OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 3

[RobVarak]

Democrats refuse to get rid of the corruption in their own ranks. If they can't govern themselves, how can they govern the country? This is especially egregious considering they came to power in 2006 with a mandate to get rid of corruption in Congress.

http://wcbstv.com/local/charles.rangel. ... 17769.html

Yeah, and the GOP has done such a fine job of governing itself LOL

[JackB1]

You keep taking swings at the GOP side that end up coming around and smacking you in the back of the head.

And you keep using the same flawed defense. You point out that it's the same for the Dem. side.... which you disagree with. But when the Republican's do the very same thing...it's OK with you. That logic goes nowhere fast. It's like getting pulled over for speeding and telling the cop "well look at that guy over there...he's speeding too!".

You just keep ignoring the flaws in your own side because you believe the other side is doing the same thing. Well done!

[JRod]

Democrats refuse to get rid of the corruption in their own ranks. If they can't govern themselves, how can they govern the country? This is especially egregious considering they came to power in 2006 with a mandate to get rid of corruption in Congress.

http://wcbstv.com/local/charles.rangel. ... 17769.html

You keep taking swings at the [insert your party here] side that end up coming around and smacking you in the back of the head.

[SPTO]

So I haven't been around

Instead of trying to keep up with the conversation (I swear i'll be back into the swing of things soon!) I'll just offer up some thoughts

1. Man i've seen the Palin interviews...Let's just say she made a fool out of herself. A lot of what she said sounded very extreme especially when talking of religion. I also found it interesting how she talked about being against corruption and kickbacks, earmarks and all that jazz when it comes out later on that she hired friends and "yes men", bristled against any criticism and was the beneficiary of tons of earmarks.

If Biden can't kick her ass in the debates then i'll be sad.

2. Man Wall Street is taking a huge beating. The Obama campaign is already out on the attack as Biden was just on TV while making a stump speech talking about how the financial crisis that has been hitting Main Street has finally caught up and how McCain's policies would be a continuation of the Bush policies.

I gotta say that's pretty good political gamesmanship there.


3. I know i'm talking about Palin a lot but the whole "we won't interviews unless you respect Palin" stuff makes the McCain campaign sound very bad. I don't think the media has disrespected Palin, criticized yes, disrespected? not really.

[XXXIV]

If Biden can't kick her ass in the debates then i'll be sad.

Dont be sad...you are safely away from the evil.

[FatPitcher]

Democrats refuse to get rid of the corruption in their own ranks. If they can't govern themselves, how can they govern the country? This is especially egregious considering they came to power in 2006 with a mandate to get rid of corruption in Congress.

http://wcbstv.com/local/charles.rangel. ... 17769.html

You keep taking swings at the [insert your party here] side that end up coming around and smacking you in the back of the head.

Hey, as I have said multiple times in these election threads, I think the GOP is an embarrassment to small-government advocates and I was relieved to see them thrashed in 2006.

But now the Democrats are in charge, and it turns out they were full of sh*t in the 2006 campaign. Surprise, surprise. Anti-corruption, my ass. Passing "earmark reform" with one hand while coming up with new ways to sneak earmarks into bills with the other. http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?d ... 0002948960

[RobVarak]

Ah election time and ACORN is back at it.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti ... 8809140383

4 Decades of voter fraud...and counting!!!

[FatPitcher]

I gotta say that's pretty good political gamesmanship there.

A continuation of the "blame everything bad that happens on the GOP" tact that has been in effect since 2000. Not particularly clever or surprising, but maybe it's effective. I have no idea.

[FatPitcher]

Ah election time and ACORN is back at it.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti ... 8809140383

4 Decades of voter fraud...and counting!!!

I can't believe my tax money goes to fund those clowns.

[FatPitcher]

You just keep ignoring the flaws in your own side because you believe the other side is doing the same thing. Well done!

You keep taking swings at the [insert your party here] side that end up coming around and smacking you in the back of the head.

Round and round we go!

[Teal]

It seems to me that Palin is getting a pass from a certain portion of the conservative populace that is simply excited to have their own 'celebrity' on the ticket.

Thank you Slumber...that was exactly my point a few posts back. When it's "one of your own" it's OK to like them for superficial reasons?

I don't know how many women I hear calling into the the conservative talk radio shows saying something like this: " I can identify with Sara. She's a Mom like me...she has kids like me and real everyday family issues like me. I can relate to her." That's a reason to put her in the White House?

This was one of the main reasons why Bush was elected. A high majority of people thought we should have a President that you could "have a beer with".

Dangerous reason to vote for someone.

Well, by that logic, so are:
-race
-recites good speeches
-young
-"clean"(Biden's words)
-"speaks clearly" (Biden again)

[Teal]

I gotta say that's pretty good political gamesmanship there.

A continuation of the "blame everything bad that happens on the GOP" tact that has been in effect since 2000. Not particularly clever or surprising, but maybe it's effective. I have no idea.

Ah, yes. For eight years we've heard IT'S BUSH'S FAULT!(Hell, even the once-upon-a-time-global-warming-but-now-called-climate-change-because-they-can't-keep-making-the-case nonsense is BUSH'S FAULT)

Now, somehow, IT'S MCCAIN'S FAULT!

Of course it is! I mean hell, how can a Democrat congress led by the two most inept morons in the history of the congressional record have anything to do with anything?! How can a congress with an approval rating in single digits have anything to do with anything? No...IT'S BUSH-ER, MCCAIN'S FAULT!

[JRod]

Democrats refuse to get rid of the corruption in their own ranks. If they can't govern themselves, how can they govern the country? This is especially egregious considering they came to power in 2006 with a mandate to get rid of corruption in Congress.

http://wcbstv.com/local/charles.rangel. ... 17769.html

You keep taking swings at the [insert your party here] side that end up coming around and smacking you in the back of the head.

Hey, as I have said multiple times in these election threads, I think the GOP is an embarrassment to small-government advocates and I was relieved to see them thrashed in 2006.

But now the Democrats are in charge, and it turns out they were full of sh*t in the 2006 campaign. Surprise, surprise. Anti-corruption, my ass. Passing "earmark reform" with one hand while coming up with new ways to sneak earmarks into bills with the other. http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?d ... 0002948960

How does a Republican Executive and Democratic Congress mean the Democrats are in charge. They hold the majority in Congress.

Here's the breakdown.

Senate
49/49/2

House
233/198

The numbers show that while the Dems hold a good size lead in the House, they don't hold enough to override the executive.

In the Senate the Dems hold a very fragile majority only becuase Jeffers and Leiberman caucus with the Democrats. They do not have the votes to override procedural votes that Republicans can use to block Majority legislation.

All these facts are lost on the simplistic idea that the Dems hold all the power in Washington. Minus one big flaw, Bush is still our President.

[Teal]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/po ... 129150.htm

"PLEASE! PLEASE WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTIONS! I WANT THE CREDIT!"

[Teal]

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/se ... ipartisan/

[SPTO]

Teal, congress has been vilified by the public since '94 with the whole gridlock/shutdown of DC so it's not some new phenomenon. the sharpness of the apathy and lack of confidence towards congress is a bit of a new thing though.

The BLAME BUSH! mantra worked well in the '06 congressional elections but that's about as effective as that kind of campaigning will get you. Obama needs to provide alternatives even if they're deemed too radical for some. You can't win an election based on bashing everything over the last 8 years.

That being said, I don't think the idea of calling a McCain administration a sequel and continuation of failed policies of the last 8 years is necessarily a bad thing. It's a very basic ploy in electioneering to frame the opponent as something he or she may not necessarily be but it helps to frame the opponent in a negative light in order to get votes.

It worked to great effect in '04 with making Kerry look like some Ivy League Elite who can't fit with the common person and it sure as hell worked with Dukakis making a fool out of himself riding around in a tank. (though that was because the Dems thought it'd actually work)

[SPTO]

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/se ... ipartisan/

This is news?

Of course McCain has a better bipartisan record. The man has been a maverick in his party for years and has shown a willingness to work across the aisle. Obama's only been in the senate what? 4 years now? Do we really expect him to have a body of work like McCain?

Sheesh!

That being said even if McCain is elected I think party operatives will try to force him not to be so acommodating to the other side.

[matthewk]

You keep taking swings at the GOP side that end up coming around and smacking you in the back of the head.

And you keep using the same flawed defense. You point out that it's the same for the Dem. side.... which you disagree with. But when the Republican's do the very same thing...it's OK with you. That logic goes nowhere fast. It's like getting pulled over for speeding and telling the cop "well look at that guy over there...he's speeding too!".

You just keep ignoring the flaws in your own side because you believe the other side is doing the same thing. Well done!

Do you even know WTF it is you're posting when you type?!?

What flawed defense? Common sense?!? All you do is post uniformed thrashings of the GOP side. I (and a few others) comtinue to point out the flaws in your attacks. Where am I am hammering on the Dems for something that I say is OK for the GOP side? All I'm doing is refuting your baised arguments.

[FatPitcher]

Hey, as I have said multiple times in these election threads, I think the GOP is an embarrassment to small-government advocates and I was relieved to see them thrashed in 2006.

But now the Democrats are in charge, and it turns out they were full of sh*t in the 2006 campaign. Surprise, surprise. Anti-corruption, my ass. Passing "earmark reform" with one hand while coming up with new ways to sneak earmarks into bills with the other. http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?d ... 0002948960

How does a Republican Executive and Democratic Congress mean the Democrats are in charge. They hold the majority in Congress.

Here's the breakdown.

Senate
49/49/2

House
233/198

The numbers show that while the Dems hold a good size lead in the House, they don't hold enough to override the executive.

In the Senate the Dems hold a very fragile majority only becuase Jeffers and Leiberman caucus with the Democrats. They do not have the votes to override procedural votes that Republicans can use to block Majority legislation.

All these facts are lost on the simplistic idea that the Dems hold all the power in Washington. Minus one big flaw, Bush is still our President.

Are you suggesting that Bush is forcing congressional Democrats to put unremovable earmarks into bills in committee or to keep Rangel on as chairman of Ways and Means?

All the issues I brought up in that post are issues with Congress. So yes, the Democrats' (and like-minded independents) majority in both the House and Senate means that the Democrats are in charge of Congress.

[Teal]

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/se ... ipartisan/

This is news?

Of course McCain has a better bipartisan record. The man has been a maverick in his party for years and has shown a willingness to work across the aisle. Obama's only been in the senate what? 4 years now? Do we really expect him to have a body of work like McCain?

Sheesh!

That being said even if McCain is elected I think party operatives will try to force him not to be so acommodating to the other side.

This is precisely why I think Obama continues to try and compare himself to Palin-he can't tie McCain's shoelaces in that regard.

Actually, you watch-when he becomes president, because he has an 'R' in there somewhere, the dems will be against whatever he's for...no matter if it's a good idea or not.

[wco81]

Congress doesn't have enforcement responsibilities. That's the executive branch.

Right now, it's Paulson at Treasury and Bernanke at the Fed who are deciding that Bear Stearns and Fannie and Freddie Mac get bailed out but Lehman does not.

They also probably played a part in the B of A takeover of Merrill Lynch. Oh and in calmer times, it would be the FTC and the Justice Dept. which would rule on that kind of buyout. But in these times, they're apparently going to take shortcuts.

Oil is under $100, despite OPEC announcements of cuts in supply. Hmm, oil running up to $150 must not have been about supply-and-demand, unless you're talking about the supply of Wall Street speculation in the oil markets, which the CFTC, under executive branch control, didn't think was happening.

Lets see, all kinds of distress on Wall Street and there's no money to pump up the oil futures markets and oil falls.

But people will be happier now that oil is now cheaper (but still at least 20-25% higher than a year ago), because we've been conditioned to higher prices, which made traders rich while the rest of the economy got weaker. Of course nobody is going to pursue the possibility of speculation now.

Hey you can't blame Bush. He was just twiddling his thumbs while Rome burned. He didn't light the fire! The buck doesn't stop there.

Only Democratic presidents like Carter and Clinton are to blame for anything that goes wrong, while GOP presidents don't have that much control over what goes on in the economy.

[FatPitcher]

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/se ... ipartisan/

This is news?

Of course McCain has a better bipartisan record. The man has been a maverick in his party for years and has shown a willingness to work across the aisle. Obama's only been in the senate what? 4 years now? Do we really expect him to have a body of work like McCain?

Sheesh!

That being said even if McCain is elected I think party operatives will try to force him not to be so acommodating to the other side.

The article only counts bills after Obama took office.

Why would McCain listen to party operatives? The same ones that torpedoed him in 2000? The guy has probably the biggest ego of anyone in the Senate, for better or worse.

[matthewk]

Ah election time and ACORN is back at it.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti ... 8809140383

4 Decades of voter fraud...and counting!!!

Here in WI they've already busted 35 ACORN employees for fraudulent registrations. And surprise, surprise, our Dem governor refuses to pass any kind of voter ID law, which means that the fake names that aren't caught can be easily used to vote for Obam....um I mean for either side.

[RobVarak]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/po ... 129150.htm

"PLEASE! PLEASE WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTIONS! I WANT THE CREDIT!"

I'm obviously a deeply cynical person, more than willing to believe the worst about politicians of any party. If they can find any independent confirmation about the main points of that coumn, I would be stunned!

I'm just not going to buy something that enormous and heinous without a bit more of a factual foundation. Until then it's as much a pink elephant as the Reagan October Surprise fictions that are out there.

[matthewk]

This is precisely why I think Obama continues to try and compare himself to Palin-he can't tie McCain's shoelaces in that regard.

Well somebody better be able to since he can't tie them himself