FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Presidential Primary News & Discussion Center - Obama Clinches Nomination (Page 52)

  This topic comprises 82 pages: 1  2  3  ...  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  ...  80  81  82   
Author Topic: Presidential Primary News & Discussion Center - Obama Clinches Nomination
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post 
Yep. Cheney's been a national figure in politics since the 70s, when he was Ford's White House Chief of Staff. He's served quite a few terms (six, maybe?) in the Wyoming House of Representatives, and was Bush I's Secretary of Defense. Cheney's been around.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aspectre
Member
Member # 2222

 - posted      Profile for aspectre           Edit/Delete Post 
"...quite a few of us knew who Cheney was before he was elected"

"Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste..."

Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pooka
Member
Member # 5003

 - posted      Profile for pooka   Email pooka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I think it far more likely that they think Hillary is the easier candidate to defeat in the general. I agree with them.
Well, right, that's the conventional wisdom, but if you read the link, it showed that the red rovers were 90% against Obama and 75% agains Hillary (to grossly simplify what it said).

If you are voting for Hillary because Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh told you to, you've also been hearing about how Obama is a communist and more recently, a Black Panther.

Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Morbo
Member
Member # 5309

 - posted      Profile for Morbo   Email Morbo         Edit/Delete Post 
Some pschodrama background about Cheney:
The Halloween Massacre of the Ford administration was engineered by Cheney and Rumsfeld. Which led to a reputation for them both as consummate cut-throat bureaucratic in-fighters, a reputation that only grew during the current administration.

Cheney also saddled Bush Sr. with the position of director of the CIA. This killed any chance for him to be president for years, and Bush Sr. never forgave him. Which is why Bush Sr was shocked and dismayed at Jr.'s VP choice: Cheney.

Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jake
Member
Member # 206

 - posted      Profile for Jake           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Morbo:
Cheney also saddled Bush Sr. with the position of director of the CIA. This killed any chance for him to be president for years, and Bush Sr. never forgave him. Which is why Bush Sr was shocked and dismayed at Jr.'s VP choice: Cheney.

I had no idea! I mean, I knew that Bush was CIA director, but I didn't realize that Cheney put him there, that he didn't want the position, or that he harbored resentment against Cheney because of it. If that's the case, why did he appoint Cheney Secretary of Defense?
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aspectre
Member
Member # 2222

 - posted      Profile for aspectre           Edit/Delete Post 
"the red rovers were 90% against Obama and 75% against Hillary"

Amongst that same group of Republican crossovers who voted for Clinton, 85% were in favor of McCain (between 5/6ths and 6/7ths).

Republican crossover before McCain effectively locked the Nomination on February7th.
2 Obama to 1 Clinton = 2to1 in favor of Obama
My hypothetical Republican crossover in Mississippi on March11th
[5 McCain-supporters + 1 Clinton] to 2 Obama = 6 Clinton to 2 Obama = 3to1 in favor of Clinton

Which makes one wonder about how many Republicans who will vote for McCain in the GeneralElection crossed*over to vote for Clinton in the March4th Democratic primaries of Ohio, RhodeIsland, Texas, and Vermont.

* With thanks to pooka for the link

[ March 29, 2008, 01:20 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]

Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
I still think McCain is analagous to Vinnick. They are both muted on the religion issue, both can make some pretty awful gaffes to the press, they're both slightly more moderate than the party at large, they have similar but not identical policies and are senators from Western states.

Obama as Santos and Clint as Bob Russell isn't a perfect fit either, but they're still both pretty close.

As for McCain's actions in defense of Obama, yeah, he can say that now because he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by playing nice guy, but if Republicans try and use this against Obama in the General, Obama just has to run that sound byte to shut it down pretty fast. Knowing that, it makes me give McCain some classy points, because he sort of just signed away a negative attack for the Fall.

Not like he really needs them with his Clinton bull dog doing all the work for him. I think a anti-Clinton consensus is starting to build in the Democratic party as the fallout from her negative tactics begins to be recorded. I think the party leadership will end it in June, if it goes that far.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jake
Member
Member # 206

 - posted      Profile for Jake           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I think the party leadership will end it in June, if it goes that far.

Sounds like Dean is calling for it to be over by July 1st. Here's hoping it doesn't drag on that long.
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
University of Chicago: Obama was a 'professor'

(CNN) – The University of Chicago said Friday Barack Obama accurately described himself as a onetime law professor at the school, despite the fact his formal title was "Senior Lecturer."

The university's statement comes after the Clinton campaign recently suggested on several occasions that the Illinois senator was embellishing his role at the school by calling himself a professor.

The campaign also sent out a press release quoting a 2004 Chicago Sun-Times column that stated of Obama's professor claim: "Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter."

But in a statement, the university said its senior lecturers are considered professors.

"From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School," the statement said.

"He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track," it also said.

– CNN's Alexander Mooney and Peter Hamby

I guess that was part of the "kitchen sink" negative attacks.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Morbo
Member
Member # 5309

 - posted      Profile for Morbo   Email Morbo         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Jake:
quote:
Originally posted by Morbo:
Cheney also saddled Bush Sr. with the position of director of the CIA. This killed any chance for him to be president for years, and Bush Sr. never forgave him. Which is why Bush Sr was shocked and dismayed at Jr.'s VP choice: Cheney.

I had no idea! I mean, I knew that Bush was CIA director, but I didn't realize that Cheney put him there, that he didn't want the position, or that he harbored resentment against Cheney because of it. If that's the case, why did he appoint Cheney Secretary of Defense?
Good question. I just tried to research that and I can't back up Cheney's tie-in to the CIA appointment, although he was Ford's chief of staff. Bush Sr. didn't seek the CIA position, it did knock him out of the race for president in '76, and he did have some resentment about that. But I can't pin all that on Cheney.

In 2000 I did read some of Bush Sr.'s history with Cheney and Rumsfeld and seem to remember he was dismayed at their prominent positions in his son's administration. But I can't find sources now.

Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The campaign also sent out a press release quoting a 2004 Chicago Sun-Times column that stated of Obama's professor claim: "Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter."
And the detail that they have left out is that the titles mean different things at different institutions. In the British system, their are Lecturers, Senior Lecturers and Professors. At most US universities, their are instead "Assistant Professors", "Associate Professors", and "Full Professors" all of which are commonly called "professors". It sounds like University of Chicago law school has retained the British system in its "official" titles, but culturally uses the more widely used US convention of referring to all the doctoral level teaching staff as "professors".

This is a genuine case of the Clinton campaign trying to make an issue where there isn't one.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
What U of Chicago uses sounds exactly like what we use. Assistant, Associate and Full Professor for tenure track position. Lecturer and Senior Lecturer for non-tenure track teaching faculty positions. Senior lecturers are usually long term professors whose career emphasis is on teaching rather than research.

All would be properly addressed as "professor". It seems perfectly reasonable for Senator Obama to identify himself as a law professor in this context.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jake
Member
Member # 206

 - posted      Profile for Jake           Edit/Delete Post 
I'm aware that I've become an Obama partisan, and that I have a filter in place that I have to take into account when reading what either the Obama or the Clinton camp says. That said, I really can't fathom how Clinton's supporters are justifying either the Bosnia thing or this buisness about Obama's not really being a professor. Or the Clinton camp's turn to absurdly biased right wing sites like WorldNetDaily in their attempts to smear members of Obama's machine. I would love to have a conversation with them about it, but unfortunately I don't really know any. We had Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged on page 50 saying that he was a Clinton supporter, of course, but he didn't respond to Kate's asking him about the Bosnia business.
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
orlox
Member
Member # 2392

 - posted      Profile for orlox           Edit/Delete Post 
Clinton the Infinitely Prolonged. [Big Grin]

Bush Sr. was ticked at not being able to run for VP in 76 but that came out of the confirmation hearings. He begins the hearing insistent that he could do both but as a result of Sen. Church and Rep. Pike's attacks, Ford had to promise not to let him go for VP in order to get the votes necessary for confirmation. Bush blamed Church and Pike for the situation not Cheney.

Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jake
Member
Member # 206

 - posted      Profile for Jake           Edit/Delete Post 
Interesting; thanks orlox. Did Bush exact any kind of political revenge on Church and Pike once he gained the Oval Office?
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
orlox
Member
Member # 2392

 - posted      Profile for orlox           Edit/Delete Post 
I know Church was narrowly defeated in 1980 as a result of 'Swift Boat' type PACs run by RNC heavyweights so I wouldn't doubt that George was involved but have no direct proof.

I forget what became of Pike. I'll do some looking.

Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jake
Member
Member # 206

 - posted      Profile for Jake           Edit/Delete Post 
Very interesting. I was probably more politically aware than the average 8 or 9 year old in 1980, but I wasn't aware of any of this. I'll be interested to hear what you find out about Pike.
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
orlox
Member
Member # 2392

 - posted      Profile for orlox           Edit/Delete Post 
Pike's Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otis_G._Pike

Looks like he quit before it hit the fan.

There is some significance on the publishing of his report that I can't track down yet. If memory serves it was ruled not to be published in the US but was published in England. Can anybody remember this?

[edit: Well it is right there in the wiki. I guess I should read more!]

Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pooka
Member
Member # 5003

 - posted      Profile for pooka   Email pooka         Edit/Delete Post 
The thing that stood out to me about Vinnick was that he was pro-choice. I didn't see anything about Vinnick being a war hero, but I am by necessity just skimming so I could have missed it.

P.S. My mom used to say it was Rumsfeld that had saddled Bush Sr. with the CIA job. But it sounds like they were in cahoots.

Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Well the comparison isn't PERFECT. But other than Giuliani being tacitly pro choice, he and Vinnick are NOTHING alike.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Morbo
Member
Member # 5309

 - posted      Profile for Morbo   Email Morbo         Edit/Delete Post 
Orlox, I disagree that Bush Sr. only blamed Pike and Church for keeping him from the VP slot. Even without the promise not to run for VP given in the confirmation hearing, Bush Sr. probably would not have been a viable candidate fresh from the CIA. But as Jake pointed out, he appointed Cheney SecDef so if there was resentment he got over it.

Much of the info about Bush's resentment is probably weak and circumstantial. I think my original post on this is based on memories from 2000 of comments by Mark Shields in the weekly political wrap during the PBS News Hour.
A story about Gerald Ford's funeral:
quote:
George Herbert Walker Bush served with him in Congress and was then sent by Ford to China, and finally to the CIA. Being sent to Langley briefly took Bush out of politics, causing resentment in the Bush camp at the time. Today, the elder Bush instead recalled Jerry Ford's decency and sense of humor.
http://dailynightly.msnbc.com/2007/01/a_rare_day_in_w.html
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aspectre
Member
Member # 2222

 - posted      Profile for aspectre           Edit/Delete Post 
According to a spokesman for AttorneyGeneral MarcDanns inre crossover-voting fraud by Ohio Republicans, "We have no intention of prosecuting Rush Limbaugh because lying through your teeth and being stupid isn't a crime."

[ March 29, 2008, 01:32 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]

Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Morbo
Member
Member # 5309

 - posted      Profile for Morbo   Email Morbo         Edit/Delete Post 
[ROFL]
If it was a crime, Limbaugh would already be doing hard time.

Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
orlox
Member
Member # 2392

 - posted      Profile for orlox           Edit/Delete Post 
Well, not only Pike and Church. The issue came up during the 88 campaign and Bush let a bit too much of his feelings out and blamed 'a bunch of pansies in Congress' or something to that effect.

I think Bush fully expected to get a high cabinet post if the GOP won in 76 and tried to sell himself to Carter as non-partisan if they lost.

I do think he was disappointed with Ford in that confirmation because he probably did have enough votes to get by but Ford wanted a more consensus like result requiring the promise not to run. Also, Ford had already picked Rockefeller over him for VP after Nixon.

The issue was not so much that going from CIA to VP was problematic but that in the storm of controversy at the time over the CIA, they wanted a Director to be long-term and rebuild the Agency's credibility. As it turns out, he was there less than a year anyway but still gets credit for turning the Agency around.

Also, I do agree that Rumsfeld was always the brains behind the operation. Even, IMHO, in the W era.

Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aspectre
Member
Member # 2222

 - posted      Profile for aspectre           Edit/Delete Post 
On March26th, a federal judge "ruled that the Michigan law establishing the state's Jan. 15 presidential primary is unconstitutional.
The reason? The law unfairly prevents minor parties from access to voter lists."

Looks like Granholm&Gang got a bit too clever in creating their pseudo-election.
"The law included a nonseverability clause which voided the entire statute if any part of it was invalidatedby the courts."
So even though Dean wants a compromise delegate split, I can't see how the DemocraticNationalConvention could seat delegates apportioned on the basis of results from an illegal election.

[ March 29, 2008, 03:51 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]

Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
orlox
Member
Member # 2392

 - posted      Profile for orlox           Edit/Delete Post 
I should rather say that going from CIA to VP wasn't as problematic as the Agency stability issue.
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged
Member
Member # 7476

 - posted      Profile for Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged   Email Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged         Edit/Delete Post 
Sorry for the delay, I don't check the site that often. What do I think about Bosnia and the professor thing? Honestly I don't pay attention to stuff like that. Just like I ignored Obama's Pastor controversy. To me they are just the background noise of the election and distract from the real issues. Likability was always going to be an issue for Hillary. Some people just plain hate the Clintons. And with good Reason i'm sure. Then why still vote for her?

Well she has for 30+ years advocated for the issues I care about. She's the devil you know. I know exactly what I'm getting with her. Obama on the other hand, I just don't know him at all. He was in the Illinois State Legislator only 4 years ago and now he's on the cusp of maybe becoming the President. That's frightening to me. Maybe it's my military background that has me shaken up. It would be like taking a Major and promoting him Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force. Maybe it's for the best, only time will tell.

In the end 95% of their respective policies are the same and I can see why people are attracted to Obama. He'll probably be the nominee. I still want Hillary to run if only because Obama hasn't done enough to secure it by this point. And call me selfish I want to finally vote in a primary (PA) that matters.

Posts: 796 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tarrsk
Member
Member # 332

 - posted      Profile for Tarrsk           Edit/Delete Post 
When you say she "has for 30+ years advocated for the issues I care about," what do you mean, exactly? Her years as First Lady? Because the recent schedule documents released indicate that she (a) didn't actually do a whole lot, particularly in comparison to real firebrand First Ladies like Eleanor Roosevelt, and (b) actively supported things that she now claims to have always been against, such as NAFTA. Not a glowing endorsement of her "experience," especially after her incredibly bone-headed Bosnia blunder.

Meanwhile, Obama was in the Illinois State Senate for eight years prior to his current tenure in the United States Senate, during which he earned a reputation as a strong progressive who was nonetheless capable of building consensus with Republicans without betraying his own ideals. This in contrast to Hillary, whose main selling point seems to be that she's a "fighter." The utter failure of Hillarycare in 1994 would, I think, indicate that her combative approach just might not be the most effective way to actually, y'know, get things done.

When you consider that Hillary only has two years more actual Senate experience than Obama, I think that actually puts him well ahead of Hillary in the "experience" column. The fact that he's younger than Hillary does not erase his substantial accomplishments as a legislator, nor undermine the argument that he has the capability to actually effect genuine change.

Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Wowbagger the military is one thing, it is a tried and true science of what makes good officers and ncos, training is geared towards it, brilliant officers can usually be promoted quickly in a militeristic situation yes you wouldnt promote a major that fast unless there was no one above the rank of major to fill the place.

Politics is different, politics is neither art nor science it is combinations of luck, charisma, and drive.

Anyone at any reasonable age, or any reasonable amount of experience can be President, there are 3 equal branches for a reason.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged
Member
Member # 7476

 - posted      Profile for Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged   Email Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged         Edit/Delete Post 
Before she became the first lady she spent at least 15 years as a lawyer -mostly in family courts- during that time she served as a staff attorney on the Children's Defense Fund, and in Arkansas chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee, co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, and served on the boards of the Arkansas Children's Hospital, Legal Services, and the Children's Defense Fund. She had a bright political future before she ever married Bill.

And Blayne the experience issue concerns me because the Republicans are sure to bring it up. Really it's not even close between McCain and Obama.

Posts: 796 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tarrsk
Member
Member # 332

 - posted      Profile for Tarrsk           Edit/Delete Post 
And how is it close between Clinton and Obama? Honestly, one of my biggest concerns about a Clinton candidacy at this point is that literally every single one of her talking points is nullfied, if not thoroughly trumped, by McCain. Experience in the Senate? He's got years more. Experience in politics? Again, the same. Experience in the military? He was tortured in Vietnam, whereas she greeted a six-year old child on an airstrip.

Obama at least has the luxury of running straight in the other direction, strategically. He can use his relative youth and Senate outsider-dom as a selling point- bringing substantive change to Washington and all that. Clinton can't do that, because first of all she's viewed as a Washington insider at least as much as McCain is, and secondly because she's now spent a year convincing people that "experience" is her biggest asset. When November rolls around, people will remember her question regarding phone calls at 3:00 am, and let's face it, your average American is not going to think "ex-First Lady Hillary Clinton" when the other option is "War Hero and Maverick John McCain."

Let me be clear on one thing- if Hillary is the nominee, I will vote for her. The possibility of another Republican appointing Supreme Court Justices to replace Stevens and Ginsburg is far too worrisome for me to bear a long-term grudge against Hillary for her mean-spirited tactics in the primary campaign. But I would bet serious money that in a race between Hillary and John McCain, she will be soundly defeated in a way that would make George W. Bush explode with envy.

Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Humean316
Member
Member # 8175

 - posted      Profile for Humean316   Email Humean316         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Obama at least has the luxury of running straight in the other direction, strategically. He can use his relative youth and Senate outsider-dom as a selling point- bringing substantive change to Washington and all that. Clinton can't do that, because first of all she's viewed as a Washington insider at least as much as McCain is, and secondly because she's now spent a year convincing people that "experience" is her biggest asset. When November rolls around, people will remember her question regarding phone calls at 3:00 am, and let's face it, your average American is not going to think "ex-First Lady Hillary Clinton" when the other option is "War Hero and Maverick John McCain."
I don't think that will matter anymore because I don't think Senator Clinton is aiming at 2008 anymore. I mean sure, it would be great if she got the nomination, but I also think she recognizes that it will be nearly impossible to get the nomination this year. As an article previously linked here suggests, I think the purpose of her refusal to leave the race is so that she can do as much damage to Obama and McCain as she can before she leaves, and then in 2012, after Obama loses to McCain, an incredibly old McCain will be easing picking for her.

Which, in a way, is what she did in 2004, she knew or suspected that Bush would beat Kerry and that defeating an incoming President whom she gave permission to go to war too would be incredibly difficult. So, instead of running that year, she held off for the time that she felt would be more advantagous.

Essentially, I might still vote for her but it would only be because I would fear what a Bush Republican would do in the White House. I don't really care about experience, Obama had more experience than Lincoln and Cheney had years of White House experience but JFK's inexperience caused the Bay of Pigs so it can go both ways, but I do care about a want to make this country better. And I don't think thats what motivates Senator Clinton, I think what motivates her is power and her want to be President, and anything that gets in the way is bad because it hurts her. She is egocentric to the extreme at a time when it world events demand that we think of others.

ETA: "Won't vote" is too strong I think, I am really undecided when it comes to McCain v Clinton.

Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Saephon
Member
Member # 9623

 - posted      Profile for Saephon   Email Saephon         Edit/Delete Post 
If I ever found out the truth was that Clinton is working to have McCain beat Obama so that she'll have a better chance in four years, I would be disgusted to the point of wanting a new place to live.

WTB country whose aim is to elect the best leaders, not whoever can "win the game".


(WTB = want to buy. Playing too much WoW lately ._.)

Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reshpeckobiggle
Member
Member # 8947

 - posted      Profile for Reshpeckobiggle   Email Reshpeckobiggle         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Tarrsk:

Let me be clear on one thing- if Hillary is the nominee, I will vote for her. The possibility of another Republican appointing Supreme Court Justices to replace Stevens and Ginsburg is far too worrisome for me to bear a long-term grudge against Hillary for her mean-spirited tactics in the primary campaign.

Yes, because what a horrible thing it will be if the Constitution is not interpreted by the whims of a couple of left-wing activists. Oh the horror that will be when the conservatives (i.e; anti-progressive originalists) start deciding that the constitution works when its original meaning is respected, and not something to be view as an obstacle keeping us from a human utopia where babies are aborted at every whim, child pornography and flag burning is the highest form of patriotic speech, border defense is illegal, criminal acts are to be treated rather than punished, religion is outlawed (except Islam, of course), all laws are subject to international approval... well, I could go on, but I'm about to punch my monitor.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Oh, please, punch your monitor.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
You're being ridiculous, Reshpeckobiggle. Your rant is entirely out of place, aside from being more than a little hysterical. You're reading like a Rush Limbaugh rant or something.

Given the large amount of power Supreme Court Justices can potentially wield, it's perfectly reasonable for someone to be worried about who will be appointing them.

And anyway, I question your ability based on your ranting to have a worthwhile opinion on the 'original meaning' of the US Constitution. Especially since, y'know, change was literally hardwired into the thing.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Alcon
Member
Member # 6645

 - posted      Profile for Alcon   Email Alcon         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If I ever found out the truth was that Clinton is working to have McCain beat Obama so that she'll have a better chance in four years, I would be disgusted to the point of wanting a new place to live.
Happily we will probably never find out whether it actually is the truth or not. Cause anyone who knows is not going to reveal it. It does look an awful lot like that right now though don't it?
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The possibility of another Republican appointing Supreme Court Justices to replace Stevens and Ginsburg is far too worrisome for me to bear a long-term grudge against Hillary for her mean-spirited tactics in the primary campaign.
There are at least as many people who will vote for McCain for much the same reason.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tarrsk
Member
Member # 332

 - posted      Profile for Tarrsk           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
There are at least as many people who will vote for McCain for much the same reason.

As they have every right to.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Resh has obviously had his fill of Uber Right Wing Conservative kool-aid today.

Only the righty talking head caricatures of their own party's actually talk like that and spout those kinds of ignorant, intent to sow discontent, lies.

Makes me so upset I think I need to go burn a flag to calm my nerves.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tarrsk
Member
Member # 332

 - posted      Profile for Tarrsk           Edit/Delete Post 
You can finish mine up... I have about a dozen more flags to burn, but after the first twenty five or so, it just starts to pall, y'know what I'm saying? Doesn't quite give you that same "I hate America" rush as the first couple did...
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
flag burning with a twist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NymRecFWgAs

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Without even looking at the link, taking into account the source of the poster and the subject...I'm going to guess it's the Penn & Teller flag burning trick, though I'm not sure if it's the clip from the West Wing or the clip where they actually show how the trick is done (which is kind of a neat trick of misdirection), or a possible third clip that I'm unfamiliar with.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aspectre
Member
Member # 2222

 - posted      Profile for aspectre           Edit/Delete Post 
The caucus fights over Texas delegates continue, and won't stop until the state convention ends on June7th.

Though the estimated pledged-delegate split is 1,253&1/2 for Clinton and 1,415&1/2 for Obama,
the actual split of bound pledged-delegates is 1,125&1/2 for Clinton and 1,199&1/2 for Obama.
And the final split of pledged delegates won't occur until the end of the Nebraska state convention on June22nd.

Like I said before, the contest between Clinton and Obama is much tighter than the news media makes it appear.
Obama's real lead over Clinton is only 74pledged-delegates already bound by primary and caucus results.
And in June, the Texas, Idaho, Iowa, Washington, and Nebraska state conventions will award 124pledged-delegates.

[ March 30, 2008, 04:39 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]

Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aspectre
Member
Member # 2222

 - posted      Profile for aspectre           Edit/Delete Post 
""My attitude is that Senator Clinton..." Obama told reporters "...should be able to compete and her supporters should be able to support her, for as long as they are willing or able."
And that could be into early June...Obama said. "We will have had contests in all 50 states plus several territories..."
"...every contest you've seen, in every state -- huge jumps in Democratic registration, including independents and Republicans who are changing registration to vote in the Democratic primaries. You know, those are people who are now invested in what happens. And I think that bodes very well for us in November."

Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
Complaints have been filed against McCain with the FEC. He's gone over the $54 million limit he's allowed.

If his claim that he isn't bound by that limit because he never actually took the federal funds is borne out (doubtful, because the law that he himself created says the FEC has to release him, and it hasn't), then he forfeits all of his delegates from states like Ohio, where he didn't bother to get the required signatures to be on the ballot, but used his FEC funding instead.

I told y'all that it wasn't over until it was over.

Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
doubtful, because the law that he himself created says the FEC has to release him, and it hasn't
There are so many possible equitable defenses here that simply referencing the statute isn't enough to make it "doubtful." A lot more analysis is required.

quote:
then he forfeits all of his delegates from states like Ohio,
Here's the relevant Ohio Statute. Per the statute, "[a]ny candidate for the presidency of the United States who is eligible to receive payments under the 'Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act'" is eligible to be on the ballot without filing a petition. The time period for this is 60 days before the primary. Is there an allegation that he wasn't eligible for such funds at the time he filed the petition, or at the 60-day deadline?

Without a hell of a lot more research, there's no way to say with certainty that McCain forfeits the delegates from Ohio.

quote:
I told y'all that it wasn't over until it was over.
Yeah, but Paul's still out of it whether McCain is the candidate or not.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
Why?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
First, even were McCain to lose his Ohio delegates, he is only 27 pledged delegates short of clinching with only pledged delegates, and still 55 ahead of what's needed from committed but unpledged delegates. He can get those 27 candidates in Pennsylvania.

Second, Paul has 21 delegates - more than 200 fewer than both Huckabee and Romney. He gets none even if McCain loses Ohio. There's absolutely no reason to think he wins a brokered convention even in the extremely unlikely event McCain doesn't take the nomination on the first ballot.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aspectre
Member
Member # 2222

 - posted      Profile for aspectre           Edit/Delete Post 
Third, Clinton could take the Nomination as the compromise candidate at a locked RepublicanNationalConvention.
As pooka said, "Remember the conservative wing, up to 1/3, of Republicans saying they would vote for Clinton over McCain?"

[ March 30, 2008, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]

Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 82 pages: 1  2  3  ...  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  ...  80  81  82   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2