Uhu….
10410276_426508350839601_7511936324842547195_n.jpg
Presidential Election (as a current event- watch the tone or it's gone)
-
McCain-Feingold – the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.
McCain-Kennedy – the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.
McCain-Lieberman – the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry – through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases – in American history.
McCain-Kennedy-Edwards – the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.
McCain-Re-importation of Drugs – a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety since the FDA will NOT be monitoring drugs from OTHER nations.
These are NOT conservative programs! These are liberal programs! They seek to expand the power of the central government! McCain will never get the electoral vote for President if the republicans remember all these liberal policies he has forged and pushed to a vote.
And let’s not forget the group of 14 that stopped Republicans from forcing judge appointments to get a normal 51% yea vote to be appointed instead of the 61% that the democrats forced with their ridiculous antics filibustering every nominee that was sent up.
-
I understand where y’all are coming from.
However…
Religious Right is an automatic loss outside of the South.
That trashes Huckabee (much as I hate to say it since he is a Fair Tax supporter). Mormonism is “devil worship” in the South.Again, hate to say it, but Romney has no chance of winning anything south of Maryland and east of Texas. He is also weak in New England and on the West coast. That means Romney LOSES.
The Republicans simply have not put a candidate forward that can beat Hillary. They CAN beat Obama, but not Hillary (racism beats out sexism). As a Libertarian, I am not happy about that fact, but at present I have to say that President Clinton (Mrs, #44) is highly probable in the current field.
-
I agree with switch’s assement. I also think the Democratic canidate will win this election. Look at what happened with the Democrats in '04 after trying to appeal to the more fringe elements of the party none of the Democratic canidates were electabile to mainstream America. I think the Republicans will end up doing the same this year. I also think that Reaganomics regurgitated is not going to sell very well by the time of the national elections when the country is in a reccession.
-
@ncscswitch:
It is a shame that no candidate has that ultra pragmatic position on illegals… Draconian enforcement against employers who hire illegals… problem solved, and the illegals go home at their own expense. Not even Tancredo who is now out of the race embraced that simple, practical and REVENUE GENERATING solution.
There is a simple reason for that, Switch. Do that, and you SHUT DOWN the entire construction industry in this country. Outside of Union-controlled areas up North, easily 80% of your labor on construction projects are undocumented illegals (think carpenters, roofers, drywall installers, brick layers, etc.). You shut down construction, you are guaranteed a recession for a VERY LONG time. The problem is not, per se, illegal immigration. The problem is a labor SHORTAGE in construction in particular coupled with absurdly low legal immigration quotas which forces these labor shortages to be met, through the “iron law” of supply and demand (read Adam Smith), through illegal immigrants. Fix our broken immigration policy which is based on short-sighted and nativist anti-immigrant bias (nothing new under the sun in that respect in this country – always has been that way) on the one hand, encourage investment in Latin America (on a non-exploitive basis) to lift those economies whose stagnant nature drives people here in the first place, and you have the beginnings of a workable solution. Throwing up a wall and hiring 1000 more border guards just pushes us further in the wrong direction because it denies and defies economic reality.
I will also point at that, as a construction lawyer, I have counseled NUMEROUS legal immigrants to this country (including Russians, Albanians, Croatians, etc.) who are entrepenuers and investors in our economy who have come over here with basically nothing and have created their own businesses, thereby creating jobs and, through competition, kept costs down. From my observation, it would appear legal immigrant-related businesses are largely replacing businesses started by natural born Americans in fields like carpentry, drywall and roofing for the simple reason that natural-born Americans no longer pursue these trades, by and large. Instead, the children of roofers and carpenters are going to college, or just getting by on the old man’s money (or, worse, living paycheck to paycheck), with no ambition to start their own businesses. Basically, without the “fresh blood” that new immigrants provide, I feel our country would lose its “edge” and enter into a long, slow slide into mediocrity. In fact, we might already be on that path.
So what does this have to do with the election? I have no idea – none of the candidates are addressing anything substantive, but just re-gurgitating old, largely irrelevant slogans. Romney and Guiliani are the worst offenders so far – based on their ads that I have seen. Huckabee is just an evangelical nut with a smooth delivery (which, delivery-wise, is more than you can say for Romney, that’s for sure). The Democrat nominee, whomever that might be, has to have the edge after 8 years of Bush (at 37% or whatever his approval rating is, not many Republicans like him either), but McCain may just be the one candidate who would stand a chance against Hillary or Obama as one who is definitely NOT a Bush clone who could still draw enough independents and Republicans (and even a few Democrats) who would have qualms about turning over the most powerful office in the world to a Hillary or an Obama, neither of whom truly have the experience the job requires (or should require). Of course, in retrospect, neither did Bush . . .
-
I disagree, a44, Reagonomics was elected during the worst recession this nation had ever seen under President Carter.
And with this being the WORST Congress in the history of the nation, with the lowest approval rating EVER, the Republicans have a lot of propaganda they can use. Things like: “Look at their leadership in Congress, they already screwed that up, do you want them to screw up the White House too???” And the Betray-Us ads will resurge to remind us of why we shouldn’t give the power of the military back to the democrats. Sound clips of influential democrats, like Kennedy, Murtha, Reid and Durbin slandering our troops will be played over and over and over again.
You guys seem to forget that the democrats have done some pretty bad things and that the Republicans could wisen up and play dirty politics and win despite President Bush’s approval ratings (which, for the record, are significantly higher then Congress’s.)
-
Reagan was elected mostly on the hostage crisis as I recall. Yes the economy was in bad shape under Carter but in a different way from what will be happening by fall of next year. What has passed so far is just the tip of the iceberg and has been along time coming for various reasons. I would not be surprised if we went into a full scale depression.
Also consider that the average American is nowhere near as politically savvy as posters on a site such as this so the approval ratings for congress I think will not matter. I have noticed that the Dems are playing it very safe this time around after '04 and that the Republicans are acting like the Dems who figured anybody could be beat Bush. Ie. all your arguments and it will be a cake walk slam for the Republicans.
-
viacom took the video off of youtube. probably b/c it would of helped huckabee too much b/c its so freakin halarious. viacom is not a friend of republicans. :x
Probably because it was in violation of copyright. That’s generally the reason why.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom#Copyright_complaints_against_YouTube
-
@Cmdr:
McCain-Feingold – the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.
McCain-Kennedy – the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.
McCain-Lieberman – the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry – through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases – in American history.
McCain-Kennedy-Edwards – the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.
McCain-Re-importation of Drugs – a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety since the FDA will NOT be monitoring drugs from OTHER nations.
These are NOT conservative programs! These are liberal programs! They seek to expand the power of the central government! McCain will never get the electoral vote for President if the republicans remember all these liberal policies he has forged and pushed to a vote.
And let’s not forget the group of 14 that stopped Republicans from forcing judge appointments to get a normal 51% yea vote to be appointed instead of the 61% that the democrats forced with their ridiculous antics filibustering every nominee that was sent up.
It’s exactly these actions that make McCain poison to the conservatives. It’s no secret that he’s the darling of the left-wing media, and that a large part of his support comes from independents. That helps him in states like NH, but when we get past those states and he has to run in “Republican only” primaries his support will melt away, just like it did in 2000.
-
No, Carter was such a bad president that serious thoughts were given to splitting the office up into multiple positions because, it was felt, that no one man could do the job anymore.
Then we got Reagan and the gas lines ended, unemployment went down, home sales went up, and life began to normalize.
Now we have a democrat controlled legislature and the economy that had gone up every month dropped every month, we have a congress with the worst approval ratings ever, a congress that has yet to pass a budget for 2007 and one that has missed the mark on illegal immigrants, bank financing and interest rates.
If we had a smart republican running, and we don’t, he wouldn’t just win, he’d win as big as Reagan, IMHO. The people are looking for a strong conservative - not a democrat wearing a red tie like we have in Bush.
-
indeed i disagree passionately with those things McCain did. but i agree with him on foreign policy, and domestic policy against terrorism. i’m sure he’ll outsource “24” style interrogation methods to some country….so we dont have to. that works for me. whatever saves us from another attack.
and even with his faults shown by jen, man do i think he’d be better than any liberal viewpoints…and so would every other republican…that doesnt just seethe with hatred of McCain but decides that he’d be better to protect our nation and he will defend america’s social values and try to get our society back out of the gutter.
and mollari…McCains winning in s.carolina. thats something to think about. all conservatives will flock to the polls to keep hillary out. or most anyways. and obama who on all issues has never reached across the aisle politically he has been a staunch left soldier. more so than hillary. people would flock to vote for anyone but him either. but for defense in these times…nobody can say any other candidate is better and more qualified than McCain.
-
I’m pulling for Giuliani. Any other Giuliani supporters out there?
-
Here is an article that relates to the Prez that I saw today, which just leaves me in stitches. Wow.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322646,00.html
Not trying to fool anyone anymore, I guess.
-
Why hasn’t anyone raised the fact that Hillary let a racist comment slip on Sunday yet? :P
Anyway, that’s a pretty big gaffe, basically saying that Martin Luther King Jr. was cute, but relatively ineffective, that it took a rich white man to pass legislation (Lyndon B. Johnson-D) to make any progress at all.
Wonder how that’s going to play with the black community, which makes up a big portion of the democratic party. Maybe they’ll rally more behind Obama now? At the least, this is GOING to hurt her in the general election!
-
@Cmdr:
Anyway, that’s a pretty big gaffe, basically saying that Martin Luther King Jr. was cute, but relatively ineffective, that it took a rich white man to pass legislation (Lyndon B. Johnson-D) to make any progress at all.
Clinton had a few things going against her even before this, but she really blasted herself with that one. Lol.
I’m not a Clinton fan, personally. She strikes me as someone with more ambition than anything else.
-
Granted, but now I think it would be both irresponsible and rather stupid of the Democrats to nominate her for President. Lord knows that any intelligent republican campaign will be blowing that horn in every black neighborhood throughout the United States driving a wedge between the Democrats and the Blacks in this nation now that she would never win the White House.
After all, here is a woman who’s entire campaign has been to tear down the black guy, to prevent him from taking his rightful place at the table (as far as he, and some of his group see it) and then she besmirches one of their two greatest leaders and heros of all time (the other being Malcolm X.)
I dunno, I think this might knock her out of the running. But I find myself, awkwardly, rooting for her now! (Because we could put up just about any Republican and beat her now.)
-
I have heard that even the BET guy that helped get this all started is on Clinton’s side that this was NOT racist.
Of course it all goes to my belief that if you are looking for racism in something, you WILL find it.
I know what Hillary was trying to get out with her comments, and while I despise the woman… She actually WAS correct. It was not sit ins and marches and speeches that got the Civil Rights Act of 1964 signed into law, it was the leadership and signature of a sitting President.
Hillary’s comments were designed to show the difference between the two types of actions… one that brings headlines and public attention, and another type of action that brings real change backed by the power of government to enforce it.
So, I don;t think she was being racist… but I still don;t like her.
-
I disagree. If MLK had not done what he did, then LBJ would not have been pressured by the people to do anything about it and thus, nothing would have been done.
LBJ was weak and caved into pressure by the people. He is not the hero and that’s what Hillary was trying to paint him out to be. The basic message was:
Obama may have hopes and dreams, but hopes and dreams are irrellevant. It will always take a rich white person to do it, and a poor black man will never accomplish anything.
At least, that’s what I heard from her speech. Then again, I noticed that the only time she cries is when she’s losing, and only as a political gambit, so that kind of colors my perceptions of everything she does. With her, there are no “weak” moments, not “accidents” no “coincidents.” Everything is a calculated, measured action and only when it goes wrong does she do something about it like apologize or fire someone in her staff.
This is a very cold, very conniving woman who is attempting to seek power over all of us. I don’t trust her.
-
Hillary’s point though is simply…
MLK w/o the action of LBJ: No Civil Rights Act COULD have happened.
LBJ alone COULD have enacted the Civil Rights Act w/o MLKWhich is true, as far as it goes…
-
@ncscswitch:
Hillary’s point though is simply…
MLK w/o the action of LBJ: No Civil Rights Act COULD have happened.
LBJ alone COULD have enacted the Civil Rights Act w/o MLKWhich is true, as far as it goes…
LBJ alone would not have enacted the Civil Rights Act.
MLK alone, would have eventually agitated any president to pass it. JFK would have, if he had lived long enough, and without MLK. But LBJ wasn’t interested until the civil unrest got so hard to control he had to do it.
The way Hillary said it, and I don’t care what she MEANT, what she SAID was that MLK was worthless, LBJ did it all and MLK did nothing but commit civil disobedience and cause domestic unrest.
And it is THAT message that will haunt her campaign from this day forward. That, the illegal fund raising, and all the rest. Meanwhile, she’s attempting to smear the black man, and keep him from getting ahead so she, a white woman, can take power. Another act that will haunt her campaign.
Either way, she’s damned if she does and damned if she don’t. If she does win, in November, I suspect she’ll have significantly less of a mandate then President Bush started his second term with.
-
well johnson did state with signing the civil rights act that he probably lost the south for the democratic party for good. and more sinster political machine may not have done it. so mlk might have needed johnson, at that time. maybe not.
Suggested Topics
