Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 18, 2014, 09:07:23 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
79131 Posts in 2226 Topics by 1036 Members
Latest Member: Evgeny Vasilyev
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Politics
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 21 Print
Author Topic: Politics  (Read 123236 times)
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 750


« Reply #350 on: May 09, 2010, 05:10:02 AM »

Woof,
 Fine point, but even if that happens we will at least know who we're dealing with.
                                P.C.
Logged

Rarick
Guest
« Reply #351 on: May 11, 2010, 05:08:22 AM »

he even talks the liberal rap when he makes a statement on his rejection.......Obviously some of my votes have made the environment toxic.........Gag.  A conservative probably would have said something more like, "the delegates don't like my views on key issues".
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29587


« Reply #352 on: May 18, 2010, 12:05:05 AM »



Richard Blumenthal, U.S. Senate Candidate From Connecticut, Misstated Service Record

Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat who is running for the United
States Senate from Connecticut, never served in Vietnam,
despite statements to the contrary. The Times has found that
he obtained at least five military deferments from 1965 to
1970 and took repeated steps that enabled him to avoid going
to war.

Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com?emc=na
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 750


« Reply #353 on: May 18, 2010, 07:23:41 AM »

Woof,
 Just got back from the polls; voting for Rand Paul was very satisfying, I can only hope that he will be better than what the Party elites put up to run.
                    P.C.
Logged

Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29587


« Reply #354 on: May 20, 2010, 07:27:04 PM »

I gather Rand Paul has ignited a bit of a firestorm for stating he is against the anti-discrimination laws being applied to private businesses.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #355 on: May 20, 2010, 07:38:21 PM »

Just keeping up the Paul family tradition of making the general public think Libertarians are fringe loons.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29587


« Reply #356 on: May 20, 2010, 07:58:19 PM »

If I am being honest, I should say that conceptually I find the point sound.   The politics and emotions of it are quite horrible of course.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #357 on: May 21, 2010, 08:59:22 AM »

Let me be sure I understand the Libertarian stance on these issues:

1. The civil war was about states right's and Lincoln was a horrible dictator and it wasn't about slavery at all, and slavery would have gone away on it's own.

2. Racially segregated businesses are ok, federal legislation forbidding such is again a violation of personal liberties/property rights.


Is this correct?
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3789


« Reply #358 on: May 21, 2010, 09:34:37 AM »

"Just keeping up the Paul family tradition"

GM,

It is errie how the son looks, speaks, thinks EXACTLY like his father.  Maybe HE is the first clone baby.
I agree with Crafty that the point is "sound" but politically he just gave the Dems the rally cry they have been looking for.
Now they will go nuts on every one of their main stream media outlets tying the Tea Party to the party that is "against Civil Rights".
Did anyone else see Paul on Rachal Madcow's show?  She couldn't stop from drooling and giggling with tingle on her leg over sticking this point to him.
His response was weak and defensive even if logical.   
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5524


« Reply #359 on: May 21, 2010, 10:13:08 AM »

The law of the land should be - color blind.  Unfortunately the government, the census, the supreme court and private institutions like Harvard are not there yet.  James Taranto of WSJ had a pretty good take on the Rand Paul matter, below.  It might be philosophically interesting to ponder issues of the last century like how to move to a post-racial society without using the heavy hand of the federal government.  But if Paul and others, libertarians or conservatives, want to win this year they better get focused quickly and stay focused on maybe 10 concrete steps forward we can take today.  Paul is an opthamologist.  Now he is a politician running for serious office, a 6 year term, and he needs to use the discipline of his first profession to succeed in his new one. He and the others need to figure out HOW to move us gently in a libertarian direction, not to some utopia, but just a little less reliant on the government for the solutions for our every problem, and they need to bring the conservatives and the majority of independents along with them to win.  When they figure out what that realistic agenda is for the next 2, 4 or 6 years, they need to stick to the agenda, the details, the mindset, the benefits, and the persuasion required to get us there, not just wander around with every gotcha journalist or political opponent.
-----------
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703559004575256283217096358.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion
Rand Paul and Civil Rights
A rookie mistake feeds a left-wing smear.
By JAMES TARANTO

Rand Paul was 1 when Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Now 47, he is the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate from Kentucky, his first ever foray into politics. To his evident surprise, the hypothetical question of how he would have voted in 1964 has been drawing a lot of attention.

Politico's Ben Smith characterizes as "evasive" this response Paul gave when asked the question by National Public Radio (we've corrected Smith's transcription errors):

    "What I've always said is, I'm opposed to institutional racism, and I would have--if I was alive at the time, I think--had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism, and I see no place in our society for institutional racism," he said in response to a first question about the act.

    "You would have marched with Martin Luther King but voted with Barry Goldwater?" asked an interviewer.

    "I think it's confusing in a lot of cases in what's actually in the Civil Rights Case (sic)," Paul replied. "A lot of things that were actually in the bill I'm actually in favor of. I'm in favor of--everything with regards to ending institutional racism. So I think there's a lot to be desired in the Civil Rights--and indeed the truth is, I haven't read all through it, because it was passed 40 years ago and hadn't been a real pressing issue on the campaign on whether I'm going to vote for the Civil Rights Act."

In an update to his post, Smith notes that it wasn't the first time Paul was asked the question:

    Paul articulated his view on the Civil Rights Act in an interview with the editorial board of the Louisville Courier-Journal. . . .

    Paul explained that he backed the portion of the Civil Rights Act banning discrimination in public places and institutions, but that he thinks private businesses should be permitted to discriminate by race.

    "I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I'm all in favor of that," he said. "I don't like the idea of telling private business owners. . . ."

Smith is not the only commentator to accuse Paul of being "evasive" or refusing to give a "straight answer." This criticism is absurd. The politically wise answer would have been "yes"--a straight answer in form, but an evasive one in substance. Answering the way he did was a rookie mistake--or, to put it more charitably, a demonstration that Paul is not a professional politician.

Taken at face value, the question itself--How would you have voted if you had been in the Senate as an infant?--is silly. It is a reasonable question only if it is understood more broadly, as an inquiry into Paul's political philosophy. The question within the question is: How uncompromising are you in your adherence to small-government principles?

Paul gave his answer: Pretty darn uncompromising--uncompromising enough to take a position that is not only politically embarrassing but morally dubious by his own lights, as evidenced by this transcript from the Courier-Journal interview, provided by the left-wing site ThinkProgress.org:

    Interviewer: But under your philosophy, it would be OK for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworths?

    Paul: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part--and this is the hard part about believing in freedom--is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example--you have too, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things. . . . It's the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior.

Again, Paul could have given a "straight" answer to the question--a flat "no"--that made clear his personal disapproval of discrimination while evading what was really a question about his political philosophy. Far from being evasive, Paul has shown himself to be both candid and principled to a fault.

We do mean to a fault. In this matter, Paul seems to us to be overly ideological and insufficiently mindful of the contingencies of history. Although we are in accord with his general view that government involvement in private business should be kept to a minimum, in our view the Civil Rights Act's restrictions on private discrimination were necessary in order to break down a culture of inequality that was only partly a matter of oppressive state laws. On the other hand, he seeks merely to be one vote of 100 in the Senate. An ideologically hardheaded libertarian in the Senate surely would do the country more good than harm.

It's possible, though, that Paul's eccentric views on civil rights will harm the Republican Party by feeding the left's claims that America is a racist country and the GOP is a racist party. Certainly that's what Salon's Joan Walsh is hoping. Here are her comments on a Rand interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow:

    You've got to watch the whole interview. At the end, Paul seemed to understand that he's going to be explaining his benighted civil rights views for a long, long time--but he seemed to blame Maddow. "You bring up something that is really not an issue . . . a red herring, it's a political ploy . . . and that's the way it will be used," he complained at the end of the interview. Whether the Civil Rights Act should have applied to private businesses--"not really an issue," says Tea Party hero Rand Paul.

    It's going to become increasingly clear that the Tea Party movement wants to revoke the Great Society, the New Deal and the laws that were the result of the civil rights movement. Paul may be right that his views are "not really an issue" with his Tea Party supporters, although I have to think some of them won't enjoy watching him look like a slippery politician as he fails, over and over, to answer Maddow's questions directly.

When Paul says this "is really not an issue," he is speaking in the present tense. It is quite clear that he means that the Civil Rights Act, which has been the law for nearly 46 years, is politically settled; there is no movement to revoke it. In this, he is correct. Walsh's assertion that this is what the tea-party movement seeks is either a fantasy or a lie.

It's a curious role reversal: Rand Paul is a politician; Joan Walsh is a journalist. He is honest, perhaps too honest for his own good. She is playing the part of the dishonest demagogue.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #360 on: May 21, 2010, 10:58:04 AM »

Doug,

I hope the Pauls are better at medicine than they are at politics. Much like the French love for Jerry Lewis, I cannot begin to understand how the Pauls attract such a cultish following.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #361 on: May 21, 2010, 05:08:36 PM »

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/21/gaffetastic-rand-paul-cancels-sunday-meet-the-press-appearance/

FAIL.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29587


« Reply #362 on: May 21, 2010, 09:16:36 PM »

This is VERY bad politics for us.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3789


« Reply #363 on: May 23, 2010, 11:15:57 AM »

On the AM talk show circuit I hear Paul being critiz=cized as radical because he questioned one small part of the Civil rights law and disabilities.  I don't think I can agree with him on the Civil rights point but I do on the Disability act.  Why do all of us have to pay for the minority of those with disabilities?

But this is certainly a lisoing poktical point anyway in a law that is already passed and entrenched.

What I cannot believe is the absolutely worthless defense Repblicans offer when asked about Paul's "radical agenda".

It is a no brainer to retort that it is less radical than the Obama, Pelosi radical agenda that haws expanded govevernment to the point of bankruptcy.

The cans just always fall into the defenseive mode.

Why can't they put a stop to the falicy that immigration is a civil rights issue when it is not?
Why can't they keep turning the point around to Obama and Democrats that they are the radical ones?
They always soind like a bunch of losers trying to defend themselves.
For goodness sakes I can do a better job of turningthe arguments right back around and putting the Dems on defense.

Are there any decent spokepeople out there?

Forget Sarah.  She sounds like a broken record.  She is a good attack dog but not inspiring beyond the angry base.  Every time I hear her I think well tell me something I don't already know. I know Bamster sucks.  So where do we need to go and how are we going to get there?

We need someone who can really talk of America as needing to wake up.  Needing for us to believe in ourselves.  Needing to accept the fact that we can't retire at 50, and expect government to take care of us our entire lives.  Contrast this to the bamster who has already resigned us to a dependency state and one of second class status.  He takes away our spirit, our confidence, our willingness to work hard.  Isn't that obvious with the his new world order?  All Americans have a stake in this.  He is giving OUR country away.
Black, White, Latiino, Asian.  It doesn't matter.  He is giving the dream away.

For example, we should be expanding the space program.  This is where we lead.  Why in the world shoudl we back off our leadership in space?  You wnat to stop nucs then use our lead to set up space based weapons that can defend against intercontinental missiles.  If we don't the Indians and Chinese will.

Where is the damn leadership?Huh

I am pissed and frustrated.  The cans are losers.



Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29587


« Reply #364 on: May 23, 2010, 08:15:04 PM »

Amen.

One of the things I hope this forum offers is precisely that it is a place where we get our facts and conceptual act together so that we CAN turn things around.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5524


« Reply #365 on: May 24, 2010, 12:47:54 PM »

Also might be time to open a thread for the 2010 individual senate and congressional races going on across the country.  Something big is going on.

Rasmussen: Gov. John Hoeven, R, leads his Democratic opponent for Senate in North Dakota, 72 to 23 percent. 

Republicans have not won a senate seat in North Dakota since 1980. 
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 750


« Reply #366 on: May 24, 2010, 02:36:06 PM »

Woof,
 The majority of people that voted for Rand Paul, wasn't voting for him as a Libertarian or his Libertarian philosophy, they voted for him, to send a message to the Republican Party that they had better stop giving lip service to conservative principles while voting for bailouts and growing the government. The Party isn't supporting Paul in this media shark fest because they want him damaged.
                     P.C.
Logged

DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5524


« Reply #367 on: May 24, 2010, 04:23:04 PM »

"The Party isn't supporting Paul in this media shark fest because they want him damaged."

P.C:  I disagree.  I think the party wants to win the Kentucky seat very badly, even with Paul, but is worried about collateral damage.  Paul's remarks were not racist, but the implications of them may sound that way.  They just weren't disciplined enough for the national limelight.  But if he is a surgeon and a serious senate candidate he should be able to put a tight and clear message together right now for the general election. 

Michele Bachmann R-MN has also stepped in it a few times and still wins in a conservative district.  One of hers was also the unAmerican comment.  The media is just dying to get them to say something extreme sounding in a sound byte and then paint the whole movement or party to be extreme. 

Paul could turn this into a positive.  He has drawn an inordinate amount of attention to himself.  Now we will see how he uses it.  McConnell won by only 53-47% even as leader.  Paul will bring in some new voters that use to sit out but he will need the McConnell voters to win.  McConnell will need the Paul voters on his next try, but he for sure needs to win this one in Kentucky to ever reach 50 or 51 R-senators.  As the party in opposition, the main problems will remain on the left side with the Susan Collins and former Arlen Specter types, not on the right.

BTW, the Rand Paul proposal to require a constitutional justification for every federal authority is brilliant.  You can argue the details of the authority, but how can you deny that you even have to find and justify the authority.  My proposal was a little different.  I think they require themselves to pass an Unintended Consequences Report prior to the budget authorization for every federal program, just like developers may be required to publish an environmental impact statement.  In other words, what are the downsides of this legislation.  Can you imagine Democrats arguing either one of those on ObamaCare? Take both of these proposals together and you might slow the legislation and funds authorization process by adding a little sobriety.
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 750


« Reply #368 on: May 24, 2010, 05:35:55 PM »

Woof DMG,
 Paul will win in Kentucky even if caught with a dead woman or live boy and the national Republican leadership knows this, but when he gets to Washington they still want to be able to control him, trust me they want him damaged. I think you underestimate how addcited the Republicans in office right now are to spending our money and increasing government power, they are every bit as bad as the Dem's and they love playing helpless as the Dem's roll along.
                     P.C.
Logged

ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3789


« Reply #369 on: May 24, 2010, 05:51:49 PM »

"I think you underestimate how addcited the Republicans in office right now are to spending our money and increasing government power, they are every bit as bad as the Dem's and they love playing helpless as the Dem's roll along."

Interesting comment.  Do you think they want to increase 'government' power or simply their own personal and/or party?

Sometimes I got the impression the Republicans were simply trying to compete with the Dems for votes by buying over more voters than the Dems themselves, and not necessarily a philosophical bent on expanding government.

For example, compassionate conservatism was a means to curry favor with some traditionally Dem voters.   

 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5524


« Reply #370 on: May 25, 2010, 12:56:19 AM »

 "Paul will win in Kentucky even if caught with a dead woman or live boy..."

Forget the dead woman or live boy, I find your optimism and confidence encouraging.  Wish I could say that about any of our candidates.  It's true they won't be ale to control him but that too is a good thing.  But the 'they' we are calling the the national Republican leadership is changing - I think.  For example Bennett in Utah, Specter gone, several others turning over, newcomers in and the rest nervous. The status quo will change visibly or they won't be trusted by the people.

Let's assume for a second that Republicans make big gains this year.  Then we head into the Presidential year with a little momentum and no obvious front runner.  When Bush began, he vetoed nothing.  The next leader, if he/she want to win, will not be wishy-washy, go along to get along.  Even Reagan caved on domestic spending to win in two other areas.  That won't work this time.  If a conservative wins in 2012, the mandate will be to control spending, reform entitlements, balance the budget - at a lower level of GDP and secure the country.  A Republican will not win by talking out of both sides of his mouth with no meaning. A candidate who is soft on spending will not pull together independents who are anti-deficit along with so-called tea-partiers who want the size of government scaled back and limited.

CCP wrote: "...Republicans were simply trying to compete with the Dems for votes..."

  - I agree.  Ribbon cutting ceremonies for new earmark projects were fun and rewarding.  Beefing up gusset plates on interstate bridges, making New Orleans Cat 5 proof , better testing on blow out Protectors and entitlement reforms - not quite as glamorous.  Question is whether or not we have evolved since the 2000s when people were still impressed with new programs and new spending and in fear of anything cut.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5524


« Reply #371 on: May 26, 2010, 01:39:26 PM »

As a large radio host used to say, nothing with the Clintons happens by accident.  James Carville hapens to choose the Stephanopoulos show to rip the Obama administration for "ineptness" and for being "lackadaisical", "It just looks like he's not involved in this," an angry Carville said. "Man, you got to get down here and take control of this, put somebody in charge of this thing and get this moving. We're about to die down here." These guys were always known for floating trial balloons.  This is a first.  For Carville there is no downside as he is a Louisiana native, a known loose cannon and I'm sure not an Obama insider. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/bp-oil-spill-political-headache-obama-democrats-slam/story?id=10746519

If this trial balloon gains traction within his own party, more will split with him for plenty of other reasons as they face survival vs. extinction in this year's mid-terms and the next round.  One problem that grew against Bush was that the right didn't like him very well either.

I stand by my prediction that Obama won't be the D-nominee in 2012.

Separately, Jonathon Alder of Newsweek in his book about the first year about the Obama administration wrote that Biden and H.R.Clinton would switch places in the second term.  That assumes a relatively successful, uneventful first term, IMO, which does not appear to be the case.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3789


« Reply #372 on: May 26, 2010, 07:13:10 PM »

"I stand by my prediction that Obama won't be the D-nominee in 2012"

That leaves.......say it ain't so..... cry sad
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5524


« Reply #373 on: May 27, 2010, 12:36:56 AM »

["...my prediction that Obama won't be the D-nominee..."  That leaves.......say it ain't so.....]

No, not her and I don't know who.  But both parties need new blood, new ideas.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29587


« Reply #374 on: May 27, 2010, 07:58:34 AM »

IMHO there will be no serious challenge and BO will be the nominee.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5524


« Reply #375 on: May 30, 2010, 01:48:45 PM »

"IMHO there will be no serious challenge and BO will be the nominee."

That is the conventional wisdom.  We all still have memories of the Greek columns, the tingling feeling and the tears of victory for thousands at the Grant Park speech in Chicago.  There is no one perfectly positioned in either party (including BHO) with competence, experience and support to easily step forward through the electoral process and be the next President. But someone from somewhere will.

The powers of incumbency are enormous but can turn into a negative force.  From a Dem. point of view last cycle, the incumbent was Hillary. She was expected and she had all the power - until it became clear that . Not to take away from candidate Obama and his quick rise, but his candidacy surged as he became the alternative who could win who was not Hillary.

Words alone will not carry him next time; he is building a record.

I don't know which of Obama's heaviest baggage will be his downfall or which other Dem can say he was not part of the fall yet involved enough to be credible as the next leader.  I always think the main event or issue of our time is one we don't know of yet.  For America under Bush it was 9/11 and we all knew it when we caught our breath that evening and started to measure the damage and grasp the threats we still faced that we had previously ignored or underestimated.

Maybe right now it is the oil spill reaction mixed in with the other flounderings and misdirections.  The mess itself is a tragedy, Malia gets it, and the people feel powerless, a little like 9/11.  What we need to know is that the leadership we chose to handle our emergencies is as trustworthy and competent as humanly possible.  And the answer is no; our pretend leadership is dishonest and clueless.  They think rhetoric substitutes for action and solutions.  Meanwhile the continued gush is symbolic of more that is wrong and he continues to pass blame.

Maybe they are doing all that can be done behind the scenes but what we see and hear is finger pointing, lawyer sending, commission forming and a few hours on a beach, while separately on the same news broadcasts we hear (Sestack) the totally implausible, delayed and concocted lies of how the job offer to buy the 60th vote was not really a job offer to buy the 60th vote, in spite of the opposite we were told by the candidate of the same party whose honesty was previously beyond reproach.

Today 53% of the people think the Obama administration response to the oil spill is either 'poor' or 'very poor'.  I wonder how that will grow when the gush is still gushing at the end of the summer, when we have had more time to look at what was not done and could have been done faster-sooner-better.

To those who rightly say how unfair it is to hold leadership accountable for things beyond their control, one might say welcome to the beehive that was spun under any number of previous events turned political - like Katrina.  Forget about unfair criticism of Bush over Katrina response, they are still blaming Bush and Cheney for this one, giving the green light to political criticism and political revenge over catastrophic events and the reactions to them.

What have we learned?  We can't plug the hole because it is too far down and too far off-shore.  The oil companies spent hundreds of millions to drill too far out and too far down - why?  Because the 97% of the energy that would be easier to get we designate as off-limits due to the same tired strain of political rhetoric winning out over common sense previously.

The power of incumbency is insurmountable within his own party only until the negatives of the incumbent reach some critical mass - like with Hillary, or LBJ.

The incompetence is exposed.  The corruption is exposed.  The tie to socialism is exposed.  The shame of our country is expressed overseas and exposed.  The fiscal irresponsibility is exposed. The failure of appeasement with our enemies is exposed.  The failure of the countries whose economies we are emulating is exposed.  The 'accomplishments' require quotation marks like passing 'the stimulis' and seeing 2/3 of voters favoring repeal of ObamaCare.

At the end of the oil spill and in the accumulation of trillions in total squandered, we will still be getting 0.4% of our energy from renewables.  There is no energy vision, or grow the private economy vision, close the border vision, stop Iran vision, just talk, and the ideas are still stuck on the cliche that we must 'do something' even when the doing of something does nothing - like golf balls in an oil gush.

The real arbatross (IMO) is the budget.  $4 trillion in spending with 2.5 expected in receipts for 2011.  This is not for the emergency panic of Sept. 2008, nearly 3 fiscal years previous, with an impending collapse.  This is our budget.  This is our plan.  I know the 2011 budget presented in February went through on a slow news day at a time when people already knew we running a trillion in debt, but this IS the plan, it will not go away, and it does not count the unexpected emergencies that keep on coming or the underestimation of costs for programs already passed and proposed.  Moderate Dems (are there any?) and deficit-adverse independents are not going to go along with this course indefinitely.  When it becomes clear the ship is sinking, the rats will scurry (insert Carville photo).

LBJ enjoyed a far bigger victory in 1964 than Obama in 2008.  Who ran against LBJ in 1968 when the party and the public suspected he had no clothes? One disgruntled senator (Eugene McCarthy out of nowhere) challenged and narrowly lost New Hampshire, showed the President's vulnerability.  A former President's brother (a senator) entered, the incumbent withdrew suddenly, there was an assassination, the VEEP (former senator) won the nomination and none of them won the election.  Everyone in politics thinks they can do it better, just watching, waiting and plotting for a way to get in.

My prediction that Obama will not be the D-nominee is simply pointing out that an incumbent who won't win reelection, won't be feared by his backstabbing 'friends' either. Conventional wisdom drops easily and often in politics.  We will see on this one.
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2787


« Reply #376 on: May 30, 2010, 03:22:32 PM »

Dang, Doug, your prose and political acumen make for great reading.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #377 on: May 30, 2010, 03:48:12 PM »

Agreed.

I see Evan Bayh setting up a primary challenge for 2012.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5524


« Reply #378 on: May 30, 2010, 11:23:35 PM »

BBG: "Dang, Doug..."  - Thanks for the kind words. Twisted minds think alike(?)

If Evan Bayh ran maybe it would be Obama who still lacked the experience.  It would be good for the Republic IMHO to have two fresher faces in the next election to fight more on competing political philosophies than on mistakes and grudges of the past.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29587


« Reply #379 on: May 31, 2010, 11:47:01 AM »

I lived throught the LBJ-McCarthy era.  My mom was an organizer within the local Dem party for McCarthy and long with future Congresswoman Bella Abzug  shocked co-chaired many meetings held at our house.  In this context as a 15 or 16 year old I met:

Allard Lowenstein (McCarthy's campaign manager);Ted Sorenson; Betty Fridan; David Halberstam; then Congressman Ed Koch; and many others.

Unlike LBJ and the liberals, BO and the Progressives (nee "liberals") are one and that same.  His failure will be their failure.  In '68 the struggle within the Dem party was between the mainstream Dems and the liberals.  The struggle was won in '72 by the lilberals with the ascencion of McGovern and the rules changes his people instituted that have lasting effect to this days.  The Democratic Party is now run by Soros's money and the Progressives.  To turn on BO would be suicidal.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2101


« Reply #380 on: June 02, 2010, 12:12:10 PM »

I lived throught the LBJ-McCarthy era.  My mom was an organizer within the local Dem party for McCarthy and long with future Congresswoman Bella Abzug  shocked co-chaired many meetings held at our house.  In this context as a 15 or 16 year old I met:

Allard Lowenstein (McCarthy's campaign manager);Ted Sorenson; Betty Fridan; David Halberstam; then Congressman Ed Koch; and many others.

Unlike LBJ and the liberals, BO and the Progressives (nee "liberals") are one and that same.  His failure will be their failure.  In '68 the struggle within the Dem party was between the mainstream Dems and the liberals.  The struggle was won in '72 by the lilberals with the ascencion of McGovern and the rules changes his people instituted that have lasting effect to this days.  The Democratic Party is now run by Soros's money and the Progressives.  To turn on BO would be suicidal.

Meeting Ted Sorenson would have been awesome.  He is the author of one of my favorite political books. 

On the larger point, I must confess to agree with you on this point.  I think the Democrats have learned from history (as it relates to in-party fighting over the presidential nomination), and will stand united behind President Obama.  This is not just the lesson learned in 1968, but also 1980 with the Carter/Kennedy divide. 

As for the Evan Bayh theory... doubtful.  He managed to upset a great number of Democrats in Indiana and elsewhere with the timing of his retirement from the Senate.  I am not sure the party insiders would support his run, pubically or monetarily.   
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3789


« Reply #381 on: June 02, 2010, 05:40:06 PM »

An impressive lady - but such a liberal -

Crafty your mother must must be reaching for maalox at you growing up to be the wrong kind of lib - a libertarian!

***Bella Abzug
From Wikipedia

Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from New York's 19th and 20th district
In office
January 3, 1971 – January 3, 1977
Preceded by Leonard Farbstein
Succeeded by Theodore S. Weiss

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Born July 24, 1920
New York City, New York
Died March 31, 1998 (aged 77)
New York City, New York
Political party Democratic
Religion Judaism
Bella Savitsky Abzug (July 24, 1920 – March 31, 1998) was an American lawyer, Congresswoman, social activist and a leader of the Women's Movement. In 1971 Abzug joined other leading feminists such as Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan to found the National Women's Political Caucus. She famously declared "This woman’s place is in the House—the House of Representatives" in her successful 1970 campaign to join that body when she became the first Jewish woman in the United States Congress. She was later appointed to chair the National Commission on the Observance of International Women's Year and to plan the 1977 National Women's Conference by President Gerald Ford and led President Jimmy Carter's commission on women.
Bella Savitsky was born on July 24, 1920. Both of Bella’s parents were Russian-Jewish immigrants in the United States. Her mother, Esther was a homemaker and her father, Emanuel ran the Live and Let Live Meat Market.

When Ms. Abzug was 13, her father died and she was told she would not be allowed to say the Mourner's Kaddish for her father in synagogue where it is Jewish law for sons to say Kaddish (for 11 months after the death of a parent, although in Conservative and Reform communities both sons and daughters are permitted to say Kaddish). However, she did so as one of her first feminist actions because her father had no son. [1]

Abzug graduated from Walton High School in New York City, and went on to Hunter College of the City University of New York, later earning a law degree from Columbia University. She then went on to do further post-graduate work at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America.

Abzug with New York Mayor Ed Koch (left) and President Jimmy Carter (1978)Abzug was admitted to the New York Bar in 1947, and started practicing in New York City at the firm of Pressman, Witt & Cammer, particularly in matters of labor law. She became an attorney in the 1940s, a time when very few women did so, and took on civil rights cases in the South. She appealed the case of Willie McGee, a black man convicted in 1945 of raping a white woman in Laurel, Mississippi and sentenced to death by an all-white jury who deliberated for only two-and-a-half minutes.[2] Abzug was an outspoken advocate of liberal causes, including support for the Equal Rights Amendment, and opposition to the Vietnam War. Years before she was elected to the House of Representatives, she was active in the organization Women Strike for Peace.[3] Her political stands placed her on the master list of Nixon political opponents.

Abzug was a supporter of the Zionist movement. In 1975 she led the fight against United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 (revoked in 1991 by resolution 46/86) which

"determine[d] that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination."

She supported various international peace movements, which in Israel was led by Shulamit Aloni and others.

In 1976, Abzug ran for the U.S. Senate, but was narrowly defeated in the Democratic primary by Daniel Patrick Moynihan. She was also unsuccessful in a bid to be the Mayor of New York City in 1977, and in attempts to return to the U.S. House from the East Side of Manhattan in 1978 and from Westchester County in 1986. Abzug then founded and ran several women's advocacy organizations, in 1979 Women U.S.A., and continued to lead feminist advocacy events, for example serving as grand marshall of the 1980 August 26 Women's Equality Day New York March. [4]

Abzug served the state of New York in the United States House of Representatives, representing her district in Manhattan, from 1971 to 1977. For part of her term, she also represented part of The Bronx as well. She was one of the first members of Congress to support gay rights, introducing the first federal gay rights bill, known as the Equality Act of 1974, with fellow Democratic New York City Representative, Ed Koch, a future mayor of New York City.[5]

In 1990, she co-founded the Women’s Environment & Development Organization to mobilize women’s participation in international conferences, particularly those run by the United Nations and appeared in the WLIW video A Laugh, A Tear, A Mitzvah, Woody Allen's Manhattan (as herself), a 1977 episode of Saturday Night Live, and the documentary New York: A Documentary Film.

After battling breast cancer for a number of years, she developed heart disease and died on March 31, 1998 from complications following open heart surgery. She was 77.[6]

Congresswoman Abzug was married to Martin Abzug, whom she met on a bus in Miami on the way to a concert by Yehudi Menuhin, from 1944 until his death 1986. The couple had two children: Eve and Liz.

In 2004, her daughter Liz Abzug, an adjunct Urban Studies Professor at Barnard College and a political consultant, founded the Bella Abzug Leadership Institute (BALI) to mentor and train high school and college women to become effective leaders in civic, political, corporate and community life.

To commemorate the 30-year anniversary of the first National Women’s Conference, a ground-breaking event held in Houston in 1977 and over which Bella Abzug presided, BALI hosted a National Women’s Conference on the weekend of November 10-11, 2007, at Hunter College, NYC. Over 600 people from around the world attended. In addition to celebrating the 1977 Conference, the 2007 agenda was to address significant women’s issues for the 21st century.[7]

Bella! Ms. Abzug goes to Washington, Bella S. Abzug (edited by Mel Ziegler), Saturday Review Press, 1972 (ISBN 0-8415-0154-8)
Gender gap : Bella Abzug’s guide to political power for American women, Bella S. Abzug and Mim Kelber, Houghton Mifflin, 1984 (ISBN 0-395-36181-8)

Bella Abzug: How One Tough Broad from the Bronx Fought Jim Crow and Joe McCarthy, Pissed Off Jimmy Carter, Battled for the Rights of Women and Workers, ... Planet, and Shook Up Politics Along the Way, authored by Suzanne Braun Levine and Mary Thom, published by Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007, (ISBN 0-374-29952-8)***
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29587


« Reply #382 on: June 02, 2010, 07:41:40 PM »

I remember her a being loud, bright, and domineering.  I remember my step-father throwing her out of the house for shouting too much and waking my brother.  cheesy
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #383 on: June 02, 2010, 11:14:41 PM »

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/02/the-coming-resignation-of-bara/

Put a fork in him.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2101


« Reply #384 on: June 03, 2010, 06:44:19 AM »

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/another-candidate-another-job-offer/

The Justice Department so far has rebuffed calls for an investigation and even some Republicans, including former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and President George W. Bush’s top ethics lawyer, have said it would be a stretch to call the White House action regarding Mr. Sestak a crime. But the focus on such tactics undercuts the image Mr. Obama has tried to cultivate as a reformer above the usual politics.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29587


« Reply #385 on: June 03, 2010, 07:19:57 AM »

I am second to very few in my contempt and low opinion of our current President, but my current impression is that this is on the level of President Clinton's fellonious fellatio with Monica Lewinsky.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #386 on: June 03, 2010, 09:57:03 AM »

Slick Willy didn't get impeached for a "Monica", he was impeached for perjury, obstruction of justice, and malfeasance in office. You'll note that with the new Colorado evidence surfacing, O-barry's "Hope and change" will be more toxic than a gulf coast shrimp cocktail. Blago's trial should cause more Chicago corruption to surface in the public consciousness as well.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #387 on: June 03, 2010, 10:34:46 AM »

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/06/02/the-long-hot-summer-of-corruption/

Mix with environmental disaster, global instability, a double dip recession and enjoy.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2101


« Reply #388 on: June 03, 2010, 11:42:42 AM »

http://www.salon.com/news/louisiana_oil_spill/index.html?story=/opinion/feature/2010/06/03/redneck_riviera_open2010

This is an interesting view of President Obama's "handling" of BP. 
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #389 on: June 07, 2010, 09:54:18 AM »

Along with others on this forum, I too fondly remember Ronald Reagan.  But I remember him as a pragmatist;
not just a "conservative".  There is something to be said for the "middle" and getting things accomplished
like Governor/President Reagan did.

By George Skelton
Capitol Journal
June 6, 2010

You'd think there would be at least one Republican pragmatist running for governor — a pragmatic conservative.
Some wannabe governor willing to spend big for a worthy cause, raise taxes if needed, protect the environment from exploiters chanting "economic growth," be tolerant on social issues, even support amnesty for hard-working illegal immigrants.  Too bad such a gubernatorial candidate probably couldn't be nominated by GOP voters in California.
But wait! One such candidate was: Ronald Reagan. Nominated and elected governor and president. The classic conservative icon.

True, Reagan ran for office as a conservative. "Government is not the solution. Government is the problem," he insisted.
But once in office, he usually governed as a moderate, a pragmatist. And he was easily reelected.
Today, Reagan would be branded "just another liberal politician" by the likes of Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner.

Remember?
As governor, Reagan was the biggest California spender of the last half century. Under him, state spending leaped 177%. And as president, he spent like the proverbial drunken sailor to expand the Navy and the nuclear missile arsenal while winning the Cold War. He left Washington with a then-record national debt.
His first year as governor, Reagan raised taxes equal to 30% of the state general fund, still a modern record. And as president, he increased taxes several times, although conservatives pretend to remember only the one big tax cut.

As governor, Reagan protected the spectacular John Muir Trail in the Sierra from highway builders and Central Valley business interests. He blocked dam building on the Eel and Feather rivers. He and Republican Gov. Paul Laxalt of Nevada set aside their aversion to centralized, intrusive government and created a bi-state agency to control growth at Lake Tahoe.
Reagan signed legislation creating the California Air Resources Board, leading to the nation's first tailpipe emissions standards.

Now Republicans Whitman and Poizner advocate postponing implementation of a law to control greenhouse gas emissions.
Today, Reagan would be tagged by his party as an environmental extremist.

The list goes on.
As governor, Reagan signed the nation's then most liberal abortion rights bill. (He later called it a mistake.) He opposed a ballot initiative that would have permitted the firing of teachers for being gay.
President Reagan signed a bill granting amnesty to illegal immigrants.
Poizner runs attack ads accusing Whitman of supporting amnesty. Whitman counters with ads vehemently denying it.

"When Ronald Reagan was elected president [in 1980] he was the foul pole in right field. Today he'd be in center field," says former Republican legislative leader Jim Brulte, now a consultant and chairman of Poizner's gubernatorial campaign.

"The Republican Party is much more conservative today. And the Democratic Party is more liberal."
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3789


« Reply #390 on: June 07, 2010, 12:51:06 PM »

As a Republican I have asked this question time and time again.  I have noticed other right leaning Jews asking the same questions.  Whether this actually satisfactorly answers why so many Jews are such liberals I am not sure but at least someone has the courage to finally write about it.  I am not sure what to make of Dick Morris who as everyone knows helped Clinton get popular in the polls till he was caught with a girl.  I guess it could be said that behind every successful man is a good woman and behind the downfall of every successful man is a bad girl.  In any case:
 
****By Dick Morris 06.5.2010 A Book Review By DICK MORRIS of Why Are Jews Liberals? By Norman Podhoretz

It is the question that sooner or later baffles every political pundit, consultant, expert, or observer. Why do American Jews persist in their adoration of the Democratic Party? Why, like an abused spouse, do they tolerate Israel-bashing, support for the Palestinians and Democratic softness on terrorism and still return for more? As the richest demographic group in our population, why do they still vote for Obama and donate money to him when he specifically proposes to raise the taxes on those making more than $200,000 per year?

Why do they let liberal politicians embrace the likes of Louis Farrakhan and Rev. Jeremiah Wright and still support them on Election Day?


I don´t have an answer and have never heard a satisfactory one from any leader of an American Jewish or pro-Israeli organization.

But Norman Podhoretz does and he explains his ideas in his brilliant book Why Are Jews Liberals?

American Jews, Podhoretz explains, grew up in liberal homes heavily influenced by the ideology they inherited from their Eastern European ancestors. There, in Russia and Germany, you either followed the Kaiser´s or the Czar´s line or were a Communist. Reacting to their exclusion and the pogroms that harassed them, these ghetto Jews readily embraced Marxism. Indeed, Marx was, himself, born a Jew and the majority of the first Bolshevik Politburo in 1917 were Jews. When Hitler railed against Jews and Communists, he often felt no need to distinguish between the two.

In the New World, communism morphed into socialism in the early years of the twentieth century when Eugene V. Debs won a million votes (almost 10%) on the Socialist Party ticket for President. Finally, under the more benign influence of FDR and the New Deal, this leftist impulse settled into the cozy niche of liberalism where it has remained ever since.

Zionism, also, closely identified itself with socialism and the Labor Party of Golda Meier and David Ben Gurion, which dominated Israel´s early years, pushed its ideological agenda. Kibbutzim were formed with communal living as a Fabian or utopian socialism took root in the holy land. So leftist were the early Israelis that Russia recognized the state of Israel even before the United States did in the hopes that it could become a socialist ally. The political majority which underscored this leftist bent was based on Jews descended from the ghettos of Europe — Ashkenazi Jews.

In the U.S. Jews stayed in the liberal camp not just out of conviction but also from fear of the Christian right. When fundamentalism reared its head in American politics, they feared that anti-Semitism would not be far behind. And, as the anti-communism of the McCarthy era targeted the Jewish intellectual establishment, their dependence on Democrats only increased.

It came as a shock to America´s Jews that first Nixon, then Reagan, and finally Bush-43 emerged as Israel´s strongest supporters. (The tepid backing Bush-41 gave the Jewish state was more in line with what they expected from the GOP). And it came as a total shock when the religious right became Israel´s strongest backer based on its biblical conviction that God had promised the Holy Land to the Jewish people.

But, by then, religion and even Israel had weakened their holds on American Jewish hearts. They attended religious services less than half as frequently as establishment Protestants and only one-third as often as Catholics or Evangelicals. Most Jews, Podhoretz notes, attended synagogue “four times a year” on the high holy days.

Meanwhile, in Israel, the socialist Ashkenazi-based Labor Party (led by Shimon Peres) fell to the campaigns of Menachem Begin and Bibi Netanyahu. Both had as their base the Sephardic Jews who came, not from Europe, but from Africa or the Middle East. They had no heritage of socialism, much less Marxism and had a healthy disrespect for their long term neighbors in the Arab world. To American Jews, they looked racist and embarrassed them in front of their liberal friends. When Obama accuses Netanyahu of “intransigence”, he echoes what liberal Jews themselves often think of the Israeli right-wing.

But Podhoretz´ book, written before Obama manifested such an anti-Israel bent, leaves unanswered the question of whether the pro-Palestinian bias of the current administration, not to mention its war on prosperity, will drive Jews away from their liberal moorings. The answer probably lies more with events than within Jewish thinking. As it becomes apparent that Israel faces a holocaust-like threat from Iranian nuclear weapons and the disastrous results of Obama´s socialist project become evident, Jews will likely gradually wean themselves away from the liberal Democratic Party. As it becomes more anti-Israel and anti-wealth, the Party will leave the Jews before the Jews realize it has left and themselves leave the party.

Norman Podhoretz, former editor of Commentary Magazine, and long a leading voice of the neo-con movement, has diagnosed the Jewish addiction to liberalism and helped us to understand why it still dominates their thinking. He has solved the mystery. Now let’s see what we conservatives and Republican Jews can do with the knowledge he has given us.

Purchase Why Are Jews Liberals? from Amazon.com — Go Here Now

Purchase Why Are Jews Liberals? from Barnes&Noble.com — Go Here Now****


Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5524


« Reply #391 on: June 07, 2010, 01:06:02 PM »

JDN, Yes he was.  As an aside, Palin also governed as a pragmatist.  Much more interesting and relevant is that Obama is not.


"When Ronald Reagan was elected president [in 1980] he was the foul pole in right field. Today he'd be in center field,"

No.  Reagan won 40 states (and then 49 in 1984).  He was already playing centerfield in 1980.  The big increases to support the military in those times of Soviet threat were not exactly analogous to the 'stimulus' trillions and industry takeovers of today.  Also he was not the farthest to the right of his contenders in the 1980 Republican debates.

***Update: a point I missed was that the first controls on pollutants in smokestacks were not exactly analogous to CO2 witchcraft of today either.  There is nothing un-conservative in opposing filth in the environment. ***

Other asides: JFK would easily be the center of the Republican party today.  Nixon governed as a Democrat.  Back to 1980, the most prominent Democrat in the Senate did not wait for a second term to end to challenge the failed sitting President in his own party.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2010, 05:35:01 PM by DougMacG » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3789


« Reply #392 on: June 07, 2010, 01:28:01 PM »

***Back to 1980, the most prominent Democrat in the Senate did not wait for a second term to end to challenge the failed sitting President in his own party.***

Doug,  You may be right.  If Bamster keeps up the cluelessness some Dems may very well want to challenge him in 2012.

I guess the only good thing about Bamster's pursuit of a fantastic social life while the world (gently) weeps is that it keeps him from focusing on destroying this country further.  I think Schumer could live without an endorsement from Paul McCartney.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29587


« Reply #393 on: June 09, 2010, 08:04:40 AM »

By TAMARA AUDI and ALEXANDRA BERZON
Conservative outsider and tea-party pick Sharron Angle handily defeated more established rivals to win the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in Nevada—which would give incumbent Democratic Sen. Harry Reid the opponent he had hoped to face.

With nearly all precincts reporting, Ms. Angle, a former state assemblywoman, was ahead of former casino executive Sue Lowden by 40% to 26.%. Ms. Lowden had emerged as the early leader in the race and was embraced by the Republican establishment, which saw her as the party's best chance for knocking out Mr. Reid.

Ms. Angle's primary victory sets up what is likely to be one of the bitterest Senate races in the country. Although Ms. Angle began the race as an outsider candidate with a three-person campaign staff—her most recent Federal Election Commission filing said she had just $138,609 on hand—she is expected to receive a flood of Republican money now that she is taking on Mr. Reid, the Senate Majority Leader.

Already, the members of the conservative Club for Growth, which endorsed her last month, have contributed $153,000 to her campaign. The group has spent another $475,000 in an independent expenditure to back her with television ads.

Mr. Reid, who has held office since 1987, is facing a tide of unpopularity in his home state, which has been hard-hit by the foreclosure crisis. Republicans have been strategizing for months about the best way to unseat the powerful Democrat.

On Monday, Mr. Reid's camp said it was preparing for an "aggressive campaign" against any Republican challenger. He commands a war chest of $9.1 million, a large sum for a state with only 2.6 million residents. And he is expected to be able to raise more easily.

A campaign spokesman said Mr. Reid planned to spend the rest of the week in Washington working on a jobs bill.

Nevada will be one of the most important testing grounds for the tea party. The state has long favored limited government but voted for Barack Obama in 2008. And it is small enough for a grass-roots movement like the tea party to have decisive impact. However, the state also has a strong union base, centered mostly around the Las Vegas hotel and casino industry.

The Reid camp maintains that Ms. Angle holds many views that lie outside the mainstream. For example, she supports a phased-in privatization of Medicare and Social Security. While serving in the Nevada state legislature, she made numerous enemies among fellow Republicans, because she was often unwilling to toe the party line. In a recent radio interview she called Felipe Calderon, the Mexican president who has generally friendly relations with the United States, a "despot" and a "tyrant."

But in a year when many voters are outraged by the weak economy and the health-care overhaul, Ms. Angle could be a wild card. Larry Hart, a consultant to the Angle campaign, said Ms. Angle would appeal to a wide array of voters at home. "She'll build a broad coalition of support. I know that's not the conventional wisdom, but she'll do that, and she'll start doing it tonight," Mr. Hart said.

The political equation in Nevada will be complicated by the fact that Mr. Reid's son, Rory, easily won the Democratic nomination for governor, meaning that both Reids will figure prominently on the November ballot.

The younger Mr. Reid will face off against former U.S. District Court Judge Brian Sandoval, who defeated embattled incumbent Gov. Jim Gibbons.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5524


« Reply #394 on: June 09, 2010, 12:42:44 PM »

I was reviewing the contradictory Democrat strategies for this election as the primary results came in.  a) If you elect Republicans you will be putting the same people back in power that brought us the (failures of the) last 8 years, and b) these are completely different people with completely different backgrounds, principles, commitments and values headed in a completely different direction, not the Republicans you trusted from the past like Bush, Bennett and Specter. 

This is a congressional election year, not a Presidential year. People need (IMHO) to get the time frame right about when power last changed hands in Washington.  It was not with the historic election of the guy with the Greek columns and teleprompt skills.  It was the first week of November 2006 and the new congress sworn in Jan. 4, 2007 when unemployment was at 4.9% and consecutive months of positive job growth ended at 50.

That is the day Keith Ellison put his hand on the Koran and swore to uphold the laws of the land so help him Allah. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/04/ellison-koran/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29587


« Reply #395 on: June 24, 2010, 12:42:55 AM »

By JAMES TARANTO
"South Carolina Republicans Buck Biases in Runoff Election," reads a Los Angeles Times headline over an Associated Press dispatch:

In a break from the state's racist legacy, South Carolina Republicans overwhelmingly chose Nikki Haley, an Indian American woman, to run for governor and convincingly nominated Tim Scott, who could become the former Confederate stronghold's first black GOP congressman in more than a century.
Six-term Republican Rep. Bob Inglis lost to prosecutor Trey Gowdy, making him the fifth House or Senate incumbent to stumble this year.
There's actually nothing in the story to justify the Times headline writer's claim that Palmetto State Republicans had "biases" to "buck" in order to nominate Haley and Scott, but unbucked biases are not exactly uncommon on major newspaper staffs.

The AP's characterization of the results as "a break from the state's racist legacy" is fair enough. As Commentary's John Steele Gordon points out, the First District, which Scott is almost certain to represent (John McCain outpolled Barack Obama there, 56% to 42%), includes Charleston, which "was the cradle of the Confederacy . . . where Confederate troops fired on Fort Sumter in April 1861."

South Carolina also gave us Strom Thurmond, the 1948 "Dixiecrat" segregationist candidate for president and later a long-serving U.S. senator--and the father of the man Tim Scott beat in yesterday's runoff. It wasn't even close: Scott won with more than 68% of the vote, to just under 32% for Paul Thurmond. (In fairness to the Thurmonds, it should be noted that by the 1980s Sen. Thurmond was supporting civil-rights legislation and that Paul was born in 1976, long after Thurmond père's segregationist heyday. Paul Thurmond is 34; his father, who died in 2003, would be 107.)

Nikki Haley (née Nimrata Nikki Kaur Randhawa) was expected to win easily, having fallen barely 1% short of a majority in the initial voting two weeks ago. The runoff gave her 65% to Rep. Gresham Barrett's 35%. She is favored in November, and victory would make her the second Indian-American governor, after Louisiana's Bobby (né Piyush) Jindal.

Perhaps significantly, both Haley and Jindal are converts to Christianity; she was raised Sikh and he Hindu. So while the South Carolina results refute the notion that Southerners or Republicans are racially or ethnically bigoted, they do not speak to the question of whether the electorate is open to candidates with unusual religious affiliations--although when one Republican state senator denounced Haley as a "raghead" (an invidious reference to the Sikh turban, which she does not wear) it does not seem to have influenced many voters.

Scott and Haley are both favorites of the tea-party movement, rendering sillier than ever liberal Democrats' insistence that the movement is racist. As Wayne Washington of the State, a newspaper based in South Carolina's capital, wrote in May:

In addition to increasing diversity among Republican officeholders, Haley's ascension would be a counterpoint to criticism of the Tea Party as fringe elements whose unacknowledged rallying point is anger that a black man, Barack Obama, serves as president.
Liberals might bash the Tea Party as home to nativists and racists. Confederate flags might fly at Tea Party rallies. But one of the Tea Party's darlings, an Asian-American female, would have become governor with the active and enthusiastic support of Tea Party activists.
"I think you have to wait and see if either one of the two [Haley and Scott] is elected," Carol Fowler, chairwoman of the S.C. Democratic Party, said of Scott and Haley. "Then, you'd have to see if a diverse group of voters voted for them."
The Palmetto State returns are also good news for Sarah Palin, who endorsed both Scott and Haley and who is turning out to be quite a GOP kingmaker. In electoral terms, the former governor of Alaska looks much more formidable today than the president of the United States--and if you don't believe us, ask Jon Corzine, Martha Coakley and Arlen Specter.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5524


« Reply #396 on: July 08, 2010, 02:16:57 PM »

Republicans have had the momentum since last year when they picked up governorships in New Jersey and Virginia. The Scott Brown election was huge.  Yet Obama trudged on with the agenda and popularity for the policies and for the Dems continued to fall, but everyone knew the November elections were miles away and so much can happen in between.  Polls like Rasmussen showed an energy difference with a major gulf between strongly disapprove over strongly approve, while the other polls watched Obama hold at about 50% approval and a little under.

Now it's the summer doldrums, the economy is sputtering, the oil is reaching the shores - still gushing, the red ink is drowning us and the big new programs haven't even started yet.

In the last 2 days Real Clear Politics average shows Obama going into the net-negative for the first time.  Rasmussen polling likely voters is the most accurate at -9% but Gallup measuring the general public still has him falling to -4 (44 approve to 48 disapprove).

Meanwhile approval for congress is 21% approve, with 71% disapprove, yet Republicans holding only a point advantage on the generic ballot. 

For the seats in the house if the election were held today, they (RCP) have R's at 199, D's at 200 with 36 tossup, meaning tied with less than 3+ months to go.  (Tie is pretty good when you come from 77 seats down.)

Senate today shows R's would pick up 7, a big gain but far (3) short of majority. Of those 3, they would need Boxer's seat and Feingold and Murray.  Possible but only in a landslide on a national scale equal to Scott Brown winning Massachusetts.

If Republicans took the house and took the senate (unlikely), they would still be unable to govern, only able to stall out some of Obama's agenda.  They could not extend the tax cuts or cut corporate rates.  They couldn't repeal Obamacare or pass anything new.  A better scenario strategically than taking majority without power might be to fall just short in both houses, expose Democratic governance just a little longer and hope to continue the momentum into 2012 for the presidency, house and senate, but still no chance of 60 votes to get things done.

From my point of view we are screwed on the public policy front until the popularity and electoral success of pro-growth and pro-freedom candidates causes a change of thinking inside the Democrat party, away from socializing, taking state control and redistributing.  Since there was no shift of policy after the Scott Brown election it is hard at this point to see Dems changing ever.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29587


« Reply #397 on: July 09, 2010, 09:06:16 AM »

By JOHN FUND
Democratic House members are so worried about the fall elections they're leaving Washington on July 30, a full week earlier than normal—and they won't return until mid-September. Members gulped when National Journal's Charlie Cook, the Beltway's leading political handicapper, predicted last month "the House is gone," meaning a GOP takeover. He thinks Democrats will hold the Senate, but with a significantly reduced majority.

The rush to recess gives Democrats little time to pass any major laws. That's why there have been signs in recent weeks that party leaders are planning an ambitious, lame-duck session to muscle through bills in December they don't want to defend before November. Retiring or defeated members of Congress would then be able to vote for sweeping legislation without any fear of voter retaliation.

"I've got lots of things I want to do" in a lame duck, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D., W. Va.) told reporters in mid June. North Dakota's Kent Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, wants a lame-duck session to act on the recommendations of President Obama's deficit commission, which is due to report on Dec. 1. "It could be a huge deal," he told Roll Call last month. "We could get the country on a sound long-term fiscal path." By which he undoubtedly means new taxes in exchange for extending some, but not all, of the Bush-era tax reductions that will expire at the end of the year.

In the House, Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told reporters last month that for bills like "card check"—the measure to curb secret-ballot union elections—"the lame duck would be the last chance, quite honestly, for the foreseeable future."


.Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, chair of the Senate committee overseeing labor issues, told the Bill Press radio show in June that "to those who think [card check] is dead, I say think again." He told Mr. Press "we're still trying to maneuver" a way to pass some parts of the bill before the next Congress is sworn in.

Other lame-duck possibilities? Senate ratification of the New Start nuclear treaty, a federally mandated universal voter registration system to override state laws, and a budget resolution to lock in increased agency spending.

Then there is pork. A Senate aide told me that "some of the biggest porkers on both sides of the aisle are leaving office this year, and a lame-duck session would be their last hurrah for spending." Likely suspects include key members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Congress's "favor factory," such as Pennsylvania Democrat Arlen Specter and Utah Republican Bob Bennett.

Conservative groups such as FreedomWorks are alarmed at the potential damage, and they are demanding that everyone in Congress pledge not to take up substantive legislation in a post-election session. "Members of Congress are supposed to represent their constituents, not override them like sore losers in a lame-duck session," Rep. Tom Price, head of the Republican Study Committee, told me.

It's been almost 30 years since anything remotely contentious was handled in a lame-duck session, but that doesn't faze Democrats who have jammed through ObamaCare and are determined to bring the financial system under greater federal control.

Mike Allen of Politico.com reports one reason President Obama failed to mention climate change legislation during his recent, Oval Office speech on the Gulf oil spill was that he wants to pass a modest energy bill this summer, then add carbon taxes or regulations in a conference committee with the House, most likely during a lame-duck session. The result would be a climate bill vastly more ambitious, and costly for American consumers and taxpayers, than moderate "Blue Dogs" in the House would support on the campaign trail. "We have a lot of wiggle room in conference," a House Democratic aide told the trade publication Environment & Energy Daily last month.

Many Democrats insist there will be no dramatic lame-duck agenda. But a few months ago they also insisted the extraordinary maneuvers used to pass health care wouldn't be used. Desperate times may be seen as calling for desperate measures, and this November the election results may well make Democrats desperate.

Mr. Fund is a columnist for WSJ.com.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3789


« Reply #398 on: July 13, 2010, 10:03:48 AM »

This should be under future of republican party but I cannot post a reply under that thread.

It is amazing and discouraging to see in today's Washington Post poll that fewer people have faith in the Republican party than Democrats.

The cans have not convinced people they have answers to our problems either.

People struggling to pay for food shelter, heat etc. dependent on dole checks from week to week.  I am sure they fear the cans get control that they may very well be literally in the streets standing on food lines.

How does a party respond to this?  I know - "trickle down".  But a majority don't appear to believe in this.  W tried "compassionate conservativism.  Daschle was a crook.  Now what?  I see roudmaps coming out from Hannity to others.  Yet nothing catches on.  Simply speaking Reaganism is NOT the answer.

Simply bashing Bamster is only half the answer.
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2787


« Reply #399 on: July 15, 2010, 01:18:02 PM »

Too sunny at this point in time, and certainly subject to sudden change, but I like the long view contained herein:

The Key to a Real Revolution

By Bruce Walker
Conservatives often blame elected Republicans for not producing revolutionary changes when in power. This frustration is understandable, but it is also wrongheaded. No political party can make revolutionary changes in American government unless that party not only controls the House of Representatives and the White House, but also, critically, has a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Until 1919, debate in the Senate was unlimited. There was no Senate Rule which allowed for cloture, or limiting debate. A determined Senate minority could effectively stop any congressional bill, any presidential appointment (which required Senate confirmation), and any treaty.

When Democrats have had that combination of power, they have used it to radically change America. FDR had four consecutive Congresses in which Democrats could do virtually anything they wanted, because Senate Democrats could pass a cloture motion. Democrats also had filibuster-proof Senate majorities from 1963 to 1967, the years in which LBJ's Great Society program was passed.

Senate rules were changed in the 1970s. Cloture required only a three-fifths majority instead of a two-thirds majority. Under these new rules, Democrats had filibuster-proof Senate majorities, along with control of the House and White House, from 1977 to 1979. Until Scott Brown won his special election earlier this year, Obama's Democrats did not need a single Republican to pass his stimulus bill and related measures.

These four separate eras -- in which Democrats could invoke cloture without Republicans and also controlled the House and White House -- have produced those giant leaps towards big government and socialism which bedevil us today. So why have Republicans not rolled Democrat programs when they have had power? Since the cloture rule was adopted over ninety years ago, Republicans have never had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (much less had that supermajority in the Senate and also controlled the House and White House).

That may change in the next three election cycles. In 2010, Republicans were supposed to lose seats (at least that was the thinking a year ago). Now it seems certain that Republicans will gain seats -- North Dakota, Delaware, Indiana, and Arkansas -- and will have a good shot in other states -- Illinois, Wisconsin, Washington, Colorado, Nevada, California, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. If Republicans hold Ohio, Florida, and a few other wavering states, then a net gain of twelve Senate seats is conceivable (or a majority of 53). The bigger story, however, is what happens in the next two election cycles.

The Senate class of 2012 will include only two Republicans who are not from red states -- Olympia Snowe of Maine and Scott Brown of Massachusetts. Both are personally popular and should have an excellent chance to win reelection. The Democrats up for election in 2012 include six from red states: McCaskill of Missouri, Tester of Montana, Nelson of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Conrad of North Dakota, and Webb of Virginia. If Republicans win those seats, Republican strength in the Senate is 59 seats. Democrats in 2012 will also have to defend seats in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and New Mexico. Winning any of those five strongly contested seats would give Republicans a filibuster-proof majority.

In 2014, the odds again favor Republican gains. Begich in Alaska, Pryor in Arkansas, Udall in Colorado, Landrieu in Louisiana, Baucus in Montana, Sheehan in New Hampshire, Hagan in North Carolina, Franken in Minnesota, Johnson in South Dakota, and Warner in Virginia hold ten Democrat seats which Republicans could easily win. In other races, like West Virginia, if Rockefeller retires, and in New Jersey if Lautenberg retires, Republicans also have real chances to gain seats. What this means is that after 2012 or 2014, Republicans may well have sixty or more Senate seats -- and the House and White House.

What might that mean? Revolution! ...assuming that Republicans control the House and the White House, too. The left transformed America during just such brief periods of total control. National Right to Work, once passed, would cripple coercive union power forever. Gerrymandering at all levels of government could be outlawed. Tough federal voter registration laws and laws to insure a fair counting of votes should be used to end voter fraud.

Obamacare could be repealed and replaced. Republicans could pass a flat tax and repeal taxes on capital gains, creating a boom of prosperity. Homeschooling and the variety of other alternatives to the failed public school system could be helped and funded. English could be made the legal language of the United States. Huge chunks of federal bureaucracy could simply be abolished. Modest entitlement reforms could be passed to make systems solvent, and individual accounts in the Social Security System could be introduced. Tort reform and expedited drug approval by the FDA (for drugs long used safely in Europe) could reduce medical costs naturally.   

Would federal judges stop this? Not if Republicans have the will to tame the federal bench. Congress could simply remove jurisdiction from federal courts over many issues. It could also create a number of new federal judges and justices and appoint conservatives to those seats, or it could abolishe and reorganize the whole federal judiciary (only the Supreme Court has any constitutional existence, and its powers and size are set by Congress). It could impeach and remove judges who grossly misinterpreted the Constitution -- what a novel idea!

In short, Republicans could produce a conservative revolution which achieves, in two short years, everything we have been seeking for the last fifty. All this would require great boldness and vision. But our nation needs just such a revolution. Half-measures and compromises simply prolong our slow death. We need a revolution. We have the means to that revolution within our grasp soon.

Bruce Walker is the author of two books:  Sinisterism: Secular Religion of the Lie and The Swastika against the Cross: The Nazi War on Christianity.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/the_key_to_a_real_revolution.html at July 15, 2010 - 01:14:21 PM CDT
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 21 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.17 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!