Post by: Bigjake on February 16, 2008, 05:45:09 AM
I'm just disgusted this morning.
Post by: Standing Wolf on February 16, 2008, 06:14:03 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on February 16, 2008, 06:27:07 AM
(In before passive-aggressive paulistinians!)
Post by: Silver Bullet on February 16, 2008, 07:18:29 AM
Quote
the Republicans can't conjure up ONE stinkin conservative, articulate candidate.
You had your chance, and you blew it.
Post by: seeker_two on February 16, 2008, 07:32:23 AM
The fix may have been in from the beginning......
Post by: roo_ster on February 16, 2008, 08:49:41 AM
It is a mixture of viability-salvaging for when today's loser is 2012's candidate, again.
Also, there just might be a small bit of sincerity in their endorsement. It can happen.
Post by: Bigjake on February 16, 2008, 09:30:24 AM
Thompson just didn't want it.
(In before passive-aggressive paulistinians!)
(In before passive-aggressive paulistinians!)
just barely
Quote
You had your chance, and you blew it.
Didn't your guy get elected "President of teh Itarwebz" or something like that??
Post by: K Frame on February 16, 2008, 09:55:42 AM
Post by: Pew pew pew on February 16, 2008, 10:04:27 AM
If the Republicans in the various states wouldn't even vote for those guys in the primaries, what makes you think anyone would vote for them as candidates for the presidency?
The general sentiment that I see is even a lot Republicans are growing weary of the status quo in the party. Thompson or Hunter would have been buried. They would have had no chance in the general election. Only a moderate Republican could possibly be electable, and if Obama gets the nomination, McCain doesn't stand a chance.
Post by: ilbob on February 16, 2008, 10:08:43 AM
Interesting how jus about every Republican candidate who bowed out put his support behind McCain, isn't it?........
The fix may have been in from the beginning......
They are republicans. They support the party's nominee. What is so difficult about that for you to understand? Thats the way the 2-party system works.The fix may have been in from the beginning......
I can guarantee that whining about it on the Internet will change nothing, nor will sitting out the election, or voting for Mickey Mouse or anyone else who has a negligible chance of winning.
If you do not like the direction the republican party has gone, you have the opportunity to change it from the inside out. But that takes actual work, and Internet whiners are too damn lazy to do that.
RR was clearly the choice of the base of the party in 1976, but the party big wigs selected Ford instead, partly because he was an incumbent, and partly because they thought he was more electable. They may have been right about the electable part. RR than spent the next four years working hard for Republicans across the country and getting his message out. Remember what happened in 1980?
if Romney or Thompson really wants it bad enough, they could take it in 2012. If Obama or Hillary gets it, the end result will be about like Carter, and America will be glad to get rid of either and send them off to whatever retired presidents do.
Post by: seeker_two on February 16, 2008, 10:45:55 AM
Also, there just might be a small bit of sincerity in their endorsement. It can happen.
Sorry....what were you saying?.....
Post by: Brad Johnson on February 16, 2008, 12:43:23 PM
Quote
Thompson just didn't want it.
I don't see it that way. I think he truly thought that sincerety, a no-nonsense approach, and a solid record had a chance. Unfortunately, that tactic works in our media-driven society about as well as a turd in a punchbowl.
Brad
Post by: Tecumseh on February 16, 2008, 02:28:52 PM
Is that we have quite possibly the 2 most unelectable Dems in history running, and the Republicans can't conjure up ONE stinkin conservative, articulate candidate. Duncan Hunter or Fred Thompson would've absolutely WAILED on either of those socialists in the General Election, and we're stuck with McCain...
I'm just disgusted this morning.
I would look at the total amount of votes in the primaries. On average, more Democrats came out to vote in their primaries than Republicans, and independents showed up as well. The country does not want another Neo-Con like these guys. The whole big government, raise taxes, bomb everything, military industrial complex, and bilk the taxpayers out of millions to line our own contracts thing seems to be ending. I think the people are taking a major turn for the democratic version because it promises them healthcare and less war.I'm just disgusted this morning.
Either way the only real conservative is Ron Paul. The rest are just bags'oshit pretending to be conservatives.
Post by: Silver Bullet on February 16, 2008, 02:52:04 PM
Quote
Didn't your guy get elected "President of teh Itarwebz" or something like that??
I'm not feelin' sorry for you. You painted yourself in a corner.
Post by: wooderson on February 16, 2008, 03:55:50 PM
No matter how hard some try to paint him as a fringe candidate, the people don't seem to be buying it.
And Hillary - a woman with a huge amount of name recognition, tied into the above immensely popular former President, a legislative record that's difficult to attack because it was crafted to be all things to all people. I don't like her, and I think her negatives would make the race more competitive - but she's hardly less electable than Walter bleepin' Mondale or John Kerry.
The idea that Hunter and Thompson - a no-name and a sleepy grandpa - would wipe the floor with either of them requires serious ideological blinders. These guys didn't even have enough juice to win the nomination, much less run the table in the general. The country's mood is not amenable to party-line conservatives. Anti-immigrant rhetoric loses as many votes as it gains, and Thompson was basically a continuation of the Bush regime. Which is, I believe, still polling in the low-to-mid 30s.
Post by: wooderson on February 16, 2008, 03:58:27 PM
Post by: GigaBuist on February 16, 2008, 04:38:18 PM
If the Republicans in the various states wouldn't even vote for those guys in the primaries, what makes you think anyone would vote for them as candidates for the presidency?
I think it's safe to say that a majority of the voting population will rally behind their party of choice regardless of who's nominated.
Post by: K Frame on February 16, 2008, 05:54:45 PM
Post by: Bigjake on February 16, 2008, 08:05:04 PM
Quote
The country does not want another Neo-Con like these guys. The whole big government, raise taxes, bomb everything, military industrial complex, and bilk the taxpayers out of millions to line our own contracts thing seems to be ending.
Still ignoring your non-logic, just a little FYI.
I think it's safe to say that the only thing that it's safe to say is that it's not safe to assume anything anymore.
gotta be the truest post in this thread yet.
Post by: seeker_two on February 17, 2008, 02:58:31 AM
I think it's safe to say that the only thing that it's safe to say is that it's not safe to assume anything anymore.
I assume you're right.....
Post by: Strings on February 18, 2008, 04:37:54 PM
If Obama gets the nod, he might very well beat Mc Cain. Should Clinton get the nod, I'm thinking that Mc Cain could walk away with the win...
Post by: HankB on February 19, 2008, 03:58:35 AM
In the general election, face it, a lot of people will not vote for a black man simply because he's, well, black.
Which is a stupid reason to not vote for someone . . . does anyone doubt that someone like Walter Williams would make a better President than any of the current front-runners, including lily-white Hillary and John?
IF McCain can deal with ABCCBSNBCCNNMSNBC simply acting as the propaganda arms of the DNC and get out the message about where Obama stands on a lot of issues, Obama is toast.
That's a mighty big "IF" . . . especially since McCain isn't so hot himself.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 19, 2008, 05:40:27 AM
Made me smile, too. Wow, Obama is not only about empty rhetoric, but someone else's rhetoric?
Post by: Leatherneck on February 19, 2008, 10:15:27 AM
TC
Post by: Manedwolf on February 19, 2008, 10:16:28 AM
I laughed out loud when I returned to TV Land and learned what the media were flapping on about: supposed "plagiarism" for repeating a catchy phrase or two that somebody else had used first. Gimme a break...
TC
TC
For someone who keeps claiming that words are more important than actually defining policy stances, yes, it's an issue.
Anything that derails the guy is fine with me.
Post by: MechAg94 on February 19, 2008, 11:46:34 AM
Didn't many thing Carter would win his 2nd term? Kerry was looking like a runaway win in the Spring before the election.
I have heard people comment that Obama is great with prepared speeches, but not as good with debates or off the cuff talks. I haven't heard him speak enough myself, but there will likely be a couple of debates with McCain he has to get through.
Just a note also, Clinton was a very popular President (with Democrats), but he barely got a majority of the vote in his 2nd race and was far short of it in the first. What the media things is popular is not always what the voters think.
Post by: HankB on February 20, 2008, 03:39:01 AM
. . . Clinton was a very popular President (with Democrats), but he barely got a majority of the vote in his 2nd race . . .
He did not. In his re-election bid, Clinton received 49.2% of the popular vote, Dole 40.7%, and Perot got 8.4%. So Clinton was re-elected with a plurality, not a majority.
Post by: christopher on March 05, 2008, 05:24:47 PM
N.Y.TIMES LIES:
Published on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 by TruthDig.com
What the Times Didnt Tell About McCain
by Robert Scheer
As Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain twisted briefly in the wind kicked up by that New York Times story suggesting he had swapped political favors for the personal favors of an attractive lobbyist for the telecommunications industry, I kept waiting for the public policy punch line. Surely the Times would spell out just what it was that McCain had delivered to big media beyond what the paper originally reported: an all-too-typical congressional request that the FCC speed up its review of a broadcast licensing dispute.
Vicki Iseman, the lobbyist in question, is praised on her companys Web site for her extensive experience in telecommunications, representing corporations before the House and Senate Commerce Committees, and for her work on the landmark 1992 and 1996 communications bills. Now thats a biggie, because the 1996 legislation, although you would never have learned this from the mainstream media at the time, opened the floodgates for massive media consolidation, thus rewarding media moguls for their many millions in campaign contributions. McCain was a big player on that Commerce Committee at the time, and I expected a Times revelation as to just how Iseman got McCain to help gift the media barons with their dream legislation.
The revelation never came, because the annoying reality is that McCain was one of the rare Senate opponents of the telecom bill that Iseman was pushing-as opposed to The New York Times, which like every other major media outlet pushed for the legislation (in the case of the Times, without ever conceding its own corporations financial bias in the matter). McCain was one of five senators (and the sole Republican) who, along with Democrats Russ Feingold, Patrick Leahy, Paul Simon and the great Paul Wellstone, voted against the atrocious legislation, which President Bill Clinton signed into law.
The Times, which now has the temerity to question McCains integrity on telecommunications policy, ran a shameful editorial back then, under the headline A Victory for Viewers, insisting after the passage of the legislation that there was one clear winner-the consumer. Seven years later, the papers Editorial Observer, Brent Staples, bemoaned one direct consequence of the passage of the Telecom Act, under the title The Trouble with Corporate Radio: The Day the Protest Music Died. Noting that corporate ownership has changed what gets played-and who plays it, Staples observed that the top two radio owners went from having a total of 115 stations before the act was passed to 1,400 between them afterward.
This concentration of ownership in all media was the inevitable result of the legislation that the media moguls sought. That far-reaching impact was obvious only one year after the acts passage, as Neil Hickey noted at the time in the Columbia Journalism Review: & far and away the splashiest effect of the new law during the last year has been the historic, unprecedented torrent of mergers, consolidations, buyouts, partnerships, and joint ventures that has changed the face of Big Media in America. He then offers a staggering list of massive multibillion-dollar mergers consummated during that first year.
One of the early winners was Rupert Murdochs News Corp., which quickly became the biggest owner of television stations, bolstering its lineup of media properties such as TV Guide, HarperCollins and Twentieth Century Fox; quite a gift from legislation signed by President Clinton, which perhaps explains the warm relationship that subsequently developed between Murdoch and Hillary Clinton. Murdoch sponsored a fundraiser for Clintons senatorial re-election campaign in 2006, but when asked during the Iowa primary about Murdochs vast media holdings, including Fox News, the New York Post and The Wall Street Journal, Clinton ducked the question. Avoiding any reference to Murdoch, she conceded that & there have been a lot of media consolidations in the last several years, and it is quite troubling.
Its not easy to maintain an evenhanded appraisal of McCain as he appropriates the Bush mantle. Of course, I wouldnt vote for him; he is willing to let the Iraq war go on for a hundred years, and at the rate of at least $200 billion a year, that makes a mockery of his efforts to defeat earmarks and other wasteful government spending-beginning with the massive waste in the Pentagon budget that he has done so much to expose. His capitulation on President Bushs use of torture is even more appalling. But it is absurd to attempt to pigeonhole McCain as a patsy for corporate lobbyists when he has been in the forefront of key efforts to challenge their power.
Robert Scheer is editor of Truthdig.com and a regular columnist for The San Francisco Chronicle.
MORE McCain FACTS:
A lot of law enforcement officers will sit out election day if McCain is the GOP presidential candidate.
United States Border Patrol agents are not happy with Senator John McCain (R-AZ) since he voted for the Amnesty Bill (S. 2611). And theyre not being quiet about their collective anger over the senators actions and remarks.
According to members of the agents union Local 2544, Senator McCain has never been a friend to rank-and-file Border Patrol agents. Local 2544 represents US Border Patrol agents in Arizona, McCains home state.
He routinely ignores correspondence from Border Patrol agents and often gives the impression that he is just too big and too important to deal with us, they said.
He attempts to undermine our mission at every turn and actively supports the criminals who violate our laws. He always tries to downplay the fact that illegal aliens knowingly and willingly violate our laws, and he is a close ally on immigration matters with Senator Ted Kennedy, who we believe is the biggest disgrace of all time in the United States Senate.
These law enforcement agents point to Senator McCains imperious attitude towards rank-and-file Border Patrol agents and his complete disdain for their mission has been evident for many years.
Obama's LIES:
1. Special interests: In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as "special interest" money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of "working people" and says he is "thrilled" by their support
2. Public financing: Obama replied "yes" in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. Obama has now attached several conditions to such an agreement, including regulating spending by outside groups. His spokesman says the candidate never committed himself on the matter.
3. The Cuba embargo: In January 2004, Obama said it was time "to end the embargo with Cuba" because it had "utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro." Speaking to a Cuban American audience in Miami in August 2007, he said he would not "take off the embargo" as president because it is "an important inducement for change."
4. Illegal immigration: In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should "crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants." He replied "Oppose." In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that "we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation."
5. Decriminalization of marijuana: While running for the U.S. Senate in January 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the Oct. 30, 2007, presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana.
Obama's WORSE LIE:
How many times have you heard Obama say he doesn't take money from lobbyist/corporations/special interest?
But What Are The Facts?
Follow the money:
Who bought off your candidate?
Barack Obama: Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch, Capital One, Bank of Montreal, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Butterfield Bank, Resource Bank, Bain Capital, Mutual of America, Telemundo, La Pietra, Sankatt Investments, Transamerica Investment Mgmt., US Venture Partners, Sony Pictures, Warner Music Group, IBM, Lehman Bros., AT&T, Ticketmaster, Alantos Pharmaceuticals, 20th Century Fox, Aragon Global, UCLA Medical Center, AHMC Healthcare Inc., AV International, Fidelity Ventures, Clifford Law Firm, CCMP Capital, Cypruss Funds Investment Mgmt., Kaman Group, Solimar Ventures, Comcast, Sterne Assets, Citilink Investment Corp., Third Security, COSTCO, Sun Capitol Partners, Tudor Investment, Madison Investment, EMC Capital Mgmt., Bel Air Investment, Mirel Capital, Grandhara Capital, Lehman Bros., GB Capital, Citadel Investments, etc.
John McCain: PVS Chemical, Merrill Lynch, The Bank of NY, Univision, JP Morgan Chase, Near East Resources Ltd., Compass Bank, World Savings Bank, New York Life Insurance, Sanguine Gas Exploration, CISCO Systems, Wachovia Bank, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Moore Capital, The Carlyle Group, Prime Investments, Tenax LLC, Hantz Group, Hilton Hotels, The AES Corp., Highside Capital, New Mountain Capital, Vector Group LTD, Park Avenue Equity Partners, Red Eagle Venture, Star Lincoln Mercury, Pacific Growth Equities, Budweiser, Myers Financial, Globus Capital, Pomeroy & Pomeroy Insurance, Faison Group, Renco Group, Palmer Investments, QWEST, EM Capital Mgmt., FT Ventures, MGM Mirage International, Ameron International, Anderson Energy Corp., Plaines Capital Bank, NYSE Group, etc.
Hillary Clinton: JP Morgan, Citigroup, UBS Investment Bank, Goldman Sachs, Ameriprise Financial, Deutsche Bank, Wells Fargo, China Industrial, Wachovia Securities, HBO, The Husseini Group, Bank of NY, Verizon, Viking Global Investments, Trilogy Capital, Oaktree Capital, Farrallon Capital, Lanwilo Investments, Cimarron Group, Pharmcare, Entrust Capital, Morgan Stanley, KFC, Cantor Fitzgerald Securities, Charter Communications, Lilby Stearns, Nihigret Group, Black Saut Holding Co., Mahmood investment, America India Foundation, Candela Group, Hellman & Friedman LLC, US Russia Business Council, SBD LLC, Braddock Financial, Bank of SF, Comcast, Sitason International Inc., Cataldo Group, Van Brunt Dubiago & Co., Abrahms Capital, Bear Sterns & Co., Oracle, Scoggin Capital, Sana Security, etc.
As of 12/07 for a complete & current list of donations/candidates click:
www.opensecrets.org complete list of all FEC (Federal Election Commission) reports from each candidate.
Politicians want you to believe that their donations come from the public in small amounts but the truth is: "Even now, only about 2 percent of the public is giving to politicians."
The truth is: "politicians will say anything to get elected."
VOTING out one party & replacing them with the other party has not worked in the Congress or the Senate. Democrats promising to clean up pork & earmarks were elected & yet last years (2007), spending bills contained 11,900 pork barrel projects. At a cost to tax-payers of over $20 billion. Now were being asked to choose between a Republican/Democrat as our next president.
With politicians like these who needs enemies???
Candidates are raising large sums of money each election. Obama raised $36 million in January. Clinton aides said she raised $35 million in February, and estimates for Obama place his haul for the month at more than $50 million. McCain, who raised about $12 million in January, is on a similar pace for February, according to his campaign. Corporations making campaign contributions get to set our Energy policy, our Immigration policy, our Trade policies (or as they like to call it- greater access to our politicians.). Why else has there been no effort to secure our borders or lower our dependence on foreign oil since 9/11?
Democrats & Republicans are guilty of putting this nation at risk. And for what? Cheap foreign labor. Sen. John McCains Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill was wrote by corporate lobbyist to subvert the Constitution & make legal what is now illegal. At a cost to this nations security. Crooks like these (Sen.s Barack Obama & Hillary Clinton both signed & still support this bill as well as the Z-Visa) should be ran out of town. Instead their running for president.
Both parties are promising change. We hear it every 4 years. But the truth is they have almost the same financial backers & theres lobbyist bribing whichever party takes office (there's 35,000 lobbyist in Washington).
We need REAL CHANGE! The kind of change that can only come from new parties & publicly funded elections. Because as long as Big Oil can write our Energy policy, well always be dependent on foreign oil. As long as China can manipulate our Trade policies well always have record Trade deficits. There is a reason why nothing gets fixed in Washington.
REAL CHANGE doesn't come from the ballot box, change isn't a campaign slogan. Wether there is a Republican or Democrat in office when you look out your window what do you see? I see graffiti, crime, homelessness. I see broken families coming from broken homes living in broken communities. With broken borders & broken government...
You are invited to a frank discussion at:
http://www.votestrike.com this site was created for you, the voters, because whichever party you belong to- they have failed you.
"they give no ackowlegement of the damage that
their failure to perform their jobs does to masses
of their countrymen"
www.votestrike.com
SIMPLE TRUTHS:
1. Everyone agrees: Government is broke
2. Why is government broke?
Because our government is no longer run by civil servants (beholden to the people) but by corporate lobbyists (beholden to corporations). There are 35,000 lobbyists in Washington.
3. Who can fix this?
Voting out one party & replacing them with the other party no longer works- corporations/lobbyist have bought off all of our presidential wannabe's.
4. Then how do we fix this?
When your car breaks down you get out & fix it. When government no longer works (breaks down) it is the duty of the citizens to fix it.
QUESTIONS/COMMENTS: realchange@votestrike.com
www.votestrike.com
Project Vote Smart
A comprehensive database about thousands of candidates and elected officials for President, Congress, Governors and State Legislators.
thanks for your time, now go & be a good citizen!