Yes, and:
Let's give the mendacious Clinton camp the benefit of the doubt and say that Hillary is a sure thing, while Obama would likely lose. Wrong, but let's grant that idea.I think it is obvious that the superdelegates will pick Obama. They have their own self-interest to consider, not to mention the long-term interest of the party. The choice for Obama is clear — and it would be clear even if they knew Clinton would win and Obama will lose.
I. Wouldn't. Care. Anyway. And neither should you.
... America stands on the verge of a new political realignment....
[I]f the Democratic Party gets the vote of the Millennial generation again, it will have it for the rest of their natural lives, creating a daunting electoral majority that will ensure Democratic advantages if not Democratic dominance for the next 30-40 years--whether McCain happens to get elected in 2008 or not.
With Obama at the top of the ticket, the Millennials will come to the polls in massive numbers to elect him....
Obama is the nominee who can literally lock in structural advantages for Democrats for the next forty years.
पोस्ट्स
१६१ टिप्पण्या:
This is exactly why, as a conservative, I want HRC to be the nominee. I want McCain to Lose. A McCain win means a continuation of the Bush Presidency including open borders, massive trade and budget deficits and more wars. And even worse a Democrat congress, for 4 more years.
Go Hillary!
That is true too!
Winnie the Pooh enjoyed his life. He went through in a happy daze, always stopping to smell a flower or follow a butterfly down a garden path. But life can be cruel and it really changed after the internet came into his life. Pooh loved to post whimsical sayings and loved to describe the simple vignettes that had brought his life such meaning. But he was constantly harangued by his commenters especially about his friendship with Foghorn J. Leghorn who was the mayor of cartoon town during the fifties and who was a strong defender of segregation. Pooh remained loyal to his friend because he didn’t think what he had done years ago had any relevance in the here and now. And the criticism was moot since Pooh was beaten to death by Mortimer Brezny for calling a tiger of his acquaintance Tigger. It’s funny how life works out sometimes.
(The Tao of Pooh, Benjamin Hoff)
"America stands on the verge of a new political realignment."
Karl Rove thought so four years ago, too. That feeling is called "hubris."
As to rcocean's idea that "[a] McCain win means a continuation of the Bush Presidency," that is too silly to warrant response.
"Obama is the nominee who can literally lock in structural advantages for Democrats for the next forty years."
Wow - literally! Like, literally!
I'd propose McCain run as the Democrat candidate, and let the Republicans do the smoke-filled-room.
I'd pick Cheney.
literally
Literally, like any word, can be use figuratively, which is the usual case when something happens ``literally.''
The figure means, more or less, that the statement is so exact so as to be as good as literal.
Hence it came to work like an intensive.
[I]f the Democratic Party gets the vote of the Millennial generation again, it will have it for the rest of their natural lives
Or until they grow up, anyway. Which might come to the same thing, if the Daily Kos is anything to go by.
No, because you can't predict the future. What's going to happen in the next four years? A lot. No one knows exactly what, but it could easily upset whatever long-term trends supposedly exist now.
Remember the talk of the Republican realignment, that supposedly meant 30 to 40 years of electoral dominance? That idea was current in 2004. Hmm.
In politics, you win the next election. Looking any farther forward than that is... shortsighted. Since you can't predict the future, banking on trends that are only evident in hindsight is folly.
Simon, My assertion wasn't silly.
This is silly:
"The wonderful thing about Tiggers
-Is Tiggers are wonderful things
-Their tops are made out of rubber
-The bottoms are made out of springs
-They're bouncy, trouncy, flouncy, pouncy Fun, fun, fun, fun.
-But the most wonderful thing about Tiggers is.....I'm the only one.."
This talk of Millenials is yet another reason why MSM are so retarded, and I don't think blogs should ape that tendency (I know, we're not, I'm just sayin').
Even if a whole generation of people can be defined by one term, it's still insulting to think that they will vote as a hegemonic group for all eternity (or in the case of politics, 30-40 years).
That wasn't true of the Boomers, who so far, are the most naturally leftist generation in the history of the US. Why would it be true of the kids who grew up under Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush all of whom were free-traders?
In "Millenials Rising", it is said they are a conservative bunch.
Not politically, but PERSONALLY -- but as we all know, youth tends to be liberal, and then they grow progressively more conservative as the reality of life kicks in.
Having said that, count me in as one of those who views an impending McCain victory with anxiety for all the reasons previous posters have said.
Cheers,
Victoria
Karl Rove thought so four years ago, too. That feeling is called "hubris."
That is true.
As to rcocean's idea that "[a] McCain win means a continuation of the Bush Presidency," that is too silly to warrant response.
That is not true. McCain has signed on to enough of Bush's policies to reasonably be described as Bush's third term.
But let's leave that aside. If this is what the superdelegates are thinking, then they are fools. If there's anything that both Clinton and Bush have taught us, it's that it is better to be in the driver's seat in the White House than being anywhere else. The President sets the tone, and over the last 40 or so years (the non-elected Ford and the recession-plagued Bush I being the exceptions), re-election to a second term is the most likely fate for a sitting President. If they want to play the win-by-losing game, then the hell with them.
Tigger had a hard life. After his father abandoned the family, his mother dropped him off with his grandmother Kanga so she could marry Speed Racer’s father and move to Japan. Tigger had to live in the forest and was forced to adapt to an alien culture. He was always really a jungle cat. Even so he thrived as he found many mentors who helped him along in life. Everyone reached out to help him along because they knew he would go far some day. He was sure to be elected King of the Jungle.
(The Tigger of the Narcissus, Joe Conrad Klein)
Adam Smith might suggest the superdelegates find their own sweet spot in a decision tree like this (post primaries), decide whether their self-interest trumped other interests, then either take the spear, or not.
That last line should say, "to hell with them", not "the hell with them". That other phrase doesn't make much sense.
By the way, Bill Clinton was in Houston today for an event as a surrogate for the missus. He looked good, drew energy from the crowd (he's known for that) and seemed to enjoy the give-and-take with the audience. If the superdelegates want to play the game that Kaus describes, there will be another force quietly (or not-so-quietly) working in American politics for the next few years that will remember their calculations, and act accordingly.
somefeller said...
"McCain has signed on to enough of Bush's policies to reasonably be described as Bush's third term."
With all due respect, there is no word in the English language to describe how deeply, utterly silly the idea that John McCain can reasonably be described as being similar enough - in temperament, in character, in policy - to Bush as to be a third term for the latter. It's not quite as silly as claiming that Jefferson was Adams' second term, but it's close.
When Tigger went to school, he adopted a new identity. He didn’t want to be a cartoon Tiger, he wanted to be the real thing. So he went to meetings with radical groups and experimented with Feline centric ideology. And he joined a new church which had a very charismatic minister. Tony the Tiger. Tony hated the other cats in the jungle. He thought they were keeping the tigers down. And that they had infected them with fur balls so they couldn’t make speeches to get one of them to be elected king of the jungle. Those pasty skinned lions had been on top for too long. Tony knew that only bigotry and prejudice could have kept his people down so long. He and his congregation just repeated their catchphrase about tigers: “Their Grrreeaaat!”
(The Tigger of the Narcissus, Joe Conrad Klein)
Temperment and character are less important than policy when one is discussing the continuation of an administration by a third term. McCain has signed onto Bush's Iraq policies and his economic policies (despite his prior opposition to the Bush tax cuts), and there's no reason to believe that there will be a large-scale change of the type of personnel running the Executive Branch in a McCain Administration vs. the type of people (if not the actual people - look at McCain's economic advisors) that ran Bush's Administration. And as many wise people have pointed out, personnel is policy.
I'd love to think that McCain will be a big change from Bush, but while Barack Obama might believe that McCain will be a better President than Bush, I'm not seeing much evidence to convince me of that, and in any case, that's a pretty low bar to meet. But hey, I'd like to be proved wrong on that point. The country would be well-served if I am wrong about that.
Last, as far as temperment goes, I'm not sure McCain wins that one. A placid fratboy has certain tempermental advantages over a hothead, particularly in executive situations.
No difference between Bush and McCain on:
- Immigration Aka "Open Borders"
- Support for affirmative action
- War in Iraq
- Free Trade
- Economics in general
- Abortion
- Massive military spending
- Judges (well, McCain will be more liberal)
-McCain Feingold
Bush pays more lip service to the social conservatives, and likes Ted Kennedy less, but otherwise McCain is just Bush II.
Echo. I supported Bush, voted for him twice. And I left the GOP last summer because of McCain's border control sham.
A McCain presidency will not resemble Bush's.
By the way - what are these so-called "Millenials"? Is that just code for Obama's supposed support base - the young and college-educated? Well, I'm 28, I went to college, and I can't stand the man. I think he's either dumb as a post or a colossal liar, depending on whether he believes his own rhetoric, and I really am struggling to understand how so many people have been taken in by this horrible man, his empty rhetoric, and his retrograde throwback ideas. This election season is a very difficult time for me, to tell the truth. I'm really finding it very difficult to maintain respect for several friends and family who've said they're supporting him (which excludes those whose main motivation isn't support of Obama but opposition to Clinton, which I of course fully respect). I don't know when it became chic among so many Americans to want to be european.
Just off the top of my head [dinner waiting]
War in Iraq <- McCain supported the idea of a surge long before Bush woke up to its necessity.
Abortion <- Why is this in here? POTUS has no control over the abortion issue. All either can do is nominate judges, and McCain will not choose an Alito or Roberts type.
Massive military spending <- And why is this in here? We're at war against rogue nation states that seek WMDs and support terrorists for proxy suicide attacks against the West. Military spending is lagging.
[as % of GDP]
37% WW2
8% Vietnam
13% Korea
4% Iraq/Afganistan combined
somefeller said...
"Temperment and character are less important than policy when one is discussing the continuation of an administration by a third term."
I disagree. Temperament and character are integral to the temperament and character of an administration.
"McCain has signed onto Bush's Iraq policies ..."
Not so. Bush has signed onto McCain's Iraq policy. Don't let that fact escape your mind. What they share in common on Iraq policy is that unlike both Democratic candidates, their Iraq policy doesn't involve surrender and retreat.
"and his economic policies (despite his prior opposition to the Bush tax cuts)..."
This point is always misrepresented. McCain opposed Bush's tax cuts not because they cut taxes too much, but because they didn't also cut spending. Once they passed, the horse was out of the barn; McCain supports a low tax regime and has continued to push for spending reductions. So there's no inconsistency between his earlier position and his position now.
"... and there's no reason to believe that there will be a large-scale change of the type of personnel running the Executive Branch in a McCain Administration.... "
There's every reason to think so. McCain can't stand Bush - is that not obvious? - and doesn't trust his judgment. Paul Clement will keep his job, because he is an incredibly gifted advocate on a Robertsian level, but everyone else should be preparing a resume. In particular, every person involved in communications for this administration will be fired and excommunicated.
"I'd love to think that McCain will be a big change from Bush..."
Believe it.
"while Barack Obama might believe that McCain will be a better President than Bush, I'm not seeing much evidence to convince me of that, and in any case, that's a pretty low bar to meet."
I agree it's a low bar. Bush is a mediocre President at best in times where extraordinary was demanded. The biggest catastrophe to befall the United States in the last thirty years was McCain losing the 2000 primary, forcing two elections where a mediocrity was clearly the best candidate. But "better" isn't the issue - different is. And McCain will be a very different President. (Of course, he'll be better as well - McCain doesn't have an MBA.)
"Last, as far as temperment goes, I'm not sure McCain wins that one. A placid fratboy has certain tempermental advantages over a hothead, particularly in executive situations."
Again, different is the issue, not better. Reasonable minds can differ as to which is better (and FWIW, I do differ), but it's clear that McCain is different.
Now the time has finally arrived for Tigger to run for king of the jungle. His only competition was Penelope who was a very ordinary pussycat who was only popular because of her husband Pepe Le Pew. And he wasn’t even a cat, he was a skunk. His sexual misadventures were infamous, but he still was very popular in the jungle. Tigger had a lot of energy and he knew if he just offered change he could get a lot of votes especially from the young people. I mean why would they vote for his two rivals. An ordinary pussycat who never did anything in her life but cling to her husbands skunktail or the other party’s nominee, the octogenarian Old Deuteronomy who was only famous for being tortured by Marlon Perkins during the fourth season of Wild Kingdom. The election was his to lose.
(The Tigger of the Narcissus, Joe Conrad Klein)
The argument presumes the superdelegates like Bidens, etc are hegemonic too (thanks VBSpurs).
In reality, there is an enormous power struggle going on among the Dem superdelegates (aka Beltway elites) between the old Dems like Rendell and Carville vs. the Caseys and others who will gain power when and if Obama wins the Prez seat.
It is obvious these old Dems (mainly Clintonsitas) are clinging to power by supporting Hillary because they know if Obama wins they are not guaranteed a seat at the table.
Lastly , Joe Biden is not too smart and the article gives him way too much credit.
Would anyone who's a conservative explain to me how McCain is going to be BETTER than Bush in *Any* way?
I can see how McCain will *worse* than Bush (Judges and co-operating with Ted Kennedy), but where is the upside, conservative-wise?
The term "I'm crowning" means that someone is about to pinch a loaf. The bud of the loaf is literally starting to peak out of the anus.
I thought my fellow republicans would want to know that little tidbit.
It's another term for saying I have to go poop really bad, i.e. find me a toilet now.
and on cue, today in NOLA, McCain "criticize[d] President Bush, a fellow Republican, for the federal response to Hurricane Katrina. 'Never again will a disaster of this nature be handled in the terrible and disgraceful way it was handled,' McCain said." If he's running for Bush's third term, he's got a funny way of doing it.
Jeeez I heard an old guy saying that while he was playing checkers yesterday. No wonder everyone ran out of Carroll Park. I thought it had something to do with the game. Good to know.
I am a wealth of information Troop and my role here is to educate, inform as well as enlighten my fellow republicans.
A new political realignment!
Yeah, right. And Grampa Thereisnospoon said the same thing about George McGovern 35 years ago.
McCain doesn't need to be better than Bush, conservative-wise. He only needs to be better than Obama. (Though he will in fact be better on limiting government spending, something a few of us still value.)
Also, crowning when used, is to identify a solid loaf as opposed to a non solid loaf.
In order to crown there needs to be be an actual "loaf" as opposed to something watery or runny. I don't know if or what the correct term for that would be. Perhaps we could all put our heads (hee hee) together and define what that would be.
That is everyone's project here tonight.
Loaf is also so much classier than crap or shit or dump.
Patca:
"GrandMa" thereisaspoon. Good one Pat.
And why do those Kos diarists pick such dumb names anyway? Is it a liberal requirement? ...Pick a moniker that is fing meaningless.
rcocean said...
"No difference between Bush and McCain on: - Immigration Aka 'Open Borders'"
No difference between McCain and either Democratic candidate, so this issue is a nullity in the fall.
"No difference between Bush and McCain on: - Support for affirmative action"
I've seen no evidence at all that McCain supports affirmative action.
"No difference between Bush and McCain on: - War in Iraq"
The difference is painfully obvious. Bush mismanaged the war for years, finally adopted the approach McCain had been pushing all along, and now we're finally getting somewhere.
"No difference between Bush and McCain on: - Free Trade"
You're kiding? You're an isolationist? How old are you?
""No difference between Bush and McCain on: - Economics in general"
You'll have to be more specific. If you mean on economic policy - spending and fiscal particularly - this is just totally ridiculous.
"No difference between Bush and McCain on: - Abortion"
McCain is personally and politically pro-life, and would support overruling Roe. Bush is nominally pro-life but doesn't really care.
"No difference between Bush and McCain on: - Massive military spending"
As with free trade, there's no serious argument against this. It's like saying there's no difference between Bush and McCain on the value of oxygen.
"No difference between Bush and McCain on: - Judges (well, McCain will be more liberal)"
Totally absurd statement with no foundation in reality.
"No difference between Bush and McCain on: - McCain Feingold"
Here's the difference: McCain thinks the 1st amendment doesn't forbid BCRA. He's wrong, but he's sincere. Bush knows it's unconstitutional - note his signing statement for BCRA - and signed it anyway. I agree with Bush that it's unconstitutional, but Bush's behavior was not only more reprehensible than McCain's, it was an impeachable violation of his oath of office.
WHY am I bothering with this. The idea that Bush = McCain is, frankly, idiotic. It's fictitious. It's a liberal talking point with no basis in reality beyond the fact that they're both members of the Republican party - and by that standard, you and I are both McCain and, in turn, are both therefore Bush.
All species in nature pinch a loaf. Some loafs are larger than others depending on the size of the species.
Same as hog. The bigger the species the bigger the hog.
Does anyone know why a loaf is generally brown or why it may be dark black, green or another color?
Trooper York don't leave us hanging! Did Tigger beat Penelope? Who ran against Old Deuteronomy? And who became King of the Jungle?
Now that I am thinking abou this I think I may be spelling it wrong.
Should it be spelled Loaf or Loave?
Your help and support would be greatly appreciated.
Loaf sounds like what I have been the past two months.
McCain Speaks on Affirmative Action [National Review online: Roger Clegg]
"If you’re talking about assuring equal and fair opportunity for all Americans and making sure that the practices of the U.S. military are emulated, the greatest equal opportunity employer in America, then I am all for it. If you are talking about quotas, I am not for it. So all of us are for affirmative action to try to give assistance to those who need it, whether it be African-American or other groups of Americans that need it."
NRO Comment:
No real difference between this answer and the one that Obama and Clinton gave last week...
I]f the Democratic Party gets the vote of the Millennial generation again, it will have it for the rest of their natural lives, creating a daunting electoral majority that will ensure Democratic advantages if not Democratic dominance for the next 30-40 years-
This is the dream of every democratic machine. That somehow new young voters will stay new and young. They could accomplish this if they closed the schools and eliminated economic growth. Maybe Obama is their future....
Simon, any third-term successor, from Richard Nixon (in 1960) to Bush I to Al Gore has to separate himself at least somewhat from the prior Administration to show he's his own man, and usually it's done by citing something that almost everyone sees as a failure of the prior Administration, as in the case of the handling of Katrina. I wouldn't focus too much on that to argue that McCain isn't going to be a continuation of this Administration, and the other examples you cite (Bush's Iraq policy is McCain's policy, not vice-versa, in other words six of one / half dozen of the other) don't give much hope for an improvement, and "different" isn't a very inspiring argument, unless one can tie it to "better".
And Ann, don't I at least get a cite credit for pointing out the dumbass "They Don't Get It: We Win Even If Obama Loses in November" Daily Kos diary that you cite here, since I mentioned it earlier today in another thread?
Too much political talk and not enough loaf talk.
McCain and Bush ARE NOT the same on Iraq. McCain has been Bush's biggest Iraq critic (bedwetters notwithstanding). McCain said all along that Rummy had it wrong. McCain will be a very different CinC from what Bush has been.
[I]f the Democratic Party gets the vote of the Millennial generation again, it will have it for the rest of their natural lives, creating a daunting electoral majority that will ensure Democratic advantages if not Democratic dominance for the next 30-40 years--
Remind me again why these people are called the "reality-based community"?
Titus --
Swimsuit season is coming fast! This is no time to be loafing!
I wish I knew how to bake a cake.
It was a shame that poor Tigger did not become King of the Jungle. He claimed that he could do so many things that he couldn’t do. He claimed that he could jump higher than a kangaroo but he could barely get off the ground. And he couldn’t even bowl. So he actually lost the race to Old Deuteronomy who unfortunately didn’t live out his term and was succeeded by his vice-king Governor Mike Huckleberry Hound. The jungle had to wait another twenty years until a tiger was elected king of the jungle. The whole jungle rejoiced because everyone loved Tiger Woods. The end.
(The Tigger of the Narcissus, Joe Conrad Klein)
One Christmas my sister-in-law gave me the children's book "Everybody Poops."
Can anyone here recommend a fabulous masque? My masque has been fine but I have run out and looking for something more fabulous?
I gave my cousins kids my favorite little nursey book, "Everybody poops on the Red Sox."
Titus:
Thanks, for keeping it classy. And for telling us what comes out your ass instead of what goes in it.
I am totally getting that book Windbag.
[as % of GDP]
37% WW2
8% Vietnam
13% Korea
4% Iraq/Afganistan combined
World War II cost about $300 billion or 150% GDP over 4 years. Today that would be the equivilent of $20 trillion or more than twice the current federal debt.
It's also interesting to note that in 1946 the debt was about 1.3 GDP. Today it is .6 GDP. But, who is counting.
Titus:
Thanks, for keeping it classy. And for telling us what comes out your ass instead of what goes in it.
Nothing ever goes in my ass I am a top.
I have never been porked. I am always on top. It's always about me.
I know it’s not everyone’s cup of tea but at least Titus stays on point, because no matter how you slice it the Democratic primary season is all about crowning a piece of shit.
somefeller said...
"'[D]ifferent' isn't a very inspiring argument, unless one can tie it to 'better.'"
Hence the problem with Obama's "change" rhetoric!
Thank you Trooper York.
I can go to bed now.
Spread Eagle ® said...
"McCain and Bush ARE NOT the same on Iraq. McCain has been Bush's biggest Iraq critic (bedwetters notwithstanding)."
Ditto spending.
"McCain said all along that Rummy had it wrong."
Yeah, but that's kind of a cop-out; as I noted previously, the consequence of the unitary executive doctrine is that there isn't a Rumsfeld plan - only a Bush plan.
So the theory is the millenials will join/stick with the party and help build it for a generation after their idol is handed a crushing defeat? But if Hillary gets the nod blacks and youth will stay home and disengage from politics. And the SD's know that this will mean handing the supreme court to conservatives for the next 25 yrs? I must be missing something.
Yeah, but that's kind of a cop-out; as I noted previously, the consequence of the unitary executive doctrine is that there isn't a Rumsfeld plan - only a Bush plan.
The buck always stops in the Oval Office in these matters. That said, there's no question but that Bush gave Rummy wide latitude, too much and for too long. And McCain was one who was saying so early on.
No, the article is a steaming pile of horseshit. A huge chunk of the clean-for-Gene, give-peace-a-chance guys I knew became Republican once their chance of being sent to Vietnam was over. McGovernites did not stick with the Dems. I don't remember who voted for Billy Jeff, but I don't think it was a youth movement.
No, the article is a steaming pile of horseshit. A huge chunk of the clean-for-Gene, give-peace-a-chance guys I knew became Republican once their chance of being sent to Vietnam was over. McGovernites did not stick with the Dems. I don't remember who voted for Billy Jeff, but I don't think it was a youth movement.
rcocean: Would anyone who's a conservative explain to me how McCain is going to be BETTER than Bush in *Any* way?
He'll handle the war better than Bush, more competently. As Simon already pointed out, the Bush comm team was horrendous. They surrendered the information war to the media and never connected with the public in explaining why we are in Iraq. McCain won't cede that ground.
but where is the upside, conservative-wise?
Not much, more like damage control. The Dems will have a fillibuster-proof majority in Congress. McCain's SCOTUS noms are likely to be moderate.
But I do think McCain has learned from his amnesty mistake - he understands that we have little trust in amnesty tied to securing our border. He realizes he has to restore faith that the wall will be built, seperate from any amnesty deal. We'll see...
But the alternative is a Democrat who, like Bill Clinton, will kick the serious issues down the road for someone else to handle. Esp if it would affect their popularity. We'll get another Holiday from History while Al Queda et al plot a nuclear 9-11.
Thats why I'm supporting McCain, even though I left the GOP because of him.
whoops! I got blogger error bx-pffft or whatever it is.
Why on Earth would an Obama nomination herald a political realignment? That doesn't make any sense at all.
fls: whoops! I got blogger error bx-pffft or whatever it is.
Yah I hate that. I've taken to copying my text before I paste, just in case. Too many careful paragraphs eaten by the Wretched Blogger Monster.
So let me see if I have this straight:
A vote for Obama isn't really a vote for Obama. It's a vote for McCain.
A vote for McCain isn't really a vote for McCain, it's a vote for Bush.
And, a vote for Hillary isn't really a vote for Hillary. It's a vote for Bill.
Wish we could go back to those simple days, you know, when you voted for the person you liked and that was all there was to it.
A lot of big assumptions here.
First, I believe that Barack is much more electable than Hillary. The Clintons really gin up the Republican base like pretty much no one else (not sure why, given their streak of conservatism on many issues, but they do.) Further, Obama does, when he makes a speech and is at his best, cut across party lines and gets a lot of independents and even some Republicans (which were key to some of his early wins, well before Rush started urging Republicans to vote for Clinton.)
On top of that, there is likely, barring a huge and unbroken string of Clinton wins to close out the primary season, to be a perception that Democratic voters and caucus-goers chose-- albeit narrowly-- Obama, and a lot of the Superdelegates won't want to be seen as overturning the verdict of the voters.
So I'd argue that superdelegates will indeed, when it comes right down to it, choose Obama-- but that is because they think that he has a BETTER chance to win than HRC. The fact that young voters will get started voting Democratic is an added bonus, but not the reason why Obama will be the nominee.
"But you can’t change how the game is played once it has begun. The Democrats have decided that the nominee will be determined by the number of delegates won, not by the popular vote, and that primaries held in direct violation of party rules (in this case, Florida’s and Michigan’s) don’t count. End of discussion."--Charlie Cook
Funny, how the Democrats liked the popular vote back in 2000 with Al Gore ! And, wasn't it Hillary herself who said we need to throw out the Electoral College?
Guys, come on. Of course, McCain is/will be different from Bush -- but they are both Republicans. You want REALLY different, you'll have to vote for a Democrat.
This arguing that McCain will be Bush II is nonsensical.
No amount of trotting out Senator McCain's record will give a clear description of the difference. These are incremental, temperamental, perhaps ideological, but they are PRESENT.
The reason so many conservative Republicans dislike McCain is that they see him as the stark opposite of Bush. He's a "maverick", that cheeky description which means he usually deviates from the Party line.
I think Simon said it best above:
"It's not quite as silly as claiming that Jefferson was Adams' second term, but it's close."
Heh, quite.
BTW, Simon I'm crushed I'm older than you! Not by a lot. The difference is incremental, temperamental, perhaps millenial.
But they are present. ;)
Cheers,
Victoria
First, I believe that Barack is much more electable than Hillary. The Clintons really gin up the Republican base like pretty much no one else (not sure why, given their streak of conservatism on many issues, but they do.)
Eli, I'm not so sure. See, I'm speaking as a Conservative, viewing both Obama and Hillary.
And I have to tell you, better the devil you know, than the devil you don't.
Hillary's base is much more frightening, electorally, than Obama's.
The youth vote, elite white liberals, African-Americans? That's totally beatable, with respect.
Versus
Working-class white men, union households (heh, remember?), women, retirees, Hispanics, rural folk? Yikes.
Cheers,
Victoria
Like Simon, I'm in Obama's demographic wheelhouse.
I'm 29, from California, working on my second post-graduate degree, libertarian (registered independent), and pretty cynical about the whole political process in America.
And I just don't understand the hype.
I'd like to be on board, because the ride sure appears to be fun, but I just don't get it. Yes, he's got great rhetorical skills. But I just don't see any sort of rational connection between what he's promising to do and how he'll actually accomplish it.
I've been asking people to explain it to me, but nobody has been able to. Maybe somebody here can shed some light.
OK so, maybe McCain isn't Bush. That's fine too.
Because contrary to Althouse's (Kos) link, older Gen Xer's and Reagan Democrats will decide this election.
Millienials, born (1982-2000) have absolutely no power, and many aren't able to vote.
Older Gen X'rs grew up with Ronald Reagan, and Reagan Democrats are essentially social liberals who are strong on national defense....which makes McCain the perfect president for them !
The Kossacks might as well just skip to 2012, because this election is all sewn up.
A placid fratboy has certain tempermental advantages over a hothead, particularly in executive situations.
Bush (& us) would have been better served by rolling heads, beginning with Tenet's.
We are just waiting for all you sixties hippies or not hippies to die off and then we will rule the world.
My generation loves the fags. Your generation hates us and wants to put us in concentration camps.
Even the young evangelicals don't mind the fags.
But you 50 plus "geezers" have issues. The 60's caused you major damage.
Thankfully, us younger folk like the gay.
Eli Blake: [superdelegates] think that he has a BETTER chance to win than HRC.
Eli, I respect your opinion, but I think you're wrong here. Hugh Hewitt lays it out better than I could:
"The only way Hillary can overcome the force of self-preservation that is operating among the superdelegates is to argue to them that Obama will lead to down ticket disaster, taking many of the superdelegates who are elected with him, and losing a rare chance at significant pick-ups in the Senate."
First, I believe that Barack is much more electable than Hillary. Obama does..cut across party lines and gets a lot of independents and even some Republicans
While I think Lanny Davis is a jackass, he makes some good counter-points to your statement:
"The reason that he lost can be found in the demographic data: He lost -- and Senator Clinton won -- by substantial margins blue collar and middle class white voters earning under $50,000 a year, senior citizens, rural voters, Hispanic voters, and women voters -- all core constituencies in the Democratic base that must be won if a Democrat is to win the White House... Barack Obama has lost these same demographic groups in Massachusetts, Ohio, Texas, California and New Jersey and other major states that Senator Clinton won. There is a factual pattern of his weakness among these demographic groups in virtually every primary state that cannot be disputed."
I've been asking people to explain it to me, but nobody has been able to. Maybe somebody here can shed some light.
He's black. He speaks in ringing phrases. He makes certain people feel good for voting for a black man. The End.
Cheers,
Victoria
I am a millenial student and I go college with millenials. I can guarentee you that the overwhelming vote here is for Obama. However, statistics show that although millenials are politically charged, they actually don't show up for the vote.
As MTV's Rock The Vote discovered last election. None of those Kerry supporters got out to the polls on election day.
I think its more about Branding for the younger crowd. Everyone wants to be hip-hop-cool and popular. They're invested in it for self-identity, not for any political cause,
Fen and Victoria:
I still believe that Obama would be a stronger candidate than McCain.
and so do the national polls.
I meant to say that Obama would be a stronger candidate than Clinton versus McCain.
And if you follow the link, the numbers appear to bear that out.
However, statistics show that although millenials are politically charged, they actually don't show up for the vote.
Hey Colleen, have you been to that "One Million Strong for Obama" group on Facebook? I'm sure half your classmates are part of it.
(BTW, 520,250 pro-Obama members versus Stephen Colbert's 1,288,929 members BUT 1,007,776 members in the Stop Hillary group)
Someone posted a very interesting question in a thread:
"OT: What kind of conservatives will our generation become?"
And one chap literally seconds ago, answered this:
i'm thinking if we don't manage to blow ourselves up by then, a few generations from now they will think the following:
-affirmative action is reverse racism
-all inheritance is as unjust and unfair as a system where a royal family reigns supreme over a region
-nations & borders are stupid concepts of no meaningful value
-diversity is overly glorified, but segregation is evil
-suicide is a right
-eating meat is as bad as cannibalism
-censorship of sex/violence for any age is wrong
-tests are too standardized and detract from education
-a formal education is unnecessary, true education cannot come through schooling
-most forms of memorization are useless when information is at your fingertips
-people in our generation spend way too much time on work, more emphasis should be placed on whatever makes someone happy
-wars are pointless, especially when both sides can effectively destroy the world many times over
-no substances should be illegal
He's projecting as a Progressive of today, but at least they're talking of the Conservative inevitably factor.
Cheers,
Victoria
[Obama lost] blue collar and middle class white voters earning under $50,000 a year, senior citizens, rural voters, Hispanic voters, and women voters.
Yep, Obama will have to run on lunchbucket issues. He likes ethanol so he should do well in most rural areas this fall. I figure McCain gets the meals on wheels crowd and the gunny gang. Obama should get the women under 55; McCain can get the rest. If I were Obama I'd try to rev up my Spanish to W. levels -- it was clear in 2000 that W. was used to communicating in Spanish while Algore had only learned it in school.
fen: Dean was the kids' candidate, not Kerry.
I have been posting too much, but allow one more:
Rasmussen has it at 45%/47%. Reuters at 45%/45%.
That's nothing, really Eli, with respect again.
May to November. That's a lifetime in politics. The Democrats, should they choose Obama, will put on a razzle-dazzle, charismatic Convention, trot out Caroline Kennedy with her kids in tow to give the nomination speech, everyone will weep when Dr. King's "I have a Dream" speech is boomed over a touching video of his dying in the Lucille Motel 40 years ago, Obama will give the speech of his life in acceptance, and then, a few weeks later...
McCain and the Republicans will have Fred Thompson voice-over a video saying he's the son and grandson of 4-Star Admirals, here's his grandpappy on the bridge of the USS Missouri witnessing the Japanese surrender, show a photo or three of the Hanoi Hilton, put on astounding tribute to the Life and Times of Ronald Reagan, as Rudy Giuliani walzes in for the Nomination Speech saying "If you want a real hero..." and hey presto, say hello to President John Sidney McCain III.
Ah well, guys. We'll see. Night!
Cheers,
Victoria
Eli: I still believe that Obama would be a stronger candidate than Clinton versus McCain.
No prob. I'm not trying to change your mind. I voted for Obama in MD to stick it to Hillary.
Lorraine! Not Lucille. I have BB King on the brain. ;)
Again, haven't read the comments thread--this time at all. (Guess I'm shortly gonna have to give up the "rare" thing. Oh well.):
Anyone--better yet, multiple people--want to define what "the Millennial generation" means? And I mean, really define it, taking into account multiple aspects, including range of date starts and date ends, of BOTH the generation and those who belong to it, and the notable defining factors--just as a start.
I'm not asking for TOO much--no, I am not. For starters, I'm not asking for anyone to address the issue of those people born in 2000 or 2001, for example, or even those born in, say (I'll concede it's squishy) 1994, give or take.
So, let's have it.
Not for enders, any more than starters, define your terms. More important, deeply and mindfully define your assumptions, not just for yourself, but for those who come after you (since, surely, each and every one of you want to do that that better, and know that you can, right?).
I think this is the sort of articulation of ideas that would be both very productive and interesting.
What do you all think?
The youth vote has been the hope of losing candidates my whole life.
There was such touching naivete in that Kos post. They'll vote for Obama and never ever ever vote for a Republican their whole lives. Woo-hoo!
Not to dismiss the Obama-mania of earlier this year. But how much did it help him in PA? Being young and voting for Obama was sort of a fad earlier this year. Hard to imagine he can keep it going til November without alienating everyone else.
One problem with the Millenials sticking with the Democrats if they vote for Obama this time is that Obama's alure is so vacuous. His call for change and bipartisonship seem to resonate with them.
But the reality is that the "change" is back 75 years to the New Deal, or at least 40 to the Great Society, and Obama has no real experience or accomplishments with bipartisanship.
So, after ultimately finding, esp. if he were to be elected, that Obama is incapable of providing either change or a new political way, why should they stick with the Democrats who gave them Obama?
Remember, Obama is proposing economic policies that would impact that generation more than most, and is refusing to address the SS and Medicare issue head on, which they are going to have to pay for.
So, why, again, should they stick with a party that gives them such vacuous promises and delivers just the opposite of what they expect?
He's black. He speaks in ringing phrases. He makes certain people feel good for voting for a black man. The End.
Cheers,
Victoria
It's quite possible that some people feel like he will be different on certain issues-Iraq and healthcare-that are meaningful to them. And some people are choosing him because either 1) they never really liked Ms. Clinton or 2) they liked her, but felt she crossed the line in how she has run her campaign.
But please, don't be so dismissive of your fellow voters to reduce their reasons for voting down to such a stupid level. If you can coast on such an assumption, I could imagine that the opposite, people not liking him simply because he is black, to be an equally likely analysis if we are going to fingerpaint the minds of all voters.
It's the equivalent of how everyone can post what black voters think in here, with nary a black person posting their own thoughts.
Your imaginary mind reading powers serve your comments badly.
Remember, Obama is proposing economic policies that would impact that generation more than most, and is refusing to address the SS and Medicare issue head on, which they are going to have to pay for.
Exactamundo, ironically enough it’s the old white guy who has come out in favor of means-testing Medicare and letting younger workers opt at least partialy out of Social Security while the “hope and change” candidate is the one who wants to make Medicare even more generous while increasing taxes on Social Security.
Think about it – the very people who insist that the “wealthy” (an ever changing concept that seems to encompass more and more people each year) don’t need to keep more of their own money via a tax cut will fight tooth and nail to ensure that the same “wealthy” people be able to use the power of the State to take more of other (invariably poorer and younger) people’s money when they can damn well afford to fund their own retirement and health care.
I've been asking people to explain it to me, but nobody has been able to. Maybe somebody here can shed some light.
Grant,
I think your problem with Obama stems from the point you made about yourself being a libertarian.
Obama is the anti-libertarian.
rcocean said...
No difference between Bush and McCain on:
- Immigration Aka "Open Borders"
- Support for affirmative action
- War in Iraq
- Free Trade
- Economics in general
- Abortion
- Massive military spending
- Judges (well, McCain will be more liberal)
-McCain Feingold
Bush pays more lip service to the social conservatives, and likes Ted Kennedy less, but otherwise McCain is just Bush II.
Depressing but true. On military spending both support squandering too much on the "noble, purple-fingered freedom lovers" (Also known as the backstabbing cocksuckers of Camel Land), but McCain wants more...rather than target critical improvements, for more "adventure" overseas pissed down the drain.
Right now, a good case can be made for Republicans to vote Obama, hoping that a few years of this empty suit and unbelievable national pain on top of the Bush II Disaster will finally force America to confront core problems both Parties have kicked down the road for 35 years.
And the pain of Obama's rule may force the Republicans to confront its bootlicking to Ruling Elites, it's Corrupticans, and the scary theocrats that cause so many youth and women to shun Republican candidates outside JesusLand.
Pity.
The Republicans had two competent candidates in Duncan Hunter and Mitt Romney, with minor character flaws, And a treacherous backstabber and dimbulb in McCain, something out of the Arkansas swamps, and sleepy lazy Fred.
The Dems had an empty suit of the "right color", a "Slick" lawyer whose shelf life expired, the usual Dem nuts and old hacks, and two competent ones - Biden and Clinton. One done in by 30 years of inside the Beltway and his oral diarrhea problem, the other one who goes past major character flaws into Monster territory who grimly clings on to her dynastic hopes.
Shame Arnold was born in Austria.
Shame Jeb Bush has that damning last name that disqualifies him.
Shame we have to wait for 4 years.
Maybe we get New, Improved Mitt with his irritating kinks fixed, then. Or we have Gen. Petraeus. Or 4 years later a governor with good creds and seasoning from either Party ready to fix the Bush mess made bigger by Empty Suit or Dimbulb. Hillary, I think, is competent enough to fix things, but we'd all hate her, and there is no way Superdelegates will buck the blacks on the Plantation they count on to vote 95% for Democrats and would stay away from any Dem that "dissed" their Black Moses...
It's the equivalent of how everyone can post what black voters think in here, with nary a black person posting their own thoughts.
Your imaginary mind reading powers serve your comments badly.
Very well.
I deserve a part of your scorn for using the Cliff Notes version of a complex topic.
But as sure as I am sitting here late at night, posting my thoughts to my fellow voters of all political stripes on this blog, I will say this:
Senator Obama resonates with people for all the reasons I stated, the MOST. My points were not insults. They are facts.
My mistake, apart for being cutesy in my reply, is to imagine that they are the only facts.
But...he is black or self-identifies as black.
...his oratical gifts are spectacular for a modern politician.
...and a lot of people, BOTH white and black which if you didn't get, is what I meant, feel marvellous that they think they can BEGIN to exorcise the demons of 232 years of American history in the person of this one man.
Now I ask you a favour.
Don't presume to tell others here that there are no black readers of Althouse, or that the "black voice" is disregarded.
Not only I, but I fancy, a majority of people on Althouse would leap to the defence of any true sign of racism, such as our lights understood it.
What many people won't do, is have a knee-jerk reaction that no white person can speak about the Obama Phenomenon with any semblence of knowledge.
I didn't think you were capable of that, Finn, from my association with you for a few years.
Cheers,
Victoria
I know you're a troll, Trumpit, and you are making outlandish trolly points that should be best ignored, but I can't help it.
I won't let people think that no one spoke out in horror about advocating assassination to the President of the United States.
If someone were so minded, they could direct the Secret Service to your post, for a good look-see. But that person is not myself, with regret.
The only thing I regret about returning to Althouse is that there is no ignore function on Blogger. YET. So much dross is tolerated on this blog, that it makes navigating through posts like picking toilet paper off of one's shoes.
Fortunately, it's still worth it and how.
Victoria, please don't: It only enables Google links and connections--which, yes, I'm enabling, but would not have, if not for your comment. You're not alone, but maybe consider e-mailing off-line, and just letting those-such comments to sink like stone.
I'm not very good at it, innately, instinctively, or even by by virtue of experience, myself. But still I exhort you to try, as I exhort myself.
OTOH, whatever.
So it goes.
***
I acknowledge that all comments of this type on my part are, strictly speaking, both out-of-turn and inappropriate, given that they are placed in someone else's blogspace, and not my own.
For the record.
"All comments on my part ... inappropriate" meaning they are 1) censorious only on my part, speaking only for myself, and 2) they should carry no weight, apart from whatever might be assigned by other people strictly as relates to the relevant commenter persona.
I acknowledge that all comments of this type on my part are, strictly speaking, both out-of-turn and inappropriate, given that they are placed in someone else's blogspace, and not my own.
For the record.
Gotcha. Thanks.
Cheers,
Victoria
Also, blogfriend Victoria, look again at your comment of 2:14, and consider whether there's a "typo" there that enables that comment, as entered, to be easily held against you--unjustly or not (and I say unjustly, because I know it's not reflective of the truth, and therefore proceeded from there)--such that an update-correction is imperative.
"Blogger titusyoumustloveme said...
Does anyone know why a loaf is generally brown or why it may be dark black, green or another color?
"
titus, please STFU. You need to STFU. Well, I need you to STFU, badly. Not another Fing word about loaves please!
(Oh yeah, loaf, loaves. Now will you shut up? Or do I have to tell the story about how I split a bottle of slivovitz one night with my friend Mike and the next morning, forget about my hangover, my turds were white as eggshells?)
Yet the above is actually a good question. However I cannot stand your vulgarity. Is there any way I could convince you to stop?
Trumpit: A better question I always ask in turnabout is: If he is such an evil shit, why haven't you been assassinated? Or beaten or castor-oiled or burned out of your home or fired or something.
I mean, I'd kill you for nothing. A sandwich. Forget the sandwich. I just don't like you. Millions of people like me don't like millions of people like you. And predominantly we have the guns and the various backgrounds necessary to impose our will upon you.
And yet...there is the social contract. We are trying SO hard to stay out of the jungle, where you would get what you deserve...
Oh wait - I was woolgathering. The question was, why aren't people like you doing the killing? Easy, because indeed you ARE worthless bags of gas.
Ann: you lower yourself in my opinion with posts such as this. I'm less certain that you will pass on genes of sufficiently high intelligence to our children to justify impregnating you. I mean, you buy this crap? Not the Kaus, I mean the Kos.
Also, the comments you have been updating your posts with have been getting gross lately. Not kawaii at all. Tough to see where you're going with that.
I was going to leave it, RIA, because I know people on Althouse are wondering what on earth she is doing up at this time (quite simply, having computer troubles, thus scanning my entire 320 GB hard-drive several times over).
But yes, I agree you are wise to counsel a correction for:
"Not only I, but I fancy, a majority of people on Althouse would leap to the defence of any true sign of racism, such as our lights understood it."
Just in case anyone is so deranged as to imagine I meant this, my line above contained an obvious a typo/non-sequitur.
It should read:
"In defence of black people against any true sign of racism [...]"
Sorry for the error and followup post, but it's better to be safe than sorry in our society.
Cheers,
Victoria
Eek! I should just shut up! Always the better of valor, if only I would remember it.
And now I'm cross-posting. *&^(#@!
What I just said.
Sigh.
Have a good weekend, folks.
"However I cannot stand your vulgarity. Is there any way I could convince you to stop?...I mean, I'd kill you for nothing. A sandwich. Forget the sandwich."
You are the most vulgar of vulgar lowlifes. You are just another Nazi of the many Nazis hanging around here. I predict when the general election rolls around, Ann will have to close down this right-wing reactionary comment section due to rampant hate, racism, and pure fascism that already abounds here. Fittingly, the murderous Brownshirts that troll around here will deserve to be banished to a lifeless black hole for eternity. Warmongers and killers like you will meet the same fate as the Nazis did: total annihilation.
What the hell is going on in here?
wow, Ann.
You have your own sandwichboard guyz, just like hotair.
Look at this and this. That is the reason Obama will get the nomination.
Because he can win.
Also, because, the rightside pundits keep trying to push HRC on us, and because of Operation Chaos.
Obama is far more feared than HRC...they don't know how to run against him.
Obama is kryptonite for the GOP.
And the age issue has more legs than a centipede.
I think the SDs fear the convention riot veto.
And the Millenials? Once they get real jobs and learn actual economics they will drift towards the right. It happens every time.
By age 40 all that will remain on the left are the Marxists. And you know they haven't won many elections lately.
BTW if the anti-war folks have too much fun at the conventions this year the Ds will be losing elections for DECADES.
Here is a poster for the upcoming events.
I'm sure it will sway the masses and the middle classes.
Counter anecdote:
My #2 Son graduated with honors from a well known University in Obama's old district last year and he is a libertarian leaning WAR lover.
I raised the boy right.
Wheeler: That is the reason Obama will get the nomination.
Sorry, but head-to-head polls like that are worthless this early in the race.
Also, because, the rightside pundits keep trying to push HRC on us, and because of Operation Chaos.
Its a mistake to think that. Hillary is being "pushed" on you only because it draws out the Dem nomination and weakens both candidates. Not because thy prefer to run against Hillary instead of Obama.
Obama is far more feared than HRC...they don't know how to run against him. Obama is kryptonite for the GOP.
GOP says: "please don't throw us into that briar patch". Obama is too extreme for America - black racism, anti-americanism, contempt for flyover country, associations with former terrorists.
And this latest: Obama's advisor on nuclear proliferation insisted that there was no Syria/Korea connection on nuclear research programs. According to him, it was all "fearmongering" by Bush to upset the Korea talks. What a total idiot.
It's not really part of the world they are fashioning with their generation's amazing tools.
Uh, skuze me. Their tools? By inheritance maybe.
I'm a boomer. I was hacking when hackers were the good guys. When if you wanted a computer you got out a soldering iron and rolled your own.
Credit where due. And us OFs are not done yet.
WB-7 First Plasma
I can't think of one single millenial in the center of that. Some of them are starting to get educated but mostly what I see is a lot of whining about the coming catastrophe.
Who carried it when no one knew it was important? Fookin boomers.
Millenials are too young to be serious. As has been pointed out up thread. My sons and daughter excepted. I raised them right. They all have their eye on making a contribution to civilization. The rest of that effete gang not so much.
On military spending both support squandering too much on the "noble, purple-fingered freedom lovers" (Also known as the backstabbing cocksuckers of Camel Land),
I get it. Obama wants to throw the Iraqis under the bus. Well he did it to his own grandma why not.
And I should have guessed it was a C4 comment. No bigotry there eh C4? Just truth.
The Iraqis are just props. Nothing to you. Under the bus with them.
That's amsuing. So McCain is simultaneously just like Bush, AND in cahoots with the Democrats. This piece seems to manage to repeat talking points from both the right and the left while completely missing the point.
McCain stands a good chance against either of them, but I think Obama is the more vulnerable of the two.
I also believe an Obama presidency will be more harmful to the country. As for it guaranteeing Democratic power for 40 years, the (recent) president he shows the most similarity with is Jimmy Carter. You remember how that turned out.
"the Millennial generation" blah blah blah
Uh, no. The Dems are intent on creating a huge, decisive new victim voting bloc composed of illiterate former "undocumented workers", and their extended families, who probably aren't working and can be bussed to the polls from the barrios and told the "D" choice represents a lifetime of free goodies.
rcocean: A McCain win means a continuation of the Bush Presidency including ...budget deficits
ann: That is true too!
McCain = higher deficits? What are you talking about?
Did McCain voted against the prescription drug plan, just to take one example. He has been against more government spending most of his life.
If you're going to trash the guy, how about doing about 5 minutes of fact checking first. How about his opposition to earmarks?
Ann, this is sloppy writing and not worthy of you. Turn off Rush and Sean and Laura Ingraham and find out the facts for yourself. The truth is, McCain is more of a fiscal conservative than most of the wanna-be Santa Clauses in the Republican party.
Ann, the parent in me finds your 6:14 AM comment hilarious.
Would anyone who's a conservative explain to me how McCain is going to be BETTER than Bush in *Any* way?
McCain is a much better communicator than Bush (Yes, I know, I'm not a conservative). At least McCain is *now*, before the inevitable slide to senility -- who knows when that happens?
k t cat said..."rcocean: A McCain win means a continuation of the Bush Presidency including ...budget deficits ...ann: That is true too! McCain = higher deficits? What are you talking about?"
Sorry, that was unclear. I just meant that Republicans and conservatives aren't too excited about McCain. There are more important things than this candidate winning this election.
"Did McCain voted against the prescription drug plan, just to take one example. He has been against more government spending most of his life."
I didn't mean to endorse the idea that McCain is just a continuation of Bush, only that he's not the ideal conservative candidate. He's good on some conservative things. Again, I apologize.
"Ann, this is sloppy writing and not worthy of you. Turn off Rush and Sean and Laura Ingraham and find out the facts for yourself."
I never listen to Laura or Sean. Now, Rush... sorry, I find him hilarious. And we are birth-mates (born on the same day in history).
Thorley Winston said: ironically enough it’s the old white guy who has come out in favor of means-testing Medicare and letting younger workers opt at least partialy out of Social Security...
Not ironic at all. This has been the conservative/liberal split on these issues for a long time. Bush has also called for means testing S.S.
It is anathema to the libs to means test these programs. The cynical ones want the electorate dependent on government hand outs while the optimistic libs think that a government run by them can do it better than the individual.
All my posts are true. Althouse was simply stating the obvious.
I can't think of any reason to take seriously the opinion of a Kos contributor who thinks that the fact that even Hillary said Obama could be elected supports Obama's electability. She had to say it even if she doesn't think he's got a snowball's chance in you-know-where.
Also really funny is the claim that millenials (cool beans, they've got a name now) are going to come out massively to the polls. And even funnier the idea that they will do so even with the expectation that he'd lose because of an abstract future systemic advantage due to their vote.
Yeah... sure.
I find the several protestations here that Obama can better beat McCain than Hillary to be sort of humorous, too.
Because, you know, those of us here, on either "side" are not typical voters. We can't really use our own perceptions as indicators of who would win. So I'd like to suggest this mind experiment... think, who is loved by the purists? McCain? Heck, no. Conservatives hate the guy. Hillary? She doesn't excite anyone much either. Obama? Yes, Obama is alone in this. The hopey changey hopeiness of Obama.
His base may be all excited about Obama but his *base* is not going to win the election. Hillary supporters poll that they won't vote for him. McCain supporters won't vote for him. McCain and Hillary are likely to appeal to the middle far more than Obama (the anti-libertarian, Carter Mark 2... speaking of which... McCain is getting branded as Bush Mark 2 which is bad but which is worse? Bush Mark 2 or Carter Mark 2? As blogger McQ said... do we want a third year of Bush or a second year of Carter?)
And the Crash the Convention thing?
Oh PLEASE do! As a whole bunch of rude McCain hating conservative morons (hey, I do the Ace of Spades thing, too) have said... the Dem campaign so far is just *fun* and will likely be even more fun before it's over.
Mitt Romney, with minor character flaws
Mitt deliberately changed his positions 180 degrees in the vain attempt to get the nomination. I voted for him because I thought he was the most competent Rep candidate, but I can see why my fellow Republicans might fear he would shed his born-again-Conservative stance right after the nomination.
People may not know where Obama stands on the issues, but he hasn't flip-flopped on anything but gun banning.
It is anathema to the libs to means test these programs. The cynical ones want the electorate dependent on government hand outs while the optimistic libs think that a government run by them can do it better than the individual.
Means testing is anathema for Social Security and Medicare because they are not welfare programs for a needy few, they are universal insurance programs. Every worker has skin in the game. Every worker pays in; every worker will collect. FDR's team planned it that way, rightly fearing that trivializing it as a program for the poor would ensure its elimination. Twenty years ago, the FICA rate soared to account for the baby boom bulge, and maintain Social Security's sound actuarial footing.
Recently, I heard Robert Reich speaking about Social Security on the radio. He pointed out that Social Security remains a critical component of any retirement plan, considering stocks have gone up only 1% a year over the past ten years (after inflation) and the housing bubble has burst.
I've often said that Hillary is scary beyond all reason.
But she's not naive and stupid.
She wouldn't do something evil by *accident*. Obama very well might. Probably, in fact.
He actually suffers *precisely* from what makes GWBush frightening. No matter the delusions of BDS, what makes Bush frightening is his good intentions. His self-less commitment to doing what is *right* no matter how unpopular that is.
It doesn't seem to have turned out that badly, at least in my opinion, but that doesn't make me blind to the potential or less relieved that we'll have gotten through these 8 years as well as we have.
Hillary's self-interest is reassuring.
Obama has Bush's greatest flaw *and* a socialist mindset *and* foreign relations cluelessness *and* no experience with simply dealing with the sort of workload he's looking at. It's not as if he's actually gone to work or even learned his job as a Senator.
Means testing is anathema for Social Security and Medicare because they are not welfare programs for a needy few, ... Every worker has skin in the game.
Like I said, keep the electorate dependent. But it increasingly is a welfare program.
Twenty years ago, the FICA rate soared to account for the baby boom bulge, and maintain Social Security's sound actuarial footing.
But it is nowhere near actuarial sound. Means testing is the only thing that will save it, and is inevitable.
Recently, I heard Robert Reich speaking about Social Security on the radio. He pointed out that Social Security remains a critical component of any retirement plan
If Reich really thinks this, he's an idiot (I doubt that he does).
Ann, thanks for the kindness of the reply.
I would aruge that on the three things that most define conservative thought, McCain is the more conservative than the rest of the party.
He opposed the wild spending spree under Bush, he has been steadfast in the war against Islamofascism and he has always been pro-life.
We've got to put an end to this canard that McCain is some kind of RINO. In fact, it's everyone else in the party that's the RINO. McCain is the conservative.
McCain is a much better communicator than Bush (Yes, I know, I'm not a conservative). At least McCain is *now*, before the inevitable slide to senility -- who knows when that happens?
Oh right MadisonMan, McCain is older so senility is inevitable. And when you contrast his impending mental decline with Obama's killer turnaround jumpshot, well, the choice is easy. At last I understand the libs affection for identity politics: It simplifies things.
Twenty years ago, the FICA rate soared to account for the baby boom bulge, and maintain Social Security's sound actuarial footing.
Stop it, you're killing me.
How is the EITC managing to maintain its popularity despite being means-tested and all?
trumpit, you're calling for the assassination of the President of the United States, and I'm vulgar?
I expect you are very very young, otherwise I would continue to play with you in hopes of giving you a coronary. (Seeing your low intelligence as evidenced in your posts, it would have to be a low-speed game.)
So I will just sit back and take pleasure in watching you hold your breath until you turn blue as everything you want doesn't happen. Waah, my candidate didn't win! Waah, my party didn't win! Waah, Ann still has comments! Waah, the conservatives are still here!
I would now say "Good day, sir!" except I can conceive of no circumstance where it would be necessary or desirable to call you "sir." Oh, that's right--
Good day, sirrah!
(Bless that Shakespeare.)
Titus, perhaps the Bliss Triple Oxygen Instant Energizing Mask?
Nichevo, your restraint in not killing those with whom you disagree is admirable. I think you assume greater similarity of thought among fellow armed-and-capable citizens than actually exists. Pick a spot on the map (city, town, village, crossroads, whatever) that has a population that represents your ideal blend of right-thinking individuals with more than 10,000 people. Do you think they don't find things to disagree about?
Martin Gale, your sarcasm detection meter is malfunctioning.
tri, you are too kind. Considering that Democrats/liberals/leftists/living-document types have as a major platform plank the suppression of 2nd Amendmment rights, and GOPs/conservatives/rightwingers/framers'-intent types oppose this, it stands to reason that conservatives (en masse) are armed and liberals are not.
Likewise I would infer that by every measure, conservatives (en masse) are more fit to live in a state of nature than are liberals.
The fact that conservatives as individuals may have disagreements is quite true. But what is the substantive meaning of this as you see it?
You think that if, say, trumpit and I were (among others) in the same room, he called out, "will no one rid me of this turbulent president," and I went to slap his face, that some conservative would go to check me? Possible.
Out of what motive? Preserving the social contract? Having lost a son in Iraq? Defending the 1st Amdt.?
I'm pretty sure that if you had walked into a bar in Nanticoke, PA, on the night of Saturday, April 19, and advocated the assassination of the President and/or the Pope, that you would have had help in leaving.
Look at this and this. That is the reason Obama will get the nomination.
Because he can win.
The Presidency isn't decided by a national popular vote. It doesn't help Obama to have a narrow lead in the polls -- what matters is whether he can carry the swing states. He's polling behind McCain in Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio, which translates into a loss in '08.
Trumpit: You are the most vulgar of vulgar lowlifes. You are just another Nazi of the many Nazis hanging around here. I predict when the general election rolls around, Ann will have to close down this right-wing reactionary comment section due to rampant hate, racism, and pure fascism that already abounds here. Fittingly, the murderous Brownshirts that troll around here will deserve to be banished to a lifeless black hole for eternity. Warmongers and killers like you will meet the same fate as the Nazis did: total annihilation.
Oh cool. Another Obama supporter. Isn't it telling, the types that gravitate to this "unifying" candidate?
And yet another example:
Keith Olbermann: ...the need for a superdelegate to "take [Clinton] into a room and only he comes out."
Thats right, when Obama speaks of unity, he means to kill off the opposition.
Why are all the Lefty Brownshirt types so drawn to him?
Nichevo, You were jumping around a bit, rhetorically speaking. I may have missed your point about armed (conservatives) not killing useless gasbag (liberals) because of a social contract. It seems interesting, but it didn't quite come together for me. Granted, I am trying to do things other than read and post on blogs today, but I'm guessing you are too.
Simon: Credit where due. And us OFs are not done yet. WB-7 First Plasma
Damnit Simon. I'm starting to hate you. You need to appear less intelligent, less on the ball, and more human. And you're only 28? Geez. ;)
WB-7 First Plasma
But seriously, is this IT? The new energy source we've been looking for? In layman's terms, what are the benefits adn drawbacks? Could we export the tech to China and India, or does it have military uses too?
Maybe not go into it now, this thread is dead. Would be cool if Ann let you put up a post here on it.
Martin Gale, your sarcasm detection meter is malfunctioning.
Perhaps, but every reference to McCain these days seems to be larded with "the guy who's too old to be president" code words. It gets, well, old.
"[I]f the Democratic Party gets the vote of the Millennial generation again, it will have it for the rest of their natural lives..."
What possible substantiation can be offered for this claim?
Well, I'm 28, I went to college, and I can't stand the man.
You technically aren't a Millenial, as you were born before 1980. Besides, you aren't ordinary or average, for better or worse.
I really am struggling to understand how so many people have been taken in by this horrible man, his empty rhetoric, and his retrograde throwback ideas.
Says Simon Dodd, President and Only Member of the Robert Bork Appreciation Society.
He's polling behind McCain in Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio, which translates into a loss in '08.
You might want to cheack your data. Obama puts more states in swing where the Democratic Party needs to grow, like Colorado, Virginia, New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. He can make up the difference in other wins, and you're ignoring the Democrats' spending advantage this year, assuming Hillary gets out before or around June.
You might want to cheack your data. Obama puts more states in swing where the Democratic Party needs to grow, like Colorado, Virginia, New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.
If Obama wins every one of those states, but loses Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, McCain wins. That's the way the math works out.
It is also amusing to see Minnesota listed as a state the Democrats "need to grow" in. The last time a Republican presidential candidate won Minnesota was 36 years ago. Minnesota is properly classified as "a state the Democratic Party desperately needs to hold on to".
you're ignoring the Democrats' spending advantage this year
Obama lost those swing states to Hillary despite dramatically outspending her. His money is the only reason he's done as well as he has; there's no reason to think it'll help him much going forward.
Bullshit! I said I was surprised that no one tried to kill the worst president in U.S. history. There were 3 failed attempts against the inventor of fascism, Mussolini, according to Wikipedia. A couple of failed attempts against Hitler who was responsible for the deaths of around 50,000,000 people not to mention the destruction of most of Europe and much of western Russia. Those who plotted to kill Hitler were rounded up, given a show trial then sadistically put to death. Benazir Butto was murdered along with her entourage while running for President of Pakistan. There were a couple of attempts on the most Casper Milktoast of all U.S. presidents, Gerald Ford. Bush started and failed to finish two wars, drove the economy into a ditch by raiding the surplus in the treasury to give to his filthy rich backers, as he had promised them he would do. All of this while the country was engaged in two very costly wars. Bush was a traitor to his own country, in my opinion. Yes, it surprises me that some disgruntled, or unbalanced person didn't try to kill him over the past 7 plus years that he's been in office. You psychopathic sadists that want to kill me ought to look in mirror and perhaps consider suicide instead.
It's true that Bush and McCain are not exactly the same re the war. McCain wants to grant habeas corpus to terrorists and close Gitmo. As weak as he is, Bush is not THAT bad.
Bullshit! I said I was surprised that no one tried to kill the worst president in U.S. history.
If you'd written something you were willing to stand behind, you wouldn't have deleted it. :)
Sorry for the delayed response, the golf course was calling. and while I was away, Mortimer Brezny said... [that I]
"technically aren't a Millenial, as you were born before 1980."
In 1980, actually, but I think you're right- the cutoff date is 1982, isn't it?
"Besides, you aren't ordinary or average, for better or worse."
I will elect to take that as a compliment. ;)
"Says Simon Dodd, President and Only Member of the Robert Bork Appreciation Society."
Wow, deja vu. Even setting aside the issue of whether Bork's ideas meet that description, as to my views on him, we've had this conversation before Mort. I noted then and reiterate now that while "I think Bork's contributed a great deal to American legal thinking, and I find myself in agreement with a lot of what he wrote about originalism and antitrust in The Tempting of America and The Antitrust Paradox," nevertheless, I have a number of disagreements with him (far more than I do with, say, Scalia), but he hasn't had the kind of impact on me that have, "for example, Rehnquist, Easterbrook, Rappaport, Calabresi, Amar, or even Randy Barnett for that matter - to say nothing of Scalia, Black and Althouse, the three pole stars in my little constellation."
It's not inaccurate to say that I appreciate Bork, but by implication, you overstate quite dramatically how much.
Trumpit said...
"I said I was surprised that no one tried to kill the worst president in U.S. history."
You've not heard about anyone trying. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
I would aruge that on the three things that most define conservative thought, McCain is the more conservative than the rest of the party.
He opposed the wild spending spree under Bush, he has been steadfast in the war against Islamofascism and he has always been pro-life.
Leaving aside the inconvient fact that these three things certainly DO NOT define conservatism, you are mistaken about McCains record.
Let's let McCain speak for himself.
"I believe my party has gone astray," McCain said yesterday, singling out GOP stands on environmental issues and racial set-asides.
"I think the Democratic Party is a fine party, and I have no problems with it, in their views and their philosophy," he said. "But I also feel the Republican Party can be brought back to the principles I articulated before."
And he took another shot at President Bush. "You can't fly in on an aircraft carrier and declare victory and have the deaths continue. You can't do that."
Where did McCain make his remarks? As the Boston Herald reported today, at a "legislative seminar" hosted by U.S. Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., who just happens to be one of the biggest Bush bashers in Congress.
"Many people in this room question, legitimately, whether we should have gone in or not," McCain said, adding that Iraq "will be part of this presidential campaign."
And
here is a link you might like to read, by Patrick Ruffini.
It's odd that people insist that Mccain is too a conservative, given that the NYT and LAT are not in the habit of giving glowing endorsements to such figures.
Another eye-opening link.
His stand on Roe has varied over the years. He is not trusted by the right-to-life crowd.
Bullshit! I said I was surprised that no one tried to kill the worst president in U.S. history.
What's bullshit is your assertion that History has made its judgement.
Nichevo, I think that's enough insight into your id for now, dude. The guy's just a troll; chill.
Revenant,
You creepy homophobe! R U trying to befriend a sick trolling mind? You really are a pathetic asshole. You should be jailed in Guantanamo with that freak and be made to toss some salad endlessly. Titus can give you the tasty recipe.
Just what is it about our complacent society that made GWB immune to the assas[s]in's bullet or bomb?
I consider it a personal failing when I forget that there are people who, in fact, aren't aware of even basic "out there" tools, including the one where you check a box and every comment lands in your inbox (no effort beyond that required) and they are apparently unaware of that reality.
And that's speaking in commenter mode. As a blogger, I didn't have to weigh in by commenting in order to activate that. As a blogger, you can just do that globally; that is, have every comment sent to you. You don't have read them, but there they are, recorded for all time (depending on how one manages one's e-mails).
Shorter: Folks, you can run, but you can't hide. Or, maybe, you can hide, but you can't run.
Sorta depends, now doesn't it?
(Also, lest it get hidden within this comment, always keep in mind the "comments e-mailed to" option. In the interest of brevity, I'm going to assume that everyone gets both the concept[s] and implication[s].)
reader-you-aint,
slow_thinker_you_r,
you are a wordy nothing as far as I'm concerned. talk to the hand. take a hike and drown in a lake. there, I wish you slow & painful death, 2!
Trumpit: I "hate" to tell you, but I don't actually find your 1:35 a.m. comment offensive, personally speaking.
You have an imagination problem.
(More important, you're a poor implicational thinker.)
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा