|
Post by gailkate on Jan 14, 2008 17:11:35 GMT -5
A very funny video offered for those Michigan Dem voters whose votes won't count. kagro-x.dailykos.com/----- NOTE: Video at this site changes every day. You need to scroll down to the Jan.14th video if it is still available. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Jan 15, 2008 22:51:38 GMT -5
I have never read this blog, and kargo makes some interesting points and brings to bear some sincere realities — somewhat diminished by his/her scathing humor. When — if ever — people will get over the the need for self serving pestiferous petulance. Why can't people just point out the errors in one another's understanding instead of trying to completely devalue each others credibility. There is always some solid ground in any flood. If you realize that your chances of drowning are considerably lessened.
This is not a football game that will be over as soon as the post season checks are deposited — it is a bid for a brighter future for our children.
Sheesh! I have to wonder how the definition of the word civility ever emerged from its origin in the phrase civilized behavior.
This is not directed at you Gail. I just have a hard time understanding intelligent people (kargo) wasting that expensive intelligence on the frivolities of reality when the civility of it would be so much more productive.
(Ahhh You're not kargo are you?)
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jan 16, 2008 1:16:25 GMT -5
Nope, I'm not kagro. Of course political games are always childish, but they're not always unproductive. The Michigan Dems felt disenfranchised by their own party and the national party. They're mad and frustrated. So dreaming up ways to confuse the Republican primary had a certain perverse satisfaction. Especially because making fun of his very real flip-flopping with actual tapes made a point they wanted to emphasize. I'm from Michigan and have many friends there. Some voted for Romney because they really did think he was the least objectionable if a Republican wins in November. (We all hope he's more like his father than he's letting on.) Others voted for him because they wanted the outcome to be unclear. There's no doubt that some of Romney's votes today came from people who will never vote for him - but he'll still get electors for him at the convention. So that might have various effects - fewer donations for McCain, who is broke, an end once and for all to Giuliani, a split on the evangelical vote (though Huckabee pretty much shot both feet off today). It's all a chess game. Well, maybe more like Old Maid. See who can stick everyone else with bad cards.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jan 16, 2008 11:21:36 GMT -5
Ok, here's a conservative to balance the liberals. I like Brooks, though many of my liberal friends can't abide him.
January 15, 2008, 11:32 pm Republicans Brawl, Democrats Yawn By David Brooks
Here are a few things that happened Tuesday night. First, it was a good night for the Democrats and a bad night for the Republicans. The Democratic debate has been a love fest. The candidates have all (for very good reasons) decided to pull back from the mutual kamikaze tone of the past few days. Their discussion constituted a repudiation of turn-of-the-last-century writer Finley Peter Dunne of Chicago, who famously said that politics ain’t beanbag. Apparently politics is beanbag, because that’s all the Democrats threw at each other tonight. I’ve seen more conflict at a pacifists’ stir-fry. Meanwhile, the Republican prospects in the fall just got even dimmer. I say this not only because a weak general election candidate won a primary, but because Mitt Romney’s win pretty much guarantees a bitter fight for the nomination. If you doubt that, here is what Rush Limbaugh said about McCain and Huckabee on his program today: “I’m here to tell you, if either of these two guys get the nomination, it’s going to destroy the Republican Party, it’s going to change it forever, be the end of it.” This week, Rush and his radio mimics have been on the rampage on the party’s modernizers, from Newt Gingrich on over. This thing will only get uglier. Second, Mitt Romney found, as Hillary would say, his voice. I remember watching him campaign at a financial company about 6 months ago. He talked about business and was fantastic. The next event was at a senior citizen center. He was ideological and dreadful. In Michigan, the full corporate Mitt was on display. His campaign was a reminder of how far corporate Republicans are from free market Republicans. He proposed $20 billion in new federal spending on research. He insisted that Washington had to get fully engaged in restoring the United States automotive industry. “Detroit can only thrive if Washington is an engaged partner,” he said, “not a disinterested observer.” He vowed, “If I’m president of this country, I will roll up my sleeves in the first 100 days I’m in office, and I will personally bring together industry, labor, Congressional and state leaders and together we will develop a plan to rebuild America’s automotive leadership.” This is how the British Tory party used to speak in the 1970s. The third thing that happened tonight is that Hillary Clinton and John Edwards disgraced themselves in the minds of debate-watchers everywhere. At some point in each campaign, candidates are asked to name their greatest weakness. Only the lamest political hacks answer that question this way: Goshdarn it, I just care too much. I am too impatient for good things to happen. Giving that answer is an insult to the art of politics. And yet Edwards and Clinton both gave that answer. They didn’t even give artfully disguised versions of that answer. They gave the straight, unsubtle kindergarten version of that answer. Obama, honestly, admitted that he’s bad at organizing his paperwork. Truly, here is a man willing to stand for change.
It occurs to me that I'm alone so much on this thread people don't even notice I've added something new. Sort of like Castaway.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jan 16, 2008 12:23:48 GMT -5
Don't assume that, because I can't think of anything to add, I haven't read what you have posted.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Jan 16, 2008 13:45:20 GMT -5
What joew said. I'm reading too, but I think this is going to be a marathon not a sprint. Some commentator this morning said there were only 2 or 2&1/2 (D) candidates, already counting Edwards out - way too early to assume it's only Barack and Hillary.
And on the (R) side, Giuliani's doing nothing until Florida, so who knows what will happen then? I'd never say he's done for already, especially not this year.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Jan 16, 2008 21:47:14 GMT -5
Ok, here's a conservative to balance the liberals. I like Brooks, though many of my liberal friends can't abide him. It occurs to me that I'm alone so much on this thread people don't even notice I've added something new. Sort of like Castaway. You're not alone here but I'm not sure I'm the one you would best choose to be alone with. Heh heh Both Brooks and kargo seem to enjoy the qualities which I find deceptive and unproductive in politics. If the public is led to expect the candidates to compete with each other in the same "manner of the game" in which athletes compete, it reduces the issues to the same level of social unimportance. What if two or four or all of the politicians actually agree on most of the issues? Should they seek out minor misstatements or obscure minutia in each others platforms merely to create the appearance of competition or do they just divide the issues amongst themselves, by drawing lots so to speak, and see who can be the most convincing? If Brooks enjoys competition for competitions sake then he should switch his news interests to football. If kargo thinks that differing ideologies have so little in common that ridicule is the only grounds for comparison then his/her time would be better spent in stand-up comedy. At least in these venues it would be obvious, even to the ignorant, that their comments were mere satire. From what I have observed in recent candidate's pre-election platforms and the slippery manner in which they pursue those issues after they are in office, I am convinced that there is an enormous amount of collusion in dishonesty and insincere posturing. A couple of questions: - If we all know that issue posturing is going on, how does that benefit the people?
- If most of the people are ignorant of it, what does that mean for the future of democracy?
- If we are willing to accept electioneering as a game how do we avoid electing a Zaphod Beeblebrox?
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jan 16, 2008 22:06:48 GMT -5
Maybe Brooks just wants competition for it's own sake; or maybe there he has underlying assumption that the candidates think that there is a good reason or set of reasons why they should be President rather than their opponents, which leads him to want the candidates to present those reasons to the voters. It could have to do with issues and it could have to do with aptitude for the office. Of course, presenting the positives about oneself does not create competition as much as does pointing out how those positives are better then what the other candidates have to offer.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jan 16, 2008 22:18:24 GMT -5
When it comes to issue posturing, as roges calls it, I'm really sorry to see the turn the immigration discussion has taken among the Republicans over the question of "amnesty." Nobody has had the sense to call Mike Huckabee on his unrealistic assertion that virtually all illegal aliens will voluntarily leave the country to go home and get at the back of the line for legal entry. Nobody has had the sense or nerve to ask who will harvest the crops, mow the lawns, and work in the meat packing plants while they are waiting for years to get to the front of the line. Nobody will say that we need to let the law-abiding, working illegals stay here and give them guest worker status. It is understandable that nobody does, because the demagogues will immediately scream "amnesty!" But at least Mc Cain and Giuliani seem to understand what needs to be done, and they are trying to break it to the voters gently. The others give the impression that they think it is realistic to expect to expel all the illegals.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jan 17, 2008 18:40:36 GMT -5
When it comes to issue posturing, as roges calls it, I'm really sorry to see the turn the immigration discussion has taken among the Republicans over the question of "amnesty." Nobody has had the sense to call Mike Huckabee on his unrealistic assertion that virtually all illegal aliens will voluntarily leave the country to go home and get at the back of the line for legal entry. True. It's sweet that he believes they'd all be squeaky-clean honest, but I doubt that I'd be that honest in their shoes. Nobody has had the sense or nerve to ask who will harvest the crops, mow the lawns, and work in the meat packing plants while they are waiting for years to get to the front of the line. The trouble is that so many of those jobs are underpaid because there are people willing to take the crummy pay and live in crummy quarters or 6 to a motel room. The former meat packing workers in MN believe the wages would go up if there were no illegals. It's a really tough problem in a small town like Worthington MN, so I can't feel superior. Nobody will say that we need to let the law-abiding, working illegals stay here and give them guest worker status. It is understandable that nobody does, because the demagogues will immediately scream "amnesty!" But at least Mc Cain and Giuliani seem to understand what needs to be done, and they are trying to break it to the voters gently. The others give the impression that they think it is realistic to expect to expel all the illegals. Let's see - how many new police or immigration officers would it take to round up 12 million people and send them back wherever they came from? What a terrific new jobs program!
I know we've had this discussion before, joe, and we pretty much agree. The reality of all those underpaid workers is that millions of jobs in this country are miserably underpaid. We also have to attack the problem of the corporations getting rich on exploited workers. Take a look at this about a MN company: Ag demand drives Cargill profits up 44 percent January 14, 2008 Wayzata, Minn. — (AP) - Agribusiness giant Cargill said on Monday that second-quarter profits jumped 44 percent as it continued to benefit from strong demand for food commodities.
Cargill said it earned $954 million during the second quarter, up from $662 million during the same period last year. That brings its first-half earnings to $1.87 billion, up 61 percent from the first half of its prior year.
Cargill is one of the world's largest privately held companies, and discloses limited quarterly financial information.
Cargill makes food ingredients, moves commodities around the world and runs financial commodities trading businesses, and has 158,000 workers in 66 countries. Its operations include five feed mills in Vietnam, chocolate production in Brazil, and a sweetener facility in the U.K. McCain and Giuliani need to tell the truth about that, too. They need to talk about what the cleaning staff is paid in luxury hotels and the kitchen staff from greasy spoons to 4-Star restaurants.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Jan 17, 2008 19:04:50 GMT -5
Can you spell C-O-R-P-O-R-A-T-O-C-R-A-C-Y?
I have been accustomed to thinking in terms of war machinery no-bid contracts, and major international construction projects that always go to companies chaired and board-of-directored by Friends of the Administration (current and recent), funded by public tax dollars to the private benefit of VIP's.
However, agricultural subsidies (domestic and foreign) are part of the game too. How convenient that these operations take place in locations where wages of $1 - 2 per day are "high," and also in the case of Cargill, how convenient that they are not publicly traded, so they don't even have to answer to the SEC and an accountable board. But wait, doesn't the US government (our tax dollars at work again) spend billions on auditors to be sure these funds are well-spent?
The parallel universe is populated by those "real farmers" (not agri-business) who can't hire anyone at any wage to pick their crops, or can't maintain their dairy farms during the bad years when milk prices are low.
It's like that black-and-white drawing of either a wicked witch or a beautiful young woman, depending on how you see it.
I need to retreat and find my Optimism Shield ASAP.
FWIW, I think Giuliani is bought into the Game 100%, but it's possible that McCain is maverick enough that he might speak the truth.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Jan 17, 2008 19:43:30 GMT -5
Hmm, Joe? Reading your observations above, I can't quite tell what your position is on immigration. You seem to insinuate that you disagree with Huckabee.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the people in the upper order of both politics and business (they both have a big stake in the immigration issue) are mostly flustered as to whether this floundering economy is going to float for another four years. Even the most dedicated Capitalist has to realize that we are sailing on a sea whose limits are unknown. That, I believe, has much to do with the indecision in this matter.
What I mean is, as I mentioned above Capitalism requires vigorous growth both in population and economy. Sure you can spin the numbers and make it look like the economy is growing modestly but that growth is in corporate foreign investments and huge corporate profits from non domestic sources. Job growth has been flaccid and finicky and mostly in lower income service jobs and Government related fields. McCain just yesterday said that his party's practices had grown government and government spending more in the past eight years than ever in the history of the country! (He made a rather humorous remark about a multi-million dollar project to study the DNA of Montana Bears) And Chairman Bernanke could dazzle the most sophisticated audience at a YOYO competition. On top of all of that the tech, entertainment, communication and banking industries are bitterly fighting each other for the pennies in YOUR pocket.
So as I see it the big question for everyone in the know is whether or not the world is flat and the edge is nigh — or whether or not we can float this overloaded economic barge close enough to to the far and unexplored shore to at least wade in and find work harvesting crops, packing meat or mowing lawns — in other words recession, depression, or collapse, any one of which are possible. In the worst possible scenario there would be little room for immigrants, legal or not; at best we will need them to bail.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Jan 17, 2008 19:51:06 GMT -5
Yikes! This looks like a dog pile on Joe. Not really buddy. I think a lot of people are looking at the immigration problem as a primary issue and it is actually an underlying issue.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jan 17, 2008 20:06:57 GMT -5
Well, gosh, that sure cheered me up. I'm usually the Cassandra who scares herself to death, but roges, you may have me beat. I agree we're in big trouble, and the signs have been clear for a long time. I'm hoping that self-interest will keep the honchos in business and government (K's corporatocracy) focused on plugging holes in the ship so it floats without having to bail. Unfortunately, my personal answer always comes down to limiting excessive profits and spreading the wealth more equitably, but no one making the 44% profits is willing to do that. DrK has reminded me in the past that our facing a permanent downturn won't wipe us off the map. We just won't be a super power, more of a Canada. So maybe we aren't about to fall off the cliff. But isn't our connection to the immigration topic getting a little fuzzy?
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Jan 17, 2008 21:19:03 GMT -5
I don't think the connection between the economy and immigration is at all fuzzy Gail. I think that the fact that we can no longer depend on domestic jobs in any of the lucrative markets mentioned above roots the immigration issue firmly in domestic economic issue. If we go into a depression where will the middle class jobs come from and I have to ask the same question If the dollar continues to devalue and If the Tech industry takes another dive. There are fewer and fewer jobs in the blue collar fields in this country and if thing go bad the above mentioned jobs will look a lot better to those that won't consider illegal activity as an option for income.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jan 17, 2008 23:50:07 GMT -5
gk and roges, you both make good points. I'm assuming an economy that continues roughly as it has over the past 40 or 50 years. Of course, since it needs a growing population, if we aren't growing from within we have to bring in the needed population, by fair means or illegally.
I suspect that part of the problem of illegal immigration was that we didn't allow enough legal immigration.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Jan 18, 2008 9:53:11 GMT -5
On NPR I heard a South Carolina Baptist minister saying:
Can any one dih-rect me to that pah-tic-uulah passage?
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jan 18, 2008 12:30:33 GMT -5
On NPR I heard a South Carolina Baptist minister saying: LOL Yew we-ull fie-und that he hay-us added a wor-ud to Proverbs 14:34.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Jan 18, 2008 13:09:19 GMT -5
Peh-haps Proverbs 14:15 would fit propah-ly it this innstance — and this thread — "The simple believe every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going."
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jan 18, 2008 18:47:47 GMT -5
When it comes to issue posturing, as roges calls it, I'm really sorry to see the turn the immigration discussion has taken among the Republicans over the question of "amnesty." Nobody has had the sense to call Mike Huckabee on his unrealistic assertion that virtually all illegal aliens will voluntarily leave the country to go home and get at the back of the line for legal entry. Nobody has had the sense or nerve to ask who will harvest the crops, mow the lawns, and work in the meat packing plants while they are waiting for years to get to the front of the line. Nobody will say that we need to let the law-abiding, working illegals stay here and give them guest worker status. It is understandable that nobody does, because the demagogues will immediately scream "amnesty!" But at least Mc Cain and Giuliani seem to understand what needs to be done, and they are trying to break it to the voters gently. The others give the impression that they think it is realistic to expect to expel all the illegals. Today's NYT editorial nicely summed up the nonsense. January 18, 2008 Editorial One Argument, 12 Million Holes The big fat immigration bill that died last year in Congress was, for all its flaws, an anchor that kept debate tethered firmly to reality. Like it or not, it contained specific remedies for the border and the workplace. It had a plan for clearing backlogs in legal immigration and managing its future flow. Perhaps most critical, it dealt with the 12 million illegal immigrants already here, through a tough path to earned citizenship.
Unmoored from a comprehensive federal bill, the debate was pushed into the states and is now floating in the La-La Land of the presidential campaign. The Republicans have been battling over the sincerity of their sound bites and trying to make their fixation on one dimension of the problem — tough border and workplace enforcement — sound like the solution.
But it isn’t, of course, because it ignores the fundamental question of what to do about the undocumented 12 million. A locked-down border won’t affect them. There is no way to round them up and move them out all at once. Not even the most eagerly anti-immigration candidate would dare talk about detention camps. Amnesty is a Republican curse word. So what’s the plan?
This is the cavernous hole in anti-immigration policy that its proponents want to cover with chain link and razor wire. It’s where swaggering Republicans get vague and mushy. The emptiness of their position was acutely exposed in the Jan. 5 debate, when Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, ripped into Senator John McCain of Arizona for sponsoring an “amnesty” bill that did not call for the mass expulsion of 12 million people.
MR. McCAIN: There is no special right associated with my plan. I said they should not be in any way rewarded for illegal behavior.
MR. ROMNEY: Are they sent home?
MR. McCAIN: They have to get in line —
MR. ROMNEY: Are they sent home?
MR. McCAIN: — behind everybody else.
MR. ROMNEY: Are they sent home?
MR. McCAIN: Some of them are, some of them are not, depending on their situation.
You’d think that Mr. Romney wanted all illegal immigrants to be sent home. But minutes later, he told the moderator, Charles Gibson of ABC News, something completely different.
MR. GIBSON: Is it practical to take 12 million people and send them out of the country?
MR. ROMNEY: Is it practical? The answer is no. The answer is no.
Mr. Romney (who in the distant past — 2005 — called the McCain bill “reasonable”) stumbled further on a talk show, “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” the next day. He struggled over whether the McCain bill could even be called “amnesty,” since it fined illegal immigrants $5,000.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: So you do believe his plan is amnesty then?
MR. ROMNEY: Not under a legal definition but under the normal, colloquial definition, yes.
Under the normal, colloquial definition, Mr. Romney is talking through his hat. But he isn’t alone. Except for Mr. McCain, the Republican candidates have skirted the issue or, worse, embraced the restrictionist approach known as “attrition.” That amounts to relentlessly tightening the screws in workplaces and homes until illegal immigrants magically, voluntarily disappear.
Making it work would require far more government intrusion into daily lives, with exponential increases in workplace raids and deportations. It would mean constant ID checks for everyone — citizens, too — with immigration police at the federal, state and local levels. It would mean enlisting bureaucrats and snoops to keep an eye on landlords, renters, laborers, loiterers and everyone who uses government services or gets sick.
Worst of all, it’s weak on law and order. It is a free pass to the violent criminals we urgently need to hunt down and deport. Attrition means waiting until we stumble across bad people hiding in the vast illegal immigrant haystack. Comprehensive reform, by bringing the undocumented out of the shadows, shrinks the haystack.
Fred Thompson has been perhaps the most vocal defender of attrition. But on Wednesday, the newly restrictionist Mike Huckabee one-upped him by signing the “No Amnesty” pledge of the nativist group NumbersUSA, formally committing to the principle that all 12 million illegal immigrants must be expelled. Americans, naturally, have no earthly idea how he would accomplish that.
Even if you accept the Republicans’ view of immigration policy as warfare against illegal immigrants, their tactics are the rejects of history, starting with that Vietnam-evoking “attrition.” The border wall is right from Monsieur Maginot’s playbook — fortifying just one of two international borders even though at least 40 percent of illegal immigrants arrive perfectly legally and then overstay their visas.
The attrition fantasy is now, by default, the national immigration strategy. The government is essentially committed to expelling all illegal immigrants, not assimilating them. Instead of bringing its power to bear, Washington has gladly handed the task to a motley collection of state and local governments, each enforcing its own rules, often at cross purposes.
Now, attrition is threatening to become a bipartisan disaster. The SAVE Act, an enforcement-only bill, was introduced last year by a Democrat, Representative Heath Shuler of North Carolina, and the notoriously restrictionist Republicans Brian Bilbray and Tom Tancredo. It is gaining sponsors.
The Republican stance on immigration leaves an opening that opponents could drive a truck through. The Democratic candidates have the better position but approach the subject with eggshell timidity. They should stand up for a real debate, and a better country, by forcefully challenging the Republicans on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jan 18, 2008 20:24:34 GMT -5
The Times editorial is pretty good. McCain knows you can't expel the 12 million. So does Romney, but he tries to force McCain to acknowledge it as a debating tactic. Giuliani probably knows it too, but I haven't heard it from his lips. The problem they have is that while Thompson, Huckster, and Paul are still in the race, it would be the kiss of death for any of them to advocate a policy which accepted reality. All I can hope for is that the latter three will not gain a majority of delegates and that the more realistic three will manage to get together and crowd them out at the convention.
Then we have the Lou Dobbs problem. There is a draft Dobbs movement afoot. If a known pro-"amnesty" candidate appears likely to get the nomination, Dobbs could become a third-party candidate and siphon enough votes from the Republican nominee to assure the Democrat's victory. The longer the nominee is in doubt, the better, since that will tend to keep Dobbs out until it is too late.
But then, if the polls are right, the xenophobic stupidity cuts across party lines, so even the Democratic candidates don't dare talk about the issue. If someone in a debate forced them to face it and declare their positions, that would make a big difference. Why don't they get asked? Are they being protected by the LMSM interviewers?
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Jan 19, 2008 0:04:57 GMT -5
The reference to the Maginot line is stretching it a bit. I don't think anyone has referred to this as any where near a war with a line of battlements facing all of South America.
I really don't see where this is an issue of significance. It does remind me much of John Kerry's fixation on Vietnam — That little issue that seemed to loose him the election. The republicans haven't a chance in hell of winning this election and they know it so they are positioning themselves for the next election. The Democrats aren't going to commit to something that has no solution in the foreseeable future.
The best point that the Times editorial makes is that there is no immediate solution to a problem that has gone on so long that 12 million lives are directly involved and probably as many legal relatives .
I Am...Roges An I approve this opinion.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jan 19, 2008 0:07:46 GMT -5
LMSM interviewers? Are you feverish? There's no such thing anymore. NBC is owned by GE, CBS by Viacom, and ABC by Disney. They do not in any way represent journalism or independent thought. Lou Dobbs has been making me crazy for at least 2 years. I hadn't heard about this interest in him as a candidate, but now you've ruined my weekend. Also, it looks as if SC is showing its truest racist colors and McCain will be gutted and fileted just as he was in 2000. I disagree strongly with McCain about the war, but he looked so tired and discouraged today my heart went out to him.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jan 19, 2008 0:18:51 GMT -5
I'm not so sure that the GOP is doomed to defeat. A McCain-Romney ticket might beat Clinton if she is foolish enough to pick someone other than Obama as her running mate.
Or even Romney-Giuliani. (It would be wrong for McCain to be nominated for Veep.)
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Jan 19, 2008 0:47:28 GMT -5
I'm not so sure that the GOP is doomed to defeat. A McCain-Romney ticket might beat Clinton if she is foolish enough to pick someone other than Obama as her running mate. Or even Romney-Giuliani. (It would be wrong for McCain to be nominated for Veep.) I'm with you on this one, joew. If the Dems are foolish enough to nominate Hillary with her 45 - 48% disapproval rating, and especially if a third party candidate (Bloomberg seems more likely than Dobbs) runs too, Republicans could win the White House with a plurality. A reverse of Clinton v Dole - wasn't that the one where Ross Perot drew a large number of votes and Clinton won with less than 50% of the votes? I care very little about R v D anymore - let's just get a principled and relatively honest person in office, one who won't continue to sell us down the drain for Empire.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Jan 19, 2008 3:18:06 GMT -5
You live too close to the confederate states Joe.
I'm sorry but I have little faith in our ability to accurately evaluate whether the issues as argued by these candidates are honest positions offered with conviction or mere tests and posturing. The economy is tanking and none of these vested senators on the campaign trail have the work ethic to say "Hey I've got important work to do in Washington, this campaign is going to have to run itself. Call me if you really need me." If all of the issues are so important, and they are, how can they let their real jobs just languish for over a year while they try to reshape their images to match the publics momentary memory.
An interesting exercise: Google hillary cried, hillary emotion, hillary tears, hillary honest, all separately. The results reveal quite a bit as to how the people are being bamboozled by the media, the politicians, and themselves. How can anyone make an educated decision with such childish interplay offed as informative news and commentary. Yikes!
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jan 19, 2008 10:07:54 GMT -5
Do you watch "The Daily Show" much, roges? Jon Stewart doesn't miss hiw writers at all - he just shows clips of the news shows and everyone laughs themselves silly.
I can't picture actual tickets yet. There's so much acrimony that I can't imagine two of either party teaming up as a ticket. I suppose Richardson might agree to Veep, but of the contenders and also-rans, I can't see any of the Dems agreeing to be 2nd fiddle. Why would Biden take anything that doesn't match his current power in the Senate? That's why I think many would take a key Cabinet position before Veep.
And among the Republicans, only Giuliani seems likely to accept Veep - because he needs to keep feeding his ego. I hope this doesn't sound ageist (moi?), but McCain was really looking tired. If he gets stomped in SC, he may not have the energy to keep subjecting himself to this grueling schedule.
Why is no one mentioning Huckabee? And has Ron Paul just given up? I don't think I've heard much about him in the SC coverage - is he even on the ballot?
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jan 19, 2008 10:53:24 GMT -5
C-Span was giving live coverage to a Ron Paul speech to his supporters as the New Hampshire results came in. At a couple of points it seemed that he was saying the value in his campaign was presenting his ideas to a nationwide audience. IOW, reading between the lines, he knows he won't win, but he wants to continue to present his message.
Apparently the fight in SC is between McCain and Huckabee, not sure why the media focus is more on McCain, unless it's that they like him, they really like him.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Jan 19, 2008 15:10:16 GMT -5
Gail? We the people are sooo much into appearances and HUCKABEE was just born with the wrong name. Say it ten times fast. See what I mean?
I thought Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton were kinda sounding as if the were a pair for a bit there. Do you really think that they couldn't be? Either one of them could still hope to capture the White house after two terms of the other. (Sorry i didn't mean to scare you Joe.)
As far as TV (You're reference to the Daily Show Gail) I decided a long time ago — after studying accelerated learning; the Lozanof method — that I wasn't going to have a TV in my home. The stuff tunnels into the brain and sticks like silicone — soft and stretchy, clear and unapparent. I hadn't the will to just turn it off and leave it there, starring at me. I am impressed with your ability to find new sources of info though! And, barring my rash statements above, I'm really kind of enjoying The Kos. Lots of good links. Thanks
I must say that McCain seems an honest man without being as abrasive as Paul or Bidden.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jan 21, 2008 7:09:42 GMT -5
I'm looking at the front page; Hillary is beaming, wearing a red coat with the stars and bars behind her; McCain is smiling so broadly that it looks like his eyes are glued shut with crazy glue... and, for the first time in my life, I feel like I'm a character in a Stephen King novel. It's not like it used to be, for me. I need a hero! Dang it, John Wayne is gone and he isn't coming back.
People I've never heard of are deciding to end their bid for the White House.
The oldest civilizations on earth are solving their problems by shoving suicide bombers into each others wedding parties. Everyone bites the dust.
Gezzus! The Planet of the Apes is starting to make sense.
It's not the end of the world as we know it... It's the beginning of the world as we're going to hate it.
Oh well, the sun will come up, tommorow!
Meet me in the bar, Mike
|
|