*official* 2008 us election thread

[Daaaaave]

Originally posted by Andrew K:

There should be some degree of leadership by example. Gore calls for people to make needed sacrifice, which I completely agrees with, but he doesn't himself actually sacrifice because he has enough money that he doesn't need to be inconvienced by a reduction in energy use. If he needs to travel he pays extra to "offset" his private plane usuage. He signs up for Green energy so he can use as much as he wants. It's the modern day version of indulgences. That's not sacrifice. Living a more austere life is sacrifice. No, I don't expect him to live in a shack and fly coach, but if he wants to lead by example then he could do a lot better than he is doing.

again, he calls for people to reduce their carbon "footstep". doing this at the same time you cut energy consumption would be great, but it's the emissions which forms the heart of the debate which is why the smears against him always omit this point.

also as said before, as a former vp, he has a security detail as well as full time staffers. if he rented an office space and commuted from home to work, it would go unnoticed but he specifically works out of the home *because* he has his home preconfigured to be as green as possible.

I think you can admit that, no matter what their personal policies, a former member of the executive branch is going to have a large energy bill no matter what they do, so comparing that to joe sixpack in their 3/2 ranch is ludicrous.

al gore does not travel on a private plane. from what I've been able to surmise, that particular smear was started by hannity and the source was that gore actually took 8 (I believe) chartered flights in 2000 in the run up to the election. if you have any evidence to show otherwise, I'd be glad to see it and would post it in my usual haunts.

the crux is how much he "needs" versus how much he "wants". and I ask what your qualifications are to determine how much energy a former vp who runs his business out of his home "needs".

and ffs, he's not asking for a sacrifice (as if most americans couldn't do with a little sacrifice themselves). jesus christ, the sheer mention of the word sacrifice gets the walmarters up in arms about what they DESERVE.

it's NOT a sacrifice to switch to fluorescent bulbs to save gas. it's NOT a sacrifice to program your central air to run only when you'll be using it. it's NOT a sacrifice to shut windows or save money by properly insulating your home.

it's common ****ing sense.

[Sir Bert Preast]

P|ssing in the wind.

[Daaaaave]

Originally posted by Jason the Yank:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Andrew K:

That he gives people such easy ammunition is what makes him a poor leader for the movement.

And I don't know what context you are using "you" but I'm quite the opposite of a Global Warming skeptic.

you did read the stat I quoted that said, for his region, his per square foot energy usage is below average, right?

so what it comes down to is we crucify him for having the audacity to be rich and own a large home. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who knew you'd see the day when Republicans were criticizing people for being successful? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

listen, just conspicuously consume and stfu.

anything else and THE TERRORISTS WIN

[Andrew K]

Originally posted by Jason the Yank:

Who knew you'd see the day when Republicans were criticizing people for being successful?

A Democrats defining success by the size of one's house.

[Kizzak]

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kizzak:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kizzak:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

conservative movements are primarily prefigured by demagogues. the demagogue and the movement are intertwined. limbaugh, newt, hannity, o'reilly, coulter, delay, and so on. their cult of personality reigns over anything they have to say. and this has been going on for so long that conservatives think this the natural order of things. without the figurehead to speak, the movement dies.

so since they've had their asses handed to them factually over global warming over and over and over again, they're trying to kill the messenger with the erronous (and pitiful) logic that the conservationist movement will die without gore there to lead it.

tbf, the problem with the GW movement is that the it is based on short-run trends and assumptions of the future yet are making statements in the affirmative that if we don't do this or that something will happen.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah...I got you on one hand, and hundreds of scientists on the other.

damned atheist liberal grant-grubbing scientists.

the problem with the gw movement is it seems to think logic will prevail when morons will deny global warming as a myth with their last smog-filled dying breath because they're too ignorant to see what's right in front of their stupid faces. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Erm, if you read what I said - you'd see I agree with the science, the trends, and the policies. The issue is the unequivocable statements that A or B will happen when we really don't understand the impact of each system on each other.

Hence I'm arguing against the way they are approaching the public relations side of the problem not the science behind it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if you had read the science and the policies, you'd see that nowhere does it state anything "unequivocably". it states that a preponderance of evidence points in a certain direction. not even close to the same thing and they chose their words carefully.

you seem to have been reading either republican talking points or lazy msm coverage and accepted it prima facie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since when did I say anything about the science itself? The lazy MSM coverage (and the people who run point on that) is what I'm complaining about. For example climatecrisis.net (Gore's movie's page) states that heat waves will be more frequent and more intense and droughts and wildfires will occur more often. Not could, will.

Why do I have an issue with this? Melting of the polar caps increases the salinity of the ocean. This increased salinity could slow or shut down the thermohaline circuit. This circuit pulls cold water in the Atlantic to the depths of the ocean via downswelling. A shutdown means cold water stays in the Atlantic and there is general cooling - up to 8 degrees C in some plocations.

My argument is that they should be putting a much different and measured public face because when the media takes this science and proclaims this or that will happen, and it doesn't, it discredits the science (incorrectly) in the eyes of the public.

[Daaaaave]

Originally posted by Kizzak:

It's not just Texas is the point, it's also Georgia and a handful of other states.

If the democrats get involved now, they can force the republican candidates to come out in favor or against the proposal. It's a tactical move to continue to get the base ****ed off at them or create another thing to divide them from independents with once the nominees are determined.

imo, it's a bad play because there are far more republicans against than for. as a republican move, it splinters the party a little, as a democrat play, it does nothing except unite people against democrat meddling.

democrats arguing that this should be mandatory would be a complete non-starter throughout the south and would harden relations when maybe they could soften a little with wush/iraq support so low. I was frankly completely gobsmacked that perry would even touch the issue until I read that he had links (and campaign contributions from) merck.

[Daaaaave]

who cares about the oceans? I mean, I like fish, but...

ALLEGEDLY, the entire wine industry will be facing crisis in the next 30 years because the warming temperatures will mean that appellations will no longer be suitable for their specific vines. burgundy will be growing bordeaux grapes and bordeaux will be growing raisins.

[Daaaaave]

wush = bush obv

[Kizzak]

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kizzak:

It's not just Texas is the point, it's also Georgia and a handful of other states.

If the democrats get involved now, they can force the republican candidates to come out in favor or against the proposal. It's a tactical move to continue to get the base ****ed off at them or create another thing to divide them from independents with once the nominees are determined.

imo, it's a bad play because there are far more republicans against than for. as a republican move, it splinters the party a little, as a democrat play, it does nothing except unite people against democrat meddling.

democrats arguing that this should be mandatory would be a complete non-starter throughout the south and would harden relations when maybe they could soften a little with wush/iraq support so low. I was frankly completely gobsmacked that perry would even touch the issue until I read that he had links (and campaign contributions from) merck. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the point though - you solidify the south for the Republicans, but Ohio, Florida, and another 2 or 3 battlegrounds are firmly in the Democrats' favor.

By being against public health/for punishing people with cancer and death - they would lose a massive amount of independent voters in the mid-west, north east, and west.

[Daaaaave]

I don't think it's big enough to move the way you think it might. local dems making a play in-state, maybe, but stem cells had michael j fox and it made only a fraction of a difference in missouri.

if it was a matter of making the gardasil available/legal, I think that would be big news, but even some democrats are a little sketchy about what should or shouldn't be mandatory when it comes to their bodies, even when it's about vaccines. it might even backfire against them in the west where libertarianism is stronger and no one wants the gub'mint telling them what they have to do.

[Jason the Yank]

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jason the Yank:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Andrew K:

That he gives people such easy ammunition is what makes him a poor leader for the movement.

And I don't know what context you are using "you" but I'm quite the opposite of a Global Warming skeptic.

you did read the stat I quoted that said, for his region, his per square foot energy usage is below average, right?

so what it comes down to is we crucify him for having the audacity to be rich and own a large home. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who knew you'd see the day when Republicans were criticizing people for being successful? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

listen, just conspicuously consume and stfu.

anything else and THE TERRORISTS WIN </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You forgot the bit about FREEDOM, amigo. ul

[Kizzak]

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

I don't think it's big enough to move the way you think it might. local dems making a play in-state, maybe, but stem cells had michael j fox and it made only a fraction of a difference in missouri.

if it was a matter of making the gardasil available/legal, I think that would be big news, but even some democrats are a little sketchy about what should or shouldn't be mandatory when it comes to their bodies, even when it's about vaccines. it might even backfire against them in the west where libertarianism is stronger and no one wants the gub'mint telling them what they have to do.

We won't know until it's tried, but personally I'd be pushing it heavily as a public health thing. Especially given that 12800 are diagnosed yearly and 4800 die yearly.

The Hep B vaccine is required by many states - so I think jumping on the bandwagon and advocating the HPV vaccine requirement to be adopted by more states is both a good thing in general and a good thing tactically.

Remember that part of the way the Republicans had success in 2004 was pushing the gay marriage thing on a state level.

Stem cells didn't have people dying as a direct result of a no vote.

HPV is the cause of around 70% of all cervical cancer. That means somewhere around 8960 cases yearly of diagnosed cervical cancer would be directly preventable, and assuming the same % holds up, 3360 deaths a year could be prevented.

You already have 5-7 vaccines mandatory for school, I don't see why adding another one is bad.

I would agree that if it stayed limited to Texas and Georgia, it wouldn't matter much - but the point is to get politicians talking about it nationally now so that the issue spreads to quite a few states within the year. Force candidates to take a position before the primaries.

[Daaaaave]

bush approval ratings

Approve Disapprove

CBS/NY Times

2/23-27 29 61

2/8-11 32 59

FOX

2/27-28 34 57

2/13-14 35 56

Time

2/23-26 34 60

1/22-23 37 59

ABC News/WaPo

2/22-25 36 62

1/16-19 33 65

[Jason the Yank]

LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- Michigan Democratic leaders said Thursday they'll hold their presidential caucus no later than Saturday, Feb. 9, and may go earlier if other states don't abide by national party rules.

The Iowa caucuses kick off the presidential nominating season on Jan. 14, then Nevada holds a Democrats-only contest Jan. 19, followed by the New Hampshire primary - which could fall on Jan. 22, although the state has not set a date - and contests in South Carolina, which has its Democratic primary Jan. 29 and GOP primary on Feb. 2.

Under Democratic National Committee rules, only those four states can hold primaries or caucuses before Feb. 5; others that try to go early will lose delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

On the Republican side, any state holding a primary or caucus before Feb. 5 will lose delegates to the Republican National Convention, even Iowa and New Hampshire, which traditionally go first, according to RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt.

Around 20 states, including big players such as California, Florida and New Jersey, plan to have their GOP and Democratic contests on Feb. 5.

Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer said Thursday that, if any state other than Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire or South Carolina tries to jump in before Feb. 5, Michigan won't be far behind.

"If any state schedules its caucus or primary in violation of the ... rules, Michigan will move its caucus to an earlier date. That earlier date may be on or before the date of the offending state's caucus or primary," Brewer said in a statement.

Michigan Republican Chairman Saul Anuzis said he's still working with Brewer to come up with a joint date - possibly Feb. 5 - on which the two parties can hold semi-closed presidential primaries.

He said his party would have to consider its options if Michigan Democrats decide to ignore the Feb. 5 embargo.

"We haven't had that conversation yet, whether we're willing to give up any of our delegates" in return for the chance to play an earlier role, Anuzis said Thursday. "I hope the Michigan Republicans will be able to cut a deal with the Democrats to hold a joint primary."

If they can't, Anuzis said his party will make plans to have either a closed primary or a caucus early next February.

The DNC last summer moved the Nevada caucuses in front of the New Hampshire primary, which upset many in that Northeastern state.

Brewer, who had lobbied unsuccessfully to have Michigan be one of those voting first in 2008 along with Iowa and New Hampshire, said that he hoped the states would stick with the timetable set by the DNC.

"No state should undermine those reforms which have made the pre-window contests more representative and diverse," he said.

But New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner hasn't decided if he'll move up the state's primary to comply with a New Hampshire law that requires it to be scheduled a week or more before any "similar election."

He isn't planning to make that decision until late this year. Moving the New Hampshire primary could turn the entire presidential calendar upside down, encouraging states such as Michigan to jump into the fray before Feb. 5.

Michigan Democrats tried to set up the state to play a pivotal role in the 2004 presidential contest by holding the Democratic caucuses on Feb. 7. But the contest pretty much was decided once six other states held their Democratic presidential contests four days earlier.

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry easily won Michigan in those caucuses, with Vermont Gov. Howard Dean coming in second and then-North Carolina Sen. John Edwards taking third.

Because President Bush didn't face a primary challenger, Michigan Republicans skipped their 2004 presidential primary and held party caucuses to decide the nominee. Arizona Sen. John McCain won the state GOP's 2000 open presidential primary, a victory he hopes to repeat next year.

[Guest]

On Fox News last night they had some priest from Obama's church on trying to explain away suggestions that it's a black separatist church. He made Hannity look like an idiot and they had to cut him off. Which admittedly isnt a hard thing to do.

[Kizzak]

If I was Michigan, I'd get together with California, New York, and a couple of other large states and as a group move their dates forward.

Then if the DNC insists on not counting their delegates - inform them that the candidate chosen by the DNC will not be the Democratic candidate on the ballot in that state.

When that threat applies to around 100-120 electoral votes, I can guarantee you that they will shut the hell up and work something out better for all the states.

[Kizzak]

In fact, all they need is California, Michigan, and New York to force such a compromise because that is 103 electoral votes - and there's no way that a Democrat can get elected without those three states.

[Daaaaave]

since that would end the primary system as we know it, I'd have to say that's a holocaust of an idea.

[Daaaaave]

and since I love polls...here's an interested new one from rasmussen

Rudy Giuliani ® 52%

Bill Richardson (D) 35%

John McCain ® 45%

Bill Richardson (D) 36%

bill richardson only polling 9 points behind mccain.

while this could be written off as just name recognition + party loyalty, I think it also shows how soft the middle is when it comes to supporting mccain. his ability to draw moderates seems to be just about over.

[Daaaaave]

A House Judiciary subcommittee approved today the first in what is expected to be an avalanche of subpoenas to Bush administration officials. They will likely explore corruption and mismanagement allegations on everything from pre-war Iraq intelligence to the mishandling of the response to Hurricane Katrina.

The first round of subpoenas concern the recent controversial firings by the Bush administration of seven U.S. attorneys, some of whom were pursuing public corruption cases against Republican members of Congress.

The House Judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law, chaired by Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), approved subpoenas requiring four former U.S. attorneys to appear at a subcommittee hearing next Tuesday. The former U.S. attorneys include Carol Lam of California, David Iglesias of New Mexico, H.E. Cummins III of Arkansas, and John McKay of Washington state. The subcommittee approved the subpoenas by voice vote; no Republican lawmakers were present.

woohoo...let the subpoenas commence

[finneys13]

Impeach Bush, if only to beat Nixon as worst final term ever \o/

[JK Galgreefe]

i'd ****ing love to see bush impeached, but i can't see it happening.

[Daaaaave]

impeachment almost definitely won't happen. the public largely has no stomach for it and it'll be too easily twisted as payback for clinton.

subpoena the hell out of everything they've done for the last 6 years and start building criminal cases. we might not be able to get bush and cheney, but we can sure as hell nail all of their toadies and make them so toxic that their political capital will be zero.

this is just the beginning. there's still gitmo, katrina, energy commission, 9/11, wmd info, more plame, etc... still to come.

[finneys13]

'Mon

I imagine any newly elected President will close Gitmo as soon as possbile, from whatever party. I would be correct there, wouldn't I?

After the election, could the new President encourage charges to be pressed against Bush and Cheney, or is there an amnesty for the period when a President/VP was in office? I know it wouldn't happen as it would rip apart the country, etc., unless something really bad comes up.

[Daaaaave]

domestic charges against bush and cheney? probably not. too radioactive, too many people would have to admit they were wrong.

could they be charged by the icc? possibly, almost probably. what happens should that occur would be very interesting. maybe even a "bush won't be extradited, but can't leave the country for fear of prosecution" type scenario.

as for gitmo, my gut says mccain might keep it open, the rest of the gop would shut it down quietly, the dems would shut it down and throw a parade.

[finneys13]

Well if a Democrat President rejoins the ICC, and they press charges against Bush, he would have to be extradited, wouldn't he?

Bush and Cheney in the Hague would be one of the greatest moments in recent history.

[Oggy73]

Will never, ever happen. Extraditing Bush = obliteration of the Democratic party for decades, at least. Not that it would ever happen, even if a sitting president were stupid enough to try it.

[Fat Bhoy Tim]

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

as for gitmo, my gut says mccain might keep it open, the rest of the gop would shut it down quietly, the dems would shut it down and throw a parade.

A ticker-tape one at that.

[McMaster#28]

C4 program/drama about a month ago dramatizing Blair finally leaving office in 2010 and going to The Hague (not William)

[Kizzak]

Originally posted by finneys13:

Well if a Democrat President rejoins the ICC, and they press charges against Bush, he would have to be extradited, wouldn't he?

Bush and Cheney in the Hague would be one of the greatest moments in recent history.

I should point out that the Bush family has bought 98,840 acres in Paraguay near the Bolivian/Brazilian border.

So if it comes to that, they'll go on the run \o/

[Edinho]

Originally posted by Francis Cole:

C4 program/drama about a month ago dramatizing Blair finally leaving office in 2010 and going to The Hague (not William)

was a pretty **** programme tbh but Lindsay was good

[Daaaaave]

here's a lesson in just how deluded most republicans are right now and how hard they're trying to spin that they're still in control.

article titled "why republicans are smiling" by uber neo-con bill kristol.

I have lots of conservative friends and often speak to Republican-leaning groups. I have something surprising to report: they're pretty cheerful. They're well aware that President Bush's numbers are terrible--and that Al Gore got an Academy Award. Yet my fellow conservatives and Republicans are pretty upbeat. After a rough 2006, conservative magazines are seeing an uptick in subscription renewals, right-wing websites are getting more hits, and Republican and conservative groups here at Harvard (yes, Harvard!) seem invigorated. What's going on? Here are five reasons conservatives and Republicans might have some cause for their cheer.

1. The surge. Nothing was more demoralizing last year to supporters of the war than the sense that Bush was refusing to alter course out of misguided loyalty to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and General George Casey. The ouster of Rumsfeld and Casey and the announcement of a new strategy backed up by additional troops and a new commander, General David Petraeus, gave hope to those who still think success is possible in Iraq--which, polls show, is still a healthy majority of Republicans.

2. Congress. The bad news of November 2006 was that the Republicans lost their majorities on Capitol Hill. The good news is that the Democrats are now in control. It's difficult to be in charge of Congress, especially when your grass roots are pushing you to do something about the war, and it's hard to do anything without seeming to undercut the troops or denying Petraeus a chance to succeed. Mitch McConnell's performance as Senate Republican leader has also--for the first time in a long while--given Republicans a congressional leader worth rooting for as he outmaneuvers the Democrats in their efforts to put Congress on record against Bush's Iraq policy.

3. The 2008 Democratic field. Hillary Clinton, as Hollywood chieftain David Geffen has famously pointed out, looks beatable in a general election. Barack Obama is impressive but Republicans find it hard to believe he'll be our next President. The second time doesn't seem to be the charm for John Edwards. And Al Gore, who could be the nominee, still isn't a natural pol. There are serious Democrats who have won in red or purple states: former Governors Mark Warner of Virginia and Tom Vilsack of Iowa, Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana and Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico. But the first three have dropped out of the presidential race, and Richardson is polling at 2% and looks unlikely to make it into the top tier. Hillary is the least left-wing of the leading Democratic candidates. To a Republican, that says it all.

4. The 2008 Republican field. Republicans look likely to nominate one from a trio of "metro Republicans," to use the term applied to Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney by Noemie Emery in the Weekly Standard. Emery writes, "None hails from the South, none looks or sounds country, none is conspicuous for traditional piety ... [but] each is a strong conservative on many key issues, while having a dissident streak on a few. Each has a way of presenting conservative views that centrists don't find threatening, and projecting fairly traditional values in a language that secular voters don't fear." Each has shown an ability to get independent and even Democratic votes. Democrats won the national vote in 2006 by about 8 points. Republican front runner Giuliani now beats Democratic front runner Clinton in polls by about that margin.

5. Fresh ideas. I don't sense that conservatism is exhausted. There's new thinking on domestic policy that could serve as the basis of an interesting agenda for the G.O.P. nominee. Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam explain in their forthcoming book on "Sam's Club Republicans" how the G.O.P. can do a better job of responding to the anxieties of working and middle-class Americans in areas like tax policy and health insurance, and the Ethics and Public Policy Center's Yuval Levin suggests a complementary policy agenda--"Putting Parents First," he calls it--aimed at those same swing voters. In foreign policy, the U.S. will still be at war in 2008--and despite Bush's travails, Republicans still seem likely to be able to claim to be the party of American strength.

It's worth remembering that off-year elections often aren't predictors of the outcome of the next presidential one. The 1994 Republican off-year sweep was followed by Bill Clinton's easy 1996 victory over Bob Dole. The 1986 Democratic take-back of the Senate and the 1987 Iran-contra scandal didn't prevent then Vice President George H.W. Bush from dismantling Michael Dukakis in 1988. 2006 was a bad year for the G.O.P. 2008 may not be.

in order

1) that "healthy" majority of republicans who think we can still succeed in iraq is currently at 53%. the number drops below 40% for independents. and more to the point, no one cares who the new general is. the policy is still run (badly) of the white house. this spin was odd in it's transparency.

2) gloating about how the democrats will be in trouble while simultaneously glowing about mcconnell's "maneuvering" is similarly strange. what's being reported is that the american people and the democratic congress want to discuss the war and republicans are playing obstructionist games. I fail to see how this is a winner for them.

3) hillary clinton "looks beatable", but is still clobbering romney and mccain in every poll. obama is simply dismissed because of what ******** republicans "find hard to believe". no one else even gets a serious mention. this section clearly indicates that the republicans are praying clinton walks the primary so they can try to slime their way to victory.

4) ha! right now, mccain is sliding almost inexorably backwards, tied to bush's war policy that everyone hates but kristol seems to think republicans love. romney hasn't shown to be anything more than a vanity candidate, not polling more than 15% anywhere. as for giuliani, let's see how his talk about making sure another alito or scalia makes the bench in order to overturn roe v. wade is taken by those centrists.

5) sam's club republicans is apt indeed, considering wal-mart has been losing profitability and their shares have been downgraded from "buy" to "neutral/hold". as for the "party of strength", polls show voters trust democrats over republicans on the war in iraq by a factor of 2 to 1.

that kristol is up front spinning is unsurprising, what is surprising is how utterly unreal it is. good spin always has a pinch of reality in there to keep it plausible. I can't see this playing to anyone other than the hardcore conservative base who just want to play "happy days are here again" and wish all their troubles away.

[Kizzak]

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

since that would end the primary system as we know it, I'd have to say that's a holocaust of an idea.

I hate the primary system as it is now because of the media. Once someone wins a couple states and the media anoints them - it's over.

I'd rather go back to the days where all the real work was done at the convention, and occasionally you'd have a third candidate come out and win it there.

[Daaaaave]

Originally posted by Oggy73:

Will never, ever happen. Extraditing Bush = obliteration of the Democratic party for decades, at least. Not that it would ever happen, even if a sitting president were stupid enough to try it.

might not come to that. could seed the determination over to an "independent prosecutor" in the mold of patrick fitzgerald or, heh...kenneth starr.

[Daaaaave]

Originally posted by Kizzak:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

since that would end the primary system as we know it, I'd have to say that's a holocaust of an idea.

I hate the primary system as it is now because of the media. Once someone wins a couple states and the media anoints them - it's over.

I'd rather go back to the days where all the real work was done at the convention, and occasionally you'd have a third candidate come out and win it there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

uh...by this measure, it'd never, ever, ever make it to a convention. you would scrap "retail" politics entirely, everything would come down to who raised the most money earliest, saturated the largest markets with advertising and carried the nomination off the backs of the six largest states while the other 44 get ignored.

it's everything that's worst about the general election rolled up and intensified.

is there a problem with iowa and nh getting too much exposure? yes. but there's better ways of solving it than a nationwide primary abortion.

[Edinho]

point 2 is brilliant we're not in charge any more and it's grrrrr-eat

[Kizzak]

btw, did you see the leaked campaign document from Romney's camp a couple days ago?

77 slide power point on campaign strategy because he's apparently the "PowerPoint Candidate".

[Daaaaave]

Originally posted by Edinho:

point 2 is brilliant we're not in charge any more and it's grrrrr-eat

to a certain extent, it's true. with the democrats in control of congress, people will be expecting movement in iraq, health ins, et al.

the dumb part is that he's bragging how the gop will stop anything from being done. as if the american people won't be watching and see that the gop is directly responsible for keeping their concerns from being aired.

there is a line of thinking among democrats that nothing's going to be done until 2009 anyway, so we'll just bring up bill after bill, knowing they won't pass, but using all of the republicans' no votes and filibuster votes to absolutely mell gop candidates in 08.

[Daaaaave]

Originally posted by Kizzak:

btw, did you see the leaked campaign document from Romney's camp a couple days ago?

77 slide power point on campaign strategy because he's apparently the "PowerPoint Candidate".

he has to be. he has the worst stump of all 6 major candidates right now. he ran a venture capital firm and absolutely looks the part. the pulpit as the boardroom, without some nifty graphics, his audience falls asleep.

[Edinho]

i'm sure they'd rather have majorities in both houses but i see what you're saying

[gunnerfan]

Ah, I remember it well...January of 2000, and in "intelligent, well-informed circles" there was nearly unanimous agreement that the two nominees would be John McCain and Bill Bradley.

[Daaaaave]

Originally posted by gunnerfan:

Ah, I remember it well...January of 2000, and in "intelligent, well-informed circles" there was nearly unanimous agreement that the two nominees would be John McCain and Bill Bradley.

uh...no. bradley was always the underdog against gore.

as for mccain, if it wasn't for that disgusting slur about him having an illigitimate black child just before the sc primary, he might have been able to pull it off. nonetheless, bush was in front from the moment he announced until the end, except for a brief window between mccain's dark horse win in nh until sc, when momentum clearly shifted.

[Daaaaave]

Originally posted by Edinho:

i'm sure they'd rather have majorities in both houses but i see what you're saying

they have a majority in both houses (assuming you count lieberman as a democrat), the problem is that they don't have a large enough majority to beat a filibuster or a veto.

[Edinho]

i was referring to the republicans

[gunnerfan]

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gunnerfan:

Ah, I remember it well...January of 2000, and in "intelligent, well-informed circles" there was nearly unanimous agreement that the two nominees would be John McCain and Bill Bradley.

uh...no. bradley was always the underdog against gore.

as for mccain, if it wasn't for that disgusting slur about him having an illigitimate black child just before the sc primary, he might have been able to pull it off. nonetheless, bush was in front from the moment he announced until the end, except for a brief window between mccain's dark horse win in nh until sc, when momentum clearly shifted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not referring to polls, I'm referring to the expectations of "experts", "prognosticators" and the like. And there were many who were hoping for Bradley to pull off the upset, and who believed it possible. And, as you point out, there was a point at which it really did appear that McCain could pull it off. However, Bush's huge advantage in fundraising, fueled by a sense among many Republicans that he was the only candidate who was electable, ultimately carried the day (along with some dirty tricks, as Daaaaave correctly points out).

[Oggy73]

Republican hopes resting on Mitch McConnell, a GOP leftward swing, and the Surge? This makes me quite happy.

As for the candidates, I'm unsure how well either Giuliani or McCain will stand up to long scrutiny and the demands of the more vociferous branches of their party.

Even Kristol thinks Obama is impressive. If the worst thing to get thrown at him is that some Republicans don't think he can be president, he's doing pretty good.

[Daaaaave]

Originally posted by Oggy73:

Even Kristol thinks Obama is impressive. If the worst thing to get thrown at him is that some Republicans don't think he can be president, he's doing pretty good.

they're scared shitless. the hussein slime didn't stick. the madrassa slime didn't stick. most people ignored the smoking slime. most people ignored the land slime.

and the smart thing about announcing so early is that he's going to be so visible from now until next november that the inexperienced slime isn't going to be a factor either.

he's bulletproof so far and god knows they're digging to find something.

[Kizzak]

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kizzak:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

since that would end the primary system as we know it, I'd have to say that's a holocaust of an idea.

I hate the primary system as it is now because of the media. Once someone wins a couple states and the media anoints them - it's over.

I'd rather go back to the days where all the real work was done at the convention, and occasionally you'd have a third candidate come out and win it there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

uh...by this measure, it'd never, ever, ever make it to a convention. you would scrap "retail" politics entirely, everything would come down to who raised the most money earliest, saturated the largest markets with advertising and carried the nomination off the backs of the six largest states while the other 44 get ignored.

it's everything that's worst about the general election rolled up and intensified.

is there a problem with iowa and nh getting too much exposure? yes. but there's better ways of solving it than a nationwide primary abortion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hate retail politics, they are responsible in part for the abortions known as farm subsidies and that shitty ethanol subsidy.

[Gordon Comstock]

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Oggy73:

Even Kristol thinks Obama is impressive. If the worst thing to get thrown at him is that some Republicans don't think he can be president, he's doing pretty good.

they're scared shitless. the hussein slime didn't stick. the madrassa slime didn't stick. most people ignored the smoking slime. most people ignored the land slime.

and the smart thing about announcing so early is that he's going to be so visible from now until next november that the inexperienced slime isn't going to be a factor either.

he's bulletproof so far and god knows they're digging to find something. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Obama will win.

[Daaaaave]

Originally posted by Andy Jordan:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Oggy73:

Even Kristol thinks Obama is impressive. If the worst thing to get thrown at him is that some Republicans don't think he can be president, he's doing pretty good.

they're scared shitless. the hussein slime didn't stick. the madrassa slime didn't stick. most people ignored the smoking slime. most people ignored the land slime.

and the smart thing about announcing so early is that he's going to be so visible from now until next november that the inexperienced slime isn't going to be a factor either.

he's bulletproof so far and god knows they're digging to find something. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Obama will win. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the problem is that I thought giuliani would have real troubles winning a primary, but he's absolutely sailing so far. if the social conservatives and evangelicals manage to do what no one's thinks they can do and galvanize behind rudy, he's in easily.

and while obama would muller mccain or romney, I'm not confident at all about obama/giuliani.

I mean, it'd be sorta cool because giuliani's the least offensive of the gop, but still...