|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: A 2012 US election thread
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Generally speaking, in the end, the American voters do the right thing.
No, they're just as stupid, credulous, gullible, lacking in discernemnt and willing to make important decisions specious grounds as any other group of people. They mostly happen to have been born in a place, or of parents with a particular nationality, which they didn't choose and then been fortunate enough to have survived to adulthood.
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Even if Obama drops out of the race, what Democratic politician has a better chance of winning the 2012 presidential election than the incumbent president? All of them will be open to the same criticism as Obama. Few of them will have the name recognition. Democrats disillusioned with Obama might hope he will be replaced by Hillary Clinton but it isn't going to happen.
Dick Durbin, the "other" Illinois senator, would make a good candidate. He's vertically-challenged, though, if that makes any difference!
It does--the historical record shows that the taller candidate usually wins.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Thought this might be worth bumping, given the Obama Hell thread.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
Hopefully someone will come up with a catchily titled POTUS thread but until then this rather pathetic one must suffice.
Newt is getting traction these days; I guess his bona fide 'conservative' credentials might be the root cause but who can say. He can at least string a few words together.
With no teleprompter. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
And this
quote:
When Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson accepted the reality that they could not effectively govern the nation if they sought re-election to the White House, both men took the moral high ground and decided against running for a new term as president. President Obama is facing a similar reality—and he must reach the same conclusion.
He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president's accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Never before has there been such an obvious potential successor—one who has been a loyal and effective member of the president's administration, who has the stature to take on the office, and who is the only leader capable of uniting the country around a bipartisan economic and foreign policy.
snip
Having unique experience in government as first lady, senator and now as Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton is more qualified than any presidential candidate in recent memory, including her husband. Her election would arguably be as historic an event as the election of President Obama in 2008.
By going down the re-election road and into partisan mode, the president has effectively guaranteed that the remainder of his term will be marred by the resentment and division that have eroded our national identity, common purpose, and most of all, our economic strength. If he continues on this course it is certain that the 2012 campaign will exacerbate the divisions in our country and weaken our national identity to such a degree that the scorched-earth campaign that President George W. Bush ran in the 2002 midterms and the 2004 presidential election will pale in comparison.
We write as patriots and Democrats—concerned about the fate of our party and, most of all, our country
from two Democratic pollsters (a breath of fresh air - admitting their Hillary bias ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) ) may be onto something - all I can say is ISTM at this writing if the Repubs can put up someone who can consistently fog a mirror Obama is in trouble.
He overreached, somewhat to my surprise.
I could be wrong about that.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Unfortunately, the Republicans don't have anybody.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
The entire Democratic Party is praying that New Gingrich is the nominee; the attack ads will write themselves. I can't think of any Democratic or Republican nominee in the last few decades who had have as much baggage as Newt Gingrich would.
Romney might fog a mirror, 205, but Republicans won't vote for him. They seem to think he has no reflection in that mirror.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
Romney can't help it--he was born with a silver broomstick up his ass.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Does this reflect a general view?
Is it my imagination, but following the Cain events, will the GOP nomination boil down to "last one standing?". Not sure whether there is a certain accident-proneness about, or maybe it's just "media at work" effects. Who has the least skeletons in the cupboard? No doubt we'll find out.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Unfortunately, the Republicans don't have anybody.
But as I see it any of the GOP nominees - even bonkers Ron Paul - would trounce the current president.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Unfortunately, the Republicans don't have anybody.
But as I see it any of the GOP nominees - even bonkers Ron Paul - would trounce the current president.
Recent polling data suggests the way you see it isn't well supported.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
But as I see it any of the GOP nominees - even bonkers Ron Paul - would trounce the current president.
As you see it John McCain would have trounced Obama in 2008 by a landside.
[ 03. December 2011, 16:22: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Unfortunately, the Republicans don't have anybody.
But as I see it any of the GOP nominees - even bonkers Ron Paul - would trounce the current president.
Recent polling data suggests the way you see it isn't well supported.
Given the weak economy, high unemployment rate, and Obama's lack of action on the jobs front, his re-election should be somewhere between "difficult" and "impossible". The fact that it apparently isn't is a testament to the weakness of the current Republican slate of potential candidates.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 205:
And this
quote:
When Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson accepted the reality that they could not effectively govern the nation if they sought re-election to the White House, both men took the moral high ground and decided against running for a new term as president. President Obama is facing a similar reality—and he must reach the same conclusion.
He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president's accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Never before has there been such an obvious potential successor—one who has been a loyal and effective member of the president's administration, who has the stature to take on the office, and who is the only leader capable of uniting the country around a bipartisan economic and foreign policy.
snip
Having unique experience in government as first lady, senator and now as Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton is more qualified than any presidential candidate in recent memory, including her husband. Her election would arguably be as historic an event as the election of President Obama in 2008.
By going down the re-election road and into partisan mode, the president has effectively guaranteed that the remainder of his term will be marred by the resentment and division that have eroded our national identity, common purpose, and most of all, our economic strength. If he continues on this course it is certain that the 2012 campaign will exacerbate the divisions in our country and weaken our national identity to such a degree that the scorched-earth campaign that President George W. Bush ran in the 2002 midterms and the 2004 presidential election will pale in comparison.
We write as patriots and Democrats—concerned about the fate of our party and, most of all, our country
from two Democratic pollsters
Well, yes. President Obama is not equal to his job. I think we Democrats have realized this. And, yes, Hillary Clinton has been a remarkably effective Secretary of State.
But wouldn't it be much more productive for the Clinton faction in the Democratic Party to "support" this young man until he finishes out his second term in dignity, running things for him behind the scenes, using (for example) Bill Clinton's most recent book as the script for his second term, positioning Hillary Clinton as his successor, and uniting the entire party behind her?
The degree of self-command this will require of all factions will demonstrate over the next four years that the Clinton Democrats are fit to govern the country. That has always been my question about them -- they came across as too grabby and self-interested in the early days. Perhaps they've matured.
The problem IMHO is not really with President Obama per se. He makes an excellent figurehead and can deliver a fine speech. If the US were a constitutional monarchy, we would be fortunate to have him as king.
The problem lies in his naive dealings with Congress, but this is at least partly the fault of the rank and file Congressional Democrats, who come across as timid, weak, and ashamed to wield power.
Obama also considerably underestimated the sheer bloody-mindedness of the extreme right-wing Republican faction. Neither Clinton will make that mistake!
As David Brooks said recently, the Republicans are operating in a morality-free zone; any tactic at all is acceptable, as long as it works. We can all be glad, I think, that they are now turning their fire on one another. They certainly have demonstrated their utter unfitness for the responsibilities of government over the past twelve years. It is only the weakness of the Democrats that has kept them in power this long. Once they are gone, a respectable center-right party might begin to rebuild itself.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
With unemployment plummeting all the way to 8.6% Obama may yet get another term.
Can you imagine how great it would be if it was all the way down around 7% next summer?!
And don't forget his strong moves against the "bad guys" of the world. That will surely help him with a large segment of voters. Executive assassination without regard to nationality or national borders is awesome!!
That waterboarding and Abu Ghraib business was just terrible. I mean, people were made to feel as though they were drowning, and humiliating photos were taken of them! ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
I'm pulling for him, I truly am.
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Other peoples' politics are always a bit mystifying. But could I ask a polite question of US shipmates.
Our papers have recently been saying that Newt Gingrich has quite a good chance of being the Republican candidate in next year's election, simply as the last man standing.
I've asked this once before, but I don't think anyone ever answered my question. Is he the same person as the man who some years ago managed to push through a vote that temporarily froze all government expenditure and caused day to day administration to seize up? Or am I imagining that?
Also, how does someone end up being called Newt? It conjures up to some of us over here, this character . Obviously a candidate should not stand or fall on the nickname foreigners are likely to give him, but if he became an international figure, he'd be bound to end up being known here as Gussie.
The whole idea would be a bit like having President Boris.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is he the same person as the man who some years ago managed to push through a vote that temporarily froze all government expenditure and caused day to day administration to seize up? Or am I imagining that?
Here you go.
He was also the man who led the House of Representatives back when they used to actually do a budget. I think they had 3 or 4 balanced budgets during his tenure, which helped produce the (projected) surpluses for which Bill Clinton happily takes credit to this day.
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I've asked this once before, but I don't think anyone ever answered my question. Is he the same person as the man who some years ago managed to push through a vote that temporarily froze all government expenditure and caused day to day administration to seize up? Or am I imagining that?
Also, how does someone end up being called Newt?
Yep, same guy. His given name is actually "Newton", from which "Newt" is derived. It's a custom in certain parts of the American south that the first male child born to marriage is given the mother's maiden name as a first name. Another notable beneficiary/victim of this system was Truman Capote.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
Just in: Cain suspends Presidential bid.
If only he had been a white dim....who knows what coulda happened.
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
If he'd been a white Democrat, the news media would have gone all out to discredit the women who made the allegations against Cain.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
If he'd been a white Democrat, the news media would have gone all out to discredit the women who made the allegations against Cain.
Oh please. The media never did that with the Clinton affair. They can't resist a good sex scandal no matter where it comes from or who it's directed at.
It is interesting how differently the GOP acts towards Cain's indiscretions as opposed to Clinton's. Or Weiner's. Or Edward's.
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
What romanlion and New Yorker are trying to say is, "We really wish the media would have treated Herman Cain the same way they treated John Edwards."
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Oh please. The media never did that with the Clinton affair. They can't resist a good sex scandal no matter where it comes from or who it's directed at.
True. Just like Gary Hart.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What romanlion and New Yorker are trying to say is, "We really wish the media would have treated Herman Cain the same way they treated John Edwards."
You mean being torn to shreds for having an affair while his wife is dying of cancer. Elizabeth was elevated to saint status and John became the scum of the earth. He's facing criminal charges with a court date scheduled for January.
If you're referring to the hesitancy of the "mainstream media" at first to accept The Inquirer's word for it without proof, that's understandable. I don't believe a word in that rag until there is outside credible substantiation of an article.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
The National Inquirer broke the story because the rest of the media wasn't looking for any dirt on John Edwards. The New York Times ran a hit piece on John McCain with virtually no evidence at all but missed the fact John Edwards had a child with his mistress? The Times and company missed it because they weren't looking for it.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JSwift:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Oh please. The media never did that with the Clinton affair. They can't resist a good sex scandal no matter where it comes from or who it's directed at.
True. Just like Gary Hart.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) If that's sarcasm, I don't get it? Though as a disclaimer, Gary Hart's a bit before my time (well, before I got interested in national affairs: I was more interested in Lego's at the time), I looked him up on the all-knowing wikipedia, but can't see what you're driving at?
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What romanlion and New Yorker are trying to say is, "We really wish the media would have treated Herman Cain the same way they treated John Edwards."
No... New Yorker's claim was that the media would have done everything they could have to discredit the women making the allegations. When has the media ever done that for a white Democrat? Or for any politician?
Also, you can't really compare the two situations. There are a lot of women making a lot of allegations against Cain. The J. Edwards scandal didn't have nearly as much credibility in the beginning.
As a side note, I'm getting a much-needed chuckle out of Republican's playing the ever-so-hated race card. Thanks for that guys!
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
If that's sarcasm, I don't get it? Though as a disclaimer, Gary Hart's a bit before my time (well, before I got interested in national affairs: I was more interested in Lego's at the time), I looked him up on the all-knowing wikipedia, but can't see what you're driving at?
No sarcasm at all. Just agreeing with you and providing another example. The press didn't suppress his shenanigans but instead exposed them.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
When did they do it for the Democrats? I'll bet Paula Jones would have loved to be treated as well as the women making allegations against Herman Cain. By the time it was all said and done, the national media was arguing Bill Clinton had a right to commit perjury provided he only lied about sex. Sure, the case in question was about sex...but...he needed to get back to running the country (yeah, that's the ticket).
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Well, in a sane world the media should have torn to shreds Cain's economic policy (999, etc.) which no economist thought was workable. And they would have questioned his utter lack of knowledge about foreign affairs ("Uzbekikikikistan", "Libya who?", etc.). They should have questioned how his commitment to small government and tax cuts could be reconciled with expensive, "big government" initiatives like an electrical "Great Wall" fence and moat (with alligators!) on the 3,200km-long Mexican frontier, and "big government" intrusion into our lives through a National ID and police checks to ensure we're not illegals. They certainly should have questioned his mean-spirited bigotry toward Muslims (who would have been banned from government employment) whose mosques he advocated be legally banned, since that actually violates the Constitution.
But people don't seem to care about the real questions when there's a good sex scandal. It's as ridiculous as the media's fixation over Rick Perry's failure to remember the name of one of the government departments he wanted to cut, but total disregard over the fact that Perry shows no concern over whether he may have executed innocent people (which given Texas' racial legacy and corrupt judicial system is very likely.) Evidently, "big government" killing people convicted through a corrupt system doesn't seem as important as big government funding government services benefiting the wrong people with our tax dollars.
So now we're left with Newt, the "smartest guy in the room" who thinks [only] poor kids don't understand the work ethic, so advocates getting rid of child labour laws that they can be put to work doing manual labour, yet is strangely silent about rich kids in a country where 70% of the upper class' wealth is inherited, rather than earned through hard work.
Obama may be a big disappointment for me, but I'll be volunteering to get out the vote for him.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The National Inquirer broke the story because the rest of the media wasn't looking for any dirt on John Edwards. The New York Times ran a hit piece on John McCain with virtually no evidence at all but missed the fact John Edwards had a child with his mistress? The Times and company missed it because they weren't looking for it.
In both Cain's and Clinton's cases women were coming out of the woodwork to report the affairs or mistreatment. In Edward's case it was one mistress and both went to extraordinary efforts to hide the affair. The Inquirer shadowed his every move for months before they finally caught him - but they initially had no proof and a woman who claimed the child was someone elses. There hadn't been a whiff of sexual impropriety before for Edwards where everyone around Clinton and Cain all knew, even if they didn't report to the media until after their candidacy for President was in full swing. Major differences in these cases.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
Leave aside for a moment Clinton's multiple affairs, rape accusations, and perjurious grand jury testimony and imagine if you will the idea of the shrub, Bush I, or even Reagan being blown in the oval office by a 19 year old volunteer intern.
Do you truly believe that they would continue to enjoy the kind of media treatment and credibility provided Bill Clinton?
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Comparing Cain's situation with Clinton, or Weiner, or Edwards betrays the double standard.
The only elected POTUS ever to be impeached is given a kind of rock star treatment when he was clearly a liar and a cheat and possibly a sexual predator. Who are the subjects of ridicule and derision? Monica and Paula.
Edwards got cover for as long as the press could provide it. Certifiable, undeniable scumbag and he could have been elected for Pete's sake. It took a tabloid to finally bring him down.
Weiner tweeted photos of his penis.
Cain denies all charges and as far as I know there is still no smoking gun. I don't care either way that he is out because I was never going to vote for him or any other GOP nominee in the general. I am just struck by the hypocrisy of much of the media.
Obama will need every bit of it if he is to prevail.
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I can understand that from a media viewpoint, a one-horse GOP candidate race would be a bit of a bore. But Gingrich surging, Romney slumping and getting testy? The party faithful going for Gingrich at the same time as the party leaders and influencers are reckoning Romney has the best chance? Is this for real, or just part of the floor show before Romney gets the votes?
Democracy, US style, in action again. Expect the unexpected turns and twists.
But I should think Obama and team would be happier fighting Gingrich. More to aim at. And not just because he's put on a few pounds.
[ 04. December 2011, 07:15: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Good candidates rarely volunteer to challenge a sitting president. Why bother? They can wait another four years, let fatigue with the current administration set in, and then run against a less entrenched challenger. Bush was a weak president in 2004. The Democrats decided to run the junior senator from Massachusetts who in 3 terms in the Senate had accomplished virtually nothing. In 96, the Republicans ran Bob Dole. In addition to being old, Dole constantly referred to himself in the third person and was exciting as yesterdays newspaper. Even though Clinton won in 92, the press called the Democratic candidates of that year "dwarfs." Clinton was the governor of a small state known for giving a long speech at the Democratic National Convention. Walter Mondale was the VP of the president Reagan trounced four years earlier. Reagan was older than dirt, a washed up B movie actor, and a loser in the previous Republican primary.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Isn't it more like the end of Carter's presidential term? Obama is, objectively, vulnerable on his record; there's a lot of disappointment amongst his supporters (some of which has been reflected in this thread).
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Isn't it more like the end of Carter's presidential term? Obama is, objectively, vulnerable on his record; there's a lot of disappointment amongst his supporters (some of which has been reflected in this thread).
The GOP voters hate their candidates, the Democrat voters dislike their President - what are the chances of everyone staying home on election day? Or will everyone go, hold their noses and vote? People ridicule me for my habit of either voting 3rd party or doing write ins, but I'm sick of the losers and scumbags who end up running. I value my right to vote, which is the only reason I show up to do my duty.
Last presidential election I might have held my nose and voted for McCain if he hadn't made Palin his running mate and might have held my nose and voted for Clinton (who is really dictating foreign policy even as Obama screws up his end) but had to do a write in as I couldn't find a 3rd party candidate who looked decent.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
When did they do it for the Democrats? I'll bet Paula Jones would have loved to be treated as well as the women making allegations against Herman Cain. By the time it was all said and done, the national media was arguing Bill Clinton had a right to commit perjury provided he only lied about sex. Sure, the case in question was about sex...but...he needed to get back to running the country (yeah, that's the ticket).
This is how I recall it. Paula Jones and Monica being torn to shreds and Clinton being praised to high heaven for perjury. Of course, the whole point of the impeachment was perjury not sex. That got lost in the whole story. Sad days for journalism.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Well, yes. President Obama is not equal to his job. I think we Democrats have realized this.
If I've been following things accurately I believe a comment like that pretty much means you are 'racist'.
And furthermore if you'd just admit it we could all move on to ignoring anything else you ever say. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Sad days for journalism.
Newt on the news.
quote:
Gingrich said he would inform himself on the issue, and then joked, “One of the real changes that comes when you start running for president – as opposed to being an analyst on Fox – is I have to actually know what I’m talking about.”
This could well mean he's absolutely locked up the nomination and the Presidency.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Who are the subjects of ridicule and derision? Monica and Paula.
I seem to recall Clinton being ridiculed quite a lot.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But I should think Obama and team would be happier fighting Gingrich. More to aim at. And not just because he's put on a few pounds.
If the attack ads by the Dem's are anything to go by, I'm sure Obama et al feel the same way. They've done all they can to keep Romney from winning the GOP nomination.
Personally I think it's a mistake to underestimate Gingrich. He's got a lot of baggage, but he's proven himself to be capable of working with the opposing party and he's economically savvy. The right won't really rally around Romney in the national election as much as they might around Gingrich, and personally I think he could sway a lot of independents who just want POTUS to do something, anything really, about the current economic troubles.
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Leave aside for a moment Clinton's multiple affairs, rape accusations, and perjurious grand jury testimony and imagine if you will the idea of the shrub, Bush I, or even Reagan being blown in the oval office by a 19 year old volunteer intern.
Do you truly believe that they would continue to enjoy the kind of media treatment and credibility provided Bill Clinton?
I believe the correct quote here is: "It's the economy, stupid."
Clinton was mocked to the heavens for his philandering ways. He also turned in year-on-year budget surpluses. Which, IIRC, was more than Bush I, II, or Reagan managed.
I'm guessing there's some slack to be cut in Clinton's favour.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 205:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Well, yes. President Obama is not equal to his job. I think we Democrats have realized this.
If I've been following things accurately I believe a comment like that pretty much means you are 'racist'.
And furthermore if you'd just admit it we could all move on to ignoring anything else you ever say.
No, no, it simply means he's not equal to his job. Dear heavens, man! But you know that.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
A point of information: Bill Clinton was not the only president to be impeached. Andrew Johnson was the first president to be impeached. The reason why Andrew was impeached was because he tried to remove Secretary of War Stranton. The House Republicans, in reality, did not like him because he was a former Democrat. He was found not guilty by one vote in the Senate. After he left the presidency he became a Senator.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Isn't it more like the end of Carter's presidential term? Obama is, objectively, vulnerable on his record; there's a lot of disappointment amongst his supporters (some of which has been reflected in this thread).
The big difference is Jimmy Carter faced a primary challenge from Ted Kennedy. While both liberals and blue dogs are unhappy with him, Obama still doesn't have a primary challenger. The only incumbent president in the last century that lost his bid for reelection after facing no challenge for his parties nomination was Herbert Hoover.
quote:
originally posted by Gramps49:
A point of information: Bill Clinton was not the only president to be impeached. Andrew Johnson was the first president to be impeached. The reason why Andrew was impeached was because he tried to remove Secretary of War Stranton. The House Republicans, in reality, did not like him because he was a former Democrat. He was found not guilty by one vote in the Senate. After he left the presidency he became a Senator.
Andrew Johnson was impeached but he was never elected president.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
A point of information: Bill Clinton was not the only president to be impeached. Andrew Johnson was the first president to be impeached. The reason why Andrew was impeached was because he tried to remove Secretary of War Stranton. The House Republicans, in reality, did not like him because he was a former Democrat. He was found not guilty by one vote in the Senate. After he left the presidency he became a Senator.
2nd point of information: I never said that Clinton was the only POTUS to be impeached.
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
But wouldn't it be much more productive for the Clinton faction in the Democratic Party to "support" this young man until he finishes out his second term in dignity, running things for him behind the scenes, using (for example) Bill Clinton's most recent book as the script for his second term, positioning Hillary Clinton as his successor, and uniting the entire party behind her?
I know I'm quoting from a ways up thread, so feel free to ignore me but...
Surely Hillary is one of the most polarizing people in US politics?! The notion of uniting anything behind her seems rather implausible to me.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Not just that, but it's difficult to position yourself as something new and different when you're the highest-ranking cabinet official of the current administration.
As usual, The Onion sums up Herman Cain's campaign perfectly.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Obama may be a big disappointment for me, but I'll be volunteering to get out the vote for him.
Which is an expression of the great democratic dilemma: Is an election a referendum on the past performance of the incumbent, or a choice between options for who will be best (or least bad) in the next term?
The Dems have got to hope it's the latter; the GOP will be mercilessly pursuing the former.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Obama may be a big disappointment for me, but I'll be volunteering to get out the vote for him.
Which is an expression of the great democratic dilemma: Is an election a referendum on the past performance of the incumbent, or a choice between options for who will be best (or least bad) in the next term?
The Dems have got to hope it's the latter; the GOP will be mercilessly pursuing the former.
Unfortunately, we don't have the option of voting "none of the above." So one of these fools is going to end up as POTUS. I'll probably vote for Obama. but I would seriously consider voting for a third party candidate if there were one -- the extent to which Obama has enraged me is more than I thought possible. His smarmy insistence that no laws were broken in the Wall Street meltdown has alienated me for good.
If anyone were to run who was less a tool of corporate interests, I would likely vote for that person over him (including that whacko Ron Paul). But I don't expect anything other than a Tweedle-Dee/Tweedle-Dum choice. I know I'm being jerked around by the elites with hot-button social issues to distract from their plundering of the country, but there just plain isn't any alternative. It's enough to make you want to take up residence in a local park and scream while beating a drum...
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Hillary is one of the most polarizing political figures...?
Apparently she was well liked as a New York Senator. She was able to work with Mayor Guliani after 9/11. She was reelected by a very wide margin in 2006.
She has a lot of respect in diplomatic circles. When she speaks, people listen
I think I see a theme here. If you are Republican there is nothing Obama or Hillary can do that you will find favor with.
If you want to talk about polarizing figures, how about Newt, Boehner, Rove, Trump, Cantor, Grover Norquist?
But, then again, you would probably accuse me of being a Democrat.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
But I don't expect anything other than a Tweedle-Dee/Tweedle-Dum choice.
To be honest, I don't remember the last time that wasn't the case. I think a lot of liberals were taken in by Obama's rhetoric, but in the end I think he ended up being another Tweedle.
If I weren't married I'd probably take up hermatige in Alaska and forget about the whole bought-out, greased-up mess of 'em. As it is I'm probably going to vote Obama... or just hit the pub on election day. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Gramps49:
Hillary is one of the most polarizing political figures...?
Yep, Hillary is a polarizing figure.
quote:
originally posted by Gramps49:
If you want to talk about polarizing figures, how about Newt, Boehner, Rove, Trump, Cantor, Grover Norquist?
Newt was a polarizing figure in the late 90's. He may still be. We will see. As Speaker's of the House go, Boehner isn't all that polarizing. Rove and Norquist definitely are. Cantor probably is. Trump? To be polarizing, somebody has to really like you. I don't know anybody who really likes Trump.
quote:
originally posted by Gramps49:
But, then again, you would probably accuse me of being a Democrat.
or something like that
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
