Forum: pol
Page 3025
Subject: 2008 Candidates (CONT...)


  Posted by: CJ - Leader [499271021] Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 00:04

OKAY Needs some help in Understanding this Michigan Primary. I m going to Place a vote AGAIST McCain....and I am leaning to vote for Romney or the Huck. Like I said it is really a vote against McCain. I like the guy but his immigration, and against lower taxes disgust me and I do not trust he will reverse course once elected as he now claims in recent debates.

Now I understand Democrats in Michigan can vote and skew the registered Republican voters. Meaning Democrats could vote for McCain?
 
1Perm Dude
ID: 310141219
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 00:43
I don't believe that you can vote in another party's primary in Michigan, though you can vote "Uncommitted" in your own party, if you want.

 
2CJ
Leader
ID: 499271021
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 00:49
PD

The criteria from what I have read here in michigan is you have to be a registered voter in michigan...it does need you to be a registered R or D.

Link where I read this
 
3CJ
Leader
ID: 499271021
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 00:57
For instance:

With the Democrat Primary not really happening or going to be valid to the Democratic National Committee…then why couldn’t democrats decide to promote a candidate they might want to see as their opposition?

This election, like all elections, is open to all registered voters. Voters do not need to be a registered member of a political party in order to cast a ballot. However, this presidential primary is called a ‘closed primary.' When they arrive at the polls and fill out their application to vote, voters are required to indicate which party's primary they wish to vote in and they will receive a ballot for that party.
 
4Perm Dude
ID: 310141219
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 01:14
I'm not finding that on the State of Michigan's web site, but this does not mean that Democrats can vote Republican and vice versa per se, though it doesn't specifically rule it out. Language that you point out is very similar to language in other states which encourage registered independents to vote in primaries.

With the DNC not counting the Michigan vote, I can certainly see no reason for Dems to even go to the polls. But with the disarray of the Republican candidates and the near-sureness that the Democratic nominee will be favored against any Republican nominee, I can't see the incentive for Dems to play the spoiler role in Michigan. Certainly not to any large degree.
 
5CJ
Leader
ID: 499271021
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 08:50
I have heard pundits point out that although the DNC not counting the Michigan vote....doesn't mean it won't be displayed and reported on. Meaning if Clinton or Obama win big then they will use it to say see! So the Dems can still vote and it will be tallied but it just will not be accepted by the DNC. With that said that still brings up another problem...Hillary is the only one on the ballot from my understanding. I think I will call the Secretary of state's office and get some clarification.
Also Yes I believe you can go into the voting and claim you are for either party. So it is wide open and if dems wanted to they could organize voting for say Romney if they want to keep McCain from momentum?

NEW topic is this Nevada Union for the casinos that has endorsed Obama....apparently they are setting up voting places on the strip so they can all vote.....but now the Teachers union has said No you can not have voting at your casino....you have to go where everyone else has to go whch is a ways away from the stip from what I have heard. In addition it is a caucus and everyone has to be there at a certain time? I am unclear of most of this but definetly politics at it's best.
 
6walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 09:44
Fascinating, CJ. You should vote as you see fit, but my buttinsky self cannot help but say that as politicians go, I don't think McCain is inferior to Romney or Huckabee. First, I think the immigration thing is, IMO, really a non-issue. To be honest, I don't know what the burning platform is here? Security? What's happened in our country, since like the beginning of our country, security-wise, due to our borders being open? It's fear. Is it the loss of jobs to others? What jobs? There's a nice balance of the types of jobs taken by the largely Mexican immigrants vs. the jobs wanted by Americans. I don't see the burning platform there either. I really think the immigration thing is propaganda. But if you do think it's a legit issue, bear in mind McCain's approach is softer than Romney's, but not 180 opposite. It's not amnesty.

Taxes. Valid point if a concern for you, but to me, the taxes issue would really only be a concern for wealthy folks.

Huckabee. This is the guy I think you should be negating. Very inexperienced outside of Arkansas with agendas that are more aligned to his values and religious views than almost anything else. Very good speaker and Q&A type, but lacks the knowledge and breadth to be a president.

Sorry to give unsolicited voting advice! Could not resist!

McCain just seems more reasonable and has a stronger and more honest character than Romney. I don't know Romney's motivations. He seems more interested in saying what he thinks the base likes than truly trying to create his own voice. There's something almost creepy about him. McCain, to me, is a bit on the old side, and just does not seem presidential to me, but I guess I just think he's a safer bet than the others on the republican side, and he would more interested in doing what's best for the country than either what he thinks is politically expedient or is consistent with some extreme set of religious-based values.

 
7Perm Dude
ID: 53024149
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 10:27
#5: Yeah, I think it is more than a little ironic that Hillary Clinton was talking about people (well, just women, really) being disinfranchised for the Iowa caucus and here are her supporters actually disinfranchising voters in the Nevada caucus. Jeez she is just bad, bad, bad.
 
8CJ
Leader
ID: 499271021
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 11:02
6
I agree with most you said....I like McCain...the immigration thing is the funds the government puts into programs like health care, education and welfare all are being bankrupt in a way from undocumented people. I believe that is the driving point here. E-mails floating around about McCain's recent vote on:
Social Security Change For 2008

The United States Senate voted to extend Social
Security Benefits to Illegal Aliens beginning in 2008.

Now, the following are the senators who voted to
give illegal aliens Social Security benefits. They
are grouped by home state. If a state is not listed,
there was no voting representative.

Alaska: Stevens (R)

Arizona : McCain (R)

Arkansas : Lincoln (D) Pryor (D)

California : Boxer (D) Feinstein (D)

Colorado : Salazar (D)

Connecticut : Dodd (D) Lieberman (D)

Delaware : Biden (D) Carper (D)

Florida : Martinez (R)

Hawaii : Akaka (D) Inouye (D)

Illinois : Durbin (D) Obama (D)

Indiana : Bayh (D) Lugar (R)

Iowa : Harkin (D)

Kansas : Brownback (R)

Louisiana : Landrieu (D)

Maryland : Mikulski (D) Sarbanes (D)

Massachusetts : Kennedy (D) Kerry (D)

Montana : Baucus (D)

Nebraska : Hagel (R)

Nevada : Reid (D)

New Jersey : Lautenberg (D) Menendez (D)

New Mexico : Bingaman (D)

New York : Clinton (D) Schumer (D)

North Dakota : Dorgan (D)

Ohio : DeWine (R) Voinovich(R)

Oregon : Wyden (D)

Pennsylvania : Specter (R)

Rhode Island : Chafee (R) Reed (D)

South Carolina : Graham (R)

South Dakota : Johnson (D)

Vermont : Jeffords (I) Leahy (D)

Washington : Cantwell (D) Murray (D)

West Virginia : Rockefeller (D), by Not Voting

Wisconsin : Feingold (D) Kohl (D)


SEND THIS TO ALL YOU KNOW. THE ENTIRE POPULATION
OF THE UNITED STATES NEEDS TO KNOW THIS INFORMATION,
UNLESS THEY DON'T MIND SHARING THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY
WITH FOREIGN WORKERS who didn't pay in a dime. The senators in red type are running for president of the U.S. States!!

I currently do not have Health care for my family because I am self emplyed in construction. Tax breaks, Health care, and documenting people who are in this country.
My candidate really is the Mayor from NY, but he will not win MI and really needs McCain to go down so he can spark something in Florida.
 
9CJ
Leader
ID: 499271021
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 11:05
7
So do you feel the tear jerk-er incident in NH was calculated? If it was it was brilliant as she won the Woman vote big time. Even my Right Wing wife said to me that it touched her. Jheeze everyone is campaigning and I wonder if Rudy started tearing up if he would get sympathy?
 
10Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 11:07
Were you or your wife touched when he took that phone call from his wife in the middle of a campaign speech?
 
11Perm Dude
ID: 53024149
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 11:13
I don't think the tear thing was faked at all. I think she was just honestly shocked and dismayed that the nomination wasn't handed to her, and that she had to work for it.

#10: Which time? There have been at least two. Of course, if I were married to a known cheater I'd be calling them at random times as well, even during times I was pretty sure they're at work.
 
12CJ
Leader
ID: 499271021
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 11:13
You mean Rudy? Not sure what you are specifically talking about? I am not touched by much. Like to keep it simple! But in politics that is a bit hard to do.
 
13Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 11:21
Yeah I forgot he pulled that stunt more than once. He's lucky he got away with that as a humorous side note, even after he used it as way to squeeze in yet another shameless 9/11 mention. Imagine the ridicule if John Kerry had attempted that in 2004.
 
14walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 11:47
CJ, yeah, as a NYer, Rudy is not my man for President. Strong leader, but too strong, a bit of an autocrat ("my way or highway"), and we need a more united gov't (which is the main reason why I am not for Hillary, another polarizinig person). Rudy has a decent balance of conservatism and social values for me, not ideal, but okay, and he's also a sharp person, but I am not keen in his campaign approach ("vote for me or you will get blown up"), and not keen on his sometimes belligerant style. He can be a bully. The bully approach has not proven successful with our country the past 8 years.

I see your point on social security benefits for illegal aliens. You seem to have done a bit of research. Vote your conscience, sir.

PD: Agreed about Hillary. Of course, I'm reading a lot of Sullivan lately, and he's very convincing at making a case against her and the Clintons. Even without reading Andrew, I was for Obama ("back at the beginning"), and still am strongly. I remember clearly when he gave that speech at the 2004 Dem convention saying to my wife (and she to me): "That guy sounds like a president. He should be running." So, Hillary and co are now going after Obama saying: "he's just a good speech maker, and while rhetoric is important, I am the person of action." I laughed hard when I read the Chris Rock quote from his show at MSG on new year's eve:

"Hillary keeps going on and on about her experience as first lady making her qualified to be president. Being married to someone doesn't make you experienced enough to do their job. I've been married to my wife for ten years and if she was up here right now y'all wouldn't laugh once."
 
15Perm Dude
ID: 53024149
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 12:09
#8: This has been challenged by a number of websites, including Snopes.

Essentially, this was about people who were former illegal immigrants (and are now legal ones) are able to get credit for Social Security payments they made previously.

If you are going to challenge McCain on immigration, it is helpful to know that many of the emails going around are, at best, wildly inaccurate.
 
16walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 12:25
Wow, PD, with the scoopage. CJ, take note! This could affect your vote!
 
17CJ
Leader
ID: 499271021
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 12:39
I knew PD would come through...and that there is always some different angle. Still I do nto see how this important for our Congress to bring up and legislate. Should be spending time on much more important stuff or maybe it is just me.
Bottom line I just wish McCain was better on Tax cuts and the Border.
 
18CJ
Leader
ID: 499271021
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 12:41
16 I am really pushing to keep the Republican primarys going on and on so I am going to vote for Romney to help him defeat McCain and hopefully Huck takes SC and then Rudy takes Florida.....then super Tuesday we would still have a wide open race. I love it.
 
19Perm Dude
ID: 53024149
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 12:45
#16: There is a lot not to like about McCain (hell, each of the Republican candidates have some serious flaws. I wish we could Chinese menus these guys, and have Huck's humility, McCain's pork-busting pen, Rudy's security sense, etc etc).
 
20Boxman
ID: 337352111
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 13:02
I remember clearly when he gave that speech at the 2004 Dem convention saying to my wife (and she to me): "That guy sounds like a president. He should be running."

I hear this a lot from Obama voters and I'm surprised how easily they forget history. Don't be so impressed by a guy's speaking ability. Look at 1940s Germany for an example of what happens when a guy who is a good speaker (and also a madman) get a hold of a country.

That isn't to imply that Obama is Hitler. It is to imply that speaking ability alone is worthless in evaluating whether someone would be a good President.
 
21biliruben
ID: 5610442715
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 13:08
"speaking ability alone is worthless in evaluating whether someone would be a good President."

Spoken like someone who voted for Bush. ;)
 
22Tree
ID: 3533298
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 13:15
My candidate really is the Mayor from NY,

well, that sets you apart from NY, that's for sure. if the little dictator were to get his party's nomination, i doubt he'd even carry his home state.

It is to imply that speaking ability alone is worthless in evaluating whether someone would be a good President.

that's absurd. i'd like my leader to at least sound confident and know what he's talking about. speaking ability is important in MANY factors in life, from simple social situations to many job opportunities all the way to running for president.

if a guy/gal isn't good enough in the interview process to get a gig at McDonalds, i don't want him or her being my president.
 
23Boxman
ID: 337352111
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 13:18
that's absurd. i'd like my leader to at least sound confident and know what he's talking about. speaking ability is important in MANY factors in life, from simple social situations to many job opportunities all the way to running for president.

if a guy/gal isn't good enough in the interview process to get a gig at McDonalds, i don't want him or her being my president.


So since you challenged my contention, you would be happy with a well spoken liberal idiot then?
 
24Jag
ID: 14828255
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 13:53
CJ, I am not a fan of McCain's immigration policy, but he is the only one who is saying he will close the border first. This is of utmost importance and is practical. Saying you will send all the illegal immigrants packing is just silly.

A reverse of the tax cuts on the upper income (similiar to Bill Clinton's tax structure) is almost manditory while we are at war.
 
25Boxman
ID: 337352111
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 14:19
A reverse of the tax cuts on the upper income (similiar to Bill Clinton's tax structure) is almost manditory while we are at war.

Here's where I have a problem with that. Nearly every liberal out there wants to repeal that portion of the Bush tax cuts and then use it for a s#itload of different programs. Now if somebody could tell me that we'd repeal those tax cuts solely for the war and to only fund the war, I'll listen. Then, the tax cuts would go back into permanent effect once the war is over.
 
26Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 14:29
A strong public speaker inspires confidence in him/her. I don't think anyone here stresses that trait over competance or policy but I agree with Tree that to outright dismiss "speaking ability" as "worthless" in assessing a candidate's capability is rather silly. It's a very important skill for any leader.
 
27walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 14:32
I'd repeal those tax cuts, which would affect me personally, and give it to homeless people, or whatever other good social programs are needed (education, healthcare, stem cell research, planned parenthood, etc.) if that's a choice.

Regarding speaking ability. Yes, I would not vote for a candidate on oral presentation skills alone, but to be clear, my first impression of Obama was his speech. Since then, I listen to what he has to say, his positions, how he listens, and what his reactions are to questions, and believe he has other more important presidential qualities beyond speech-making (that Hillary argument just kills me). I believe he is smart, is more open to others' ideas (than any other candidate), reasoned, exercises good judgment, caring, and charismatic. I believe he would be good at negotiations, relationship building, and mending fences (not border fences). I think he would be able to begin fixing our foreign policy problems and also our horrid partisan politicing (to completely fix these things may take more than 4-8 years).

So, Box, to be clear, I am not voting for Obama just cos he sounds good. In that case, I'd vote for Barry White.
 
28biliruben
ID: 5610442715
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 14:33
I think muddled speaking (or typing, in my case on these boards) is a sign of muddled thinking.

I certainly see it in myself.

If I understand a topic, I am able to speak cogently and extemporaneously on it. If I don't, and I'm merely regurgitating memorized facts, than I sound a bit like... Bush.

Certainly it's just one in a litany of characteristics that should be considered when picking a leader, but it shouldn't be dismissed.

 
29walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 14:36
Right, for a public leader, oral presentation skills are a core competency. It's almost a pre-requisite. We have competency profiles that assess the skills and abilities of leaders and communication skills (both interpersonal and public) always come out as important for senior leaders. This being "predictive of leadership success" as opposed to "what competencies the public wants when they vote" cos fcukin Bush is an example of a bozo who lacks these speaking skills, yet was voted in. Not only can he not talk, what he says is retarded, too. I'd like a smart, eloquent, reaonable, inclusive leader who inspires folks from all walks to listen, sacrifice a little and collaborate to fix problems. Is there anyone running for president other than Obama that even comes close to meeting this criteria?
 
30Perm Dude
ID: 53024149
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 14:45
We should be reversing the tax cuts because it is an amazing drain on our federal budget, and is irresponsible in a war. Asking, essentially, the poor and middle class to fund the war (both in financial and blood terms) is not the collective sacrifice needed during a war.

As for Obama's speaking skill, I really don't know what the problem is. It is downright Rovian to attack your opponent's perceived strengths rather than to counter with your own. Maybe when you got nothin' there's only attacking.
 
31walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 14:55
Yeah, I saw some articles today about how the Clintons are using the Rovian strategy of attacking your opponents' strengths. It disappoints me to see the Clintons initiate the aggressive and at times personal attacks. Fuels the cynical arguments against Hillary about the Clintons' quest for power. Sounds like a freakin Lord of the Rings movie or something. Well, part of politics to some degree, but I really feel like the Clintons think it's rightfully "their turn" to govern, and Hillary's turn, and that she got upset because this campaign is tough on her not because "I just don't want to see America fall short because they did not elect the best candidate out there." Yeah, right. And, they are completely surprised and miffed that at this point, after all of their planning, this very charismatic candidate, with potential to transcend our political divisiveness, comes along at her time. If she truly wants what's best for the country, she'd get out of his way. Even if Hillary is good, nice, not entitled, and capable of leading, the unfortunate anti-Clinton sentiment is too strong for her to govern successfully, to bridge the gaps. It is impossible. She will not, can not, could not ever admit this, but she should.

Or, I should put this to Baldwin, as an example of my point: Is there anything Hillary Clinton could do or say to get you to change your opinion of her and either vote for her or at least say, "Of all the Dems, she'd be the one I'd be the most okay with." (e.g. for me, it's McCain on the republican side).
 
32Jag
ID: 14828255
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 15:05
Some of your best speakers come from Hollywood and I don't think you can find a bigger group of political morons, Reagan and some others excluded.

Boxman, I can see your point, after reading Walk's reply I can just see the Liberals tossing money at social programs that don't work. Not that I don't agree with helping all those that Walk mentioned, I just feel throwing money at problems, instead of realistic management, on;y makes matters worse.

I believe we need a leader that is not so divisive, even when every economic indicator was pointing up, many destoyed consumer confidence with constant pessimism.
 
33Perm Dude
ID: 53024149
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 15:11
You think that Obama is the most divisive, Jag? And you think "Liberals" (whoever they are) will do exactly what Republicans have been doing for 7 years now, except they will have the money up front instead of getting it loaned to them from the Chinese?

Are you from Opposite World?
 
34walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 15:13
I just want to throw money at those social needs, Jag, not realistic management. Who needs realistic management, anyway?

Let me ask you this? If you had said what I had said, such as "I'd give money towards national security programs," and I replied with: "Throwing money at national security defense makes no sense unless you ought to have realistic management, too," you'd likely say: "NO Fcukin Shiit, dolt!" More or less, right?

Same here.

I have to write this stuff?

And the hollywood argument. So is your point that good speaking ability is negatively correlated with leadership success? First, I know from research that you are wrong, so I am not so worried, but I am worried, cos in this stupid socialist type country, your vote somehow aberrantly matters as much as mine. This is what keeps me up at night.

The point is NOT all good speakers make good leaders, but that all good senior leaders who have to do a lot of public speaking (i.e. it's a core component of their jobs) need to be good at public speaking, in addition to a bunch of other critical skills, knowledges and abilities.

Ya goddam Mofo. (tee hee)
 
35Jag
ID: 14828255
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 15:19
A Democrat President and a Liberal congress durning a down economic time could be disasterous. A conservative congress and a moderate President is ideal.
 
36walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 15:19
I missed that one, PD. Jag, did you imply that Obama is the most divisive? Now, maybe in your view he is divisive, cos of ... whatever bizarro conclusions and inferences you have drawn. So, granted he is divisive, in your mind, how is he relatively MORE divisive than any other candidate out there? More or less, every other candidate outwardly denigrates the other party, particularly republican candidates, and close behind, Hillary. Edwards is mad at everyone. What has Obama said that makes him more divisive than: Thompson (hates democrats), Romney (says he hates democrats), McCain (ridicules democrats other than Lieberman, whatever he is), Huckabee (god squad), and Paul (zealot candidate, but not his doing).

It does make me think that others are right, that you say the exact opposite of the what is considered the consensual view of most informed people just to get the random goat of whomever will bite (in this case, today, it's me).
 
37biliruben
ID: 5610442715
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 15:21
Ideal if Road Warrior was your favorite movie.

I had dreams of the apocalypse too, Jag.

When I was 10.
 
38walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 15:22
#35, or some other variant of the checks & balances theme. I get what you are saying here, and agree that we want to have a mix. I want the next President, hopefully a Dem, to have some Republican cabinet members. I don't want all of the powers be from one party (e.g. Bush's first term). However, your ideal formula also included some other conclusions that presuppose a liberal congress or president is never viable and by definition divisive. I can say the same thing about a conservative leader or congress, but what's the point? It depends on the policies advocated against the needs of the country.
 
39Jag
ID: 14828255
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 15:35
Does anyone here think Obama is going be able to keep the Pelosis and Kennedys of congress in check?


Walk, I never heard a liberal address social problem correctly, example... education, they lean towards tenure instead of incentives for production, homelessness, they lean toward, 'they are just ordinary people who had a bad break' instead of realizing it mostly alcohol and chemical abuse, along with mental disorders. Heathcare...it is an all or nothing proposition, instead of focusing those most in need first. Plan parenthood... liberals have encourage unwed births with their poor management of social programs and is a prime example of spending billions and making matters worse.
 
40walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 15:37
NYT: Krugman on Candidates' Economic Stimulus Plans
 
41walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 15:46
Jag, instead of refuting your examples, which are refutable, but wind up taking us back and forth and back and forth, I think there are various ways to try and fix various social problems. I think the liberals have had some successes and some failures. I think for the most part, the conservatives don't really care.

I do think Obama will help keep all of the politicians in better check because he is not going to pander, cowtow to his party. I really don't get that impression. For one, I think Pelosi is almost off the radar. I mean, she's not even quoted anymore. Kennedy I have no problems with. He's liberal. SOoooooooooo? A lot of Americans are liberal. There are quite a few very conservative republicans in the senate. Do you think any republican pres candidate will reach out across the aisle to the same extent as Obama will? That is one of the key issues for me, and I don't believe any republican candidates, other than McCain and Huckabee, have indicated that they are inclined to do so. I believe McCain's views are too conservative to bridge the gap, and I believe the same for Huckabee, even though both are not as combative and so clearly disdainful at Rudy, Mitt or Fred. And, Hillary, too.

Ultimately, I have a strong view that our country is at sorta a breaking point when it comes to our standing and success. We have leveraged a lot of our resources, military, financial, good will, and it's going to take a special person to try and fix it. The consequences are us falling behind China and losing our leverage. We need a leader who is going to do a little more compromise, a lot of relationship building, and a lot of foreign relations fixing to right the boat. It's fair to say that one does not feel that Obama, or any other candidate, does not have the aptitude to do those things, but I would find it a tough argument to make that those things are not priority. We cannot continue the way we have under Bush/Cheney. We are on a downtick with our allies, enemies, economy, energy and debt.
 
42Jag
ID: 14828255
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 15:47
Ever notice almost every Liberals will use Krugman as their economic expert. Socialist and economic expert are oxymorons.
 
43Boxman
ID: 337352111
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 15:48
I believe McCain's views are too conservative to bridge the gap

How do you explain his massive popularity with independents?
 
44Perm Dude
ID: 53024149
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 15:49
Jag keeps presenting Obama is a liberal when he talks about Obama's plans, then wonder's aloud how a President Obama "is going be able to keep the Pelosis and Kennedys of congress in check."

Pick a talking point and stick with it, Jag. If he truly is a liberal your question about Pelosi & Kennedy is moot. If he isn't then your criticisms of "liberal social programs" is moot.
 
45walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 15:56
Box, I think McCain's social views, and foreign policy views, run very counter to liberal dems. These are not independents. I think he is popular with indepedents cos McCain has gone against the conservative base on occasion and voted his conscience. My point and your point are not mutually exclusive.

Jag: To ask you the corollary, which republican candidate will not keep the evangelical right in check? (My answer to that is Rudy, but I don't think he's going to last long. Otherwise, I don't think any of them. Is that uniting? I'm an atheist-Jew, the evangelical right is a bit unrepresentative of my beliefs: "that I feel guilty for not believing in god").
 
46Jag
ID: 14828255
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 16:09
I am not presenting Obama as anything, no one knows what he is. He is like Spam.
 
47walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 16:11
#42 Jag, I'm a Times reader, I use whomever is in their op-eds. Lazy convenience. Instead of making some derogatory insinuation, I think you should post some eco links to those you find interesting. I'm not trying to make a point (e.g. Krugmam is anti-Obama), and I also posted a link to Bill Kristol's column in the Iraq War thread (I am not aligned with Kristol, as you can imagine).

Do you have the ability to post something contrary to what you believe (e.g. "I am smart").
 
48walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 16:12
Why do you say "no one know what he is"...? He is a senator, has been an elected official for almost 20 years, and has two books out detailing his views and plans. Maybe you don't know what he is and therefore you think he is like spam (ironic coming from the source there), but pretty mean-spirited and ignorant.
 
49Perm Dude
ID: 53024149
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 16:16
If you aren't presenting Obama as anything, why in the world would you have a problem with him, or worry how people will interact with him?

Truth is, you don't want to know what he's about, because it is easier to try to take potshots from the sidelines, as though not knowing makes you somehow "independent" of it all.

Lack of education or real-world experience used to be shameful by conservatives, and used as an insult against their political opponents. Now, however, it seems a badge of honor to you. The transformation into your perceived political enemies is complete.
 
50walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 16:23
Obama's BluePrint for Change

Jag, I'm not saying Barack has more detailed policies than all other candidates out there, but for example, he has a 64-page plan that easily accessible if you want to know some of his ideas and proposals. Conversely, taking a look at Mitt Romney's site, I found similar views and plans. I bet they all have them. To go out and just say "no one knows anything about Obama" is just lazy or fear.
 
51walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 16:25
"I found similar views and plans" as in: similarly organized information about the candidate's respective views and plans (not that the plans and views are similar). Aaaaaar.

What PD said in #51, lazyboy.
 
52Building 7
ID: 471052128
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 16:37
I read the article in # 40 and it will be another 6 months before I read any drivel from the new york times. Feel free to post links to them daily, though. In summation:

The 4 republican plans suck.
The 3 democratic plans are good.

Wow, the article is exactly as I imagined it would be.












 
53Boxman
ID: 337352111
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 16:54
Walk: Box, I think McCain's social views, and foreign policy views, run very counter to liberal dems. These are not independents. I think he is popular with indepedents cos McCain has gone against the conservative base on occasion and voted his conscience. My point and your point are not mutually exclusive.

You wanted to know how McCain could "bridge the gap". If he has the Republican base, the independents, and some of the moderate liberals, what else does he really need? There are nearly zero causes/issues that exist that will ever get a 100% consensus as to the solution, so if McCain gets 60-70% (as an argumentative figure estimating the # of Republicans, independents and moderate liberals) of politicians to either agree or tolerate his action plans as President without serious opposition, what else do you want?
 
54walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 16:54
Building 7. It's just Krugman's eco opinion. It should hopefully inspire you to find an alternate view that, for your sakes, endorses the other side.
 
55boikin
ID: 59831214
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 17:06
So is your point that good speaking ability is negatively correlated with leadership success? First, I know from research that you are wrong, so I am not so worried, but I am worried, cos in this stupid socialist type country, your vote somehow aberrantly matters as much as mine.

a little off topic, but walk is research based on the results of the leader or on the presceptions of the leader. i totally agree that it is important the question is more our of curiosity. i mean if you look at the orignal piont about hitler i mean he was great leader i mean in the sense that he was able to lead and organize his country his flaw was not leadership it was his insanity.
 
56Building 7
ID: 471052128
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 17:09
I like ron paul's plan. eliminate the IRS and the federal reserve.

Krugman, like all liberals, thinks that raising the tax rate will automatically increase total tax revenues. This can easily be shown to be false.
 
57boikin
ID: 59831214
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 17:17
i skimmed through obama's blue print and it read pretty good though it reminded me allot of jimmy carter. the guy sounds like he means well and is pretty smart, though the realities of american politics well end up destroying him. Is bad or good i don't know.
 
58Perm Dude
ID: 53024149
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 17:21
Krugman is an idiot these days (well, the last few years he seems to have gone off the rails). Too bad, really.

Ron Paul's plan would make some sense if it, well, made sense. The better plan is to just stop spending so damn much money. The IRS isn't the problem. The problem is that the government (particularly Congressional Republicans) can't stop spending other people's money.
 
59Tree
ID: 3533298
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 17:23
So since you challenged my contention, you would be happy with a well spoken liberal idiot then?

happier than i'd be with a well spoken conservative idiot.

MITH's 26 sums up my thoughts exactly.
 
60biliruben
ID: 5610442715
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 17:34
Krugman, like all liberals, thinks that raising the tax rate will automatically increase total tax revenues. This can easily be shown to be false.

Okay. I'll bite. If it's easy...

I am pretty sure that the opposite is true: that lowering taxes most certainly lowers tax revenues, but I don't claim to have the economics background to prove it, and I certainly wouldn't say it would be "easy".

But I eagerly await the econ. lesson, B7.
 
61boikin
ID: 59831214
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 17:37
ill answer for B7 the piont that is left out is that you do not know what optimal tax rate is it could be higher i could be lower.laffer curve
 
62biliruben
ID: 5610442715
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 17:41
Yeah - I understand the extremes, but the Laffer curve's more general principals have, I had thought, been thoroughly debunked.

Sure, if you tax everyone at a 100% of their income, they lose a wee bit of their motivation to work or invest.

That doesn't mean that dropping the tax rate will generate more revenue.
 
63boikin
ID: 59831214
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 17:45
i never seen anything depunks elesticity of taxation and i doubt there is, only that you do not know what the optimal solution is just like most things in economics.
 
64Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 17:48
Building 7

Krugman, like all liberals, thinks that raising the tax rate will automatically increase total tax revenues. This can easily be shown to be false.

Since it is so easy, go ahead and show it.

CJ post 18

and then Rudy takes Florida...

Yeah, I heard George Will posit this scenario for complete mayhem, but the problem is that even though Rudy has had Florida all to himself, he's the only candidate running ads, he has lost his lead and is in a four way tie in the polls.

The poll, which has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5 percentage points, showed Mr. McCain with the support of 22 percent of likely primary voters, Mr. Giuliani at 20 percent, and Mr. Huckabee and Mr. Romney with 19.

Which makes me wonder, if your lead in a state evaporates while your ads are the only ones on the airwaves, do you remove the ads to stop the hemorrhaging? Since you can't afford to pay for new ads, why not just throw up your hands and quit?

Florida will be the first state Giuliani breaks double digits in percentage of the votes and first state that he does better than fourth, but third place doesn't do any good in winner-take-all Florida.

PD post 19

Of the choices on the "Chinese Menu", you would take "Rudy's security sense"? WTF? You can't be serious. I thought you disliked the current administrations' cavalier attitude towards the Constitution. Rudy's opinions on executive branch power and prerogative would make Cheney proud. Hell, I expect Giuliani to ask the Dark One to be his running mate.
 
65Perm Dude
ID: 53024149
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 17:50
I didn't say that, Zen. I want a vigilence at the top, that's all. I'm throwing the rest back.
 
66Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 18:06
Huck's humility, McCain's pork-busting pen, Rudy's security sense, etc etc

I'll assume one of the etc is Romney's successful business career in the private sector. As for Huck's humility, would that be the same Mike Huckabee who said he didn't know anything about Mormons? The same Mike Huckabee who was a keynote speaker at the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention in Salt Lake City, a city chosen for the primary reason that it is the worldwide headquarters of the LDS Church and one of the main themes of the conference was to characterize Mormonism as a dangerous cult, as referenced in the 12,000 copies of Mormonism Unmasked that the SBC distributed?

I suppose if you equate humility with out and out bigotry and dishonesty then Huck has it. But if Huckabee does win the Republican nomination, and super red Utah votes Democrat, you'll pardon me if I allow myself more than just a slight chuckle.
 
67Perm Dude
ID: 53024149
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 18:17
Why can't he be both, PV? Because one attribute is "bad" and one is "good" then they are opposites?

I was admitedly cherry-picking candidate attributes. But you and Zen both seem to take me to task for taking attributes I am not.

As for Romney's business sense, I can take it or leave it. A successful business career is a wash to me, if the candidate is not proposing a real pro-business agenda. I'll take Romney's hair, though.
 
68Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 18:36
Yes, Romney's and Edward's hair are at the top of my list for presidential attributes. Now, what's the latest news on Britney Spears?
 
69Perm Dude
ID: 53024149
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 18:57
Crazy like Ron Paul, according to the tabloids I saw.
 
70Jag
ID: 14828255
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 19:24
Britney was a no-show at a pivotal custody hearing.

I hope Tree doesn't make me provide a link.
 
71Building 7
ID: 48033121
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 20:03
I can prove it and I don't even need a bowling ball.

If you raise the tax rate to 100%, you will receive less tax revenues as few people would want to work at all if all of their income goes to the government. Same for 90%, 80% and so on. Before the Reagan tax cuts, the highest rate was really high...70-80% even. He lowered rates to 28% and revenues increased. People assume the taxable income part of the equation will remain the same, when the rate is changed, and it does not remain the same, for various reasons.

Total revenue = Taxable income * Tax rate



 
72CJ
Leader
ID: 499271021
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 20:15
25 Boxman
27 walk
Guys...that is the very point in NOT taxing us anymore. The goverment does not need to take more money from us at all....just start spending it more wisely.
 
73CJ
Leader
ID: 499271021
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 20:41
31 walk
There is one thing she can do to make me vote for her. Personally sign a commitment form that her first thing in office to do is place a massive wall along our southern border, employ more Agents, and use some of our troops who she claims are coming home to assist down there.

I woudl vote for her.......But do you really think she will do that for me?
 
74Seattle Zen
ID: 529121611
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 20:45
If you raise the tax rate to 100%, you will receive less tax revenues as few people would want to work at all if all of their income goes to the government. Same for 90%, 80% and so on. Before the Reagan tax cuts, the highest rate was really high...70-80% even. He lowered rates to 28% and revenues increased. People assume the taxable income part of the equation will remain the same, when the rate is changed, and it does not remain the same, for various reasons.

What a pathetic load of drivel. This should be linked into Wikipedia under the heading: Talking out of your Ass
 
75CJ
Leader
ID: 499271021
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 21:10
Why do you say that? It makes ense to me....take 100% of what people make and then I would not work. You would. Now as you go down the scale and people start taking home more and mroe they feel more energy about working. And of course all people have a broad range of how they are comfortable living.
 
76Perm Dude
ID: 53024149
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 22:01
The Laffer Curve purports to show the law of diminishing returns applied to tax revenue. And in a very theoretical sense it is right--the more you tax after the optimal tax rate the less revenue you get.

But if the optimal tax rate for revenue is, say, 70%, then it doesn't make sense to use the Laffer Curve to drive down tax rates to no more than half of that, especially using the excuse that it will increase revenues.

The other problem is that the Laffer Curve (and taxes in general) only address a small slice of the problem. With government able to borrow the difference between spending and revenue there is a huge disconnect between tax revenue and spending amounts. Conservatives thought that cutting revenues would force government to become smaller ("starving the beast" so to speak). But then "conservative" Republicans went on a spending spree like a college freshman with a no-limit credit card. For 6 years.

In short, the government spending problem is a spending problem, not a tax problem.
 
77Building 7
ID: 48033121
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 22:16
That's just it. They don't know what the optimum rate is. I don't think there's a proven formula to calculate it. What we do know is that the last action that was taken was to lower rates and this resulted in increased total revenues. This is opposite what many people would expect to happen, though.
 
78J-Bar
ID: 59048322
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 22:25
walk 6 Very good speaker and Q&A type, but lacks the knowledge and breadth to be a president.
(about Huckabee)

And then goes on to endorse Obama. Sounds a bit contradictory but i guess it is one of those do as I say and not as I do moments.
 
79Perm Dude
ID: 53024149
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 22:30
Well, we can guess, with some fairly good certainty. But the Laffer Curve is most misused where it is cited the most: To try to influence changes in intermediary tax rates. The Laffer curve really only comes into play at the extremes. Will we ever go back to 90% tax rates? Only if we have another World War, where everyone is fully behind the war effort and willing to sacrifice for it. At that point no one will really care about the Laffer Curve.

But most economists, even very conservative ones, actually believe the revenue optimizing tax rate is far higher than what we are at right now (indeed, most studies I've seen have the rate higher than when Reagan took office, at between 65% and 80%). This is why you don't see Laffer cited too much anymore by the serious economic writers. There are far better reasons to have a lower tax rate that the spurious one that we might be collecting revenues more efficiently.

The Laffer Curve, for purposes of policy, answers the wrong questions.
 
80J-Bar
ID: 59048322
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 22:49
PD i agree that it is a spending problem, but with the mandatory spending increasing the way it is and no one wanting to tackle it, therein lies the problem. revenues have steadily increased since the tax cuts and the deficit is now 1.9% of GDP which is actually lower than the 45 year historical average (even at a time of war).
 
81J-Bar
ID: 59048322
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 22:52
80 was in response to 76
 
82CJ
Leader
ID: 499271021
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 23:34
So this begs the Question....Who is going to stop spending? Is McCain it for all of us as R and D's?
 
83Perm Dude
ID: 53024149
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 23:34
The budget % has been kept artificially low for a number of reasons:

-most of the "War on Terror" is off budget. Not counted at all;

-Social Security revenues are counted (and used) to cover the budget shortfalls (in fact, SS funds are required, by law, to be used for purchasing T-bills, which are the national debt). As SS revenues decrease, the pressures of the debt will be greater as an even larger percentage of our debt is covered by foreign governments;

-discretionary (non-mandatory) spending has exploded.

-"mandatory" spending (like Bush's ill-conceived Medicare plan) does, indeed, increase the budget stresses, but all "mandatory" spending is subject to later changes in the law. Some "mandatory" spending is more mandatory than others, in other words!

All of which means little, however, if Congress cannot stop their spending ways. There really is no excuse for spending like we are--it is like we've maxed out the credit cards to we get another one to buy a couple of bigger HDTVs.

One of McCain's positives, in my mind, is the fact that he doesn't stand for budget pork, and he stands up to members of both parties in his zeal to root out pork.
 
84Boldwin
ID: 180561421
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 23:45
Or, I should put this to Baldwin, as an example of my point: Is there anything Hillary Clinton could do or say to get you to change your opinion of her and either vote for her or at least say, "Of all the Dems, she'd be the one I'd be the most okay with." (e.g. for me, it's McCain on the republican side). - Walk

No never, not the slightest chance, you have got to be joking. Or maybe you believe vampires actually can charm people.
 
85Perm Dude
ID: 53024149
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 23:45
Damn, forgot the most important thing: Comparing the budget deficits to GDP is really apples to oranges. GDP measures (nominally) the health of an economy (and, by proxy, GDP per capita measures, nominally, standard of living). The budget deficit measures the shortfall between planned spending and planned revenues by the government. While a large deficit might impact GDP in some way, so long as the T-bills are selling there is no real effect. The cost is merely put off.

The real problem is:

-an inefficiency in providing needed services by government;

-an inability for government to be flexible enough to cover unanticipated needed;

-the short-circuiting of market forces by random and sudden pork spending;

-the squeezing of discretionary programs later as the interests costs take up larger and larger parts of future budgets.

There is also the real problem that the "fixes" for the deficit (such as spending our way out of it, slashing taxes, or abolishing the IRS) will make things worse by not solving the problems and seeing only half the problem.

Frankly, I don't care how big or small the budget is, or tax rates (though I'd probably increase the number of steps in the tax rate increases), so long as the budget is balanced, new spending is revenue neutral, and that the PAYGO system is re-instituted into all new program budgets as their funding is renewed.

pd
 
86Perm Dude
ID: 53024149
Mon, Jan 14, 2008, 23:48
Er, I meant:

to cover unanticipated needs
 
87J-Bar
ID: 59048322
Tue, Jan 15, 2008, 00:13
and all the things that you mentioned have always been counted as they are now except for the war on terror. amazes me that left leaning individuals who are for every social program that is mentioned have the gall to complain about spending when all of the increases (other than defense) had larger proposals from the left side of the aisle. and bush in his effort to "cross the aisle" made concessions and compromised only to be raked over the coals. if only they would be honest and say it is only the defense spending increases that they are against. if the military machine would not have been reduced to dangerously low levels the increases would not have had to be as sharp as they were to handle the war that ensued. the continuation of the war in iraq without a precipitous exit is a key point of this election for me and i will vote accordingly (thompson was my choice but i don't believe he will get there)
 
88Perm Dude
ID: 53024149
Tue, Jan 15, 2008, 00:37
This is a joke, yes? Republicans not only were in control of Congress for years, but literally told Democrats not to bother coming to budget meetings. Bush never made budget concessions (neither did Cheney, as President of the Senate).

I really don't know what world you are living in, but your efforts to paint the current budget crisis as a Democratic one is fully off the mark. Bush inherited a surplus of $284 billion dollars.

As for the military costs, the Democrats went right along with everything that Bush wanted. In fact, Democrats have been letting the Pentagon pretty much write their own budget (and did so during the Clinton Administration--a plan that was attacked by Republicans at the time, back when they were deficit hawks rather than war hawks).
 
89J-Bar
ID: 59048322
Tue, Jan 15, 2008, 01:09
you are so blind you can't even read what was said. i didn't say anything about the congress not being a part of the budget process and that the budget crisis was a democratic one. i was referring to the fact that the democrats (had they won the election) would have had their own version of medicare drug plan and education reform and chip and and and and. for left leaning people such as you to even complain about spending is laughable on its face. the only major expenditure that you disagree with is defense (and maybe homeland security) and for some reason you just won't admit it. i can say that i am not happy with some of the spending growth or the added entitlement program but i can fully support the deficit spending to ramp up the military to ensure national security. again if our politicians do not find the cahones to tackle the mandatory increases for the big three entitlements then the rest of the fringe is moot.
 
90Boxman
ID: 571114225
Tue, Jan 15, 2008, 06:17
PD: Bush inherited a surplus of $284 billion dollars.

Yes and even if he didn't cut taxes a little event called 9/11 happened which would have destroyed that surplus regardless of who was steering the ship. Not to get all Rudy on you, but come on.

BTW, I'll be in San Antonio the next few days on business so if I don't respond I'm not cutting and running on you.
 
91Tree
ID: 18034155
Tue, Jan 15, 2008, 06:35
Yes and even if he didn't cut taxes a little event called 9/11 happened which would have destroyed that surplus regardless of who was steering the ship.

do tell. please explain further how 9/11 would have destroyed the surplus no matter who was in charge.
 
92CJ
Leader
ID: 499271021
Tue, Jan 15, 2008, 08:15
Get real Tree....You love bashing Bush and we all know it...Try and take a level headed approach. This President has had a lot to deal with. He took an already sluggish economy slipping into a recession, 911, Katrina, and other natural disasters hapening in Florida and CA where millions of money have gone. I am not pleased with Bush on a few levels, but I sure can say he has had more to deal with than Clinton ever did and has kept us a float quit well. I just can not imagine Gore or Kerry being to do any better. And TAX CUTS are a major plus to his economic success. I mean please try to give credit for something man! We know no matter what Republican it is you hate em.
 
93walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Tue, Jan 15, 2008, 09:22
#55, boikin: Results of the leader as measured by company success (ROI, profits, etc.) and also perceptions based on client and employee feedback. Basically, this is a big part of what I do for a living...However, to be very clear, public speaking skills will only be predictive of leadership success if the job itself requires public speaking. I think a thorough job analysis of a president's job would indicate that public speaking skills are a big part of the job (in addition to many other tasks such as influence, negotiations, analytical thinking, listening, decision making, judgment, problem solving, stamina, drive, integrity, etc.). Success would not be defined here by being elected, but by producing positive results as measured by appropriate criteria (as determined by subject matter experts along with measurement experts). Sorry for the lecture (walk geek alert).
 
94walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Tue, Jan 15, 2008, 09:26
A positive op-ed for Romney.

NY Times, Dean Barnett Op-Ed on Romney
 
95Tree
ID: 3533298
Tue, Jan 15, 2008, 09:29
Get real Tree....You love bashing Bush and we all know it...Try and take a level headed approach

and all of it well deserved, especially since an ill-advised foray into IraqiNam 5 years ago.

i'm still waiting for your explanation on how 9/11 destroyed the surplus.

i mean, you pulled out a few natural disasters which are unrelated to 9/11 as an example, which has nothing to do with the question posed.

I sure can say (Bush) has had more to deal with than Clinton ever did and has kept us a float quit well.

afloat how? he's made us among the most disliked and distrusted nations on earth.

I mean please try to give credit for something man! We know no matter what Republican it is you hate em.

absolutely incorrect.

i think Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee both have some solid points - i may disagree with some of the things they say and do, but i certainly don't "hate" them...

 
96walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Tue, Jan 15, 2008, 09:29
#78, J-Bar, I obviously think Obama has much more depth and judgement and knowledge than Huckabee. Next time I'll be more explicit. Just because Obama is a good speaker does not make him poor at others skills. However, this is the Rovian attack methodology and many agree with this view that Obama lacks substance and experience. I think this argument is completely without merit, and ironically, could be applied much more vigorously to some other candidates running (e.g. Thompson, Mitt, Huckabee).
 
97walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Tue, Jan 15, 2008, 09:33
Thanks #84, Boldwin, that's what I thought. Hillary is too polarizing and runs a greater risk of not winning the general election, and if she did win, runs a greater risk of not being able to effectively govern.

#73, CJ. No, I don't think Hillary will build a wall and man it, and I hope not. I don't think that's a problem that needs fixing. I don't know where that fear of the border came from, but many seem to believe it's valid and needs fixing. Your response though is more based on what actions you'd want from your president, so I get it. My point was that some folks, no matter what commitments Hillary makes or does, would not vote for her, no matter what (e.g. Boldwin), which is based on their perceptions of her character, etc. (which are as valid as any other reasons since everyone has a vote and a choice).
 
98walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Tue, Jan 15, 2008, 09:35
NY Times David Brooks (on Hillary)
 
99Perm Dude
ID: 11013159
Tue, Jan 15, 2008, 10:13
I think Republicans really need to stop blaming the deficit on 9/11.

It bears repeating: Republicans used to be the party of taking responsibility. Now they are the party of blaming everything but themselves for their troubles. Are we back to blaming Iraq for 9/11? Are we blaming al-qaeda for the "Bridge to Nowhere?" The sharp rise in discretionary spending?

Really, J-Bar, when cornered in an argument your tendency to time travel to when "Democrats would do the same thing" is silly, at best. Here in the real world it is Republicans who can't stop themselves from spending. Until you stop enabling them you aren't going to help them.
 
100Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Tue, Jan 15, 2008, 10:53
Word.
 
101Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Tue, Jan 15, 2008, 10:59
And TAX CUTS are a major plus to his economic success.

What economic success are you referring to?

i can fully support the deficit spending to ramp up the military to ensure national security.

. if the military machine would not have been reduced to dangerously low levels

Can you identify the conditions during the Bush administration when our national security was threatened and how additional military spending would have countered the threat? When you say that our military machine was reduced to dangerously low levels, are you suggesting that there was a distinct possibility that a foreign entity was positioned to successfully(or unsuccessfully) attack this nation? If so, please identify which nation has been in such a position during these dangerously low levels. Cuba? Canada? Venezuela? Bolivia? Nicaragua?

Possibly you think Iran. After all, this is what President Bush said Sunday in Abu Dhabi:

"Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere, so the United States is strengthening our long-standing security commitments with our friends in the Gulf and rallying friends around the world to confront this danger before it is too late."

This preceded the announced sale of 900 missles to Saudi Arabia yesterday, which will likely be countered by the sale of an equal amount of missles to Iran by either Russia or China or both, resulting in a proliferation of weapons in a region that most would consider unstable.
Good news for the defense industries in the US, Russia and China.

Russia and China are the only nations which pose a threat to the security of this nation militarily. Ironically, China is using US dollars to build their military into an imposing entity. I suggest that if you're seriously worried about military threats and national defense issues, you immediately boycott any and all products that are Made in China. However, as just about any American consumer knows, that is virtually impossible.

And yes, I support across the board cuts in entitlement spending and social welfare programs as well as cuts in defense spending. The only way this country will remain economically vital is to shrink the size of the bureaucracy on all levels, something which was actually accomplished under Clinton/Gingrich, but abandoned under Bush/DeLay.
This is one reason why I am extremely worried how a Democrat in the White House coupled with a Democratic-controlled Congress will approach spending.
 
102Perm Dude
ID: 11013159
Tue, Jan 15, 2008, 11:32
I agree, PV, especially with a guy like John Murtha in any sort of leadership position in the House. I respect him on defense issues, and am repulsed by him on budgetary ones.
 
103boikin
ID: 59831214
Tue, Jan 15, 2008, 12:26
Re #93: thanks walk i was just interested i have read several papers on leadership skills and some times they look at acctaul results and some times they look at preceived results. though my foavorite had to do with "psychic" ablities and company preformance i wonder if we can get that test ran on the canidates.
 
104walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Tue, Jan 15, 2008, 14:30
boikin, "psychic abilities, as in their ability to read into the future or do you mean "psychological" as in their personalities and leadership aptitude (the latter being what I'm involved with)...? Gotta believe it's the latter.

I would love to give the candidates some good personality tests. There are many. I'd throw in some good cognitive abilities tests, too, cos not all of these guys (including our current president) have superior intelligence. That's a pre-req, I think, to almost everyone (although Bush won on the "I'd have a beer with that guy campaign"). Some realistic executive level job simulations (think "auditions" or try-outs) also. Need to know their smarts, integrity, temperament, teamwork, decisiveness, decision making/judgment, problem solving, analytical skills, interpersonal skills and measures of all leadership derailers (silo mentality, narcisism, lack of integrity, etc.).
 
105boikin
ID: 59831214
Tue, Jan 15, 2008, 14:44
walk i ment "as in their ability to read into the future" dont ask me how they tested them but i have read it few papers and cited in few books.
 
106Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Tue, Jan 15, 2008, 14:45
"the 'I'd have a beer with that guy...'" factor:

Possibly the single stupidest broadly considered issue in American elections. It almost certainly helped the victors in the last three Presidential Elections.
 
107sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Jan 15, 2008, 15:29
Agreed MITH. Nobody in my circle of "beer buddies", do I want in charge of the entire nation.
 
108walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Tue, Jan 15, 2008, 16:01
Here, here, MITH and Sarge33rd. I'd have to steal it from Bill Maher (who is back!) who said like 2 years ago on his show: "The last thing I have to have as a leader of my country is a guy I'd want to have a beer with. This guy should be very different from that."
 
109Jag
ID: 14828255
Tue, Jan 15, 2008, 16:46
I just want the President to make the right decisions.
 
110Perm Dude
ID: 11013159
Tue, Jan 15, 2008, 16:50
You'd be a welcome change from the current Administration, then.
 
111biliruben
ID: 5610442715
Tue, Jan 15, 2008, 16:58
Maybe I have hope for the presidency after all.
 
112Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Tue, Jan 15, 2008, 17:03
"The last thing I have to have as a leader of my country is a guy I'd want to have a beer with. This guy should be very different from that."

So Bill Maher is supporting Mitt Romney?
 
113biliruben
ID: 5610442715
Tue, Jan 15, 2008, 17:28
Heh.

Obama runs the gambit of addictions, doesn't he? He currently smokes, and mentions HS dalliances with pot and coke in his book.

Now we're talking!

"Tom Brokaw here in South Carolina chatting with prospective primary voters about which candidate they would rather do a bong-hit with. Based on this litmus test, Barack appears to be a shoe-in."

I can see the Colbert show stealing my idea now. They need writers, right?

When I worked for a big company, almost nobody smoked but the president. I'd go have a cigarette a day out on the patio (now ground zero) for the chance to chat him up.

I'd rather have my leader's weakness be something that harms him rather than his charge.
 
114Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Tue, Jan 15, 2008, 18:33
Somewhat related to my post #101, is today's OP from Pat Buchanan.

Our political parties seem oblivious. Republicans, save Ron Paul, are all promising to expand the U.S. military and maintain all of our worldwide commitments to defend and subsidize scores of nations.

Democrats, with entitlement costs drowning the federal budget in red ink, are proposing a new entitlement -- universal health coverage for the near 50 million who do not have it -- another magnet for illegal aliens. Moody's is telling America it needs a time of austerity, while the U.S. government is behaving like the governments we used to bail out.


 
115walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Thu, Jan 17, 2008, 09:30
It dismays me that this stuff happens. The NYT even tracked down the culprits, and they believe what they believe and then act on it to smear candidates in a broad way. I know McCain is not the only one to get smeared like this, but it's a prime example of how warped campaigning can become (stating the obvious, I know...).

Smear Tactics Against McCain
 
116Perm Dude
ID: 2609178
Thu, Jan 17, 2008, 09:39
A little blowback against the pushback

It should be noted that the "flier" or "mailer" (as it is being called all over the place including the NYT piece linked in #115) wasn't actually mailed or sent out to the public. It was mailed to some newpaper editors only. McCain then actually did the guy a favor by publicizing the thing himself, in showing how he was being attacked.

All in all, this doesn't appear to be doing anything for him either way--he's still got a commanding lead in SC and the lead appears to be steady.
 
117Boldwin
ID: 120301616
Thu, Jan 17, 2008, 11:08
It just struck me that a wingnut is a practical, useful, pragmatic solution...

Whereas a moonbat just lies there not flying [because there is no air] for a couple minutes while it passes out and freezes solid.

 
118walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Thu, Jan 17, 2008, 13:07
NY Times: Roger Cohen on McCain

A pro-ish op-ed on McCain (the author would not vote for him, but praises him nonetheless). He also addresses my point in the Iraq War thread about whether it was worth it to go into Iraq in the first place.
 
119walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Thu, Jan 17, 2008, 13:13
It's like McCain day in the NYT. Hmmm. What does that mean? I dunno. Anyway, here' another, if you're interested:

McCain is the most Conservative
 
120Boldwin
ID: 120301616
Thu, Jan 17, 2008, 17:49
Run across any bridges for sale in there that also caught yer eye?
 
121Perm Dude
ID: 2609178
Thu, Jan 17, 2008, 17:53
So who would you say is the most conservative?
 
122sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Jan 17, 2008, 18:06
I'd put McCain as closest to the traditional Republican of those currently seeking their nomination.
 
123biliruben
ID: 5610442715
Thu, Jan 17, 2008, 18:07
Huckabilly Hound? Socially conservative at any rate.
 
124Boldwin
ID: 120301616
Thu, Jan 17, 2008, 18:10
I'll help you out here, Walk.

But there is a radical difference between disagreeing with your fellow conservatives and fudging on basic principles.

Voting against a tax cut is obliterating the number one conservative principle. He voted against Bush's tax cut.

Not only can he argue that the establishment has put expedience above principle, but he can also tout his own record in battling that establishment.

While the (R) establishment has indeed put expedience above principle, McCain's vitually non-stop attempts to drag the part left doesn't make him conservative.

His position on immigration all by itself permanently separates him from the Republican base and they don't care one iota if big business is on the other side of this issue.

Mr. McCain offers a third way for conservatives: stick to the core principles while feuding with movement barons like James Dobson and Grover Norquist.

What core principle has he stuck to? None occur to me. He's willing to fund the military, perhaps?
 
125Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Thu, Jan 17, 2008, 18:13
Huckabilly is not conservative.

I'd say Thompson is this most traditionally conservative.
 
126sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Jan 17, 2008, 18:18
Tax Cuts; are not by definition automatically "good". Particularly those whiwch target and openly favor, that financial realm of Americans least in need of the financial boon from said tax cut.

That individual trying to get by on 20k yr, is in MUCH greater need of an extra $200 in Tax Relief, than is the family making 400k in need of a $10,000 tax relief package. To dispute that, is to ignore reality.
 
127Perm Dude
ID: 2609178
Thu, Jan 17, 2008, 18:28
#125: I'd agree. It is pretty sad that the traditional conservative is getting trounced, while the other candidates have, IMO, fatal flaws that make them less conservative than even Obama. Rudy's embrace of torture, for example. Romney wants to bail out the auto industry. Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution to make it more in-line with the Bible.
 
128Boldwin
ID: 120301616
Thu, Jan 17, 2008, 19:31
Stylistically Thompson is the most conservative and he can talk the talk half as good as Reagan but just how conservative can you be and still promise your support to McCain if you were to drop out?
 
129Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Thu, Jan 17, 2008, 19:39
"Conservative" Huckabee Wants to Outlaw Push Polling, Censor Political Attack Ads
 
130Perm Dude
ID: 2609178
Thu, Jan 17, 2008, 20:28
If you are using Reagan as your standard of "true conservative" than McCain isn't all that differnt from Reagan on the issue of immigration.

pd
 
131Boldwin
ID: 120301616
Thu, Jan 17, 2008, 20:34
McCain has zero intention of ever stemming the tide, no matter what he says.

Not saying you can trust anyone on this issue who can raise enuff money to run.
 
132Perm Dude
ID: 2609178
Thu, Jan 17, 2008, 20:43
Only a matter of time in SC

McCain's support dropping, as he doesn't support racist symbol enough.




 
133Building 7
ID: 48033121
Thu, Jan 17, 2008, 22:32
Ron Paul is the most conservative.
 
134Boldwin
      ID: 120301616
      Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 02:23
When he's not being libertarian.
 
135Boldwin
      ID: 120301616
      Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 12:40
Expect to be shocked at the life Thompson shows in S. Carolina. Not just winning it but crushing.
 
136Perm Dude
      ID: 29028188
      Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 12:45
I would certainly be shocked. He's down 26 points to McCain and the three day tracking shows his numbers are steady.

An example of Thompson showing life would be ordering another bourbon.
 
137Boldwin
      ID: 120301616
      Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 13:57
NH didn't shake your faith in polls at all, huh?
 
138biliruben
      ID: 5610442715
      Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 14:29
It shook my faith in Deibold. ;)
 
139Perm Dude
      ID: 29028188
      Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 14:45
Heh. There are a number of reasons, IMO, that the polls were wrong in NH. But even if the same thing happens in NV, they weren't wrong by that magnitude.
 
140walk
      ID: 2530286
      Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 08:27
Thanks for the help, Boldwin, #124. I'm really just adding some fuel for the fodder on the republican campaigning side. I am not compelled to personally determine who the most conservative candidate is, but find it interesting how they are jockeying for the position.
 
141walk
      ID: 59027198
      Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 09:35
WSJ, January 19, 2008
Obama and the Gipper
January 19, 2008


No one is surprised when Republican Presidential candidates invoke Ronald Reagan like they're counting prayer beads, but perhaps a better measure of the Gipper's political legacy is the fracas it has kicked up among the Democrats. This week, Barack Obama had the blaspheming temerity to acknowledge that Reagan was a transformational President.

"I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America, in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and in a way that Bill Clinton did not," the Senator told the Reno Gazette-Journal. "He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. . . . He just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was, 'We want clarity, we want optimism.'"

The obvious context of Mr. Obama's remarks was his case for "change" versus Hillary Clinton's "experience." But the Internet left went bananas, and John Edwards and Mrs. Clinton ripped into Mr. Obama as well. Mr. Edwards cited the "extraordinary damage" Reagan supposedly visited on the country, while in a conference call with reporters yesterday, Clinton surrogate and Baby Boom liberal Barney Frank said he was "stupefied" by Mr. Obama's "explicit endorsement" of the notion that the GOP is "the party of ideas."

According to this paranoid style, the "excesses" Mr. Obama referenced were liberal emblems like the civil rights, antiwar and women's movements, the Great Society's social welfare programs and the like. Please. More likely, the Illinois Senator was thinking of the actual reasons for Reagan's 1980 success: double-digit inflation, marginal tax rates as high as 70%, high unemployment, Soviet Communism on the march in Afghanistan, hostages in Tehran . . .

Mr. Obama is trying to associate the present with these crises -- and thus frame his candidacy as the advent of a liberal Reagan -- though whatever problems we now face are several orders of magnitude removed from those that gave rise to Reagan. And unlike Mr. Obama, Reagan campaigned on forthright policy reforms -- substance -- and not merely a change in style.

It was less his "optimism" or what the country "felt," as Mr. Obama had it, than it was Reagan's ideas that account for his success. He shifted electoral coalitions and realigned the U.S. political center to the right because he governed with a genuinely new domestic agenda and approach to foreign policy -- and it worked. Still, we suspect Mr. Obama is smarter than his Democratic critics in evoking Reagan as the example he wants to emulate, and it says something about the breadth of his political ambitions that he would do so.

The episode is most telling, though, for what it says about the ancient mariners of the Democratic Party and how little they've changed. Supposedly Mr. Obama committed a grievous blunder by nodding at the achievement of one of the most consequential Presidencies of the 20th century. If the rest of the Democrats can't even recognize the same, it suggests that the change they have in mind is back to the 1960s and '70s.

******************
One can argue that Obama's mention of Reagan as an example of transformational change is/was an effort to pander to the moderate, indies of the Dem party. I sorta think that he just a more honest, open and unafraid leader who has the confidence to sorta call 'em like he sees 'em , if it winds up (semi-) praising someone on the, dreaded (oy veh) "other party." I agree with the WSJ editorial, that it would be better if the parties were a little more conciliatory towards the respective achievements of the other. While Reagan may have implemented some policies that went counter to several Dem ideals, he also did reach out across the aisle and try to change the way the admin and gov't ran. If you give nothing to the other side, then you reinforce the divisiveness.
 
142sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 10:14
I sorta think that he just a more honest, open and unafraid leader who has the confidence to sorta call 'em like he sees 'em...


THAT, is precisely how I see Obama.
 
143Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 10:39
Who knows what he's thinking (well, I'm sure Baldwin is 100% slam-dunk certain in his ability to read Obama's mind). But at worst, it's calculated pandering to moderates. Either way, it takes balls for a Dem candidate during primary season to express a favorable comparison of Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton. I read more than a few lefty bloggers who were very put off by the comment.

From my POV, it displays his oft-expressed eagerness to disregard the current lines of political distinction, something I've personally been begging for from our government since GWB's first term.

Ardent partisans on either side who see this as another reason to call him naive only fuel our problems.
 
144Perm Dude
      ID: 29028188
      Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 10:45
Obama was spot on, IMO, in saying that Reagan challenged conventional wisdom. Many Dems are taking him to task for, in their minds, endorsing Reagan's policy decisions. But Obama didn't say anything about specific policies--Clinton (for one) is slamming Obama for saying something he didn't.

Perhaps it is a poor choice of words, but I tend to think it is more Democratic sensitivity about a guy who kicked their butts.

Well, at least Clinton has decided to stop fighting the battles of the late 1960's and has moved up to the battles of the early 80's.

Maybe by 2010 she'll get to her Iraqi war authorization vote.

I think Obama might have underestimated the hatred many on the left still have for Ronald Reagan. He wasn't following the Democratic CW script of, at most, admiring Reagan for being a good politician. That interview was more about the political realignment that Reagan brought about (as was mentioned above). And on that point, Obama is entirely correct that taking back "Reagan Democrats" can put the Republican Party in full retreat.
 
145Perm Dude
      ID: 29028188
      Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 12:07
Obama with some sarcastic wit in NV
 
146Perm Dude
      ID: 29028188
      Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 20:22
2 good reasons to be for McCain, as a Republican: DeLay and Santorum hate him.
 
147CJ
      Leader
      ID: 499271021
      Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 22:13
I don't hate him at all...but he has pissed me off with crap like McCain/Fingold, voting against bush tax cuts and last but not least...Amnesty for illegals. He just does not have it right at all. And I have never heard anything about what type of judges he would nominate to the supreme court.
Bottom line is....Fred Thompson just gave McCain the nomination tonight. Those desperate votes to Fred would have gone to the Huck easily. I mean the guy pulled 17% which is huge for him.

Anyway in the end I will be voting for him this fall and hopefully he wins versus the Beeeeooootch!
 
148Pancho
      ID: 47161721
      Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 22:36
Fred Thompson just gave McCain the nomination tonight.

Actually, no. Romney won more delegates today than McCain, extending his delegate lead.
Florida is a winner take all for Republicans. Giuliani has everything staked on Florida. If he loses, it's a McCain/Romney showdown on Super Tuesday and beyond. If he wins, he's still in the hunt.

Given the economy is now the #1 issue (a Romney and Giuliani strength/McCain weakness), several states on Feb 5 are critical. Romney will do well in the west, and California is the big prize. New York and New Jersey will likely go Giuliani if he's still around. In this scenario(and even if he loses Florida Rudy will hang through Super Tuesday), McCain is suddenly in big trouble again.

And there's still Ron Paul, who came in second in Nevada. He will stay in and draw more votes from McCain and Rudy than Romney.
 
149CJ
      Leader
      ID: 499271021
      Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 23:51
148 Pancho
TRUE.....and I agree with you, but I have been watching TV Pundit shows tonight and everyone keeps giving McCain this ...Oh he split the Conservative vote...comparing it to when he ran against Bush.....Well there are many others in this race versus then and that is where I am yet to here someone point out the fact that Fred took many votes from the Huck. Where would have Fred's votes go...I mean this is not a case where we are talking about 3-7 % it is like 16%.
Agree Romney leaving the state early gave a bounce in votes for McCain which was just enough for McCain to pull it off. But C'mon McCain barely won and the talk about his conservative vote is killing me.
I listened to his victory speech about Taxes and the border and I was glad to hear what he was saying....THEN......he was asked by Hannity about changing his views on the fence and taxes and he took a stand again for he is not changing! I he is the candidate and he still against tax cuts and border issues I may not vote because I get pissed at him for talking the rhetoric in a victory speech but when asked specifically he claims no change.
 
150Perm Dude
      ID: 29028188
      Sat, Jan 19, 2008, 23:55
McCain voted against the tax cuts because they were not accompanied by spending cuts on discretionary spending. It's really too bad that "tax cuts" became such a mantra for Republicans that they forgot that is about cutting spending.

I'm not about to tell any Republican who to vote for, but McCain is getting railroaded by non-conservatives like DeLay & Santorum for not being like them. But big-spending, federal-government-expanding, private-rights-eroding politicians just aren't conservatives, IMO.

 
151CJ
      Leader
      ID: 499271021
      Sun, Jan 20, 2008, 00:10
I agree with the spending cuts and it there has to be tax cuts with spending cuts.....But when will McCain if President ever pass a tax cut bill if he hangs his hat on spending cuts becuase the Dems who own congress want the spending pork or no tax cut? That is how Bush get's it through Right? I just wish he would then explain it more and better. Speak the words Tax cuts!!!!!
 
152CJ
      Leader
      ID: 499271021
      Sun, Jan 20, 2008, 21:43
Yo PD where have you gone?
 
153Perm Dude
      ID: 400392013
      Sun, Jan 20, 2008, 21:53
Here. Watching to Giants/Packers. It'll be a good finish.
 
154CJ
      Leader
      ID: 499271021
      Sun, Jan 20, 2008, 23:16
Giants were not the team I was cheering for but they certainly won that game and are deserving to go to the SB.
 
155Seattle Zen
      ID: 190262021
      Sun, Jan 20, 2008, 23:24
It's cute and all listening to the Republicans discuss who they want to win their primaries, kinda like listening to kids dream of what they want for Christmas. Thing is, it doesn't matter who faces the Democratic nominee, they are going to lose and lose decisively.

By the way, I'm with Barak, Reagan deserved praise for granting amnesty to people who resided in the US without being citizens. This country is better because of it.
 
156Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 00:28
Zen is proof of the brain damaging effects of pot.

Has anyone with a disapproval rating as high as Hilary ever even came close to becoming President? Oh wait,nevermind, no one, who is depised as much as Hilary, has ever ran.
 
157Perm Dude
      ID: 400392013
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 00:51
Polls are still showing her winning (or being very competitive) against any and all Republicans. Perhaps that is because Bush's numbers are stupidly low--among the lowest in history. And if McCain wins the nomination, the combination of many Republicans just sitting this out along with with Clinton tying his position on Iraq around his neck, is there any doubt that using the Rove strategy of winning 51% of the vote while letting 49% despise you will work for Clinton?

I think her husband was despised as much by Republicans when he was running. So was Carter. So you're wrong on the history.
 
158Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 01:17
I believe congress has a higher disapproval rating, the highest in history. The hate for Hilary will have the Republicans out in droves. If Hilary wins the nomination, I would go as far as to say Republicans may have the highest turnout ever.
 
159Perm Dude
      ID: 400392013
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 01:29
Actually, they don't have a higher disapproval rating. But don't let raw numbers fool you. As has been pointed out before, the approval ratings are for different reasons: People don't like Bush because of his policies. People don't like Congress because they aren't opposing Bush very much. Poll after poll shows this.

I don't want Hillary myself because, when she wins, it will be a divisive victory and she will be hard pressed to translate her victory into actual legislative reform. Many Republicans might hold their nose and vote for whoever wins the Republican nomination (even, *gasp* a Mormon) but their irrational hatred of Clinton will only go so far, IMO.

In the end, as a country we need a clean break from the politics of divide and conquer. It is what President Clinton is trying in attacking Obama on behalf of his wife, and it will hurt him the longer he keeps it up. In fact, the progressives (who were never fully behind a guy who backed the Family Marriage Act, "Don't Ask Don't Tell," expanding the death penalty, NAFTA, reforming welfare, and so on, are unlikely to switch to Sen Clinton if Edwards drops out soon.
 
160Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 01:56
As of Dec 2007, congress had 75% disapproval rating and 22% approval rating. congress poll numbers

In November 2007, Bush had a disapproval rating of 64% with 50% strongly disapproving.



Bush numbers

There is a corelation between a high disappoval rating and electability, which is separtate from approval rating. I was listening to Dick Morris talk about the distinction and will try to find the interview.



 
161Perm Dude
      ID: 400392013
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 02:00
See if you can find the same poll for the same period. Different polls covering different periods mean little.

And, no matter what numbers you find, the point still stands: The disapproval numbers increase the more either one backs the Administration's goals. And the biggest problem for the Administration (by far!) is Iraq.
 
162Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 02:08
The economy is starting to overcome Iraq as deciding factor for voting. I believe it is already the #1 factor for Republicans, but not sure how much Dems will change the poll with their numbers nationally.
 
163Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 02:20
The average disapproval rating is well below 70%, not that that's anything to be proud of. Of course I have no idea why Republicans play that up as much as they do. Follow the links at the upper right of that page to compare Dems in Congress vs Republicans in congress.

Regardless, this is what you cite to defend Bush's approval numbers?
 
164Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 06:12
PD: I don't want Hillary myself because, when she wins, it will be a divisive victory and she will be hard pressed to translate her victory into actual legislative reform.

So if it's Hillary vs. McCain or Romney what do you do on election day?
 
165walk
      ID: 2530286
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 08:05
I'd vote for Hillary myself, cos I am more aligned with Dem's policies, but the more the campaign goes on, the less I am thrilled with this potential choice and outcome. I really, really, do not like what Hillary and Bill are saying about her qualifications (which are bogus, the experience thing), and really, really believe that she just is not very electable and if she does get in, will have such republican antagonism, she won't be able to govern effectively (the legislative reform execution thing).
 
166J-Bar
      ID: 40082021
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 08:41
i am so glad to hear walk defend bush against the democratic antagonism that has limited his ability to govern effectively.
 
167J-Bar
      ID: 40082021
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 08:49
and to zen, that is the second or third reference in this thread that states that nationally dem trounce rep in general election when the national polls show a race to close to call or rep ahead. i hope the over confidence stays there because it will lead to an easier victory. oh and about the voting while holding your nose is probably something the dems have gotten used to over the last two elections and may have to do it again for hill-a-ree.
 
168walk
      ID: 59027198
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 10:35
Nice one, J-Bar. Bush had his chances 2000-2004, when he has the straight-flush of both houses and the exec branch. I would say he was not effective. He had nothing going against him, so there's no excuses. However, please continue to deflect blame. It must be the Dems' fault.

Regarding Clinton. I do not mean to say that the republicans would have a baseless stance against her. I think she has faults, but there's also some unwarranted antagonism against the Clintons that seems a bit unnecessary. I would be very confident in assessing the competence of Bill up against either George. I would also predict, but have no data cos it's premature, that Hillary would be a more competent leader than the current George. To be honest, I cannot believe there's anyone here who would think that our current president is competent, and would blame his incompetence on unwarranted Democratic partisanship.
 
169walk
      ID: 59027198
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 10:38
Krugman on Reagan (and Obama)

Ay, I do generally agree with Krugman's views, however, he is not a fan of Obama. Oh well.

Kristol's editorial on McCain. Seems toned down after the NY Times editor said he regretted hiring Kristol.

Kristol on McCain
 
170Perm Dude
      ID: 50262110
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 11:32
#164: Clintron vs Romney is Clinton. Not even a tough choice.

Clinton vs McCain is a tougher choice. I'm not willing to commit on that one yet.
 
171J-Bar
      ID: 40082021
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 12:09
walk, i find it hillaryous (might should coin that word hmmm) that you are already making excuses for a failed hillary presidency.

as far as the florida vote, do you think with estimates of 30 to 40% of the vote being early or absentee that polls may not be reflective of the actual?
 
172Perm Dude
      ID: 50262110
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 12:18
Many of those absentee ballots have yet to be cast. If those were already in we'd be talking about some changes.

I was down in Florida about a month ago (in fact, one of my best friends got married to McCain's Florida fundraiser), so I got an inside peek at what was going on for the Republicans in Florida. Rudy has been putting all his marbles on a Florida win, but it just isn't going to happen. And McCain has a moderate Republican (huge name, with Democratic support as well) who has endorsed him but I don't know if it is public yet so I cannot say. Let's just say that when this person comes out for McCain, Rudy's small chance will blow away in the wind.

On the other hand, they were somewhat mystified at the Democratic side, not understanding the appeal of blacks for Clinton or for Democrats not going more for the experience argument. So it'll make for an interesting general election.
 
173Seattle Zen
      ID: 190262021
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 12:58
J-Bar 167

the national polls show a race to[o] close to call

Yeah, and those same "national polls" back in June had said that we shouldn't even bother with the primaries as both Rudy Giuliani and Hillary had 50%+ support.

Some of us around here have the ability to draw our own conclusions.
 
174Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 13:02
Zen - What kinda odds are you giving this election? I recall giving you 3-1 in '04.

I want action.
 
175Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 13:07
Walk: To be honest, I cannot believe there's anyone here who would think that our current president is competent, and would blame his incompetence on unwarranted Democratic partisanship.

That isn't correct as a blanket statement. While the first half of your statement is correct the second half needs some rethinking. We will never know how effective the privatization of Social Security would have been or if things in Iraq would have been measurably better had the country presented a united front once the decision to go to war has been made. Granted, Rummy was a catastrophe, but perhaps other changes would have been made and thought out had more people been on board from the onset.

Perm Dude: Clintron vs Romney is Clinton. Not even a tough choice.

Do you think Romney is more divisive than Clinton? I know you're not a one issue pony, I'm just prodding here.

Many of those absentee ballots have yet to be cast.

That struck something in my noggin. I went and voted early for the Illinois primary. Since Huckabee and Romney are both in the race and I didn't decide between the two yet I voted for McCain. On a Friday afternoon (before folks normally get out of work), there was a line to vote early. I was very pleased to see a turnout like that.

Does anyone know if people who vote early have their votes counted early or do they wait until election day to tabulate them all? Obviously they can't release the results if they do count them early. Just curious.
 
176Perm Dude
      ID: 50262110
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 13:10
They wait until election day to count them.

Also: I wouldn't vote for Romney on divisive accounts. He's not getting my vote because he's an empty suit.
 
177Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 13:20
Barack Obama Blasts Bill Clinton for ‘Mischaracterizing’ His Words

Obama’s taped remarks about Bill Clinton were made in an interview that appeared on a morning television network. They come on the heels of the Illinois senator’s loss to Clinton in the Nevada caucuses and continue the recent trade of barbs between the two campaigns over race and voter disenfranchisement.
“I have to say just broadly, you know, the former president, who I think all of us have a lot of regard for, has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling,” Obama said.

“If you have something that just directly contradicts the facts and it’s coming from a former president, I think that’s a problem, because people presume that a former president is going to have more credibility. And I think there are certain responsibilities that are carried with that.” he said.

Referring to a specific incident in which Clinton remarked on statements Obama made that Ronald Reagan had shifted the way America thought, Obama said, “President Clinton went in front of a large group, said that I had claimed that only Republicans had had any good ideas since 1980. And then he added, ‘I’m not making this up.’ He was making it up and completely mischaracterizing my statement.”


OK, any swing-Republicans going to this guy in a primary just perhaps on the notion that he hates Hillary just as much as the Republicans do?
 
178Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 14:05
I wouldn't vote for Romney on divisive accounts. He's not getting my vote because he's an empty suit.

The empty suit claim is a favorite of Republicans when describing Obama. And it's really a weak claim no matter which side uses it.
 
179Perm Dude
      ID: 230212113
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 14:21
Shall I list for you Romney's flip flops, PV? He's an empty suit because he has no core as a politician and will say whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear.

Whether someone uses it against someone else (effectively or not) isn't really the point.

I realize you are a Romney man, and (truth be told) I thought he'd be a much stronger candidate. But when his first act as a candidate was to badmouth the state which he led, I knew at that point that we had a guy who would and say whatever he had to do to get elected.
 
180walk
      ID: 59027198
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 14:34
J-Bar #172, alternatively, I could be saying (and am saying) why I am not for Hillary, and why I am not voting for her in the NY Dem primary coming up (however, it seems that you are drawing your own conclusions about my thinking and motives).

Box #175, yeah, and the packers could have won yesterday had the refs not thrown the flag, blah blah blah. I think it's pretty implausible that Bush's presidency would have been more successful had the Dems not won the congressional elections in 2004, based on his performance the prior term.
 
181walk
      ID: 59027198
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 14:35
PD, and Romney said during the 2004 convention, speaking out for Bush and against Kerry: "America does not need Heinz 57 flavors."
 
182Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 15:32
Walk: I think it's pretty implausible that Bush's presidency would have been more successful had the Dems not won the congressional elections in 2004, based on his performance the prior term.

I said nothing about the liberals in 2004. I said, We will never know how effective the privatization of Social Security would have been or if things in Iraq would have been measurably better had the country presented a united front once the decision to go to war has been made.

It wasn't the liberals winning the elections I was addressing.
 
183walk
      ID: 59027198
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 15:44
Ok, we will never truly know, cos it's a what-if/hypothetical scenario...so, Box, what do you think though, based on your assessment of the republican administration and your intuition?
 
184Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 15:56
Box, what do you think though, based on your assessment of the republican administration and your intuition?

I think privatizing Social Security or a partial privatization would have been outstanding. On Iraq specifically, the liberals could have been a good counter weight to strategic ideas but they would rather paint signs and protest a war we're already in and a President that would never give up than come up with strategies to win the war and the peace. Be against the war all you guys want, but once we're there work with us to make better strategic decisions.
 
185Perm Dude
      ID: 230212113
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 16:05
Well, Boxman, most people don't want to be in the war. I think that's a false analogy to say, essentially, shut up or come up with a better way to win this thing.

Bush messed up on Social Security, IMO, by spending so much political capital on gay marriage. In fact, much of the Bush legacy will be the incredibly bad decisions on where to spend his political capital. He could have pushed through a number of great conservative ideas (such as health care savings accounts, partially-privatized Social Security, smaller government, increased speech rights, more accountability in the UN, and so on. But he decided to fight for anti-gay marriages, partial-birth abortion bans, and immunity from suit for telcoms, gun manufacturers, and airplane companies.
 
186Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 16:08
I'll agree that I'm disappointed with Romney as a candidate as well, but has he flip-flopped anymore than Huckabee, who was basically pro-illegal immigration when governor, now says "let's build the fence and deport?" Or Hillary, who now says she didn't realize her vote authorizing Bush to invade Iraq was a vote for pre-emptive war, even though in March 2003, well after UN weapons inspectors had been allowed to return and engage in unfettered inspections and were not finding any WMDs, Senator Clinton made clear that the United States should invade Iraq anyway. Indeed, she asserted that the only way to avoid war would be for Saddam Hussein to abide by President Bush's ultimatum to resign as president and leave the country, in the apparent belief that the United States had the right to unilaterally make such demands of foreign leaders and to invade and occupy their countries if they refused. Said Senator Clinton, "The president gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to avoid war and the world hopes that Saddam Hussein will finally hear this ultimatum, understand the severity of those words, and act accordingly."

When President Bush launched the invasion soon thereafter and spontaneous protests broke out across the country, Senator Clinton voted in favor of a Republican-sponsored resolution that "commends and supports the efforts and leadership of the President . . . in the conflict against Iraq."


It's disappointing to me that Romney changed his position on abortion, similar to Reagan, but abortion isn't that big an issue for me, and the President's position on abortion is more symbolic than anything.
I'm not familiar with Romney badmouthing Mass, so you'll have to enlighten me.
 
187Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 16:10
You don't have to sell me on the failed domestic agenda of W.

Well, Boxman, most people don't want to be in the war. I think that's a false analogy to say, essentially, shut up or come up with a better way to win this thing.

I disagree. This President could not and would not give up on Iraq. Ever. It IS his Presidency. Love him or hate him he's a two-termer who bet the house on Iraq. Any liberal with sense should have seen that and figured out ways to bring the troops home via victory and a real mission accomplished versus the means they chose.

His tax cuts and SCOTUS appointments are naval lint compared to what he bet on Iraq; thousands of lives and a trillion dollars. The liberals had a chance to show thought provoking ideas and strategies, but instead they did the protest route.
 
188Perm Dude
      ID: 230212113
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 16:15
I agree with you that Bush staked his legacy on Iraq. But I can't for a moment understand what you mean that any "liberal with sense" would have figured out how to get Bush a victory there.

"Liberals" (which must be your term for "70% of the country") believe that we shouldn't be there in the first place. That even going there was a mistake.

The measure of a person is what they do when faced with their own mistake. People with core values admit their mistakes and move on. Those without core values continue to beat their head against the wall. I, for one, believe that the American people have the core values to want to get out of the mistake of Iraq, not continue to throw money and young lives at the problem in the hopes of some sort of "victory" (whatever that is).

The war is lost. The quicker we get out the better. Bush doesn't know this. The American public does.
 
189Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 16:22
But I can't for a moment understand what you mean that any "liberal with sense" would have figured out how to get Bush a victory there.

I didn't use the word victory I was referring to the concept of working with the President as opposed to working against him. You never know, maybe we would have figured out, together, some of things that went wrong before they went wrong.

"Liberals" (which must be your term for "70% of the country") believe that we shouldn't be there in the first place. That even going there was a mistake.

Fine. Yet we ARE there now aren't we?

The war is lost.

There's evidence to seriously conflict with that and I suggest you get on the net and look it up. Don't just believe what The Home Gamers here will tell you PD.
 
190Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 16:23
Any liberal with sense should have seen that and figured out ways to bring the troops home via victory and a real mission accomplished versus the means they chose.

I don't know if you consider Joe Biden or Peter Galbraith liberals, but Biden's proposal for autonomous regions in Iraq(based on Galbraith's analysis), passed overwhelmingly in the Senate and ignored by Bush, is, in essence, part of the surge strategy that Bush supporters are now proclaiming is such a success.
 
191Perm Dude
      ID: 230212113
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 16:32
Sorry, Box, even by the standards that the Administration themselves set up (which, of course, were rigged to let them claim "victory" as often as possible) they have failed. There really is no other way to put it than the war is lost. We've spent far too much money and lives and not advanced our cause one single foot. Meanwhile, the sheer idiocy of our Commander in Chief (who has been exposed as a blowhard, in military terms) has emboldened the enemy.

Democrats worked with the President by giving him, literally, everything he asked for. (You might recall that, in fact, the authorization to use force against Iraq passed a Republican House and a Democratic Senate). Democrats, in fact, have been fully-funding the war and then some, and voted for the surge as well. I really don't have any idea of what you mean when you imply that Democrats, who do not control the Executive Branch, haven't been working with Bush.

What you are struggling with here is that Bush has gotten everything he has asked for and fallen on his face. Badly.
 
192Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 16:33
I don't know if you consider Joe Biden or Peter Galbraith liberals, but Biden's proposal for autonomous regions in Iraq(based on Galbraith's analysis), passed overwhelmingly in the Senate and ignored by Bush, is, in essence, part of the surge strategy that Bush supporters are now proclaiming is such a success.

There you go. There's an IDEA, not a protest sign. That's what I want. Gimme ideas. Work with me. So what if they are bad, good, or somewhere in between. The problem is that Biden got drowned out by the rest of the left/anti-war crowd and your aforementioned issue of the admin with their ears shut.
 
193walk
      ID: 59027198
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 16:39
Box, I feel your points and nicely put, but you are giving too much benefit of the doubt to Bush and the need for the other party to sorta suppor him. That with that support, you never know, he could have been more successful. His policies were not worthy of the support, and his methods for trying to create bipartisan support were virtually non-existent. He did not create a political culture where such support was really, truly possible.

This is important to me, cos I feel the next President needs to do this, and I truly feel Barack has the aptitude and charisma to try and make this happen. To reach out effectively to alternate viewpoints and groups and include differing opinions and translate that into policies that are at least "more bipartisan" (hopefully, a lot more bipartisan). First though, we do not need to pare back significantly some of the more extreme policies based on strict exec power that Cheney/Bush have implemented (this is not so bipartisan, but I could be, cos it involves more congressional oversite, be it republican or dem held houses). I got the funny feeling that Hillary would not mind leaving these exec powers in place (heh heh).
 
194Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 16:51
I got the funny feeling that Hillary would not mind leaving these exec powers in place (heh heh).

And as is usually the case, elected officials are at least somewhat beholden to those industries that are big campaign contributors. In Hillary's case, that would include the

Defense Industry.
 
195walk
      ID: 2530286
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 21:18
The SC Dem debate tonight is really quite intense. Hillary on the attack, and Obama attacking back, and Edwards with a nothing to lose approach as well. Great stuff.
 
196J-Bar
      ID: 40082021
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 21:35
and now they are playing kissy face
 
197Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 21:57
Boxman 175
had the country presented a united front once the decision to go to war has been made.

It's naive folly to ever expect such a consensus on a war effort - especially a preemptive war. A controversial policy is a guarantee for political controversy. If a Commander In Chief disregards or fails to consider this factor, thats his shortcoming.

Further, hanging the failures on a lack of war strategy ideas from the opposition is to pretend that the administration had any such respect for Congressional Dems and to claim that there wasn't already plenty of outcry over flawed policy at the time it was enacted from sources you might expect the CIC to consider. You think GWB would have heeded John McCain's and General Shinseki's demand that we need more boots on the ground if Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschle had said it too?
 
198Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 06:19
You think GWB would have heeded John McCain's and General Shinseki's demand that we need more boots on the ground if Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschle had said it too?

Better than busting out the playbook from the 60s and throw up some protest signs. Suggest ideas. Work together.
 
199Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 07:32
Its also naive to blame the Dems alone for the partisanship in government. Either approach from the Dems would have yielded exactly the same result. They still would have been shut out. The war would have gone exactly the same as it did.

I sure would like to see you stick with your demand for cooperation from the minority if there is a Dem POTUS and Congressional majority. Somehow I think your tune will be very different then.
 
200Perm Dude
      ID: 56014229
      Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 10:16
I think this revisionist history is very interesting coming from the Right. I don't think many even realize just how effectively Democrats were shut out of the process by disdainful Republicans in Congress and in the White House, literally telling them "You don't need to even show up."

Like the White House would have taken their advice!
 
201Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 10:25
I saw a rerun of the Dem debate last night, the best debate I have ever seen. Obama impressed me, he is still a bit too far left for my tastes, but loved how he handled Hilary.
 
202Perm Dude
      ID: 56014229
      Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 10:33
How funny--I had almost the opposite reaction! Anything in particular struck you?

I thought Clinton was in attack mode (and her use of the royal "we" was a little disconcerting) but I thought Obama could have done a better job defending himself. I liked his coolness under fire, and it made her look a little shrill, but I thought he could have been better at deflecting the arguments.

Ironically, her talking about how he'll get attacked in the general election was a little pot calling the kettle black.
 
203Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 10:48
His rebuttals on Hilary being misleading about his voting record stood out to me. He definitely seemed the most honest of those on the stage and his healthcare plan was the only one with even a chance of succeeding.
 
204walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 11:48
Yeah, PD/Jag, I liked the way Obama did not back down, but hated the way Hillary attacked, and clearly was doing this on purpose to soak up the minutes...soak up the platform Obama would otherwise have to present his more bipartisan approach and strategy. He did in one great counter punch when he said that her types of attacks were indicative of old school politics that he's running against ("get it, Clintons?"). I dislike her more and more. I also liked his comment about Bill's distortions, and she said: "well, I'm here, he's not" (in that "tone"...! I hate it), and he said: "Sometimes I don't know who I am runnin against."
 
205Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 11:53


[laughing] You may have the podium, now, Mr. Green, but I will eat your children on your grave as President of the WORLD!

In Matters Big and Small, Crossing Giuliani Had Price

Rudolph W. Giuliani likens himself to a boxer who never takes a punch without swinging back. As mayor, he made the vengeful roundhouse an instrument of government, clipping anyone who crossed him.
After AIDS activists with Housing Works loudly challenged the mayor, city officials sabotaged the group’s application for a federal housing grant. A caseworker who spoke of missteps in the death of a child was fired. After unidentified city workers complained of pressure to hand contracts to Giuliani-favored organizations, investigators examined not the charges but the identity of the leakers. “There were constant loyalty tests: ‘Will you shoot your brother?’ ” said Marilyn Gelber, who served as environmental commissioner under Mr. Giuliani. “People were marked for destruction for disloyal jokes.”

Mr. Giuliani paid careful attention to the art of political payback. When former Mayors Edward I. Koch and David N. Dinkins spoke publicly of Mr. Giuliani’s foibles, mayoral aides removed their official portraits from the ceremonial Blue Room at City Hall. Mr. Koch, who wrote a book titled “Giuliani: Nasty Man,” shrugs. “David Dinkins and I are lucky that Rudy didn’t cast our portraits onto a bonfire along with the First Amendment, which he enjoyed violating daily,” Mr. Koch said in a recent interview.

Will Giuliani be invited to any more Republican Debates? Why should he, he hasn't finished higher than fourth in any state, has yet to garner even 10% of the votes in any race. He trails Ron Paul everywhere. Will he have the brains to bow out after losing Florida? Will we ever hear from him again? One can only wish.
 
206walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 12:05
Yeah, agreed on Rudy. He definitely had a "my way or the highway" approach to running NYC. Several of my suburban conservative leaning buddies from yesteryear want to vote for this guy, and some have little knowledge about Rudy's tactics, and when I told them, they took it as a positive attribute. The legacy of Bush/Cheney lives on...Hopefully, Rudy's rope-a-dope strategy has backfired enough to make him an also-ran. He's still contending in Floridian polls, but is now even falling behind McCain in some polls in NY! McCain did well last night with the Dems saying he was largely the default republican nominee.
 
207walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 12:22
Sullivan (again) on Obama

Biased coming from fanboy Sullivan (and me) on Obama, but my response to Sullivan would be: Well, the Clintons do see Obama's allure, and are fighting against it, cos natch, they want to win. Also, a lot of Dem voters have invested a lot of time and energy into the Clintons for a long time and just cannot all of a sudden consider a relatively new and different candidate (whose positions are not night & day different).

I think it's hard for Clinton supporters (supporters of anyone for that matter) to recognize the faults of their candidate, and that is a big difference b/w Obama and Clinton (her negatives are far and away bigger than his). The other big difference is his platform of cutting through the awful political divisiveness (whether he can effectively do this is another (valid) issue) in our land as opposed to her platform of, as she said last night: "who's best equipped from day 1 to face the republicans."

THAT'S a big rub for me: Her acceptance and readiness for a fight with the republicans. Maybe I am naive, but I am sick of it. Sick of the divisiveness. The Clintons had it (although I don't think they were as belligerant as Cheney/Newt/Rove/Bush are), and George & Co. perpetuated and exacerbated it ("ve vill have one party!!!"). It's time to try and rise above it, and get more folks working together, to whatever extent. Hillary is seemingly inviting the we/they political divide. Obama, even using Reagan as an example of bridging the gap, is going against that wave (and Hillary is attacking him for it). I also sometimes wonder why folks cannot see the light here.

I have Dem friends who I think are pretty knowledgeable about the field and they are currently torn as to who to vote for. They think Hillary has made a case for experience (as if), they get Bill as an added extra, and Obama is just like too new to digest. I say he's got the right ideas, and is thinking bigger than just "me," (but maybe that "just me"), and then try to refute the lame experience argument (35 years...ha! Puts her back in law school!), and point to his greater experience as an elected official, and then talk about his overarching approach, which is about the country, not about "me, me, me...shrill it for me, Hill!"

Sorry for the speech.
 
208Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 12:41
Sorry for the speech.

Don't be, it's a good speech and it's resonating with the American people.

The Clintons seem to think they're entitled to the Democratic nomination and resent Obama for challenging them.

The far right is going bonkers over McCain's success, because he's worked with Kennedy and Feingold and not been a Bushco lapdog.

It will be hard for Obama to overcome the Clinton machine, but one can hope.
 
209Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 12:46
The immigration bill he proposed with Kennedy is hurting him and he claims to have listen and will concentrate on closing the borders, I believe he is a man of his word.
 
210walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 12:57
Thanks PV! I do also get that sense of entitlement from the Clintons. It's not appealing in any way. Sorry Hillary, no more ruling classes.

So, what will I do if I am faced with Hillary vs. McCain...or someone else? That's gonna not be a desirable decision for me cos the more I hear Hillary speak out against Obama, the more I dislike her personally. I wish she and Bill were a lot less divisive and even belligerant. I will likely vote with my policies and rationalize her positives which are her knowledge, drive, "added-Bill" (which I think is a net positive), and accept a divisiveness-wash (cos I think all of the repubs, including McCain, are not very big-pic thinkers)... but very much welcome Mr. Mike (Bloomberg) making a run. He might do it if Obama were out, but I also don't think he wants to run against McCain, who has an edge with independent voters.
 
211Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 13:03
The immigration bill he proposed with Kennedy is hurting him

Hurting him with right wing radio blowhards, granted. But for a guy who was written off last summer, McCain is now basically the frontrunner, even though Romney has more delegates.

If anyone's hurt, it's clowns like Limbaugh who are being ignored by Republican voters.
 
212Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 15:04
Thompson drops out.
 
213walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 15:10
The guy had like one literal 15 seconds of fame in a debate a coupla weeks back, and that was it. What a fart-bag he is/was. Such hot air, and could not consistently speak off the cuff. I wonder to whom his supporters will flock (as if there was a flock), Mitt or McCain? I think Mitt.
 
214Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 15:29
National Review claims sources in the Thompson campaign have said that he won't endorse anyone. (hat tip: Captain's Quarters)
 
215Perm Dude
      ID: 56014229
      Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 15:35
He was the flavor of the week, until he actually ran. Just shows how poor the Republican field is.

Meanwhile, the Clintons are actually driving many Dems away from the party.
 
216walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 16:04
Abdul Jabbar (Obama) vs. Magic Johnson (Hillary)

In the spirit of a political discussion forum on a fantasy sports board, ya gotta love this little article about these respective hoops-celeb endorsements.
 
217Perm Dude
      ID: 56014229
      Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 17:19
#205: Sadly, none of that story is news to people who lived through his time. Rudy wanted to stay on as mayor after his term was up--that should tell you everything you need to know, but there is plenty of good dirt for the digging.

I'd like this to be dragged out as long as possible, so I hope Rudy stays in it.
 
218Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 17:36
Fred Thompson now moves to the top of every remaining GOP candidates' list for VP, which he is probably more suited for anyway, in a Dan Quayle not Dick Cheney kinda way.

Bill Richardson holds that same position for Dems.
 
219Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 19:24
I would love to see McCain take Thompson as his running mate.
 
220Perm Dude
      ID: 56014229
      Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 20:03
Old white men--yeah, you never see them as part of the ticket...

:)
 
221Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 21:48
If I were McCain or Romney, the likely GOP nominees, I'd try really hard to get JC Watts as a running mate.
 
222Building 7
      ID: 48033121
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 00:01
If anybody selects Fred Thompson as a VP candidate; I'll donate $11 to rotoguru.com. Anyone is welcome to take the other side of that if they want. Nobody has to, as I will make the offer anyways. This would be in addition to what one was going to donate anyways. Agreed on Richardson, though.
 
223Boldwin
      ID: 1055190
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 11:13
B7

They might have to to pacify the conervative base that has now been iced out of the process [by lack of big money donors]. Dunno how any of the dreck left in the race manage to pull the base into the booth.

I guess the only way conervatives get back in the game is if someone like Thompson gets organized early and campaigns non-stop even for decades if neccessary like Reagan did until the grass-roots swell cannot be denied.

Until then...

Well in the meantime the RINO's running could do worse than embrace Thompson as a way of making the base forget that RINO's like McCain have attacked the religious base and suggested that they be thrown out of the party.
 
224Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 11:36
McCain attacked the religious base?
 
225Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 12:02
Baldwin check your email.
 
226Perm Dude
      ID: 6013239
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 12:03
Yeah, he believes that the religious base has taken over the Republican Party and pushed aside traditional conservative domestic notions like balanced budgets, small government, and tolerance.

Instead we've spent six years talking about gay marriage, Terry Schiavo, and partial-birth abortions.

Crazy man, that McCain!
 
227Boldwin
      ID: 1055190
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 12:04
Oh dear, my email computer is down. Might actually have to work on it finally.
 
228 Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 12:05
Is there another addy i can contact you at? If so send me an email so I can reply.
 
229Boldwin
      ID: 1055190
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 12:16
pushed aside traditional conservative domestic notions like balanced budgets, small government, and tolerance.

Of course there wouldn't be any talk about smaller government without conservatives. In the past and present.

It wasn't the Reagan wing of the party who quadrupled the debt since Reagan. That was the neocon/globalist/power-elite wing.

How many vetoes would Reagan have issued had he been in Bush's shoes?

And of course when you use the phrase 'tolerance' you don't mean the dictionary definition. You mean conservatives should sit on their hands and tolerate your radical social agenda while you don't tolerate conservative views one iota.

Sure that's a traditional conservative idea...sure it is...*roll*.
 
230Perm Dude
      ID: 6013239
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 12:21
Sure, Baldwin/Boldwin, I'm willing to grant you your 28-year old argument. So long as you agree that actual smaller government and an actual balanced budget simply would not have actually occured if it wasn't for Clinton working with Gingrich on the problem.

I believe (correct me if I'm wrong, Jag), that the point of Jag's question was: What is McCain doing now?

 
231Perm Dude
      ID: 6013239
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 12:22
The Onion with a big scoop
 
232Boldwin
      ID: 1055190
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 12:30
It had nothing to do with Clinton. You can't veto a spending bill that never arrives at your desk because 'contract with America' representatives with a deathgrip on the pursestrings aren't spending. Clinton did not cut spending unless you want to falsely give him credit for the Reagan peace dividend again.
 
233sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 12:33
The Reagan Peace dividend? Is that the same "peace dividend" you and others have repeatedly pointed at as the "dangerous downsizing" of the American military when you blame Clinton?
 
234Boldwin
      ID: 1055190
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 12:34
Trent Lott of Mississippi...said: “Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.”

Only in a state of affairs where the insiders in the Rep party are trying to shoot their own base, could we arrive at a day when Dems actually believe they can dare openly use the L word again.
 
235Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 12:36
Sarge 233: They know you're right so you won't get an answer.
 
236Boldwin
      ID: 1055190
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 12:39
MITH/Sarge

No one argued that the post-cold war military should look exactly the same. It would have helped if they had been allowed ammo and spare parts.
 
237Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 12:42
Show me where Clinton significantly diverged from the from the military cuts plan set forth by SecDef Cheney.


Also - will the reigning champ be returning for the 2008 installation of The Rob Minniti Keeper Classic?
 
238Boldwin
      ID: 1055190
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 12:54
Beyond any doubt, the reigning champ will indeed be resuming his reign.
 
239Boldwin
      ID: 1055190
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 12:55
MITH

I was active on Salon Table Talk during that period and that was the exact issue raised at the time.
 
240Perm Dude
      ID: 6013239
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 13:01
You really think that Gingrich, who ended up looking really stupid when he shut down the federal government in his "showdown" with Clinton, would have put through a balanced budget without the President?

Man, you are really on some good stuff. Even Gingrich acknowledges Clinton's part of the thing.
 
241Boldwin
      ID: 1055190
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 13:04
I can't believe you would bring that up. Thanks for the blunder. All one needs to do is remember which side of that impass was trying to hold the line on spending. Argument over.
 
242Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 13:10
238 - Good to hear. I'll need an email addy to contact you. Do you think your email computer will be up and running in the next few days?
 
243Perm Dude
      ID: 6013239
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 13:14
Well, B, if you want to continue to believe that Gingrich would have shrunk the size of government over the objection of Clinton, while he held a line-item veto pen, you go right ahead.

Obviously you know better than Gingrich himself on the matter.
 
244Boldwin
      ID: 1055190
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 13:21
You are running away from the issue you yourself raised. Was the Republican house trying to hold the line on spending or were they the ones trying to raise spending in that impass?

It's a simple question, PD. It's an obvious Boldwin.
 
245walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 14:02
Where are the Republican Ideas?

I would like to hear the opinions of Jag, Box, Boaldwin, etc. on this blog. I cannot stop you from commenting on the source, the NY Times, but would primarily be interested if you agree with the comments made by Newt about the lack of true engagement and the bloggers views about a dearth of policy and ideas from the repub candidates. thx.
 
246Perm Dude
      ID: 6013239
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 14:25
#244: No, it isn't a simple question at all, not since you want to use a single episode as an example of spending priorities. Should I take Gingrich's attempts at passing pork during the 104th Congress as reflecting his spending priorities? Yes or no? Answer the damn question!

The shutdown was an example of how Gingrich could not do it alone. Sorry that your philosophy depends upon a Democrat (Clinton, at that) to become reality, but that is the dark reality that you face as a pathological Clinton-hater. Since in reality he wasn't a flaming liberal, whenever he does things you agree with your very soul becomes imperiled. At least, that's what it sounds like to the rest of us.

We can, of course, talk about the shutdown. Silly Clinton, of course, wanted to continue to fund the Bureau of Mines. And he strangley vetoed a Defense Bill that included millions of dollars the Pentagon didn't want. I guess your idea of which side was pro-spending takes another hit.

The shutdown was a roll of the dice by Gingrich and he lost. He thought he could bully Clinton into cutting Medicare and Medicaid as a condition of the budget talks. Clinton called his bluff.

Both budgets, BTW, had a seven-year balance in them. That is, both Clinton's and Gingrich's plans were balanced at the seven year point. The only differences were spending priorities, not spending amounts.
 
247Perm Dude
      ID: 6013239
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 14:27
Back to the thread topic: Apparently Obama's speech on Monday is a huge YouTube attraction.
 
248walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 14:35
PD, you really do need to have a Sullivan-level weblog, or talkshow. How do you know all this stuff?
 
249Perm Dude
      ID: 6013239
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 14:41
I have a blog (as you know!) but some of this stuff is easier than others. Sullivan (and others) are writers first, so I guess spending time writing and posting comes naturally. Believe it or not, I've actually got a daytime job!

As for the shutdown, one of the ironies is that the final budget passed was skewed way to the Republican's budget version than Clinton's, but by that time Newt paid the price politically.
 
250walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 14:43
Yeah, I know, I know (I forgot!!)...I mean a biggun'. Right, writers, as opposed to copywriters. (W)right!
 
251Boldwin
      ID: 1055190
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 19:18
Coulter does McCain.
 
252Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 19:44
Coulter #251

John McCain is Bob Dole minus the charm, conservatism and youth.

Arrg, the Skinny One has plagiarized me!

Post 89
 
253Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 19:53
walk: I cannot stop you from commenting on the source, the NY Times, but would primarily be interested if you agree with the comments made by Newt about the lack of true engagement and the bloggers views about a dearth of policy and ideas from the repub candidates. thx.

Unlike The Home Gamers, I'll address something from a rag that worships the other side of the aisle which they won't do half the time if one of us dare quote Fox News. Perhaps a lack of so called "big" ideas isn't a half bad thing from a party that used to be conservative. Huckabee wants to reform the IRS, allright, let's get a different tax system in place. The Fair Tax is allegedly revenue neutral but I like it because it doesn't penalize saving. I think the current tax system sucks so I'm open to new ideas. All it does is encourage the purchase of liabilities that only moe rons think are real assets and discourage the increase of income. I'm always amazed by Americans that rise up above our pathetic tax code and make something of themselves.

The liberals in this campaign (not just this one but especially this one) walk around like they dare think the money is theirs. Reagan is right. We are all shareholders of the USA once we paid taxes. Show me where health care is a right and not a priviledge. You challenge me to insure the uninsured and I challenge you right back to educate the uninsured so they get better jobs.

Perhaps a truly conservative party wouldn't have oodles of big ideas, isn't it contrary to conservative doctrine? One or two, sure, but to have a Hillary-esque "This country can't afford all my ideas." type psychosis isn't what a conservative party should be doing.
 
254sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 21:21
re 251:

I might lie too, if I had opposed the Bush tax cuts, a marriage amendment to the Constitution, waterboarding terrorists and drilling in Alaska.

And I might lie if I had called the ads of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth "dishonest and dishonorable."



AC says she might lie if she defended the Constitution and the principles of the Genevea Conventions? If she called the Swifties what they were? I dont believe, AC could have written a better ENDORSEMENT for McCain, had such been her true intent.
 
255Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 21:53
Does anyone, other than the very far left, care that we waterboard, the scum of earth, terrorists? Dunk them once for me GB.
 
256Boldwin
      ID: 1055190
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 21:57
How Clinton used the government shutdown, liberal MSM and the veto to increase spending rolling over a spending resistant Republican congress.
Clinton's most successful use of his veto power was not to block Republicans -- although he did halt most of their efforts to cuts taxes and shrink domestic programs -- but to get increased spending for his domestic priorities.

[...]

But Clinton dug in, the government experienced two partial shutdowns, and exhausted Republicans finally backed down, only to suffer losses in the 1996 elections that were widely attributed to their handling of the crisis.

Appropriating by Veto

The experience haunted Republicans through the rest of Clinton's presidency. Year after year they pushed conservative priorities in the annual appropriations process, only to give in at the 11th hour, willing to do virtually anything to avoid blame for another government shutdown.

The mere threat of a veto -- usually in the form of a Statement of Administration Policy, or SAP, issued by the Office of Management and Budget and detailing White House objections -- was often enough to win crucial changes in spending bills.

[...]

When the dust finally settled, Republicans, who had tried to slash Clinton's fiscal 2001 budget, had agreed to add an extra $10 billion to the president's original request. The Department of Education, targeted for elimination by Republicans in the 104th Congress, got the biggest spending increase since its creation in 1979.

Though the energy and water veto -- provoked by an environmental rider that Clinton had promised to veto -- was overridden in the House, the Senate did not bother to try. Instead, senators dropped the provision and folded the rest of the bill into another moving appropriations measure.

In 1999, Clinton vetoed four appropriations bills and threatened to veto one other. In the end he won more than $5 billion in year-end add-ons included in the fiscal 2000 omnibus spending bill.

In 1998, Republicans agreed to a budget-busting $500 billion year-end appropriations package for fiscal 1999. Though it included substantial increases for GOP priorities, Clinton won major victories despite being weakened by scandal and impeachment hearings. The bill provided $3 billion more for Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (Labor-HHS) than Clinton originally had requested. Clinton got the full $18 billion he had requested for the International Monetary Fund, as well as a $1.2 billion down payment on his plan to hire 100,000 teachers.

Clinton's use of the veto and his success in dictating fiscal and legislative policy infuriated Republicans. "When the president gets to the point that he can either accept or veto a bill, he becomes as powerful -- understand this -- he becomes as powerful as two-thirds of us, because if he does not agree with something that we have done, it takes two-thirds of us to override that veto," House Appropriations Committee Chairman C.W. "Bill" Young, R-Fla., said on the floor last fall.

Addressing Clinton's demand that targeted immigration relief be added to the fiscal 2001 Commerce-Justice-State bill, Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, asked rhetorically on the floor whether "the president has not started to believe he is king, that somehow he can say to us, 'if you don't pass a law legalizing illegal activities in America, I will shut down the FBI and the Justice Department.' "
The end result of a liberal media establishment willing to blame Republicans for any delay in government funding [despite the mutual nature of such an impass] empowered the Clintons' revolutionary use of the veto blackmail to increase spending. How much better the national debt sitution would have been but for the pro-big government MSM and the pro-big government Bill Clinton.
 
257Perm Dude
      ID: 6013239
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 21:58
You think McCain is the "very far left?" How about the US Army, those wacko lefties who wrote the Army Field Manual? Colin Powell?

Even if you think that everyone we torture is guilty (I didn't think you were that naive, but there you go), torture yields up false intelligence. If the purpose of torture is actionable intelligence, then torture defeats that.
 
258Perm Dude
      ID: 6013239
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 22:00
Also, keep in mind that the use of torture isn't a reflection on the terrorists. It is a reflection on us as a nation and our values.
 
259Perm Dude
      ID: 6013239
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 22:04
The Onion with their usual biting wit, with candidate profiles
 
260Tree
      ID: 380172321
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 22:23
Does anyone, other than the very far left, care that we waterboard, the scum of earth, terrorists? Dunk them once for me GB.

you are, without question, the biggest idiot this board has ever seen.

never mind the fact that if we tortured everyone we *thought* were terrorists, we would have tortured a lot of innocent people.

the fact remains is that a respect for human life is one of the things that has ALWAYS seperated "us", from "them".

whether it's Korea or Vietnam or the Cold War, or what have you, our "enemies", have always tortured, and we've done the right thing but not doing the same to their soldiers.

if we start accepting torture, then we really are no different than those we loathe to become.
 
261Boldwin
      ID: 1055190
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 22:53
the fact remains is that a respect for human life is one of the things that has ALWAYS seperated "us", from "them". - Tree

Tell it to a fetus, before you rip it apart.
 
262Perm Dude
      ID: 6013239
      Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 23:04
Or the innocent death row prisoner, as the electrodes sizzle.
 
263Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, Jan 24, 2008, 00:14
A waterboarding endorsement from Baldwin?
 
264Building 7
      ID: 48033121
      Thu, Jan 24, 2008, 00:30
Or the innocent death row prisoner, as the electrodes sizzle.

Does that happen a lot?
 
265Perm Dude
      ID: 6013239
      Thu, Jan 24, 2008, 00:35
If it happens once, it is too many. The number of death row inmates released after DNA testing confirmed their stories of innocence makes it a certainty that some innocent prisoners were put to death.

Boldwin is right that the US is not a pro-life culture (though his attempt to paint this as a liberal problem was ham-fisted and deserved to get slapped down).

But I do believe that the US has always been pro-rights, and this is what had made this country great. In fact, it was the prospect of freedom of worship which brought many people to this country, who worked very hard at the idea of personal rights free from government interference, a tradition this Administration has (ironically) traded in, in their efforts to stoke patriotic fervor.

Jag would have us believe that we either support terrorists or support torture. Most people see this as a false choice.
 
266Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Thu, Jan 24, 2008, 00:56
PD, there is a reason they want to waterboard and that is because it works. They don't do it just to be mean. It was this technique that got Khalid Sheik Mohammed to talk. I agree it shouldn't be a general practice, but for guys like Mohammed, I don't give a damn what they do to him, if it can save lives.

As far as our reflection to other countries, I talk to Europeons daily and Liberal propaganda has done more to put us in a bad light than GWB.
 
267Perm Dude
      ID: 6013239
      Thu, Jan 24, 2008, 01:01
It works? Really? Care to give any examples? Because I have plenty in which it didn't.

So you are saying that, until the Bush Administration, the United States avoided a technique used by Stalin and perfected by Pol Pot because we didn't think it would work? In fact, it is a technique specifically banned in the US Army Manual?

There is no evidence it "saves lives" and none that "it works." Though your sudden interest in the efficience of a government agency who might want you to believe in what would help them keep their jobs and funding is telling.
 
268Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Thu, Jan 24, 2008, 06:09
the fact remains is that a respect for human life is one of the things that has ALWAYS seperated "us", from "them". - Tree

Tell it to a fetus, before you rip it apart.


Thank you.

There also used to be a woman in Florida, but the best way we found to respectfully end her life was to starve her to death in a hospital bed.

Tree: whether it's Korea or Vietnam or the Cold War, or what have you, our "enemies", have always tortured, and we've done the right thing but not doing the same to their soldiers.

We are not fighting soldiers this time around. There's a distinction between enemy combatant and soldier. It's basically the crux of the debate out there on torture so you might want to brush up.
 
269Tree
      ID: 33018245
      Thu, Jan 24, 2008, 06:26
I talk to Europeons daily and Liberal propaganda has done more to put us in a bad light than GWB...

well, you must hang out with some damned funny europeans. my company is european owned, and canadian based. i spend plenty of time dealing with both.

i just got back from two weeks in canada, visiting my brother and his wife, and any social situation with friends of theirs inevitably included "you'll be getting rid of that George Bush this year, eh? thank god."

We are not fighting soldiers this time around. There's a distinction between enemy combatant and soldier. It's basically the crux of the debate out there on torture so you might want to brush up.

what. ever.

even worse. so now we can assign a moniker to someone who isn't even a soldier, so it's acceptable to torture them?

that makes us ever MORE like "them", who on more than one occasion imprisoned or tortured an american civilian because "they" thought he or she might be a spy.

Tell it to a fetus, before you rip it apart.

don't know what you think i do for a living, but i can assure you i've never ripped up a fetus at my cubicle. some really awful print ads, yes, but a fetus no.

if you search around this board over the last several years, you'll see that my position on abortion hasn't changed. i am against it, and i'm pretty sure many of those here who lean toward the left believe the same thing.

but i also believe strongly in the freedoms this country has built into all of us over the last 230+ years, and while Bush and his apologists believe that trampling all over those freedoms is perfect acceptable, i believe our founding fathers believe otherwise.

 
270Pancho Villa
      ID: 495272016
      Thu, Jan 24, 2008, 07:52
It was this technique that got Khalid Sheik Mohammed to talk.

And you know this how?
 
271Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Thu, Jan 24, 2008, 11:06
PV, from the people that were there.
Waterboarding

There is a reason we have not been attacked since 9-11 and that is because of the Bush administration's policy. 'It is now beyond dispute' that the Left have not contributed to this, but in fact have done their best to hinder national security by crying over a couple of instances of waterboarding and going into a tirade about a make believe civil rights infringement.
 
272Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Thu, Jan 24, 2008, 11:25
There is a reason we have not been attacked since 9-11 and that is because of the Bush administration's policy.

so, we've got 6 years without a major attack on US soil.

and the other 225 prior to 9/11 where we weren't attacked? that was also because of Bush?

to say we haven't been attacked because of Bush policy is about as ignorant and mis-informed as it gets.

but in fact have done their best to hinder national security by crying over a couple of instances of waterboarding

i suppose the Japanese shouldn't complain about a couple of instances of atomic bombs dropped on its cities, or maybe the U.S. should complain about a couple of instances of airplanes being flown into its buildings?

and going into a tirade about a make believe civil rights infringement.

Jose Padilla much?

seriously Jag - if you embrace the enemies tactics so much, why don't you go an join them? the Bush administration, and Bush apologists, have done more damage to the freedoms in this country than terrorists ever could even hope to do.
 
273walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Thu, Jan 24, 2008, 11:30
I don't think the anti-torture stance is about civil liberties as much as it is about our moral standing and the invitation we now give to our enemies to torture our captured soldiers. Torture is anti-American, in many ways. The civil liberties stuff is about unwarranted wiretapping and the suspension of habeus corpus.

The other way to spin your pro-Bush speak (as opposed to our anti-Bush speak) is that we were only attacked on his watch.

The left, or someone, has to maintain checks & balances and oversight on the exec branch, even in the name of national security (others might call it fear mongering). We may not have been attacked anyway, if there was no torture, warrantless wiretapping, secret prisons, extraordinary rendition, suspension of habeus corpus. How do you know that the absence of these tactics would have resulted in an attack on the U.S.? You don't.

However, you believe that these are the tactics that we need to maintain national security. That's a valid and fair point. Safety and security are important, and we have differing views on the extent to which we need to enact certain methods to maintain the proper threshold of security.

I would say that it's invalid for you to say that the Left have undermined national security by speaking out and publicizing new and unprecedented methods the administration has unilaterally implemented under the exec powers authority. You differ on this viewpoint. Again, fair, but you always (and I "often" avoid using words like always, never, etc.), but you always blame shiit on the left (the other one, "in Europe, liberal media have done more harm to how the U.S. is viewed than GWB's policies" is a prime example). You are worse than Hillary and Bill in their attacks on Barack.
 
274Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Thu, Jan 24, 2008, 11:35
To be honest Walk, I had a job cancelation and was looking for a fight to pass time. Not that I don't mean what I say, I just might have worded it differently.
 
275Pancho Villa
      ID: 495272016
      Thu, Jan 24, 2008, 11:38
Inside the CIA, waterboarding is cited as the technique that got Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the prime plotter of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, to begin to talk and provide information -- though "not all of it reliable," a former senior intelligence official said.

You have a very low threshold for what qualifies as proof when it suits you, I see. Inside the CIA - a former senior intelligence officer???

If that same type of non-descript hearsay were used to say that the Bush administration ignored reports concerning WMDs in Iraq prior to the invasion, you'd dismiss them as propoganda.

Other than phantom statements, which have been used in the 9/11 commission report and the Moussaoui trial, we have absolutely no idea what information was gleaned from Sheik Mohammed or how it was obtained.

 
276sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Thu, Jan 24, 2008, 11:39
problem jag with you looking for a fight, is that you'd be knocked out in round 1 while shadow boxing. best you find another way to occupy your time.
 
277Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Thu, Jan 24, 2008, 11:40
PV, why do you think they want to waterboard if it is not effective?
 
278walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Thu, Jan 24, 2008, 11:40
Ok. I know you feel we bash Bush too much, but I do sincerely disagree with much of what he has done, and how he has done it. However, I know I try hard not to therefore conclude all republicans are like Bush/Cheney and therefore have all of these negative personal attributes. We would have better exchanges if you tried to do the same your liberal bashing, but then again, maybe you do that just to get us all riled up.
 
279Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Thu, Jan 24, 2008, 11:44
Sarge, to any objective viewer 'It is now beyond dispute' I present the strongest arguements.
 
280sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Thu, Jan 24, 2008, 12:03
? Perhaps within the miniscule confines of your own mental realm; that is a true statement. To all other viewers however, it is indeed beyond dispute. The nature of what is beyond dispute, is unfortunately for oyu, diametrically opposite of your claim. That which is in beyond dispute, is that your posts have little if any meaning to them.
 
281sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Thu, Jan 24, 2008, 12:04
(and that I still need to proof-read before I hit "post".)
 
282Pancho Villa
      ID: 495272016
      Thu, Jan 24, 2008, 13:23
PV, why do you think they want to waterboard if it is not effective?

A new question before addressing the previous?

You claim that waterboarding was effective in getting Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to talk. Of course, we don't actually know that to be true, do we? There has never been any interrogation tapes released to the public. The 9/11 commission and the Moussaoui trial were given transcripts of the interrogation, but these have never been independently verified for national security reasons.

Post WW2, the world held the Nuremburg trials and trials for Japanese military leaders as war criminals that were publicly covered, so there was no mystery as to what was actually said by the likes of Goering and Tojo. Yet, with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, we are to asked to accept transcripts, even though we don't know where these transcripts took place, under what conditions, or by whom.
And we're being asked to accept this information by many of the same people who were involved with Iran/Contra, people with a track record of lies to the American people.

What's wrong with charging Khalid Sheikh Mohammed with his crimes, presenting the evidence, allowing the evidence to be cross-examined, and proceeding in a manner which is open and honest, which is how we are supposed to do things in the United States?

Instead, we get,
"Well, we waterboarded him, and here's what he said. Trust us."
 
283Boldwin
      ID: 1055190
      Thu, Jan 24, 2008, 19:36
and the other 225 prior to 9/11 where we weren't attacked? that was also because of Bush? - Tree

Hard to believe there is someone this dumb and uninformed hanging around here regularly.

Do you actually not know that Al Qeada had bombed the exact same buildings earlier during another administration?
 
284Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Thu, Jan 24, 2008, 19:59
Isn't Tree from or living in NYC?
 
285tree on the treo
      ID: 40842210
      Thu, Jan 24, 2008, 20:04
I live in nyc, asshat.

I'm fully aware of what happened in 1993.

to compare that attack to 9/11 is ludicrious and reaching, and I presumed anybody here would be able to grasp that.

a more apropros example would be oklahoma city, but that was done by white american terrorists, so it really doesn't suit your needs.
 
286Boldwin
      ID: 1055190
      Thu, Jan 24, 2008, 20:27
They were trying to bring down the towers the first time and weren't that far from accomplishing it, you idiot.
 
287Boldwin
      ID: 1055190
      Thu, Jan 24, 2008, 20:29
It was plan B of the same attack and you say we were never attcked before...*roll*.
 
288Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Thu, Jan 24, 2008, 21:07
LMAO - The candidates do David Bowie

Be sure and watch to the end of the video when it gets really high-larious
 
289Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, Jan 24, 2008, 21:11
Actually, more acts of terrorism have been committed in the US during this administratio than in the previous, according to wikipedia.

Number of acts of terrorism in the US by Presidential Administration:
Nixon: 8
Ford: 3
Carter: 3
Reagan: 5
Bush41: 0
Clinton: 5
Bush43: 6
 
290Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Thu, Jan 24, 2008, 23:37
Nice video MBJ.
 
291Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Fri, Jan 25, 2008, 09:36
New York Times endorses Clinton and McCain:

1. The NYT will endorse a Democrat in the general election. Thus

2. The NYT wants the Republican canidate to lose. Thus

3. The NYT will endorse the Republican candidate with the least chance of winning in the general election.

 
292Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Fri, Jan 25, 2008, 09:39
I have to rethink my support for McCain now.
 
293Perm Dude
      ID: 14013259
      Fri, Jan 25, 2008, 10:26
#291: There actually is a good amount of support by McCain anong Dems which will increase if Clinton gets the nod over Obama. In fact, polls are showing that McCain has the best chances among any Republicans for them to retain the Presidency. I've no doubt that Republicans would hold their nose and vote for McCain if it came between him and "Billary>

#292: Are you completely unable to think for yourself? Does what anyone else think always influence you? What is it like, having no core values upon which to anchor yourself?

Are you Mitt Romney?

:)
 
294Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Fri, Jan 25, 2008, 10:40
292: Are you completely unable to think for yourself? Does what anyone else think always influence you? What is it like, having no core values upon which to anchor yourself?

Not sure, let me ask someone.
 
295Perm Dude
      ID: 14013259
      Fri, Jan 25, 2008, 10:44
:) Maybe Tagg has an opinion.
 
296Perm Dude
      ID: 14013259
      Fri, Jan 25, 2008, 15:23
A slam on the NYT endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Best line: One is reminded of McCain’s defeat in South Carolina in 2000. Clinton must sorely regret that she can’t use proxies to pointedly accuse Obama of fathering a black child — because, after all, he has two of them, and they are adorable.

LOL!
 
297walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Fri, Jan 25, 2008, 16:23
#293, agree with PD. McCain has a better chance of beating billary than the rest of the republican lot. He'll get the indies and mods (sounds like UK rockers) and she won't. If she runs and loses, I will moidalize them! I liked the way the NY Times wrote their billary endorsement...it was very complimentary to Obama. They just feel she's more ready now. I disagree, but it wasn't just a one-sided editorial. I also laughed at some of the cracks they made about the republican candidates. I read the editorials on-line last night while watching the republican lovefest debate. Then, during the debate, they used the McCain endorsement editorial to ask Giuliani how he felt about getting bashed by a NYC paper. Very timely.
 
298J-Bar
      ID: 40082021
      Fri, Jan 25, 2008, 20:17
if i can digress a bit
who defined waterboarding as torture as opposed to enhanced interrogation techniques only approvable by three levels of command for specific and rare instances?

this reference to the army field manual as the gold standard for interrogation is ludicrous. the manual is designed to give guidance to the most basically trained army grunt on interrogation. to hamstring professional cia interrogators with basic techniques is equivalent to limiting the surgeons in the er to the paramedics text book.

back to your regularly scheduled programming

 
299Perm Dude
      ID: 14013259
      Fri, Jan 25, 2008, 20:34
Waterboarding is torture. And if you think "enhanced interrogation techniques" are anything more than lawyer talk I've got some Pepto for you--you'll need it after swallowing Administration talking points whole.

 
300Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Jan 25, 2008, 20:55
Federal Criminal Code Chapter 113C Torture - Section 2340. Definitions:
As used in this chapter -
(1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under
the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical
or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering
incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his
custody or physical control;
(2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged
mental harm caused by or resulting from -
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of
severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened
administration or application, of mind-altering substances or
other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be
subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the
administration or application of mind-altering substances or
other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
personality; and

(3) "United States" includes all areas under the jurisdiction
of the United States including any of the places described in
sections 5 and 7 of this title and section 46501(2) of title 49.

WaPo
On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post published a front-page photograph of a U.S. soldier supervising the questioning of a captured North Vietnamese soldier who is being held down as water was poured on his face while his nose and mouth were covered by a cloth. The picture, taken four days earlier near Da Nang, had a caption that said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk."

The article said the practice was "fairly common" in part because "those who practice it say it combines the advantages of being unpleasant enough to make people talk while still not causing permanent injury."

The picture reportedly led to an Army investigation. [according to ABC News he was court marshaled within a month -mith]

Twenty-one years earlier, in 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.

"Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) told his colleagues last Thursday during the debate on military commissions legislation. "We punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II," he said.
 
301walk
      ID: 2530286
      Fri, Jan 25, 2008, 20:59
Right, next they'll say shocking your balls is just extra enhanced interrogation techniques. What does your moral code say, J-Bar? You may think it's not torture if it's some Keifer Sutherland apprehended terrorist that has the knowledge to blow up half of Amerika. Outside of those republican (sans McCain and Paul) fairy tales, is waterboarding torture if they mistakenly apprehend your buddy or my buddy and waterboard them, because they thought they had the right person and he/she had critical information? Is it torture if they do it to our own captured soldiers?

If not, then I say you're either a Rambo-lover or morally off.
 
302J-Bar
      ID: 40082021
      Fri, Jan 25, 2008, 20:59
amazing argument thanks

According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. damn we tortured (pd's definition) ourselves just to see how it feels. i wonder if there is documentation of cia agents trying the ol electricity to nuts trick just to see how it feels.

thanks for the pepto, i think it may be immodium ad that you need for the diarhea that your spewing
 
303Perm Dude
      ID: 14013259
      Fri, Jan 25, 2008, 21:44
I'm sure you'll get people to crack by shooting their children in front of them as well, J-Bar. Is that really the point? Have you missed it by so much? You seem not only unconcerned whether the result of the torture is intelligence (the biggest drawback to torture is that it uniformly produces bad information) but you're unconcerned whether we should be doing it at all from an ethical standpoint.

Please don't talk to us on other issues about how the Right has any moral standing. On anything. Morals don't exist when you are willing to push them aside the moment they stand it the way.

Trading in our country's moral standing in return for bad intelligence. Nice work. But that's OK--they are "cracking!"
 
304Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Jan 25, 2008, 21:48
Pointing out that waterboarding falls precisely within the Federal Criminal Code definition of torture as an answer to the question of who defined waterboarding as torture is the equivolent of spewed argumentive diarhea?
 
306Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Jan 25, 2008, 22:22
damn we tortured (pd's definition) ourselves just to see how it feels. i wonder if there is documentation of cia agents trying the ol electricity to nuts trick just to see how it feels.

You do know that a tazer is a portable tool designed to introduce a live electrical current to it's subject and cause him intense pain, right? If you introduce a live current to a subject, causing him intense pain for the purpose of interrogating him -- even if it's not to his nuts -- it's called torture. Still, police cadets and other law enforcement officials are commonly tazed in training exercises. Regarding your ponderance, I have no idea whether CIA agents apply tazers to one another's nuts.

Anyway, are you really not aware that subjecting oneself to extreme physical duress during a training exersize isn't torture? A subject in such a training exercise (one where trainees are waterboarded or tazed or whatever) isn't within anyone's custody or physical control. They're willful participants.
 
307J-Bar
      ID: 40082021
      Fri, Jan 25, 2008, 23:47
please point out the words water boarding

As used in this chapter -
(1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under
the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical
or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering
incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his
custody or physical control;
(2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged
mental harm caused by or resulting from -
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of
severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened
administration or application, of mind-altering substances or
other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be
subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the
administration or application of mind-altering substances or
other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or
personality
 
308J-Bar
      ID: 40082021
      Fri, Jan 25, 2008, 23:57
to 300

as paul harvey would say "the rest of the story"

Defendant: Asano, Yukio


Docket Date: 53/ May 1 - 28, 1947, Yokohama, Japan

Charge: Violation of the Laws and Customs of War: 1. Did willfully and unlawfully mistreat and torture PWs. 2. Did unlawfully take and convert to his own use Red Cross packages and supplies intended for PWs.

Specifications:beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward
 
309J-Bar
      ID: 40082021
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 00:02
love this reach
I'm sure you'll get people to crack by shooting their children in front of them = water boarding
 
310Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 00:16
beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward

All of those things are listed because they all qualify as torture if you're doing it to someone who is in your capture, especially if he is subdued.

What exactly do you think torture is? You do know that Jack Bauer is just a TV character, right? Like Alf?
 
311Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 00:28
please point out the words water boarding
torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control.
You won't see burning or drowning or rape or electrocuting or fingernail pulling or kneecap shattering or achilies slicing in there either but they all count.
 
312Perm Dude
      ID: 14013259
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 00:33
Waterboarding "works" because the person believes he is drowning. You know this, right J-B? People undergoing waterboarding undergo severe physical and psychological distress because the technique, designed to simulate drowning, makes them feel like they are dying. You understand this, I think--this is exactly how it makes people "crack."

And yet you don't believe that waterboarding is torture?

It isn't even a very good lawyer's trick you've fallen for.
 
313J-Bar
      ID: 40082021
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 00:33
posted it so you would know what the 15 years was for factually as opposed to sen. kennedy's stmt. no where did i see water boarding. oh by the way was alf into water-boarding
 
314Tree
      ID: 27823293
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 02:15
i love the whole "end justifies the means" philosophy regarding the thinly-veiled support of torture.

i am at the same time flabbergasted, and disgusted, that there are fellow americans of mine who support torture, apparently, as long as we don't call it that.
 
315walk
      ID: 55114717
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 07:09
Agreed, Tree. Well put. It's a shame. PD, actually, waterboarding doesn't simulate drowning. It IS drowning. If you don't stop the waterboarding, the person will drown. The "simulate" part is that it's just not throwing the person in a lake with their hands tied or shoving their head in a tub, etc.

J-Bar, what information do you need to view any specific interrogation technique as torture? Do you have any personal view on what is and isn't torture? thanks.
 
316Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 08:35
posted it so you would know what the 15 years was for factually as opposed to sen. kennedy's stmt.

There's no discrepency between the list you provided and Kennedy's statement. Water torture is included on the list.

Synopsis: Historical analysis demonstrates U.S. courts have consistently held artificial drowning interrogation is torture which, by its nature, violates U.S. statutory prohibitions.
Drop by Drop: Forgetting The History of Water Torture in U.S. Courts1

By

Evan Wallach2

Q: Did the questioners threaten you with any other treatment while you were

being questioned

A: Yes, I was given several types of torture.... I was given what they call the water

cure.* * *

Q: What was your sensation when they were pouring water..., what did you

physically feel?

A: Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning, just gasping between life and

death..

Excerpts from testimony of CPT Chase Jay Nielsen, p. 55, Record of Trial, United States v.

Shigeru Sawada et al, (1946) Record of National Archives, Suitland, Maryland


United States of America v. Hideji Nakamura, Yukio Asano, Seitara Hata, and Takeo
Kita, U.S. Military Commission, Yokohama, 1-28 May, 1947. NARA Records, NND 735027
RG 153, Entry 143 Box 1025
57The charge and specifications against Hata were:
Charge: That the following member of the Imperial Japanese Army with his then known title:
Seitaro Hata, Surgeon First Lieutenant,, at the times and places set forth in the specifications
hereto attached, and during a time of war between the United States of America and its Allies
and Dependencies, and Japan, did violate the Laws and Customs of War.
Specification 3. That in or about July or August, 1943, at Fukoka Prisoner of War Branch Camp
Number Three, Fukuoka ken, Kyushu, Japan, the accused Seitaro Hata, did willfully and
unlawfully, brutally mistreat and torture Morris O. Killough, an American Prisoner of War, by
beating and kicking him; by fastening him on a stretcher and pouring water up his nostrils.
Specification 5. That on or about 15 May, 1944, at Fukoka Prisoner of War Branch Camp
Number Three, Fukuoka ken, Kyushu, Japan, the accused Seitaro Hata, did, willfully and
unlawfully, brutally mistreat and torture Thomas B. Armitage, William O Cash and Munroe
Dave Woodall, American Prisoners of War by beating and kicking them; by forcing water into
their mouths and noses; and by pressing lighted cigarettes against their bodies.
58The charge and specifications against Asano were:
Charge: That between 1 April, 1943 and 31 August, 1944, , at Fukoka Prisoner of War Branch
Camp Number 3, Kyushu, Japan, the accused Yukio Asana, then a civilian serving as an
interpreter with the Armed Forces of Japan, a nation then at war with the United States of
America and its Allies, did violate the Laws and Customs of War.
Specification 1: That in or about July or August, 1943, the accused Yukio Asano, did willfully
and unlawfully, brutally mistreat and torture Morris O. Killough, an American Prisoner of War,
by beating and kicking him; by fastening him on a stretcher and pouring water up his nostrils.
Specification 2: That on or about 15 May, 1944, at Fukoka Prisoner of War Branch Camp
Number 3, Kyushu, Japan, the accused Yukio Asano, did, willfully and unlawfully, brutally
mistreat and torture Thomas B. Armitage, William O Cash and Munroe Dave Woodall,
American Prisoners of War by beating and kicking them, by forcing water into their mouths and
noses; and by pressing lighted cigarettes against their bodies.
against the various defendants, and it loomed large in the evidence presented against them.56
The four defendants, Hata,57 Asano,58 Kita59, and Nakamura60 were respectively, the camp
Specification 5. That between 1 April, 1943 and 31 December, 1943, the accused Yukio Asano,
did, willfully and unlawfully, brutally mistreat and torture John Henry Burton, an American
Prisoner of War, by beating him; and by fastening him head downward on a stretcher and forcing
water into his nose.
59The charge and specifications against Kita were:
Charge: That the following member of the Imperial Japanese Army with his the known title:
Takeo Kita, Sergeant Major, at the times and places set forth in the specifications hereto
attached, and during a time of war between the United States.... and Japan, did violate the Laws
and Customs of War.
Specification 2: That between 1 April, 1943 and 31 August, 1944, at Fukoka Prisoner of War
Branch Camp Number 3, Kyushu, Japan, the accused Takeo Kita, did, willfully and unlawfully,
brutally mistreat and torture John Henry Burton, an American Prisoner of War, by beating him
and by forcing water into his nose.
Specification 4: That on or about 15 May, 1944, at Fukoka Prisoner of War Branch Camp
Number 3, Kyushu, Japan, the accused Takeo Kita, did, willfully and unlawfully, brutally
mistreat and torture Thomas B. Armitage, William O Cash and Munroe Dave Woodall,
American Prisoners of War by beating them, forcing water into their mouths and noses, and by
pressing lighted cigarettes against their bodies.
60The charge and specifications against Nakamura were less specifically related to water
torture per se, but still dealt with forced dunking:
Charge: That the following member of the Imperial Japanese Army, with his then known title,
Hideji Nakamura, at the times and places set forth in the specifications hereto attached, and
during a time of war between the United States of America, its Allies and Dependencies, and
Japan, did violate the Laws and Customs of War.
 
317Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 08:41
oh by the way was alf into water-boarding

I don't know. I'm only caertain of one way in which Alf is like Jack Bauer - they are both fictional. That means that things that you see them do and events that that you see occur on their TV shows are frequently unrealistic.
 
318Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 08:52
Actually, maybe I heard someplace that Jack Bauer eats cats. If so, they've got that in common, too.
 
319J-Bar
      ID: 40082021
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 10:52
agreed water torture is on the list, water boarding is not, i appreciate you providing more proof of my point. oh by the way water cure and water boarding are different. somehow now "burning or drowning or rape or electrocuting or fingernail pulling or kneecap shattering or achilles slicing = water boarding and herein lies the difference. imo those are acts that cause severe pain or mental suffering, they have some actual effect on the body and not just a perceived effect.

tree- i never said that ends justify means i said that i disagree that water boarding is torture and that it is the definition of severe that we are debating. kind of like child discipline there is a continuum from positive reinforcement to child abuse. where on that line you put spanking may be different than someone else's.

 
320Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 11:47
water torture is on the list, water boarding is not

Water boarding is a form of water torture.

Wikipedia includes "Terror of Drowning" in it's article on Water Torture. The title of their article on Terror of Drowing is called "Waterboarding".

Quite obviously, water torture is any method by which water is employed to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon another person within his custody or physical control.


somehow now "burning or drowning or rape or electrocuting or fingernail pulling or kneecap shattering or achilles slicing = water boarding

Your disingenuousness exposes your lack of a strong argument. Those things do not equal water boarding. They, along with water boarding, fall under the heading of torture.


it is the definition of severe that we are debating.

Not up until now it hasn't. But that's fine, too. Waterboarding overwhelms the subject with a very realistic sensation that he is drowning. Ask anyone who has ever almost drowned if they would classify the experience as mental or physical suffering. Seems pretty obvious to me.

Moreover, you appear to have read the US Criminal Code definition for torture. So you presumably read section (2), which explains that:
severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from -
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death
Ask anyone who has had the experienc of almost drowning if their senses were profoundly disrupted and if they thought they were going to die.
 
321Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 11:54
Of course, I shouldn't have had to take the time to post most of #320 since PD already covered the bulk of it in #312. Tellingly, J-Bar has not acknowledged that post.

Frankly, I shouldn't have taken to time to post even one word in response to J-Bar after post 302.
 
322J-Bar
      ID: 40082021
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 12:27
i read 312 and that is pd opinion and i have mine.

you say it meets the definition of torture and i say it doesn't

no disingenuousness on my part, maybe on yours. we're discussing water boarding and you have brought all that other stuff into the argument. almost drowning and the perception of almost drowning are not the same. we just differ on where we draw the line. nuff said.
 
323Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 12:28
So you agree that almost drowing someone is torture?
 
325Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 12:47
no disingenuousness on my part

Presenting my argument as "burning or drowning or rape or electrocuting or fingernail pulling or kneecap shattering or achilles slicing = water boarding when you know that I never intended this is disingenuous.

But then semantics is all you have to rely on, isn't it? You claim (but don't actually explain any) distinctions between water torture and and waterboarding when water torture is obviously a general term under which waterboarding is included.

In claiming (but not explaining) a distinction between almost drowing and perception of drowing, you seem to concede that almost drowning a subject causes necessary suffering to categorize the practice as torture. Yet a person who believes he is being drowned is experiencing the same sensation.

And an issue you chose to avoid in your last post is that the Criminal Code explicitly includes the threat of imminant death as a form of torture. Do you also claim that the waterboarding subject does not believe the practice will kill him if it isn't stopped?
 
326J-Bar
      ID: 40082021
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 12:55
no chance of drowning in the controlled environment so it is not almost drowning, nice try
 
327Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 13:17
no chance of drowning in the controlled environment so it is not almost drowning

Once again in post 326 you refuse to address all of the various points I've raised.

Regarding the one you did address, your argument is that the distinction between almost drowning a subject and creating the perception of drowning is that the controlled environment negates the chance that the subject will actually drown. This is actually not true. But first, lets establish that you apparently misunderstand the concept of the word, "almost". Like a waterboarding subject, a subject who is "almost drowned" has not actually been drowned, either. In both cases the part about not actually drowning due to the controlled environment works the same.

That said, like a torture subject who's head is held underwater until he is "almost drowned", a waterboarding subject can actually drown (or suffocate, depending on the method of waterboarding) even in a controlled environment. Waterboarding so closely mimics the
sensation of drowning because the subject is unble to breate during the process. Fail to give the subject enough air (or hold him under water too long in the "almost drowning" example) and he will in fact die.

Back to the other two points you seemingly are afraid to address:

1. "Suffering" is a sensation of one kind or another. Waterboarding creates for the subject an experience that is the same as drowning. By design, the sensation is the same.

2. Whether he will actually die or not, the waterboarding subject clearly believes his life is in imminant danger from the process. Threat of death is clearly outlined in the criminal code definition of torture.
 
328J-Bar
      ID: 40082021
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 13:44
you believe it is severe and i don't what more do want me to address. please provide proof that water-boarding alone as an interrogation technique has led to a drowning. not a threat of death imo and did you miss the word prolonged.
 
329Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 14:05
It is comforting to know if I ever decide to go a terrorist rampage, I have the left-wing guys to support me. Victims of terrorism and those wanting to stop terrorist acts before they happen, can count on the Right to do what is necessary. I am not saying the Left want terrorism, but they would chose it over offending their strange moral beliefs.
 
330Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 14:53
you believe it is severe and i don't what more do want me to address

Hey if that's all you've got then so be it.

please provide proof that water-boarding alone as an interrogation technique has led to a drowning.

I believe I have come across an example or two but the simple fact of the matter is that the subject is prevented from breathing. It doesn't take very long for that to be fatal.

did you miss the word prolonged
No but the word is entirely relative and no further explanation is offered. How long is prolonged? If the subject believes for 30 seconds that you've killed his family, is that too short for it to be torture?

not a threat of death imo

So you do deny that the waterboarding subject is afraid he will die. By all means, please allow me to enlighten you:
Former Navy SEAL Kosh Larson: I‘ve had this procedure done to me twice. Once during my time in the service and then once again on current TV, on national TV and both times I felt like I was going to die. It‘s that simple.
Of course there are simply innumerable accounts of people who have experienced the procedure and said that they believed they would die from it, despite knowing it was a controlled environment. I could have spent hours and hours just on one google search. I even came across supporters of American use of waterboarding who still admitted that they thought they would die (say the word and I'll be happy to provide). Tell me, J-Bar think you can provide any links to someone who has experienced the procedure and said he never thought he would die from it? Claims from people who have undergone the procedure and said they thought they'd die is pretty strong evidence that the procedure makes you think you're going to die. But since this looks like your desperate last grasp argument that you will cling to despite all logic and evidence in contrast, I'm sure you'll find a word to twist or or a semantic difference between imminant fear of death and believing you're going to die or some other nonsense. We reached the point long ago where it became abundantly clear to anyone of 3rd grade intelligence who won this argument. By all means, go ahead and claim victory. Congratulations.


Jag-
It is comforting to know if I blah blah blah

All I'm doing is calling a duck a duck. Infer what you will (and Lord knows you will).
 
331Perm Dude
      ID: 56015268
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 14:53
Would it also comfort you to know thar "the left-wing guys" will also support your right not to be tortured if you do not go on a terrorist rampage?
 
332Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 15:26
All of America supports the innocent, only the Left supports the process more than the outcome.
 
333Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 15:28
only the Left supports the process more than the outcome.

Tell that to Genarlo Wilson.
 
334Perm Dude
      ID: 56015268
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 15:31
Those crazies on the Left, siding with those pinko Founding Fathers on rights stuff. Don't they know that anyone who is tortured is guilty, and the ends justify the means?
 
335Perm Dude
      ID: 56015268
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 15:37
Clinton fighting to have Michigan & Florida delegates reinstated

After being the only candidate on the Michigan ballot, and taking Obama to task for being on a national cable show which was broadcast in Florida, this seems a little silly. But she's probably just trying to hedge her bets, knowing that it might be a close fight.

Meanwhile, Obama is kicking some serious ass in SC
 
336Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 18:11
Jag: It is comforting to know if I ever decide to go a terrorist rampage, I have the left-wing guys to support me.

And if you blame it on video games, President Bush, or if you recently had an abortion the left will really rally around your cause.
 
337walk
      ID: 590432617
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 19:25
We pause for this temporary announcement...OBAMA!
 
338Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 20:01
He is going to lap Hilary.
 
339Perm Dude
      ID: 56015268
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 20:20
Looks like Billary is already on the "we didn't really want to win SC/it isn't all that important" excuses already.

The more they go on, the more their reputations among Democrats sink.
 
340Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 21:36

Looks like Billary is already on the "we didn't really want to win SC/it isn't all that important" excuses already.

And since the rest of the country doesn't have SC demographics, she's right.



Obama's support among....

White Men: 27 percent

White Women: 22 percent

Black Men: 80 percent

Black Women: 77 percent

 
341Perm Dude
      ID: 56015268
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 21:53
Obama won Iowa, which is about 94% white. And came very close in New Hampshire, which is about the same.

Sure, the rest of the country isn't SC. But it isn't Iowa, either.
 
342Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 21:54
MBJ,
The white vote among men was won by Edwards, who also did well with white women. Depending on where those Edwards voters goes, let's say Obama, then those percentages get a lot tighter.
 
343Perm Dude
      ID: 56015268
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 21:55
Exit polling breakdown, SC

Previous exit poll, Iowa

Previous exit poll, New Hampshire
 
344Perm Dude
      ID: 56015268
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 22:39
Caroline Kennedy endorses Obama

Those on the Right will surely ignore this (it is a Kennedy, writing in the New York Times). But the hope and optimism of President Kennedy still resonates quite a bit in this country.
 
345PJ
      ID: 21842202
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 23:41
#342

I doubt that those white votes will go to Obama. I truly doubt that there were any white voters in South Carolina that supported Edwards in the primary that prefer Obama over Clinton.

This SC primary election is easy to read. Obama got the black vote and the more liberal white vote. Edward and Clinton split up the remaining white vote.

The white voters who didn't support Obama in the SC primary would probably vote for McCain or Huckabee over Obama in the general election in November.

 
346Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 00:24
PJ,
Obama got more votes overall than McCain and Huckabee combined. Obama carried all but three counties.

You really think enough white Democrats would cross over to McCain in the general election for him to carry that state? Check out these numbers, then explain to me a scenario where Obama would be vulnerable in November.
 
347Perm Dude
      ID: 56015268
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 00:34
The overall delegate scoreboard shows Clinton still ahead by a good amount, and competitive in many areas. As much as I like Obama, it will be very close.
 
348PJ
      ID: 21842202
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 00:46
Presuming that McCain is the Republican Party nominee and Obama the Democratic Party nominee, it's quite possible that enough white Democrats will cross over and vote for McCain to give South Carolina to the Republicans.

Is it a certainty? Of course not. But it's a definite possibility.

Or course, you know you just can't add up the number of votes based on the primary results. (Remember the Republican votes were suppressed in-part due to the very bad weather a week ago in South Carolina.)
 
349Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 04:43
Presuming that McCain is the Republican Party nominee and Obama the Democratic Party nominee, it's quite possible that enough white Democrats will cross over and vote for McCain to give South Carolina to the Republicans.

Who gets the independent vote in that scenario? I would have to think McCain which is quite possibly why he'd win nationally.
 
350sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 08:37
Yep....you steadfast Republicans who have spent the past 8 years bashing McCain suddenly see yourselves pinning your hopes to his coat. Quite comical in a highly ironic sort of way. You do realize, that you are going to be HUGELY disappointed come November if Obama is indeed the Dem Candidate.
 
351Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 09:54
The main problem McCain will have with cross-over Democrats and independents is Iraq. His staunch pro-life position won't help either.

He currently parrots the notion that "the surge" is wildly successful, a position that fails to take into account that Iraq remains unstable politically, socially, economically and religiously.
He is so pro-Iraq that he has to make up secret withdrawl plans supported by Romney in a Rovian smear attempt. In a national election, he will have to justify the continued expense, lack of political cooperation between Iraqi sects, Bush plans for permanent occupation, and a basic philosophy of military, not diplomatic solutions.

That won't play well with the Ron Paul contingency, much less the huge percentage of Democrats and independents opposed to an open-ended Iraq policy based on winning, without coherently describing what winning looks like.
 
352walk
      ID: 590432617
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 10:32
Great points, PV. McCain is too dogmatic on the "we must win in Iraq" and "come home with honor" without indicating what "winning" really looks like, admitting that we are not really fighting al quaida there (as the #1 threat), and discussing the feasibility financially of being in Iraq for decades, if not "100 years." It also fails to address how our presence foments the hatred against the U.S. which led to 9/11 in the first place. It's far more complex, and what McCain and the other repubs say on the campaign trail clearly caters to the simplistic notion of many Americans that "we just have win, baby." Much easier said than done. I don't think that enough Americans feel this way to carry their vote.
 
353walk
      ID: 590432617
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 10:33
Frank Rich, NYT: Billary
 
354walk
      ID: 590432617
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 10:35
There's McCain on Russert right now, saying, "if we lose, Al Quaida declares victory." I really resent these types of comments cos it's not Al Quaida that is the #1 issue in Iraq. They are an issue, but the issue is...well, what PV said. When it gets reduced to AQ, it creates an inaccurate nationalistic argument intended to rally the base when in fact our presence in Iraq is far more reaching than merely "defeating Al Quaida."
 
355J-Bar
      ID: 40082021
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 11:20
can someone explain to me why it is being reported as inappropriate or petty for bill to point out that jesse jackson won sc in 84 and 88. seems to me to be a fair statement on how to minimize(if thats possible) the win by obama.
 
356Perm Dude
      ID: 21022711
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 12:02
Because Jackson was the "black" candidate. Bill is saying, essentially, it doesn't matter that Obama won because that's where the black candidates win and so it doesn't matter.

pd
 
357J-Bar
      ID: 40082021
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 12:16
so it is taboo to even mention that historically sc has voted for a black candidate. somehow that seems like the press determining what can be said and what can't. the same goes for the berating that i saw someone getting for using his full name in discussing him.
 
358Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 12:37
historically sc has voted for a black candidate

Historically, SC has not given a black candidate more than twice the votes of the runner-up, nor more votes than the two top Republicans put together. These are obviously unchartered waters, especially given that Obama won Iowa, a lily white state. Since there's no real historic precedent, it's not taboo, just stupid.

If that someone who used Obama's full name does the same with all the other candidates, then they should not be berated.
However, we both know that's not the case, but thanks for insulting our intelligence by acting naive as to why Obama is singled out for the honor.
 
359Perm Dude
      ID: 21022711
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 12:41
What's next, Jag: Calling Obama a "nigger" and then claiming you meant he was just a stingy person?
 
360Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 13:05
Additionally, when does twice = historically?
In 2004, John Edwards won the primary with Al Sharpton in the mix.
In 2000, Alan Keyes got all of 5% in the Republican primary.

The years Jesse Jackson won, 1984 and 1988, South Carolina held caucases, not primaries, another historical anamoly.
 
361J-Bar
      ID: 40082021
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 13:20
first off pd i don't where you are coming from. hillary for years has been referred to with her middle name. and pv there are some unchartered waters but not all. i have yet to see anyone in the media explain the whole race vote and why it even makes since to seperate the votes by demographics (which i thought we had gotten past as a nation) except to try and interject race. but then if you show historically that the state has voted on race lines before it is wrong. the kid gloves being used by the media in referring to obama is almost funny.
 
362J-Bar
      ID: 40082021
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 13:21
thanks pv i didn't know the difference
 
363J-Bar
      ID: 40082021
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 13:26
but the keyes stmt is not relevant since 90% of black voters are dems in sc
 
364Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 13:30
hillary for years has been referred to with her middle name

[shakes head]
 
365Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 13:43
but the keyes stmt is not relevant since 90% of black voters are dems in sc

Then your statement:

historically sc has voted for a black candidate
is not relevant, since Alan Keyes(and Al Sharpton) are both black. Instead of historically, which indicates a pattern rarely broken, a more honest interpretation would have been that there is precedent.

 
366walk
      ID: 590432617
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 13:50
MITH, #364, LOL!
 
367J-Bar
      ID: 40082021
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 14:03
ok pv i will let you be right the black voter in sc does not historically vote as a block in elections if that is what you are saying(though i think that would be a tough proof) because that was not my original inquiry, but the original assertion that bill was wrong for stating the fact that jesse won in 84 and 88 is where i am having a hard time. those are the facts. obama's victory should be commended and i never said it shouldn't. i wanted to know why bill was wrong for his statement. is this candidacy gonna not allow for normal discourse due to the "racist" epithet being held over all who have commentary.
 
368walk
      ID: 55114717
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 14:26
J-Bar, I guess it's a fine line. Bill's motives for making such a comment cannot be discounted. They are to seemingly minimize the potentially broad appeal Barack could have. It also potentially sends a message to others that this victory, this state, is relatively less important because it's proportionaly more African American than other states. While you may be perceiving Bill's statements as merely stating fact, given the context of all of this statements, and his intensity of past statements, and motives (to win), it's seemingly evident that he's trying to suggest that Obama won, just like Jesse Jackson, cos he and SC are Black.
 
369Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 14:27
At the request of PV here is my point from the Pelosi thread.

One thing to watch out with Obama are his backers. According to Fortune magazine this month, I only have the print copy handy, he's backed by Orin Kramer (Boston Provident), Paul Tudor Jones (Tudor Investments), Ken Griffin (Citadel Investment Group), and George Soros (Soros Fund Management).

I don't know enough about the other three, but Soros is a loon. The larger point is that all four are hedge fund gurus and may have well greatly contributed to some of the problems that Obama wants to address. If he comes off as a money whore like the rest of them I don't know how he'll have credibility beyond his catch phrases.
 
370Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 14:52
i wanted to know why bill was wrong for his statement.


The question Bill Clinton was asked was about it taking "two clintons to beat Obama". What could any answer to that question possibly have to do with Jesse Jackson's 1984 and 88 victories in SC?

Everything he does is calculated. He is deliberately associating Obama with the last black man who won in SC. His point served the dual purpose of dismissing Obama's victory as a function of racial voting tendencies in SC and associating Obama with Jackson, who most of the rest of the country views quite negatively and whose politics Obama has worked hard to distinguish himself from.
 
371Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 14:56
is this candidacy gonna not allow for normal discourse due to the "racist" epithet being held over all who have commentary

I don't think anyone here is calling Clinton a racist, or holding the term over his head. At least I'm not. If anything you might argue that he is passive-aggressively appealing to racist feelings that some people might harbor, which is pretty slimey, but not what you'd call racist in itself.
 
372Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 16:06
What's next, Jag: Calling Obama a "nigger" and then claiming you meant he was just a stingy person?

What did I do? I was actually behaving myself for a change.

The first person I saw commenting on Jesse winning SC in 84 and 88 was Mr. Bill.
 
373walk
      ID: 55114717
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 16:07
#370-1, agreed.
 
374Building 7
      ID: 48033121
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 16:39
Obama had a white mother and a black father. Why does this make him black? Why is he not white? Why does black trump white? The same thing happens with Halle Berry.

 
375Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 16:43
#347...and Tiger Woods, who is pulling an Obama in San Diego this week..or did Obama pull a Tiger?
 
376walk
      ID: 470542717
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 18:59
#374. I think Obama would agree with you...why do we distinguish between races? And Stephen Colbert would, too ("I don't see color").
 
377Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 20:42
If Obama is pulling a Tiger Woods, he will build a huge lead and just be average the final day.
 
378sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 22:56
I see you dont sh*t about golf either.
 
379Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 23:29
Sarge, you are showing your ignorance again. I play fantasy golf and when Tiger has a large lead, he plays par golf. I suggest you chime in on subjects you are more familiar with, like which feminine hygiene product gives you the freshest feeling.
 
380Perm Dude
      ID: 120552719
      Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 00:24
Well, that's easily proven. Define "large lead" and we'll see if you are right.
 
381Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 00:33
5 shots or more. Tiger was close to par golf on the final round today with a 1 under. He did it a little differently than normal, he usally has just a couple bogies, couple of birdies and the rest pars, today he had 6 birds and 5 bogies.
 
382Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 00:34
5 birds 4 bogies
 
383Perm Dude
      ID: 120552719
      Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 01:19
Well, in major championships, Tiger has only had a 5 stroke lead or better after 54 holes three times. the 1997 Masters (9 stroke lead), the 2000 US Open (10 stroke lead) and the 2000 Open Championship (6 stroke lead). He won all of those, by 12, 15, and 8 strokes respectively. His
Wikipedia entry has a chart about halfway down which shows that in major championships Tiger Woods tends to increase his lead after 54 holes.

Now, maybe you are talking about leads during play (in other words, maybe at the end of 54 he was only up 4 strokes but during the day he was up by 5 or more, or during the last 18 he got up by 5 or more). Due to the fluid nature of in-play scores I don't know if you can even determine when a player was up 5 or more, but I'll poke around. I did fine the 2007 WGC Press Release which stated that, in his career, Woods has won 6 times after a last round over par. Doesn't say what he lead was, though.

Last year Tiger won 8 tournaments and finished second three times. Looking at just those tournaments, I don't see that at anytime he had a 5 stroke lead or better and went under that after 54 holes.

Tiger does have a tendency to lay up, at times, the last holes of a tournament when he has a lead. But this doesn't seem to reflect his final stroke differential.
 
384Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 08:18
If Obama is pulling a Tiger Woods, he will build a huge lead and just be average the final day.

Average or smart?

If the Patriots have 3 TD lead going into the 4th quarter, are they average if they abandon the passing game, or smart to run the ball and work the clock?

Anyone who has a big lead going down the stretch in a golf tourney is going to play more conservatively to protect the lead. Instead of shooting at pins where a few feet can mean landing in a bunker or in green-side rough, the player will shoot for the middle of the green, content with a two putt and par.
Faced with clearing a water hazard with a long fairway shot to reach the green in 2 on a par 5, the smart play is to lay up, and trust your short game to get a birdie or at least par.
Using a shorter but more accurate club off the tee on a narrow fairway, or one where trouble lurks if at all wild(trees, long rough) may reduce the birdie op, but birdies aren't essential with a big lead. Staying away from bogies and higher is.
 
385sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 10:10
FTR record JAG...I once played Fantasy NASCAR...doesnt mean I know sh*t about NASCAR.

IF Obama pulls a Tiger, then he will simply "hang around" through the cut round. Then in the 3rd round (what Tiger himself refers to as "moving day"), he'll position himself to strike. Then, in the 4th round, with his competitor paying more attention to what he (Tiger) is doing than what he is doing himself....he'll kick royal arse and win the thing going away.
 
386Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 12:11
FTR Buckwheat, I am creating a website and will be doing a live internet show with golf as one of the primary topics.