oRDCbmIdnzc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRDCbmIdnzc)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on May 17, 2008, 12:51:53 AM
This is hilarious: Chris Matthews obliterates radio talk show host Kevin James.

YK0d8ENS__c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK0d8ENS__c)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on May 17, 2008, 01:04:31 AM
Quote from: 1161
This is hilarious: Chris Matthews obliterates radio talk show host Kevin James.

YK0d8ENS__c ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK0d8ENS__c[/url])


Yup, hilarious!!

Trouble is, there are SO many people who listen to the Kevin James' of the country, and are taken in by this BS. Comes straight from the top ... the Press secretary that didn't know what the Cuban Missile Crisis was ... who cares! She looks good on TV!!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on May 17, 2008, 01:36:04 AM
Quote from: 568

Yup, hilarious!!

Trouble is, there are SO many people who listen to the Kevin James' of the country, and are taken in by this BS. Comes straight from the top ... the Press secretary that didn't know what the Cuban Missile Crisis was ... who cares! She looks good on TV!!

Seven people sent me that link this morning. James probably got more attention for those nine minutes last night on Matthews than he's ever managed to get through his own efforts bloviating on KRLA. Looks good on him, too.  ;D

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on May 18, 2008, 01:19:33 PM
2008 is beginning to look like 1980 with the party labels reversed, but does Obama have it in him to do for the Democrats what Reagan did for the Republicans?


McCain Can Run, but Bush Won
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on May 21, 2008, 03:49:14 PM
Overheard...


The Last Debate
 
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: May 21, 2008

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on May 21, 2008, 04:14:32 PM
I've got no problem with what Hillary has done and is doing. I think Obama is by FAR a much stronger campaigner now as a result of Hillary's thorny and pesky challenges, and will be much less likely to make a fatal faux pas in the general election as a result of this.

Hillary's role in the general election, and in history, will be determined by what she does and says in the next few weeks, not by what she's done in the last few months. She has the power to rally her troops behind Obama and be the savior of the Democratic party and the country; conversely, she can signal them in subtle ways that it's OK with her if they stay home in November. She'll either be known as the great Democratic hero, or Ralph Nader's Ralph Nader.

And let's not forget ... she can still EASILY win this if she gets a whole lot of the uncommitted superdelegates to vote for her. Why would they? Well, she's pointing out that since March 1st, Obama has lost by HUGE margins to her in the major battle ground swing vote states that will absolutely determine the presidency in November (Ohio, Pennsylvania). Additionally, she's shown that Obama is going to have an awfully hard time winning the votes of white middle class workers (see Indiana, W. Virginia, Kentucky).

It's reasons like these that are keeping all those uncommitted superdelegates sitting on their hands. If it were a done deal, obvious as can be sort of thing, it would be over. It's not, so it's not.

So Hillary says "Stay tuned for more!", and the superdelegates are still listening ...
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on May 22, 2008, 04:50:15 AM
I think Hillary Clinton is trying to strengthen her own position within the Democratic Party so that she can keep as many options open as possible. Taking the Veep slot doesn't make a lot of sense (at least to me), but she may want to run for Governor of New York eventually, become Senate Majority Leader, or lay the foundation for another run at the presidency in 2012 or 2016.

I doubt that many superdelegates are still in play. An undeclared super is not the same thing as an undecided super and I suspect that most of them are just waiting for the most politically opportune time (that is to say politically safest or most strategically advantageous time) to declare themselves. Clinton's prospects are virtually nil.

It is true that Obama has lost by huge margins among white working class voters in Appalachian states, but those voters are only marginally Democratic even within the Democratic Party so far as presidential elections go anyway. Democrats have been losing the less educated / low income voters in these states in presidential contests since at least 1968 and it's not at all clear that Hillary Clinton could carry very many more of them in the fall against John McCain than Barack Obama could. Winning working class voters in a Democratic primary is one thing, but holding them, especially within the broader working class electorate as a whole, is quite another. It's a conservative culture, and while local working class Democrats will support like minded people in local and congressional elections, national Democratic Party candidates, especially presidential ones, have been failing in these states for a long time. Even Bill Clinton only won pluralities of working class voters nationally in 1992 and 1996 (to say nothing of Appalachia): in a very real sense, it was Ross Perot, not Clinton's own coalition building, that won him two elections.

Obama has to solve the Democrat's long standing demographic / electoral disadvantage and either expand the number of voters or dislodge some Republican leaning constituencies. He has to look at key states and see who's up for grabs. Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania are perhaps the most important as usual (Florida appears to be trending Republican), and in my opinion it's not going to be so much working class voters who'll make the difference for the Democrats but suburban middle class ones. The Democrats ought to make their pitch not so much directly at poor and less educated voters as at middle class types wondering how they're going to pay for their mortgages and health care, for college for their kids, and for their own retirements. Practical solutions for concrete problems aimed at the aspiring middle classes, I think, is the most productive way to go about building a new enduring Democratic coalition. Show how government can be used as an instrument for achieving great personal and national goals.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on May 22, 2008, 03:59:09 PM
Quote from: 1161
I think Hillary Clinton is trying to strengthen her own position within the Democratic Party so that she can keep as many options open as possible. Taking the Veep slot doesn't make a lot of sense (at least to me), but she may want to run for Governor of New York eventually, become Senate Majority Leader, or lay the foundation for another run at the presidency in 2012 or 2016.

I doubt that many superdelegates are still in play. An undeclared super is not the same thing as an undecided super and I suspect that most of them are just waiting for the most politically opportune time (that is to say politically safest or most strategically advantageous time) to declare themselves. Clinton's prospects are virtually nil.

It is true that Obama has lost by huge margins among white working class voters in Appalachian states, but those voters are only marginally Democratic even within the Democratic Party so far as presidential elections go anyway. Democrats have been losing the less educated / low income voters in these states in presidential contests since at least 1968 and it's not at all clear that Hillary Clinton could carry very many more of them in the fall against John McCain than Barack Obama could. Winning working class voters in a Democratic primary is one thing, but holding them, especially within the broader working class electorate as a whole, is quite another. It's a conservative culture, and while local working class Democrats will support like minded people in local and congressional elections, national Democratic Party candidates, especially presidential ones, have been failing in these states for a long time. Even Bill Clinton only won pluralities of working class voters nationally in 1992 and 1996 (to say nothing of Appalachia): in a very real sense, it was Ross Perot, not Clinton's own coalition building, that won him two elections.

Obama has to solve the Democrat's long standing demographic / electoral disadvantage and either expand the number of voters or dislodge some Republican leaning constituencies. He has to look at key states and see who's up for grabs. Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania are perhaps the most important as usual (Florida appears to be trending Republican), and in my opinion it's not going to be so much working class voters who'll make the difference for the Democrats but suburban middle class ones. The Democrats ought to make their pitch not so much directly at poor and less educated voters as at middle class types wondering how they're going to pay for their mortgages and health care, for college for their kids, and for their own retirements. Practical solutions for concrete problems aimed at the aspiring middle classes, I think, is the most productive way to go about building a new enduring Democratic coalition. Show how government can be used as an instrument for achieving great personal and national goals.


Good points all, especially about Obama needing to peel some previously Republican voters over to the Dem side, like "voters formerly known as soccer moms and accountant dads from the 'burbs", whatever they are called this season.

If any justification for this point of view is needed - article in the NYT today describing how the Jewish Florida vote may be swinging Republican, for racial reasons. Jeesh, if you can't count on those votes as a Dem, it really isn't the same old ballgame (probably not the "Change" Obama meant when he came up with his campaign logo).  I think it's things like this that are keeping the undeclared delegates from declaring for now.

I think the only way Obama can be assured of locking up the race in November is to have Hillary campaign like he*l for him. And, the only way she'll do that is if she is assured she will be "rewarded" appropriately, however that may be (VP, with de facto Secy. of State powers, and also guaranteed leadership role in energy and health policies, or something suitably impressive and powerful). I think that is what makes Hillary run now - to be as strong as can be this fall. Strange bedfellows ... the usual in politics!

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on May 22, 2008, 04:47:11 PM
Quote from: 1161
I think Hillary Clinton is trying to strengthen her own position within the Democratic Party so that she can keep as many options open as possible. Taking the Veep slot doesn't make a lot of sense (at least to me), but she may want to run for Governor of New York eventually, become Senate Majority Leader, or lay the foundation for another run at the presidency in 2012 or 2016.

I doubt that many superdelegates are still in play. An undeclared super is not the same thing as an undecided super and I suspect that most of them are just waiting for the most politically opportune time (that is to say politically safest or most strategically advantageous time) to declare themselves. Clinton's prospects are virtually nil.

It is true that Obama has lost by huge margins among white working class voters in Appalachian states, but those voters are only marginally Democratic even within the Democratic Party so far as presidential elections go anyway. Democrats have been losing the less educated / low income voters in these states in presidential contests since at least 1968 and it's not at all clear that Hillary Clinton could carry very many more of them in the fall against John McCain than Barack Obama could. Winning working class voters in a Democratic primary is one thing, but holding them, especially within the broader working class electorate as a whole, is quite another. It's a conservative culture, and while local working class Democrats will support like minded people in local and congressional elections, national Democratic Party candidates, especially presidential ones, have been failing in these states for a long time. Even Bill Clinton only won pluralities of working class voters nationally in 1992 and 1996 (to say nothing of Appalachia): in a very real sense, it was Ross Perot, not Clinton's own coalition building, that won him two elections.

Obama has to solve the Democrat's long standing demographic / electoral disadvantage and either expand the number of voters or dislodge some Republican leaning constituencies. He has to look at key states and see who's up for grabs. Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania are perhaps the most important as usual (Florida appears to be trending Republican), and in my opinion it's not going to be so much working class voters who'll make the difference for the Democrats but suburban middle class ones. The Democrats ought to make their pitch not so much directly at poor and less educated voters as at middle class types wondering how they're going to pay for their mortgages and health care, for college for their kids, and for their own retirements. Practical solutions for concrete problems aimed at the aspiring middle classes, I think, is the most productive way to go about building a new enduring Democratic coalition. Show how government can be used as an instrument for achieving great personal and national goals.


Good points all, especially about Obama needing to peel some previously Republican voters over to the Dem side, like "voters formerly known as soccer moms and accountant dads from the 'burbs", whatever they are called this season.

If any justification for this point of view is needed - article in the NYT today describing how the Jewish Florida vote may be swinging Republican, for racial reasons. Jeesh, if you can't count on those votes as a Dem, it really isn't the same old ballgame (probably not the "Change" Obama meant when he came up with his campaign logo).  I think it's things like this that are keeping the undeclared delegates from declaring for now.

I think the only way Obama can be assured of locking up the race in November is to have Hillary campaign like he*l for him. And, the only way she'll do that is if she is assured she will be "rewarded" appropriately. I thank that is what makes Hillary run now - to be in as strong a position as she can be this fall. Strange bedfellows ... the usual in politics!

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on May 22, 2008, 11:18:52 PM
Just got this alert in an email. Apparently the Holocaust was the Jews' fault. Man, the people that politicians will sleep with:


You might have heard that Pastor John Hagee, a key supporter of John McCain's campaign, once said that the Catholic Church was a "great whore" and that Hurricane Katrina was the judgment of God against New Orleans for planning a gay pride parade.

If that weren't already enough, now new audiotape has surfaced where Hagee says that God sent Adolf Hitler to cause the Holocaust so that Jews would move to Israel. But John McCain has refused to renounce Hagee's endorsement in his campaign for President.

I just asked John McCain to finally renounce Hagee's endorsement. I hope you'll join me! You can listen to the new audio and take action here:

http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/2747/t/3184/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=366
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on May 23, 2008, 04:02:58 AM
Quote from: 568
I think the only way Obama can be assured of locking up the race in November is to have Hillary campaign like he*l for him. And, the only way she'll do that is if she is assured she will be "rewarded" appropriately, however that may be (VP, with de facto Secy. of State powers, and also guaranteed leadership role in energy and health policies, or something suitably impressive and powerful). I think that is what makes Hillary run now - to be as strong as can be this fall. Strange bedfellows ... the usual in politics!

I think Clinton is maneuvering to strengthen her own position within the Democratic Party and among parts of the party's base. She probably doesn't have an explicit goal in mind beyond maximizing her own power and ability to exploit whatever opportunities come her way, or that she can make for herself. I suspect she probably hasn't quite given up hope of dislodging Obama yet, either.

Interestingly, there are a lot of rumors circulating today that Bill Clinton is really pushing for Hillary to be offered the VP slot. The rumor itself is probably a political gambit on the Clintons' part, and whether its purpose is really to further its own stated aim or maneuever toward some other outcome (power play to force a concession from Obama) will make a good guessing game for the next few days. It's pure Clinton, though; we saw this sort of thing throughout the nineties, especially after the Republicans took over Congress in early 1995.

But putting Clinton on the ticket is dangerous. The Clintons are nothing if not formidably ambitious and thoroughly ruthless, and even assuming that it's better to have a rival close where there is at least some possibility of exerting some measure of control over him or her, what is Obama going to do with Bill, an adolescent narcissist who will be asked to play second fiddle to a second fiddle? He'd have to rewrite his whole personality to cope with that, and until or if he did, Obama would be the guy who would have to do the coping. More Clinton drama is hardly my idea of change.:-/

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on May 23, 2008, 04:21:56 AM
Quote from: 551
Just got this alert in an email. Apparently the Holocaust was the Jews' fault. Man, the people that politicians will sleep with:


This is a good example of what can happen when a Republican candidate desperate for an endorsement by the party's fundamentalist / spaz division but unfamiliar with the perversities of its members grabs for a handshake from one of them without doing some vetting first. But it's all over: McCain's dumped the nasty little wretch:

McCain Rejects Pastor's Backing Over Remarks

By Juliet Eilperin and Kimberly Kindy
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, May 23, 2008; Page A01

STOCKTON, Calif., May 22 -- Sen. John McCain on Thursday repudiated the presidential endorsement of the Rev. John Hagee after learning about a sermon in which the megachurch pastor from San Antonio declared that God allowed the rise of Adolf Hitler because it resulted in returning Israel to the Jewish people.

The Arizona Republican's decision to distance himself from Hagee came after months of mounting criticism, particularly from Roman Catholics, over his acceptance of Hagee's endorsement in late February. Hagee has called the Catholic Church a "false religious system" and a "false cult system" and has suggested that the church played a role in the Holocaust.

Hagee, 68, is one of the country's best-known Christian television evangelists and is known for his fervent support of Israel. But he has a conflicted relationship with Jewish organizations. He spearheaded a group called Christians United for Israel, but not all Jewish groups embrace him, because he does not support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They are also leery of his support because he has suggested that their "rebellion" against "Jehovah" has caused much of their suffering, including the Holocaust.

This week, a new controversy over his preaching began when a video started circulating of a sermon, delivered in the late 1990s, in which Hagee calls Hitler a "hunter," a reference to the Book of Jeremiah, which quotes God saying he "will restore" the Jews "to the land I gave to their forefathers."

"Then God sent a hunter. A hunter is someone with a gun and he forces you. Hitler was a hunter," Hagee says in the sermon. "And the Bible says -- Jeremiah writing -- 'They shall hunt them from every mountain and from every hill out of the holes of the rocks,' meaning there's no place to hide. And that will be offensive to some people but don't let your heart be offended. I didn't write it, Jeremiah wrote it. It was the truth and it is the truth. How did it happen? Because God allowed it to happen. Why did it happen? Because God said my top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel."

When asked what McCain thought of the remarks, spokesman Tucker Bounds responded with an e-mail from the candidate denouncing Hagee. "Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them," McCain said. "I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee's endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well."

Speaking to reporters later, McCain said: "I just think that the statement is crazy and unacceptable," adding that while "Pastor Hagee is entitled to his views," he does not want to be affiliated with them.

Mindful of the controversy that ensnarled Sen. Barack Obama, his possible opponent in the November election, McCain tried to draw a distinction between his link to Hagee and Obama's ties to the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., who was the pastor for many years of the church Obama attends in Chicago. Wright's incendiary remarks about the U.S. government have dogged the Democratic front-runner for months.

"I have said I do not believe Senator Obama shares Reverend Wright's extreme views," McCain said in the statement. "But let me also be clear, Reverend Hagee was not and is not my pastor or spiritual advisor, and I did not attend his church for twenty years." He added: "I have denounced statements he made immediately upon learning of them, as I do again today."

At a campaign rally in February, McCain said he was "pleased to have the endorsement" of Hagee. The next day, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights publicly chastised the candidate and demanded that he reject the endorsement. But McCain refused, despite comments Hagee has made about Catholicism, and his implication that Hurricane Katrina represented divine retribution because a gay pride parade had been planned in New Orleans for that week.

Initially, after learning about Hagee's comments, McCain said that just because he accepts -- or seeks -- someone's endorsement does not mean he endorses that person's views. McCain later said that he repudiated Hagee's views, but continued to say that he accepted and was proud of the endorsement.

Hagee issued his own statement Thursday, saying that he was withdrawing his endorsement to prevent any further damage to the presumptive GOP nominee's candidacy.

"I am tired of these baseless attacks and fear that they have become a distraction in what should be a national debate about important issues," he said in a statement.

McCain also received the endorsement of another controversial television evangelist in late February, the Rev. Rod Parsley of Ohio, whose sermons have been called anti-Muslim. In one sermon, posted on YouTube, Parsley described what he said is "our historical conflict with Islam," adding that "America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed."

Asked about the two preachers Thursday, he said: "I've never been to Pastor Hagee's church or Pastor Parsley's church," adding: "I received their endorsement, which doesn't mean I endorse their views."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/22/AR2008052203141.html?hpid=topnews

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on May 23, 2008, 12:14:35 PM
Quote
Hagee has called the Catholic Church a "false religious system" and a "false cult system"
At least it's not a "real" cult. It's only a false one, so that should be okay.

Quote
McCain said that just because he accepts -- or seeks -- someone's endorsement does not mean he endorses that person's views.
That I readily believe. I think if a candidate can smell votes, he's there in a jiffy with a handshake, be they part of the fundamentalist / spaz division (LOVE that term) or not. I guess the Jews have a better lobby, because the Catholics have been complaining about this guy for months and never got anywhere. I hope McCain is now seen as a "false" fundamentalist for this rejection and the spaz division gets riled.

Quote
"I am tired of these baseless attacks and fear that they have become a distraction in what should be a national debate about important issues," he said in a statement.
Me, too! Let's get back to the bowling scores and flag pins. Those were fun.

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on May 23, 2008, 12:40:58 PM
Quote from: 551
I hope McCain is now seen as a "false" fundamentalist for this rejection and the spaz division gets riled.

He's going to get pied going in the other direction now. The fundamentalists (correctly) read the Hagee thing as a pander and never believed him in the first place, and his backing off now will only make them jeer him even more loudly as he runs away. It won't even matter to them that McCain fled because he found out that Hagee's nuts. Insincerity is bad enough, but insincerity provisionally given and later retracted because it's become inconvenient is really asking for the tomatoes. Good job all around, I'd say.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on May 24, 2008, 02:54:41 PM
 ;D


Bush-McCain Fundraiser Scaled Back Due To Lack Of Takers

By Eric Kleefeld - May 24, 2008, 12:31AM

A planned mega-fundraiser for the GOP, featuring President Bush and John McCain, has now been scaled back in the face of a daunting problem: Too few people actually wanted to buy tickets.

According to the Phoenix Business Journal, fundraiser set for this Tuesday in the city's convention center failed to sell enough tickets, leading to fears that the anti-Bush protesters might end up outnumbering actual attendees.

The new plan is for the Bush-McCain fundraising effort, which will benefit both the McCain campaign and the RNC, to be held in private residences in the Phoenix area away from media coverage.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/bushmccain_fundraiser_scaled_b.php
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on May 24, 2008, 07:14:47 PM
Oh, this keeps getting better. I'm certainly enjoying this. Thanks, Geoff. :)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on May 25, 2008, 03:27:09 AM
Two good commentaries on Hillary Clinton's Friday afternoon blunder:

All About Eve

By MAUREEN DOWD
from THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: May 25, 2008
WASHINGTON

Maybe it was the proximity of Mount Rushmore and Deadwood, but something caused Hillary
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on May 25, 2008, 03:36:20 AM
Video clip from Friday here:

ITC_ZRpZW_k (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITC_ZRpZW_k)

Retraction here:

zwl69l76X-0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwl69l76X-0)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: pc31 on May 26, 2008, 01:13:55 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2jUJQdN41g&eurl=http://video.google.com/videosearch?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4DKUS_enUS256US256&q=ringo%20dancingiurl=http://i.ytimg.com/vi/S2jUJQdN41g/default.jpg
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on May 26, 2008, 03:46:21 PM
Quote from: 284
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2jUJQdN41g&eurl=http://video.google.com/videosearch?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4DKUS_enUS256US256&q=ringo%20dancingiurl=http://i.ytimg.com/vi/S2jUJQdN41g/default.jpg[/url]


Flo and Eddie (aka Turtles) really helped define Zappa in this period, I love them!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on May 26, 2008, 03:47:52 PM
Quote from: 551
... At least it's not a "real" cult. It's only a false one, so that should be okay.




I never had you figured for a Hagee-ophile, harihead  ;), but hey, it's a fee country!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on May 26, 2008, 06:29:12 PM
Quote from: 568
but hey, it's a fee country!

LOL! Did you mean to write "fee" instead of "free"? Whatever, it was perfect. Thanks for the coffee up the nose. I enjoy a good snerk.


And thanks for the updates, Geoff! Man, I hope they can use this gaff to get Hillary out of Obama's hair. She will really louse him up. (Yes, more bad puns. Throw some Beatles at me in punishment...)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on May 26, 2008, 08:44:19 PM
Quote from: 551

LOL! Did you mean to write "fee" instead of "free"? Whatever, it was perfect. Thanks for the coffee up the nose. I enjoy a good snerk. ...


And thanks for the updates, Geoff! Man, I hope they can use this gaff to get Hillary out of Obama's hair. She will really louse him up. (Yes, more bad puns. Throw some Beatles at me in punishment...)


Like most things of mine that turn out creative-like (afraid to actually say creative), it started as an error that was better than the original intended! Sorry for the coffee-sinus cleansing experience, I hope it wasn't too strongly caffeinated!

OT - I wonder if that is how most creative stuff happens? It seems so hard to sit down and say "I'm going to doing something different and creative now ...".  I mean did the chord shift in the middle eight of "From Me to You" happen by mistake, or did they say ... "hey, let's make up something really wacky here, whaddya say?".

Sorry for these psychobabble cr*p, I really am an empiricist at heart, please don't tell my colleagues!

And now in punishment for your punctiliousness, you are hereby sentenced to listen The Goon Show, which apparently got the young Lennon's burgeoning mind warped for life (and probably had a few good ones, I'd bet)!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on May 28, 2008, 03:50:01 AM
Electoral strategy... :)

Obama looks westward in electoral map play
By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN | 5/27/08 4:30 AM EST
 
LAS CRUCES, N.M.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: douglasleee on May 30, 2008, 06:01:11 AM
Maybe I can find an island somewhere, call it "Nutope", use John's "Nutopian International Anthem" for my national
anthem, have a majority of those that are on DM'S Beatle Forum as Nutope's ambassadors and skip off of these
"elections".

Seems like the 2008 Presidential Election has been going on forever (since early 2006) and before
anyone can blink, the mid-term 2010 elections will be here and the "re-elect" the winner of 2008 Presidential campaign
will start all over again.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on May 30, 2008, 10:09:18 AM
Quote from: 1285
Maybe I can find an island somewhere, call it "Nutope", use John's "Nutopian International Anthem" for my national
anthem, have a majority of those that are on DM'S Beatle Forum as Nutope's ambassadors and skip off of these
"elections".

 ;D

But no: the trick is to fight for and change what we've got here right now. Going to island just ducks the issue, and anyway there isn't an island remote enough. Evenings off on a beach somewhere sounds like a hell of a good idea, though.  :)

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: douglasleee on May 30, 2008, 11:34:27 PM
Geoff - I was going to respone, but I don't want to bring everyone down.
To me - The dream is trully over, and keeping a happy face to keep 'em wondering.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on June 02, 2008, 01:04:13 AM
Just what we needed; another demographic group de jour:  8)


Just How Low Will They Go?
With 'elitist' a choice slur, candidates are trying to win over the new 'It' demographic: 'low-info voters.'

Thirty-one-year-old Jin Chon is obsessed with televisiontalk shows. He starts each weekday morning with Barbara and the gang on "The View" and rarely misses his daily dose of Ellen and Tyra. Other favorites: "Entertainment Tonight" and "Access Hollywood," where he luxuriates in the latest gossip. For Chon, there are few things more rewarding than flipping on one of his must-see shows and finding they've booked his favorite celebrity guest: Hillary Clinton. That happens a lot. In the past year, she has been a repeat guest on "The Ellen DeGeneres Show," swooned over "Grey's Anatomy" star Patrick (McDreamy) Dempsey on "ET" and copped to a weakness for "Dancing With the Stars" on "Access." The way Chon sees it, there's no such thing as too much Hillary. "She has a great sense of humor and is totally engaging and willing to do fun things that you'd be, like, 'Oh, no, she wouldn't do that!' " he says.

So right about now is when you'd be thinking: "Dude, honestly. Get a job." He's got one. Impressive title, too. Chon is press secretary for specialty media for the Clinton campaign. He's the man behind the dozens of fluff TV appearances Hillary has made. He also angles to get her positive coverage in celeb mags like People and Us Weekly, where she sat for a lighthearted feature in which she made fun of her dowdy wardrobe.

Barack Obama and John McCain are also hustling spots on shows that usually stay clear of politics. Obama danced with DeGeneres, hugged the weak-kneed hosts of "The View" and let slip this bit of news on "Good Morning America": he's going to get a dog. McCain schmoozed with Regis and Kelly and won a write-up in Us when Heidi Montag, the villainess from the MTV reality show "The Hills," endorsed him. (McCain said he was "honored.")

Politicians and presidential candidates have long submitted to ritual humiliation on "Saturday Night Live," and happily take their lumps from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. But that's different. Those shows are for the tiny portion of the populace heavy into politics. An appearance on "The Daily Show" is a badge of coolness in this self-conscious, New York-Washington media world: you have arrived.

An appearance on "Access Hollywood"? Not so much. And that's just the point. In a campaign where "elitist" has become a choice slur, the candidates are especially eager to win down-home credibility with this year's "It" demographic: "low-information voters." They are the opposite of Colbert's media-saturated, post-ironic followers. Overwhelmingly white and working class, low-info voters don't pay much mind to the hourly back-and-forth of the campaign, and don't obsessively check Google News for the latest poll results.

Most important to the candidates: many of these voters are, in campaign parlance, "swayable"
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on June 02, 2008, 03:11:48 AM
Saw a "Republicans for Obama" bumper sticker today. It was on our neighbors' Hummer. Hmm. She is black and he is white.

Interesting world we live in!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on June 02, 2008, 05:47:58 AM
Quote from: 568
Saw a "Republicans for Obama" bumper sticker today. It was on our neighbors' Hummer. Hmm. She is black and he is white.

Interesting world we live in!

Good for them, actually (well, apart from the hummer bit: at $4.00 a gallon I certainly wouldn't want to have to fill a thing like that up, and that's leaving aside the obvious environmental objections).  :)

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on June 03, 2008, 03:28:29 PM
Your article, Geoff!! O_o

Quote
"It's baby steps," he says. "If you can get people interested in the players, it's a step toward getting them interested in what the players do."
Can we be any more infantilized? Grownups treated like idiots because we can't expect them to be informed and not act idiotically. Thomas Jefferson would be puking his guts out.


What do you think of New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson as Obama's running mate?  
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on June 03, 2008, 04:58:32 PM
Quote from: 551
Your article, Geoff!! O_o


Can we be any more infantilized? Grownups treated like idiots because we can't expect them to be informed and not act idiotically. Thomas Jefferson would be puking his guts out.


What do you think of New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson as Obama's running mate?  

There are times when I want to puke my guts out, too. I suspect there would be a long line of us. Some days I think these people are getting more or less what they deserve; the bad news is that the rest of us are getting a belly full of it, too.

Joe Biden and Bill Richardson were actually my top two choices going into this, so if Obama picks him for VP I'd be a happy guy. He's a smart, likeable guy who would make himself very useful as vice president. But putting a Latino on a ticket with an African American would probably only accentuate Obama's difficulties with older and poorer white voters in the north east, so I imagine Richardson's more in line for a cabinet job than he is the vice presidency. Someone like Jim Webb from Virginia, or maybe Wesley Clark or Tom Daschle, would make more sense. But I like the optics of an Obama-Richardson ticket; I think the south west is where the future is for the Democrats.  :)
 
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on June 07, 2008, 05:38:58 AM
(http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm317/geoffw_2008/DarylCagle.jpg)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on June 07, 2008, 04:48:19 PM
Hee! Great cartoon.

Here's some happy news from Kenya. Do you think Obama can help retrieve America's sinking image in the world?


Obama revolution
Updated on: Thursday, June 05, 2008
Story by: By Times team
....................................................................................................................................................................................


ECSTATIC celebration exploded in western Kenya and most parts of the country as international broadcasters announced the victory of Illinois Senator Barrack Obama as the presumptive presidential nominee for the White House race on the Democratic Party ticket.

Senator Obama, the son of a Kenyan immigrant Barrack Obama Senior, entered the annals of history as the first African American to win the presidential nomination of a major party in the United States.

As the news filtered through early yesterday morning, ecstatic and frenzied celebrations rocked Kisumu, Bondo, Kakamega, Eldoret and Mumias towns as residents poured into the streets.

President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga sent congratulations to the Illinois Senator for winning his party
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: aspinall_lover on June 07, 2008, 06:24:50 PM
To tell you the truth, I don't like any of them.  This has got to be the worst election year ever!!!  People can say what they want about Bill Clinton, but Bill wasn't that bad of a president.  And Bush...........can you say, "idiot"????
Anyway............whoever gets the nod to be Prez, the first thing that needs to be done is bring our men and women BACK HOME from Iraq.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: DaveRam on June 07, 2008, 08:42:11 PM
Just discoverd i'm 4 month older than Obama  (tongue6) it will be cool to see someone born in 1961 become president .
That also makes him born in the year of the Ox like me , the other big political figure born in the year of the  Ox was Mrs Thatcher (afraid5) should America and the rest of the world be scared ?
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on June 09, 2008, 11:38:37 PM
This is really funny. Listen here, at 6 min 20 sec

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7RuX4pQPLY&feature=related

It only proves it ... the Democrats are evil, they even want to freeze-dry your babies (as one of the pundits said)!! Vote McCain!!!

Remember ... that's not change we can believe! in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aMDJP4VxY4&feature=related   :)

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on June 11, 2008, 04:08:22 PM
^^^^

Evidently McCain took "going green" to mean he should stand in front of something green. I would have gone looking for a tree myself. This guy's way, way off his game, and that forced smile of his could actually be some sort of involuntary convulsion.  ;D
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: somedude210 on June 12, 2008, 06:43:04 PM
thomas jefferson once said that you need to overthrow the government every 50 years.

I'm starting to understand why he said that
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on June 15, 2008, 01:00:52 AM
The Veep guessing game is well under way:

Biden For VP?
By Robert Novak

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Before multimillionaire Democratic power broker James A. Johnson quit as Sen. Barack Obama's chief vice presidential screener, the name that came to the fore in his internal discussions was 65-year-old, six-term Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware.

Biden, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, made a good impression in his losing bid for the presidential nomination this year. The downside on him is that he talks too much. But he provides expertise and experience in national security that Obama lacks and, as a Catholic, adds cultural diversity to the ticket.

A footnote: Presidential supporters of Sen. Hillary Clinton who are possibilities for vice president include Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida and Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell. The leading Clintonite for vice president, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, has definitively ruled himself out.

 McCain's Non VPs
Sources close to Sen. John McCain say the Republican presidential candidate likes the idea of Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman, re-elected from Connecticut as an independent in 2006, or former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge -- if he could get away with it. The political consensus is that McCain couldn't get away with either, and he knows it.

Lieberman, one of McCain's closest Senate friends, vigorously supports him for president and sometimes joins him on the campaign trail. However, Lieberman opposes Republican policy on nearly everything except Iraq, where he has backed the war effort.

Ridge, who served as President Bush's secretary of homeland security, is a generally conservative Republican except for being pro-choice on abortion. He was considered for vice president in 1996 and 2000, but was ruled out both times because of the abortion issue.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/biden_for_vp.html
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on June 15, 2008, 01:13:50 AM
I'll bet Ron Paul just got an idea. If I were Roger Ailes (president of Fox News) I'd throw my cell phone at a speeding bus.


Huckaboom Hits TV
By Howard Kurtz

Mike Huckabee may have flamed out as a presidential candidate, but his glibness and humor did not go unnoticed.

The former Arkansas governor has signed a one-year deal as a political commentator for Fox News, where he will sound off on a variety of programs. A knowledgeable source says an announcement is expected soon.

Other cable channels had been pursuing Huckabee, who provided commentary on MSNBC during one of its primary-night broadcasts. Fox has given a platform to such former Republican politicos as Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove.

Huckabee honed his broadcasting skills during his years as a Baptist minister, and his underfunded White House campaign relied heavily on TV appearances, from his constant calls to MSNBC's "Morning Joe" to his stint playing air hockey with Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert. His first job, at 14, was reading the news and weather at a radio station.

The deal keeps Huckabee in the spotlight as he contemplates a second run in 2012, a tactic perfected by Pat Buchanan, who hosted CNN's "Crossfire" between presidential campaigns.

No word on whether the deal calls for Huckabee's band to play while Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity kick off their programs.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/12/huckaboom_hits_tv.html
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on June 16, 2008, 12:54:55 AM
Subtle, no?    ;D

(http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm317/geoffw_2008/advert.jpg)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on June 17, 2008, 01:05:38 PM
To boldly go where everyone's already gone before:  ;D


Early reaction to Al Gore's Obama endorsement: Yawn

Some early overnight reaction to the belated endorsement of Barack Obama by Al Gore. And it might disappoint the former vice president and loser in the 2000 White House race.

Exactly what Gore was waiting for in the past two weeks since Obama sewed up his party's nomination is unclear. Maybe he just wanted to go to Michigan where his prize-winning environmental pitch is so very less welcome than other places that don't make so many large cars.

 Or maybe he was waiting until his endorsement meant absolutely nothing.

Anyway, as The Ticket reported, Gore said all the right things in his endorsement speech, except he noticeably left out the last Democratic president, the one who chose to elevate Gore from has-been senator to his running mate and has been the only Democrat elected president twice since World War II, which is like the Middle Ages for today's voters.

But within minutes online reaction was underwhelming. Joe Gandelman, editor-in-chief over at The Moderate Voice, who is usually, well, very moderate, posted an item titled "Obama gets 'the' Endorsement: The Lousy Timing of Al Gore."

He had this to say:

"Perhaps one day someone will write a chapter in a new book about Al Gore titled 'Profiles in Uncourage.'...But it came so late in the game that the person who'll be most impressed with it will be Tipper Gore."

After that the item went downhill. Gandelman said the endorsement so long-sought by Obama and Hillary Clinton was by now such an anti-climax that it resembled the ponderings about whether Ralph Nader would run yet again.

Ouch, how'd you like to be compared to the 21st century's Harold Stassen?

"Not exactly "Man bites dog" news. Who is Gore going to endorse? John McCain?" asked John Mariner in The Ticket's comments section.

Sam Patel added: "It's a sad day to see one of the Clinton's most loyal supporters essentially dis-own them! Like Bill Richardson, Al Gore was a complete nobody had it not been for Bill Clinton's risky generosity. I bet he now regrets some of those appointments."

Up at the San Francisco Chronicle's politics blog, Joe Garofoli wrote: "We know this will never happen, but hopefully Al will tell us tonight why he didn't endorse somebody when it WOULD HAVE MEANT SOMETHING. Like in February.

"Then again, think of it from his perspective. In his forseable role as Captain Planet, he's going to need to work with whomever would be president, so why burn a bridge with a nomination. But isn't Al big enough now (is that a Nobel in your pocket?) that he doesn't have to worry about such petty political matters."

Guess not.

--Andrew Malcolm

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/al-gore-react.html
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on June 17, 2008, 03:10:59 PM
(http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm317/geoffw_2008/mccain-tough-big.jpg)  (http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm317/geoffw_2008/medium_dr_evil_1-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on June 21, 2008, 11:00:39 AM
Interesting factoid:

Lagging Behind His Party

Obama is losing white voters born between 1944 and 1958--pretty much the lion's share of the Baby Boomers--by 18 percentage points.

by Charlie Cook

Sat. Jun 21, 2008

It finally dawned on me that white Baby Boomers are the group that is really hurting Barack Obama. Of all people, the generation that brought us the Vietnam War protests and the Summer of Love is proving to be a very tough nut for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee to crack.

First, the context: The political environmentis wretched for Republicans. In the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll of 1,000 registered voters conducted June 6-9, respondents preferred a Democrat to win the presidency by 16 percentage points, 51 percent versus 35 percent for a Republican. Forty-four percent strongly preferred a Democrat; just 27 percent strongly favored a Republican. By 19 points--52 percent to 33 percent--voters also preferred Democrats to keep control of Congress. In terms of party identification, Democrats had a 9-point advantage, 33 percent to 24 percent. When independents were "pushed," that is, asked which way they were leaning, the Democratic advantage edged up to 10 points, 44 percent to 34 percent. And on a host of issues, Democrats beat out Republicans.

So why does that same poll have Obama leading by just 6 points, 47 percent to 41 percent? In other words, why the drop-off from party identification and the generic presidential and congressional ballot tests? Essentially, why does Obama underperform his party?

At the time this poll was done, not long after Hillary Rodham Clinton dropped out of the race, Obama was taking his victory lap, and most surveys showed him with a similar margin. Since then, most polls have found a bit of a tightening, with Obama's lead around 3 or 4 points. Whether his edge is 3 points or 6 points, the question remains the same: Why the drop-off?

Combing through cross-tabulations of three months of Cook Political Report/RT Strategies polls, taken April 17-20, May 29-31, and June 12-15 and involving a total of 2,484 registered voters (margin of error +/-2 percent), the overall trial heat showed Obama ahead by 2 points, 44 percent to 42 percent. But focusing exclusively on the 1,832 whites in the sample revealed something interesting, even allowing for the fact that Lyndon Johnson in 1964 was the last Democratic presidential candidate to win even a plurality of the white vote.

Obama trailed McCain by 9 points among both 18-to-34-year-old white voters and those 65 and older. He lagged by 10 points among 35-to-49-year-old whites. But among those 50 to 64, Obama is losing by a whopping 18 points, 51 percent to 33 percent.

By doing very well among African-Americans and reasonably well among Hispanics, Obama could easily overcome his deficits among whites under 50 and over 65. But losing whites born between 1944 and 1958--pretty much the lion's share of the Baby Boomers--by 18 percentage points? Wow. That's a burden.

Some of this may be attributable to long-term voting patterns. These are voters who remember the disappointing--some would say failed--presidency of Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981, which was followed by the fairly popular--many would say successful--presidency of Ronald Reagan from 1981 to 1989. The voters in this bloc were ages 19 to 33 when that 12-year downer period for Democrats began and 31 to 45 with their voting patterns set, most likely for life, when it ended. Obviously, there are exceptions.

It is often said that Reagan drew a whole generation into the Republican Party. And some observers wonder whether George W. Bush may have driven another generation away. If this is true, Barack Obama, meet Ronald Reagan, your real opponent.

But do white Boomers' past voting patterns explain Obama's problems with them? Or, is his difficulty that these are voters in their prime earnings years, when they are most sensitive to the issue of taxes? Do they view national security issues differently and want beefier credentials than Obama offers?

A dozen or more indicators could prove important in attempting to determine whether Obama or McCain will come out ahead on November 4. Trying to figure out what is going on in the minds of white Baby Boomers is going to be high on my list.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cr_20080621_4714.php
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Sondra on June 21, 2008, 11:25:27 AM
I think the hypocrisy of the Boomers became apparent when they became the "greed is good" yuppies of the eighties. And they haven't looked back since. Peace and love isn't what makes you the big bucks. Sad to hear this anyway, but not surprised.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on June 21, 2008, 02:08:17 PM
Quote from: 216
I think the hypocrisy of the Boomers became apparent when they became the "greed is good" yuppies of the eighties. And they haven't looked back since.

Some did: I think the point about the boomers is that they split into at least two camps: one that wanted to overturn the prevailing assumptions of the post world war II consensus and another that was opposed to any such change. The Republicans have been making a political killing by positioning themselves as the party of traditional values ever since 1968: Nixon's pitch to the "silent majority" - which even then included a lot of young people- was the first incarnation of it, and it reached its weird apogee in the eighties with the sentimental / heroic all-Americanism of Ronald Reagan. The "radical" component of the boomers has always been the numerically smaller one, and their successes have come more in the media and educational realms than the political one.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Sondra on June 21, 2008, 08:30:32 PM
Quote from: 1161

Some did: I think the point about the boomers is that they split into at least two camps: one that wanted to overturn the prevailing assumptions of the post world war II consensus and another that was opposed to any such change. The Republicans have been making a political killing by positioning themselves as the party of traditional values ever since 1968: Nixon's pitch to the "silent majority" - which even then included a lot of young people- was the first incarnation of it, and it reached its weird apogee in the eighties with the sentimental / heroic all-Americanism of Ronald Reagan. The "radical" component of the boomers has always been the numerically smaller one, and their successes have come more in the media and educational realms than the political one.

Heh. Not if you listen to the media though. Who are still bombarding us with commercials about how hip and radical they still are...played to the tune of Born To Be Wild. (barf4)

Of course it's some. I just can't help myself from being cynical when discussing the boomers for some reason. But really, what is their problem with Obama? The bit about Carter perplexes me. I mean, do they not remember Clinton? I'd say that was pretty damn successful overall. Why still cling nail and tooth to the Reagan years? Maybe because that's when they got to partake in the spoils of his reign? I think money is a big motivator for that generation for sure. But who knows. And why this white faction? Because they are the higher earners? Or is it a race thing? Or because they were the target voters back in the day and again it's this pattern? It's interesting anyway. Only a little over four months to turn things around though!  ??)

Quote
But do white Boomers' past voting patterns explain Obama's problems with them? Or, is his difficulty that these are voters in their prime earnings years, when they are most sensitive to the issue of taxes? Do they view national security issues differently and want beefier credentials than Obama offers?
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Mairi on June 21, 2008, 09:57:26 PM
Is "yuppies" the correct term for Boomers who went corporate? Because I understood that it stood for "young urban professionals".

Hey, why sugarcoat it? They're plain old sellouts.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Sondra on June 21, 2008, 10:37:46 PM
Yeah, but who coined the term? Wouldn't that be the boomers? The first of the yuppies? What do I know. I just associate it with them more so than other generations. Maybe because I lived through the eighties. Do people even want to be called a yuppie anymore? I don't know anyone that would find it complimentary. I clearly know little on this topic, but I guess the only way to learn is to discuss. As long as more than one side is represented. Otherwise, why bother. It's like talking to yourself then.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on June 22, 2008, 01:26:26 AM
Quote from: 216
Of course it's some. I just can't help myself from being cynical when discussing the boomers for some reason. But really, what is their problem with Obama?

It really comes down to which boomers: the ones with lots of education and money are generally quite likely to be amongst his supporters; it's the poorer and less educated ones who are most skeptical.

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Sondra on June 22, 2008, 02:24:48 AM
Quote from: 1161

It really comes down to which boomers: the ones with lots of education and money are generally quite likely to be amongst his supporters; it's the poorer and less educated ones who are most skeptical.


But that's pretty much the opposite of what the article is implying. No?
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on June 22, 2008, 03:25:07 AM
Quote from: 216
But that's pretty much the opposite of what the article is implying. No?

He's treating boomers, or white boomers as a group: perfectly right, so far as it goes, but there's more to be said than that. During the Democratic primaries, education and income were pretty good predictors of how whites would vote: wealthier and more educated voters were more likely to go for Obama, and poorer and less educated ones were more inclined to vote for Clinton. That's why Clinton was one of the first people to pick up on the "elitist" charge after Obama made his "guns and religion" comments in San Francisco. That voting pattern applied to groups beyond the boomers, too. I think that put simply, poorer white voters (as a group) tend to more traditional or conservative on cultural matters. It is interesting, though, that he's so far behind with the boomer cohort: I would like to see those results broken down by income, education, and region at least. Also religion, come to think of it.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Sondra on June 22, 2008, 04:21:20 AM
This article sort of touches on the Boomer Divide. It's from last December, but still interesting.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama

Like this statement:

"If you are an American who yearns to finally get beyond the symbolic battles of the Boomer generation and face today
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on June 22, 2008, 12:51:52 PM
Quote from: 216
This article sort of touches on the Boomer Divide. It's from last December, but still interesting.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama

Like this statement:

"If you are an American who yearns to finally get beyond the symbolic battles of the Boomer generation and face today
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Joost on June 25, 2008, 10:26:27 AM
Quote from: 1161
The Fall of Conservatism

Ooh, I like the sound of that...  :)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on June 26, 2008, 11:26:29 AM
Hands up anyone who's surprised; after all, calling yourself a maverick who won't play the usual political games and posing as the guy who's going to change the bad old ways of Washington are both variants of one of the oldest vote getting strategies there is:

New Wine in Old Bottles

By Dan Balz
A campaign between Barack Obama and John McCain once offered enormous possibilities for something new. Instead, the two presumptive nominees have opened their campaigns for the White House with what looks and sounds like a repeat of the kind of politics both have promised to leave behind.

Since Obama wrapped up the Democratic nomination a few weeks ago, he and McCain have served up a series of indignant exchanges over foreign policy, terrorism, the economy, energy policy and campaign money. Their aides have gone farther, with snarling conference call putdowns and taunting e-mails flowing constantly out of the Chicago and Crystal City headquarters.

McCain has given a series of policy speeches and Obama is beginning to do the same. Whatever substance they may contain has been buried in negative counterattacks from the opposing camp, designed to turn ideas into stereotypes and candidates into caricatures. In the hands of Obama's advisers, McCain is nothing more than the third coming of President Bush. To McCain's staff, Obama is merely a liberal, naive, arrogant extension of what Democrats have been offering for years.

Gone in the early stages of this campaign is any sense of the uniqueness of the two nominees. McCain is certainly no garden-variety Republican and the historic possibilities of Obama's candidacy cannot be overstated. But those realities have been submerged beneath a tactical shouting match that feeds the cable culture of contemporary politics.

Don't blame the media for this. The campaigns have deliberately adopted postures of hyper-aggressiveness to set the early tone. The testosterone levels appear extremely high. No charge however small or incidental can go unanswered. No proposal, no matter how innocuous or provocative, can be discussed calmly or intelligently.

That led a McCain surrogate to respond to Obama's comments on the rights of terrorist detainees, a topic on which reasonable people can differ, as "delusional." It led to an Obama surrogate to describe as "stupid" the positions McCain has taken on the Iraq war, though it is clearly arguable that the surge strategy has helped to reduce violence and U.S. casualties.

Both candidates have contributed to this. Obama tarnished his reputation as a new style politician by deciding not to take public funds for the fall campaign, despite a pledge to do so if his Republican opponent would do the same. He had promised to sit down with McCain to discuss the whole issue of money before making any decision.

Obama's decision may have made political sense, but it was a demonstration of old politics, not new politics, and his reasoning for refusing public funds was as tortured as anything he has had to say in his campaign.

McCain has hurt himself and his reputation as an independent thinker by reversing course on past positions, whether Bush tax cuts -- which he did long ago -- or opening up coastal areas to offshore drilling. His campaign, in the view of some of his own supporters, has allowed itself to show an angry and resentful face that they believe is contrary to McCain at his best.

It is difficult to believe that Americans are enjoying all this -- or even paying close attention to it. The attack-counterattack cycle is so quick that only the most devoted of political aficionados can keep up, and the tone is so relentlessly critical that only the most partisan will applaud it.

The long battle between Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, for all its intensity and competitiveness, rarely reached the levels of negativity and petulance seen in the opening weeks of the general election. Whenever Obama and Clinton crossed a line, they seemed quickly to step back, mindful of the consequences of letting their contest get out of hand. So far there seems to be no such impulse governing either the Obama or McCain campaigns as they go after each other.

Of all the candidates who sought the presidency this year, McCain and Obama seemed the least likely to fall so quickly into old habits. The question is whether the opening weeks are a true reflection of their characters and the kind of campaigns they intended to run or a temporary departure.

It is still early. The two candidates have the capacity to elevate their contest. Perhaps there will be town hall meetings or other forums before the conventions that will set them on a different course, although the idea is languishing for now.

On a host of issues, the differences between the candidates are profound and should provoke a vigorous debate. Both candidates once promised that such a debate would be civil and respectful. But right now the presidential campaign appears to be more a rerun of the kind of polarized battles of the recent past than something that heralds something new.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/25/new_wine_in_old_bottles.html
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on July 27, 2008, 04:16:30 PM
John McCain says Barack Obama is the reason you're paying over $4.00 for a gallon a gas. It couldn't have something to do with that war in the Middle East you supported, eh, John?

Nah; didn't think so.  ;D

C72rVKXtPbE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C72rVKXtPbE)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on July 30, 2008, 06:08:10 AM
Found this over at Political Wire:

Here's a timely book that came in the mail today: The Almanac of Political Corruption, Scandals & Dirty Politics by Kim Long.

From the book cover: "American history is marked by era-defining misdeeds, indiscretions, and the kind of tabloid-ready scandals that politicians seem to do better than anyone else. Now, for the first time, one volume brings together 300 years of political wrongdoing in an illustrated history of politicians gone wild -- proving that today's scoundrels aren't the first, worst, and surely won't be the last."

I have a feeling this will become a useful book in my library.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/07/29/the_almanac_of_political_corruption_scandals_dirty_politics.html


Three centuries worth in 368 pages, too: Kim Long must be either admirably terse or interested only in listing the highlights (or lowlifes, as the case may be).
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: aspinall_lover on July 30, 2008, 02:57:17 PM
Pretty cool, Geoff.  And I still don't think neither of these two "bozos" would make a decent president.  But who can we choose from????  The pickings are slim to none.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on July 30, 2008, 03:58:46 PM
^There have been worse years; both candidates this year are noticeably better than say, Bush and Gore in 2000.

This is Pollster.com's take on where we are right now. As usual, watch Florida, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania above all others. Virginia and Colorado are two more that are going to be interesting because, demographically, parts of those states have been trending Democratic in recent years.

(http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm317/geoffw_2008/pollstercom2.jpg)

http://www.pollster.com/
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: aspinall_lover on July 30, 2008, 08:52:04 PM
Very interesting Geoff.  November is going to be a very, very "electrified" month during Election Day.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on July 31, 2008, 12:59:38 PM
You thought the gas ad was too much? How about an ad equating Barack Obama with Paris Hilton and Britney Spears?  ;D

oHXYsw_ZDXg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHXYsw_ZDXg)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Revolver42 on July 31, 2008, 02:00:29 PM
Quote from: 1161
You thought the gas ad was too much? How about an ad equating Barack Obama with Paris Hilton and Britney Spears?  ;D

oHXYsw_ZDXg ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHXYsw_ZDXg[/url])


Classic!!!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on July 31, 2008, 10:01:28 PM
Quote from: 1255
Pretty cool, Geoff.  And I still don't think neither of these two "bozos" would make a decent president.  But who can we choose from????  The pickings are slim to none.


I think Obama has as much of what it takes to be a decent president as anyone, and more than everybody else running this season. Going back: Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, and so forth ... which one of those guys looked like Lincoln when they were running? Can't think of anyone else who would do a better job than Obama off the top of my head.

I liked McCain a lot better before I got a close up of him this election season, now I see that he would definitely preside over Bush's 3rd term (or maybe more accurately, the 3rd term of those who want to continue Bush's policies).
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: pc31 on August 01, 2008, 02:21:37 AM
(http://www.madisonavenuejournal.com/images/green27-thumb.jpg)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on August 02, 2008, 04:19:01 AM
Quote from: 284
([url]http://www.madisonavenuejournal.com/images/green27-thumb.jpg[/url])


 ;D

...but we've already had one swine for president; just ask Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willy, Paula Jones, or any other member of the cast of dozens (if not thousands).
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on August 02, 2008, 04:52:47 PM
Quote from: 1161

 ;D

...but we've already had one swine for president; just ask Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willy, Paula Jones, or any other member of the cast of dozens (if not thousands).

Hey, just because many have been loved doesn't make one a swine!

Where is THE Swine when we need him? Oink!!  :)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Jane on August 11, 2008, 01:57:54 PM
The truth is that B. Obama will never be the next US president. Decent politicians never rise to the top. All the fuss about him is just political games, a show to demonstrate how democratic society is if one candidate is from an ethnic group. Answer the question honestly and sincerely: do you believe that B. Obama will become president? No, no one will let him. The outcome is obvious. That is why the drive against Obama is being unleashed now. It is like it was with Kerry: they waited for some time and then struck hard at his Vietnam records.
Nevertheless, if Obama becomes president (0.5% possibility), I will be the first to say that all is not lost for this world and democracy...
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on August 11, 2008, 02:17:36 PM
Quote from: 1393
The truth is that B. Obama will never be the next US president. Decent politicians never rise to the top. All the fuss about him is just political games, a show to demonstrate how democratic society is if one candidate is from an ethnic group. Answer the question honestly and sincerely: do you believe that B. Obama will become president? No, no one will let him. The outcome is obvious. That is why the drive against Obama is being unleashed now. It is like it was with Kerry: they waited for some time and then struck hard at his Vietnam records.
Nevertheless, if Obama becomes president (0.5% possibility), I will be the first to say that all is not lost for this world and democracy...

I think O'bama will be the next president, but I am sick with the thought that he might not be.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: EightDaysAWeek on August 11, 2008, 11:37:54 PM
If I were old enough to vote, I think I'd vote for Obama, though I don't really enjoy either Obama or McCain too much just for my own little reasons. I was a major Kucinich supporter, but even in the beginning of that, I had little hopes for him to become president. And besides, I think I am a little too young to decide whether I'm a democrat or a republican. Way too many people just follow what their parent's beliefs were (for obvious reasons), but I'd rather think for myself when I'm not so confused with the world. Which'll be never haha, politics confuse me too much.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: TheBeatlesForever on August 12, 2008, 12:36:32 AM
i am a little young to vote but i would vote for obama
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on August 12, 2008, 04:06:17 PM
The election's still very much up in the air, but it's Obama's to lose: this is a very bad year for Republicans, and if Obama can present himself as a plausible president in the next three months, he'll win. John McCain's basic strategy will be to try to prevent him from doing that, mostly by arguing (on serious and trivial grounds) that Obama is inexperienced and a bit too exotic and aloof. We'll find out in November who finally wins this unedifying and uninformative spectacle.

This is what current polling shows, but summer polls can be unreliable:

(http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm317/geoffw_2008/Aug12.jpg)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Jane on August 12, 2008, 04:20:16 PM
The South is all against Obama, naturally.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on August 12, 2008, 04:35:32 PM
The Democrats have been a tough sell in the South ever since the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and there is an apocryphal story that Lyndon Johnson said, "We've lost the South for a generation," after he signed the bill into law. Carter in 1976 was the last Democrat to do well in the South.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on August 12, 2008, 04:36:23 PM
Quote from: 1393
The South is all against Obama, naturally.

They have been deep "Red" states for many years now. It's amazing that a state like TX is labelled as "somewhat Red", Bush really messed up to yank TX out of the deep Red category.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on August 23, 2008, 10:40:11 PM
Have you ever wondered how silly an election campaign can get? I just found this sitting in one of my email boxes:  ;D

(http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm317/geoffw_2008/carmagnet.jpg)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Joost on August 25, 2008, 01:29:38 PM
Like anyone with a functioning brain I'm always sceptical of politicians... And since Americans are, for our standards, generally very conservative and since America is, from a non-American point of view, uncomfortably powerful, I'm always especially sceptical of American politicians... But I really think very highly of Obama. I'm sure this guy would be the best president in many decades. He just appears to be an incridibly wise, righteous and sincere guy. I really believe that Obama is the best thing to happened to the USA in a long time.

So my dear Americans, please don't screw it up (again) this November...  :)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: pc31 on August 29, 2008, 02:54:51 AM
http://www.inews3.com/play.php?first=&last=pc31
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: aspinall_lover on August 29, 2008, 03:17:29 AM
Quote from: 284
[url]http://www.inews3.com/play.php?first=&last=pc31[/url]


^^^^^^^^YOU ARE TOOOOOOO CRAZY!!!!!  I just fell out of my computer chair and spilled my beer all over the place laughing so hard..............
(crosseyed2)(crosseyed2)(beer)(beer)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: The Swine on August 29, 2008, 06:49:07 AM
wonderful! need a running mate? its all swines at the moment so i got a lot to add
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Jane on August 29, 2008, 09:53:49 AM
pc31, well done! Unfortunately this is absolutely impossible with the domination of the 2 parties. All the ways to run for the election are blocked, which is rather undemocratic.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Joost on August 29, 2008, 11:24:44 AM
Quote from: 1393
pc31, well done! Unfortunately this is absolutely impossible with the domination of the 2 parties. All the ways to run for the election are blocked, which is rather undemocratic.

Recently I heard something that I thought was funny and disturbing at the same time.

One guy: "I hate Republicans!"
Other guy: "Just be glad there are Republicans, without them our country would have a one party system. Just like China."

So I agree. With just two parties there's not much to choose.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: An Apple Beatle on August 29, 2008, 12:00:39 PM
Quote from: 284
[url]http://www.inews3.com/play.php?first=&last=pc31[/url]


Quality. ;)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: aspinall_lover on August 29, 2008, 03:30:31 PM
This has got to be the only election year I can remember where it's definitely going to be a "toss up".............on one hand, you have Obama, a man of color, and now McCain picks a woman to be his vice president.  The old school "politickers" ain't gonna go for either one of these.  I watched Obama's speech last night and he is a gifted speaker.............but can he help this country????  Just my thoughts and opinions........
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: An Apple Beatle on August 29, 2008, 04:48:43 PM
Quote from: 1255
This has got to be the only election year I can remember where it's definitely going to be a "toss up".............on one hand, you have Obama, a man of color, and now McCain picks a woman to be his vice president.  The old school "politickers" ain't gonna go for either one of these.  I watched Obama's speech last night and he is a gifted speaker.............but can he help this country????  Just my thoughts and opinions........

Winston Churchill did rather well for Britain with words. As long as the people can be inspired, then the change can come. Obama should take this one down...It's all in his hands. With a good team rallying around him, there is surely no better option right now for America?

interesting to see what else McCain can come up with.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: aspinall_lover on August 29, 2008, 05:00:12 PM
^^^^^^I know what you mean AppleBeatle.  Obama really "opened" my eyes last night with his speech.  He seems young, energetic, "wanting change"..................let's see come November................
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: DaveRam on August 29, 2008, 10:25:43 PM
I stayed up to watch Obama's speech last night , i'm not very interested in polotics as a rule as i believe they all promise you things and once they get in they nearly always let you down .
But i was quite impressed with Obama last night and if he was going for election in the UK , he would get my vote .
Think it will be tuff for him though as McCain is a wily old fox , it's a clever move from him today to pick a women running mate .
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on August 30, 2008, 12:08:18 AM
Quote from: 15

Winston Churchill did rather well for Britain with words. As long as the people can be inspired, then the change can come. Obama should take this one down...It's all in his hands. With a good team rallying around him, there is surely no better option right now for America?

interesting to see what else McCain can come up with.

Lincoln ... Churchill ... Kennedy. Words lead to motivation, and action. Now Obama ... I hope he makes it.

BTW - Kennedy studied Churchill's speeches his whole life. I love reading him also.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on August 30, 2008, 12:49:10 AM
Quote from: 971
I stayed up to watch Obama's speech last night , i'm not very interested in polotics as a rule as i believe they all promise you things and once they get in they nearly always let you down .
But i was quite impressed with Obama last night and if he was going for election in the UK , he would get my vote .
Think it will be tuff for him though as McCain is a wily old fox , it's a clever move from him today to pick a women running mate .

I wonder if McCain knew when he picked her that she is under investigation in her own state for abuse of power (tried to get the man who just finished a very messy divorce with her sister fired, and he apparently was a government employee - cop or something like that).

THere are only 8 more weeks till the election, he will have to spend 1 or 2 of those defending her on those issues ... valuable time wasted!!

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on August 30, 2008, 12:54:30 AM
Who is the most p*ssed off about the female VP pick ... Hillary?

I think she was thinking - "there now, I've given a good speech, now all I have to do is pretend just enough to campaign for Obama so that people think I was working hard on his behalf  ;), he loses, then I'm the nominee in 4 years  :)".

NOW, I think that instead she'll have to be VERY active telling woman that Jesse Helms in a Skirt is not what her movement was about ... VERY active to prevent any bleeding of single issue gender voters to the Palin side. If she's not perceived as working VERY hard, and if Obama loses, the Democrats will blame her almost as much as they blamed Nader for the 2000 loss.

"Darn, and I thought I could just coast for another 8 weeks ..."

BTW - is it true that McCain's pick was married to Michael Palin in the early 70s?
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: aspinall_lover on August 30, 2008, 01:01:04 AM
^^^^^^^^^WHAT????????  Michael Palin...............no way.........just the same last name..............(mrt)(scream1)(bigeyes3)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: aspinall_lover on August 30, 2008, 01:03:03 AM
^^^^^^BTW..............Palin is my age, 44.  She would have to have married him when she was 10 years old.................. :B :B
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on August 30, 2008, 10:28:19 AM
Governor Palin in her office last year. Dad shot the bear.   ;D


(http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm317/geoffw_2008/chezpalin.jpg)

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: aspinall_lover on August 30, 2008, 02:33:48 PM
Quote from: 1161
Governor Palin in her office last year. Dad shot the bear.   ;D


([url]http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm317/geoffw_2008/chezpalin.jpg[/url])


^^^^^^^^Cool picture there Geoff!!!!  BTW, PETA oughta have a field day with that pix.  Hee, hee......

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on August 30, 2008, 03:46:10 PM
Quote from: 1255
PETA oughta have a field day with that pix.

 ;D   ;D

I'm sure they've got their crayons and cardboard out already, and no doubt a caravan of the perpetually outraged will soon be cluttering up a street near you (and worse, me).

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: DaveRam on August 30, 2008, 06:08:58 PM
Great picture Geoff (rolling3)
I'm even more sure now she's Michael Palin's bastard daughter , she's just so Monty Python , she's a lumber Jack and she don't care (tongue7)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on August 30, 2008, 06:53:41 PM
^ She eats moose burgers, too, apparently, so I suspect she's got a few of these lying around the house as well:

(http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm317/geoffw_2008/palinsplace.jpg)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on August 30, 2008, 06:56:39 PM
If I were a woman ("and you were my man" ... sorry, wrong song) - I would feel horribly insulted that McCain would think I would vote for a running mate just because they were lacking a pen*s.

Would push me away from McCain, even if I had been keeping my options open to that point.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on August 30, 2008, 07:06:56 PM
Quote from: 568
If I were a woman ("and you were my man" ... sorry, wrong song) - I would feel horribly insulted that McCain would think I would vote for a running mate just because they were lacking a pen*s.

Would push me away from McCain, even if I had been keeping my options open to that point.

The Republicans just don't get "identity" politics, Democrat style, and when they take a shot at it they usually just come off as being condescending and crassly calculating. That doesn't mean their intended target group won't buy it, though, and this could get interesting depending on how well Palin performs.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: aspinall_lover on August 30, 2008, 07:27:54 PM
Quote from: 1161
^ She eats moose burgers, too, apparently, so I suspect she's got a few of these lying around the house as well:

([url]http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm317/geoffw_2008/palinsplace.jpg[/url])


^^^^^Another good pix there, Geoff.  And PETA don't DARE come down here to Arkansas.  Too many hunters..........and did you know you could(can) actually kill someone "legally" during deer season..........say, "I thought it was a deer".............just a thought and opinion.  Now back to the subject at hand..............
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on August 30, 2008, 09:34:51 PM
Quote from: 1161

The Republicans just don't get "identity" politics, Democrat style, and when they take a shot at it they usually just come off as being condescending and crassly calculating. That doesn't mean their intended target group won't buy it, though, and this could get interesting depending on how well Palin performs.


So, what is the net benefit of picking Palin going to be?
   - She will gain some Clintonistas, but not too many if Hillary stumps hard and says things like "How dumb do you think we are to fall for that ... Jesse Helms in a Dress isn't what we were fighting for ... this Barbie doll is against woman's rights to choose, is even MORE RIGHT WING THAN BUSH-CHENEY-McCAIN!!! .
   - She will lose a lot of bubba votes - guys who can't imagine a woman as a commander in chief, especially one that looks like she could be in a glamour magazine. Hey, she hunts and fishes ... they'd like to date her, yes; follow her into war, no.

I think the net result of this is that she will lose more Republican votes than steal Democratic votes. The wild card really is ... how many of the evangelical right who would have stayed at home with a Romney/Biden as VP will now come out and vote McCain?

My guess - I hope I'm right - is that this just gave the election to Obama. ... assuming no hubristic-based catastrophes.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on August 31, 2008, 12:59:18 AM
Quote from: 568
So, what is the net benefit of picking Palin going to be?

McCain's gambling, to say the least. He probably chose her hoping that she would help rally the Republican Party's lukewarm right wing base (Palin is a staunch pro life socon who once supported Pat Buchanan) and give the more conservative Democrats and independents who supported or approved of Hillary Clinton's campaign a reason to vote for him. It looks crass and patronizing, of course, but some of Clinton's supporters can obviously be had: they went for the proposition that Hillary Clinton, graduate of Wellesley College and Yale Law School, partner of the Rose Law Firm and First Lady of the United States, is at heart a beer and whiskey guzzling working woman from the Midwest who likes to hang around gas stations chatting up commuters about the high price of gas. Some of these people can be hustled. McCain isn't going to get the liberal and feminist wings of Clinton's supporters (especially not with someone like Palin on the ticket), but he's really only looking for a few blocs of votes in key states like Ohio, where shaving a few points off the Republicans' usual gender gap just might be enough to give him the state in a close election.

I think Palin's downside is huge and it probably says a lot about where McCain thinks he is that he threw a Hail Mary like this and nominated someone he scarcely knows himself: if everything works out Palin will increase the level of enthusiasm and turnout among the Republican Party's base and draw some conservative, low income working class women his way, but her conservative ideology is likely to incite as much opposition as it does support (even among the intended target group of working class women), and she has almost no experience at the national level, which leaves open all sorts of possibilities for time-wasting pratfalls that McCain simply can't afford.


Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on August 31, 2008, 04:33:58 PM
Palin ( then Heath) used to be a sports reporter for a local TV station in the late eighties:

Nc3IaB2Pd-o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc3IaB2Pd-o)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Joost on September 01, 2008, 09:00:57 AM
I agree that this probably wasn't a very smart move by the Republicans. The idea was probably to attract dissapointed Hillary fans... But indeed, if Hillary openly speaks out against her, it's probably not going to work.

And I also agree that many Republicans probably won't dig the idea of a female president... And well... If McCain gets elected to be president, he'll be just one year away from the American life expectancy by the end of his first term... There might be quite some conservatives who won't be willing to take the risk.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on September 01, 2008, 02:19:25 PM
Do you folks read blogs? Apparently there is a whole bunch of stuff out now that claims the Down's syndrome baby is not Sarah Palin's, but apparently her daughters.

Bizarre!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on September 01, 2008, 02:22:52 PM
Quote from: 56
The idea was probably to attract disappointed Hillary fans...

Or more particularly, the broader demographic of working-to-middle class women (and not only women), who, in the Democratic primaries tended to prefer Clinton to Obama. Reagan Democrats, in other words: there are a lot of them in the suburbs of states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, and that, of course, is where the election is going to be decided. But Palin's hard core conservatism on a lot of the social issues could cut against her among these people (the socons are already Republican), so expect her to talk a lot about her track record as an Alaskan reformer (the populist angle), with a few bits of "hockey mom" nonsense ( (barf4) ) thrown in as well.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on September 01, 2008, 02:54:24 PM
Quote from: 568
Do you folks read blogs? Apparently there is a whole bunch of stuff out now that claims the Down's syndrome baby is not Sarah Palin's, but apparently her daughters.

That was Desperate Housewives, wasn't it?  ;D

A few blogs are worth reading, but a lot more of them give the impression they were written by guys in tin foil hats who spend their "recreational hours" at the asylum sitting at computer terminals. ("But it's good for them: they get to express themselves.")
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on September 01, 2008, 04:42:27 PM
Here we go: the bloggers were onto something, but got it wrong. Any other goodies, Ms. Palin?  ;D


To rebut rumors, Palin says daughter, 17, pregnant
     
By Steve Holland
Monday, September 1, 2008; 12:03 PM

ST. PAUL (Reuters) - The 17-year-old daughter of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is pregnant, Palin said on Monday in an announcement intended to knock down rumors by liberal bloggers that Palin faked her own pregnancy to cover up for her child.

Bristol Palin, one of Alaska Gov. Palin's five children with her husband, Todd, is about five months pregnant and is going to keep the child and marry the father, the Palins said in a statement released by the campaign of Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

Bristol Palin made the decision on her own to keep the baby, McCain aides said.

"We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us," the Palins' statement said.

"Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support," the Palins said.

The Palins asked the news media to respect the young couple's privacy.

"Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media, respect our daughter and Levi's privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates," the statement concluded.

MCCAIN KNEW

Senior McCain campaign officials said McCain knew of the daughter's pregnancy when he selected Palin last week as his vice presidential running mate, deciding that it did not disqualify the 44-year-old governor in any way.

In the short period since she was announced last Friday, Palin has helped to energize the Republican Party's conservative base, giving the McCain camp fresh energy going into the campaign for the November 4 election against Democrat Barack Obama.

McCain officials said the news of the daughter's pregnancy was being released to rebut what one aide called "mud-slinging and lies" circulating on liberal blog sites.

According to these rumors, Sarah Palin had faked a pregnancy and pretended to have given birth in May to her fifth child, a son named Trig who has Down syndrome. The rumor was that Trig was actually Bristol Palin's child and that Sarah Palin was the grandmother.

A senior McCain campaign official said the McCain camp was appalled that these rumors had not only been spread around liberal blog sites and partisan Democrats, but also were the subject of heightened interest from mainstream news media.

"The despicable rumors that have been spread by liberal blogs, some even with Barack Obama's name in them, is a real anchor around the Democratic ticket, pulling them down in the mud in a way that certainly juxtaposes themselves against their 'campaign of change,"' a senior aide said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090100710.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Joost on September 01, 2008, 05:19:13 PM
Wow... She's been in the public eye for three days now and already it's one scandal after the other... I wonder if some people (including Palin herself) are already regretting this choice...
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on September 01, 2008, 05:52:35 PM
^ She may turn out to be a sort of low-rent Ted Stevens: sitcom level family melodrama instead multi-million dollar graft.  ;D

Investigators Are Looking at Governor About Firing

By MICHAEL LUO
Published: August 29, 2008

DENVER
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on September 01, 2008, 06:07:22 PM
This won't surprise anyone either, I imagine:  ;D


Palin backed abstinence-only education
Posted: Monday, September 01, 2008 1:27 PM by Mark Murray

From NBC's Katie Primm and Mark Murray

By way, as has been pointed out, Palin backed abstinence-only education during her 2006 gubernatorial race. In an Eagle Forum Alaska questionnaire, Palin gave this response to the following question:

Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

Palin: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.

*** UPDATE *** NBC's Abby Livingston adds that a McCain spokesperson in May 2007 said the Arizona Republican supported abstinence-only education, too. "Sen. McCain believes the correct policy for educating young children on this subject is to promote abstinence as the only safe and responsible alternative. To do otherwise is to send a mixed signal to children that, on the one hand they should not be sexually active, but on the other here is the way to go about it. As any parent knows, ambiguity and equivocation leads to problems when it comes to teaching children right from wrong. Sen. McCain believes that there are many negative forces in today
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Joost on September 01, 2008, 07:00:37 PM
"We were, obviously, just kidding!" says presidential candidate John McCain
By Amanda Huggenkiss
Published: September 1, 2008

According to a statement issued today by Republican presidential nominee John McCain, he was "Just kidding" last Friday, when he announced that he chose 44 year old Sarah Palin as his running mate for the 2008 United States presidential election.

"People always take presidental campaings way too seriously", said McCain. "So I decided to pull an old fashioned prank by naming an unexperienced 44 year old mayor of a small town in Alaska with a closet full of skeletons as my running mate. I still can't believe the media actually bought it!".

According to a spokesman of the Republican Party, Palin was in on the joke. It will be releaved later this week who McCain's real running mate will be.



OK, I made that up...  8)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on September 01, 2008, 07:09:29 PM
Quote from: 1161
Here we go: the bloggers were onto something, but got it wrong. Any other goodies, Ms. Palin?  ;D
...



Finally, from an "unimpeachable source", the convoluted truth is finally revealed. What a tangled web we weave ...  ;)

***********************************************************************************************************
"Repub Candie VPiLF Sarah Palin, former beauty queen and snowmobile mogul, apparently made believe she was pregnant for the fifth time after keeping the make believe pregnancy a secret for seven months to protect her daughter from the disgrace of bearing a child of John McCain. The neanderthal Repub Prez candie promised Palin that he would name her to be his running mate if she would cover up his rendezvous with Palin's teen age daughter.

Palin and McCain go back to the days of his judgeship in the Miss Alaska Beauty Pageant when contestant Sarah played the skin flute in the POW's Juneau Hilton Hotel room. The McCain campaign has called in Cleaner, Bill Clinton to advise all parties. Clinton was last seen comforting Palin's teen daughter... "
***********************************************************************************************************

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s4i39883

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on September 01, 2008, 07:24:50 PM
Quote from: 56
"We were, obviously, just kidding!" says presidential candidate John McCain
By Amanda Huggenkiss
Published: September 1, 2008

According to a statement issued today by Republican presidential nominee John McCain, he was "Just kidding" last Friday, when he announced that he chose 44 year old Sarah Palin as his running mate for the 2008 United States presidential election.

"People always take presidental campaings way too seriously", said McCain. "So I decided to pull an old fashioned prank by naming an unexperienced 44 year old mayor of a small town in Alaska with a closet full of skeletons as my running mate. I still can't believe the media actually bought it!".

According to a spokesman of the Republican Party, Palin was in on the joke. It will be releaved later this week who McCain's real running mate will be.



OK, I made that up...  8)


Cute! Except isn't her first name Ivana, not Amanda (Ivana Hugenkiss) ?  :)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on September 01, 2008, 10:08:05 PM
Quote from: 56
"We were, obviously, just kidding!" says presidential candidate John McCain
By Amanda Huggenkiss
Published: September 1, 2008

According to a statement issued today by Republican presidential nominee John McCain, he was "Just kidding" last Friday, when he announced that he chose 44 year old Sarah Palin as his running mate for the 2008 United States presidential election.

"People always take presidental campaings way too seriously", said McCain. "So I decided to pull an old fashioned prank by naming an unexperienced 44 year old mayor of a small town in Alaska with a closet full of skeletons as my running mate. I still can't believe the media actually bought it!".

According to a spokesman of the Republican Party, Palin was in on the joke. It will be releaved later this week who McCain's real running mate will be.



OK, I made that up...  8)

 ;D    ;D     ;D

Email a copy of this to the McCain campaign; it's probably better than any of their ideas and they may want to use it (make sure you charge them a huge fee).
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on September 01, 2008, 10:13:41 PM
Quote from: 568
Clinton was last seen comforting Palin's teen daughter... "

Uh-oh: anyone seen Kenneth Starr lately?  ;D

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: aspinall_lover on September 01, 2008, 11:05:37 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Very interesting news with Palin's daughter.  Who knows what else "lurks" in her closets, waiting to "come out"............
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Joost on September 02, 2008, 06:25:16 AM
Quote from: 568


Cute! Except isn't her first name Ivana, not Amanda (Ivana Hugenkiss) ?  :)

The exact Simpsons quote:
"Uh, Amanda Huggenkiss? Hey, I'm looking for Amanda Huggenkiss! Ah, why can't I find Amanda Huggenkiss?"
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on September 02, 2008, 03:50:57 PM
I was wondering about this too:

Disclosures on Palin Raise Questions on Vetting Process

By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: September 1, 2008
New York Times

ST. PAUL
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: BlueMeanie on September 02, 2008, 04:04:35 PM
So Palin is 'proud' of her daughter. 17 years old, unmarried college girl. And pregnant. What kind of message does that send out? If she'd spent more time teaching her daughter about contraception, and less time with the Pro Life movement, she might be even prouder!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on September 02, 2008, 04:22:24 PM
Palin's statement on the matter is sheer spin:

"We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us. Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support.

"Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi's privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates."


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/the-palin-state.html

Best bit, probably lifted from a Brady Bunch rerun: Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned.

No doubt.  ;D
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: aspinall_lover on September 02, 2008, 04:32:22 PM
^^^^^^^^Well guys............after reading all that and seeing the news on TV and internet, it looks like our next president will be President Obama.  McCain just handed it over to Obama on a "silver platter" with this screw up of a choice...........
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on September 02, 2008, 04:47:49 PM
Quote from: 1255
McCain just handed it over to Obama on a "silver platter" with this screw up of a choice...........


Yesterday I got a cheap yuk out of wondering what other "goodies" Ms Palin might have to divulge, but they are in fact still coming:

Palin's Small Alaska Town Secured Big Federal Funds

By Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 2, 2008; Page A01

ST. PAUL, Minn., Sept. 1 -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin employed a lobbying firm to secure almost $27 million in federal earmarks for a town of 6,700 residents while she was its mayor, according to an analysis by an independent government watchdog group.

There was $500,000 for a youth shelter, $1.9 million for a transportation hub, $900,000 for sewer repairs, and $15 million for a rail project -- all intended to benefit Palin's town, Wasilla, located about 45 miles north of Anchorage.

In introducing Palin as his running mate on Friday, Sen. John McCain cast her as a compatriot in his battle against wasteful federal spending. McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, hailed Palin as a politician "with an outstanding reputation for standing up to special interests and entrenched bureaucracies -- someone who has fought against corruption and the failed policies of the past, someone who's stopped government from wasting taxpayers' money."

McCain's crusade against earmarks -- federal spending sought by members of Congress to benefit specific projects -- has been a hallmark of his campaign. He has said earmarks are wasteful and are often inserted into bills with little oversight, sometimes by a single powerful lawmaker.

Palin has also railed against earmarks, touting her opposition to a $223 million bridge in the state as a prime credential for the vice presidential nomination. "As governor, I've stood up to the old politics-as-usual, to the special interests, to the lobbyists, the big oil companies, and the good-ol'-boy network," she said Friday.

As mayor of Wasilla, however, Palin oversaw the hiring of Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh, an Anchorage-based law firm with close ties to Alaska's most senior Republicans: Rep. Don Young and Sen. Ted Stevens, who was indicted in July on charges of accepting illegal gifts. The Wasilla account was handled by the former chief of staff to Stevens, Steven W. Silver, who is a partner in the firm.

Palin was elected mayor of Wasilla in 1996 on a campaign theme of "a time for change." According to a review of congressional spending by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group in Washington, Wasilla did not receive any federal earmarks in the first few years of Palin's tenure.

Senate records show that Silver's firm began working for Palin in early 2000, just as federal money began flowing.

In fiscal 2000, Wasilla received a $1 million earmark, tucked into a transportation appropriations bill, for a rail and bus project in the town. And in the winter of 2000, Palin appeared before congressional appropriations committees to seek earmarks, according to a report in the Anchorage Daily News.

Palin and the Wasilla City Council increased Silver's fee from $24,000 to $36,000 a year by 2001, Senate records show.

Soon after, the city benefited from additional earmarks: $500,000 for a mental health center, $500,000 for the purchase of federal land and $450,000 to rehabilitate an agricultural processing facility. Then there was the $15 million rail project, intended to connect Wasilla with the town of Girdwood, where Stevens has a house.

The Washington trip is now an annual event for Wasilla officials.

In fiscal year 2002, Wasilla took in $6.1 million in earmarks -- about $1,000 in federal money for every resident. By contrast, Boise, Idaho -- which has more than 190,000 residents -- received $6.9 million in earmarks in fiscal 2008.

All told, Wasilla benefited from $26.9 million in earmarks in Palin's final four years in office.

"She certainly wasn't shy about putting the old-boy network to use to bring home millions of dollars," said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. "She's a little more savvy to the ways of Washington than she's let on."

Silver, reached by phone at his Vienna home, declined to comment. Wasilla's town offices were closed Monday for the Labor Day holiday.

Maria Comella, Palin's campaign spokeswoman, said Palin sought the Wasilla earmarks because she was "working in the best interests of Alaska, working within the confines of the current system."

Palin became a staunch reform advocate after her 2003 appointment to the state's Oil and Gas Commission. She accused another commissioner -- Alaska Republican Party Chairman Randy Ruedrich -- of raising campaign contributions from industries he was regulating. "She realized that the environment around her was no longer what it once was, and elected officials were abusing their power," Comella said.

Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, used to secure earmarks for public nonprofits in Illinois, but he announced last year that he would no longer seek earmarks for any entity. Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), Obama's running mate, co-sponsored $85.6 million in earmarks for 2008, according to one study.

The Palin earmarks came when Stevens was chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and Young was a senior member of the House transportation committee.
ad_icon

In hiring Silver, Wasilla found someone who was a member of each lawmaker's inner circle. Silver has donated at least $11,400 to Stevens's political committees and $10,000 to Young's reelection committee in the past decade, according to Federal Election Commission records.

Sliver's firm employed Stevens's son, Ben Stevens, in the late 1990s as a federal lobbyist, according to multiple media accounts. Ben Stevens was not listed on lobbying disclosure forms as having worked on Wasilla earmarks.

The firm became ensnared in the wide-ranging federal investigation of corruption by Alaska Republican officials. Federal agents reviewed records about its other municipal clients, as well as fishing companies represented by Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh that were close to Ben Stevens.

The investigation has increasingly focused on Veco, a now-defunct energy services company whose chief executive, Bill Allen Jr., pleaded guilty in May 2007 to bribing Alaska officials.

Ted Stevens is awaiting trial on charges that he accepted more than $250,000 in unreported gifts from Allen. Ben Stevens, who has not been charged, has been identified in court documents as having accepted more than $240,000 in consulting payments in exchange for legislative favors while he served in the state Senate.

A Veco executive testified last year in a criminal trial that Allen had ordered him to arrange annual fundraisers for Young. The congressman has not been charged with any crimes.

After becoming governor, Palin became a critic of Young and the Stevenses. She endorsed Young's opponent in a Republican primary last week that is still too close to call, and last year she demanded Ben Stevens's resignation as Alaska's member of the Republican National Committee. She has also criticized Ted Stevens.

In addition, Palin has reversed course on at least one major earmark: After initially supporting the $223 million bridge, which was to connect the town of Ketchikan with a remote island, she reversed course last year and canceled the project because of cost overruns. Critics have dubbed the project the "Bridge to Nowhere."

But her administration remains eager for many other earmarks.

In February, Palin's office sent Sen. Stevens a 70-page memo outlining almost $200 million worth of new funding requests for Alaska.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090103148.html?hpid=topnews

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: aspinall_lover on September 02, 2008, 04:56:05 PM
Yep, Geoff...............more "skeletons" coming out of Palin's closet.  Say, "Hello" to Prez Obama...................LOL!!!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on September 02, 2008, 05:48:29 PM
Dems have to tread lightly - if they are seen as too mean or bullying to this poor little lady, it may backfire (and you can bet that an aggressive approach by the Dems will be spun into just that by the Republican machine).

The Dems should be OK if they stick to the issues, like whether she has enough foreign policy experience (Cindy McCain said she thought she did, because Alaska is the nearest state to Russia  :) ), or how she can be championed as an agent of change against federal earmarks and subsidies while doing the stuff described in the article that Geoff posted.

But if they get suckered into attacking on these social issues, I think there's only downside without upside there.

BTW - be prepared for the Repubs to release all the easily youtube-accessible negatives on Biden. He has an awful lot of baggage, for people that focus on fluff (temper, arrogance, plagiarism of a major speech when he was running for Pres. in the 80s). Of course McCain has left a nice trail also ...
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: aspinall_lover on September 02, 2008, 05:51:10 PM
^^^^^^^I know...........it's gonna be a tuff one with alot of "slamming", I think, on both sides.  
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Joost on September 02, 2008, 06:26:48 PM
Being not exactly a fan of the Republican Party I obviously think it's somewhat amusing that McCain's running mate turns out to be such a disaster... I however don't think you can hold it against Palin that her daughter got knocked up. That's not Palin's fault and it really could happen to anyone. But I do wonder if she'd still vote against sex-education programs and the distribution of contraceptives in schools now...  :)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on September 02, 2008, 06:34:47 PM
Quote from: 56
Being not exactly a fan of the Republican Party I obviously think it's somewhat amusing that McCain's running mate turns out to be such a disaster... I however don't think you can hold it against Palin that her daughter got knocked up. That's not Palin's fault and it really could happen to anyone. But I do wonder if she'd still vote against sex-education programs and the distribution of contraceptives in schools now...  :)


Depends ... would it help her politically?  ;)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on September 02, 2008, 06:57:09 PM
From Talking Points Memo: ;D


Fun Facts About Wasilla
By Greg Sargent - September 2, 2008, 1:08PM

Just to put all these claims about Sarah Palin's experience as Mayor of Wasilla into perspective, it turns out that in 1996 she won the mayoralty by 200 votes -- and given the size of Wasilla, it turns out that this constituted a landslide victory.

From the Anchorage Daily News in 1996, just after the election (via Nexis)...

    Palin's victory was seen as a major upset. Stein has been mayor since 1987 and was seeking his fourth term. He lost by more than 200 votes, with a final tally of 616-413.

A "major upset" of 616-413. That would actually be kind of cute, if her experience as mayor of Wasilla wasn't genuinely being touted by GOPers as one sign of her preparedness to be back-up commander-in-chief.

Relatedly, today, Barack Obama himself took up the argument about the size of Wasilla, pointing out that Wasilla has approximately 50 employees, while his own campaign has 50 times as many, or roughly 2,500.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/fun_facts_about_wasilla.php
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: aspinall_lover on September 02, 2008, 07:27:02 PM
Geoff................you ALWAYS come up with the most amazing info..............you go dude!!!!!(thumbsup)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on September 02, 2008, 07:37:54 PM
Geoff for President!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on September 02, 2008, 07:41:48 PM
Quote from: 551
Geoff for President!

Harihead for Vice President!!

(McCain - Incredible how he has somehow changed the game so that now nominating a female VP makes one susceptible to the charge of being a sexist pig  :-/  BTW, where's the Swine when you need him? Here Ringo, hava banana!).
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: BlueMeanie on September 02, 2008, 07:42:28 PM
Quote from: 551
Geoff for President!

I hear Hilary is auctioning off all her old trouser suits!! ;D
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Jane on September 02, 2008, 08:20:20 PM
Quote from: 56
Being not exactly a fan of the Republican Party I obviously think it's somewhat amusing that McCain's running mate turns out to be such a disaster... I however don't think you can hold it against Palin that her daughter got knocked up. That's not Palin's fault and it really could happen to anyone. But I do wonder if she'd still vote against sex-education programs and the distribution of contraceptives in schools now...  :)

Palin belongs to the Republicans and they claim they profess conservative values, that is why her daughter may spoil their chances. It also shows what kind of mother and educator Palin is.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: aspinall_lover on September 02, 2008, 08:49:15 PM
Quote from: 1393

Palin belongs to the Republicans and they claim they profess conservative values, that is why her daughter may spoil their chances. It also shows what kind of mother and educator Palin is.

^^^^^^Strong opinion there, Jane.  But you're right.  She should be "raising and educating" her kids "right from wrong" instead of doing the "power politicking"...........just my opinion......
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: aspinall_lover on September 02, 2008, 08:49:56 PM
Oh yeah..............and I vote for "Geoff for President"..............and what about pc31......."Marshall"??????
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on September 02, 2008, 10:24:40 PM
Quote from: 1255
Oh yeah..............and I vote for "Geoff for President"..............and what about pc31......."Marshall"??????

They will have to sort this out on the convention floor.

My guess is that pc31 would have more "fun" party favors ... but he would ultimately go down as a result of the superior media handling capabilities of our man Geoff. Who would then pick pc31 as "Vice" president - seems appropriate maybe? -  so that we could have the best of both worlds!



Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on September 02, 2008, 10:28:56 PM
Oh,and by the way ... what are the odds that Palin withdraws her candidacy in the next 14 days? Anyone have an in with Vegas?
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: aspinall_lover on September 02, 2008, 11:11:55 PM
Quote from: 568

They will have to sort this out on the convention floor.

My guess is that pc31 would have more "fun" party favors ... but he would ultimately go down as a result of the superior media handling capabilities of our man Geoff. Who would then pick pc31 as "Vice" president - seems appropriate maybe? -  so that we could have the best of both worlds!



^^^^^^^Oh..........that sounds GREAT!!!!  Geoff for President, pc31 for Vice.........with all the cool "party favors".......which I can only imagine..............hmmmmmmm

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on September 03, 2008, 01:25:23 AM
Quote from: 483
I hear Hilary is auctioning off all her old trouser suits!! ;D


                        ;D     ;D     ;D

(http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm317/geoffw_2008/clintonaug26.jpg)



It's probably a bit much for Iowa, though.

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on September 03, 2008, 01:29:22 AM
Quote from: 1255
Oh yeah..............and I vote for "Geoff for President"..............and what about pc31......."Marshall"??????

Marshall's the man; he's already got an ad out. Anyway, I wouldn't live in any country where they'd vote for me.  ;D
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on September 03, 2008, 01:36:09 AM
Quote from: 568
Oh,and by the way ... what are the odds that Palin withdraws her candidacy in the next 14 days? Anyone have an in with Vegas?

That thought occurred to me, too, but I think it's too late: she's going to be nominated tomorrow (right?), so the only way she'd come off the ticket now is if something really big turns up or if the trooper or pork barrel stories take off. The wheels haven't come off yet, but John MccCain must be worried about that rattling sound he hears and all those flying bolts he sees every time he looks in the rear view mirror.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on September 03, 2008, 02:25:35 AM
Quote from: 1161

That thought occurred to me, too, but I think it's too late: she's going to be nominated tomorrow (right?), so the only way she'd come off the ticket now is if something really big turns up or if the trooper or pork barrel stories take off. The wheels haven't come off yet, but John MccCain must be worried about that rattling sound he hears and all those flying bolts he sees every time he looks in the rear view mirror.

Oh, those are the wing nuts, from the right side of the car  :)

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on September 03, 2008, 02:35:06 AM
FLASH -- DANIEL PLANS TO ENTER LIONS DEN --

Just read Obama is going to go on Fox to be interviewed by the most rabid wing nut on Thursday - just before McCain goes on TV!

For those who don't know this, but care for reasons unknown, Fox News is better known as Republican Network News. They pretend to be a "fair and balanced" organization, but (isn't it Rupert Murdoch who owns it), they are nothing but a shill for the rabid Republican right.

Also, this announcement came hours after McCain said he was cancelling an interview with Larry King, because he didn't like how CNN (LK's network) interviewed one of his operatives!!  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohkdj1Gw9Ac&eurl=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/mccain-cancels-larry-king-interview/  (This one is hilarious  :) )

I think this makes McCain look like a wienie. And Obama strong. I hope he can stand up to O'Reilly, who sure can pack the heat ..


Pretty soon, I think it'll be all over but the partying ... http://www.filesavr.com/i/party.php
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on September 03, 2008, 02:50:33 AM
BTW ... Palin seems to be in favor of shooting wolves from airplanes.

.... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/31/BARB12KSHM.DTL
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on September 03, 2008, 05:46:02 AM
Quote from: 568
FLASH -- DANIEL PLANS TO ENTER LIONS DEN --

Just read Obama is going to go on Fox to be interviewed by the most rabid wing nut on Thursday - just before McCain goes on TV!

Surrealism, Gong Show style. What's Stephen Colbert doing Thursday evening? (I mean, besides his show.)  ;D
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Joost on September 03, 2008, 06:49:02 AM
Quote from: 1393
It also shows what kind of mother and educator Palin is.

I don't think that the fact that a 17 year old girl gets knocked up says anything about her upbringing or her parents... 17 Year olds sometimes disobey their parents. Simple as that.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on September 03, 2008, 03:24:42 PM
Quote from: 1161
I wouldn't live in any country where they'd vote for me.  ;D
No wonder our country is going to the dogs. You won't do it, Weird Al won't do it -- all the best people decline. :)

Quote from: 568
Oh, those are the wing nuts, from the right side of the car  :)
;D

What's wrong with shooting wolves out of airplanes? Those are good, old-fashioned values. Besides, you need all those skins to wrap your unexpected younglings in.

O'Reilly is such a bore. He doesn't debate, he shouts. He's made himself look like an idiot before. I'm sure Obama can handle him. Interesting move.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on September 03, 2008, 03:48:35 PM
Quote from: 551
No wonder our country is going to the dogs. You won't do it, Weird Al won't do it -- all the best people decline. :)


What do you mean? We've had Bob Barr and Ron Paul this year... guys like that don't come along all the time (remember Lyndon LaRouche?).  ;D


Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on September 03, 2008, 05:14:37 PM
Latest commentary from the Republican Convention:

"The good news is, Gustav has been downgraded to a tropical storm. Again, I don
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Jane on September 03, 2008, 08:45:22 PM
Quote from: 56

I don't think that the fact that a 17 year old girl gets knocked up says anything about her upbringing or her parents... 17 Year olds sometimes disobey their parents. Simple as that.

I wrote it because Palin promotes the Republican Party, only because of that. It turns out that they say one thing and do quite the opposite. The Democrats at least do not  profess conservative family values.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on September 21, 2008, 01:42:43 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/opinion/20blow.html?hp

Well, some dude named Blow in the NYT referred to a certain VP candidate as "Snow Job Square Glasses". * Two points for guessing which one?

I resent dragging old Sponge Bob into the muck and mire of this election season!

* Extra credit question: If Mr. Blow called her that, what would the late Tony Snow have called her?  ;)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on September 21, 2008, 05:48:43 AM
Quote from: 568
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/opinion/20blow.html?hp[/url]
Well, some dude named Blow in the NYT referred to a certain VP candidate as "Snow Job Square Glasses". * Two points for guessing which one?


Uh-oh: that hacking wheeze you hear is a thousand right wing radio talk show hosts doing their vocal exercises before going on the air to vent about the NYT again. All together now....  ;D
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: aspinall_lover on September 22, 2008, 03:43:56 PM
Quote from: 568
Latest commentary from the Republican Convention:

"The good news is, Gustav has been downgraded to a tropical storm. Again, I don
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: aspinall_lover on September 23, 2008, 08:46:36 PM
All I can and will say about this year's election is that it's a JOKE!!!!  None of these "bozos" know what they're doing.  I think two of us from this forum can get together and run and win by a landslide................
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on September 23, 2008, 09:56:37 PM
Quote from: 1255
None of these "bozos" know what they're doing.

They'd better be fast learners: about seven hundred billion dollars is about to come out of the economy to pay for Wall Street's credit fiasco (which may not be done yet), and you can bet that the next two years at least are going to be very slow. Look after your money.  :-/
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: aspinall_lover on September 23, 2008, 10:06:02 PM
^^^^^^^I know, Geoff.  I've been living by the "old adage" for a while now:  If you can pay cash for it, you don't need it.  Gonna tighten the belt a bit more after this election.....
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on September 24, 2008, 05:33:11 AM
Vote now!   ;D

http://www.economist.com/vote2008/


[It's totally meaningless, but fun anyway, just like a real Florida election!]
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on September 26, 2008, 01:35:05 PM
Good column:


This is the election you wouldn't want to win
The bad news: November's victor could be a one-term disaster. The good news: a great president may follow him
Gerard Baker
The Times

Victorious Roman generals were reminded of the fickleness of their glory by a slave carefully positioned in earshot on the triumphal parade route.

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on September 27, 2008, 04:33:07 PM
Geoff, that global poll was great! I'll pass that along (especially to my parents, who live in Florida and support your quip 100%).


Here's something that I found extremely funny: a fake Disney take on Palin as VP.

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/09/26/fake-disney-movie-tr.html
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on September 27, 2008, 07:03:51 PM
Quote from: 551
Here's something that I found extremely funny: a fake Disney take on Palin as VP.

[url]http://www.boingboing.net/2008/09/26/fake-disney-movie-tr.html[/url]


The startling thing about Palin is that she wouldn't be out of place in a Disney movie. More depressing is the probability that her supporters wouldn't consider that an insult or a disqualification.

By the way, these are the current results from the Economist's poll:

(http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm317/geoffw_2008/current.jpg)

The twelve votes for McCain are from El Salvador. I'll bet they're old contras.  ;D


http://www.economist.com/vote2008/


Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Joost on September 27, 2008, 09:10:43 PM
Quote from: 1255
All I can and will say about this year's election is that it's a JOKE!!!!  None of these "bozos" know what they're doing.  I think two of us from this forum can get together and run and win by a landslide................

I don't agree. I think Obama is an excellent politician.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on September 28, 2008, 03:15:59 AM
Thanks, Joost!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on September 28, 2008, 03:21:15 PM
Sarah Palin's increasingly infamous interview with Katie Couric last week. Maureen Dowd has called it a "stunningly junior varsity appearance" (here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/opinion/28dowd.html?hp), but I prefer to see it as a great trailer for the vice presidential debate on Thursday.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/24/eveningnews/main4476173.shtml
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on September 28, 2008, 05:25:44 PM
Who said politics was a shallow business?  ;D


McCain camp prays for Palin wedding
The marriage of the vice-presidential candidate
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on September 30, 2008, 05:16:58 AM
I have a sneaking suspicion that after today's fiasco in the House, this election is over, barring a mistake by Obama. The Republicans look as pathetically incompetent today as the Carter Democrats did in 1979-80. The case for a change, however facilely defined, has never been clearer in my life time. The daily tracking polls over the next week or so should be interesting to watch:

http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on September 30, 2008, 12:58:13 PM
Quote from: 1161
I have a sneaking suspicion that after today's fiasco in the House, this election is over, barring a mistake by Obama. The Republicans look as pathetically incompetent today as the Carter Democrats did in 1979-80. The case for a change, however facilely defined, has never been clearer in my life time. The daily tracking polls over the next week or so should be interesting to watch:

[url]http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx[/url]


McCain has started saying that it failed because of Obama, and that Obama will make the recession worse.

What does it mean that this strategy has a chance of being successful ...
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on September 30, 2008, 04:23:37 PM
Quote from: 568

McCain has started saying that it failed because of Obama, and that Obama will make the recession worse.

What does it mean that this strategy has a chance of being successful ...

It's the strategy that's open to him, really: he's playing defense and the simplest tactic to use is to say that it's all the other guy's fault and that anyway his lot are even worse. It's a flailing attempt to distract attention from the main subject. And speaking of flailing, if Palin performs as badly on Thursday as she did with Katie Couric (!) last week, the Republican campaign could start melting down.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Joost on September 30, 2008, 05:10:51 PM
Matt Damon's got a really good point:

Quote
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on September 30, 2008, 05:13:20 PM
Quote from: 1161

It's the strategy that's open to him, really: he's playing defense and the simplest tactic to use is to say that it's all the other guy's fault and that anyway his lot are even worse. It's a flailing attempt to distract attention from the main subject. And speaking of flailing, if Palin performs as badly on Thursday as she did with Katie Couric (!) last week, the Republican campaign could start melting down.


Don't be so pessimistic, there's always the KUPD (knocked up Palin daughter) wedding to schedule for late October/1st week of November - just to keep the focus on the important things!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on September 30, 2008, 05:17:13 PM
Quote
It
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on September 30, 2008, 05:24:53 PM
Quote from: 568
Don't be so pessimistic, there's always the KUPD (knocked up Palin daughter) wedding to schedule for late October/1st week of November - just to keep the focus on the important things!

 ;D

Round the clock coverage on FOX, no doubt. Can't wait.   (afraid1)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on October 01, 2008, 03:23:41 PM
A welcome blast of sanity:

Rescue the Rescue

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: September 30, 2008
New York Times

I was channel surfing on Monday, following the stock market
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Joost on October 02, 2008, 06:57:33 AM
Don't know who wrote this... But I thought it was good.

Quote
Bush and his Wall Street friends have made enough money from the hardships of the average American! This bailout would be the greatest transfer of wealth from ordinary working people to the rich in human history!!! Taxpayer dollars should not be used to reward the irresponsible Wall Street executives who helmed this disaster.

Over 200 economists wrote to Congress and said this bill might actually WORSEN the "financial crisis" and cause even MORE of a meltdown.

The money would be better used going to the poor and middle class.

I am against the new bailout bill, because its mission is still to protect the obscene amount of wealth that Wall Street accumulated during the Bush years AND STILL DOES NOTHING for the working poor!!!

I am still against the bailout, because it still does NOTHING to prevent golden parachutes.

I am still against the bailout, because a large chunk of that $700 billion would still go directly to Chinese and Middle Eastern banks with NO real guarantee of ever seeing that money again.

Where's the bailout for the children living without health insurance?

Where's the bailout for the homeless?!

Where's my bailout?
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Joost on October 02, 2008, 07:02:11 AM
And you thought Obama's reverend was crazy?  :-/

Quote
Sarah Palin Approves of Witch Hunts?
Posted by Johnny Wright
45 Comments
A little political weekend weirdness for you to gnaw on...

Pastor Thomas Muthee, who Sarah Palin credited with "awesome prayers" that helped her become the Alaska Governor, once led a witch hunt in Kenya. Figuratively, you may be wondering. Nope. Unfortunately not. In 2005 Muthee led an actual, old school, Salem-style witch hunt.

Details of the story are still being pieced together, but it appears the tale goes something like this: Muthee wanted to establish a church in the town of Kiambu, just outside of Nairobi. Wanting to make an impression right away, Muthee targeted a local fortune teller named Mama Jane. It appears Mama Jane had never caused any trouble, but Muthee had "proof" of witchcraft. That proof? Three car accidents that had occurred in Mama's neighborhood. She must have caused them. With black magic spells. That's ironclad.

It gets worse from here.

Pastor Muthee led three police officers to Mama Jane's home, burst in and arrested the "witch." During the raid, someone shot Mama's pet snake, a large python. Why? That snake was "a demon." Of course it was.

Mama was confronted by Muthee who allegedly yelled "Mama Jane either gets saved and serves the Lord or she leaves town!" It appears the witch did not comply and she was chucked into the hoosegow. After finally being released, Mama Jane feared for her life and got the hell out of Dodge.

Palin's church, the Wasilla Assembly of God, has praised Muthee because "He has established and pastors hundreds of churches in Kenya." According to reports "When Palin was beginning her campaign for Governor of Alaska, she had Muthee pray over her, asking God to make her Governor. On her June 8, 2008 speech at the Wasilla Assembly of God church, Palin suggested that she believes that Muthee's prayer is responsible for getting her into the Governor's seat."

Yikes.

Strangely Kenya does have a problem with witches. Maybe too many magic mirrors and enchanted broomsticks lying around.

Make of this what you will. But in 2005, more than 300 years after witches were burned and drowned in Massachusetts, the Vice Presidential nominee is closely tied to a preacher that not only believes in witchcraft, but actively "battled" it.

They believe in witches. Folks, you can mix all the eye of newt, snake blood, bat wing and wolfsbaine you want into a pewter cauldron, it ain't gonna do anything. The ridiculous hysteria that leads people to boycott Harry Potter and burn books on courthouse steps still goes on. "You must ban Harry Potter! It's teaching kids to become witches!" Do you ban C.S. Lewis or J.R.R. Tolkien too, sir? No? Oh, right, they're professed Christians. Magic is okay then. (For the record, Lewis was an adamant atheist for many years.) Wizards and conjurers are acceptable under those conditions. The Force in Star Wars? How about a boycott there? Nah, that would just be silly.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on October 02, 2008, 01:46:15 PM
^You know, there must be a few evangelical / sectarian congregations in America which are not full of the silly or demonstrably insane, but I'm hard put to suggest where any of them might be.  :-/
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on October 02, 2008, 02:17:57 PM
Quote
Bush and his Wall Street friends have made enough money from the hardships of the average American! This bailout would be the greatest transfer of wealth from ordinary working people to the rich in human history!!! Taxpayer dollars should not be used to reward the irresponsible Wall Street executives who helmed this disaster.

Over 200 economists wrote to Congress and said this bill might actually WORSEN the "financial crisis" and cause even MORE of a meltdown.

The money would be better used going to the poor and middle class.

I am against the new bailout bill, because its mission is still to protect the obscene amount of wealth that Wall Street accumulated during the Bush years AND STILL DOES NOTHING for the working poor!!!

I am still against the bailout, because it still does NOTHING to prevent golden parachutes.

I am still against the bailout, because a large chunk of that $700 billion would still go directly to Chinese and Middle Eastern banks with NO real guarantee of ever seeing that money again.

Where's the bailout for the children living without health insurance?

Where's the bailout for the homeless?!

Where's my bailout?


Well... with all due respect, this is mostly just self pity with a nasty populist overlay. There's a good argument to be made that Henry Paulson's approach is all wrong and that it would be better to guarantee mortages than buy up assets (I heard Paul O'Neil suggest this yesterday), but if Congress doesn't take some sort of action to get credit moving again, what's probably already an oncoming recession is only going to get a lot worse, and these same people who are howling in outrage now because Congress wants to do something about it will be howling even louder next year once the consequences of letting the financial sector slide become apparent.

Many of these assets are not worthless, and if they're disposed of intelligently, much of the money could come back. A larger problem is that the money will have to be borrowed and piled on to the national debt tab. There aren't any good solutions here, unfortunately,  just more and less bad ones.  :-/
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on October 04, 2008, 06:59:00 PM
Geoff, I love reading your posts!

Rolling Stone's contributing editor for national affairs, Tim Dickinson, believes we're "vetting the wrong candidate". He has written an exhaustive article about McCain's career, anchoring McCain's positions in fact throughout the years.


Full article: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain

The video clip summary for the time-pressured: http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2008/10/03/five-myths-about-john-mccain/#


What's interesting is I first read about McCain's temperamental flaws from a conservative site, the link of which I can't find at the moment. (I wish I'd bookmarked it!) The guy was earnestly appealing to his conservative base, saying, "Is this the kind of character we want to see in the White House? Does this man actually represent us?" It carried a lot of weight with me because this was a Republican blogger speaking to his own, saying, "He doesn't represent our values. Please think about this!"
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on October 05, 2008, 12:20:50 AM
Quote from: 551
What's interesting is I first read about McCain's temperamental flaws from a conservative site, the link of which I can't find at the moment. (I wish I'd bookmarked it!) The guy was earnestly appealing to his conservative base, saying, "Is this the kind of character we want to see in the White House? Does this man actually represent us?" It carried a lot of weight with me because this was a Republican blogger speaking to his own, saying, "He doesn't represent our values. Please think about this!"


I definitely agree that McCain is or ought to be the main subject of interest on the Republican ticket. The Palin thing is notable only because it's piece of evidence that tends to support the conjecture that McCain is rash. Provided no major news stories break in the next month, we may in fact see more reportage about both candidates; the NYT ran this piece about Obama and his (slight) association with the terrorist William Ayers a day or so ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html?scp=2&sq=william%20ayers&st=cse


By the way, the subject of McCain's temperament came up recently in this George Will column. Will, a conservative, is no fan of McCain's, and here he lets it rip:

McCain Loses His Head
By George F. Will
Tuesday, September 23, 2008; Page A21

"The queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. 'Off with his head!' she said without even looking around."

Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama.

Channeling his inner Queen of Hearts, John McCain furiously, and apparently without even looking around at facts, said Chris Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, should be decapitated. This childish reflex provoked the Wall Street Journal to editorialize that "McCain untethered" -- disconnected from knowledge and principle -- had made a "false and deeply unfair" attack on Cox that was "unpresidential" and demonstrated that McCain "doesn't understand what's happening on Wall Street any better than Barack Obama does."

To read the Journal's details about the depths of McCain's shallowness on the subject of Cox's chairmanship, see "McCain's Scapegoat" (Sept. 19). Then consider McCain's characteristic accusation that Cox "has betrayed the public's trust."

Perhaps an old antagonism is involved in McCain's fact-free slander. His most conspicuous economic adviser is Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who previously headed the Congressional Budget Office. There he was an impediment to conservatives, including then-Rep. Cox, who, as chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, persistently tried and generally failed to enlist CBO support for "dynamic scoring" that would estimate the economic growth effects of proposed tax cuts.

In any case, McCain's smear -- that Cox "betrayed the public's trust" -- is a harbinger of a McCain presidency. For McCain, politics is always operatic, pitting people who agree with him against those who are "corrupt" or "betray the public's trust," two categories that seem to be exhaustive -- there are no other people. McCain's Manichaean worldview drove him to his signature legislative achievement, the McCain-Feingold law's restrictions on campaigning. Today, his campaign is creatively finding interstices in laws intended to restrict campaign giving and spending. (For details, see The Post of Sept. 17; and the New York Times of Sept. 19.)

By a Gresham's Law of political discourse, McCain's Queen of Hearts intervention in the opaque financial crisis overshadowed a solid conservative complaint from the Republican Study Committee, chaired by Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas. In a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, the RSC decried the improvised torrent of bailouts as a "dangerous and unmistakable precedent for the federal government both to be looked to and indeed relied upon to save private sector companies from the consequences of their poor economic decisions." This letter, listing just $650 billion of the perhaps more than $1 trillion in new federal exposures to risk, was sent while McCain's campaign, characteristically substituting vehemence for coherence, was airing an ad warning that Obama favors "massive government, billions in spending increases."

The political left always aims to expand the permeation of economic life by politics. Today, the efficient means to that end is government control of capital. So, is not McCain's party now conducting the most leftist administration in American history? The New Deal never acted so precipitously on such a scale. Treasury Secretary Paulson, asked about conservative complaints that his rescue program amounts to socialism, said, essentially: This is not socialism, this is necessary. That non sequitur might be politically necessary, but remember that government control of capital is government control of capitalism. Does McCain have qualms about this, or only quarrels?

On "60 Minutes" Sunday evening, McCain, saying "this may sound a little unusual," said that he would like to replace Cox with Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic attorney general of New York who is the son of former governor Mario Cuomo. McCain explained that Cuomo has "respect" and "prestige" and could "lend some bipartisanship." Conservatives have been warned.

Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either.

It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092202583.html






Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: An Apple Beatle on October 05, 2008, 01:43:28 AM
Just saw Palin go on about Baracks terrorist supporters from the 60's.....Poor politics and desparation spring to mind...Put me off her even more. At least Barack is attacking policies. The McCain/Palin combination must be the most un-inspiring candidates ever up for an election.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on October 05, 2008, 02:14:26 AM
Quote from: 15
Just saw Palin go on about Baracks terrorist supporters from the 60's.....Poor politics and desparation spring to mind.

Agreed. There is nothing in the Obama-Ayers connection that suggests Obama has or had any sympathy for the Weathermen's bombings. It's smear-by-association, really, and it suggests that one of the tactics that the McCain campaign is going to be using in the next month is to revive the old Republican battle cry of "He's a liberal!! He's a liberal!!" It's a base-rallying (and just base) maneuver that the veep pick has often been charged with carrying out. Maybe somebody in the Democratic Party (where's Terry McAuliffe these days?) should do a tour of the Sunday talk shows and bring up McCain's past associations with nutty evangelicals like John Hagee?


From the NYT's Obama / Ayers story:

Obama and
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on October 05, 2008, 02:46:53 AM
Thanks for the articles!

i think there's plenty of wackadoodle association on the parts of both parties for no one to be throwing stones without risking a ricochet effect. It just goes to show what a nutty business politics is. You'll sleep with anybody! (Well, they do...)

Quote
Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama.

I do enjoy Will's turns of phrase. Even though I disagree with his politics, the man can write!


Back from an afternoon of canvassing. Saddest case was a man in a genuine crisis of conscience because his Catholic priest had told him that if he votes for Barack Obama the church will throw him out and he'll go to hell, because Obama supports a woman's right to choose whether or not to carry baby without government intervention. Yet the man was informed enough to know that under Clinton the abortion rate was much less (he said half, which sounds right) because the social support and policies, in terms of education etc., were so much greater. Fewer unwanted pregnancies = fewer abortions. So a vote for the pro-choice candidate will actually save lives, because when you look at the problem in terms of what actually works, stamping your foot and saying "abstinence only" doesn't work (as Palin's daughter proves)-- although the message of abstinence combined with valid birth-control information has proven astoundingly effective worldwide.

Yet the guy absolutely didn't want to vote for McCain, because his support of people after they are born is abysmal. "Pro-life" should refer to the entire lifespan, this guy thought, and not just until the doctor slaps the baby's butt. So he was planning to not vote at all.

I was unaware that the Catholic church was putting the thumbscrews to its followers for voting for the pro-choice (actually more effective "pro-life") candidate. Is this a widespread deal, or am I dealing with a lone wackadoodle priest, here? Thanks, folks!

PS: I told the man to vote anyway, even if for the Green candidate or any other he felt didn't conflict with his moral beliefs. I honestly want to get as many people to the polls as possible. This is our one chance to shake up the complacent powers that be in Washington. I want them to tremble at our numbers!

Registration ends any day now. Check the rules in your state, and then check http://www.register-vote.com/ or http://www.rockthevote.org/ to make sure that you are registered. Names have been purged from the roles and it won't hurt to check. Cheers!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on October 05, 2008, 05:13:57 AM
Quote from: 551
I was unaware that the Catholic church was putting the thumbscrews to its followers for voting for the pro-choice (actually more effective "pro-life") candidate. Is this a widespread deal, or am I dealing with a lone wackadoodle priest, here? Thanks, folks!

I think the guy's just freelancing. I haven't heard anything myself, but since I'm more or less oblivious to religion, I probably wouldn't hear anything, either.

Tend to agree about George Will: he's too conservative for my taste, but he does score his share of points and is usually well worth reading. One of the WaPo's best.




Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: BlueMeanie on October 05, 2008, 10:00:47 AM
I've just been watching Dateline London, on BBC World, where an American journalist suggested that Palin was almost certainly not McCain's choice for running mate; that Bush's people had pushed her on him as his best hope. Surely what he most needed was an economic heavyweight?

What does the team think?
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on October 05, 2008, 02:15:45 PM
Quote from: 551
   ...  ...I was unaware that the Catholic church was putting the thumbscrews to its followers for voting for the pro-choice (actually more effective "pro-life") candidate. Is this a widespread deal, or am I dealing with a lone wackadoodle priest, here? Thanks, folks!  ...


I'm afraid it's not an isolated incident, but rather a widespread practice, as the article below details. Excellent point, Harihead, about abortions being reduced under the Clinton administration. Is it words or actions that are important to these people?

*******************************************************************************
NYT online, accessed 5 October 08
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/us/politics/05catholic.html

As the Roman Catholic Church observes its annual
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on October 05, 2008, 02:26:41 PM
Quote from: 483
I've just been watching Dateline London, on BBC World, where an American journalist suggested that Palin was almost certainly not McCain's choice for running mate; that Bush's people had pushed her on him as his best hope. Surely what he most needed was an economic heavyweight?

Someone solid on economics would certainly help him now, but the state of the economy wasn't the main issue back at the end of August when McCain chose his running mate. He seems to have wanted either Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge to run with him, but McCain was apparently told that if he nominated Lieberman, who is a former Democrat (now independent or "Independent Democrat"), he would have faced a messy floor fight at the convention to have him confirmed, and Tom Ridge, who is pro-choice, would have been opposed by conservatives as well. Sarah Palin appears to have been chosen because she's a social conservative who can rally the party's base and because she can presented as a reformer in the McCain "maverick" mold. They probably hoped that she might appeal to some of Hillary Clinton's more conservative supporters, too. The matter of who would make a capable leader if the need should arise does not seem to have come up.

From the NYT (August 29):

Senator John McCain chose Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate, shaking up the political world with a surprise pick at a time that his campaign has been trying to attract women, especially disaffected supporters of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

With Mr. McCain
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on October 05, 2008, 03:53:33 PM
Thank you for that article, Alexis.

Quote
a group called Catholic Answers that highlighted five 'nonnegotiable' issues: abortion, stem-cell research, human cloning, euthanasia and same-sex marriage.
How very convenient to restrict their 'nonnegotiable' issues to these few, when we know for a fact that the issues of people losing homes and livelihood, not getting medical care, and all that "collateral" damage in Iraq (not to mention the personal cost to our soldiers who lose life and limb with increasingly little government support) are more pressing and widespread, yet are deemed nonessential. Also that many of these self-described "pro-lifers" also support the death penalty. They contradict themselves so outrageously, many Catholics (I'm not going to say "liberal", because that's too restricting) just can't take it anymore.

Quote
a round of skirmishes over how to apply the church's teachings not only on abortion but also on the war in Iraq, immigration and racism.
It's important to note (or at least, it is to me) that these are the church's teachings. You will not find abortion mentioned in the Bible. At the time the Bible was written, Jews didn't consider a baby worthy of a name until 3 months after it was born-- I suppose because infant mortality was so high. So no name, no ceremony, etc. until the parents were reasonably sure the child would live. Modern people have pushed back this definition of when a fetus becomes a viable human being because of our technology and style of living. But it's still an arbitrary decision, and the point is, one person's personal definition (or a religious faction's) should not win out over every other person who happens to think more broad-mindedly.

Quote
Is it words or actions that are important to these people?
I'm afraid it's ambition and control. Some people, like the man I spoke with yesterday, sincerely believe in the sanctity of life. But he's wise enough to see that this means all life, not just the pre-birth aspects of it. Forcing children to bring children into this already struggling world, who have no education or prospects, is to me the height of irresponsibility. And as was pointed out earlier, with better education and birth control, you get fewer of these heart-breaking decisions to agonize over. To me, the choice is absolutely clear.

Quote
Ms. Palin is known to conservatives for opting not to have an abortion after learning that she was carrying a child with Down's Syndrome.
Ms. Palin also took full advantage of state services for caring for her Downs baby-- services that her party has voted against time and again.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on October 05, 2008, 04:18:12 PM
Quote from: 551
It's important to note (or at least, it is to me) that these are the church’s teachings. You will not find abortion mentioned in the Bible. At the time the Bible was written, Jews didn't consider a baby worthy of a name until 3 months after it was born-- I suppose because infant mortality was so high. So no name, no ceremony, etc. until the parents were reasonably sure the child would live. Modern people have pushed back this definition of when a fetus becomes a viable human being because of our technology and style of living. But it's still an arbitrary decision

Exactly: claiming you have something or other on the authority of God is, to put it mildly, presumptuous. Also a play for control, usually.

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on October 05, 2008, 05:19:22 PM
The LA Times is covering this latest blurring of private and political ground:

Quote
Pastors plan to preach politics from the pulpit
3:17 PM, September 25, 2008
 Not sure who you should vote for in November? Not to worry -- if you attend one of several dozen churches in California and 21 other states, your pastor's going to stand in the pulpit and tell you who it should be.

No big deal, save for that whole "separation of church and state" thing and the fact that IRS rules say that's grounds for religious organizations to lose their nonprofit status.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/09/pastors-plan-to.html

Outraged over not being able to illegally address their "flocks", some pastors planned to rebel and make a test case over whether or not a religious leader can order their attendees who to vote for:

Quote
Pastors plan to defy IRS ban on political speech
Ministers will intentionally violate ban on campaigning by nonprofits in hopes of generating a test case.
By Duke Helfand, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 25, 2008
Setting the stage for a collision of religion and politics, Christian ministers from California and 21 other states will use their pulpits Sunday to deliver political sermons or endorse presidential candidates -- defying a federal ban on campaigning by nonprofit groups.

http://www.latimes.com:/news/local/la-me-pulpit25-2008sep25,0,5235934.story?vote42568467=1

I wonder if my poor tormented soul fell afoul of one of these rebels.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on October 05, 2008, 06:32:30 PM
Quote from: 551
The LA Times is covering this latest blurring of private and political ground:


[url]http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/09/pastors-plan-to.html[/url]

Outraged over not being able to illegally address their "flocks", some pastors planned to rebel and make a test case over whether or not a religious leader can order their attendees who to vote for:


[url]http://www.latimes.com[/url]:/news/local/la-me-pulpit25-2008sep25,0,5235934.story?vote42568467=1

I wonder if my poor tormented soul fell afoul of one of these rebels.



Separation of church and state ... they are absolutely allowed to preach politics from the pulpit, that is protected by the Constitution. But they can't have their cake and eat it too - they lose their tax exempt status then.

Hey, we all have choices to make, and consequences we have to face! (Except Wall Street "tycoons").
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on October 05, 2008, 07:45:19 PM
Quote from: 551
The LA Times is covering this latest blurring of private and political ground:


[url]http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/09/pastors-plan-to.html[/url]

Outraged over not being able to illegally address their "flocks", some pastors planned to rebel and make a test case over whether or not a religious leader can order their attendees who to vote for:


Which raises the question: Why now? They obviously want to go to court, presumably because they think they have some chance of winning. Who's on the court? What precedents have been set recently that would encourage them?


Worth framing:

Wonder how just how literal a reading of the bible Rev. Drake intends. Considering that in Leviticus alone we're told not to shave or cut our hair, wear clothes made of more than one fabric, and that adultery is punishable by death, I'm guessing truly biblical candidates may be scarce.

I've never been big on literal-mindedness myself.  ;D

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on October 06, 2008, 03:52:59 AM
^ Come to think of it, maybe they're counting on the whole business ending up in the Supreme Court?
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on October 06, 2008, 04:15:43 AM
Apparently the Obama people have no intention of letting go any more drive-by smears without responding. Look at what just turned up on Obama's website:

http://www.keatingeconomics.com/


He plays rough. I like it.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on October 06, 2008, 02:57:31 PM
It's about time some of this manufactured trash is being counteracted with facts! My Senate Majority Leader, Ken Gordon, gave a talk the night of the VP debate. He said the only way the lies will stop is when the American people start calling politicians on it. Otherwise, there's no down side.

Gordon's a great guy, by the way. In the last election, he and his opponent cordially agreed to never attack each other, and just address their platform and issues. It was the most hilarious and fun campaign I'd ever seen. My favorite commercial was Gordon in full scuba gear in the shark tank at Ocean Journey, talking through his regulator in bubbles (subtitles showed his message), saying he wouldn't come out until he got enough money to put the ad on television (which he did, because I saw it). You can see the full version here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ1aPvyNy2o


Anyway, thanks for the link, Geoff. In related links on that site, here's a summary of the Keating crisis, courtesy of Mother Jones:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/09/9933_remember_the_sl.html

Remember the S&L Bailout? John McCain Hopes You Don't

This afternoon, John McCain joined in a summit with his rival Barack Obama and President George W. Bush, after “suspending” his campaign and rushing back to Washington to help rescue the American economy. As pundits and the public argue over whether this is the patriotic act of a true statesman or the desperate stunt of a political operator, McCain hopes they will forget what it really is for him: pure deja vu. McCain has already been here and done this, back in the roaring eighties, when he was in the thick of another financial meltdown that yielded a huge government bailout—and the worst scandal of his own political career.

The savings and loan crisis developed along lines remarkably similar to the current sub-prime crisis: A flurry of deregulation gave S&Ls the capabilities of major commercial banks without the corresponding oversight and regulation. S&Ls proceeded to make high-risk investments, including thousands of unsound mortgages during a housing boom. The government looked away—until the bottom fell out and the S&Ls started to fall like dominoes. Then it stepped in with a bailout of then-unprecedented levels, which added to ballooning deficits and ushered in years of recession.

When the S&L scandal unfolded, Barack Obama was working as a community organizer in Chicago, and George W. Bush was busy running a series of failed oil ventures and managing his baseball team in Texas. But John McCain was already in Congress—and in the S&L mess up to his neck.

The story of McCain's hinky financial dealings is told by Stephen Pizzo, Mary Fricker, and Paul Muolo, in their excellent book on the scandal, Inside Job. As they describe it, one day in 1987, Senator Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.) asked Ed Gray, head of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (and a former press aide to Ronald Reagan) to stop by his Washington office. When Gray arrived he was unexpectedly was ushered into a meeting attended not only by DeConcini but also by Senators John McCain, John Glenn (D-Ohio), and Alan Cranston (D-Calif.).

All of these men had received substantial campaign contributions from Charles Keating, the colorful California developer (and anti-porn crusader) who owned American Continental Corporation and its subsidiary, Lincoln Savings and Loan. From 1982 through 1987, McCain had received $112,000. All four could also claim Keating as a constituent: Lincoln Savings was headquartered in California, and ACC was incorporated in Ohio and headquartered in Phoenix.

At the time, Keating’s operations were under investigation for questionable dealings and there was widespread suspicion in Congress that Gray’s Home Loan Bank Board might end up seizing them.

The four got right to the point: Why were Gray's examiners in San Francisco giving Keating such a hard time? It was noted that Lincoln, which had 24 branches, had started off making a lot of home loans—then suddenly stopped making them. “What do you want?'' Gray asked.

DeConcini offered a deal: We’ll assure you that they'll make more home loans and get into the basic business of home lending if you do something —you have to withdraw the equity risk regulations. These regulations required S&Ls involved in direct lending to set aside additional cash reserves in case there were big losses.

Gray was taken aback. Here he was facing four senators trying to negotiate business with him on behalf of a savings and loan that was in a regulatory procedure. Everyone in and out of government in Washington knows that politicians are not permitted to interfere with the regulatory process—though of course, they often do.

Gray refused to make deals, telling the senators if they had more questions to talk to the president of the San Francisco Federal Home Loan Bank Board. And sure enough, a few days later DeConcini asked the San Francisco officials to come to Washington to discuss “the Lincoln problem.” Gathered at DeConcini's office were McCain, Glenn, Cranston, and Michigan Democrat Don Riegle from the Senate Banking Committee. At this meeting, Jim Cirona, the San Francisco FHLBB president, was confronted by DeConcini, who said the federal bank regulators were out to get Keating. Then McCain, apparently trying to be cute, said, “ACC is a big employer and important to the local economy....I wouldn’t want any special favors for them…I don't want any part of our conversation to be improper.”

But since the whole thing was improper, McCain proceeded in his unctuous way to suggest the regulators’ examination of Keating’s operations was taking too long. Maybe things would work better if there were “voluntary” instead of mandatory guidelines, he suggested.

At first incredulous at being put in this position by the senators, Cirona's team finally lost it, and told them they were sending a criminal referral on Lincoln to the Justice Department. This appeared to have a sobering effect, and the meeting ended. The San Francisco officials recommended that the government take control of Lincoln to stop its unsound lending practices, but it stayed in business for two more years—long enough to push high-risk investments on thousands of elderly investors, who lost their life savings when ACC finally went under in 1989. One member of the House Banking Committee, which investigated Lincoln, called it “a legal bank robbery.”

After the scandal broke, Keating said to reporters: “One question, among many raised in recent weeks, had to do with whether my financial support in any way influenced several political figures to take up my cause. I want to say in the most forceful way I can: I certainly hope so.”

But McCain initially insisted, ''I have done this kind of thing many, many times''
for various constituents, and compared what he’d done for Keating’s firms to ''helping the little lady who didn't get her Social Security.'' Later--echoing the language, but not the tone, of his coy quips in the meeting with the FHLBB--he would admit that “The appearance of it was wrong. It's a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do.

The senators who had defended the miscreants became briefly notorious as the “Keating Five,” implicated in influence peddling as part of one of the most crooked ripoffs in modern history. Three of them ended their political careers, but McCain and Glenn escaped with a scolding from the Senate Ethics Committee for “poor judgment,” and emerged relatively unscathed.

The scandal, never well understood by the public, seems to have been quickly forgotten. And astonishingly, it has thus far failed to gain much traction in the presidential election, in spite of the striking parallels between then and now. So twenty years later, a once scandal-ridden John McCain leads the charge up Capitol Hill to defend the American public from what he calls the “villains” of Wall Street.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on October 06, 2008, 05:16:11 PM
Quote from: 551
The savings and loan crisis developed along lines remarkably similar to the current sub-prime crisis: A flurry of deregulation gave S&Ls the capabilities of major commercial banks without the corresponding oversight and regulation. S&Ls proceeded to make high-risk investments, including thousands of unsound mortgages during a housing boom. The government looked away—until the bottom fell out and the S&Ls started to fall like dominoes.  

Thanks for the link: For me the argument's finished regarding markets and regulation, and if we're lucky (not counting on it), the debate will shift to what sort of regulation after the election. Lobbyists are going to make a fortune.

The election is shifting very much in Obama's direction, and if we were two weeks further on I'd be dancing in the street. But there's still a month to go, and time for people (or some of them) to change their minds again. That, apart from sheer lack of alternatives, perhaps explains why McCain and his surrogates (see, for example, Palin in Carson, CA on the weekend) are engaging in character assassination and reviving the old culture wars: they want to put that stuff out there so that when marginally committed voters start to shuffle their feet again, they'll have that in the political arena. It's going to be a nasty finish and the political conversation is going to be laughably removed from any subject that ought to be the basis for anyone's vote. (The economy? Iraq? Financial markets? Or-"I'm voting McCain because that other guy won't put a flag pin in his lapel.")
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on October 06, 2008, 05:28:23 PM
As I was saying about surrogates, character assassination and the culture wars:  :-/

Lagging In The Polls, Palin Shifts To Fear Tactics
From CBS News' Scott Conroy:

(FORT MYERS, FLA.) On the day when the McCain campaign released a new attack ad not-so-subtly titled
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Joost on October 06, 2008, 05:49:45 PM
The should be some kind of referee for presidential election campaigns.
"Palin, that was below the belt! You'll get away with a warning this time, but next time it's gonna cost you 50.000 votes!"
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on October 06, 2008, 05:53:32 PM
Quote from: 56
The should be some kind of referee for presidential election campaigns.
"Palin, that was below the belt! You'll get away with a warning this time, but next time it's gonna cost you 50.000 votes!"


... "in Southwest Ohio!"
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: aspinall_lover on October 06, 2008, 07:24:21 PM
What did I see on AOL news this morning............a picture of Sarah Palin and the above headline, "the heels are on and the gloves are off"....................hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on October 06, 2008, 07:48:48 PM
Yes! More humor is needed! Otherwise we'll all be jumping out of windows.

Here is a YouTube with the Joker from Batman commenting on our economic crisis:

The Dark Bailout
Regardless of your view on the government's $700 billion bailout plan, you've got to admire this clever mashup of the The Dark Knight and President Bush's speech from the other night.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1X6RQLZtoA
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on October 06, 2008, 08:53:48 PM
Quote from: 56
The should be some kind of referee for presidential election campaigns.
"Palin, that was below the belt! You'll get away with a warning this time, but next time it's gonna cost you 50.000 votes!"

Or in Palin's case, "That's gonna cost you your teleprompter." Let's see her wing it.  ;D

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: HeyJude18 on October 06, 2008, 08:56:39 PM
Better yet, lets see any politician wing it!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on October 06, 2008, 09:02:41 PM
Quote from: 1447
Better yet, lets see any politician wing it!

It's usually like watching turkeys trying to fly.  ;D

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on October 06, 2008, 09:18:48 PM
Some interesting state polls: Obama ahead by six in Ohio and North Carolina, and by twelve in Virginia.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/10/06/democracy_corps_obama_up_by_six_in_ohio.html

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/10/06/ppp_poll_obama_expands_lead_in_north_carolina.html

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/10/06/suffolk_poll_obama_crushing_mccain_in_virginia.html



That explains this, and it's going to get uglier because McCain hasn't got much else left:

New McCain Attack: "Who Is The Real Barack Obama?"
By Greg Sargent - October 6, 2008, 3:40PM

You can sense a palpable shift of tone in the remarks that John McCain is now delivering in New Mexico -- a new level of frustration, combined with his most overt implication yet that there's something vaguely different, and perhaps sinister, about Obama that you just can't put a finger on.

From the prepared remarks:

    My opponent has invited serious questioning by announcing a few weeks ago that he would quote -- "take off the gloves." Since then, whenever I have questioned his policies or his record, he has called me a liar.

    Rather than answer his critics, Senator Obama will try to distract you from noticing that he never answers the serious and legitimate questions he has been asked. But let me reply in the plainest terms I know. I don't need lessons about telling the truth to American people. And were I ever to need any improvement in that regard, I probably wouldn't seek advice from a Chicago politician.

    My opponent's touchiness every time he is questioned about his record should make us only more concerned. For a guy who's already authored two memoirs, he's not exactly an open book. It's as if somehow the usual rules don't apply, and where other candidates have to explain themselves and their records, Senator Obama seems to think he is above all that. Whatever the question, whatever the issue, there's always a back story with Senator Obama. All people want to know is: What has this man ever actually accomplished in government? What does he plan for America? In short: Who is the real Barack Obama?


More here;
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/new_mccain_attack_who_is_the_r.php
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: aspinall_lover on October 06, 2008, 10:21:17 PM
Quote from: 551
Yes! More humor is needed! Otherwise we'll all be jumping out of windows.

Here is a YouTube with the Joker from Batman commenting on our economic crisis:

The Dark Bailout
Regardless of your view on the government's $700 billion bailout plan, you've got to admire this clever mashup of the The Dark Knight and President Bush's speech from the other night.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1X6RQLZtoA[/url]

^^^^^^^That video was pretty damn funny!!!!!  Oh, "Bushy-tail" will be out soon..........hee, hee.......

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on October 07, 2008, 04:36:29 AM
Thanks, Geoff. I'm watching the polls and loving it.

My worry is that a lot of these people will drop us on election day, the way the youth did not turn out for Kerry. McCain's base is older and more reliable. I want people to go to the polls. Or fill in their mail-in ballots, whatever.  I think the Big O is going to need every one of those percentage points advantage, because the American people can be incredibly lazy.


Glad you liked the vid, aspinall_lover!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on October 07, 2008, 05:14:28 AM
Quote from: 551
My worry is that a lot of these people will drop us on election day, the way the youth did not turn out for Kerry. McCain's base is older and more reliable.


Agreed. On the other hand, Democratic voter registration is way up in a number of states, so even if the turn out ratio among registered Democrats remains the same as it was in 2004, Obama will still come out ahead. I hope.

The electoral map. Notice that it's mostly (if not entirely) Bush 2004 states that are toss ups. Recent polls put Obama ahead in Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, and Ohio, too.

(http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm317/geoffw_2008/oct7.jpg)

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on October 07, 2008, 04:36:53 PM
Thanks, Geoff. In Colorado, Dem registration has outpaced Repub by 80% or so. But it really boils down to Denver (1 billion % of the population) and Boulder. They'll go blue, always have. Everywhere else in the state goes red. So it's still up in the air.

Gah, I wish the state could have elected that wonderful Mike Miles to the senate rather than that wiener Ken Salazar. Here's Ken's idea of addressing the housing crisis: We'll give $5,000 per purchase to each person (mostly rich limited partnerships) who buys up a foreclosed home for a song-- because foreclosed houses bring down the value of the community-- but we'll give $500 whole dollars once to each family who's about to be evicted! You know, an amount that guarantees they can't even make one mortgage payment with it! Isn't that a brilliant plan! (I wrote him explaining why his plan stank.) And he's a Democrat! (in name anyway...) It's more of the same: a 10-times benefit to people who have cash to spend (most of these deals are done in cash and close in a week, so legitimate would-be home owners don't stand a chance of getting their paperwork done). We're going to become a nation of serfs with rich overlords owning our property and chucking us out whenever they please.

This country is so far into corporate welfare it's appalling. As one of our commentators said, we have all the worst parts of socialism but none of the benefits. We got stuck with an $850B bailout of the criminals on Wall Street (because we don't believe in the free market when it means our rich buddies might lose their millions) and have no health care for our citizens and grossly underfunded education. And not one tiny mention was made that, at the same time of this bailout-- which protected largely foreign investors, meaning that money doesn't even stay in the country-- our Congress quietly passed a bill for $600 billion to continue funding Iraq (really Iran, since that's who we're fighting there now according to Lara Logan). An amount nearly equal to the initial $700B "very large number" that was pulled out of the air for the bailout, but received no media attention whatsoever. And this is only 1 of 3 planned support packages. So the deficit continues to grow. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkeEf74dXaw

Meanwhile China goes into full posturing mode. According to the BBC, "China has cancelled military and diplomatic exchanges with the US in protest at a $6.5bn deal to supply Taiwan with arms, US officials say." Is this even in our headlines today? Randomly I checked the CNN homepage. It covers: a missing, possibly murdered wife of a fireman (lead story), a woman yelling help from a car that then explodes, where to see nice fall colors, and more drama about the election and bailout.  

We aren't doomed. But we have got to kick the media in the butt and make them start doing the job the Founding Fathers intended. (I feel justified in saying this, as I'm a member of the media and I know how they've sold out.) Americans would not still be swallowing this crap if they had access to decent news, and too many of them don't have the time (or inclination) to find out. Hello, what happens in our country is not an entertainment program, it is real life. It actually means something. Please don't let me down, America.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on October 07, 2008, 09:07:20 PM
Quote from: 551
our Congress quietly passed a bill for $600 billion to continue funding Iraq (really Iran, since that's who we're fighting there now according to Lara Logan). An amount nearly equal to the initial $700B "very large number" that was pulled out of the air for the bailout, but received no media attention whatsoever. And this is only 1 of 3 planned support packages. So the deficit continues to grow.

I think (and correct me if I'm wrong here) that a lot of the war funding isn't even included in the formal budget, so appropriations for the Iraq war have to be added to the official deficit number, which is running at about a half trillion dollars a year right now. Considering that Clinton left office with a surplus of about 200 billion, it might be a reasonable guess that the Republicans learned economics from the same Wall Street bankers who are now lining up for hand outs. They really are the party of business.  :-/

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: An Apple Beatle on October 07, 2008, 09:26:47 PM
Quote from: 551
our Congress quietly passed a bill for $600 billion to continue funding Iraq (really Iran, since that's who we're fighting there now according to Lara Logan). An amount nearly equal to the initial $700B "very large number" that was pulled out of the air for the bailout, but received no media attention whatsoever. And this is only 1 of 3 planned support packages. So the deficit continues to grow.

I wondered when and if this stat would be brought up. Looks like a simple equation to me.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on October 08, 2008, 03:31:48 AM
Heh. To quote Senator Everett Dirksen, "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money."
    

My friend just told me today to apply for food stamps. "Avoid the rush!" was his advice. (He was unemployed for a year in 2003 when the telecommunications business tanked the first time. Now it's my turn. He's giving me survival tips. Perhaps I should start a topic...)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on October 08, 2008, 07:06:29 PM
I heard some very sobering news today about the margin of victory Obama has at the polls.

Apparently fully 1/5 of each candidates supporters are "soft" - "too early to say they would not change their minds".

Given that O'bama's predicted electoral votes don't even add up to victory, I can see a nightmare scenario where we wake up on Wed with McCain/Palin having won. I think this would only happen if these soft supporters of Obama's are jarred into the McCain column. But who can predict:

 a) what disaster might occur that would make voters reflexively vote for McCain (8 years of Pavlovian conditioning - "Dems weak; Republicans strong like man!!" takes a while to overcome, and maybe the emotional response would be too strong at this point) - what if Al Qaida does another attack on the Friday before the election?
b) What McCain might drag out on said Friday before election, last news cycle before the election - "We have proof, PROOF my friends that Obama is a paid agent of Al Qaeda. And we are not hiding it, here it is ...". By the time this is even begun to be looked at in the light of day, the emotional damage will have been won.

I get nauseous just thinking about it.

*****************************************
Charles Blow, accessed NYT online

http://blow.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/swing-voters/?hp

Democrats are beaming now that the polls seem to be leaning toward
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on October 08, 2008, 08:00:00 PM
Alexis, please try not to worry about it. I have seen (as I've been fortunate enough to read up this week) a tremendous number of articles coming out only since the polls turned (what a coincidence!) damning the polling process. "We don't really know how this will translate." "The poll on election day is the only one that matters." Etc. etc. It's the wounded element trying to console themselves that they aren't as ostracized as we know them to be.

The gist of my reading shows:

- Repubs have been very effective at energizing their reliable 25% of voters every single election, because there is always some moral issue (like gay marriage, the end of the world, oh noooooooooo!) at every election. The progressives... where is the rallying cry?

- Repubs are most successful in elections with low turnout, because their reliable 25% (conservative religious and ultra-rich) are enough to tip the balance while the rest of the country is showing how hip they are by not showing up. "I don't vote!" (uttered in sneering tone).


Reality check: This will be a big election. Finally the thought of Americans imminently losing their jobs and their homes has penetrated the self-absorbed haze of the average voter. The disgust in business as usual is widespread. Also, young voters are actually energized because they can recognize a leader who speaks more to their generation than yet another fossil from the Viet Nam era.

Swing voters are tremendously unimpressed with the mud-slinging, but they do want "change". That's how Reagan got in. That's how Obama will get in. The Dems could field anybody at this point and he/she would win, because, even though America (wisely) distrusts all our politicians, the Repubs were in fact the party in power and it was their policies that encouraged the financial meltdown. We have repeated clips proving that none of our so-called leaders saw it coming-- even sneering at Obama when he warned that our economy might not be sound. Now he looks like the smart guy he is and they look like fools. America may be self-absorbed, but we aren't a nation of nitwits. I trust the majority will do just what the polls indicate they'll do, and vote for a change of leadership.  
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: duane v on October 09, 2008, 12:09:58 AM
Wow this is tough one.. hrmmmmm

We currently have/had George Bush "The frat party Pres."
Demo Obama "The New Age Communist."
Repub McCain, who doesn't know himself what he is ??)

I'm probably gonna write in Daffy Duck..... At least he knows he's a duck.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on October 09, 2008, 02:05:05 AM
Quote from: 551
Alexis, please try not to worry about it. I have seen (as I've been fortunate enough to read up this week) a tremendous number of articles coming out only since the polls turned (what a coincidence!) damning the polling process. "We don't really know how this will translate." "The poll on election day is the only one that matters." Etc. etc. It's the wounded element trying to console themselves that they aren't as ostracized as we know them to be.

The gist of my reading shows:

- Repubs have been very effective at energizing their reliable 25% of voters every single election, because there is always some moral issue (like gay marriage, the end of the world, oh noooooooooo!) at every election. The progressives... where is the rallying cry?

- Repubs are most successful in elections with low turnout, because their reliable 25% (conservative religious and ultra-rich) are enough to tip the balance while the rest of the country is showing how hip they are by not showing up. "I don't vote!" (uttered in sneering tone).


Reality check: This will be a big election. Finally the thought of Americans imminently losing their jobs and their homes has penetrated the self-absorbed haze of the average voter. The disgust in business as usual is widespread. Also, young voters are actually energized because they can recognize a leader who speaks more to their generation than yet another fossil from the Viet Nam era.

Swing voters are tremendously unimpressed with the mud-slinging, but they do want "change". That's how Reagan got in. That's how Obama will get in. The Dems could field anybody at this point and he/she would win, because, even though America (wisely) distrusts all our politicians, the Repubs were in fact the party in power and it was their policies that encouraged the financial meltdown. We have repeated clips proving that none of our so-called leaders saw it coming-- even sneering at Obama when he warned that our economy might not be sound. Now he looks like the smart guy he is and they look like fools. America may be self-absorbed, but we aren't a nation of nitwits. I trust the majority will do just what the polls indicate they'll do, and vote for a change of leadership.  


Hi Harihead - I know what you are saying, and was generally feeling pretty good, until I read the article below. I know a big part of Obama's plan for victory depends on the new voter rolls he has worked so hard to build. As you can see from the article below, there seems to be a national movement to purge and disqualify these voters. If this is successful, is there enough left over to beat the devil? I know you are in CO - have you heard anything about the bolded bit below?

Thanks -

****************************************************************
 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/us/politics/09voting.html?hp=&pagewanted=print
October 9, 2008
States
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on October 09, 2008, 05:48:15 AM
Sigh. What else is new?

I sent the info and question to my state senator. I'll let you know how he responds.

Just for grins, and to depress yourself, read Rolling Stone's article about how voter fraud stole the 2004 election. I believe the US is getting UN oversight this time, just like the cheesy third-world dictatorship we've become deserves. Anyhow, all we can do is hope the people overseeing the process will demand a proper accounting of the votes.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Jane on October 09, 2008, 09:51:58 AM
Quote from: 1583
Wow this is tough one.. hrmmmmm

We currently have/had George Bush "The frat party Pres."
Demo Obama "The New Age Communist."
Repub McCain, who doesn't know himself what he is ??)

I'm probably gonna write in Daffy Duck..... At least he knows he's a duck.

I`d say that McCain is acting in the best Communist traditions, using the best Communist slogans and even phrases, which is brrrrrrr... He sure is.
While Obama is acting in Liberal traditions. If all communists were like Obama, we would have to change the world. And, please, there can`t be any new communists, only maybe socialists.

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on October 14, 2008, 12:51:55 AM
Hey Harihead -

Do I remember you are doing voter registration in CO? We've been hearing a lot about Acorn recently ... can you shed any light on that?

Cheers!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Joost on October 14, 2008, 06:17:53 PM
John Cleese about Sarah Palin:

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/269021/04162017/john_cleese_over_sarah_palin.html
 :)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: aspinall_lover on October 16, 2008, 02:06:22 AM
FYI.........click the "All" spot on the "The Debate is On" thread and the last post will show.  Don't know what happened to the 5th page..................It's getting pretty heated right now.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on October 16, 2008, 03:34:10 AM
Quote from: 568
Hey Harihead -

Do I remember you are doing voter registration in CO? We've been hearing a lot about Acorn recently ... can you shed any light on that?
Sorry, I can't. I wrote Senate Leader Ken Gordon as I said, and he didn't respond directly. In the news, he maintained that Colorado doesn't have a voter registration or bad names purge going on. So we really don't know what is happening.

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: An Apple Beatle on October 19, 2008, 07:01:55 PM
Not bad for Obama getting an endorsement from Mr. Powell. Didn't think he'd go further and speak out about Palin aswell...Good on him.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: pc31 on October 19, 2008, 07:07:36 PM
we actually need obama.....i would have preferred powell tho...
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on October 20, 2008, 03:18:06 PM
Warren Buffett, and now Colin Powell (Republican, ex- Secy. of State, ex - Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Military Staff under Bush), endorse Obama -  makes it loads tougher for McCain/Palin to paint Obama as some 3 headed alien, either economically or in terms of experience/readiness to lead our troops. I read somewhere that Rooney came out for Obama too, is that true?

Kerry and Gore were way ahead of Bush at this point of the election cycle, so it's by no means clear who is going to win. I think everyone expects the gap to close heading in to the election (now it's about 7 points in favor of Obama) - should be interesting, if not a nail biter.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on October 21, 2008, 01:24:50 PM
This is a cheap shot, but who brought up William Ayers?

(http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm317/geoffw_2008/debate3ap.jpg)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Joost on October 21, 2008, 02:17:22 PM
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v681/ckell456/1224252662099.jpg)
(http://data.tumblr.com/R75Z68Jtvf54gopuauSVnWqpo1_500.gif)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on October 22, 2008, 01:45:45 PM
Quote from: 56
([url]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v681/ckell456/1224252662099.jpg[/url])


That's lunch break outside Republican Party Headquarters every weekday around noon. So what?  ;D
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on October 22, 2008, 03:22:44 PM
For those that don't follow the campaign all that much:

Obama is going to take about 2 days off from campaigning later this week, only a week and a half before the election.

He will go to Hawaii to visit his apparently very ailing grandmother. She is the last one alive of those who raised him, his mother, father, and grandfather having all passed away.

This leaving a campaign as close as this one is and so near to the election is unprecedented in American politics. Just last week Obama's campaign manager was saying that even a securely blue state, like Pennsylvania, could "swing" back in a matter of 3 days.

Pundits are discussing how, or if, this will hurt Obama. Some are saying that, by showing his humanity, it could even help.

Yikes.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Joost on October 23, 2008, 12:47:08 PM
Wow, if even rednecks prefer a pro-choice, Afro-American Democrate over a conservative, experienced Republican war hero...  :)

(http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/political-pictures-rednecks-for-obama-america-f***-yeah.jpg)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on October 23, 2008, 03:03:54 PM
Oh, I love it! Joost, you get the Golden Mantle for finding these hilarious pics.

Alexis, earlier you'd asked me about election fraud in Col. I got the following in Ken Gordon's newsletter today (Majority Leader of Colorado Senate):

Quote
I have seen reports that Colorado is illegally purging voters. There is a lot of overheated rhetoric during an election season, and this is an example. While we need to be constantly vigilant, I believe Colorado is going to have a fair and honest election. My advice: vote, and make sure all of your friends, family, and neighbors vote as well. The County Clerks of Colorado and their staffs are the people who run these elections, and I believe that they are the least partisan and hardest working public servants we have in the state. Their top concerns are helping people vote and making sure there is an honest count.
Notice he didn't deny the charge. From what I understand, most conflicts involve misspellings, middle names, and variations of abbreviations. Local offices are swamped with people matching up driver's license numbers with social security numbers to validate identity-- a project that may or may not be done by Nov 4. This tactic is used a lot. Ohio went after 200,000 voters. Florida... don't get me started.

I think John Cleese is right, and England should take over management of the United States immediately. Since that probably won't happen (who really wants us?), what we need is a landslide of voter turnout. If enough people turn out to vote (and I sincerely hope they do), these targeted practices will be lost in the overall will of the people. Dishonest people are the minority, but they're a dangerous minority. The best way to deal with their infractions is to vote!

I'm delighted to see that many Americans are turning out already for early voting. I did. I'm done! It feels great.

Eggheads for Obama! (I feel better already.)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: BlueMeanie on October 23, 2008, 03:19:10 PM
Quote from: 551

I'm delighted to see that many Americans are turning out already for early voting. I did. I'm done! It feels great.


You can vote early?
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on October 23, 2008, 09:30:54 PM
Quote from: 483

You can vote early?

And often!

Just kidding about that last one. But yes, in many/most?/all? states one can vote early. I voted on the 20th here in the great state of TX. It's especially important as the party in power will often try to block voters from casting their ballots on technicalities (hmmm, voter registration card says Alfred E. Neumann, but you signed your name Alfred Edward Neumann - we're afraid we cannot let you vote"). If one tries to vote early and is blocked, they have enough time to sort through all that before the voting deadline.

In this election the reasoning is thus: Obama's organization has successfully registered MANY more new Democratic voters in key states (defined as where it is possible for either candidate to win ) than the Republican organization has. BUT ...these key "battleground" States almost all have Republicans in control of the local political machines, and thus they are the ones who are behind the desk "vetting" the voters before they cast their ballot.

The first step in disenfranchising these voters (current buzz phrase for not letting them vote) is to declare voter registrations invalid. This generally takes place privately, with no oversight. Visualize a dark room where the local Republican boss (who owns the main restaurant and bowling alley) throws out a bunch of voter registrations, that just happen to be majority Democrat, for any fabricated reason he wants. The end result of this is that a voter goes to the polls on voting day, is told he's "ineligible", and so can't vote. He may protest, or cast a "provisional" ballot, but the end result of all this  is that maybe 4 weeks later (way too late to do any good), the local election board says something like "Oh, so sorry, you were right, you were eligible". Of course the damage is done by then. The power of these very low level political soldiers is astounding.

The second step is for the blue haired lady behind the desk at the polls to just decide right then and there that the voter is ineligible, as happened to poor Mr. Neumann described above.

This sounds far-fetched that this could happen in anything but a 3rd world country, but not only can it happen here, it DID happen here, in the last two presidential elections, very arguably changing the results.

Imagine how different the world would be now ...
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on October 24, 2008, 06:12:55 AM
Quote
The power of these very low level political soldiers is astounding.
That's why I'm hoping for a landslide. Unless we have huge numbers of voters overpowering this local power-hungry soldiers, we're going to have a bad election. The US is just the the biggest banana republic in the hemisphere. Local tinpot tyrants exercise their power for whichever party.

PLEASE can we break up thsi Democrat/Republican deadlock? I'd love to see the Green party, Socialist party, Libertarian party, MODERATE (most Dems;Repubs) party, etc. take over from this two-party stalemate. I hope this is the election that cracks us up! Go, history!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: An Apple Beatle on October 24, 2008, 07:37:54 AM
Turnout 400% up already..mostly democrats (BBC report this morning) You guys are getting them voting!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on October 26, 2008, 01:09:27 PM
Quote from: 56
Wow, if even rednecks prefer a pro-choice, Afro-American Democrate over a conservative, experienced Republican war hero...  :)

([url]http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/political-pictures-rednecks-for-obama-america-f[/url]***-yeah.jpg)


Maybe that hockey-mom-Joe-sixpack shtick did them in. Rednecks (or at least the ones not at Sarah Palin rallies) know when they're being patronized, too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/us/politics/19palin.html

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on October 26, 2008, 01:35:11 PM
This is a great example of how bad it's become for McCain: most of the polls have Obama ahead in Pennsylvania by about ten points.


McCain's Last Stand

Oct 23rd 2008 | SCRANTON
From The Economist print edition
The Republican contender is hoping for a surprise victory in Pennsylvania

JOHN McCAIN began the final fortnight of this seemingly endless presidential campaign by barnstorming across Pennsylvania. He hammered away at his rival
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on October 26, 2008, 02:54:31 PM
Great article, Geoff.

Quote
“You have to earn respect in this state”, says one Obama supporter
That's such a telling statement, as is this one of yours:
Quote
Rednecks (or at least the ones not at Sarah Palin rallies) know when they're being patronized, too.
I'm glad to see the American electorate is increasingly not content to let their politicians treat them as dismissively as most corporations treat their employees. We're all fed up to the teeth here, as I suspect our international buddies are well aware.

Quote
The long-drawn-out primary fight also helped Mr Obama. ... The intense battle produced a surge in Democratic Party registrations
This proves why I will never be the next Karl Rove. I was so angry about the protracted bickering. But, considering the number of shenanigans going on nationally with voter fraud and disenfranchisement, I'm grateful we had this primary to get those extra people actually registered and in.

One of my many articles suggested that the US follow the model of other countries, and just sign its citizens up to vote, rather than putting the burden on the citizen. Given our long history of trying to block various groups of voters, we need some well-managed system to take the control out of the hands of these little tyrants who try to cook the books for their particular favorite, which seems to be happening in every state.  

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on October 26, 2008, 03:56:45 PM
Quote from: 551
I'm glad to see the American electorate is increasingly not content to let their politicians treat them as dismissively as most corporations treat their employees.

Personally I was a bit taken aback when that Joe sixpack/hockey mom nonsense found a receptive audience amid the Republican Party: what a ridiculous, condescending way to pigeonhole people, and what a pathetic self image to have. What did John say? "Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV/ And you think you're so clever and classless and free/ But you're still f***ing peasants as far as I can see."  A lot of work to be done there, I'm afraid. :-/

And yeah, leave the Carl Rove thing alone: one of him was enough.  ;D


Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on October 26, 2008, 05:41:36 PM
Quote from: 551
...

I'm glad to see the American electorate is increasingly not content to let their politicians treat them as dismissively as most corporations treat their employees. We're all fed up to the teeth here, as I suspect our international buddies are well aware...

 


Hari and Geoff, I hope you are right, but you know this Joe Plumber thing has taken legs. It looks like McCain has stopped his slide in the polls over the past few days, despite Neiman-Marcus-gate, and all he's done in this period of time is basically make Joe the Plumber the centerpiece of his campaign.

I'm petrified that this pandering WILL work once again, and the entire country will pay for the ignorance of large portions of the electorate and the willingness of the Republicans to use that to their advantage - along with the blatant disenfranchisement that we've discussed, and that amazingly seems to be proceeding full strength ...

************************************************************************************************************************

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/colorados-katherine-harri_b_137817.html

David SirotaPosted October 25, 2008 | 02:07 PM (EST)

Colorado's Katherine Harris Threatens the '08 Election

My home state of Colorado, as anyone following the election campaign knows, is a major presidential battleground state. Both John McCain and Barack Obama have visited the state multiple times, including in recent/coming days. Though a new poll shows Obama taking a commanding 12-point lead, everyone expects both the presidential and U.S. Senate race here to be very close. That's why the Secretary of State Mike Coffman's (R) moves should worry everyone in Colorado and elsewhere. We've got our own Katherine Harris here -- and a careful look at the news suggests he's moving to game this election in a state that could be the Florida of 2008.

I say "careful look" because Coffman's behavior -- while outrageous and potentially election-throwing -- has received coverage mostly in the back pages of local newspapers (and similarly little attention from the national media). But if you bother to dig down, you will see what I'm talking about -- and it's scary.

Here's page 21 of Saturday's Rocky Mountain News:



The story on the left describes Coffman's efforts to invalidate roughly 5,000 registrations (depending on which source you ask). Here's the crux of what's going on:

"5,000 Coloradans whose voter status is in limbo because of [a] controversial check box...The registration form asks for a driver's license or state ID number. If applicants don't have that, they're supposed to check a box and then put down at least the last four digits of their Social Security numbers. But thousands of people didn't check the box. According to a policy adopted last year by Secretary of State Mike Coffman, these applications are supposed to be listed as incomplete...National and local voting-rights organizations criticize Coffman's policy, saying it violates other federal laws. They say Coffman is unfairly putting up barriers for people who are eligible to vote and want him to change his policy."
The check box is "controversial" because you are asked to check it on the form if you don't "have" a driver's license or ID card. Here's what it looks like on the form (which you can download and see yourself here):



So, here's the thing -- what's the definition of "have?" I may have one at my house or in my car, but not with me at the very moment I am filling out the registration form. In that case, it would be logical - and, in fact, honest -- for me to not check that box, while also putting down the last four digits of my social security number as my selected method of verifying my registration. Alternately, for whatever reason (privacy, etc.), I may simply feel more comfortable listing the last 4 digits of my social security number, rather than my entire driver's license number. So therefore, I might have listed my social security number and not checked the box.

And yet, if you made any of those logical choices -- if you gave all the social security information required by law, but simply didn't check the box - Coffman is attempting to use that choice to potentially invalidate your registration and prevent you from voting.

In case you think Coffman's move isn't extreme or motivated by partisanship, consider the fact that two big Republican counties are doing exactly the opposite of Coffman. As the Rocky Mountain News notes, "Election officials in Jefferson and Larimer counties also disagree with Coffman, saying they are weighing in on the side of the voter and won't disqualify people because of what they call a technicality." The Denver Post reports that Coffman reacted by sending a letter to other counties telling them they cannot follow suit, meaning two Republican counties are registering these voters, but others are not.

Thus, it isn't surprising that the Rocky Mountain News notes that "the largest number [of registrations affected by Coffman's edict] are Democrats, followed closely by unaffiliated voters," and "hundreds live in predominately minority neighborhoods in Denver and Aurora" (ie. traditionally Democratic constituencies).

Remember, Coffman is an up-and-coming Republican "star" -- he's simultaneously Secretary of State and running to replace Colorado U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R). So he's not some nonpartisan election observer -- as I said before, he's positioning himself to be Katherine Harris, who also went on to use her notoriety as an election thief to win a seat in Congress.

And Mike Coffman in particular understands that 5,000 Democratic votes is no small number in a place like Colorado. A 12,000 vote switch from Republican to Democrat in 2006 would have cost him his election to the Secretary of State's office.

To be sure, there are going to be a lot of election-day shenanigans all over the country, much of it in the shadows. But what we're seeing here in Colorado is a very public attempt to use Republican-controlled offices to potentially disenfranchise thousands and rig the election. Indeed, the Denver Post now reports that Coffman has asked his fellow Republican crony, state Attorney General John Suthers (R), to validate his moves with an official legal opinion so as to trip up potential pre- and post-election legal challenges to the disenfranchisement. This isn't a conspiracy theory - it's happening all right out in the open for everyone to see.

It all adds up to the kind of coordinated Republican scheme we've seen in the last two elections. And once again, that scheme could throw a national election.


********************************************************************************************************************************

Gotta hope that if we know about this, the Obama people are swarming over there to fix it ...

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Joost on October 27, 2008, 10:18:00 AM
I know we don't have many Republicans on this board, but for those who are: what do you think of McCain and Palin?

I can imagine that, even if you agree much more with McCain's ideas than Obama's, that McCain doesn't seem like a very good choice, especially after he picked Palin as his running mate. I think Palin was the worst mistake he possibly could've made. I think she's done more damage to his campaign than pretty much any scandal could've done.

If McCain will win this election, he'll be 76 years old by the end of his term and since his health isn't 100%, there is a possibily that he won't be able to fulfill his term. Everyone knows that. This means that there's a serious posibility that Palin will become president. And I'm pretty sure that it won't be easy to find anyone who likes the idea of Sarah Palin as the most powerful person on this planet. I seriously think that Palin killed McCain's chances of winning the elections.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: An Apple Beatle on October 27, 2008, 11:49:10 AM
^It makes me think sometimes that a puppeteer could have orchestrated the whole thing. Like an outcome was already defined in the interests of American History?

I thought it was a master tactic to visit Grandma and take 2 days off so the world could digest the massive Conan Powell endorsement....Then just to finish off....cue the Clintons for the final home-run. Obama has dealt with his potential weaknesses whereas the other 2......? I'd hate to be a campaigner for them....I'd be so un-inspired and un-impressed. I really don't think they are serious or believe they could win it.

I'm real glad the voters wanna make sure either way though.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Joost on October 27, 2008, 12:07:11 PM
Quote from: 15
I thought it was a master tactic to visit Grandma and take 2 days off

Or maybe he's just a human being who hasn't had a day off in months and wanted to see the person who raised him for what might be the last time?
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: An Apple Beatle on October 27, 2008, 01:05:51 PM
It was cynical (Political apathy aswell perhaps.) but in the interests of conversation. ;)

Are politicians human beings? David Icke thinks they are lizards. lol
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Joost on October 27, 2008, 02:21:59 PM
Quote from: 15
It was cynical (Political apathy aswell perhaps.) but in the interests of conversation. ;)

Yeah, I though so... But I do think it's a bit disturbing that people are actually analyzing this as if it must be a tactic... It's almost like you need to be able to switch off every human emotion if you want to go somewhere as a politician... Which is of course partially true, but I hope not entirely...
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on October 27, 2008, 05:17:46 PM
> Colorado's Katherine Harris Threatens the '08 Election

I would to Sen. Ken Gordon again about this issue. I'll let you know if he replies.


Obama had his biggest rally yet in Denver yesterday. Over 100,000 people. I couldn't go because I was speaking at a science fiction/fantasy convention. I'm sorry to have missed it! I hope my friends that went will give me their views. He then went on to Fort Collins (about an hour north) where he spoke to another 45,000 people (estimates vary). It's encouraging to see.

The Rocky Mountain News liveblogged about it here: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/oct/24/obama-rally-prompts-denver-to-beef-up-sunday/
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Oh Pineapple on October 27, 2008, 06:07:16 PM
Maybe I would like McCain if he stopped acting like such a ****head and actually TALKED about how he planned on helping the country! And maybe not change his plan every ten minutes if he sees he's lacking with poll numbers.
I'm sick and tired of hearing him rant on about Obama did this and did that. Especially at their last debate. Seemed to me like he was just trying to bring up stuff on Obama in hopes he would become mad or seem defensive on national television. Which he never did, and simply smiled at McCain
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on October 27, 2008, 07:50:39 PM
No worries, OP. All viewpoints are welcome here. What good is a discussion board if we don't discuss?


I finally got a few lines from my friend who attended the giant rally. She writes:

Quote
C and I were among the crowd of 100,000+ Obama supporters at the rally in Denver yesterday.  It was an experience I'll never forget.  He exudes leadership and is an electrifying speaker.  One of the most frequent messages delivered was: ignore the polls; keep working to get people out to vote.

So, this info is to be ignored, but as we know, Bush won the popular vote in 2004, so I did a quick all-state comparison of the percentages of the votes in the latest polls (as cumulated by Real Clear Politics, which averages 10 well-established polling organizations) to the final percentages in the '04 election.  Obama has a higher percentage of votes than Kerry did in 47 of the states--16 of those states by double digits.  The three states that McCain currently has a higher percentage of votes than Bush had are: Massachusetts-1.4%, Louisiana-1.2%, and Arkansas-2.1%.  Note that Obama has a higher percentage than Kerry had in Arizona and Alaska.  If the elections were held today, the polls show Obama with 375 electoral college votes, and 375< is considered a landslide.  If he loses every "toss-up" state AND every "leaning Obama" state that is currently showing him in the lead by LESS than 7.8 pts, he would STILL win the election.  Plus, polls are conducted on landlines only, so the youth vote is not correctly accounted for; this factor alone *might* be skewering the polls in McCain's favor by 3%.

There's a cute picture in the paper of Obama at a local office calling undecided voters on the phone. Everyone in the picture is laughing-- it looks like they're enjoying the surprise of having Obama himself work their phone list. Such good feelings. And this photo was taken in a very conservative town. I like how Obama seems to be bringing out the best in people.  
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Joost on October 28, 2008, 09:21:14 AM
Quote from: 1464
Considering, if I make fun of McCain, I
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: aspinall_lover on October 28, 2008, 10:43:44 PM
One more week............this time next week.........on thr road to being over.  I'll be so glad.......and I STILL don't crare for either one of them and am standing by my decision to not vote.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: DoBotherMe on October 28, 2008, 11:02:02 PM
I felt that way too Aspie. But I did vote down ticket. Dana ; )
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on October 28, 2008, 11:08:16 PM
Quote from: 1255
One more week............this time next week.........on thr road to being over.  I'll be so glad.......and I STILL don't crare for either one of them and am standing by my decision to not vote.

But does the thought of one of them in office make you feel more uneasy than the other?

Why not vote against someone you think would be worse than the other?

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on October 29, 2008, 05:32:48 AM
OR vote for one of the underdogs-- the Green party or whoever. Just to get voter turnout up to let Washington know we're watching.

Plus, in most states, there are some crucial ballot issues that will affect you locally. You should at least turn out for them!

Here's hoping you do.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Joost on October 29, 2008, 07:47:20 AM
Quote from: 1255
One more week............this time next week.........on thr road to being over.  I'll be so glad.......and I STILL don't crare for either one of them and am standing by my decision to not vote.


Please don't take this as an offense, but I just can't believe that anyone who's taken at least 15 minutes to find out about Obama's and McCain's political positions can be totally indifferent about this election. Don't you care about issues like taxes, social security, the war in Iraq, health care, abortion and gun control? Obama and McCain have different opinions on those subjects, so I can't see why you wouldn't want to vote for the guy who you think has the best ideas on these issues...

These are pages with the political positions of the candidates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_John_McCain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_United_States_presidential_candidates,_2008

And this is a votematch, it's on a Dutch site but it's in English, you can find out who is you candidate by simply answering some multiple choice questions:
http://www.eenvandaag.nl/stemwijzerusa/mccain-obama-en/
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Kevin on October 29, 2008, 09:25:51 AM
They should never have evicted Bad Lashes. Sure their vocals were a bit ropey but......sh*t, sorry, wrong show. That's the X Factor.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: DoBotherMe on October 29, 2008, 03:25:20 PM
I work with someone who was born in Malaysia (he's from the Hindu minority) and is now a citizen of Australia. We had a conversation about the lower percentage of voters in the US compared to other "democratic" countries. He said that in his countries one can be fined for not voting. And that to him the freedom to choose whether or not to vote without coercion is another measure of real freedom. The pollsters will measure every metric they can from this election to find out who voted and why, so even not voting is a political statement. Dana ; )
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on October 29, 2008, 04:37:03 PM
Quote from: 1380
I work with someone who was born in Malaysia (he's from the Hindu minority) and is now a citizen of Australia. We had a conversation about the lower percentage of voters in the US compared to other "democratic" countries. He said that in his countries one can be fined for not voting. And that to him the freedom to choose whether or not to vote without coercion is another measure of real freedom. The pollsters will measure every metric they can from this election to find out who voted and why, so even not voting is a political statement. Dana ; )

Good point! But, is making that political statement worth someone getting into office that you don't want? Or at least, that you want to be in office less than the other guy?

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: DoBotherMe on October 29, 2008, 06:52:55 PM
It's a free country. I or anyone can form an opinion about someone and then based on that opinion or impression determine whether that someone deserves my vote. I'm also pretty sick of campaign fundraising ... what a waste. So if I or anyone desires to sit out the whole unseemly charade, it's our right to do so. Dana ; )
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on October 29, 2008, 07:49:40 PM
Quote from: 1380
It's a free country. I or anyone can form an opinion about someone and then based on that opinion or impression determine whether that someone deserves my vote. I'm also pretty sick of campaign fundraising ... what a waste. So if I or anyone desires to sit out the whole unseemly charade, it's our right to do so. Dana ; )


DoBotherMe - Sorry, I didn't make my point well, hope I didn't "Bother You"! Of course it's a free country (well, that's actually a different discussion), and anyone has the right to sit this out.

The point I tried (unsuccessfully) to raise for the sake of discussion is: Unhappy with the whole process? Would changing this be done more effectively by voting, or not voting?  
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: PaulieBear on October 29, 2008, 11:19:50 PM
John McCain to too worried about bashing Barrack. and Barrack is too worried about trying to deflect McCain's comments. niether
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Joost on October 30, 2008, 08:07:16 AM
I think that if you look at all the 'scandals' related to Obama that the Republicans have dug up so far, it really speaks in Obama's advantage. All the Palin scandals for instance were "Palin did...", "Palin was..." or "Palin got...", while the Obama scandals were all "Obama's pastor did...", "An acquaintance of Obama was..." or "Someone Obama once worked with got..."...
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on October 30, 2008, 12:44:14 PM
Remember Joe the plumber, who was McCain's favorite campaign prop a week or so ago? Apparently he's contemplating a career change....  ;D


Joe the Plumber pursued for record deal
By JEFFREY RESSNER | 10/29/08 3:59 PM EDT

Move over, Sanjaya, and tell William Hung the news: Joe the Plumber is being pursued for a major record deal and could come out with a country album as early as Inauguration Day.

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on October 30, 2008, 02:57:06 PM
Quote from: 1161
Remember Joe the plumber, who was McCain's favorite campaign prop a week or so ago? Apparently he's contemplating a career change....  ;D


Joe the Plumber pursued for record deal
By JEFFREY RESSNER | 10/29/08 3:59 PM EDT

Move over, Sanjaya, and tell William Hung the news: Joe the Plumber is being pursued for a major record deal and could come out with a country album as early as Inauguration Day.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on October 30, 2008, 03:13:38 PM
People who don't vote are letting other people decide important aspects of their life-- peace, war, health insurance, education, taxes, etc. If you're happy with this, fine. But there are people lobbying 24/7 to push their views through Washington in direct opposition to what the majority of Americans feel is in their best interest. Every person who doesn't vote gives these people that much more power.

I honestly don't understand why someone would want to throw away their one chance to directly influence the government that shapes so much of their lives.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: An Apple Beatle on October 30, 2008, 03:35:10 PM
Obama looking mighty good in Florida right now. Looking like someone who can rouse and inspire people.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on October 30, 2008, 03:37:58 PM
Quote from: 568

Come on, surely they can bash out a single in the next day or so! Look what the Beatles did, a whole ALBUM in a day!! :-)

^  ;D

First single: "Unlicensed Plumber Blues"/"Achy Breaky Heart (Drunken Sod Mix)" -with Sarah Palin

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on October 30, 2008, 03:51:42 PM
Quote from: 551
I honestly don't understand why someone would want to throw away their one chance to directly influence the government that shapes so much of their lives.

But voting requires, or ought to require, a rationally arrived at decision, and anyone who can't even see that there's something really quite important at stake this time much less draw some sort of conclusion about it probably should stay away from the voting booths.  :-/
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on October 30, 2008, 04:16:35 PM
Quote from: 1161

^  ;D

First single: "Unlicensed Plumber Blues"/"Achy Breaky Heart (Drunken Sod Mix)" -with Sarah Palin


Nice, Geoff  :)

How about "Taxman - You Know My Name"/"Devil in Her Heart" (with Sarah Palin)

Or "Baby I'm a Rich Man (So Don't Bother Me)"/"You Never Give Me Your Money (You socialist Piggies)" - Backed by John McCain and the Flamers!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on October 31, 2008, 01:46:25 AM
Colorado and other states reject voter roll purges!! Go Harihead  :) :)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/us/politics/31colorado.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Voter Purge Rejected in Colorado

By DAN FROSCH and IAN URBINA
Published: October 30, 2008
DENVER
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on October 31, 2008, 11:43:05 AM
Quote from: 568

Nice, Geoff  :)

How about "Taxman - You Know My Name"/"Devil in Her Heart" (with Sarah Palin)

Or "Baby I'm a Rich Man (So Don't Bother Me)"/"You Never Give Me Your Money (You socialist Piggies)" - Backed by John McCain and the Flamers!

I wouldn't be surprised by anything they came up with (well, okay: something tolerable/listenable would be a bloody shock).
 
(beammeup)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on October 31, 2008, 12:07:15 PM
Good point:  :)


America isn't about to become liberal heaven
Yes, Americans will be voting for Obama and change. But they don't want radicalism, just competence and decency
Gerard Baker
The Times

As America's government prepares to take a sudden and historic leftward turn, this might seem an odd moment to ponder what a conservative country it is.

On Wednesday morning, unless the political equivalent of a giant meteorite hits Earth before then, Democratic supporters in America, in happy union with almost the whole of the civilised world, will be singing hosannas to the new President-elect. They will expect the Obama proto-administration and the expanded Democratic caucus in Congress to press hard to implement quickly their agenda of wealth redistribution; a tougher and broader scope of government regulation; and an enthusiastic embrace of foreign policy multilateralism.

But the new rulers and their allies overseas would be well advised to tone down the rhetoric, play down expectations and rein in their wilder tendencies. The easiest mistake for the world to make would be to start believing the Left's own propaganda: that a vote for Barack Obama and for a Democrat in Congress on Tuesday is a vote to transform the country into a kind of social democratic paradise.

Perhaps the best supporting evidence for this claim is the likely outcome on Tuesday. Though there's no real doubt about who will win, the presidential election still looks like being a closer contest than it has any right to be.

Consider the objective facts of political life in late 2008.

You have the end of a two-term presidency, when the country is always hungry for change. You have an economy that has slipped, with almost exquisite political timing for Democrats, into what looks likely to be a deep recession. You have a global financial crisis the like of which has not been seen in 75 years.

You have deep dissatisfaction with America's standing in the world, widespread (albeit post-hoc) disapproval of the biggest Republican-driven foreign policy event of the past ten years, the decision to go to war in Iraq and something bordering on alarm about the prospects for success in the other continuing war in Afghanistan.

You have a Republican Party that has displayed an unpardonable level of incompetence, inadequacy and venality in the past four years. From the handling of Hurricane Katrina to a steady procession of members of Congress in legal trouble: a rogues' gallery with a record of crimes and misdemeanours ranging from taking bribes to soliciting sex in public toilets. Just this week, in a timely reminder of the toxicity of the Republican brand, Ted Stevens, of Alaska, became the first sitting senator to be convicted on felony charges since 1981.

In the campaign, you have a Democratic candidate who has raised twice as much money as the Republican, a jaw-dropping $650million, enabling him to blanket the country with advertisements and, culminating this week in an extraordinary 30 minutes of nationwide TV on the networks.

You have a fractious and visibly enfeebled Republican campaign that seems to be unable to suppress a disturbing psychological tendency towards self-harm. And, of course, you have media that have managed to exceed themselves in their obeisance towards the left-of-centre candidate, raising to new levels of absurdity their claims of objectivity.

What, in these circumstances, would a scientific model predict as the winning margin for the Democratic presidential candidate: 10, 15, 20 percentage points? In fact, as of yesterday, Mr Obama seemed to have a solid but by no means overwhelming advantage of between 5 and 6 percentage points.

If this were a football game, it would be one played on a field tilted at an angle of about 20 degrees, in which the teams did not change sides at half-time, and in which the one playing downhill had twice as many players on the field as its opponents, who, to make things a little bit more interesting, have bound their goalkeeper hand and foot to one of the goalposts. The final score? 3-2, after extra time.

Or put it another way: it has taken a mismanaged foreign policy that almost lost a war, a botched emergency response that almost lost a city, a Republican Party that almost lost its soul and an economic crisis that almost lost the country's financial system to break the Republican stranglehold on the White House.

The usual objection here is that Mr Obama would be doing much better if there weren't so many racists in America. That, in his own words, too many Americans have been prodded into worrying that he
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on October 31, 2008, 03:16:41 PM
Quote from: 1161
Good point:  :)


America isn't about to become liberal heaven
Yes, Americans will be voting for Obama and change. But they don't want radicalism, just competence and decency
Gerard Baker
The Times

As America's government prepares to take a sudden and historic leftward turn, this might seem an odd moment to ponder what a conservative country it is.

On Wednesday morning, unless the political equivalent of a giant meteorite hits Earth before then, Democratic supporters in America, in happy union with almost the whole of the civilised world, will be singing hosannas to the new President-elect. They will expect the Obama proto-administration and the expanded Democratic caucus in Congress to press hard to implement quickly their agenda of wealth redistribution; a tougher and broader scope of government regulation; and an enthusiastic embrace of foreign policy multilateralism.

But the new rulers and their allies overseas would be well advised to tone down the rhetoric, play down expectations and rein in their wilder tendencies. The easiest mistake for the world to make would be to start believing the Left's own propaganda: that a vote for Barack Obama and for a Democrat in Congress on Tuesday is a vote to transform the country into a kind of social democratic paradise.

Perhaps the best supporting evidence for this claim is the likely outcome on Tuesday. Though there's no real doubt about who will win, the presidential election still looks like being a closer contest than it has any right to be.

Consider the objective facts of political life in late 2008.

You have the end of a two-term presidency, when the country is always hungry for change. You have an economy that has slipped, with almost exquisite political timing for Democrats, into what looks likely to be a deep recession. You have a global financial crisis the like of which has not been seen in 75 years.

You have deep dissatisfaction with America's standing in the world, widespread (albeit post-hoc) disapproval of the biggest Republican-driven foreign policy event of the past ten years, the decision to go to war in Iraq and something bordering on alarm about the prospects for success in the other continuing war in Afghanistan.

You have a Republican Party that has displayed an unpardonable level of incompetence, inadequacy and venality in the past four years. From the handling of Hurricane Katrina to a steady procession of members of Congress in legal trouble: a rogues' gallery with a record of crimes and misdemeanours ranging from taking bribes to soliciting sex in public toilets. Just this week, in a timely reminder of the toxicity of the Republican brand, Ted Stevens, of Alaska, became the first sitting senator to be convicted on felony charges since 1981.

In the campaign, you have a Democratic candidate who has raised twice as much money as the Republican, a jaw-dropping $650million, enabling him to blanket the country with advertisements and, culminating this week in an extraordinary 30 minutes of nationwide TV on the networks.

You have a fractious and visibly enfeebled Republican campaign that seems to be unable to suppress a disturbing psychological tendency towards self-harm. And, of course, you have media that have managed to exceed themselves in their obeisance towards the left-of-centre candidate, raising to new levels of absurdity their claims of objectivity.

What, in these circumstances, would a scientific model predict as the winning margin for the Democratic presidential candidate: 10, 15, 20 percentage points? In fact, as of yesterday, Mr Obama seemed to have a solid but by no means overwhelming advantage of between 5 and 6 percentage points.

If this were a football game, it would be one played on a field tilted at an angle of about 20 degrees, in which the teams did not change sides at half-time, and in which the one playing downhill had twice as many players on the field as its opponents, who, to make things a little bit more interesting, have bound their goalkeeper hand and foot to one of the goalposts. The final score? 3-2, after extra time.

Or put it another way: it has taken a mismanaged foreign policy that almost lost a war, a botched emergency response that almost lost a city, a Republican Party that almost lost its soul and an economic crisis that almost lost the country's financial system to break the Republican stranglehold on the White House.

The usual objection here is that Mr Obama would be doing much better if there weren't so many racists in America. That, in his own words, too many Americans have been prodded into worrying that he
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on November 01, 2008, 12:46:13 PM
Quote from: 568

Never understimate the American voter - even giving them the benefit of the doubt of Bush in 2000, they voted Bush in 2004. This race isn't over by any means, and it's very possible that there will be a President McCain on November 5th.

Then, as to the main point of the article - this economic crisis has shown Americans how broken our country is. I believe, that if done competently, we will support a "New Deal" FDR-like approach to major overhaul of government institutions.

I doubt you'll see anything like a "New Deal" restructuring of the government and the economy barring a huge and long lasting rise in unemployment. But an intelligently presented and rolled out agenda might rehabilitate the old idea that government has a useful role in regulating the market economy and in providing services and opportunities to people that aren't adequately supplied by the operation of markets. If President Obama can raise the legitimacy of non-market social institutions (government and otherwise), that will be a significant legacy in itself.  :)

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on November 01, 2008, 01:59:09 PM
(http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm317/geoffw_2008/nov1.jpg)

I think this is over, assuming the polls are reasonably accurate and that there's no great shift to McCain over the next three days. McCain would have to win all the toss ups plus at least three of the Obama-leaning states (Ohio, Pennsylvania, and one other) in order to win. It's not impossible, but it's not likely, either.  :)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on November 02, 2008, 01:40:53 AM
The Angst of the Obama voter. Does this remind anyone of themselves?

**************************************************************************************
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/01/us/politics/01angst.html?em
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 1, 2008
Obama Is Up, and Fans Fear That Jinxes It
By MICHAEL POWELL
In the den of his home in New Hope, Pa., a liberal Democrat sits tap-tapping at his computer.

Jon Downs works the electoral vote maps on Yahoo like a spiritualist shaking his Ouija board. He calibrates and recalibrates: Give Senator John McCain Ohio, Missouri, even Florida. But Virginia and Pennsylvania, those go to Senator Barack Obama. And Vermont, Democrats can count on Vermont, right?

Right.

Almost always, Mr. Downs, 53, ends with Mr. Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, ahead, which should please this confirmed liberal and profound Obama fan. But just as often he feels worried.

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on November 02, 2008, 02:49:57 AM
Quote from: 568
The Angst of the Obama voter. Does this remind anyone of themselves?


Nah. Arrogance suits me far better than angst.  ;D

It's very hard to see how the Republicans pull this one off; something in the range of 325-350 electoral votes for Obama strikes me as being the most likely outcome, and he could easily win by more than that if the high number of early voters is anything to go by. Some speculation from The New Republic (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/11/01/today-s-polls-victory-conditions.aspx):


Today's Polls: Victory Conditions

This is beginning to look like a five-state election. Those states are Virginia, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada. Essentially all relevant electoral scenarios involve some combination of these five states.

I should caution that by far the most likely scenario is that Obama wins some relatively decisive victory of anywhere from 3-12 points in the popular vote. If Obama wins the popular vote by anything in this range, he will find plenty of blue territory, accumulating somewhere between 300-400 electoral votes. The electoral math will matter very little.

We can probably assume, however, that IF the national polls tighten significantly (and to reiterate, the likelihood is that they will NOT), McCain will edge out a victory in North Carolina, Florida, Indiana, North Dakota, Montana, Georgia, and Missouri; put those states in the McCain column for the time being. Likewise, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa all appear safe for Obama, even in the case of significant tightening. Put those in the Obama column.

That leaves our five states in play. The victory conditions for Obama involving these five states proceed something as follows:

1. Win Pennsylvania and ANY ONE of Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, or Nevada*
2. Win Ohio and EITHER Colorado OR Virginia.
3. Win Colorado AND Virginia AND Nevada.

(* Nevada produces a 269-269 tie, which would probably be resolved for Obama in the House of Represenatives.)

Now, suppose you think that Colorado is already in the bag for Obama because of his large edge in early voting there. We can then simplify the victory conditions as follows:

1. Win Pennsylvania
2. Win Ohio
3. Win Virginia AND Nevada

That's basically what it comes down to, although I'm sure each campaign would claim that there are a larger number of states in play.

Sorry to get off on such a tangent about this; I wanted to talk, for a change, about something other than whether the POLLS ARE TIGTHENING (!!!) or not. But as to that question, the evidence is again somewhat mixed. Contrary to other recent days, Obama gained ground in the national trackers on average, picking up points in Research 2000, Gallup and Rasmussen. The Zogby that Matt Drudge went on about turned out to be the only poll where he lost ground, while ABC/Post, IPD/TIPP and Hotline held steady.

However, our model does perceive about a point's worth of tightening in the state polls. And the Pennslyvania polls have probably tightened by more than one point, although it is important to note that the four polls that show the state in the mid- single digits (Rasmussen, Mason-Dixon, ARG and Strategic Vision) have all had Republican leans so far this cycle. Pennsylvania is still an extreme long shot for John McCain -- Obama is more likely to win Arizona than McCain the Keystone -- just not quite the long-shot that it had looked like a couple of days ago.

As a final word of warning, proceed cautiously with any polls that were in the field last night. Friday nights are difficult enough to poll, and holidays are difficult enough to poll, but when a Friday night coincides with a holiday (in this case, Halloween), getting an appropriate sample is all but impossible.

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on November 02, 2008, 03:40:10 AM
I guess it's angst of a sort.... ;D


Hark! I Hear A Celebrity Oracle

REX MURPHY
From Saturday's Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081031.wcomurph01/BNStory/specialComment/home)
October 31, 2008 at 9:01 PM EDT

Where is Cameron Diaz? Haven't seen and, worse, haven't heard from her in so long a while. Has she been disappeared? Is she in Guantanamo, the Bush-Cheney gulag for dissident celebrities?

A little more than four years ago, on a panel boasting the finest minds the world has known since the days of ancient Athens, when Socrates was tutoring Plato, Ms. Diaz was offering advice on the coming election between George Bush and John Kerry.

The scene was the edification we all know and love as The Oprah Winfrey Show. The grand empath, her Oprahness, had designed a program to stir the youth of America to vote, and crowded onto the couch (besides Ms. Diaz) an almost frightening constellation of intelligence and prestige.

There was Sean Combs, a putty artist of nomenclature, whom you may know as Puff Daddy, P. Diddy, Puffy, Diddy, Daddy Piff or Diddy Puff. The backup intellects for the occasion, doo-woppers for Mr. Diddy's famous Vote or Die campaign, were Christina Aguilera and Drew Barrymore.

Think of it as a symphony of mind.

It was the sylphlike Ms. Diaz who framed the choice between George (Neanderthal, Halliburton, frat boy, Karl Rove puppet, tool of Big Oil, IQ of a lug wrench) Bush and John (elegant) Kerry most lucidly. She issued a warning to the timid and vacant minds of young America, especially to the female half of that monstrous demographic. "If you think rape should be legal, then don't vote!"

And lest that wouldn't hold their attention - the young of America are notoriously detached - the delectable Cassandra who had transfixed the world in There's Something about Mary further cautioned that they "could lose the right to their bodies." Which would be inconvenient.

America didn't listen that day, at least young America didn't. George (amoeba, cretin, theocrat, warmonger) Bush defeated John (sweet) Kerry, rape has been legal in that despoiled country for four years, and millions of young women have had to get government permission to use their bodies for anything - getting out of bed, going to a global warming protest, dropping by Starbucks or attending the MTV awards (where a body is an absolute must - although there's a cover charge on the brain).

We haven't heard from Ms. Diaz this cycle, which is such a shame. Maybe she's just tired. Or taken up macrame;. Speaking Bluetooth to power can drain the old soul. But America is nothing if not the country of renewal. If one oracle vanishes, another leaps from the self-help rack at Barnes and Noble, or from the back pages of the better fashion magazines.

The Cameron Diaz of the 2008 election and, need I say, supporter of Barack (cool, mesmeric, "thrill up my leg," hope, change, new dawn, better dawn, dawn all day) Obama is Erica Jong. Ms. Jong wrote a book called Fear of Flying, which is to literature what Charlie's Angels is to theology.

But Ms. Jong is, make no mistake about it, a seer and guru of Diaz dimensions. She hangs about with an almost equally illustrious crowd, numbering such geopolitical high foreheads as Jane (Hanoi, exercise videos, Ted Turner) Fonda and Naomi (Al Gore's "earth tones" clothing consultant, author of The Treehouse) Wolf as among her fellow thinkers.

Ms. Jong, and God bless her courage, issued a warning this week
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Sondra on November 02, 2008, 06:10:22 PM
Two more days! Are we ready people?  ??)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on November 02, 2008, 06:26:23 PM
Polls look good, MUCH better than 2004. They are based on a certain turnout of youth voters though ...
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Applegirl on November 02, 2008, 08:36:12 PM
Quote from: 1161
Vote now!   ;D

[url]http://www.economist.com/vote2008/[/url]


[It's totally meaningless, but fun anyway, just like a real Florida election!]


I'm Italian and if I could vote I surely vote for Obama!This election involving not only US,but the rest of the world aswell.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on November 02, 2008, 10:27:52 PM
Quote from: 1581
I'm Italian and if I could vote I surely vote for Obama!This election involving not only US,but the rest of the world aswell.

There's an old joke about the Presidency of the United States being too important a job to be left to the Americans. I doubt many of the rest of us would have gone for Boy George and we'd have at least one less war and a more functional financial sector to show for our efforts. Bush is what you get when you're dumb enough to "vote with your gut" (your gut's for digesting food, fool) or vote for "the guy you'd like to have a beer with:" I mean, do your drinking buddies look like they ought to be running anything more complicated than a TV remote? :)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Kaleidoscope_Eyes on November 02, 2008, 11:01:58 PM
Who will it be? Oh-Bummer or McCain-not..... Just kidding.

Seems like it will be Obama...  :-/
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on November 03, 2008, 12:54:57 AM
Quote from: 568
Polls look good, MUCH better than 2004. They are based on a certain turnout of youth voters though ...

A lot of those polls are based on previous turnout patterns and if anything are low-balling young and African American voters. There's a lot of anecdotal evidence that turnout is way up at advance polls this year, and if that pattern continues through Tuesday it'll be very much to Obama's advantage.  :)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on November 03, 2008, 01:07:11 AM
Would it be surly to mention that a two-point lead is within the margin of error?


Poll Gives John McCain Glimmer Of Hope
By Toby Harnden in Columbus, Ohio, and Alex Spillius in Wallingford, Pennsylvania
From The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/3368308/Poll-gives-John-McCain-glimmer-of-hope.html) 03 November 2008

A Mason-Dixon survey in Ohio, the state that gave George W. Bush victory in 2004, recorded a surprise two-point advantage for the Republican.

Mr McCain has just finished a two-day bus tour through the state, which the Republican has to win if he is to have a chance.

He is scheduled to visit a staggering seven states today, holding a series of rallies mostly in airport hangers in a bid to hit local television news bulletins.

The 72-year-old Vietnam War veteran showed on Sunday he was in no mood for quitting. "There are just two days left, two days," he told a raucous crowd in Wallingford, Pennsylvania.

"We are a couple of points behind in Pennsylvania. The pundits have written us off just like before, but, my friends, the Mac is back!"

It came as Mr Obama was also making a last push to carry the traditional swing territory.

In Ohio, he showed no signs of letting up as he held rallies in Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: aspinall_lover on November 03, 2008, 01:15:43 AM
Well, Geoff, good points on all bases.  But I can't wait to watch the returns on TV Tuesday night.  It WILL be interesting..................VERY...............
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on November 03, 2008, 01:23:59 AM
One last (I hope) Palinism:

Sarah Palin speaks on the First Amendment
Glenn Greenwald
Salon (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/10/31/palin/index.html) October 31st

Somehow, in Sarah Palin's brain, it's a threat to the First Amendment when newspapers criticize her negative attacks on Barack Obama.  This is actually so dumb that it hurts:

    In a conservative radio interview that aired in Washington, D.C. Friday morning, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin said she fears her First Amendment rights may be threatened by "attacks" from reporters who suggest she is engaging in a negative campaign against Barack Obama.

    Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.

    "If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."

Maureen Dowd recently made an equally stupid comment when she complained that her First Amendment rights were being violated by the McCain campaign's refusal to allow her on their campaign plane.

The First Amendment is actually not that complicated.  It can be read from start to finish in about 10 seconds.  It bars the Government from abridging free speech rights.  It doesn't have anything to do with whether you're free to say things without being criticized, or whether you can comment on blogs without being edited, or whether people can bar you from their private planes because they don't like what you've said.  

If anything, Palin has this exactly backwards, since one thing that the First Amendment does actually guarantee is a free press.  Thus, when the press criticizes a political candidate and a Governor such as Palin, that is a classic example of First Amendment rights being exercised, not abridged.

This isn't only about profound ignorance regarding our basic liberties, though it is obviously that.  Palin here is also giving voice to the standard right-wing grievance instinct:  that it's inherently unfair when they're criticized.  And now, apparently, it's even unconstitutional.  

According to Palin, what the Founders intended with the First Amendment was that political candidates for the most powerful offices in the country and Governors of states would be free to say whatever they want without being criticized in the newspapers.  In the Palin worldview, the First Amendment was meant to ensure that powerful political officials such as herself would not be "attacked" in the papers.  Is it even possible to imagine more breathtaking ignorance from someone holding high office and running for even higher office?
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: aspinall_lover on November 03, 2008, 02:25:12 AM
Geoff..............do you want to be a "political analyist"???  No pun.......seriously.....you KNOW your stuff, dude!!!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on November 03, 2008, 03:16:38 AM
Quote from: 1255
Geoff..............do you want to be a "political analyist"???


You wouldn't know someone at Fox who'd take a resume by any chance...?  ;D

G1qAnx-_LmY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1qAnx-_LmY)


 :)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Joost on November 03, 2008, 01:42:01 PM
I'm already looking forward to following the whole thing on CNN... Too bad it will take place in middle of the night and early morning for us, so I'll see how long I can keep my eyes open...

I remember that four years ago I fell asleep around 3 AM and that Kerry still seemed to be ahead of Bush around that time... Then I woke up about four hours later with the TV still on... The first thing I heard when I woke up was that Bush had won... What a nightmare that was...  :(
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on November 03, 2008, 02:42:14 PM
(http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm317/geoffw_2008/nov3.jpg)


You can see the depth of McCain's problem: even with the polls (predictably) tightening, he still wouldn't win even if he carried every one of the toss up states, something he is not all likely to do. (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/11/03/reuterszogby_obama_leads_in_most_battleground_states.html) The real question tomorrow night is going to be how big Obama's margin is and how many Senate and House seats the Democrats pick up. (My guess: Obama wins by about 5 points and 325-350 electoral votes, and the Democrats pick up around 6 Senate seats and 20 in the House.)  :)

map from Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on November 03, 2008, 02:47:15 PM
Here's something I hope proves to be true:  :)


Last of the Culture Warriors
     
By Peter Beinart
Monday, November 3, 2008; Page A21
The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/02/AR2008110201718.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)

Why has America turned on Sarah Palin? Obviously, her wobbly television interviews haven't helped. Nor have the drip, drip of scandals from Alaska, which have tarnished her reformist image. But Palin's problems run deeper, and they say something fundamental about the political age being born. Palin's brand is culture war, and in America today culture war no longer sells. The struggle that began in the 1960s -- which put questions of racial, sexual and religious identity at the forefront of American politics -- may be ending. Palin is the end of the line.

This won't be the first time a culture war has come to a close. In the 1920s, battles over evolution, immigration, prohibition and the resurgent Ku Klux Klan dominated election after election. And those issues played into that era's version of the red-blue divide, pitting newly arrived, saloon-frequenting, big-city Catholics against old-stock, teetotaling, small-town Protestants. In 1924, the Democratic convention split so bitterly over prohibition and the Klan that it took more than 100 ballots to nominate a candidate for president.

Then, in the 1930s, the culture war died. A big reason was the Depression, which put questions of economic survival front and center. In the 1920s boom economy, politicians were largely free to focus on identity politics. By Franklin Roosevelt's election in 1932, that was a luxury America's leaders could no longer afford.

The other thing that killed the '20s culture war was generational change. Over time, Catholics and other immigrants left their ghettos and began to assimilate. The cutoff of mass immigration in 1924 ushered in an era of cultural consolidation in which the differences among white Americans came to matter less and less. When Democrats nominated a Catholic, Al Smith, for president in 1928, he lost in a landslide. But by 1960, when they nominated John F. Kennedy, he grabbed a far larger share of the Protestant vote, and won.

Something similar is happening today. Our era's culture war also began in prosperity. It was in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the high point of America's postwar boom, that African Americans took to the streets in vast numbers to demand equal rights. And it was in the early 1960s, as a result of the vast increase in postwar college enrollment, that students began challenging the conformity of American life. In 1962, the Port Huron Statement spoke of a generation "bred in at least modest comfort." It was those middle-class baby boomers who sparked the movements for women's rights and gay rights and the rise in blue-state secularism, all of which helped touch off this era's culture war.

The relationship between prosperity and cultural conflict isn't exact, of course, but it is significant that during this era's culture war we've gone a quarter-century without a serious recession. Economic issues have mattered in presidential elections, of course, but not until today have we faced an economic crisis so grave that it made cultural questions seem downright trivial. In 2000, in the wake of an economic boom and a sex scandal that led to a president's impeachment, 22 percent of Americans told exit pollsters that "moral values" were their biggest concern, compared with only 19 percent who cited the economy.

Today, according to a recent Newsweek poll, the economy is up to 44 percent and "issues like abortion, guns and same-sex marriage" down to only 6 percent. It's no coincidence that Palin's popularity has plummeted as the financial crisis has taken center stage. From her championing of small-town America to her efforts to link Barack Obama to former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, Palin is treading a path well-worn by Republicans in recent decades. She's depicting the campaign as a struggle between the culturally familiar and the culturally threatening, the culturally traditional and the culturally exotic. But Obama has dismissed those attacks as irrelevant, and the public, focused nervously on the economic collapse, has largely tuned them out.

Palin's attacks are also failing because of generational change. The long-running, internecine baby boomer cultural feud just isn't that relevant to Americans who came of age after the civil rights, gay rights and feminist revolutions. Even many younger evangelicals are broadening their agendas beyond abortion, stem cells, school prayer and gay marriage. And just as younger Protestants found JFK less threatening than their parents had found Al Smith, younger whites -- even in bright-red states -- don't view the prospect of a black president with great alarm.

The economic challenges of the coming era are complicated, fascinating and terrifying, while the cultural battles of the 1960s feel increasingly stale. If John McCain loses tomorrow, the GOP will probably choose someone like Mitt Romney or Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal to lead it back from the wilderness, someone who -- although socially conservative -- speaks fluently about the nation's economic plight and doesn't try to substitute identity for policy. Although she seems like a fresh face, Sarah Palin actually represents the end of an era. She may be the last culture warrior on a national ticket for a very long time.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on November 03, 2008, 07:19:05 PM
Geoff, I will feel much better if/when the numbers are in. You notice the RCP poll you have up above is about 60-80 electoral votes less for Obama than a few days ago.

As of now, Palin could still possibly be one unfortunate "threshing accident" away from the Presidency.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Penny Lane on November 03, 2008, 07:57:49 PM
Quote from: 568
As of now, Palin could still possibly be one unfortunate "threshing accident" away from the Presidency.

Please don't say that.  I would be horrified if that happened.  :o ??) >:( :'(

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on November 03, 2008, 08:41:15 PM
Quote from: 1620

Please don't say that.  I would be horrified if that happened.  :o ??) >:( :'(


Sorry, I was just joking, I read that on some thread somewhere this AM.

Sorry  :)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Jane on November 03, 2008, 09:30:34 PM
Good luck for you tomorrow, American friends!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on November 04, 2008, 01:31:44 AM
Quote from: 568
Geoff, I will feel much better if/when the numbers are in. You notice the RCP poll you have up above is about 60-80 electoral votes less for Obama than a few days ago.

All they've done really is move Ohio and Virginia out of the "leaning Obama" category back into the toss ups. That's where they should have been all along, I think. It's still going to be the Democrats' night.  :)

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Penny Lane on November 04, 2008, 01:39:31 AM
Quote from: 568

Sorry, I was just joking, I read that on some thread somewhere this AM.

Sorry  :)

It's all right, Alexis, no worries.   :)

Anyway........  I am hoping tomorrow will go well, and I will not be voting for McCain-Palin.  I will be busy all day Tuesday but I will keep my eyes and ears wide open for any election news I can get.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Sondra on November 04, 2008, 01:55:36 AM
I'm so curious to see how people vote on Prop 8. That's the big one. I've seen/heard more commercials on that one Proposition than anything else! Today, we even saw sky writing at work telling us how to vote. Great explaining that to the kids.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: DaveRam on November 04, 2008, 09:54:17 AM
Is it over yet (tongue6)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: aspinall_lover on November 04, 2008, 07:23:59 PM
I voted.  Not going to say for who, but I hope it's the right one.  I wasn't going to vote at all, but had a change of mind the last couple of weeks...........
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on November 04, 2008, 07:28:00 PM
Quote from: 1255
I voted.  Not going to say for who, but I hope it's the right one. I wasn't going to vote at all, but had a change of mind the last couple of weeks...........

Me too!

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Mrs Lennon on November 04, 2008, 07:48:52 PM
[size=18]Ringo!!!!![/size] Today at school, we had a student's choice election, and I managed to get FOUR people to vote for Ringo! I am so proud. (bouncing3)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on November 04, 2008, 10:02:27 PM
Quote from: 1657
[size=18]Ringo!!!!![/size] Today at school, we had a student's choice election, and I managed to get FOUR people to vote for Ringo! I am so proud. (bouncing3)

Congrats, sounds like you have a promising future in Beatles-convincing! I wish I had read your post before I voted!!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Mrs Lennon on November 04, 2008, 10:36:14 PM
Beatles-convincing? What's the job description like?
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: HeyJude18 on November 04, 2008, 11:54:53 PM
OH man, thank god that this election's almost over!  Let's be honest, I'm getting tired of hearing about it!!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: pc31 on November 05, 2008, 12:05:24 AM
i think it would be good for america to elect barrack...america has this bigotry issue it needs to move along with...and it is not all one sided...or even 2 sided but multi oriented....
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Mrs Lennon on November 05, 2008, 12:38:15 AM
Quote from: 1447
OH man, thank god that this election's almost over!  Let's be honest, I'm getting tired of hearing about it!!

Yay! I agree 100%! I am sick of all the political ads! I mean, as if one 30-second ad is going to convince us to vote for them. It's what they do in the long-run that really matters. Nice thinking, HeyJude! (beer)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: An Apple Beatle on November 05, 2008, 03:09:15 AM
135-207 Obama right now.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: HeyJude18 on November 05, 2008, 03:52:26 AM
They're just showing the park where Obama's having his speach later tonight and it's like he's a rockstar!!!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: An Apple Beatle on November 05, 2008, 04:04:27 AM
 Cali & Washington just come in 273 -141

He's done it!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Sondra on November 05, 2008, 04:04:54 AM
Historic. Very emotional. Check out all the celebrations across the country. Very cool.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: HeyJude18 on November 05, 2008, 04:10:49 AM
Hahahaha, the people on CTV are amusing!  They referred to the Republican camp as it being the Titanic - it just hit the iceburg but the band's still playing
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Sondra on November 05, 2008, 04:22:46 AM
A lot of the news anchors are choked up. I like the stories some of the African American reporters are telling and how many of them are thinking of their parents or grandparents and how they can now say you really can be anything you want to be.

McCain is actually giving a nice little speech right now congratulating President Elect Obama.  :)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: DaveRam on November 05, 2008, 04:39:52 AM
Congratulations Barack Obama on becoming the 44th President of America , i'm really happy that you won (smile)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Sondra on November 05, 2008, 05:07:36 AM
I'm diggin his speech. I like the Sam Cooke lyric quote he snuck in there.

"It's been a long time coming...a change is gonna come"  8)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Penny Lane on November 05, 2008, 06:47:32 AM
Wow.  Congrats to Obama! :) :) :)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Joost on November 05, 2008, 08:04:33 AM
Americans: thank you and congratulations...
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Bobber on November 05, 2008, 09:47:41 AM
I hope Obama can stand up to the high expectations. He has to deal with the legacy of George W Bush and that is not a very good start I guess. Good luck to him.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: pc31 on November 05, 2008, 11:50:26 AM
now can we start to heal????
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Bobber on November 05, 2008, 11:58:24 AM
Quote from: 284
now can we start to heal????

Please start with yourself!  ;D
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: An Apple Beatle on November 05, 2008, 01:27:28 PM
Optimism.....Just a nice feeling of optimism.....I love the smell of optimism in the morning! heheheh
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: somedude210 on November 05, 2008, 01:49:14 PM
i just hope he doesnt do a carter.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: DaveRam on November 05, 2008, 02:16:39 PM
Can someone explain the popular vote ?
52% Obama and 46% McCain , i saw on the news here in the uk , that seems like almost half of America is not convinced by Obama and only a few % of the American population moved his way .
Will this be a problem for Obama in the future ?
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: aspinall_lover on November 05, 2008, 02:22:40 PM
Well, I admit, I voted for Obama and my husband voted for McCain.  Why?  I don't know.  I wasn't even going to vote.  But I had a change of mind.  This country needs someone "young", like around my age, mid-40's, to even late 40's/early 50's, not some old "grandpa" in his 70's about ready to "kick the bucket".
I hope Obama can make a change in this country.  But remember, it won't come overnight.  It's gonna take a few years to straighen this country out after 8 years of idiotic "Bushy-tail" rule............
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Joost on November 05, 2008, 02:44:27 PM
Quote from: 971
Can someone explain the popular vote ?
52% Obama and 46% McCain , i saw on the news here in the uk , that seems like almost half of America is not convinced by Obama and only a few % of the American population moved his way .
Will this be a problem for Obama in the future ?

Bush actually lost the popular vote when he won the 2000 elections... He got just 47.87% of all votes...
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Joost on November 05, 2008, 02:54:45 PM
Clinton got just 43% of all votes in 1992 and 49.24% in 1996... Bush got 47.9% in 2000 and 50.7% in 2004... So 52% is pretty darn good.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on November 05, 2008, 03:19:06 PM
Quote from: 971
Can someone explain the popular vote ?
52% Obama and 46% McCain , i saw on the news here in the uk , that seems like almost half of America is not convinced by Obama and only a few % of the American population moved his way .
Will this be a problem for Obama in the future ?


Obama did very well in cities, and McCain very well in the non-urban areas. The reason Obama won is that he picked off enough of these latter voters to push him over the top in each state. Nevertheless, when you look at the county maps, it's generally rare to see a blue "Obama" county far from a big city outside of Caifornia and the Northeast.

We're still a divided nation, but last night was a huge and necessary first step towards repairing that.

I loved the line from his speech last night, where, after pointing out that the USA is currently much less divided than during the civil war in the 1860s, he quoted Lincoln:

"We are not enemies, but friends - though our passions may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection"

And then the reaching out towards those who voted against him: "... And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your president too".

Optimism has replaced fear and hate, it is a beautiful thing.

Here's his speech in total: http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/speeches/obama-victory-speech.html#

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on November 05, 2008, 04:15:17 PM
(Caution - boring civics lesson to follow...)

Here's an example of how the voting goes in individual states, and also of the typical CITY vs COUNTRYSIDE divide in this country. It's a random example, in the state of Indiana which at 11AM NY time today was just called for Obama.

If you click on this link, http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html ,  and then click on the state of Indiana (it's a blue state (the Democrat color) along the top of the country, about 1/3 over from the far right, abbreviation "Ind." for those who aren't as familiar with the map), you'll see that Obama only won 15 out of what looks like 150 or 200 counties. The rest of the counties are red, red, and red (Red is the Republican color)! But, these blue counties are the ones with the large population centers (cities), and since states are winner takes all, all of Indiana's electoral votes go to the blue candidate, Obama.

Digging deeper, if you click on a red county, you can see that even though they are red, some are quite close - 49.9% to 49.1%, etc. So, even if Obama didn't get a majority of a red county, he got some   votes there that contributed to his overall statewide vote and victory.

Besides apparently having good ideas and a good character, he was a great campaigner!



Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Joost on November 05, 2008, 04:36:51 PM
(http://i33.tinypic.com/zx6yi8.jpg)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: DaveRam on November 05, 2008, 04:44:41 PM
Thanks for that lesson alexis , very informative (smile)
So middle America which is the Bible belt stayed pretty much Red ? but Obama did pick some votes up their , have i got that right ?
I wish him luck , i think he's going to need a bit of that , mind you i thought he was very realistic in his speech , kinda told it as it is "Brick By Brick " i liked that .
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Jane on November 05, 2008, 07:21:24 PM
Congratulations to all those who voted for Obama!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on November 05, 2008, 07:30:25 PM
Quote from: 1393
Congratulations to all those who voted for Obama!

And all those who didn't!

Hari, are you still out there? Please tell us what it was like on election day. Were you there shuttling people to the polls? CONGRATS on your successful work in converting Colorado from red to blue!

[edited for blue<-->red typo - thanks Jane!]
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on November 05, 2008, 07:34:08 PM
Quote from: 971
Thanks for that lesson alexis , very informative (smile)
So middle America which is the Bible belt stayed pretty much Red ? but Obama did pick some votes up their , have i got that right ?
I wish him luck , i think he's going to need a bit of that , mind you i thought he was very realistic in his speech , kinda told it as it is "Brick By Brick " i liked that .



You got it just right, DaveRam!

There's a cool graphic currently on the front page of this http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/11/05/us/politics/20081104_ELECTION_RECAP.html that shows exactly what you are talking about - how much of a shift in the blue or (occasionally) red direction that each county in the nation had, irrespective of what the actual majority in that county turned out to be. It's incredibly interesting!

Sometimes these things get pushed to back pages, if it is gone by the time you look for it, let me know, and I'll try to find the updated url for you.

Take care!

[Edit: Updated link]
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Jane on November 05, 2008, 07:57:16 PM
Quote from: 568

And all those who didn't!

Hari, are you still out there? Please tell us what it was like on election day. Were you there shuttling people to the polls? CONGRATS on your successful work in converting Colorado from blue to red!

Alexis, please, RED is Republican and BlUE is Democratic, isn`t it? Do you mean Colorado turned Republican? Sorry, I don`t understand!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Kaleidoscope_Eyes on November 05, 2008, 09:49:30 PM
Woohoo! Go Obama!!!! Funny thing in the news paper today , Obama's victory and other USA election related things are on the front page all in big and then squeezed on the side an article called "That other Election..." (refering to the NZ election, which will take place on saturday)  ;D

Congrats Obama and good luck to him!  :)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on November 05, 2008, 10:03:09 PM
Quote from: 1393

Alexis, please, RED is Republican and BlUE is Democratic, isn`t it? Do you mean Colorado turned Republican? Sorry, I don`t understand!

Yes, that is correct Jane! Colorado went from Red (Republican) to Blue (Democrat), in part because of hard work by people like Harihead.

Sorry for the typo in the earlier post (edited/fixed)!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Mairi on November 05, 2008, 11:06:03 PM
yay Obama!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: python on November 05, 2008, 11:09:30 PM
i second that.way to go obama.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: pc31 on November 06, 2008, 12:33:07 AM
red and blue....what a concept huh??i wonder if thats why they did a red and blue album for the beatles....
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: pc31 on November 06, 2008, 12:35:07 AM
Quote from: 343
i just hope he doesnt do a carter.
carter did more for the farmers and middle class out of anybody since f d r i believe....

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: HeatherBoo on November 06, 2008, 12:39:03 AM
I think America got it right this time  8)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Octie on November 06, 2008, 08:29:14 AM
Congrats and good luck to Obama! I hope he does well :)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Joost on November 06, 2008, 08:57:40 AM
(http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/Electoral-map-web-4445_redo.jpg)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on November 06, 2008, 04:55:08 PM
^^^  Funny!!  :)

And here is how (if not why) Obama won, based on exit polling:

It's looking more and more like the reason was that Republicans didn't come out to vote. Apparently on Tuesday they had the lowest turn out in 7 presidential elections. Interestingly, the youth vote for Obama, though higher in absolute numbers than previous elections, was roughly the same percentage-wise as previous elections (because of the growing population).

Also, Obama won the majority of support in the following age groups: 1) 18 -30 year olds; 30-45 year olds; 45-65 year olds (McCain won with those 75yo and older); college-educated; those making less than $50,000/yr; and those making more than $200,000/yr. 75% of the electorate was white, and Obama won 43% of them. Obama also won among all men, and also among all women.

Though McCain barely took the majority of whites (55%), Obama had a higher percentage of whites voting for him than even Clinton (a white Southerner) did.

And finally, this Presidential election made it 4 of the last 5 that Democrats won the popular vote in this country.

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: The Swine on November 07, 2008, 01:23:48 PM
NawhWb8Uu5E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NawhWb8Uu5E)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: pc31 on November 07, 2008, 05:51:43 PM
 :(they are already telling jokes.....
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on November 07, 2008, 07:40:42 PM
Obama is so yesterday. Let's move on to our future, where our true destiny lies.

http://www.secureourdream.com/pages/we_the_people.html

Remember, "It's about we the people, not we the government"!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on November 07, 2008, 07:44:42 PM
Hello, friends! I have surfaced at last!

Alexis, I was indeed busy before election day. I had my last Obama phone-calling party the Thursday before, where we ran one last time through our list of undecided voters. I can say that Geoff was absolutely right when he pointed out that some people ought just to stay away from the voting booth. In this last run-through, I got some people who barely spoke English-- I hope they can read-- but didn't seem to understand my question. ("Obama or McCain?") I got some who had just given up on taking any active part in the course of affairs, who apparently decided it's time to lie down and die because, well, why not? We'll all die one day anyway. I got some really slow people who really didn't know which end was up (I have a slightly impaired nephew-in-law who taught me a lot about this-- great kid but he really doesn't have the mental power to form an opinion, and always ends up agreeing with whoever talked to him last). There were the sad people tortured by their religion, who were afraid to vote their conscience because their priest told them they would go to hell if they voted for Obama, but couldn't see how ongoing wars, poverty, and sickness were at all supportive of a "right to life".

One of the most fascinating things about being involved in the canvassing effort was talking to so many types of people, from staunch Republicans and Libertarians to true Socialists, hearing their views and seeing the conversation shift over time. I really felt as if I could appreciate what was going on in a lot of people's minds this time through.

But what really kept me busy before election day was that I was (finally, only a week before) selected as an election judge. I put my name into the hat for "troubleshooter", which meant I had to support the electronic voting machines and computers (both strong suits for me), but also fill in as needed for any of the other judging positions, from verifying ID and getting them a provisional ballot if needed, to handling poll watchers and protesters (both of which our vote center had). So I jumped into training and learned a lot about our election process from the inside-- the checks and balances built into each step of the process, and how you could cheat (which I informed my fellow judges about, which shocked them)-- but it would be hard to pull off because you have so many witnesses (especially those poll watchers; we had 4 in our center alone). But it was very cool to see how earnest the effort was to protect people's votes, and get the right results back to the main location.

I had a blast. The day before, the other troubleshooter judge and I set up and tested the 24 machines at our center, while the supervisor set up the rest of the site (the forms, statements of rights, reference books, etc.) The IT guys set up the computers for the 8 pollbook judges. Setup took us about 8 hours, then it was home for a short night of sleep, up at 4:30 in the morning to verify all the security seals on all the equipment again, run more tests, and finally open our doors 2 minutes before 7, because we were ready. What a great way to spend the day! I was running around to all the stations, answering questions, escorting people who needed to enter or exit for some reason, helping resolve computer issues, on and on.

My favorite by far were the first-time voters. We had one young man whose machine canceled his vote on him (I postulated the sunlight on the screen had warmed the hidden "cancel" key, and the computer war room agreed with me and made a note for future setups). So we gave him a new machine out of the sun, but he took so long reading the ballot issues the machine timed out. The third time (after we reset his card through headquarters once again), he finally comes out with this smile and his face, and we judges all broke out into cheers and applause. The voters signing in jumped, looking startled, then started grinning, while the young man exited with a bounce in his step. We were a happy vote center.

We had some protesters, as I mentioned, but they were extremely polite and well-mannered. We had the most complaints from the "Abortion" guy, an implant from Connecticut (because they couldn't find any local protesters?). He had a gory sign, but he turned it away whenever any kids came by. He was also instructed not to speak to any of the voters, and he abided by that. The union guys were more aggressive, but once we established the "free speech" zone (100 feet away) they were fine. Everyone seemed to be in a good mood, inside the building and out. There was an energy humming in the air. This is how an election should be!

I was surprised we didn't have more voters. We had a big wave in the morning, a steady trickle all day, and two post-work waves. I found out during the course of the day that 75% of my county had voted early or by mail. In the end, we boasted over a 90% turn-out rate. Incredible! I'm so proud of us.

After the last voter was out, we locked the doors and did our ballot processing. It all involves a lot of keys and signatures by witnesses and locking paper ballots, machine printouts, and computer chips into sealed bags or metal boxes, and publicly posting a copy of the results in the window so no one can sneakily alter the ballots on the way in. The crew I was working with were great, and we had the place broken down and locked up by 9 PM. I went to mail the official count to the county (another check, so someone couldn't alter the paperwork) while the supervisor took the official ballots to the collection center. He said we were the first district to report in. Yay! So I walked in the door shortly after 9 knowing nothing, and found a message on my answering machine from my buddy Rick, left 4 minutes earlier. He sounded exhausted. "We did it." I hadn't seen a TV or election result all night, but there it was: the good answer, awaiting me as I walked in the door.

So I jumped in the car and went to his house, where he was watching the returns with his family. Rick and I have been precinct leaders all through the horrible Bush years; he's got the one next to mine, and we switch off canvassing and volunteer lists. Year by year we've been chipping away at the stubborn Republican prejudice that still made people believe, despite all the evidence, that George Bush was a competent president. Colorado went overwhelmingly blue this time-- we have 2 Dem senators, a Dem governor, a Dem-controlled state legislature, and made further gains in the House-- including throwing out that embarrassing Marilyn Musgrave, Colorado's own Sarah Palin, who was rated #23 in the entire Congress (out of 458 ) for corruption. (see http://www.progressiveliving.org/politics/best_worst_american_politicians/best_worst_american_politicians.htm )

I got there in time for the acceptance speech. Rick and I sat with tears pouring down our faces. It was so huge, so terrific-- I was very moved. When Obama told his young daughters they had earned that puppy, Rick's youngest son decided this was his cue to ask for a car. (Answer: no).

It was a great night, a great evening.

The next day I finished my election judging, packing the equipment and having it carted away. People were still in a good mood, everybody smiling. America feels good about itself again. I feel our standing has been restored not only in the world, but with ourselves. We did a good thing.

I went home and fell into the internet to catch up, and have only now surfaced. It feels great to have witnessed history in action, and contributed in whatever way I could. It will be exciting to see what the future holds. I hope this wonderful energy that we've generated goes forward into productive effort. There's so much to repair and make better. But we've already begun, just by believing we can. It's a good beginning.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on November 07, 2008, 08:47:45 PM
Yeah, Harihead! Our local heroine!!!!  :) :)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on November 07, 2008, 09:21:36 PM
Ah, thanks, Alexis! I'm lucky at the moment, as my job went to India, so I can devote all this time to the American democratic process. Really, this has been a kooky year-- some real alarms and challenges, and great stuff, as well. What a ride it's been.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: An Apple Beatle on November 07, 2008, 10:13:08 PM
Thanks for sharing that H. :)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: JimmyMcCullochFan on November 07, 2008, 10:13:38 PM
I noticed watching McCain's concession speech that everytime Obama was mentioned there were boos and when Obama made his speech and everytime he mentioned McCain there were cheers.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on November 08, 2008, 06:01:07 PM
Quote from: 682
I noticed watching McCain's concession speech that everytime Obama was mentioned there were boos and when Obama made his speech and everytime he mentioned McCain there were cheers.


Don't be surprised. I heard on Fox News today that this was because the McCain crowd was being double-ironic ... by booing they were really showing how much they were good sports and really accepted the election. Likewise, they said the Obama camp was being their typical weak and wimpy selves and so they cheered instead of showing their true hateful feelings.

Difficult to believe under normal circumstances, but it was in Fox News  ;)
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: pc31 on November 08, 2008, 06:05:37 PM
the fox network isn't really taken totally seriously here in america......
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Mairi on November 12, 2008, 06:39:34 AM
Faux news you mean...
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Bobber on November 12, 2008, 09:20:07 AM
Quote from: 284
the fox network isn't really taken totally seriously here in america......

But you got to admit that the Fox News girls have long luscious legs and sexy feet.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on November 12, 2008, 03:19:46 PM
Quote from: 284
the fox network isn't really taken totally seriously here in america......


Especially by viewers:

ABC and CNN take the ratings spoils after Barack Obama election victory
 John Plunkett
 The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/nov/06/tvratings-television) / Thursday November 6 2008 11.35 GMT

ABC and CNN took the top two spots in the US presidential race ratings battle on Tuesday night as a combined 71 million viewers tuned in for Barack Obama's historic win, knocking 2004's election night winner NBC into third place.

Fourteen US TV networks covered election night, according to Nielsen estimates, with a combined prime time audience of 71.5 million viewers, entertainment trade paper Variety reported.

It was 21% up on the combined 59.2 million who watched the results across 10 networks in 2004.

However, combined audience for the four major networks was down 6% to 38.1 million. Cable networks CNN, Fox News and MSNBC's total audience was up 59% to 17.1 million.

Disney-owned ABC averaged 13.1 million viewers between 8pm and 11pm, EST, followed by CNN (12.3 million), NBC (12 million) and fourth-placed Fox News Channel, which had 9 million viewers.

ABC's ratings were up 8% on 2004, while CNN nearly doubled its audience, up 98%, on the night when George W Bush beat John Kerry to secure his second term as president.

NBC, the most-watched channel on the 2000 and 2004 presidential election nights, was down 20% on four years ago. It was ABC's first election night victory since 1996.

Among the other US networks, CBS averaged 7.8 million, down 14% on 2004, MSNBC had 5.9 million, and the Fox channel had 5.1 million.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on November 15, 2008, 02:11:45 AM
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html

More data than you can shake a stick at. Useful for term papers, or wasting away the hours!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: pc31 on November 15, 2008, 03:25:44 PM
someone,a docor on whose roof we just redid,told me obama want to start a security for compebale to the u s army that will only be answerable to the president........i have not heard of it from elsewhere yet but i think i may have to really worry about our direction now...has anyone else heard of thiis proposal??
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on November 15, 2008, 06:49:55 PM
Quote from: 284
someone,a docor on whose roof we just redid,told me obama want to start a security for compebale to the u s army that will only be answerable to the president........i have not heard of it from elsewhere yet but i think i may have to really worry about our direction now...has anyone else heard of thiis proposal??

pc31, I heard this too ... it was some guy on Fox News trying to stir up fear and hatred about the Domestic Peace Corps that Obama wants to start up. It's not a security organization at all, it's something like teenagers after high school who give up 1 or 2 years volunteering for their country domestically (roads projects, rebuilding infrastructure, building a new energy grid; or volunteering in inner city schools) get something in return like free college, etc.

Remember - the only thing the losers in this last election have is the ability to peddle fear ... don't believe anything like that unless you can verify it in something that is not like Fox News or the Drudge Report, or other things like that.

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on November 17, 2008, 10:12:36 PM
Is it too early to start talking about 2012?  ;D


Huckabee Lashes Back, Settles Scores
Out this week: Do The Right Thing: Inside the Movement That's Bringing Common Sense Back to America by Mike Huckabee.
From Political Wire (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/11/17/huckabee_lashes_back_settles_scores.html)

Time (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1859539,00.html) calls it "at once a memoir of his campaign, a treatise on the ills of the Republican Party, and a blueprint for his own political future." The book is also "filled with sharp words for fellow Republicans who frustrated his bid for the party's nomination."

Mitt Romney "comes in for the roughest treatment... He notes that Romney declined to make a phone call of congratulations after Huckabee beat the oddsmakers to win the Iowa caucuses, 'which we took as a sign of total disrespect.'"

He also "calls out Pat Robertson, the Virginia-based televangelist, and Dr. Bob Jones III, chancellor of Bob Jones University in South Carolina, for endorsing Rudy Giuliani and Romney, respectively. He also has words for the Texas-based Rev. John Hagee, who endorsed the more moderate John McCain in the primaries, as someone who was drawn to the eventual Republican nominee because of the lure of power."
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: harihead on November 25, 2008, 05:44:52 AM
More Obama geekery, from http://blog.wired.com/geekdad/2008/11/5-signs-preside.html

Quote
5 Signs President-Elect Obama Is a Geek

...2. [Obama] is a big fan of Star Trek. He said himself: "I grew up on Star Trek. I believe in the final frontier." And, when Leonard Nimoy was the guest on NPR's "Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me!" in September, he said that he had run into "one of the presidential candidates" and that that candidate had, upon seeing Nimoy, given him the Vulcan salute. He refused to name the candidate, but said he "was not John McCain." (Ed. Note: not to mention, he is the best example of the strength of IDIC we've seen in a long time)


Live long and prosper!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Geoff on November 25, 2008, 04:37:26 PM
I like this from the comments:

Ah! He knows what an integer is... Unlike other candidates and even senators.
Posted by: John | Nov 6, 2008 5:23:31 AM


Not to mention governors. Speaking of which, this is Sarah Palin at a Thanksgiving turkey pardoning ceremony in Wasilla a few days ago. Watch the guy in the background.

z-kjM1asH-8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-kjM1asH-8)

Yup: that's the contraption they use to kill turkeys. Great stage managing, governor.  ;D
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Harlena McStarkney on November 25, 2008, 07:41:47 PM
I  believe it was Obama that said he campaigned in 57 states. er...that's all I have to say about politics.
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Harlena McStarkney on November 25, 2008, 07:46:28 PM
Quote from: 218
Faux news you mean...

All the networks are faux news, really.

Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on November 25, 2008, 08:01:32 PM
Quote from: 145

All the networks are faux news, really.


Is there any real news?
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Harlena McStarkney on November 25, 2008, 08:20:53 PM
Quote from: 568

Is there any real news?
Not that I know of.  It's all a fabrication to placate the people.  Like soma (from "A Brave New World").
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: BlueMeanie on January 20, 2009, 01:47:40 PM
Where's Joe The Plumber these days?
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: Swine on January 20, 2009, 01:57:36 PM
hiding in bushes
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: BlueMeanie on January 20, 2009, 02:06:09 PM
Hiding in Bush's what?
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: alexis on January 20, 2009, 02:27:42 PM
Quote from: 483
Hiding in Bush's what?


 ;D ;D

Actually, believe it or not, Joe the Plumber is a war correspondent in Gaza. And he has his website of course: http://www.secureourdream.com/

We want Joe!
Title: Re: Who should become the next US president?
Post by: PetSitterDeb on February 21, 2010, 01:19:54 PM
I hope it's not Sarah Palin!!!  She needs to stay home and be a mom to her Disabled child.

PetSitterDeb]