OT: 2008 Elections

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:11 pm

Naples39 wrote:[This is why I find Edwards' voice of change especially hollow, as the guy was a total empty suit in the senate who accomplished absolutely nothing during his time there. Now he's gonna ride into Washington and lead a sea change? Sorry, not buying it.

You know that. I know that. Most voters dont. They buy sizzle over substance as most consumers do.

Monorail! Monorail! Monorail!

Im predicting Edwards as your next president

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:21 pm

Of course they're going to talk about change and speak against Bush, whose ratings are really low.

Most of the candidates have discussed positions in relation to current Bush policies, like what they would do about the war, whether they support making the Bush tax cuts, permanent or let them lapse, etc.

This isn't different from previous elections. The candidates in the party which wants to retain power will talk about continuing things as they have been while the opposing party has to make the case for why there should e a change in power.

Candidates are going to promise the sky and they're going to to have detailed agenda, which are rehashes of various policies promulgated by the think tanks.

If they didn't make ambitious promises, then people would say they have no plans, no ideas.

But once they get into office, these plans always change and people don't get bent out of shape about it. Bush the candidate said he was against nation-building and when Bush the President said that's what we'd be doing, most of the country was behind him.

Even a third-party candidate will make promises he's not going to be able to keep, because that party would have no power in Congress or the Judicial branch.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:24 pm

Ya ya ya and in 2012 every candidate will be anti Edwards( or whomever)...its all bs...

Stll though its a better system than Pakistans

greggsand · Post by **greggsand** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:09 am

Not to be a snob or anything, but I've always wondered "Who gives a rat's *ss who New Hampshire likes?" Iowa, too for that matter... Ok, I'm a self-centered SoCal guy, but still "New Hampshire"??? Most people go their whole lives without ever stepping foot in NH - yet they set the tone for the elections? Yeah yeah, I need help...

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 2:14 am

greggsand wrote:Not to be a snob or anything, but I've always wondered "Who gives a rat's *ss who New Hampshire likes?" Iowa, too for that matter... Ok, I'm a self-centered SoCal guy, but still "New Hampshire"??? Most people go their whole lives without ever stepping foot in NH - yet they set the tone for the elections? Yeah yeah, I need help...

You bring up a very critical point. Why does Iowa and New Hampshire, two states hardly representative of America, have so much influence on the process?

Naples:
Obama's served less than Edwards so shouldn't he be held to the same standard? I'm not saying you are supporting him but if you question a candidates worth in the Senate Obama's name has to be mentioned. I'm not arguing with you, I just find it hypocritical from those in the media, that question Edwards one-term in the Senate, and really don't rail Obama on the issue. They say he doesn't have experience but you never hear he's only served 4 years in the Senate. That's right just 4.

As much as I think Edward would be the best president, I don't think he will be it.

The most experienced Dem in the race is Richardson. Cabinet Secretary, Congressman, Ambassador and Governor. That's pretty impressive.

macsomjrr · Post by **macsomjrr** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:41 am

Experience shouldn't play a large role in who gets elected into office IMO. I don't think either Bush Jr or Clinton served in Washington prior to being elected. Obama has served in the Senate for a couple years and prior to that he was in the Illinois senate for awhile. That is more Washington experience than Bush and Clinton combined before they were elected.

I guess the question is what KIND of experience are you looking for?

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:27 am

JRod wrote:The most experienced Dem in the race is Richardson. Cabinet Secretary, Congressman, Ambassador and Governor. That's pretty impressive.

He definitely looked the best on paper. I wish he had been a better candidate. He would be an excellent vice president, especially for someone like Obama and Edwards who don't have a lot of experience at the federal level.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:50 am

macsomjrr wrote:Experience shouldn't play a large role in who gets elected into office IMO. I don't think either Bush Jr or Clinton served in Washington prior to being elected. Obama has served in the Senate for a couple years and prior to that he was in the Illinois senate for awhile. That is more Washington experience than Bush and Clinton combined before they were elected.

I guess the question is what KIND of experience are you looking for?

Governing a state is considered much better experience for being President than serving in the Senate. Both Clinton and Bush would be considered to have had better experience than Obama or Edwards because of this.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:35 am

Brando70 wrote:He would be an excellent vice president, especially for someone like Obama and Edwards who don't have a lot of experience at the federal level.

That's one of the reasons he's in the race. He's angling for a VP slot, and if nothing else he gets to improve his national recognition for another run down the road.

Naples39 · Post by **Naples39** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:41 am

JRod wrote: Naples:
Obama's served less than Edwards so shouldn't he be held to the same standard? I'm not saying you are supporting him but if you question a candidates worth in the Senate Obama's name has to be mentioned. I'm not arguing with you, I just find it hypocritical from those in the media, that question Edwards one-term in the Senate, and really don't rail Obama on the issue. They say he doesn't have experience but you never hear he's only served 4 years in the Senate. That's right just 4.

I agree that Obama is very inexperienced, and if I liked Clinton or Edwards better I wouldn't be defaulting towards Obama. I guess for me it's better to have the promise of change from someone who's relatively inexperienced then it is to hear promises of change from someone who's been there and didn't do a damn thing.

I firmly believe that of all the candidates, Edwards would be the biggest flop in office. I don't have any faith in him getting things done.

I also believe that if you really want to change things, you need support from both sides, and thus you must seek centrist goals. I think McCain, Romney and Obama all understand that. On the other hand Edwards continues to spout generally murky comments about corporate corruption and being a champion of middle and lower-classes. His plans for bigger government would be fought tooth and nail by republicans, and would therefore be unlikely to result in worthwhile change.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:47 am

Naples39 wrote:I firmly believe that of all the candidates, Edwards would be the biggest flop in office. I don't have any faith in him getting things done.

No doubt. Edwards made millions as a trial lawyer, yet he's going to stand up against special interests? That ranks right up there with "jumbo shrimp" on the oxymoron meter.

What a f*cking fraud. Mr. Class Warfare and his $400 haircuts.

Oh, and don't forget: John Edwards is the son of a millworker ...

Only four of these marionettes interest me in the least bit: Obama, McCain, Paul and Richardson.

Take care,
PK

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:06 pm

Naples39 wrote:
I also believe that if you really want to change things, you need support from both sides, and thus you must seek centrist goals. I think McCain, Romney and Obama all understand that. On the other hand Edwards continues to spout generally murky comments about corporate corruption and being a champion of middle and lower-classes. His plans for bigger government would be fought tooth and nail by republicans, and would therefore be unlikely to result in worthwhile change.

In previous elections, some have said gridlock, where neither party has a big enough majority or enough branches of govt. to enact an ideological agenda, was the best outcome.

The theory is that govt. can't then intervene in a negative way in the markets and so forth. Wall Street cheered that prospect.

But now, all the institutions of govt. have low approval ratings, especially "do-nothing" Congress.

Any advocate of big change will face a lot of institutional resistance, especially a third-party candidate. Take for example health care. Hilary tried to unilaterally lock the insurers and pharmaceuticals out of it and they struck back, spent millions to say people wouldn't be able to choose their doctors and so on.

Edwards said he'd confront members of Congress who are protecting the status quo by publicly threatening to take away their health care benefits or something like that.

Probably wouldn't be the most productive thing to do, public confrontations than working deals out in the back rooms. His foes would dig in, unless there's a big groundswell for changing the health care system.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:14 pm

I've been around these parts long enough that my politics are pretty well known, so this should say a lot. I would vote for any of the Democrats...twice, WAY before I would cast a vote for Edwards. No other candidate for major office in my lifetime has turned my stomach the way that guy does. I'm talking literally, here.

Maybe it's because I spent too many years dealing with megalomaniac plaintiffs' lawyers enamored with spinning elaborate white knight fantasies about themselves, but his sanctimony and faux-populism absolutely set me off! He's the living embodiment of the word disingenuous.

Sorry for the rant in what has otherwise been a fairly civil thread, but I'm telling you this guy just sets me off

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:17 pm

RobVarak wrote:I've been around these parts long enough that my politics are pretty well known, so this should say a lot. I would vote for any of the Democrats...twice, WAY before I would cast a vote for Edwards. No other candidate for major office in my lifetime has turned my stomach the way that guy does. I'm talking literally, here.

Maybe it's because I spent too many years dealing with megalomaniac plaintiffs' lawyers enamored with spinning elaborate white knight fantasies about themselves, but his sanctimony and faux-populism absolutely set me off! He's the living embodiment of the word disingenuous.

Sorry for the rant in what has otherwise been a fairly civil thread, but I'm telling you this guy just sets me off

That makes two of us, man! The guy is the living embodiment of phony. Even more than Hillary Clinton, and that's saying something.

Take care,
PK

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:22 pm

Faux populism?

Populism is not the way to electoral success. His anti-corporate, anti-globalism themes may play in some economically distressed areas.

But it's not expected to do anything for him in NH for example.

Lower-income people generally do not vote and even when they do, they place other issues like gun rights and social values over what are arguably their economic self-interests.

Class warfare has been attempted before and it hasn't been a terribly successful electoral strategy. In past elections, unions have been lumped in with big business as the "special interests" but for at least the past 2 decades, unions have been neutered.

Meanwhile, the ideology of small govt/markets know best/deregulation has been dominant and all that's served is to widen the wealth gap.

So running against that tide isn't a high-percentage play. If he's adopting this populism because he thinks it'll get him into office, as opposed to believing in it, then he's really out of touch.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 2:50 pm

wco81 wrote:So running against that tide isn't a high-percentage play. If he's adopting this populism because he thinks it'll get him into office, as opposed to believing in it, then he's really out of touch.

I think you've nailed it, man. Plus the strategy didn't work for him in 2004, so what makes him think that it's going to be any more effective in 2008?

The big wedge point among Democrats -- Obama's so-called lack of experience -- is hilarious, especially when the criticism comes from Hillary Clinton.

Excuse me, but how much elected office experience does Hillary have? Seven years as a U.S. senator, just four more years than Obama. Big f*cking whoop.

Sure, Hillary-ites can point to her role as an activist First Lady during her husband's two terms as president. But as was pointed out here, her major initiative, national health care, was a complete failure.

Hillary's only noteworthy accomplishment in the White House from 1994-2000 was that she became the only First Lady in history to be subpoenaed.

Take care,
PK

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:04 pm

wco81 wrote:
So running against that tide isn't a high-percentage play. If he's adopting this populism because he thinks it'll get him into office, as opposed to believing in it, then he's really out of touch.

He may or may not actually believe in his professed worldview, but I think his background and education are such that he also knows damn well that the "Two Americas" dog-and-pony show is demagoguery of the highest order.

Still, I believe it's false populism not because he doesn't believe it, but because it's ginnned up for the benefit of the electorate. If he doesn't exaggerate the extent and the condition of the Dickensian underclass (to borrow Mark Steyn's glib but accurate characterization), there's no dragon for him to slay. Believe me, there are first-year PI lawyers using this same tactic in slip and fall cases against corporate defendants right this very moment in a courtroom near you.

Calling it a trope is too kind.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:04 pm

RobVarak wrote:I've been around these parts long enough that my politics are pretty well known, so this should say a lot. I would vote for any of the Democrats...twice, WAY before I would cast a vote for Edwards. No other candidate for major office in my lifetime has turned my stomach the way that guy does. I'm talking literally, here.

Maybe it's because I spent too many years dealing with megalomaniac plaintiffs' lawyers enamored with spinning elaborate white knight fantasies about themselves, but his sanctimony and faux-populism absolutely set me off! He's the living embodiment of the word disingenuous.

Sorry for the rant in what has otherwise been a fairly civil thread, but I'm telling you this guy just sets me off

Well put. My wife and I both really don't like him. A lot of it stems from the 2004 election when he brought nothing to the table as a VP candidate.

Whether he believes in what he is saying doesn't really matter. To listen to his speeches, he makes it sound like he's going to be a new Huey Long on a federal level. The problem is he's going to be facing a Congress that, if it it does manage to hold a small Democratic advantage, will still face staunch opposition from Republicans. There is probably no way he can keep that combative stance AND enact the kinds of policies he's discussing.

Obama is avoiding a lot of specifics in his speeches, but he has posted a fair amount of detail on his Web site and has discussed aspects of his platform. A lot of what he is proposing actually sounds possible. The American government is a big ship and it doesn't change course quickly unless you get 2/3 of Congress controlled by one party. That's not going to happen next year.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:49 pm

You dislike because he didn't bring anything as a VP. That's comical.

VPs never bring anything. Rarely bring anything. Unless you want another Cheney.

The details on Obama's website are nothing but political drivel. And so is everything on Edwards, Clinton's, McCain's and so on.

If Edward's message is just purely populism then there wouldn't be any truth to it. He would be talking about class warfare.

What he's talking about, at least what I got from him on Saturday is the huge corrosive hold lobbying has over congress. He's also talked about how the insurance and pharma corporations are driving up the price of health care.

If you guys don't think those things are true than I guess his message is pure populism. I'm not defending Edwards but I've seen what he's talking about first hand.

I don't know who I'm going to vote for when the Colorado caucus comes around. If Obama can talk about change and what he wants to change that would be nice. I don't think Clinton is the candidate to take on the problems in Washington. Richardson won't be around so he'll return to NM and probably run for the Senate in NM.

I think you guys are economically comfortable and out of touch if you think Edwards message is just populism.

I happen to think that the corruptive nature of congress is similar to what we've seen in the first part of the 20th century. I personally feel we need another Teddy Roosevelt in the White House not someone that talks about change but will probably only offer incremental change because they will be all talk.

I liken Obama's speeches to JFK with one major exception. JFK could also rally the people behind his cause but he had specifics behind them. His themes weren't change for the sake of change. But freedom around the world, a responsible foreign policy, civil rights changes here in America to name just a few. My main criticism of Obama right not is that all he brings to the table right now is change. I just want to see more from him.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:08 pm

JRod wrote: I happen to think that the corruptive nature of congress is similar to what we've seen in the first part of the 20th century. I personally feel we need another Teddy Roosevelt in the White House not someone that talks about change but will probably only offer incremental change because they will be all talk.

All you have to do is look at the people in the luxury boxes at the Redskins' home games.

Lobbyists spread around some of the money they loosen from the federal govt. and that makes Washington tick.

If there is any kind of impetus to change this system, it's not going to happen in one election.

It's going to take several elections, as the GOP for instance inveighed against what they saw as wasteful govt. programs for decades, before they started to dismantle a lot of these programs over a course of several presidencies and terms of Congress.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:48 pm

JRod wrote: I liken Obama's speeches to JFK with one major exception. JFK could also rally the people behind his cause but he had specifics behind them. His themes weren't change for the sake of change. But freedom around the world, a responsible foreign policy, civil rights changes here in America to name just a few. My main criticism of Obama right not is that all he brings to the table right now is change. I just want to see more from him.

It's becomng a meme to comare now to 1960 and Obama to JFK. Oddly enough, there seems to be some sort of positive connotation attached to this comparison...

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:43 pm

I'm running MSNBC TV in the background today as I work. Andrea Mitchell is interviewing many, many players in today's primary -- candidates, campaign managers, etc.

Man, she is grilling all of these people. I'm VERY impressed. I've always admired Mitchell as a reporter and correspondent, but she's a damn good host, too.

Mitchell just neutered the biggest bullsh*tter in the campaign, Clinton campaign manager Terry McAuliffe. She never let him start spinning, cutting him off repeatedly with direct questions.

She also took apart Ron Paul pretty well and had very pointed questions for John Edwards, all in the last hour.

Well done, Ms. Mitchell.

Take care,
PK

Zlax45 · Post by **Zlax45** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:54 pm

PK...You know that Andrea Mitchell is married to Alan Greenspan? Weird combo I think.

Why do people vote for that Huckabee guy? He has made some real stupid comments in his political days including wanting AIDS infected people secluded from society.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:58 pm

Zlax45 wrote:PK...You know that Andrea Mitchell is married to Alan Greenspan? Weird combo I think.

Why do people vote for that Huckabee guy? He has made some real stupid comments in his political days including wanting AIDS infected people secluded from society.

Maybe its part of a vast left wing conspiracy for a november walk over...I never heard of the freaking guy.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:00 pm

Zlax45 wrote:PK...You know that Andrea Mitchell is married to Alan Greenspan? Weird combo I think.

Yes, I do, and I agree. Safe to say you'll never see Ms. Mitchell cover a financial story due to conflict of interest!

Zlax45 wrote:Why do people vote for that Huckabee guy? He has made some real stupid comments in his political days including wanting AIDS infected people secluded from society.

Because there are a lot of whack jobs in this country who think you need to be at least St. John the Baptist to be a presidential candidate and who would love to see morality legislated.

Take care,
PK