Just what the Hillary Clinton dead-enders needed going into the Democratic National Convention: a new poll suggesting that if she were the nominee right now, she’d be polling ahead of John McCain 49 to 43 percent. In the same NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey, Barack Obama was only 3 percentage points ahead of McCain. All the more reason to expect an Obama-Clinton ticket? Or to discount polls based on fiction?
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
- JWink on Too many exemptions
- LonnythePlumber on Jail consultants straining patience
- 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
199 Comments
He just has to put her on the ticket. He has no choice unless he wants to lose.
I stand by it- I will not vote for Obama if he chooses someone other than Hillary.
If elected with Hillary Klinton as his Vice-Presedent, Obama will have to hire a food/wine taster as his constant companion. He will have to make sure he stays out of Fort Marcey Park as well.
??????
Seek help.
Bill Clinton for V.P. It’s a slam dunk. All the right wing talkers would explode. That alone would be worth it.
“I stand by it- I will not vote for Obama if he chooses someone other than Hillary.”
hehehe
But, But, he’s the messiah! He’s the only one that can bring us together!
hehehe
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR OBAMA QUESTIONS LEGALITY OF SLAVERY BAN
August 20, 2008
This week, Barack Obama’s challenge is to select a running mate who’s young, hip, and whose accomplishments in life don’t overshadow Obama’s. Allow me to suggest Kevin Federline.
The only thing we can be sure of is that Obama will choose someone who is the polar opposite of all his advisers until now. In other words, it will be a very, very white male who was probably proud of his country even before being chosen as Obama’s running mate.
Obama’s got a lot of ground to make up following that performance last weekend at the Saddleback presidential forum with pastor Rick Warren.
After seeing Obama defend infanticide with the glib excuse that the question of when life begins is above his “pay-grade,” Rev. Jeremiah Wright announced that although he’s known Obama for 30 years, he only recently became aware of how extreme the senator’s viewpoints were. Wright, after all, has his reputation to consider.
Network heads responded by dashing off an urgent memo: During the main presidential debates this fall, ask NO questions about abortion, ethics or evil! Morality isn’t the Democrats’ forte.
Obama’s defenders spin his abominable performance in the Saddleback forum by saying he’s just too smart to give a straight answer. As Rick Warren charitably described Obama’s debate performance: “He likes to nuance things … He’s a constitutional attorney.” The constitutional lawyer “does nuance,” as Bill Maher said on “Larry King Live,” “and you saw how well that goes over with the Rick Warren people.”
If that’s Obama’s excuse, he ought to know a few basics about the Constitution.
Did the big constitutional lawyer whose “nuance” is too sophisticated for Rick Warren’s audience see the letter his wife sent out on his behalf in 2004? Michelle Obama denounced a federal law banning partial-birth abortion, writing that “this ban on a legitimate medical procedure is clearly unconstitutional.” Clearly!
The Supreme Court later found the law not “unconstitutional,” but “constitutional” — which I believe may have been the precise moment when Michelle Obama realized just how ashamed she had always been of her country.
But most stunningly, when Warren asked Obama if he supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, Obama said he did not “because historically — because historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution.”
I don’t care if you support a marriage amendment or not. That answer is literally the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard anyone say. If marriage were already defined in the Constitution, we wouldn’t need an amendment, no?
Say, you know what else was “historically” not defined in the Constitution? Slavery. The words “slavery” and “slave” do not appear once in the original Constitution. The framers correctly thought it would sully the freedom-enshrining document to acknowledge the repellent practice. (Much like abortion!)
But in 1865, the 13th Amendment banned slavery throughout the land, in the first constitutional phrase ever to mention “slavery”: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
On Obama’s “historical” argument, they shouldn’t have passed the 13th Amendment because the Constitution “historically” had not mentioned slavery.
Do we know for a fact Barack Obama has read the Constitution? Obama’s Facebook profile: “I’m pro-infanticide, I love sunsets, and I don’t get the 13th Amendment!”
This is the guy who thinks he can condescend to Clarence Thomas? Asked at the Saddleback forum which Supreme Court justice Obama would not have nominated, Obama said … the black one!
In Obama’s defense, he said he thought Thomas wasn’t experienced enough “at the time.” So I guess Obama thinks Thomas should have to “wait his turn.”
By contrast, Obama has experience pouring out of those big ears of his. Asked last year by Robin Roberts on ABC’s “Good Morning America” about his lack of experience in foreign policy, Obama took umbrage.
Swelling up his puny little chest, Obama said: “Well, actually, my experience in foreign policy is probably more diverse than most others in the field. I’m somebody who has actually lived overseas, somebody who has studied overseas. I majored in international relations.”
He actually cited his undergraduate major as a qualification to be president.
But on Saturday night, Obama said he didn’t think Clarence Thomas was a “strong enough jurist or legal thinker” to be put on the Supreme Court.
I bet Thomas has heard of the 13th Amendment!
http://www.anncoulter.com/
TOLD ya.
And told ya and told ya. Obama won the primary (barely) on a strategy to win the primary only. The “50 state strategy” was a bad mistake.
Just as I said it was.
Oh and “sogteama1″ your post is indication you are a ditto head Limbot. Rush will be along in a few hours to tell you what to think.
It’s not too late.
Not too late for the party or Obama.
But the hearts and flowers “Republicans are people too!” crap has to go.
Was Hanks post supposed to be satire? because it sure sounded like it.
I don’t think anyone could take that seriously.
Could the poll about Hillary reflect her recent lack of coverage/attention? Could it reflect maybe some sympathy since she didn’t get the nomination?
I don’t profess to know…but there are a multitude of things to consider in these “what if” polls. The scientific method of polling is proven, but the type of question and scenario sometimes leaves a lot of room for interpretation of the results.
Libs living in Kansas…..got’a hurt!
In an exclusive FactFinder 12 Scientific Survey, SurveyUSA asked Americans the following questions:
Asked of 641 Likely Voters:
Voters will also elect a United States Senator. If the election for United States Senator were today, would you vote for: Republican Pat Roberts? Democrat Jim Slattery? Libertarian Randall Hodgkinson? Or Reform Party candidate Joseph Martin?
* 58% Pat Roberts
* 31% Jim Slattery
* 5% Randall Hodgkinson
* 2% Joseph Marin
* 5% Undecided
Margin of error: ± 3.9%
Asked of 550 Likely Voters:
If the election for U.S. House of Representatives, were today, would you vote for: Republican Todd Tiahrt? Democrat Donald Betts? Libertarian Steve Rosile? Or Reform Party candidate Susan Ducey?
* 61% Todd Tiahrt
* 30% Donalds Betts
* 3% Steve Rosile
* 2% Susan Ducey
* 4% Undecided
Margin of error: ± 4.2%
Asked of 562 Likely Voters:
If the election for U.S. House of Representatives, were today, would you vote for: Republican Jerry Moran? Democrat James Bordonaro? Libertarian Jack Warner? Or Reform Party candidate Kathleen Burton?
* 77% James Moran
* 13% James Bordonaro
* 2% Jack Warner
* 2% Kathleen Burton
* 5% Undecided
Margin of error: ± 3.5%
Asked of 641 Likely Voters:
If the election for President were today, would you vote for: Republican John McCain? Or, Democrat Barack Obama?
* 58% John McCain
* 35% Barack Obama
* 4% Other
* 3% Undecided
Margin of error: ± 3.9%
Rough though it may be. And it is rough.
Someone has to keep the lights on out here in the darkest of places.
Perhaps because our population is so overwhelmingly old. Or maybe, that’s what keeps the young people out too.
Fantasizing will not make it so. Hillary will be neither the nominee, nor VP. P-mom will have to stay home.
Too bad.
I’m old enough to remember how JFK picked LBJ, got elected, then pretty much exiled him to political purgatory. I don’t Obama would or could do that to Senator Clinton today.
But the only constitutional requirement for Vice-President is to preside over the Senate. There’s the old story about the widow who had two sons; one went to sea and the other became Vice-President and she never heard from either of ‘em again.
I don’t particularly like raiding the Senate for a running mate, but I’m resigned to it.
I suspect Biden could be delightful on the stump. I bet he’s got stories he can tell about John S (for senile) McCain the Third (for Shrub’s 3rd term) in the Senate, and all McBush’s flip-flops.
There is still a possibility of the bigO being hit by a BUBBAbomb delivered by HillBillary before the convention is over. Dems might not like his chances as his poll numbers PLUMMET.
Very interesting poll, in one question, clinton beats obama in leading mccain, in the next when asked would you like to see hillary ever be president the percentage is higer for no.
You all have been had by Republicans saying they’d prefer hillary over mccain.
Check the poll results, interesting questions.
P-Mom – A question: If Senator Clinton campaigns for an Obama-whoever ticket and it is clear that she will be a powerful Senator with an Obama presidency would you still favor Songbird MkKain?
Pmom
I will give you $50.00 in “gas money” if you promise to stick a bunch of “pro gay marriage” and “legalize pot” and “no blood for oil” bumper stickers on your car.
Also, you have to put a “Betts for Congress” bumper sticker right in the middle of all the other ones! :)
“Songbird MkKain?”
Why Songbird?
His nickname in the military.
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/McSongBird1.pdf
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/
bth, I don’t favor McSame and I would never EVER vote for him. But I won’t allow Obama and his republican love take over the party.
I would put a Senator Betts Sticker on my van. And it already has plenty of other stickers.
I also found a Times article back in the day that said “POW Songbird identified”.
One has to wonder why the code name would be songbird, is that the rough vietnamese translation for ’stool pigeon’?
P-mama – let me give you my take on Obama and Republicans he would work with. You may recall, for example, Paul telling me the a Republican friend of mine who was upset with Romney’s religion test was an ‘idiot.’ She might be one Obama would work with. Another term used is ‘RINO’ for those Republicans who are not Dittohead NeoCons. There are a fair number out there.
I would also point out to you that Ted kennedy and Hillary Clinton have co-sponsored bills with Republicans. Remember, it takes 60 votes for cloture.
Her royal “thighness” Hillbilly will get her day in the sun at the Democratic Convention when both her and her husband get some ‘feel good’ points.
Should be a turkey shoot and wild goat roping event at the ole Donkey Convention; just hope they leave out the greased pig contest as there is enough pork floating around these days.
“Songbird?”
More like “parrot” this year.
As some Republic Party Senator said a few weeks ago, “The John McCain of 2000 wouldn’t vote for the John McCain of 2008.”
John S (for senile, not “songbird”) McCain the Third (for Shrub’s 3rd term) is slowly and inexorably turning into Fred Mertz for President.
But, by god, those kids don’t play on his seven or eight (whatever) lawns anymore!
If……? Bill will run things including his mouth and many will vote GOP
“Regular” –
Check the status of your blood-level medications.
McCain will win the election and we’ll have the rat-phucing Hillary dead-enders to thank for it.
50% of the dead-enders won’t vote for Obama.
20% will vote for McCain.
That means Hillary will get to run again in 2012. Good luck with that. We won’t forget what you did to us. We won’t forget what you did to America. You may gain another chance for Hillary.
You will also have made a lot of enemies.
Hey HLP…that article you cut and pasted (as opposed to thinking for yourself) is wrong about slavery not being in the constitution (and therefore being like marriage). The US Constitution talks about Free People and “all others”. That “all others” included every slave and nobody at that time – nor any decent constitutional scholar since then including Obama – would have thought otherwise. I agree with it, though, that it wasn’t a very good answer…nothing should be be precluded from being added to the constitution just because it wasn’t there from the beginning.
Of course it is debatable whether married people are Free Peoples or All Others…
“Check the status of your blood-level medications.” — Mhawk
Regular checks those with a dipstick. Use your imagination.
“Political_mama” says –
“… I won’t allow Obama and his republican love take over the party.”
See, this is what I don’t get:
I think Bill Clinton’s presidency was a masterful job of correcting the course of the Ship of State. Eight years of peace and prosperity despite his telling Fat Cat Muli-Millionaires he “thought I raised [taxes on the uber-wealthy] too much, too.”
All the CONs hated Clinton’s Welfare Reform because “…he stole our issue!” And “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was such a sell-out; on of his first acts in the Oval Office.
And you guys expected another Clinton presidency wouldn’t result in more “…republican love?!”
Maybe it wouldn’t. But Senator Clinton’s campaign was financed by people who came to the Clinton brand via Bill.
And I’m not sure Bill’s approach is totally out of line; I mean, it worked, even when I disagreed.
It’s just. I don’t see a sliver’s worth of difference between what you portray as Obama’s “republican love” and Bill Clinton’s “triangulation.”
Hmmmm.. From XXX’s post, sounds like the Dems got a little unity snafu going on.
I know if I were a Hillary supporter, I wouldn’t take that kind of dissing lying down.
Hillary’s name on the ballot and a floor vote at the convention.
The only thing stopping a dem routing in november is McCain picking a pro-choice VP. Or Leiberman.
I predicted ALL of this.
I said that the Obama balloon would either explode or deflate.
Well? It’s deflating. And it is not Senator Clinton doing that.
I continue to believe that Senator Clinton does not want a Republican to win this election. Let’s wait and see what the convention holds before we resign to defeat.
Remember her most inspirational concession speech when she did not have to conceed?
For Obama’s part? He needs to quit making mistakes.
The cutesy way he is holding off announcing his running mate was clever. For a few days. It held the media attention and still is. But it begins to make him look indecisive.
Calling McCain out on the 4 5 how many houses deal? Dumb. It just invited more talk about Obama’s own troubles. Instead, it SHOULD have been used as evidence that McCain’s mind may be fading.
And going to Hawaii a week before the convention? Again, dumb.
Maybe Hillary can save him and maybe not.
Or maybe it is time to consider, even this late, that many of us were just plain wrong and pick a candidate that CAN and wants to win.
#
outlander
Posted August 22, 2008 at 9:51 am | Permalink
Hmmmm.. From XXX’s post, sounds like the Dems got a little unity snafu going on.
I know if I were a Hillary supporter, I wouldn’t take that kind of dissing lying down.
Hey outlander, I’m not a Dem. The further this campaign progresses, the less sympathy I have for Dems. In fact, I’m so fed up with Dems right now, I’m considering a change to the right. Conservatives may be phucked up, but at least you can count on them to pull together and back each other. You know, the “honor” thing.
“I know if I were a Hillary supporter, I wouldn’t take that kind of dissing lying down.”
Bring it the phuc on!
Buyer’s remorse? For both parties?
SolDevVB
Posted August 22, 2008 at 10:00 am | Permalink
Buyer’s remorse? For both parties?
——
It was a lemon sale.
Outlander you are invited to go and quietly pray for your choice of vice president.
Who you pray will become President if your prayers are answered, John McCain wins…and dies.
If there is a sadder place to be in than that? I don’t want to dream it up.
BlueJay – there is no mechanism that would lead to Clinton on the top spot. So the key now is for all of us to get together and work to win in November.
Hillary Clinton’s chances for the White House have passed. That cannot be changed at this time. HOWEVER – Clinton CAN become a very powerful Senator. Look at Ted Kennedy. Even though he had two major setbacks during his tenure there he has become known as the Lion of the Senate. Consider the position Clinton can be in if she is a part of an Obama administration NOT from the ‘not worth a warm bucket of spit’ VP office but rather from a Senate position. And remember, as a Senator she is not relegated to play second fiddle.
It was a lemon sale.
Beg to differ. Both sides had some good candidates. It seems ‘American Idol’ America picked the bright and shiny over the qualified. Neither will get my vote.
A zogby pool indicated that ~ 65% of Americans choose ‘None Of The Above’ . I say rock the phuck on. Vote your conscience. If ‘your candidate’ isn’t on the Nov. ballot, write him or her in. Let ‘your party’ know how badly they phucked up.
Bob Barr is complaining that he isn’t invited to the presidential debates. While I don’t support Barr, I do support the sentiment. Why does the media dictate that we only have two choices? Why not let the Libertarian and Green party candidates debate. I don’t know which it would be, but throw in a moderate party.
We have choices folks. It isn’t just what the media presents you with. Vote your conscience. Vote for whom will be best for our country, in your opinion.
Breach, break, breaking, crack, fault, flaw, gap, rend, rift, rupture, separation, split, wound…
ben
You are not being honest.
You had a “Republican” friend who was upset because Mitt Romney had received an endorsement from someone she did not like.
Yes, I told you that your friend was an “idiot” — and I think most people would agree with me, if said endorsement was the only reason she voted against Romney.
I later pointed out that Louis Farrakhan had endorsed Barrack Hussein Obama.
I made the point, before, that Obama, McCain and every other candidate will BOTH have “saints and sinners” voting for them.
I made the point, before, that your IDIOT “Reublican” friend would probably find some people who endorsed McCain, or Obama, that she did not like.
Yes, your friend is an idiot, if you quoted her directly.
And YOU are a liar, for repeatedly misquoting me.
Ben I appreciate what you are saying.
But? I’m not doing…this. Whatever it is that is happening to the Obama phenomenon is not the doing of Senator Clinton or her supporters. I did predict it but I that doesn’t mean I’m happy about being right.
And what is it with all the doom and gloom? A white woman and a black man are going to be at a convention as nominees for President of the United States. That is historic. Obama rose to where he IS on a speech at a convention. Maybe he’s got an even better one. And he will make it in front of 70,000 people.
This is August, not November.
I’d like to take a poll. How many here support McCain for McCain and not “He’s not Obamma”?
SolDevVB
Posted August 22, 2008 at 10:15 am | Permalink
I’d like to take a poll. How many here support McCain for McCain and not “He’s not Obamma”?
——-
Not Me!
I support none of the above. I haven’t seen anything on either side worth a vote.
I would have supported Thompson if he would have been a little more…you know, “Lively!”
Can I say it now? Can I say I told ya so?
Why is it that obama cant bring the Hillary voters around? They could be convinced. But it’s “their fault” just because they cant see the halo around his head? If he cant convince his own party, WTF makes anyone think he can convince the repukes to vote for him?
Hillary voters are just that stupid? Or obama just isnt the king of inspiration some of you thought he was? Hillary voters are just bots who cant think, who couldnt be converted to support obama?
Woof.
And why would people get behind someone they consider a bad nominee? It isnt all about some “revenge” for Hillary. I know the true believers find it astounding, but some of us just dont think he would make a good preznit. SO why would we vote for him? Just because he isnt mcsame?
How did that “I’m not bush” thingy work out for John Kerry?
I called it earlier. Obama’s folks are just lining up Hillary as the scapegoat, when it fact, if obama doesnt win, it is NO one’s fault but his.
Raptor
Posted August 22, 2008 at 10:18 am | Permalink
I support none of the above. I haven’t seen anything on either side worth a vote.
ANTI
Posted August 22, 2008 at 10:20 am | Permalink
I would have supported Thompson if he would have been a little more…you know, “Lively!”
Vote your conscience brothers. Don’t let the media dictate for whom you may vote. Send a message.
And MonkeyHawk, you are making a statement very flawed in logic because… wait for it… Hillary isnt Bill. I know she campaigned on her experience gained in his administration, and the “good times” that rolled on Bill’s watch…
But she isnt Bill.
ben
Ted Kennedy was the “sea lion of the Senate” —
Lions can’t swim!
Before you all go patting yourselves on the back, how do you reconcile these two questions from the poll?
If the next election for president were held today, and John McCain were the Republican candidate and Hillary Clinton were the Democratic candidate, for whom would you vote?
8/08+
4/08+
3/24-25/08+
3/7-10/08+
1/08+
John McCain ………………………………
43
44
46
45
47
[208]
Hillary Clinton ……………………………..
49
45
44
47
43
Depends (VOL) …………………………
1
1
1
1
1
Neither/other (VOL) ……………………
3
5
4
3
3
Not sure ……………………………………
4
5
5
4
6
11/07+
12/06+
10/28- 30/06+
4/06+
11/05+
45
47
45
46
44
46
43
36
37
42
48 Male
52 Female
[109]
HART/NEWHOUSE Study #6085–page 2
August 2008 NBC News/WSJ Survey
1
1
3
3
1
4
5
8
8
6
4
4
8
6
7
+ Results shown reflect responses among registered voters.
15. Would you like to see Hillary Clinton as president some day, or not? + *
Would like to see Hillary Clinton as president some day ………..
43
[209]
Would not like to see Hillary Clinton as president some day …..
49
Not sure ……………………………………………………………………….
8
* Asked of one-half the respondents (FORM A). + Results shown reflect responses among registered voters.
“A zogby pool indicated that ~ 65% of Americans choose ‘None Of The Above’ . I say rock the phuck on. Vote your conscience. If ‘your candidate’ isn’t on the Nov. ballot, write him or her in. Let ‘your party’ know how badly they phucked up.”
Mega dittos on that, dude!
If this isnt the year for third party candidates, it will NEVER be the year. Of course, I think Ron Paul is a facist pig (and I mean that in the nicest possible way, heh) and I’m no fan of Bob Barr any more than any of their supporters would ever vote for Cynthia McKinney.
And I know staying at home or voting third party is the same as voting for mcsame, but I refuse to cast a vote for someone I think is not going to be a good president. I’d rather “waste” my vote on a third option candidate or just stay home.
Point being Hill would be 49 to mccain 43, but should hill. ever be pres.? 43 yes, 49 no.
“Conservatives may be phucked up, but at least you can count on them to pull together and back each other. You know, the “honor” thing.”
No, it’s “the sheeple thing”. Republicans ALWAYS vote in lock step, even for asshats like bush.
Sorry that democrats are not sheeple enough. Obama sold us a bill of goods about being able to unite the country. Some of us saw through it then, and some of us see through it now.
Perhaps had obama not won the primary largely using a divisive strategy (gays vs blacks, men vs women, progressives vs repub lite, etc)…
He wouldnt be having such a goddam hard time now walking his talk about being “a uniter”. You cant play the politics of division on one day and then urge democrats to hold hands and sing kumbaya the next day.
They just lack the sheeple gene.
Paul – thank you for your compliments.
…and I dont give a happy rat’s ass who obama picks as his number two. There is no “magic bullet” number two that will bring the party together. Obama cultivated the existing divisions. He reveled in them, rolled in them, raised money on the them, and now?
Ya live by the sword, ya die by the sword.
KFG
I think Ron Paul is a nut.
I do think Ron Paul was probably negligent, at best, for not editing out racist and bigoted comments from a newsletter he controled.
However?
“Fascist” is not a proper term for Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is, pretty much, against ANY foreign entanglements on the military front. Ron Paul only supports the use of force if the United States is directly threatened, itself.
Ron Paul often votes against spending of all types, military spending included.
I disagree frequently with Ron Paul, but the man is not a “fascist”.
SolDevVB
Posted August 22, 2008 at 10:00 am | Permalink
Buyer’s remorse? For both parties?
Interesting perspective …
It seems especially apparent with some on the ‘right’ who can only spew Obama-hate but never really say anything about their guy.
Stop kidding yourselves; Obama can’t bring the Hillary voters around because he’s the wrong sex and he’s black. Some of his current decline in the polls is simply the inevitable deflation of a bubble, but a hell of a lot of it is the fact that many people won’t vote for him because he’s black. Let’s hope just as many will.
Bill Clinton, number two; delivers the election; Keeps Hillary in the senate, makes the Clintons the most powerful family in America, but would Obama be able to er — swallow it.
but never really say anything about their guy.
—–
What’s there to say, beber?
The election isn’t going to be won or lost by keyboard jockeys.
It’s going to be won or lost by the ground game of the campaigns.
““Fascist” is not a proper term for Ron Paul.”
Agreed – Ron Paul wants to keep government out of our affairs. In fact, he might be called the exact opposite of fascist.
“SolDevVB” –
“Bob Barr is complaining that he isn’t invited to the presidential debates. While I don’t support Barr, I do support the sentiment. Why does the media dictate that we only have two choices? “
I suppose it’s “the media” in some shape or form, but the standard for getting into the Presidential debates seems pretty logical to me.
First, the candidate has to be on the ballots of enough states that, theoretically, s/he could actually win the presidency if s/he carried those states.
And second, that candidate should be able to demonstrate at least 15% support in those states.
Together, Bob Barr and Ron Paul and Ralph Nader and Cynthia and the Maharishi of the Natural Law Party couldn’t — combined muster up a minority.
CONs want Barr and Paul et al simply so John S (for senile) McCain the Third (for Shrub’s 3rd term) to be so obviously the craziest person on stage.
MH- About how Clinton was. When he needed to dig in against the republicans, he did so- and effectively. He played their own hands against them. And look at what they did to him over it.
Reagan never made concessions for democrats, and neither did Bush. None of them ever want to play fair. the reason why I became a Clinton democrat was because I had lived through Reagan and Bush Sr..and Carter for that matter- and didn’t really care so much because i was too young but I knew what was happening in my family and those around me. When Clinton took over I saw things change that impacted MY OWN LIFE. I saw his policies WORK. And I also admired Hillary for having the vision to know that our medical system was about to get really bad. And she didn’t wait for it, they didn’t ignore it, and the republicans made fools out of themselves for laughing about it.
And none of that has to do with the war…that whole thing in of itself should require impeachment for Bush. I’m damn mad that Clinton gets impeached for bs, while Bush is able to terrorise the world and Americans just rah rah rah.
Then you add all the other things on top of it- the DOMA- come on MH- do you REALLY think that at that time, Clinton could have come out with a strict pro-gay policy in the military when they were already beating the heck out of him? It was a COMPROMISE. I’m sorry that it had to be made.
NAFTA sounded good on paper, but there were two sides that needed to make NAFTA work, and Mexico didn’t own up. We cannot help them if they won’t help themselves, and it does us no good to ship companies there just so the people can remain as poor as they were before. It needs to be addressed.
I guess the reason why I’m so mad at Obama is that he seems to have disrespected everything that made the Clinton era so great. Barring the republican-madeup scandals, his policies were right for America- and that is why they crucified him.
Some little ole lady pulled out in front of me the other day. She could barely see through the steering wheel. After braking to keep from hitting her I read her only bumper sticky and got a good laugh.
HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT
WE WANT BILL BACK
It might also be instructive to consider the repercussions of a McCain presidency:
More wars.
More tax cuts for the uber-rich
More crushing national debt
More wholesale rape of the environment
More “de-regulation,” i.e., giving away public assets formerly held in trust to benefit special interests
More Supreme Court Justices like Scalia and Thomas
More undercutting of labor and workers’ rights.
As for me, I refuse to aid and abet the enemies of common good who want these goals.
More Supreme Court Justices like Scalia and Thomas
——
Works for me.
You left out more jobs being exported.
Little old lady most likely saw your mccain sticker and tried to cut you off.
Pmom?
“Reagan never made concessions for democrats, and neither did Bush”
Reagan did not have a Republican House to work with, ever! If Reagan did not make concessions, how in the heck did he get anything done?
Reagan allowed for much social, domestic spending,t that he did not want, simply to get Dem votes for things he did want.
Bush Sr., of course, said “Read my Hips” after saying “Read my lips” and that is how we got Clinton. Bush Sr. compromised himself!
Now, we have George W. Bush, who has made deals with Kennedy, on education, McCain AND Feingold, on campaign finance, and on and on.
More to the point:
Name a SINGLE policy, pushed or adopted by Bill Clinton, that you think was “responsible” for the “good times” of the 80’s?
Don’t forget, much of the Clinton economy was built on the dot-com craze. The stock market was in full retreat starting from the day that Clinton took Microsoft to court.
Again, what policy initiative, from Clinton, impacted the economy in any way, shape or form?
My point is, as always, PRESIDENTS ARE MINOR PLAYERS ON ECONOMIC MATTERS!
the “export of jobs” is caused by:
Unreasonable labor unions.
High corporate tax rates.
Excess regulation.
Obama is too egotistical to have anyone as VP that might overshadow him.
That leaves out just about everyone.
Hillary is “overqualified” lol
PRESIDENTS ARE MINOR PLAYERS ON ECONOMIC MATTERS.
Odd, then, that the national debt went preciptously DOWN under Democratic presidents JFK-LBJ, Carter, and Clinton and went massively UP under Reagan, Bush and Bush.
“PRESIDENTS ARE MINOR PLAYERS ON ECONOMIC MATTERS”
Ok, cool. So then, we can just get some dead white guy and prop him up against the juke box for four years just like “Weekend at Bernie’s”?
Not to worry, the cons wrecking crew is movin’ on. They already wrecked the government, and they are moving equipment to The Economy site.
I can hear the “beep beep beep” while they are backing over me and mine.
When the senate and house are party loyalist, presidents do indeed have significant influence.
Franklin claims that
the “export of jobs” is caused by:
Unreasonable labor unions.
High corporate tax rates.
Excess regulation.
*****
Really, Franklin. Then riddle me this: why did we have good wages, no housing bubble, few foreclosures, and very high GDP growth in the 60’s when labor unions were strongest, corporate tax rates were much higher, and so was government regulation?
And now that we have weak unions, lower corporate taxes, and much less regulation, the economy is in the toilet?
The tax rates and real wage growth both debunk franklins claims about unions and corporate over taxation.
Hell, this economy is so bad that my right-wing, starched collar finacial advisor told me to buy commodities.
Dude, if the only way to make a decent return is to buy contracts on cotton and coffee beans, then forget it . . .
Hey XXX!
Come on over! We got beer and our women are prettier!
hehehehe
“she’d be polling ahead of John McCain 49 to 43 percent”
My concern is that Clinton is so well known that the 49% is a ceiling. In Obama’s cases there are still unknowns. That is why it is so important for the CIA etc to try to portray him as a secret Muslim etc.
capn
COMPARATIVE ECONOMICS!
European corporate tax rates USED to be very high.
Several countries, including England, Ireland, France and Germany have LOWERED corporate tax rates, since that time.
Other countries are becomming MORE friendly to private business concerns, while the United States is becomming more hostile, on some fronts, and standing still, on other fronts, while other countries improve their business climates.
“Political_mama” –
The underlying philosophy of Reaganite Republicanism was capsulized when Vice(emphasis on “vice)-President (the Big) Dick Cheney said “Deficits don’t matter.” He meant politically.
But Reagan’s doubling the National Debt, and George HW Bush doubling Reagan’s Debt, and Shrub tripling his daddy’s debt (the only relief we had in the interim was from Clinton’s balanced budgets… and eight years of peace and prosperity) was based on making the federal government so indebted there could no possibly be any new “government” programs without — wait for it –RAISING TAXES!!!!
(Oh, and by the way, Reagan and Bush and Shrub raised your taxes anyway. Not millionaires’ taxes, mind you; your taxes.)
But, at least, faggots can’t marry.
Capn
Our Gross Domestic Product is higher today than it has been under ANY OTHER PRESIDENT, ever!
GDP GROWTH has stalled, but we are still growing, and our economy is bigger than ever!
And the funny thing is, not only is this economy in the toilet, it’s been in the toilet since Bush took office.
I remember watching one of those Stock Market Report shows on PBS about four years ago–”Sure, the stock market is down right now,” the pundits opined, “but look at how much people’s houses have appreciated!”
Uh yeah.
Scratch that too.
phantom
United States corporate tax rates are, pretty much, the highest in the world.
“Obama can’t bring the Hillary voters around because he’s the wrong sex and he’s black.”
Big eye roll.
Uh, yeah, because being a man is such a known disadvantage when running for preznit….
Al Gore couldnt have won the popular vote without the “women’s vote”. John Kerry wouldnt have come as close as he did without the “women’s vote”.
So what does obama do? Treat Hillary and her supporters like shit on the bottom of his shoes. An annoyance that just needs to be scraped off before he moves on. Good strategy for the candidate of the party that NEEDS the “women’s vote”. And it wasnt just women. Ask “the gays” how obama dissed them. He took for granted that constituent groups would just fall in line after the primary, no matter HOW badly he treated them.
How’s that “throw everyone under the bus but African Americans and big money white DLC guys” strategy working for obama since the primaries?
Of course, it’s all Hillary’s fault…
Sorry boys, but that ol’ dog aint gonna hunt.
Libs
You are crying about a lack of growth.
Yes, such cycles happen.
However, there is NO shrinkage!
The economy is larger, and the country is richer, therefore, than ever before.
Franklin
Thanks for playing but you didn’t answer the question.
Of course, GDP is higher now than in the past. Otherwise, we’d be in a recession. That’s not the question.
Here’s the question again–
Why did we have good GDP growth in the 60’s when all the things you warn about were in place and now we have very slow GDP growth when they’re not?
Good luck.
hee hee hee heeeeeeee
Paul is such a good german.
“Growth uber alles”
Frank noted last night that while our productivity keeps “galloping along” (his words!) the benefits from that increased productivity and “growth” are being concentrated in the hands of a very few.
And that is not sustainable.
“and the country is richer”
No paulie, a very few rich folks have gotten much richer. “The country” isnt richer.
Paris Hilton is.
US corporations don’t have the massive Value Added Tax VAT of European countries.
Not relevant.
KSGrrl notes:
Frank noted last night that while our productivity keeps “galloping along” (his words!) the benefits from that increased productivity and “growth” are being concentrated in the hands of a very few.
Correct. I thought that as a stock owner (stock mutual funds) wealth would flow to capital.
But only the big boys at the top get to keep the new wealth created by their workers. Small investors like me just keep the cash-flow moving, apparently.
Wow. Franklin does a great job of shilling the right-wing talking points.
Actually providing evidence — not proof, mind you, just evidence — that those points create prosperity?
Yeah.
Not so much.
Monkey, in this current, 2008 tax year, you had to make quite a bit of money to owe any income tax at all.
For a married couple with 1 child:
Standard deduction: $10,900
Personal exemptions 10,500 (3,500×3)
Child tax credit 1,000
If you have $50,000.00 in w-2 earnings in this family?
$50,000
-10,900
——-
39,100
-10,500
——-
28,600
This should result in taxation of:
$1,605 (for the amount under 16,050)
1,882 (for the amount over 16,050)
——
$3,487.00
-1,000.00 Child tax credit
———
$2,487.00
-1,500.00 “stimulus” credit
———
$ 987.00 due, in federal taxes? Is that enough in taxes, for this “middle class” family to complain about? “Tax cuts for the rich” is a lie. You can make lots of money, in this country, and pay very little in income taxes.
Lets go backwards, from there:
$987.00 / 15% = $6,580.00
$50,000.00
- 6,580.00
———-
$43,420.00
In other words, If you are a married couple, with one child, with W-2 income of $43,420.00 — You will probably NOT owe ANY income taxes for the 2008 tax year.
The “stimulus” rebate, pretty much, ELIMINATED the 10% tax bracket for most tax payers.
Capn
I have answered, previously.
The Baby Boom Generation has had more to do with our economy than ANY politician.
The BOOMERS entered their PEAK earning, spending, and investing years during the 80’s.
Read Harry Dent: The Great Boom Ahead (old book)
#
HLP
Posted August 22, 2008 at 11:21 am | Permalink
Hey XXX!
Come on over! We got beer and our women are prettier!
hehehehe
Save me a good seat Hank. I may just take you up on that. I never was a good “bleeding heart” anyway.
Save me a good seat Hank. I may just take you up on that. I never was a good “bleeding heart” anyway.
_______________________________________________
We won’t wet our pants if you want to reload in the living room either.
The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. It’s easy to avoid those nagging negatives when you’re the wish-and-a-prayer alternative to what we got now. Buyers’ remorse, indeed.
Calm down, folks. There will be a vote at the convention, as there should be. If enough delegates are really that nervous, we’ll see a perfectly legal change-of-nominee. There will a fair amount of disruption and furious arguments, sure, but that’s the way it goes.
And then monkeys will fly out of my butt.
Anyone care to wager on it (excluding the monkey part)? I could use the cash.
For the record, this Dent guy that Paul cites is full of sh!t–
He wrote a book in 1999 called The Roaring 2000’s. Needless to say, every indicator of stock prices (Dow, S&P 500) is lower today than ten years ago.
Not only that, Mr. Brilliant predicts (from Wiki) the peak year for 48-year-olds, 2009, as the top of a longterm growth pattern.
In 2000, he predicted that the DOW would reach 40k, a prediction which was repeated in his 2004 book. In his book, he also predicted the Nasdaq would reach 13-20k. In late 2006 he revised his forecasts to much lower levels, estimating the Dow would reach 16-18k and the NASDAQ 3-4k. In January 2006, he predicted that the DOW would reach 14-15,000 by the end of the year.
A year ago, Dent predicted that the Dow would be 20,000 in 2009.
******
As you can see, none of the old predictions were true and in fact were wildly off.
It seems highly unlikely the DOW will nearly double in value given that today the Dow stands at 11,600, way down from its all-time high of 14,000 from several years ago.
Even if one were to assume that Dent was 100 percent correct, that in no way explains the rapid GDP growth in 60’s.
The baby boom generation was still playing little league baseball in the 60’s.
Capn
Dent has been wrong, with his recent predictions.
However, Dent was exactly correct, about the 80’s and the “Boomers” and the “wave” effect of the boomers moving through the economy.
Changing the full Social Security Retirement age, the changing mortality tables and life expectancy, and the immigration issue have all impacted the baby boom and baby bust issue.
Nobody, in HISTORY has ever been perfect at economic predictions. However, if you look at the staggered birth rates, overlayed on the S and P?
It is nearly a perfect match!:
http://www.hsdent.com/the-dent-method/
The high of 14,000 was reached in October, 2007…that doesn’t appear to be “several years ago.”
“every indicator of stock prices (Dow S&P) is lower than 10 years ago”..
Hmm. DJ closed today at 11,628.06. Closed out 10 years ago, 1998 around 8900. Lower? Must be a different form of math than I ever studied…
Capn
JFK was a Supply-Sider and an anti-Communist, pro-Defense CONSERVATIVE Democrat.
JFK won by claiming that Nixon and Eisenhower had allowed a “missle gap” against the Soviet Union.
JFK ran to the RIGHT of Nixon!
JFK CUT TAX RATES!
“Only full employment can balance the budget, and tax cuts will pave the way to full employment” JFK.
Dent is more accurate than any of the lefty, computerized “climate models” lol.
Anyway, there are things that must be taken into account. The Dent method can not predict war and peace issues, commodity price fluctuations, disasters or other things.
hahaha
I haven’t bothered to look at any “lefty, computerized “climate models” but I’ll put the SCIENTIFIC models up against looney righty Dent models any day.
“A year ago, Dent predicted that the Dow would be 20,000 in 2009″
Care to make a wager on that 20K Dow Paul?
I find this all very amusing and hilarious. Obama’s best chance of winning seems to be if he picks Hillary for his VP but it is most likely that he won’t. He can’t. They are both glory hogs and neither one of them is willing to be the second in command.
Also, if I were Obama, I wouldn’t pick her either. She is not to be trusted. She has probably already devised a plan to not only force her way into being nominated but also to eliminate Obama so that she can take over as President just as she wanted.
I really think that Hillary Clinton hates losing worse than Obama does.
The question is, why were things so good in the 60’s with strong unions, high taxes, high corporate taxes, and a liberal view of gov’t in ascendancy?
First, Paul says that “presidents have nothing to do with the economy.” Then he says that JFK was a right-wing economist. Therefore, he had a good economy.
Gee, that would have surprised Kennedy when he gave his famous speech, “Why I am a liberal.” But Paul is right about two things: 1. presidents have a great impact on the economy and 2. JFK did cut income taxes, from 90 percent on the rich to 70 percent on the rich.
The rich now pay less than HALF of JFK’s rate. So, is the economy a lot better like CON theory insists it must be?
No way. Bush’s GDP has seen 2.6 percent per annum growth since Jan 2001. Kennedy’s was a whopping 6.2.
Here is the growth for GDP under every president since 1961.
JFK . . . . . . . . . .6.2
LBJ . . . . . . . . . .5.2
Nixon-Ford . . . . . . 3.0
Carter . . . . . . . . 3.6
Reagan-Bush . . . . . .3.4
Clinton . . . . . . . .4.1
WorstPresEver Bush . . 2.6
Wow. The CONs slashed taxes on the rich to 20’s levels. They gutted labor, and encouraged megacorps to offshore employment. The CONs let the lobbyists write the regulations for their own companies. They crushed any and all political opposition to their policies.
The result is the worst GDP growth since 1961.
And all Paul has to explain this is “the baby boomers.”
Dude, the baby boomers didn’t have crap to do with 1964.
Wow, Carter beat out all the Republicans. That must hurt.
“I really think that Hillary Clinton hates losing worse than Obama does.”
Most people in leadership roles hate losing, that is why they are in roles like that.
Adjusted for inflation, I believe the dow has lost value.
makes sense, thanks Phantom…
“Phantom” notes –
“Adjusted for inflation, I believe the dow has lost value.”
And the Dow-Jones Industrial Average has changed many times since the 70s, ostensibly to “reflect changes in the economy,” but in reality to move the goal posts and keep up the illusion of an ever-expanding economy.
The Dow, during the Carter years, included stocks of such business giants as US Steel, Maytag, Sears-Roebuck, PanAm, the Chrysler Corporation, Western Union, the Ma Bell monopoly, etc.
Where would the Dow be today if those companies’ stocks were still in the mix?
The Dow, indeed the entire speculation economy represented by the Dow, is a house of cards doomed to collapse on itself just as Soviet communism was crushed under its own weight two decades ago.
View from the center: I believe but I may be wrong, if the Republicans ever want to become a major political force in this country again they had better hope that McCain loses the election. Because if he wins he has two reasons that he will only serve one tern. 1. Age, he will be too old for a second term. 2. Performance, he will do so bad that America will never put Republicans back in power unless the Democrats do something stupid again in nominating the worse of their group. In four years, if McCain is elected, Hillary will run and win by a landslide. Bringing with her a majority in congress. The Democrats will be then unstoppable. However if Obama wins it may be for only one term because he is two liberal for the majority of Americans. The Republicans will take back congress before his first term is over. The majority of Americans will revolt against his too left wing policies. He will spend his second tern just like Bill Clinton. Hill will not ever have a chance becoming the President because of the failure that Obama. I know that some of you extreme liberals will want to argue. I am not going to argue my view. Lets just wait and see. Both parties picked the worst this year.
Hill will not ever have a chance
Should be-
Hillary will not ever have a chance
Here is the growth for GDP under every president since 1961.
Wrong figure, Cap’n. It’s no longer national GDP that matters.
It’s multinational quarterly earnings. :)
U.S. Senator Evan Bayh for Obama’s V.P.
a company in Kansas City, which specializes in political literature, has been printing Obama-Bayh material…
http://www.drudgereport.com/
Senator Who??? That ought to leave a few folks flat.
From a slightly more credible source:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=29419
Evan Bayh of Indiana is the son of ex-Senator Birch Bayh of the same state. His dad was known as a liberal lion, but junior is mostly a compliant DLC democrat, from what I know. Voted for the war, god knows what else.
I wonder now if all the last minute scary crap about homophobic Blue Dog Chet Edwards was deliberately spread just to suggest to us how worse it could have been. Ick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Bayh
At least he’s not Lieberman. But the slogan writes itself “Obama, Bye!”
My first thought (I know it’s not nice), but another, quite dumber Senator also came from Indiana. Not that Mr. Evan will make Obama bulletproof, but his bland personality should fade nicely into the background.
P.S. Indiana could make the difference, though.
You all should watch a different news source. Obama’s campaign are saying neither Bayh nor other dude are ‘it’.
Pee is grasping at every last Hillary straw.
Well, they can’t blame Hillary for this.
What is it 4, 5 days now? Obama has made his choice. Text message from on high any minute!
At first it was riveting. Then it became interesting. As of today it reached irritating.
This evening, just hours before he is to stand on stage with his VP pick? Obama’s continued “wait for it!” text message has strayed into the realm of the absurd and stupid. You can only hear “He’s made his decision, announcement expected any time!” so many times before you start to feel as if you are being toyed with. I don’t know about anyone else but I am well passed there and entering the area of pissed off.
I was gonna post this earlier. But I was sure the news would break “any time” while I was typing it. Well THAT aint gonna happen. Hell Barack will probably write his cutesy little text tease 2 minutes before he takes the stage.
So here goes.
It HAS to be Hillary. It just has to be.
My reasoning for this presumes Obama still wants to win the election. An assumption I am honestly starting to question.
Anyway.
He chooses Hillary. She has her rightful moment in the sun for her and her supporters.
But the job of VP is a waste of her talent. She knows it. A good many of her supporters know it.
SO at the convention in her speech, she turns it down.
This is what SHOULD happen. A few short hours ago I would have been willing to bet it would happen.
But maybe not. And if not?
Obama will have placed his political future AND this election in the hands of Senator Clinton’s convention speech.
But THAT is a post for after Obama ends this tiresome tease game.
Junior,
You should be a fiction writer.
Earn some money.
Pay some tax.
No BlueJay – you definitely do NOT want it offered and turned down. But, she DOES get her speech.
Drudge?
Drudge and some stuff on a bathroom wall and you are on your way to National Enquirer status.
The Obama campaign has millions. A few fake fliers to stir the story probably.
Why not ben?
If she is offered and turns it down? Her supporters are satisfied.
Or do you mean to suggest they would the Obamaniacs would then BLAME her if she turns it down and Obama loses?
I guess I can see that.
Poor Hillary. No matter what she does she is gonna get the blame for Obama being the candidate of the built in excuse.
Ok so if it is NOT offered to her? Her speech is even MORE important to Obama.
U.S. Secret Service on Way to Biden’s House; Kaine and Bayh Told Nope on Veep
August 22, 2008 10:50 PM
The United States Secret Service has dispatched a protective detail to assume the immediate protection of Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., a source tells ABC News, indicating in all likelihood that Biden has been officially notified that Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, has selected him to be his running mate.
What a stinky ticket that is going to be if that the Obamanation’s choice.
Dayum boxy Obama DOES have YOU at least chasing your tail.
A few hours ago it was Bayh now it’s Biden?
We are not gonna know until that text message goes out. Obama wants it that way.
And I for one do not find it at all attractive.
Drudge?
Obviously, you weren’t paying much attention. Botox quoted Drudge, but that wasn’t the source of the rumor.
Read the Chronicle article and judge for yourself (though I agree it could be yet more misdirection from the Obama camp).
Looks like the source for the Biden ss protection story may be Jake Tapper of ABC, who has been very sloppy in the past.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/08/us-secret-servi.html
Presidents are, at most, MINOR players on economic matters.
I made the JFK statements because it is TRUE: Kennedy was a supply sider and Kennedy supported a very strong national defense.
Also, on economics, it has been my experience that a “salad bar” of economic predictions works best.
Each school of thought is right, sometimes.
Each school of thought gets so specialized, however, that they get blind sided by things that are not in their model.
Dent was absolutely right about Demographics, when he wrote his first book.
Many other factors are in play, of course, and a narrow focus on only one variable will screw up your results.
Capn
The RATE matters to you?
Why?
If the “Rich” pay a higher portion of total taxes, is that not “better” for everyone?
“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and that tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to balance the budget is to cut taxes now. Only full employment can balance the budget, and tax cuts will pave the way to full employment.” John F. Kennedy.
Monkey, you are wrong, once again:
“Dude, the baby boomers didn’t have crap to do with 1964″
Gerber baby food
Disposable diapers
Tonka toys
Lego Blocks
Frisbee
Hoola Hoops
New home construction boom
Furniture sales boom
The baby boomers have moved throught the economy like a pig through a python.
Every time they hit a new age bracket, that age bracket was changed forever.
— With huge economic consequences.
We were talking about you last night paulie.
We, and by that I mean folks WAY more versed in local politics than I, were wondering just what it was you did got you kicked out of party hierarchy and reduced to being a proll on this blog.
How DID mighty you get reduced to being hosed down by lil ol me?
Let’s see…
Group of people get together and talk about those that aren’t there.
Sounds like middle school. (redux)
“Franklin” scolds –
Monkey, you are wrong, once again:
“Dude, the baby boomers didn’t have crap to do with 1964?
That wasn’t me, “Franklin.”
You are wrong.
Once again.
f the “Rich” pay a higher portion of total taxes, is that not “better” for everyone?
I guess math ain’t your strong suit. If they’re paying a smaller percentage of the revenues, naturally that means that someone else is paying more.
Capn
As usual, your numbers are flawed.
I have better figures than MSNBC somewhere, but can’t find them right now.
Suffice it to say that you won’t call this link a “right wing” opinion:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5474580/
Jimmy Carter does not rate well, here.
I think you libs have a very, very flawed idea of what impact a President can have on the economy.
This is NOT China.
This is NOT the old Soviet Union.
We do NOT live in a “command economy” and the President is not “CEO” of the American Economy.
Furthermore, Demographics HAVE been the major driver in our economy, ever since the end of WW2.
Sure, technology, the information age, and computerization and automation have been huge.
So too, the influence of immigration must be studied.
However, you can NOT point to any LEGISLATION Clinton supported, that would boost the economy in any way whatsoever.
Clinton LIED when he said that George W. Bush had given us “The worst economy in 50 years” — that was a bald faced lie.
First, the President does not “GIVE US” the economy, the economy is, pretty much, a hand of cards that a President is DEALT and will have to deal with.
Second, CLINTON DIDNT DO ANYTHING — except, perhaps, sue Microsoft, allow a tech bubble, and raise taxes which contributed to a recession.
Yes, Presidents are players, but they are ONE player on a team of players.
Phantom
Inflation has been historically low. This year will see the most inflation in a long, long time, true, but over the last 10 years we have seen very little.
P.S. It’s simple: those who are making out like bandits pay more in taxes because they’re making more money .
See “The Politics of Rich & Poor” by Kevin Phillips.
I know more about you now paulie.
How the mighty HAVE fallen.
Monkey, this is one of the all time dumbest things I have ever read, here or anywhere else:
“Monkeyhawk
Posted August 22, 2008 at 4:55 pm | Permalink
“Phantom” notes –
“Adjusted for inflation, I believe the dow has lost value.”
And the Dow-Jones Industrial Average has changed many times since the 70s, ostensibly to “reflect changes in the economy,” but in reality to move the goal posts and keep up the illusion of an ever-expanding economy.
The Dow, during the Carter years, included stocks of such business giants as US Steel, Maytag, Sears-Roebuck, PanAm, the Chrysler Corporation, Western Union, the Ma Bell monopoly, etc.
Where would the Dow be today if those companies’ stocks were still in the mix?
The Dow, indeed the entire speculation economy represented by the Dow, is a house of cards doomed to collapse on itself just as Soviet communism was crushed under its own weight two decades ago.”
—–
FAILURE MAKES US STRONGER!
Remember the old commercials that made fun of the Soviet Union, everyone in the same drab outfits, with lady at counter yelling “NEXT” in a store with no choices at all?
Competition is a good thing.
Competition means winners and losers.
However, I will admit that, had you liberals not been so crazy with your regulations, our steal and coal and manufacturing industries might WELL have done better than they have!
The DOW is determined by very valid methods. The economy changes. Mergers happen. New companies are formed. Old companies go out of business.
You, Monkey, belong in the old Soviet Union.
NEXT!
Well, here’s a good chuckle.
It’s obvious now the Bayh story wasn’t created by Camp Obama (I doubt the Biden story was either).
From the original source:
http://www.kmbc.com/mostpopular/17267009/detail.html#-
The media is going apeshit on this crap, and I’m embarrassed to have taken part even for a moment. :roll:
My humble advice to all: Wait ’til tomorrow.
“FAILURE MAKES US STRONGER!”
It DOES? Tell us YOUR story Paul Franklin Rosell. I’ve heard part of it.
How DID you go from such elevation to being hosed down by me?
BJ
Do not flatter yourself.
First, you never did anything to me, or I would have put you in jail for it.
Next, I told you what I “did” — I asked the Party Chairman NOT to run for Governor.
He did it anyway.
That got me in trouble with the left and the right, in my party.
If you want to know the truth?
I benefit more from my position as a rank and file Republican.
I do not have to take the blame for things that I had nothing to do with.
And, I have many friends who know I helped get them elected, when they needed my help.
Did you ever consider that I had goals, when I got into politics, and I achieved those goals?
Then I moved on. In my own way.
You, however, will be stuck in your strange rut of thinking politics is a way to settle scores —for the rest of your miserable life.
Monkey and Capn
Sorry for getting you two mixed up.
Gosh, you are so different, I don’t know how I did that.
“If Clinton were the nominee”
If Hillary was the nominee, we would not be dealing in this second guessing, wait for the voice on high, crap.
If Obama disrespects Senator Clinton and her supporters?
Obama’s fate is in Hillary’s hands in her speech at the convention.
How WILL she get 15 million people to get over being smacked in the face to vote for a panderer to the slime of humanity?
Kevin Phillips IS a crack pot.
That man has predicted 12 of the last 2 recessions!
“BJ
Do not flatter yourself.
First, you never did anything to me, or I would have put you in jail for it.”
If so? Strange that YOU brought that here all on your own.
I say I ran off a con flack with my water hose. And YOU are forever saying that it was NOT you. And yet YOU brought it here today.
Rage
(I scrolled back twice, to make sure I was responding to the correct socialist, this time)
YOU, rage, are stuck on “pieces of the pie” arguments, rather than “making the pie bigger”!!
In other words, the reason the RICH pay more of the total tax bill is because THE PIE IS NOW BIGGER!
High marginal tax rates actually shift MORE of the total tax burden on the lower income groups.
This is part of JFK’s “paradoxical truth” — The rich to not NEED income. So — IF YOU TAX INCOME TOO MUCH, THAT INCOME WILL DISAPPEAR!
If you want the rich to pay taxes, you have to keep the rates low.
Otherwise, the rich will take their “ball” and go home.
The rich do not need to play this game, if they don’t want to.
The enlightened leaders, like JFK and Ronald Reagan, understood this truth.
If Hillary was the nominee, we would not be dealing in this second guessing, wait for the voice on high, crap.
Oh, give me a break! You think Wolf Blitzler etc. would have it any other way? Haven’t you learned anything tonight? Or the past year?
Jesus.
HehHEH Joke from last night.
“911″
“Yeah, I’m a Republican and this guy threatened to shoot me with his water hose!”
“Sir I am dispatching an officer. Shall we take a chalk outline of your clothes?”
You ready to adopt Kennedy’s reformed tax rates, then, “Frankin?”
BJ
You liar.
You have said, on MANY threads, that you soaked me down with your hose.
I have responded, many times, that it was not me, or I would have put you in jail for your illegal actions.
Also, I have explained to you that your rude, anti-social behavior, as described by YOU, would make anyone with any mental stability or common sense avoid your company.
Which is why you have trouble getting some politicians to take or return your calls!
And by the way,
How, exactly, have I “fallen” politically?
Who was the Democrat Party Treasurer, at the time I served in the same office for the Republicans?
You don’t know, do you?
LOL
Neither do I, I can’t remember, but I made my point.
Normal people set goals, meet goals, and move on.
Paulie I said only that I threatened to hose down a con flack who invaded my property.
You have many times, many ways made yourself that person. Today, you confessed without any prompting from me.
Otherwise, the rich will take their “ball” and go home.
The rich do not need to play this game, if they don’t want to.
Wow. That sums up the “above the law” attitude of privilege in a nutshell, doesn’t it? Thanks for your honesty–too bad you’re not getting to cash yourself!
But the “pieces of the pie” are relative burden, Paul. You can certainly argue (as some have) for making the pie (expenditures) smaller, “make the pie (lower)!”
But the relative burden is in fact the only relevant statistic when it comes to taxation–the rest is misdirection.
If it’s not, well, then, great–see my relative burden to 1%! Yeah, it will–for now–result in lesser revenues (as did the Kemp-Roth tax cuts of 1981), but don’t worry: I promise to eventually make enough to be paying more than ever in taxes–particularly if you conveniently restructure the financial system so I can bleed it for my short-term benefit!
Deal??
Hey THANKS Paulie!
I was told you were once the con party treasurer.
You just confirmed it. That lets me dig deeper.
And now? You’re a doorknocker getting hosed down and a proll on this blog.
We all agreed last night….DAMN I wish you could have been there Rage…if you paulie did not exist, we would have had to invent you.
For amusement and illustration?
BJ
YOU LIAR!
YOU said that YOU soaked ME with the hose. Do I have to go back and find the post where you claimed such?
And you are PROUD of such action?
You are a jerk, and not worthy of respect.
However, you must be a typical Democrat, since you seem to have so many supporters on this Blog?
Or, maybe they all know you are nuts, and they dont want to cross you?
Looks like I deduced right the other day when I narrowed it down to Hillary, Sebelius or Biden, and chose Biden.
I think he’ll be a good addition.
Rage
How is that “above the law”???
Incentives MATTER.
Tax rate increses are a NEGATIVE incentive.
To “tax” is to “burden”
To “tax” is to “slow”
If you tax income, and income is VOLUNTARY, what will happen to INCOME?
If you want MORE of something, subsidize it.
If you want LESS of something TAX it.
If you insist on taxing income, you will REDUCE total income, and REDUCE tax revenues in the process.
You will also, by necessity, force a higher portion of the total tax bill onto the lower income brackets.
http://www.kansas.com/507/story/503517.html
In case you haven’t seen it yet.
We all agreed last night….DAMN I wish you could have been there Rage…
Yeah, Jay, I sighed audibly (with no one in the room) when I heard of the book-signing. I missed Frank the last time too, when I was still in Wichita.
Oh well, maybe he’ll hit Tucson–but it won’t be the same. . .
I wonder who’s words Biden will steal, in his acceptance speech?
I COULD go back and find the original post paulie.
But you do not merit my effort. Since you have already confessed?
A con flack came to my house. I told them that they had until I could turn on my hose to get off of my property. As I recall, I posted that the con in question moved quickly out of dowsing range.
That is the way it happened. I was there and now you have admitted that you were there.
If you tax income, and income is VOLUNTARY, what will happen to INCOME?
I see. . .so you’re comparing rich folks to noncustodial parent who quites h(is)(er) job rather than pay child support.
I’m sure Warren Buffett would be flattered.
Hey Rage?
If you have family here. If you plan to get back here for a visit?
You should know, priority one in meetups is accomodating your visit. And that comes from KFG who drove 4 hours to be here yesterday.
Sorry, Phantom, but until that official goes on the record with the name attached, I’m calling it a rumor.
Gun to the head, it would be my guess, though.
P.S. I’m not on the Obama email list. Anyone?
Rage
You make less and less logical sense with each passing post.
We ALL react to incentives.
If tax incentives did not matter, why do we encourage, through the tax code:
Home ownership?
Retirement Savings?
Long Term Care Insurance?
Energy conservation measures?
Health Savings Accounts?
Low Income Housing Tax Credits?
Historical Preservation Tax Credits?
Bipartisan Acts of Congress have used the tax code to encourage some behavior, and to discourage other behavior.
It is not “criminal” or in any way “immoral” to respond to economic incentives.
Or, to respond to economic DIS-incentives.
High tax rates on income will only have the effect of discouraging income, pushing some income offshore, and turning some income into dividends and other tactics.
(Kind of like John Edwards. Edwards earns very little, in salary. That way he doesn’t have to pay much of anyting into Social Security or Medicare.
Bonedig me “Franklin”
But why would you want to relive me beating you up?
BJ
I admitted nothing, other than the fact that you have claimed that you squirted me with your hose.
It was not me.
If you EVER threaten me, in any way, you will answer to the police.
I do file charges.
I have done so many, many times in the past.
And, you are a twisted individual to be so fixated on that weird event.
What a strange thing to be proud of?
What a small man you are.
You should know, priority one in meetups is accomodating your visit. And that comes from KFG who drove 4 hours to be here yesterday.
Thanks, I appreciate that, from both of you. I’ll keep it in mind. I haven’t been back in 2 years, and it’s real tough to get away, so it’s. . a little weird. Guess the owner of my favorite bar/institution died in my absence (though the institution lives on!).
But Tara still has me way beat for mileage! :)
I’m not on the Obama list either Rage.
Little good would it do either of us anyway.
Damn but this feels like old times. I wonder what ever happened to Crusader X?
Maybe we can get paulie in the same ward?
lol
Only in your delusional mind BJ.
This Blog is about all you have, and you put much effort into it, and you still look like a fool and a jerk.
Me?
I like to argue, true, but you are not in my league.
I will move on to more worth opponents.
Pavlov’s “Franklin” yelps –
“…who’s words Biden will steal, in his acceptance speech?”
You just shot your wad, “Franklin.”
It’s all ya got.
And you shot your wad.
I can just see your ex-girlfriend saying, “He was lousy in the sack. But at least he was fast.”
I see. . . now Paul is calling fundamental changes to the tax code “incentives” and comparing them to target tax credits.
And he say I make no sense!
Feel free to keep blathering, Paul: I’ve had my free entertainment for the evening! Thanx, but don’t try to bill me, court-jester! :) .
Pavlov’s “Franklin” yelps –
“…who’s words Biden will steal, in his acceptance speech?”
Heh, I was going to mention Reagan’s serial cribbing. . .
Monkeyhawk! You heard anything official from Camp Obama?
You get a time you can be back here in the fall Rage and KFG says she will be here.
Because she has to drive so far I deferred to her. She deferred to you.
“BlueJay” shares –
“…get a time you can be back here in the fall Rage and KFG says she will be here. “
Will she bring potato salad?
I’m there, dude.
Because she has to drive so far I deferred to her. She deferred to you.
Sigh. . .set it up without me. It’ll be spring at the earliest. If I make it in fall 2009, it’ll be around the third week of September (Winfield!).
“I will move on to more worth opponents.”
Gonna take on a class of kindygartners there paul?
AlRIGHT Monkeyhawk!
Hey it is not like we have not been trying to reach you. Shoot a throw away email or ask for one. We want you on board.
KFG said last night…”Monkeyhawk makes his own wave.”
Rage? You call the date and I will make it happen.
CNN calls it for Biden.
I like Biden. He’s a blue collar fighter.
IF this is true? It is an upside down ticket. In the primaries, I favored Biden and Kucinich.
Hillary will have to make the speech of her life to sell it. Or Obama loses in 40 states.
There ARE steps to the dance. Obama ignored them. There IS political reality. Obama seems to have ignored that too.
I will have to be convinced. And so far I have no reason to vote.
I will have to be convinced. And so far I have no reason to vote.
X’s anxiety aside, you are probably correct on that one. Kansas ain’t likely to go blue. But I’d still vote for someone.
Biden’s okay with me. He was actually my first choice in ‘88 (before he self-destructed). He voted for the war, but–and this what continues to honestly puzzle me–he was the one initially arguing against it on the grounds that we’d be there for years. And he made that same argument when he voted for it.
It was like he threw up his hands and said, “Oh the hell with it, you want a war? Fine. You got a war. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.”
P.S. Ahem: Honesty compels the following extra qualms:
1. Stupid ass “war on druge” bill in the 80’s (co-author)
2. Vicious bankruptcy bill (he voted for it).
There’s probably more, but I doubt there’s a national politician alive who hasn’t done something deserving of a swift kick in the derriere.
I see he voted for DOMA (one kick in the teeth for that one, even though he had plenty of company).
Thank God the bimbo was chosen. Bye “BJ Bill”
Pmom, they all feed from the same trough, Democrat and Republican alike. Just wait, they’ll kick obama to the curb as soon as he’s finished doing their bidding. Of course it will be too late by then, but hey, he’s not the first wild eyed optimist to BELIEVE “they love me, they really, really love me”.
Rage, the bankruptcy bill vote worries me too. Remember how many banks are incorporated in Delaware. Maybe the PTB put Biden on the ticket to keep an eye on obama to make sure the change thingy didnt go beyond window dressing? There is nothing “change” oriented about Biden. Witness the DOMA vote. He’ll fit right in with the mcclurkin wing of the obama camp.
Biden was against Obama, before he was for Obama.
Biden was for McCain, before he was against McCain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDVUPqoowf8&e
” Biden was against Obama, before he was for Obama.
Biden was for McCain, before he was against McCain.”
Rush was against mccain before he was for mccain. Not only rush but a whole bunch of other republicans. So what’s your point?
I don’t know if I I understand it…
She was hot but pretty stupid… I should have known better.