This is your chance, Kansas, to make a difference in this historic presidential election. Get involved in the Democratic and Republican party caucuses on Tuesday and Saturday, respectively.
On the Democratic side, each Kansas Senate district will have a caucus meeting site — six in Sedgwick County. A list of Democratic caucus locations can be found on the Kansas Democratic Party Web site.
Here’s how the Democratic caucus works: The doors open at the sites at 6 p.m. Tuesday, and you must be in line by 7 p.m. to be counted. You don’t have to be preregistered as a Democrat; you can register at the caucus site. Once in, the caucus leader will tell voters where to go to support a particular candidate. It should be over by 8:30 or 9 p.m.
The Republican caucuses will get under way at 10 a.m. Saturday. In Sedgwick County, everyone will caucus at Century II Exhibition Hall (check-in begins at 9 a.m.). In order to participate, you must have registered as a Republican by Jan. 25 and have a driver’s license or other state-issued photo ID. Unlike the Democratic caucus, the GOP voting will be secret.
This is one of the most exciting, wide-open presidential elections in decades. Don’t miss this rare chance to help chart this nation’s future.
125 Comments
You also may not leave until all the delegates have been voted for. If you do, your being there will only be in vain and your voice will not count.
I am a captain of the caucus event for Hillary’s campaign. I can’t tell you how excited I am to be doing this.
Our team has made phone calls for weeks trying to get out the people to the event.
Good luck MoM
This is one of the biggest grassroots undertakings that I’ve seen in a long time. And people are excited. Thanks dog.
2-3-08
We are asking that you give your full support SB 458, “The Kansas Illegal Immigration Relief Act” during this 2008 session of the Kansas Senate.
This bill has been introduced by Sen. Peggy Palmer and Co-Sponsored by Senators Barnett, Huelskamp, Journey and Ostmeyer.
This bill address five of the most important issues to curb the tide of illegal aliens currently invading Kansas as well as other states.
1.Allow state and local authorities to enforce federal immigration law.
2. Prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving state services such as welfare.
3. Require employers to verify the citizenship of potential hires using the federal Employment Eligibility Verification system, called E-Verify
4.Impose new penalties for businesses that hire illegals.
5. Toughen penalties for using or making false identification for illegal immigrants.
This bill is needed to begin to curb the onslaught of Illegal Aliens we have witnessed in the United States since the “Great Amnesty of 1986”. There have been many attempts this past year to pass feel good “amnesties” in the US congress. Thankfully none of these have been passed.
We have personally seen entire industries taken over by companies who hire illegal labor. These companies hire Illegal Aliens at rates lower than the cost of hiring legal IMMIGRANTS or US Citizens. By allowing this to happen, we have created an underclass of “modern day slave labor” which works for less money, fewer or no benefits and no recourse. Meanwhile due to the unfair competition many American business people have had to close because they could not compete.
We feel that we need to secure our borders and remove the Magnets (jobs, social services etc.) that draw Illegal Aliens before we attempt to assimilate those who are here illegally now. We can’t afford to keep making the same mistakes over and over.
In 1986 we had 2.7 million Illegal Aliens in our country. Because we took no action to prevent a repeat of this flood by securing the borders and removing the MAGNETS, which draw more illegals, we now have 10 times that number to deal with today. For us to add to the seven (7) amnesties passed in the US congress since 1986 without preventing a repeat is unacceptable.
We need for you to call, write, Fax and email your senators to protect Kansas workers from the unfair hiring of ILLEGAL ALEINS.
kansasforlegalimmigration@cox.net
Kansas Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee
Senator Jim Barnett
1400 Lincoln
EMPORIA, KS. 66801
barnett@senate.state.ks.us
Fax 620-342-6520
Senate Office phone 785-296-7384
Senator Karin Brownlee
14725 S Chalet Drive
OLATHE, KS. 66062
brownlee@senate.state.ks.us
Fax 913-782-1085
Senate Office phone 785-296-7358
Senator Pete Brumgardt, Committee Chairman
522 Fairdale Road
SALINA, KS. 67401
brungardt@senate.state.ks.us
Fax 785-825-0273
Senate Office phone 785-296-7390
Senator Marci Francisco
1101 Ohio
LAWRENCE, KS. 66044
francisco@senate.state.ks.us
Senate Office phone 785-296-7365
Senator Mark Gilstrap, Ranking Minority Member
4218 N 126 Street
KANSAS CITY, KS. 66109
gilstrap@senate.state.ks.us
Fax 913-573-8169
Senate Office phone 785-296-7357
Senator Julia Lynn
18837 W 115TH TERRACE
OLATHE, KS. 66061
lynn@senate.state.ks.us
Senate Office phone 785-296-7382
Senator Ralph Ostmeyer
Box 97
GRINNELL, KS. 67738
ostmeyer@senate.state.ks.us
Senate Office phone 785-296-7399
Senator Roger Reitz, Committee Vice-Chair
1332 Sharingbrook
MANHATTAN, KS. 66503
reitz@senate.state.ks.us
Senate Office phone 785-296-7360
Senator John Vratil
9534 Lee Boulevard
LEAWOOD, KS. 66206
vratil@senate.state.ks.us
Senate Office phone 913-451-5100
I plan on being at the Republican caucus on the 9th. I hope to see many Dr, Paul supporters there.
LOL I will be looking for that fiery eyed woman who is planning to ask the Mc Cain people about him killing the tanker deal. I do not believe I have ever met KSGRM before, shall we wear a red rose on our lapel so we would know each other? ON second thought maybe I should not make myself too plain, if I were to wear a red rose on my lapel. They would know whom to point to one of the exit doors saying “this way to the caucus!”.
One of the roadblocks that Paul must face is getting his message out, his views do not lend to a two second sound bite. They end up being hard to explain in just a few minutes of a debate. He was recently on a forum on MTV and myspace where he was able to answer questions and express his views with time to explain.
If someone has never heard of him or does not really know what he stands for. These are some of the best I have seen. Please find the following three parts that were posted on YouTube:
Part one (the sound is very crappy till towards the end)
youtube.com/watch?v=knaxH_wYCVs
Part two
youtube.com/watch?v=pJSayySv-Qw
part three
youtube.com/watch?v=A2eJ6WitVGw
Sorry but about having to copy and paste the links into the browser. The spam filter seem to think I am spamming and has damn me to the hell of force others to do a little work.
The reason I hate caucuses: It is obvious that many hundreds of thousands of people miss out on electing the next leader of the USA. What about all those 2nd shift workers at Cessna, Beech and Sprit? What about the cops, firefighters, evening students? Do they not deserve a voice? Kansas should shift to a primary.
Worthwile comments and Ideas are usually more complicated than soundbites. It’s unfortunate in today’s world soundbites get more attention and traction than great ideas with actual solutions. Ron Paul would be the choice of many of us.
Hopefully lots of you folks will get out and caucus for the hometown guy Obama! Remember that unless you want 4 more years of scandle and locked down government under Hillary or 4 more years of war under McCain, Obama is your best choice. Let’s not go back to the 90s. Let’s move on!
Writerdog
Posted February 3, 2008 at 6:54 am | Permalink
I plan on being at the Republican caucus on the 9th. I hope to see many Dr, Paul supporters there.
LOL I will be looking for that fiery eyed woman who is planning to ask the Mc Cain people about him killing the tanker deal. I do not believe I have ever met KSGRM before, shall we wear a red rose on our lapel so we would know each other?
Writer am I that fiery eyed woman you will be looking for?
I do have major problems with McCain and the tanker deal is only one of those. I doubt that I will challenge his supporters unless they challenge my position.
Looking forward to it. I’ll just look for a man with a pencil in his hand who is writing everything down.
See you there.
Yeah I have problems with Mc Cain too, oh Econ being a Romney believer will just love this video!
And Mc Cain calls Romney a flip-flopper! It is from a Ron Paul supporter but it makes me think “these politicians have to hate going in front of a camera and talking about their views. BUT they have to absolutely loathe the fact that forever and a day their views, opinions and statements are on Youtube to haunt them. In the video first Mc Cain said that we would have an easy time in Iraq, than when it started going badly he said that of course he knew we would have a hard time in Iraq. One piece he is for Gay marriage before later he was against Gay marriage. The list goes on and on! What do these people think everyone has the attention span of a Goldfish?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=It6tuNJuWVM&feature=related
LOL I just love the track back for the election site. It must be supported by a pay adult site.
(How is that word you spam nazi? it kick back on the word P/O/R/N)
Kev, you’re not even living here. Don’t act like it.
As far as the caucus goes, yes, my hubby is one of those who can’t attend because he works. But I hope the representation there will be equal.
Glad to see you are actively participating PMom. You go girl. :)
Writerdog
Only the press gets to determine who “flip flops” — That term seems to apply this way:
Change from Conservative to Liberal view:
= “Enlightenment and Growth in office”
Change from Liberal to Conservative view:
= “Flip Flop” or “pandering”
PMom
When you get done with helping Hillary, with the “D” crowd, you might want to come help “Hillary light” John McCain:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tGTJDAAHCnQ
I like the way we are doing it here in Kansas. I can go to the democrat caucus , stand for Obama, then I can go to the republican caucus and vote for Romney.
Elections like they should be, between two tall, good looking MEN!
As usual, you can see where the money is.
The Republicans have Century II on a Saturday morning.
The working people Democrats have various schools and etc. on a Tuesday evening.
I’ll be at my caucus location and voting for Senator Clinton. I look forward to meeting Obama supporters. I want to take their measure and find out just HOW it is they think Republicans can be worked with.
I’d rather work ‘em over!
I COULD go and play at polluting the Republican caucus.
But I’d just as soon not be around those …people.
Hank, everything I’ve read says IF you register as a Democrat Tuesday evening you can’t participate in the Republican caucus the next Saturday. Can you participate in the Tuesday evening Democratic caucus without registering? I’ve never done anything like this but do plan to go this year. I want to see what goes on, how it works for myself. Is “standing for” Obama something different? Guess I’ll find out in two days for sure.
Linda – you have to register Tuesday to participate if you are not already reistered. The system (both Parties) do not allow for two bites at the apple.
Paul – FYI: BOTH Clinton and Obama are considered to be CONSERVATIVES.
By Ralph Nader …
McCain is NOT a liberal.
Thank you, Ben. I suspected Hank was blowing smoke and expecting everyone to believe something that simply isn’t true.
You must register at the democratic caucus if you wish to partake. But you have to be REGISTERED with the Republican party before January in order to partake in the Republican caucus. No, you can’t change party affiliation at the dem caucus and expect to be let into the Republican caucus. Doesn’t work that way.
“Elections like they should be, between two tall, good looking MEN!”
Chauvanist pig. Thanks for proving it.
As we go forward, I see this year’s winner as the LESSER of TWO EVILS CHOICE, regardless of who that is. They all seem to lack a backbone to stand up to the shifting winds of the public opinion of the day.
Hey Linda,
It’s my understanding that the Democrats are having a real caucus. To ’stand’ for your chosen candidate means to gather with like minded voters. It’s public. When you gather with your group if you have less than 15% you must find another group. With only two candidates left I’m not sure what happens next for you guys. I think you are only deciding delegates for a 4th congressional district meeting. Then what happens I don’t know. It appears that on the democrat side you are several meetings away from picking delegates to the national convention.
Me? A chauvinist pig? Everyone knows the tallest, best looking man gets most of the women vote. Hillary is polling great with the single women vote. Merely acknowledging the role of gender in politics doesn’t make me chauvinistic!
In fact, careful analysis of the poll numbers shows that women are more chauvinistic than men when it comes to politics.
Ben
Actually, I take pride in the fact that McCain is considered a LIBERAL.
That is a measure of the success of the conservative movement, in America.
Actually, on the “waterboarding” issue, John McCain is actually more liberal than Hillary Clinton. Hillary would write exceptions into the law. McCain says, basically, that if it is important enough to require torture, he would give a Presidential Pardon to anyone that used torture to prevent a nuclear attack.
McCain supports carbon taxes.
McCain Feingold was a very liberal attack on free speech.
Immigration is not one of my “hot” topics, but McCain is clearly far left, on that issue.
Again, if McCain wins the primary, he will probably get the endorsement of several conservative groups.
However, McCain is the MOST liberal Republican in the race. You just can not argue that fact.
Mc’Cain made a statement this morning which means I could never vote for him. “As the last truly super power it is our duty to ensure the security of the world”. Sorry but no, to act as the world’s cop would only mean that it is the United States against the world. That would not be the actions of a country that believes in liberty or freedom. But in the power of a dictatorship.
Seems to me the power of the United States has been dramatically reduced under bushco. If the United States goes up against the world they won’t fare well. It is important WE THE PEOPLE take back our country while we still have a chance of being what our founders intended. As it is, the joke we’ve had in the White House for the last seven years will require a lot of cleaning up after. Thankfully, our next President of The United States of America will be capable of that!
We need to keep our eyes wide open as the months ahead allow ample time for bushco to do further harm. He and his are very dangerous people
What a wonderful day January 20, 2009 will be!
” I take pride in the fact that McCain is considered a LIBERAL”
Paul, just because McCain has taken a couple of principled stands does NOT mean he is considered to be a liberal. He is only considered that by the far-right fringe.
On the other hand, BOTH Clinton and Obama are considered to be CONSERVATIVES. I guess that just shows “a measure of the success of the LIBERAL movement, in America.”
I encourage everyone to take part in our democratic process and take a stand for our future.
Barack Obama appears like a breath of fresh air in the political spot light. His views, although young and less experienced, show a glimmer of hope in an otherwise old news horse race.
I am not sure if Hillary or Bill would really control the white house. Either way, I just as tired of the preceding Clinton dynasty as I am with the disconnected Bush one. Hillary would help tear our nation apart with the open wounds already inflicted. She is also affiliated with big business as her support dollars reflect who she would really be representing. I’m tired of the white water, white trailer trash, and the oral sex historical footnotes baggage she will forever carry.
Obama, endorsed by the flag holding leaders of the left, is not far from the flagpole. He is not part of the camelot who support him, but will instead represent the new face of our kingdom nation. It will be a new sheriff, not a reinstallation of the old.
Hillary guarantees more of the old, more of the same, and more paralysis in Washington.
Barack reflects our nations new face, our new sense togetherness as a people of all races, creed, or sex.
I’m voting for someone completely new.
I think there’s a big potential story here in Kansas when it comes to the Obama/Clinton contest.
Sebilius has been working hard to gain national prominence. Giving the democrat follow up speach to the State of the Union speech was a real feather in her cap, that is until she actually gave it! It went over like a rubber crutch in a veteran’s day parade!
Now for the story, what if Hillary takes Kansas? She’s endorsing Obama! If she can’t deliver Kansas to Obama her credibility nationally will be crap.
And if Bill and Hillary get reinstated, Katty Sebilius is toast. They will be vindictive.
Personally, I don’t believe she really does have national credibility. Upon closer examination, her political policies and actions will unglue any credibility she thinks she has gained. I’m still mad about her comments about Kansas wines!
I guess that just shows “a measure of the success of the LIBERAL movement, in America.”
Heb, that’s exactly right! We own the issues–but only because the last 7 years of extreme conservative misrule made it critically necessary, and inevitable. :cry:
The argument has been won–but at a very heavy price.
Heb? That’s a typo, ouch! (Ben isn’t jewish anyway!)
Bill Clinton is using the spousal loophole to regain the white house. Alas, he has no legacy from his first eight years – so he is using Hillary’s campaign to establish one that never existed.
But it really reveals the Clintons true colors: a dual presidency so they can build a legacy.
Quick question for Democrats here: anybody going to be at the caucus at Newman U? If so – see ya there!
I plan to be there. Will you stand and introduce yourself so I may say hi? ;-)
I want to support Obama, but I’m really getting frustrated with the way his supporters are treating me. Don’t get mad if you can’t answer my questions–help me find answers. Why is that so hard???
If I don’t get the right answer from Obama’s people by the second round, I guess I’ll go with Hillary.
But I fear for our candidates in Kansas if I do.
Stick a fork in the pig…she’s done!
Romney and McCain are not far apart, in Delegate Count:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#R
There is ONLY a 5 delegate advantage for McCain, currently. Up until now, Romney has been ahead! When Romney led, in Delegates, the press ignored it!
Romney just WON in Maine!
I read of Romney’s Maine win in this morning’s paper and my first thought was that was the state Ron Paul was predicted to take. Guess that means all those supporters and all that money still don’t mean anything positive. Imaigine what that kind of money could have done spent in ways that would have made a differ4ence!
Econ seems WAY to excited that the Mitt n man won in Maine… Thats scary!!
Linda – I’ll be standing for Richardson at first – then don’t know. I’m a bit older, balding, grey beard. Shouldn’t be hard to spot.
Paul, I really would LOVE to see your guy Romney get the nomination. We would beat him like a rented mule. I was sitting next to a Republican this morning when Romney was bragging about the fact that the radio extremists had endorsed him. That did it for her – she said if he is their nominee she will vote Democratic.
GO ROMNEY GO!
Linda
First, it is Romney’s money, mostly. He is his own man, beholden to no one. No other candidate can say that.
Next, look how much money is being spent on your Democrat candidates, would you?
Finally, politics IS a business. It is absurd to cry about money spent, literally, on our very system of government. Morever, whether you agree with the “cause” or not is not the point, the First Amendment makes it clear that he has the right to do this.
Anyway, this money hires advertising production workers, polling, print media, broadcast media, artists, specialists, managers and staffers and payroll people.
Those employed by political campaigns pay taxes on that income. The networks all pay taxes on their advertising revenue.
With all of different ways that Romney could have spent or invested his money, I think Romney is to be admired for, literally, investing in his country.
Ben
The lady sitting next to you is an idiot.
You and I both know that their are always some people that we don’t like, who support people that we do like.
Who are Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakan going to vote for?
If your “Republican friend” knew that, would that change her mind?
She was not with us to begin with, and you know it!
NO PAUL; YOU ARE THE IDIOT!!!!! AND AN A**HOLE TOO!!!
Just because someone doesn’t march in goosestep with your extremism does not make you superior. In fact, the fact that there are still a few Republicans who are NOT extremist wackos like you give some hope for the Republican Party.
lol, Ben! Sounds like I will be looking for my husband or any number of men in our age group!
Why will you causcus for someone not running? Sounds like a smart aleck question and I certainly don’t mean it to be! I also hoped Richardson would “make it,” and will hope for a cabinet position at least (if not VP!). I think it was Chas who suggested Secretary of State which I thinhk would suit him well and serve America even better.
Paul – I neither know nor care sho Sharpton is voting for. My point is that Romney carries the support of extremists as his biggest accomplishment. I don’t see either Clinton nor Obama saying “vote for me, the nutcase fringe is behind me” like Romney does.
I won’t matter anyway. After Tuesday when the GOP rejects him soundly ol’ Mittie will be toast. I hope he continues; I hope he spends millions savaging the Republican nominee. And I hope the Republican Party ostracizes him and never forgives him.
linda – just sort of a statement of support. I will end up with one of the two and, or course, support the Democratic candidate against either of the two conservative Republicans.
Paul, What I said about all the money spent with no positive results was a comment on the reports of great numbers of supporters and amounts of money raised by Ron Paul. I guess all the points you made would still apply. The big bucks in politics today isn’t something I find good in any way! I would much prefer the money and power both be greatly reduced! I’m mostly very disappointed in what we get for the money.
Paul – care to predict how your boy Mittie will do Tuesday?
linda – hope to see you there. And I can assure you that if you support a different candidate than I do I will NOT call you an idiot. I am not that ignorant. Nor that arrogant.
Rudy spent 49 million dollars.
He got one delegate.
Willard is free to throw away as much of his corporate raider loot as he would like. Americans find his attempt to buy the Presidency off putting.
That’s just to beginning of his problems.
I caucus on North Oliver. I will stand for Kucinich just so I can hear the appeals of the Clinton and Obama folks.
Someone will have to convince me that Obama is not a Republican before I can support him. Most likely I will vote for Senator Clinton.
She can dish right back at the radio shills.
Giants pulled it off! What a game – one of the best Super Bowls I have seen. So many turn into busts – not this one.
Now, if the predictor effect on the stock market follows I will be happy.
I will not get s chance to caucus. I need to be at work at 7PM. So that leave all the shift works out of voting. Does that make it a fair vote when only the people who work 9-5 get a chance to vote?
Good point Sheryl. It’s too bad they don’t allow some sort of proxy vote where you could give someone else instructions to stand in your place. Unfortunately, with any sort of caucus system this will happen and some people get left out.
Hillary will garnish your wages, health insurance will be MANDATED:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp_31
—-
Linda,
Sorry, you are correct, I did not understand your question, but my answer still works. I think Ron Paul is off his rocker, but his money goes right back into the economy, as well.
—–
Ben, you misunderstood me, perhaps. I do not think that everyone who disagrees with me us an idiot. I do think that anyone who makes a decision, based on someone elses endorsement, is an idiot.
There are some rather strange people in every camp, people that no candidate would want, publicly, on their side.
Me? Yes, I tend to agree with Hannity and Limbaugh, but not all the time.
I am betting that Farakhan and Sharpton will vote
Democrat. Is that a reason, by itself, to vote against anyone?
Paul – if a Democrat too an extremist’s support as an important badge of honor it would be important. It was not the extremist’s endorsement that turned her off – it was Mitt trumpeting it as making him more deserving of votes. This person has worked on Republican campaigns in the past – I doubt that she will in the future if extremists rule the Party.
No Paul, I did not misunderstand you or your arrogance.
So, care to predict how your boy will do Tuesday? I’m betting there are enough rational people left in the GOP that he will get thrashed. But, hope springs eternal. I would LOVE Mitt to get the nomination.
health insurance will be MANDATED
Isn’t that pretty much how they do it in Massachusetts – initiated by Romney?
It does seem Romney has a bit different message now that he wants to appeal to a wider voter base than he did when appealing to the voters in the state of Massachusetts.
Read the thread opener closely folks–Dems can register on-site and don’t need an ID. All you need is an address and the last four digits of your SS number.
Meanwhile, the REPUKES require that you be pre-registered and you STILL must show a photo ID.
Because so many Repukes can’t be trusted and will try to vote twice?
That’s the difference in the two parties–the Dems want everybody to come out and vote and the Repukes only want the “right people” to be able to vote.
BTW, P-Mom, good luck with your Hillary campaign.
I spent the last two days pounding the pavements with a group of enthusiastic volunteers for the man with the MOJO hand, Barack Obama.
Didn’t see any Hillary people out . . . hmmm.
I don’t deal in any part of social security numbers EVER! I have gone to the mat on this subject many times. I will fight tooth and nail before they get any portion of my social security number! I will bring photo ID and my voter’s registration card — they best not ask for those four numbers you mention.
JR–
Caucusing for Kucinich is your right. But be aware that the final tally cannot be counted until you join a viable candidate or leave the caucus site.
So the more people that caucus for non-viable candidates, the longer the process takes for everyone.
As far as who is better–Hillary or Obama, consider this.
Obama came from a mixed race marriage, a broken home, and his mom was even on gov’t assistance. From that background, he became a Senator from Illinois.
Hillary Rodham grew up in a wealthy family, went to Wellesly, and married a guy who became president.
Someone once said, “it’s not what you say you are, it’s not what you think you are, it’s what you do.”
I look at what Obama has done, and I say, there’s no comparison . . .
Linda, Ben should be easy to locate, he’ll be standing by himself for Richardson!
Okay, Linda–
You can also use your Kansas Driver’s License number.
But most folks don’t have that memorized.
Well, good luck to all of you at the Caucus’s Tuesday… I am unfortunately out of town right now, and wont be able to be there… But I will be watching the outcomes closely!!
WTG GIANTS!! What a terrific game!!
Ben
I predict a very very close day.
McCain has yet to win a “caucus” state. Many are up this Tuesday.
Also, I do not think that Huck will “sweep” the South.
If Romney can take a state from Huck, it will be big news.
TN, MO, GA, ALAB, WV, OK, ARK —SHOULD go HUCK, If Romney can take at least one, that will be a great. It will prove that Huckabee is just a spoiler, with no chance. If McCain wins any of these, McCain should thank Huckabee.
MA, CO, UT. MT, ND, ALK for Romney.
CA Split nearly 50/50 Romney/ McCain
NY Split 60/40 McCain/Romney (Winner take all
Illinois? I think the polls say McCain is ahead. I think Independents go to “favorite son” Obama. I think Romney has a real shot to do better than 50% of delegates.
AZ, NY, CT, NJ, DL, MN McCain
Romney’s problem is that the map and schedule was made for Rudy. McCain will benefit from the “winner take all” primaries.
Romney will benefit from the true Caucus states.
I think the delegate spread, between Romney and McCain, will be less than 100 Delegates, on Wednesday morning.
The math is tough. Polls that break out Congressional Districts are hard to come by.
I give McCain a slight lead on Wed morning.
Then, Huck’s money dries up. Most of Hucks supporters flock to Romney. The Southern states will, pretty much, be old news.
Romney trys to pick up enough Delegates to deny the “king maker” title to Huck.
By the way, “pledged” delegates are very important. McCain will want to veer hard left, after the nomination, IF he wins. The Delegates will make that hard for him.
The Convention Delegates can make McCain miserable, at the Convention, if McCain doesnt start to play nice.
I think Romney has a clear shot. Especially if McCain has one of his famous melt downs.
If McCain does win, Romney will still have cemented himself as the front runner, in 4 years.
A strong Romney keeps McCain in line.
we’ve been reaching more people with phone calls.
And I hate to tell ya, but the vast majority of people we’re talking to who are GOING to caucus, are Hillary supporters.
I was rather surprised myself at how big a lead she had in Kansas.
Perhaps I was just lucky and got all of the pro-Hillary people, but I doubt it.
Capn
Obama wants me to abandon my friends to work with my enemies.
I can never do this.
And if that means “throwing away” or keeping my vote home so be it.
We have lost so much to the right. I will not help Obama compromise even more.
JR — Obama sees working with the “other side of the aisle” much like Kennedy saw working with the “other side”
“Never negotiate out of fear, but never fear to negotiate.”
That quote might help you understand him better??
ALSO — you never negotiate to a “compromise” You always negotiate to WIN!!
Hang in there!!
Chas
From time to time, there is a “win win” —
The idea that somebody has to lose badly, in every decision, is somewhat flawed.
No, there is “no such thing as a free lunch” — but there are things we can do, from time to time, that help everybody.
I think that is what Obama means when he says politics should not be a “zero sum game” —
I use the same phrase when suporting economic growth. I am sure YOU understand what the term means.
For those that don’t, I am trying to say that some initiatives can produce benefits far greater than the original costs.
I think betting on Obama is a risk that is greater than what our country can afford at this time. The last 7 years have made me risk-adverse when it comes to voting in untested amateurs.
I believe I know what I can expect from the Hillary. I think her presidency would be similar to Bill’s but less corporate friendly.
Bill Clinton showed how seriously flawed and utterly silly that statements like “deficits don’t matter” were. He was able to pay down the debt and grow the economy. A real “win-win” that Paul Rossell has absolutely no clue about.
I am not for Hillary because of the rancor she will generate in Repbulics. That will happen, but such is only entertainment benefit. Entertainment for both sides of the aisle, actually. Rush Limbaugh is having wet dreams about her presidency (if he is able to) right now as I type these words.
A turning point for me in deciding on Clinton was reading Mark J. Penn’s book Microtrends: The Small Changes Behind Tomorrow’s Big Changes. Penn coined the term “soccer mom” and was able to tailor campaign and policies that helped that demographic. The Clintons always hire the best people, rather than clueless cronies like Bush Crime family.
Unlike the Bush Junta who are so completely out of touch with people, Hillary and company will bring back a governing process that will help the vast majority of people in this country. I remember being middle class in the 1990’s. If you didn’t have one or two jobs, it was only because you did not want any. Today: a bit different.
As far as where I will be standing in the 02-05 caucus, I will be in the area for Hillary Clinton and to quote an old hymnal song: “Just like a tree, standing by the water, I shall not be moved.”
I think it will really become interesting after Tuesday, Huckabee is so short on cash and if he does not show well he will be dragging down one of the front runners. So will he drop out? He said he will not but to stay sinks one the top two. Paul has the money to stay and nothing to lose, he already has his people and I do not see any change if he stays in. I figure the Huckabee crowd will throw in with Mc Cain there will go Romney.
Some may side with Paul as he is the most REAL conservative, he does not follow the Neo-Con agenda. Otherwise saying he is inspired by the Constitution and not the writings of Leon Trotsky and his present day followers.
Why Is Obama Getting A Free Pass?
What do you think the national media would do if there was a presidential candidate who attended a church that describes itself as “unashamedly White” with a “non-negotiable commitment to Europe”. The church goes on to say it has a White worship service and ministries that address the White community. The magazine of the church also gave an award to the leader of a White separatist organization because of his influence in the White community. If the above scenario was true, the media would be all over this story until it had run its course.
Well, it is true and the candidate is Senator Barack Obama. He is a member of Trinity United Church of Christ located in Chicago, Illinois. The church says it is “unashamedly Black” and it has a “Black worship service and ministries which address the Black community”.
The church’s magazine, Trumpet News Magazine, also gave its Lifetime Achievement Award to the Minister Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the controversial Nation of Islam. The church gave him the award because he “truly epitomized greatness”.
Please note the following:
1) I do not have a problem with Obama being a member of Trinity United Church of Christ. He has the freedom to worship where ever he feels comfortable and there is nothing wrong with that
2) Trinity United Church of Christ has every right to establish and believe in their tenets of belief and worship. It is not against the law to have a “unashamedly Black congregation” just as it is okay to have a “unashamedly White congregation”. I believe it’s tacky and wrong, but it is not against the law.
3) The church has every right to give their award to Farrakhan if that is what they want to do. I respect their right to choose their honorees, but I do not have to agree with their selections.
What I have a problem with is the national media coverage of this issue. If Obama was White, this issue would have been a front page story. Obama would have been forced to disassociate himself with his church and make a public denouncement of Farrakhan and his beliefs. Obama would have had to do more than issue a press release addressing the issue. It seems that the majority of the mainstream press does not want to press Obama on certain subjects because they do not want to be seen as racist.
It is not racist to ask Obama tough questions on racial issues or ideology. I don’t care what some civil rights activists would have you believe. What is wrong with asking him questions regarding where he attends church? Republican candidate Mitt Romney is almost questioned daily regarding his being a Mormon. For example, I would like to know why his church is asking its members to boycott Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club? I would like to know the answer to that question? Maybe there is a reason I should not shop at those stores.
I just want to see unbiased press coverage of the candidates. Every day, I read about Senator Hillary Clinton’s negative issues, which are well documented. However, I want to know about Obama’s problems also. I will say this much – Obama and his campaign staff are running a smooth campaign. They have done a good job controlling when he is the “Black candidate” and the “American candidate”. Obama does not want a debate about race during the primary campaign because he does not want to scare off some of his racially sensitive White supporters. However, it’s okay if he brings up the subject of race to recruit the Black vote, but no one else can do it. These are the “Obama Rules”.
Remember that only YOU can stop the Clinton Machine! Only YOU can get out and STAND (literally) for change we can believe in! We can either go BACK to the last century (Hillary), back to the 18th century (Republicans) or FORWARD with OBAMA. Lots of you folks gripe about the way things are but never go and do anything to CHANGE the status quo. Now you have your chance to vote for meanningful real change in our country and its future. You have a chance to make history. Grab it and stand for Obama Tuesday!
Right now im torn between a few candidates. I’m a bit disappointed that Guilini dropped out, I kinda liked him… He had what, 3 wives, was pro choice and was able to turn around NYC, sounds good to me. Of the rest of the republicans, don’t really like any of them. McCain is ok except for the war, its time to cut our losses and leave.
As for the Demo’s, I’d vote to elect Bill Clinton again. No problems there, I saw the best employment of my life under Clinton. Obama is also on my short list. I like that he is a younger individual and less Washington centric. Too bad Richardson dropped out, I would have liked to see him in the race. If we were Obama’s running mate, than I see a unstoppable ticket… especially if someone like Hucklebee or Romney wins the Republican ticket.
Now, if McCain choose Guliani as his running mate, than who knows, that could be a formidable team against either Clintons or Obama.
I also think that Hilliary’s vice will be Bill. There is nothing against the law/constitution about Bill serving 2 terms as vice president.
JR–
I totally don’t think that Obama is going to just cave in to the other side.
I think what Obama is talking about is what King did–create such a tension that negotiation is the only way out.
That’s what grassroots organizers do and know how to do. It’s what professional politicians like Hillary don’t know how to do.
Steven–
I respect your decision (and JR’s) but can’t agree. Hillary sat on the board of directors of Wal-Mart, the most harmful corporation in the US. She said “lobbyists are good.” She voted for Bush to go to war and has never recanted or apologized.
Obama has taken no money directly from lobbyists, unlike Hillary’s many millions. Still, he collected more total campaign contributions.
Marques Troll–
Your hit piece was FOS.
A church calling itself “unashamedly black” is in no way equivalent to a church calling itself “unashamedly white.”
Whites have no shameful history of having been enslaved for two hundred years and legally discriminated against for another 100 after that.
But you knew that already, didn’t you.
My prediction:
McCain will win big. Huckabee will probably finish third BUT will be fairly close to Romney.
Since this is a delegate hunt the ’spoiler’ role is much different than that in a general election (i.e. Nader); the ‘also-ran’ can negotiate his delegates to one of the front-runners. That is what I see happening down the road – Huckabee will give his support to McCain and will be rewarded with the VP slot.
This is a win-win for both McCain and Huckabee. Huckabee brings social conservatives to the table, strengthening the ticket. And, after it loses in November Huckabee is perceived as good loyal Republican rather than a back-stabber.
Now for what I HOPE happens: That would be Romney doing well and being energized to carry on his campaign – especially the BS line that McCain is ‘Liberal.’ Rush and the rest of that pact continue to savage McCain; developing much bad blood and animosities. Then whichever one gets the nomination will face what Hubert Humphrey faced in 1968 – a fractured and ambittered Party.
John McCain has been dishonest about Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney has never supported fixed “time tables” for withdrawal from Iraq.
The fact is, McCain, himself, was a bit squishy on the whole Iraq issue, a few times.
Romney, on the other hand, said clearly that he would Veto any timetable, as President.
Ben, you parrot the liberal media line. You think issue based, honest advertising is wrong. You don’t like it that McCain is held accountable for his words and his record.
McCain can make something up, out of whole cloth, and you completely ignore it!
Tony
Presidents have almost nothing to do with the economy.
“You don’t like it that McCain is held accountable for his words and his record.
McCain can make something up, out of whole cloth, and you completely ignore it!”
Not true PaulTheCon – as usual.
Tony
Presidents have almost nothing to do with the economy.
Paul – are you clinging to the false line that deficits don’t matter?
“Bush projects that the deficits, which had been declining, will soar to near-record levels, hitting $410 billion this year and $407 billion in 2009. The all-time high deficit in dollar terms was $413 billion in 2004.”
Has Bush EVER proposed a balanced budget? Has the Republican Comngress he had for six years ever even APPROACHED a balanced budget?
Econ…
Since you know so much about the economy and all… How can our government continue to run if it is accumulating half trillion-dollar deficits every year? What happens when the debt payments cost more than even the military? What will happen when we owe more to China than what our GDP is worth?
In the private sector, that’s called Bankruptcy… What happens in Bankruptcy? Everything must go! Low Low prices… Clearance Sale!
You think the world’s recession is bad now because of this loan thing? Just wait until the US government goes bankrupt? The entire world will go into a recession and I bet you will see WW3 come out of it.
Guess we could have a Chapter 11, and just re-organize! Start out by downsizing the govt., defaulting on interest payments to foreign countries, default on debts to defense contractors. Or, after oil prices go over 1.00, we could sell off the strategic oil reserves at a profit and pay down the debt!
U know… Its amusing to think… A full government bankruptcy could actually be the best thing to happen to our government… It would be forced to finally overhaul everything about it… Interesting thought…
Nah – it will be much simpler. Mitt’s outfit will launch an LBO of the country. Then spin off all the assets to China and the Persian Gulf States and give themselves a special dividend. No problem!
I think the Clintons have had a pragmatic approach to governing – which means that they don’t see advantage of ideology always guiding policy. [Contrast the preceding to Bush, et al.]. They favor free-market solutions when those are appropriate and effective; and they favor regulatory control when that is needed. Their efforts represent a compromise blending of those things that work.
So, Capn, my support of Hillary represents a compromise also. Had I wished she had not been involved with WalMart? You bet. Do I think the Iraq vote and a lack of an explanation are unfortunate? Yes. The preceding things are overcome, for me, by the Clinton record under Bill’s presidency. It may be that assuming Hillary’s policies will be similar to Bill’s will be wrong. I am not thinking so. I believe they will retain their “third way” approach and return our country to its proper path.
I have conceded before that the Bush II presidency has made me very risk adverse. That may be unfortunate in that it may be that risk taking with Obama is exactly what this country needs. I am not seeing that, though. But, concede my perception may be totally wrong.
“Deficits are caused not by wild eyed spending, but, instead, by periodic recessions” JFK
By the way, Jack Murtha is the leader in Earmarks, last year!
Speaker Pelosi’s hometown paper labels the Dems “The Party of Pork”:
http://www.gop.gov/web/guest/earmarks
Steven, I agree with you. We cant take the risk of a rookie as the nominee or even in the white house. No proof that obama has any coattails. No proof that he could “peel off” any republican support in congress. He has shown a willingness to pit one group of democrats against another. I dont think we need that kind of division from someone who claims to be a uniter.
And Obama has sleezy ties of his own to folks like Rezko. Google him + obama. He’s just like EVERYONE else who achieves office. As Bob Dylan said, they all have to “serve somebody”. The idea that he is not beholdin to big money is just fantasy. He hasnt been around long enough to collect the big money and big names. But put him at the top of the ticket, and the information will come out. Hillary is a known quantity. They cant dig up any more dirt on her. We already know all their is to know. Obama? Not so much.
And Mr. Controversy, I agree with you as well. Obama’s supporters are viscious when you ask too many pointed questions. They dont have much substance other than to say he’s “inspirational”. I agree, we need some inspiration and motivation in this country to do the right thing. But inspiration right now AND a quarter will get you coffee at Clelands.
We need someone experienced in dealing with the wingnuts when they bring the fight to us after bush leaves. Someone who is already battle hardened and knows their wingnut moves before they make them. Anyone who thinks a winning smile and youth will bring this republican mess to a close is just whistling past the graveyard.
The obamabots are unable or unwilling to answer substantive questions about how he will deal with the right wing propaganda machine. The public is fickle, and all this inspriration stuff will likely fade one the mighty right wing wurlitzer winds up and starts digging and slinging obama mud.
And have you NOTICED how many wingnuts say they’d vote for anyone but (fill in the blank)? They are whining about McCain right now, but you know the saying, republicans dont fall in love, they fall in line. And when their nominee is chosen, they WILL fall in line, conservatives and moderates alike. I’m hard pressed to think anyone on the wingnut side of life will cross over to vote for obama or ANY democrat. Their party blood will end up being thicker than inspirational water. They might stay home on election day, but when it comes down to it, they will NOT hold their nose and vote for a democrat. Do you READ here?
And “moderate” republicans? Isnt McCain their guy? If he gets the republican nomination, moderate republicans will vote for their moderate candidate, not a democrat. The idea that anyone will lure moderates to the democratic side when McCain is at the top of the ticket is wishful thinking. Something the obama folks are long on.
Hillary does have lots of negatives and she isnt a perfect candidate. But I dont think democrats can risk on the job training right now, or putting all their eggs in the inspiration basket. Or putting their hopes on crossover republicans. IF a real wingnut case like Huckabee were heading the ticket, maybe mods would cross over like in Kansas. But McCain wont generate that in moderate republican. And like I said, I think the worst the hard core wingnuts will do is stay home. They will NEVER cross over.
I think democrats should stick with a known quanitity and a proven tough leader. Like I always say, the race does not always go to the swift or the strong…But that’s DAMN sure how you bet your money.
Go HILLARY!
An interesting commentary on the self-sustaining nature of Clinton-Hatred:
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/?8dpc
And Pmom? I hope you are correct about Hillary supporters. But I gotta tell ya…
The democratic party STILL sends me their official mailings and such all the time. I have gotten four mailings from democratic party LEADERSHIP, and ALL have been for Obama.
I’ve gotten NONE from the Hillary camp. Now for me, that makes me want Hillary even MORE. But for most hard core democrats? They follow their “leaders” like lemmings. Governor “leadership” has a death grip on the Kansas Democratic Party. I suspect her support, plus the whisperings of her potential VP bid, will have the TRADITIONAL democrats falling all over themselves to vote for Obama.
Hillary better get the NON traditional folks and folks who rarely caucus and dont pay attention to the Kansas Democratic Party machine if she hopes to win Kansas. The sebelius bots and the mighty kansas democrats wurlitzer has already declared obama their choice. In Kansas, HILLARY is the outside candidate.
So… if you want to send a message to sebelius or the usual democratic party machine in kansas, vote for Hillary.
“A turning point for me in deciding on Clinton was reading Mark J. Penn’s book Microtrends: The Small Changes Behind Tomorrow’s Big Changes. Penn coined the term “soccer mom” and was able to tailor campaign and policies that helped that demographic. The Clintons always hire the best people, rather than clueless cronies like Bush Crime family.”
Ya know, I worked with Clinton Administration folks in Arkansas in the early to mid eighties when he was governor of that state. They had the smartest economic development folks in their department of commerce and their department of labor, which is where I did the consulting.
They have a record of surrounding themselves with FABULOUS people. Truely the best and brightest, and THAT track record goes all the way back to the early eighties. I think it was true during Bill’s presidency as well. Robert Reich? Top notch. Madelaine Albright? You bet. Donna Shalala? Edelman? Uh=HUH! Now of course, some wingnut will bring up Sandy Berger.
I dont think the wingnuts here REALLY want to get into a tit for tat on idiots, the corrupt, and the incompetent…
Jack Abramhoff. Micheal Brown. Donald Rumsfeld. The hits could go on and on. But hey, bring on the bergerbots. If that’s the worst you can come up with? Or the whitewater crew that was never convicted of anything?
Uh huh. Bring it.
The Clintons ALWAYS surround themselves with good people.
But hey, I wonder who advised obama that donnie mcclurkin and kirbyjon caldwell were GOOD things?
heheheheh. Like Mr. Controversy said. THAT campaign is in serious need of adult supervision…
“Econ101
Posted February 4, 2008 at 11:09 am | Permalink
“Deficits are caused not by wild eyed spending, but, instead, by periodic recessions” JFK”
Paul, then how do you explain Bush’s eight straight years of deficits? Or Reagan-Bush’s TWELVE straight years?
Steven – great article. Describes PaulTheCon perfectly!
The Clintons also gave us NAFTA.
If you think that was a good idea, go with them another 8 years.
And just think after Hillary, we can vote for Chelsea and then Jeb Bush.
People outside the Clinton-Bush dynasties need not apply.
We’ve become a de-facto feudal monarchy.
GOBAMA!
Econ
Ur point? The Iraq military action costs $177 Million PER DAY! A months worth of military action spending would more than pay for EVERY special project out there.
Bush’s budget came out today: $3 Trillion budget, with $410 Billion on deficit spending this year and $407 next year.
“Those deficits, fueled by the roughly $150 billion economic stimulus plan pending in the Senate, would send the federal debt soaring past $10 trillion next year”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-03-bush-budget_N.htm
Tell me again? How does this economy keep going like this? When will it go Bankrupt?
Hey, look on the bright side… Maybe Google could buy it!
Oh, and dont forget, Hillary is having a town hall meeting on the Hallmark Channel tonight. If you are undecided, listen to the candidate. If you love her, listen to the inspiration SHE provides. If you hate her? Watch it and get ammunition to shoot with.
Check yer local listings…
No, I dont think NAFTA has turned out well. But I gotta admit, at the time, I supported it because I DID think it was a good idea. Sometime, the best laid plans dont turn out the way we wanted.
But on the same subject, it seems like NAFTA was part of the “reaching across the aisle” that Clinton did. It was part of trying to bring republicans on board for a bipartisan effort.
I also think that RARELY works out. And yet? That is what obama is promising. More “reaching across the aisle” which is dog whistle talk for appeasement.
Do you want more of the appeasement that resulted in NAFTA? Then obama is your guy.
Ben
Hillary and Bill Clinton have far more ties to China than Mitt Romney:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy
22 people were convicted for Fraud, on the “China-gate” Clinton scandal. Most of those folks were Clinton or Gore buddies.
So Hillary should be DISqualified because her last name is Clinton? Heheheheheheheheheh. Let’s stop the Bush dynasty. I can agree on that.
But why turn away the best qualified candidate because you hate the bush dynasty?
Sounds like more obamalogic. Gee, some might say anyone relying on the Kennedys so much might NOT want to talk about political dynasties…
“ksfarmgrrl” –
Don’t reduce your credibility to straw man arguments. While I admit I’m not participating on this forum 24/7, I think I’ve address your attacks against (what’d you call them, oh yeah) “Obambots.”
Senator Clinton would make a fine president, but (as with Dukakis, Gore, Kerry) she’s not the strongest *candidate* for Democrats to field in the general election. Republic Party voters will (as John McCain’s mother suggested) hold their noses and vote for McCain if the alternative is Senator Clinton. Their hatred for Hillary (while oft times insane and irrational) is visceral.
President Clinton was reelected in 1996 because Momement Conservatiives thought Bob Dole was too liberal. Bob Dole.
Without Senator Clinton as a lightning rod attracting right-wing vitriol, Movement Cons are likely to sit on their hands (as they did with Bob Dole) and turn out in lower numbers.
Counter that phenomenon with the fact that Barack Obama attracts not just moderates and independents, but millions of *new* voters; young people who haven’t bothered to be political before. Senator Obama’s politics-of-attraction speaks to the very soul of so many, many Americans who’ve been turned off by the overt partisanship of Tom DeLay, Newt Gingrich, and George WMD Bush. Even the Limbaugh-tomized Masses will be hard pressed to all-of-a-sudden hear mAn Coulter and Hannity and Rush (isn’t that a drug term?) suddenly getting sweet and lovely for McCain. All they’ll have left is fomenting hatred for the name Clinton; and they’re good at that.
Whether they agree with the Clintons or not, savvy political minds agree that the Clintons are among the most effective political practitioners since FDR. But this year, Barack Obama has caught the zeitgeist of America to run head-to-head and nose-to-nose with the so-called “Clinton Machine.” That’s either evidence of his strength or evidence of her weakness.
The Republic Party and the Reign of Error of George WMD Bush has handed Democrats all the issues we need for a slam-dunk victory in November: Shrub’s little Iraqi adventure, politics by crony, massive debt, a faltering economy, corporate fascism…. And the only card a Republic Party candidate might play is the irrational hatred of crazy wingnuts against all things Clinton.
Why deal them that card?
One of the best right-wing arguments Coulter and Limbaugh will have will be Stephen Colbert’s accusation that “Barack Obama fathered a Black child!!!” And they’ll try to use it.
The Limbaugh-tomized Masses will fall for it, probably, but they have a lot more equally specious attacks against Senator Clinton. And they’ll use them, I promise you.
Your objections to Obama, “ksfarmgrrl,” seem to be extrapolations of gender-preference politics. I understand that. But there are other issues. (And frankly, I haven’t any evidence of Senator Clinton displaying profiles in courage when it comes to gender-preference issues.)
As I’ve posted many times before (and you’ve chosen to ignore), veto politics takes a quantum leap once we get a Republic Party member out of the Oval Office. The geometry changes exponentially.
Unless, of course, it’s another 51%-49% election like in 2000.
Back in 1960, when Nixon’s people were corrupting the votes in Ohio and Kennedy’s people were corrupting the votes in Chicag, Joe Kennedy said he was willing to pay for a victory, but not for a landslide.
In 2008, we kinda need a landslide. It won’t happen with Hillary at the top of the ticket, I promise you. I can’t promise a landslide with Barack Obama, but I like the odds.
This will indeed be a momentous time in American history. Most likely either a woman or a black male will become President of the United states. A great boon for diversity perhaps, and for those who are not white males to get some encouragement from, but given who the candidates are, on both sides, a loss for the country as a whole.
This country is in a mess. Politicians on both sides buy votes with handouts. Politicians on both sides lie through their teeth to get elected. Politicians on both sides are all about the government forcing people to do what the leaders of whatever majority party currently is in power to do what is “best for them” I am sick of it. \
I am even more sick of the people who put, and who keep, the likes of above in office. The US is getting the government it deserves. Whatever it gets. People decide. For all the rhetoric about power brokers, etc, the people decide. The people mostly decide to let other people decide. As long as they can watch American idol, shop at Wal-Mart, and decry the loss of American jobs, bitch about the “rich” while seeking to not only keep up with the Jones, but show them up, we will continue to get what we get.
My choice for the eleciton. None of the above. My vote, I can hardly think about it, it makes me sick.
I want someone who will be fiscally responsible, who will not buy votes, who will not do the politically expedient and abandone priniciples. Compromise is always essential, to get anything done. But not on principles, only on methods. I want someone who will think before shooting of their mouth, or the big guns of the military. I want someone who is honest about our problems, but has an answer, instead of just doom and gloom. I want someone will be be strong on defenes, and not likely to use it. I want someone to protect our borders, and our Constitution. I don;t see any of that in any of our candidates.
It sucks.
Strawman? I dont think so Monkey. In my posts today, I rarely mentioned same sex issues.
But then, I dont have your superior intellect either.
You have not answered my questions. You just rant about Hillary. See Steven Davis’ link about clinton hatred.
But then, I guess he doesnt have your superior intellect either.
Strawman? I dont think so Monkey. In my posts today, I rarely mentioned same sex issues.
But then, I dont have your superior intellect either.
You have not answered my questions. You just rant about Hillary. See Steven Davis’ link about clinton hatred.
But then, I guess he doesnt have your superior intellect either.
Oops, sorry for the double post.
I find your strawman comments insulting monkey.
Here’s a little food for thought regarding YOUR strawman comments.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×4385358
“Ben
“Posted February 4, 2008 at 11:44 am | Permalink
Steven – great article. Describes PaulTheCon perfectly!”
Ben, I agree.
Two things that worry me about the points in the blog are 1) Bush II is the same type of lightening rod for people like me – I must plead guilty to that one; 2) equally worrisome is that people who have some professed degree of objectivity like GMC70 also can display foaming at the mouth Clinton Hatred.
And one last thing, I have been seeing pandering by Dowd and Rich to the memes of Clinton Hatred and I don’t see either of them as being in the camp of mindless conservatives.
This thing will be a good political science dissertation one day soon.
Just listened to the Robo-call from Kathleen Sebelius on my answering machine. She was encouraging me to go and caucus for Obama. One can’t say that he isn’t taking this state seriously.
“ksfarmgrrl” –
A “rant against Hillary?!”
Hardly.
Read it again. It’s simply addressing political reality.
I’m on record as sincerely believing Senator Clinton has the chops to be a great president. I simply don’t believe — especially given the Reicht Wing Smear Machine — that she’s the strongest candidate.
I presented my arguments as to why and how I believe Barack Obama is the stronger candidate. You called it an anti-Hillary rant.
You really weren’t paying attention.
The post I was responding to — on another thread; I forget which one — was your posting all your objections to gender-preference issues.
It ended with a comment along the lines that you hoped one of my issues wouldn’t be the “next thrown under the bus” by Obama.
Now, listen. I understand to a certain degree how McClurky’s appearance on the same stage as Senator Obama might be unsettling. But does that campaign appearance negate Obama’s career record?
And just where was Hillary during all these fights? I grant you, I’m not up on all the gender-preference issues, but I suspect it’s still a political hot-button for a lot of candidates and; while it’s not all that courageous, it’s real politk. And sometime you gotta deal with it.
In many, many posts, now, I’ve tried to introduce into your thinking the real-life dynamics of the 2008 presidential election.
There is a strong issue in looking forward rather than building a bridge back to the 20th Century.
I really don’t think you want to set back GLBT issues 25 years, to the days when “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was considered somehow “progressive.” But, ya know, it was at the time. And the Clintons did it straight out of the gate.
And the thing is, “ksfarmgrrl,” gender politics is a fringe issue to most Americans. Like it or not. Just like immigration politics.
Some of the important issues are the war in Iraq, the economy, healthcare financing, getting government to work for the people instead of just the corporations.
And those messages — which you dismiss as being merely “inspiring” — are connecting with Americans who’ve listened to Barack Obama.
Frankly, I look at Hillary as the second-coming of LBJ. Poor Lyndon was motivated enough by principle to force the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through Congress, even has he knew he was gonna lose the pre-60s racist southern Democrats “for generations.” LBJ knew early on that Vietnam was un-winnable, but he stuck with it out of hubris, hoping *he* wouldn’t be “the first President to lose a war.” Johnson’s Head Start still works and the War on Poverty (though not won) still has become (despte Reagan, Bush, and Bush cutbacks) some kind of safety net for the weakest and poorests Americans.
A Hillary candidacy might result in a better and improved LBJ presidency.
There is a lot of evidence that a Barack Obama presidency might prove to be a better and improved America.
Monkey, thanks for confirming that you dont really read my posts.
The question I asked was NOT why obama is the better candidate. The questions I asked included, WHAT is he going to DO that is different than Clinton proposes?
I asked HOW he intends to bring the republicans along. And I’m sorry, “inspiration” is not a good answer.
I asked you to PROVE that he had coattails.
I asked you a number of questions on the “no dual presidency” thread. You didnt answer a damn one of them. Just told me why Hillary was not good, and gave a bunch of unsupported opinions about why obama is better.
You are certainly entitled to your opinions. But dont try to pawn them off as “fact” or good reasons why the rest of us should share your opinion.
I guess because, as I noted in another of your posts, you think you are so superior to the rest of us, we should do as you say just because you say it?
I did answer the question about why Hillary is a better candidate for the LGBT community than obama. I think those apply to other as well.
And yes, I get that you think LGBT issues are “fringe”. SO I’ll repeat…
I hope some group that YOU are part of does not get thrown under the bus by obama yet.
And btw, in rereading my posts on today’s thread, I mentioned LGBT issues ONCE. The rest have nothing to do with those issues.
I dont see you answering those questions either, and it seems I’m not the only person on this blog that isnt getting answers from the obama camp.
Seems like y’all are long on opinions and short on factual answers.
But thanks for marginalizing gender and gender preference issues. I’d expect nothing less from someone who thinks obama is great. Just following your leader I suppose.
I wasnt going to caucus this year. But… I may. Just to piss the obama people off. And, as hank said, to tell the democratic establishment in Kansas that they are not always in touch with the real world.
Maybe I will go caucus for Hillary. Thanks for the “inspiration” Monkey.
“There is a lot of evidence that a Barack Obama presidency might prove to be a better and improved America.”
Please provide that evidence. His voting record on the Iraq war is no different than Hillary’s. In fact, the ONLY difference in their voting records is that he votes “present” or he isnt there for the most controversial votes.
I’ll be waiting for you to post FACTS about his RECORD that support your opinion. But I’m not holding my breath. I bet all I get is more of your inspirational opinions.
A few observations about Obama, a separate post at a time, positive, negative, but with some attempt at objectivity:
(1)
To begin with, this is not the <a href=”http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug04/Felux0802.htm” first time Obama has pandered to conservative sentiments to get elected, annoying and dismaying erstwhile supporters.
A gushing Fox News pundit described him as a “centrist, DLC Democrat.” Air America Radio’s Randi Rhodes described his politics as “straight down the middle.” As an Obama supporter, I’m not sure how to react. This doesn’t sound like the same Barack Obama who bitterly denounced the war in Iraq, saying “I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.” Was this the same Barack Obama who gave the right-wing DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) the cold shoulder after The Black Commentator alerted him to the fact that they were claiming him as one of their own?
So what the hell is Obama doing? “My job, as a candidate for the U.S. Senate … [is] to persuade as many people as I can, across the ideological spectrum, that my vision of the future is compatible with their values, and can make their lives a little bit better … To some, this approach may appear naïve; to others, it may appear that I’m headed down a path of dangerous compromise. All I can tell you is that in my twenty years as an organizer, civil rights lawyer, and state senator, I’ve always trusted my moral compass, and have thus far avoided compromising my core values for the sake of ambition or expedience.”
Obviously, his moral compass malfunctioned on the way to South Carolina, but–when it’s counted–he’s voted like a progressive during his Senate term (incidently, so has Hillary–at least since 2005). While I don’t know if I’d be quite as harsh, Obama’s old friend finished up this way:
While it’s possible (maybe even probable) that Obama will sacrifice his principles to ambition in the long-run, he can at least say that he had some principles to begin with, unlike Harold Ford, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and many of the other people being touted as possible presidential candidates in the future.
MOre to come. . .
Well, obviously, I don’t have time to correctly code HTML. Oh well.
During the 2004 campaign, Obama’s speech against the war mysteriously disappeared from his website (it’s there in full now, of course).
http://www.blackcommentator.com/45/45_dixon.html
In 2005, Patrick Leahy announced his intention to confirm John Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He was attacked for this. Obama opposed Roberts, but also criticized the advocacy groups on the Senate floor. This was discussed on Daily Kos; Obama saw the post, and responded.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/30/102745/165/500/153069
Some key passages:
In such circumstances, attacks on Pat Leahy, Russ Feingold and the other Democrats who, after careful consideration, voted for Roberts make no sense. Russ Feingold, the only Democrat to vote not only against war in Iraq but also against the Patriot Act, doesn’t become complicit in the erosion of civil liberties simply because he chooses to abide by a deeply held and legitimate view that a President, having won a popular election, is entitled to some benefit of the doubt when it comes to judicial appointments.
The same principle holds with respect to issues other than judicial nominations. My colleague from Illinois, Dick Durbin, spoke out forcefully – and voted against – the Iraqi invasion. He isn’t somehow transformed into a “war supporter” – as I’ve heard some anti-war activists suggest – just because he hasn’t called for an immediate withdrawal of American troops. He may be simply trying to figure out, as I am, how to ensure that U.S. troop withdrawals occur in such a way that we avoid all-out Iraqi civil war, chaos in the Middle East, and much more costly and deadly interventions down the road.
Or to make the point differently: How can we ask Republican senators to resist pressure from their right wing and vote against flawed appointees like John Bolton, if we engage in similar rhetoric against Democrats who dissent from our own party line? How can we expect Republican moderates who are concerned about the nation’s fiscal meltdown to ignore Grover Norquist’s threats if we make similar threats to those who buck our party orthodoxy?
I am not drawing a facile equivalence here between progressive advocacy groups and right-wing advocacy groups. The consequences of their ideas are vastly different. Fighting on behalf of the poor and the vulnerable is not the same as fighting for homophobia and Halliburton. But to the degree that we brook no dissent within the Democratic Party, and demand fealty to the one, “true” progressive vision for the country, we risk the very thoughtfulness and openness to new ideas that are required to move this country forward. When we lash out at those who share our fundamental values because they have not met the criteria of every single item on our progressive “checklist,” then we are essentially preventing them from thinking in new ways about problems. We are tying them up in a straightjacket and forcing them into a conversation only with the converted.
Let me be clear: I am not arguing that the Democrats should trim their sails and be more “centrist.” In fact, I think the whole “centrist” versus “liberal” labels that continue to characterize the debate within the Democratic Party misses the mark. Too often, the “centrist” label seems to mean compromise for compromise sake, whereas on issues like health care, energy, education and tackling poverty, I don’t think Democrats have been bold enough. But I do think that being bold involves more than just putting more money into existing programs and will instead require us to admit that some existing programs and policies don’t work very well. And further, it will require us to innovate and experiment with whatever ideas hold promise (including market- or faith-based ideas that originate from Republicans).
So that’s the Obama doctine, or part of it, in a nutshell.
This is a big issue for me. Krugman says:
“Specifically, new estimates say that a plan resembling Mrs. Clinton’s would cover almost twice as many of those now uninsured as a plan resembling Mr. Obama’s — at only slightly higher cost.”
More here:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,532906,00.html
“nut-shell” would be a good definition.
“‘nut-shell’ would be a good definition”
Re: Regular
DNFTT
“ksfarmgrrl” –
I’m glad you’re gonna caucus. Welcome! The more the merrier.
I’m sorry I just don’t have enough hours in the day to hang upon your every word.
But sometimes your every word isn’t worth the trouble. You wrote, “I asked you to PROVE that he had coattails.” Which is absurd. No one can “PROVE” the future.
So a lot of what I have to share in this forum is mere opinion. As I’ve stated many times, I think Senator Clinton would make a fine President, but I’m tired of Democrats fielding superior people only to be defeated by better candidates. That’s how we got into this George WMD Bush mess in the first place. Gore was better qualified in 2000 but wasn’t the better candidate. Kerry was the better candidate in 2004 but came up short in the campaign.
No, I can’t “prove” or even claim that Barack Obama will be a better president than Senator Clinton. But I think he’s the stronger Democratic candidate. Your mileage may vary. Fine.
And, no, I don’t mean to marginalize GLBT issues; I simply don’t think there’s any candidate who considers those issues as crucial as, say, the Iraq War, healthcare, economic justice, reproductive rights, America’s international image…. Know what I mean? I fully realize how important GLBT issues are for you. And the issues that are important to you most certainly should guide your support in this election. Go for it.
As for my so-called “superiority,” I really don’t know what you’re talking about. I have my opinions and express them from time to time on this forum. If you consider my opinions “superior” I’m sure there are plenty of Cons who will disagree with you.
So whomever said, “No one can make you feel inferior unless you let them,” (maybe it was Eleanor Roosevelt?) should guide this little intramural spat.
I think Barack Obama has a better shot and winning a significant majority in this year’s presidential race. You’re for Hillary. Fine. Whomever ends up with the nomination, we should come together rather than let another GOP candidate get inaugurated on January 20, 2009.
4 Trackbacks
[...] WE Blog » The Wichita Eagle Editorial Department Blog wrote an interesting post today on Take part in making U.S. historyHere’s a quick excerptTake part in making U.S. history Posted15 minutes ago This is your chance, Kansas, to make a difference in this historic presidential election. Get involved in the Democratic and Republican party caucuses on Tuesday and Saturday, respectively. On the Democratic side, each Kansas Senate district will have a caucus meeting site — six in Sedgwick County. A list of Democratic caucus locations can be found on the Kansas Democratic Party Web site. Here’s how the Democratic caucus works: The doors [...]
[...] WE Blog » The Wichita Eagle Editorial Department Blog added an interesting post today on Take part in making U.S. historyHere’s a small reading [...]
[...] WE Blog » The Wichita Eagle Editorial Department Blog placed an observative post today on Take part in making U.S. historyHere’s a quick excerpt [...]
Easy Debt Consolidation Program – Enjoy The Pleasure Of Financial Freedom…
For those of you, who are neck-deep in debt, an easy debt consolidation program may just offer the only hope. A debt consolidation program plays a very important role in making you achieve the financial liberation, by providing advice, managing your fu…