Yeah, I wasn't saying them per say, just their style. Both are very intelligent and knowledgeable about world issues. They have some conservative beliefs, especially on spending, but are not in the stone age on some social issues.

Nice thing about Biden...he's never met a foot his mouth didn't like.

In 20 years an entire generation will have come of age that considers Twitter, touch-screen computers, SmartPhones, stem cell research, and hybrid cars "old tech". In this environment, if folks like Palin and Jindal still believe then what they believe now, they'll be cast as hopelessly out of date. Perhaps even more so than McCain was this last time around.


You're both right. Slap some charisma on either of these guys and you've got your competitive GOP national candidate.

It's worth noting (especially as I live in Kirk's district) that he's only "re-won" his seat, having it essentially initially "given" to him by Porter. He's clearly inoffensive enough to win re-election numerous times in what's basically a 50/50 district, but I don't know if he has the charisma to go out and win something. But I guess we'll find out if he really does go for Burris' senate seat in 2010.

If that were Bush the press would have been gushing about how "that's the kind of guy I'd like to have a beer with."

Even more important is that an entire generation is growing up believing in evolution, abstinence education is a joke, and that gay people aren't really a big deal. They have been losing the young vote since 1992 and seeing bigger gaps every election in women and minorities. They're losing in college educated voters now too.

You just can't lose generation after generation of voters as yours die off. I want to see a competitive Republican party badly, but the way they are positioning themselves seems retarded. I think what Steele said in the GQ article the other day is the way to go. Sure it'll upset heavily conservative people, but they aren't winning them any elections on their own.

I used to live there and my whole family is in that district. It's actually a Democratic district when it comes to Presidential elections. Kirk is fairly moderate on a lot of issues (environment especially) which has helped him keep his seat. He beat a heavily funded opponent this past November who was constantly being endorsed by Obama. I think Seals would make a solid Senator and he would probably get my vote.

Yeap.

And the number of true Christians is dropping in the U.S.

Survey: Percentage of Christians in U.S. drops | News-Leader.com | Springfield News-Leader

They also have to lighten up on the Reagan worship. Nobody under 40 voted for Reagan and nobody under 30 has much of a memory of Reagan. As long as the party keeps looking backward for inspiration they'll have trouble.

Lincoln and JFK called and said hi.

Blinders much?

What contemporary candidate has run on a Lincoln or JFK platform the way every GOP candidate is forced to run on a Reagan platform? As I see it there are two major problems. One, the Reagan held up by many current GOP types isn't the real Reagan that raised taxes to curb the deficit and shore up Social Security, negotiated with our most feared enemy when it seemed prudent and had close personal relationships with some of his political opposition. Two, the specifics of Reagan's policies were for a certain era and don't always translate as the solution to every problem. Even in his most widely quoted statement there was an important qualifier:


It's fine to see him as a great leader of the party and an ideological inspiration, but constantly saying Reagan, Reagan, Reagan as the answer to every problem sure as hell won't stop the hemorrhaging of younger voters.

hahahahahaha! Wait! You're serious?

If past history is any indication, just means we're overdue for a major religious revival of some kind. In the U.S., the pendulum has always swung between periods of rampant materialism/hedonism and religious revival/fervor.

I actually agree for once....could be muslim though theyre on the upswing for your next revival.

Don't sleep on the Wiccans, whatever the hell they believe.

Really peeved about the news story today regarding Obama's attempt to privatize coverage of veterans.

The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes for Treatment - Yahoo! News

I'm not opposed to Obama's health care change possibilities (cover more people) if he really can find a economic and smart way to do it. But I'm dead set that if ANYBODY deserves full goverment health care coverage, it's the military vets. Anyone who is willing to put life and limb on the line for our country has to be backed up in the knowledge that this country will cover their health insurance. Anything less is simply unacceptable.

Sure, we should continue to give them free, shitty care!

In all seriousness, they do deserve better health care and I severely hope the new administration rights the last one's wrongs on this issue.

If anybody deserves good healthcare it's vets. Bush & co. really did a fucking number on vets healthcare - I don't know the details of this plan of Obama's, but I hope this administration can fix the problems.

Sure, everyone has the 'hope' that they'll fix it. But actually implementing any fix is a large hill of beans that could give the government health care system a case of financial flatulence for years to come.

I've worked as a contractor for the federal government overseeing the IT arm of the health care regulating systems a couple of years ago. The changes that are needed to truly 'fix' the system are much more than any administration would ever dare take on. Sad but true. As a result, we get each administration doing some minor tinkering which usually ends up compounding the issues and often making things worse.

I still don't get why people continue to make this a partisan discussion when the real discussion should be whether or not the change is actually a change for the better, regardless of party.

It was a shame that a soldier's dad had to expose the problems at Walter Reed via homevideo cam before Bush and co. addressed the issue. That was such a shameful night for us as a whole.

I'm just a lurker in this thread for the most part, but seriously, you're the one making this a partison issue. He said, "If anybody deserves good healthcare it's vets. Bush & co. really did a fucking number on vets healthcare - I don't know the details of this plan of Obama's, but I hope this administration can fix the problems."

What is partisan about that? Please tell me. He said that Bush screwed a number of vets on healthcare and that he hopes this administration can fix things. Get off your high horse and actually read what people are saying.

So, I read the article, and unfortunately it doesn't explain why (aside from the obvious cost savings) one would want to require private insurance companies to pay for Veterans' care. I mean, aren't most private health insurance policies basically void as soon as you go off to war?

The result would be a significant change in how premiums are handled.

If private health care is to shoulder the load, they would have to charge huge premiums for these people for the obvious reasons. As a result, the most likely scenario is that the government would end up paying those premiums because the soldiers couldn't afford it and we could easily end up with a bigger payout from a premium standpoint than if we would have just left it alone in the first place.

I don't think that the current options are great, but this 'change' isn't any better.

It's the same old song and dance. Rather than addressing the core issue of whether Obama's change is an improvement, the usual stab is taken at Bush to divert attention from the issue. We get it already. Dubya made some mistakes and people on both sides of the issue know that. But on the topic at hand (from the current baseline, is Obama's change good) has little to do with the previous administration. History cannot be reversed, but current proposals need to be judged on their merit given the current circumstances. Partisan shots at previous administrations are distractions from the topic and little else.

I for one distinctly remember MBBF carrying the torch for veterans during their struggles the last eight years. Dammit guys, why do you have to drag him into your partisan squabbling.

As far as the subject at hand, the idea seems like a bad one and toxic politically. I've tried to find more about it, but haven't come up with anything beyond what MSNBC reported.

Well, at least I got someone to respond to the topic at hand (albeit with the mandatory shot at me which ALSO has nothing to do with the topic at hand). It's a positive step! :D

As an aside Im sure Obama will bomb on Leno on Thursday without his teleprompters.

If you don't see the irony in the way you post and the fact that you immediately decry partisanship leaking into debates, then I've got nothing for you.

I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say, we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.

What the hell? No one questioned your patriotism. This is one of the dumbest posts you've made on this board.

I don't do quotes in sigs. And in 20 years, I doubt there will be internet message board sigs or they'll be quaint little things like IRC chat rooms or Usenet where people remember them but very few still use them, proportionally, but, man- this would be gold :)

SI

Let's see you post an American Legion press release as news, which you likely learned from any of a hundred conservative blogs that are running with this press release today, and it's someone else's fault for being partisan?

I agree! doesnt mean youre arent wrong though especially when you fib on stats and polls or pull crap out of blogs.

I'd agree. I'd even further argue that this comment was gold when it was originally uttered six years ago on April 29, 2003...........


http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecov...003/4/29/85003

What are you even talking about at this point? What does that quote have to do with what I was saying?

What's your point? Did Hilary Clinton call someone unpatriotic for questioning the current administration?

I said your statement is dumb because it had nothing to do with the thread. No one questioned your patriotism. So what the hell are you talking about?

It seems like you've really gone off the deep end.

This story was addressed on more than one of the major news outlets and is a big topic today to the point where President Obama is expected to address the issue. Should you choose to, you could conceivably minimize every current event worthy of discussion because a big news story is going to be on a political blog somewhere 100% of the time. It's a very weak attempt to deflect what is obviously a very important topic. Whether you want to engage in the discussion or just sidebar it is totally up to you.

You are trying to make your sidebar the discussion, MBBF.

You didn't post a news story, you posted a press release. If you wanted a non-partisan discussion you should have avoided a press release from an organization generally hostile to Democrats. Would you see it as a fair effort to start discussion if I posted an ACLU press release blasting John McCain?

Not really. Everyone fully knows that this is a left leaning board/thread by a heavy margin. All I'm asking for is a legitimate discussion of the topic at hand. Snipes are certainly par for the course, but they don't add much other than giggles.

The pretty obvious difference between now and then is that people WERE saying that it was unpatriotic to question the administration then. Whereas, here, in this thread, no one has made that claim.

MBBF, You misinterpret me. I think it's patriotic to question my leaders, even in a time of strife. Part of what makes this Democracy great is the freedom to do that without fear of being sent to Siberia or an internment camp or spied on by my own government. That's why I liked your quote

SI

Great. Then address the proposed budget idea regardless of which story or release I put up. You can post the story from whichever source you choose. Do you think it's a good idea to privatize veteran health care?

I love the "everyone fully knows".

Everyone fully knows that Chase Daniels will be a Pro Bowl quarterback.

Everyone fully knows that PS3 is a victim of Wii media bias.

Everyone fully knows that the KC Penguins will hoist Lord Stanley's Cup.

Fixed your quote. :)

And yes, I misinterpreted your point. Thanks for the clarification.

Again, I don't know what the hell you're talking about. What does patriotism have to do with this thread? No one in here said you were unpatriotic. I think most of the posters here agree 100% with the Hilary Clinton quote you provided. We just fail to see that the hell it has to do with this discussion.

Stop infringing on my civil rights. It adds nothing to the discussion, and is willful ignorance at best.

It's a left leaning country these days, not necessarily a message board thing.

And everyone knows that JPhillips couldn't directly address a topic if his life depended on it.

You've put more effort in failing to address the topic than if you would have just made an attempt to say 'it's a good idea' or 'it's a lousy idea'. You obviously were on a high school debate team.

Can we please keep the discussion focused on how much Obama sucks without injecting partisanship into things?

But hasn't the complaint been about the level of care, rather than the cost of it? If the government ends up paying these premiums, then that's fine, since they were paying directly for care anyway. It seems like this is a step toward giving veterans more 'normal' care than one run by an underfunded VA -- or at least giving the VA better funding through private insurance premiums, if the government won't fund it properly.

:D

Wait, you were serious?