Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Talon]

Obama is certainly picking up a head of steam.  I admire him but I won't vote for him.  My biggest fear is that if he wins every group suffering some form of perceived oppression will be saying, "NOW it's time for me to get mine!"  he can't make everyone happy which is a set up for failure.

The oppressed middle class? I'd be for that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Midnight Rider]

The oppressed middle class? I'd be for that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quite honestly, I think Obama's perspective would benefit the working/middle class in this country.  He definitely did not come into this world with a silver spoon in his mouth.  Debates are tonight...

I haven't heard a lot of definitive solutions to problems from either party.  McCain, by his own admission, is not the best economist around, but he's smart enough to surround himself with people who know things, and may actually listen to them,  which is a step in the right direction.  I admire/respect the man, and he at least is not an extremeist.  I think he gets the big picture.  If the Republican Party would step down off their "holier than thou" Platform, it would help everyone in the long run.  Most of the country has moved past some of those polarizing issues, and the party needs to catch up and quit patronizing a relatively small segment of the populace.  Mainstream america has made it's voice heard on those issues many times, so continuing to play to the fringes does more harm than good.

The bottom line is that none of them, regardless of how extreme we may think their positions are running up to the election, can do a damn thing without the cooperation and advice of others, and learn to compromise, which usually brings them all closer to the center.  Unless they are just stuborn and bull headed, which accomplishes nothing....we've had enough of that, IMO.  There are very few things I've ever run across in my lifetime that cannot be dealt with by looking/learning at/about both sides of the issue and hammering out a reasonable compromise that, while not tickling everone to death, is at least something most everyone can live with.  We can no longer afford to be bullies...and I mean that in the literal sense of the word...we cannot afford the $$$$ to go to the extremes in foreign matters.

[Twolanerider]

Not touching this discussion.  Not even with Brian's bike.  But would suggest one interesting thing that is becoming at least potentially apparent this cycle proceeds.

The GOP has changed more than has the Democratic party.

Ever since they were removed from the proverbial "smoke filled rooms" the nominating cycles have been more and more tools through which party rather than national voices were chosen.  That was good to make those within each party happy.  It was too often less good in November.  It also made the November choice more polarized, more divisive and more and more rancorous as the cycles passed.

This was a chicken and egg condition too.  Whether the voice repesenting the more "right" or "left" wing of each party led the party machines to action or whether active "wings" led to candidates that spoke for them didn't matter.  It was still a self-fulfilling activity.

The Senator/Ambassador/Reverend Jack Danforth, no perceived liberal by any means, said and wrote a couple of years ago that the GOP had better change from its evengelical driven, abortion mandated far beyond Reagan right wing base or it would be become less and less relavent.  That that base was a smaller fringe was separate from the fact that it was also an organized base and money heavy.  It was also damaging to the party writ large.

Danforth knew, as did many many others, that being thinking and conservative did not mean being "out there."  Though they were often portrayed as far more "right wing" then they really were people like Gingrich or Armey in the House revolution were examples.  Both PhD's.  Both conservative.  Alan Simpson was another.  Thought out invested conservative voices separate from the farther right wing of their party.  Governance, at least effective governance, can not come from the fringes was Danforth's lesson. 

The GOP is showing signs of learning this lesson.  At least this cycle.  McCain was not a candidate the party base would have selected in cycles past.  The base said so by not selecting him.  Romney would have been relatively quickly dismissed as a nouveau faker.  Others that would have been more darling to the "old" base are fading away this time.  That is a big change in the GOP.  If it continues it is a change the speaks loudly for a cycle or three down the road for legislative elections.

The Democrats have their own "wing."  It's the organized base that chooses Dukakis (as an example).  Senator Obama actually does not seem to be entirely of that mold; though his fit to it would not be discomfiting to the faithful.  Senator Clinton certainly is old guard. 

The Democratic party has not yet moved (at least as much) toward America's great center as has the GOP.  Without stating a preference for either side if that trend continues it is a good thing for the GOP and will be hurtful to Democratic initiatives.  If only one party actually learns and governs from the large, stable, well thought, wealthy, business supported American center while the other party stays farther toward its "wing" the party that has moved/learned has the potential to make the other a truly rather than merely a statistically minority party for a long time.

[Midnight Rider]

That's sort of what I was trying to say, Don, in my clumsy way...


I think Bill made a huge faux pas when he made the "race" comment on Hillary's behalf...one can only imagine what was said between husband and wife that evening.

Oddly, I don't see either candidate as being much more than center left, and actually Senator Obama I see as a bit more towards 1/4 left of true center.  Sorta the same way I view McCain.  Neither are extreme in their views, IMO.  Certainly they are different, and that is a good thing.  I really cannot remember anyone since Nixon who has been so devisive to people than is Senator Clinton. Her intelligence is without question, but the perception of her by most people goes to the absolute extremes...there seems to be no middle ground.  For that reason, I think Obama will be who McCain faces in November.  Selection of a running mate will be critical to both of those people, IMO.

[Twolanerider]

That's sort of what I was trying to say, Don, in my clumsy way...


I think Bill made a huge faux pas when he made the "race" comment on Hillary's behalf...one can only imagine what was said between husband and wife that evening.

Oddly, I don't see either candidate as being much more than center left, and actually Senator Obama I see as a bit more towards 1/4 left of true center.  Sorta the same way I view McCain.  Neither are extreme in their views, IMO.  Certainly they are different, and that is a good thing.  I really cannot remember anyone since Nixon who has been so devisive to people than is Senator Clinton. Her intelligence is without question, but the perception of her by most people goes to the absolute extremes...there seems to be no middle ground.  For that reason, I think Obama will be who McCain faces in November.  Selection of a running mate will be critical to both of those people, IMO.

Agree TC.  Senators Obama and McCain are each closer to the political centers than are major contenders against either.

Senator Clinton is old-line democratic party.  No mask she might attempt will ever hide that.  In cycles past that would have been an absolute benefit.  This time, finally, both sides seem to recognize (at least a little) that their "wings" aren't their best things.  Beyond that Senator Clinton brings her polarizing divisiveness to the mix.

That fact will bring the farther wing of the party to her.  No doubt.  Hopefully (for the Democrats) it will do so at the expense of the rest of their polity.  A lot of money wasn't made by a lot of people this year who normally specialize in opposition research.  Because she's been so divisive for so long that everything is just already out there.  That's not a compliment.

A McCain/Obama November election is by no means a done deal yet.  If someone told me I had to bet money today on what the November race would be that's where I'd have to put it.  But it's not set in stone yet. 

Each party's "wing" is still suasive and persuasive enough that they'll likely have to be recognized in VP choices in some fashion or another.  While Clinton might have taken Obama whether she liked him or not (she's just that mercenary) I don't see Obama offering the position to Clinton nor would I expect her to accept it.  She sees herself as "above" that job.  I would love to see whatever Democratic takes the nomination offer the VP slot to Bill Richardson.

If McCain does take the GOP bid (and who'd have thought that three months ago?) his choice is equally interesting.  He does have to if not cover at least not alienate his right flank.  It's not that they'd vote the other way.  But he has to make sure they still come out and vote. 

He could potentially reach out to Thompson.  Senator Thompson did seem to only be interested in the job if he didn't really have to work at getting it too hard.  So he might be interested in being handed the VP nod.  Mayor Guiliani likely would not accept the nod but is an interesting choice in the electoral equation to make NY state potentially in play for the GOP (though that's a tough nut). 

I just like that it's not been a standard cycle with obvious pre-ordained choices. I like even better that it bodes at least potential for an actual thoughtful November ballot with actual choices.  Has been and might very well continue to be the most interesting election in a long time.

[MJZ]

IMHO, I agree that the GOP has definitely moved toward center but I think the reason is there is no way to try to run on a Bush platform or 4 more years of Bush. The GOP will rightly tread lightly on the present administration, only cherry picking items like the war on terror.
As for Hillary, she is still going to be Hillary and hopefully we have learned not to ever underestimate her again, at least until there is confirmed proof someone has pierced her hollow heart with a wooden stake. (I just rewrote and cleaned that up, I need to quit holding back and say how I really feel about her)
As for the debate tonight, you bet I am going to watch. Can't wait to see if Osama uses the story broken today on MSNBC and in the Times about Slick Willie's 131.3 million payoff (yep, $131,300,000.00) from Frank Giustra to secure him the Uranium mining partnerships with Kazatomprom, the Kazakhstan owned Uranium Mining Ministry. The sparks should be flying tonight.
Just in case you haven't read the story:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/22926743/print/1/displaymode/1098/

[EAGLE1]

Beyond that Senator Clinton brings her polarizing divisiveness to the mix.

Because she's been so divisive for so long that everything is just already out there.  That's not a compliment.

the fact that she's been so divisive is exactly what incites my derisive comments.   

(I just rewrote and cleaned that up, I need to quit holding back and say how I really feel about her)

yes you do, it feels real good when I let it all out     

[MJZ]

Damn was I wrong or what? I just switched the channel from CNN, could not take anymore of the lovefest (debate). Obama was set up like a naive turkey Thanksgiving morning, that Hillary is good. And all those Hollywood socialist clapping in unison after every answer. Hell there was more time taken up clapping for themselves and bashing Republicans than debating anything. Only in Hollywood could this show of shows been produced. Not the least bit enlightening, even my wife who is a democrat told me to go ahead and change the channel.

[greglyon]

I don't know if last night's debate was a lovefest or just the borrowing of Reagan's 11th commandment.  A commandment apparently forgotten the night before.

[Talon]

I try to watch all the debates, Republican or Democrat. I had to go out so I only caught part of the debate last night. It was funny watching Hillary play nice! But in all seriousness, it was nice to see them talk about issues, instead of about eachother.

[Midnight Rider]

I just nuked my own post...no sense discussing this, it will be what it will be.

[Chief]

What post? Party on Garth. 

[ccr]

I'm just quoting my good friend Screamn;

[RedDevil]

I watched the entire debate, and most of the analysis afterwards.  First, they were not playing to the "Hollywood Crowd"...probably one of the most watched, if not THE most watched debate in history, because whether anyone likes it or not, it was an historical event.  There were substantive exchanges, a few subtle barbs, and a laying out of ideas and potential policy.  They did not get into a pissing contest...what is WRONG with that?  Obviously two very bright people, with a grasp on what it's going to take to change some the ways things have been done for the past 7 years.  Whether you agree with that change is another matter.  My personal opinion is that no matter who wins the Republican side, they do not stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election.  More of the same is not going to get it done this time around, and no Republican in their right mind running for President id going to align themselves with GW's policies.  Unless one of the people you saw on TV last night does something to self-destruct, you were looking at the next President.  I predict that it won't even be close next November...

McCain stuck both feet firmly in his mouth talking about being in Iraq for an extended period of time...that is not what people want to hear.

Terry,
I have to subtly disagree with that flat statement you made.  Obama, if he gets the nod from the Dems, may get elected as the next president, and if so, it would only be because he's done something that no other politician has been able to do;  get record turn-outs in the African-American population at the polls.  However, experience-wise, I'm not certain Obama has the "right stuff" yet to be president.  He needs some more seasoning, especially in foreign relations.  If Clinton wins, the Dems will not get the presidency.  Clinton is, in my opinion, way too polarizing, even within her own party.  You either love her or hate her, and I don't think there's enough "loving" votes out there to put her over the top.  

Whether GW did a good job or not in the last 8 years, is irrelevent as far as the issues that the politicians should be telling us how they're going to be addressing them if they get elected.  All I see is finger pointing at the current administration and saying how bad of a job he's done.  None of them, at least in my opinion, has given us any reassurances, by clearly stating their cases, that they will do any better.  I can go out and say I'm going to fix Social Security, balance the budget, and end the war...anyone can say that, but I haven't heard a single one of them say how.  That to me is important.  If you don't tell me how you propose to fix something, then you're no more than throwing a bunch of nonsensical rhetoric at me.  I want to know plans, not promises...as we all know, politicians are very bad at keeping promises.  As a registered Independent, I get the pleasure of not going with the party propaganda or have to "hold the party line when I vote".  I will vote for someone, that's for sure, but if Clinton gets the Dem nod, it won't be her, that's for sure.  Obama, is really going to have to convince me that he knows what he's talking about on foreign policy.  

Whether you agree with the war in Iraq or not, is at this point in time, irrelevent.  We are there, and we have to have planned and purposeful withdrawal from that country.  We will, in my opinion again, always maintain a military presence in that country, probably as an air base or military post of of some sort.  But to just go out there and chest thump and say, "I will end the war in Iraq", as Clinton has pronounced, without saying how, is just that, chest-thumping rhetoric.  

Time and votes (electoral college, actually), will tell.  I don't agree with the sentiment that anyone would be better then what we've had for the last 7 years.  He's not my favorite president by a long shot, but looking at the forest from the trees, he hasn't done as bad of a job as the Dems want everyone to believe he has.  

  

[Midnight Rider]

Terry,
I have to subtly disagree with that flat statement you made.  

   Didn't get it nuked in time.  

Charlie...I respect your opinion.  I have agreed very, very little with anything GW has done, particularly cutting taxes and going to war at the same time, his poor planning, not for the invasion itself, but his total lack of understanding of what was going to be unleashed, and NO plan for dealing with the aftermath.  We are paying for that shortsightedness now, and will continue to do so for as long as we stay there.  It is very difficult for anyone to lay out firm, detailed plans to get us out of there without total and honest access to all the information about what is going on...only by becoming President will all information become available to help formulate a total plan.  However, I did hear what I thought was a methodology for an orderly and sane approach to GTF out of an impossible situation.  Surely, those proposed ideas will change and evolve with a more complete understanding of the situation, after the information is available to them.  I think Obama made a good statement last night when he said that we have gone from intolerable levels, to highly intolerable, now back to barely tolerable...with the measuring bar set so low that it is in the sand.  Please, do not misunderstand...SOME good has been done by our presence there, but more harm, IMO.  I completely and fully support the people who have done what they were asked to do, but it's time to leave, and I am for anyone who can get them, and the tens of thousands of civilians working over there, OUT SAFELY.  As long as we keep holding the Iraq "government" (and I use that term loosely) hand, and do not give them a firm timetable for THEM to take controll of THEIR country, there will be no end in sight.  This approach does not mean that strategic strikes cannot be performed if necessary for quelling terrorist training camps etc (which, by the way, were not a problem in Iraq prior to our opening Pandora's box).  Permanent bases in that country is not a viable solution, IMO.  Future necessary actions can be taken by other means.

The economy is an entirely different subject, and IMO will be the determining factor in who gets elected.  Daily, more and more signs point to a significant downturn, and I think we are already in the big "R" word.  All the chit has not even begun to hit the fan...unemployment applications went up 5 times from previous reports...this morning, they reported 17K FEWER jobs in the country (AFTER allowing for the Xmas temp variable), the first reduction in job growth since 2003; hundreds of thousands are losing their homes (right or wrong, it is still a fact); medical expenses continue to increase...on and on, and on.  Drug companies make obscene profits, AFTER the Fed Gov (us) have already paid to develop the drugs and clinically test them (I work in that environment).  Every drug rep that visits UAB clinicians FEEDS the entire office every time they visit, and I ain't talkin' about chips and nuts.  I see the results of lack of adequate health insurance here every single day.  People squawk loudly about "socialized" medicine or government subsidy, or other forms of health care provision/control...believe me, you can pay me now or pay me later, and the pay me later scenario is MUCH more expensive.  Hospitals WILL NOT leave a sick person laying in the street outside the emergency room...they simply cannot.  Reigning in health care costs is a huge crisis this country faces.  Most of us here have no earthly idea what it is like to have NO health insurance, and be dependent on emergency rooms (very costly to each of us), or the overwhelmed charity health care in whatever area we live in.

I think the record turnout is not only due to the color/gender of the candidate, but because people are taking an interest in this election because they realize how important it is.  Younger voters are more active than any time in decades.

Serious problems/issues.  No simple/easy solutions.  All we can do is wait and see who offers the best, in each person's opinion, plan to solve them.