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?