Iowa Caucus and NH Primary Thread

[LL2]

There also is the DISTURBING frequency of his "present" vote while in the state senate. He invoked this sidestep vote 130 times while there...and several times he did so on crucial issues where he refused to stand up and show leadership.

He did this so during the run for the presidency and during debates he can't be pinned one way or another to an issue.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Obama is not an "ultra-liberal". Most of his positions are supported by a majority of Americans.

I beg to differ.

Leaper, how many presidential elections have you witnessed? The Republicans have characterized every Democratic nominee as "ultra liberal" since Woodrow Wilson.

Obama is a liberal democrat. You might note that he voted to fully fund the war in Iraq right up until recently. He is no Dennis Kucinich. I lack the stamina to address all your points, you made some good ones. But we disagree about where the American people stand on those issues.

[The Leaper]

Leaper, how many presidential elections have you witnessed? The Republicans have characterized every Democratic nominee as "ultra liberal" since Woodrow Wilson.

Sure they do. However, some don't really measure up...and, ironically, those are the ones that usually are elected. Carter and Clinton are two moderate democrats that were actually elected. Truly liberal candidates often get defeated handily.

Obama is a liberal democrat. You might note that he voted to fully fund the war in Iraq right up until recently. He is no Dennis Kucinich. I lack the stamina to address all your points, you made some good ones. But we disagree about where the American people stand on those issues.

Fine, we disagree. However, I think you would actually find it rather difficult to prove that the majority of Americans favor:

1. Partial-birth abortions...most polling suggests around 70% of the population is opposed to the procedure.
2. Taxpayer funding of abortion...again, most polling suggests roughly 70% of the population is opposed to using taxpayer funds for abortions.
3. Laws that protect the rights of tried criminals over the innocent and taxpayers...rather broad notion to look up polling data, but as I pointed out in my prior post, Obama was the LONE OPPOSING VOTE against one of these laws.
4. Not protecting our children from explicit material...again, tough to find polling data off-hand, but I highly doubt a majority of Americans favor placing porn shops near their kids elementary schools.

The point is that Obama is trying to come off as a "fresh change"...when in reality he's just another in a long line of liberals, just younger and a little more "hip", I guess.

At least Huckabee DOES represent change in his party...which is why he gets heavy criticism from the fiscal conservatives for his populist beliefs.

I just get tired of politicians bantering about change...like the Democrats who won in Congress with a laundry list of potential changes, then basically did little to change anything other than the minimum wage. Change is easy to talk about...but what change has Obama really brought forth at any level in either the public or private sector? I just feel that is something which eventually will come home to roost with Obama.

[MJZiggy]

Keep in mind, Leaper, that with a lot of these bills that they vote for or against, there is usually a lot of stuff heaped into each bill. When looking at a candidates voting record (that's any candidate from either party), you have to consider the full contents of the bill that could have included something completely unrelated yet highly objectionable/desirable to the candidate.

You can't just say he voted for not protecting our children from explicit material without knowing what else was tacked onto it, like say funding for sending a million government jobs overseas (that's just a radical example that I completely made up by the way) but the do stuff like that in Washington all the time.

[LL2]

Keep in mind, Leaper, that with a lot of these bills that they vote for or against, there is usually a lot of stuff heaped into each bill. When looking at a candidates voting record (that's any candidate from either party), you have to consider the full contents of the bill that could have included something completely unrelated yet highly objectionable/desirable to the candidate.

You can't just say he voted for not protecting our children from explicit material without knowing what else was tacked onto it, like say funding for sending a million government jobs overseas (that's just a radical example that I completely made up by the way) but the do stuff like that in Washington all the time.

I agree with this. You see small bills tacked on to others all the time. I think that's how new funding for Iraq keeps getting done.

[The Leaper]

Keep in mind, Leaper, that with a lot of these bills that they vote for or against, there is usually a lot of stuff heaped into each bill.

What you say can be true of Congressional bills.

However, what I was talking about with Obama was his Illinois State Senate record. I'm not positive, but I'm assuming those bills don't have much...if anything...tacked onto them.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Leaper, you need to look at the BIG issues:
War in Iraq
Availability of Health Care
the environment
the economy/deficit
immigration

Republicans are radioactive this year. The Bush administration and its Republican A team failed miserably. I don't think the usual republican strategy of linking candidates to partial birth abortion, or disreputable military service, or other side issues are gonna fly.

Immigration matters to Republicans, the only problem is they at odds with the overall public. 65% of people supported the immigration bill that failed in the Senate. Most people don't beleive that the problem can be solved by deportation or attrition, nor do most people see this as ethical given the long history of utiliizing immigrants.

Watching the Republicans debate health care reform last Saturday was quite a spectacle. None of them addressed the fact that private insurance companies are profitable only by denying coverage to people likely to get sick. They ALL suggested that tweaking with tax breaks will solve the problem. They are so out of it.

The best chance the Republicans have, in my view, is to run against Obama and portray him as naive compared to McCain. They might have a shot there. But the Democrats have it ALL OVER the REpublicans on the big issues.

[LL2]

Leaper, you need to look at the BIG issues:
War in Iraq
Availability of Health Care
the environment
the economy/deficit
immigration

Republicans are radioactive this year. The Bush administration and its Republican A team failed miserably. I don't think the usual republican strategy of linking candidates to partial birth abortion, or disreputable military service, or other side issues are gonna fly.

Immigration matters to Republicans, the only problem is they at odds with the overall public. 65% of people supported the immigration bill that failed in the Senate. Most people don't beleive that the problem can be solved by deportation or attrition, nor do most people see this as ethical given the long history of utiliizing immigrants.

Watching the Republicans debate health care reform last Saturday was quite a spectacle. None of them addressed the fact that private insurance companies are profitable only by denying coverage to people likely to get sick. They ALL suggested that tweaking with tax breaks will solve the problem. They are so out of it.

The best chance the Republicans have, in my view, is to run against Obama and portray him as naive compared to McCain. They might have a shot there. But the Democrats have it ALL OVER the REpublicans on the big issues.

I agree with a lot of your points, and especially the point that Republicans are "radioactive". It's going to be tough for a Republican to get elected this year no matter how persuasive and good they are.

[Joemailman]

I think the issues Harlan raised will result in the Dems making more gains in the Congress, but the Presidential race could go either way.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Of course, it will be tough for Republicans. Wars that divide the country don't exactly help the prospects of the incumbents. I'd say both parties are "radioactive." People don't exactly give the leadership in Congress high marks either. Like Bush, their poll numbers are very low, historically. Personally, I think people are just tired of the bickering and over- politicization on every issue. I know it's always been like that, but it hasn't been to this level while I've been around.

[The Leaper]

Leaper, you need to look at the BIG issues:
War in Iraq
Availability of Health Care
the environment
the economy/deficit
immigration

These are great issues. The Dems won big on those in 2006. So what has the Democratic Congress done with them so far? The Democratic Congress has a lower approval rating than Bush.

I don't think either party has it big over the other on any issue. Washington is too screwed up for any one president to clean it up and make it functional. Americans as a whole need to start caring and elect politicians who care about them...not a political career.

My point is that any candidate bantering "I'm gonna change everything by snapping my fingers" like Obama is probably won't accomplish much of anything.

[The Leaper]

I agree with a lot of your points, and especially the point that Republicans are "radioactive". It's going to be tough for a Republican to get elected this year no matter how persuasive and good they are.

The GOP was fairly radioactive in 2004...and Bush still managed to win despite misleading the public about Iraq. In terms of Congress, the Dems have it pretty good at the moment...but in a presidential election, it has been a tough road for the Democrats for 35 years. Even Bill Clinton...the most popular Democrat president since JFK...didn't register landslide political wins.

Obama is likely going to be the Democratic nominee...and the guy has ZERO experience or credibility on the national political stage. Voting in primaries is one thing...actually voting for the president makes it a little harder to vote for someone simply hoping they can do what they say with little evidence to back it up.

I don't think the Democrats have the White House locked up just yet.

[MJZiggy]

I don't know. Clinton decided to reinvent government and though asking agencies to reinvent themselves to be more efficient might not have been the best strategy if you wanna trim off excess employees, but somehow he seemed to get a lot done.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Ron Paul won 8% of the vote. He is 50 minutes into his concession speech and showing no signs of fatique. If he ever wins double digits in some contest he'll probably challenge Fidel Castro's 4 hour record. People would regularly faint during Fidel's speeches.

Bill Clinton was a hell of an effective president. He made a decent conclusion to the Yugolslavia nightmare, and the economy hummed along. ("hum" probably an unfortunate choiced of verbs)

Anyway, I have seen a string of red-faced pundits stumble and bumble over Hillary Clinton's shocking showing tonight. We all have been caught-up in the hype and charm of Obama. God Bless the cratchety people of New Hamphshire! It's too soon to coronate the Boy King.

[BallHawk]

Obama thought he had the kill way too early. Hillary has new life. Whether "the cry" was a calculated move or not, I cannot say; however, she's not done yet.

And how long is it going to take for Hanover, Durham, and Rindge to report? That's what everybody is waiting on.