LawTalkers
Page 36 of 126 « First 263435 36 37384686 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Meet your new thread, same as the old thread. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=781)

SlaveNoMore 06-28-2007 05:15 PM
Shamnesty
 
Quote:
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So Bush's immigration bill failed, and he couldn't even get 1/3 of the Rs to support it.

Does he have any political capital left?
I cannot name a single "Republican voter" that I know that was behind that Bill.

In my opinion its not a question of political capital - it's a question of why he felt compelled to abandon his own party.

Replaced_Texan 06-28-2007 05:18 PM
Shamnesty
 
Quote:
Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I cannot name a single "Republican voter" that I know that was behind that Bill.

In my opinion its not a question of political capital - it's a question of why he felt compelled to abandon his own party.
I'm pretty sure Bob Perry supported that bill, as well as other Republican voters in the construction, agriculture and restaurant industries.

Tyrone Slothrop 06-28-2007 05:41 PM
FOX News viewers say: Turn the war over to Democrats.
 
  • If there is an all-out war between the United States and various radical Muslim groups worldwide, who would you rather have in charge — Democrats or Republicans?

    Democrats 41%

    Republicans 38%

    Both the same
    (not listed) 9%

    Don't know
    (not listed) 12%

linky

LessinSF 06-28-2007 06:57 PM
Don Asmussen
 
http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/06...adreporter.jpg

SlaveNoMore 06-28-2007 07:43 PM
Don Asmussen
 
I love that the "prankster" is that photo of the RedSox kid flipping the bird

Gattigap 06-28-2007 08:15 PM
Chaaaaaaarge!
 
Apropos of little, some conservatives are going just a teensy bit overboard with this result.
  • Today's defeat of the Senate amnesty bill was more than a run-of-the-mill legislative victory, representing as it did a self-organizing public's defeat of combined force of Big Business, (some of) Big Labor, Big Media, Big Religion, Big Philanthropy, Big Academia, and Big Government. So I looked at what else has happened on June 28 -- the closest parallel would appear to be the Battle of Monmouth in 1778, of the only two times when Gen. Washington managed to fight British regulars to a draw in a conventional battle. Because that's all this is -- a draw, because the open-borders folks aren't going to give up. It's just that they went from their usual tactics of piecemeal, behind-the-scenes victories, buried in appropriations bills and little-known courtrooms and bureaucratic offices, and tried to get the whole enchilada — trying to emulate something else that happened on June 28, the Turks' defeat of the Serbs at the Battle of Kosovo in 1389, leading to Ottoman conquest of all southeastern Europe.
No, that's not an Onion link. The NRO actually compared the defeat of the senate bill to the Battle of Monmouth.

sebastian_dangerfield 06-28-2007 08:39 PM
Shocking and Unexpected Development: Fox Champions Free Speech! News at 10.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
While I have some doubts about the Fairness Doctrine from a free speech perspective, as well as some doubts about its effectiveness in even achieving its stated goal, I am willing to overcome those doubts sufficiently to have a protracted debate in which Rupert Murdoch spends million of dollars attempting to buy every available member of Congress on either side of the aisle.

In other words, I'm willing to set aside my prinicples to order a hit on Fox, for the sheer entertainment value of it. Watching the hypocrites dance sounds like a good time.
Remember, Fox is the Right's lone voice on television. If the Left pushes the Fairness Doctrine debate, the result may be the very last thing it wants. If I were the Left, I'd try to copy Fox's business model.

The Left is so fucking stupid and sure of itself that it thinks Fox is succeeding because of the shrillness of its Right Wing rhetoric. Watch Fox a little more closely. It is succeeding because it is serving up tabloid news as salaciously as possible. The Left assumes the ideology drives the ratings. That's a small piece of it. Of all the things Fox is guilty of, slanting news is the least. It's real crime is how its dumbed down the news so quickly.

Like you, I'd abandon my principles for a Fairness Doctrine that forced smarter programming onto the networks to counter the idiot pap served to us now.

The Left would no doubt agree and suggest its views are somehow the more enlightened in an attempt to co-opt my position. Since it knows everything.

SlaveNoMore 06-28-2007 08:39 PM
Chaaaaaaarge!
 
Quote:
y Gattigap
Apropos of little, some conservatives are going just a teensy bit overboard with this result.
  • Today's defeat of the Senate amnesty bill was more than a run-of-the-mill legislative victory, representing as it did a self-organizing public's defeat of combined force of Big Business, (some of) Big Labor, Big Media, Big Religion, Big Philanthropy, Big Academia, and Big Government. So I looked at what else has happened on June 28 -- the closest parallel would appear to be the Battle of Monmouth in 1778, of the only two times when Gen. Washington managed to fight British regulars to a draw in a conventional battle. Because that's all this is -- a draw, because the open-borders folks aren't going to give up. It's just that they went from their usual tactics of piecemeal, behind-the-scenes victories, buried in appropriations bills and little-known courtrooms and bureaucratic offices, and tried to get the whole enchilada — trying to emulate something else that happened on June 28, the Turks' defeat of the Serbs at the Battle of Kosovo in 1389, leading to Ottoman conquest of all southeastern Europe.
No, that's not an Onion link. The NRO actually compared the defeat of the senate bill to the Battle of Monmouth.
One could argue this today's was the more important win.

SlaveNoMore 06-28-2007 08:41 PM
Shocking and Unexpected Development: Fox Champions Free Speech! News at 10.
 
Quote:
sebastian_dangerfield
Like you, I'd abandon my principles for a Fairness Doctrine that forced smarter programming onto the networks to counter the idiot pap served to us now.
The tiny blonde chick with the tremendous cans on "Age of Love" is hot.

sebastian_dangerfield 06-28-2007 08:45 PM
Shocking and Unexpected Development: Fox Champions Free Speech! News at 10.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The tiny blonde chick with the tremendous cans on "Age of Love" is hot.
I think the nudity to non-nudity ratio on our broadcast networks is the real crime. Where's the fairness there?

sebastian_dangerfield 06-28-2007 08:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Is this more or less troubling than Frist's thing with cats?
  • Before beginning the drive, Mitt Romney put Seamus, the family's hulking Irish setter, in a dog carrier and attached it to the station wagon's roof rack. He'd built a windshield for the carrier, to make the ride more comfortable for the dog.

    [snip]

    As the oldest son, Tagg Romney commandeered the way-back of the wagon, keeping his eyes fixed out the rear window, where he glimpsed the first sign of trouble. ''Dad!'' he yelled. ''Gross!'' A brown liquid was dripping down the back window, payback from an Irish setter who'd been riding on the roof in the wind for hours.

    As the rest of the boys joined in the howls of disgust, Romney coolly pulled off the highway and into a service station. There, he borrowed a hose, washed down Seamus and the car, then hopped back onto the highway.

link

How on Earth could you do that to your dog?
That's troubling? He doesn't drink alcohol OR caffiene and he's got a better portable tanning booth than John Edwards. Mitt Romney's a cyborg. without a soul and a liar who hasn't the nuts to stand firm on abortion. His hair might win some awards, but he's not winning jack. He's a three dollar bill.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 06-28-2007 09:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
That's troubling? He doesn't drink alcohol OR caffiene and he's got a better portable tanning booth than John Edwards. Mitt Romney's a cyborg. without a soul and a liar who hasn't the nuts to stand firm on abortion. His hair might win some awards, but he's not winning jack. He's a three dollar bill.
In Massachusetts, we like to think of him as a conservative John Kerry without the personality.

Diane_Keaton 06-28-2007 10:46 PM
TKO.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you can bear to watch, Coulter gets the worst of this exchange with Elizabeth Edwards and Chris Matthews.
I was going to post this link the other day. Edwards totally shamed her. Years ago, it used to be entertaining to read Coulter's columns. Now it's like watching a train wreck.

Diane_Keaton 06-28-2007 10:49 PM
FOX News viewers say: Turn the war over to Democrats.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
  • If there is an all-out war between the United States and various radical Muslim groups worldwide, who would you rather have in charge — Democrats or Republicans?

    Democrats 41%

    Republicans 38%

    Both the same
    (not listed) 9%

    Don't know
    (not listed) 12%

linky
It would be more interesting if they asked WHICH Dem or Repub they'd rather have in charge.

Hank Chinaski 06-28-2007 11:04 PM
FOX News viewers say: Turn the war over to Democrats.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
  • If there is an all-out war between the United States and various radical Muslim groups worldwide, who would you rather have in charge — Democrats or Republicans?

    Democrats 41%

    Republicans 38%

    Both the same
    (not listed) 9%

    Don't know
    (not listed) 12%

linky
this is as expected. most people wish there wasn't the war, so they'd pick the guy most likely to surrender his way out of it.

sebastian_dangerfield 06-28-2007 11:47 PM
TKO.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
I was going to post this link the other day. Edwards totally shamed her. Years ago, it used to be entertaining to read Coulter's columns. Now it's like watching a train wreck.
Edwards can't shame anything. She's got cancer, but so do about 5 million other people. It adds no gravity to her commentary, which was otherwise vacant grandstanding. Coulter played her like a fiddle. Ann probably sold another 2000 books and got herself booked on five more shows by proving she can get Democrats to tsk tsk her on national television.

Coulter's best ignored, and Edwards should stick to smiling next to her husband.

sebastian_dangerfield 06-28-2007 11:51 PM
FOX News viewers say: Turn the war over to Democrats.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
  • If there is an all-out war between the United States and various radical Muslim groups worldwide, who would you rather have in charge — Democrats or Republicans?

    Democrats 41%

    Republicans 38%

    Both the same
    (not listed) 9%

    Don't know
    (not listed) 12%

linky
"Neither" would have done 97%. And considering how Iraq's gone and Bush's approval #s, that thin margin of difference is more an embarrassment to Dems than Republicans.

Shape Shifter 06-29-2007 09:42 AM
FOX News viewers say: Turn the war over to Democrats.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
this is as expected. most people wish there wasn't the war, so they'd pick the guy most likely to surrender his way out of it.
To whom would they surrender?

eta: How do you think the Iraqis feel when dummy says he wants to turn Iraq into another Israel?

Hank Chinaski 06-29-2007 10:00 AM
FOX News viewers say: Turn the war over to Democrats.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Shape Shifter
To whom would they surrender?

eta: How do you think the Iraqis feel when dummy says he wants to turn Iraq into another Israel?
CAIR.

Hank Chinaski 06-29-2007 10:35 AM
FOX News viewers say: Turn the war over to Democrats.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Shape Shifter
eta: How do you think the Iraqis feel when dummy says he wants to turn Iraq into another Israel?
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...ith_a_Jew&only

Shape Shifter 06-29-2007 10:43 AM
FOX News viewers say: Turn the war over to Democrats.
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...ith_a_Jew&only
Now, was that smart? Was it shrewd? Was it good tactics? Or was it stupid?

sgtclub 06-29-2007 10:49 AM
Finally, Some Good News
 
  • WASHINGTON -- More than half of Americans say they wouldn't consider voting for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for president if she becomes the Democratic nominee, according to a new national poll made available to McClatchy Newspapers and NBC News.
    The poll by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research found that 52 percent of Americans wouldn't consider voting for Clinton, D-N.Y. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, was second in the can't-stand-'em category, with 46 percent saying they wouldn't consider voting for him.

    Clinton has long been considered a politically polarizing figure who would be a tough sell to some voters, especially many men, but also Clinton-haters of both genders.

    Thursday's survey provides a snapshot of the challenges she faces, according to Larry Harris, a Mason-Dixon principal.

    "Hillary's carrying a lot of baggage," he said. "She's the only one that has a majority who say they can't vote for her."

    Clinton rang up high negatives across the board, with 60 percent of independents, 56 percent of men, 47 percent of women and 88 percent of Republicans saying they wouldn't consider voting for her.

    Romney struggled most with women: 50.9 percent said they wouldn't consider voting for him.

    "It's the flip-flop of Hillary," Harris said of Romney. "One could suppose it's the Mormon issue -- we didn't ask follow-up questions -- but his religion is an issue."

    On name recognition, Clinton also led the 2008 presidential pack in voter disapproval, with 42 percent saying they recognized her name and were unfavorable toward her, versus 39 percent favorable.

    That gave her a double-digit lead in that bad-news category over Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, a Democrat. They each had 28 percent unfavorable recognition.

    Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani had the highest favorable recognition at 43 percent, with Clinton close behind at 39 percent. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was third at 36 percent, followed by McCain at 33 percent and Edwards at 32 percent.

    McCain rang up the highest favorable rating among independent voters with 39.4 percent, followed by Giuliani with 37.3 percent. Edwards scored well with independents, too, with 31.1 percent favorable; Obama had 28 percent favorable.

    The Mason-Dixon survey was conducted June 23-25 with 625 likely general-election voters. It has an error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points.


sebastian_dangerfield 06-29-2007 01:45 PM
Finally, Some Good News
 
Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
  • WASHINGTON -- More than half of Americans say they wouldn't consider voting for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for president if she becomes the Democratic nominee, according to a new national poll made available to McClatchy Newspapers and NBC News.
    The poll by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research found that 52 percent of Americans wouldn't consider voting for Clinton, D-N.Y. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, was second in the can't-stand-'em category, with 46 percent saying they wouldn't consider voting for him.

    Clinton has long been considered a politically polarizing figure who would be a tough sell to some voters, especially many men, but also Clinton-haters of both genders.

    Thursday's survey provides a snapshot of the challenges she faces, according to Larry Harris, a Mason-Dixon principal.

    "Hillary's carrying a lot of baggage," he said. "She's the only one that has a majority who say they can't vote for her."

    Clinton rang up high negatives across the board, with 60 percent of independents, 56 percent of men, 47 percent of women and 88 percent of Republicans saying they wouldn't consider voting for her.

    Romney struggled most with women: 50.9 percent said they wouldn't consider voting for him.

    "It's the flip-flop of Hillary," Harris said of Romney. "One could suppose it's the Mormon issue -- we didn't ask follow-up questions -- but his religion is an issue."

    On name recognition, Clinton also led the 2008 presidential pack in voter disapproval, with 42 percent saying they recognized her name and were unfavorable toward her, versus 39 percent favorable.

    That gave her a double-digit lead in that bad-news category over Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, a Democrat. They each had 28 percent unfavorable recognition.

    Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani had the highest favorable recognition at 43 percent, with Clinton close behind at 39 percent. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was third at 36 percent, followed by McCain at 33 percent and Edwards at 32 percent.

    McCain rang up the highest favorable rating among independent voters with 39.4 percent, followed by Giuliani with 37.3 percent. Edwards scored well with independents, too, with 31.1 percent favorable; Obama had 28 percent favorable.

    The Mason-Dixon survey was conducted June 23-25 with 625 likely general-election voters. It has an error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Add in a Bloomberg run and she's got major problems. The thing with Hillary is the Right and Moderate voters haven't really accepted her inevitable crowning as the Dem nominee. They won't realize it until after the Dem Convention, and most moderate Republicans and independents who would vote for a moderate Democrat are going to be REALLY fucking angry at their choices.

Rudy could beat her because NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY who owns a business or works hard for a living an intends to try to keep his or her decent standard of living will EVER vote for Hillary Clinton.

She'll get the "gimme my benefits" crowds, the clueless soccer moms and college students and a smattering of people who believe her "I'm moving to the middle" bullshit. Most of all of that is concentrated in the cities. She'll take the blue states and sail whover the GOP runs into the White House on red and purple state anti-Hillary vote.

The Democrats' biggest problem is the Electoral College. And the longer I live, the more I see the wisdom of that system.

Hank Chinaski 06-29-2007 02:00 PM
Finally, Some Good News
 
Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Add in a Bloomberg run and she's got major problems. The thing with Hillary is the Right and Moderate voters haven't really accepted her inevitable crowning as the Dem nominee. They won't realize it until after the Dem Convention, and most moderate Republicans and independents who would vote for a moderate Democrat are going to be REALLY fucking angry at their choices.

Rudy could beat her because NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY who owns a business or works hard for a living an intends to try to keep his or her decent standard of living will EVER vote for Hillary Clinton.

She'll get the "gimme my benefits" crowds, the clueless soccer moms and college students and a smattering of people who believe her "I'm moving to the middle" bullshit. Most of all of that is concentrated in the cities. She'll take the blue states and sail whover the GOP runs into the White House on red and purple state anti-Hillary vote.

The Democrats' biggest problem is the Electoral College. And the longer I live, the more I see the wisdom of that system.
Just off the top of my head, I would say she'd lose Michigan, Pa. regardless of who she's against, and even NY- if its Rudy.

Shape Shifter 06-29-2007 02:05 PM
Finally, Some Good News
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Just off the top of my head, I would say she'd lose Michigan, Pa. regardless of who she's against, and even NY- if its Rudy.
I think you're overestimating Rudy's popularity in NY. Bloomie would probably give her more of a run for her money.

Gattigap 06-29-2007 02:10 PM
Finally, Some Good News
 
Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Rudy could beat her because NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY who owns a business or works hard for a living an intends to try to keep his or her decent standard of living will EVER vote for Hillary Clinton.
I agree with your sentiment, if not your particular reasoning or level of conviction. I don't support Hillary, largely because I'm fucking sick and tired of having another national conversation about whether a Clinton or a Bush sucks worse. It will have been 20 years - can't we move on to an argument over whether some other President sucks?

That said, I fear that Hillary will get the nomination. Many, though not all as you allege, of her supporters will be bubble-headed.

sebastian_dangerfield 06-29-2007 02:12 PM
Finally, Some Good News
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I think you're overestimating Rudy's popularity in NY. Bloomie would probably give her more of a run for her money.
2. Rudy's not liked in NYC, and NYC never votes GOP in a Pres election.

Hillary could win PA easily. The lowest common denominator of "gimme my social security and drugs and keep them Mexicans out" contingent is very high in this state. Half the fucking state is on worker's compensation and has union cards or is old and undereducated.

Tyrone Slothrop 06-29-2007 02:14 PM
Finally, Some Good News
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Gattigap
That said, I fear that Hillary will get the nomination. Many, though not all as you allege, of her supporters will be bubble-headed.
Obama is going to outraise her this quarter, in total $$$ and # of donations.

Hank Chinaski 06-29-2007 02:15 PM
Finally, Some Good News
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I think you're overestimating Rudy's popularity in NY. Bloomie would probably give her more of a run for her money.
she loses outside the city, even if hitler ran against her. Rudy will draw well in the city, he doesn't need to win it.

Gattigap 06-29-2007 02:16 PM
Finally, Some Good News
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Obama is going to outraise her this quarter, in total $$$ and # of donations.
Yep. I also take heart in the argument that his current stall in the polls is due to Hillary (a) being better known nationally, and (b) having the Hillary machine behind her, both advantages which will erode the farther we get into the fall.

Shape Shifter 06-29-2007 02:19 PM
Finally, Some Good News
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
she loses outside the city, even if hitler ran against her. Rudy will draw well in the city, he doesn't need to win it.
But the city is where the people are. As far as I know, NY is not on the electoral college system.

sebastian_dangerfield 06-29-2007 02:25 PM
Finally, Some Good News
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Gattigap
I agree with your sentiment, if not your particular reasoning or level of conviction. I don't support Hillary, largely because I'm fucking sick and tired of having another national conversation about whether a Clinton or a Bush sucks worse. It will have been 20 years - can't we move on to an argument over whether some other President sucks?

That said, I fear that Hillary will get the nomination. Many, though not all as you allege, of her supporters will be bubble-headed.
There's a debate there? I thought the ranking was pretty simple:

1. Bush I and Clinton (tie)
2. Bush II

We can't forget, however, that a president's economic record is usually gifted to him by the circumstances he walks into. Clinton did well in this regard, but deserves much credit for behaving like a good moderate fiscal Republican throughout his time in office. I like the fact that he was self-centered and only concerned with polls because that caused him to do things that pleased his constituents in the center. His wife does not draw from the same crowd and the circumstances she enters are different. There is much damage that can be done if we install an ideologue bent on allowing govt's nanny roll to be expanded at cost to us.

The solutions to the problems are always less govt. And by that I also mean also drawing down our defense expenditures and taking a more limited role abroad. This pump priming the defense industry and others that contract with DC by adding new depts and programs is not a solution. Bush should privatize as many govt functions as he can, but he should not create new ones simply to add to the list of things we can pay Halliburton or Boeing or Lockheed to do.

But fuck it. The Dems have the solution, right? Tax the piss out of private equity and raise the capital gains rate. Cazart! A magic bullet... Dumb bastards.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 06-29-2007 02:32 PM
Finally, Some Good News
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
she loses outside the city, even if hitler ran against her. Rudy will draw well in the city, he doesn't need to win it.
Hilary has always done well upstate, especially in Western New York and the low- to mid- Hudson Valley. Rudy would take Long Island, and might win the Rome/Syracuse/Utica belt, but he'd lose Buffalo and be lucky to draw in Rochester and the Finger Lakes.

No way Hilary loses NY. The fight would be Pennsylvania/Ohio/Michigan/Wisc./Florida, and she has a good Florida base.

Hank Chinaski 06-29-2007 02:34 PM
Finally, Some Good News
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Hilary has always done well upstate, especially in Western New York and the low- to mid- Hudson Valley. Rudy would take Long Island, and might win the Rome/Syracuse/Utica belt, but he'd lose Buffalo and be lucky to draw in Rochester and the Finger Lakes.

No way Hilary loses NY. The fight would be Pennsylvania/Ohio/Michigan/Wisc./Florida, and she has a good Florida base.
ohio? please. florida? she kissed arafat- that'll cause the old Jews to pay attention to the chads they're punching. and trust me, she loses Mi. sebby, she won't win a traditional union state. won't happen. Pa is R the moment she is nominated.

Again, I am the only one here that ever actually worked in politics. Why you all argue with me is beyond me, and frankly beyond the boundaries of sanity, but let me just say this- GGG, please, go work to get hillary nominated. i may even donate.

sebastian_dangerfield 06-29-2007 02:36 PM
Finally, Some Good News
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Obama is going to outraise her this quarter, in total $$$ and # of donations.
He's a much better candidate but equally unelectable. The old vote the most. This is one of the last elections where the remaining die hard racists and soft racists who don't openly discrminate but would be uncomfrotable with a black president will still be alive to cast ballots. That's an ugly fact, but one he isn't escaping.

It's also the least of his problems. He's inexperienced, looks too young and will probably have a hard time translating his fuzzy platform to concrete policies because he enjoys a lot of his popularity right now because no one really understands what he stands for and he gets to look like he's above the fray when the other candidates get shrill with one another on detailed policy points. He's only getting the better of Hillary and Edwards right now because he's (a) much smarter than both and (b) in a category of public speaking ability about five rungs above both. Barack's as good as Bill Clinton was on his feet, but that's only going to get him so far. To get enough moderate votes to win he's going to have to tack to the center, which may confuse and alienate a lot of people who got behind him for what they think he stands for because of his color. He knows the future, both politically and policy-wise is the center, and he's trying to figure out how how to drag the left wing of his supporters to that point. He knows Hillary Care can't be achieved and he knows he's going to have to level with the "gimme my benefits" crowd soon, and when he does it will hurt him.

He's really running for 2112.

Shape Shifter 06-29-2007 02:38 PM
Finally, Some Good News
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
ohio? please. florida? she kissed arafat- that'll cause the old Jews to pay attention to the chads they're punching. and trust me, she loses Mi. sebby, she won't win a traditional union state. won't happen. Pa is R the moment she is nominated.

Again, I am the only one here that ever actually worked in politics. Why you all argue with me is beyond me, and frankly beyond the boundaries of sanity, but let me just say this- GGG, please, go work to get hillary nominated. i may even donate.
Didn't you predict Republicans would maintain control of Congress in '06?

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 06-29-2007 02:41 PM
Finally, Some Good News
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
ohio? please. florida? she kissed arafat- that'll cause the old Jews to pay attention to the chads they're punching. and trust me, she loses Mi. sebby, she won't win a traditional union state. won't happen. Pa is R the moment she is nominated.

Again, I am the only one here that ever actually worked in politics. Why you all argue with me is beyond me, and frankly beyond the boundaries of sanity, but let me just say this- GGG, please, go work to get hillary nominated. i may even donate.
If you'd worked in politics, you'd look at past numbers combined with polling to figure this stuff out.

I'm not ready to back Hillary, but dismissing her doesn't make sense either. But one reason to back Obama is that I do think he would win Michigan, while I fear it being a battleground state with Hill, and I think Ohio is a battleground state for both of them.

But go check some Florida numbers. Hillary plays in Florida.

SlaveNoMore 06-29-2007 02:42 PM
Finally, Some Good News
 
Quote:
[i]As far as I know, NY is not on the electoral college system.
I blame the teachers unions.

sebastian_dangerfield 06-29-2007 02:43 PM
Finally, Some Good News
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
ohio? please. florida? she kissed arafat- that'll cause the old Jews to pay attention to the chads they're punching. and trust me, she loses Mi. sebby, she won't win a traditional union state. won't happen. Pa is R the moment she is nominated.

Again, I am the only one here that ever actually worked in politics. Why you all argue with me is beyond me, and frankly beyond the boundaries of sanity, but let me just say this- GGG, please, go work to get hillary nominated. i may even donate.
The hardline old GOP voters in the counties of PA are dying of and leaving unemployed union workers in their place. Trust me. PA is not turning red. It's going from blueish purple to royal navy blue. They're raising powere prices across the stae right now and the lower middle class is infuriated. Their battle cry is "Why deregulation? So we can make some more Wall St people rich?"

David Brooks wrote a great column a few weeks back about the ignorance of the sort of people who fill PA. He was explaining them in the context of their fear of immigration. I can't recall the title, but if you look his name up, I'm sure you'll find it. He drew a perfect picture of PA. AND we have Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, which are as blue as it gets. AND Ed Rendell as our governor. Hillary will win this state. Close, but she will win.

Shape Shifter 06-29-2007 02:45 PM
Finally, Some Good News
 
Quote:
Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I blame the teachers unions.
They're also secretly the force behind congestion pricing.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:22 PM.
Page 36 of 126 « First 263435 36 37384686 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com