Day after Election thread
by DJCahill on Nov 5, 2008 7:41 AM CST
Email
PrintSince the Election night thread is at about 700 posts.
Congratulations to President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama, and congratulations to the House and Senate. I suspect Obama is smart enough to know that if he goes with a radical enough agenda, all the Dem gains can turn around and wash out about as fast as they washed in.
If he doesn't know that, I suspect he can ask Bill Clinton on how that works.
667 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
So this is why my parents
were so grumpy the morning after Jimmy Carter was elected in November ’76. One of the more intellectual superior presidents in history yet completely incapable of projecting anything resembling strength and totally devoid of leadership.
This country just elected somebody from the radical left wing fringe who has led just about nothing in his life and his big claim to fame is that of being a “community organizer”
Yeah, we’re in for some change.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Well,
when we just finished 8 years of the only living President that was worse than Carter, it is inevitable that change was going to come.
The fact that Josey is so up in arms is even more reason to be optimistic about the future.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Hear, Hear!
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
No one but no one
was a worse president than Carter. The man was just clueless. I know W. is real unpopular right now but I imagine history will treat him better than present days polls. We havent had any terror attacks since 9/11 but he didnt control spending at all so security – fine, domestic – not so much.
Anyway, best of luck to BO. I’m not real optomistic but he will be my president, too
by BEW on Nov 5, 2008 8:42 AM CST up reply actions
I don't see how you are right.
1) Went to Iraq because of either intelligence mistakes or an active campaign of lying to the American People.
2) Presided over the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression.
3) Ran up a $5 Trillion Debt on his watch.
Nothing that Carter did was as bad as any one of those three things. The History Books are going to place W with Buchanan, Harding, Pierce, etc.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Point #1
Your first point makes no sense. Either the intellegence was wrong and we were all mistaken (including Bush), or the intellegence was right (saying no WMDs) and Bush is a liar (claiming there were WMDs). History shows the former is correct. Intellectual honesty shouldn’t put a damper on your Bush bashing though…
by Jack Nicholson 1974 on Nov 5, 2008 8:54 AM CST up reply actions
history has not shown the former
i can recall stories of “he asked me to find evidence to go to iraq.” remind me again what valerie plame was about
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
Bush is in charge of the Intelligence.
I know Bush defenders don’t believe in “The Buck Stops here”, but, Bush was in Charge of the CIA, the NSA, and the DOD. You can look it up. He was ultimately responsible for the intelligence.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
The Downing Street Memo
They manipulated weak intelligence to get the result they wanted to justify an unjustifiable war that has cost too many young Americans their lives.
by vfn on Nov 5, 2008 9:15 AM CST up reply actions
Presidents that last for 8 years
tend to get treated very well with the perspective of history and the passage of time.
Reagan’s last couple of years lost a lot of steam because of Iran Contra and Clinton got bogged down by a cigar and the DNA on a fat intern’s dress but history treats both of these presidents very well.
As bad as Bush’s popularity currently sits, this country never collectively felt worse or weaker about itself than it did in 1979-80 and that falls squarely in the incompetent lap of Jimmy Carter.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
So George HW Bush
was a worse president than US Grant by your definition.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Did I say that, dumb ass?
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
sort of
this is called, “poking holes in your argument.” you shouldnt’ be new to this.
and, your premise is terrible. if you preside over the biggest stock market crash since the great depression and then try to nationalize the banks, history gets a little pissed
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
Do you see me
defending Bush’s last 8 years, abo3?
Lots of horrible things happened on his watch and I cannot remember in my lifetime a tougher 8 years to be the Prez. Some of it was his fault but I also believe we need a historical perspective to judge his presidency.
I do know that this country felt much worse about itself in 1979-80 than it did this past year.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
you are biased
although i’m not old enough to verify one way or the other.
and I’m not saying that you are defending bush or that bush necessarily deserves all the criticism for the economy. I’m just saying that history will not treat his presidency kindly because it ended the way it did. all of a sudden, all the warts were front and center
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
I think you don't fully appreciate..
how bad this country felt about itself and things in 1980. We had been through gas lines, stagflation, gas price hikes, and the embarrassing impotence of having our embassy overrun and out citizens held hostage for months.
I for one don’t think Bush will be treated kindly by history, but the only reason Carter isn’t treated worse are the good works he has done since he left office.
by bking on Nov 5, 2008 9:11 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Neither is he.
He’s in his early 40’s.
Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
"How the Country felt about itself"
Thanks Dr. Phil. This is the kind of mush brained thinking we’ve come to expect from you.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Cahill,
so you believe the country collectively felt good about itself in ’79-80?
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
No, but that doesn't come close to measuring up
to nationalizing banks, screwing up a war/peace decision, running up the debt, etc. There is no question that history is going to judge Bush more harshly than Carter.
A lot of the economic pain at the time was just the cost of fixing the problem. The way they ended up killing the inflation was to crank up interest rates. That cost Carter an election, but at least they broke the back of inflation.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Which is worse?
A sad country or a mad country?
by robert_d_wilfong on Nov 5, 2008 3:09 PM CST up reply actions
That's a good point
Add Sharky, Longhorn, dstar, 4HIM, and Save Us/Seth to that statement and it really enforces it.
"Colt mccoy sucks, mack brown needs to be fired." - Longhorn
by LSBUser on Nov 5, 2008 8:42 AM CST up reply actions
Right back at ya chief
"Colt mccoy sucks, mack brown needs to be fired." - Longhorn
by LSBUser on Nov 5, 2008 10:59 AM CST up reply actions
Do I really need to?
It seems pretty simple. I lumped you in with people on this board that I believe have opinions based on nonsense. Clearly, there are some who would lump me in that category as well but that’s beside the point. You continually call people bigots and close minded when as far as I can tell you are a much better definition of those terms than anybody on here.
Have a good day.
"Colt mccoy sucks, mack brown needs to be fired." - Longhorn
by LSBUser on Nov 5, 2008 11:22 AM CST up reply actions
Hmmm
I haven’t continually called anyone anything. I once (until now) said that there are some on this board who are close-minded bigots, as an encouragement to someone in what he was facing from so many others on here.
But you still haven’t explained in what way I am a bigot.
That's what I thought
and I know that it’s easy to attack people while sitting at a computer, but it’s a sure way to lose respect.
Did you cry yourself to sleep on your huge pillow!
Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
Head!
Pants! Now!
"sorry, I'm usually a dick by pointing these things out but 'concepted' is classic" - ab03
by Suicide Prince on Nov 5, 2008 10:09 AM CST up reply actions
a rare "So I Married an Axe Murderer" quote.. got to love it
"Water covers 2/3 of the world, T-New's got the rest"
Congrats to Barack and his supporters
I am sure he will make a fine President and will work in a bipartison fashion to solve the economic and enegry problems. Those need to be his first priorities.
Nolan Ryan should be the Rangers president, GM, manager and pitching coach.
I do hope you are correct...
While the last 8 years have been a veritable train-wreck, I really do fear what a Pelosi-Obama tandem could do if left unchecked. I do hope that he will govern more towards the middle, but there is no viable opposition in place right now to ensure that.
I really and sincerely do fear what a strong policy push to the left could do in these fragile economic times. FDR was able to spend us out of a depression while governing far to the left (far enough to actually pack the Supreme Court when they began pushing back), but I’m not sure that such an approach is even viable anymore given the reduced influence of the US economy on the world. Given the appalling deficits he will inherit, and the uncertain economic climate, I don’t see how most of his campaign promises can actually be implemented. and, if you take away most of what he promised as being ecomonically unlikely, what exactly does he offer besides the nebulous concept of change?
Don't know where you got that idea
Obama just said last week that he is going to make it so hard to use coal energy that anyone who tries to build a new coal plant will go bankrupt trying. With energy demand rising and a major, major source of domestic energy off the table (coal), get ready for skyrocketing energy prices. We saw how that helps the economy this summer. With the economy further suffering, the climate will be ripe for radical socialist policies and increased wealth redistribution. Obama will certainly take advantage.
by Jack Nicholson 1974 on Nov 5, 2008 8:46 AM CST up reply actions
I always wondered what it would be like to live in the Soviet Union...
Now I’m gonna find out.
"Either we need to re-calibrate our rectangle, or Alfonzo Marquez is not having a good night." - Josh Lewin
Man...
…you guys really sank your teeth into those McCain talking points.
Socialist?
Going to kill the coal industry? (he was talking about the importance of clean coal development, if you use your reading comprehension skills)
"One man, five scoops." -- shroomer
Please take it easy on the "you guys" talk
Let’s all avoid painting with a broad brush – not all criticism is the same, and not all criticism is parroting talk radio.
You're right, I apologize.
However, you have to admit that screaming about how Obama wants to bankrupt the coal industry (he doesn’t) and how he’s a socialist (he isn’t) reeks of Hannity.
"One man, five scoops." -- shroomer
Best for the country
I truly hope I am wrong and that what RangerMad said is correct. I think the bipartisan pursuit of an all-of-the-above energy policy will provide both near and long term economic stability and do wonders for national security. I hope President Obama sees the virtue in developing all sources of domestic energy. I just don’t see hope for such a plan when looking at the plans set forth by Obama and hearing the quotes of Obama, Pelosi, Biden, et al.
I also don’t see how Obama’s plans are going to help the current economic situation, but again, I hope I am wrong. If President Obama gets this thing turned around and ushers in an era of growth and security, I will gladly admit I’m wrong.
by Jack Nicholson 1974 on Nov 5, 2008 10:28 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Obama will prove to be
a pragmatist, I think. The socialist stuff is a bit overwrought.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
I am only nervous
because of the complete control the democrats now enjoy. i am cautiously optimistic that obama will prove a breath of fresh air for this nation, although he is pretty far left and he has already named Rahm Emanuel as his desired chief of staff.
by clark on Nov 5, 2008 8:39 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
I have faith
in the center of this country. If Obama goes too far to the left with the congress, I think we will see a slap back in 2010, that will be reminiscent of 1994.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
I shared those exact sentiments with a friend last night
in fact, I would place a pretty stout bet that we will see a strong backlash in 2010.
I think Obama is too pragmatic to let Pelosi and Reid engage in hyper-partisan, far left agendas...
Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
I think you are right
for all the talk of Obama as some hard core socialist, voting Present is not the act of a hardcore partisan.
My guess is Obama is gonna do what Obama does. Start running for the 2012 election starting now.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Far left agendas
Why would the most left leaning US Senator all of a sudden drop his own far left agenda?
"Colt mccoy sucks, mack brown needs to be fired." - Longhorn
by LSBUser on Nov 5, 2008 8:48 AM CST up reply actions
left leaning senator
this is so misleading. What was so left leaning that he voted for in his term? All those really liberal policies he voted for are at best characterized as left of center.
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
Depends on how you want to measure it
but it’s undeniable that Obama is one of the most liberal senators and it also undeniable that Daily Kos, Jane Fonda, Keith Olberman and just about every other representative of the extreme lunatic fringe on the left is very, very happy.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Given that there were only two choices
a Democrat leaning left and a Republican who embraced the conservative base, why would any of those liberals you named be unhappy?
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
"Most Left Leaning US Senator"
I’d like to see the factual basis for that :)
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Because he knows that the best leadership comes fron bi-partisan consensus
Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
What the f does
Obama know about leadership?
What exactly has he ever led?
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Nov 5, 2008 9:29 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
This whole notion that only Governors and Mayor have authentic leadership experience?
Pretty sad that you’re still clinging to it.
That was campaign rhetoric. I highly doubt even the spinmeisters believe it.
Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
Especially considering her performance
during those responsibilities.
She went bigtime into debt for a sports complex, screwed up the eminent domain, and got Wasilla tied up in lawsuits and debt. She does pass the test of a modern, Borrow and Spend Republican though.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
But..
don’t confuse pragmatism with the laid back attitude of a junior senator with no power and no stroke. He had no base to do much more than “vote present”, but that is certainly no longer true.
voted present, voted liberal
make up your mind
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
Huh??? Where have I been inconsistent?
Given his VERY junior status in Congress, and the fact that he offered up damn little in the way of legislation, all we have to go on is how he voted on the legislation offered up by others. Based solely on his record on these votes, he is far left of center according to the scorecards in have seen. Now he actually has the power to offer up policies that align with his documented voting record. That’s not too hard a concept is it?
he's not far left of center
there is no mass socialism program that he voted for (besides the one that everyone voted for). He just voted consistently on the slight left of center programs.
What scary socialist policy was actually up that Obama voted for in the Senate. find one.
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
That's not how they measure these things...
they don’t subjectively rate bills on a sliding scale; they subjectively rate them as left or right. Then they tally up the voting record of everyone. If his percentage of left-leaning votes is higher than anyone elses, then that gets him the distinction of being the most left-leaning.
It may not be the most scientific method, but it is essentially the accepted method used by every watchdog group that I am aware of, regardless of affilation.
Now, other than voting record, all we have to go on is campaign promises, and his are generally regarded as left (or more ambitious, depending on your take) of his voting record.
i know how they measure it
i’m asking you to use your brain.
you think he’s going to be radical left. given the data, or his history, does that make sense to you? If I vote 100% of the time for left of center policies, are you sure I’m going to vote for extreme left ones?
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
I use my brain all the time smartass...
I’m too old too make absolute pronouncements like some… but the voting scorecards have proven to be a viable predictor in the past.
If, for example, someone has a consistently percentage of voting with right-of-center causes, there is substantial anecdotal evidence that, when presented with even further right-of-center causes, there voting percentage continues to track high. IOW, a high percentage indicates that they haven’t yet reached the threshold beyond which they won’t support things.
Again, it’s not rock-solid science, but it has proven to be a statistically valid measure – that’s why groups on both side track it and use it to rate, support, and target politicians.
And, also again, I’m not hangin my hat solely on his record; I started out simply mentioning that inaction is not necessarily the same as prudence or pragmatism. However, his policy statements and promises ARE left of his voting record, as would be expected based on the history of these scorecards.
by bking on Nov 5, 2008 9:21 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Speaking of using your brain
I’m still waiting for your answer to me in the other thread. I’m assuming you realized you were speaking out of your ass and just gave up.
I see.
Well it seems odd to criticize somebody’s views when you don’t even know them. But maybe that’s normal when you get old and experienced?
Hit return to soon....
quite frankly, I got bored arguing with a kid about opinions and ideas that, IMO, are formed by life experience not books.
Call me weak, but it DOES bore me. You can claim scoreboard over there if you want, matters not to me.
Whatever sport
crow as loud as you want. Ask Josey about this – I don’t persist in circular agruments with someone who insists on framing the debate and dictating what is nothing and what is something. I prefer my debates to be more about learning and advancing the topic than some childish exercise.
Again, scoreboard if you want.
Right.
So that’s why, when I engage you in a debate, you refuse on the ground that I’m not as old as you. You’ve really got a handle on learning and advancing the topic.
I find it humorous that asking you to defend a statement is “scoreboarding”. Pathetic.
I defended my statements more than once.
Sorry if I didn’t stay engaged in that one long enough for your satisfaction. Just because you keep a circular debate goiung doesn’t mean I owe a response. I have a life beyond board threads, and don’t feel any need to have closure on every thread I weigh in on. If you do, and if you need to stay on a topic until I say uncle, then fine – you win.
As for the age point, call it a poor overgeneralization, but the number of times I’ve gone round and round in here and the NMLR debating a social or life issue, only to find out the guy on the other end flips burgers and still lives in his Mom’s basement ( with ZERO life experience in the subject at hand) is fairly high – high enough that it’s a sore point with me. If that description doesn’t fit you, then sorry. Consider this a mea culpa.
It most certainly doesn't.
I’m confident that I’ve fit in more “life experience” in my 22 years than you have in however many years you’ve been grumping about.
But it’s no matter, because it’s the fallback argument of losers. It’s the same argument that says none of us can even talk about baseball because we haven’t played in the majors.
By the same logic, you could never engage in a debate about foreign policy if you haven’t negotiated a couple peace treaties in your spare time.
It’s a dumb argument, made all the worse by the fact that you don’t even seem to be aware of my positions on the issues you referred to.
So if you do truly want to learn and advance the topic, I’d suggest you cut back on the assumptions, and stick to the arguments at hand.
by brettgardner on Nov 5, 2008 10:06 AM CST up reply actions
Oh God...
if you tell Brett anything about gaining wisdom with years, he’ll go ape-poop, dude. It drives him crazy. So even when he acts just like you’d expect a 22 year old to act, don’t call him on it.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Your wisdom
Is something I strive for, ben. Only 8 more years!
by brettgardner on Nov 5, 2008 10:10 AM CST up reply actions
no it hasn't
and all indications are that he will govern left of center if nto centrist. he moved to the center on most major issues in the general election campaign (FISA, off shore drilling, bush bailout). He’s instituting tax cuts.
what’s so radical about him?
you’re gut is wrong
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
the repubs on CNN agree with me as well
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
We're going to have to agree to disagree..
I don’t support your contention that “all indications” show that.
Again, time will tell; I’m just stating my concerns based on what I’ve read, heard and researched.
I do hope you’re right, but I remain concerned.
based on what?
I’m not trying to say your opinion is wrong, but, let’s face it, nobody really knows how Obama will fare in making decisions that affect millions of people.
I have a hard time believing that he’s going to be vetoing bills left and right coming out of Congress with the majorities that the Dems have there.
Greatest Inventions Ever? 1. TiVO, 2. Boobs, 3. Baseball
Sounds like someone is trying to let down her base gently.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/default.aspx
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is seeking to limit expectations on what a new Democratic regime will be able to achieve in the 111th Congress.
“We have to chose our priorities” and decide “what is achievable,” Pelosi told reporters this morning, adding: “A lot of it is about time.” She saied that the current economic conditions and budget deficit “are going to make it harder” to do some big things dear to Democrats, like comprehensive health care reform, but said that smaller, “discrete,” initiatives, i.e. SCHIP and stem cell funding, could be done quickly.
In response to a question, she confirmed that she spoke with the president-elect this morning by phone, but said they merely talked about some of the things that they are going to have to talk about in the coming days.
Asked whether Americans can expect a “more left Congress,” she repeated the mantra that she has used since obtaining the speaker’s gavel two years ago: “The country must be governed from the middle.”
She was coy with the question of whether Rahm Emanuel would be going down the Avenue to take the job as Obama’s Chief of Staff. “I have not been informed of that decision,” she said.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
that pelosi
she’s so liberal and extreme.
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
Clearly
The party is beginning to gel a bit. And they see the best way to hold onto power is by governing well. We will see if they can do that. I’m confident.
by Black Francis on Nov 5, 2008 4:30 PM CST up reply actions
The wheel always turns.
Remember, Rove was talking about a permanent majority just a few years ago.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Based on the leadership style that he favors, and has been widely attributed to him by his peers
Remember what a calm, even-keeled hand he was during the entire election season? Gone are the days of CINC soul-glimpsing and the premise that never looking back on a decision is the apex of leadership. He sees this as an opportunity to change the old, hyper-partisan method of doing business in DC. And I’ll bet McCain is a big partner in helping him achieve this goal.
Of course nobody really knows what he’ll do. But I expect he and the congressional leadership will have a long talk about what types of legislation are a priority, and I also expect that Pelosi and Reid will be reminded in no uncertain terms who gets the final say. The reason you don’t see many vetos in this type of situation is that almost all major legislation is run by El Jefe, if El Jefe is in the same party as the controlling legislators.
Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
by Brian Thomas on Nov 5, 2008 12:23 PM CST up reply actions
What has Obama
led in the past?
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
dunno.
but he’s about to lead a parade done pennsylvania ave on jan 20th. basically you have two options.
1) hope he does well and the country gets better, though it may lead to his re-election
2) hope he does terrible, the country goes further down the crapper, but he is out of office in four years.
i don’t know a reasonable person that wouldn’t chose 1.
"Anyone that isn't pro-choice never met you" ~Brian Thomas on Seth...
maybe it's just my way of saying that
it’s not so much that i distrust Obama in that I REALLY distrust Pelosi/Reid when left unchecked.
Greatest Inventions Ever? 1. TiVO, 2. Boobs, 3. Baseball
pelosi reid
what did they pass that’s so bad?
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
nothing yet because Bush would just veto it
but it seems entirely plausible that Pelosi/Reid could see the Democratic success from Tuesday as a sign that the country is ready for the shift towards policies that I think they’ve been wanting for awhile (universal healthcare, higher taxes on the wealthy, government management of 401(k)s, etc.).
The fact that they’d have a liberal like Obama in office may give them assurance that they would be greeted without opposition.
Greatest Inventions Ever? 1. TiVO, 2. Boobs, 3. Baseball
So you basicly
have an irrational fear of Pelosi and Reid is what you are saying.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
no, apparently - that's what you're saying
“basicly”
Greatest Inventions Ever? 1. TiVO, 2. Boobs, 3. Baseball
I doubt it...
Given the signficant demographic shift that swept him into office (huge increases in first-time and younger voters and outlandishly strong support among the core left constituencies), I don’t see how 2 years will be a long enough period of pain to cause any significant backlash from the center, nor do I see these constituencies abandoning him so quickly.
I am nervous because the
lunatic fringe left of this country is now in control and the person who has the keys to the country has almost zero experience in leading anything.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
and has all the anti-civil liberties tools
enacted by the lunatic fringe right at his disposal.
Of course, with all the outrage over the passage of bills leading to wiretapping,suspension of rights etc., I’m sure the very first things that get done is to reverse these powers. Tick tock….
results - predictions
Cahill alluded to it eariler but it turns out that Nate was really really good.
Popular vote spread: 52.3-46.4 (Nate: 52.3-46.2) !!
All the states that Nate called, Obama won (though he had Virginia as solid blue and it was kind of close). He had NC really close but for Obama and he had Missouri toss up (which it is)
Only issues: He didn’t have IN.
Overall, pretty unbelievable job. About as well as PECOTA does (if not better).
His status in polling just solidified.
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
338-163
Wow, what a thrashing.
Historical context, anyone?
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
those numbers are old
he’s at least at 349 – could be as high as 375 (he holds leads in MO and NC) and Nate is claiming that Georgia was called prematurely as there are 600K outstanding mail in votes yet to be counted (Georgia margin for McCain was only 200K).
That would be a thrashing.
I’m not good with history but such a thrashing isn’t just Obama – has a lot to do with Bush.
But it’s good in another respect. Brown vs. Board wasn’t a split decision, it was unanimous for a reason. This election should have been a drubbing as well, just to solidify the point.
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
Hmm, those are the
latest numbers from CNN’s site. I would guess they would be pretty current…guess not.
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
CNN was really conservative
they didnt’ call IN for Obama
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
Needs more votes
to be as big as Clinton’s thrashings (370-168 over Bush and 379-159 over Dole), and no where close to Reagan (489-59 over Carter and 525-13 over Mondale).
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
would be at 390
if he wins all of the states still “in play” according to Nate. (Might even be an electoral vote in Omaha up for grabs). That’s a pretty good win.
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
Regardless of the exact numbers... it's a landslide for sure.
Not historic in terms of numbers, but historic nonetheless.
And just to be clear, since it is the tactic of some (not you) to immediately brand dislike/distrust of Obama as racist, I would have supported a more moderate Democrat regardless of ethnicity or gender.
Hopefully, he will govern toward the middle, and we will look back on this day as a major milestone for this nation.
I doubt he gets that many
I think Mizzou stays red, NC, IN and Omaha probably swing blue. That gives him, what, 365?
but it is a pretty good size win, especially compared to the really close 2000 and 2004 wins. I don’t think we’d have seen Republicans crying foul over a 100,000 vote loss that swung the election (like the Dems did when Kerry lost Ohio), but I’m glad we didn’t get the chance to find out.
Other results
homosexuals lost big. All ballot initiatives to ban gay marriage passed (CA most likely did although might not have been called) and AK passed an act that prevents homosexuals from adopting.
The down ticket races didn’t really ride Obama’s coattails the way you would expect. I guess his victories were a little too close and it very well could be people were afraid of one party rule.
Fucking Ted Stevens probably beat Begich. What does that say about AK?
Franken result is probably expected
Chambliss win is probably expected but the margin was pretty big
Merkley shouldn’t have been close – not in solid blue Oregon.
This wasn’t exactly a resounding win for Democrats or Progressives. Just for Obama
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
Sarah Palin is the governor of Alaska. What does that say about AK?
by vfn on Nov 5, 2008 9:21 AM CST up reply actions
That they overvalue the rare hottie in their midst??
Alaska-hot isn’t Texas-hot.
The silver lining for Repubs in 2008
was Sarah Palin.
This is a rock star who moves the needle and she will be coming back.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Geez I hope not...
she’s even less qualified/experienced than Obama was when he ascended into the spotlight at the Dem Convention.
Seriously?
Listen to the woman talk for five seconds.
She sounds like the bastard child of Marge Gunderson and Ned Flanders, has no idea what the VP actually does (much less many of the other functions of government), and was apparently so frail that she couldn’t appear on a single Sunday political talk show or give one press conference or interview that wasn’t stage-managed during her entire campaign- and even those, she managed to mess up.
That’s someone to hold up as the future of your party?
"I dont care to debate with a troll." - Sharky
No doubt.
She was a one trick pony, and her freshness label is officially expired.
You won’t here from her in any major political race ever again.
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
You might hear some more stories
about her
http://www.politico.com/playbook/
— "NEWSWEEK has also learned that Palin’s shopping spree at high-end department stores was more extensive than previously reported. While publicly supporting Palin, McCain’s top advisers privately fumed at what they regarded as her outrageous profligacy. One senior aide said that Nicolle Wallace had told Palin to buy three suits for the convention and hire a stylist. But instead, the vice presidential nominee began buying for herself and her family — clothes and accessories from top stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. According to two knowledgeable sources, a vast majority of the clothes were bought by a wealthy donor, who was shocked when he got the bill. Palin also used low-level staffers to buy some of the clothes on their credit cards. The McCain campaign found out last week when the aides sought reimbursement. One aide estimated that she spent ‘tens of thousands’ more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband. Some articles of clothing have apparently been lost. An angry aide … said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books."
— "McCain himself rarely spoke to Palin during the campaign, and aides kept him in the dark about the details of her spending on clothes because they were sure he would be offended. Palin asked to speak along with McCain at his Arizona concession speech Tuesday night, but campaign strategist Steve Schmidt vetoed the request."
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Ah
The finger pointing begins…
And I don’t think any Republicans should be angry at how someone abuses spending. If they didn’t want her spending money, they shouldn’t have let her spend the money. They probably told her to buy whatever, knowing full well that they could use this to smear her to make them look good later.
And I like the line about “when the Republican Party audits its books.” Wasn’t the RNC head accountant embezzling money last year, leaving them with almost nothing in the bank?
umm, did you read what bking said?
Palin now over Obama at the 04 DNC.
Please explain and argue that point…if not, shut up.
Jindal '12
bking, Palin will have four
to eight more years of a track record when / if she decides to run. She has been a very good guvnuh and is also popular (90% of the state loves her).
I also believe that a centrist candidate like McCain has proven that you cannot win an election that way. At least at the presidential level.
To win the presidency where there are two candidates, you need to build a very strong base and then expand it to more than 50% which is basically what Obama did. Reagan did the same thing as did W.
Obama had the advantages of an unpopular prez in office who had been there for 8 years, an economy that tanked in September plus a media that largely looked away from his past. Obama is now going to have a track record and he has led nothing of importance in his life. This is going to be a failed presidency.
All of us on the right know that Obama and the left will eventually overreach and the right is going to rebel. Palin will no doubt rep the other side and has a chance to build a very strong base that expands. There is work to do in certain states but with all of those advantages, Obama won the popular vote by only 5-6%.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Ronald Reagan is somehow
viewed as one of our greatest presidents and he wasn’t nearly as intelligent as many other people before and after him.
Jimmy Carter may have been the smartest prez we have had in the last 100 years but he was the worst leader I have ever seen.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
I wouldn't agree
That Reagan was of middling intelligence at all. That he didn’t read with the vociferousness of Carter or Clinton doesn’t mean all that much to me.
Even disregarding that, and assuming that you’re correct, wouldn’t you feel better about an intelligent President than you would about one of middling intelligence that could possibly overcome it? Why start off with a handicap if you don’t have to?
Reagann at least
had one of the better wits of any President I’ve known.
’My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes.
Ronald Reagan
.
I still need to see evidence that she is dumb
I know ab03 thinks she’s in the bottom 25% of American society. But that isn’t enough proof for me. Apart from where she went to school (not Ivy league – well, she’s not upper class – middle class westerners don’t go to Ivy League schools), and how she did in two or three interviews when she was being handled horribly by the McCain campaign.
I’m not saying she’s a genius or anything. And she may well be of “middling intelligence”. But I’m not sold on the idea that she’s a moron quite yet. If she goes back to Alaska, runs the state well for 6 more years and demonstrates an expertise in areas of national concern (e.g., energy), then you may have to reassess that claim. Or if she decides she should run against a popular Obama in 2012, we’ll know you were right.
interviews
The ABC and CBS interviews are a good example of media bias and the McCain campaign ineptness. The McCain camp allowed the two networks to show clips of the interviews that made Palin look bad before they had aired the full interview. They should have stipulated that the networks were only allowed to show the interviews in full. The clips that were aired allow the public (and media) to form opinions of her before the full interview was aired.
Nolan Ryan should be the Rangers president, GM, manager and pitching coach.
Bill Oreilly
talked about offering McCain free air time in the past few weeks and they wouldn’t take him up on it.
McCain is a true American hero and I admire him on so many levels but he got we he deserved in this election because he did not play to win.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
It wasn't bias that made Palin look bush league
it was Palin that made Palin look bush league. She’s a very talented politician with an instinct for the jugular, but she is not ready for prime time.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
McCain lost the election
By bending over backwards to kiss the far-right fringe’s ass while neglecting any independents.
by vfn on Nov 5, 2008 9:57 AM CST up reply actions
From Byron York...
over at National Review:
McCain, the Base, and Turnout [Byron York]
On those vote totals again. At the moment, Obama has 62.4 million votes, while McCain has 55.4 million. In 2004, Bush won 62 million votes, and Kerry 59 million.
So if there wasn’t this vaunted through-the-roof turnout, what do the numbers say about McCain’s supporters? I’ll have to look at this more closely, but if 2004 was, as everyone says, a base election, and Bush got 62 million votes, my guess is that McCain didn’t do as well with the Republican base as Bush did.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
McCain ran a terrible campaign,
was mediocre / boring in the debates (Obama just played defense) and had the bad luck of the stock market tanking in September.
Factor in that it’s historically difficult for the incumbent party to get elected after 8 years in power and that the media was obnoxiously cheerleading for Obama and that’s how you get beat.
Bitch about Sarah Palin all you want but if McCain had chosen Lieberman I’m not sure he gets 40% of the popular vote.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Nov 5, 2008 10:05 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
if he'd of chosen romney...
…he had a lot better chance of winning.
"Anyone that isn't pro-choice never met you" ~Brian Thomas on Seth...
Yeah, she'll be as big of a Republican power
as Dan Quayle was after his VP stint ended.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Don't men outnumber women 2 to 1 in AK?
Just about anything in a dress would be considered hot there.
I propose a 5-year moratorium on trading any young Ranger pitchers who throw over 90 mph.
Anyone seen that footage from her visit to Iraq
…last year? Palin is legitimately hot. When she was over there wearing little make up, fatigues, and tee-shirts you could tell she’s the real deal.
by Black Francis on Nov 5, 2008 4:39 PM CST up reply actions
Last night...
…we had one of the best family court judges in Harris County voted out, as part of a near-sweep of incumbent Republican judges being voted out and new Democrats voted in.
It highlights the absurdity of the partisan election system, vis-a-vis judges.
It boggles my mind that Sherriffs and Judges are elected
Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
They're pretty much at the mercy of straight-ticket voters.
Plus maybe 5% of the electorate who are educated on the race.
"One man, five scoops." -- shroomer
I didn't vote for Obama
but I think is probably the ideal result overall (big picture wise).
Obama does bring a fresh new perspective. I realized last night that he was campaigning on “realistic liberalism,” which is, at least what he described, far different from the idealistic impractical liberalism of the past. This may be a good thing. And I never particularly liked McCain, so I’m not exactly devastated by this.
The House and Senate results, from what we’ve seen so far, are probably ideal as well. The Republicans deserved to be beaten in many of those cases – but I didn’t want them losing everything.
Basically, I think the Republicans needed to lose to get their house in order. And hopefully this election is the impetus to do that. But I didn’t want the Democrats, particularly Reid and Pelosi, “winning” per se. Having a 58/40/2 split in the Senate (or whatever it ends up being) is probably a good end point, as is the House only being ~ +15 for the Dems.
Basically, not giving Congress a mandate gives Obama more power to do what he said he’s going to do, as opposed to what Pelosi and Reid want him to do. I’m glad Obama won by more than they did.
agreed
I’ve been voting against the Republican party since 2000. The Red team really needs to find its soul and I hope this election starts that process. I really want 2 viable parties to choose from instead of the false choice we were given yesterday.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
Well, congrats to Barack Obama
I usually never post in these political threads since political discussion makes my head hurt, but I do feel obligated to post my congrats to our 44th President Elect this morning. My personal beliefs aside, that was indeed a historic moment in US history last night, and I hope the Obama presidency is a successful one – we sure need it to be.
"[Tim McCarver and Joe Buck] are the Gabe Gross and Ben Broussard of the broadcasting booth." - dirkatron
Well-stated
Clearly the Republicans deserved to get their asses handed to them, as it would take a forensics genious to find evidence of what their core values are anymore. But hopefully the majority in Congress don’t take this as a sign that they got a blank check either.
Well...
I thought it would be closer.
It’s going to be interesting times. I think we’ll see Republican gains in Congress at the midterms, if only because the President usually gets blamed for whatever goes wrong and the electorate punishes his party at the polls.
I have a tendency to be somewhat obsessive about politics, but the day after I realize that nothing the president does is likely to affect me much. I mean, if card check is the major initiative the Dem Congress is going to be pushing for, I could care less.
And, at least Al Franken lost.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
This is going to be a tough time
whoever won it. After the financial gyrations done to stop the credit markets from seizing up, it would be surprising if we aren’t feeling the aftershocks for the next few years.
I agree with you that we will likely see Republican gains next off election.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Obama has a lot to say
whether 2010 repeats 1994. If he goes back on some of his key promises (tax cuts for middle class, no tax raises under 250K), the Republicans will saturate the airwaves with ads saying he lied. The problem is the econmy is a disaster and Obama may not be able to do all he promised.
It's time to put up or shut up for Obama.
I didn’t vote for him because it’s cool. I voted for him because I think he can make our country better. And now, he needs to do it.
George Bush betrayed my vote four years ago; Barack Obama better not do it again.
"One man, five scoops." -- shroomer
Well,
life is full of little disappointments.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
As a conservative...
I recognize that people are flawed, and governments even more flawed, so I’m used to disappointment. I’m afraid that Obama supporters aren’t immune to that, though.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
by benmor78 on Nov 5, 2008 10:10 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
At least Obama
won’t double talk out of it. If he can’t do the tax cuts or start health care reform right away, I think you’ll see him come out and tell the American people that and he’ll also tell them why. If he can build that trust, it will likely have little backlash. FDR won a bunch of terms even though most of his plans didn’t work.
And a lot of it depends on how bad the economy gets. Some people are saying two or three years. Some are saying we should be in recovery by this time next year. Nobody knows. But if it goes badly, then it won’t be hard to remind people when shit hit the fan and that Obama didn’t have anything to do with it.
by Black Francis on Nov 5, 2008 4:47 PM CST up reply actions
Obama's got an 'out' on taxes
He’s made the promises.
Now, if he goes back on the tax issue, he can blame the Bush economic policies for doing so much damage and leaving the country in even poorer economic conditions than anyone expected that he’ll have to delay the tax cuts or, God forbid, raise taxes on the middle class.
And the left will suck it up, even though the Fammie Mae and Freddie Mac disasters are the result of Democrat economic policies.
I want Obama to succeed in turning this thing around, I’m just not sure he will.
That's not the way that it works, though.
For instance, 9/11 was planned during the Clinton presidency. But it’s associated with Bush. If the recession stretches 3 or 4 quarters, it’s no longer Bush’s recession, it’s Obama’s.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
I get your point
but that’s not a good example. No one blames Bush for Sept. 11.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
Yes they do.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Who?
No one. That’s BS.
Look, the only good thing people can look back upon with approval was Bush’s reaction to 9/11. Fer christ’s sake Bush was the last clip of the intro to the World Series showing him throwing out a pitch in a bullet proof vest. Had it not been for 9/11 Bush would not have gotten a second term.
Nothing pithy here. Please move long.
Loose Change?
Michael Moore? I mean, people do blame him for it. Maybe not as many (closer) to mainstream sources than those two, but, for instance, there was a lot of talk about the daily briefing memos and such.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Michael Moore
I consider him pretty fringy, I don’t think a lot of people agree with him on that.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
I don't.
I thought his initial reaction in the school was a little weird, but I don’t blame him for 9/11. There was the memo from CIA that said Bin Laden may use planes, but it was still the intelligence community’s role to look into that whether or not Bush though tit was a big deal. They’re supposed to be the pros.
So let me say right here and now that I have never believed Bush was responsible in any way, shape, or form for 9/11. Clinton, neither. It was some crazy, well planned shit that nobody had ever seen before. Couldn’t prepare for it without a crystal ball.
I don’t want to argue about the other stuff (I don’t feel like it tonight) but will say that nobody thought it was FDR’s Great Depression even though he was in power throughout most of it.
by Black Francis on Nov 5, 2008 7:20 PM CST up reply actions
There are a number...
of conservatives who think that it was FDR’s Depression. Hell, I was just reading an op-ed the other day talking about FDR extending the Depression by 7 years.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
This election was very much like 1976 in so many ways.
The Dems, fresh off Nixon’s resignation and using Watergate fatigue as a platform made big gains in the ’74 elections. There was coattail effect in 1976 for Carter that still existed and he barely beat Ford and Dems controlled the Senate and Congress.
So what do you think happens when you have an incompetent prez AND control of the Senate & Congress?
In 1978 Repubs started to make big gains.
In 1980, the incompetent prez was shown the door and Repubs dominated the country for the next 12 years.
We’re back to 1976.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Meh.
Don’t you think a lot of it was some kind of residual effect of the generation(s) of liberal control of government, and the fact that people growing up in Goldwater’s shadow had finally become relevant?
by brettgardner on Nov 5, 2008 10:16 AM CST up reply actions
Not sure.
I was conscious enough to know that this country was an absolute mess in so many ways in ’79-80.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Its a lot more like 1992 to me.
Economy went bad, foreign policy is no longer important issue in peoples minds. New young face with fresh moderate takes on liberal issues comes up. There are a lot of parallels.
I can see a bad couple of years economically leading to a Republican comeback in congress, but I have trouble seeing how a charismatic Obama gets beaten for re-election.
It really depends
on what Obama and the Democratic congress do, and how strong the headwinds are from the financial meltdown and the money thrown in already to fix it.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
yeah, a lot can happen between now and then.
The stock market will definitely be higher (say 12,000), and Obama can point to a 3,000 point gain while in office. That really doesn’t mean anything, other than it was oversold during this crisis, but he’ll have that to hang his hat on.
Frankly, the world is a scary place right now, both geopolitically and financially. Not the ideal time to be learning how to be President. Which is why I hope (and expect) Obama to fill his cabinet with experienced people from the Clinton administration and maybe even some from the Bush administration (Gates?)
Flame War
I’m not trying to draw all of the Bush is the Anti-Christ-ers offsides here, but the fact that national security/foreign policy was a top concern for so few voters is a testament to the success of the Bush years. Only 7 years after 9/11 and only 1 year after so many called defeat in Iraq inevitable, it looks like a lot has turned around. Had terrorism and Iraq still been main factors, McCain would’ve done a lot better.
by Jack Nicholson 1974 on Nov 5, 2008 10:33 AM CST up reply actions
I think it has much more to do with
Bush coming up with even bigger disasters to cover up his other disasters. Bush was just a cornucopia of disasters.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
opposite
economy is and always should be top priority. If it’s not, that’s when you know the president has been doing his job
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
War in Iraq
I don’t think we’ve won it. I don’t think we will win it. At this point I don’t think we could win it. We can keep things relatively calm by buying off the same guys who were attacking us not so long ago, but as soon as we stop that it’s likely back to square one. And the Iraqi government wants us out. When we leave it’s going to be a horrible situation.
And terrorism…
A lot of them are fighting us head on in Afghanistan. Some have gone to Iraq. Others have bombed other countries’ (our allies) shit.
But no doubt that the FBI and other agencies have done a good job over the last few years. Do you think they wouldn’t have been as vigilant if it was Gore in office on 9/11? A lot of what the government has done to increase security would have taken place under any president. Bush gets his due, but I sure as hell don’t give him all the credit.
In fact, due to our foreign policy over the last eight years more people hate the United States than ever. Hardly makes us safe. It’s the shit like Guantanamo Bay, torture, and a war against the wrong enemy that I’m talking about.
by Black Francis on Nov 5, 2008 4:57 PM CST up reply actions
Haven't won Iraq
Definitely. When the surge was announced I predicted that it would work — for a while, and that as soon as the surge ended violence might pick right back up again. They’re just waiting us out. Invading Iraq is the biggest mistake the U.S. has made since…I just don’t know. Bay of Pigs? Courting Saudi Arabia in the 70’s and leaving the Shah of Iran vulnerable? Vietnam?
Your point about the FBI et al being vigilant is good for Gore, McCain, or anyone else, too. And neither of them would have been as likely to completely squander the political capital they’d have had after Sept. 11.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
He can't hide as POTUS.
No matter what happens in the next four years, he has to wear it.
Unlike Clinton who was more of centrist (that couldn’t keep his hands off fat 20 year olds), Obama represents the lunatic fringe left of Daily Kos and William Ayers and is largely incapable of reaching out to what will be an unwilling right.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
See...
but the thing is, I don’t necessarily think that Obama represents the Kos crowd. They think he does, but he hasn’t said anything so far that leads me to believe he’s going to govern that way.
Now, some of his stated policies I find horrifying (like the national service plan), but if he turns out to be a centrist, great. I think one of the benefits to him of being something of a blank slate is that he can be all things to all people, because there’s not a track record there.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
benmor, was he or was he not
one of the more liberal senators?
He was in the living room of William Ayers (who absolutely reps Daily Kos and their kind) 6-7 years ago launching his campaign.
He was what he is right now and whether or not he chooses to govern that way is to be seen but I don’t think he’s capable of reaching out to the right without severely pissing off his base.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
He was in the living room of William Ayers
That was so nice of them to invite you to the meeting.
I am the motherfucking shore patrol, motherfucker! I am the motherfucking shore patrol! Give this man a beer.
I think the Ayers...
political launching was in 94 or 95.
Those kinds of things don’t indicate how he’ll govern, though. As I said, he’s still basically a blank slate.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
If you honestly think...
…that Obama wants to turn this country into a liberal-fringe nation, you should quit listening to Sean Hannity.
"One man, five scoops." -- shroomer
ghtd36
Obama is what he is…what has happened in his past to believe he will govern differently?
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Obama
I think he’s absolutely capable of reaching out to the right, because he’s intelligent enough to realize he needs to if he’s going to help heal the divisions in this country.
I think an equally valid question to the one you presented is this: is the right going to be willing to work with Obama without pissing off their base? And what’s happened in their past to believe they would be willing to do so?
"I dont care to debate with a troll." - Sharky
RC Cook, I believe the right
is going to largely give Obama the Heisman over the next four years.
There is probably very little interest in reaching out to him just like there was very little interest in the left reaching out to Bush from the get-go.
It’d be nice if everybody could just get along but it’s never going to be that way.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
BS
Bush ran on this uniter, not divider campaign and then gave the left the middle finger 6 months into his first term.
by robert_d_wilfong on Nov 5, 2008 3:51 PM CST up reply actions
Pretty much
and it would be naive to believe Obama will be different.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
I agree with all of that
Obama has promised to be both a centrist and a liberal to different groups at the same time. But there is absolutely nothing to make Obama cater to the left now. They’re useless at this point.
Lets assume for a moment that Obama simply took the path of least resistance to the White House. So he promised different things to different people – he has to be a centrist if he wants to get re-elected in 2012. If he blows off the far left, then he’ll obviously anger Kos – but so what? He’ll call for a left-wing challenge – a la Buchanan to Bush in 1992?. Ha. If he’s the centrist he promises to be, he’ll EASILY get re-elected in 4 years. This election wasn’t close, but it would have been a bigger blowout if not for the “Obama is unknown” factor. That’ll be gone in 4 years.
If, on the other hand, Obama becomes a very left-wing Kos-type President, then he’ll anger the moderates who voted him in, and open himself up to a legitimate intra-party challenge (Hillary?). Even if he survived that, he couldn’t survive a general election where the Republicans can basically point to all of his broken promises in this election.
Good points but I can't see a challenge from inside the party
after just 4 years.
The Electoral College was not close but it wasn’t the landslides of ’72 or ’84 either. Lose 3% of your gains and this thing is knotted back up.
Another silver lining to all of this is that Hillary Clinton will never, ever be POTUS.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Amen to that
If nothing else good comes out of this election, I think that’s something many people on both sides of the aisle can feel thankful for- no Hillary in the White House.
"I dont care to debate with a troll." - Sharky
Well today...
…I’ve heard several Congressional Republicans express their willingness to cooperate with the Obama Administration. Last night I saw Obama accept his win with a big dose of humility, signaling that he wants to work to bridge these divides. I don’t know what makes you think he’s not capable of doing that.
by Black Francis on Nov 5, 2008 5:00 PM CST up reply actions
franken
According to CNN Franken is currently behind Coleman by 570 votes out of about 2.8 million. Does anyone know if Minnesota has an automatic recount law?
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
by DerekSTheRed on Nov 5, 2008 10:33 AM CST up reply actions
that's with 100% of the precints reporting
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
by DerekSTheRed on Nov 5, 2008 10:34 AM CST up reply actions
Recount
Now CNN is saying a recount is likely since the difference between the two is .00016 of the vote. It’s also unclear if the Georgia Senator Chambliss will reach 50% which would precipitate a runoff in December.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
by DerekSTheRed on Nov 5, 2008 10:54 AM CST up reply actions
Yup
Recount.
Go Franken.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
Rule 5? No…talk to the hand.
by thedirkatron on Nov 5, 2008 11:51 AM CST up reply actions
al franken didn't lose
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
Surely it goes to recount
regardless of who won or lost, right?
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
yup
already announced. long drawn out process that will probably end in mid December.
But, to be clear, the final result tally isn’t in yet either – absentee ballots need to be counted
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
The real question:
When does Sharky pay ab03 $200?
ab, I’m with you. I won’t rest until the debt is paid.
"One man, five scoops." -- shroomer
Poor Sharky
He’ll probably have to declare bankruptcy now.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Yep, around 4 oclock
When he clocks in…
Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
by Brian Thomas on Nov 5, 2008 12:47 PM CST up reply actions
Well Sharky was right
Congratulations to our 44th President, Fred Thompson.
"You’re the only here who contributes schtick only." - brettgardner
by trza on Nov 5, 2008 10:19 AM CST reply actions 4 recs
thank you
I’d like to send that one out to my homie Brian Thomas, who texted me around 10 last night to convey his joy at watching Fox News try to come to terms with what was happening. You’re my boy, Thomas.
"You’re the only here who contributes schtick only." - brettgardner
Well
Spent the night celebrating. Just made my way through all the threads. I’m not going to add anything terribly fresh or groundbreaking but I figured I would comment. I knew I would eventually have a candidate that I would be proud of, but I never would have guessed it would come in my second election. I’m confident that Obama is the right guy to turn this mess around. It won’t be perfect, it probably won’t even be pretty, but I’m still confident. Seeing the world celebrate the news makes me proud of the decision this country made last night. If I had to pick one reason why I believe in Obama it’s because I think he has the demeanor and communication skills to mend relationships with other nations.
God bless Obama and God bless America.
I am the motherfucking shore patrol, motherfucker! I am the motherfucking shore patrol! Give this man a beer.
See...
I don’t understand that. Seeing “the world celebrate” doesn’t fill me with confidence that we as a country have made the right decision.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Well, it depends on what you think "the world" is.
Pretty much all of our allies were celebrating, plus Kenya (which is probably our ally, or at least not our enemy).
I’d like to think that they’re celebrating the fact that America is going to stop being the police of the world.
"One man, five scoops." -- shroomer
That's something to celebrate?
Why?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Because...uh...
…nobody likes assholes who pick fights with other sovereign nations without at least trying diplomacy?
"One man, five scoops." -- shroomer
Are you talking about Iraq?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
To some degree...
…but I’m also talking about threatening Iran and Russia without talking to them first.
"One man, five scoops." -- shroomer
Talking...
it did a bang-up job in North Korea.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Are you honestly going to contend...
…that diplomacy should take a back seat to military action?
"One man, five scoops." -- shroomer
Are you honestly going to contend...
that, for instance, and Iraq with Saddam Hussein in power is better than an Iraq without?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
If it meant
that Afghanistan was in better shape, bin Laden was dead, the U.S. hadn’t obliterated its political capital from Sept. 11, and terrorists didn’t have a new playground in Iraq, yes.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
I don't think
there is much doubt of that.
If Saddam were still in power, I really doubt Iran would be as far as they are down the path to nuclear armament.
Having Saddam in charge of Iraq made it much more stable than the condition it is in currently, which is being ready to break into civil war after we leave.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
I think...
that our military power is the only thing that gives “diplomacy” any credibility.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Not really
though, obviously, it’s a big part of it. The strength and size of the American economy, and the country’s longstanding willingness to give money to help out other nations goes a long way as well.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
Hell yes
Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
by Brian Thomas on Nov 5, 2008 12:48 PM CST up reply actions
if removing him means having so many people die
and a power vacuum in the middle east filled by terrorists? yes.
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
hussein
old fart he was delusional and kept the religious fanatics in check while bumbling his way into trying to develop weapons (which he never came close to doing).
we spent so many resources to get rid of that why?
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
cnemical weapons
He never developed chemical weapons?
Nolan Ryan should be the Rangers president, GM, manager and pitching coach.
he used them against the kurds in the 80's
which was bad, but we had a while to deal with that and we never did so I figured we didn’t care that much.
since then, don’t know how much of a threat he posed to anybody – at least, not sure how much more of a threat he was then other despots
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
Don't know how much of a threat he posed to anybody...
except his own people, I guess.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
was castro worse? is kim jong il worse?
what about those despots in central africa?
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
If I help a woman fix a flat tire...
am I wrong for helping if I don’t help every woman fix a flat tire?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Did fixing that tire
cause you to forget to finish fixing another tire you had already started?
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
I wouldn't agree...
with that characterization.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
well
if i am part of your conscious and I have a stake in your well being, you are wrong for fixing the tire if it costs us $1M. Then I would say it’s not worth it to us.
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
Well...
now we’re talking about valuation. I’d argue that removing a despot from power is worth more than we paid.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
exactly
i completely disagree. harmless cook who was past his prime – and removing him turned into a clusterfuck.
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
Truly horrifying things...
he and his sons did to those people. Past his prime or not, bringing some earthly justice to him doesn’t bother me a bit.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
it bothers me a ton
and truly horrible things happen in lots of countries around the world. I would be equally pissed if we spent as many lives and money trying to bring justice to those people as well.
i was actually not so against the war but only because i didn’t think it would take this many resources to execute the removal of a kook. if I was in charge of ordering the war, I would gladly step down and take the secretary of defense and the joint chiefs of staff with me.
lives especially.
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
Well we killed
100,000+ Iraqis in the process by most estimates I hear. It may be that the cure hurt more than the disease.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
I'd say
that we have had despots in power for long periods of time, like Castro, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, etc., and leaving them in power really doesn’t cost us much.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
and then
there’s the U.S. history of supporting those very despots when it suits our purposes.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
We currently support Saudi Arabian Royal family
and they aren’t the nicest folks.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
so to elaborate
it’s not that there were other problems that are bigger. I was just pointing out that there are plenty of problems in the world that we choose not to deal with – the reason being that the cost is too much for us to bear.
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
I don't see how...
the flat statement, “too much for us to bear,” is in any way accurate.
Either way, I don’t agree that the war in and of itself was a bad thing.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Pros and Cons of War
What are the pros and cons of war from your perspective, Ben?
R
And this
is specifically about the Iraq War.
R
How lengthy of an answer are you wanting?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Up to you
Just curious what you see as the pros and cons.
Feel free to espouse at length, though.
I want to keep this brief, initially...
Pros:
1) Democracy in the Middle East as a sort of parallel to the domino theory from the Cold War.
2) Democracy in a country previously led by a dictator and his sons that committed undeniably cruel and sadistic acts.
3) Sending the message, globally, that the United States has the will and strength to enforce what it believes is correct action.
Cons:
1) Tremendous cost monetarily.
2) Large cost in American lives in modern context, though vanishingly small cost in historical context.
3) Enormous cost in Iraqi lives.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Actually
the way we dealt with it during the Reagan administration was to give him Billions in economic and military assistance. Most of that occured around ’87 IIRC, way after the crimes he was recently put to death for.
Reagan did it to help keep Iran in check. A much smarter approach than Bush the younger came up with.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Well...
call me silly, but I think having Saddam out of power is an unquestionably good thing.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
arsenic out of the water system is unquestionably a good thing
as an ends that doesn’t take into account anything about the means
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
Okay...
so at least your acknowledging that removing him from power was a positive.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
i've acknowledged this before with you
but it means next to nothing to judge this in a complete vacuum. There are millions of problems in the world that we could technically solve if costs (both financial and cost of lives) weren’t an issue. Getting rid of all of those problems would be a good thing. However, I’m not going to say nuking North Korea is a good thing.
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
I didn't say...
that nuking the Norks was good, either.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Removing him from power
It wasn’t worth 3-4000 american lives.
It wasn’t worth a trillion dollars.
It wasn’t worth the colossal distraction it caused w/ the real war in Afghanistan.
Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
That takes care of that
It’s just a value judgment and there’s little wrong with that.
Move along. Nothing to see here.
Nothing pithy here. Please move long.
I've been arguing this with people...
for 6 years. What do you want me to say? You think it’s wrong, I think it’s right.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
A well-thought out...
and reasoned reply. You beat me!
Where did I say anything about Iraq having anything to do with 9/11?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
So…. having Saddam out of power is a good thing. Having an unstable Iraq is a good thing? The reason for removing him was 9/11. Not a good reason. He posed absolutely no threat to the U.S.
The reason for removing him...
was not 9/11.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Ben
I’m agreeing with your rationale but not your conclusion. You’ve made a value judgment that removing a brutal ruler outweighed the financial costs, American lives, and destabilizing a country. If that’s your call that’s your call. Others (like me) disagree but it’s basically a disagreement over value, and rarely can one person be truly “right” or “wrong” in that situation (except for this one where you’re wrong).
Nothing pithy here. Please move long.
Yeah...
I understand. It frustrates me to no end, though, to get into these arguments. Frequently people (see above, 9/11!! BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED!!) try to make the case that there’s no reasonable case to be made for Iraq.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
just because there is a reason
doesn’t make it reasonable. If I buy a scarf for $1M because my neck is cold, I have a reason but it’s not reasonable.
People have every right to be upset for going to war for what they perceive to be an unreasonable reason.
Lying just goes to show that they were deceived into thinking that the war could have been reasonable (certainly, credible imminent threats are a reasonable reason to go to war)
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
The neo-con argument...
has always been that the expansion of democracy is a good thing. They believe that a democracy in the Middle East is worth the cost. To compare it to buying a $1 million neck scarf is specious.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
no it's not
just because some idealists think that it’s america’s god given duty to spread democracy to the heathens doesn’t mean i have to buy into it.
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
You can disagree...
without framing the debate with a ridiculous analogy.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
the analogy is intentionally exaggerated to prove the point
I don’t know what a comparable cost to value discrepancy would be in terms of clothing but the point I was trying to make is that there is one.
chill the fuck out
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
Chill the fuck out?
I honestly didn’t think I wasn’t chilled the fuck out. I don’t think I’ve ever seen you running with your temperature this high.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
this is weird
chill the fuck out isn’t me saying it with eyes bugging out and getting really angry. “you can frame the debate without making a ridiculous analogy” sounds like you were hurt or something. i was just trying to say I wasn’t being demeaning, just proving a point.
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
I think it's a good thing, too.
But I don’t agree with how we got ’er done.
I think Suddam was an evil wretched fuck and the world is always better off without such men in charge of nations, but the way it happened wasn’t worth it, imo.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
Rule 5? No…talk to the hand.
You're silly
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
I agree
And in 50 years, when Iraq is again the jewel of a peaceful middleeast, GWB will be looked upon differently.
Nolan Ryan should be the Rangers president, GM, manager and pitching coach.
And when Pigs fly out your ass
you will be viewed as a great source of Bacon.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
by DJCahill on Nov 5, 2008 2:24 PM CST up reply actions 5 recs
But
it would have been an even better thing to do it with a much more realistic plan for occupation afterword.
But the U.S. should not be in the nation building business, or the regime change business anyway. Seems like I heard that from a certain GOP candidate about 8 years ago.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
Well..
What about Darfur? Should we do something about that?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
That's a pretty depressing outlook.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
I just don't think
the U.S. should be trying to solve every problem in the world. There are things we can do to help the Darfur situation, but I think the regional countries should be taking the lead.
Part of the reason we’re in a war on terrorism is our propensity for getting so involved everywhere. I set the bar pretty high for going to war, much higher than Bush did. I do not think you can go to war on something as amorphous as terrorism, though the military probably has to be part of the strategy.
I’m rambling, tired.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
I don't think 300 million people
have a responsibility to police the other 6 Billion. If we do want to do something in Darfur, it should be part of a multinational UN effort.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
You have 2 options
deal with the UN, and make humanitarian efforts multinational.
Or go it alone, and when you get bogged down in quicksand. listen to other nations smirk at you when you ask for troops.
There is no doubt the elder Bush’s invasion of Iraq was more effective than the younger Bush’s, mostly because he was strong enough diplomatically to make it multinational, and younger Bush was a limp-dick diplomatically.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
by DJCahill on Nov 5, 2008 3:03 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
The UN...
has no force projection capability. Thus, getting the UN involved is basically just us doing the heavy lifting, anyway.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
As we found out in Iraq
defeating an army in the field is one thing. That requires force projection. Holding ground is a policing action. That requires infantry, without an undue amount of force projection.
UN Peacekeeping generally does a better job than US Peacekeeping. A Rand study showed a 7 out of 8 success rate for UN Peacekeeping and a 4 out of 8 success rate for US Peacekeeping.
While I have no doubt our military can beat any other military in the field, having it police the peace is a waste of American dollars and lives. The value in working with the UN is to have a multinational force to keep the peace after the war is won.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
But then you have...
UN peacekeepers being involved in the sex trade, for example.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
I believe
the more in the sex trade, the better.
If they ever went to a flat tax, I would recommend all those lawyers and accountants start working in the sex trade.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Ewww...
accountants in the sex trade?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
my accountant's pretty hot
…and she’s already a big cokehead so she’s already got a head start.
by Black Francis on Nov 5, 2008 5:14 PM CST up reply actions
we might do somethign that doesn't cost human lives
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
send food, aid
possibly even less invasive military operations (are we good at that anymore?)
that’s about it. if those are ineffectual, sorry. I guess I’m just cold.
I’m certainly not going to advocate for a shitstorm war in Africa
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
It's good to have friends, ben.
And I don’t know if this hasn’t been mentioned, but I think most of us realize that our own allies in Western Europe haven’t ever elected a minority. Once again we’re the land of opportunity. That can’t be a bad thing.
by Black Francis on Nov 5, 2008 5:06 PM CST up reply actions
I get tired of Europeans saying that we're a racist nation
Hopefully this will shut them up on at least that one fact.
Europeans...
make my head hurt.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Yeah
I didn’t mean too put too much stock in that. It’s much more exciting that the country spoke in such a decisive matter. It’s just pretty cool to see when you’re already excited.
I am the motherfucking shore patrol, motherfucker! I am the motherfucking shore patrol! Give this man a beer.
Well
I agree that the general population of France doesn’t have a clue what’s going on in our country. However, I feel that the optimism reflects nations who want to see more fluid communication with the US.
I am the motherfucking shore patrol, motherfucker! I am the motherfucking shore patrol! Give this man a beer.
And be their doormat?
Kind of like we were in the late 70’s?
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Trust me
I don’t want to be anyone’s doormat, especially France. But I do believe in communication with other nations, especially Europe.
I am the motherfucking shore patrol, motherfucker! I am the motherfucking shore patrol! Give this man a beer.
I think any change would have improved foreign interactions
I think it is a lot more naive of them though. I work with a lot of Europeans – I think they believe that Obama is one of them. Even a moderate European would be a fanatic left-winger in the US on many social/domestic issues like guns, abortion, health care, etc. They, like many other people, see in Obama what they want to see. But they see a far-left Obama that I don’t believe really exists. Obama isn’t going to ban guns or shut down the coal industry – but the average European would probably believe that he will if you asked him.
Obama won a center-right country by running as a center-left candidate and portreying his opponent as a far right candidate.
And when the shit hits the
fan and world needs a bad-ass policeman, where are they going to go?
I sincerely believed Joe "Where’s he been hidin’ Biden when he said Obama will be severely tested by some incident in his first 6 months.
The reason this is so is because the rest of the world thinks he is going to be a big liberal puss.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Next time the world needs a badass policeman
i say we tell them to go fuck themselves.
We got plenty of problems here on the homefront to keep us busy.
Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
by Brian Thomas on Nov 5, 2008 12:51 PM CST up reply actions
And that is exactly
what a cowardly liberal puss would do.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Besides the gruff talk
Why do you feel we owe a responsibility to the world?
by brettgardner on Nov 5, 2008 12:56 PM CST up reply actions
name calling
and macho bravado. signs of true thoughtful positions.
"Anyone that isn't pro-choice never met you" ~Brian Thomas on Seth...
I served my country for 9 years
What about you, chickenhawk?
Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
by Brian Thomas on Nov 5, 2008 1:58 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I would
Really like to see an answer to this question.
I am the motherfucking shore patrol, motherfucker! I am the motherfucking shore patrol! Give this man a beer.
Yup, me too.
But all you’ll get out of him is crap, kinda like pulling the dump plug on a Port-a-Potty.
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Yes we can! November 04, 2008
The answer is that I'm a liberal coward puss
And he’s a true, freedom-loving american who supports the troops with a yellow ribbon on his Crown Victoria, a fervent devotion to Fox News, and a xenophobic disdain for them furriner types…
Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
people really shouldn't be
so quick to volunteer other people’s lives for these worthy causes.
either that or we should institute a mandatory draft for every war where you can’t get out of service for going to college.
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
You could also say...
people really shouldn’t be so quick to volunteer other people’s money for worthy causes.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
touche :)
although i value life more. i also understand that as part of our social contract with the government, I might be called on to sacrifice my goods (for something I don’t believe in) but I don’t want to sacrifice my life for something I dont’ believe in.
You obviously don’t have to agree about the money part.
but would it not be fair to say that you shouldn’t call someone a puss for not wanting to volunteer someone else’s life much in the same way you shouldn’t call someone unpatriotic for not wanting to volunteer their money?
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
I don't think...
people should call people pussies for not advocating military actions.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
BThomas, I wasn't calling you a liberal puss (yet)
but that is my impression of Obama.
If you had to go to the military to move forward, bully for you but you also volunteered so you may get respect from me for doing that but you won’t get sympathy because you had a choice.
So what’s your question?
Rodney, Go fuck yourself. You’re the weirdo that pm’d me wanting to meet because you got your widdle baseball feelings hurt.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Why would I want sympathy from anybody for serving my country?
Odd.
Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
BT, why did
you feel compelled to let me know you served in the military for 9 years?
Does that automatically mean your views of foreign policy should take precedence over mine only because you served in the milltary and I did not?
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
I espoused an opinion about use of our military.
You called me a cowardly liberal puss for it, and indirectly questioned my patriotism.
I’d say the fact that, unlike yourself, I’ve done more than just squawk chickenhawk rhetoric is relevant to the discussion, and i highly doubt too many people would disagree with me.
Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
Does anyone else find ironic
That Josey Wales would likely use lack of years of military service to disqualify a person for Commander-in-Chief, but says that HIS OWN views on foreign policy should not be dismissed because of his lack of years of military service?
Just struck me funny.
R
It struck me as funny, too.
Then again, everything about “The Outlaw” strikes me as funny in a dark, satirical way.
by Black Francis on Nov 6, 2008 5:39 PM CST up reply actions
BT, Why don't you go salute
yourself in the mirror?
I really don’t mind having a president that swings a bat and asks questions later after something like 9/11 happens. This country was so lucky that 100,000+ people didn’t die that day.
Bitch about it all you want but nobody else has tried a stunt like that in this country.
If that statement pisses off Daily Kos / Jane Fonda or the Gomer Pyles of this country, I don’t care.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Josey
Why do you have to revert to such easy caricatures to make a point? Not all liberals are “big pusses” much like not all conservatives are warmongers.
You can stand to learn a thing or two about argumentation. If, however, you’re not actually arguing, but intentionally spinning your wheels here, well, I guess keep it up.
Keep repeating the same lies
maybe someone will believe you eventually.
Why don’t you take your tired act back to that other board you fucking ruined, Josey Whines?
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Yes we can! November 04, 2008
So you advocate
unneccesary wars? Do you really think invading Iraq was in the best long term interest of the U.S.? That will have grave implications for our foreign policy for decades to come.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
tball,
That’s to be seen.
I do take solace in the fact that there have been no other terrorist attacks in the US post 9/11 and I don’t believe that’s coincidental.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
I guess we'll see
after the US leaves Iraq.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
I think if anything
invading Iraq made new attacks more likely. Destabilizing Iraq – which did not have any connection whatsoever to Al Qaida before the war – created another place for terrorists to hang out among the exploitable chaos. If Iraq further deteriorates after a U.S. pullout I fully expect conservatives to blame Obama, even though that pullout would happen no matter who was president and the chaos in Iraq is a result of Bush’s unnecessary war.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
It's like Doug Stanhope wrote this especially for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQEcMTSgg5w
Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
Great DVD!
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Yes we can! November 04, 2008
Dear Lord
We pray for our new President. We ask for You to guide and direct him as he leads us. We pray for his protection and safety, along with his family and staff. We are facing tremendous challenges as a nation – please strengthen him and grant him Your wisdom for the great task ahead. We pray these things in Jesus’ name. Amen.
You won't have much success with that
unless you change it as a prayer to Odin in Thor’s name.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Matthew 6:5-6
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.
But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”
"One man, five scoops." -- shroomer
It would be you
who would seek to make this about me rather than about the President-elect. Does the context of Matt 6 have to do with ministers or Christian leaders who pray for Presidents or those in authority over us in a public setting?
Dude, I got no problem with you praying for Obama.
But it’s coming off as “look at me, I’m a Christian trying to make a point by praying in front of everyone.” The Good Book pretty much specifically tells you that’s not kosher.
But hey, do what you want.
"One man, five scoops." -- shroomer
Well, dude
if you actually studied those verses in Mt 6, you would come to find that they are not a prohibition of prayer in public. It is a heart issue, and I’m sure that I know the motive of my heart in praying that prayer here much more than you do. Perhaps you should judge your own motive in what you’ve written here instead of judging me.
All I'm saying...
…is that you are coming off as “look at me, I’m a Christian trying to make a point in front of everyone.”
But again, do what you want.
"One man, five scoops." -- shroomer
that's specious reasoning
i’m not a hypocrite because i know i’m not.
perhaps, you’re not being completely honest with yourself
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
FWIW
Mark Cuban posted why he voted for obama on his blog. I thought it was an interesting take, especially from someone in his position.
I'm undefeated in fights. Have I been in any? No. Thats because people know my f'ing status. Don't mess with the elite. - Miles
Interesting take by Cuban
How many blacks are on the Dallas Mavericks?
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
That would be all
but Barea and Dirk. What’s your point?
I'm undefeated in fights. Have I been in any? No. Thats because people know my f'ing status. Don't mess with the elite. - Miles
by Dirk Diggler on Nov 5, 2008 12:25 PM CST up reply actions
I just asked a question, Diggler.
Read into it what you want.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
why don't you tell us what you were saying
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
Some might read into it that you have an affinity for sheet-wearing
Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
by Brian Thomas on Nov 5, 2008 2:44 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Awesome
That’s exactly what I wrote in an email to my dad this morning, I believe every word of it.
Hey bro, I’m gonna hit you up when I’m home over Thanksgiving… let’s grab a few rounds
At this rate, he’ll be throwing 107-110 by 2012
Cool
let me know, I’ll be around.
I'm undefeated in fights. Have I been in any? No. Thats because people know my f'ing status. Don't mess with the elite. - Miles
by Dirk Diggler on Nov 5, 2008 12:19 PM CST up reply actions
I am very proud of my company
From an email sent out by the VP:
A Defining Moment
Last night we were all fortunate enough to be involved in a defining moment in American History. Regardless of your political ideology we as Americans marked the changing of the times. For a long time we have been a Nation that represented the strengths of a Democracy, and the freedom within that Democracy.
But for many in our Country, and in Countries around the world, our message has been shrouded in hypocrisy. We have claimed to be the land of opportunity, but many have questioned whether or not that opportunity was available to every one of our citizens.
Last night that question was once, and for all, put to rest when we quite resoundingly elected our first African American President. We made a statement that even those from immigrant backgrounds, modest means, and of African American decent could rise to the highest office in the world.
We proved to the world that in our Nation all opportunities are available to all of our citizens. We are the land of opportunity, and all men are created equally.
A crack rang out last night as the last civil glass ceiling in America was shattered. The effects of this single day will be felt for centuries to come.
It was a defining moment in American History.
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
True
So now we can completely do away will all affirmative action and all talk of America as a racist country must stop, right?
by Jack Nicholson 1974 on Nov 5, 2008 1:11 PM CST up reply actions
Rahm Emanuel
reportedly offered chief of staff spot per FOX. Not a big shock here.
Fire Todd Dodge. Seriously. But in the mean time, SUCK IT WESTERN KENTUCKY! 1-8 baby!
I would say
the left version of Rove, but that’s fairly unfair to Emanuel. He has actually accomplished things on his own.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Rahm Emmanuel, famously quoted
for saying “Republicans can go fuck themselves” is about to become Obama’s Chief of Staff.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-rahm-emanuel,0,926311.story?page=7
Can we kindly dispose of the naive idealistic bullshit that Obama is going to become any kind of centrist?
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
As I said before
he’s a lot like Rove.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
I don't see why
The chief of staff need be a centrist.
by brettgardner on Nov 5, 2008 12:50 PM CST up reply actions
The Rahm Emmanuel
mentality is what is coming down the pike the next four years from Dems.
To think otherwise is naive.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Well
You really have nothing to base that on, nor do I have much to refute it, so I will reserve judgment until I do.
by brettgardner on Nov 5, 2008 12:58 PM CST up reply actions
I believe Obama
represents as he said “the Democratic wing of the Democrat Party.”
He ascended to where he did by appealing to his base of extreme leftists and building out.
What in Obama’s history suggests he will ever reach out to Repubs?
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Well
His work with Senator Lugar, for one.
Also, when did Obama say that? Are you getting him confused with Paul Wellstone?
He doesn't have any idea who Pall Wellstone was
Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
Uber-liberal Minnesota
bald headed senator who looked like he spent his life in acadamia killed in plane crash (5-6 years ago?).
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Good,
the more folks from the Center-Left Clinton White House the better. If this country can get back to the good ole days of the Clinton Presidency, it will be a great thing.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Think Obama can pull something
better looking than Lewinsky?
Jeeeez, if you’re going to abuse your power and be a sexual predator in the Oval Office, don’t do it with a 175 lbs. intern.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
I remember the good old days
when the worst thing the opposition could come up with on the president was that he got blown by an intern.
Those were the good old days. No imploding 401Ks, no pointless wars, no massive deficits as far as the eye can see …
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Getting blown by a fat intern
and not having enough self-esteem to do better or have more self-discipline was his business.
Jeez look at the fat pig he had for a wife….it’s easy to understand what happened.
Lying his ass off and perjuring himself in a court of law was the big problem.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Still
minor problems compared to the absolute mess that Bush handed to the next president.
Give me peace, prosperity, and budget surpluses anyday, and I could give a shit what a President does in his personal life.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Yep
far worse than leading a county into an unnecessary war, right? Or ruining the Justice Department, eviscerating science, pissing off all of our allies, bloating Medicare, the list goes on and on. Yep, Clinton was no Bush.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
secretary of defense
lets see who he appoints
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
Wonder if Powell
is off the table. He may be too old to want to mess with it, though.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
i think he is
he chose his lot.
some speculation that he might keep goss, go with hagel.
secretary of defense has consistently been republican, regardless of the president’s party though.
still, I can see a bipartisan cabinet.
but, as someone said above, chief of staff doesn’t have to be at all. just pick someone you trust and knows something about the white house. rahm is a slam dunk – except he’s been known to be a leak and an asshole.
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
I meant gates, not goss
although he’d probably keep goss as well
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
I bet he keeps Gates
He gets a little bipartisan cred for using someone from the Bush administration, and generally he’s respected across the aisle.
I bet Chuck Hagel gets a position in his cabinet somewhere – maybe Def Sec, or even Sec of State.
i don't think he'd have gates and hagel
i could be wrong
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
probably one or the other
I doubt he’d do both.
TNR has a good article about how he should pick Romney as his health care plan czar, considering that Romney actually did what Obama is proposing in Mass. Doubt it would happen, but interesting thought.
Allow me to float a name out there.
John McCain.
If Obama really wants to unite the country, he’ll give John McCain a job in his administration. And there’s no doubt that McCain is a good foreign policy guy.
"One man, five scoops." -- shroomer
That's ridiculous.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
I think it's a stretch...
…but I don’t see how it’s “ridiculous.”
"One man, five scoops." -- shroomer
It's definitely ridiculous.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Psst.
That was kind of your hint to tell me why you think it’s ridiculous.
"One man, five scoops." -- shroomer
Well...
1) He wouldn’t accept.
2) He has a number of differences with Obama policy-wise,
3) and you don’t take someone you just defeated and put them in your cabinet. It undermines your message.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Right on #3
You make them Vice President
"Colt mccoy sucks, mack brown needs to be fired." - Longhorn
by LSBUser on Nov 5, 2008 3:11 PM CST up reply actions
he's a lifelong senator
he wont’ take it
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
you should probably not offer to people who you know wont' take it
the gesture of offering doesn’t really outweigh that.
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
I'm not sure McCain has the tempermant
to be at State. Not sure I want him at Defense either.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
VA
How about Veteran’s Affairs? A Senator in the minority is not as fun as being apart of the cabinet with real power and your own little bureaucracy.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
The true chapion of veterans has been Jim Webb
No question.
Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
Having said that, if Obama offers a cabinet position to a Republican Senator, he’s going to offer it to a guy like Arlen Specter from PA so the Democratic governor will name his replacement.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
They wouldn't accept it under those circumstances
Obama can pick a Republican senator from a Republican governor state – it wouldn’t change the balance of the chamber.
What Obama cannot do is select a Democrat Senator from a Republican gov. state.
I think they would
Dems aren’t getting to 60 so I think there’s a better then even shot one of these 3 consider joining Obama’s cabinet if offered a position.
[T]here are three potential choices that will give the Democrats an extra Senate seat: Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), and Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH). All three states have Democratic governors. … For Obama, picking one of them would be a twofer: showing his willingness to work with Republicans while flipping a Senate seat. Needless to say, he would emphasize the first point while really being entirely focused on the second one. Snowe and Specter are long-time respected senators and there would be little carping about their appointment to the cabinet.
In addition Collins from Maine is another possibility along with Smith if he wins reelection in Oregon.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
Where did you get that quote
from a site trying to find ways that the Dems can increase their majority?
It won’t happen. I promise you. Unless the job is very significant (Secretary of State, Treasury Secretary), no Republican is sacrificing a seat to the Democrats for a middling cabinet post. They’d be blacklisted in the party. 60 is a nice round number, but it doesn’t mean the Republicans can filibuster all day long – there are always a couple that’ll get picked off – the closer to 60 they are the worse off they are.
The only way that Obama can get one of those Republicans is if the Governor agrees to appoint a Republican. Which won’t happen.
electoral-vote.com
I provided the link above which was from a month ago. For the record the site also went in to how McCain could do the same thing if the Dems did get to 60. Of course the author concluded the Lieberman would have been a shoe in for some position in the cabinet of a McCain Presidency. If you don’t think it will happen … that’s fine. I’m just saying that now that 60 is out of the question, maybe a Senator considers it. 60 only really mattered to blog posters anyway. Senators rarely vote along straight party lines.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
Veteran's Affairs?
Isn’t that a pretty useless spot on the cabinet that you just give to some friend of yours/the party who happens to be out of a job right now?
Maybe Max Clelland?
please
no secretary of defense.
democratic presidents give the sec def to republicans WAY TOO MUCH.
repubs never give it to a dem.
don’t get me wrong, i loved cohen, but yeah…mccain would be awful. maybe mccain could be an ambassador to el salvadore.
"At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c*nt."
-John McCain to his wife, in front of reporters
well, there is a reason for that
Republicans generally have put more focus on defense issues. That is the area of policy where most of these guys are experts in. It doesn’t do any good to just stick some random Democrat in the Pentagon and hope it works out – you need someone who is actually well versed in the area.
Maybe you can find a high-profile Democrat with lots of experience in military matters (Jim Webb?) but there aren’t many and getting them to quit whatever they are doing isn’t assured.
Given that there are different types of Republicans (not all are Rumsfeld) and may share similar views to yours (Hagel), that just makes sense as a post to make a bipartisan gesture.
Sam Nunn?
Although, he is getting up in years.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
He could work
I’m not saying there aren’t any Dems who are qualified, just that there are not that many people actually qualified to run the military and the associated bureaucracy. The majority of them happen to be Republicans, because the military has traditionally been a focus of that party.
Pretty funny.
Kissing Suzy Kolber’s famous Tawmmy (obnoxious Boston fan) weighs in (some NSFW language):
"One man, five scoops." -- shroomer
by ghtd36 on Nov 5, 2008 12:30 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
hopefully in 2 years
the dems can get to 60.
franken is down less than 1000 votes, they will have a recount. i expect coleman to take it. kinda relieved that he won’t be a senator.
i expect chambliss to win the runoff. martin will not benefit from obama’s “folks” coming out to the polls.
smith will probably win in oregon.
that’s 3 of the 4 republican seats staying the same.
as for alaska…WTF??!?!?!? stevens is up 3,500 with 99% reporting…maybe some early voting and absentee ballots left to be counted? if stevens gets reelected, alaskans truly are STUPID. palin as governor (and maybe appointing herself as US senator/running for senate when the CONVICTED FELON stevens has to resign)
OMG.
and oh yeah, Obama kicked some ass.
"At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c*nt."
-John McCain to his wife, in front of reporters
martin might benefit from an army of obama volunteers
and the libertarian voters might go to martin
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
Alaskan governor can't appoint a replacement
After the previous gov appointed his own daughter.
by vfn on Nov 5, 2008 2:28 PM CST up reply actions
what are the chances you think
of Palin running for that office?
her being in washington would keep her in the national spotlight
"At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c*nt."
-John McCain to his wife, in front of reporters
Palin will run in 2010
as an intra-party challenge to the socially moderate Lisa Murkowski, whose dad appointed her anyway.
i see them dems
spending TONS of money in that campaign on her opponent.
or atleast the moveon.orgs
"At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c*nt."
-John McCain to his wife, in front of reporters
I don't know...
why they would do that. What is it about her that drives libs up the wall, anyway?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
probably the same thing that drove the right-wing base crazy...
"Anyone that isn't pro-choice never met you" ~Brian Thomas on Seth...
Which is what, exactly?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
I have no idea.
She really is to the libs what Hillary was to the Conservatives though. You can just say the name and watch the eyes roll back.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
I asked my wife the same thing. She said she hates Palin because she gets by on beauty and charm instead of smarts and skill. Every time Palin winks at the camera my wife rolls her eyes.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
I haven't seen anything...
to indicate that she’s not smart, though.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
She did have
some of the worst interviews of any national political figure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caGjG_9nFwY&feature=related
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
I don't think that's indicative...
of intelligence. That’s indicative of a specialized set of skills particular to politicians.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
it doesn't bode well for he intelligence
certainly doesn’t make her look smart. you’d have to be more patient and understanding to actually buck the idea that she might be smart but bad at interviews. people (especially Democrats) aren’t really patient enough to do that.
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
Interviews can be tricky things as well
Sean Hannity could destroy Obama if he had no idea what questions were coming his way.
She was thrown into this without too much preparation and after a few weeks she got with the program.
Four years from now (or maybe 8 years) she’ll be just fine.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Sean Hannity could destroy Obama if he had no idea what questions were coming his way.
You really think that. Not surprising.
I don't know...
that BFE reporter chick made Biden pretty flustered, and he didn’t just fall off the turnip wagon.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
he did not look flustered
only a partisan would think that. he looked incredulous but not flustered
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
Rolls eyes...
okay.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
you know what's annoying
people who type out actions
use your words. ;)
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
Only a partisan would say that.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
oh we've established that by now
we are partisans.
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
No...
you’re a partisan. I’m float above the partisan fray like a fluffy cloud.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
hmm
you seem to get into a lot of scuffles with partisans.
quick, say something bad about the republican platform.
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
Opposing gay marriage is stupid...
and counterproductive, would be a start.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
stupid maybe, counterproductive? Why?
One can make the argument that that issue helped Bush get elected in 2004. And while Obama was steamrolling to victory, 3 states barred gay marriage, two while voting for him. That meant that as a political issue, it has a lot more traction than other Republican issues like “school choice”
Because...
it marginalizes what could be constituency. Although, as McCain showed by basically having the same position as Obama on immigration, that doesn’t always work.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Until she goes on a Sunday morning political show, she’s not a viable candidate for me. Those shows grill you and make sure you know what the hell your talking about. Look at Richardson the first time he went on Meet the Press. The fact that the McCain campaign shielded her gave rise to the confirmation bias that she’s stupid and she has done nothing to counter it. In fact she even made it worse by going on SNL and validating her caricature. That doesn’t mean she’s stupid, it just means she hasn’t proven herself to be smart. Until then, I see no reason to take her seriously.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
How did she validate...
anything by going on SNL?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
McCain's campaign (who were horrible throughout)
kept her off those Sunday morning shows. That’s not on Palin. They also f’d up in overcoaching her that first month after she was nominated.
She was outstanding in the debate with Biden. She was fantastic at the RNC.
She’s not afraid to take Obama head on and that’s what the base loved about her. Question her qualifications? Community organizer says what?
As for the SNL appearance, wtf? She went on there as a good sport to show she wasn’t your typical stodgy old white guy Republican.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
McCain
Now that she’s no longer under McCain’s shadow, I hope she goes on Meet the Press and proves me wrong. Until then, I see no reason to take her seriously.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
x
She was outstanding in the debate with Biden.
“Say it ain’t so, Jo”-sey
She was horrible.
by robert_d_wilfong on Nov 5, 2008 4:28 PM CST up reply actions
Palin helped
stop some of the bleeding with her performance in the debate with Biden.
Yes, if you ask the lunatic left fringe about Palin, they’re going to say she didn’t do well but most people in the middle felt like she did well.
Put it to you this way, Palin took criticism for just about everything from the left except her performance in the debate.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Expectations
were so low all she had to do was avoid looking abominal and it was declared a good performance. She simply turned every “answer” into a rehearsed talking point.
An interview with follow up questions is a MUCH better judge of a candidate’s grasp of the issues because the reporter can try to make them stick to the question answered instead of dodging. Debates are just a series of short stump speeches.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
SNL
The thing about the SNL appearance was that it validated Tina Fey’s portrayal of Palin as a bimbo. Instead of coming out against it, she basically enabled SNL to call her a bimbo for life.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
How did Tina Fey portray her as a bimbo?
And I honestly don’t think that her appearing on SNL “validated” anything. It showed she’s a good sport.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
???
Did you not see Tina Fey? From the very first one she played the Bimbo. How about the Katie Couric interview spoof. “I’d like to use one of my lifelines.” How is that not portraying a bimbo?
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
Going on SNL
showed she was a good sport and that she could take anything they dished.
Without her on the ticket, Im not sure McCain gets 40% of the popular vote.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Good sport
Who had lines removed that she didn’t want to say. Such as “I really like her impression.”
I am the motherfucking shore patrol, motherfucker! I am the motherfucking shore patrol! Give this man a beer.
You're sounding...
pretty even-handed about it.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
I dunno...
I always understood “bimbo” to refer to loose women.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
In that case
Lisa-Ann portrayed her as a Bimbo in that Epic Masterpiece, Whose Nailin Paylin.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
bimbo
Bimbo is a term that emerged in popular English language usage in the early 20th century to describe an often attractive, yet unintelligent woman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimbo
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
they would probabbly
wanna do what they can to keep her from running for president, or at least make it harder for her to win the primar/beat obama in 2012.
same thing if romney ran for another office.
i don’t think it’s personal, i think it’s strategy.
i think it would probably be a waste of money because she’s apparently what floats the boat of alaskans.
"At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c*nt."
-John McCain to his wife, in front of reporters
It'd be a dumb idea
I doubt Alaskans would respond well to the moveon.org types. They’re going to vote Republican regardless. Just look at Ted Stevens.
Likewise, if they target Palin and she wins, she only gets stronger. If she somehow loses in a nasty campaign she becomes a martyr. They’re better off letting her win a seat that doesn’t matter much and being a mediocre Senator. If she’s a moron, she won’t be a Senate star (remember, it was no guarantee in 2000 that Hillary would become a respected Senator as she has done.)
I don't know about libs, but for me ...
it was her sheer lack of intelligence.
There was a report on O’Reilly tonight about how she didn’t even have a working knowledge of basic civics. She was also prone to fits of rage and throwing crap when she looked stupid on TV—she would blame McCain’s staffers for not preparing her properly. She exudes this arrogance that only truly ignorant people seem to possess. The report listed some other things as well.
For me, I think the biggest turnoff was how onboxiously snarky and arrogant she came across
Her obvious lack of intellectual curiousity was another big one. Not a reader, I’ll wager.
And the icing on the cake was all the “God wants us to have a pipeline” talk, and the priest blessing her against witches kookery.
But i’m sure she is quite bright. I don’t agree that she is a stupid person.
Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
Bright, but
disinterested in using her intelligence to gain policy smarts or grasp big issues. She expends her energy on purely political things. I get the impression that she is far more interested in having power and winning elections than in governing effectively.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
Yet, the state of Alaska
loves the way she governs (90% approval).
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
When was that
poll taken? I’d wager those numbers are down a bit since her VP campaign. And that state might reelect a convicted felon in Ted Stevens. These two items are related because of Stevens’ long history of bringing home the bacon and the high oil prices that stoke a windfall for every Alaska resident. Palin’s honeymoon there is over, she had some major fence mending to do.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
very old numbers
and the state of alaska just voted for a convicted felon.
the country voted for bush and carter (to cover political persuasions). we all make mistakes
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
No longer 90%
Yahoo has an article up right now about her return to Alaska that says her poll numbers fell to 64% in mid-October from 89%. That’s a pretty big drop, though obviously she still has majority support. I’d like to see a poll from this week.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
Do you think
GWB’s staff will remove the letter O from all the keyboards?
Nolan Ryan should be the Rangers president, GM, manager and pitching coach.
Can they find the letter O on all the keyboards?
"Colt mccoy sucks, mack brown needs to be fired." - Longhorn
by LSBUser on Nov 5, 2008 2:23 PM CST up reply actions
Issue talk?
I read through last nights thread but not all of this one so sorry if I missed this. i just wanted to get some opinions on Obama’s stances on a few of the issues. I’d prefer to hear from Obama supporters and why you he has the right idea on the things below. If anything below sounds incorrect just let me know and I’ll try and see where I found it on the internet and we’ll see if it is legit.
I voted for McCain but I’m not anti-Obama, I just don’t understand his line of thinking on some issues.
Iraq-he wants the troops pulled out but thinks it may take until 2013. If thats the case why not just finish the job there? Seems like it sends a positive message to the rest of the world but a negative message to the troops, though the message isn’t the point.
Terror-Obama said that Bush’s anti terror efforts prevented another 9/11 from happening. If he thinks this, why would he have different views than Bush on terror?
Tax/Economy-I don’t understand why thewealthy should pay for the poor. Whether it be for the new healthcare plan he has or whatever else, what makes it right/justifiable to do this? Some people lucked into their wealth but most worked very hard to get where they are. Seems to me like it will promote less effort for people if they know that the government will take care of them, which also relates to immigration.
Immigration-He is against border protection and encourages an easier path to citizenship for immigrants. With the new tax/economy plan of Obama it would seem to encourage immigrants to come in and take advantage of the wealthy’s money.
Israel-If your not a Christian than you probably aren’t concerned with this but if you are then you know what the Bible says about Israel. Obama wants troops out of the middle east which spells trouble as far as protecting Israel goes.
Other issues such as abortion/gay rights etc. are important but I can understand Obama’s thinking behind them.
Just looking for some insight, not trying to start a flame war, like others have said he will by my president as well and I’m just looking for a point of view that will help me understand where the country is going.
Need to make
some popcorn
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Israel...
can protect itself. They don’t really need us (outside of the monetary aid, of course).
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
I have no idea
why we keep making them the number one recipient of Foreign Federal aid. They are big boys now, time to kick them out of the next, and move them out of the top 10 aid recipients.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
That's odd.
There are some terrible atrocities that occur in and around Israel with startling regularity. That, by your definition, is sufficient justification to start any war, after all.
Hear hear
I always pose that question to my Repub and Neocon and Theocon friends, why do we need to constantly lay our reputational asses on the line for them?
They have got medieval on some Arab ass everytime they’ve been fucked with. There is certainly no economic motivation for our alliance. Foreign policy-wise, they are a colossal anchor, or, at the very least, a target-on-our-back-putter-on-er.
I just don’t get it. I really don’t. I wholeheartedly support their right to a peaceful existence. But motherfuck, there is very, very little take in this give and take.
The UK and Canada, maybe Spain and Australia, the Dutch, the Kiwis, that’s who our allies are. Israel is that friend who constantly, needlessly gets into bar fights, expecting you to have their back, mooches all the food out of the fridge when they’re over, and then caller ID screens your calls when you need a ride to the airport.
Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
+1
I’d be completely happy with cutting them off completely ever since the Pollard case.
Honest to God, they just aren’t worth the effort.
If Britain goes to war with someone, I say we go all in on their side. They’ve proved it time and time again.
Israel? They are no better than France.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Yeah
I guess I understand how things evolved: 1) sympathy and creating a homeland; 2) protecting a country alone among islamic countries; 3) I guess now it’s a military powerhouse balancing things out? Still, what exactly is the US getting out of this? Screw it – just make Kuwait some type of protectorate. I’m not anti-semite but why does Israel receive the most per capita foreign aid?
Nothing pithy here. Please move long.
very influential and powerful and bipartisan jewish population
but stability in the middle east isn’t a bad reason either. i think the feeling is as soon as the U.S. turns its back, some Arab country will attack and Israel won’t go down quietly. Nobody wants fireworks there.
I don’t really know how I feel about propping them up but I can see that situation persisting for a while out of necessity. Another instance of “leave well enough alone” foreign policy.
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
Stability in the Middle East
I think you can make a good case against that one.
Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
immigration
you are off on that. obama believes in border security and in fact VOTED FOR the 700 mile fence. he does believe in a pathway to citizenship, because it’s really impossible to deport 10+million illegals
mccain is pretty similar to obama on immigration.
"At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c*nt."
-John McCain to his wife, in front of reporters
Those two
are completely indistinguishable on immigration.
I took one of those “who should you vote for quizes” and it was obvious from the candidate’s quotes which candidate was speaking. Except when they came to immigration – I couldn’t tell the difference. Heck, I think Obama was more conservative than McCain.
Which only shows another way that McCain’s campaign was horrendous. How the Mexican-American population could have sided with Obama overwhelmingly shows that he had no ability to communicate his message to people who should be biased towards his policies and history.
1. Iraq – Obama has long called for timetables to be set to encourage the Iraqi people to start sharing in some of the burden. After being ridiculed for a year or so, the Bush administration has vindicated Obama by adopting his policy.
2. Terror – Not sure where you got that Obama said Bush prevented another 9/11 except maybe by invading Afghanistan. In order to prevent future terrorist attacks, the US will have to engage in a more diplomatic tact in addition to putting more resources into the real war in Afghanistan which has long been neglected by Bush. This means more then just using UAVs on the Pakistani border.
4. Taxes – Both McCain and Obama supported a progressive tax plan that had the top tier give more. They were only arguing a few percentage points here and there. All this talk of socialism was simply a red herring. A large portion of the US economy is based around consumer spending. As the middle class has less disposable income, the economy starts to shrink. At the same time we’re giving a trillion dollars to main street, it is presently the middle class and poor paying for the rich lifestyles of the few. It’s time the rich pay more to help pay off the massive debt Bush racked up over the last 8 years (Bush doubled the national debt in 8 years what it took 212 years to create).
5. Immigration – McCain and Obama were essentially the same on immigration
6. Israel – I’m a Christian and I don’t believe the re-emergence of Israel is a sign of the coming Apocalypse. Israel is also pretty competent and taking care of themselves as long since they have nukes and everyone else doesn’t. One of Obama’s accomplishment’s in the Senate is sponsoring legislation to stop the spread of Nuclear weapons which will help Israel more then being in Iraq will.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
wow
I really screwed up that last bit. I think you can get the gist of what I was saying.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
disagree on #1
The Iraqis are the ones pushing for a timetable. As it should be. Obama, and the Dems, were wanting a US imposed timetable. There is a BIG difference.
Nolan Ryan should be the Rangers president, GM, manager and pitching coach.
iraq
what do you mean by “finish the job”?
by turning iraq into germany or japan? what?
i hope not.
he wants to pull the troops out gradually. this is a good thing. it lets the iraqis know that they need to work things out and gives them incentive to do so. he wouldn’t have to worry about this if people like bush, mccain, and yes, biden didn’t screw up the war on terror.
even bush has agreed on a pullout date.
"At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c*nt."
-John McCain to his wife, in front of reporters
What would be wrong...
with Iraq being a Germany or Japan?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
nothing would be wrong with that
but they definitely were not like that beforehand. restoring iraq to where it was before we destroyed their infrastructure etc… is one thing but i am not willing to invest the money and time into doing that. if they can build themselves up good for them.
i certainly disagree with obama when he brings up iraq’s “surplus” and suggests we get some of that….but c’mon.
"At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c*nt."
-John McCain to his wife, in front of reporters
reword that
nothing wrong with helping iraq get to where they WERE, but to make them an economic power would not be feasible.
"At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c*nt."
-John McCain to his wife, in front of reporters
i'm just not into nation building
and we already committed a trillion bucks to wall street
i’d personally rather see more federal funds go to US infrastructure and maybe this new health care plan obama proposed (but probably won’t get off the ground)
anyway, rebuilding roads and buildings that we blew up in iraq without good cause is one thing (especially since we are doing it with mostly american businesses) but i just don’t want to do the WW2 nation building again. i know that that’s mccain’s plan, but it’s not feasible with our nation in debt the way we are.
"At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c*nt."
-John McCain to his wife, in front of reporters
We spent a shit-ton...
of money on the Marshall Plan. Are we better off with Europe rebuilt?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
i don't see a good return on investment
with iraq. outside of oil, what real resources do they have that we want?
the more we go away from that resource, the less valuable their relationship is to us.
"At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c*nt."
-John McCain to his wife, in front of reporters
Well...
I suppose if you see it as “return on investment” strictly in dollar terms. I don’t think that’s necessarily the way to look at it.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
i guess you are feeling
some guilt then…that’s a good thing.
"At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c*nt."
-John McCain to his wife, in front of reporters
building iraq
up above from what it was before the war that should never have been fought without expecting money back is a way of apologizing.
not expecting them to go with OPEC on oil production demands, allowing them to nationalize their oil and do what’s in their best interest is very unselfish, it’s like it’s brought on by the guilt of the invasion that never should have happened.
ben, you are pretty liberal.
Yes we can.
Yes we have. (late 90's)
Yes we will (2009,2010,2011 baby!)
No, it has nothing to do with guilt.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
charity
costing billions and billions of dollars going to a country that we wronged without expecting anything back seems like it’s probably guilt to me.
now if you say, “it would keep the country stable, in a region where oil is produced and likely keep the prices down” then that would sound like an investment to me.
Yes we can.
Yes we have. (late 90's)
Yes we will (2009,2010,2011 baby!)
In the long term...
stable democracies are good for everyone. But I prefer not to think of it in monetary terms.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
The Marshall plan was executed by a much more competent administration that had a lot more money and a lot less debt. Bush wasted so much government spending it’s ridiculous. Small government my ass.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
less debt?
I thought the U.S. had a LOT of debt after WWII?
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
Yeah, that was my thought.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
ahh good catch
I got caught up trying to make a witty reparte and missed on it. Having said that, the ability of Truman to lower the debt as a percentage of the GDP and pay for the Marshall plan shows how a competent Presidential administration can make all the difference.
Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!
Yep
And a lot was also owed to us. In spite of our own debt I think we were still a debtor nation but I could be wrong about that.
by Black Francis on Nov 5, 2008 7:13 PM CST up reply actions
I think we owed a lot to ourselves.
The government borrowed lots of money from its people back then – war bonds and the like. I think that the idea of the government raising money pretty exclusively by selling t-bills to investors as stable investment instruments is a relatively new concept.
My poor economic history intuition suggests that is because we were still on the gold standard back then.
Gold Standard
I believe we got off that in the early days fo the depression.
by Black Francis on Nov 6, 2008 5:44 PM CST up reply actions
I thought we didn't go off Bretton Woods
til the 70s. I could have sworn it was on Nixon’s watch, due to financing issues brought on by Vietnam.
Nolan Ryan is the Greatest Pitcher ever, because Google says so.
"BTW I’m officially welching ab03. Yeah I planned too all along, but I figured I’d try to get off the hook with double or nothing first."- Sharky
I think you're right
FDR moved the price of gold around to curb deflation I think, but the standard remained.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
Someone...
…correct me if I’m wrong but I believe we had a much higher debt as % of GDP than we do even now.
by Black Francis on Nov 5, 2008 5:34 PM CST up reply actions
wow my reply was way late
It took a long damn time to read through this post.
by Black Francis on Nov 5, 2008 5:38 PM CST up reply actions
But it was also WW freaking II
We built an entire army, navy, and (soon-to-be) air force in 4 years. We had to rebuild Europe’s economy fast to keep it from going Commie. There was a valid reason for debt if I’ve ever seen one.
But it wasn’t “okay” to be spending like that. It was an emergency – the equivalent of putting your wife’s transplant on your no limit credit card. You do it and worry about the bill later.
What has happened in the past 8 years is a country signing up for every “No interest on this couch/tv/car/etc until 2009” offer that can be found. It is ridiculous. Want to address prescription drugs in medicare? Lets just borrow a bunch of money and do it! Want to tear down and rebuild Iraq (but in the process alienate everyone so we can’t recoup our expenses in oil revenues) – sure!
And I'm not going to blame only Bush
But it was his fault for not putting on the brakes. The Republicans figured that they could get their agenda through despite Dem opposition by just adding spending. And Bush signed it all.
I hoped prior to the election that both McCain and Obama would be more fiscally responsible. We’ll see what happens, but I’m hopeful for Obama. Congress likes to spend – its in their personal interest to do so (I brought gov’t dollars to our district – re-elect me). Both parties are guilty. Its the President’s job to keep the kids under control.
Oh Yeah
I was just clarifying a minor point. The debt in this country is a huge problem. It’s not quite as big as was back then, but it’s still damn big, and a hell of a lot more useless.
I think we’ll end up rebuilding Iraq anyway. Probably after we leave and a full on civil war breaks out. I think we’ll do a lot of building in Afghanistan…we covertly helped the Soviets tear that place up in the 1980’s and look where that got us. Failed states in that part of the world are a threat to everyone. That’s why NATO is in Afghanistan with us….they realize the problem. They or some other coalition (a real one this time) will likely be at our side when we have to go back to Iraq.
Anyway, there were other replies made to me on different topics in this thread, and I just want to say to everyone that I do not feel like arguing tonight.
by Black Francis on Nov 5, 2008 7:09 PM CST up reply actions
As Obama said in the Rachel Maddow interview
we wouldn’t mind the the debt as much IF WE HAD SOMETHING TO SHOW FOR IT.
Right now, we have an in-the-toilet economy, an old and aging infrastructure, and no health care for the trillions of dollars that we are in debt.
That’s the worst of it.
R
Iraqis...
reassured that Obama will not pull out troops before the Iraqis are ready…
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE4A47OE20081105?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&rpc=22&sp=true
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
LOL
was watching FOX, and they went to Carl Cameron and he talked about the Palin/Staff friction. It was hilarious.
Amongst other things:
1) She had no idea which countries were in NAFTA
2) She didn’t realize Africa was a Continent instead of a country.
3) Wouldn’t accept Prep for a Katie Couric interview.
4) Threw Temper Tantrums.
It was hilarious.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
she also had a nice statement
saying that she didn’t know why people were blaming her for the “McCain’s loss.” Well played Palin.
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
My guess is
this will be an ongoing story with lots of sniping on both sides. It should give plenty of giggles.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
i like the which countries are in NAFTA bit
the name gives a pretty big hint.
But Africa is difficult to remember.
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
You'd think with all her massive
foreign policy experience with Russia and Canada and all…
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
That seems a little far fetched
I guess that is all possible, but it really wreaks of those people who tethered their political lives to McCain trying to throw someone under the bus before people start pointing at them. What they have to realize is that even if Palin is a moron, they’re morons for not finding that out before McCain picked her.
What the word is
they put together a short list, vetted them, and then realized that none of the names on the list would give them a bump.
So they threw out the list and started over.
It sounds like really sloppy work, and it really sounds like McCain’s campaign may have shown that McCain might not have been capable of putting together an organization that makes good decisions.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Bingo, JBi
Palin probably had very little prep for what hit her in late August.
She will be much more prepared down the road.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Oddly enough, I think this could work for her later on.
As in, she preps like crazy, nails some interviews and the media writes a “she’s ready now” kind of tone. It happened on a micro scale after the debate when she didn’t tank. She’s ambitious enough to spend a lot of time working on her policy and issue smarts, so it could happen. I think she’d be a formidable candidate then, but she needs to be less negative to attract any moderates. “Real Americans” type stuff doesn’t work for anyone but the base.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
Fixed your sentence
I think she’d be a formidable candidate then, but she needs to be less negative loony conservative to attract any moderates.
:)
R
She needs to take on the liberals
directly.
One of her greatest moments came at the RNC when she went straight after Obama for criticizing her qualifications and made fun of him being a community organizer v. her being a governor.
The base sat up in their chairs when that happened and pumped their fists because she went where McCain would not.
I’ve come around to the fact that people who run as moderates aren’t going to be POTUS when you need 50% of the vote to win.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
You're fooling yourself
McCain embraced the base and lost. They tried to paint Obama as a terrorist’s friend and a socialist and the public didn’t buy it. You can’t just demonize everyone who runs against you and expect to win a majority. Of course YOU think it was one of her greatest moments, your her target audience and she was preaching to the choir.
The base is not big enough by itself to win. McCain and Palin just looked shrill while Obama was unflappable. In a time of economic fear, it was Obama who projected steadiness.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
You're wasting your breath, t ball
Everyone to the left of Republicans like him is a liberal, in their opinion.
They’re delusional, but hey, if they want to keep schilling to the same base and keep losing more and more power, let them.
Hopefully, a REAL second party will come along, one less married to dogma and divisiveness and REALLY less government (though for the moment, I think we’ll need more government for at least the near future).
R
Look at this year's electoral map...
…and tell me, with a straight face, that the Republican Party is not a regional party.
"One man, five scoops." -- shroomer
I will tell you that.
They get significant vote shares in every state, even though it may not be nearly enough to win. But I see what you mean…they dominate certain states that tend to be contiguous, but if you look at the Northeast you could say the same thing about the Democratic Party. Both are national parties without a doubt.
Without looking at the numbers, around four in ten Texans voted for Barack Obama. And in the most deep red states you’ll usually find 3 or 4 in ten voting Democratic. Same with the deep blue states.
What you can say is that the Republican Party may be the party that represents a lot of rural America and it tends to dominate suburbs no matter what state you talk about. The Democratic Party tends to dominate urban areas. I believe Fort Worth was the largest (if not one of the largest) cities in the United States to vote for McCain. There were few urban areas of any size that voted for the Republican.
So there’s certainly some sort of geographic split, but it’s more demographic than it is regional when you get down to it.
by Black Francis on Nov 6, 2008 9:31 AM CST up reply actions
Huh - a perspective on San Diego.
Your comment made me just look up San Diego County, which if I recall correctly, voted overwhelmingly for Bush in 2004. It voted 54/45 for Obama.
I think that can sum up why McCain lost right there. McCain was always going to win conservative places like Fort Worth and Lubbock. He was always going to get slaughtered in urban areas like Philly and Chicago. But it is the “conservative” cities/areas – places like San Diego and Pittsburgh and Northern Virginia – that Republicans have to carry to win elections. And McCain didn’t do that.
You have to ask “Why do people vote Republican” in those areas? Well, in San Diego the answers are “immigration,” “taxes,” and “military”. Military was effectively minimized by the economy this cycle. Obama usurped the tax issue and made center of his campaign. And McCain staked out . The average moderate Republican in San Diego had no reason to vote for McCain other than “Nobama” Which wasn’t enough here.
San Diego voted 55% for Prop 8 (stop gay marriage), 55% for Prop 4 (parent notification on abortion), ~60% AGAINST the renewable energy Props. Yet 54% for Obama. Something is really wrong with John McCain’s message to lose this city.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/results/howvoted/index.html
I would say that it isn’t as simple as “McCain ran too conservative” or “McCain ran too moderate.” McCain simply ran as the wrong type of conservative.
by JBImaknee on Nov 6, 2008 11:25 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
What does that mean?
Is the Democratic party not a regional party?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Look where the GOP won this year.
The South and the Mountain West. And it barely hung on to Montana, and there was a relatively tight race in Georgia. It lost Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico.
My contention is that the GOP’s base is shrinking, basically down to the already deep-red states, while the Dems are making a charge to expand their base.
"One man, five scoops." -- shroomer
Yeah.
The wheel always turns, dude.
McCain still got 46% of the vote. That’s not a regional party.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Yeah, all the talk
of Red and Blue states overstates the differences. Most states have somewhere between 40 and 60% voting for each presidential candidates, and down ticket votes being more variable. It’s not like NY is 90% Democratic straight down the ticket, or Texas has only Republicans.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
I had a big fight about this with my buddies yesterday
They think Obama is an indication for where the country is moving. I think its more a personality thing. Look at the propositions that passed – overwhelmingly conservative throughout the country. Look at that link I put above about how moderate-conservative San Diego voted on ballot measures here, all while favoring Obama by 9 points.
Obama won because McCain was a weak candidate who couldn’t convince people who voted for Bush in 2004 that they weren’t repeating the same mistake by voting for him. Obama ran a center/moderate-left campaign – viciously fighting any charge he was a liberal. If the nation was moving to the left, or if the Republicans were marginalized everywhere but the South and midwest, he could have run as an admitted progressive and still won.
Its a lot more complicated than just “Yay – the Democrats are going to dominate politics now!”
by JBImaknee on Nov 6, 2008 11:30 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Correctomundo...
And, as I said earlier, remember that Rove was talking about a permanent Republican majority just a few years ago.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Yep
He’s a Reaganesque popularity guy who will probably be more pragmatic than liberal. I’m hoping that popularity and rhetorical magic will mean he can get away with some unpopular but necessary things.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
The center dominates the race
Any party that can keep their base, and grab the majority of the center is going to win. Somehow, you need to convince the nutjobs on the fringe (either right or left) that you will be their guy, without scaring the center.
Neither party has a strong enough “base” to win it with the base alone.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
And Obama did a better job at that
And I think no small part can be attributed to the Democrat base, which after 8 years of Bush, was wiling to let Obama run to the center. Whereas the Republican base wasn’t desperate to win (they didn’t like McCain, didn’t despise Obama, kind of worn down by Bush), so McCain was less free to move to the center.
Lest anyone forget, Bush won in 2000 by running a better “moderate” campaign than Gore.
by JBImaknee on Nov 6, 2008 12:13 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
JB nailed it.
McCain lost simply because he was a weak squishy candidate.
Look at his performance in home state Arizona, he took only 54% and none of the surrounding typical Repub states other than lilly white Utah.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Josey
Are you aware of the responsibilities of being a Chicago community organizer versus the responsibilities of being mayor of Wasilla? From the Post:
The universe of the mayor of Wasilla is sharply circumscribed even by the standards of small towns, which limited Palin’s exposure to issues such as health care, social services, the environment and education.
Firefighting and schools, two of the main elements of local governance, are handled by the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, the regional government for a huge swath of central Alaska. The state has jurisdiction over social services and environmental regulations such as stormwater management for building projects.
With so many government services in the state subsidized by oil revenue, and with no need to provide for local schools, Wasilla has also made do with a very low property tax rate — cut altogether by Palin’s successor — sparing it from the tax battles that localities elsewhere must deal with. Instead, the city collects a 2 percent sales tax, the bulk of which is paid by people who live outside town and shop at its big-box stores.
The mayor oversees a police department created three years before Palin took office; the public works department; the parks and recreation department; a planning office; a library; and a small history museum. Council meetings are in the low-ceilinged basement of the town hall, a former school, and often the only residents who show up to testify are two gadflies. When Palin was mayor, the population was just 5,500.
She simply didn’t do much. She certainly didn’t affect the kind of positive benefits in the lives of anybody that, say, somebody who helped out-of-work steel mill employees obtain government services which were wrapped in bureaucratic red tape, cleaned up the streets by getting sorely-need sanitation services, and organizing neighborhood crime watches did.
She should have argued her case as the Governor, but let’s be honest—for all his condescending sneering at the convention, Giuliani had more responsibilities than Obama or Palin, both while she was Mayor and Governor.
Actually she did quite a bit
She opened a Sports facility for Wasilla. Because she didn’t get clear title to the land before she proceeded, she got the City of Wasilla into a major Eminent Domain Lawsuit, and ended up putting a lot of debt on the books. She could have bought the land for 125K, but her incompetence ended up costing Wasilla $1.7 million.
She is a perfect Republican for the likes of Josey Wales. Dumb as a brick, incompetent, but she can parrot the brain dead slogans with the best of them.
The Republican party is quickly becoming the idiocracy.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
As I've said before
My mother is the City Manager of a town just a little larger than Wasilla, AK. In a council-manager form of government, which they don’t have up there, the city manager administrates the city while the mayor is essentially just another city councilperson. The mayoral title is largely ceremonial. So, my mom’s job is pretty similar to the one Palin had.
For my mom, it’s a pretty tough job. It’s an inner city suburb completely and totally landlocked by one of the principle cities in this area. The residents tend to be poor. There’s very little business activity to make a tax base. They buy most of their water from the larger city but also administrate two wells and their own public works department, which includes streets, parks, facilities management, water, and wastewater (though not treatment). Sanitation has been farmed out to a private company like it usually is in the Northeast. She oversees what I would imagine to be a much larger police force than Wasilla has, due to it being a pretty high crime area. My mother, too, has opened parks and initiated a multi-million dollar renovation of a softball complex, which is about the only thing the city has a chance to hang its hat on. The difficulty for her is submitting a balanced budget to Council. She has never failed to do so. In spite of the city’s demographic it maintains a high bond rating and during the 1990’s build up a large cash reserve. At the same time she has never cut benefits for employees. You go to work there today and your insurance is paid in full just like it was years ago. Most cities of that size no longer do that. The city also operates its own fire department and an enormous fleet of two ambulances with full time paramedics. The have a brand new library. No books burned yet. They have a brand new animal control center/shelter, as well, that is a joint operation between her town and another that’s in a similar predicament.
The point is, there’s a lot more to managing even a small town than one might think. But at the same time I would never think my mother was capable of running for governor or Vice President. And I think she faces many more challenges in running her city than did Palin. Not only that, it would seem that she’s done it better.
Obama’s work in Chicago’s south side is quite a bit different. Palin’s remarks at the convention about how they were similar only that she had actual responsibilty were dead wrong. They both had responsibility. The difference is that Barack Obama was doing much more challenging things, trying to get a lot more people on the same page and help them navigate through the bureaucracy…trying to help them help themselves. He often went into poor, disaffected and apathetic neighborhoods and brought people together to be a force in the community. And he did so while not really being accepted by existing community leaders, who most saw him as an ivy league outsider at first. So as much as I respect my mother and what she’s done, I’d have to say that Obama’s job was a lot more challenging and I’m sure it paid less.
And another thing: my mother has a ton of horror stories about small town governments. Mayors and city councilmen in her own city that had their own agenda and grandstanded, blocking any real progress the city would make. She’d talk about previous city managers and city managers of other small towns who were there just for the paycheck. The cities would survive such people but bad leadership costs the city a lot money in the long runt. I don’t know which type of public servant Palin was, but you can neither assume she was a dolt or a hard-working altruist. You’d have to talk to the people up there.
But either way, it’s not the type of gig that would prepare someone for higher office in most states, where they have real challenges in terms of governing. The city manager or strong mayor or a large city is certainly qualified if they were good at their job, but not one from a small town no matter how good they are at it. The challenge at the state level (well, one with a large population that doesn’t have a bunch of oil revenue coming in) are enormous compared to that of a tiny municipality.
And it’s worth noting that my mother’s town was also involved in an ED lawsuit that cost her city much more than $1.7mm. It was not due to incompetence. The city has finally been cleared, but only after about a decade of litigation. It’s easy to get mixed up in that sort of thing. I don’t know the details of Wasilla’s predicament; It could very easily be incompetence. As a former ED professional I know that there are a lot of mistakes that can be made during that process and the mistakes do tend to be very costly. And with the law as clear as it is (my company did a lot of ED work in AK and was never had any problems), there are no excuses for mistakes. However, sometimes you get sued anyway. In my mother’s case it was incompetent judges that allowed what was basically a nuisance suit to continue for way too long. I tried to advise her to hire my company to get her out of it, but the council didn’t want to go to the expense and ended up sticking with the City Attorney. That’s on them, not my mom.
So if we consider that Alaska is a bit of a special case and that it, by comparison, is easy to govern, and that Palin has yet to serve long enough as governor to get out of her honeymoon period, I think it’s save to say that choosing someone of Palin’s experience to be so close to the Presidency is simply a bad choice. Should Palin run for attain a seat in the US Senate and prove her meddle there, we’ll know a lot more about what she’s capable of.
At this point I’m just not ready to consider her stupid because I don’t have the details. I can just say that I’m pretty familiar with the kind of experience she has and it just doesn’t match up well with being a “heartbeat” away from her own chair in the Oval Office.
by Black Francis on Nov 6, 2008 9:10 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Great post
I think there are a lot of very fair points and analysis there. Minimizing her job as mayor as being pointless was/is unfair, and her comparing it to Obama’s job was silly, ill-advised red-meat for the delegates at the convention. Their two jobs really aren’t comparable – but I will say that her comment was just a jab back at people saying that her previous job was meaningless.
Being Mayor of a small town should never disqualify someone from being elected, but it is crazy to think that it alone should qualify someone for something bigger. She should be judged by her success at the gubernatorial level – which has traditionally been a source of our national executives. Two years wasn’t enough time to judge her – in 4 or 8 years she’ll have a real track record in Juneau and possibly the Senate.
Sarah Palin was obviously unprepared for a national campaign. That doesn’t mean she never will be qualified. The mistake was not hers, but rather John McCain and his people for not realizing that before they picked her.
I can't believe she's that stupid
Maybe not the brightest bulb, but not that stupid. Where did FOX get that information?
by Black Francis on Nov 5, 2008 7:11 PM CST up reply actions
Supposedly
they are going to go over it again on the OReilly Report in a few minutes
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWZHTJsR4Bc
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
I don't know about that
It sounds to me like they are shoveling shit for McCain’s people. She couldn’t possibly be that stupid. Could she?
"You’re the only here who contributes schtick only." - brettgardner
Why not?
What indications has she given that she isn’t that stupid? She did sound moronic in most of her interviews.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Obama sounded really
dumb and stumbled around like a drunk in the dark when he didn’t have his teleprompter.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Nov 6, 2008 8:00 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
And now let's play America's favorite game show..
…GRASPING! FOR! STRAWS!
"One man, five scoops." -- shroomer
Have you completely ignored
all the reports of people like General Petraeus being very impressed with him? Bzrezinski as well, and others he has met seeking information and advice during the campaign. All were impressed by his thoughtfulness and grasp of the issues. Whatever else you could complain about Obama, stumbling to have a coherent thought is NOT one of them. He went toe to toe with McCain in the debates and came out ahead according to every poll.
Palin impressed absolutely no one, quite the opposite. No one is touting her understanding of key issues or her vision. No one. Even die hard supporters play up other qualities while studiously ignoring her policy knowledge.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
Let's see how Obama leads the most powerful
country in the world when he’s never led anything in his past.
It’s also been reported that one of his weaknesses comes in making tough decisions which is one of the reasons he is appointing Emanuel as his Chief of Staff.
Isn’t it very comforting to realize that the new POTUS has trouble making tough decisions?
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
You mean like
GWB, who had all his decisions made by Karl Rove and Dick Cheney?
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Cahill,
W is about to leave the stage as are McCain & Dole….
We’re now focusing on B.Hussein Obama.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Why don't
You take the time to spell out his first name. Makes you come across as a foolish racist.
I am the motherfucking shore patrol, motherfucker! I am the motherfucking shore patrol! Give this man a beer.
What is Obama's middle name?
I do believe it is Hussein.
B.Hussein Obama is going to be accorded the same respect given his predecessor and it has nothing whatsoever to do with his race, so I’d get used to it.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
okay
Your right. His name is Barack Hussein Obama. Not B. Hussein Obama. Use his full name or his first and last. Is that too much to ask for? Otherwise you just come across as a hateful bigot.
I am the motherfucking shore patrol, motherfucker! I am the motherfucking shore patrol! Give this man a beer.
Let me get this right...
…it was immediately accepted by the left to call the current president “Dubya” but it’s suddenly racist or bigoted to call Obama by his given middle name?
Tell me something, is it racist to say Oprah Winfrey has a fat ass?
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
heh
I haven’t seen anyone here refer to him as that, so not quite sure how its relevant. And yes, I think there’s a difference. You’re referring to him by his middle name to illicit an emotional response due to race/religion. Sure it’s his given name but it makes you look like a racist jackass. I haven’t called you a racist, I’m just saying that’s the vibe it puts off.
And Oprah has a fat ass.
I am the motherfucking shore patrol, motherfucker! I am the motherfucking shore patrol! Give this man a beer.
Holy shit.
I know where Josey’s getting his talking points:
After Bill Clinton won the 1992 presidential election, Hillary Clinton immediately announced that, henceforth, she would be known as “Hillary Rodham Clinton.” So maybe Obama can now become B. Hussein Obama, his rightful name.
You know who wrote that? Ann Coulter, the queen of the very, very, very right.
"One man, five scoops." -- shroomer
I might crib a nickname I like but
I always roll to my own drumbeat.
And I like “B.Hussein Obama.”
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
The left didn't coin the Dubya term
That was used by the Bush camp in campaign collateral.
by robert_d_wilfong on Nov 7, 2008 10:03 AM CST up reply actions
And then some from the left
loved to call Bush 43 “The Chimp” as well.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Well
My guess is “it’s been reported” actually means some guy like Josey who has no clue is just speculating.
by brettgardner on Nov 6, 2008 11:16 AM CST up reply actions
Not a weakness
Obama is a good listener and thinker who likes to deliberate instead of trusting his gut like the boob currently in the oval office.
Maybe you think Obama should hire Nolan Ryan to tell him what to do? Otherwise Obama might trade away pitching.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
I read a ton of stuff
about Emanuel late last night and do not have the link and do not feel like looking for it either.
I wouldn’t make that up and we will see soon enough how Obama makes decisions.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
You want a tough Chief of Staff
That’s the guy who will bring congressmen into their office and slap them around to get what they want. The only President I know of who did that himself was LBJ.
I doubt you even know what a chief of staff does.
by Black Francis on Nov 6, 2008 5:58 PM CST up reply actions
Maybe W. can teach him how to soul-glimpse
Sure worked well w/ Putin…
Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
by Brian Thomas on Nov 6, 2008 12:33 PM CST up reply actions
Link please
Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
by Brian Thomas on Nov 6, 2008 12:36 PM CST up reply actions
So I was thinking about how this went down
and here is what I think happened.
Prepping Palin on trade agreements, she possibly got confused about how NAFTA, CAFTA, and the proposed addition of South American countries fit together. It isn’t obvious that someone would know that the Dominican Republic belongs to CAFTA and not NAFTA. McCain’s camp spin – “she doesn’t know what countries are in NAFTA”
Discussing Africa, they’re going over details over various State departments, and she asks “Is there an appointed post concerning dealing with Africa” – “No, we only have those for countries” – “she thinks Africa is a country”
2 AM the night before the Couric interview – “Do you want to keep prepping?” – “No, I’m tired.” Refused prep.
Palin determines that McCain’s team is throwing her under the bus a week before the election – she gets mad and yells. Palin throws temper tantrums.
Obviously it may all be real. But you’re surely enough of a skeptic to believe that she’s that stupid, just because it is really funny to believe it is true.
That's being too kind to her
I suspect the truth is somewhere in between. Your examples seem a bit too far in her direction, but I agree that the McCain camp’s comments are unbelievable at face value. My take:
Nafta – She has a basic idea of what this is, but does not know for sure what countries are involved, may or may not be aware of Cafta.
Africa – I think your Africa scenario might be close.
Couric – She underestimated the amount of prep necessary, counting on her charm to carry her. They pushed her on it, she pushed back.
Palin determines team is throwing her under the bus, but whether or not it’s before she is throwing them under the bus is anyone’s guess. She definitely lacked discipline on talking points (and was outspoken about the campaign getting out of Michigan.)
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
I'd probably agree with you
I just gave those examples to illustrate how some McCain surrogate bitter that Palin was Veep can spin things to confirm the image that she’s stupid, thus cost them the election.
Not only is it funny to believe its true
it’s very easy to believe its true after her interviews, where she didn’t seem very bright at all.
Apparently, there are those in the McCain campaign who want others to believe its true, too.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
The Africa thing
is what tells me it isn’t true. They had lots of little stories about her which would get under the skin of any policy wonk out there, but they needed to come up with something that the average American knows easily that they can make her look stupid with.
I know a lot of people who don’t think about poltiics or the economy from day to day who couldn’t definitively tell me who was in NAFTA. As for not wanting to prep extensively or having a temper – probably half of all politicians are similar. McCain certainly throws tantrums too, and I don’t see Biden as being particularly level headed at times.
But Africa as a continent? Really? She’s a college graduate who is part of the real world. She knows that there are different countries in Africa.
I'm reasonably certain
I can find some recent college graduates who don’t know Africa is a continent. Luckily, they aren’t running for Veep.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
I agree
Palin’s an idiot but that’s too much. Sounds like spin from the GOP that went too far (although I’m sure the far right is lapping this right up).
Nothing pithy here. Please move long.
Why would the far right be lapping it up?
Palin’s pretty popular with them.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
Frankly
I don’t trust very much from a Republican campaign (ESPECIALLY the 2008 McCain Presidential campaign) considering all the out-and-out blatant lies they were spewing to win the Presidency. I don’t find it hard to believe that they would spew out lies to keep their jobs/reputations.
I’m willing to give Palin the benefit of the doubt as long as nothing gets shown on tape that shows her actually doing the things that she’s alleged to have done.
OTOH, I DID see the Katie Couric interview, the Gibson interview, the VP debate, the VP powers gaffes, the complaining about her “1st amendment” rights, and frankly, she would have to improve quite a bit before I’d see her as even competently knowledgeable.
I guess what gets my goat the most is that she doesn’t even understand (or bother to try to understand) the Constitution. THE thing which she would have pledged to help uphold as the Vice President of the US…..
R
That's all fair
She certainly hasn’t shown herself to be smart or intelligent. But I’m not believing she has the brain of a 2nd grader just because some middle man of a failed campaign leaks it out the day after he loses an election.
I concur
I don’t think she’s dumb. (Actually, I don’t think our current President is dumb, either.) They’re just intellectually incurious.
It seems for a certain type of person, if they get AN answer, (especially one that they agree with), that’s good enough for them, and they’re not going to look any more into the issue.
Now that I think about it, it’s almost a faith-based take on knowledge. Unfortunately, to get to the truth, sometimes you have to take a second-, third-, or more look at the facts and your reasoning to get things right.
And that’s usually something that is required when you’re making decisions at the Presidential level.
R
Very good point
My take on Bush is that he’s not a> stupid, or b> evil. He’s just easily manipulated by people who have ulterior motives. Remember the whole “he surrounds himself with smart people” argument about Bush in 2000? Well, that was fine when “smart people” meant James Baker, but not so much when they were Rumsfeld Cheney.
I have similar worries about Obama; his youth and inexperience with Washington – which is very much real – may leave him vulnerable to the same types of influences that undid Bush. However, I’d agree that he is far less likely to follow the same path- he certainly appears more “intellectually curious” as you put it. Nonetheless, it’ll be important to watch how things develop in his adminstration. (In this regard, it helps that Biden is somewhat independent from Axelrod).
I’ll have to think a bit on this “faith based take on knowledge.” As a natural cynic, that seems somewhat foreign to me, but I certainly know people who are completely shaped by the first opinion they hear. That could explain a lot about GWB…
Yeah
I think that’s a good take on Bush, though, my gut instinct on the Iraq obsession was that it was partly fueled by his own familial feelings.
I guess I don’t feel as uncomfortable about Obama in that he LIKES to question those opinions that are given to him.
Reporters in the Obama campaign say that Clinton was NEVER on the short-/short-list for VP because of Bill. However, even despite this, Obama asked his advisors quite a few times “Are we sure we can’t tap her for the VP pick?” and had to be argued out of picking her.
The “faith based take on knowledge” is just something I formulated while I was typing. It SEEMS to have some validity, especially because I can easily see how people would want to follow it (including myself).
I don’t fall for it as easily, because I’m skeptical about everything, but I’ve even found myself just accepting things as true the first time I hear it if it validates a previous opinion (probably because it’s more efficient to do it that way).
R
Yeah...
because the 2008 McCain campaign was historically bad, right?
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
When Karl Rove
says about a campaign which represents HIS party and is headed by one of HIS proteges
that they go “beyond the 100% truth test” or go “a step too far.”
You have to start to taking that campaign pretty skeptically.
Remember, this is KARL ROVE, who never seemed to mind spinning any and all facts…..
R
X
http://www.slate.com/id/2203960
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
And this argues what?
That we shouldn’t take things skeptically about the McCain campaign?
I KNOW that McCain’s campaign hasn’t been historically bad. That doesn’t mean that I’m not also skeptical about the previous campaigns, either.
Are you arguing we shouldn’t be skeptical about people trying to blame others for their potential failures in a campaign where going a step too far and going beyond the 100% truth test seems to be the norm?
We have a hard enough time ON THIS SITE of people who refuse to acknowledge when they’re wrong when jobs aren’t on the line.
R
county by county map
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html
click on county leaders and check out the diff between 92, 96, and 08…
Jindal '12
Obama said that he would take the troops out of Iraq asap
actually, he wanted to start withdrawing them early this year. i believe now, he has said a 16 month plan…
so, when do you all think that will actually be by? next year or so…or next 3-5 years…or 5+ years?
Jindal '12
the Status of Forces
agreement that Bush and Iraq have been working on calls for the complete withdrawal of forces by 12/31/2011. The Iraqis have come back wanting some changes. I expect Bush to quietly bring Obama into the loop. I think some of the milestones will be shifted around and the end date may come in by 6 months.
Nolan Ryan should be the Rangers president, GM, manager and pitching coach.
South Park
Addressing the election. The one in 04 is great, so I’d check it out.
I am the motherfucking shore patrol, motherfucker! I am the motherfucking shore patrol! Give this man a beer.
addressing
in the loosest sense of the term.
I am the motherfucking shore patrol, motherfucker! I am the motherfucking shore patrol! Give this man a beer.
That was an outstanding episode.
South Park, once again, finds a way to make everyone look ridiculous.
"One man, five scoops." -- shroomer
did i tell you how much i'm liking sheperd smith lately
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibsP6XN2dIo
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
Whoa.
Ralph? Seriously, dude? You don’t see how that’s in poor taste? All he had to say was “I chose my words poorly, I apologize.” But jeez.
I have a buddy who interned for Fox News a couple years ago. He said that Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity were total a-holes, but Sheperd Smith and Brit Hume were really cool.
"One man, five scoops." -- shroomer
Obama on Iraq
He wanted to propose a 16-month plan to withdraw, but that he would reserve the right to alter that plan BASED ON THE INFORMATION ON THE GROUND.
He has ALWAYS stated that that was his policies from the Primaries on.
He just was smart enough not to linger on the nuance in his speeches to the Democrats.
It showed his pragmatism, and since I essentially agreed with that point, I liked him more because of it.
And yes, I’m pseudo-replying to Longhorn, because I try to not respond to people who usually don’t contribute to the conversation.
R
usually something like that would bother me
but sticking with this change theme and that Obama preaches tolerance for all kinds of people, including people like you…notsomuch.
So, you are entitled to your OPINION.
Jindal '12
No acknowledgement
of what I said on the issue which could show that he was potentially wrong about something.
I don’t get why people are so afeared of admitting when they might be wrong.
It’d make things a lot more pleasant.
As a certain enlightened person said, “the truth will set you free.”
The only problem is that you have to acknowledge the truth that you might be wrong, which some people seems to have issues with.
R
GHTD...wha?
Look where the GOP won this year.
The South and the Mountain West. And it barely hung on to Montana, and there was a relatively tight race in Georgia. It lost Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico.
My contention is that the GOP’s base is shrinking, basically down to the already deep-red states, while the Dems are making a charge to expand their base.
here
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html
click on ‘county leaders’ and check between this year and the clinton years…
You said tight race in GA, well, it was also a “tight” race in NC, VA, OH, IN, IW, CO, NM, NV…
If you think the GOP’s base is ‘shrinking’ then you are very misguided in that opinion…
Jindal '12
I'm not exactly agreeing with him
But most of the states you just listed have been and should be Republican strongholds. If states like NY, CA, MD, etc were tight races you would have a much better point.
I am the motherfucking shore patrol, motherfucker! I am the motherfucking shore patrol! Give this man a beer.
Agree
Goes back to what JBI was saying, which I also agree with.
I am the motherfucking shore patrol, motherfucker! I am the motherfucking shore patrol! Give this man a beer.
Meh
These things go in cycles people.
McCain probably didnt do too bad given what a lousy candidate he is, and given the conditions. He actually put a lot of red on the map. I mean Reagen over Mondale, now there was a blowout.
Obama and the Dems are global warming mythers, therefore the economy is going to suck due to their bullshit policies, therefore they’re going to get voted out.
And dont forget in 2k10 Republicans will get a nice bonus by population reapportionment. It will swing 10-20 electoral votes from liberal states to red ones (as well as House seats).
BOY THE STOCK MARKET LOVES SOME BARARAK OBAMER
BUBUB STOCK MARKET LOVES DEMOCRATS.
HELLO, SOCIALISM.
This country is headed for 80’s era Russia. Just nationalize all industry and get it over with.
I’m thinking the UK, Australia, and certain Asian countries will be the places to move too upon USA collapse.
BTW I’m officially welching ab03. Yeah I planned too all along, but I figured I’d try to get off the hook with double or nothing first.
Obama is a nightmare.
Good riddance
I am the motherfucking shore patrol, motherfucker! I am the motherfucking shore patrol! Give this man a beer.
You should move too them now
You know, before it collapses.
by Black Francis on Nov 6, 2008 6:04 PM CST up reply actions
Hmmm.... Dub-ya is still in office yet
Obama is a nightmare.
It’s not like you had any credibility to begin with.
Hey, have their been any reports of election irregularities yet?
Oh, oh, wait, the Democrat won. I’m sorry, I forgot.
When the Democrat wins, there are never any election irregularities.
I've read about some here and there
But when the election’s not close, they’re not going to make headlines.
by Black Francis on Nov 6, 2008 6:07 PM CST up reply actions
Gotta love the budget in ultra leftist states
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27577250/
Hey, why arent we in that case in Texas?
Oh thats right, because we’re not a bunch of left wing nutjobs.
We'd be in that situation
…if the legislature didn’t slow down Perry’s ideas on the Trans-Texas Corridor. We actually have a pretty bi-partisan legislature in Texas. As soon as Craddick is taken out it will be even more bipartisan.
by Black Francis on Nov 6, 2008 6:06 PM CST up reply actions
I like...
that our legislature isn’t in session very often. If only we can get that in Washington.
"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."
I don't like it
They’re only down there for a few months every other year. Tons of bills get passed, opening the door to lobbyist influence. It’s like they’re walking into an avalanche of shit that has piled up. I don’t mind the short sessions but I would like to see them meet annually.
How’s that for a compromise between a “citizen” legislature and a “full-time” one?
by Black Francis on Nov 6, 2008 6:23 PM CST up reply actions
I'm horrified about our budget situation here
We’re 11 billion in debt and we just passed another boat load of bonds for “high-speed rail” (like that’ll ever happen here).
California is not in as bad of shape as New York City, but its getting close. The only thing holding this state back from their insane tax system is that 2/3 votes are required to pass any tax raise.
I hope this state goes bankrupt. Is that bad of me?
Let the burning of America commence..
President elect Barack Obama’s first appointment, Rahm Emanuel, who is set to become chief-of-staff, is the son of a member of the Zionist terrorist group Irgun, which was responsible for bombing hotels, marketplaces as well as the infamous Deir Yassin massacre, in which hundreds of Palestinian villagers were slaughtered.
Revelations about Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers, a Weather Underground domestic terrorist, which dogged him during the final weeks of the campaign trail, pale in significance to his selection of Emanuel, whose father, Benjamin M. Emanuel, was an Irgun member.
Irgun has been labeled a terrorist organization by both The New York Times newspaper and by the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry.
Irgun was closely affiliated with the widely feared hardcore terrorist Stern Gang, an organization that carried out assassinations, train bombings and bombed police stations in an attempt to pave the way for unrestricted immigration of Jews into Palestine. Irgun operated in Palestine between 1931 and 1948.
Following the ideology of right-wing Revisionist Zionism, Irgun’s doctrine was that, "Every Jew had the right to enter Palestine; only active retaliation would deter the Arabs and the British; only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state".
This manifested itself by way of terror attacks such as the July 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which killed 91 people. In 2006, Israelis including former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former members of Irgun, attended a 60th anniversary celebration of the bombing organized by the Menachem Begin Centre.
Buses and marketplaces were also a target for Irgun, who were widely chastised for favoring attacks against civilian targets.
The widely condemned Deir Yassin massacre, which occurred in April 1948, involved Irgun working in consort with the Stern Gang and going house to house slaughtering Palestinian villagers. Eyewitness accounts of spies working for mainstream Jewish authorities, such as Meir Pa’il, reported Irgun members running around shooting civilians "full of lust for murder".
"I saw the horrors that the fighters had created. I saw bodies of women and children, who were murdered in their houses in cold blood by gunfire, with no signs of battle and not as the result of blowing up the houses," said eyewitness Eliahu Arbel.
"[One body was] a woman who must have been eight months pregnant," noted Jacques de Reynier, a French-Swiss Representative of the International Red Cross, "He hit in the stomach, with powder burns on her dress indicating she’d been shot point-blank.".
The son of a man who helped carry out this slaughter has now been selected by Obama to be his chief-of-staff. Cries of "sins of the father" lose their gusto when one considers the fact that, after the 1996 re-election of Bill Clinton, Rahm Emanuel "Was so angry at the president’s enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting ‘Dead! … Dead! … Dead!’ and plunging the knife into the table after every name." Sounds like a nice guy.
Rahm Emanuel is also an enthusiastic supporter of the United States Public Service Academy Act, a lobbying group founded in 2006 in order to promote the foundation of an American public service academy modeled on the military academies – a youth corps whose students would be trained in "civilian internship in the armed forces".
This rings the alarm bells when we recall Obama’s pledge to create a "civilian national security force" that is "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the U.S. military.
A creepy You Tube video of a brown-shirt style Obama youth brigade chanting and marching military style emerged last month, raising fears about where the messianic cult-like status of Obama’s image could eventually lead.
Buncha Crap
I propose a new rule. Don’t post shit that comes in your e-mail.
by Black Francis on Nov 6, 2008 11:28 PM CST up reply actions
I propose a new rule
Ignorant people like you stop posting, or get an education.
by Sharky on Nov 7, 2008 4:11 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
BF engages in thought out debates with people who disagree with him
You just come in her spewing your ignorance calling people names. It puts a great smile on my face knowing you’ll be squirming for the next four (eight!) years. Unless of course you’re moving like you claim. Go ahead and move to Thailand and spare us your stupidity.
I am the motherfucking shore patrol, motherfucker! I am the motherfucking shore patrol! Give this man a beer.
Here's a new way to use Google.
When someone posts something that sounds contrived, it probably is. Take a random snippet and paste it into the Google search box. Look at what comes up.
In this case, there were a hell of a lot of entries using the exact language “…colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife…”. Try it yourself.
What’s that suggest to you?
by Black Francis on Nov 9, 2008 12:50 AM CST up reply actions
Well now that liberals are fully in charge
I support global warming mythers choking the economy. The liberals will be the ones suffering voters wrath as the economy tanks further.
The global warming mythers are the real reason the economy sucks right now and it will only get worse.
I think greenhouse gas emissions need to be capped at zero tomorrow, personally.
If you thought USA manufactoring is nonexistent now
Just wait until emissions caps..
Looks like we’ll have to nationalize GM/Ford soon (which liberals will love) or they’re gone too. Big surprise after how much liberals demonized automobiles and corporations over the last twenty years.
They got what they wanted.
We are in
Big, big trouble.
The standard of living is set to take a huge hit, the last 40 years of liberal rule is now complete without even a powerless “conservative” figurehead to pretend otherwise.
And I’m going to love it.
Get ready to live in tents guys..it’s coming..and you’ll be using candles for lighting too, electricity will cost two fortunes..
Moving to Canada might be the best option
As greedy ultra leftists, of course they have zero emissions caps. Particularly prosperous Alberta where drilling for oil in the oil shale is top priority.
Admit it
you already live in a tent. Thats why you had to welch on your bet.
Nolan Ryan is the Greatest Pitcher ever, because Google says so.
"BTW I’m officially welching ab03. Yeah I planned too all along, but I figured I’d try to get off the hook with double or nothing first."- Sharky
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
