or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Why Can't He Close the Deal?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why Can't He Close the Deal? - Page 3

post #81 of 141
This question was the Front Page article in today's Toronto Star. Yes, in Canada.

The Star is as left-wing a daily paper as you can get here in T.O. They're known as the Liberal Star.

I think the Clinton camp has put out this talking point across the board in an all-out attempt to reframe the issue.
She's definitely not going out quietly.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #82 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

an all-out attempt to reframe the issue.

A Clinton? Reframing the debate? Naaawwww...

I think a huge wildcard in this is the fact that there are still about 10% of the Supers that have not been selected. I'm not sure how Dean, Reid, Pelosi, and crew plan to get people do decide, when no one yet knows who all of them are? Anyone have any insight on that aspect?

And as far as defections... Gallup...
Quote:
28% of Clinton voters would shift to McCain if Obama wins while 19% of Obama voters would do likewise if Clinton wins.

I'm not sure we'll see those kind of numbers... but with the country this closely divided... who knows if it could turn an election.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #83 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

And as far as defections... Gallup...

I'm not sure we'll see those kind of numbers... but with the country this closely divided... who knows if it could turn an election.

If it's just normal party in-fighting there's no way the numbers are that big and there's no way it's going to keep Obama out of the White House. But if it's racial, and I think it would be naive to assume it's not, it could turn the election. If 5% of voters who would otherwise vote for a Democrat (i.e., Hillary) in 2008 instead vote for McCain because Obama is black, that's trouble. On the other hand, I doubt Hillary would get many Republican cross-over voters, but Obama could.
post #84 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

If it's just normal party in-fighting there's no way the numbers are that big and there's no way it's going to keep Obama out of the White House. But if it's racial, and I think it would be naive to assume it's not, it could turn the election. If 5% of voters who would otherwise vote for a Democrat (i.e., Hillary) in 2008 instead vote for McCain because Obama is black, that's trouble. On the other hand, I doubt Hillary would get many Republican cross-over voters, but Obama could.

I think there is something to the idea that some moderate HRC voters would go for McCain. He's not saying all that many things that sound different from Hillary.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #85 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I think there is something to the idea that some moderate HRC voters would go for McCain. He's not saying all that many things that sound different from Hillary.

Hillary's not saying we should stay in Iraq for a " hundred years " if necessary.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #86 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I think there is something to the idea that some moderate HRC voters would go for McCain. He's not saying all that many things that sound different from Hillary.

Wait till the general. His "maverick kinda/sorta a liberal sometimes if you squint" thing can't hold up to scrutiny (yes, I know that by your lights he's practically a Democrat, but your lights go to 11).

At any rate, what BRussell said. Hillary does better with the base, Obama pulls in the periphery.

Really, think about it: in the midst of a heated campaign, you're a loyalist for the beleaguered underdog, and someone asks you if you'd vote for the other party if your candidate loses. And you're all like "Hell yeah! I'm warning you! Do it our way or we'll blow the whole thing up!"

Which is just bravado, and not that surprising, given the tenor of the moment. The people who are voting for Hillary now are probably the least likely McCain voters in the country.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #87 of 141
And if an Obama-Clinton ticket, issue resolved.
post #88 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

WHillary does better with the base, Obama pulls in the periphery.

Is this actually true, though? I thought she did better amongst white non-labor folks than she did with labor folks.

I honestly don't know.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #89 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

And if an Obama-Clinton ticket, issue resolved.

Obama is a leftie, but he's not a totally crazy leftie.

Being the one person standing between a Clinton and the Presidency is not a safe place to be.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #90 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Obama is a leftie, but he's not a totally crazy leftie.

Being the one person standing between a Clinton and the Presidency is not a safe place to be.

post #91 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post


I know. That long line of Clinton presidencies is just soooo formidable.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #92 of 141
Closing the deal... by closing up shop?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #93 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I know. That long line of Clinton presidencies is just soooo formidable.

Oh laugh.
post #94 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Oh laugh.

I realize that law school required a humor-ectomy, but I was laughing, dude.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #95 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Closing the deal... by closing up shop?

Wow is that a dumb scenario...
post #96 of 141
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Yes, you're right about that fact.

Obama hasn't won a single large state except for his home state of Illinois.

That aside, one of the hallmarks I think of productive discussion is a give and take.

If you say "Obama hasn't won a single large state" and then are provided with evidence that Obama has in fact won a large state, most people would acknowledge that mistake before launching into an argument. "Ah. I stand corrected. But my point still stands. Except for his home state, Obama has trouble winning large states against Clinton." It's just the good-faith thing to do.

I have no idea what this means.

If you want to argue that Clinton isn't a popular politician in Democratic circles, then I'm going to have to scratch my head.

Ah. I stand corrected. But my point still stands. Except for his home state, Obama has trouble winning large states against Clinton.

Quote:
I have no idea what this means.

If you want to argue that Clinton isn't a popular politician in Democratic circles, then I'm going to have to scratch my head.

I would get to scratching. You are registered with the party of identity politics. Hillary Clinton meets the criteria of one of those groups and she does so competently. It doesn't however mean that she is the first choice or most popular within that group or the party. One of her primary tactics in this campaign has been to basically scold women for not thinking of their own when they go with Obama for charisma, policy, or whatever reasons. If I had a nickel for everytime I had read a female columnist type "I desperately want a woman president, and I want to vote for a woman over a man all things being equal, but I can't vote for Hillary," I wouldn't need to work this year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

Relying on national polls in April to predict voting habits in November is stupid, to put it mildly. Voters are not like that. Allegiances are not like that. People are generally loyal to parties, not people. Those who are not loyal to parties are independents.

All this rage Hillary voters feel over Obama won't last long after she drops out and starts telling them to get behind Obama. They'll kiss and make up and the vast majority of Americans will forget they were ever fighting. Not only that, but she will get out on the stump for Obama and start gleefully attacking John McCain, comparing him to George Bush and attempting to gather some of the reflected glory for herself as someone who battle-tested Obama and helped get him elected. There's no reason for her to do anything else; it is in her interest as a power-seeker.

We won't know until those first McCain/Obama debates how this will shape up. They haven't gone toe-to-toe yet and that is what the independents will make their decision based on.

While you are absolutely correct about 95% of the people out there, we are talking about elections where that 5% can easily turn the tables or perhaps even less than that. I can't find them anymore but the "every vote counts" articles that popped around after the last election did a good job of noting how many votes in how many districts would have altered entire states and thus the electoral college. You lose a couple hundred thousand nationwide and the ramifications can be huge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I'm a little curious about how, precisely, Obama hasn't "closed the deal." Looks to me like in Act V of the Presidential nomination, the part of Huckabee will be played by HRC.

Apparently you didn't understand that we are in act seven of a five act play.

Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

She's going to push this to the convention. She has said as much. They're obviously hoping for a brokered convention, but that's likely not goign to happen, considering Obama's commanding lead in all metrics.

I think commanding is overstating it a bit. If it were commanding the super-delegates wouldn't have to be deciding this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

If it's just normal party in-fighting there's no way the numbers are that big and there's no way it's going to keep Obama out of the White House. But if it's racial, and I think it would be naive to assume it's not, it could turn the election. If 5% of voters who would otherwise vote for a Democrat (i.e., Hillary) in 2008 instead vote for McCain because Obama is black, that's trouble. On the other hand, I doubt Hillary would get many Republican cross-over voters, but Obama could.

It could be about more than being black though. Clinton has clearly triangulated the war and several others issues. Yes she stands on both sides of those issues. It doesn't have to have fooled everyone but X percent could be voting for her and then switch to McCain due to them having a similar view justified or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I realize that law school required a humor-ectomy, but I was laughing, dude.

He wanted to laugh, but then he would have to charge you. If it isn't billable, it doesn't get attention anymore.

I don't want to start a new thread but this interesting piece by right-wing hack, Paul Krugman came up.

Quote:
Mr. Obama was supposed to be a transformational figure, with an almost magical ability to transcend partisan differences and unify the nation. Once voters got to know him and once he had eliminated Hillary Clintons initial financial and organizational advantage he was supposed to sweep easily to the nomination, then march on to a huge victory in November.

Oh damn, it is that "insanely retarded meme" that I made up and that no one else anywhere has thought, stated or said.

Quote:
Well, now he has an overwhelming money advantage and the support of much of the Democratic establishment yet he still cant seem to win over large blocs of Democratic voters, especially among the white working class.

As a result, he keeps losing big states. And general election polls suggest that he might well lose to John McCain.

Or perhaps this was the "insanely retarded meme" I was pulling out of my butt having read it at Faux News.

Quote:
From the beginning, I wondered what Mr. Obamas soaring rhetoric, his talk of a new politics and declarations that we are the ones weve been waiting for (waiting for to do what, exactly?) would mean to families troubled by lagging wages, insecure jobs and fear of losing health coverage. The answer, from Ohio and Pennsylvania, seems pretty clear: not much. Mrs. Clinton has been able to stay in the race, against heavy odds, largely because her no-nonsense style, her obvious interest in the wonkish details of policy, resonate with many voters in a way that Mr. Obamas eloquence does not.

Here, let me edit that down a bit for you. Empty suits and platitudes have limited appeal.

Quote:
The question Democrats, both inside and outside the Obama campaign, should be asking themselves is this: now that the magic has dissipated, what is the campaign about? More generally, what are the Democrats for in this election?

Do you mean how are they going to govern? They can't answer that!! The answer is... we aren't George W. Bush and that is how we are going to govern.

Wait.. that wasn't an answer?!?

Quote:
That should be an easy question to answer. Democrats can justly portray themselves as the party of economic security, the party that created Social Security and Medicare and defended those programs against Republican attacks and the party that can bring assured health coverage to all Americans.

They can also portray themselves as the party of prosperity: the contrast between the Clinton economy and the Bush economy is the best free advertisement that Democrats have had since Herbert Hoover.

This would be a good line to take, except the reality is that the party is all about identity politics and victim grievances.

But let's ignore this. Paul Krugman and the NY Times are just another part of that right wing echo chamber. His points are all made up nonsense that no one else out there is thinking or saying. He just was emailed his talking point from Karl Rove and is passing them on.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #97 of 141
Quote:
While you are absolutely correct about 95% of the people out there, we are talking about elections where that 5% can easily turn the tables or perhaps even less than that. I can't find them anymore but the "every vote counts" articles that popped around after the last election did a good job of noting how many votes in how many districts would have altered entire states and thus the electoral college. You lose a couple hundred thousand nationwide and the ramifications can be huge.

Sure, but there might be 6% who currently support McCain that decide Obama is the kind of all greatness and vote for him. Discussing vague potentialities 7 months away is pointless and stupid.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #98 of 141
Done deal.

Maybe. But I trust Rupert Murdoch and the Wall Street Journal. Really I do.
post #99 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Done deal.

Maybe. But I trust Rupert Murdoch and the Wall Street Journal. Really I do.

I think that article is pretty close to perfect analysis of the situation.

If Hillary ends up the nominee... I believe that all hell is going to break loose within the party. I can't imagine that the Democratic party is stupid enough to override the delegate and popular vote, to put up someone who has 50% personal disapproval numbers regardless of who she is pitted against. That number alone makes her a read electoral dud.

Unfortunately, her not being coroneted will not be the end of the Era of Clinton. Not by a long shot.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #100 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I can't imagine that the Democratic party is stupid enough to override the delegate and popular vote,

The party allowed for this possibility through its rules, but I don't think anyone anticipated it would actually happen. It's the "party's" fault only through lack of foresight, discounting any advantages a nominee selection process using superdelegates has.
post #101 of 141
Chris Matthews, of the Liberal Media, thinks that Obama need to act more like a trash talking black athlete, since white people will root for a black guy if he's winning for the home team:

Quote:
You got to talk like a firebrand because if you‘re carrying their fight for them, they‘re going to like you. You know, a lot of white people root for black athletes because they‘re winning for the home team. People are quite willing to pick up black heroes, if they‘ll win for their side.

That would be the same Chris Matthews who likes to make a distinction between black Americans and "regular people". Mr. Matthews is very impressed with his own status as a regular Joe, who speaks for the other regular Joes, like the ones Obama offended so grievously by calling them bitter. Black people have no business characterizing normal people. They should just keep dancing, and maybe normal people will be entertained enough to like them.

Yep, sure is grotesque for Obama to "play the race card", since he's the only one who's even noticed that he's a negro. Trying to take politics and turn it into some kind of booga booga thing, shameless darkie that he is.

Why the fuck does a creepy idiot like Matthews even have a pulpit from which to spout this gibberish? Is he supposed to be the national id, just blurting whatever comes to mind?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #102 of 141
Sadly the proliferation of blogs hasn't changed the dominance of the media in its ability to shape the perceptions of voters. While political blogs are infinitely niche-ified, there are still only a handful of television news networks, each purporting to be mainstream and unbiased. Fox News would be an exception if it identified itself as a Republican news network. The bottom line is that until cable news becomes more balkanized, we're going to have to put up with idiots like Russert and Matthews wielding so much influence.
post #103 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Chris Matthews, of the Liberal Media, thinks that Obama need to act more like a trash talking black athlete, since white people will root for a black guy if he's winning for the home team:

That would be the same Chris Matthews who likes to make a distinction between black Americans and "regular people". Mr. Matthews is very impressed with his own status as a regular Joe, who speaks for the other regular Joes, like the ones Obama offended so grievously by calling them bitter. Black people have no business characterizing normal people. They should just keep dancing, and maybe normal people will be entertained enough to like them.

Yep, sure is grotesque for Obama to "play the race card", since he's the only one who's even noticed that he's a negro. Trying to take politics and turn it into some kind of booga booga thing, shameless darkie that he is.

Why the fuck does a creepy idiot like Matthews even have a pulpit from which to spout this gibberish? Is he supposed to be the national id, just blurting whatever comes to mind?

Mr. Matthews is a former Carter speechwriter, one of Tip's boys, failed Dem candidate, Bush voter, and all around windbag. Think Carter's Malaise speech... what a masterpiece. Regardless of which side he is taking at any one time, his "arguments" usually begin with asinine assertions. The weirdest thing is that he seems to rarely get caught in controversy when he says things like the material you posted. But let Rhodes call someone a "whore" or Limbaugh refer to the "Magic Negro" and get ready to not hear the end of it for days.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #104 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Mr. Matthews is a former Carter speechwriter, one of Tip's boys, failed Dem candidate, Bush voter, and all around windbag. Think Carter's Malaise speech... what a masterpiece. Regardless of which side he is taking at any one time, his "arguments" usually begin with asinine assertions. The weirdest thing is that he seems to rarely get caught in controversy when he says things like the material you posted. But let Rhodes call someone a "whore" or Limbaugh refer to the "Magic Negro" and get ready to not hear the end of it for days.

If he actually ran for the Senate in 2010 to replace Specter, would he run as a Democrat or a Republican? Regardless, it's not exactly encouraging to have two conservative Democratic Senators in my state.
post #105 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Sigh!

OPEC is where two thirds of the world's oil comes from. When they don't up production ( on purpose ) and demand is up prices will follow. They could increase production they just won't. This is not normal supply and demand. This is supply being shortened on pupose and higher demand. Once again the dead dinosurs are running out. It's just not that time for real yet. The stiuation we have here is political. Look at the link again. Specifically " Oil As a Weapon ".

That's a totally different position from the one you took. You said "OPEC sets the price." This is patently false.

Quote:

Sorry about the typo. I'll be sure and " Cite " the next one you make.

It wasn't a typo. You simply don't know the correct word.

Quote:

That 15 % say that now but when it's crunch time it won't matter.

Right...the Nothgate position--"the alternative is unacceptable." Problem is, McCain is not nearly as unpalatable to Dems as Bush was. He'll take more of the moderates. Just watch.

Quote:

Bush has nothing to do with it? Ok. But he's not motivated to do anything about it either as I'm sure he's looking at the profits.

Whose profits? And what have they got to do with him?

Quote:
Remember Bush used to own an oil company ( When he was friends with the Bin Lauden family ).

1. So? Does he own one now?
2. Ahem...perhaps you mean "bin L-a-d-e-n?" Let me guess...another typo?

Quote:

He ran the company into the ground by the way. I'm sure he still has many other friends in the business.

1. Irrelevant and unsupported. The company not succeeding does not mean "he ran it into the ground."

2. So?

Quote:

" No doubt the economy should work in the Dems favor. But never underestimate their ability to lose elections. "

It won't help you this time.

Actually, I'm pretty sure it will. Obama and Clinton are proving that day by day.

Quote:

And no it's not just my opinion about McCain being in line with Bush's policies. Republicans say that's not true to distance themselves from the Bush baggage.

As a matter of fact SDW it's you who are simply wrong about a great many things.

I like how you just make crap up because it sounds good to you. McCain is not Bush. Perhaps you'd like a list of ways he's differed?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #106 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

1. Irrelevant and unsupported. The company not succeeding does not mean "he ran it into the ground."

Quote:
On June 22, 1990, George Jr. sold two-thirds of his Harken stock for $848,560-a cool 200 percent profit. The move was well timed. One week after Junior sold his stock, Harken announced a $23.2 million loss in quarterly earnings and Harken stock dropped sharply, losing 60 percent of its value over the next six months. On August 2, 1990, Iraqi troops moved into Kuwait and 541,000 U.S. forces were deployed to the Gulf.

Quote:
There is substantial evidence to suggest that Bush knew Harken was in dire straits in the weeks before he sold the $848,560 of Harken stock

Sources...

Sources...
post #107 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Sources...

Sources...

OMG! An executive cashed in his options before the stock went down. Good thing that never happens elsewhere. Oh wait, that happens in the company that is the reason AI exists. Ahem.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #108 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

OMG! An executive cashed in his options before the stock went down. Good thing that never happens elsewhere. Oh wait, that happens in the company that is the reason AI exists. Ahem.

A CEO who became president (twice, thank you SDW) and did the same to this country...OMG911!!!

Will ironies never cease...
post #109 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

A CEO who became president (twice, thank you SDW) and did the same to this country...OMG911!!!

Will ironies never cease...

How, pray tell, did he "do the same to the country." I cannot WAIT for this.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #110 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

How, pray tell, did he "do the same to the country." I cannot WAIT for this.

Oh yeah, the worst economy since before I was born... even since before Carter... was:

1) A cycle;
2) Not really bad at all!;
or
3) Clinton's fault.

I keep forgetting.
post #111 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

the worst economy since before I was born... even since before Carter...

Have any stats to support that?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #112 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Have any stats to support that?

Of course he doesn't. We're still not even in recession according to the data. And I'd love to hear what Dubya did to cause it.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #113 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

How, pray tell, did he "do the same to the country." I cannot WAIT for this.

Why wait and search through the ad infinitum of linked sources that have been posted here countless times for your perusal. Yet you seem to not get it.

I'm not your information monkey. Search yourself. Get a clue finally.
post #114 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Of course he doesn't. We're still not even in recession according to the data. And I'd love to hear what Dubya did to cause it.

Commander and Chief of Fuck Ups and Lies.
post #115 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Of course he doesn't. We're still not even in recession according to the data. And I'd love to hear what Dubya did to cause it.

Holy shit, you're still making claims for the soundness of the economy? I didn't think that even you could be that impervious to reality.

And how come "tax cuts" are the only government policy you're willing to credit with discernable effects on the economy, and then only as a net positive?

If Bush's tax cuts led to some kind of vibrant economic expansion (they clearly didn't, but we'll leave that for now), why aren't the current declines the result of something Bush did? Hell, why aren't they the result of tax cuts? I mean, as long as our entire world view is going to be one big post hoc ergo propter hoc, why not?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #116 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Holy shit, you're still making claims for the soundness of the economy? I didn't think that even you could be that impervious to reality.

And how come "tax cuts" are the only government policy you're willing to credit with discernable effects on the economy, and then only as a net positive?

If Bush's tax cuts led to some kind of vibrant economic expansion (they clearly didn't, but we'll leave that for now), why isn't aren't the current declines the result of something Bush did? Hell, why aren't they the result of tax cuts? I mean, as long as our entire world view is going to be one big post hoc ergo propter hoc, why not?


The Tax Cut That Neutered Congress


Quote:
Oddly, his pugnacious and intractable attitude remains a big part of his mystique with the Republican core that is still energized as I write this in 2007. Despite his many hollow words and the myriad failures—from Hurricane Katrina to Iraq to peace in the Middle East—the core still loves the fact that President Bush will never back down or change course or admit error. Theirs is the rigid form of thinking that will define the smaller, more aggressive, more extreme Republican Party of the future.

This coming from Lincoln Chafee, a very old school northeast Republican. As such, he was an anathema to the modern Spend-Big™, Talk Loudly™, Pummel-everyone-around-you-with-the-big-stick™ Republicans. Chafee's all about being cheap and not caring how your neighbors live or think as long as they are responsible citizens. That's why Bush's GOP hated him so. Probably now even more.
post #117 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Holy shit, you're still making claims for the soundness of the economy? I didn't think that even you could be that impervious to reality.

And how come "tax cuts" are the only government policy you're willing to credit with discernable effects on the economy, and then only as a net positive?

If Bush's tax cuts led to some kind of vibrant economic expansion (they clearly didn't, but we'll leave that for now), why aren't the current declines the result of something Bush did? Hell, why aren't they the result of tax cuts? I mean, as long as our entire world view is going to be one big post hoc ergo propter hoc, why not?


No, I'm asking what Bush did to cause it. Really, I'm waiting.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #118 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Commander and Chief of Fuck Ups and Lies.


Oohhh! Alternet! I'm sold! Both "articles" are pure shit. Here are a few examples:

Quote:
There are three broad aspects to the U.S. debt crisis. First, in the current fiscal year (2008) we are spending insane amounts of money on "defense" projects that bear no relation to the national security of the U.S. We are also keeping the income tax burdens on the richest segment of the population at strikingly low levels.

This pretty much shows the authors' point of view, hmm? I see...the problem is taxes aren't high enough! Righto.

Quote:
Third, in our devotion to militarism (despite our limited resources),

Huh? I thought the Army was too small? Hello?

[quote]

Quote:
we are failing to invest in our social infrastructure and other requirements for the long-term health of the U.S. These are what economists call opportunity costs, things not done because we spent our money on something else.

Oh, because all of these things were being done before Bush .

Quote:
Our public education system has deteriorated alarmingly.

That's debatable, but if so, why? We spend money on education like it's going out of style.

Quote:
We have failed to provide health care to all our citizens

I'm sorry...where is it written we should do that? Can you say "European Socialist?"

Quote:
and neglected our responsibilities as the world's number one polluter.

But shhh....no one mention China.

Quote:
Most important, we have lost our competitiveness as a manufacturer for civilian needs,

Whatever that means.

Quote:
an infinitely more efficient use of scarce resources than arms manufacturing.

Right...so our military is so big that we can't make civilian goods. What a crock of shit. We're not an industrial economy anymore. It has nothing to do with the military.

But wait...there's more:

Quote:
Emergency Management: They completely failed to manage the first large-scale emergency since 9/11. Despite all their big talk and hundreds of billions of dollars spent on homeland security over the past four years, this administration proved itself stunningly incompetent when faced with an actual emergency. (Katrina Relief Funds Squandered)

OK, the response wasn't good. But it was much, much worse at the state and local levels. I notice we don't hear about that.

Quote:
Fiscal Management: America is broke. No wait, we're worse than broke. In less than five years these borrow and spend-thrifts have nearly doubled our national debt, to a stunning $8.2 trillion.

Someone tell me how the Dems are blameless for this. Oh wait..let me guess..Clinton had surpluses!

Quote:
Medicare Drug Program: This $50 billion white elephant debuted by trampling many of those it was supposed to save. The mess forced states to step in and try to save its own citizens from being killed by the administration's poorly planned and executed attempt to privatize huge hunks of the federal health safety net.

I don't even know where to begin.

Quote:
Iran: The administration not only jinxed its Afghanistan operations by attacking Iraq, but also provided Iran both the rationale for and time to move toward nuclear weapons.

Wait..so it was The Bush Administration that pushed Iran to develop nukes? Holy balls...this just keeps getting better.

Quote:
North Korea: Ditto. Also add to all the above the example North Korea set for Iran. Clearly once a country possesses nukes, the U.S. drops the veiled threats and wants to talk.

Ummm...what? How about "the Bush Administration has spent 8 years trying to figure out how to clean up the mess The Most Intelligent Woman in the World (nest to Hillary) and Billy Bob Clinton caused. Actually, they've been pretty successful lately.

Quote:
The Environment: Here's a little pop quiz: What happens if all the coral in the world's oceans dies? Answer: Coral is the first rung on the food-chain ladder; so when it goes, everything else in the ocean dies. And if the oceans die, we die.

Perhaps I missed something. All the coral is going to die? And George Bush caused it?

Really...why do you bother, Art?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #119 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Commander and Chief of Fuck Ups and Lies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


The Tax Cut That Neutered Congress




This coming from Lincoln Chafee, a very old school northeast Republican.

Stop there. I think you mean "a very liberal Republican in Name Only."
Quote:

As such, he was an anathema to the modern Spend-Big™, Talk Loudly™, Pummel-everyone-around-you-with-the-big-stick™ Republicans. Chafee's all about being cheap and not caring how your neighbors live or think as long as they are responsible citizens. That's why Bush's GOP hated him so. Probably now even more.

No, they hated him because he's not really a Republican. And my lord, his talk of a "victory" in pushing LESS of a tax cut is absurd. He made it sound like it was a spending cut. If this isn't the epitome of liberalism, I don't know what is.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #120 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Really...why do you bother, Art?

I don't know either. The golden rule of avoiding trolls is not to feed them. Thanks. I've seen the light.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Why Can't He Close the Deal?