For GOP only

[StrangeSox]

How is that question relevant to anything? That's my problem with it.

[NorthSideSox72]

How is that question relevant to anything? That's my problem with it.

Agree. Seems pretty trollish to me to even ask, even if there is some evidence he may have said it. Its completely inappropriate in a public forum like that, in front of families. If there is some sort of evidence he did, then I think a column or whatever on a website is more appropriate.

 

[Balta1701]

Agree. Seems pretty trollish to me to even ask, even if there is some evidence he may have said it. Its completely inappropriate in a public forum like that, in front of families. If there is some sort of evidence he did, then I think a column or whatever on a website is more appropriate.

On that I'd agree. Here's the other part though...name a press source that's actually going to ask it? McCain's not going to give an interview to RawStory (that'd be like Hillary going on Drudge), and whether or not it happened, if the reports are credible enough that there are at least a couple witnesses who don't have reason to be anti-McCain (I don't know their backgrounds well enough to testify on that, it's certainly plausible they all could have invented a story for personal reasons), is there a reason why the claim shouldn't be investigated?

[EvilMonkey]

On that I'd agree. Here's the other part though...name a press source that's actually going to ask it? McCain's not going to give an interview to RawStory (that'd be like Hillary going on Drudge), and whether or not it happened, if the reports are credible enough that there are at least a couple witnesses who don't have reason to be anti-McCain (I don't know their backgrounds well enough to testify on that, it's certainly plausible they all could have invented a story for personal reasons), is there a reason why the claim shouldn't be investigated?

Maybe it already has been, and nothing was found, which is why you didn't hear that it was investigated? And no one said it shouldn't be looked into, just that it was a new low for someone to ask that, in that manner, in that forum.

[southsider2k5]

Agree. Seems pretty trollish to me to even ask, even if there is some evidence he may have said it. Its completely inappropriate in a public forum like that, in front of families. If there is some sort of evidence he did, then I think a column or whatever on a website is more appropriate.

 

Its respect. I went and saw Bill Clinton last night, and no matter how low my opinion of the guy is, I at least treated him with some respect for the office he held. Respect seems to be something in short supply, especially when so many people are willing to jump and defend people, no matter how little class or respect they show for people. Unfortunately, because so many people are willing to make excuses for anything, what is the downside to acting like a complete dope? You get your 15 minutes of fame on Youtube, the political shows of your slant replay your clips over and over, your side of the blogosphere praises your actions... Why wouldn't you?

[southsider2k5]

So I got called again by the Obama campaign, and had another Obamatron stop by my house. That makes 5 times they have contacted me since Friday. This is f***ing ridiculous. For the most financed campaign in the history of the world, you'd think they'd have a little organization to them. How incredibly wasteful. How many times do they need to be told I won't vote for them? If their campaign is an indication of they would run government, it sure won't be improved in effeciency.

[kapkomet]

So I got called again by the Obama campaign, and had another Obamatron stop by my house. That makes 5 times they have contacted me since Friday. This is f***ing ridiculous. For the most financed campaign in the history of the world, you'd think they'd have a little organization to them. How incredibly wasteful. How many times do they need to be told I won't vote for them? If their campaign is an indication of they would run government, it sure won't be improved in effeciency.

The guy has a damn good ground game - one that might win him the White House. That's one advantage of a long campaign.

 

[southsider2k5]

The guy has a damn good ground game - one that might win him the White House. That's one advantage of a long campaign.

 

If by "groundgame" you mean, "like a stalker ex-girlfriend", you are dead on right. It was like a freshman year girl friend, if you know what I mean

[lostfan]

If by "groundgame" you mean, "like a stalker ex-girlfriend", you are dead on right. It was like a freshman year girl friend, if you know what I mean

At least she didn't change phone numbers and e-mail addresses to keep harassing you, among... other things... yeah so anyway, he wouldn't still be here if his campaign wasn't so organized. He probably would've been knocked out either before Iowa or during Super Tuesday.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/931326,...novak05.article

 

Republicans rolling over for Czar Nancy

 

May 5, 2008

Recommend (5)

 

BY ROBERT NOVAK Sun-Times Columnist

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Operating outside public view, the House Democratic majority is taking extraordinary steps to maintain spending as usual while awaiting a Democrat as president. Remarkably, the supine House Republican minority hardly resists and even collaborates with its supposed adversaries.

 

There has been little or no public Republican protest over seizure of the appropriating process by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her clique. For the second straight year, no appropriations bill other than defense is scheduled for passage. Instead, spending details are crafted in the speaker's office, negating President Bush's veto strategy. In a little-noticed maneuver April 23, Pelosi won passage of a bill preventing Medicaid billions from being saved through Bush administration regulations.

 

Adding in Pelosi's unprecedented tactics in blocking the Colombian Free Trade Agreement, she has in 16 months established herself as one of the most powerful speakers ever. The stunning aspect of Czar Nancy's rule is the degree of Republican acquiescence. Neither losing their House majority in 2006 after 12 years nor facing more serious losses in 2008 has toughened the Republicans.

 

Republicans have just caught on that Pelosi plans for the second straight year to substitute a continuing resolution for individual appropriations bills. Continuing resolutions in the past consisted of a single sentence keeping spending at the previous year's level, but these documents have become complicated descriptions. At year's end, the Democrats devise an omnibus bill wrapping up all domestic spending.

 

Less expansive but more audacious is what Democrats are doing to Bush Medicaid rules, which would impose fiscal integrity on states tapping into the funds. The bill passed by the House April 23 would ''temporarily'' suspend those rules through March 2009, and the plan is for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton to get rid of them for good. The government would lose $17.8 billion over five years, according to nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates.

 

With state governors lobbying for the suspension, the House Energy and Commerce Committee was all for it. Two Republican committee members told me they had received the high sign from the party leadership that it was all right to vote for the cleverly titled ''Medicaid Safety Net Act.''

 

Conservative opposition changed the climate. Inside the committee, John Shadegg of Arizona and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee turned against it -- arousing the ire of the committee's ranking Republican, Joe Barton of Texas. When Barton argued that all 50 governors support the bill, Shadegg replied he did not care about governors. ''If you believe Medicaid has gone out of control,'' Shadegg told me, ''why would you vote for this bill?''

 

In a closed-door House Republican conference before the April 23 vote, Minority Whip Roy Blunt opposed the bill on procedural grounds because there was no opportunity for amendments. All Republican leaders voted against the bill, but their vaunted whip operation was dormant. With a rare opportunity to go on record against entitlements, House Republicans voted 128-62 for spending. Democrats were unanimous as the bill passed 349-62.

 

House Republicans had another chance last Thursday to demonstrate interest in restoring anti-waste credentials. Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) offered a proposal to keep the individual limit of direct farm payments at the current $40,000 instead of raising it to $60,000, as the House did earlier. The state of the GOP is indicated by the fact the 104-86 vote by Republicans was seen as progress, while Flake's proposal failed.

 

Another motion to lower farm subsidies, by Republican Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, was pending Thursday afternoon when the House adjourned for its usual long weekend. Unchanged in Nancy Pelosi's House is bipartisan devotion to the three-day week.

[southsider2k5]

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...,0,500710.story

 

In politics, happiness can be life of the party

The Tribune's Lisa Anderson writes that, sad to say, a key link between happy people and their political ideologies is often ignored

 

May 5, 2008

 

NEW YORK — At this point, in what may feel like the most interminable presidential race in the history of the planet, you might think every conceivable aspect of politics has been discussed, reported, analyzed and chewed over ad nauseam. But you would be wrong.

 

Consider the politics of happiness. Hardly anyone talks about it, even though the Declaration of Independence lists the pursuit of happiness right up there with life and liberty as Americans' "unalienable Rights." The only other country in the world known to specify happiness as a goal for its citizens is the kingdom of Bhutan, but that's another story.

 

In the torrent of words flooding the campaign trail, happiness rates barely a mention. That is too bad because "when it comes to happiness, the bottom line is that politics matter," according to Arthur Brooks, an economist at Syracuse University and author of the just-published "Gross National Happiness: Why Happiness Matters for America—and How We Can Get More of It."

 

Politicians overlook happiness "because they measure what's easy to measure," Brooks said. "They talk about money because money is easier to measure than human thriving. But when people in the exit polls come out they talk about cultural values as why they voted for a particular politician."

 

Brooks defines the politics of happiness as "the political patterns that separate happy people from unhappy people."

 

This deserves politicians' attention, he writes, because "happy people treat others better than unhappy people do. They are more charitable than unhappy people, have better marriages, are better parents, act with greater integrity, and are better citizens. Happy people not only work harder than unhappy people, but volunteer more too—meaning that they increase our nation's prosperity and strengthen our communities. In short, happy citizens are better citizens. Better citizens are vital to making our nation healthy and strong."

 

One reason the issue of happiness may be addressed so rarely is that candidates, like almost everyone else, probably assume they know what makes Americans happy. "The political campaigns are all about unsubstantiated theories about how the world works," said Brooks. And, he said, they likely would be just as wrong as he was before he did the massive number-crunching that underpins the findings in his book.

 

Those findings, all based on data from large, non-partisan surveys, are often surprising, counterintuitive and bound to make some people furious.

 

"I thought liberals were happiest. ... I thought kids make you happy. I thought fundamentalist Christianity makes you unhappy. I thought leisure makes you happier than work. I thought all kinds of freedom make you happy. I thought I actually was going to find in many cases that money really does buy happiness," said Brooks, who discovered he was wrong on all counts.

 

For starters, there is a yawning happiness gap between political liberals and conservatives. A 2004 survey found that conservatives were more than twice as likely to say they were very happy than were liberals. Moreover, said Brooks, this gap has endured for at least 35 years, no matter who was in the White House. Brooks traces the cause of this to two key factors on which liberals and conservatives diverge: religion and marriage. Data conclusively indicates that religious people are happier and better off emotionally than the non-religious, he found. Political conservatives tend to be more religious than liberals; in 2004 they were found to be more than twice as likely as liberals to attend church at least once a week.

 

Married people of all political groups are nearly twice as likely as singles to say they are very happy. And two-thirds of conservatives are married compared with one-third of liberals.

 

Notably, children may be a blessing at the end of the day, but marital happiness "takes a nose dive" after the birth of the first child. It really doesn't bounce back until the kids move out if, that is, the marriage has survived, Brooks said.

 

As for work versus leisure, in 2002, 69 percent of Americans said they would continue working even if they didn't need to. Brooks said he was surprised to find that religious, economic and political freedom increases happiness but that "people who embrace freedom with sexuality and drug use are unhappier people." And, he said, money makes people happiest when they give it away to charity.

 

Happiness is integral to politics, he said. "We're happiness-seeking machines and that doesn't stop when we pull the lever in a voting booth."

 

Lisa Anderson is the Tribune's New York bureau chief.

[kapkomet]

But only George W. Bush hogs all the power...

 

 

This should surprise no one, but somehow, it's all Dubya's fault anyway.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

But only George W. Bush hogs all the power...

 

 

This should surprise no one, but somehow, it's all Dubya's fault anyway.

Or from another perspective, its sort of laughable that the same people who ramrodded everything through for 12 years (the GOP) is now crying foul when the other party does the same s***.

 

[kapkomet]

Or from another perspective, its sort of laughable that the same people who ramrodded everything through for 12 years (the GOP) is now crying foul when the other party does the same s***.

Now see, that's been my point for years, THEY ALL DO IT, and they are ALL scum. I don't give a crap what party you are.

 

 

[lostfan]

Now see, that's been my point for years, THEY ALL DO IT, and they are ALL scum. I don't give a crap what party you are.

ding

ding

ding

[SoxFan562004]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

(link for the McCain on the Daily Show article)

 

I imagine you will see similar appearances from him until the Dems settle what they're going to do once and for all. He'll probably start a little campaigning against Obama, but hold off full Obama mode until Hill bows out graciously (oh wait, it's too late for that)

[southsider2k5]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lyndsi-thomas...irs-married-men

 

1999: ABC's Walters Pressed Lewinsky on Affairs with Married Men

By Lyndsi Thomas | May 9, 2008 - 11:37 ET

 

Years before she admitted her own affairs with married men, ABC's Barbara Walters pressed Monica Lewinsky about her affair with a married Bill Clinton: "Did you ever think about what Hillary Clinton might be feeling?" [audio available here]

 

At the time, the public wasn’t yet aware of Walters’ own affairs. Now, more than nine years later, Barbara Walters has come forward with stories of her affair in her new book "Audition" something former "The View" co-star Star Jones has publicly denounced saying, "It is a sad day when an icon like Barbara Walters in the sunset of her life is reduced to publicly branding herself as an adulterer, humiliating an innocent family with accounts of her illicit affair […] It speaks to her true character."

 

This new information on Walters sheds some interesting light on her 1999 "20/20" interview with Monica Lewinsky regarding her affair with President Clinton. As MRC Director of Media Analysis Tim Graham said, "It might have helped viewers process that interview with some on-screen graphics that said 'Barbara Walters has been a mistress just like her interviewee.'"

 

In her new book, Walters admits to having had affairs with married men including Claude Philippe, the Waldorf-Astoria's top caterer with whom she talked of getting married but he never divorced his wife. Walters also had affairs with prominent politicians including then-married U.S. Senator Edward Brooke (R-Mass.) and U.S. Senator John Warner (R-Va.). In the interview with Monica Lewinsky, Walters wondered why Lewinsky "kept having affairs with married men," as Lewinsky had an affair with a married man before becoming an intern at the White House. After Lewinsky’s answer, Walters responded with "so you had to take whatever you could get?" My question is, why is no one asking Barbara Walters why she kept having affairs with married men?

 

Notably, after Senator Brooke left his wife for Walters who then called off the relationship, Walters said she felt only "some guilt" at costing the "superb senator" his re-election, nothing about ruining his marriage. Perhaps she should have asked herself the same question she asked of Lewinsky in 1999. Walters asked, "Did you ever think about what Hillary Clinton might be feeling or would feel if she knew? Did you ever think about Hillary Clinton?" Did Walters think of the wives of the married men with whom she had affairs? Did she ever think of Mrs. Brooke whose husband actually divorced for Walters?

 

Previously, NewsBusters has reported on softball interviews Walters has encountered while promoting her book [see Colleen Raezler’s May 8 post] and on other media coverage of Walters’ admissions which highlighted her “fascinating” lifestyle as opposed to its immorality [see Tim Graham’s May 7 post].

A transcript of the relevant portions of the interview follows:

 

BARBARA WALTERS: One juror at the grand jury asked why you kept having affairs with married men. Why did you? Why do you?

 

MONICA LEWINSKY: I have to say that was the most difficult question to answer in my experience with the grand jury. It was the most pointed question. First I hope, I know I will never have an affair with a married man again. I have to pray about that but clearly to me what I've come to see is that that happened because I didn't have enough feelings of self-worth. So that I didn't feel that I was worthy of being number one to a man.

 

WALTERS: So you had to take whatever you could get?

 

[…]

 

WALTERS: Did you ever meet Hillary Clinton?

 

LEWINSKY: I wouldn't say that I've met her and spoken with her in a way that I would feel I know her. It was very briefly, more handshakes.

 

WALTERS: Monica, did you feel that you were in competition with Hillary Clinton?

 

LEWINSKY: Sometimes. Sure. I think you'd need to look at that as that she was the wife of this man that I was in love with.

 

WALTERS: When you saw Hillary Clinton sometimes she was with the President. Did he then acknowledge you in anyway?

 

LEWINSKY: Yes.

 

WALTERS: Smiling? Saying something?

 

LEWINSKY: Yes.

 

WALTERS: So he would be with her but you would still know that he was looking at you and thinking of you.

 

LEWINSKY: mmhmm. [nods]

 

WALTERS: Did you ever think about what Hillary Clinton might be feeling or would feel if she knew? Did you ever think about Hillary Clinton?

 

LEWINSKY: I did. I think I thought about her a lot. But I never thought she would find out. I was never gonna talk about this publicly.

[EvilMonkey]

 

Oh boy. If this had been McCain, there would have been endless talk about senility setting in. The media would be passing out from the orgasms over the stories they could write! Instead, i guess we'll just hear that he was 'tired' or something along those lines. 57 states! NOT counting Alaska and Hawaii.

[southsider2k5]

 

Oh boy. If this had been McCain, there would have been endless talk about senility setting in. The media would be passing out from the orgasms over the stories they could write! Instead, i guess we'll just hear that he was 'tired' or something along those lines. 57 states! NOT counting Alaska and Hawaii.

 

57 states>Sunni vs Shia

[mr_genius]

 

Oh boy. If this had been McCain, there would have been endless talk about senility setting in. The media would be passing out from the orgasms over the stories they could write! Instead, i guess we'll just hear that he was 'tired' or something along those lines. 57 states! NOT counting Alaska and Hawaii.

 

wow, that is really bad.

[lostfan]

lol I'm pretty sure he meant to say 47 but that's pretty funny.

[southsider2k5]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1210294208...in_commentaries

 

Obama's Faulty Tax Argument

By ANDREW G. BIGGS

May 9, 2008; Page A17

 

As the presidential campaign heats up, a key issue is whether to extend the 2001 and 2003 income tax cuts, which expire in 2011. John McCain wants to make the tax cuts permanent. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton want to let the rates rise.

 

Opponents of the tax cuts point to spending programs that could be financed by the extra revenues. Chief among these is Social Security. Sen. Obama's Web site, for example, argues that "extending the Bush tax cuts will cost three times as much as what is needed to fix Social Security's solvency over the next 75 years."

 

Such statements imply that if we return to the seemingly modest tax rates of the 1990s, we could fund the $4.3 trillion Social Security deficit, and so much more. As Mr. Obama recently told Fox News, "I would roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans back to the level they were under Bill Clinton, when I don't remember rich people feeling oppressed."

 

This argument seems compelling, but it is misguided. In reality, repealing the tax cuts would raise taxes far above Clinton-era levels. Due to quirks in the tax code, average taxes would be almost 25% higher than during the 1990s.

 

Mr. Obama's claim that the lost revenue from the income-tax cuts exceeds the Social Security shortfall derives from an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The Center's conclusions have been widely cited, but rely on dubious assumptions.

 

The basic methodology is simple: Compare the income-tax revenues if the tax cuts expire to revenues if the tax cuts are extended. The Center measures the difference in revenue 10 years from now – to match the government's 10-year budget measurement period – then extends the difference over 75 years to make it comparable to the 75-year Social Security shortfall.

 

To account for the effects of inflation and economic growth, analysts compare tax revenues to the size of the economy. The Congressional Budget Office projects that if the tax cuts expire, income-tax receipts in 2018 will be 1.5% higher relative to gross domestic product than if the cuts are made permanent. By comparison, Social Security's 75-year shortfall is just 0.6% of GDP.

 

So Social Security is a costly problem, but the tax cuts cost much more. Open and shut case, right?

 

Not exactly. Tax revenues would skyrocket if the tax cuts expire, due to "bracket creep." Average incomes are higher today than in the 1990s, but income-tax brackets aren't adjusted for the growth of earnings. As a result, Americans will shift into higher tax brackets and pay a greater share of their incomes in taxes.

 

Going back to the tax rates of the 1990s doesn't mean that households will pay 1990s taxes. Because the tax brackets haven't risen along with incomes, average taxes would be significantly higher, and grow each year.

 

If the tax cuts expire, income-tax revenues by 2018 will rise to 10.8% of the total economy from 8.7% today – an increase of 24%. Compared to the average over the last 50 years, allowing the rates to rise would increase tax revenues by 32%.

 

Believe it or not, income taxes will rise even if the tax cuts remain in place, because the revenue-increasing effects of bracket creep more than offset the lower rates. With the lower rates, total income-tax revenues will increase to 9.3% of GDP by 2018. This level is 7% higher than today, and 13% above the 1957-2007 average. Thus even with the tax cuts, revenues will increase by more than enough to fix Social Security.

 

So even if the tax cuts are made permanent, future Americans will pay a greater share of their incomes to the government than in the past. But for some in Washington, that's not enough.

 

Not surprisingly, neither party highlights these rising tax receipts. They undercut liberal arguments that the government is starved of revenue. And they render conservative claims for the tax cuts unimpressive. ("Vote GOP: A smaller tax increase than the other guys!")

 

The next president will face difficult choices regarding how much to collect in taxes, and how much to spend on entitlements like Social Security. Future citizens may decide that paying higher taxes is worthwhile. But in any event, the misleading tax cuts vs. Social Security argument should not guide policy makers on this issue.

 

Mr. Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., is the former principal deputy commissioner at the Social Security Administration.

[lostfan]

I really don't care that Obama wants to raise taxes, that's whatever because we need to cover this crazy spending spree we've been on. My problem is he wants to increase spending. We need to spend LESS, not more. Otherwise there's no point in doing anything.

[southsideirish71]

I really don't care that Obama wants to raise taxes, that's whatever because we need to cover this crazy spending spree we've been on. My problem is he wants to increase spending. We need to spend LESS, not more. Otherwise there's no point in doing anything.

 

I do care about Obama wanting to raise taxes. I pay enough already, and dont need him putting his crosshairs on my pocketbook because he feels like Robin Hood. Stop the crazy spending and the socialistic programs and we will be fine.

 

 

 

[lostfan]

I do care about Obama wanting to raise taxes. I pay enough already, and dont need him putting his crosshairs on my pocketbook because he feels like Robin Hood. Stop the crazy spending and the socialistic programs and we will be fine.

Stop the spending first.