Wisconsin Primary

[The Leaper]

And do you really think people favor bringing Guantanamo terrorists into OUR justice system, or to ruling out harsh interrogation--or real torture, for that matter, if the lives of Americans are on the line? I say again, just let Obama or Hillary try to sell that to people.

There is a significant group of Americans who are fiercely opposed to torture in any form...and not all of them are Dems. There are many conservatives who value life and morality that are opposed to both the death penalty and torture.

And on the war, as far as we have progressed toward a successful conclusion, do you really think the stupid timetable to withdraw--with all its implications for defeat and bad consequences--is something that is going to win votes for Obama or Hillary?

Maybe, maybe not. My point was that the "stay the course" crowd is a small minority...just as the "cut and run" crowd is also a small minority. The majority of Americans are somewhere in the middle...the country is very weary of the war, and want to see some kind of exit strategy that puts the burden on the Iraqis to get it together.

What you said about higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations rings true--unfortunately. That is a tribute to the class warfare crap pushed for so long by the Dem/libs. Corporation tax is paid by customers, and fair taxing--cutting at the same rate across the board does more to stimulate the economy, since reducing the higher levels allows for more trickling down, which translates to more economic stimulation. Unfortunately, that truth is drowned out by the left's ranting about sticking it to the rich.

I would agree with you to an extent...I was merely pointing out that the GOP no longer holds the great advantage in the realm of taxation and low spending. Personally, I feel corporate taxes should be LOWERED...but tariffs and charges on imported goods should be heavily increased. Companies should be encouraged to PRODUCE and SELL here if they want to be part of our economy...not operating primarily overseas. Lowering the corporate tax rate and increasing tariffs on imports would be a way to accomplish that.

Your idea of a third party probably won't happen--it just ain't the American system. If the idea has any chance, though, you would have to combine the populism you are talking about with a healthy pro-American perspective--get away from this Ron Paul anti-war/anti-interventionist foreign policy idiocy.

A populist party would need to focus on core domestic issues that matter to mainstream Americans. The Dems are going to alienate a bunch of people in this campaign year due to a system that ignored the votes of people in MI and FL and the entire stupidity of the "superdelegate" system. The GOP clearly also is fractured between the haves and have nots.

A third party that doesn't listen to the special interests from both extremes would be a major hit IMO...but it will take an individual who can raise a lot of cash to challenge the two major parties.

[GoPackGo]

The populist independent stance is one that continues to gain traction in the United States...and I don't think it will be long before a third party is created that seeks to appeal to the common people, not the elites or special interests. Fewer and fewer Americans are finding themselves strongly aligned with either major party.

That describes me pretty well. I voted Repub in 2000 and 2004 but 2008 might be a different story.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The populist independent stance is one that continues to gain traction in the United States...and I don't think it will be long before a third party is created that seeks to appeal to the common people, not the elites or special interests. Fewer and fewer Americans are finding themselves strongly aligned with either major party.

That describes me pretty well. I voted Repub in 2000 and 2004 but 2008 might be a different story.

C'mon liberal media...let the brainwashing begin. muahhhh!!!

[GoPackGo]

The populist independent stance is one that continues to gain traction in the United States...and I don't think it will be long before a third party is created that seeks to appeal to the common people, not the elites or special interests. Fewer and fewer Americans are finding themselves strongly aligned with either major party.

That describes me pretty well. I voted Repub in 2000 and 2004 but 2008 might be a different story.

C'mon liberal media...let the brainwashing begin. muahhhh!!!

I think liberal and conservative media are equally worthless these days.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The populist independent stance is one that continues to gain traction in the United States...and I don't think it will be long before a third party is created that seeks to appeal to the common people, not the elites or special interests. Fewer and fewer Americans are finding themselves strongly aligned with either major party.

That describes me pretty well. I voted Repub in 2000 and 2004 but 2008 might be a different story.

C'mon liberal media...let the brainwashing begin. muahhhh!!!

I think liberal and conservative media are equally worthless these days.

You only think that you are thinking. If you even doubt the conservative media that is proof that the pernicious liberal media has already been effective.

Soon, you'll be eating baguettes and like runny cheeses.

[texaspackerbacker]

See how this thread--and any thread gets diverted so easily from the issues?

That's because liberals can't stand to discuss the issues--not you, Leaper.

As for what you said about people's positions, first of all, to the extent that people DO have those views, do you HONESTLY THINK they didn't get propagandized to those views by a sinister left-leaning media?

You actually think Americans would say "Oh no, don't torture the poor terrorist just to find out where he planted the suitcase nuke at the Super Bowl"?

You actually think Americans would say "Turn those poor souls loose from Guantanamo, and give them due process in the American judicial system"?

You probably are right that most Americans were somewhere in between a stay the course mentality and a cut and run mentality originally. But which side has been vindicated? And which party STILL clings to the idea of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by giving the enemy a damn timetable? I jump for joy every time I hear one of the dynamic duo of leftist dumbasses talk about a timetable.

And even though doing what CLEARLY is right for the economic benefit of all Americans is, based on your own words, now the minority view, I suppose you would still deny that this is the product of liberal demagoguery and bias mainstream media? And the fact that this rare issue where the left, even though WRONG, seems to be the majority view has somehow become "the most important campaign issue", I suppose the leftist bias of the media has nothing to do with THAT either?

On the third party thing, there's about as much chance of that as the Giants winning the Super Bowl .........

Do you agree or disagree that in addition to the populist stuff you stated, such a party could only be successful if it came out PRO-AMERICAN, disavowing the anti-war, anti-interventionist foreign policy of loons like Ron Paul? You weren't one of those Paulist loons, were you?

[Harlan Huckleby]

a new poll has Obama leading by 3 pts in PA

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p...ase_041608.pdf

unbelieveable. that bastard not only has the media in his pocket, his operatives must have penetrated the polling organizations too.

[hoosier]

a new poll has Obama leading by 3 pts in PA

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p...ase_041608.pdf

unbelieveable. that bastard not only has the media in his pocket, his operatives must have penetrated the polling organizations too.

That's cuz he's a lefty, which makes him down with infiltration.

[texaspackerbacker]

Obama a Bolshevik? Yeah, that works for me. It certainly meshes with all of his stated positions. Of course, you could pretty much say the same for Hillary.

The invitation is still (always) open to you liberals/Democrats to discuss the issues. I very much doubt that you will, though, because in virtually every case, your side's positions are basically indefensible--both in terms of absolute rightness or wrongness and in terms of popularity--being in tune or out of tune with the views and values of Americans.

And to the very limited extent that leftist positions do seem to be making inroads, you can chalk that up to leftist propaganda of the mainstream media and the educational establishment--to the detriment of America.

Yeah, I know this has been covered, but it's fun to rub your noses in the sick and wrongheaded positions you Dem/lib idols cling to as often as possible.

[Harlan Huckleby]

How Obama Fell to Earth
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: April 18, 2008

Back in Iowa, Barack Obama promised to be something new — an unconventional leader who would confront unpleasant truths, embrace novel policies and unify the country. If he had knocked Hillary Clinton out in New Hampshire and entered general-election mode early, this enormously thoughtful man would have become that.

But he did not knock her out, and the aura around Obama has changed. Furiously courting Democratic primary voters and apparently exhausted, Obama has emerged as a more conventional politician and a more orthodox liberal.

He sprinkled his debate performance Wednesday night with the sorts of fibs, evasions and hypocrisies that are the stuff of conventional politics. He claimed falsely that his handwriting wasn’t on a questionnaire about gun control. He claimed that he had never attacked Clinton for her exaggerations about the Tuzla airport, though his campaign was all over it. Obama piously condemned the practice of lifting other candidates’ words out of context, but he has been doing exactly the same thing to John McCain, especially over his 100 years in Iraq comment.

Obama also made a pair of grand and cynical promises that are the sign of someone who is thinking more about campaigning than governing.

He made a sweeping read-my-lips pledge never to raise taxes on anybody making less than $200,000 to $250,000 a year. That will make it impossible to address entitlement reform any time in an Obama presidency. It will also make it much harder to afford the vast array of middle-class tax breaks, health care reforms and energy policy Manhattan Projects that he promises to deliver.

Then he made an iron vow to get American troops out of Iraq within 16 months. Neither Obama nor anyone else has any clue what the conditions will be like when the next president takes office. He could have responsibly said that he aims to bring the troops home but will make a judgment at the time. Instead, he rigidly locked himself into a policy that will not be fully implemented for another three years.

If Obama is elected, he will either go back on this pledge — in which case he would destroy his credibility — or he will risk genocide in the region and a viciously polarizing political war at home.

Then there are the cultural issues. Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos of ABC News are taking a lot of heat for spending so much time asking about Jeremiah Wright and the “bitter” comments. But the fact is that voters want a president who basically shares their values and life experiences. Fairly or not, they look at symbols like Michael Dukakis in a tank, John Kerry’s windsurfing or John Edwards’s haircut as clues about shared values.

When Obama began this ride, he seemed like a transcendent figure who could understand a wide variety of life experiences. But over the past months, things have happened that make him seem more like my old neighbors in Hyde Park in Chicago.

Some of us love Hyde Park for its diversity and quirkiness, as there are those who love Cambridge and Berkeley. But it is among the more academic and liberal places around. When Obama goes to a church infused with James Cone-style liberation theology, when he makes ill-informed comments about working-class voters, when he bowls a 37 for crying out loud, voters are going to wonder if he’s one of them. Obama has to address those doubts, and he has done so poorly up to now.

It was inevitable that the period of “Yes We Can!” deification would come to an end. It was not inevitable that Obama would now look so vulnerable. He’ll win the nomination, but in a matchup against John McCain, he is behind in Florida, Missouri and Ohio, and merely tied in must-win states like Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. A generic Democrat now beats a generic Republican by 13 points, but Obama is trailing his own party. One in five Democrats say they would vote for McCain over Obama.

General election voters are different from primary voters. Among them, Obama is lagging among seniors and men. Instead of winning over white high school-educated voters who are tired of Bush and conventional politics, he does worse than previous nominees. John Judis and Ruy Teixeira have estimated a Democrat has to win 45 percent of such voters to take the White House. I’ve asked several of the most skillful Democratic politicians over the past few weeks, and they all think that’s going to be hard.

A few months ago, Obama was riding his talents. Clinton has ground him down, and we are now facing an interesting phenomenon. Republicans have long assumed they would lose because of the economy and the sad state of their party. Now, Democrats are deeply worried their nominee will lose in November.

Welcome to 2008. Everybody’s miserable.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I saw Michael Bloomberg in extended interview on Charlie Rose, I was extremely impressed. He would be good VP for either party.

[texaspackerbacker]

That Brooks article is typical LEFTIST wrongheaded garbage.

Obama is a rabid left wing EXTREMIST. This is NOT something that just happened. It's something he has always been, and which the leftist mainstream media did their damnedest to cover up.

Surprise surprise! He's good buddies with a domestic terrorist who tried to blow up the Pentagon and NYC Police HQ. Obama whines that he was just 8 years old back then. How old was he in 2001 when the same guy, Ayres, stated that he should have done even more bombings than what he did. How in the hell did this guy avoid major prison time if not execution--as people were apparently killed in his bombings?

Surprise surprise! Obama's mentor says "God DAMN America" among a lot of other vile crap. Obama whines that HE shouldn't be judged by the people he associates with.

The thing is, even if Obama can't be absolutely pinned down as supporting trash like Ayres and Wright, THEY SUPPORT HIM! That says volumes!

Obama didn't FALL. He was always lower than snakeshit. It merely took the media this long to realize it and point it out.

One thing the article was correct about, though. If Obama had knocked Hillary out of the race sooner, yes, he probably would have been able to skate through all the way to election day with his phony persona as a unifier standing uncontradicted by the mainstream media. If Hillary has never been good for anything else--and she hasn't, she, at least, was the reason the mainstream media finally got off their sick asses and exposed Obama for the anti American EXTREMIST piece of crap that he is.

[hoosier]

That Brooks article is typical LEFTIST wrongheaded garbage.

You do know who David Brooks is, right? Oh wait, that's right, he writes for the NYT--you never heard of the guy, right?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

That Brooks article is typical LEFTIST wrongheaded garbage.

You do know who David Brooks is, right? Oh wait, that's right, he writes for the NYT--you never heard of the guy, right?

Bill Kristol now writes for the NYT...fucking liberal.

[texaspackerbacker]

That's right, do like you guys always do, AVOID THE SUBSTANCE and divert to ....... whatever. Hell no, I don't know who Brooks is, and I really don't care. His words are what counts, and THAT is the substance you guys choose to avoid--because, AS ALWAYS, the liberal position is indefensible--basically everything Obama stands for is indefensible.

So I guess I'll have to forgive you guys for not even TRYING to defend it.

[hoosier]

That's right, do like you guys always do, AVOID THE SUBSTANCE and divert to ....... whatever. Hell no, I don't know who Brooks is, and I really don't care. His words are what counts, and THAT is the substance you guys choose to avoid--because, AS ALWAYS, the liberal position is indefensible--basically everything Obama stands for is indefensible.

So I guess I'll have to forgive you guys for not even TRYING to defend it.

What exactly are you expecting someone to defend? Where is the substance in what you've written? You're rehashing a bunch of overblown bullshit about Obama's pastor and Obama's childhood friend as if that were the substantive element of the presidential election cycle? You're trying desparately to give intellectual weight to that personal attack, soap operaesque garbage they're serving up at Fox or wherever you get your news. Who in their right mind wants to respond to that?

[Harlan Huckleby]

That Brooks article is typical LEFTIST wrongheaded garbage. Obama is a rabid left wing EXTREMIST... Obama didn't FALL. He was always lower than snakeshit.

I think Tex is sincere in calling Brooks a leftist. Relative to himself, a moderate republican is leftist. And Obama would be to the left of that, so he's extremist.

This politics by labeling is boring. Tex, you complain that people don't respond, but if you are just ranting from place of ignorance, what is the point? I don't mean to imply that you are stupid, on the contrary I think you are very smart, and you have a lot of knowledge. But you obviously only take-in news & opinions from right-wing ideology.

I see zero evidence that Obama is an extremist, his enunciated positions are mainstream, altho perhaps calculated to be so. Many of his supporters are extreme and they irritate me to no end. Obama is a vanilla, mainstream Democrat like Clinton. I don't like Obama because I see him as arrogant & uncompromising, but that's just my impression. Dennis Kuscinich MIGHT be classified as an extreme liberal. But the public has moved left, even he doesn't seem so extreme anymore.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

It is surreal that Tex is foaming at the mouth from an article by Brooks that essentially is extremely negative about Obama.

It is like Tex isn't happy if we kill obama...they have to cut him into little pieces, scatter him across the earth, so his soul will not find peace.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

That's right, do like you guys always do, AVOID THE SUBSTANCE and divert to ....... whatever. Hell no, I don't know who Brooks is, and I really don't care. His words are what counts, and THAT is the substance you guys choose to avoid--because, AS ALWAYS, the liberal position is indefensible--basically everything Obama stands for is indefensible.

So I guess I'll have to forgive you guys for not even TRYING to defend it.

So, if it is indefensible...why do you want us to respond?

We all know the outcome..we can't win. You will just tell us we are wrong. What is the point? You certainly aren't going to ever change your mind.

I think it is more of a case that you are like an old cold warrior. You despise your enemy..yet, without the enemy..what purpose does your life have. So, you hate the left..yet, you desparately need to engage with them.

Sad.

[Harlan Huckleby]

be kind to republicans, Tyrone, nobody is "sad" around here. I am glad Tex posts. The great majority of posters here are conservative, yet Tex is one of the few that will discuss politics. The rest are just bitterly clinging to their guns and religion, I guess.