The Hillary Clinton campaign says it’s too soon to discuss a running mate, but that didn’t stop Democratic strategist James Carville from declaring his pick this week: “I have my candidate. Drum roll, please. Kathleen Sebelius,” he said on Dan Rather’s new show on HDNet.
“I’ve observed her, and she’s remarkable,” said Bill Clinton’s former campaign guru, touting Sebelius’ high approval ratings, her status as a daughter of a former Ohio governor, and that she “gets stuff done, successful in a red state.”
Kansas Republican Party spokesman Christian Morgan responded to the Topeka Capital-Journal: “I think it would be a guaranteed Republican victory.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
51 Comments
This is a guy so out of touch with reality. It’s so sad.
“”"Kansas Republican Party spokesman Christian Morgan responded to the Topeka Capital-Journal: “I think it would be a guaranteed Republican victory.””"
Yeah right. The Democrats could run anybody and anybody and still beat the hell out of the Republicans. We could run Mondale again and beat the Republicans. All the Republican candidates stink. Even their base of religious zealots is pissed at them.
You think Hillary is going to have a woman running mate? I don’t think so. And everybody knows it.
For Hillary, it’s all about her and she doesn’t want anybody to steal her thunder. To be quite honest, Sebelius would make a much better President than Hillary. Hillary knows it too, and she doesn’t want that shadow.
And I think today is Hillary’s birthday. 60 years old today. If elected, she would be above the average age of Presidents.
Right about the birthday Joe W.She looks pretty good for 60
I also do not think Clinton (or her Democratic party) would want a dual-uterine ticket.
However, I think Sebelius would do a good job as VP and would run well in the public mind. She would be a good pick for Obama, or Giuliani.Or Gore – she did fight the coal plant.
I’m pissed at her for running..there are too many bigoted, pig headed people out there who will vote against her just because she’s a woman…if she hadn’t thrown her hat in the ring, Gore might have considered it, but he won’t ruin her chances for the nomination.Now is the time Democrats need to come up with a candidate that’s electable, otherwise the Republicans will have the Whitehouse again.
We can’t afford for that to happen…they’ve done enough damage to the country as it is.
Like I want Mary Maitlin’s husband picking my candidate. Not.
“I also do not think Clinton (or her Democratic party) would want a dual-uterine ticket.”
See..my point exactly..to many stupid, pig-headed bigots.
Hillary will be elected president. Get used to it. And she is by far more qualified than Sebelius.
“Like I want Mary Maitlin’s husband picking my candidate. Not.”
Posted by J R
JR even for you, that’s quite a bigoted statement. Visiting the sins of the wife on the husband? I went to hear both at century 2, and it didn’t take long to figure out who the brains of the duo was. Mary was totally unprepared, her husband stole the show. Two entirely different peope.
“I’m pissed at her for running..there are too many bigoted, pig headed people out there who will vote against her just because she’s a woman”
Posted by Mary C.
Why would that piss you off? With that attitude, no woman should ever run. How is the culture of this country going to change if we don’t have women and minorities as viable candidates running for office? We need to change that, and republican tickets will never do that; it impinges on their male dominated culture.
JR even for you, that’s quite a bigoted statement.
Huh? When am I ever bigoted? Except against greed head Republicans I mean.
I’ve no respect for Mr. Carville. He’s a hack with no ideals. Politics is his job not his passion. I remember too well how he yucked it up back in 04. He should have kept his head in that trash basket.
Hillary is more qualified than Sebelius?
Well, Sebelius has been a state legislator, successful insurance commissioner, and popular 2-term governor.
Hillary was married to a President.
Yeah – tough choice.
J R,
I’m with you on this one: Carville is a toxic DC hack. Political advice from someone who’s willing to stay married to Dick Cheney’s spinmeister should NOT be given a moment’s consideration.
“Or Gore – she did fight the coal plant”
Oh PUL-EEEEZE
She stuck her finger in the air until the last minute, made the correct decision, but still hedged her bet by shoving Bremby out front and saying “you go first”.
Since it was a popular decision, she’s reaping the benefits in comfort and safety. If the public had come down hard on Bremby, you can bet she’d be crawfishin’ as fast as possible.
I dont think the Democrats need TWO triangulators on the same ticket.
And btw, look at sebelius’ record on water. And other environmental issues. She’s got herself a real red state record on the environment, and this decision is marking a turnaround.
The political map was misread, and now she needs to back up and change course.
“What happened? Who were they? How many of them were here? Which way did they go?
I must know. I’m their ‘leader’!”
That joke was MADE for sebelius!
And carville?
If you looked up “triangulation” and “DLC” in the dictionary…
…carville’s picture would be beside it.
He’s what’s WRONG with the democratic party, not what’s right with it.
No one respects the “Serpent” heads choices anymore? Well back in the day of Bill Clinton, you Libs kissed the ground he walked on.
Here’s Sebelius’s chance to become the Al Gore of the 21st century. She can’t claim inventing the Internet, but maybe she can claim something else like wind for something. :)
The thought of Hillary and Sebelius together makes my stomach turn….but I do agree that if it was the two of them together, the Republicans would win for sure
… and btw, I think Hillary would be a FINE president. Dennis would be better, but I wont cry if she is elected.
She does, however, need someone on the ticket to complement her and bring some votes to the table.
Something more than just the sunflower wingnuts and ex-republicans.
“Kansas Republican Party spokesman Christian Morgan responded to the Topeka Capital-Journal: “I think it would be a guaranteed Republican victory.””
Uh would that be like the Republican victories of Jim Barnett, Phill Kline, and Connie Morris?
The Republican Party in Kansas can’t even win races in a red state.
Dennis!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×3648055
Hell Sebelius should run on her own, she actually has experience and accomplished something, other than sharing the same house with a ex- president, notice I didn’t say bed..KFG, you wouldn’t cry if she was elected, but you would when the tax bills starts showing up..
“”I also do not think Clinton (or her Democratic party) would want a dual-uterine ticket.”
See..my point exactly..to many stupid, pig-headed bigots.
Posted by: Mary Caruso | October 26, 2007 at 07:59 AM”
Someone is a little touchy today
Would that be the same Christian Morgan who says history will remember Bush as a great leader? Perhaps you can go to an insane asylum and find someone more in touch with reality than Morgan.
So far today, I’ve seen democratunderground and thinkprogress cited.
You people do need to be told how to think.
Oh no, not again! Rhonda did you have suggest this on Friday. You planned this explicitly to ruin my weekend, didn’t you.
“KFG, you wouldn’t cry if she was elected, but you would when the tax bills starts showing up.. ”
Objection, your honor. Statement relies on facts not introduced as evidence. Speculation.
And exactly how do YOU propose to pay for bush’s war and tax cuts for the very wealthiest of the wealthy?
And fleetwood, I dont like the top two percent getting TAX breaks when I, with a much lower standard of living, no mercedes, etc, do not.
Makes as much sense as what you and max said.
Laffer LIVES!
everybody is benefiting from the tax cuts. you don’t get as much as the rich because you don’t pay as much.
how much taxes did he pay for the Mercades compared to our Chevy.. let me tell you a hell of a lot more..
‘Everybody is benefitting from tax cuts.’
Hmmm. Nice theological conviction; shame reality doesn’t match up.
**********************************In the Real World of Work and Wages, Trickle-Down Theories Don’t Hold Up
By ROBERT H. FRANK
When asked why he robbed banks, Willie Sutton famously replied, “Because that’s where the money is.” The same logic explains the call by John Edwards, the Democratic presidential candidate, for higher taxes on top earners to underwrite his proposal for universal health coverage.
Providing universal coverage will be expensive. With the median wage, adjusted for inflation, lower now than in 1980, most middle-class families cannot afford additional taxes. In contrast, the top tenth of 1 percent of earners today make about four times as much as in 1980, while those higher up have enjoyed even larger gains. Chief executives of large American companies, for example, earn more than 10 times what they did in 1980. In short, top earners are where the money is. Universal health coverage cannot happen unless they pay higher taxes.
Trickle-down theorists are quick to object that higher taxes would cause top earners to work less and take fewer risks, thereby stifling economic growth. In their familiar rhetorical flourish, they insist that a more progressive tax system would kill the geese that lay the golden eggs. On close examination, however, this claim is supported neither by economic theory nor by empirical evidence.
The surface plausibility of trickle-down theory owes much to the fact that it appears to follow from the time-honored belief that people respond to incentives. Because higher taxes on top earners reduce the reward for effort, it seems reasonable that they would induce people to work less, as trickle-down theorists claim. As every economics textbook makes clear, however, a decline in after-tax wages also exerts a second, opposing effect. By making people feel poorer, it provides them with an incentive to recoup their income loss by working harder than before. Economic theory says nothing about which of these offsetting effects may dominate.
If economic theory is unkind to trickle-down proponents, the lessons of experience are downright brutal. If lower real wages induce people to work shorter hours, then the opposite should be true when real wages increase. According to trickle-down theory, then, the cumulative effect of the last century’s sharp rise in real wages should have been a significant increase in hours worked. In fact, however, the workweek is much shorter now than in 1900.
Trickle-down theory also predicts shorter workweeks in countries with lower real after-tax pay rates. Yet here, too, the numbers tell a different story. For example, even though chief executives in Japan earn less than one-fifth what their American counterparts do and face substantially higher marginal tax rates, Japanese executives do not log shorter hours.
Trickle-down theory also predicts a positive correlation between inequality and economic growth, the idea being that income disparities strengthen motivation to get ahead. Yet when researchers track the data within individual countries over time, they find a negative correlation. In the decades immediately after World War II, for example, income inequality was low by historical standards, yet growth rates in most industrial countries were extremely high. In contrast, growth rates have been only about half as large in the years since 1973, a period in which inequality has been steadily rising.
The same pattern has been observed in cross-national data. For example, using data from the World Bank and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development for a sample of 65 industrial nations, the economists Alberto Alesina and Dani Rodrick found lower growth rates in countries where higher shares of national income went to the top 5 percent and the top 20 percent of earners. In contrast, larger shares for poor and middle-income groups were associated with higher growth rates. Again and again, the observed pattern is the opposite of the one predicted by trickle-down theory.
The trickle-down theorist’s view of the world is nicely captured by a Donald Reilly cartoon depicting two well-fed executives nursing cocktails on a summer afternoon as they lounge on flotation devices in a pool. Pointing to himself, one says angrily to the other, “If those soak-the-rich birds get their way, I can tell you here’s one coolie who’ll stop” working so hard.
This portrait bears little resemblance to reality. In the 1950s, American executives earned far lower salaries and faced substantially higher marginal tax rates than they do today. Yet most of them competed energetically for higher rungs on the corporate ladder. The claim that slightly higher tax rates would cause today’s executives to abandon that quest is simply not credible.
In the United States, trickle-down theory’s insistence that a more progressive tax structure would compromise economic growth has long blocked attempts to provide valued public services. Thus, although every other industrial country provides universal health coverage, trickle-down theorists insist that the wealthiest country on earth cannot afford to do so. Elizabeth Edwards faces her battle with cancer with the full support of the world’s most advanced medical system, yet millions of other Americans face similar battles without even minimal access to that system.
Low- and middle-income families are not the only ones who have been harmed by our inability to provide valued public services. For example, rich and poor alike would benefit from an expansion of the Energy Department’s program to secure stockpiles of nuclear materials that remain poorly guarded in the former Soviet Union. Instead, the Bush administration has cut this program, even as terrorists actively seek to acquire nuclear weaponry.
The rich are where the money is. Many top earners would willingly pay higher taxes for public services that promise high value. Yet trickle-down theory, which is supported neither by theory nor evidence, continues to stand in the way. This theory is ripe for abandonment.
Robert H. Frank, an economist at the Johnson School of Management at Cornell University, is the author of “The Economic Naturalist,” which will be published next month. Contact: http://www.robert-h-frank.com.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/business/12scene.html?_r=1&ref=business&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
“everybody is benefiting from the tax cuts. you don’t get as much as the rich because you don’t pay as much.
Posted by: BG | October 26, 2007 at 11:18 AM ”
Now this is classic Repub bull. Not untrue, but certainly misleading and misdirecting from the issue that the vast majority of the tax cuts are Targeted at the top-tier taxpayers.
“how much taxes did he pay for the Mercades compared to our Chevy.. let me tell you a hell of a lot more..
Posted by: BG | October 26, 2007 at 11:20 AM ”
Really shouldn’t judge a car by its brand name. My Mercedes are late 90’s models; I paid less tax for them than my 2002 Hyundai. Mainly due to depreciation in value. Insurance is cheaper too because they are safer.
I know for a fact I paid much less for my Mercedes than was paid for the majority of the cars in the parking lots of our local airplane manufacturing companies.
sounds like a Democratic talking point.
you didn’t get a tax break for being married or child credits or 401k credit or a college tax credit. the true people getting screwed are single divorced individuals that don’t get crap.. so don’t tell me you didnt get a tax credit.. I know allot of people that actual get more money from that government that they did’nt pay in..
Brian, how much more taxes do you pay for a NEW $60,000 dollar than you do for a NEW $20,000 dollar car.. gee lets see 3 times more..
“Brian, how much more taxes do you pay for a NEW $60,000 dollar than you do for a NEW $20,000 dollar car.. gee lets see 3 times more..
Posted by: BG | October 26, 2007 at 11:47 AM ”
True.New $60k Chevy has 3 times the taxes as my $20k Mercedes
BG,
“The true people getting screwed are single divorced individuals that don’t get crap…”
Cry in your beer much, dude?
No, I’m neither of the above. just showing you who really gets hurt in this progressive tax code.. never assume it makes an ass out of you and, well never mind it just makes you one..
Here is an idea:If the Government wants to give a $100 million dollar tax break they could calculate how much lower the rate for the bottom income tier should be to reduce the tax revenue by that amount. Change the 10% to, for example, 8%.This affects ALL taxpayers. You, me, Bill Gates, Thomas Etheredge, everyone.
“.. I know allot of people that actual get more money from that government that they did’nt pay in.. ”
You mean like old folks, big ag, big irrigation, big business, halliburton….?
I dont disagree about single people getting screwed, divorced, gay or never married. People without kids get screwed too.
I hate having my taxes go to war, halliburton and blackwater.
We all get to pay for things we dont want. And WTF do car taxes have to do with this? That is an ASTOUNDING display of not getting it.
But nice jump from income tax to property tax, with a triple backflip and a perfect landing stuck on the Laffer curve.
woof.
those to name a few..either way you look at it. it is redistribution of wealth..
it shows how much wealthier people pay in taxes.. but hey I can slow down a little till you comprehend it..
I think that it would be wonderful if the Democrats choose Senator Hillary Clinton and Governor Kathleen Sebelius as their presidential ticket.
It would provide the media and the bloggers an excellent opportunity to educate our girls and young women about the necessaity of nepotism and marrying ambitious or influential husbands to achieve poltical capital and about the need to condone political corruption and unethical behavior in their home states.
They will be shining role models for a new generation of wannabee Lady McBeths. I am sure that Al Quida and other terrorist organizatons will greatly admire their integrity and courage.
Bill McKeankiakahahaha@yahoo.com316 293-6079
is chsen to be Hilloary
“It would provide the media and the bloggers an excellent opportunity to educate our girls and young women about the necessaity of nepotism and marrying ambitious or influential husbands to achieve poltical capital and about the need to condone political corruption and unethical behavior in their home states.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAH!
Now THAT’s funny, I dont care WHO ya are…
I have one big reason I’d like to see Hillary get elected:
TO WATCH THE FANATICAL HATERS FROTH AT THE MOUTH EVEN MORE!
“I have one big reason I’d like to see Hillary get elected:
TO WATCH THE FANATICAL HATERS FROTH AT THE MOUTH EVEN MORE!
Posted by: Ben | October 26, 2007 at 12:49 PM ”
She cannot possibly do worse than the Shrub.
Seeing the neoCons squirm might be worth it
http://www.txtapic.com/harvard_diploma/
Want to become a doctor in 2 minutes? Want to have the option for PhD in medical science? Do you really want to spend 6 years in order to become a specialist in archeology? I guess not.
J R my friend, with all due respect, James Carville is the smartest man I’ve ever met. A conversation with him–outside the spotlight–is a “My Dinner With Andre” moment.And Hillary Clinton is the smartest woman I ever met–outside of my first wife.
Happy Birthday to her…even though I’m working in someone else’s campaign.
“It would provide the media and the bloggers an excellent opportunity to educate our girls and young women about the necessaity of nepotism and marrying ambitious or influential husbands to achieve poltical capital and about the need to condone political corruption and unethical behavior in their home states.”
With bush you’ve already demonstrated that any dimwit can be president, just not a good one!
I’d LOVE to see a woman prez…I just don’t think it’ll happen at this time in history, and it’s too critical that the democrats regain power in the whitehouse with everything that has happened in the last 7 years…we can’t afford to waste this election because Hilary wants to go down in history as the first. I hope I’m wrong..but I don’t think she has a snowball’s chance in hell.Bring back Al Gore.
You decide what are the hottest news
http://www.txtapic.com/breaking_news
Enjoy