|
View Poll Results: Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008? | |||
Joe Biden | 0 | 0% | |
Hillary Clinton | 62 | 35.84% | |
Christopher Dodd | 0 | 0% | |
John Edwards | 10 | 5.78% | |
Mike Gravel | 1 | 0.58% | |
Dennis Kucinich | 2 | 1.16% | |
Barack Obama | 97 | 56.07% | |
Bill Richardson | 1 | 0.58% | |
Voters: 173. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools |
04-04-2008, 08:50 AM | #2001 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Colorado
|
LOL.
|
04-04-2008, 10:17 AM | #2002 |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
It was a big deal going into the 2004 election that W got $25,000 in personal donations from people that worked for Halliburton. Seems that if people are going to criticize W for that, you'd atleast have to look at Obama's situation too, right?
|
04-04-2008, 10:21 AM | #2003 | |
lolzcat
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
|
Quote:
I need more time to digest this whole argument before reaching a conclusion on it. I know most people will just dismiss it or embrace it wholesale based on their already-established position... but I'm doing my best to be open-minded in this election, and I *claim* to really dislike hypocrisy. I don't yet know where to place this on that particular scale. It's possible, well conceivable, that a person has actually had his opinion altered as a result of a political thread at FOFC. No doubt a first, if true. |
|
04-04-2008, 10:26 AM | #2004 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Burke, VA
|
...and look how well that worked out for both Bush and Haliburton!
|
04-04-2008, 10:34 AM | #2005 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Dayton, OH
|
Lot of bored Republicans in this thread.
__________________
My listening habits |
04-04-2008, 10:44 AM | #2006 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Well, the Republican primary is kind of over .
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
04-04-2008, 10:44 AM | #2007 |
This guy has posted so much, his fingers are about to fall off.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: In Absentia
|
I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here, but I think we should be consistent in our treatment of Obama like the others. This is where all the "free ride" stuff comes from. Obama's getting off because he's not really taking on a specific policy or policies to define him as a candidate. The overriding idea is that he is worth electing because he somehow brings a fresh, outsider perspective to the WH on all issues that's different than a third term of Bush (McCain) or Clinton would be. And yet he's campaigning with all the usual tricks of the trade.
Take Clinton's "experience" mantra. That's what she's defining herself as - ready from "Day One" to take action. I don't see this as any different than Obama's mantra of "change." And even if you throw out the Bosnia under fire stuff, her "experience" has rightfully come under scrutiny. The claim to have 35 years of experience, which dates back to when she got out of school, the fact that her calendars show that when major issues were going on, she was off doing non-substantive stuff, etc. (I love the one about when the WTC was attacked the first time, she went to a museum and caught a Broadway play that day while Bill was off doing substantive stuff). If she gets called out for that, what's the equivalent for Obama? It's scrutinizing just how much "change" from "politics as usual" we'd get if he was elected.
__________________
M's pitcher Miguel Batista: "Now, I feel like I've had everything. I've talked pitching with Sandy Koufax, had Kenny G play for me. Maybe if I could have an interview with God, then I'd be served. I'd be complete." |
04-04-2008, 10:46 AM | #2008 | |
World Champion Mis-speller
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Covington, Ga.
|
Quote:
Not really. I have had my changed by pol threads here before. Too often you only hear one side of position (or even two extremly slanted sides), that is nice in some of these threads you read a more moderated view (once you chuck out the complete zealots). There have been many times I've read here a true arguement (not a processed sound-bite) that did make sense and changed my view on something. You, for one, are very good at pointing to something I've never thought of or read before. Now, I could make a list of people that could stop posting in these threads to make them much better, but I'll refrain. |
|
04-04-2008, 11:08 AM | #2009 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The Dirty
|
Quote:
I don't really think she's gotten hit hard on her claims of experience. I have not yet heard one question as to why her time as a politician's wife counts as experience? You know, that Obama has more time as an actual elected official than she does. Maybe I'm missing it, but I have yet to see her have to defend her experience bit.
__________________
Commish of the United Baseball League (OOTP 6.5) |
|
04-04-2008, 11:19 AM | #2010 |
This guy has posted so much, his fingers are about to fall off.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: In Absentia
|
Admittedly, it wouldn't have been as much of an issue yet if the Bosnia thing hadn't come out, but since then, I've been hearing much more about it.
__________________
M's pitcher Miguel Batista: "Now, I feel like I've had everything. I've talked pitching with Sandy Koufax, had Kenny G play for me. Maybe if I could have an interview with God, then I'd be served. I'd be complete." |
04-04-2008, 11:35 AM | #2011 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
Really? As Ksyrup points out, after the Bosnia mess, it was all over the place. And of course it was mocked mercilessly on shows like the Daily Show and Letterman for months now.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
04-04-2008, 11:37 AM | #2012 | |
Dark Cloud
Join Date: Apr 2001
|
Quote:
Not really. No one ever addressed it directly. It's been implied during the whole race. But NO ONE has ever explicitly said "how is being First Lady really experience?" And even when they debunk it (i.e. Hillary didn't even have a security clearance and never carried a portfolio on her abroad visits) the myth that she's got all of this "experience" keeps just getting accepted.
__________________
Current Dynasty:The Zenith of Professional Basketball Careers (FBPB/FBCB) FBCB / FPB3 Mods |
|
04-04-2008, 11:41 AM | #2013 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Mexico
|
Quote:
If you're talking about her time as First Lady of the USA, I have seen that very question addressed quite a few times. If you're talking about her time as First Lady of Arkansas, that hasn't really been looked at too closely at all. |
|
04-04-2008, 12:45 PM | #2014 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Interesting...
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...-going-public/ Quote:
The interesting part of this is that Obama has said in the past that he would take federal matching funds if his opponent did. That would REALLY mess up Obama's advantage if he followed through (and that's probably why McCain is flirting with going public... Obama would look like "politics as usual" guy if he went back on his word).
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
04-04-2008, 12:48 PM | #2015 |
Checkraising Tourists
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
|
|
04-04-2008, 01:01 PM | #2016 |
This guy has posted so much, his fingers are about to fall off.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: In Absentia
|
I'm a registered Republican who will probably not be voting.
__________________
M's pitcher Miguel Batista: "Now, I feel like I've had everything. I've talked pitching with Sandy Koufax, had Kenny G play for me. Maybe if I could have an interview with God, then I'd be served. I'd be complete." |
04-04-2008, 01:31 PM | #2017 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
Really? What exactly about the past eight years has caused you to make the switch to the Republican party? I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious.
__________________
We have always been at war with Eastasia. |
|
04-04-2008, 01:36 PM | #2018 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Burke, VA
|
Quote:
|
|
04-04-2008, 01:40 PM | #2019 |
This guy has posted so much, his fingers are about to fall off.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: In Absentia
|
Cam has that effect on his wife, too.
__________________
M's pitcher Miguel Batista: "Now, I feel like I've had everything. I've talked pitching with Sandy Koufax, had Kenny G play for me. Maybe if I could have an interview with God, then I'd be served. I'd be complete." |
04-04-2008, 02:02 PM | #2020 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: North Carolina
|
This article seems to touch on some of what Ksyrup is saying about Obama and the "hope" based campaign.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/20080...%2FuozJmsTs%3D |
04-04-2008, 02:15 PM | #2021 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Dayton, OH
|
You make a good point. My mind has been changed!
__________________
My listening habits |
04-04-2008, 02:28 PM | #2022 | |
Checkraising Tourists
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
|
Quote:
I voted for Clinton/Gore twice, and I don't regret it. They won in 1992 and 1996 running on the Democratic Leadership Council's (DLC) platform, which stated the the modern democratic party should shift away from traditionally populist positions. As "New Democrats", Clinton/Gore ran and governed as centrists in many areas like welfare reform, free trade, fiscal responsibility and smaller government. Tony Blair adopted a similar platform when he ran under the mantra of "New Labour", ousting John Major in Great Britain, I voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, but I was becoming increasingly concerned about their move to the left and populist class warfare rhetoric. However, Bush was not a viable alternative, so I voted Democrat, although I would have seriously considered voting Republican otherwise. In 2008, both Obama and Clinton's stand on the issues are about as far left as I can recall in my lifetime. I know this hasn't been fleshed out yet, but it will be during the general campaign when the candidates actually have to take stands on critical issues and the voting public begins to pay attention. So, I've already made up my mind, and I'll be voting for McCain. The Democratic party as I knew it in the 1990's is now controlled by the far left wing, and it has no appeal to me. |
|
04-04-2008, 02:46 PM | #2023 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
Thanks for the reply. It's interesting how people can see things so differently -- my feeling is that the left-right spectrum has steadily moved rightward since 1980 or so, so that positions that are now considered "far-left" were much more centrist positions back then. I don't have time to find the link right now, but there was a recent Economist article that talked about the political differences between Europe and ourselves, and there was one thing in particular about the English Conservative party having positions that are now to the left of the American Democratic party. Personally, I don't think that finding a way out of the Iraq mess, proposing a universal healthcare system, reinstating some of the tax cuts on the very wealthy in order to help both balance the budget, reverse some of the widening income disparity and repair some of the social services net that has been slashed over the past 20 years are far left positions at all. But of course that's just my two cents......and I'm not even getting into what has happened at the Department of Justice, etc.
__________________
We have always been at war with Eastasia. |
|
04-04-2008, 02:53 PM | #2024 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Mexico
|
Quote:
I think the country drifted right during the 80's, but since Bush 41 took the reigns the drift has been slowly left. Bush 43 talks like a conservative, but pretty much everything he has done and advocated is right in line with Clinton's policies. |
|
04-04-2008, 03:02 PM | #2025 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
I don't know about that. The Supreme Court certainly seems to have continued it's rightward drift, and I haven't sensed a great lessening of the evangelical right since Bush 41 (a small lessening over the past year or two, but that's about it). The country does seem to have become much more polarized since Bush 41 though.
__________________
We have always been at war with Eastasia. |
|
04-04-2008, 03:08 PM | #2026 |
Stadium Announcer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Burke, VA
|
Dammit, now you need to ask a FTB question that would allow me to refute you.
__________________
I don't want the world. I just want your half. |
04-04-2008, 03:09 PM | #2027 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Arlington, VA
|
Quote:
A healthy chunk of this perception is based on the fact that the candidates are still running in the primary, so the issues they are talking about are targeted directly at the spectrum that will be voting. Normally, this is all out of the way by now, and the presumptive nominee is already redrafting his/her message to appeal to the middle. When the party finally has a nominee, they'll run back to the middle for the most part. But Path makes a good point. The electorate is shifting some to the left, in no small part as a reaction to this Administration forcing things so far the other way. |
|
04-04-2008, 03:18 PM | #2028 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Bath, ME
|
Quote:
If you mean Bill Clinton, I don't think that's much of a measure of leftward trend. Bill Clinton was a very centrist Democrat, and spent most of his term pissing off progressives. I'm not sure that i agree with your assessment, but it would suggest a centrist trend, not a leftward one. |
|
04-04-2008, 03:22 PM | #2029 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Mexico
|
Quote:
Left and right are relative terms. If you start out right of center, and move left, that is both a centrist drift, and a leftist drift. |
|
04-04-2008, 03:42 PM | #2030 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Bath, ME
|
They are both relative terms, and marks along a spectrum that represent real opinions about real issues. The position on the spectrum matters just as much as the direction of movement. You could say an obese person lost weight if they went from 455 pounds to 450 pounds, but to suggest that they're "becoming thinner" would not convey I think the truth of the matter.
My point only being that if we forget that Clinton was an extremely centrist Democrat, and he instead becomes the new standard of "the left" we'll have lost a lot of accuracy in our measurements of who is 'moving left' or 'moving right'. Last edited by Autumn : 04-04-2008 at 03:48 PM. |
04-04-2008, 06:14 PM | #2031 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Colorado
|
"Very" centrist? "Extremely" centrist? Hypebolic words for a president that was all over the spectrum, from far-left to right-of-center.
|
04-04-2008, 06:23 PM | #2032 |
Checkraising Tourists
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
|
|
04-04-2008, 06:31 PM | #2033 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Colorado
|
Quote:
We really don't know about the SC yet. Based on confirmation hearings, that would probably be correct, but the jury is out regarding the body of actual rulings. Since Bush41? He was no close friend of the evangelical right. But the so-called religious right is fracture, always have been. So I'm not what great generalization you are making. More polarized? Yes. And will continue to be more polarized (it makes great press). But with that polarization, come a significant rise of independents and libertarians. You have been around long enough, path, to know that American politics have and will always be used as a divisive yet ever-changing force. The next 4 years will be different than the previous 4, even with McCain. But many things will remain the same. Besides, it looks bad on you to act surprise that a (D) would even possible consider voting (R) based on the past 8 years. Vegas Vic gets it (in regards to actually thinking instead of going along with the red/blue crap). As one who did not support (R) the past 8 years, I'll be voting for McCain simply because of what I feel is the critical necessity of having a split Executive/Legislature. |
|
04-04-2008, 06:38 PM | #2034 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Colorado
|
Quote:
I believe he tried the first two years to enact a few such policies but then a (R) Congress forced him to move centric. Besides, terms like "far left" and "far right" are laughable for we have not had such things in the country. I throw them out once in a while jokingly but mainly to counterbalance those that actually believe such positions exist. But I was thinking more along the lines of speeches, rhetoric and the typical demonizing political opponents. Perhaps Hillary was worse at it but I could not and still do not separate the two. However, you asked for specifics and I would have to dig up something from a few years back that placed certain people (politicos and otherwise) along the red/blue spectrum. In that article, Clinton was placed from a 2-6 (depending on the time of day) on a 1-10 point scale. |
|
04-04-2008, 07:09 PM | #2035 | |
Checkraising Tourists
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
|
Quote:
Yeah, I know it's a common opinion that the "republican congress" should get credit for things like the budget surplus of 1998, but The Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 (passed by a democratic congress) is now credited by CBO as one of the main factors in the economic growth and later budget surplus in 1998. Ironically, even though many people have the perception that the republican congress was the reason for the budget surplus of 1998, the CBO data shows that the combined fiscal effect of the laws enacted by the 104th and 105th Republican Congresses added $11,000,000,000 more to the deficit than it cut in Fiscal Year 1998. "There's no question that the impact of bringing the deficit down through the 1993 budget bill set in place a series of events--a virtuous cycle, if I may put it that way--which has led us to where we are." Alan Greenspan - In testimony before the House Budget Committee, March 4, 1998. |
|
04-04-2008, 07:11 PM | #2036 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Concord, MA/UMass
|
Not sure if this was posted, but let's focus on the important issues here - such as how you can possibly vote for a man who bowls a 37? Or how you even bowl a 37. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...-pennsylvania/
|
04-04-2008, 07:14 PM | #2037 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Colorado
|
I wasn't even thinking about the budget. I was thinking more along the lines of socialistic ideas, social engineering and expansions of federal powers at the expense of private entities and properties,
|
04-04-2008, 07:16 PM | #2038 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Colorado
|
But it's Friday, long week. Got to start doing the yard thing tomorrow.
|
04-04-2008, 07:20 PM | #2039 | |
This guy has posted so much, his fingers are about to fall off.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: In Absentia
|
Quote:
No joke, our 3-year old bowled a 54 a couple of months ago.
__________________
M's pitcher Miguel Batista: "Now, I feel like I've had everything. I've talked pitching with Sandy Koufax, had Kenny G play for me. Maybe if I could have an interview with God, then I'd be served. I'd be complete." |
|
04-04-2008, 07:25 PM | #2040 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Colorado
|
Vegas Vic, one of the authors that I read is Calebresi, founder of the Federalist Society, a somewhat libertarian organization that exposes and chides liberal judicialness (is that a word?). I recall something that I've read that looks back on the actual rulings of Clinton's judicial appointments in terms of Constitutionaliity. It wasn't pretty.
|
04-04-2008, 07:39 PM | #2041 | |
Checkraising Tourists
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
|
Quote:
I think that's a valid point, Bucc. There's no question that both of Clinton's Supreme Court appointees -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer -- have been on the liberal side of virtually every court decision since their appointments. |
|
04-04-2008, 11:41 PM | #2042 | ||
Coordinator
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
Maybe so, but I don't think there's much debate that both Alito and Roberts will hew much closer to a Scalia/Thomas viewpoint than a Ginsberg/Breyer one. Quote:
I think you simplify my viewpoint, and for the record, I did not vote for Clinton either time, nor for Gore in 2000. This is not about the "typical red/blue crap". This is about an administration that has been blatent in its disregard of the rule of law in favor of power, and as a libertarian I'm surprised you would even think of supporting the party that has grown government to a size never seen before. The irony is that as they have done this, they have also repeatedly boasted about how big government is bad -- and then gone and proved that boast to be true. I have no great respect for politics as a whole, and certainly don't believe it is going to solve all of our problems, nor should it. But I do not believe in a government that spreads fear instead of hope, goes against the principles of honor that made this country what it is (via torture, cancellation of habeus corpus, etc), and besmirches our Constitution. Not one bit. We are less of a country because of the past eight years of this administration, and I think that is a sad thing.
__________________
We have always been at war with Eastasia. |
||
04-05-2008, 06:48 AM | #2043 | |
This guy has posted so much, his fingers are about to fall off.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: In Absentia
|
Quote:
One of the other boards I post at regularly is a music board based in Chicago. So as you can imagine, not only is the board almost entirely liberal, but the vast majority of them are huge Obama supporters. So I posted this info over there as an obvious joke, and this was the first response: he only bowled 7 frames, so actually he was on pace to bowl 53... and as I understand it he stopped when he got a spare, presumably after 7 frames, so he likely would have broken 60, maybe even 70, which, while it still sucks, isn't too horrible for a non-bowler without any practice. LOL at a serious response to this!
__________________
M's pitcher Miguel Batista: "Now, I feel like I've had everything. I've talked pitching with Sandy Koufax, had Kenny G play for me. Maybe if I could have an interview with God, then I'd be served. I'd be complete." |
|
04-05-2008, 09:21 AM | #2044 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Hey, bowling is serious business!
|
04-05-2008, 09:59 AM | #2045 | ||||
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
Really? After 1994, Clinton was a pretty laissez-faire President. Bush has been very meddling & hands-on (in the context of fighting with Congress). Their approach to military intervention is pretty different, though I suppose you could argue that 9/11 "changed everything". Their budget priorities (& sizes) are radically different. SC & federal bench nominations are also considerably different. I don't want to sound snarky, as I'm honestly interested - where are the two in line with each other? Quote:
There are two problems with this: 1. Everyone views every candidate through a particular lens, based on their own impressions of them. For instance, while you think Obama's getting a "free ride", I have, at the same time, been trying to point out the various areas where McCain has been getting a free ride. Consistency and objectivity would be great, but since everyone has their own preconceived notions (even if they're unaware of them), these things are very hard to come by. 2. The media, which whether we like it or not influences us greatly, likes to pigeonhole candidates. Obama is the "inexperienced" candidate of "change". Clinton is the "truth-challenged" "democratic machine" candidate. McCain is either a "maverick" or "Bush's 3rd term". This stuff all feeds into our preconceived notions. I have to say, though, if anyone's getting a free ride, it's McCain. Ever since Romney dropped out, almost all of the attention has focused on the Democrats, and increasingly in digging up and nitpicking all their faults. I mean, here's a guy who doesn't understand the difference between Shi'a and Sunni terrorists. Surely that's at least as relevant, if not more, than campaign donations, but it certainly didn't get equal time either in the media, or even amongst us. Quote:
As far as I can tell, the crux of the matter is this quote from factcheck.org: Quote:
Basically I'd disagree with factcheck.org that this is "a distinction without very much of a practical difference". One of the key problems with PACs is that they allow large donors (individuals or other entities) to give a huge amount to a candidate, but do so legally by distributing their contributions through various PACs. Additionally, the argument about individual donors representing corporations is spurious. No campaign has the resources or manpower to check each donation for the donator's employer (or their spouse's employer). Watchdog organizations like factcheck.org do (although in this instance their data came from OpenSecrets.org), and the results are always invariably used by opposition partisans. The idea that any campaign does this work on individual donations to the end of tallying them up so they can say "well, Company X gave $368,000 in total, so let's be nice to them" is risible. However, it's very well within the realm of possibility that the head of Company X would take aside a candidate and let them know that they'll be contributing $1 million through various PACs and individual donations. I think the real problem here is that the Obama campaign is drawing a fundraising realities distinction that is simply lost on most Americans. One is either going to: A. Trust in Obama's motivations and ignore the details (which can be spun oh so many ways) or B. Be skeptical. |
||||
04-05-2008, 10:09 AM | #2046 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Colorado
|
Quote:
I don't support the party or any parties, never have. Do you actually think the federal govt will actually get smaller with a (D) Executive and (D) Congress (or substitute (R)) vs one that is split? If I knew that Congress (at least one of them) would go (R), then I would vote for (D) Obama for Executive. But from what I've read, that is very unlikely. As some have said here, the next president - regardless if (D) or (R) - will love the expanded powers, and Congress will continue to ensure its power to solve every problem by growing the legislations, budgets and bureaucracies. I am on record here opposing many of the expansions of power but for most Americans, the past 8 years were no different than the past 20 or past 40 years in watching the decline of home rule local govts at the expense of the federal powers. |
|
04-05-2008, 11:22 AM | #2047 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
|
I certainly understand the arguments for a divided government, and think there are absolutely times where that isn't a bad thing. But I believe we are in a delicate period of time right now where:
The energy source that is the backbone of our society is for the first time starting to show signs of scarcity, even more so with the rapid industrialization of China. There is finally a solid scientific consensus that we are entering a period of atmospheric change, which will require new thinking. The healthcare system is broken, with millions not covered and millions more living on the edge of a major illness or accident wiping them out, especially as we see the job loss numbers steadily creep up. The problem with a divided government is that it does not lead. It keeps the status quo. I don't think we have time to keep the status quo at this point in our history. Do I think the Dems have the stones and the leadership ability to actually solve these problems? I'm not terribly optimistic, though I at least see a possibility of leadership with Obama as opposed to the same old partisan ground-scorch approach of Clinton. But I know for a fact that the Repubs policies will not lead us forward, especially based on the stands that McCain has taken so far.
__________________
We have always been at war with Eastasia. |
04-05-2008, 02:25 PM | #2048 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Colorado
|
I think that's the key difference, path - what you consider forward progress. There are many evidences that when the federal govt tackles a major problem with good intentions of forward progress, they actually, at best, maintain a marginal level of progress at greatly increased costs. Most often, they make the problems worse at greatly increased costs, necessitating more legislation, deficit spending and bureaucracies. And now you expect things will be different all of a sudden??
You mentioned healthcare. For a majority of Americans, it is not broken. It is expensive and will get more expensive, but we demand better care, better drugs and more instant diagnosis and treatments. If you want care for those uninsured, first find out why they are uninsured and then find an acceptable level of care vs cost. For the rest of us, we still will demand what we have now (and more so as we get older). No way will we want a one-size-fits-all solution that will reduce the level of care but cost just as much. That's just one example of what will be backwards progress but others are dreaming that it will actually be forward progress. Therefore, why would I want leadership when Washington DC is not smart enough to do many things right but instead, they need to cut expenditures and do things better, smarter and cheaper? I would measure forward progress if they would just think more Constitutionally and libertarianistic. But I don't expect that, and I certainly don't hear that from Obama or Clinton. What I do expect is more individuals, local and regional public and private entities, communities, churches and charity organizations to take much more personal responsibilites in making a difference within their sphere of influences. |
04-05-2008, 06:45 PM | #2049 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
|
Quote:
Breyer might be on the liberal side of the hot button social issue cases, but is pretty conservative when it comes to corporate cases.
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner |
|
04-06-2008, 08:24 PM | #2050 | |
Dark Cloud
Join Date: Apr 2001
|
Mark Penn is stepping down from the Clinton campaign.
Quote:
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|