dougb wrote:
In terms of the U.S. Election the issue may help Democrats for than Republicans. Whoever wins the election may end up feeling like their victory was somewhat pyrrhic.
Best wishes,
Doug
When you look at the next guy is facing...
War on Terrorism that was re-directed. They still want to bomb stuff. We never really addressed the extremists or the ones on the fringe that could be persuaded to no be extremists.
War in Iraq - Let's see the surge worked meaning that our military presence is needed for security of Iraq. So then you can't really draw down troops.
Financial Mess
A Wall Street that reminds a lot of people like the gilded age fat cats. (Think Standard Oil)
A congress that reminds a lot of people of the gilded age of fat cats.
That's just today's headlines.
But I would imagine that Roosevelt didn't think, "Hey this jobs sucks but atleast I'll eat better than those schlubs standing in the soup line."
[url=http://sensiblecoasters.wordpress.com/][b]Sensible Coasters - A critique of sports games, reviews, gaming sites and news. Questionably Proofread![/b][/url]
SNL does a skit poking fun at the NY Times' pro-Obama bias and Republicans are upset because of the Palin element? That's just dumb. Don't look gift satire in the mouth.
Last edited by RobVarak on Mon Sep 22, 2008 7:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
XBL Gamertag: RobVarak
"Ok I'm an elitist, but I have a healthy respect for people who don't measure up." --Aaron Sorkin
dougb wrote:
In terms of the U.S. Election the issue may help Democrats for than Republicans. Whoever wins the election may end up feeling like their victory was somewhat pyrrhic.
Best wishes,
Doug
When you look at the next guy is facing...
War on Terrorism that was re-directed. They still want to bomb stuff. We never really addressed the extremists or the ones on the fringe that could be persuaded to no be extremists.
War in Iraq - Let's see the surge worked meaning that our military presence is needed for security of Iraq. So then you can't really draw down troops.
Financial Mess
A Wall Street that reminds a lot of people like the gilded age fat cats. (Think Standard Oil)
A congress that reminds a lot of people of the gilded age of fat cats.
That's just today's headlines.
But I would imagine that Roosevelt didn't think, "Hey this jobs sucks but atleast I'll eat better than those schlubs standing in the soup line."
Interesting you reference Roosevelt - there was a link to one of his fire side chats on a website with the comment that it sounded like it could apply pretty well today (or in the not too distant future). I think the New Deal will be looking pretty good again in retrospect if things continue to unravel. It's quite possible that there are going to be a lot more people dependent on the remains of the welfare state in the not too distant future.
Best wishes,
Doug
"Every major sport has come under the influence of organized crime. FIFA actually is organized crime" - Charles Pierce
Jared wrote:
Shorter Instapundit: Let's deal with the problem caused by stupidity by banks and borrowers that have disproportionately benefited the rich...by more regressive taxation and cutting programs that help the poor.
You're pretending that these problems weren't already major long before the recent troubles (which have disproportionately hurt the rich, as well).
I think there are two issues, and neither is really related to the subprime stuff: one is that these entitlement programs are headed down a slow road to insolvency and no one has proposed a realistic solution, and the other is that many voters have no incentive to vote for candidates who will run the country well, because they are shielded from the direct harmful consequences when they put an idiot in office.
I am not in favor of regressive taxation, but I do think everyone should have a stake in how well government is run, even if it is small. If you personally help elect morons, you should share in the suffering they cause. That goes for Bush supporters as well. If you re-elect a guy who runs a deficit waging war and creating yet another bloated bureaucracy with Homeland Security, you shouldn't be crying about tax hikes to pay for it.
dougb wrote:
In terms of the U.S. Election the issue may help Democrats for than Republicans. Whoever wins the election may end up feeling like their victory was somewhat pyrrhic.
Best wishes,
Doug
On one hand, no reasonable person will blame the new president for what he's inherited, at least initially.
On the other hand, a lot of the mess during the Carter Administration, which ended up costing him a second term, was precipitated by mistakes made by the Nixon Administration, such as wage and price controls.
I think there's an opportunity for Obama to pull a Reagan and make Democrats the dominant party in the White House for the next 20 years if he can right things.
Also, upcoming vacancies on the Supreme Court alone make this year's election a major prize.
SNL does a skit poking fun at the NY Times' pro-Obama bias and Republicans are upset because of the Palin element? That's just dumb. Don't look gift satire in the mouth.
It's fine, really. But I'm telling you, the media would be all over this as racist, hateful, whatever. You know it.
dougb wrote:
In terms of the U.S. Election the issue may help Democrats for than Republicans. Whoever wins the election may end up feeling like their victory was somewhat pyrrhic.
Best wishes,
Doug
On one hand, no reasonable person will blame the new president for what he's inherited, at least initially.
On the other hand, a lot of the mess during the Carter Administration, which ended up costing him a second term, was precipitated by mistakes made by the Nixon Administration, such as wage and price controls.
I think there's an opportunity for Obama to pull a Reagan and make Democrats the dominant party in the White House for the next 20 years if he can right things.
Also, upcoming vacancies on the Supreme Court alone make this year's election a major prize.
No doubt there would be some initial honeymoon period - if conditions continue to deteriorate that could be a pretty short period of time.
I'm not sure that Reagan made the Republicans the dominant party outside of Presidential elections. I thought it wasn't until 1994 that the Republican's started to become much more successful in terms of Congressional control. And the Contract with America was really the thing that I think galvanized that win. The Democratic Party really hasn't seemed to ever recover from that loss.
But I could see a poor performance by the Republican's this election (loss of the Presidency and further losses in both houses) creating a lot of infighting among Republicans and an opportunity for the Democratic Party. If as you suggest Obama was credited with success in restoring the economy then I think that would definitely create a momentum in favor of the Democrats.'
Best wishes,
Doug
"Every major sport has come under the influence of organized crime. FIFA actually is organized crime" - Charles Pierce
SNL does a skit poking fun at the NY Times' pro-Obama bias and Republicans are upset because of the Palin element? That's just dumb. Don't look gift satire in the mouth.
It's fine, really. But I'm telling you, the media would be all over this as racist, hateful, whatever. You know it.
This kind of double standard, where the media fails to react, doesn't bother me. In fact, it's a relief. It's when they overreact and manufacture controversy that their double standard is annoying.
SNL does a skit poking fun at the NY Times' pro-Obama bias and Republicans are upset because of the Palin element? That's just dumb. Don't look gift satire in the mouth.
It's fine, really. But I'm telling you, the media would be all over this as racist, hateful, whatever. You know it.
No they wouldn't. The skit is uber-clear in that it's lampooning the Times for biased reporting, hence having them look for an incest angle in the story when there is absolutely no evidence of that, and getting a Pulitzer for “unproven, yet un-disproven incest in the Palin family”. In fact, the absurdity of the claim is at the core of the joke, which <b>makes fun of the NYT</b>.
RobVarak wrote:
SNL does a skit poking fun at the NY Times' pro-Obama bias and Republicans are upset because of the Palin element? That's just dumb. Don't look gift satire in the mouth.
It's fine, really. But I'm telling you, the media would be all over this as racist, hateful, whatever. You know it.
No they wouldn't. The skit is uber-clear in that it's lampooning the Times for biased reporting, hence having them look for an incest angle in the story when there is absolutely no evidence of that, and getting a Pulitzer for “unproven, yet un-disproven incest in the Palin family”. In fact, the absurdity of the claim is at the core of the joke, which <b>makes fun of the NYT</b>.
All about ratings....Whens the last time this dead show had any real attention?...Cmon SNL?...
I seem to remember when the press lampooned the New Yorker for their cartoon of the Obama's.
[url=http://sensiblecoasters.wordpress.com/][b]Sensible Coasters - A critique of sports games, reviews, gaming sites and news. Questionably Proofread![/b][/url]
Right now at 538.com (spell the numbers out to visit) they are predicting a decent electoral win for Obama and a close populist vote. States like New Mexico, Colorado, Michigan (I think), even Virginia have moved blue or blue'ish (lean Obama).
I think it's clear that the Palin bump is over. It's takes a few days for bumps to register so we should see if the bank problems moved any of the polls.
The debates are going to make it. I know that's a pretty obvious statement. If Obama slips, you can see McCain gain ground and return to his Palin bump levels. If McCain slips however, I think the stakes are much higher. If you just go by the polls, he's slipping and a poor performance could mean we all go home in the 3rd quarter.
In the veep debates, I think the pressure is on Palin. Do well and you energize the base. Do poorly and it brings McCain judgement into focus and you rally the anti-Palin crowd that wants to hate Palin. Now Joe Biden could basically go missing and that's not going to affect this race. He's getting very little press and all he has to do is not to lose it at the veep debates. Just sit there, be cordial, and do not attack Palin. Hell just pretend she isn't there and talk about issues. If Biden does that then he won't hurt Obama. I think that's what Biden's role is now -- to not hurt Obama.
On a side note, I think the debates will probably see Super Bowl like numbers. And you have to be proud of that -- at least people are watching.
[url=http://sensiblecoasters.wordpress.com/][b]Sensible Coasters - A critique of sports games, reviews, gaming sites and news. Questionably Proofread![/b][/url]
I think the debates will be huge, but only the main events...not the VP. It's easy to overinflate the value of the running mates during the regular news cycle, but when you have the big boys going toe-to-toe it puts the bottom of ticket into perspective. And the fact that there are 3 give a serial feel to the contest as opposed to the one-off of the VP debate.
The VP debate will be interesting because Palin has made such an impact in the national conversation about the campaign, and I do agree that at least the first Pres. debate and the VP debate should be widely watched.
XBL Gamertag: RobVarak
"Ok I'm an elitist, but I have a healthy respect for people who don't measure up." --Aaron Sorkin
Well looks like Axlerod and the rest of the boys in Chicago smacked Ol' Joe with a rolled up newspaper. Dignity is not the Chicago Way.
I was asked about an ad I’d never seen, reacting merely to press reports. As I said right then, I knew there was nothing intentionally personal in the criticism of Senator McCain’s views which look backwards not forwards and are out of touch with the new economic challenges we face today. Having now reviewed the ad, it is even more clear to me that given the disgraceful tenor of Senator McCain’s ads and their persistent falsehoods, his campaign is in no position to criticize, especially when they continue to distort Barack’s votes on an issue as personal as keeping kids safe from sexual predators.
Too. Damn. Funny.
XBL Gamertag: RobVarak
"Ok I'm an elitist, but I have a healthy respect for people who don't measure up." --Aaron Sorkin
RobVarak wrote:Well looks like Axlerod and the rest of the boys in Chicago smacked Ol' Joe with a rolled up newspaper. Dignity is not the Chicago Way.
I was asked about an ad I’d never seen, reacting merely to press reports. As I said right then, I knew there was nothing intentionally personal in the criticism of Senator McCain’s views which look backwards not forwards and are out of touch with the new economic challenges we face today. Having now reviewed the ad, it is even more clear to me that given the disgraceful tenor of Senator McCain’s ads and their persistent falsehoods, his campaign is in no position to criticize, especially when they continue to distort Barack’s votes on an issue as personal as keeping kids safe from sexual predators.
Too. Damn. Funny.
He's in the running for the next episode of Dan Quayle...man...
EDIT: On second thought, nah, he's not mangling the english language, so not Dan Quayle. But he's definitely gotten his leash yanked. Boy, he's gotta be hating this somewhere deep down...
I can only imagine the sh*tstorm in this thread and nationwide if this (highly unlikely) scenario were to play out.
On Nov. 5, the presidential election winds up in a electoral-college tie, 269-269, the Democrat-controlled House picks Sen. Barack Obama as president, but the Senate, with former Democrat Joe Lieberman voting with Republicans, deadlocks at 50-50, so Vice President Dick Cheney steps in to break the tie to make Republican Sarah Palin his successor.
