The Meltdown Will Be Televised

[Extra Stout]

Here's how the Democratic Primary will go from here on out:

Obama will extend his lead in pledged delegates as February primaries play out

Hillary will narrow the gap with good showings in Texas and Ohio.

Obama will have a delegate lead somewhere around 1750-1650 going into the Convention.

Hillary's ground game at the convention will strongarm enough of the superdelegates to give her an extremely narrow nomination win, despite losing both the pledged delegate and primary popular vote counts.

There will be a repeat of Chicago 1968.

Obama will be pressured to accept the VP nomination. He will refuse.

Obama's core demographics will abandon the Democratic Party in droves. An opportunistic progressive independent candidate (or two) will jump into the race, as much in order to keep defections to McCain to a minimum as for anything else.

Nevertheless, Hillary will lose, and she will go down in history as the presumptive autocrat who fractured the Democratic Party coalition and jeopardized its future to advance her own self-serving ambition.

[xrayzebra]

If it plays out as you say, there could be some really serious
problems for the dimms when they come out of the convention.
Many hurt feelings and wounds that will be slow to heal.

[MannyIsGod]

Not a chance in hell it plays out that way. Whoever leads the popular vote and has more delegates going into the convention will win.

[E20]

Please don't make any type of predictions in the Spurs forum.

[101A]

Not a chance in hell it plays out that way. Whoever leads the popular vote and has more delegates going into the convention will win.Every logical bone in me says you have to be right.

But this is politics; and these are the Clintons.

If it's close; I definitely see it playing out JUST like that; with potentially one difference;:

ALL KINDS of crap of promised to Obama if he simply acedes to the VP chair - and he takes it knowing he'll still be a young guy in 8 years (of course at that point he may be so tied to the Clinton legacy, he'll be electoral plutonium).

[xrayzebra]

^^I just cant see them on the same ticket. I know lot of folks
want it, but I just don't think their ego's would allow it. Billary
especially. And Obama knows he has a shot the next time
around if he doesn't make it this time.


But I can definitely see problems ahead at the convention if
neither of them have it sewed up, which I don't they will.

[MannyIsGod]

Not a chance in hell. If they elect someone who doesn't win the popular vote they have no shot at winning. The Clinton's don't have never ending power over the establishment and I think thats been well noted.

Its a pipe dream that makes for something different for certain columnists to write about and a republican wet dream but that doesn't mean there is any realistic chance of it happening.

[Holt's Cat]

I would put nothing past the Clintons at this point. The wrinkle to add is that they could attempt to negotiate seating delegations from Florida and Michigan who heretofore will not be seated at the convention.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh I think they'll do everything they can, but that doesn't mean it'll happen.

[2centsworth]

Obama pulls away is my prediction.

[101A]

Obama pulls away is my prediction.Unfortunately (or fortunately if you like to watch slow-motion trainwrecks), the way the Democratic delegates are apportioned, that is not very likely.

Also, with something going down THIS CLOSE; the Clintons will play the Michigan and Florida cards; two large states she carried whose delegate are not being counted.

[Twisted_Dawg]

Rather ironic is this scenario plays out. Here is Hillary winding up as the Democratic Candidate despite losing both the pledged delegate and primary popular vote.

Now didn't she rail against another politician that won a big election because in her eyes he didn't win the popular vote?

[Extra Stout]

Rather ironic is this scenario plays out. Here is Hillary winding up as the Democratic Candidate despite losing both the pledged delegate and primary popular vote.

Now didn't she rail against another politician that won a big election because in her eyes he didn't win the popular vote?
Will this primary election be decided in the courts? Will Clinton v. Obama go alongside Bush v. Gore? The mind boggles.

[101A]

Will this primary election be decided in the courts? Will Clinton v. Obama go alongside Bush v. Gore? The mind boggles.So be it.

This is EXACTLY as the framers wanted it.

[Kermit]

I have a feeling that this will be the last election in which super delegates will play a role. They'll find some other way to get party lifers around the age of 70 to the convention.

[FromWayDowntown]

The concept of the superdelegate seems to be the sort of thing that will exactly let this scenario play out.

[boutons_]

Having whined and cried about dubya screwing Gore, the Dem super-delegates overriding Obama winning the pledged delegates will cause an extremely negative reaction by the Obama supporters, who might stay home and hand the election to a murderous macho war-mongering 100-year-occupier McCain.

Hillary doesn't give a fuck about the Dem party, only about winning, so the the above situation causing a nasty civil war within the Dem party won't bother her one bit, as long as she gets the nomination.

My guess is she'd rather be the losing Dem candidate than have Obama be the winning Dem candidate.

[spurster]

The Democratic convention will be competitive, maybe divisive. It will draw a lot of media attention and how the winning candidate wins and how the losing candidate reacts to losing will go a long way toward the Democrat's chances in November. I don't think that whoever loses can afford to ruin the winner's chances in November. It will be a good way to become a pariah. You can see how it is playing out in their campaigns as they criticize each other, but try not to go overboard.

As for whoever wins the vote count (which makes little sense because of caucuses vs. closed primaries vs. open primaries) not getting the nomination, both candidates knew the rules when they started. Play by the rules, don't burn any bridges, and I think the Democratic nominee will be bruised, but battle-tested.

[Extra Stout]

The Democratic convention will be competitive, maybe divisive. It will draw a lot of media attention and how the winning candidate wins and how the losing candidate reacts to losing will go a long way toward the Democrat's chances in November. I don't think that whoever loses can afford to ruin the winner's chances in November. It will be a good way to become a pariah. You can see how it is playing out in their campaigns as they criticize each other, but try not to go overboard.

As for whoever wins the vote count (which makes little sense because of caucuses vs. closed primaries vs. open primaries) not getting the nomination, both candidates knew the rules when they started. Play by the rules, don't burn any bridges, and I think the Democratic nominee will be bruised, but battle-tested.
Yes, I am very sure that if Hillary needs the Michigan and/or Florida delegates to capture the nomination, she will graciously demur in observance of the predetermined rules. Because if anything defines the Clintons, it is an altruistic regard for the good of their party and their nation over their own narrow political ambition. No doubt.

[BonnerDynasty]

Why doesn't Obama REALLY go after Hillary? He has enough ammunition to make her look like.... Hillary Clinton. I am not buying this excuse that Obama doesn't want to come off as the asshole who gets into dirty politics. Why should he sit back, being the underdog that he is, and not try to crush her.

Is it because the shadow behind the democratic desk told them to keep it somewhat civil and not make her (and the party) look so evil?

So he should be the nice guy and just watch Hillary squeak out a win in the end? I see all this talk about the party becoming divided anyways, yet Obama still holds back from actually trying to beat his competition.

It's a Clinton. You either step on the throat or get a knife in the back lulz

[PixelPusher]

Hillary's ground game at the convention will strongarm enough of the superdelegates to give her an extremely narrow nomination win, despite losing both the pledged delegate and primary popular vote counts.

This is the part of your theory that doesn't hold up. Superdelegates are made up of present and former political office holders, they know how to read polls too.

[MannyIsGod]

Why doesn't Obama REALLY go after Hillary? He has enough ammunition to make her look like.... Hillary Clinton. I am not buying this excuse that Obama doesn't want to come off as the asshole who gets into dirty politics. Why should he sit back, being the underdog that he is, and not try to crush her.

Is it because the shadow behind the democratic desk told them to keep it somewhat civil and not make her (and the party) look so evil?

So he should be the nice guy and just watch Hillary squeak out a win in the end? I see all this talk about the party becoming divided anyways, yet Obama still holds back from actually trying to beat his competition.

It's a Clinton. You either step on the throat or get a knife in the back lulzA nomination process filled with mudslinging is horrilbe for the party's chances in the general election. Obama needs Clinton supporters to win the general so he can't allinate them now can he?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Not a chance in hell. If they elect someone who doesn't win the popular vote they have no shot at winning. The Clinton's don't have never ending power over the establishment and I think thats been well noted.

Its a pipe dream that makes for something different for certain columnists to write about and a republican wet dream but that doesn't mean there is any realistic chance of it happening.

I hear what you are saying Manny, but this is the Clintons. They would prostitute Chelsea on a street corner if they thought she could turn enough tricks to get Hillary the nomination.

[spurster]

Clinton hater forum.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

a few things that dont quite fit:

1) Obama and Clinton have been adamant in their support of each other (even if its purely for the unity of the party, the image of a united democratic party is particularly strong right now)

2) there is no reason why Obama wouldn't accept the VP position, that sets him up for a 2016 run, and would ensure 16 years of democratic control over the presidency.

3) you clearly don't know what happened in Chicago in 1968, because the Yippies were there to protest the war, Chicago was their place of choice because the democratic party under Johnson had gotten us into that mess, and it was a great place for media exposure.

[Wild Cobra]

Not a chance in hell it plays out that way. Whoever leads the popular vote and has more delegates going into the convention will win.
It could easily play out at least mostly as spelled out. The Clinton's are arrogant elitists.



Also, with something going down THIS CLOSE; the Clintons will play the Michigan and Florida cards; two large states she carried whose delegate are not being counted.
This is very likely, and as I understand, already in play. I also heard that the legal team that put together the Bush defense is giving it to Obama's people.


Will this primary election be decided in the courts? Will Clinton v. Obama go alongside Bush v. Gore? The mind boggles.
Probably, and she will lose. Do they then say that Obama stole the election when they try to?

Damn re-runs.

[PixelPusher]

For Clinton, Bid Hinges on Texas, Ohio (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/us/politics/12clinton.html?ei=5065&en=83bd560436fa713f&ex=1203397200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print)
By PATRICK HEALY

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her advisers increasingly believe that, after a series of losses, she has been boxed into a must-win position in the Ohio and Texas primaries on March 4, and she has begun reassuring anxious donors and superdelegates that the nomination is not slipping away from her, aides said on Monday.

Mrs. Clinton held a buck-up-the-troops conference call on Monday with donors, superdelegates and other supporters; several said afterward that she had sounded tired and a little down, but determined about Ohio and Texas.

They also said that they had not been especially soothed, and that they believed she might be on a losing streak that could jeopardize her competitiveness in those states.

“She has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably, or she’s out,” said one superdelegate who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to share a candid assessment. “The campaign is starting to come to terms with that.” Campaign advisers, also speaking privately in order to speak plainly, confirmed this view.

Several Clinton superdelegates, whose votes could help decide the nomination, said Monday that they were wavering in the face of Mr. Obama’s momentum after victories in Washington State, Nebraska, Louisiana and Maine last weekend.

Some said that they, like the hundreds of uncommitted superdelegates still at stake, might ultimately “go with the flow,” in the words of one, and support the candidate who appears to show the most strength in the primaries to come.

The Clinton team moved on Monday to shift the spotlight off the candidate’s short-term challenges and focus instead on “the long run,” in the words of her senior strategist, Mark Penn.

“She has consistently shown an electoral resiliency in difficult situations that have made her a winner,” Mr. Penn said. “Senator Obama has in fact never had a serious Republican challenger.”

Clinton advisers have said that superdelegates should support the candidate who they believe would be the best nominee and the best president, while Obama advisers have argued that superdelegates should reflect the will of the voters and also take into account who they believe would be the best nominee. Superdelegates are Democratic party leaders and elected officials, and their votes could decide the nomination if neither candidate wins enough delegates to clinch a victory after the nominating contests end.

With primaries on Tuesday in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, Clinton advisers were pessimistic about her chances, though some held out hope for a surprise performance in Virginia.

And as polls show Mr. Obama gaining strength in Wisconsin and his native state, Hawaii, which vote next Tuesday, advisers, donors and superdelegates said they were resigned to a possible Obama sweep of the rest of February’s contests.

Some donors also expressed concern about a widening money imbalance between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton: Obama fund-raisers say he is taking in roughly $1 million a day, while Clinton fund-raisers say she is taking in about half of that, mostly online. Mrs. Clinton’s aides say that the campaign was virtually broke as of the Feb. 5 primaries, but that finances have stabilized.

Mr. Obama’s financial edge allowed him to begin running television advertisements in Ohio and Texas on Monday, while the Clinton campaign plans to begin advertising on Tuesday. Clinton advisers say that she will have advertisements running statewide in both Ohio and Texas, and that she will have advertisements in English and Spanish in Texas.

“I think that clearly things have not been going as great as they were with her victories on Super Tuesday, and we can’t wait to get to March 4,” said Alan Patricof, one of Mrs. Clinton’s national finance chairmen.

Mrs. Clinton will have “a major ad buy” through the next week in Wisconsin, a senior adviser said Monday, and spend a few days campaigning there. But this adviser and others said the bulk of her time would be devoted to campaigning in Ohio, Texas and a bit in Rhode Island. In a sign of Texas’s importance, she plans to fly there Tuesday, even though Wisconsin votes next week.

While Mrs. Clinton’s advisers and allies emphasize that she has the time and the financial resources to regroup, they say she will have to take more significant steps to shore up her candidacy beyond the staff shakeup she engineered on Sunday, when she replaced her campaign manager and longtime aide, Patti Solis Doyle, with another veteran adviser, Maggie Williams.

Campaign advisers said they expected Ms. Williams to bring new energy to both the campaign team and Mrs. Clinton, after a long year of campaigning, and to encourage her to show more spunk and determination on the campaign trail. They say they do not expect the candidate’s political message to change appreciably; she will increasingly focus on the concerns of working-class voters, a key demographic in Ohio, as well as of Hispanics, a significant population in Texas.

As she seeks to erect a fire wall for her candidacy in Ohio and Texas, Mrs. Clinton will deploy her husband, former President Bill Clinton, to campaign in both states, particularly in Ohio, where her advisers believe his popularity will help her with working-class voters, labor union members and black voters.

In a conference call with reporters on Monday, Mr. Penn, who is also Mrs. Clinton’s pollster, played down some polls that showed strength for Mr. Obama and highlighted Mrs. Clinton’s abilities to beat the leading Republican candidate, Senator John McCain of Arizona.

“We believe that Hillary Clinton in the long run is better positioned to take on John McCain,” Mr. Penn said.

Yet some Clinton donors and superdelegates worry that the focus on Mr. McCain is premature, and that other strategic decisions by the campaign — like counting on Michigan and Florida delegates to be seated at the convention even though their status is in limbo — show faulty thinking that suggests the Clinton campaign does not have a short-term game plan against Mr. Obama.

“They are looking way too much at Florida, Michigan and McCain, because all three won’t matter if she doesn’t blow Obama away in Texas and Ohio,” said a Democrat who is both a Clinton superdelegate and major donor, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to offer a candid assessment of campaign strategy. “Obama has momentum that has to be stopped by March 4.”

Clinton advisers took issue with the notion that Mr. Obama’s momentum was significant, noting that his victory in the Iowa caucuses did not translate into winning the New Hampshire primary five days later, and his South Carolina victory did not prevent Mrs. Clinton from winning the biggest states on Feb. 5.

“There is no evidence that voters are voting based on momentum — in fact the evidence is to the contrary,” said Howard Wolfson, Mrs. Clinton’s communications director.

Hassan Nemazee, another national finance chairman for Mrs. Clinton, said he was also telling his network of allies not to get caught up in the headlines about Obama

“I’m telling donors and supporters: Don’t be overly concerned about what goes on in the remainder of the month of February because these are not states teed up well for us,” Mr. Nemazee said.

Asked if that message was sinking in, he pointed to the campaign’s announcement that Mrs. Clinton had raised $10 million online so far this month, and was on pace to raise more than $25 million in February.

“I predict for you we will have our best single fund-raising month in February, and that’s significant,” he said.
This is why I don't buy the "superdelegate backroom deal" aspect of ES's scenario.

[Holt's Cat]

The Clintons are entitled to the presidency. All else does not matter. Her husband embarrassed her and her child in front of the country with some plump brunette and it didn't matter as her campaign for the Senate was already in the works. After all she's given is she really going to step aside and let some rookie interloper steal her glory?

[LaMarcus Bryant]

2) there is no reason why Obama wouldn't accept the VP position, that sets him up for a 2016 run, and would ensure 16 years of democratic control over the presidency.
Uh except he'd be locked into a position for potentially 8 years that he may not want.

[MannyIsGod]

Everyone who thinks that it would play out and is railing on the Clintons is missing a very important aspect. The Clintons are NOT the Democratic party. What they want is not nessecarily what the party is willing to give. So even if they wanted to fight dirty and take a nomination even if they didn't have the popular vote the party will not let it happen. It would be suicide. After what was said and done in regards to Gore's loss at the hands of Bush there is no way in hell the Democrats would play that game.

This is not about the Clintons but about the Democratic party as a whole and regardless of what you may think about the institution they are not that foolish.

[Findog]

Nevertheless, Hillary will lose, and she will go down in history as the presumptive autocrat who fractured the Democratic Party coalition and jeopardized its future to advance her own self-serving ambition.

If it results in the end of the Democratic Party, that ain't so bad.

[Findog]

Yes, I am very sure that if Hillary needs the Michigan and/or Florida delegates to capture the nomination, she will graciously demur in observance of the predetermined rules. Because if anything defines the Clintons, it is an altruistic regard for the good of their party and their nation over their own narrow political ambition. No doubt.

In theory, Clinton could ask the convention to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations that were elected in the original primaries. But there is a Catch-22: If Clinton needs these votes, it means that she does not have enough support to prevail on the convention floor.

[Pistons_In_7]

Obama has already gone on record and said if he doesnt win this race, he would not ever consider doing it again. However if by some fluke he does accept a VP what better way is there for him to build "experience" for a confident run 8 years down the road.

[MannyIsGod]

Obama has already gone on record and said if he doesnt win this race, he would not ever consider doing it again. However if by some fluke he does accept a VP what better way is there for him to build "experience" for a confident run 8 years down the road.He's not on the record as saying that. Provide a link to a quote please.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

He's not on the record as saying that. Provide a link to a quote please.

I'm looking for the link, too, but yeah, I know he has said that.

IIRC, he said his wife wouldn't let him get into a campaign again. Take that for what it's worth, but it's out there.

It wasn't so much official and it seemed off-the cuff.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/09/obama-on-dem-ri.html

[MannyIsGod]

He has to say that. If he gives any indication that he's just trying to position himself for a run in the future he completely undermines his current run and loses legitimacy. Thats nowhere near saying "I will not run in the future". Not even close.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

He has to say that. If he gives any indication that he's just trying to position himself for a run in the future he completely undermines his current run and loses legitimacy. Thats nowhere near saying "I will not run in the future". Not even close.

exactly, there is no way obama doesn't run in 8 years no matter what (with the exception of some unforeseen political meltdown)

[101A]

This is Obama's best chance: he has no record to run against - an advantage he has over EVERY other candidate.

If he's VP - he'll have to run with the record the administration leaves him with; ask Al Gore how that works out; if he remains a senator - he'll have his own voting record and/or legislative actions to run with.

Right now he gets to have his cake and eat it, to. He's only been a senator for 4 years, and has been running for President for two of those.

[DarkReign]

Yet some Clinton donors and superdelegates worry that the focus on Mr. McCain is premature, and that other strategic decisions by the campaign — like counting on Michigan and Florida delegates to be seated at the convention even though their status is in limbo — show faulty thinking that suggests the Clinton campaign does not have a short-term game plan against Mr. Obama.

What the fuck? How can she "count" on those being seated? There were only 2 Demo names on the Michigan ballot. Clinton and (i believe) Kucinich. Obama/Edwards/etc withheld their names because MI was being boycotted.

Now that may not happen?!

So she gets all MI delegates only because the other candidates respected their party's boycott?!

And this is going to help her?! What bullshit.

[2centsworth]

2) there is no reason why Obama wouldn't accept the VP position, that sets him up for a 2016 run, and would ensure 16 years of democratic control over the presidency.

this is hilarious. He should get to the back of the bus even though he's winning lol.

[DarkReign]

this is hilarious. He should get to the back of the bus even though he's winning lol.

I was thinking the same thing. Why the fuck would Obama accept the VP? He might just win the popular vote.

Let Edwards shady ass take it. I'd tell the political whore to get fucked.

[Holt's Cat]

Taking the VP spot after how this primary has played out would be demeaning to him. It's all or nothing.

[101A]

I was thinking the same thing. Why the fuck would Obama accept the VP? He might just win the popular vote.

Let Edwards shady ass take it. I'd tell the political whore to get fucked.Is Obama any less a political whore than Hillary? As far as I can tell, he hasn't "legislated" any more than, and maybe even less, than Hillary. Hell, he's only been in Washington since '05, and been running for President since '06.

Who is this guy?

I think Biden was onto something.

[DarkReign]

Is Obama any less a political whore than Hillary? As far as I can tell, he hasn't "legislated" any more than, and maybe even less, than Hillary. Hell, he's only been in Washington since '05, and been running for President since '06.

Who is this guy?

I think Biden was onto something.

I am going to be completely honest here...

The fact that he has not been in Washington long makes me like him more than Clinton.

I know what Clinton is.

I do not know what Obama is.

Maybe the young bastard with little to no experience might actually, shit I dont know, do something that doesnt involve the financial meltdown of America or maybe withstand the overwhelming cronyism with being President. Maybe he'll resist his own party's inevitable pressure of a welfare state? Maybe he'll even resist the repubs wishes for a warfare state? Maybe he'll be balanced, maybe he wont. I like the idea of him being educated and well spoken alone, seeing as I have had to endure the world's worst orator struggle his way thru Hooked on Phonics for 8 years.

One day, I hope to vote for someone in the general election that isnt even a politician. But thats probably stupid right? Because the career politicians like McCain, Clinton, Carter, Nixon, etc all did a helluva job right?

Notice the only effective presidents were governors? Wonder why that is?

[DarkReign]

Sorry for the sarcasm.

My point was/is, I have no interest in any candidate anymore.

I have no faith in the American people, the American government or American politics.

All these supposed "leaders" are all sides of the same coin. Big money. Big power. Big control.

Politicians, IMO, are the worst possible option to run a country. Their interest does not lie with the people, it lies only to their vote. The two are mutually exclusive these days.

As long as the sheep keep electing the same looking sheppard, the flock will continue its path to the slaughter.

Because some richy-rich, son of a successful business man graduated from Yale/Harvard/Princeton, got elected in his locality a couple times and has made his way to the federal level, qualifies him or herself to guide the free world?!

What fucking parallel universe is this?

With every drop in adult education levels, with every decline in mandatory knowledge from children, with every rise in national debt and every life lost in "preemptive war", you have politicians to thank.

A politician will tell you their's is a thank-less job to their buddies at the golf club.

Which is the biggest crock of shit in the history of crock's full of shit.

Good/Great leaders are remembered and revered, time immemorial. Ceasar, Alexander, Genghis Kahn, Napolean, Washington, Churchill, Thatcher, Lincoln, Ghandi, etc, etc, etc.

These are household names because they filled a particular role of leadership and succeeded beyond all expectation. Some brutal, some not so much. All revered by their people for at least some time (i left out Hitler on purpose, but he could be included).

They served the self-interests of the country/people they lorded over. Whether by expansion or conquest, the people they led were better off during their reign than before it.

Ask yourself, where do our current politicians fall in that regard?

Do they serve the American people's interest best?

Do their personal ambitions at least further the People's well being?

Are they actively identifying and attacking the current problems of the day facing the People?

Would they lay their life down in an effort to preserve that which we hold dear?

I had trouble thinking of those questions....and yet I answered them all the same.

The politician we elcet as President in 2008 will do nothing to change the current direction we tread toward. I am not speaking of Iraq or terrorism or any other foreign policy.

We have problems here, in America, that need to be addressed. Not one of those Ivy League educated, political hacks are going to do a damn thing about the inumerable problems in this country.

Why? Why wouldnt they at least try, you ask?

Because it might not be popular, which means they wont be re-elected, which means they wont have the power tomorrow that they do today.

So whose interests are they really serving? Their own. And that can be a broad constituency when the end-all, be-all is self preservation in an occupation that requires millions to write your name on a line every 4 years.

Why do we have political parties? What service do these parties provide to their respective constituencies?

Ive never seen the DNC serving a soup kitchen in Detroit, nor have I seen the RNC promoting political awareness. Coincidence?

No, parties are self-serving just the same. They get their sheep to say the same things to other sheep in some trite struggle for ignorance that gets twisted into a general malaise from ALL sheep about the direction their sheppard herds them.

They self-serve their political power in never-ending fight to gain even more political power.

Its the old saying, if you had one wish, what would it be? Money, Power, or Celebrity?

Everyone knows right off the bat that if you have power, you are rich and you are famous. Its a rhetorical question, really.

But it illustrates the political zeitgeist we find ourselves observing year-in and year-out.

Illegal Immigration? Why bother, I'll lose the Latino vote. (i dont find this to be as important as others, but then again, I dont live in the South)
National Debt? You think Im going to be the one to tell the American people "credit" is an invention of the banks to make you "owe" them?
Education? Im currently speaking at a rally where more people know who Brad Pitt is fucking than what the Bay of Pigs is/was. Education is last thing on the minds of the uneducated.
Taxation? As long I keep saying "lower" in the same sentence, these uneducated sheeple will buy what I am selling.


Alright, enough...

[xrayzebra]

Sorry for the sarcasm.



I have no faith in the American people, the American government or American politics.

.


I have all the faith in the world in the American people.
We are the greatest nation and remain the greatest
nation that has ever existed.

We have great American's laying down their life each
and every day to protect our freedoms.

Don't give up on the people. The people you have
no faith in are your Parents, Grandparents, Aunts,
Uncles and your good friends.

Politicians are what they are politicians. Leaders some
times enter politics. Politicians are not really leaders,
most are followers, when you get right down to it. They
stick their finger in the air and see how the wind blows
and that is where they go. Barack, Billary and McCain
are all politicians, none of the are leaders. Billary and
Barak say they will makes changes, what changes?
Take from the taxpayers and give to other citizens,
if you or I did that we would go to jail. But since they
want to use the power of government they are called
saviors.

But don't give up on the people. The people will
prevail.

Rush said it best today about the dimms. It didn't
matter who won the primaries on the dimm side,
Billary was going to be the nominee. And I think that
is more than likely the truth of the matter.

[DarkReign]

If what I hold to be is true, and what you say is true, then the People are absolutely to blame. The People, at some point and a slow process, felt it easier to cede their social responsibility to the government.

Which is the same as pouring gas on a fire.

Which makes the people political pyromaniacs. Which means when they get burned, they have no one to blame but themselves.

[xrayzebra]

If what I hold to be is true, and what you say is true, then the People are absolutely to blame. The People, at some point and a slow process, felt it easier to cede their social responsibility to the government.

Which is the same as pouring gas on a fire.

Which makes the people political pyromaniacs. Which means when they get burned, they have no one to blame but themselves.

I didn't say it was not the peoples fault that people like
the Clintons get elected. I said I have faith that they
will also correct that problem in the future.

If one thing has been proven in this primary it is that
people need to take a bigger part in selecting their
'leaders'. Using the word loosely. I think many, like
you, now understand that they must take part in the
election process or they end up with what we have
today. Three, or maybe four, that have no idea of what
leadership is about. All they have is ego's and
socialist ideas to sustain them.

Get active my friend. Talk to your representative and
tell them what you want. You are absolutely correct
when you say many have turned over their social
responsibilities to the government. Political correctness
is the worst thing that ever happened to this nation
along with all the damn so called social reforms. It
absolutely destroyed the black families of the U.S. and
is well on the way to doing the same with the rest of
the families of this country.

[101A]

If what I hold to be is true, and what you say is true, then the People are absolutely to blame. The People, at some point and a slow process, felt it easier to cede their social responsibility to the government.

Which is the same as pouring gas on a fire.

Which makes the people political pyromaniacs. Which means when they get burned, they have no one to blame but themselves.
You do understand just how conservative you actually are, right?

Also, regarding WHO runs for president (cronyism, rich son of a rich father, etc...)...look at McCain's and/or Barack's bios; neither fit that mold.

[DarkReign]

You do understand just how conservative you actually are, right?

I have never claimed to be either Dem or Repub. By sheer coincidence, I amy or may not fall in line with either. Its individualism, others call it something else.


Also, regarding WHO runs for president (cronyism, rich son of a rich father, etc...)...look at McCain's and/or Barack's bios; neither fit that mold.

Oh yeah, I know about them both. Hell, the analogy doesnt even fit Clinton (Bill or Hillary) seeing as their mostly self-made (that is criminally negligent).

It was a stereotype, and an apt one when applied to the overall ideolologies of their respective party's interests.

These people, McCain/Obama/Bush/Clinton/Carter/Nixon and every other latter half 20th century politician, do not formulate their own ideas. They pluck them from various focus groups and think tanks. Thinktanks and focus groups filled with politically like-minded, party card-carrying Ivy league graduates who completely believe theyre smarter than 90% of the world (they may be right on that fact).

Not one of these political puppets has had an original thought of their own in their entire political life. Their ideas must be sifted thru and approved by their respective party. Thats why people like Paul do not garner support from even his own people, his ideas arent filtered thru the GOP. Which means political death of obscurity. Hes the next Ross Perot only much less impactful (i think the powers that be realized after Perot not to allow a similar situation again.....nothing unites Dems and Repubs more than the threat of someone other than each other, keeps them focused).

They balance their policy on 3 fronts. Popularity (the ability to sell it, at least), Patronage (who benefits the most from such things and the support/money it garners from that benefit) and Party (you make the party look good, they make you look good...one hand washes the other).

As long as those 3 are met, people be damned. Social Secuirty? Fuck yeah. Its popular, it garners patronage from those who benefit from the raiding of its coffers for other activities and it certainly makes the party look good.

Iraq? Hell yeah! Its popular, it garners MASSIVE patronage and nothing makes a party look better than kicking ass. (over time, war popularity decreases exponentially, guess where we are now?)

Illegal Immigration? Ummmm, no. Its popular for sure, it doesnt garner any patronage and the party needs to pander to that voting segment. No-uh-uh.

National Debt Reform? Hell NO! The means to correct it would be completely unpopular, would garner ZERO patronage and you'd probably ruin the party for the next 8 years. Unless you can sell something else under the pretense of a devalued US Dollar however....

Keep going. Two of those criteria must be met. They are listed in order of importance.

[DarkReign]

I didn't say it was not the peoples fault that people like
the Clintons get elected. I said I have faith that they
will also correct that problem in the future.

If one thing has been proven in this primary it is that
people need to take a bigger part in selecting their
'leaders'. Using the word loosely. I think many, like
you, now understand that they must take part in the
election process or they end up with what we have
today. Three, or maybe four, that have no idea of what
leadership is about. All they have is ego's and
socialist ideas to sustain them.

Get active my friend. Talk to your representative and
tell them what you want. You are absolutely correct
when you say many have turned over their social
responsibilities to the government. Political correctness
is the worst thing that ever happened to this nation
along with all the damn so called social reforms. It
absolutely destroyed the black families of the U.S. and
is well on the way to doing the same with the rest of
the families of this country.

All fair statements. I am politically active in the only arena that I can change, in my community. I attend township meetings, I know the board members, I know what theyre about. Im not sure they know who I am because I have never taken the floor, but theyve received their letters/emails from me.

So, I am trying...at a local level.

The beauty of local level politics is that you can effect change. The downside is obvious....it doesnt change what I feel to be crititcal social issues.

Which brings me to the inevitable conclusion that I am a very small minority. Smaller than any cultural minority in the country. My minority embraces all races and all creeds, but even with that mantra, we are terribly small.

Im of the mind that the American people need to be mind-fucked. Check that...mind-raped. Not in the sense that they NEED to agree with me, but in the sense that do NEED a fucking opinion.

Of which most Americans do not have.

We here in the political forum seem to be pretty concerned with the state of things, yes? Right or wrong, agree or disagree, we seem to at least care about the direction of this country enough to have debates about it, yes?

Now ask yourself how many times you had some meaningless political conversation with Joe Public at some get together that only revealed how little those around know about the political landscape of this country/country/township.

Then come to this conclusion...

Those motherfuckers are the majority. They are the ones who decide who the Representative is, who the President is, who the Committee Chief is, the Township Supervisor, the local Judge, the Police Chief, etc.

Ive said it before, I have lived a wonderful life. So much more fortunate than I deserve to be, everyday I thank whoever is listening for my absurdly good fortune.

But if there is a God, I have prayed for only one thing.....to see it all go down in my lifetime. Some people claim to be misanthropes, others can pick each other out of a crowd without saying a word.

[xrayzebra]

These people, McCain/Obama/Bush/Clinton/Carter/Nixon and every other latter half 20th century politician, do not formulate their own ideas.


I must disagree with you on one the people mentioned
above. Richard Nixon. Have you ever read any of his
books? Nixon was an unscruplous SOB but he had a
real grasp of Russian and their objectives. World
expansion. He traced it from the beginning of history
right up to the present. And I think Putin has more
than anything proven some of Nixon's statements.

McCain, I am just not sure what he is good at. Obviously,
he did survive the brutality of being a captive of
NVN for some five years. Which I admire him for. But
his grasp of other aspects of life, I am not certain.
The Clintons, both Bill and Hillary, want only one thing.
Power (and the riches that go with it). They have not
and will not stop at anything to obtain it. Bush, both
of them, are world government people. Bush run in
Texas and on the National ticket as a Conservative
Republican, but both in many ways governed more as
Democrats and Bush II followed elected officials that
were very unpopular, Anne Richards and Bill Clinton.
Carter is a naive socialist who still doesn't get it. He
should just stick to building chairs and houses and
get off the world stage.

Anyhow, getting back to the original thought. Nixon had
a good grasp of world history and foreign affairs. He
just didn't grasp the fact that he couldn't do as many
old time pols did, exactly what they wanted to.

I have a question for you tho. How come such a glum
mood yesterday and today. Not much like you. Old GI
expression, someone shit in your mess kit?

Or maybe it is all this global warming and you freezing
your butt off and fighting the snow in your part of the
world has given you cabin fever....... :lol

[rascal]

It could easily play out at least mostly as spelled out. The Clinton's are arrogant elitists.

The most arrogant elitist president has been Bush.

[Pistons_In_7]

I saw the interview of him saying that, that is on record as it gets folks.

[DarkReign]

Anyhow, getting back to the original thought. Nixon had
a good grasp of world history and foreign affairs. He
just didn't grasp the fact that he couldn't do as many
old time pols did, exactly what they wanted to.

No, I havent read any of Nixon's books. To be honest, when I wrote his name, I knew it was a stretch especially seeing as he was on the forefront of the Cold War, first POTUS to contact and trade with China, etc.

Matter of fact, he probably shouldnt be included in that group thinking about it now.

Unfortunately, I get on a tear and start babbling on with generalities which may be true, then shott myself in the foot with including a person like Nixon.

My point was/is, the political machine we know today is light-years different than the machine of the 60s and early 70s. Presidents are chosen not for their leadership, but their salesmanship.


I have a question for you tho. How come such a glum
mood yesterday and today. Not much like you. Old GI
expression, someone shit in your mess kit?

Hehe, no more than usual. Basically, Im just not a very happy person. My personal life kicks ass. Seriously. For being a misanthropic athiest, good fortune has follwed me my entire life.

Its the "state of things" that bothers me. Problems in government life are not new. But maybe I am wrong when I imagine in the past (saaaaay, pre 1980) people had a more active interest in politics and government.

I feel those people I drive next to, and wait behind in the drive thru, are all lemmings. Mindless morons with subscriptions to People magazine and a paid enrollment in some celebrity fan club who spend more time distracting themselves from the world than actually participating in it.

So maybe I am like Whott in that sense, the removal of half the gene pool wouldnt bring a tear to my eye.


Or maybe it is all this global warming and you freezing
your butt off and fighting the snow in your part of the
world has given you cabin fever....... :lol

LOL....Another 4" of snow last night (total of ~14"). High of 15 degrees today, -10 with windchill. Love Michigan.

[Holt's Cat]

I wonder who the last president or presidential candidate was who wrote their own speeches. Lincoln famously wrote The Gettysburg Address on a train. Sure, perhaps today's presidents and presidential wannabes due have input on the words, but who actually just sits down and writes out what they are going to say? Not to mention all of our elected representatives at the federal level, as well as governors, mayors, etc...

Our politics these days are inauthentic. You don't know what these people truly believe. Parsing their focus group honed words for truth is a fool's errand. Granted, if anyone manages to misspeak they have the media there with a probe up the politician's ass ready to pounce on anyone who commits a minor gaffe.

I'm not sure where the problem lies. At the end of the day, we have our opportunity to vote, to continue to support this wretched process if we so like. And we do, yet all the while bemoaning what it's become. Then the result is more of the same.

[nkdlunch]

Not a chance in hell it plays out that way. Whoever leads the popular vote and has more delegates going into the convention will win.

it very well could play that way. and the dems would look stupid once again

[101A]

..
I feel those people I drive next to, and wait behind in the drive thru, are all lemmings. Mindless morons with subscriptions to People magazine and a paid enrollment in some celebrity fan club who spend more time distracting themselves from the world than actually participating in it....First; your takes in this thread have been a good read.

Regarding this, you're right about many, but I am surprised by the number of people that ARE informed and energized, but you'd never know it. During light conversation I'll drop an obscure reference to feel tham out..and we're off. I expect the blank stare far more often than I get it.

Those of us who actually pay attention (on both sides of the spectrum), need some kind of a handshake.

[101A]

it very well could play that way. and the dems would look stupid once againThe Dems, with one of the most unpopular presidents in history in office, are about to nominate a 1st term senator with very little other experience in life (but, boy, can he SPEAK!), or a polarizing high negative figure as their standard bearer.

They are not real smart, frankly.

[JoeChalupa]

The Dems, with one of the most unpopular presidents in history in office, are about to nominate a 1st term senator with very little other experience in life (but, boy, can he SPEAK!), or a polarizing high negative figure as their standard bearer.

They are not real smart, frankly.

Smart as in electing Bush not once...but twice? Yeah, that was real smart. :lmao

[Extra Stout]

Smart as in electing Bush not once...but twice? Yeah, that was real smart. :lmao
Who's smarter: the party that manages to get Bush elected twice, or the party that manages to lose to Bush twice?

[01.20.09]

Who's smarter: the party that manages to get Bush elected twice, or the party that manages to lose to Bush twice?

Hopefully America is smarter this year.

[DarkReign]

The Dems, with one of the most unpopular presidents in history in office, are about to nominate a 1st term senator with very little other experience in life (but, boy, can he SPEAK!), or a polarizing high negative figure as their standard bearer.

They are not real smart, frankly.

While I understand what you mean, I disagree with your take on the first term Senator.

I actually think his inexperience is slightly endearing. He is obviously intelligent and educated. He would represent the US quite well in the international arena a whole helluva lot better than our current President, IMO.

Clinton is just Clinton. A known quantity. She, like her husband, will stick his finger in the air and move the way the wind blows.

Im seriously waiting....waiting for that guy/gal that can lie and cheat and steal their way up the political ladder, fooling all those around him in his/her party.

The guy who lies in the weeds, eating what is force fed, pandering to those who must be pandered, smiling big for the camera and for the caucus.

Only to be elected and when sworn into office, they'll wipe that fucking smile of his/her face and declare in no uncertain terms.

"I am Joe Somebody, I am the President of the United States. This country is going to return to its roots starting today. Its going to be tough, its going to be rough, but I promise you the end result will benefit every generation from here after. No more lobbyists. No more frivilousness. No more pandering. No more."

And go on some political tear of epic proportion. Strong arming Congress through necessary change in political elections, education reform, tax reform, MORE POWER TO THE PEOPLE. Removing government of its nanny role.

Just waiting...and waiting...and waiting. The guy/gal would have to be reeeeeal slick. Slick enough to trick his party, his support people and the money people into thinking he is ready to play ball on an international scale.

Only to fuck them all over and return America to its intended glory. what a fucking movie that would be, huh?

Shit, I have dreams about it. Blockading Congress' doors and the like. Not a dictator, a slave driver. Politicians spend more time and effort campaigning than they do legislating. Sad fact of government. That would change immediately.

Taxation and the amount of money the government needs is entirely too much. Thats going to change.

Education in this country is atrocious and it all starts because the government runs the institution, thats changing now.

So on and so on...

Riveting drama. CSPAN's ratings would go thru the roof for that State of the Union address. :lmao

[DarkReign]

Hopefully America is smarter this year.

That wasnt America's fault. The Dems dropped the ball.....twice.

[101A]

Who's smarter: the party that manages to get Bush elected twice, or the party that manages to lose to Bush twice?

[xrayzebra]

I wonder who the last president or presidential candidate was who wrote their own speeches. Lincoln famously wrote The Gettysburg Address on a train. Sure, perhaps today's presidents and presidential wannabes due have input on the words, but who actually just sits down and writes out what they are going to say? Not to mention all of our elected representatives at the federal level, as well as governors, mayors, etc...

Our politics these days are inauthentic. You don't know what these people truly believe. Parsing their focus group honed words for truth is a fool's errand. Granted, if anyone manages to misspeak they have the media there with a probe up the politician's ass ready to pounce on anyone who commits a minor gaffe.

I'm not sure where the problem lies. At the end of the day, we have our opportunity to vote, to continue to support this wretched process if we so like. And we do, yet all the while bemoaning what it's become. Then the result is more of the same.

HC, I have agree with you. Like I said in another post,
it seems most of our political 'leaders' are more
followers than leaders in 'any' sense of the word. They
have their damn focus groups, polls and researchers
all out there finding out what the 'people' want and
that is what they promise in their speeches. They
even survey (poll) to see where they should go on
their vacations, wear and do so they can be seen. They
measure how much time they get on TV, radio and
news print.


It is like this stupid 'rebate' they are 'giving'. No way
in the world is it going to help boost the economy.
To late for that, and if it is so damn good, why don't
they just cut taxes permanently and really boost the
economy. Two big things wrong with it. one, they
are not giving us anything. They are returning money
that belong to us to begin with. Second, anyone with
half a brain knows why they want to 'boost' their
standings with the voters, it is an election year and
the whole of congress in the gutters when it comes
to the public's opinion.

[01.20.09]

That wasnt America's fault. The Dems dropped the ball.....twice.

You are partially right. But the fact that so many Americans bought into Bush's rhetoric for a second time? That WAS America's fault.

[xrayzebra]

While I understand what you mean, I disagree with your take on the first term Senator.

I actually think his inexperience is slightly endearing. He is obviously intelligent and educated. He would represent the US quite well in the international arena a whole helluva lot better than our current President, IMO.

Clinton is just Clinton. A known quantity. She, like her husband, will stick his finger in the air and move the way the wind blows.

Im seriously waiting....waiting for that guy/gal that can lie and cheat and steal their way up the political ladder, fooling all those around him in his/her party.

The guy who lies in the weeds, eating what is force fed, pandering to those who must be pandered, smiling big for the camera and for the caucus.

Only to be elected and when sworn into office, they'll wipe that fucking smile of his/her face and declare in no uncertain terms.

"I am Joe Somebody, I am the President of the United States. This country is going to return to its roots starting today. Its going to be tough, its going to be rough, but I promise you the end result will benefit every generation from here after. No more lobbyists. No more frivilousness. No more pandering. No more."

And go on some political tear of epic proportion. Strong arming Congress through necessary change in political elections, education reform, tax reform, MORE POWER TO THE PEOPLE. Removing government of its nanny role.

Just waiting...and waiting...and waiting. The guy/gal would have to be reeeeeal slick. Slick enough to trick his party, his support people and the money people into thinking he is ready to play ball on an international scale.

Only to fuck them all over and return America to its intended glory. what a fucking movie that would be, huh?

Shit, I have dreams about it. Blockading Congress' doors and the like. Not a dictator, a slave driver. Politicians spend more time and effort campaigning than they do legislating. Sad fact of government. That would change immediately.

Taxation and the amount of money the government needs is entirely too much. Thats going to change.

Education in this country is atrocious and it all starts because the government runs the institution, thats changing now.

So on and so on...

Riveting drama. CSPAN's ratings would go thru the roof for that State of the Union address. :lmao

No doubt about it, you are a Conservative. I will never
live to see that day, but you just might. Keep
believing and working toward that goal. It can happen.
We almost had it during my lifetime with Ronald.

[DarkReign]

HC, I have agree with you. Like I said in another post,
it seems most of our political 'leaders' are more
followers than leaders in 'any' sense of the word. They
have their damn focus groups, polls and researchers
all out there finding out what the 'people' want and
that is what they promise in their speeches.

.....

Second, anyone with
half a brain knows why they want to 'boost' their
standings with the voters, it is an election year and
the whole of congress in the gutters when it comes
to the public's opinion.

:tu

Isnt is weird that there are so few issues we can agree upon, yet what I feel to be the single biggest issue we are all in agreement?

Our government, in its current iteration and procedure, is a fucking sham.

Until that changes, nothing will.

[101A]

While I understand what you mean, I disagree with your take on the first term Senator.

I actually think his inexperience is slightly endearing. He is obviously intelligent and educated. He would represent the US quite well in the international arena a whole helluva lot better than our current President, IMO.

Clinton is just Clinton. A known quantity. She, like her husband, will stick his finger in the air and move the way the wind blows.

Im seriously waiting....waiting for that guy/gal that can lie and cheat and steal their way up the political ladder, fooling all those around him in his/her party.

The guy who lies in the weeds, eating what is force fed, pandering to those who must be pandered, smiling big for the camera and for the caucus.

Only to be elected and when sworn into office, they'll wipe that fucking smile of his/her face and declare in no uncertain terms.

"I am Joe Somebody, I am the President of the United States. This country is going to return to its roots starting today. Its going to be tough, its going to be rough, but I promise you the end result will benefit every generation from here after. No more lobbyists. No more frivilousness. No more pandering. No more."

And go on some political tear of epic proportion. Strong arming Congress through necessary change in political elections, education reform, tax reform, MORE POWER TO THE PEOPLE. Removing government of its nanny role.

Just waiting...and waiting...and waiting. The guy/gal would have to be reeeeeal slick. Slick enough to trick his party, his support people and the money people into thinking he is ready to play ball on an international scale.

Only to fuck them all over and return America to its intended glory. what a fucking movie that would be, huh?

Shit, I have dreams about it. Blockading Congress' doors and the like. Not a dictator, a slave driver. Politicians spend more time and effort campaigning than they do legislating. Sad fact of government. That would change immediately.

Taxation and the amount of money the government needs is entirely too much. Thats going to change.

Education in this country is atrocious and it all starts because the government runs the institution, thats changing now.

So on and so on...

Riveting drama. CSPAN's ratings would go thru the roof for that State of the Union address. :lmaoOn Obama; yes he'll be popular with the Demo/socialiast govt's of Europe, no doubt. I guess that will improve our standing internationally. Meh.

Problem I see with THAT amount of inexperience is how much he will have to rely on the people around him to set/carry out the agenda. That's what we got with Bush & the control Cheney apparently had over him (at least until '06). The ONLY thing we know about Obama is he speaks well. PERIOD. He hasn't sponsored legislation; or been a leader in congress on anything. We know he votes hard left (which would be counter to your dream of having a smaller govt. wouldn't it?) We KNOW he wants every troop out of Iraq no matter what, as soon as possible, surge/progress be damned. What it looks like is we've got a candidate who talks about bringing people together with great rhetoric while he tracks an agenda that specifically endears himself to the base of his party while he seeks the nomination for President.

Hell, maybe he's a natural at this politics, after all.

[DarkReign]

You are partially right. But the fact that so many Americans bought into Bush's rhetoric for a second time? That WAS America's fault.

Agree, to a point. The strategy of "fear mongering" is a powerful tool. You still see the effects of that strategy today.

What strategy have the Dems come up with that will have as lasting of an effect as that? When have they ever?

My point is, Gore was an OK candidate. Kerry was born to lose.

Bush appeals to a broader audience than either of them.

With no issues to speak of, that fact right there should have been a warning to Dems. But they, like they usually do, cant get their own house in order, what makes one think they can get the US in order?

Mind you, the Republican party isnt a Bush party. Just look at some of the posts of lifetime Republicans here alone! Out of control spending? Thats a Democrat. Increasing the size and scope of government? Thats a Democrat.

Starting a foreign war. Meh....could be either, but I would associate such things with a Republican.

So really, how conservative is Bush? My answer is "not at all".

[DarkReign]

On Obama; yes he'll be popular with the Demo/socialiast govt's of Europe, no doubt. I guess that will improve our standing internationally. Meh.

Problem I see with THAT amount of inexperience is how much he will have to rely on the people around him to set/carry out the agenda. That's what we got with Bush & the control Cheney apparently had over him (at least until '06). The ONLY thing we know about Obama is he speaks well. PERIOD. He hasn't sponsored legislation; or been a leader in congress on anything. We know he votes hard left (which would be counter to your dream of having a smaller govt. wouldn't it?) We KNOW he wants every troop out of Iraq no matter what, as soon as possible, surge/progress be damned. What it looks like is we've got a candidate who talks about bringing people together with great rhetoric while he tracks an agenda that specifically endears himself to the base of his party while he seeks the nomination for President.

Hell, maybe he's a natural at this politics, after all.

Like I said, he may be the guy lying in the weeds. I dont know that yet.

But I will if he wins his nomination. I will when its him vs McCain and the issues are out, front and center, no playing nice.

I never said I was going to vote for him (nor did you say I was, btw). But if this Dem race is down to Clinton vs Obama, which it is, then I know who I am pulling for.

Honestly, McCain isnt off my radar yet. Paul was the first time in my life that I knowingly threw away my vote at the primary. Did I agree with Paul on everything? Nope, not even close.

But my concerns are more domestic than foreign, and he seemed to be the only one addressing those issues first and foremost, while the other candidates rambled on and on about Iraq, Terrorism, energy and other issues that dont increase jobs, education and personal wealth for every American with 4 able limbs and a will to work for a living.

Summary, Clinton is not my candidate one way or the other. I'd vote for McCain in a nanosecond if Clinton gets the nomination....without even listening to another debate or promo.

I dont hate Clinton, not personally anyway. I just dont think shes radical enough. Shes a staus quo pick that comes attached with the single biggest add-on to government expense in the history of this country with no true way of paying for it. No, she would prefer WE pick up the fucking bill.

Instead of proposing a HealthCare plan that also changes the taxation method in this country, she wants to keep the current standard and just...ADD ON more money to an already bloated government?!

Fuck. You. Bitch. (not you, her.....lol)

The only way America, IMO, could afford a nationl health plan is if we downsize government to a proportion more befitting its intended scope. Health plan is great, if you eliminate Social Security and Medicare, axe all non-essential programs of government (not the military, do not touch the military in ANY way).

You see where that logic is taking me, yes? I am pro-healthcare, I really am. But I know without a fucking doubt that a national healthplan is IMPOSSIBLE to afford without MAJOR, unprecedented changes to federal expense.

And if you had to go that far, why not go further and change the way we are taxed?

I am of the mind that the entire government should be fired, today, right now (excluding military). If you werent elected, youre out of a job...unless elected officials want to pay you out of their salary. Administrative personel in Congress shall be retained to answer the phones, compose the email and faxes, and do the office work and keep the books.

Otherwise, hit the fucking street.

All government programs tthat do not do one of the follwoing:

1) maintain order and safety (military, intelligence, etc)
2) maintain infrastructure (roads, buildings, etc)

Shall be terminated TODAY. We are starting over, ladies and gentlemen.

Fuck, this post got waaaaaaaaaay off topic....whoops...

[JoeChalupa]

I've always like McCain and quite frankly don't really understand why the republican party cannot get behind him.

[Mr. Body]

Mind you, the Republican party isnt a Bush party. Just look at some of the posts of lifetime Republicans here alone! Out of control spending? Thats a Democrat. Increasing the size and scope of government? Thats a Democrat.

Starting a foreign war. Meh....could be either, but I would associate such things with a Republican.

So really, how conservative is Bush? My answer is "not at all".

You need to come to terms with the fact that Bush was the perfect Republican candidate, and not just because he welded together the evangelicals and the business conservatives (not to mention the neo-cons), but because he did exactly what is in the GOP platform. He did exactly what Reagan did, except without any skill in fixing the problems. Reagan cut taxes when it was expedient, following the Laffer Curve, then raised them again when he was about to bankrupt us all. Government spending went through the roof under Reagan and then it shot somewhere into outer space with Bush. None of this is a mistake: Republicans are not fiscal conservatives. They claim they are, but clearly they are not. I realize you enjoy the rhetoric, but you need to look at the policies. The reason why conservatives are running away from Bush at the moment is because he's such an embarrassment, incompetent, and pretty much evil. They were cheering him along every step of the way - the foreign disaster, the tax shifts and the first tax rebate that was about as inefficient a use of a gov. surplus as you can imagine - and they will cheerlead the next GOP guy who comes down the pipe, who will be doing the same exact thing.

This IS the GOP platform: out of control spending (with very little to show for it), growing income disparity, and irresponsible foreign policy.

[JoeChalupa]

Some of my republican friends are even saying that with McCain some will say it is just another 4 yrs of Bush. Even they want a change. Dare I say they may become Obamacans?

[Holt's Cat]

The Dems, with one of the most unpopular presidents in history in office, are about to nominate a 1st term senator with very little other experience in life (but, boy, can he SPEAK!), or a polarizing high negative figure as their standard bearer.

They are not real smart, frankly.

Hmmm...hate to do it (because of the fact it's been so overused in this campaign) but you have to go back to JFK. Yes, you can make the case that JFK was much more experienced by the time of the '60 campaign than Obama. But what was the perception? JFK the relative novice, the idealistic left of center telegenic Senator against the tough as nails grizzled Vice President.

Shit, Reagan could give a good speech and he was running against one of the most unpopular presidents of all time. Yes, I know, experience as governor of one of the largest states in the Union. 70 years old.

It's not a bad move to nominate someone who's likable. Had the '04 Demo candidate not been a total douche the outcome might have been much different.

I think the grand Demo mistake would be taking an intelligent, glib, telegenic candidate with Obama's poise and command and throwing him to the curb in favor of a stone cold selfish bitch who a majority of the country hates. Look at what's happening in the primary currently. Once people figured out that there was a real choice and not a bad choice at that they are abandoning her in droves.

I think Obama has the stones to take on McCain, that's John McCain who spent 5 years in the Hanoi Hilton and however many years in this nation's military before decades in the Congress. A conservative Republican who's not been afraid to stand up to whoever pisses him off. Obama's ready to take him on. So it's not a bad move.

[JoeChalupa]

I concur. Like or not, there are many who vote or support who they like. Bush was simply liked more than Kerry.

[Holt's Cat]

You need to come to terms with the fact that Bush was the perfect Republican candidate, and not just because he welded together the evangelicals and the business conservatives (not to mention the neo-cons), but because he did exactly what is in the GOP platform. He did exactly what Reagan did, except without any skill in fixing the problems. Reagan cut taxes when it was expedient, following the Laffer Curve, then raised them again when he was about to bankrupt us all. Government spending went through the roof under Reagan and then it shot somewhere into outer space with Bush. None of this is a mistake: Republicans are not fiscal conservatives. They claim they are, but clearly they are not. I realize you enjoy the rhetoric, but you need to look at the policies. The reason why conservatives are running away from Bush at the moment is because he's such an embarrassment, incompetent, and pretty much evil. They were cheering him along every step of the way - the foreign disaster, the tax shifts and the first tax rebate that was about as inefficient a use of a gov. surplus as you can imagine - and they will cheerlead the next GOP guy who comes down the pipe, who will be doing the same exact thing.

This IS the GOP platform: out of control spending (with very little to show for it), growing income disparity, and irresponsible foreign policy.


Far be it for me to defend the GOP's growth of the scale and scope of the federal government over the last 7 years or so, but one big component of that on the domestic side was the Medicare drug prescription benefit. I'm not so sure that the Democratic party is opposed to that in principle (quibbles about the actual policy notwithstanding). The two major Democratic candidates currently want the government to take on the provision of health insurance for roughly 45 million Americans (in one candidate's case, irregardless of whether individuals actually want health insurance coverage, yet can afford to pay for it). How much is that going to cost? Not to mention that roughly half to two-thirds of the federal budget are the massive redistribution schemes which are part of the Holy Book of Democratic Party Politics.

Sure, the GOP sucks as of late when it comes to any notion of fiscal restraint. At least Reagan could rightfully point to the fact that he had to work with a Democratic-controlled Congress with its hands on the federal purse strings. Now that's not the case. We had a supposedly conservative Republican president ram through a supposedly conservative Republican-controlled Congress the largest expansion of an entitlement program since Medicare itself was created.

But what's the fiscal solution? Total Democratic control of the federal government? The last time we had that they tried to nationalize our nation's health care industry.

Both parties are Tweedledee and Tweedledum when it comes to fiscal restraint. The only hope we have is gridlock, with conservative GOP congressman actually acting like conservative Republicans on fiscal matters in response to a Democratic president. I've seen no other combination that will balance the federal budget in my lifetime. Of course, that means a Democratic president who is willing to work with a GOP controlled Congress.

[DarkReign]

Couldnt have dreamed a better way to put it my self.

:tu

[Mr. Body]

I don't know what the answer is, but it sure as hell ain't more Republicans. I wish we could wash the slime out of the Senate, at least, on both sides. What a bunch of spineless ghouls. As for immediate problems, Bush and crew have put us in such an untenable position that some kind of fiscal measure is necessary to pull things back together. Hopefully we can find the right concoction of tax raises -- and I'd suggest rolling back some targetted cuts on the upper brackets -- and cutting massive military spending, which is absolutely through the roof. Iraq is a millstone around our necks, and that's only speaking in terms of money. This is going to be tough for a while.

[101A]

and I'd suggest rolling back some targetted cuts on the upper brackets -- Of course you would.

Now, you could roll back ALL of the Bush tax cuts, and then the upper brackets would get a MUCH bigger increase in taxes than the lower brackets..right?

Bottom line, unless you do it to the upper brackets; raises or decreases, you aren't doing anything; because the UPPER BRACKETS PAY ALL THE TAXES!!!

[Holt's Cat]

Well, not all. To me there's an inherent unfairness about taxing people making minimum wage or in the general vicinity so that payments can be made to retirees who don't need the money. And those taxes are regressive.

I know, they paid into the system, they were told, blah blah blah. It's your government. Your government lies to you. They're taxes, not "contributions".

It's time we had some politicians who can find their nuts and stand up to the old people and their political pimps. Social Security is supposed to guarantee that retirees have some support in retirement. Well, what if that's already taken care of? Why should we continue to tax the working poor to pay benefits to the wealthy and retired?

Why can't someone call it what it is? Welfare. Plain and simple. Instead the solutions these courageous politicians come up with are ultimately centered around increasing the payroll tax rates and increasing the eligibility age. Why not address something more fundamental?

[xrayzebra]

I don't know what the answer is, but it sure as hell ain't more Republicans. I wish we could wash the slime out of the Senate, at least, on both sides. What a bunch of spineless ghouls. As for immediate problems, Bush and crew have put us in such an untenable position that some kind of fiscal measure is necessary to pull things back together. Hopefully we can find the right concoction of tax raises -- and I'd suggest rolling back some targetted cuts on the upper brackets -- and cutting massive military spending, which is absolutely through the roof. Iraq is a millstone around our necks, and that's only speaking in terms of money. This is going to be tough for a while.

What a breath of fresh air. Wonder where you have
been the last eight years? Cut the defense budget, now
there is an original idea. We wouldn't want to cut
into the social programs, no sirree.

Mr. Body. Hang in there. You got Obama on your
side.

[Mr. Body]

Cutting the defense budget is an absolute must, but probably won't happen. It's insane we spend billions on boondoggles like the Osprey and other bullshit like missle defense shields that never work, but seem to excel at lining the pockets of defense contractors and lobbyists. All those choads have to say is "tough on defense!" and the defense budget goes up. Then we rush into idiotic wars like Iraq.

Look, because of moronic policies and the morons who voted for Bush, we need to tighten the belts. Sure, cut social programs, trim around. But that's not the real problem here. The problem is irresponsible ideologies that try to destroy the balance government can give by making it spend to outrageous extremes. It's this Reaganite/Bushite policy that has weakened us. Government is a great tool, in moderation, but instead it's been used as a donor kitty for special interests, for corporate welfare, and pork. That's all stupid. We need the political will to stop it.

Here's an idea: leave Iraq, burn down K Street, and look into our crumbling infrastructure. Hey, maybe we'll save some money in the long run - ounce of prevention. Won't that appeal to the so-called 'fiscal conservatives' out there? Or do you think GE is going to spontaneously repair our electricity grids? How about we start funding R&D again instead of spending all our money on faith based initiatives that, again, are just boondoggles to get money into well-connected hands?

[01.20.09]

I think term limits would be a good place to start. Career politicians create more problems than they solve. Both parties are neither republican or democrat but more like separate groups of moderates who are to stubborn to realize they've become more like each other.
That is why both McCain and Obama are creating havoc.

[Holt's Cat]

The problem is irresponsible ideologies that try to destroy the balance government can give by making it spend to outrageous extremes. It's this Reaganite/Bushite policy that has weakened us.

The blame for the growing deficits and debt in the 80s falls as much on the Democrat leadership in Congress as on the Reagan administration.

As for Bush, yeah, the GOP lost its way and went against the purported limited government ideology.



Government is a great tool, in moderation, but instead it's been used as a donor kitty for special interests, for corporate welfare, and pork. That's all stupid. We need the political will to stop it.

That didn't exactly start with Reagan and Bush. To the extent that the GOP has embraced Keynesian economic policies and planning it has severely deviated from accepted conservative economic ideology.

[101A]

Cutting the defense budget is an absolute must, but probably won't happen. It's insane we spend billions on boondoggles like the Osprey and other bullshit like missle defense shields that never work, but seem to excel at lining the pockets of defense contractors and lobbyists. All those choads have to say is "tough on defense!" and the defense budget goes up. Then we rush into idiotic wars like Iraq.

Look, because of moronic policies and the morons who voted for Bush, we need to tighten the belts. Sure, cut social programs, trim around. But that's not the real problem here. The problem is irresponsible ideologies that try to destroy the balance government can give by making it spend to outrageous extremes. It's this Reaganite/Bushite policy that has weakened us. Government is a great tool, in moderation, but instead it's been used as a donor kitty for special interests, for corporate welfare, and pork. That's all stupid. We need the political will to stop it.

Here's an idea: leave Iraq, burn down K Street, and look into our crumbling infrastructure. Hey, maybe we'll save some money in the long run - ounce of prevention. Won't that appeal to the so-called 'fiscal conservatives' out there? Or do you think GE is going to spontaneously repair our electricity grids? How about we start funding R&D again instead of spending all our money on faith based initiatives that, again, are just boondoggles to get money into well-connected hands?You think?

Social Security (21%), Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP (19%) and the remaining entitlement programs (9%) make up nearly 50 FUCKING PERCENT of the U.S. budget. Add interest on the debt (9%) - AND what YOU see as the real problem is contained in that other roughly 40% - which includes the ENTIRE defense budget (21%), all road and bridge spending (2%), NASA, you name it.

The problem with the growth of the Federal Budget is Social Entitlement Programs. THEY are growing at a rate faster than GNP - defense; has shrunk dramatically relative to GNP - and relative to the overall budget (over 45% in the '60's to just 21% today). Entitlement programs, on the other hand; keep growing. As the baby boomers retire - hell just look at Social Fucking Security, and do the math.

Now you have people that want to means test people who saved during there lives right out of Social Security. Sure, why the fuck not!!! It's not like they paid 13% of their income into that pig forever with the meager promise they would get a pittance of that back when they didn't work anymore, after-all. NO - give it to the bastards who spent all their money and didn't save any. While your at it, take away the fucking cap; if they're getting the strap on anyway, shove it in to the hilt!

Stupid government; stupid people who support its stupid, bloated, can't keep under control programs.

Hell yeah, I want a big ass defense budget. If I get nothing else out of my tax dollars (my 401K guarantees no SS for me), I want to watch some kick ass video from a Apache cockpit blow the shit out of some rag heads.

[101A]

http://www.cbpp.org/4-20-07tax2-f1.jpg

There it is in all its glory.

Look at that slice from Social Security around to the interenst on the debt. THAT is the part growing the fastest. No matter what you do with the other stuff - the red and the gray - WE ARE COOKED if we can't get the entitlements under control.

Oh, and that budget already was a quarter of a TRILLION dollars in the red. -

[Holt's Cat]

Bush and Congressional Republicans had a chance to reform SS, but between the Dems and the rest of the old people fearmongering industry plus the Bush administration's own desire to try to benefit some of his financial service industry donors what should have been a wise move to change the system now before the Baby Boomers started slamming the system instead resulted in naught.

Not to mention that the entitlement part of the budget is pretty damn automatic. Domestic discretionary spending is a fraction of that budget. I'm not sure how Bush gets the blame for that. We can thank all of those great Democrat politicians and their Republican enablers who created that genius work back in the day.

[101A]

http://www.cbpp.org/4-20-07tax2-f2.jpg

THERE'S the breakdown of the remaining 21%. That 5% must be where all the earmarks, discretionary, etc. are piled on. Meh. They can caterwall about that all day long, but looking at the big picture, again, meh.

Hell, even the biggest part of this is, ultimately, healthcare for the elderly, and entitlement albeit earned. We spend more on "Education" than we do on R&D, huh? We've all heard of the powerfull Teacher's Unions, what's that one the scientists have? Oh yeah, they don't. Strange coincidence.

We're screwed.

[JoeChalupa]

Something's got to give.

[degenerate_gambler]

an even more detailed acc't of budgets past & present can be found here..

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/index.php

[101A]

So in 1960 defense spending was 10% of GDP, now 4.7%


That's obviously where growth is out of control.

Great site (now I'm going to spend the rest of the night finding more reasons to find an island to buy).

[DarkReign]

(now I'm going to spend the rest of the night finding more reasons to find an island to buy).

Find one, let me know. You can have your side, Ill take mine.

Fair?

[JoeChalupa]

Find one, let me know. You can have your side, Ill take mine.

Fair?

Will it be a U.S. property so we can make sure you pay your fair share of property tax?

[degenerate_gambler]

So in 1960 defense spending was 10% of GDP, now 4.7%


That's obviously where growth is out of control.

Great site (now I'm going to spend the rest of the night finding more reasons to find an island to buy).



just for the hell of it, go back and look at defense spending as a % of GDP during the war and post-war years (41-56 or so).

[Wild Cobra]

I wonder who the last president or presidential candidate was who wrote their own speeches...
I wonder too.

I would like to say president Reagan. Remember the televised speech where he is reading a script, then tosses the papers aside, and starts speaking without any? I would like to believe that was real, but being the actor he was, and memory for script. It might have been part of the show.

Still, president Reagan was real. the above aside, I think he at least did some of his own speeches.

I also heard the "Tear Down This Wall" part of that famous speech was a spur of the moment change on president Reagans part.

[Holt's Cat]

I also heard the "Tear Down This Wall" part of that famous speech was a spur of the moment change on president Reagans part.


That was in a draft of the speech, but the State Department thought it was too aggressive/would ruffle some diplomatic feathers/whatever. Reagan said it anyway.

[Wild Cobra]

That was in a draft of the speech, but the State Department thought it was too aggressive/would ruffle some diplomatic feathers/whatever. Reagan said it anyway.
True, now that you say so, I do remember that. Looks like my memory needed a kick-start.

Still, it shows others did not own president Reagan.

[Oh, Gee!!]

a more likely scenario is that "conservatives" break from the GOP

[JoeChalupa]

You think so? Perhaps if Hillary wins the nomination then there won't be the unification of conservative votes against her? Are conservatives that disenfranchised with McCain?

[DarkReign]

Will it be a U.S. property so we can make sure you pay your fair share of property tax?

No sir, it will be called Freexico.

We'll speak Spanish primarily and trade in Euros. It'll be great.

[101A]

No sir, it will be called Freexico.

We'll speak Spanish primarily and trade in Euros. It'll be great.Hell, stay in the U.S. another few years and it'll be there with you.

I wanted to call it 101Aland, but Freexico is fine.

[DarkReign]

Are conservatives that disenfranchised with McCain?

I dont believe so. I have no facts to back that up, but I believe this McCain vs GOP garbage is more media driven than anything else.

I cant remember if this analogy was made here at ST or I heard it on the radio/internet/television, but it went something like this (forgive me if I get it wrong)....

The GOP has three competing ideologies currently represented by the three Presidential hopefuls.

Romney is represented by the NeoCons.
Huckabee by the Religious Right
McCain by the Moderates

(or something to that extent, writing it down makes me think I am wrong, but the basic tenent is there....the GOP is fractured ever-so-slightly right now by 3 competing ideas)

Seeing as Romney got ass-raped in the primaries, I think its safe to say Neoconservatism is going to be in hibernation for the next 4 years (maybe more).

Huckabee only showing up below the Bible Belt tells me everything I need to know about the importance of religion below the Mason-Dixon. Its Numero Uno there, not so much everywhere else.

McCain is dominating everywhere else. Far west, mid west, east, northeast, mountains, from sea to shining sea. He has a broader appeal than any of his competition, I guess.

Ultimately, I dont see McCain dividing the GOP. To me, the loud, stark minority in the GOP (the neocons and Bible thumpers) might leave/split, but lets be realisitic for a moment....without the broad support of the GOP, the neocons and the ultra-religious have no chance in an open election. None.

So, even if they wanted to split, they wont. They may be self-righteous, but they are not intentionally self-destructive.

The GOP will carry all three flags for the duration, IMO.

[101A]

I dont believe so. I have no facts to back that up, but I believe this McCain vs GOP garbage is more media driven than anything else.

I cant remember if this analogy was made here at ST or I heard it on the radio/internet/television, but it went something like this (forgive me if I get it wrong)....

The GOP has three competing ideologies currently represented by the three Presidential hopefuls.

Romney is represented by the NeoCons.
Huckabee by the Religious Right
McCain by the Moderates

(or something to that extent, writing it down makes me think I am wrong, but the basic tenent is there....the GOP is fractured ever-so-slightly right now by 3 competing ideas)

Seeing as Romney got ass-raped in the primaries, I think its safe to say Neoconservatism is going to be in hibernation for the next 4 years (maybe more).

Huckabee only showing up below the Bible Belt tells me everything I need to know about the importance of religion below the Mason-Dixon. Its Numero Uno there, not so much everywhere else.

McCain is dominating everywhere else. Far west, mid west, east, northeast, mountains, from sea to shining sea. He has a broader appeal than any of his competition, I guess.

Ultimately, I dont see McCain dividing the GOP. To me, the loud, stark minority in the GOP (the neocons and Bible thumpers) might leave/split, but lets be realisitic for a moment....without the broad support of the GOP, the neocons and the ultra-religious have no chance in an open election. None.

So, even if they wanted to split, they wont. They may be self-righteous, but they are not intentionally self-destructive.

The GOP will carry all three flags for the duration, IMO.It's not the bible thumpers that dislike McCain; he is a pro-life guy, and has been; that is their big litmus test.

Primary gripes of people who don't like McCain are McCain/Feingold, and immigration.

I personally don't have a huge problem with the campaign reform. It was screwed up before, and it's still screwed up. The govt. did it; it is expected. I, frankly, pretty much agree with McCain on immigration. The issue is blown way out of proportion by all kinds of people; hell, up here in Pennsylvania, where there are VERY few migrant workers, people bitch about them all the time.

Don't want to call people racist, but....

[JoeChalupa]

Good points.

[Holt's Cat]

The way to understand the talk radio + evangelist loathing of McCain is that he's never really kissed their ring. Don't get me wrong, I do understand the angst about McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy as well as the tax cuts. Of course, the tax cuts weren't exactly accompanied by spending cuts (since when did it become 'conservative' to increase spending).

Anyways, the media needs drama. Once the general election hits I think whatever portion of the base that don't like McCain will find religion and vote for him. Plus the notion that not all on the right are pleased with McCain can only help him woo moderates and independents.

[boutons_]

If you look at the absolute numbers being turned out for the primaries, the Dems are voting in much greater numbers than the Repugs.

Part of that is that there is an unsettled, close race on the Dem side vs fait accompli on the Repug side, but I bet InSane's war-mongering is seen as a continuation of dubya's bullshit murderous warmongering, and will bring out Dem votes, at least as anit-InSane as its pro-Dem, in much higher volumes than Repugs, who have the at-best recalcitrant neo-cunt, movement conservative, and Bible-thumpers to be energized into voting.

It's the Dems' election to lose. They've done it before.

[101A]

If you look at the absolute numbers being turned out for the primaries, the Dems are voting in much greater numbers than the Repugs.

Part of that is that there is an unsettled, close race on the Dem side vs fait accompli on the Repug side, but I bet InSane's war-mongering is seen as a continuation of dubya's bullshit murderous warmongering, and will bring out Dem votes, at least as anit-InSane as its pro-Dem, in much higher volumes than Repugs, who have the at-best recalcitrant neo-cunt, movement conservative, and Bible-thumpers to be energized into voting.

It's the Dems' election to lose. They've done it before.I agree with most of this; but I don't think it's just the war. Dems hate Bush with the red hot burning passion of a million Suns - can't believe somebody who can't speak straight and EMBARASSES them has represented the country for 8 years.

As, I think HC said, the Conservatives continue to hate on Bush it COULD serve to swing moderates his way; the Conservatives have NOWHERE else to go (much as libs HAD to vote for Clinton despite Wefare reform and NAFTA) to avoid Dole.

[MannyIsGod]

Its not just democrats that hate Bush, its the vast majority of this country. Eh, well we reap what we sow.

[Wild Cobra]

You think so? Perhaps if Hillary wins the nomination then there won't be the unification of conservative votes against her? Are conservatives that disenfranchised with McCain?

Yes we are. McCain is not a conservative in several of the most important matters.

There is talk on talk radio like in the 2006 elections hat we need to let the democrats win. The thought is that we need them to fuck this nation up again before the conservative movement will be a force again.


I dont believe so. I have no facts to back that up, but I believe this McCain vs GOP garbage is more media driven than anything else.
Not in my eyes.


I cant remember if this analogy was made here at ST or I heard it on the radio/internet/television, but it went something like this (forgive me if I get it wrong)....

The GOP has three competing ideologies currently represented by the three Presidential hopefuls.

Romney is represented by the NeoCons.
Huckabee by the Religious Right
McCain by the Moderates
Romney is a conservative, not a neoconservative. their are chief differences. I would call McCain the neocon, but I dislike the fact there really isn't a solid definition applied to the label. It has become more of a slanderous word since people think of neo-nazi when they hear it. Either way, he supports liberal ideals far to much for me to accept him.

Keep in mind the original definition of neoconservative is a liberal democrat who saw the light, and switched parties. This is why in my eyes, McCain best fits he definition. Although he isn't a convert, he is more like the democrats of the 60's, when they were liberal, but still patriots. Before they were bought by the likes of Moive-On.


the GOP is fractured ever-so-slightly right now by 3 competing ideas)
I agree. I'm not sure, but it appears only half as many republicans voted than democrats. So many seem not to have solidly liked any of the republican nominees. In my view, this kept Romney from having the lead I believe he should. It appears the GOP has awakened, but too late. Huckabee is seen more seriously, but McCain has such a lead. I wonder if anyone has published a red state/blue state review for how the votes went. It seems to me the numbers of each left will tell if Huckabee has a chance still.

I dislike some things about Huckabee, but I will take him over McCain in a heartbeat. A liberal republican president bothers me.


Seeing as Romney got ass-raped in the primaries, I think its safe to say Neoconservatism is going to be in hibernation for the next 4 years (maybe more).
I think Romney needed to hold out longer. Maybe people though that McCain didn't have a chance, and stayed home. Maybe more conservatives would have voted in the elections after super Tuesday, giving Romney a comeback.


Huckabee only showing up below the Bible Belt tells me everything I need to know about the importance of religion below the Mason-Dixon. Its Numero Uno there, not so much everywhere else.
I think since he is the more conservative of the two, he still has a chance. A slim chance, but possible.



Primary gripes of people who don't like McCain are McCain/Feingold, and immigration.
Illegal immigration is a big deal with me. Maybe you don't see the problems like I see in Oregon.


I personally don't have a huge problem with the campaign reform. It was screwed up before, and it's still screwed up. The govt. did it; it is expected. I, frankly, pretty much agree with McCain on immigration. The issue is blown way out of proportion by all kinds of people; hell, up here in Pennsylvania, where there are VERY few migrant workers, people bitch about them all the time.
Legal migrant workers are not the issue. It's the illegal ones who stay, work under the table, and undercut the going rates of good jobs like construction. You also see them everywhere working jobs that high school students would otherwise be getting work habit skills with.


Don't want to call people racist, but....
It has nothing to do with race. There are illegal workers from nations who are white as well. It is the fact the work illegally and undercut proper wages.


The way to understand the talk radio + evangelist loathing of McCain is that he's never really kissed their ring. Don't get me wrong, I do understand the angst about McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy as well as the tax cuts. Of course, the tax cuts weren't exactly accompanied by spending cuts (since when did it become 'conservative' to increase spending).
The religious vote sometimes makes a difference, but only in close races. Don't give them too much credit. Spending is really where the republicans screwed up. Since 1994, they promised to get spending under control, and they almost did. Somehow, they forgot people were watching and got power hungry. Hopefully in 2006 they learned, and will not do such a thing when in power again.


Anyways, the media needs drama. Once the general election hits I think whatever portion of the base that don't like McCain will find religion and vote for him. Plus the notion that not all on the right are pleased with McCain can only help him woo moderates and independents.
I don't know. I will surely vote for him over Hillary. However, i don't think Obama can damage this nation anymore than McCain. McCain's idea of working across the isle is working far too much with them. I would much prefer the blame to fall on a democrat controlled presidency than republican.

[101A]

I don't know. I will surely vote for him over Hillary. However, i don't think Obama can damage this nation anymore than McCain. McCain's idea of working across the isle is working far too much with them. I would much prefer the blame to fall on a democrat controlled presidency than republican.Exactly a Limbaugh talking point.

Just remember, SC appointments are for LIFE.

A national healthcare plan, once created, can never be uncreated.

The Bush tax cuts (which McCain has promised to make permanent) will be gone immediately after Obama takes office - and he want to COMPLETELY remove the SS wage cap.

Go ahead, get all self-righteous, take your ball and go home.


Shame on you.

[Holt's Cat]

I agree with most of this; but I don't think it's just the war. Dems hate Bush with the red hot burning passion of a million Suns - can't believe somebody who can't speak straight and EMBARASSES them has represented the country for 8 years.

As, I think HC said, the Conservatives continue to hate on Bush it COULD serve to swing moderates his way; the Conservatives have NOWHERE else to go (much as libs HAD to vote for Clinton despite Wefare reform and NAFTA) to avoid Dole.


Conservatives hate Bush thanks to the Medicare drug benefit, pushing amnesty for illegals, abandoning entitlement reform when things got a little rough, an overall aversion to spending cuts, and, yes, not having any sort of plan for Iraq post-invasion. Plus dumb shit like the Harriet Myers nomination and withdrawal.

[Wild Cobra]

Exactly a Limbaugh talking point.
So what. I never heard him say any such think because I haven't heard him for at least a year I think.


Just remember, SC appointments are for LIFE.
Yes, but do you really believe McCain in what he says?


A national healthcare plan, once created, can never be uncreated.
It will never get past a republican fillibuster.


The Bush tax cuts (which McCain has promised to make permanent) will be gone immediately after Obama takes office - and he want to COMPLETELY remove the SS wage cap.
The tax cuts are gone anyway unless we get a republican controlled congress. Congress has to reauthorize it.


Go ahead, get all self-righteous, take your ball and go home.
I am on the ball. Why don't you wake up and smell the reality of what we have.


Shame on you.
Looking in a mirror by chance?

I might vote for McCain. I just don't know yet. It's a hard thing for me to compremise my values and vote for him.

[Holt's Cat]

Exactly a Limbaugh talking point.

Just remember, SC appointments are for LIFE.

A national healthcare plan, once created, can never be uncreated.

The Bush tax cuts (which McCain has promised to make permanent) will be gone immediately after Obama takes office - and he want to COMPLETELY remove the SS wage cap.

Go ahead, get all self-righteous, take your ball and go home.


Shame on you.


No doubt the Dem solution to fiscal shortfalls will be to raise taxes. Of course, those taxes will not be raised on their uneducated working class base.

[DarkReign]

I don't know. I will surely vote for him over Hillary. However, i don't think Obama can damage this nation anymore than McCain. McCain's idea of working across the isle is working far too much with them. I would much prefer the blame to fall on a democrat controlled presidency than republican.

Youre an intelligent person, like you give a bucket of piss what I think of you...

But, that bolded sentence to me, is as unintelligent as it gets.

It reaks of partisanship > country. It says to me you are more concerned with the success of the GOP than the USA.

And I cant respect that.

[101A]

Yes, but do you really believe McCain in what he says?Romney was a pro choice governor of Massachusettes and now you believe him to be a true-blue Reaganite!



Wishfull thinking; and if Conservatives stay home, who says the Dems won't have nearly 60?


[quote=wild cobra]The tax cuts are gone anyway unless we get a republican controlled congress. Congress has to reauthorize it.So you don't care about them; why don't you get behind the candidate MOST likely to make them permanent, possibly build some coattails, and get some seats back!



I am on the ball. Why don't you wake up and smell the reality of what we have.A "True Conservative" considering voting for Barack Obama is "On the Ball"?:dizzy



I might vote for McCain. I just don't know yet. It's a hard thing for me to compremise my values and vote for him.Oh, and............................IRAQ!!!!

No difference there, I guess.

[Wild Cobra]

Youre an intelligent person, like you give a bucket of piss what I think of you...

But, that bolded sentence to me, is as unintelligent as it gets.

It reaks of partisanship > country. It says to me you are more concerned with the success of the GOP than the USA.

And I cant respect that.
Yes, we often disagree but I you also at least have viewpoints that are your own.

It has nothing to do with partisanship. I really dislike what the republicans have become. I only hope they will become more conservative one day.

It's my dislike for the democrats and what they will do. The republicans already got the message loud and clear that they lost conservative support in 2006. They won't admit it, but the message is clear. I believe the only way this nation will not have a disastrous outcome in the future is to weed out the liberals among the republican party, or find some way to get a viable conservative party. Between the Me-Me-Me attitude of voters, and liberals who promise everything... we are doomed, without becoming more conservative again, and McCain is not conservative enough.

I said this before. Like any correction, and the stock market is a good example. Wee need to hit bottom before it improves again.

You may call it unintelligent, but I see it as a sad truth.

[101A]

No doubt the Dem solution to fiscal shortfalls will be to raise taxes. Of course, those taxes will not be raised on their uneducated working class base.No, but when they raise mine, at least one of theirs will lose their job (and I mean that quite literally).

[101A]

Yes, we often disagree but I you also at least have viewpoints that are your own.

It has nothing to do with partisanship. I really dislike what the republicans have become. I only hope they will become more conservative one day.

It's my dislike for the democrats and what they will do. The republicans already got the message loud and clear that they lost conservative support in 2006. They won't admit it, but the message is clear. I believe the only way this nation will not have a disastrous outcome in the future is to weed out the liberals among the republican party, or find some way to get a viable conservative party. Between the Me-Me-Me attitude of voters, and liberals who promise everything... we are doomed, without becoming more conservative again, and McCain is not conservative enough.

I said this before. Like any correction, and the stock market is a good example. Wee need to hit bottom before it improves again.

You may call it unintelligent, but I see it as a sad truth.There is NO WAY a TRUE CONSERVATIVE is getting elected this cycle; the masses believe GW to be Conservative - anything resembling him is DOOMED. Conservatives sent Bush, and he betrayed us; the Republican Congress betrayed us; Hell, look at the growth of government under Reagan vs. GNP - that didn't work either.

If the Democrats get both houses, and the WH - with a TRUE BELIEVING liberal, who can sway the masses with his charms and speach like Barack; the damage could be irreversible. Social Security/LBJ's war on Poverty with Medicair and Medicaid - once they start, they cannot be stopped.

Again, not to mention, the WAR IN IRAQ!!!!

Barack O fucking Bama as Commander in Chief. Please WC, for that ALONE you've got to be behind McCain. Or do you believe that we shouldn't be over there? That that hasn't helped keep them from hitting us again?

If you are who you say you are, you believe those things. Therefore, you believe that a President that disengages will cause what? More attacks here, right? You willing to sacrifice American lives to bring us to "Rock Bottom"?

[Holt's Cat]

There is NO WAY a TRUE CONSERVATIVE is getting elected this cycle; the masses believe GW to be Conservative - anything resembling him is DOOMED. Conservatives sent Bush, and he betrayed us; the Republican Congress betrayed us; Hell, look at the growth of government under Reagan vs. GNP - that didn't work either.

If the Democrats get both houses, and the WH - with a TRUE BELIEVING liberal, who can sway the masses with his charms and speach like Barack; the damage could be irreversible. Social Security/LBJ's war on Poverty with Medicair and Medicaid - once they start, they cannot be stopped.

Again, not to mention, the WAR IN IRAQ!!!!

Barack O fucking Bama as Commander in Chief. Please WC, for that ALONE you've got to be behind McCain. Or do you believe that we shouldn't be over there? That that hasn't helped keep them from hitting us again?

If you are who you say you are, you believe those things. Therefore, you believe that a President that disengages will cause what? More attacks here, right? You willing to sacrifice American lives to bring us to "Rock Bottom"?

Yeah but all the GOP is offering is progression to those same goals, albeit at a slightly slower pace. I would argue that the GOP has doomed itself because its been far too concerned with maintaining power and not with actually achieving its aims. The American people by and large want to be left the fuck alone and don't want the government to cause them trouble. The GOP has enjoyed a natural advantage in the electorate because of that. Now that advantage has been pissed away as we have had an administration that basically has advance the notion of an imperial presidency and has grown the state to an absurd level. Tax cuts aren't enough. Fortunately enough voters are smart enough to figure out that if you borrow it today then there are taxes to pay tomorrow, as well as that you are likely to have greater inflation and higher interest rates long term.

I guess the basic problem is that it's rather difficult for a party committed to limited government to govern.

[Purple & Gold]

Wow, do people actually think that the war in Iraq has stopped "them from hitting us again"?

[Purple & Gold]

I'm glad Cali has so little of them. Or at least they stay quiet.

[spurster]

I would think many people would not be too infatuated with experience after the destruction that Cheney and Rumsfeld have caused. Obama, knowing that he is inexperienced, might display some caution, which is something that sounds conservative to me.

Obama and Clinton talk about a lot of things that will cost a lot of money, but most know that they are unlikely to happen. The Democrats have never displayed the lemming-like follow-the-leader-no-matter-what quality that the GOP has done the past 8 years.

[boutons_]

"not with actually achieving its aims"

WTF? I think the Repugs have accomplished a tremendous amount of their aims, ALL negative. And they are doing their swan-song best to commit the USA and the next Administration to the same shit, no which party gets the WH.

[Holt's Cat]

"not with actually achieving its aims"

WTF? I think the Repugs have accomplished a tremendous amount of their aims, ALL negative. And they are doing their swan-song best to commit the USA and the next Administration to the same shit, no which party gets the WH.


The GOP you twit. As in limited government.

[Wild Cobra]

yes


i think neocon could be boiled down to a socially liberal (or apathetic) war hawk
That's what it appears when one learns from the media.

A neocon is a democrat who change parties to republican, changing views to like republican ideals more. The term is so misused... What can I say... that's what products like you from the U of I (University of Indoctrination) believe.

What you describe as a social liberal war hawk is a traditional democrat president like JFK. Not a neocon.

[Wild Cobra]

There is NO WAY a TRUE CONSERVATIVE is getting elected this cycle; the masses believe GW to be Conservative - anything resembling him is DOOMED. Conservatives sent Bush, and he betrayed us; the Republican Congress betrayed us; Hell, look at the growth of government under Reagan vs. GNP - that didn't work either.

That is why we cannot vote for another phony conservative. As long as we do, we will not get a real conservative in office again.

As for president Reagan, I'm not sure what you mean about government growth. He expanded the military, but what was a problem?



If the Democrats get both houses, and the WH - with a TRUE BELIEVING liberal, who can sway the masses with his charms and speach like Barack; the damage could be irreversible. Social Security/LBJ's war on Poverty with Medicair and Medicaid - once they start, they cannot be stopped.

I don't see more huge expansions being allowed. Filibusters will occur. Still, the people need to see how truly screwed up the democrats are when they try to exercise power.



Again, not to mention, the WAR IN IRAQ!!!!

I think Obama is a better man than to continue what he says after getting the real briefing. I think he will listen to the generals and let them finish as needed. I do believe he has more integrity and ethics than to allow a downward spiral to occur when he leans more about it. Especially under his watch.



Barack O fucking Bama as Commander in Chief. Please WC, for that ALONE you've got to be behind McCain. Or do you believe that we shouldn't be over there? That that hasn't helped keep them from hitting us again?

It comes back to this. I don't want another president Bush. He was good in some areas, and bad in others. I just see McCain as a Mini-Bush!

Like I said, If Hillary is the nominee, I will vote McCain. If Obama is, I might not vote for McCain.



If you are who you say you are, you believe those things. Therefore, you believe that a President that disengages will cause what? More attacks here, right? You willing to sacrifice American lives to bring us to "Rock Bottom"?

We differ on what we believe a president Obama will do. If I believed he would do as you say, I would definitely vote McCain.



Yeah but all the GOP is offering is progression to those same goals, albeit at a slightly slower pace. I would argue that the GOP has doomed itself because its been far too concerned with maintaining power and not with actually achieving its aims.

It has doomed itself, as long as it doesn't embrace conservative ideals as a whole. We cannot allow it to be a leftist group like it's becoming, else we may as well vote demoncrap anyway. They need to know conservatives do not support their actions. That message was heard in the 2006 elections, but now they think they can pass of another RINO. It's not going to wash with many of us conservatives.



The American people by and large want to be left the fuck alone and don't want the government to cause them trouble.

Definitely. This is where Ron Paul is absolutely right.



The GOP has enjoyed a natural advantage in the electorate because of that. Now that advantage has been pissed away as we have had an administration that basically has advance the notion of an imperial presidency and has grown the state to an absurd level. Tax cuts aren't enough.

Tax cuts are not enough, and probably shouldn't be reduce more. They are probably close to optimum under the system we have.

We need reform in everything that is infringing on "the welfare of the people!" Preamble:


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Our government is always doing unconstitutional things and allowing them to occur. So many things violate the purpose and scope of the constitution, which is what the preamble is.


establish Justice:

There isn't any clear violations here I can think of.


insure domestic Tranquility

They fail here. Keyword INSURE, but they don't. They allow activist groups to disrupt the tranquility of private citizens. I could go on, but that's not what I want to focus on.



provide for the common defense

We seem OK here right now.


promote the general Welfare

Big failure. Regulations are more often counterproductive to the general welfare than good for it.


secure the Blessings of Liberty

They fail here too. Our liberties are being overrun all the time. Illegal immigration, excessive government red tape, etc.

We can all think of areas we have issues with, but if you do, keep in mind what the words meant in the 18th century, not by what you think of them today.



Fortunately enough voters are smart enough to figure out that if you borrow it today then there are taxes to pay tomorrow, as well as that you are likely to have greater inflation and higher interest rates long term.

Yes. If you remember, in some of my prior posts, I have said that deficit spending is only OK for recession or war. Not like we have been doing in peacetime for so many years.



I guess the basic problem is that it's rather difficult for a party committed to limited government to govern.

Power corrupts. It's that simple. That's why I really like some of the ideas in "The Articles of Confederation" that didn't make it into our constitution.



Wow, do people actually think that the war in Iraq has stopped "them from hitting us again"?

Absolutely, but not by itself. We have intelligence from individuals captured and documents seized. The terrorists are also more concerned to attack us on their turf than here because it is offensive for us to be there to them. They have been focusing their attacks on our military rather than the civilians here.

[RandomGuy]

Here's how the Democratic Primary will go from here on out:

Obama will extend his lead in pledged delegates as February primaries play out

Hillary will narrow the gap with good showings in Texas and Ohio.

Obama will have a delegate lead somewhere around 1750-1650 going into the Convention.

Hillary's ground game at the convention will strongarm enough of the superdelegates to give her an extremely narrow nomination win, despite losing both the pledged delegate and primary popular vote counts.

There will be a repeat of Chicago 1968.

Obama will be pressured to accept the VP nomination. He will refuse.

Obama's core demographics will abandon the Democratic Party in droves. An opportunistic progressive independent candidate (or two) will jump into the race, as much in order to keep defections to McCain to a minimum as for anything else.

Nevertheless, Hillary will lose, and she will go down in history as the presumptive autocrat who fractured the Democratic Party coalition and jeopardized its future to advance her own self-serving ambition.

Fascinating.

[RandomGuy]

It's not the bible thumpers that dislike McCain; he is a pro-life guy, and has been; that is their big litmus test.

Primary gripes of people who don't like McCain are McCain/Feingold, and immigration.

I personally don't have a huge problem with the campaign reform. It was screwed up before, and it's still screwed up. The govt. did it; it is expected. I, frankly, pretty much agree with McCain on immigration. The issue is blown way out of proportion by all kinds of people; hell, up here in Pennsylvania, where there are VERY few migrant workers, people bitch about them all the time.

Don't want to call people racist, but....

Immigration.

Prescient. Kudos to you for the obvious thing 10+ years on.

[CitizenDwayne]

Immigration.

Prescient. Kudos to you for the obvious thing 10+ years on.
Bingo. McCain made the mistake of not appealing to the racial resentment and warped sense of entitlement that now drives the GOP

[DMC]

necro posting RG trying to find a W anywhere in the time continuum he can look :lol

[Blake]

necro posting RG trying to find a W anywhere in the time continuum he can look :lol

That's rich coming from DMC P.I.

[RandomGuy]

necro posting RG trying to find a W anywhere in the time continuum he can look :lol

So desperate.

I'm flattered.