Recent news about the 3rd quarter presidential candidate fund raising numbers has been dismal for the Republicans. The top Republican, Mitt Romney ($10 million) barely out did the number three Democrat John Edwards ($8 million). Democrats Clinton and Obama ran away with it at $22 and $20 million respectively. Republican Fred Thompson matched Edwards $8 million, and Republican Rudy Giulliani isn’t talking.
I asked some of my Republican friends what they thought was up. And without exception the consensus was that they didn’t feel like there was anyone they could get behind. They cannot overlook the fact that Giulliani is pro-choice and pro-gun control despite recent attempts to soften his rhetoric on those issues. Romney too has a past where he was pro-choice, but now says he has had a change of heart. But his health care system he got enacted in Massachusetts, for Republicans amounted to socialized medicine. And the only other viable Republican candidate, Fred Thompson also has a past placing him on the wrong side of the abortion issue and other than that, no one knows a whole hell of a lot about him. 
Tony Parkins, the spokesman for a group of churches identified with the Christian Right has stated that if Giulliani gets the nomination, they would back a third party candidate. That statement is totally unprecedented and I believe signals the beginning to a major shift in the base of the Republican Party. If the Christian Right goes free-agent, that represents a possible loss of a full third of the Republican voting base. That would leave the GOP with a choice of either moving farther Right in order to regain the disgruntled Christian Right, or moving towards the center to attract Independents and conservative Democrats. Unfortunately for the upcoming 2008 election, achieving the former doesn’t seem very likely. And unless one of the three Republican frontrunners makes the unlikely move of doing a 180 on the war, there's no chance of making the latter scenario work.
Unless something akin to a meteor hitting the earth happens, the 2008 presidential election is looking darker and darker for the Republican Party. GOP support hasn’t been this soft since 1976 when a peanut farmer from Georgia beat the snot out of a sitting Republican president. And the Democrats aren’t running a peanut farmer this time. Whether it’s Clinton, Obama, or Edwards, its curtains for whatever Republican gets the nod.
And that’s not all folks. With support this soft, turnout combined with the fact that the Democrats have already gained control of the House and Senate will significantly strengthen that control with much larger majorities.
What I am hoping for is that we are seeing the beginnings to a shift in the attitudes of Americans away from the “me-first” mentality of the Right, to the “we-can-do-anything” mentality of the Left.
*******************
Devin Barber, Politics Correspondent
Devin’s column, “Left Of The Right” published twice weekly or more to Gather Essentials: Politics is a Blue Collar Democrats take on current political news.
Devin was raised by proud Roosevelt Democrats. Being the son of parents counted among the throng of Americans displaced by the Great Depression has given Devin a deep rooted passion for causes dealing with the poor and the working class.
You can find all of Devin’s columns at http://gather.com/leftoftheright
You can keep up with Devin’s postings and his Gather activity by joining his Gather network. Just click here: http://kiwina58.gather.com and then select the orange “Connect” button on the left-hand side of the page.
You can find Devin and other Political Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other politics experts at Politics.gather.com.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 98 ( 2 removed by Devin Barber )
Ron,
Amen, but If she does get into the White House we will have to let her know we won't put up with any half *ssed stuff like dragging her feet on the war, or welfare style health care bills.
The average American understands that guns can be fun but some gun control is necessary. They also understand that abortion is distasteful, but must be kept legal so that it can be regulated. They also understand that globalization is a key to world involvement and continued success for our country, but not at the cost of millions of American jobs and cheaper more dangerous foreign made products. They believe in stopping atrocities and bringing criminals to justice, but not in starting wars that devastate countries and kill innocent populations in order to do this.
In order for a party to be viable it must fit the working understandings that the majority of Americans have about life in our country and in our world.
The Republicans have presented themselves as quite out of step with the majority of our common folk, and foisted attitudes of being superior beings who should be obeyed.
Americans do not want to serve or support any governmental Reich.
But the key question will be what they do if they get the power . . . Holding power without using it is tantamount to losing it. These guys need to grow some teeth and stop allowing the absurd pushing around by the other side that they seem to endure for no reason too.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Probably the best candidate for the Republicans is John McCain but his stance on all things war and his backing of Bush is going to keep him from gaining the moderates and Democrats so he doesn't have a chance in hell winning with only the Religious Right behind him and I'm pretty sure they aren't behind him.
What to do? What to do? This early in the season and we are almost assured of a Democratic President. I wouldn't want that job for any reason. There is so much Bush screwed up, it will take until sometime after the second term to really begin to be the people's President. The rest of the time will be taken up trying to undo everything Bush has done over the last 8 years. If he goes into Iran, God help us all! Democratic President or not, our economy will fall so fast it is going to make everyone's head spin with $10 gas and surcharges on everything Americans eat, use, or drive.
The old saying, til the fat lady sings. As an American I have observed most of my life, that we tend to underestimate our enemies. And YES, the republibots are our enemy. Don't get fooled by their "Clinton's your gal" crap. That's just what they want. They know that Clinton will kill that third party and send the evangelicals running right back to the right. Be very careful how you proceed.
I heard someone say that McCain or even Huckabee could move forward as the GOP Dark Horse and - it is still early so I wouldn't count either one out just yet - especially with Giuliani upsetting the "Christian" Right as he does.
Mary,
I am sorry to pick on you, but it is this kind of blind leading the blind following that upsets me.
Do you really think that the other candidates "Don't support your Constitutional rights?". How about "Big Gov't?" What does that mean? I don't think anyone can truly understand that phrase. And what does "believes in everybody" exactly refer to?
When stating a position or supporting a candidate, I would prefer everyone cite specific moral or ethical points that would clearly define the character or personality of said individual. For example:
I cannot vote Republican because the Republican party is aligned with:
*The far religious right
*Creationism
*Book banning
*Lack of gun control
*Euthanasia
*ignorance of civil rights
*weak legislation on environmental issues
*opposition and even hate crimes against homosexuality
*opposition of stem cell research
*opposition of abortion or exceptions
See! Now those are positions that I can look for in a candidate
Oh, I didn't vote for him.
I think we're do for a major shift in politics and not just a swing of the pendulum to the Left. But a major rethinking of what governments role is. Irresponsible behavior by large corporations and whole industries has too much effect on our nations economy and international reputation to remain in the unregulated state that exists today. This country belongs to it's citizens and they should have a say in how these entities represent us internationally and how they behave at home and abroad. I also believe we need to rekindle the spirit of America that did things like build an interstate highway system, or sent men to the moon and safely returned them home again. There are plenty of challenges, and together we could meet those challenges and the result of such endeavors is always a vibrant and robust economy.
>> when a peanut farmer from Georgia beat the
>> snot out of a sitting Republican president.
Oh God .... and look what we got then! :-(
If the pendulum of politics is swinging Left, I hope it stops near the middle. Centrists, both conservative and liberal, can and will cooperate to get things done. As for the extremes, both right and left, a pox on both their houses.
>> I think there might be a lot of truth to the fact that
>> republicans have not yet made up their minds. On
>> the other hand many people do not until they
>> actually pull the lever.
The only way the Democrats have to lose this race is to
give it away. I'm afraid they are going to do that. With
Hillary Clinton talking to people about giving children
$5000.00 bonds for being born, and Barack Hussein
Obama as the alternatives I think many Americans are
thinking long and hard.
The last 8 years have proven one thing at least, this
country can survive almost anything. I admit I'd like to
see a Democrat in the White House, albeit, Joe Biden,
and I think any of the frontrunnners would do OK, but
past history with Gore and Kerry has shown a lackluster
Democrat with no real vision for the future and balls to
pursue it is a real gamble against a down home Republican
good ole boy, like it or not.
I really hope the Democrats with all this money (wonder if
some of that money's Republican investment?) think it over
and make the right choice, but Democrats have never been
known for their moderation, realism or strategy.
I have to say all the Republican choices seem pretty bad.
>> stops near the middle. Centrists, both conservative
>> and liberal, can and will cooperate to get things
>> done. As for the extremes, both right and left, a
>> pox on both their houses.
Jeannie ... Amen to that!
Pulling troops out of Iraq SOUNDS good unless you think of the consequences.
Having a concert to make people aware about recycling and global warming makes sense until you get out of your hybrid car and climb into your private jet.
Its little things like that that makes people who use their brains scratch their heads and wonder if what are they thinking?
On the other side I actually do like Obama..as a person, as someone I would love to have a beer with. When I heard him speak at the democratic convention a few years ago I thought here is our first AA President. I just disagree with too many of his ideas.
The Dems set loose are also a bunch of idiot wackos so we need some Repubs to temper the stew. They are much more effective in the minority.
What freakin' history book are you readin' from bubba ??? *ROFL*
What you are proposing, oh so ineloquently, is "one man one vote." This isn't what a republic, such as the USA is all about, and in reality amounts to mob rule.
Our founding fathers NEVER EVEN CONSIDERED a simple democracy for our nation sprout, someone has been lying to you.
<hr>
Boy, when you progressive types sit around and dream, you sure do dream big, don't you?
And the backslapping ! ! ! ! LOVELY, just a lovely display of unity and strenght ! ! ! !
Bravo mister liberal, BRAVO ! ! ! ! ! ! !
*ROFL*
Hillary just has too many negatives to get elected.
The Republicans always seem to come together and back just one guy, really strongly. I wish we could do that...............but it only seems possible if we dump the Leftists. Otherwise, too many nutjobs spoiling our election with wacky ideas straight out of the Kremlin.
>> stops near the middle. Centrists, both conservative
>> and liberal, can and will cooperate to get things
>> done. As for the extremes, both right and left, a
>> pox on both their houses.
Jeannie ... Amen to that!
jJ ... typical radical rightwinger ... proudly showing us all what yer made of ... BARF
http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460
to be president, and new mexico is a tiny state at the 48th
place ... not really great experience ... as if texas was for
bush.
Biden is the one who can get things done ... I'm amazed that
he got the iraq partitioning thing done. The more you look at
Biden the better he looks ... I'm telling you, Biden would be the
best AND the most realistic candidate. Clinton and Obama
MIGHT be able to get elected, but how about getting anything
done.
Obama does not have the experience yet. I agree he talks good,
but as much as I like that, I don't care, Bush talked good too, he
fooled the whole country.
Clinton can do the job too, but she is polarizing. I would feel less
hestitant about Clinton than Obama, but only by a smidge.
Edwards does not have the experience. He could probably do the
job too, but he does not have the experience.
Biden is famous in the Senate ... he has been their forever. He is
well respected, and has leadership. He is a guy that has legislated
Cripes ... Democrats were willing to put Kerry in the White House and
he has got almost nothing done in his stints in the Senate but get
rich ... Biden has LEGISLATED, he has got the votes from both sides,
what more do ya need to know for God's sake?
If ingnorance is bliss, you're a pretty happy person, huh !!
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_elec.html
Don't be afraid, it wont hurt you. The truth that is.
Your reporting needs a little work Devin you outright lie to support Edwards
"Republican Fred Thompson matched Edwards $8 million"
Edwards raised 7 million dollars not the 8 you mention. Thomposon raised 8 million in one month under FEC rules and 11.5 million for the quarter in his Friends of Fred and now FEC groups.
Just remember that for Nov 2008 Devin
Biden did NOT get the particioning done. The resolution meant nothing except embaress Iraqi Government. It is not even original because this has been debated or thought of for years. Iraqi's do not want a partion of their country. Now if BIden where to go over there and convice the people THAT is what they want to do then you migh have something. Sitting in his comfy chair in DC is simply grandstanding.
Again, looking at the concept it does not sound bad but think ahead, how would this work? It is relatively simple in the north and they actually do want to be independent. For the most part they are...The south might work ok too but the middle is where it gets complicated. How will you move millions of people to their perspective regions. I am sure the good senator has thought about making sure the infastructure is in polace to support mass movement. How will you deal with people homes? jobs? etc. Like I said the idea is not bad but its not thought through.
THere is no united Iraq and no native desire for it.
Again, if the Iraqis WANT to split then no one would have a problem with that. THey are a soverign nation. My point was simply who are we to say what they should do with their country? Why are you proposing this to the US senate and not to the Iraqi people?
I guess you would prefer the Iranians to pump the oil in the north? Guess if OBL expands and gets into the oil business you would not have a problem with that either right? Anyone BUT the US right?
This is, indeed, a watershed moment for conservatives. If they have any collective brains they will realize that the ascendency of the Evangelical/Radical Religious Right has come and gone. They should attempt to broaden their appeal among moderates and independents by abandoning the "holier than thou" stance, easing up on their strident focus on their "social" agenda, and shifting their priorities to issues that matter to mainstream Americans. The Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld cabal has done them no favors, and they are paying a high price for marching in lockstep with the Evilgelical Christo-fascists. They will have at least four, hopefully eight, years to rebuild and reconfigure. Meanwhile they will be treated to seeing and hearing Hillary declaim from her bully pulpit on a daily basis. That, alone, should be enough to motivate them to come around.
> Bruce, Biden did NOT get the particioning done. The resolution
> meant nothing except embaress Iraqi Government.
Victor, you are apparently out of your league interpretting current American politics. First, Biden brilliantly and strategically took the mantle of leadership from Bush here. This has nothing to do with the Iraq government, it is part of the problem, and Biden has a plan to fix that problem by reducing the Iraqi federal government's scope to functioning as a loose confederation.
This will bug some of the local neighbors there, like the Turks, but they will have to live with the soft-partitioning because it is better than hard-partitioning. This was a very fine line, and Biden had championed this plan and had it out months ago ... I wrote about it (here).
This plan will surely get as much possible flack as Bush and his people can throw at it in order to discredit Biden, and try to convince people to stay the course with Bush ... not bloody likely. Victor ... so you are going to support the Bushies by blaming Biden because he cannot partition Iraq single-handedly? That's pretty crazy. I guess I am more realistic than you, I think it is a good thing that Biden got the plan passed the Senate, overwhelmingly ... that is 72-23.
You are trying to make the point I guess that Biden hasn't solved the war himself so it's all hot air. That is absurd. It is enough that the man has enough leadership and enough bipartisanship to get this first step toward something other than fighting in Iraq done. That is what was really needed. In fact I think your criticism of this is really weird. I wonder at the motivation behind it.
First, Iraqis care more about not being murdered by their neighbors on the opposing side than they ever did about the country of Iraq, because it was a British invention anway, and in either case they do not lose their country, they gain some security. It has a price, but any other way there is no price and no chance.
The idea parallels what Churchill said about Democracy, it is the worst idea, except for all the others ... there is not other plan but partitioning that will give security and self-determination Sunnis, Shia and Kurd. It is easy for you to say it is not a good idea, you are sitting at your computer grandstanding while everyone is getting shot at or blown up.
4 million Iraqis have already fled the country, and they have nowhere to go ... they would be happy to have a place to go to start new if they and their families did not have to face life as it is now in Iraq.
Biden's plan begins to fix Bush's screwups.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I have no problem if Iraqis want a soft OR hard particion of their country. My point is simply that in my opinion, they are a sovereign nation and therefore it is up to them.
I am going to Berlin in two weeks you want me to bring you back a piece of the wall? That was another great particioning idea. Back then we did have the authority to particion Austria and Germany(US and allies were the occupying authority which we are not in Iraq) .
All this to say that I think its a good idea but should not be mandated by US Senate. And our troops should certainly not get into the moving business. If he can sell it to Iraqi's then more power to him but he is talking to the wrong people.
> My point is simply that in my opinion, they are a sovereign
> nation and therefore it is up to them.
Isn't that the point, Iraq is a sovereign nation in name only.
There is no nation there ... there is no there there. Iraq
has not for thousands of years been able to hang together
as a sovereign nation without some outside ruling force.
The partitioning og Germany post-WWII has nothing to do
with Iraq, there is no parallel there. The more applicable
parallel might be the Balkans, Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Bosnia,
Croatia, etc. Those people could not live together so they
partitioned and thing are stabilizing.
In fact I was talking to a guy yesterday who was from
Croatia and business and property values are going
though the roof there now that it is stabilized and business
is moving in.
The US has to have some idea of how to proceed in Iraq,
and Biden studied this for a long time. Other people contributed
to his plan, he was the one who led and got it accepted and
passed.
I am not sure what we are arguing over. I have no problem if they want to do that. You can not compare it to the balkans because they actually WANTED to split just took our brilliand diplomats almost a decade to figure that out.
I know you may not like how things are going in Iraq but the fact remains they are a sovereign nation. Their elected officials said they do not want to split so should we do it by force?
People today can move where they want to. If the government is really not speaking for the people then they can just pack their uhaul truck and move, no one is keeping them from it.
My point still stands. Biden should sell this to the Iraqis doing it here has no purpose except grandstanding. Unless you feel we should do it by force at which point it should have been a binding resolution.
> I am not sure what we are arguing over.
I think I am arguing that what Joe Biden did was a far
step above what the current administration thinks and
has done to resolve the Iraq issue. It just seems like
you are pointlessly attacking someone who is at least
looking around at what is going on ,doing some
thinking, and taking some leadership to get people
going in a productive direction ... and you disagree.
I THINK what the Iraqi people is to stop being bullied
by the things who run their country, and the thugs
from bordering countries who want to extend their
military power. I THINK that is what the Iraqis need
so they can at some later point figure out what they
want.
> I think that an obvious result of the Iraq war is a
> resounding rejection by a vast majority of Americans
> of the use of our military to achieve foreign policy
> objectives.
Military force is sometimes appropriate, and Americans
are mixed on Iraq, what we really hate is the doing badly
part and the incompetent leadership pretending so
arrogantly they were so smart. That will never stop
pissing me off. The Bush group are terrible managers,
but practical visionaries, at least in global policy.
> It was the emotions of post 911 that lulled those who
> went along with the neo-cons plans for invading Iraq.
And now the same emotional people are crying because
it was not easy and we made some mistakes and the
louder ones want to throw the whole thing away because
they are convinced no one knows how to do anything
positive about it. I think there is still some hope, and I think
the military solution in the Middle East is not over by a long
shot - whether we leave or not.
> And now here we are with the clarity of hindsight and
> the only conclusion that can be made is that Operation
> Iraqi Freedom was a profoundly stupid mistake.
Maybe, unless it can be leveraged to some useful purpose.
The problem is that the Anti-war group is anti-war just
to be anti-war. They appear to want this effort to fail
and their rationale is that we have made mistakes, it
looks bad, and we lost in Viet Nam. This is elementary
school thinking. It may be that we will not figure out how
to save this, or it may be simple with the right strategy.
Looking back if we have avoided certain mistakes Iraq
might be totally different today.
> It's no wonder everyone is so confused about what
> to do now.
It is understandable that people are confused, I agree.
> Playing the part of occupying conquerer is un-natural
> and repugnant to Americans.
I wouldn't know, since that is not what we are doing in
Iraq Devin, and your whole argument and reality seems
based on this false assumption. Are there people who
financially benefit from what happens in Iraq? Yes. That
is true any way this turns out, it always is.
> And what's happening to the Republicans now can be
> attributed to the fact that responsibility for these
> disturbingly troubled times can be laid directly at the
> Republicans feet.
I'd say, the Bush team's feet, specifically George Bush
in name, since he micromanaged everything, but the people
who were advising and executing his strategy, like
Cheney and Rumsfeld.
I do not think it is fair to indict the whole Republican
party over this any more than it is fair to make a bid deal
about how many Democrats gave it support, or to assume
that the Democrats were fooled somehow.
Its the duplicitous behavior - we want he look like we are helpful but really have not thought through the consequences that bothers me. Take the SCHIP program. Headlines Bush vetos bill to help poor. BS…It's a bad bill. Lets forget that a household making $80,000 per year is not poverty level. Lets ignore that a 25 yr old REALLY isn't a child anymore but worst of all you want to fund this program with something everyone agrees is a bad habit. How will you pay for this program when your funding base disappears? Its a bad bill and they need to try harder. Bidens idea not inherently bad if they want it then as you saw in the Balkans it can work great but I just have a problem with forcing it on them.
As far as duplicitous behavior, that is what our whole country is based on. What is advertising, or campaigning? The problem is not that this behaviour exists, it does all over. The problem is that Americans seem to not want to do anything until human nature changes.
I agree SCHIP is bad, but in the way that we need national health care. At this point, any patch, any promises by the health care, pharmaceutical industry, insurance industry ... anything they say will just be more of the lying same old sh*t. Single payer health care.
When you look at it clearly you can see that healt care offered though employment, first is falling apart, and second it is a compenstation that is not taxed ... so we are paying for this current healt care system from taxes ... the taxes just do not go to the government, they go to private industry, as most of these privitization giveaways do.
Biden's idea may be bad, but it had a lot of people recommending it that were not the same Bush people, and it has a lot of support. I do not think getting Iraq to accept it is the problem, I think you are way off base with that Victor.
Did you read my article on this, or hear Biden talk about this at all or are you guessing:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977074042
http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/07/07-05biden-audio.html
http://www.joebiden.com/home
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_elec.html
NO WHERE on that page is ANYTHING said about one man, one vote, you IDIOT. In fact, it is a detailed discussion of REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT, in the form of a REPUBLIC, with ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES -- no where does it say ANYTHING about the concept of a popular vote being used to elect the president of the USA.
What a dolt. The freaking name of the article is Constitutional Topic: The Electoral College *ROFL*
And he uses THAT to prove his silly notion of one man one vote is what our founding fathers intended ???? *ROFL*
MORON *ROFL*
Your to stupid to even respond to any more.
Hey, everyone, you know how to piss Jjack off. ignore him.
You're not worth it Bye Bye !!!!
So the goal is to come up with something NOT that is good or helpful but is different from what Bush people are saying. I am asking for congress to work harder. To come up with a REAL solution not jsut one that is different and for that you are saying I am projecting my own fears? No I just enjoy debates with inteligent people.
Now regarding SCHIP, you see it as a first step to national health care. You know it may shock you but I happen not to agree with government sponsored health care but thats a debate for another day. Interestingly enough though the democratic leaders yesterday (CSPAN around lunch time central time) kept saying thats not what this is. So if that is the intend as you say, why use a funding source like smoking which is going to deminish. Why not simply stand up and say we want the american people to pay for it. Throw Iraq in the mix if you like and how many times that war could pay for this program. I would have more respect for that side of the isle if they just came right out and said that. All they were talking about is how this is NOT a first step to national health care and how they just want to help more kids...
> So the goal is to come up with something NOT
> that is good or helpful but is different from what
> Bush people are saying.
Victor, you are either playing like you do not understand
what I am saying or twisting my words. If you can really
read what I said and get the above out of it how can I
ever have any hope of having a reasonable conversation
with you?
When I said Biden's idea may be bad, I do not think Biden's
idea is bad, but whatever we do is going to be unknown,
and we cannot be certain it will work.
One cannot tell the future. We do have to do something, and
of the many somethings that have been presented ... that also
may not turn out well ... Biden's is thoughtful, it has a lot of
thoughtful support and it has poltical support. This shows
a lot of good things about Bidem, the reason I mentioned
it. Now all you have done is vague criticisms against it.
Can you be specific?
If you are not being deliberately blind to what I am trying to
discuss with you and disprespectful for me who is trying to
have a reasonable conversation with you ... maybe you
could think about that and give some less flippant responses.
But from reading your points it is plain you are doing some
thinking I am not following. For instance, I am not speaking
for the Congress like you seem to accuse me of. I threw
in my opinions on SCHIP since you mentioned it and opened
the door. Since Congress says they are not using this as a
first step to national health care, why do you attack what
I say to refute them? And why ask me about Congress'
strategy since I do not say I know or agree with it?
It looks like from your point of view most of this argument is
taking place in your head with imagined points from me you
want to throw in to make it easier for yourself?
I am saying what I think, and if you'll listen and respond
to that I'll know what you think, and if you'll ask me questions
about any confusion I'd be happy to elaborate on what I
said rather than have it distorted into something I did not
say.
Also ... I know we are all typing fast and I have probably
had a few typoes as well .. but "inteligent" ... "deminish" ....
"isle" ...... Come on!
Let me go backwards, sorry English is my 3rd language and... ahem... I was doing this at work. For obvious reasons I type and send quickly and do not proofread as I should. You not going to tell on me are you :)
Actually I have much more respect for you then I do for congress because you said what you believe and tried not to sugar coat it...sorry that I did not make that clear.
I am not deliberate in being blind but this would be a lot easier over a beer where I can ask what you mean or if you really meant to say something. But you are right I should not jump to conclusions.
I do not think Biden's idea is bad... it is just something in my opinion we can not do. It's up to them to do - if they want. I don't want to trivialize this, but lets say someone thinks you should do your job differently and then they go talk to your friends about it; only they do it so loud that you can hear it. What would you think about that? Shouldn't they have come talk to you about it? Dividing a country (even softly) is a big deal and if Biden would have gone to Iraq, talked to the leaders and got them to agree to this he would have almost been assured the nomination. Well I do not know that but it would have been the right thing to do and probably gone a long way rather then stand up on OUR Senate floor and presenting this to the american people. All that did was that was cause the Iraq government to dig in and virtually closed the door on dividing the country. So in my opinion it was not a diplomatically smart move which leads me to question his diplomacy skills.
> I do not think Biden's idea is bad... it is just
> something in my opinion we can not do. It's
> up to them to do
Well, under normal circumstances I would have
to agree ... but if circumstances were normal we
would not be in Iraq ... the country was and is
dysfunctional and pathological not to mention the
whole subtext of radical Islam. If the soft-
partitioning can help it is worth a try, and I
do not see why it couldn't. Actually I am very
positive on the plan, it is the best thing around.
Get these people from each other's throats and
start pumping in some oil money and they will
settle right down.
The fighting is sectarian, and if we remove the
sects from each others presence and give
everyone a chance to get on with life I think
things might being to work themselves out.
I drink Stella Artois! ;-) Cheers!
As for the Republican party going under, that's nonsense. Each party goes through cycles. The Republicans are at the bottom of one of theirs. They made a seriously bad decision to pander to the religious right, then got power mad and abandoned all of their traditional principles. They needed to be slapped down hard. Now they will pull back, rethink things, and return more to their center and traditions.
What I find amusing in these discussions is that each side assumes their has a corner on truth, justice, and the American way and the other side worships Satan and eats babies for breakfast. The truth is they are both equally power mad, greedy, and owned by special interests. Their sole aim is to gain and hold power. It's a game the wealthy have played throughout time. Neither side is honest and neither gives a rip about the American people except around election time or if they happen to have their wallets out. So get over yourself. There is no party of the pure and uncorrupted. Neither side is worse than the other. They are just both bad in different ways.
source:
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm
denny B. North Carolina
member since: Oct 05, 2006
Over the past couple YEARS ????? *ROFL*
And for everyone else, I offer this for your edification. I didn't even vote for Bush 41. The entire idea of a "kindler gentler nation" and the even more insipid "compassionate conservative" nonsense is little more than repackaged liberalism using the mask of populism.
Without the war, Bush would not be one of a handful of presidents that has/had a successful economy, while having very low approval ratings. Who's another ??? LBJ--
Want to guess what LBJ and Bush have in common, leaving aside the successful economy while having low approval ratings ??
You CAN'T respond dennie boy, so you are forced to make me the subject. You said you wouldn't respond earlier, now you do it again. Don't you wonder why??
I can't think of a single thing I believe Bush has done "correctly" other than his USSC nominees, otherwise, his record is pretty shitty. He's certainly not my idea of a conservative. I didn't even support the timing of the liberation of Iraq. I thought it could easily have waited, months even-- perhaps threatened for as long as a year and MAYBE even a year and a half. It most certainly would have been a second term kind of thing, had I been running the show.
Here's the long and short of it, the GOP "swan song" occurred long ago, someone just forget to tell BOTH the democraps, and the republiturds.
The reason the democraps seem to be raising more money, is because everyone seems to believe this is going to be a democrap win, mainly because everyone thinks Bush stinks. But they think he stinks, mainly because of the prolonged nature of the war in Iraq.
When you add in the fact we have a woman, a black man, and a man of hispanic descent on the democrap side, the well healed elitist progressives come out of the wood work to pony up their old line money, because most of the time for the last 30 plus years, they always just figured they didn't have a chance anyway. This time they think the chance is not only real, but DESTINED to be "historic" in nature.
I mean, would any of you die hard liberal boobs have given money to mcGovern ?? But hey, wave the flag under a woman, a black or hispanic man, and bingo, you've got a hit record PARTICUARLY WHEN NO INCUMBENT is up for the office.
The democraps really believe they have a chance this time, and maybe they do, I sure don't know. But I am pretty sure money isn't the proper measure to quantify such things. How much money you have, doesn't mean you will either win, or lose.
No matter what you cynics might believe, I refuse to accept the notion one is able to buy the white house. It is sad to know there are so many others that have given up on our country, just like you.
and denny boy, I look forward to you not responding *chuckle*
You Republicans who still believe things are "going well" in Iraq and that by some miracle of God almighty a Republican could actually win the presidency and hold steady their numbers in congress, (because there is not a single person on the Right who will even entertain the idea they could regain the majority), in the 2008 election has taken delusion to a whole new level. Even some of the most prominent and highly respected Republican leaders have conceded that this administration's cavelier attitude with the truth has left our country with no other option thatn to automaticlly assume anything coming from the White House is false. And after witnessing the disentrigation of the Republican Party voting base over the last few days, anyone who can say with a straight face that it does not amount to an assured victory for the Democrats must be simply refusing to accept that it's happening.
There is nothing wrong with a multi party system. We do get quite a number of things done in Europe and some countries have 4-5 parties in government and form coalitions. The problem that Dems will have in 08 is show how they got nothing done. Of course they will blame the evil rep. for that but people will not soon forget crappy legislation like SCHIP. Right now people buy into the media hype of bush not wanting to support kids..but as the debate goes on people will see how it completely missed the mark on the intent for SCIP.
People are also tired of congress wasting time on dumb rantings about ads and talk show host.
Dems also do not portray any sort of leadership in the war...except for we are defeated by a few thugs and should pull out. Lets be generous...lets say there are 200,000 fanatic islamists. Are you telling me that the ONLY superpower should run home with their tails between their legs? NO TRY HARDER. Biden at least tried to come up with an idea but as discussed he would have gotten a lot more traction if he talked to Iraqis instead of Americans. As the debates will go further people will see which party not only talk about helping people but actually get things done.
Biden's plan is realiistic, productive, and right on. Here is a guy who sees what can be done realitistically and tries to get the ball rolling, That is more small-d democratic leadership than this country has had in 7 years or more.
I feel sorry for America that we are gambling with the extremes and may again get another wacko Republican (Guiliani or Thompson) or an ineffecrtive and inexperienced and paralyzing Democrat.
Jjack, you must really hate yourself, to hate others so much.
Think you need to look at your definitions a little. Socialism does not give you any more rights then fascism. Under Socialism the government controls everything. How are you getting more rights under socialism? All socialism does is redistribute the wealth and while that may look good on paper can you think of any thriving trully socialist countries?
We certainly have our problems here but this is trully the greatest nation on the planet. I just wish people would travel more and see what goes on in other countries. Would give you a true appreciation for how great we have it here.
And as for the difference in the two extremes that Denny mentioned, there is a great deal in that the one is all for the top few while the other (if honest) would be for the all, the total.
I really get sick of hearing that phrase. Ask the millions, in America without health care, or go to bed every night hungry, or the father that can't get a decent job so he has to leave his wife and baby so someone "will" help them, or how about the janitor of the "big" corporation, that barely make ends meet, and he just lost his pension, so the outgoing "looser" CEO get his golden parachute, if they think this is the greatest country on the planet.
"All socialism does is redistribute the wealth" So, what's wrong with that. Me and you have had this discussion before. I'll ask you again. What do you value more, the corporation or the worker. You can't run a plant, without workers?
He has never voted to increase taxes. He wants to get rid of the IRS so you can keep your hard earned money and do with it what you please. Does this mean there will be no money for the government to use? No
If we cut out the income tax today, the government would have enough money to operate at its spending levels in the year 2000. By getting out of the war and ending other pointless government programs and expenditures, we could easily get back to a year 2000 spending level.
Ron Paul is a non-interventionist, NOT and isolationist. He believes in talking with, visiting with, and trading with other countries, but not allying and committing ourselves to other countries and fighting battles that our not ours to fight.
Ron Paul believes in privatizing health care and getting the government completely out of it. For all those that watched "Sicko" and thought it was so amazing, go talk to some Canadians for yourselves. It's funny how so many of them will come to America for treatment when they get a serious illness. The waiting times to see a doctor in Canada are atrocious. A truly free market approach to health care would inspire competition and cause prices to go down. Any time the market is allowed to compete and decide on a product, prices go down. When the government gets involved, prices inevitably go up. Do some real studying of socialism and see if still appeals to you.
Ron Paul believes in your first amendment right and would support it at no end.
Ron Paul believes in your second amendment right.
Ron Paul is personally against abortion but sees that it is not the job of the Federal Government to decide and would leave this issue up to the states. This is the constitutional position.
Ron Paul's position on gay marriage is the same as on abortion.
Ron Paul is against illegal immigration and amnesty in any form. He believes that the welfare state has invited illegal immigrants in by providing free health care, free schooling, and general welfare to people who are here illegally. In a Ron Paul society, he envisions such a healthy economy that we would be starving for immigrant workers but in the current state of affairs, this is not possible.
Ron Paul is absolutely against the North American Union and the National ID Card. If you don't know what it is, look into it.
Ron Paul has is an OB/GYN by trade and has never accepted government subsidized payments like medicare. He actually practices what he preaches.
He has been married for somewhere around 50 years to one woman and has 5 children and 17 grandchildren.
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.
Somebody above asked for substantive argument for a candidate so there you go. I suggest you do more research for yourself on this amazing principled man. Look for his videos on youtube and google his name. He is truly an American Patriot.
Now, with all the emphasis on the primaries and with the conventions relegated to just being long, boring infomercials - not to mention the considerable influence now cast by the impact of the amount of money raised - it all seems so cut and dried, and the chances of a long shot making it are ....er....Long...