Keep dreaming..... Superdelegates are not definately pledged and are ELECTED officials which means they will go the way of the popular vote in their state. Not that we aren't looking forward to Ann Coulter coming over to the convention and giving a great stump speech for Hillary!
Hillary was gathering her super delegates often and early. Hence, when Obama took Iowa, Hillary was actually ahead of the game..she had the pledged super delegates. A super delegate is the insurance policy that the DNC took out to assure that the voters didn't make a mistake like they did in 1972.
I would send you to the DNC website to view the rules via this link, http://www.demconvention.com/a/2007/03/delegate..., that worked up until this week, but it appears that they had to take the info down?
UNPLEDGED AND PLEDGED PARTY LEADERS AND ELECTED OFFICIAL DELEGATES
The procedure to be used for certifying unpledged party leader and elected official delegates is as follows: Not later than March 1, 2008, the Secretary of the Democratic National Committee shall officially confirm to each State Democratic Chair the names of the following unpledged delegates who legally reside in their respective state and who shall be recognized as part of their state’s delegation unless any such member has publicly expressed support for the election of, or has endorsed, a presidential candidate of another political party;
1. The individuals recognized as members of the DNC (as set forth in Article Three, Sections 2 and 3 of the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States); and,
2. The Democratic President and the Democratic Vice President of the United States, if applicable; and,
3. All Democratic members of the United States House of Representatives and all Democratic members of the United States Senate; and,
4. The Democratic Governor, if applicable; and,
5. All former Democratic Presidents, all former Democratic Vice Presidents, all former Democratic Leaders of the U.S. Senate, all former Democratic Speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic Minority Leaders, as applicable, and all former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee.
Hope this helps..as you can see, the DNC has taken away the right to elect and gave themselves the right to select!
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Hillary Clinton is forecast to easily win today in Massachusetts. However, one of that state's superdelegates is MA elected official Teddy Kennedy, who has already endorsed someone else.
Will Swimmer now switch to Mrs. Bill?
Peejz
· 1 year ago
By the rules of the DNC, he can cast his Super Delegate vote to Obama.
Peejz
· 1 year ago
By the rules of the DNC, he can cast his Super Delegate vote to Obama.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Massachusetts rejects not only the Kennedys but also their own Governor (whose father played with the Sun Ra horn section, by the way).
Hilly gets 57% of the Massholes. Very scary, especially since I live right up the road from these idiots.
Peejz
· 1 year ago
That helps her but good heavens!
The Grand Panjandrum
· 1 year ago
I'm here via Memeorandum and as a Democrat (who voted for Bill twice) you can rest assured that HRC and her husband will cede power when you pry the steering wheel of the ship of state from their cold, dead hands. BTW I voted for Obama today. Even some of us old liberals are sickened by the thought of what mischief ol'Bill might get himself into wandering around the White House with all that time on his hands.
Have a good'un, Cap'n Ed.
captained
· 1 year ago
Hope you visit again, and comment often!
Jim,MtnViewCA,USA
· 1 year ago
some time ago, MoveOn was saying "Now it’s our party. We bought it, we own it, and we’re going to take it back." Depending on the results today, the Dem Party may belong to Black people unless white liberals do a backroom deal.
unclesmrgol
· 1 year ago
The Democratic Party has fractured along sexual and racial lines. The only thing that can knit them together will be a black female candidate. I think neither Barack nor Hillary will settle for being Vice Presidential.
So, we have a possibility here -- Oprah, are you ready to be Vice Presidential?
The only possible Republican response in that case would be Condoleezza, who seems to have a musical career in mind after she leaves State.
Oprah, sadly, would beat Condoleezza. It's the entertainment value -- an accomplished talk show host against an accomplished Secretary of State and concert pianist. We can already guess who outranks whom in our television watching public's estimation...
Brad Bettin
· 1 year ago
If the SuperDupers give Hillary! the win, there'll be significant pressure on her and Obama to become running mates: Hill's crowd will tell her "you need him to win", Obama's will tell him "you can't afford refusing the offer - you'll be blamed for a loss." Both would be operating on the premise that Obama's supporters would likely bolt if he's not on the ticket urging them not to. Along those lines - - - - I'd expect factions to form in the SuperDupers, some of whom will send emissaries to Camp Clinton to tell them "Obama's the veep or you don't get our vote for the nomination."
If the converse happens - Obama is nominated - I doubt you'll see Hillary! as veep. One, I don't think her ego could take it - a Clinton as second-banana?!?!?!?; two, I think she'd rather go to the sidelines, root for Obama to lose & run in 2012 (at which time McCain would be 450 years old) than wait until 2016; three, Obama won't have the pressure to name Hillary! as veep that Hillary!'ll get about Obama. IMO, Hillary!'s backers in defeat aren't nearly as much a threat to sit out the election as Obama's would be (Team Obama is where the 'idealists' are).
Ralph Phelan
· 1 year ago
I don't assume there are a great deal of Republicans in my district, I sure wouldn't want to be president with her as my VP! I don't want to wake up dead in a DC park of apparent suicide.
MrLynn
· 1 year ago
It's about time we had an entertaining (i.e. contentious) convention!
I'm looking forward to summertime fun, courtesy of the Democrats!
/Mr Lynn
newton
· 1 year ago
And I thought there would be the political equivalent of a "dirty nuke" at the GOP Convention...
quickjustice
· 1 year ago
Bill and Hillary Clinton always play to win. Obama stands in their way. The Clintons will win this contest-- but at a high price to the Democrat Party.
Can the Republicans exploit this? Not if recent history is any indicator.
Ken
· 1 year ago
The Clinton's will let nothing get in the way of returning to the WH. If it fractures the party for the next several decades, so be it. There is no force as strong as those two with their eyes on the prize.
Monkei
· 1 year ago
Gee, isn't that what Rush, Sean, and Ann are all doing with the GOP party? Their thoughts, actions, and recent water carrying could divide the GOP in much the same way.
bamapachyderm
· 1 year ago
Exactly. They might just turn people off the GOP altogether, as well. They sure aren't doing a good job selling conservatism right now. :sigh:
Bogey
· 1 year ago
it is interesting that you have a barbituate and Viagra mixing college dropout and a burger flipper that are now supposedly the ahemmm...
"intellectual fathers" and "definers" of conservatism.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Uh, the Clintons would actually get to LIVE in the WH. If a GOP guy wins, the pundits may get to spend a night there, and jump up and down on the bed a la Markie Post.
Joseph McNulty
· 1 year ago
This will be solved by the expedient of a Hillary/Obama ticket. Obama will know that if Hillary wins, he will be her successor in four or eight years. If she loses, he will be her successor in four years. I wonder, however, if his desire to be "transormative" will cause him to turn down the veep slot. He apparently does not like Hillary (remember him saying airly the she is "likeable enough"? --, despite their make-out session that was mistakenly called a "debate"). He also will just seem to be "just another self-seeking politician" if he takes the veep slot (knowing that if they win, Hillary will see to it that he has no power), especially if he suspects (as I believe he does) that Hillary is a plodder, uninspired, and might lose. A few more years in the Senate and on the lecture circuit, and no one will probably even run against Obama for the nomination. I believe that he has the wind at his back and could win outright. The Kennedy endorsement is important only as a staw in the wind for the "super delegates." Kennedy has made his own assessment about Ogama's chances.
Bogey
· 1 year ago
early results just out from Georgia.
Obama won 86% of black vote..
BUT
he won 42% of the WHITE vote.
in Georgia.
smoked her in every single category except people over SIXTY.
Hilary Clinton, the candidate of the old and post menopausal women.
jr565
· 1 year ago
Didnt you just say you were going to vote for Clinton in a previous thread?
Bogey
· 1 year ago
I voted earlier today, asked for Dem ballot and voted for Obama.
jr565
· 1 year ago
Voting for both Obama or Mccain does say a lot about thier similarites. Are you suggesting that Mccain is a far lefty like Obama? or are you saying that Obama is actually a closet conservative. Or are you arguing out of a lack of principles in general? (ie you could go left, or you could go right, either way is ok with you - its all good). Do you think that you saying you would vote for Obama AND Mccain might make us fo think Obamas policies are dangerous for the country, take your opposition to Romney with a grain of salt? After all, you're going to vote for Obama.
Bogey
· 1 year ago
you're asking a lot of question which require complicated answers. but I will try to summarize (if you're really interested in my mindset that is)
1) I have ALWAYS liked McCain, donated money to him 2000 for 1st time ever giving money to politician (donated $ to Obama this year) . The fact the man will stand up to the most lunatic elements of his OWN party I count very very very highly in his favor. (just as I would in a Dem who stick it to his own when deserved)
2) I am inclined to vote against every single Republican I consider responsible for the disaster of the last dozen years - so I was naturally very inclined to vote Democratic this year (and remain so, unless McCain is an option) (I would consider Huckabee though)
3) talk of "principles" is at least this year a waste of time.. and my time especially. What were the principles of the Contract with America? what is a basic principle of conservative thought when it comes to "wars of choice? or nation-building?
ergo- what I am getting it is that the Repubs have hypocritically rejected almost every single "principle" they have laid claim to. (plus, I'm sick and tired of the sex and moralilty police that has sprung up)
4) Obama - I like the guy, I like the guy's story.. I like what the guy says -- EVEN if I remain very skeptical about the "liberal" approach to what the govt can do, vs what the open market can do. One thing that interests me about him is that a lot of his ideas and approaches aren't from the liberal orthodoxy playbook (e.g. no "mandate" for health care - I like the concept of individual choice as a libertarian/conservative)
5) I can't see how even a HRC govt can be any worse than the last 8 years. In fact, I would easily bet it'd be far better, because HRC, as much as I dislike her, could never be accused of being "incompetent" which is the first adjective for this last administration.
so that's a quick summary of how I feel.
others are free to feel differently and of course I am under no illusion nor desire that my ideas will influence someone else's.
jr565
· 1 year ago
Of course, Mccain was in congress during the last 12 years or so. Wouldn't that make him part of teh problem. You also mention war of choice and nation building. Er, wasn't Mccain on board for both of those? So taht would make you a hypocrite. Of course, since you're counting the past 12 years, wasn't clinton in charge for at least 4 of those years? So then woudn't he be part of the problem too? Why then wyould you vote for Clinton?
And why are you trolling on a conservative website again? I'm sure KOS culd use the extra content. But frankly, considering your complete lack of conservative principles I dont frankly care what you think of Romney or Mccain or Huckabee. they are not your candidate. I wouldn't expect you to vote for Romney, considering your non affiliation with the conservative movement.
Bogey
· 1 year ago
well I don't think McCain would have gone into Iraq the time W did and in the manner he did (though I could be wrong)
he has been the one steadfast voice against pork barrel spending in the Republican Congress. (one of the reasons I became a Republican was seeing the excesses of Tip O Neill Dem Congresses)
12 years.. that's because of Repub congress - hypocrites going against every tent of Contract with America - then wasting my time and everyone else's time by trying to impeach a President over getting blowjobs. So everyone who voted for the fellatio impeachment is on my "kick out" list.
lastly, I can troll wherever I want bud, and who the "f" are YOU to tell me where I can troll and what "conservative" principles are.
you probably wouldn't understand conservative if I spelled it out for you.
Have you ever read William F. Buckley? I'd bet not - you have ZERO idea what of a "conservative" is - it most certainly is not W and the Republican Congress over his tenure (and immediately prior)
Nathan
· 1 year ago
Pity Obama doesn't stand up to the extremists in the Dems: MoveOn.org, Daily Kos, Ted Kennedy
gaffo
· 1 year ago
Yes they are similar indeed.
I'm with Bogey - I like both. they are AUTHENTIC. That is why we like them.
And I guess you only like pandering fakes like Romney and Kerry.
You must like Kerry since he is no different than Romney.
yes?
You question Bogey's principles - well I question your's since you seem to only like fake flipfloppers - can we assume you lack any convictions whatsoever like the candidates you support?
just asking.
jr565
· 1 year ago
Hooray for you.
Bogey
· 1 year ago
thanks, I feel the same way. hooray for me.
Bogey
· 1 year ago
against Flippard? yes sir.
at least I know where Hilary stands.
gaffo
· 1 year ago
"flippard" - mitt you refereth no doubt.
haven't ya heard? Republicans just LOVE John Kerry now!!!
as long as he panders and flipflops in the right direction!!
hypocrites all.
DB M
· 1 year ago
Not all Republicans, of course. This one voted for Obama.
Bogey
· 1 year ago
my choices this year are Obama and McCain.
I will not vote for Flippard under any circumstance.
if it's between Obama and McCain I will have a difficult choice to make.
sven10077
· 1 year ago
Heh shades of Tweed are rearing their head I bet...
Jeff_from_Mpls
· 1 year ago
I am so pulling for Obama.
jonswift
· 1 year ago
Never let it be said that you aren't a dreamer, Captain.
Corsair
· 1 year ago
As much as I would like to see the Dem's tear their party apart like the Rep's are doing, It will probably come down to a slight win By HRC. If its not enough to win outright, she will talk Obama into being VP at the convention and he will accept - thereby avoiding the major problems.
MarkJ
· 1 year ago
Yeah, maybe HRC will melt Obama's heart with another Hillary Tearfest (TM).
Obama take the VP slot? Are you kidding? The Barackster would be nuts to do this: not only would he look like he got "promoted from the fields to the house," but if Hillary screws the pooch during her term then he'll go down with the "S.S. Clintanic" too.
Nope, Prince Charming would be better to go back to the Senate, get some more seasoning, "keep hope alive," snipe at Hillary's screwups from the sidelines, and do his "Sister Toldya" shtick 7/52/365 for the next four years.
philwynk
· 1 year ago
After what happened to Gore, Obama would be pretty stupid to accept the Vice Presidency. Obama is many things, but he's not stupid.
I think it's fairly likely that Obama will win the nomination, but if he doesn't, I'll be pretty shocked to see him on the ticket at all.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
Pho
· 1 year ago
If that happens like you say it might...
I'm going to love the fight that starts when Democrats start leveling stolen election charges back and forth at one another for a change.
Someone start cranking up the popcorn, cause that would be fun to watch.
essucht
· 1 year ago
Actually, what percentage of Democrat voters know that their vote collectively only counts for 80% or so of the Democrat primary?
I'd be intrigued to see some polling as to what your average Dem thinks of the fact Obama could not only win a majority of the votes cast, but a majority of the delagates from each state and still lose the primary to Clinton...
Speaking of which, didn't any of the Democrat party officials even consider reforming their primary system after their election 2000 temper tantrum?
It seems to me that if making sure the popular vote winner wins national elections is important enough to alter the US Constitution, it is surely important enough to alter the Dem primary format...no?
Peejz
· 1 year ago
Why is this being laid at the Clinton's feet and not at the rightful target, the DNC. The DNC is the one that set up these rules. The DNC wanted to make sure that the party and not the people were in charge. How is this the fault of the Clinton's?
newton
· 1 year ago
The Clintons control the party apparatus... remember? Howard Dean notwithstanding.
Peejz
· 1 year ago
I am not trying to defend the Clintons, but it appears I am. The DNC st up these rules with super delegates. Hillary got her super delegates. Why should the rules, set forth by the DNC not play out? As I noted way up near the top..the DNC had those rules available on line, up until this week..IMO, it looks like they don't want to answer for their rules..I hate doing this, but Hillary got her super delegates, why shouldn't she capitalize on them and why shouldn't the DNC be exposed for the frauds they are?
The Clintons didn't write these rules, nor did Howard Dean, but they are the rules and it looks like Dean has some explaining to do..
Bogey
· 1 year ago
btw. I'm beginning to think McCain will HAVE to make Huckabee the VP.
this will not heal all the fissures in the party.
but seems to me it'll heal many/most of them.
Willard isn't the answer.
there is no answer, there can only be the best possible "solution".
and that's probably McCain/Huckabee.
I like both guys (though Mike's creationism and "life amendment" fanaticism terrifies the crap out of me)
strange mix... but perhaps the most potent one.
but there's something else at work here.
the "Reagan Coalition" was created because of a vast distaste for the status quo, often bringing together disparate elements (fiscal conservatives and social conservatives, for e.g.) for a common goal.
to get rid of the STATUS QUO.
this is another "get rid of status quo" election.
The GOP IS the status quo.
Ergo, what will logically follow is not so much as a strengthening of this disparate "coalition", but its dissipation.
which is probably what is happening.
Steve_o
· 1 year ago
"Or will Hillary and Bill lean heavily on them, call in their chits, and fracture the party on the chance that they could unite it afterwards? Given the Clintonian attraction to power, I'd call the latter scenario a lot more likely."
For tonight at least, Cap'n Ed is Cap'n Obvious.
A democrat
· 1 year ago
The democratic party does owe the Clintons in my opinion, and I'm not happy with the way this race has gone the way of attack ads and personal insults over what is the right kind of experience considering the small and untested amount of his own. Obama has my vote against any republican but he needs to stop acting like an upstart and putting the entire party in a snit. With hate crimes up 8% nationally last year, (remember the incident over the hanging tree?) I'm not at all convinced Obama can win a national contest and avoid going out like Harold Ford.
What do Obama supporters have against 8 years of peace and prosperity anyways? The Clintons have a tested record of people power and should be recognized for it.
daveinboca
· 1 year ago
My guess from McAuliffe's comment is that Obama will be invited to the Big House as the Veep candidate to step and fetch it for the Clinton Inc. crowd. If he succumbs to the apple of temptation, the Dems might avoid a catastrophe.
But the Clinton lust for power is insatiable.
Tom W
· 1 year ago
YES, the grapes were probably sour anyway.
No point in jumping further.
mmaslan
· 1 year ago
The obvious alternative to the Democratic nightmare scenario circulating today is for Clinton and Obama to team up. They would be formidable together. It may be our only hope.
Max McGloin
· 1 year ago
The Clintons are runing a campaign, Obama is leading a movement. These Super Delagates mostly have job through elections. The blowback would be massive.
sas
· 1 year ago
It could work the other way too.
The only way out of this mess is to do two things: 1. Seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan, 2. Have a dream Ticket - Obama/Clinton or vice versa
Nathan
· 1 year ago
Florida and Michigan delegates should have their votes re-instated. Run their primaries over again if they want. The problem for the Dems is not so much if Clinton wins, but if Obama wins the nomination. A lot of conservative, moderate and mainstream Democrats will vote for McCain as Obama is too liberal and inexperienced in national politics, and has been backed by all the fringe elements of leftist politics: Daily Kos, MoveOn.org, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Howard Dean and inevitably Al Gore. GOP'ers might be complaining about McCain now, but when Obama is the nominee hispanics and centrists will move strongly to him, as will security moms.
GinJ
· 1 year ago
"With only 22 states, D.C., Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands left to vote after Super Tuesday...."
You forgot Puerto Rico. It has a more delegates than South Carolina and they're not proportional - that'll make it very important.
Bill
· 1 year ago
There is also the scenario of Obama winning narrowly only because Florida and Michigan delegates have not been seated. I live in Florida and there is talk on the news that Democrats here may revote or hold a caucus before the convention.
infidel65
· 1 year ago
Also, Hillary is trying to steal the Michigan and Florida delegates. I'm going out to buy some popcorn.
Bogey
· 1 year ago
there is a possibility that the Dems can suffer a tremendous fissure, but that's more likely if Obama loses, than if Obama wins.
It'll be almost impossible for the Repubs to win in November. It's merely a matter of either a complete annihilation scenario (Obama vs Romney) or sound spanking (Obama vs McCain) or just a loss (HRC vs anyone)
for years and years the Republican party has had two stalking horses which it had used with great effect to beat the Democrats in the fall.
1) the tax and spend Democrat/liberal label - Obama slammed that one back by pointing out the Republican record on spending over the last 10 plus years. No credibility. The Repubs have just lost of their main arguments.
2) weak on foreign policy - Dems will answer - you got us into the Iraqi shithole . Game. Set. Match. (doesn't matter what you think about our going into Iraq, what matters is that a good 60% plus of Americans polled have said Iraq was a grand mistake)
3) perceived Repub indifference on matters the country is now upset about, like health care. Proposed solutions, like health care savings account (non taxes, etc) proposed by Republicans is like pissing into the ocean with costs skyrocketing as they are.
so you can thank George W and the Republican Congress for the carnage coming in the general election. Why do yo think there's this yearning for "change"?
change from WHAT? change from WHOM?
as hard as the Repubs will try to run away from the Bush and De Lay legacy, it will suck them down deep under and drown them, even if it's McCain who can run away from it better than most.
Yashmak
· 1 year ago
I dunno about this scenario. Obviously, at this point, polls of any sort are largely meaningless, but there are alot of them showing McCain carrying the election against Hillary, but having difficulty against Obama.
I suspect (as many others have said) that Hillary has alienated at least as many Dems as McCain has Republicans, and that independents would favor McCain as a moderate. I suspect that if (and it seems likely) he wins the Republican nomination, he has a good chance at taking the White House. He is reviled by the conservative wing of the Republican party, but the largest percentage of those will vote for him over Hillary anyway. The same cannot be said looking from the opposite side of the fence. Lots of Dems do dislike Hillary, that much is similar. . .but they are more likely to see McCain as a reasonable alternative, as he has often bucked Republican party policy.
It's going to be interesting. . .that much is assured.
sven10077
· 1 year ago
If you say so...there's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip chum.
Rovin
· 1 year ago
Welcome to the Party of Change!
800 billion in new entitlements Guaranteed tax increases across the board Immediate surrender to our enemies Return of the Fairness Doctrine 2nd Amendment Abolished
You heard the weatherman........there will be no change.
Bogey
· 1 year ago
800 billion in new entitlements isn't so much considering you've been pouring 70 billion a month into the Iraqi sinkhole.
don't you think?
AW1Tim
· 1 year ago
IN a word, no.
The only wat the Republicans lose this election is if the Democrats unite under Obama and bring in enough besotted indies that will buy the lie of a "return to Camelot" crap.
If HRC wins the nomination, then it's goobye to the White House for the Donkeycrats. It may even scare enough voters if HRC is on the ticket to return Congress to the right course as well.
Sorry Bogey, but your dog don't hunt. It's just lyin' there stoned out of it;;s gourd from that smoke you are blowing... :)
Respects,
Bogey
· 1 year ago
you're living in dreamland.
and your only hope is having HRC on the Dem ballot.
in that case, you'll at least have a chance. Any other case, you're doomed.
AW1Tim
· 1 year ago
Sorry,
No. The only dreaming is of a Donkey gaining the White House. The nation has been down that bummer of an acid trip and is in no position to relive it,.
The current crop of Republicans make my skin crawl, but they are far and away better than anyone on the other side of reality.
I suspect that most Americans agree. Anyone is better than a democrat for President.
Bogey
· 1 year ago
your "suspicions" are going to be for a very very deep shock come November.
Maybe you can start thinking of your conspiracy theory/excuse early.
the mainstream liberal media perhaps?
philwynk
· 1 year ago
You mean the media who claim they're worth 15 points for the Democrat in a major election? THAT conspiracy theory/excuse?
Don't you think it's a little tough to call something "tinfoil hat" material when that thing calls itself the Democrats' best vote-getter?
Bogey
· 1 year ago
as I mentioned before, you'd better pray for HRC on the Dem ticket.
philwynk
· 1 year ago
I think this is probably wrong on every particular.
Just the major points: Obama pointing out the Republican spending record works if McCain's the nominee, but not against anyone else. Romney & Huckabee both have sound fiscal credentials, and both run as outsiders. This one's neutral.
The opposition to the Iraq war is a liberal circle jerk, nothing more. Doesn't even count this election, unless the place suddenly and unexpectedly blows up.
The support for national health care is limited to hard-core lefties and their mindless groupies, not more than about 40% of the electorate. More moderate solutions will play that issue to a draw.
Romney slaughters Obama by simply pointing out that he's never done a damned thing in his life.
I'll grant you that Obama might win on the strength of the Unthinking Gullible Natural-Born Damned Idiot Who Thinks Empty Rhetoric Is The Same As Sound Moral Character vote. Thank public education for that. And I'll grant you that Madame Hillary would probably whup McCain pretty handily in a straight-up fight, just 'cause she's meaner than he is. But aside from those factors, your reading of the issues comes from some sort of drug-induces Democratic stupor, and has nothing to do with reality.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
MarkJ
· 1 year ago
Damn, buddy, I'll bet you'll be really disappointed and shocked when President "Obamalot" orders the troops into Pakistan, won't you?
jr565
· 1 year ago
Either that or Obamalot decides that its not worth it going after Osama bin Laden after all and withdraws all troops from Afghanistan. Neither position will be particularly good for Obama
Bogey
· 1 year ago
there's also a good chance the economy will truly go into a tailspin this year, and for this the Republicans will also be blamed (though unfairly, administrations don't control economic boom and bust cycles)
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
"the Republicans will also be blamed (though unfairly, administrations don't control economic boom and bust cycles)"
Then why did Clinton win in 1992? Remember, his slogan that year was "it's the economy, stupid", and his lackeys in the mainstream media got him elected by failing to report that in fact the economic recovery he still claims as his own actually began in March of 1991.
Bogey
· 1 year ago
Clinton won in 1992 because Bush Sr was being unfairly blamed for the "recession", which officially lasted all of six months, and it could be better characterized as a temporary glitch/halt..
and you're right, by the time of the election, the economy was already clearly turning around.
I still don't understand how and why so many people in this country really think the govt controls the econony period.
anyways, the bad year which will be 2008 will merely be the spikes to be driven into the Republican coffin. But spending and Iraq will have gotten the coffin 6 feet under in the first place.
newton
· 1 year ago
"and you're right, by the time of the election, the economy was already clearly turning around."
But the media in 92 didn't say a thing... until after Election Day.
I still remember that time.
Bogey
· 1 year ago
the media doesn't focus on the minutiae of the economy. The only people who had a sense that it was turning around were people in the financial markets.
92 was a goofy year because of having Perot on the ballot.
I think his presence hurt Bush more than Clinton.
Monkei
· 1 year ago
ok so we know that Clinton won in 92 because the MSM did not report the economy correctly ... so what happened in 96?
Bogey
· 1 year ago
nah, there were lots of other reasons Clinton won in 92.
(and for the record, I don't use stupid acronyms like "Mainstream media and mainstream liberal media"..
Media is MEDIA.
but I did think Bush Sr caught a raw deal on "the economy".
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
" I don't use stupid acronyms like "Mainstream media and mainstream liberal media"..
Media is MEDIA. "
Oh, please. When the Associated Press is documented time and again as only using someone's political affiliation in a news story when they're a Republican, and when 92% of media people admit they voted for the Democrat running for President in 1992, the shoe fits.
You really need to visit Newsbusters sometime. Unlike their leftist counterpart Media Matters, they don't need a separate page to regularly issue corrections.
Bogey said it. I just correctly quoted what he said.
Bogey
· 1 year ago
some of the singular/plural grammatical distinctions in English are amusing (and the Brits go about this differently than Americans do, they would certainly say "media are media".
but if the "media" is a plural (which it can be of course)
wouldn't one say
the media don't? instead of the media doesnt'?
:)
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Who knows?
Medium works for me.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
"the media doesn't focus on the minutiae of the economy."
Sure they do. Where have you been the past 6 months?
Bogey
· 1 year ago
I said minutiae.
what started happening 6 months ago isn't minutiae.
it's a potential tidal wave. The likes of which we haven't seen at least since Carter.
njcommuter
· 1 year ago
Generally speaking, when the economy is in the tank for an extended period, it's because the government is controlling it effectively. When it does well, it's all the government can do to hang on, and it shouldn't try.
Government control of wealth and the economy. Birth control. Gee, something in common, you think?
Bogey
· 1 year ago
GENERALLY speaking (and I stress generally) I would agree.
However, economic booms also often bring on bubbles and then burst/bust cycles that follow.
we were able to weather the dotcom bubble bursting, but the "remedy" begat a real estate boom cycle which is now busting.
I don't think the same "medicine" will be as effective.
This country hasn't had a serious downturn in the economic cycle for a very very very long time.
People have gotten used to thinking it's all growth all the time. Which is goofy.
and of course shows a complete ignorance of Econ 101
philwynk
· 1 year ago
Kudos. I do believe this is the first statement I've seen from you on these boards that actually comports well with reality.
jharp
· 1 year ago
Somewhat agree with you, Mr. Bogey.
However the administration certainly carries a lot blame for the record breaking deficits and the real estate meltdown.
Both pretty significant contributing factors.
Bogey
· 1 year ago
deficits - si real estate meltdown? - no
Bush is responsible for real estate meltdown as much as Clinton was responsible for Nasdaq boom and bust. They're NOT responsible.
btw, no one was complaining when the value of their houses DOUBLED within a 5 year period under Bush. Did everyone think this was "normal" and merely confirming their "genius" for having bought property?
(the Dem argument of insufficient regulation also carries very little water - I dont think it would have helped much - maybe a little - with so much greed, there was no way of preventing people getting screwed left and right (still shocks me how so many people can be so stupid though)
jharp
· 1 year ago
"real estate meltdown? - no"
"Dem argument of insufficient regulation also carries very little water"
Why so? Insufficient regulation and open the floodgates monetary policy is, in my opinion, the exact cause.
Bogey
· 1 year ago
first of all, monetary policy is run by the Fed, an INDEPENDENT institution - and it's overly loose policy was a result of the dotcom crash and then 9/11. it certainly helped the country after 9/11, it was a matter of do you want your medicine now... or later?
anyways - monetary policy cannot be affected by govt or either party.
re regulation - perhaps it would have lessened it to a certain extent,, predatory lending and all that , but how long must you live in this country for the slogan "Caveat emptor" to sink in?
problem with regulation is it's hard to foresee where greed will next turn up its ugly little head.
jharp
· 1 year ago
Yes the fed is an independent institution though it's members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
And no they weren't all appointed by Mr. Bush but they were all confirmed by a Republican dominated Senate.
And they can be removed. So it's not quite as independent as most think.
And they answer to business, not us.
Bogey
· 1 year ago
you forget Clinton also renominated Greenspan to the Fed.
There was virtually ZERO opposition to Greenspan at the helm from either party.
and for good reason, he navigated the treacherous waters far more nimbly than central bankers usually do.
jharp
· 1 year ago
No, I didn't forget. I was aware.
How well he navigated is one heck of a debate.
Some put a lot of blame on him. Some think he was a hero.
The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Bogey
· 1 year ago
it is and indeed will be a topic of spirited debate.
philwynk
· 1 year ago
Insufficient regulation??? Are you nuts?
The biggest problem at the root of real estate meltdown was banks not taking sufficiently notice of the genuine risk in the portfolios they were buying from mortgage brokers and packagers. Regulation would have had zero impact on that.
Consumers receive VERY clear information concerning what they're expected to pay and when. They just don't pay attention. You can regulate that till Jesus returns, they still won't pay attention when they can get a house at a payment they think they can manage.
Hate to break it to you and everyone else, but the people who are getting scalded by the meltdown are the people who caused it -- incautious consumers and incautious banks. No political party at fault here.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
Bogey
· 1 year ago
I'm not disagreeing with you. re banks. etc.
and I don't think regulation would have helped much.
only from the standpoint of sheisters steering stupid people to loans/mortgages that were disadvantegous to them, even though they could qualify for better terms.
philwynk
· 1 year ago
I was replying to jharp. Sorry for the confusion.
Re sheisters: I was actually in the real estate business for a couple years recently, and while I met plenty of dishonest mortgage salesmen, I never met a single one who would steer people to a bad loan who could have obtained a good one. The most common mischief -- really, the only mischief I saw -- was falsifying loan application documents by omitting items that mortgage lenders would have immediately flagged as a problem.
gaffo
· 1 year ago
"no one was complaining when the value of their houses DOUBLED within a 5 year period under Bush. Did everyone think this was "normal"
yes just like the stock-tech bubble of the 90's. just normal that your stock triples even when the price to earning ratio is 6000 to 1!!!
the folly of man
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
The real estate meltdown is a cycle, but it's the worst one I have seen in almost 30 years in the business. It can be blamed on several factors, one of which is that during the Clinton years lenders were pressured to ease their lending rules so more people could buy homes-even if they were not financially qualified to do so.
Add to this other things, like greedy lenders who tried to cut corners and as a result had no idea what they were lending on, and you have major problems.
Bogey
· 1 year ago
nonsense to make this political.
whatever easing of rules happened under Clinton picked up steam under Bush.
Bush always spoke of the "ownership society" and how every American deserved to own a home.
Greenspan spoke of how subprime loans were an important revolution in finance to bring credit to people who were otherwise not served.
plenty of blame to go around on this on bud.
but the most blame should go on normal Americans. The ones who tried flipping houses during the bubble, the ones who wouldn't read the fine print on their loans/agreements and most of all all the people who were massively borrowing against and living off their home equity.
the chickens have finally come home to roost.
anyone with two brains cells could've looked at home prices and asked himself/herself - how can these prices go any higher? who can AFFORD to buy a house at that price - especially a first time home buyer?
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
It's ALL political.
After the S & L scandal in the 1980s, for instance, the political people said "we can never let this happen again", so they passed legislation that mandated that real estate appraisers be licensed by the individual states. Each state could set their own appraiser licensing standards, but they all pretty much followed "national" guidelines, such as requiring a certain number of hours of education required, etc. Interestingly enough, some of the strictest licensing states were the liberal ones like Massachusetts, which basically requires an additional layer of "education" for real estate appraisers than any other state on the Northeast.
Many of these "licensed" appraisers have been busted and brought to trial in the latest real estate meltdown, which shows that the politically-mandated licensure wasn't necessarily a good idea.
A few years later, in the Clinton Administration, in another politically-motivated decision, the government concluded that if the residential real estate had a market value of $250,000 or less, no appraisal was required at all. To be fair, many lenders did still require something in writing for their files-but in many cases, they sent the appraiser out to drive-by the property but never go inside. The value of the property (and thus the loan) was thus based on a hypothetical condition.
A few years later, the lenders then came up with even more crazy ideas. They would use computers, not real professionals, to put a value on the real estate they were lending on. This started with "automated valuation models", which the municipal government people have used for years to figure out how to value thousands of properties in a city at one pop. This works OK in cities, but not in the real world.
And this was soon followed by lenders even using web sites like "Zillow" to make their lending decisions.
BTW in my market, market values never rose as much as in the areas rife with corruption like Florida and California. Except for waterfront property, that is.
Bogey
· 1 year ago
I'll agree it's political in a sense..
as it was a political decision to allow SL's to speculate their way out of their crisis in the 80's.
this gave rise to the mortgage industry in financial markets btw... the effects of this we are feeling this very day.
but my point is these "political" decisions came as eagerly from the GOP as they did from under any Dems.
and as you noted, if anything, the heavier regulation against ripoffs and excesses were likely to come from the Dems in the first place.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
"and as you noted, if anything, the heavier regulation against ripoffs and excesses were likely to come from the Dems in the first place."
You missed my point-those "heavier regulations" the Dems created didn't help things at all-they created additional layers of bureaucracy (and thus more taxpayer money being spent)
Bogey
· 1 year ago
that's always the 64 thousand dollar question.
it's clear to most objective people that unregulated environments will lead to excesses, ripoffs and unscrupulous people trying to screw anyone/everyone in sight.
yet, at the same time, it's also clear that regulation can often be burdensome, inefficient and counterproductive.
finding the happy medium - that's the trick and one extremely difficult to achieve.
jharp
· 1 year ago
Good post.
"Finding the happy medium"
I wish everyone would realize that most of time neither side is 100% right or 100% wrong.
Hey, our very successful National Park system is a socialist philosophy.
I think it's been a huge success.
jharp
· 1 year ago
I agree that both parties are guilty
And I think it the regulators job and is in everyones best interest to cease loaning money to folks who cannot pay it back.
The worst part is the poor guy who had to pay a 30%- 40% premium for his first home due to the speculators driving up prices.
How could folks be so stupid? That's a given. Half the folks are below average intelligence.
When I first saw "Flip this House" I knew the end was near.
jharp
· 1 year ago
Del/Bogey,
You two seem knowledgeable about the real estate crisis.
I read somewhere that a key regulation allowing banks to sell the bundled mortgage backed securities on Wall Street was the major cause of the lax/nonexistant loan criteria.
Don't quote me but it was something like that, I think.
You two know of anything about this?
Bogey
· 1 year ago
I don't believe that has anything to do with it.
There have been derivatives markets in mortgages going back to the late 1980's. Lewie Ranieri started it with Salomon Bros (read the book Liar's Poker - one of the funniest books you will read)
and IO's and PO's and CDO's have been bundled, sliced, trade and sold for quite some time now.
I do NOT believe that a weakening/lessening of the loan criteria had much of anything to do with those financial instruments.
most things that drive bad loans are a) greed b) complacency
when things get whipped up into a frenzy and a place goes "boom", everyone tried to get in on it.
so many historical e.g. Dutch tulip craze and most recently, Latin America and Asia in 1990's, then Russia, then dotcom, now realestate.
btw. the real estate bubble bursting will also now take shape in Great Britain, Ireland and Spain, places in Europe where those markets also went goofy.
at least those people didn't borrow/live off their "paper" equity.
Bogey
· 1 year ago
what I do remember is that several years ago, the so called "subprime mortgage" business was SUCH a good business, that everyone was scrambling to get into it.... major banks were buying up companies to get into it, because the profits were so rich (because of what could only be called "usurious" interest rates" charged to stupid people who took them).
and it was a fantastic business, until it turned out it became harder and harder to squeeze so much water from a rock.
I'd be happier if more of these "businesses" (and banks that whipped/supported them) went completely bankrupt.
I remember constantly getting letters/offers for loans a couple of years ago (when my credit temporarily slipped, although not by much due to a fake thing on my credit report which I later had eliminated)
every day I was getting offers from these "bidnessmen" offering me loans at SIXTEEN (or more) percent, when Prime Rate was sitting at FIVE.
it's crap like that gives capitalism a very bad face.
Bogey
· 1 year ago
btw you'd only see the terms of SIXTEEN or more percent if you read the fine print.
the main print almost made it seem like a money "giveaway".
Embarrassing.
MarkJ
· 1 year ago
I love it when a plan comes together.
Very truly yours,
Karl Rove
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
The Clintons have indeed raised a lot of money for the Democrat establishment over the past decade and a half, but how many candidates who they have helped actually won their respective elections? As I recall, Bill's track record in that regards wasn't too good.
But they do have other means of making sure they get their way at Convention time. After all, when they "innocently" purloined those 900 or so FBI files, said files were not just of people from the "R" party. They even got Carville's.
Molonlabe28
· 1 year ago
This would be a truly bitter and rancorous convention (think: Chicago 1968 with Mayor Daley cursing the crowd inside and his police clubbing protesters outside) with a real winner and a real loser.
It would be a tough baby to split.
It may wind up being a political marriage the likes of which we haven't seen since Kennedy-Johnson (where neither side particularly cared for the other) in 1960.
It could be worse though; at least they won't have McCain as their candidate.
Good post. I'd consider both you and Chris Bowers among the rational voices on the other side. Open Left is a great site for you.
davesummit
· 1 year ago
I'd say for the first time reading this board (and finding an inordinate amount of smart, respectful commentary), Bogey is your top guy for the rational voice from the other side. Good show. This former GOPer might just come back.
jharp
· 1 year ago
I have always trusted my gut and I can't help but feel it's going to be a Clinton/Obama ticket.
While Obama supporters won't be thrilled I think they'd accept it. Obama is a young man. He'll get his chance soon enough. This might be the beginning of a 16 year democratic run.
How sweet that would be. I always figured something positive would come out of the GWB presidency.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
No, she would never pick him to be her Veep, as he would steal her thunder. His charisma and oration skills make her look as limp as a dead house plant in comparison.
The only way these two would be on the ticket together would be with him at the top. Of course, she would probably never agree to such an arrangement, unless she and Bill could arrange for an "accident" to allow her to replace him as President.
jharp
· 1 year ago
Good one, Del.
A sitting U.S Senator and a two term President arranging an "accident". I'm not attacking you but am attacking your statement.
It is utterly preposterous.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Like Bush "murdering" Paul Wellstone? Please try again.
jharp
· 1 year ago
"Like Bush "murdering" Paul Wellstone? "
You and I are starting to see a lot of things alike.
I agree. Equally preposterous.
Though I never suggested such a thing.
mylegsareswollen
· 1 year ago
The brown people in Iraq thank Mr. Bush. He has been a friend to many brown women and men.
Especially record funding for the black people of Africa and the faith of the brown people in the Middle East to claim freedom for themselves.
Mr. Bush has shown unusual faith and mercy towards the black and brown folk of the world.
jharp
· 1 year ago
Don't think the hundreds of thousands killed are very thankful.
Nor are the 2.5 million who have had to flee the country.
The ones that are left also want us to get the hell out.
Do have anything to substantiate the Iraqi's thanking President Bush?
BurfordHolly
· 1 year ago
And don't forget all the folks in Europe who are babysitting hundreds of thousands of refugees, because we just sent them a whole new generation of future terrorists.
jr565
· 1 year ago
WE sent them? They didn't go there themselves? There is nothing in Europe to which a jihadist might take offense at? There beef with the west begins and ends with Iraq? How about Afghanistan? If we're still there under Obama will all the terrorism in Euripoe dry up? How about all terrorism prior to Bush. In fact wasn't the charge that Bush was ignoring Al Qaeda because Al Qaeda was the true terrorist threat? (That's at least what Richard Clarke said). Woudln't that imply then that Al Qaeda was a threat prior to Bush taking office? I do seem vaguely aware of terrorist attacks that occured prior to Bush, though that could be a figment of my imagination.
BurfordHolly
· 1 year ago
Kids who become refugees are much more likely to become terrorists than people who remained in their homes and in school.
Where do you get this stuff? It's like you're channeling dead crazy people.
Blacksmith
· 1 year ago
Burford, thank you for the "Venture Bros." quote. Made my day. No, really.
Regards the meat of your comment though, I couldn't give a tin piece WHY some poor kids (or usually, well-off adults) choose to become terrorists. Or "freedom fighters," or soldiers, or any other form of combatant. Let me make this next point perfectly clear.
The instant they kill Americans, for any reason or none, then as far as I am concerned, their lives are forfeit.
If they do so by the rules of warfare, then the rules are known, agreed to ahead of time, and we'll adhere to them. May the best fighter win. If they decide to ignore the various international rules (such as, for instance, by fighting without a uniform, fighting without state support, deliberately targeting noncombatants, etc) then they've determined the scope and nature of the conflict, and we shall abide by that decision as well.
Combat is not a place where you try to prove that you're "better" by some nebulous standard than your opponent, unless you truly believe that might makes right.
Combat is a state of being that we try to escape from as swiftly as possible by utterly destroying the opponent's desire to continue the conflict. The technical term would be to "neutralize" them. In the past, this was usually done by killing as many of them as possible in as short a time as possible. Modern advances have made it possible to "neutralize" would-be opponents by nonlethal means (such as pointing out that opposition force has directly killed far, FAR more fence-sitters than our own actions have).
Personally, I like the modern way a lot better. Less destruction makes it easier for a return to normality (or better, as the case may be). But if pressed, and the new ways stop working for whatever reason, the old ways still work. God willing, we'll never be required to use them again.
Rovin
· 1 year ago
Sure is nice to know that we still live in a country that doesn't condone the barbarianism of strapping on explosive vest when were disgruntled with the political process. That damn Bush cant do anything right.
All Comments
Hillary was gathering her super delegates often and early. Hence, when Obama took Iowa, Hillary was actually ahead of the game..she had the pledged super delegates. A super delegate is the insurance policy that the DNC took out to assure that the voters didn't make a mistake like they did in 1972.
I would send you to the DNC website to view the rules via this link, http://www.demconvention.com/a/2007/03/delegate..., that worked up until this week, but it appears that they had to take the info down?
Anyway, I had this posted last month, http://rightvoices.com/2008/02/05/super-delegat..., and here are the rules that were posted:
UNPLEDGED AND PLEDGED PARTY LEADERS AND ELECTED OFFICIAL DELEGATES
The procedure to be used for certifying unpledged party leader and elected official delegates is as follows:
Not later than March 1, 2008, the Secretary of the Democratic National Committee shall officially confirm to each State Democratic Chair the names of the following unpledged delegates who legally reside in their respective state and who shall be recognized as part of their state’s delegation unless any such member has publicly expressed support for the election of, or has endorsed, a presidential candidate of another political party;
1. The individuals recognized as members of the DNC (as set forth in Article Three, Sections 2 and 3 of the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States); and,
2. The Democratic President and the Democratic Vice President of the United States, if applicable; and,
3. All Democratic members of the United States House of Representatives and all Democratic members of the United States Senate; and,
4. The Democratic Governor, if applicable; and,
5. All former Democratic Presidents, all former Democratic Vice Presidents, all former Democratic Leaders of the U.S. Senate, all former Democratic Speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic Minority Leaders, as applicable, and all former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee.
Hope this helps..as you can see, the DNC has taken away the right to elect and gave themselves the right to select!
Will Swimmer now switch to Mrs. Bill?
Hilly gets 57% of the Massholes. Very scary, especially since I live right up the road from these idiots.
Have a good'un, Cap'n Ed.
So, we have a possibility here -- Oprah, are you ready to be Vice Presidential?
The only possible Republican response in that case would be Condoleezza, who seems to have a musical career in mind after she leaves State.
Oprah, sadly, would beat Condoleezza. It's the entertainment value -- an accomplished talk show host against an accomplished Secretary of State and concert pianist. We can already guess who outranks whom in our television watching public's estimation...
If the converse happens - Obama is nominated - I doubt you'll see Hillary! as veep. One, I don't think her ego could take it - a Clinton as second-banana?!?!?!?; two, I think she'd rather go to the sidelines, root for Obama to lose & run in 2012 (at which time McCain would be 450 years old) than wait until 2016; three, Obama won't have the pressure to name Hillary! as veep that Hillary!'ll get about Obama. IMO, Hillary!'s backers in defeat aren't nearly as much a threat to sit out the election as Obama's would be (Team Obama is where the 'idealists' are).
I sure wouldn't want to be president with her as my VP! I don't want to wake up dead in a DC park of apparent suicide.
I'm looking forward to summertime fun, courtesy of the Democrats!
/Mr Lynn
Can the Republicans exploit this? Not if recent history is any indicator.
:sigh:
"intellectual fathers" and "definers" of conservatism.
Obama won 86% of black vote..
BUT
he won 42% of the WHITE vote.
in Georgia.
smoked her in every single category except people over SIXTY.
Hilary Clinton, the candidate of the old and post menopausal women.
Or are you arguing out of a lack of principles in general? (ie you could go left, or you could go right, either way is ok with you - its all good).
Do you think that you saying you would vote for Obama AND Mccain might make us fo think Obamas policies are dangerous for the country, take your opposition to Romney with a grain of salt?
After all, you're going to vote for Obama.
but I will try to summarize (if you're really interested in my mindset that is)
1) I have ALWAYS liked McCain, donated money to him 2000 for 1st time ever giving money to politician (donated $ to Obama this year) . The fact the man will stand up to the most lunatic elements of his OWN party I count very very very highly in his favor. (just as I would in a Dem who stick it to his own when deserved)
2) I am inclined to vote against every single Republican I consider responsible for the disaster of the last dozen years - so I was naturally very inclined to vote Democratic this year (and remain so, unless McCain is an option) (I would consider Huckabee though)
3) talk of "principles" is at least this year a waste of time.. and my time especially. What were the principles of the Contract with America? what is a basic principle of conservative thought when it comes to "wars of choice? or nation-building?
ergo- what I am getting it is that the Repubs have hypocritically rejected almost every single "principle" they have laid claim to. (plus, I'm sick and tired of the sex and moralilty police that has sprung up)
4) Obama - I like the guy, I like the guy's story.. I like what the guy says -- EVEN if I remain very skeptical about the "liberal" approach to what the govt can do, vs what the open market can do. One thing that interests me about him is that a lot of his ideas and approaches aren't from the liberal orthodoxy playbook (e.g. no "mandate" for health care - I like the concept of individual choice as a libertarian/conservative)
5) I can't see how even a HRC govt can be any worse than the last 8 years. In fact, I would easily bet it'd be far better, because HRC, as much as I dislike her, could never be accused of being "incompetent" which is the first adjective for this last administration.
so that's a quick summary of how I feel.
others are free to feel differently and of course I am under no illusion nor desire that my ideas will influence someone else's.
Wouldn't that make him part of teh problem. You also mention war of choice and nation building.
Er, wasn't Mccain on board for both of those? So taht would make you a hypocrite.
Of course, since you're counting the past 12 years, wasn't clinton in charge for at least 4 of those years? So then woudn't he be part of the problem too? Why then wyould you vote for Clinton?
And why are you trolling on a conservative website again? I'm sure KOS culd use the extra content.
But frankly, considering your complete lack of conservative principles I dont frankly care what you think of Romney or Mccain or Huckabee. they are not your candidate.
I wouldn't expect you to vote for Romney, considering your non affiliation with the conservative movement.
he has been the one steadfast voice against pork barrel spending in the Republican Congress. (one of the reasons I became a Republican was seeing the excesses of Tip O Neill Dem Congresses)
12 years.. that's because of Repub congress - hypocrites going against every tent of Contract with America - then wasting my time and everyone else's time by trying to impeach a President over getting blowjobs. So everyone who voted for the fellatio impeachment is on my "kick out" list.
lastly, I can troll wherever I want bud, and who the "f" are YOU to tell me where I can troll and what "conservative" principles are.
you probably wouldn't understand conservative if I spelled it out for you.
Have you ever read William F. Buckley? I'd bet not - you have ZERO idea what of a "conservative" is - it most certainly is not W and the Republican Congress over his tenure (and immediately prior)
I'm with Bogey - I like both. they are AUTHENTIC. That is why we like them.
And I guess you only like pandering fakes like Romney and Kerry.
You must like Kerry since he is no different than Romney.
yes?
You question Bogey's principles - well I question your's since you seem to only like fake flipfloppers - can we assume you lack any convictions whatsoever like the candidates you support?
just asking.
hooray for me.
at least I know where Hilary stands.
haven't ya heard? Republicans just LOVE John Kerry now!!!
as long as he panders and flipflops in the right direction!!
hypocrites all.
I will not vote for Flippard under any circumstance.
if it's between Obama and McCain I will have a difficult choice to make.
Obama take the VP slot? Are you kidding? The Barackster would be nuts to do this: not only would he look like he got "promoted from the fields to the house," but if Hillary screws the pooch during her term then he'll go down with the "S.S. Clintanic" too.
Nope, Prince Charming would be better to go back to the Senate, get some more seasoning, "keep hope alive," snipe at Hillary's screwups from the sidelines, and do his "Sister Toldya" shtick 7/52/365 for the next four years.
I think it's fairly likely that Obama will win the nomination, but if he doesn't, I'll be pretty shocked to see him on the ticket at all.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
I'm going to love the fight that starts when Democrats start leveling stolen election charges back and forth at one another for a change.
Someone start cranking up the popcorn, cause that would be fun to watch.
I'd be intrigued to see some polling as to what your average Dem thinks of the fact Obama could not only win a majority of the votes cast, but a majority of the delagates from each state and still lose the primary to Clinton...
Speaking of which, didn't any of the Democrat party officials even consider reforming their primary system after their election 2000 temper tantrum?
It seems to me that if making sure the popular vote winner wins national elections is important enough to alter the US Constitution, it is surely important enough to alter the Dem primary format...no?
The Clintons didn't write these rules, nor did Howard Dean, but they are the rules and it looks like Dean has some explaining to do..
I'm beginning to think McCain will HAVE to make Huckabee the VP.
this will not heal all the fissures in the party.
but seems to me it'll heal many/most of them.
Willard isn't the answer.
there is no answer, there can only be the best possible "solution".
and that's probably McCain/Huckabee.
I like both guys (though Mike's creationism and "life amendment" fanaticism terrifies the crap out of me)
strange mix... but perhaps the most potent one.
but there's something else at work here.
the "Reagan Coalition" was created because of a vast distaste for the status quo, often bringing together disparate elements (fiscal conservatives and social conservatives, for e.g.) for a common goal.
to get rid of the STATUS QUO.
this is another "get rid of status quo" election.
The GOP IS the status quo.
Ergo, what will logically follow is not so much as a strengthening of this disparate "coalition", but its dissipation.
which is probably what is happening.
For tonight at least, Cap'n Ed is Cap'n Obvious.
What do Obama supporters have against 8 years of peace and prosperity anyways? The Clintons have a tested record of people power and should be recognized for it.
But the Clinton lust for power is insatiable.
No point in jumping further.
The only way out of this mess is to do two things:
1. Seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan,
2. Have a dream Ticket - Obama/Clinton or vice versa
You forgot Puerto Rico. It has a more delegates than South Carolina and they're not proportional - that'll make it very important.
It'll be almost impossible for the Repubs to win in November. It's merely a matter of either a complete annihilation scenario (Obama vs Romney) or sound spanking (Obama vs McCain) or just a loss (HRC vs anyone)
for years and years the Republican party has had two stalking horses which it had used with great effect to beat the Democrats in the fall.
1) the tax and spend Democrat/liberal label - Obama slammed that one back by pointing out the Republican record on spending over the last 10 plus years. No credibility. The Repubs have just lost of their main arguments.
2) weak on foreign policy - Dems will answer - you got us into the Iraqi shithole . Game. Set. Match. (doesn't matter what you think about our going into Iraq, what matters is that a good 60% plus of Americans polled have said Iraq was a grand mistake)
3) perceived Repub indifference on matters the country is now upset about, like health care. Proposed solutions, like health care savings account (non taxes, etc) proposed by Republicans is like pissing into the ocean with costs skyrocketing as they are.
so you can thank George W and the Republican Congress for the carnage coming in the general election. Why do yo think there's this yearning for "change"?
change from WHAT? change from WHOM?
as hard as the Repubs will try to run away from the Bush and De Lay legacy, it will suck them down deep under and drown them, even if it's McCain who can run away from it better than most.
I suspect (as many others have said) that Hillary has alienated at least as many Dems as McCain has Republicans, and that independents would favor McCain as a moderate. I suspect that if (and it seems likely) he wins the Republican nomination, he has a good chance at taking the White House. He is reviled by the conservative wing of the Republican party, but the largest percentage of those will vote for him over Hillary anyway. The same cannot be said looking from the opposite side of the fence. Lots of Dems do dislike Hillary, that much is similar. . .but they are more likely to see McCain as a reasonable alternative, as he has often bucked Republican party policy.
It's going to be interesting. . .that much is assured.
800 billion in new entitlements
Guaranteed tax increases across the board
Immediate surrender to our enemies
Return of the Fairness Doctrine
2nd Amendment Abolished
You heard the weatherman........there will be no change.
don't you think?
The only wat the Republicans lose this election is if the Democrats unite under Obama and bring in enough besotted indies that will buy the lie of a "return to Camelot" crap.
If HRC wins the nomination, then it's goobye to the White House for the Donkeycrats. It may even scare enough voters if HRC is on the ticket to return Congress to the right course as well.
Sorry Bogey, but your dog don't hunt. It's just lyin' there stoned out of it;;s gourd from that smoke you are blowing... :)
Respects,
and your only hope is having HRC on the Dem ballot.
in that case, you'll at least have a chance. Any other case, you're doomed.
No. The only dreaming is of a Donkey gaining the White House. The nation has been down that bummer of an acid trip and is in no position to relive it,.
The current crop of Republicans make my skin crawl, but they are far and away better than anyone on the other side of reality.
I suspect that most Americans agree. Anyone is better than a democrat for President.
Maybe you can start thinking of your conspiracy theory/excuse early.
the mainstream liberal media perhaps?
Don't you think it's a little tough to call something "tinfoil hat" material when that thing calls itself the Democrats' best vote-getter?
Just the major points: Obama pointing out the Republican spending record works if McCain's the nominee, but not against anyone else. Romney & Huckabee both have sound fiscal credentials, and both run as outsiders. This one's neutral.
The opposition to the Iraq war is a liberal circle jerk, nothing more. Doesn't even count this election, unless the place suddenly and unexpectedly blows up.
The support for national health care is limited to hard-core lefties and their mindless groupies, not more than about 40% of the electorate. More moderate solutions will play that issue to a draw.
Romney slaughters Obama by simply pointing out that he's never done a damned thing in his life.
I'll grant you that Obama might win on the strength of the Unthinking Gullible Natural-Born Damned Idiot Who Thinks Empty Rhetoric Is The Same As Sound Moral Character vote. Thank public education for that. And I'll grant you that Madame Hillary would probably whup McCain pretty handily in a straight-up fight, just 'cause she's meaner than he is. But aside from those factors, your reading of the issues comes from some sort of drug-induces Democratic stupor, and has nothing to do with reality.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
Neither position will be particularly good for Obama
Then why did Clinton win in 1992? Remember, his slogan that year was "it's the economy, stupid", and his lackeys in the mainstream media got him elected by failing to report that in fact the economic recovery he still claims as his own actually began in March of 1991.
and you're right, by the time of the election, the economy was already clearly turning around.
I still don't understand how and why so many people in this country really think the govt controls the econony period.
anyways, the bad year which will be 2008 will merely be the spikes to be driven into the Republican coffin. But spending and Iraq will have gotten the coffin 6 feet under in the first place.
But the media in 92 didn't say a thing... until after Election Day.
I still remember that time.
92 was a goofy year because of having Perot on the ballot.
I think his presence hurt Bush more than Clinton.
(and for the record, I don't use stupid acronyms like "Mainstream media and mainstream liberal media"..
Media is MEDIA.
but I did think Bush Sr caught a raw deal on "the economy".
Media is MEDIA. "
Oh, please. When the Associated Press is documented time and again as only using someone's political affiliation in a news story when they're a Republican, and when 92% of media people admit they voted for the Democrat running for President in 1992, the shoe fits.
You really need to visit Newsbusters sometime. Unlike their leftist counterpart Media Matters, they don't need a separate page to regularly issue corrections.
www.newsbusters.org/
"Media ARE Media"
but if the "media" is a plural (which it can be of course)
wouldn't one say
the media don't?
instead of the media doesnt'?
:)
Medium works for me.
Sure they do. Where have you been the past 6 months?
what started happening 6 months ago isn't minutiae.
it's a potential tidal wave. The likes of which we haven't seen at least since Carter.
Government control of wealth and the economy. Birth control. Gee, something in common, you think?
However, economic booms also often bring on bubbles and then burst/bust cycles that follow.
we were able to weather the dotcom bubble bursting, but the "remedy" begat a real estate boom cycle which is now busting.
I don't think the same "medicine" will be as effective.
This country hasn't had a serious downturn in the economic cycle for a very very very long time.
People have gotten used to thinking it's all growth all the time.
Which is goofy.
and of course shows a complete ignorance of Econ 101
However the administration certainly carries a lot blame for the record breaking deficits and the real estate meltdown.
Both pretty significant contributing factors.
real estate meltdown? - no
Bush is responsible for real estate meltdown as much as Clinton was responsible for Nasdaq boom and bust. They're NOT responsible.
btw, no one was complaining when the value of their houses DOUBLED within a 5 year period under Bush. Did everyone think this was "normal" and merely confirming their "genius" for having bought property?
(the Dem argument of insufficient regulation also carries very little water - I dont think it would have helped much - maybe a little - with so much greed, there was no way of preventing people getting screwed left and right (still shocks me how so many people can be so stupid though)
"Dem argument of insufficient regulation also carries very little water"
Why so? Insufficient regulation and open the floodgates monetary policy is, in my opinion, the exact cause.
it certainly helped the country after 9/11, it was a matter of do you want your medicine now... or later?
anyways - monetary policy cannot be affected by govt or either party.
re regulation - perhaps it would have lessened it to a certain extent,, predatory lending and all that , but how long must you live in this country for the slogan "Caveat emptor" to sink in?
problem with regulation is it's hard to foresee where greed will next turn up its ugly little head.
And no they weren't all appointed by Mr. Bush but they were all confirmed by a Republican dominated Senate.
And they can be removed. So it's not quite as independent as most think.
And they answer to business, not us.
There was virtually ZERO opposition to Greenspan at the helm from either party.
and for good reason, he navigated the treacherous waters far more nimbly than central bankers usually do.
How well he navigated is one heck of a debate.
Some put a lot of blame on him. Some think he was a hero.
The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
The biggest problem at the root of real estate meltdown was banks not taking sufficiently notice of the genuine risk in the portfolios they were buying from mortgage brokers and packagers. Regulation would have had zero impact on that.
Consumers receive VERY clear information concerning what they're expected to pay and when. They just don't pay attention. You can regulate that till Jesus returns, they still won't pay attention when they can get a house at a payment they think they can manage.
Hate to break it to you and everyone else, but the people who are getting scalded by the meltdown are the people who caused it -- incautious consumers and incautious banks. No political party at fault here.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
and I don't think regulation would have helped much.
only from the standpoint of sheisters steering stupid people to loans/mortgages that were disadvantegous to them, even though they could qualify for better terms.
Re sheisters: I was actually in the real estate business for a couple years recently, and while I met plenty of dishonest mortgage salesmen, I never met a single one who would steer people to a bad loan who could have obtained a good one. The most common mischief -- really, the only mischief I saw -- was falsifying loan application documents by omitting items that mortgage lenders would have immediately flagged as a problem.
yes just like the stock-tech bubble of the 90's. just normal that your stock triples even when the price to earning ratio is 6000 to 1!!!
the folly of man
Add to this other things, like greedy lenders who tried to cut corners and as a result had no idea what they were lending on, and you have major problems.
whatever easing of rules happened under Clinton picked up steam under Bush.
Bush always spoke of the "ownership society" and how every American deserved to own a home.
Greenspan spoke of how subprime loans were an important revolution in finance to bring credit to people who were otherwise not served.
plenty of blame to go around on this on bud.
but the most blame should go on normal Americans. The ones who tried flipping houses during the bubble, the ones who wouldn't read the fine print on their loans/agreements and most of all all the people who were massively borrowing against and living off their home equity.
the chickens have finally come home to roost.
anyone with two brains cells could've looked at home prices and asked himself/herself - how can these prices go any higher? who can AFFORD to buy a house at that price - especially a first time home buyer?
After the S & L scandal in the 1980s, for instance, the political people said "we can never let this happen again", so they passed legislation that mandated that real estate appraisers be licensed by the individual states. Each state could set their own appraiser licensing standards, but they all pretty much followed "national" guidelines, such as requiring a certain number of hours of education required, etc. Interestingly enough, some of the strictest licensing states were the liberal ones like Massachusetts, which basically requires an additional layer of "education" for real estate appraisers than any other state on the Northeast.
Many of these "licensed" appraisers have been busted and brought to trial in the latest real estate meltdown, which shows that the politically-mandated licensure wasn't necessarily a good idea.
A few years later, in the Clinton Administration, in another politically-motivated decision, the government concluded that if the residential real estate had a market value of $250,000 or less, no appraisal was required at all. To be fair, many lenders did still require something in writing for their files-but in many cases, they sent the appraiser out to drive-by the property but never go inside. The value of the property (and thus the loan) was thus based on a hypothetical condition.
A few years later, the lenders then came up with even more crazy ideas. They would use computers, not real professionals, to put a value on the real estate they were lending on. This started with "automated valuation models", which the municipal government people have used for years to figure out how to value thousands of properties in a city at one pop. This works OK in cities, but not in the real world.
And this was soon followed by lenders even using web sites like "Zillow" to make their lending decisions.
BTW in my market, market values never rose as much as in the areas rife with corruption like Florida and California. Except for waterfront property, that is.
as it was a political decision to allow SL's to speculate their way out of their crisis in the 80's.
this gave rise to the mortgage industry in financial markets btw... the effects of this we are feeling this very day.
but my point is these "political" decisions came as eagerly from the GOP as they did from under any Dems.
and as you noted, if anything, the heavier regulation against ripoffs and excesses were likely to come from the Dems in the first place.
You missed my point-those "heavier regulations" the Dems created didn't help things at all-they created additional layers of bureaucracy (and thus more taxpayer money being spent)
it's clear to most objective people that unregulated environments will lead to excesses, ripoffs and unscrupulous people trying to screw anyone/everyone in sight.
yet, at the same time, it's also clear that regulation can often be burdensome, inefficient and counterproductive.
finding the happy medium - that's the trick and one extremely difficult to achieve.
"Finding the happy medium"
I wish everyone would realize that most of time neither side is 100% right or 100% wrong.
Hey, our very successful National Park system is a socialist philosophy.
I think it's been a huge success.
And I think it the regulators job and is in everyones best interest to cease loaning money to folks who cannot pay it back.
The worst part is the poor guy who had to pay a 30%- 40% premium for his first home due to the speculators driving up prices.
How could folks be so stupid? That's a given. Half the folks are below average intelligence.
When I first saw "Flip this House" I knew the end was near.
You two seem knowledgeable about the real estate crisis.
I read somewhere that a key regulation allowing banks to sell the bundled mortgage backed securities on Wall Street was the major cause of the lax/nonexistant loan criteria.
Don't quote me but it was something like that, I think.
You two know of anything about this?
There have been derivatives markets in mortgages going back to the late 1980's. Lewie Ranieri started it with Salomon Bros (read the book Liar's Poker - one of the funniest books you will read)
and IO's and PO's and CDO's have been bundled, sliced, trade and sold for quite some time now.
I do NOT believe that a weakening/lessening of the loan criteria had much of anything to do with those financial instruments.
most things that drive bad loans are
a) greed
b) complacency
when things get whipped up into a frenzy and a place goes "boom", everyone tried to get in on it.
so many historical e.g. Dutch tulip craze and most recently, Latin America and Asia in 1990's, then Russia, then dotcom, now realestate.
btw. the real estate bubble bursting will also now take shape in Great Britain, Ireland and Spain, places in Europe where those markets also went goofy.
at least those people didn't borrow/live off their "paper" equity.
and it was a fantastic business, until it turned out it became harder and harder to squeeze so much water from a rock.
I'd be happier if more of these "businesses" (and banks that whipped/supported them) went completely bankrupt.
I remember constantly getting letters/offers for loans a couple of years ago (when my credit temporarily slipped, although not by much due to a fake thing on my credit report which I later had eliminated)
every day I was getting offers from these "bidnessmen" offering me loans at SIXTEEN (or more) percent, when Prime Rate was sitting at FIVE.
it's crap like that gives capitalism a very bad face.
the main print almost made it seem like a money "giveaway".
Embarrassing.
Very truly yours,
Karl Rove
But they do have other means of making sure they get their way at Convention time. After all, when they "innocently" purloined those 900 or so FBI files, said files were not just of people from the "R" party. They even got Carville's.
It would be a tough baby to split.
It may wind up being a political marriage the likes of which we haven't seen since Kennedy-Johnson (where neither side particularly cared for the other) in 1960.
It could be worse though; at least they won't have McCain as their candidate.
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3684
While Obama supporters won't be thrilled I think they'd accept it. Obama is a young man. He'll get his chance soon enough. This might be the beginning of a 16 year democratic run.
How sweet that would be. I always figured something positive would come out of the GWB presidency.
The only way these two would be on the ticket together would be with him at the top. Of course, she would probably never agree to such an arrangement, unless she and Bill could arrange for an "accident" to allow her to replace him as President.
A sitting U.S Senator and a two term President arranging an "accident". I'm not attacking you but am attacking your statement.
It is utterly preposterous.
You and I are starting to see a lot of things alike.
I agree. Equally preposterous.
Though I never suggested such a thing.
Especially record funding for the black people of Africa and the faith of the brown people in the Middle East to claim freedom for themselves.
Mr. Bush has shown unusual faith and mercy towards the black and brown folk of the world.
Nor are the 2.5 million who have had to flee the country.
The ones that are left also want us to get the hell out.
Do have anything to substantiate the Iraqi's thanking President Bush?
There beef with the west begins and ends with Iraq?
How about Afghanistan? If we're still there under Obama will all the terrorism in Euripoe dry up?
How about all terrorism prior to Bush.
In fact wasn't the charge that Bush was ignoring Al Qaeda because Al Qaeda was the true terrorist threat? (That's at least what Richard Clarke said).
Woudln't that imply then that Al Qaeda was a threat prior to Bush taking office? I do seem vaguely aware of terrorist attacks that occured prior to Bush, though that could be a figment of my imagination.
Where do you get this stuff? It's like you're channeling dead crazy people.
Regards the meat of your comment though, I couldn't give a tin piece WHY some poor kids (or usually, well-off adults) choose to become terrorists. Or "freedom fighters," or soldiers, or any other form of combatant. Let me make this next point perfectly clear.
The instant they kill Americans, for any reason or none, then as far as I am concerned, their lives are forfeit.
If they do so by the rules of warfare, then the rules are known, agreed to ahead of time, and we'll adhere to them. May the best fighter win. If they decide to ignore the various international rules (such as, for instance, by fighting without a uniform, fighting without state support, deliberately targeting noncombatants, etc) then they've determined the scope and nature of the conflict, and we shall abide by that decision as well.
Combat is not a place where you try to prove that you're "better" by some nebulous standard than your opponent, unless you truly believe that might makes right.
Combat is a state of being that we try to escape from as swiftly as possible by utterly destroying the opponent's desire to continue the conflict. The technical term would be to "neutralize" them. In the past, this was usually done by killing as many of them as possible in as short a time as possible. Modern advances have made it possible to "neutralize" would-be opponents by nonlethal means (such as pointing out that opposition force has directly killed far, FAR more fence-sitters than our own actions have).
Personally, I like the modern way a lot better. Less destruction makes it easier for a return to normality (or better, as the case may be). But if pressed, and the new ways stop working for whatever reason, the old ways still work. God willing, we'll never be required to use them again.
/sarc off