O-bama has 96 hours to show hope, not hype.

[Viper]

One chance to show a first impression and O-bama had better hit at least a stand up triple Friday night, or he's done. He's going to have to utter numbers and facts, not simply phrases, he's going to have to find a bad bone in his body and show some anger. If I were his right hand man, I'd tell him, "Sir, you better go out there pissed off about what America looks and sounds like these days and you better take it all out on Mr. Mc-Cain."

He defeated Mrs. Clin-ton with tact, a sincere, smooth style in contrast to her fake laugh and real frown. Americans are going to need to hear an opening statement Friday night filled with numbers, data, facts and figures and O-bama needs to go for Mc-Cain's neck, or he's done.

In the meantime, I'm still voting for Jeb Bartlet:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/opinion/21dowd-sorkin.html?_r=2&ei=5070&emc=eta1&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/22/1431806.aspx

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/view.bg?articleid=1120610

[Charles M]

Not sure why the pressure is on 0Bama when J Mac's the guy touting deregulation of financial system as a reason why they should do the same with Health Insurance...


Oh, wait, that was yesterday. Today Johny's a reformer who demands oversight.





It's Jed...

:)

[Bill Bove]

So is "Laurance O'Donnell is to Jed Bartlett as Karl Rove is to ______"

[michael white]

ha.

McCain has 96 hours to show that he can stand toe to toe with Obama, something he hasn't been able to do save for a few days bump due entirely to a woman's help. McCain's been all over the map the past week, waffling like an IHOP waitress, and clearly doesn't know any more about the economy than he says he does. As for foreign policy, his stated positions lack detail and substance compared to the meticulous positions posted on Obama's site. It will at least be amusing when he trots out the made-up or stolen POW stories again.

The polls do not lie: McCain is slipping out of contention, and while he still has a chance, he really needs to show some backbone on Friday night, something he has not done for many weeks. Basically, all Obama needs to do is hold onto the lead he has, but of course, all odds are that he'll dance all over the stodgy, old, misremembering and doddering McCain in a face-to-face. Should be fun~! especially the Keating 8 stuff.

this is such a GREAT election!

[Viper]

this is such a GREAT election!

Indeed. And O-bama has the capacity to pull a Season III Jed Bartlet debate-moment; O-Bama has the tongue, he simply needs the confidence. Perhaps Mrs. O-bama can cut his neck tie in half seconds before the debate begins ala Mrs. Bartlet? Oh, and that's Mr. President, not Jed. To me Jed was short for Jedi, it'd be great to see a President Bartlet in my lifetime.

I'm running in 2020 and this will be one of my campaign songs, we've been pretending the American dream is alive and it's time someone said as much:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhp96VWLEqA

My first act would be to put our military on all borders. If illegals sneak in, they get one warning shot, next shot is to kill. Coming to America was a dream for generations and it must be legal, otherwise it's a dream abused. If coming to America matters, it matters how you get here. If it's a dream, coming to America, treat it like one, make it a bright one, not a dirty scheme. Can one feel pride in their automobile if it's stolen? Honor in their speech if it's plagiarized? What can cheating, a lie create, except foster recidivistic behavior? Where is the foundation of coming to America? It must be made whole again. No more pretending. I was six years old listening to Jackson Browne in 1976 on my AM Bugs Bunny Radio Shack radio, mono, one ear piece and I got it then. This election is yes, about the economy, your wallet, your saving's account, 401K, the shocking amount of cash you give your local gas pump attendant, OPEC, perhaps it's the War on Terror, but I'd propose the American Dream is at stake. Perhaps the American Dream is wilting because the American marriage, family is disappearing; too many divorces, too many single moms, too much greed, not enough giving. Too many rely on their credit cards while forgetting they grew up on brown-bagged lunches. There's too many happy idiots out there and it's time they either wake up, fall to the back or just fade away. My name is Viper and I am running to be your President in 2020. Amen.

Friday night, game on.

:beer:

[Ray]

The polls do not lie: McCain is slipping out of contention, and while he still has a chance, he really needs to show some backbone on Friday night, something he has not done for many weeks. Basically, all Obama needs to do is hold onto the lead he has, but of course, all odds are that he'll dance all over the stodgy, old, misremembering and doddering McCain in a face-to-face. Should be fun~! especially the Keating 8 stuff.

this is such a GREAT election!
Just as I cautioned an over-confident Republican not to count his chickens during the predictable post-convention bounce that McCain got, I would caution fellow Obama supporters not to count any chickens at this point. I will not believe that Obama has won until its the morning after the election and he won by several points. If its close, I probably still won't believe it then.

There are just too many wild-cards in this race to have any idea how it will come out. A lot of pollsters are saying there is no Bradley effect any more, but we've never had a black guy on the general election ballot for president before either. I have a feeling there are at least a couple of points of Bradley effect in the population out there, which could be a difference in a close election. We also don't really know just how good Obama's ground game is gonna be. If his operation turns out young and black voters to the extent they might, he could win semi-comfortably. How these things interact will make a lot of pre-election polling look sort of stupid, I predict.

The only prediction I'll make about the debates is that the results will matter and that I'll think Obama won them easily. My opinion is clearly meaningless though. I thought both Gore and Kerry wiped the floor with Bush, but the people who decided those elections clearly did NOT feel that way. So I don't even begin to think that my impressions will matter. Maybe by a few weeks after the election, we'll know what mattered to the outcome. In the meantime, if you're a supporter of either candidate, I wouldn't get too comfortable with some good poll numbers and I wouldn't panic at some bad ones. Just keep working your butt off for your candidate to give him the best chance you can. Obviously, I'd prefer if all Obama supporters took this advice and all McCain supporters ignored it and got discouraged or complacent as hell.

As to whether this is a great election or not, I'll let you know a couple of days after its over. :cool:

-Ray

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . Bush's performance for the past eight years has created a current of desire for change and huge anti-Repub hostility, IMHO. I think this places McCain on the defensive because if he does not counter the rep that Bush has created, then he doesn't stand a chance.

In my poly-sci course in college a dozed a lot and took a lot of now long-forgotten notes, but I do remember one thing the prof explained. That was that any candidate who gets elected does so by appealing to a coalition of voters and groups who like him for whatever their special reason is. But as soon as their candidate gets elected he actually has to start making decisions, and with every decisions someone is alienated. Decision by decision, that coalition erodes until there are no longer enough supporters to get that candidate re-elected. My impression now is that Bush has alienated a hell of a lot of people and groups, and that bad rep is going to be like a tidal wave washing over McCain unless he pulls off something pretty spectacular in this debate.

BBD

[avalonracing]

I thought both Gore and Kerry wiped the floor with Bush, but the people who decided those elections clearly did NOT feel that way.
-Ray

What people? The guys at Diebold?

[Lifelover]

All I care about is what Sarah is going to wear on Oct. 2!

[Smiley]

All I care about is what Sarah is going to wear on Oct. 2!
I think they should parade out Tina Fey in her place, maybe she can be a decoy for her

[avalonracing]

I think they should parade out Tina Fey in her place, maybe she can be a decoy for her

We'd know the difference as Tina's IQ is 70 points higher.

[inGobwetrust]

We'd know the difference as Tina's IQ is 70 points higher.


Typical elitest attitude.

[Charles M]

Indeed. And O-bama has the capacity to pull a Season III Jed Bartlet debate-moment...........

Friday night, game on.

:beer:


"Actually unfunded mandate is two words, not one big one..."



:banana:

[39cross]

I read the poll and had a good laugh - you are a sly troublemaker, sir!

[Bill Bove]

Typical elitest attitude.

Funny how I want the best and brightest running my country.

[gdw]

The best and brightest are way too intelligent to get mixed up in politics.

[ti_boi]

Bill Clinton says he understands Palin's appeal

Bill Clinton said Monday he understands why Sarah Palin is popular in the heartland: because people relate to her.

By KAREN MATTHEWS

Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK —

Bill Clinton said Monday he understands why Sarah Palin is popular in the heartland: because people relate to her.

"I come from Arkansas, I get why she's hot out there," Clinton said. "Why she's doing well."

Speaking to reporters before his Clinton Global Initiative meeting, the former president described Palin's appeal by adding, "People look at her, and they say, 'All those kids. Something that happens in everybody's family. I'm glad she loves her daughter and she's not ashamed of her. Glad that girl's going around with her boyfriend. Glad they're going to get married.'"

Clinton said voters would think, "I like that little Down syndrome kid. One of them lives down the street. They're wonderful children. They're wonderful people. And I like the idea that this guy does those long-distance races. Stayed in the race for 500 miles with a broken arm. My kind of guy."

Palin, the governor of Alaska, became an overnight star when Republican presidential candidate John McCain tapped her for his running mate. Her family, including her Down syndrome baby, Trig, her pregnant 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, and her husband, Todd, four-time winner of the 2,000-mile Iron Dog snowmobile race, have garnered intense media interest.

"I get this," Clinton said. "My view is ... why say, ever, anything bad about a person? Why don't we like them and celebrate them and be happy for her elevation to the ticket? And just say that she was a good choice for him and we disagree with them?"

The global initiative, a project of Clinton's foundation, will hold its four-day annual meeting in Manhattan starting Tuesday.

After that, Clinton said he will be busy campaigning for the Democratic ticket of Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

[Viper]

"Actually unfunded mandate is two words, not one big one..."



:banana:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyqzPu5pX6U&feature=related

:beer:

[Viper]

The best and brightest are way too intelligent to get mixed up in politics.

I hope you're wrong, you might be right, but I hope there are bright people in the House, Senate and the staff of the President, if not the Oval Office. It's about duty, like all of Gilbert and Sullivan's:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd-0U3ZPENc


:beer:

[michael white]

Just as I cautioned an over-confident Republican not to count his chickens during the predictable post-convention bounce that McCain got, I would caution fellow Obama supporters not to count any chickens at this point. I will not believe that Obama has won until its the morning after the election and he won by several points. If its close, I probably still won't believe it then.

There are just too many wild-cards in this race to have any idea how it will come out. A lot of pollsters are saying there is no Bradley effect any more, but we've never had a black guy on the general election ballot for president before either. I have a feeling there are at least a couple of points of Bradley effect in the population out there, which could be a difference in a close election. We also don't really know just how good Obama's ground game is gonna be. If his operation turns out young and black voters to the extent they might, he could win semi-comfortably. How these things interact will make a lot of pre-election polling look sort of stupid, I predict.

The only prediction I'll make about the debates is that the results will matter and that I'll think Obama won them easily. My opinion is clearly meaningless though. I thought both Gore and Kerry wiped the floor with Bush, but the people who decided those elections clearly did NOT feel that way. So I don't even begin to think that my impressions will matter. Maybe by a few weeks after the election, we'll know what mattered to the outcome. In the meantime, if you're a supporter of either candidate, I wouldn't get too comfortable with some good poll numbers and I wouldn't panic at some bad ones. Just keep working your butt off for your candidate to give him the best chance you can. Obviously, I'd prefer if all Obama supporters took this advice and all McCain supporters ignored it and got discouraged or complacent as hell.

As to whether this is a great election or not, I'll let you know a couple of days after its over. :cool:

-Ray


Ray, I agree. I just found the OP kind of provocative, and responded in a rather heavy-handed way.

best,
mw

[inGobwetrust]

Funny how I want the best and brightest running my country.


Then why are you supporting Obama? Have you heard him speak off the cuff, without his teleprompter? Seriously, tell me his accomplishments. You know, things like major legislation sponsored or positions of authority held. What kind of budgets has he had oversight for?

It doesn't speak well of Obama that all the comparisons drawn are with the vp candidate, not the top of the Republican ticket. Besides giving flowery speaches what is his appeal? Oh, that's right, he gives us "hope" and will bring about "change"!

Fact is that the Democrats should have nominated Hillary. She's actually qualified and she would have put Obama on the ticket. That would probably have been an unbeatable combination. Instead you let the press dictate who you should support and have an empty suit as your candidate for president.

Tell me, what makes you think Palin isn't smart? Is it that she went to a state University instead of an ivy? Is it that she doesn't do the cocktail party circuit and bow to the hollywood elite? Is it because Larry King and Chris Matthews don't like her?

The Democrats claim to be the party of the people but the reality is that they can't stand the real people in America. They like people who preach to us about global warming and carbon footprints while hopping around the world on a private jet.

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.......

[dannyg1]

I believe that if the American people are to be counted upon to rescue the 'regulation is killing us', irresponsible, criminal types (Yes, I mean that exactly as written), then we shoud expect the banking system to now operate within a window of set, fair cost-to-profit ratios and demand a return of usury laws.

I heard an interesting quote related to this whole thing, paraphrased: 'During the old west, without a Sheriff in town, the people robbed the banks. Since the 80's, our politicians have dropped regulations on banking and finance, effectively dropping the sheriff and the banks have robbed the people'.

There isn't any good reason to throw his amount of money, at this level of risk, into a system so obviously perverse, without demanding that the recipients reverse their wanton ways.

[Viper]

I believe that if the American people are to be counted upon to rescue the 'regulation is killing us', irresponsible, criminal types (Yes, I mean that exactly as written), then we shoud expect the banking system to now operate within a window of set, fair cost-to-profit ratios and demand a return of usury laws.

I heard an interesting quote related to this whole thing, paraphrased: 'During the old west, without a Sheriff in town, the people robbed the banks. Since the 80's, our politicians have dropped regulations on banking and finance, effectively dropping the sheriff and the banks have robbed the people'.

There isn't any good reason to throw his amount of money, at this level of risk, into a system so obviously perverse, without demanding that the recipients reverse their wanton ways.

Gekko is back, he just changes colors, sheds his skin. Money never sleeps pal:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/05/movies/05movi.html

[14max]

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.......

We've already had 8 years of Jonestown. How could 51% of the voting populace have been that dumb...twice?

[inGobwetrust]

We've already had 8 years of Jonestown. How could 51% of the voting populace have been that dumb...twice?


You seem to think I'm a Republican. You're wrong.

[14max]

You seem to think I'm a Republican. You're wrong.

I don't know nor do I care what party affiliation you have...

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . let's keep it refined and civil, folks. This one shows signs of starting to slip downhill.

Many thanks!

BBD

[Onno]

The premise of the poll is skewed and can only lead to silly debate it seems to me. If we're going to have political threads, let's try to make them thoughtful and as bipartisan as possible. This one is neither.

[Ray]

The premise of the poll is skewed and can only lead to silly debate it seems to me.
Silly debate is good. Nasty debate is bad. Which is why I just pulled down an extremely heated reply to an earlier poster and replaced it with this.

I think I'd have to give Viper credit for silly on this one.

-Ray

[Viper]

The premise of the poll is skewed and can only lead to silly debate it seems to me. If we're going to have political threads, let's try to make them thoughtful and as bipartisan as possible. This one is neither.

I'm not a Rasmussen pollster and I'm not getting paid for my political insight (yet). :)

The content of the OP is straightforward: many in the political circles view O-bama in the hot seat, needing to perform well Friday night (I offered news sources as sources/bibliographies). If your perspective is nay, it's Mc-Cain who needs to step up Friday night, you could offer that pov cause yeah, any poll that speaks to oatmeal, well it's probably made with humor in mind.

Rather than speaking about one's affiliations or the poll itself, it'd be nice to read about the two (2) candidates who are burning the midnight oil to have their A games in less than 96 hours. I personally view this first debate as very, very important. I'm prepping for it, I'm still putting my final touches on the American Dream talking points.

[jhcakilmer]

I'd really be interested in hearing about a "classic" republican policy that has actually worked in the past 30 years.

Fiscal conservatism - this almost seems like an oxymoron....there hasn't been anything conservative about there expenditures, and we have a deficient to show for it.

trickle down economics (supply side)??? shrinking middle class, rising unemployment, dollar devaluation........ corporate compensation has risen exponentially in the past decade, yet employee compensation has increased at a crawl.....especially when compared to cost of living, education, etc. Who is really benefiting?

deregulation??? - sure the market takes car of itself, but at what expense...if not monitored greed will always corrupt!

"first strike" (offense is the best defense) - we have exponentially more enemies now, than we did 8 years ago.....

social conservatism - dictating what choices people can make, that are supposedly driven by theological principles.....which is in itself an un-biblical principle

The republican party is dooming itself to insignificance. A party controlled by the "haves" (as defined by GWB), that has become so monolithic (93% of RNC delegates are Caucasian) it does not represent the people it supposedly serves.

I would be very interested in hearing from someone in there own words (not some link to something someone else said) why they believe in the policies of the Grand Old Party, because I really don't "get it", but I will try to be open minded.

If we use our current president to set any standard for qualification, than Obama passes with flying colors.....the only thing he has to prove is, did he get the job done, and deserve my vote in 2012

[Viper]

I'd really be interested in hearing about a "classic" republican policy that has actually worked in the past 30 years.

Fiscal conservatism - this almost seems like an oxymoron....there hasn't been anything conservative about there expenditures, and we have a deficient to show for it.

trickle down economics (supply side)??? shrinking middle class, rising unemployment, dollar devaluation........ corporate compensation has risen exponentially in the past decade, yet employee compensation has increased at a crawl.....especially when compared to cost of living, education, etc. Who is really benefiting?

deregulation??? - sure the market takes car of itself, but at what expense...if not monitored greed will always corrupt!

"first strike" (offense is the best defense) - we have exponentially more enemies now, than we did 8 years ago.....

social conservatism - dictating what choices people can make, that are supposedly driven by theological principles.....which is in itself an un-biblical principle

The republican party is dooming itself to insignificance. A party controlled by the "haves" (as defined by GWB), that has become so monolithic (93% of RNC delegates are Caucasian) it does not represent the people it supposedly serves.

I would be very interested in hearing from someone in there own words (not some link to something someone else said) why they believe in the policies of the Grand Old Party, because I really don't "get it", but I will try to be open minded.

If we use our current president to set any standard for qualification, than Obama passes with flying colors.....the only thing he has to prove is, did he get the job done, and deserve my vote in 2012


Barry Goldwater has been gone for a while, succeded as state senator of Arizona by John Mc-Cain. I didn't know Mr. Goldwater, but I know that John Mc-Cain is no Goldwater. :)

Allow me to reply to some of your questions, no divisiveness intended. :beer:

The beginning of the GWB 2000 Administration offered a country facing a recession. Yes, 2000 seems like forever ago, but reach back and recall that no, things were not good financially for Uncle Sam. In fact, Enron and Worldcom were results of the Clint-on Administration, GWB simply inherited them. The latest mischief on Wall Street did not begin in January, 2000.

If anyone cannot recall the very poor state of the union, financially in 2000, all we have to do is remember the GWB Tax Rebate; this tax rebate was a desperate measure to help spur economic growth. During the summer of 2000, things began to improve, Nasdaq and the market headed north, the anchor was lifted off the bottom and then WHAM, 9/11/01. Here again, it would biased and unfair to completely blame GWB for 9/11/01 and in fact, many would logically deduce the roots of this terror we see today began in Beirut, 1983 when American stuck it's nose into Israel and Lebanon. We lost 241 American Marines and servicemen on October 23, 1983 when a Mercedes Benz truck, laden with explosives, took down the entire Marine Corps barracks.

Moving forward, when one blames 9/11/01 on GWB, it's crucial to discuss the first World Trade Center attack, in February 1993. Clint-on was in office for this and no, it wasn't his fault, but again, a result of America's foreign policies in the Middle East, predominantly Israel. The USS Cole was attacked on Clint-on's watch, same terrorists, same cause, different target.

So this offers a quick snapshot which one can debate when GWB is blamed as "First strike" President. Somebody had to do something, the rest is a matter of opinions and it seems clear the majority of Americans are at this point, in 2008, frustrated with our men and women in uniform fighting; these Wars, their financial cost and loss of life is a main reason O-bama has risen to the level of nearly winning the Presidency.

You mentioned theology, bibilical references. "Catholic social doctrine as I was taught it is, you take care of people who need the help the most." This quote is not from GWB, not Sarah Pal-in. Nope. It's a few days old and it's from Joe Bi-den. Not particularly controversial, Bi-den's words, but wait, he furthered, "Now it’d be different if you could make the case to me that by giving this tax cut to the very wealthy, everybody else was going to be better off. We saw what happened the last eight years when we gave that tax cut.” So a Democrat, potential VP is telling us that his Bible and faith are going to dictate tax cuts? Put the needle on the record, dance dance cause now, we can see that faith, religion is used by both sides of the aisle, as needed. The NY Times, ACLU and Democrats would be outraged if Mc-Cain or Pal-in even hinted that Catholicism was their compass for taxes, but it came from Bi-den, so the separation of Church and State thingy doesn't apply. Shhh.

In terms of the GOP, "Dooming itself into insignificance." There are many who'd say that Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress' 1994 Contract with America ran the Clint-on White House, implementing a conservative, connect the dot roadmap for the Clint-on agenda. In fact, many feel that if Democrats can't win the White House this time around, it is their party which will be mocked for it's own insignificance. The Republican party had the likes of Colin Powell, Norm Schwarzkopf, Chuck Hagel, Condoleeza Rice to dust off and run for office, there was an abundance of quailified candidates in their dugout and the Democrats lack depth in this arena. It was always a two horse race for the Democrats, Hill-ary and O-bama. Howard Dean was a flash in the pan which flamed out, he's now in charge of the lighting on the stage for his party, Gore seems determined to destroy the ozone with his body mass and Kerry will be a Senator in MA for the remainder of his career. The future of the Democratic party, Edwards, he's now working the front door at the Playboy Mansion (in Chicago).

Lastly, I agree with your point of conservatism and GWB. History will record that GWB was not the conservative he pretended to be. A Democratic President offered some of my favorite thoughts on government, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country."

Worth reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America

[jhcakilmer]

Barry Goldwater has been gone for a while, succeded as state senator of Arizona by John Mc-Cain. I didn't know Mr. Goldwater, but I know that John Mc-Cain is no Goldwater. :)

Allow me to reply to some of your questions.

The beginning of the GWB Administration encountered a country facing a recession. Yes, 2000 seems like forever ago, but reach back and recall that no, things were not good financially for Uncle Sam. In fact, Enron and Worldcom were results of the Clint-on Administration, GWB simply inherited them. The latest mischief on Wall Street did not begin in January, 2000.

If anyone cannot recall the very poor state of the union, financially in 2000, all we have to do is remember the GWB Tax Rebate; this tax rebate was a desperate measure to help spur economic growth. During the summer of 2000, things began to improve, Nasdaq and the market headed north, the anchor was lifted off the bottom and then WHAM, 9/11/01. Here again, it would biased and unfair to completely blame GWB for 9/11/01 and in fact, many would logically deduce the roots of this terror we see today began in Beirut, 1983 when American stuck it's nose into Israel and Lebanon. We lost 241 American Marines and servicemen on October 23, 1983 when a Mercedes Benz truck, laden with explosives, took down the entire Marine Corps barracks.

Moving forward, when one blames 9/11/01 on GWB, it's crucial to discuss the first World Trade Center attack, in February 1993. Clint-on was in office for this and no, it wasn't his fault, but again, a result of America's foreign policies in the Middle East, predominantly Israel. The USS Cole was attacked on Clint-on's watch, same terrorists, same cause, different target.

So this offers a quick snapshot which one can debate when GWB is blamed as "First strike" President. Somebody had to do something, the rest is a matter of opinions and it seems clear the majority of Americans are at this point, in 2008, frustrated with our men and women in uniform fighting; these Wars, their financial cost and loss of life is a main reason O-bama has risen to the level of nearly winning the Presidency.

You mentioned theology, bibilical references. "Catholic social doctrine as I was taught it is, you take care of people who need the help the most." This quote is not from GWB, not Sarah Pal-in. Nope. It's a few days old and it's from Joe Bi-den. Not particularly controversial, Bi-den's words, but wait, he furthered, "Now it’d be different if you could make the case to me that by giving this tax cut to the very wealthy, everybody else was going to be better off. We saw what happened the last eight years when we gave that tax cut.” So a Democrat, potential VP is telling us that his Bible and faith are going to dictate tax cuts? Put the needle on the record, dance dance cause now, we can see that faith, religion is used by both sides of the aisle, as needed. The NY Times, ACLU and Democrats would be outraged if Mc-Cain or Pal-in even hinted that Catholicism was their compass for taxes, but it came from Bi-den, so the separation of Church and State thingy doesn't apply. Shhh.

In terms of the GOP, "Dooming itself into insignificance." There are many who'd say that Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress' 1994 Contract with America ran the Clint-on White House, implementing a conservative, connect the dot roadmap for the Clint-on agenda. In fact, many feel that if Democrats can't win the White House this time around, it is their party which will be mocked for it's own insignificance. The Republican party had the likes of Colin Powell, Norm Schwarzkopf, Chuck Hagel, Condoleeza Rice to dust off and run for office, there was an abundance of quailified candidates in their dugout and the Democrats lack depth in this arena. It was always a two horse race for the Democrats, Hill-ary and O-bama. Howard Dean was a flash in the pan which flamed out, he's now in charge of the lighting on the stage for his party, Gore seems determined to destroy the ozone with his body mass and Kerry will be a Senator in MA for the remainder of his career. The future of the Democratic party, Edwards, he's now working the front door at the Playboy Mansion (in Chicago).

Lastly, I agree with your point of conservatism and GWB. History will record that GWB was not the conservative he pretended to be. A Democratic President offered some of my favorite thoughts on government, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country."

Worth reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America


Sorry if I offend, but you really didn't answer any of the questions that I ask, well maybe one (social conservatism)......

I really am tired of having blame from this decades issues, being placed on an administration from the last decade. The horse has been beat to death....let it rest. On the other hand, I'm not naive to think that our executive branch controls all.....or that there were no serious issues before GWB, or issues from one administration doesn't effect the future administration, but we've had a series of serious melt-down in the past 8 years, and you can't keep blaming it on someone else.

As far as catholic social doctrine is concerned I really don't care who says what... Plus are you sure your not looking at a small fragment of entire conversation, and taking it out of context? The GOP has done very little for the greater good, and their theology is down-right scary...obvious IMO. You can't beat someone over the head with the bible! This shouldn't be a political agenda, rather it should be a theological mission.....which has been shown to be much more effective if applied to human conscience on a personal (one-to-one) level, rather than misguided ideology/political agenda forced on a populous indiscriminately.

As a christian, I believe that God holds us accountable, not man. We are responsible to each other, but it's dangerous to start playing God, and taking choices away from individuals is playing God. I live my life by my own "social conservatism" based on my own convictions.... I don't need a label, for personal, or political gain. And I don't strut my self-righteousness, I just "try" and set a good example, and make an impression if given the opportunity...that's what Christ did.

Tax cuts.....first off, I tend to disagree with everyone on this issue. We are in a war, a very expensive war.....so where is the money coming from to give this economic stimulus? It's technically just borrowed money....so we'll pay for it later, with interest......it's myopic, and counterproductive to long term economic stability. Plus, do you know that anyone receiving any government assistance, was ineligible for the so called "economic stimulus".....what poor people can't use a little extra money????

It has been thoroughly established that the country was deceived in going to war with Iraq. It has also been plainly obvious that the man elected to executor was not really the one calling the shots. Say what you will, but I am much more confident in the intelligence, and ambition of Cheney, and Rumsfeld.....and though I whole-heartedly disagree with the decision, I'm glad they were at the helm....it could be worse!

I don't even know what to say about your final argument. So if Gingrich is responsible for controlling the clinton term, than are they (Gingrich, and his buddies) responsible for the intelligence, or financial woes left at the end of the term....according to your argument above, there seems to be some conflict? I'm not sure the Dems are the answer to all of the issues we face as a country, but looking at the GOP, it's really just become a good old white boys party, with a few tokens. Neither their demographic, or policies really help minorities, or the poor (or the middle class for that matter), and I don't think they would disagree...GWB definitely hasn't.

The dems represent the demographic of our country, and I agree with most of their policies (not all.....I'm personally pro-life), and they have a very capable, and qualified individual to run the executive branch..... so why wouldn't I support them.

I'm not completely happy that McCain might win, but truthfully, after 8 years of GW....I'll be really, really happy to move on!!! I think either candidate (policies aside) will represent our country well, and re-establish broken relationships and our dignity in the world.

[Blue Jays]

Yawn (http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=50680)