Democratic Party Implodes

[Harlan Huckleby]

The Dem meeting this weekend to whitewash the Florida-Michigan dirt was quite something. Here's some video:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/05/31/

It was supposed to be a public meeting on C-SPAN. But they took a 4-hour lunch and did a backroom deal.

They ended-up giving 1/2 vote to each delegate from MI & FL.

At the conclusion, Obama supporters in the room were making speeches calling for "unity", while the Clinton supporters booed them, and shouted "Denver! Denver!"

The only remotely fair way to deal with MI-FL was to have a revote.

[bobblehead]

this calls for a poll.

[Kiwon]

At least one voter agrees with HH

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s

Also, Republican, Democrat, or Independent, this is an effective presentation from Hillary supporters in Florida. Somebody's got some talent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8aEwC5VZVA&feature=related

[cpk1994]

The Dem meeting this weekend to whitewash the Florida-Michigan dirt was quite something. Here's some video:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/05/31/

It was supposed to be a public meeting on C-SPAN. But they took a 4-hour lunch and did a backroom deal.

They ended-up giving 1/2 vote to each delegate from MI & FL.

At the conclusion, Obama supporters in the room were making speeches calling for "unity", while the Clinton supporters booed them, and shouted "Denver! Denver!"

The only remotely fair way to deal with MI-FL was to have a revote.

Wrong. Hillary agreed to the rules before the campaigns started. Now, becuase she can't win by the rules, she seeks to change them. Michigan and Florida were warned that they would not be seated ifd they moved their primary dates and they didn't listen. The rules should have been upheld and not changed becuase Hillary throws a hissy fit becuase the rules have worked against her. This is absolute BS.

[sheepshead]

The Dem meeting this weekend to whitewash the Florida-Michigan dirt was quite something. Here's some video:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/05/31/

It was supposed to be a public meeting on C-SPAN. But they took a 4-hour lunch and did a backroom deal.

They ended-up giving 1/2 vote to each delegate from MI & FL.

At the conclusion, Obama supporters in the room were making speeches calling for "unity", while the Clinton supporters booed them, and shouted "Denver! Denver!"

The only remotely fair way to deal with MI-FL was to have a revote.

Wrong. Hillary agreed to the rules before the campaigns started. Now, becuase she can't win by the rules, she seeks to change them. Michigan and Florida were warned that they would not be seated ifd they moved their primary dates and they didn't listen. The rules should have been upheld and not changed becuase Hillary throws a hissy fit becuase the rules have worked against her. This is absolute BS.

Democrat "rules" supersede the will of the people. Well, well. But isn't always the case. Look at the reason for the"Super Delegates" in the first place!. They dont trust the voters to get it right. Talk about disenfranchised.

Napoleon said"Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake" There's no way in hell the Democrat's can win Michigan or Florida in a general election now.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Wrong. Hillary agreed to the rules before the campaigns started. Now, becuase she can't win by the rules, she seeks to change them. Michigan and Florida were warned that they would not be seated ifd they moved their primary dates and they didn't listen. The rules should have been upheld and not changed becuase Hillary throws a hissy fit becuase the rules have worked against her. This is absolute BS.

Wait a second. The Obama supporters moved yesterday to change the rules, and dramatically so. Where in the rules does it say, "States will get to keep half their delegates if they move their primary forward."

The Obama phonies were cool with changing the rules yesterday because it provided political cover for the sleazy politics Obama engaged in. But changing the rules to allow a democratic resolution of a grossly unfair situation? NO CAN DO.

Where is your outrage, cpk1994? The rules were just changed.

The worst excuse I've heard from the Obama crowd for their thuggish refusal to allow votes in FL & MI is "it doesn't matter, Obama had enough delegates anyway." Perhaps true in hindsight, but that in no way excuses your behavior. If somebody wins by cheating, and later concludes they could have won with integrity if they had to, this is not so impressive.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Democrat "rules" supersede the will of the people. Well, well. But isn't always the case. Look at the reason for the"Super Delegates" in the first place!. They dont trust the voters to get it right. Talk about disenfranchised.

I 100% agree with you, and yesterday's display of high-handedness was the cherry on the sundae. The Democratic Party needs a new name.

[cpk1994]

Wrong. Hillary agreed to the rules before the campaigns started. Now, becuase she can't win by the rules, she seeks to change them. Michigan and Florida were warned that they would not be seated ifd they moved their primary dates and they didn't listen. The rules should have been upheld and not changed becuase Hillary throws a hissy fit becuase the rules have worked against her. This is absolute BS.

Wait a second. The Obama supporters moved yesterday to change the rules, and dramatically so. Where in the rules does it say, "States will get to keep half their delegates if they move their primary forward."

The Obama phonies were cool with changing the rules yesterday because it provided political cover for the sleazy politics Obama engaged in. But changing the rules to allow a democratic resolution of a grossly unfair situation? NO CAN DO.

Where is your outrage, cpk1994? The rules were just changed.

The worst excuse I've heard from the Obama crowd for their thuggish refusal to allow votes in FL & MI is "it doesn't matter, Obama had enough delegates anyway." Perhaps true in hindsight, but that in no way excuses your behavior. If somebody wins by cheating, and later concludes they could have won with integrity if they had to, this is not so impressive.How is it thuggish? They were pointing out the rules THEY ALL AGREED TO. The rules clearly stated that if you move your primary date you don't count. If the voters feel disenfranchised, tough shit. Take it up with their respective state parties for not following the rules. Yes what Obama agreed to is BS, and needless becuase OBama had the rules clearly on his side. That said, Hillary's supporters also AGREED to this deal. Also know the fact that it won't change the result. But it was done to try to finally shut Hillary up for good.

EDIT: I can't believe I'm sticking up for a guy I despise. I guess I despise Hillary even more.

[bobblehead]

How come when al gore had the majority vote, that was all that mattered, now that hillary has it, some votes don't count and its the delegates?

Even without FL and MI she is going to finish with more votes cast...where is the outrage now?

I for one call for an investigation, recount, court proceedings so that the supreme court can "give obama the nomination". Its funny how certain things only apply when they favor certain sides. If the democratic party ever wants to be taken seriously by people like me they have to start backing up what they say they believe in.

When Pelosi and co. were running to take control of the house they promised to drop gas prices (they went up about 70%) they promised to end earmarks (they went up about 35%). They promised to repeal the bush tax cuts (they haven't even voted on it). They promised to get us out of Iraq (they allowed a troop surge after they won).

Now I'm not saying I would likely vote for a democrat, but they gotta start actually doing what they campaign on.

As for fiscally conservative republican party....well, a new social program for prescription drugs, pet spending in damn near every district in the country, embracing the very beauracracies they called wasteful before. They need a little overhaul too, and obama might be just the poison we need to remind us what we are supposed to stand for.

[Harlan Huckleby]

How is it thuggish? They were pointing out the rules THEY ALL AGREED TO. The rules clearly stated that if you move your primary date you don't count.

It was thuggish to block a revote because having a revote was possible, WITHIN the rules, and it presented the fairest resolution to an grossly unjust situation.

Punishing the voters of FL & MI, who did nothing wrong, was a stupid and unjust rule.

I'll ask you one more time: why do you not object to the total changing of the rules yesterday to include the delegates from FL & MI? (albeit with half a vote each.) As you just pointed out, the rule was that those states were not supposed to have any delegates.

The rules were changed yesterday in the interest of fairness and party unity. But "fairness" in this instance really translates into providing political cover for Obama. When "fairness" meant allowing the voters of FL & MI to vote, it wasn't a good enough reason.

[cpk1994]

How is it thuggish? They were pointing out the rules THEY ALL AGREED TO. The rules clearly stated that if you move your primary date you don't count.

It was thuggish to block a revote because having a revote was possible, WITHIN the rules, and it presented the fairest resolution to an grossly unjust situation.

Punishing the voters of FL & MI, who did nothing wrong, was a stupid and unjust rule.

I'll ask you one more time: why do you not object to the total changing of the rules yesterday to include the delegates from FL & MI? (albeit with half a vote each.) As you just pointed out, the rule was that those states were not supposed to have any delegates.

The rules were changed yesterday in the interest of fairness and party unity. But "fairness" in this instance really translates into providing political cover for Obama. When "fairness" meant allowing the voters of FL & MI to vote, it wasn't a good enough reason.Then as I said before, TAKE IT UP WITH THE STATE DEMOCRATIC PARTIES. THey moved thieir primaries, they pay the penalty. Also, if it was such an unjust rule, WHY DID HILLARY AGREE TO IT? SHe was fine with it until it when against it and ONLY THEN did she rail against it. THats BS. If it was such an unjust rule, it never should have agreed upon. Hillary made her bed, she needs to lie in it.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

When Pelosi and co. were running to take control of the house they promised to drop gas prices (they went up about 70%) they promised to end earmarks (they went up about 35%). They promised to repeal the bush tax cuts (they haven't even voted on it). They promised to get us out of Iraq (they allowed a troop surge after they won).



Pelosi is disgusted and hamstrung by the Senate. Pelosi has done what she can, but with the Senate Dems acting like they have stockhold syndrome nothing can be done.

Reid and Schumer have been...well, awful.

[sheepshead]

How is it thuggish? They were pointing out the rules THEY ALL AGREED TO. The rules clearly stated that if you move your primary date you don't count.

It was thuggish to block a revote because having a revote was possible, WITHIN the rules, and it presented the fairest resolution to an grossly unjust situation.

Punishing the voters of FL & MI, who did nothing wrong, was a stupid and unjust rule.

I'll ask you one more time: why do you not object to the total changing of the rules yesterday to include the delegates from FL & MI? (albeit with half a vote each.) As you just pointed out, the rule was that those states were not supposed to have any delegates.

The rules were changed yesterday in the interest of fairness and party unity. But "fairness" in this instance really translates into providing political cover for Obama. When "fairness" meant allowing the voters of FL & MI to vote, it wasn't a good enough reason.Then as I said before, TAKE IT UP WITH THE STATE DEMOCRATIC PARTIES. THey moved thieir primaries, they pay the penalty. Also, if it was such an unjust rule, WHY DID HILLARY AGREE TO IT? SHe was fine with it until it when against it and ONLY THEN did she rail against it. THats BS. If it was such an unjust rule, it never should have agreed upon. Hillary made her bed, she needs to lie in it.

They cant run a campaign properly. They expect us to let them run the country?

At any level a liberal is a liberal and they all pretty much conduct themselves the same way. Do as I say, not as I do. Anything for power. The rules don't apply to us. What's the point in separating Hillary from that group?

[bobblehead]

When Pelosi and co. were running to take control of the house they promised to drop gas prices (they went up about 70%) they promised to end earmarks (they went up about 35%). They promised to repeal the bush tax cuts (they haven't even voted on it). They promised to get us out of Iraq (they allowed a troop surge after they won).



Pelosi is disgusted and hamstrung by the Senate. Pelosi has done what she can, but with the Senate Dems acting like they have stockhold syndrome nothing can be done.

Reid and Schumer have been...well, awful.

Very true, my very own crooked senator reid...we almost had him gone about 6-8 years ago when ensign ran against him and lost by 300 votes or so. He held on by a thread and a couple years later ensign took the other seat.....Interestingly this shows how strange voters are. Reid is an extreme party partisan liberal politician. Ensign is an extreme conservative (not necessarily partisan, he bags his own party sometimes) yet they both keep winning with the same voting populace. Am I retarded or does this just make no sense?

[Tarlam!]

Am I retarded or does this just make no sense?

Is that a trick question?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Then as I said before, TAKE IT UP WITH THE STATE DEMOCRATIC PARTIES. THey moved thieir primaries, they pay the penalty. Also, if it was such an unjust rule, WHY DID HILLARY AGREE TO IT?

Why do you keep mentioning Hillary? I am questioning YOUR irrational postition.

The RULE was that MI & FL should have no delegates. Do YOU support that rule?

OF COURSE the Democratic party was never going to actually enforce such an impossible rule. That would be suicide.

Yesterday, they predicatably ignored the rule and created delegates for MI based on an interpretation of the vote that HIGHLY favored Obama. All uncommitted votes went to him, and more. And most importantly, the party can now (fraudulently) claim to have honored the voters of MI.

Are you in favor of this breaking of the rules? Do you think this is better than having a revote where voters determine the split of delegates?

Look, it's obvious you aren't going to address any of my questions because there is nothing for you to say. Your thoughts were never any deeper than supporting an outcome that hurt Clinton.

[Tarlam!]

So, who will ultimately get the nomination? I have been trying to understand, but the Dems aren't amking it easy....

[bobblehead]

Am I retarded or does this just make no sense?

Is that a trick question?

Its directly tied to the OR....your opinion of me on all other matters wasn't solicited :)

That doesn't mean it can't be offered though.

[retailguy]

So, who will ultimately get the nomination? I have been trying to understand, but the Dems aren't amking it easy....


60-40 says Obama gets it, UNLESS there is a huge blow up before the convention. Maybe 70-30....

I despise the Clinton's - ALWAYS have, always will, BUT, I'll NEVER count them out again. She's in it until she quits or the delegates vote, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out shes trying to stay in it after that delegate vote too.

[texaspackerbacker]

bhead, the irony regarding your Senator Dirty Harry Reid is that undoubtedly he was put over the top by the Mormon vote--by a bunch of goodhearted people who don't agree with a tenth of his rotten votes, views, and positions.

Right now, the good guys have a big lead in Florida and a small lead in Michigan--at least in part because of the disrespect shown by the Dems for those states. The task for Republican strategists between now and November will be to keep it that way.

Looking at the electoral map, McCain probably cannot win without Florida, and Obama very likely can't win without Michigan--which would give McCain the cushion of being able to lose either Ohio or a couple of western states that he ought to win but could lose.

[cpk1994]

Then as I said before, TAKE IT UP WITH THE STATE DEMOCRATIC PARTIES. THey moved thieir primaries, they pay the penalty. Also, if it was such an unjust rule, WHY DID HILLARY AGREE TO IT?

Why do you keep mentioning Hillary? I am questioning YOUR irrational postition.

The RULE was that MI & FL should have no delegates. Do YOU support that rule?

OF COURSE the Democratic party was never going to actually enforce such an impossible rule. That would be suicide.

Yesterday, they predicatably ignored the rule and created delegates for MI based on an interpretation of the vote that HIGHLY favored Obama. All uncommitted votes went to him, and more. And most importantly, the party can now (fraudulently) claim to have honored the voters of MI.

Are you in favor of this breaking of the rules? Do you think this is better than having a revote where voters determine the split of delegates?

Look, it's obvious you aren't going to address any of my questions because there is nothing for you to say. Your thoughts were never any deeper than supporting an outcome that hurt Clinton.

It has nothing to do with supporting an outcome hurting Clinton. This is about upholding the rules that ALL candidates agreed to before the primaries started. Obama agreed to it. Hillary agreed to it. Hillary said nothing until it became apparenty she would need those two states to win the nomination. Only then did she start pissing and moaning. So, yes I support MI and FL having no delagates because that was a rule set down by the DNC and signed off on by all parties. FL & MI rendered themselves null and void by moving their primaries. THey broke the rule, they pay the penalty. Voters have a problem with it? Tough shit.
As for a revote , no, I don't support it becuase it upholds the breaking of the rules by the Florida and Michigan State Democratic Parties.

Their are two reasons why the deal was made:

1. To try to finally get Hillary to STFU.

2. To avoid a potential and explosive showdown between party leaders and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. The L.A. Riots will look like a pie social next to this if these two get involved.

Obama didn't have to do a thing(and shouldn't have) becuase he had the rules on his side. The only reason he did is to try to unify the party becuase he knows the longer squabble goes, the less likely his chances of winning in the general election.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Hillary agreed to it. Hillary said nothing until it became apparenty she would need those two states to win the nomination. Only then did she start pissing and moaning.

The plan that Howard Dean championed was grossly unfair and stupid. It supported Iowa & New Hampshire's privileged position, and these states are so critical that no candidate had the practical option of objecting. Their silence means nothing. All the candidates simply kept their mouths shut, and everyone nervously hoped that MI & FL wouldn't matter.

Of course Clinton only complained when MI & FL became critical - but so what? Do you think any other candidate would have behaved differently? And the question of what the candidates want is irrelevant, our concern is to have the most fair and democratic process, regardless of the interest of different candidates.


I support MI and FL having no delagates because that was a rule set down by the DNC and signed off on by all parties.

You are naive and not dealing with reality. I doubt you could find a single person connected with the Democratic Party who would go along with such a foolish move.


Their are two reasons why the deal was made:

1. To try to finally get Hillary to STFU.

2. To avoid a potential and explosive showdown between party leaders and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. The L.A. Riots will look like a pie social next to this if these two get involved.

Hillary Clinton, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton had nothing whatsoever to do with the deal struck this past weekend.

You are arguing from a postition of ignorance.


Obama didn't have to do a thing(and shouldn't have) becuase he had the rules on his side.

Neither Clinton or Obama camps had the rules on their side. Obama had the votes on his side. The "deal" cut had zero to do with the rules, it totally violated the rules.

The available options were to have a revote or a spectacle such as we witnessed last weekend. You detach yourself from reality and say you are above supporting either approach. Yet you didn't get upset by what happened last weekend. That's because you are not a thinking person, you are just reacting to your deep hatred of one of the candidates.

[cpk1994]

You are the one dealing from ignorance if you think that Jackson and Sharpton would stay quiet if the noimination was taken away from Obama by changing the rules. I guarnatee if the party had voted to fully reinstate the delagates Shapton and Jackson would scream bloody murder. Everyone, even an idiot like Howard Dean could see that coming down 5th avenue.

[cpk1994]

ALso, if the roles were reversed, I still would say the same thing. Rules are rules. FL and Michigan moved their primaries, they should pay the penalty. BOth candidates had a chance to speak up, but didn't and that is there problem. I hate both candidates, so your assumption is not only wrong, but asinine.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You are the one dealing from ignorance if you think that Jackson and Sharpton would stay quiet if the noimination was taken away from Obama by changing the rules. I guarnatee if the party had voted to fully reinstate the delagates Shapton and Jackson would scream bloody murder. Everyone, even an idiot like Howard Dean could see that coming down 5th avenue.

First of all, settling the MI-FL controversy with a revote was WITHIN THE RULES. The rule was that the original primary would not count. There was no rule against rescheduling a new primary. In fact, the DNC encouraged such a resolution, they knew that the delegates would ultimately have to be seated somehow.

But you seem uninterested in such facts and details.

I have no comment on your theory that the rules were changed last weekend to favor black people. This can neither be proved or disproved, if you see it that way, so be it.

[bobblehead]

Obama didn't have to do a thing(and shouldn't have) becuase he had the rules on his side. The only reason he did is to try to unify the party becuase he knows the longer squabble goes, the less likely his chances of winning in the general election.

I agree with you about rules are rules, object beforehand, or shush later, but one little point I'd like to make. If Obama is compromising to unify the party, he is a bigger fool than GW was when he passed medicare part D to pacify the left. We all saw how that worked out, dems wrapped their arms around GW, proclaimed him a compassionate conservative and we all got along.....NOT!!!

You can't compromise with someone who's sole goal is to beat you at any/all costs. Hillary wants that nomination, and her next step will be the rules comittee, and after that she will sue the DNC in court. If neither of those work, she will do everything she can to ruin obama's campaign (while pretending she is behind him) so she can win in 4 years.

As a rule, the idea of putting aside partisan politics is a joke, it ain't happenin'. Both sides desire power and will slam the other side relentlessly on any issue they can. Oh, their may be a compliment thrown around once in awhile when someone completely crosses party lines (lieberman..war) but trust me, when the rubber meets the road, its game on.

[Harlan Huckleby]

ALso, if the roles were reversed, I still would say the same thing. Rules are rules. FL and Michigan moved their primaries, they should pay the penalty. BOth candidates had a chance to speak up, but didn't and that is there problem. I hate both candidates, so your assumption is not only wrong, but asinine.

I never suggested that you supported either candidate.

But you can hardly say a word about the topic without expressing all events in terms of Clinton's evil intentions and actions. When in fact her behavior or interests have nothing to do with the need for a decent process.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If Obama is compromising to unify the party

Obama hasn't done any compromising. All he did was block a revote that was legal under the rules. And the alternative was dirty dealing that favored him, as we saw last weekend.

[bobblehead]

I was replying to what cpk said, I'm actually not sure if he is compromising or not. I did point out on another thread that he managed to get delegates from a state he did not recieve ONE vote in. That would probably point towards he isn't compromising, but benefitting.

[hoosier]

Methinks Harlan has lost his sense of humor. :cry:

[Harlan Huckleby]

Methinks Harlan has lost his sense of humor. :cry:

Nothing funny about the FL-MI fiasco.

The Obama supporters cried "rules are rules" in opposing a democratic resolution in March. And then they turned around and supported a totally arbitrary move last weekend to award Obama more delegates than he earned through voters, and to paper-over the dirt.

You've accused me of opposing Obama out of sour grapes. This is untrue, I prefer McCain. But the last straw for me with the Dem lefties was their oppostion to revotes for MI-FL.

[hoosier]

Methinks Harlan has lost his sense of humor. :cry:

Nothing funny about the FL-MI fiasco.

The Obama supporters cried "rules are rules" in opposing a democratic resolution in March. And then they turned around and supported a totally arbitrary move last weekend to award Obama more delegates than he earned through voters, and to paper-over the dirt.

You've accused me of opposing Obama out of sour grapes. This is untrue, I prefer McCain. But the last straw for me with the Dem lefties was their oppostion to revotes for MI-FL.

I think I remember you yourself opposing revotes a while ago. I forget if it was out of principle or because you thought it was impractical. Probably impractical. So Obama's supporters have gone from opposing revotes to supporting a resolution that favors their candidate. Hillary's campaign has followed a similar trajectory. I mean she has been similarly calculating in her proposals, and she even began calculating earlier than Obama as soon as it became clear that she'd need full delegate counts from both states. I really don't understand why you're blaming all of this on the Obama campaign, except that you seem to be blaming them for everything. When Obama campaign calculates it's cynical, corrupt and malignant, but when Hillary calculates that's just how politics works?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I never was against the revotes. I just acknowledged the reality that they weren't totally fair, and that there was a legitimate argument against them.

As far as calculating: I see all the candidates and campaigns as lawerly. I have never said any candidate has been more devious than any other. Look to the Huffington Post for those theories.

If I were an Obama supporter, I would have supported revotes. The other options are just too crazy.

Obama gained a lot by blocking revotes, it nearly sealed his nomination. But the price was he alienated some people in his party. Count me among them.

[hoosier]

I never was against the revotes. I just acknowledged the reality that they weren't totally fair, and that there was a legitimate argument against them.

As far as calculating: I see all the candidates and campaigns as lawerly. I have never said any candidate has been more devious than any other. Look to the Huffington Post for those theories.

If I were an Obama supporter, I would have supported revotes. The other options are just too crazy.

Obama gained a lot by blocking revotes, it nearly sealed his nomination. But the price was he alienated some people in his party. Count me among them.


Nah, you've been alienated for some time now, I doubt MI/FL changed that too much. My hunch, which is admittedly backed up by nothing substantial, is that most Hillary supporters will in the long run lose their vitriol and choose party loyalty over personalism or whatever other factors are motivating them for Hillary and/or against Obama. I'm no longer so sure about you, though. :P

[bobblehead]

gotta agree with you there hoosier, I was one who was never gonna vote for mccain, but now that I realize just how left and socialist obama is, I'm reconsidering. I wouldn't care if I thought he would have trouble moving his agenda, but i don't think he will, the dems will unite behind him big time.

I don't give a rats ass about rev. wright (he did his time in the military, served his country, he is entitled to feel disenfranchised), but I do care about radical UN taxes, doubling capital gains taxes and stuff like that.

[texaspackerbacker]

Harlan, did you see this lady, Harriet Christian, a NY Dem who supports Hillary, that was ranting on TV today?

She said, among other things, God DAMN the Democratic Party. She's voting for McCain. Harlan, you aren't by any chance, a sixtyish lady with a heavy New York accent, are you? Harriet, Harlan, it sorta sounds the same.

[retailguy]

Nah, you've been alienated for some time now, I doubt MI/FL changed that too much. My hunch, which is admittedly backed up by nothing substantial, is that most Hillary supporters will in the long run lose their vitriol and choose party loyalty over personalism or whatever other factors are motivating them for Hillary and/or against Obama. I'm no longer so sure about you, though. :P

I realize that you and Harlan have quite a debate going over this, but your point above piqued my interest. I used to think that this was the case, but the longer this goes on the less likely it is to happen.

Losing is hard enough, but when there are feelings of bitterness, which there have to be in Mi & Fl, among others, people do strange things. I'm not sure Obama can win without at least one or the other.

This whole battle may turn into a bigger deal than most realize before it's over. Don't count out the Clintons. Many have made that mistake.

[bobblehead]

the real beneficiery of all this is mccain, he could NEVER win the republican base, he can only get their vote by an extreme liberal getting nominated, and he can only win because now too many liberals are bitter and will stay home or vote for mccain.

[texaspackerbacker]

Speaking of counting out the Clintons, Bill was on TV today responding to the Vanity Fair article accusing him of philandering without doing much to hide it, said that TODAY might be his last day ever on the campaign trail.

That has several implications. First of all, he may know that Hillary is pulling out after the South Dakota and Montana primaries tomorrow. Secondly, he may know for sure that her getting the VP nomination is not gonna happen. And third, he may be implying that if Hillary is still in the picture in 2012 or 2016, he won't be with her--divorce. That would be a shame, as the two of them deserve each other so much.

[hoosier]

the real beneficiery of all this is mccain, he could NEVER win the republican base, he can only get their vote by an extreme liberal getting nominated, and he can only win because now too many liberals are bitter and will stay home or vote for mccain.

Neither of the Dem candidates are "extreme liberals," whatever that means. Hillary is a hawk on foreign policy, Obama is fairly centrist (compared to most Democrats) on most issues, and--as someone suggested earlier--is more likely to disappoint his base among the Left than anything.

Retail, you're probably right that if both Michigan and Florida go to McCain because of lingering bad feelings, then Obama is in serious trouble in November. Not because he's too extreme, as bobblehead suggested, but because the number of states in play for presidential elections these days is so limited.

[texaspackerbacker]

Bhead, it depends what you mean by "win the Republican base".

Obviously he won't all or the usual extremely large percentage a Republican would get. I think it's safe to say, though, that there are enough pragmatists that he will get 80-90% of them.

Combine that with the healthy share of moderates, as well as some kind of a slice of disenchanted Dems, and I'd say it's looking very good. I doubt that a lot of Hillary supporters will actually vote for McCain, but I'd expect a helluva lot of them to just stay home.

[texaspackerbacker]

the real beneficiery of all this is mccain, he could NEVER win the republican base, he can only get their vote by an extreme liberal getting nominated, and he can only win because now too many liberals are bitter and will stay home or vote for mccain.

Neither of the Dem candidates are "extreme liberals," whatever that means. Hillary is a hawk on foreign policy, Obama is fairly centrist (compared to most Democrats) on most issues, and--as someone suggested earlier--is more likely to disappoint his base among the Left than anything.

Retail, you're probably right that if both Michigan and Florida go to McCain because of lingering bad feelings, then Obama is in serious trouble in November. Not because he's too extreme, as bobblehead suggested, but because the number of states in play for presidential elections these days is so limited.

Hoosier, Hillary may have a few (damn few) issues where she is not an extremist, but Obama is an all out Marxist.

Are you aware of the ONLY piece of legislation he authored in his time in the Senate? How could even a left winger like you possibly defend Obama's showcase item, the Global Poverty Act? And that's just the tip of the iceberg. It is not just empty rhetoric to say he is the vilest America-hater to come along since at least McGovern. It also is no understatement that he is labeled even by the mainstream media as the most liberal person in the Senate.

[hoosier]

the real beneficiery of all this is mccain, he could NEVER win the republican base, he can only get their vote by an extreme liberal getting nominated, and he can only win because now too many liberals are bitter and will stay home or vote for mccain.

Neither of the Dem candidates are "extreme liberals," whatever that means. Hillary is a hawk on foreign policy, Obama is fairly centrist (compared to most Democrats) on most issues, and--as someone suggested earlier--is more likely to disappoint his base among the Left than anything.

Retail, you're probably right that if both Michigan and Florida go to McCain because of lingering bad feelings, then Obama is in serious trouble in November. Not because he's too extreme, as bobblehead suggested, but because the number of states in play for presidential elections these days is so limited.

Hoosier, Hillary may have a few (damn few) issues where she is not an extremist, but Obama is an all out Marxist.

Are you aware of the ONLY piece of legislation he authored in his time in the Senate? How could even a left winger like you possibly defend Obama's showcase item, the Global Poverty Act? And that's just the tip of the iceberg. It is not just empty rhetoric to say he is the vilest America-hater to come along since at least McGovern. It also is no understatement that he is labeled even by the mainstream media as the most liberal person in the Senate.

You mean that bill he coauthored with Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator from Nebraska? :lol: Obama is as much a Marxist as JFK or LBJ. If you can't or won't differentiate between someone who opposes capitalism on principle and someone who tries to smooth out capitalism's rougher edges, there's no point in having these conversations with you.

For you the world is divided into two camps: those who angelically think the American way of life and everything that comes with it (McDonalds, Walmart, etc.) is heaven on earth, and those who demonically oppose the American way with every last ounce of their strength.

[hoosier]

the real beneficiery of all this is mccain, he could NEVER win the republican base, he can only get their vote by an extreme liberal getting nominated, and he can only win because now too many liberals are bitter and will stay home or vote for mccain.

Neither of the Dem candidates are "extreme liberals," whatever that means. Hillary is a hawk on foreign policy, Obama is fairly centrist (compared to most Democrats) on most issues, and--as someone suggested earlier--is more likely to disappoint his base among the Left than anything.

Retail, you're probably right that if both Michigan and Florida go to McCain because of lingering bad feelings, then Obama is in serious trouble in November. Not because he's too extreme, as bobblehead suggested, but because the number of states in play for presidential elections these days is so limited.

Hoosier, Hillary may have a few (damn few) issues where she is not an extremist, but Obama is an all out Marxist.

Are you aware of the ONLY piece of legislation he authored in his time in the Senate? How could even a left winger like you possibly defend Obama's showcase item, the Global Poverty Act? And that's just the tip of the iceberg. It is not just empty rhetoric to say he is the vilest America-hater to come along since at least McGovern. It also is no understatement that he is labeled even by the mainstream media as the most liberal person in the Senate.

You wouldn't be able to provide a source for this, now, would you?

[bobblehead]

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

here is a source....the global poverty act is an extremely liberal program and pointing out that a republican co authored it doesn't prove otherwise...its a program to take 845 BILLION extra dollars over upcoming years and hand it to the UN...an orginization that has proven where it stands. He also is for drivers liscences for illegals and raising capital gains taxes from 15% to 28% despite every study ever known to the USA shows this is damaging to the economy. I could go on for more specifics on his stances, but I shouldn't have to. Will meet with foreign leaders without preconditions is just one more that jumps to mind.

[bobblehead]

One more example from his own website:

Plan for a Clean Energy Future
“Well, I don't believe that climate change is just an issue that's convenient to bring up during a campaign. I believe it's one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation. That's why I've fought successfully in the Senate to increase our investment in renewable fuels. That's why I reached across the aisle to come up with a plan to raise our fuel standards… And I didn't just give a speech about it in front of some environmental audience in California. I went to Detroit, I stood in front of a group of automakers, and I told them that when I am president, there will be no more excuses — we will help them retool their factories, but they will have to make cars that use less oil.”

— Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, October 14, 2007

Telling a private industry what product they must make, which basically is saying to the people I will decide what is available to you.

He could just let gas prices rise until the demand for yugo's is high enough to justify their production...believe me, if people want a 50mpg car, the automakers will provide it, but they can't mysteriously make it happen, it takes dollars for research that will have to be paid back by market factors.....except in a socialist nation.

[hoosier]

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

here is a source....the global poverty act is an extremely liberal program and pointing out that a republican co authored it doesn't prove otherwise...its a program to take 845 BILLION extra dollars over upcoming years and hand it to the UN...an orginization that has proven where it stands. He also is for drivers liscences for illegals and raising capital gains taxes from 15% to 28% despite every study ever known to the USA shows this is damaging to the economy. I could go on for more specifics on his stances, but I shouldn't have to. Will meet with foreign leaders without preconditions is just one more that jumps to mind.

Thanks for providing a source for the "most liberal" ranking. Interesting to see that Obama shifted from slightly left of center in his party (16th and 10th previous two years) to most liberal this year. If the Global Poverty Act is really an "extremely liberal program" as you say, does that mean that Richard Lugar is a closet liberal or just extremely confused? :P

[texaspackerbacker]

the real beneficiery of all this is mccain, he could NEVER win the republican base, he can only get their vote by an extreme liberal getting nominated, and he can only win because now too many liberals are bitter and will stay home or vote for mccain.

Neither of the Dem candidates are "extreme liberals," whatever that means. Hillary is a hawk on foreign policy, Obama is fairly centrist (compared to most Democrats) on most issues, and--as someone suggested earlier--is more likely to disappoint his base among the Left than anything.

Retail, you're probably right that if both Michigan and Florida go to McCain because of lingering bad feelings, then Obama is in serious trouble in November. Not because he's too extreme, as bobblehead suggested, but because the number of states in play for presidential elections these days is so limited.

Hoosier, Hillary may have a few (damn few) issues where she is not an extremist, but Obama is an all out Marxist.

Are you aware of the ONLY piece of legislation he authored in his time in the Senate? How could even a left winger like you possibly defend Obama's showcase item, the Global Poverty Act? And that's just the tip of the iceberg. It is not just empty rhetoric to say he is the vilest America-hater to come along since at least McGovern. It also is no understatement that he is labeled even by the mainstream media as the most liberal person in the Senate.

You wouldn't be able to provide a source for this, now, would you?

I'm shocked you hadn't heard. This really seems like common knowledge. I typed "Obama most liberal senator" in Yahoo search, and a veritable plethora of links came up. I figured you would find the one below particularly credible, though.

firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/31/625886.aspx

BTW, Hoosier, true to form, you wimped out on defending the leftist position on this Global Poverty ACT thing. How could you or anybody possibly support anything so horrendous?

[hoosier]

One more example from his own website:

Plan for a Clean Energy Future
“Well, I don't believe that climate change is just an issue that's convenient to bring up during a campaign. I believe it's one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation. That's why I've fought successfully in the Senate to increase our investment in renewable fuels. That's why I reached across the aisle to come up with a plan to raise our fuel standards… And I didn't just give a speech about it in front of some environmental audience in California. I went to Detroit, I stood in front of a group of automakers, and I told them that when I am president, there will be no more excuses — we will help them retool their factories, but they will have to make cars that use less oil.”

— Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, October 14, 2007

Telling a private industry what product they must make, which basically is saying to the people I will decide what is available to you.

He could just let gas prices rise until the demand for yugo's is high enough to justify their production...believe me, if people want a 50mpg car, the automakers will provide it, but they can't mysteriously make it happen, it takes dollars for research that will have to be paid back by market factors.....except in a socialist nation.

The US government is "telling" auto manufacturers what to make as we speak under the Dubya administration, by setting automotive standards. Obama's not going talking about doing anything to upset the cart, he's just suggesting that his admin might be less lenient than Dubya's. Big deal. You conservatives get so bent out of shape every time someone talks about the federal government playing a role in our daily lives, but what you are never willing to face is that the federal government grew far more under your conversative icon Reagan than it had under any post-war president.

[LL2]

I love the title of this thread. I hope them Dems keep imploding all the way through November.

[bobblehead]

I would consider Luger and Hagel wrong on this issue...incidently hagel is the 37th most conservative senater out of how many?? like 45?

Simply pointing out that a republican is voting for something in no way proves its conservative merits. Gov. Kenny Guinn sued the state legislature in nevada to raise taxes without the constitutional requirement of a 66% vote. Rudy is pro choice. Tom Daschle was vehomently pro life and a very liberal democrat.

And being ranked 10th and 16th most liberal in the democratic party is very liberal when you consider that there are more than 55 members in the senate. His average ranking over 3 years is still top 10 most liberal, and he is running for office NOW, not 2 years ago.

[texaspackerbacker]

One more example from his own website:

Plan for a Clean Energy Future
“Well, I don't believe that climate change is just an issue that's convenient to bring up during a campaign. I believe it's one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation. That's why I've fought successfully in the Senate to increase our investment in renewable fuels. That's why I reached across the aisle to come up with a plan to raise our fuel standards… And I didn't just give a speech about it in front of some environmental audience in California. I went to Detroit, I stood in front of a group of automakers, and I told them that when I am president, there will be no more excuses — we will help them retool their factories, but they will have to make cars that use less oil.”

— Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, October 14, 2007

Telling a private industry what product they must make, which basically is saying to the people I will decide what is available to you.

He could just let gas prices rise until the demand for yugo's is high enough to justify their production...believe me, if people want a 50mpg car, the automakers will provide it, but they can't mysteriously make it happen, it takes dollars for research that will have to be paid back by market factors.....except in a socialist nation.

The US government is "telling" auto manufacturers what to make as we speak under the Dubya administration, by setting automotive standards. Obama's not going talking about doing anything to upset the cart, he's just suggesting that his admin might be less lenient than Dubya's. Big deal. You conservatives get so bent out of shape every time someone talks about the federal government playing a role in our daily lives, but what you are never willing to face is that the federal government grew far more under your conversative icon Reagan than it had under any post-war president.

Whose fault is that--either the auto regulation thing or the Reagan-era growth of government? Obviously the Dem/lib controlled Congress. While Obama may be the worst, he is far from the only closet socialist on the Dem side. He's damn near out of the closet, though, if you go by his words and votes.

[bobblehead]

Not sure what your point is on the gov't growing more under reagan...you mean he cut taxes and the economy grew a lot, therefore revenues came in much higher and the democratic congress found ways to spend the money?? Your right, gratz.

As far as them telling auto makers what to do, I don't think I ever heard bush or a republican led congress advocate raising the standards that were in place when they got there, maintaining the status quo, yes, and since the cars are there now, its no big deal, but i am still against it.

One other detail, how are you measuring it grew more under reagan...real dollars, percent of gnp, dollars according to the index?? That kind of blanket statement can be interpreted a few ways and I can't really argue it unless I know the basis. It has probably grown much more under bush than reagan.

[Harlan Huckleby]

most Hillary supporters will in the long run lose their vitriol and choose party loyalty over personalism or whatever other factors are motivating them for Hillary and/or against Obama. I'm no longer so sure about you, though. :P

Of course you are correct, but as Bill would say, it depends on the meaning of the word "most". If 8% of Hillary supporters think like me, McCain has a good shot to beat the heavy Democratic tide next fall.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Harlan, did you see this lady, Harriet Christian, a NY Dem who supports Hillary, that was ranting on TV today?

Ya, she's a real piece of work, a woman after my own heart. I expect she'll get a prime time speaking slot at the "Democrats for McCain" convention I am organizing.

I was OK with her, except that comment about the black man versus a white woman. Didn't quite follow why only a black man could beat a white woman.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I've been thinking about the coming campaign in comparison to Bush-Kerry.

I thought the republican attacks on Kerry were 100% sleazy, the Swift Boat stuff was lousy. You can pull partisians out of any group of people and smear a person.

I expect the Republicans will be worse against Obama, but the difference is that his association with Black Liberation ideology, as expressed by his church and hinted-at by his wife, are legitimate political targets. It will be impossible to deflect the attacks as merely dirty tricks.

I don't know how liberal BO really is. Just a guess is that he is mainstream enough to be president. Being on the left of the Senate means little, its a very centrist body. The extremists are found in the House, where they are elected in local districts.

I AM disturbed that he is supported financially by left-wing people who I don't like. I have more trouble with their style than their politics, but I also have issue disagreements. It is impossible for Obama to say he is a centrist when he is beholden to the left, regardless of his own views.

I expect Obama will win the presidency. But McCain's chances are looking better lately.

[texaspackerbacker]

Harlan, did you see this lady, Harriet Christian, a NY Dem who supports Hillary, that was ranting on TV today?

Ya, she's a real piece of work, a woman after my own heart. I expect she'll get a prime time speaking slot at the "Democrats for McCain" convention I am organizing.

I was OK with her, except that comment about the black man versus a white woman. Didn't quite follow why only a black man could beat a white woman.

I think what she meant is that Hillary would have been much more successful playing the gender card if the more powerful race card wasn't already on the table.

[sheepshead]

I've been thinking about the coming campaign in comparison to Bush-Kerry.

I thought the republican attacks on Kerry were 100% sleazy, the Swift Boat stuff was lousy. You can pull partisians out of any group of people and smear a person.

I expect the Republicans will be worse against Obama, but the difference is that his association with Black Liberation ideology, as expressed by his church and hinted-at by his wife, are legitimate political targets. It will be impossible to deflect the attacks as merely dirty tricks.

I don't know how liberal BO really is. Just a guess is that he is mainstream enough to be president. Being on the left of the Senate means little, its a very centrist body. The extremists are found in the House, where they are elected in local districts.

I AM disturbed that he is supported financially by left-wing people who I don't like. I have more trouble with their style than their politics, but I also have issue disagreements. It is impossible for Obama to say he is a centrist when he is beholden to the left, regardless of his own views.

I expect Obama will win the presidency. But McCain's chances are looking better lately.


The Kerry attacks were justified. Do you know what medals GHW Bush or Bob Dole won in WWII? Neither do I and I voted for both guys. Point is Kerry wouldn't shut up about his damn Vietnam days. The guys that saw the charade back then were sick of it. He had it coming and it was great to see concerned citizens slam the MSM and get the truth out. Scroll up for most liberal. Its documented everywhere. He''s left of that guy from Vermont (I think) who is a self proclaimed socialist.

Obama , cannot win in November, there are certain voter blocks that are essential and he wont come close to winning those: Hispanics, white southerners, moderates (when the RNC gets done with him), middle aged women. working class non-union whites. I look for a 45-46 state McCain landslide. He should win Wisc, Minn and Mich to name a few.

note: Bernie Sanders - Vermont

[texaspackerbacker]

I've been thinking about the coming campaign in comparison to Bush-Kerry.

I thought the republican attacks on Kerry were 100% sleazy, the Swift Boat stuff was lousy. You can pull partisians out of any group of people and smear a person.

I expect the Republicans will be worse against Obama, but the difference is that his association with Black Liberation ideology, as expressed by his church and hinted-at by his wife, are legitimate political targets. It will be impossible to deflect the attacks as merely dirty tricks.

I don't know how liberal BO really is. Just a guess is that he is mainstream enough to be president. Being on the left of the Senate means little, its a very centrist body. The extremists are found in the House, where they are elected in local districts.

I AM disturbed that he is supported financially by left-wing people who I don't like. I have more trouble with their style than their politics, but I also have issue disagreements. It is impossible for Obama to say he is a centrist when he is beholden to the left, regardless of his own views.

I expect Obama will win the presidency. But McCain's chances are looking better lately.

My wife nags me about liberal BO all the time. Right Guard usually fixes it, though.

First of all, Harlan, and this is more for people who aren't already smart enough to oppose the guy, Obama REALLY IS about as extreme as it gets in terms of selling out America--the Global Poverty Act, environmental crap, opposition to security, opposition to interventionist foreign policy, his statement about Americans not being able to eat as much as we want, keep our thermostats where we want, drive SUVs, etc.

Secondly, you STILL are complaining about the Swift Boaters. They were CORRECT--so much so that Kerry couldn't even respond to them. He really DID phony up his three Purple Hearts because that is what it took to get sent home. Similar truth squad-type attacks on Obama will undoubtedly be disparaged by libs too, but that won't diminish the truth of them--and I bet there iare a helluva lot more skeletons in Obama's closet than in Kerry's. Wright, Ayres, Pflaggert, Michelle, all of that would have been discounted by the media as Swift-Boating if the Republicans had done it. Fortunately, it came from Hillary, so at least some of the liberal media reported it credibly.

[sheepshead]

Harlen here's a book for you too: helps put the media in perspective.

To Set The Record Straight: How Swift Boat Veterans, POWs and the New Media Defeated John Kerry (Paperback)

ISBN 13: 9780979984105
ISBN 10: 0979984106

[bobblehead]

hmmm...we changed directions....what about the completely ficticious rather report about bush??

Again, I hate this stuff as it sways us from the issues. I don't care about michelle obama hating whitey, I honestly don't, but his stances on the issues disturbs me. Mainly the capital gains thing. I mean, he will raise the tax to 28% then 3 years later he will complain that those dang companies keep moving out of america. He'll complain that the economy can't move forward because unethical people are sending their capital to other countries stimulating those economies.

We should be trying to make america a haven for capital investment, not punish it. You can hate the rich all you want, but don't whine when they export your job cuz you continually tried to punish them.

[sheepshead]

hmmm...we changed directions....what about the completely ficticious rather report about bush??

Again, I hate this stuff as it sways us from the issues. I don't care about michelle obama hating whitey, I honestly don't, but his stances on the issues disturbs me. Mainly the capital gains thing. I mean, he will raise the tax to 28% then 3 years later he will complain that those dang companies keep moving out of america. He'll complain that the economy can't move forward because unethical people are sending their capital to other countries stimulating those economies.

We should be trying to make america a haven for capital investment, not punish it. You can hate the rich all you want, but don't whine when they export your job cuz you continually tried to punish them.

Before we can eliminate him on the issues, we are entitled to eliminate him as a person, as a man. On his resume (or lack there of). Just because radical liberals have nominated him doesnt mean the rest of us arent allowed to question his background and where his head's at. Which we intend to do for the next six months. It's just getting started, trust me, the RNC has much more money than the reported Obama war chest. It's just in a different bucket.

[hoosier]

Not sure what your point is on the gov't growing more under reagan...you mean he cut taxes and the economy grew a lot, therefore revenues came in much higher and the democratic congress found ways to spend the money?? Your right, gratz.

One other detail, how are you measuring it grew more under reagan...real dollars, percent of gnp, dollars according to the index?? That kind of blanket statement can be interpreted a few ways and I can't really argue it unless I know the basis. It has probably grown much more under bush than reagan.

I'm talking about two things: federal spending and programmatic/institutional expansion.

Spending: the idea that government spending grew under Reagan because of increased revenues is absurd. Reagan's budgets were never grounded in fiscal reality. He redefined the notion of deficit spending (I say "he," not Congress, because it was Reagan who was proposing budgets and, let's see, how many times did Congress go against him in his first term and a half???). Here are some numbers from the (conservative) Cato Institute from a 1983 article:


Table 1
Year Federal Spending Percent Change Percent Change Since 1961
1961 $97.8 - -
1965 118.4 21 21
1969 183.6 55 88
1973 245.6 34 151
1977 400.5 63 310
1981 657.2 64 572
1982 est. 742.3 13 659
1983 est. 827.0 11 746

(Source: Budget of the United States Government, 1983; Congressional Budget Office estimates)

Spending has already risen more than 500 percent since 1961, and it will undoubtedly rise more than 700 percent by 1983. The increase has been continuous in both Democratic and Republican administrations, with the budget roughly doubling under Kennedy-Johnson and more than doubling again under Nixon-Ford. The 64 percent increase in four years under President Carter was only slightly more rapid than the 117 percent in eight years under his Republican predecessors. Of course, inflation accounts for some of the rise, as Table 2 demonstrates.

Table 2
Year Federal Spending (constant 1981 Dollars) Percent Change Percent Change Since 1961
1961 297.3 - -
1965 341.3 15 15
1969 455.5 34 53
1973 502.6 10 69
1977 601.1 20 102
1981 657.2 9 121
1982 est. 690.6 5 132
1983 est. 719.7 4 142

(Source: Budget of the United States Government, 1983; Congressional Budget Office estimates; Bureau of Labor Statistics)

While the rise in spending seems not quite so dramatic when we account for inflation, the fact remains that federal spending has more than doubled in real terms since the Kennedy administration, and the increases are not significantly different today from their earlier levels. Indeed, the real increases between 1981 and 1983 are likely to be larger than the increase from 1980 to 1981, President Carter's last full budget.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=879

Program expansion: here is an excerpt from a self-described Libertarian blogger who presents himself as a purist living in the midst of Democratic and Republican proponents of Big Government. You might decide to disqualify his POV on the grounds that he hates whoever's in power, but he does raise some interesting points:


Enter Ronald Reagan – a man that personifies the deceptive façades and realities of the modern Republican Party. Reagan began acquiring his undeserved good reputation as a champion of liberty in the 1950s, when General Electric hired him to tour the country and talk about free enterprise – a topic that neither Reagan, a devout New Dealer and former president of the Screen Actors Guild Union, nor General Electric, a top player in the military-industrial complex, had a true, heart-felt passion for or interest in.

As governor of California, Reagan signed into law the largest tax increase in state history as well as the most egregious modern gun control law in state history – the 1967 Mulford Act, authored by a Republican, which prohibited the carrying of firearms on one’s person or in a vehicle or on a public street. The California budget grew at a much faster rate under Reagan than under either Democrat Pat Brown before him or Democrat Jerry Brown after him.

As president, Reagan increased government spending through the roof. Federal spending totaled $590 billion in fiscal year 1980; by 1988, Reagan’s last year, it rose to $1.14 trillion. Under Reagan, the national debt climbed from less than $800 billion to more than $2 trillion. Although some people like to attribute this to "defense spending," that’s largely a myth, and irrelevant to the question of sheer government size, anyway.

Reagan cut taxes on high-income brackets, but he also dramatically raised payroll taxes, causing tax revenues to go up. At any rate, his spending nearly doubled the size of government. Since all spending increases are tax increases, whether in the form of direct taxation or inflation, Reagan must be seen as a tax raiser. Unfortunately, this doesn’t register with all conservatives, who learned from Reagan the neo-Keynsian mantra that "deficits don’t matter."

Reagan also pumped up the War on Drugs. The number of drug offenders in federal prison rose from about six thousand in 1980 to more than twenty-two thousand in 1988; the percentage of inmates in federal prison for drug offenses increased from 25% to 44% during Reagan’s two terms.

In spite of his lip service to free trade, Reagan was an ardent protectionist who strengthened the fraudulent Export-Import Bank and imposed horrendous tariffs and quotas on everything from electronics to clothespins to motorcycles to sugar. Despite his getting credit for deregulation, he only continued what Carter had begun. Despite his promises to eliminate the Departments of Energy and Education as well as the Selective Service and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, President Reagan abolished none of these, or any other major bureaucracies, and actually inflated them, for the most part.

Reagan was also a shameless interventionist, bombing Libya, militarily assisting both Iran and its enemy Iraq, illegally supporting thugs in Latin America, and invading Grenada. Despite the Cold War mythology, the USSR fell under the weight of central planning, not because of Reagan. It is absurd to credit Reagan’s central planning as a paragon of economic liberty that defeated Communism by example, or to think his militarism kept Americans safe.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory40.html

[bobblehead]

I'll say one thing to start off and thats that you got me wrong. I mostly agree with said libertarian blogger (economically), and thought I had made my point of view very clear throughout. The difference is that I still think republicans are far the lesser of two evils. I guess my flippant remard about reagan undid about 5 hours worth of posts I made in the past.

That being said if I'm reading your chart 2 right, it is putting all dollars in terms of 1981 dollars and it shows that growth dropped to single digits under reagan. That being said I have always bagged on reagan for threepoints, one is raising payroll taxes as the blogger points out, next is outspending his own good policies, and last is signing the original amnesty act into law in 1986.

That being said his deficit spending had an explicit purpose, he was fighting a war of economy with the communist soviet union, basically proving we could handle more debt (through military spending) before collapsing than they could....we won. Problem is that now people like bush think eternal deficits aren't a problem...I've been very clear, i think they are.
sidenote: he also allowed more spending than he wanted because it was a negotiation to allow him all the military spending.

Revenues under reagan (to the gov't) went from 599 billion to 909 billion. Thats a big increase. You also have to acknowledge that when reagan took office inflation was 12 percent and interest rates were thru the roof. He had a big job in front of him. By 1983 inflation had dropped to 3.8.

Now, all that being said, I agree with you that often republicans get carried away with reagan, he was good, but gingrich was better.

Problem for reagan, and bush, and the next president is that a lot of the budget and its increases are built in already and nobody is doing anything about it. Something like 75% of the budget is predetermined already and only about 25% is discretionary spending.

[swede]

you STILL are complaining about the Swift Boaters. They were CORRECT--so much so that Kerry couldn't even respond to them. He really DID phony up his three Purple Hearts because that is what it took to get sent home. Similar truth squad-type attacks on Obama will undoubtedly be disparaged by libs too, but that won't diminish the truth of them--

Kerry got two of his Purple Hearts within 24 hours of each other! In one instance he had been blamming his big machine gun into the river bank for a less than a clear purpose when a piece of metal ricocheted back and cut him on the arm. One band-aid and one more purple heart to add to the legend that was Kerry in Viet Nam.

I like the term "swiftboating". But to me it doesn't mean an untruthful attack. It means having the truth suddenly shoved into your face like a cream pie.

[texaspackerbacker]

Amen, Swede.

One of the primary "Swiftboaters" was the doctor who "treated" Kerry.

[hoosier]

That being said if I'm reading your chart 2 right, it is putting all dollars in terms of 1981 dollars and it shows that growth dropped to single digits under reagan. That being said I have always bagged on reagan for threepoints, one is raising payroll taxes as the blogger points out, next is outspending his own good policies, and last is signing the original amnesty act into law in 1986.

It shows that increases in federal spending "dropped" to single digits under Reagan, but if you look closely at the chart you'll notice that increases before Reagan are calibrated over four year periods whereas under Reagan increases are measured every year. Increases of 5 and 4 percent per year are not significantly different from what we see between 1965-80 under LBJ, RMN, GF and JC.

[hoosier]

That being said his deficit spending had an explicit purpose, he was fighting a war of economy with the communist soviet union, basically proving we could handle more debt (through military spending) before collapsing than they could....we won.

Re-read the blogger article. He specifically calls into question the idea that Cold War spending is what caused the USSR to collapse. If military overspending wasn't the downfall of the Soviet Union then Reagan's alleged fiscal strategy to end the Cold War doesn't deserve the credit that the Right has tried to give it.

[texaspackerbacker]

So to what do you leftists attribute our winning the Cold War, Hoosier? Maybe Gorbachev's kindheartedness?

Maybe it was all a sandbag job to get America to forget about Communism and elect a true Marxist in 2008.

[sheepshead]

That being said his deficit spending had an explicit purpose, he was fighting a war of economy with the communist soviet union, basically proving we could handle more debt (through military spending) before collapsing than they could....we won.

Re-read the blogger article. He specifically calls into question the idea that Cold War spending is what caused the USSR to collapse. If military overspending wasn't the downfall of the Soviet Union then Reagan's alleged fiscal strategy to end the Cold War doesn't deserve the credit that the Right has tried to give it.

So....can we conclude that Jimmy Carter and/ or Wally Mondale would have produced the same result?

[hoosier]

So to what do you leftists attribute our winning the Cold War, Hoosier? Maybe Gorbachev's kindheartedness?

Maybe it was all a sandbag job to get America to forget about Communism and elect a true Marxist in 2008.

More like Gorbachev's political and administrative incompetence: his reforms were never backed up with any coherent plan, and he failed to deal effectively with his main political rival (Yeltsin), who ultimately deposed him at the moment of his greatest weakness. The downfall of the USSR is surely more complicated than you or I or anyone who's not an expert in the region's history is able to summarize. But most scholars agree that the sharp drop in world oil prices in the early 80s led to a severe depletion of the Soviet Union's dollar holdings, and that in turn led to food shortages and general unrest. There are of course many other social and economic factors (ethnic unrest, war with Afghanistan, etc.) that help explain why the USSR entered into an economic and social crisis in the mid 80's. In a nutshell, political incompetence and bureaucratic mismanagement of the economy played a far greater role than did the desire to compete with Reagan's military spending. So yes, to answer Sheephead's question, the result would have been more or less the same with Carter or Mondale in office instead of Reagan. But the myth that a US president led to the USSRs downfall would never have taken root.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I like the term "swiftboating". But to me it doesn't mean an untruthful attack. It means having the truth suddenly shoved into your face like a cream pie.

Are you going to vote for McCain?

McCain has referred to the Swiftboat attack as disgraceful. Seems to be a difference of opinion on how legitimate those accusations were.

BTW, where did YOU spend the Vietnam War? :wink:

[bobblehead]

Again, I'll try to make MY position clear without bringing reagan into the discussion (you did that, as you brought in hagel and luger, you are getting very good at distracting from the actual debate about what is right and wrong and making me address people that I don't agree with on the topic because there is an (R) by their name. Remember, my first blog on the politics thread stated, "I'm a libertarian who generally votes republican").

I believe that gov't spending should always be maintained as a certain percentage of GNP. Standing debt should never be more than a certain multiplier of GNP. Deficit spending should be used primarily for specific purposes, like smoothing out a rough economy (I'll address cold war next). Those exact percentages I can't say at this exact moment as I haven't researched it in a long time, but the "best" numbers or ranges of numbers are out there as determined by history and several cray supercomputer models. When we stray over those numbers (and we are over all of them at this moment) it has a negative effect, long term. I think even you agree with that hoosier (correct me if I'm wrong), and stating that a republican didn't follow my model in no way defeats the arguement or bolsters the democratic party.

I let myself get sidetracked by the lugar/hagel/reagan arguements as if they are somehow relevant to right and wrong...thats my fault.

Also taking .7% of GNP and handing it to the UN can only hurt us (no matter who proposed it) at home as that % has to be taken away from what we have available (what gov't should spend as a % of GNP) to the gov't here to spend on infrastructure and anything else.

These are my assertions, and I will debate them to the bitter end, and I don't care who you point out is behind anything, unless we are discussing them running for president or if I will vote for them.

[bobblehead]

Now that I have that out of the way, I will get sidetracked by reagan. First off, remember that budgets are written out for years ahead, and if the next president trys to reign in the built in increases, pig politicians who want their money start screaming draconian cuts, starving children, ect. So while spending went up under reagan in most areas, he only had so much control over that, like I said, we were in a mess when he took over and I believe some defecit spending can be useful in that situation. So, do I think he cut spending in every way I would have like, no, but I think he did well with a shit situation. I also notice that the chart shows 1981 only (carters last budget) and speculates on 82-83, and nothing for 84-88, so I can't really gain much from that chart. But again, cut the guy some slack, he had a huge job and righted the ship, its not his fault bush sr. decided no new taxes meant taxes if the democrats are nice to me.

The cold war...well, if reagan had nothing to do with it, what great timing. You say oil dropped their wealth, I say they spent it on military. I also say we were working in the '80s to drop oil prices. Not sure whether that was part of the strategy or not, I was 10 in 1980 and didn't follow it closely enough...also there was no internet to be able to find the information with 5 clicks like now.

The only thing I can say for certain is that they tried to spend with us dollar for dollar on defense, and capitalism generates far more wealth than communism by any arguement. They went broke and collapsed, we didn't. If you want to attribute other factors, thats fine, but you can't deny we certainly gave them a big push. You point to most scholars, I will point to the history professor I like most, newt gingrich. His view is that reagan exposed the communist model and spent them into collapse. I'll take his word for it, as readily as I'll take any scholar's.

[bobblehead]

Before we can eliminate him on the issues, we are entitled to eliminate him as a person, as a man. On his resume (or lack there of). Just because radical liberals have nominated him doesnt mean the rest of us arent allowed to question his background and where his head's at. Which we intend to do for the next six months. It's just getting started, trust me, the RNC has much more money than the reported Obama war chest. It's just in a different bucket.

I agree with your right to, but I don't have to like it. I think debating the issues rather than his church is a better strategy and more important.

I don't like the game of character assassination, that is what libs did to gingrich with something like 500 ethics complaints, and the only one they got to stick was his lawyer made a mistake on paperwork.

To me, if you have to politicians with good policies then character becomes a big issue, but if you have a top liberal and all the policies that go with it, his character means very little to me, and if my candidate got a sloppy knob from an intern, but was a great policy guy, I'd vote for him anyway (unless he indignantly shook his finger at me and told me he couldn't believe I'm accusing him of this). Clinton should have manned right up, said "yep, she blew me, sorry, won't happen again" and all would have been forgiven. Just as people think society is ready for gay adoption on the other thread, I think they are ready to accept men are horny and make bad choices, but can still make good policy (not that clinton did).

[hoosier]

Again, I'll try to make MY position clear without bringing reagan into the discussion (you did that, as you brought in hagel and luger, you are getting very good at distracting from the actual debate about what is right and wrong and making me address people that I don't agree with on the topic because there is an (R) by their name. Remember, my first blog on the politics thread stated, "I'm a libertarian who generally votes republican").

My references to Hagel, Lugar and Reagan weren't "distracting from the actual debate", they were responses to statements made by you--alluding to Obama as an "extreme liberal," for example. If you get bothered when people call you on such judgments, don't make them in the first place. :lol:

[texaspackerbacker]

So to what do you leftists attribute our winning the Cold War, Hoosier? Maybe Gorbachev's kindheartedness?

Maybe it was all a sandbag job to get America to forget about Communism and elect a true Marxist in 2008.

More like Gorbachev's political and administrative incompetence: his reforms were never backed up with any coherent plan, and he failed to deal effectively with his main political rival (Yeltsin), who ultimately deposed him at the moment of his greatest weakness. The downfall of the USSR is surely more complicated than you or I or anyone who's not an expert in the region's history is able to summarize. But most scholars agree that the sharp drop in world oil prices in the early 80s led to a severe depletion of the Soviet Union's dollar holdings, and that in turn led to food shortages and general unrest. There are of course many other social and economic factors (ethnic unrest, war with Afghanistan, etc.) that help explain why the USSR entered into an economic and social crisis in the mid 80's. In a nutshell, political incompetence and bureaucratic mismanagement of the economy played a far greater role than did the desire to compete with Reagan's military spending. So yes, to answer Sheephead's question, the result would have been more or less the same with Carter or Mondale in office instead of Reagan. But the myth that a US president led to the USSRs downfall would never have taken root.

Gorbachev's "reforms" were nothing more than grudging stop-gap reactions to the abject FAILURE of Soviet Communism brought on by pressure to compete with American style free enterprise capitalism--particularly in the arms race instigated by Reagan, including the monumental bluff known as "Star Wars".

Carter did not, and Mondale would not build up American weaponry, and would not have been believable in any "Star Wars" bluff because of their histories of weakness.

[texaspackerbacker]

As for the concept and stats on high levels of spending in the Reagan years, I previously dismissed this by blaming it completely on the Democrat-controlled Congress--which indeed was a major factor.

What I should have also pointed out, though, is that Carter had so decimated the American military that Reagan had a lot of making up to do in defense spending just to get ahead in conventional armaments, etc.

It's absolutely amazing how close Carter and these other sick America-hating Dem/lib pieces of shit actually came to selling out this country. Now, we have this all out America-hating scumbag, Obama promising to CHANGE back to the same old Carter/McGovern crap, and trying to knock America from the seat of world domination.

I'm confident the American people will NOT let that happen.

[Guiness]

ok, I have a question about the original topic...

WHY did FL and MI move their primaries?

[hoosier]

ok, I have a question about the original topic...

WHY did FL and MI move their primaries?

To get to the other side?

Supposedly legislators in both states objected to Ioway and New Hampshire hogging the primary season limelight and decided to make an endrun around the party rules. Interestingly, it was Republican-controlled legislatures that pushed the early primaries through in both states. The DNC could have--and probably should have--taken that into consideration when it originally decided to nullify the MI and FL primaries.

[bobblehead]

Again, I'll try to make MY position clear without bringing reagan into the discussion (you did that, as you brought in hagel and luger, you are getting very good at distracting from the actual debate about what is right and wrong and making me address people that I don't agree with on the topic because there is an (R) by their name. Remember, my first blog on the politics thread stated, "I'm a libertarian who generally votes republican").

My references to Hagel, Lugar and Reagan weren't "distracting from the actual debate", they were responses to statements made by you--alluding to Obama as an "extreme liberal," for example. If you get bothered when people call you on such judgments, don't make them in the first place. :lol:

Again, Obama IS the most liberal member of the senate in 2007. I didn't get bothered by you calling me on it, I documented it. Pointing out hagel, lugar or anyone else joining him in a UN tax doesn't dispute that fact, it merely points out the error of their ways. And I don't mean to be disparaging, I enjoy the discourse. I actually looked and looked for numbers so I coud figure out all those factors as % of GNP, but couldn't find them. If you did find them and proved to me that republicans are bigger spenders and deficit runners than liberals I would commend you for it. I would also commend tex if he could show me with numbers that transferring wealth has a benefit to the GNP.

I can only go by certain things I know to be true. Democrats, especially liberals are responsible for pushing social programs like SS, medicare, outrageous benefit plans for gov't employees, emptying the SS trust fund ect. that are bankrupting this country. That is not to say republicans, especially their current form aren't enjoying some time at the trough too. Its why we got hammered in the '06 elections, not the war, and also why pointing out them supporting liberal spending sprees won't alter my opinion.

[swede]

I like the term "swiftboating". But to me it doesn't mean an untruthful attack. It means having the truth suddenly shoved into your face like a cream pie.


Are you going to vote for McCain?

I like McCain as a person. My father, the Rushian Dittohead, loathes him as a regular traitor to conservative causes, and dad probably will not vote this year. The only time I questioned my support of McCain this year is when he spoke out on global warming. Otherwise, I can live with a sharp stick in the conservative eye now and again as long as he appoints strict constructionists to SCOTUS.



McCain has referred to the Swiftboat attack as disgraceful. Seems to be a difference of opinion on how legitimate those accusations were.

BTW, where did YOU spend the Vietnam War? :wink:

Roosevelt Junior High. Best six years of my life.

[Kiwon]

It's just amazing to see how the Left continues to cannibalize the Clintons. Before they could do no wrong, now their troubles are a blood sport for them.

Latest example: The Vanity Fair hit piece followed up by a reporter for the Huffington Post who suckers Bill into making a candid response and then features it on her Huff Post blog.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/bill-clinton-purdhum-a-sl_b_104771.html

USA Today's take on it, "The former president's blow-up began when he was approached yesterday by Huffington's Mayhill Fowler. She got him started on the subject by asking what he thinks about the "hatchet job" in Vanity Fair -- a way of posing the question that could, of course, be seen as almost guaranteeing it would get Clinton going and that he might have a sympathetic listener."

Besides the "hatchet job" question to get the ball rolling, the reporters adds phrases "it's all over cable news" and the author "is married to Dee Dee Myers" in the midst of Clinton's answer just to prime his pump and keep him going.

While it is priceless to hear Bill Clinton complain about unfair media bias it is a clear reminder about how corrupt the Left really is. They feel like they made Clinton so they are entitled to break him. Obama is even more of a media creation.

Obama will be an absolute puppet for left-wing, special interests.