For GOP only

[Balta1701]

I just got to thinking...

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, McCain loses to Obama. I think the 2012 Republican Primaries might be VERY similar to the democrats this year. "Elite" Romney vs "BlueCollar" Huckabee. I think it might be epic.

Iraq me candidate Petraeus.

[Controlled Chaos]

Not that this should be of any surprise.

 

 

Historians Write Off Bush's Presidency

Larry Elder

Thursday, May 22, 2008

 

One hundred nine historians already nearly unanimously agree. They call the presidency of George W. Bush a "failure." The History News Network (HNN), who polled the historians, failed to name them or where they work. Wonder why?

 

American Enterprise magazine, in 2002, examined voter registrations to determine the political affiliations of humanities professors at an assortment of colleges and universities, public and private, big and small, located in the North, South, East and West. Of those registered with a political party -- and most were -- historians overwhelmingly belong to a "party of the left" (Democratic, Green or Working Families parties) versus a "party of the right" (Republican or Libertarian parties). Take Brown University's history department. Seventeen professors belonged to parties on the left, zero on the right. Cornell University's history department? Twenty-nine on the left, zero on the right. Denver College: nine history professors left, zero right. San Diego State University: 19 left, four right. Stanford University: 22 left, two right. UCLA: 53 left, three right. University of Texas at Austin: 12 left, two right.

 

HNN's historians provided three principal reasons in labeling Bush's presidency a "failure":

 

1) Invading Iraq. Since the "surge" began, casualties have fallen dramatically. Five hundred thousand Iraqis, up from zero, now form the Iraqi military and police. Iraqi forces increasingly take the lead in their own security. The main Sunni bloc, who refused to participate in Parliament, recently returned to the government. According to American Enterprise Institute, of the 18 original benchmarks set for the Iraqi government, 12 have been met, with substantial progress being made on five, and only one -- the least important -- stalled. Fifty-three percent of Americans now consider victory in Iraq a possibility, with Americans almost evenly divided on whether to stay or withdraw by time certain. Oh, and just an aside, no attack on American soil since 9/11.

 

2) Tax breaks for the rich. By definition, any tax cuts go disproportionately to the rich because the rich disproportionately pay more taxes. The top 1 percent of income earners in 2005, those earning $364,657 or more, paid over 39 percent of all federal income taxes. On the other hand, they earned approximately 21 percent of taxpayers' income. The President John F. Kennedy tax cuts, by percentage, lowered taxes more than the Bush cuts. Does anyone call the Kennedy tax cuts a "failed policy"? Kennedy, pushing for his tax cut program, used the same Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush logic: "It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low -- and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now." From 2003 to 2007, in constant dollars, total Treasury revenue increased 20 percent.

 

3) Alienation of nations around the world. Take a look at the globe. France's newly elected President Nicolas Sarkozy praises Bush, dismissed his country's opposition to the war as "French arrogance," and says his countrymen's anti-Americanism "reflects a certain envy of (America's) brilliant success." British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel and Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper all support Bush, and maintain close ties with America. Italy's enthusiastically pro-Bush prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, who sent troops to Iraq, left office in 2006. His predecessor withdrew the troops. But guess who's now back, in a landslide victory? Berlusconi.

 

As a result of Bush's commitment to democracy and his initiatives combating HIV and AIDS, the President enjoys near rock-star status in many African countries. And NATO, thanks to Bush's prodding, swelled from 19 members to 26, admitting in 2004 Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.

 

And what about Bush's war on Islamofascism, which allegedly provokes alienation and a backlash against America? Support for homicide bombing among Muslims in predominately Muslim countries worldwide shows a dramatic decline. Support for "suicide bombing" in Lebanon, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Indonesia, according to the Pew Global Attitudes Project, dropped 50 percent or more in the past five years. Similarly, support for Islamist political parties -- linked or sympathetic to the Taliban or al-Qaida -- has dropped dramatically. In Pakistan, for example, Islamist parties garnered only 3 percent of the vote, down from 11 percent in the previous general election. "The Islamist defeat in Pakistani," writes Iranian-born journalist Amir Taheri in The Wall Street Journal, "confirms a trend that's been under way (in Muslim countries) for years." Muslim support for Osama bin Laden in Pakistan fell in the six months before February '08 by as much as 50 percent -- to 24 percent -- with some former followers now renouncing him. In Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province, where many believe bin Laden hides, polls show support for him falling to single digits.

 

Maybe historians should wait for some, well, history, before rendering a verdict.

 

 

 

Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

 

 

 

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I just want to echo the sentiment that it usually takes a number of years AFTER a Presidency, if not longer, to really put it in historical perspective. I may not think highly of Bush's regime now, but its possible that it may appear different in a different light later.

 

Looking back, for example, I have to give both Clinton and Bush I more credit than I had at the time of their terms.

 

[lostfan]

The decline in casualties has more to do with a change in strategy and attitude than it does the actual number of troops. e.g., they tend to get mad when we just kill more of them, so let's see if we can build some tangled alliances. So far that's worked but it's really fragile and it can end any time they want it to. Also there isn't any such thing as "victory" or "defeat" in the traditional sense that we're used to. By any traditional metric, we've already "won" so to speak. At the same time, short of either 1) making Iraq the 51st state or 2) just saying f*** it and killing everyone, the bad guys are going to claim victory over us no matter what we do. None of that really matters, what matters in the end is our strategic position compared to theirs.

 

While the author is right about our relations with Europe being mostly repaired since '03, I think he seriously underestimates support for Islamic extremism.

[lostfan]

I just want to echo the sentiment that it usually takes a number of years AFTER a Presidency, if not longer, to really put it in historical perspective. I may not think highly of Bush's regime now, but its possible that it may appear different in a different light later.

 

Looking back, for example, I have to give both Clinton and Bush I more credit than I had at the time of their terms.

Especially Bush I... Clinton is about the same for me, somewhere in between the hero-worshipping on the left and the flat-out hatred on the right.

[southsider2k5]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/...al-popular-vote

 

The popular vote should supercede statewide results for the presidential election in November, but Hillary Clinton's popular vote argument for why she should win the Democratic nomination is specious. Both points of view have been held forth by Newsweek's Jonathan Alter.

 

In "Popular Vote Poison: How Hillary's latest math hurts the party," Jonathan Alter cranks up the "Wrap it Up!" box on the New York senator's presidential aspirations.:

 

Everyone can agree that the primary calendar needs reform. But popular-vote pandering is poison for Democrats. For a party scarred by the experience of 2000, when Al Gore received 500,000 more popular votes than George W. Bush but lost the presidency, this argument is sure to make it harder to unite and put bitter feelings aside.

 

[...]

 

The shorthand many Clinton supporters are already taking into the summer is that she won the popular vote but had the nomination "taken away" (as Joy Behar said on "The View") by a man.

 

What a helpful message for uniting the Democratic Party.

 

If the Obama people have any sense, they will demand in their negotiations with the Clintonites that Hillary cease and desist in her specious claim to have won the most popular votes.

 

Given that more than 35 million voters took part in the Democratic primaries and caucuses, the math games on both sides look awfully silly. Everyone should agree to call it a tie.

 

Yet just last August, Alter panned efforts (mostly Democratic) legislators in North Carolina and (mostly Republican) ballot initiative activists in California to make their respective states award Electoral College electors on the basis of the candidate who wins the individual congressional districts. Such plans would turn the Tarheel and Golden States into a mix of red and blue districts rather than awarding all electors to one party in one fell swoop. Simply put, the plans would make North Carolina less safe for Republicans and California less certain for Democrats in presidential contests.

 

Alter panned that idea but suggested an alternative that would force states to award all their electors on the basis of who wins the national popular vote:

 

Is there a better way to make every vote count? Yes, and it doesn't require a constitutional amendment abolishing the Electoral College. All it would take is some good mischief in state legislatures. In February, a bipartisan coalition of former senators led by Birch Bayh, Jake Garn and Dave Durenberger unveiled a campaign for a national popular vote. Under the plan, state legislatures would pass bills that pledged to award their state's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. It's not clear which party this would help, but if adopted by as few as 11 states, it would guarantee that the candidate with the most votes actually won the election. Anybody got a problem with that?

 

So let's review. When Democrats are picking their nominee, the winner should be whomever can scrape up a majority of delegates, regardless of the popular vote tally. In one sense, of course, these delegates are the primary election analog to the general election's Electoral College members.

 

Yet in the actual presidential contest, if Alter had his druthers,every state would have to select electors based on the national popular vote winner, regardless of how unpopular that winner might be in the individual state.

 

The bottom line is that Alter's logic is at best inconsistent and at worst hypocritical. But what's a little of either when your aim is not coherence but cheerleading a Democratic victory in the fall?

[southsider2k5]

CHANGE!

 

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...Dk0MTc5M2I0ZTA=

 

Obama's Lobbyist Advisers: Big Oil, Insurance Companies, Pharmaceutical Companies

 

The Washington Post finds McCain adviser Charlie Black’s work lobbying for various third world governments and an anti-Communist rebel group from 1985 to 1994 worth a front page story.

 

Also, starting today, MoveOn.org "will air a national advertisement on CNN urging McCain to fire Charlie Black, a top adviser who has been a longtime lobbyist; McCain and Black have said that Black retired from lobbying in March."

 

Okay. Fine. I think it's stupid to try to purge every campaign of anyone who has ever lobbied, since most campaign and political professionals need work in non-campaign years, and one of the most widespread options is lobbying firms.

 

But if our friends on the left want to have this fight, then what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

So can we expect a front page story on:

 

Daniel Shapiro, one of Obama's foreign policy advisers on the Middle East, registered to lobby for several corporate clients in the last year, since leaving the office of Rep. Bill Nelson (D-Fla). Shapiro, who worked during the 1990s for President Bill Clinton's National Security Council, counts some of America's biggest corporate names among his clients, including beermaker Anheuser-Busch, carmaker Daimler Chrysler, the American Petroleum Institute and Freddie Mac.

 

Obama considers the point that he doesn't take money from oil companies (no one does; he just takes money from their employees) worth mentioning in an ad. So if their money is tainted, why is it okay to take advice from their lobbyists? How can Obama say he'll get tough on automakers to make sure they make fuel-efficient vehicles, if a Daimler Chrysler lobbyist has his ear?

 

Stupid argument? No more so than the idea that Charlie Black will be setting McCain's Africa policy. More:

 

Three political aides on Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) payroll were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations, including Wal-Mart, British Petroleum and Lockheed Martin, while they received payments from his campaign, according to public documents.

 

The BP connection is through Teal Baker, who worked for the Podesta Group.

 

Or how about lobbyists for those dreaded insurance companies?

 

Brandon Hurlbut, Obama’s liaison to veterans, union members and senior citizens in New Hampshire, represented clients such as the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies and the Allegheny County Housing Authority from January to June, according to public records. Six clients paid B&D Consulting $380,000 for Hurlbut to lobby their causes.

 

Or how about pharmaceutical companies? They're popular in Democratic circles.

 

Hillary Clinton's campaign, which accepts lobbyists' donations and is now trailing in the polls, has sought to question Obama's commitment to his lobbying ban. In a debate Saturday night in New Hampshire, she noted that Obama's campaign co-chairman in New Hampshire, Jim Demers, is a state-based lobbyist whose clients include pharmaceutical companies. He is not registered at the federal level.

 

Wait, there's more. How about AT&T, opponent of "net neutrality" and a company that cooperates with the NSA on wiretaps?

 

The Washington Post previously reported that Moses Mercado, a veteran political adviser to the likes of Dick Gephardt's former presidential bids, was negotiating last fall to become an adviser to Obama. Mercado was registered in Washington to lobby on behalf of several several corporate clients, including AT&T.

 

Mercado said today he ultimately decided to skip becoming a paid adviser and instead is volunteering his advice and time in hopes of sidestepping the questions about being a lobbyist on the Obama payroll. Mercado was departing today to Nevada to help Obama with that state's caucuses.

 

How about a lobbyist as chief of staff in an Obama administration?

 

One of Obama’s chief surrogates, former Senator Tom Daschle, is being talked up as possible chief of staff in an Obama administration. He’s currently a “Special Public Policy Advisor” at Alston & Bird, where his duties are described, "as a non-attorney, Senator Daschle focuses his services on advising the firm’s clients on issues related to all aspects of public policy with a particular emphasis on issues related to financial services, health care, energy, telecommunications and taxes. In addition, he advises on trade and international matters." His title may not be “lobbyist ,” but when he joined the firm in 2005, NPR described their interview with him this way: “Tom Daschle, the former Democratic leader in the U.S. Senate, discusses politics, the party and his new job as a lobbyist.”

 

Now, all of these folks may be fine folks — I think rather highly of Daschle for the way he handled the anthrax attack in his office — and if Obama wants them on his team, that's his decision. But I don't see why McCain should be raked over the coals for Black while Obama gets a pass for his lobbyist staffers, advisers, surrogates and helpers.

[southsider2k5]

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...jZjNmFlYjdmMDE=

 

"Barack Obama is on the phone screaming at me."

 

There's a lot of new, fresh, eye-opening anecdotes in this long article on Obama as a state legislator by Todd Spivak of the Houston Press. But in light of today's story of Obama's near-physical altercation, this anecdote of Obama's temper is interesting:

 

It's not quite eight in the morning and Barack Obama is on the phone screaming at me. He liked the story I wrote about him a couple weeks ago, but not this garbage.

 

Months earlier, a reporter friend told me she overheard Obama call me an asshole at a political fund-raiser. Now here he is blasting me from hundreds of miles away for a story that just went online but hasn't yet hit local newsstands.

 

It's the first time I ever heard him yell, and I'm trembling as I set down the phone. I sit frozen at my desk for several minutes, stunned...

 

In a follow-up report published a couple weeks later, I wrote about these disgruntled black legislators and the central role Senate President Emil Jones played in Obama's revived political life.

 

The morning after the story was posted online, I arrived early at my new offices. I hadn't taken my coat off when the phone rang. It was Obama.

 

The article began, "It can be painful to hear Ivy League-bred Barack Obama talk jive."

 

Obama told me he doesn't speak jive, that he doesn't say the words "homeboy" or "peeps."

 

It seemed so silly; I thought for sure he was joking. He wasn't.

 

He said the black legislators I cited in the story were off-base, and that they couldn't have gotten the bills passed without him.

 

I started to speak, and he shouted me down.

 

He said he liked the other story I wrote.

 

I asked if there was anything factually inaccurate about the latest story.

 

He repeated that his former colleagues couldn't have passed the bills without him.

 

He asked why I wrote this story, then cut me off when I started to answer.

 

He said he should have been given a chance to respond.

 

I told him I had requested an interview through his communications director.

 

He said I should have called his cell phone.

 

I reminded him that he had asked me months ago to stop calling his cell phone due to his busier schedule.

 

He said again that I should have called his cell phone.

 

Today I no longer have Obama's cell phone number. I submitted two formal requests to interview Obama for this story through his Web site, but have not heard back. I also e-mailed interview requests to three of his top staffers, but none responded.

 

Maybe he'll call the day after this story runs. I'll get to the office early just in case. And this time I'll have my recorder ready.

 

Again, my point from the earlier post stands. I don't think Obama is a hothead, or flies off the handle with any degree of frequency. It's entirely possible - nay, likely - that many of us, in Obama's shoes, would want to take a swing at state legislator Rickey Hendon as well.

 

But the Washington Post did a front page story on McCain's temper, leading with an anecdote of Bob Kerrey breaking up a near-fight between McCain and Sen. Chuck Grassley in 1992. Too bad Bob Kerrey says the account is false, that Grassley and McCain worked out the emotional issue at hand among themselves, and that the Post never contacted him.

 

In Mendell's book, we find a near mirror-image of that McCain temper anecdote. The book has been in print since last year, and no major media organization has found the story of Obama "ready to throw punches" worth mentioning.

 

The image of an angry Obama being restrained by others doesn't mesh well with the smooth, calm, confident, always-at-ease, ready-for-the-moment image we're being sold. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that Obama's fans in the press want to avert their eyes.

 

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...DlmOTY4M2RkN2I=

 

In State Legislature Altercation, Obama 'Had To Be Physically Restrained.'

 

Finally, a new and intriguing anecdote from David Mendell's biography of the Illinois senator, Obama: From Promise To Power, on page 125-126:

 

Obama, to be sure, had allies in the black caucus, but he had his share of critics as well. His chief antagonists were Rickey Hendon, who represented a district on the city’s West Side, and Donne Trotter, ho would run against Obama for Congress.

 

Hendon and other African-American lawmakers from the West Side often found themselves at odds with their South Side brethren, but the rift between Hendon and Obama was particularly acute. Hendon and Trotter would “just give Barack hell,” said Senator Kimberly Lightford, an Obama ally in the black caucus. Hendon, nicknamed “Hollywood,” because he once aspired to produce films, was a flamboyant personality in Springfield, known for his smart-aleck humor and occasionally inappropriate public manner. In one legislative session, the two nemses nearly came to physical blows when Obama, apparently inadvertently, voted against a bill that included funding for a project that assisted Hendon’s district.

 

Years later, details of the incident remain in the eye of the beholder. Obama supporters say that Obama had stepped away from his seat and asked someone else to vote for him, not an uncommon practice considering the thousands of votes each session. His proxy, however, accidentally voted against his wishes. When Obama asked that the record reflect that he voted the wrong way, Hendon publicly accused Obama of duplicity. Hendon has never been shy about holding back his feelings, and he had a special way of penetrating Obama’s usually smooth exterior. Soon, the two men were shouting at each other on the senate floor. They took their disagreement into a nearby room, and a witness said that Obama had to be physically restrained. Neither man cares to discuss the incident today, but Hendon remains unconvinced of Obama’s explanation that his vote was accidental. Individuals close to the situation say Hendon still believes Obama voted against his project to pacify North Side fiscal conservatives who were leery of some West Side projects. For his part, the rarely reticent Hendon won’t discuss the altercation, except to confirm that it occurred. “I have been advised to leave Barack alone and that is what I am going to do,” Hendon said. “I am going to let things stay in the past. It happened. That’s all I can say. It happened.”

 

The Los Angeles Times talks about Hendon and Obama shouting on the Senate floor in 2002, but no word of any near-physical altercation.

 

This anecdote raises a few questions.

 

1. This book came out last year. No one else has thought this was worthy of mentioning or discussion? Lots of people get angry, and even the best of us have our tempers flare every now and then. But is this incident ignored because the image of a furious Obama, having to be physically restrained, so contrasts the nice guy/secular messiah image we're seeing in the media?

 

2. Boy, that quote from Hendon sure sounds like clichéd dialogue from a mob witness from a cop movie, huh? Who "advised him to leave Barack alone"?

 

3. Any Democrat want to raise John McCain's alleged "temper issues" after this?

 

 

[southsider2k5]

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/20...dia-shuns-story

 

Non-African-Americans Continue to Shun Obama; Media Shuns Story

 

By Tom Blumer | May 23, 2008 - 10:43 ET

 

Old Media has mostly ignored Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's poor showing among non-African-American voters, even though it was obvious way back in the early-March Ohio and Texas primaries. To the degree that there has been coverage of the situation at all, it has been presented as if there is something wrong with the voters, not Obama himself or his "message." Clay Waters at NewsBusters noted the most egregious example of this thought process ("Hillary Winning Too Many White Votes") when he reviewed recent coverage in the New York Times on Wednesday.

 

While at the same time decrying the injection of race into the campaign when anyone suggests that Obama pastor Jeremiah Wright's "white supremacy" shtick is relevant, Old Media is mere inches away from calling the vast majority of non-African-American voters in at least eight states racists, aren't they?

 

Here is how the last nine major primaries (with apologies to Rhode Island and Vermont) have gone for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Take a good look, because I don't think you'll see these stats anywhere else:

 

Sources:

 

* Vote percentages -- Ohio, Texas, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon.

* African-American (AA) percentages of population -- Wikipedia entries for the various states.

* AA percentage of total turnout -- Mostly from the FiveThirtyEight.com blog; most recent figures are best estimates based on previous primaries.

* Obama percentage of AA vote -- Mostly from "Democratic Exit Poll Results" at Fox News election coverage site; most recent figures are best estimates based on previous primaries.

* Obama percentage of non-AA vote -- Calculated considering other factors just described.

 

Of the nine states, all went to Bush in 2004 except PA and OR. Of course a lot can happen in 5-1/2 months, but Obama's horrible performance with non-African-Americans in every one of the Bush 2004 states would make them out of reach if the election were held today (except IN, which could be explained by a next-door-to-Illinois effect, and appears just as out of reach), and could swing Pennsylvania in the red-state direction. The fact that Obama's problem isn't present in Oregon, which is almost surely a Democratic presidential win no matter who is on the ballot, is of little significance.

 

It's unusual to have to admit that Hillary Clinton has a valid point about anything -- but she has a point when she talks about electability, and Old Media wants nothing of it.

 

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

 

—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters

[mr_genius]

Well, the MSM is in 100% 'if you don't vote for Obama you are a racist' mode

 

lol

 

I think the Dems have found their way to lose an election that was bascially impossible to lose. They are going insane

 

on the Sunday morning shows Obama was compared to Lincoln, Kennedy, Roosevelt. McCain? Well he would be the worst president in History, according to MSM news media atleast. There is no way this stuff going to work. Even with Obama's free media (mainstream news media basically being a free 24/7 political ad for him) I think people will see past this blatantly false propaganda. Eh, or maybe not. I guess the general public can be dumb as hell sometimes.

Edited May 25, 2008 by mr_genius

[BearSox]

Well, the MSM is in 100% 'if you don't vote for Obama you are a racist' mode

 

lol

 

I think the Dems have found their way to lose an election that was bascially impossible to lose. They are going insane

 

on the Sunday morning shows Obama was compared to Lincoln, Kennedy, Roosevelt. McCain? Well he would be the worst president in History, according to MSM news media atleast. There is no way this stuff going to work. Even with Obama's free media (mainstream news media basically being a free 24/7 political ad for him) I think people will see past this blatantly false propaganda. Eh, or maybe not. I guess the general public can be dumb as hell sometimes.

If I've learned one thing over my short life so far, it's that people are stupid.

Edited May 26, 2008 by BearSox

[DrunkBomber]

Well, the MSM is in 100% 'if you don't vote for Obama you are a racist' mode

 

lol

 

I think the Dems have found their way to lose an election that was bascially impossible to lose. They are going insane

 

on the Sunday morning shows Obama was compared to Lincoln, Kennedy, Roosevelt. McCain? Well he would be the worst president in History, according to MSM news media atleast. There is no way this stuff going to work. Even with Obama's free media (mainstream news media basically being a free 24/7 political ad for him) I think people will see past this blatantly false propaganda. Eh, or maybe not. I guess the general public can be dumb as hell sometimes.

I think they accomplished this feat last election.

[southsider2k5]

I think they accomplished this feat last election.

 

Its going to be wanting to raise taxes for everything that is going to be their downfall this election cycle. With the rising cost of everything, and the expansion of local taxes all over the place, it will be an easy thing to really sell a tax revolt this time around. People will respond to having less money, no matter what is promised.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think they accomplished this feat last election.

Yeah, putting Kerry out there and his awful campaign and candidacy was a perfect example of organizational idiocy. He was awful, and still only lost 51-49. If the Dems had any of the three of four leading candidates from THIS cycle running in '04, they probably would have won.

 

[southsider2k5]

Yeah, putting Kerry out there and his awful campaign and candidacy was a perfect example of organizational idiocy. He was awful, and still only lost 51-49. If the Dems had any of the three of four leading candidates from THIS cycle running in '04, they probably would have won.

 

The Democrats losing the slamdunk 2004 election is what gives me faith in 2008.

[NorthSideSox72]

The Democrats losing the slamdunk 2004 election is what gives me faith in 2008.

Its possible that McCain wins this year, but I doubt it. I think the Dem candidates are just too strong. More importantly, Obama is just too strong. Compare him to Kerry in '04, Gore on '00... he's just a far better candidate than either of them, and so were Clinton, Edwards and Richardson.

 

[BigSqwert]

Its possible that McCain wins this year, but I doubt it. I think the Dem candidates are just too strong. More importantly, Obama is just too strong. Compare him to Kerry in '04, Gore on '00... he's just a far better candidate than either of them, and so were Clinton, Edwards and Richardson.

If the Congressional races are any indication this should be a Dem year for the White House.

[southsider2k5]

Its possible that McCain wins this year, but I doubt it. I think the Dem candidates are just too strong. More importantly, Obama is just too strong. Compare him to Kerry in '04, Gore on '00... he's just a far better candidate than either of them, and so were Clinton, Edwards and Richardson.

 

Its going to be taxes.

 

There has already been talk about raising Social Security taxes, income taxes, a windfall profits tax, and a millionaires tax off of the top of my head. I am sure I am missing others. Hammer this and tie it into the higher local taxes for everything, its not a difficult sell if you ask me. People are taxed out.

[NorthSideSox72]

Its going to be taxes.

 

There has already been talk about raising Social Security taxes, income taxes, a windfall profits tax, and a millionaires tax off of the top of my head. I am sure I am missing others. Hammer this and tie it into the higher local taxes for everything, its not a difficult sell if you ask me. People are taxed out.

I agree that will be among the top 3 or 4 issue for almost everyone. And the GOP will have their usual advantage there, but maybe not to quite the same extent, given their change in tack over the past 8 years.

 

Actually question for anyone who knows this - has McCain indicated favorability on any new or increased taxes? I know about his flip-flopping on the Bush tax cuts, but I am curious if McCain has commented on Soc Sec tax cap, oil-related taxes, etc.

 

[Balta1701]

I agree that will be among the top 3 or 4 issue for almost everyone. And the GOP will have their usual advantage there, but maybe not to quite the same extent, given their change in tack over the past 8 years.

 

Actually question for anyone who knows this - has McCain indicated favorability on any new or increased taxes? I know about his flip-flopping on the Bush tax cuts, but I am curious if McCain has commented on Soc Sec tax cap, oil-related taxes, etc.

As far as I can tell, the answer to that is no. The bullet point summary of his tax plan is that on paper, he quite rapidly drops federal tax receipts from 18.8% of the GDP to 16.8% of GDP and says he'll cut spending to make up the difference by eliminating entitlements and earmarks without any specifics.

[lostfan]

I like the idea of cutting spending, but it's going to take more than a promise to reduce or eliminate earmarks because that's just a couple of drops in the bucket in the big picture. That's just one step in the right direction.

[southsider2k5]

I like the idea of cutting spending, but it's going to take more than a promise to reduce or eliminate earmarks because that's just a couple of drops in the bucket in the big picture. That's just one step in the right direction.

 

A Congress that would quit sending pork to the President and then over-riding the vetos would be a nice place to start.

[lostfan]

A Congress that would quit sending pork to the President and then over-riding the vetos would be a nice place to start.

I don't remember the exact wording of it, but all 3 of the then-major candidates voted in favor of a measure to cut back on pork, but it failed miserably on all fronts when it was voted on. Never had a prayer.

[mr_genius]

Its possible that McCain wins this year, but I doubt it. I think the Dem candidates are just too strong. More importantly, Obama is just too strong. Compare him to Kerry in '04, Gore on '00... he's just a far better candidate than either of them, and so were Clinton, Edwards and Richardson.

 

The Dems really aren't that strong, the GOP is just really weak. GW has a 24% approval rating, spending is out of control, national debt is out of control, unpopular and really expensive war in Iraq, massive gas prices, inflation, weak dollar, ect.

 

And McCain is still close. This should be a blowout win for the Dems (which it still might be).

Edited May 27, 2008 by mr_genius

[NorthSideSox72]

The Dems really aren't that strong, the GOP is just really weak. GW has a 24% approval rating, spending is out of control, national debt is out of control, unpopular and really expensive war in Iraq, massive gas prices, inflation, weak dollar, ect.

 

And McCain is still close. This should be a blowout win for the Dems (which it still might be).

The GOP is weak, but this whole war on terror thing does still have that solidifying quality for the die hards. I don't think it will be a blowout for either one come November, though.