Rolling politics thread...

by **dajafi** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 13:38:55

But the comparison only works if you think Gore has the same pathological need for validation through power that Tricky Dick possessed. I just don't see it.

I know that Nixon in '68 was regarded as somewhat a changed man (the last chapter of Ted White's "Making of the President 1968" is one of the most unintentionally funny things you'll ever read). And he did win mostly because the other party collapsed in on itself--which I could easily see happening to the Republicans next year.

But Gore just seems *happier* than he's ever been in the 30-odd years he's been in the public sphere. Why would he put that aside to subject himself once again to MSM idiots like Kitty Seelye (NYT) and Ceci "Rove's Stenographer" Connelly (Wash Post)?

Don't get me wrong here: I'd love it if you turned out to be right. Gore is a Democratic candidate I could support with enthusiasm, and I think he'd have a much, much better chance of a successful presidency than Hillary, with whom the Republicans won't allow any accomplishments from fear of a Limbaugh/Hannity/Dobson fatwa. But I don't think he wants it anymore, at least not enough to work for it.

by **TomatoPie** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 13:56:52

I've been predicting it for over 2 years; I do confess that I am getting nervous that he's not on the brink of declaring yet.

Either way, I know that the next Prez will be a Dem. I suppose if Hillary gets the nomination, Mitt could beat her. And a major segment of the left will be infuriated that Obama isn't on the ticket with her.

by **dajafi** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 14:11:35

TomatoPie wrote:I've been predicting it for over 2 years; I do confess that I am getting nervous that he's not on the brink of declaring yet.

Either way, I know that the next Prez will be a Dem. I suppose if Hillary gets the nomination, Mitt could beat her. And a major segment of the left will be infuriated that Obama isn't on the ticket with her.

I actually think Romney is the only candidate Hillary definitely beats. Her team just plays so much better than anybody else, and Romney's flip-floppery is something they will ruthlessly exploit.

Probably the best blocking-and-tackling presidential campaign of modern times was the Clinton re-election effort in '96. This is the same bunch, but they're even better now.

And nobody's going to be passionate for Romney. He's much smarter than Bush, but he's not as good a campaigner--and beyond the Mormon thing, which may or may not matter, he's just a plastic corporate guy in a suit who doesn't stand for anything or anyone. Who will get excited about that?

And though I wish this weren't the case, you vastly overestimate how committed Obama's supporters are to him. If he's not on the ticket--and he won't be--it won't hurt her at all. She's already beating him among African-American Dems.

Hillary's running mate probablly will be either Vilsack, Mark Warner (who'd be my choice--though, then again, I wanted him to run for president) or some rough 'n' tough military type like Clark or Webb. I doubt Webb would agree to it, but Clark probably would.

by **BuddyGroom** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 17:35:21

TomatoPie wrote:
Look at this list of clowns under Clinton:

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry G. Cisneros

Umm, Henry Cisneros?

TP - I've been a housing journalist much of my career and covered a number of HUD secretaries. Cisneros was the best of the 5-6 I covered in some way.

People who follow politics know that Cisneros infamously had a mistress before he was in the Clinton administration, that he admitted this to the FBI while being vetted for the HUD position, and that he was paying palimony. For some reason, he decided to lie about the amount of palimony he was paying - not that he was paying it or why, just the amount.

For that, he was subject to a special prosecutor investigation that dragged well into the Bush/Cheney years despite the fact that it dug up no other wrong-doing by Cisneros, who otherwise was a pretty clean guy and a good housing policy strategist and cheerleader, which is the HUD secretary's role.

This may be damning with faint praise, but Cisneros, on policy, on understanding the issues and on taking a serious and usually non-sensationalist approach (the public housing program, to cite just one example, easily lends itself to sensationalism at times) to the issues before him, was miles better as a HUD Secretary than Reagan's Samuel Pearce, who literally watched soaps in his office all day while his deputies turned the department into a Republican slush fund, and considerabley better than Bush Sr.'s Jack Kemp, who gave a darn about some of the issues but was a a self-promoter, Clinton's Andrew Cuomo, who was a Democratic version of Kemp, and Bush Junior's Mel Martinez and Alfonso Jackson, who were/are little more than yes-men, like most of the Bush/Cheney cabinet.

Cisneros had a peccadillo, but he was a serious and capable public servant.

by **jemagee** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 17:37:30

Hey, what's a little lying to congress...no one ever called shalala on it

by **TomatoPie** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 18:43:16

This is some history that they don't teach in college....

Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

1. Liberals; and
2. Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery.

That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQs and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that Conservatives provided.

Over the years Conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth; the elephant.

Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

A few modern Liberals like Mexican light beer (with lime added), but most prefer a chilled glass of Sauvignon Blanc, with passion fruit and kiwi aromas marked by grassy notes, then rounded out on the midpalate by peach flavors; crisp and refreshing, with a hint of chalky minerality on the finish. Or, Perrier bottled water. They eat raw fish but dislike beef. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare.

Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, Ivy League professors, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated-hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink Sam Adams, Harpoon IPA or Yuengling Lager. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, Marines, and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other Conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the Liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America.

by **phdave** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 19:11:56

Here's another thing they don't teach you in school: the Justice Department is taking orders from drug company executives

The night before the government secured a guilty plea from the manufacturer of the addictive painkiller OxyContin, a senior Justice Department official called the U.S. attorney handling the case and, at the behest of an executive for the drugmaker, urged him to slow down, the prosecutor told the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday.

John L. Brownlee, the U.S. attorney in Roanoke, testified that he was at home the evening of Oct. 24 when he received the call on his cellphone from Michael J. Elston, then chief of staff to the deputy attorney general and one of the Justice aides involved in the removal of nine U.S. attorneys last year.

Brownlee settled the case anyway. Eight days later, his name appeared on a list compiled by Elston of prosecutors that officials had suggested be fired.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 03:24:17

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQs and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women.

Albeit a joke... why do those on the starboard end of the political spectrum feel the need to over-masculinize themselves and those of kindred spirit, and emasculate (wussify) those unlike them? Is it reaffirmation to compensate for some sort of insecurity? An evangelical tactic? Superiority complex?

Just curious.

by **Bakestar** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 06:54:40

Phan In Phlorida wrote:
Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQs and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women.

Albeit a joke... why do those on the starboard end of the political spectrum feel the need to over-masculinize themselves and those of kindred spirit, and emasculate (wussify) those unlike them? Is it reaffirmation to compensate for some sort of insecurity? An evangelical tactic? Superiority complex?

Just curious.

Ken Mehlman

by **Disco Stu** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 07:29:10

TomatoPie wrote:This is some history that they don't teach in college....

Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

1. Liberals; and
2. Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery.

That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQs and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that Conservatives provided.

Over the years Conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth; the elephant.

Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

A few modern Liberals like Mexican light beer (with lime added), but most prefer a chilled glass of Sauvignon Blanc, with passion fruit and kiwi aromas marked by grassy notes, then rounded out on the midpalate by peach flavors; crisp and refreshing, with a hint of chalky minerality on the finish. Or, Perrier bottled water. They eat raw fish but dislike beef. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare.

Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, Ivy League professors, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated-hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink Sam Adams, Harpoon IPA or Yuengling Lager. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, Marines, and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other Conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the Liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America.

Coincides with "intelligent design".

by **drsmooth** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 09:58:33

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Albeit a joke... why do those on the starboard end of the political spectrum feel the need to over-masculinize themselves and those of kindred spirit, and emasculate (wussify) those unlike them? Is it reaffirmation to compensate for some sort of insecurity? An evangelical tactic? Superiority complex?

Just curious.

so, too, are those that craft & consume these 'funny stories'; not that there's anything wrong with that.

Notice too that the last 2 paragraphs have nothing to do with beer. Bait & switch!

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 14:03:13

Bakestar wrote:
Phan In Phlorida wrote:
Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQs and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women.

Albeit a joke... why do those on the starboard end of the political spectrum feel the need to over-masculinize themselves and those of kindred spirit, and emasculate (wussify) those unlike them? Is it reaffirmation to compensate for some sort of insecurity? An evangelical tactic? Superiority complex?

Just curious.

Ken Mehlman

Well, I knew it was part of the One Party Country agenda since such tactics have been employed for more than 20 years. I'm just curious as to why the "herd" also follows suit. I mean, there has to be a little more to the underlying psychology than the simplest explainations such as "parroting" or the basic cult dynamics.

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 14:32:40

Phan In Phlorida wrote:
Bakestar wrote:
Phan In Phlorida wrote:
Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQs and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women.

Albeit a joke... why do those on the starboard end of the political spectrum feel the need to over-masculinize themselves and those of kindred spirit, and emasculate (wussify) those unlike them? Is it reaffirmation to compensate for some sort of insecurity? An evangelical tactic? Superiority complex?

Just curious.

Ken Mehlman

Well, I knew it was part of the One Party Country agenda since such tactics have been employed for more than 20 years. I'm just curious as to why the "herd" also follows suit. I mean, there has to be a little more to the underlying psychology than the simplest explainations such as "parroting" or the basic cult dynamics.

I think some of it comes out of the evangelical movement, which really can be seen as somewhat castrating. You become born again, and you're no longer supposed to go drinking with the guys and you can't look at porn anymore, and forget about anything other than once a week (if you're lucky) missionary sex. They're supposed to prefer spending time with their family than anything else. They're taught to depend on God, rather than themselves. So these Vitter types go all subliminated, and the next thing you know they're paying people to put diapers on them.

by **phdave** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 19:31:01

Phan Paul wrote:forget about anything other than once a week (if you're lucky) missionary sex.

However, it is literally missionary sex, which is hott.

by **dajafi** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 21:37:55

Wondering how the anti-tax crowd is feeling about that bridge collapse in Minneapolis. Or is infrastructure just for The Little People?

by **jemagee** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 21:44:26

dajafi wrote:Wondering how the anti-tax crowd is feeling about that bridge collapse in Minneapolis. Or is infrastructure just for The Little People?

As I understand it, isn't it as 'exciting' as talking about the state of our public education and the need to spend money on it?

by **dajafi** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 21:51:51

jemagee wrote:
dajafi wrote:Wondering how the anti-tax crowd is feeling about that bridge collapse in Minneapolis. Or is infrastructure just for The Little People?

As I understand it, isn't it as 'exciting' as talking about the state of our public education and the need to spend money on it?

Also for The Little People.

Though I have to admit that the more I learn about public education, the more convinced I become that the conservatives have a point about the structural problems. Probably my single favorite moment of the presidential campaign thus far was when Obama addressed the NEA and told them he supported merit pay.

My least favorite might have come today, when the would-be Kinder Gentler Empress attacked Obama because he had the temerity to suggest he wouldn't use nuclear weapons in Pakistan or Afghanistan--essentially defending our right to do something unthinkably monstrous and evil.

by **TomatoPie** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 21:54:10

dajafi wrote:Wondering how the anti-tax crowd is feeling about that bridge collapse in Minneapolis. Or is infrastructure just for The Little People?

Yeesh, I didn't think that you'd be the first to blame this on Bush.

Those of us who favor smaller government do believe in the powers of the government to do two things: defense and roads.

by **mpmcgraw** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 21:54:47

Afghanistan?

WTF?

What would be the logic behind that? "If we kill 50 million people, a million of them might be terrorists!"

by **jemagee** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 21:59:58

TomatoPie wrote:
dajafi wrote:Wondering how the anti-tax crowd is feeling about that bridge collapse in Minneapolis. Or is infrastructure just for The Little People?

Yeesh, I didn't think that you'd be the first to blame this on Bush.

Those of us who favor smaller government do believe in the powers of the government to do two things: defense and roads.

Show me where he blamed bush? Dear god

Archived

Rolling politics thread...