The ONE AND ONLY Politics Thread

by **CrashburnAlley** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 22:41:51

mpmcgraw wrote:HA. But you think the international community has the right to hold a U.S. citizen in a court of law, but we don't have the right to liberate a nation by giving them a voice in their government after that opressive government caused us to go to war in the first place?

I can't quite understand your logic here tex, but ok.

Who said democracy is liberating (voting, for instance, is a meaningless activity)? This great democracy of ours is turning more and more authoritarian by the day.

We have the right to intervene if a leader or leaders is/are oppressing their constituents, but we have no right to tell them what type of government to set up.

With Saddam Hussein, for example (imagine we had legitimate reasons for going into Iraq), I think the world had a right to oust him, but we had no right to topple Iraq's government and institute democracy. They don't want democracy, never have, and never will.

by **Woody** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 00:15:20

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush poked fun at his potential successors Saturday night, expressing surprise that none of them were in the audience at the White House Correspondents' Association annual dinner.

"Senator McCain's not here," Bush said of GOP nominee-in-waiting John McCain. "He probably wanted to distance himself from me a little bit. You know, he's not alone. Jenna's moving out too."

Bush then referred to scandals that have dogged the campaigns of the two remaining Democratic candidates, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, in explaining their absence: "Hillary Clinton couldn't get in because of sniper fire and Senator Obama's at church."

by **swishnicholson** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 00:58:35

Woody wrote:
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush poked fun at his potential successors Saturday night, expressing surprise that none of them were in the audience at the White House Correspondents' Association annual dinner.

"Senator McCain's not here," Bush said of GOP nominee-in-waiting John McCain. "He probably wanted to distance himself from me a little bit. You know, he's not alone. Jenna's moving out too."

Bush then referred to scandals that have dogged the campaigns of the two remaining Democratic candidates, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, in explaining their absence: "Hillary Clinton couldn't get in because of sniper fire and Senator Obama's at church."

Well, at least now we know what Goo's up to these days.

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 09:46:50

The Washington Post says the youth vote will matter this cycle. I agree with them, and it'll hurt us. Hopefully crotchety old white people will balance them out.

And to that second point, Reverend Wright, please keep talking.

by **drsmooth** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:01:35

hoya, any comment on the story in today's WSJ suggesting Carly Fiorina's on McCain's short list for VP?

I imagine fiorina, the shamelessly self-promoting, hatchet-faced serial enterprise destroyer, is herself the source of these peculiar rumors.

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:30:01

I think McCain is so old that his VP choice needs to be seen as being very ready to be President, and I think it's basically impossible that someone who's never served in government can fit that role. I continue to think his choice will be a governor (Pawlenty or Sanford being the top two). Though Rob Portman keeps getting talked up by Bob Novak among others.

I don't understand the Romney thing. Why anyone would think picking him would be a good idea is beyond me.

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:45:00

Your daily Vast (W)Right Wing Conspiracy post:

1) Bill Kristol, channeling the entire VRWC (brave man), says the Clinton's aren't getting any respect. He's got me. Didn't I drunkenly complain about feeling bad for Hillary last week and hit on some of the other things he is talking about? Really, I'm awesome with being ahead of the curve on the talking points.

2) [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sPeQ2mKRro[/youtube]

I think it's safe to call this a trend. And if it works, it will continue. We don't have many other arrows in our quiver at the moment.

by **dajafi** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:54:54

Note the total lack of anything resembling substance in that ad with the Scary Black Man.

Here's my ad script, voiced by Jim Neighbors (if he's not dead--I can't keep track):

"When 'conservatives'--those people who've emptied the treasury, launched stupid wars and then totally botched their conduct, and decided that torture is fan-tastic--talk about 'values,' Mississippians should cover their pucker."

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 13:44:41

Like I said, not many arrows in the quiver.

I do like the NRCC's effort though. Not often the national committee puts out a better ad than a campaign.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tq2OLbeRME&e[/youtube]

by **dajafi** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 15:12:56

Sullivan on the campaign:

Isn't it a relief, by the way, for the MSM to have a presidential campaign in which no issues are actually discussed? This Wright-stuff is amazing to me. It's all the MSM seems to care about. Even coverage of McCain is now about his attitude toward an unhinged black pastor from Chicago. Hey: it beats discussing war, debt, the economy, torture, and terrorism. Because it enables America to return to the classic boomer racial-cultural wars that are all the MSM truly knows how to cover. There's nothing to be done right now but to duck and cover. And emerge when actual questions of actual salience emerge.

This is pretty much how I feel now. There's been some notice that McCain has some scary ideas about foreign policy, and might just be a hypocritical panderer whose policies substantially represent a slightly more competent Bushism; that none of the remaining candidates are offering much in the way of specifics regarding how they'll make their budget numbers add up; and at least one good piece about how Obama's plan to end the war in Iraq is almost certain to run into serious difficulties.

But you see very little of this anywhere that the non-obsessive weirdo might be expected to look.

by **Grotewold** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 15:16:03

I saw Obama on a Colbert show from last week and realized it was the first time I've seen him smile in like three months. That's probably not good.

by **dajafi** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 15:29:24

Grotewold wrote:I saw Obama on a Colbert show from last week and realized it was the first time I've seen him smile in like three months. That's probably not good.

The problem with Obama being a human rather than a ClintonBot is that he tends to react to the absurdity and misery of absurd and miserable things--like running for president for the better part of two years and counting--the way a human being does. He's bored and cranky and pissed off.

And who wouldn't be? The bullcrap and theatrics and news cycles and general absence of substance... supposedly he's doing more town halls and intimate gatherings in Indiana; the spin on this is that it's supposed to help him with working-class white voters, which might be true, but I also think he's trying to change up the pattern in hopes of finding some new energy.

I'll admit that for the first time in a long time, I'm beginning to worry that the Clintons will win the nomination. Not being human has its advantages. But more to the point, I wonder if this spectacle might reinforce the idea that the process of running for president has very little to do with the content of being president. Our last two winners were great candidates; Bill was terrible at first and wound up doing a decent job, while Bush has been a disaster of epic proportions. Shorter and more substantial would be a big step in the right direction.

by **jeff2sf** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 18:41:37

Wait, what?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080428/ap_ ... ce_ap_poll

Independents go more for Clinton over McCain than they do for Obama over McCain? This challenges everything I ever knew about everything.

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 18:54:41

jeff2sf wrote:Wait, what?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080428/ap_ ... ce_ap_poll

Independents go more for Clinton over McCain than they do for Obama over McCain? This challenges everything I ever knew about everything.

It makes perfect sense. Independents are generally less informed about politics than partisans. Low information voters are exactly the voters Obama has had troubles with.

by **jeff2sf** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 18:59:13

Really, despite the fact that Independents have won him a ton of primaries/caucuses?

Despite the fact that a fair bit of Non-dems do not like the Clintons?

by **CrashburnAlley** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 19:06:15

TenuredVulture wrote:
jeff2sf wrote:Wait, what?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080428/ap_ ... ce_ap_poll

Independents go more for Clinton over McCain than they do for Obama over McCain? This challenges everything I ever knew about everything.

It makes HAMELS sense. Independents are generally less informed about politics than partisans. Low information voters are exactly the voters Obama has had troubles with.

I might be an exception, but I consider myself an independent and I also consider myself politically astute. I view partisans as less informed simply by the fact that they're partisan and haven't realized that both Democrats and Republicans hurt the country more than help it. Party politics (blows raspberry). 8)

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 19:07:40

3 AM phone call Ad -> Losing Ohio and Texas -> Wright sermons -> Clinging to guns/God/hating brown people -> Debate -> Losing PA by 9% -> Wright won't go away...

Barack has had two trying months politically.

On the other hand he's still raising buckets full of money and hasn't done anything that has made it anything other an extreme improbability for him to fail to win the nomination.

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 19:45:27

The Supreme Court today upheld an Indiana law that requires voters to present a valid state issued photo ID in order to vote in a 6-3 plurality decision.

This was brought up last week regarding the PA primary and folks were surprised that they weren't asked to show ID.

by **drsmooth** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 20:11:57

jerseyhoya wrote:The Supreme Court today upheld an Indiana law that requires voters to present a valid state issued photo ID in order to vote in a 6-3 plurality decision.

This was brought up last week regarding the PA primary and folks were surprised that they weren't asked to show ID.

A practical-looking older woman on The News Hour opined tonight that the Indiana ID law would apply in the upcoming primary. If it was the law, and the court didn't put the kibosh on it, that makes sense.

If I were a judge my standard would be "if the ID is as easy to obtain as a lottery ticket, well ok then."

by **Philly the Kid** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 21:16:57

drsmooth wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:The Supreme Court today upheld an Indiana law that requires voters to present a valid state issued photo ID in order to vote in a 6-3 plurality decision.

This was brought up last week regarding the PA primary and folks were surprised that they weren't asked to show ID.

A practical-looking older woman on The News Hour opined tonight that the Indiana ID law would apply in the upcoming primary. If it was the law, and the court didn't put the kibosh on it, that makes sense.

If I were a judge my standard would be "if the ID is as easy to obtain as a lottery ticket, well ok then."

Well put smooth... the Supreme Circus Court is so right-winged and pollitical now with Scalia, Roberts, Alito and our man Clarence... anything that can help non republicans will always lose. The people most impacted by rulings like these are poorer, of color, etc... and those people don't usually vote Republican.

Archived

The ONE AND ONLY Politics Thread