And yet the Democrats STILL can't seem to convince a majority of Americans that they have all the answers. So who's really to blame for Bush?

The judges issue actually predates the Clinton years and goes back to the Regan era when Bork was, well... Borked. After that, the Democrats were obsessed with stopping any one from the right from getting on the bench. Now, there were some candidates that should not have made it to the bench, Harriet Mires is a good example. But a lot of the issue with judicial nominees is crap. As part of the checks and balances in our system, judicial nominees are named by the President. The Congress (who the judiciary is to keep in check) is there in an advisory role, and should not turn down or stop udges from getting voted upon due to political slant. It should be based upon merit and their record.

I actually agree with this, and it's why Bork should have been confirmed and Thomas had no business even getting through committee. He might be one of the worst appointments to the bench in history.

They're actually there for advice and consent. That can be interpreted different ways, but it certainly doesn't lead to Congress should approve everyone.

Way to miss my point.

You raise a pretty good point here.

Come November (well, come January technically), as a country we'll get pretty much the government we deserve ... no matter which candidate wins.

I couldn't disagree more. If that was true we'd be worried more about an economy that is showing signs of tanking badly, real foreign policy and the like.

Instead, we're distracted by acquaintances, gay marriage, blowjobs, and all the other RIGHT!!/LEFT!! issues that the media and candidates bombard us with.

Interesting article here:

Presidential Election Already Decided ... in Voters' Minds | Wired Science from Wired.com

No point in listening to the debate. You've made up your mind already even if you are a so-called "undecided voter" ;)

Well, I'll contend that if you haven't figured it out by the debates, then you're most likely lying with being an idiot coming in a more distant second.

That's not to say that something that comes out can't change your mind. It's just that there are more than enough differences at this point that you should have an opinion one way or another at this point, even if it doesn't stick.

SI

I think what it's saying is that, rather than a rational analysis of the arguments deciding your vote, it's the way they and the two candidates interact with your psychological conditioning that will decide - indeed, has already decided.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Obama shocks everyone tomorrow and announces that Al Gore is his running mate.

I disagree. I think he'll chose Hilary and give Bill some ambassador position on the other side of the world.

Iraq? Georgia? Darfur? :)

Siberia or Outer Mongolia.

Link: McCain booed on immigration, Iraq

Excerpt:

Hell, I'll take $50 an hour to pick lettuce :D

I'm going to presume he meant to say $50 per day.

SI

I'm floored that a crowd full of union employees would boo a Republican candidate.

I'm going to assume that he has no idea of monetary value, between this and losing track of how many houses he owns.

dola...

I also read Roger Ebert's review of the new documentary "I.O.U.S.A", and it's instructive to consider in light of Senator McCain's stated desire to cut taxes:

That's NOT the argument. They simply want to convince the majority of Americans to vote for THEM. If the Democrats were genuinely opposed to Bush's policies, they would have done something about it.

:rolleyes: Heaven forbid we'd get the federal government out of things it has no business being in and cut it's overall spending by even more than we cut taxes...

I'm not opposed to cutting spending -- it's necessary, and I hope that we'll see it happen. Of course, I'm also pro-raising taxes, which isn't the most popular position.

I think what we're seeing in this thread is a great little example of how Democrats have crashed and burned in the last two elections and how they're on the verge of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory YET again.

You can feel the attitude from the posts - it's condescending, off-putting, and dismissive of anyone else's opinions. Telling people what's good for them doesn't play very well between the coasts.

Of course, this commentary and the associated movie totally ignore the fact that we could substantially cut our spending easily and stop billions in foreign aid each year. As a result, we could take out some major chunks of the debt very quickly. I certainly agree that it needs to be done, but it has little relevance to the tax cuts/hikes. The debt could be eliminated at the current tax rate if they really wanted to do it.

I haven't even started with the pork barrel spending.........

Ah, you've seen the film, then -- good, I was hoping to discuss it with someone who had. Why do you feel it chose to totally ignore the easy way we could substantially cut spending?

According to USAID the total of military and economic aid to the rest of the world in 2006 was less than 40 billion. The Pig Book has total pork barrel spending for 2008 appropriations at 17.2 billion dollars. Currently the deficit sits at roughly 450 billion and if you were to remove the FICA surplus it would be closer to 700 billion. Where will the other 400 or 650 billion come from?

I'd say cutting nearly 60 billion/year out of the deficit (or roughly 10-12% per year depending on which number you use) would be great progress. That's obviously idealistic, but even knocking out 30 billion a year would literally save billions in lost interest over the 15-20 year payback period that I'm proposing here. That could easily be done if they put their mind to it.

If by foreign aid you mean things like Iraq war funding then I completely agree. Not to say the other stuff should be cut too, but let's start with the $1 trillion item first.

Yeah, I can certainly see what you mean.

Hey, you'll see the proof in November (you actually can already see it in the polls now). Maybe then you'll finally see what the problem is, though the party still seems to be completely clueless about '00 and '04.

YOU LOST TWO ELECTIONS TO GEORGE W. BUSH. THAT MEANS YOUR PARTY SUCKS

Heh. Someone posts something that completely ignores half the equation, and I'm ignoring opinions and being condescending for pointing it out? Okay.

We could start with things like the entire Department of Education...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that will go down substantially next year with the pullout that they are currently negotiating. So that's all but done at this point.

At the same time, you can't budget for national security. If Putin or another idiot decides to pull a quick one, there's not much we can do about it and we'll have to bear those costs.

Glad to see you not being dismissive of other's opinions.

Unless it's about abortion. Or lifestyle choices. Or...well you get the picture. Both sides tell people what's good for them no matter where you are. This is not condescending, off-putting, or dismissive as I believe what you are referring to is politics in general, not just democrats or republicans.

This word "easily" -- I do not think it means what you think it means. Perhaps if you could discuss how the "I.O.U.S.A." filmmakers treated the issue it would be helpful, since if there is such an easy solution we won't have to worry about it as much.

I second the trillion dollar item proposal.

To be fair I should expand on this.

This is only one example. I'm not a full-bore libertarian by any means, but our government just has its fingers in WAY too many pots. I use the DoE as an example as I'm personally dealing with its effects now. Some programs like Pell Grants and some of the help with college funding are good, but it does WAY more than it should and has helped erode education in this country, especially as you go farther down the chain.

And that's just an example. Sure, raising taxes can put more money in the pot, but I think we'd be better off if we kept the federal government (and many of the state governments; NC's state budget has grown a staggering amount over the last decade or so) smaller and let people keep their money to help themselves.

That fundamental shift would ALSO help curb the deficit, and have the advantage that more people would be self-sufficient and not reliant on the government to get by. Anybody who makes the statement "if we don't raise taxes, we're hurting our children" is blind to the options out there.

Not that I expect either of the candidates to go that route. Bread and circuses gets you elected and re-elected, no matter whether or not it's good for the country...

While the tone of the post was a bit caustic, this does bear repeating. Dubya was very beatable in 2000 and 2004. Even most Republicans would agree that the Dems should have beaten Dubya in both of those election. To me, McCain is the exact same type of candidate. Obama should beat McCain. The Democrats seem to be falling back at this point on what got them in trouble the last two elections. They're not learning from their previous mistakes. If anything, they're repeating them.

Yes and no. Certainly 60 billion is nothing to sneeze at, although as I'm sure you're aware, we won't ever cut all of that. However, 10% of the deficit still leaves 90% to go. Where will those other cuts come from? You really have only three choices defense, medicare, or eliminating almost all discretionary spending. There is no easy way to eliminate the deficit and given the realities of the size of cuts necessary, I think it's unrealistic to think the budget can be balanced without some tax increases. It will likely be a combination of cuts and taxes, but I see no reason to believe that it can be done without tax increases.

Here's a thought. If we had never gone there in the first place, think of all the savings. And that's not even talking in terms of human lives saved.

I didn't say anything about anyone's opinions there. I share almost all non-economic views of the Democrats. That's why it drives me insane that their party is such a disaster and they can't see it.

I don't want John McCain to be president. If he is, it will only be because the Democratic party fucked up yet again.

The current budget is less than 70 billion dollars. Again, in the real world it will never go away, but if it did, even added with MBBF's cuts that still leaves use more than 300 or 550 billion short of balanced. What else gets cut?

I bring this up because I don't think people really understand what cutting spending means as it relates to balancing the budget. I don't see any way enough spending will ever be cut, so some sort of tax increase is inevitable if you really want a balanced budget.

We agree on the ineptness of the Democratic party. Drives me crazy.

I love how Bush and McCain are the fault of the people who don't vote for them. I'll agree with a lot of the criticisms of the Democratic Party, but come on, to this day millions of people support Bush and millions more don't only because they think he didn't do enough.

Your responses are so much better than mine. I should just lurk in these threads.

Ding -- correct, sir. The folks in this thread talking about cuts as if we could just erase the items and there would be no further costs don't know what they're talking about.

I'm particularly fond of Mizzou B-ball fan claiming that an in-depth film about the issue "totally ignores" his imaginary "easy" cuts, when a) it's undoubtedly true that they looked into the issue in more depth than he has and b) he was making a statement he wanted us to believe as fact when it's now become clear that he hasn't seen the film, and is misleading us about its approach.

Until the Democratic Party understands that this IS their fault, they'll never win a presidential election.

Hint: To win an election, they need to win over people that voted for Bush.

Sounds suspiciously like you're blaming the victim to me, molson. The Republican Party bears no responsibility for the swift-boating of Kerry, the misleading negative campaigning they use to convince less-educated voters that Democratic candidates are poor choices, and other such strategies?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a metaphor for what you're describing might be an abusive boyfriend who claims he's hitting his girlfriend because she deserves it, not because he's the one dictating the terms of the abuse.

Saying they need to have a candidate that's more likable and runs a better campaign is undoubtedly true. Saying the Bush years are the fault of the Democrats is bullshit. If Obama wins and has a Bush like eight years will it be the fault of the Republicans?

The loser of a 2-person race is a victim?

Did someone say this?

"Blaming the victim" = common phrase used to describe the metaphor I articulated. I don't particularly consider the Democratic Party a victim.

I guess I don't get the metaphor. In a competition, I think the difference between team A winning and team B losing is an appropriate discussion. Comparing this to an abuse victim (who doesn't choose to be in the "competition") seems like a distraction from the real topic.

Edit: In other words, claiming that the losing team played poorly enough to lose to a beatable opponent seems a better comparison.

I did and I truly believe it.

That's certainly how I understand what Molson has been saying.

No, but if Obama has a Bush-like 4-years and the Republicans still can't beat him in '12, then yes, it's the Republicans fault.

What an odd way of assigning responsibility.

Oh, then I guess I'll disagree with you instead. I think the Democrats offered a poor product in 04, but that doesn't absolve the Republicans from offering a poor (if slightly less poor) product in 04. The Democrats own a lot of the blame for losing the election, in my opinion, but they don't get all the blame for the results of that lost election. This is a case of "both sides need to do better".

I admit that it is :)

I look at the role of the Democratic party differently. They should exist for the purpose of getting like-mided people in important positions of public office. You don't do that by desperately trying to prove to the world how much smarter you are than anyone else. That's the vibe Kerry, Gore, and the party have given off in recent elections. The need to win moderates over, not alienate them. If they don't win people over and convince them to vote for the Democrat, they've failed - ESPECIALLY in an environment like '04 and this year when they have everything in their favor.

The Republicans I think get this much better - you don't see them preaching about abortion, religion, etc, as much as they used to. Those topics divide people, and give people reasons not to vote for you. They're rallying cry now is more about terrorism and leadership, and other broader things that everyone wants (good economy, etc).

I work for the federal government as a contractor currently. If the general public every stepped foot into some of the contracts currently being run by the federal government, they'd be floored. There's so much unmanaged waste in federal agencies. It's embarrassing to be honest.

We're unlikely to agree here as I think policy has little to do with swing voters and likability is a much more important factor. Almost always, at least at the national level, the more likable guy wins. I'll give you that both in 2000 and 2004 the Democrats had a less likable guy running. However, the party is doing pretty well as they hold both houses of congress and a majority of governorships and the margins for all of these are very likely to increase. Saying the party as a whole is a failure even if Obama loses is putting way to much importance on the executive.

I'd agree, but all of those contracts don't add up to a sizable percentage of the national debt. Clearing waste in the budget, however you define it, won't come close to balancing the budget. The options really are:

1) Cut defense spending sizably and/or
2) Cut nearly all discretionary spending and/or
3) Cut medicare sizably and/or
4) Raise taxes

Any plan that doesn't include some or all of those items isn't serious.

Interesting that Chet Edwards, moderate congressman from Texas who's district includes the Bush ranch is on the Obama shortlist for VP now.

Is the IOUSA movie any good? I was listening to an interview with the creator on some conservative show(Jerry Doyle?) and it at least sounded interesting. I figured since it wasn't some left wing hit and run piece it wouldn't get much play.

Drudge is reporting that Evan Bayh is Obama's choice for VP.

FLASH: Fri Aug 22 2008 17:52:03 ET /// KMBC's Micheal Mahoney reports a company in Kansas City, which specializes in political literature, has been printing Obama-Bayh material... MORE... Gill Studios, would not confirm information about the material. They would not deny it either. At least three sources close to the plant's operations reported the Obama-Bayh material was being produced...

That's a fantastic choice. Best thing Obama has done in weeks.

Might be a good thing if Obama loses. Last time a Dem got the Executive, the Dems lost control of Congress for the first time in 40 years.

I don't remember this kind of "theater" for a VP announcement. Maybe it's just the media's obsession with it. But I half-expect Obama to have this whole production tomorrow. "OK, first let's bring out who ISN'T my running mate!". And then a series of clues and hints before Bayh parachutes in.

If that's the bumper sticker on the front page of Drudge, I'm not at all convinced. It looks very amateur. The 08 in particular looks like crap.

I saw that article. Proves that it's surely not it. Obama's team is much too graphic design savvy to ever release rubbish like that. Ever.

Man, it's not only the (perhaps incorrect) news that leaks early, but the campaign to head off any possible approval as well. This is an insane campaign season. I can't remember this level of intensity even in the last couple of Internet generations.

dola...

I grew up in Kansas. We take our amateurnish seriously out there. To me it's a sign of authenticity. ;)

I found it interesting that Obama is going to announce his VP by "text messaging"?

Besides, wouldn't the idea of a graphic OB stylized to look like 08 cross their minds?

Edit: He's actually going to announce it by telepathy. A different kind of campaign indeed.

What a stroke of genius. Having a company print out thousands of bogus bumper stickers just to throw everyone off guard.

Brilliant!

Let me phrase it another way: if $450 billion is such a small part of the federal budget that a reasonable tax increase will take care of it, then why would it be so hard to cut it out of the budget?

And I already pay a big chunk of my money in taxes. Income tax (state and federal), social security tax, sales tax, property tax, fees on telecomm services, yadayadayada. Where are you going to squeeze more out of me? You're asking for a $1500 increase in taxes for every man, woman, and child in this country. Given the number that are below the line that pays any taxes at all (and there continue to be more as we cut taxes at that level and offer more breaks), I'm pretty sure you're asking me to chip in more than an extra $6k per year to make this happen.

And where is the $450 billion deficit coming from? Including the one-time "economic stimulus"? From Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go?, 2007 ran a $162 billion deficit, or 6% of the budget of 2.7 trillion. 2008 is a one-time blip. We don't need to cut $450 billion to balance everything. Which of course also makes the tax increase a bit easier to swallow, I know.

We run closer to a balanced budget when the economy is booming. When it's not, EVERYONE needs to tighten their belts, including ALL our governments, federal all the way down to local.

And no, we're not going to point out a single program. It's adding up the cuts that gets us a lot closer to where we ought to be, though.

Maybe a summary of my position would help: I'm not opposed to, say, rolling back Bush's earlier tax cuts to help the deficit, but I am opposed to doing that in isolation. We need to tighten the federal government's belt. Raising taxes in isolation does not fix the problem, because the government has shown it will eat up those increases, then come looking for more.

Again, North Carolina is a classic example of a state that was running a surplus in the late 90s, drastically increased spending to eat that surplus, then got hit by the 2001 recession and is now moaning about how little money they have for services when they are spending a lot more than they did a short time ago.

You want my support for raising taxes? Then get responsible on spending. Show me you'll spend my money efficiently. Show me you'll spend it on deserving items. Show me you're willing to cut some fat. Then maybe I'm willing to give a little back.

But to say that cutting the budget won't help is ridiculous. And saying there isn't much to cut is also ridiculous. I mean, we have a county superintendent of schools here making $270,000 / year. For a school superintendent! This is absurd. We have a whole cluster of administrators making over $100K / year. Medicare is riddled with fraud. School lunch programs are riddled with fraud. We have a top-heavy bureaucracy.

Or if you think you really need all that money, put it where it will do some good. Cut some of that administration, and lets start paying teachers, police, and firefighters what they are actually worth, rather than building a self-fulfilling prophecy of "we need to pay that much or he'll go elsewhere!" for your administrators (who are doing a sucky job anyway; really Mr. Dulaney, we won't miss you).

And to fix it all you want me to throw more than $6K / year more at it, when history shows you're just going to come back in a few years and ask me for it again? No thanks.

This is a two-pronged problem. Admitting that is the first step to fixing it right. Trying to tell me the only way to fix it is to raise taxes and that cutting spending won't do any good isn't going to gather my support.

I saw a few days ago the odds on the D VP pick. It had Clinton at 5%. That's too high for my comfort. But seeing some of the quips yesterday and today (from Begala, Carville, others), I haven't seen any updated ones. Vegas Vic?

I will take it a step furthur and wonder why Obama hasn't had a "survivor" pool where people vote a possible running mate off for 9 weeks to determine his running mate. If the crap on television tells me anything about America they would eat this up.

I think we're pretty close to agreement. I've never said that there's no place for budget cutting, in fact cuts are three of my four points, although to be fair we'd likely disagree about what gets cut. My point is that any attempt to balance the budget is going to be very difficult and almost certainly will have to include a tax increase. The idea that we can make easy cuts and fix the problem is a myth.

As to the total deficit, the 162 billion wasn't really accurate because it didn't include the FICA surplus that's still being funneled to the general fund or a large portion of the Iraq/Afghanistan expenses. I don't it's inaccurate to say we need around 400 billion from taxes or cuts to expect a balanced budget. That may be a little high or a little low, but I think it's a fair ballpark figure.

Hillary Clinton was not vetted by Obama's staff. She was never asked for medical records or for any 2008 financial information about her or Bill Clinton.

But does a major candidate for the presidency just 2 months ago really need to be reviewed. Didn't this already happen about a year ago by the Democratic Party? Of course I really only half say this after the John Edwards thing a few weeks ago.

That was what they implied today, saying that the PUMAs (Party Unity My Aunt Fannie) are pissed. It was covered by saying that everything is known about her (and him) anyways. But it sounds like she was never on the shortlist and maybe we'll find out after this is all over that Obama and his camp said "over my dead body" back in May or June.

The bigger issue would be Bill's business dealings and donations to his library. I expect there's a lot of controversial money there.

Correct. There's absolutely no way that Obama could have picked Clinton as his running mate. He would have spent the better part of the campaign answering questions about Bill and Hillary's finances.

Either Bayh ain't the guy, or the Obama people are trying to put up smokescreens.

NBC: Bayh, Kaine out of Obama’s veep race

Fox and MSNBC are both reporting that Tim Kaine has been informed that he wasn't the choice for VP, which makes a lot of sense when you think about it. Obama and Kaine are a just a few years removed from being a state senator and a city councilman. Thas't not exactly the kind of experience credentials you're looking for in a presidential ticket.

The hidden genius of this is that they keep getting more and more cell phone contacts that they can use to remind people to vote in November.

I'm not sure they're doing the right thing with the media as the line between a fun game and feeling like they're being played for fools is pretty slim.

Yeah (about Clinton no-chance) but I wondered why up until they closed the betting, Clinton was listed as 5-1.

It'll be interesting to see if Obama goes with an old, experienced VP, while McCain goes with a young, energetic VP.

Switching to McCain Vp for a minute. I see that Pawlenty has the second best odds. I was struck, however, by looking at the historical electoral states maps (going back to 1968) and seeing Minnesota sticking out like a sore thumb in most of the elections.

I don't think it will happen, but I'd like to see McCain pull a big surprise and choose J. C. Watts as his running mate.

That would be a big surprise, indeed.

I have always liked JC but I wonder what he would bring that would be different than another young, energetic person? It wouldn't do anything for the black votes, I don't think.

The prediction markets have seen shares of Biden for VP soar in the last couple of hours - sellling for about $80 now to pay $100.

As much as I like all of this as a spectator sport, the vulture media is really annoying. So many are camped outside of Biden's home that if anyone farts, it gets put into the ticker. Because of this, a lot of effort is being put into decoying, false leads and other crap like that. Why can't the vulture media do it's job after the fact instead of inventing so-called newsworthy events?

Not going to happen. I couldn't find the AP story, so this is from World Net Daily.

I think Biden would be an excellent choice for Obama. He's tenacious and he's not afraid to be an attack dog, which is what you need in a vice presidential candidate. Bayh is perceived to be somewhat of a marshmallow, and his speech at a previous Democratic convention was moved from prime time to 11:00 P.M. because he wouldn't verbally attack Bush.

I'm still bitter about Biden's support for the atrocious bankruptcy bill, but I think Vic is right. Obama needs a VP that will actually help on the stump and in the debates. Both Lieberman and Edwards were non-entities. Biden will say at least one thing that will send the Obama folks into a panic, but he'll also take the fight to McCain. I've come around and would be pretty pleased with Biden.