This is topic NY-23 special election ** UPDATE ** — Sarah "Kiss of Death" Palin strikes again in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
A Florida conservative has registered an official "Tea Party" with the office of the Secretary of State, and is promising to run candidates against Republicans and Democrats in state and national races.
"The current system has become mired in the sludge of special interest money that seeks to control the leadership of both parties. It’s time for real change,” says Orlando lawyer Frederic O’Neal, the new party's chairman, who couldn't be reached immediately by phone, in a press release.
A spokeswoman for the Florida Secretary of State, Jennifer Davis, said the party had registered in August, and that its qualified candidates will appear on the ballot in the state.
O'Neal compared his party's role to that of the Conservative Party in New York's 23rd District. Florida, however, lacks the "fusion" rules that has allowed third parties in New York to amass influence by offering their ballot line to acceptable major-party candidates.
_____________-
quote:SARANAC LAKE, N.Y. — Democrats won a special election in New York State’s northernmost Congressional district Tuesday, a setback for national conservatives who heavily promoted a third candidate in what became an intense debate over the direction of the Republican Party.
The district has been a Republican stronghold for generations, and the party has represented parts of it since the 19th century.
The battle became one of the most closely followed races in the nation, drawing in some of the biggest forces in politics in both parties. Republicans who viewed the race as a test of the party’s most deeply held conservative principles — including Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska; Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, a presidential hopeful; and grass-roots groups that have forcefully opposed Democratic economic and health care policies — rallied behind Mr. Hoffman.
Democrats threw muscle behind the race as well, eager to avoid a potentially embarrassing defeat as President Obama’s approval ratings have softened and efforts to portray them as the party of big government and deficit spending appear to be sticking. A win in the Republican-leaning 23rd Congressional District would provide Democrats with a welcome boost, while a loss would reinforce the notion that the party is struggling.
The seat became vacant after President Obama appointed its long-serving Republican congressman, John M. McHugh, as secretary of the Army.
Leading conservative voices — including The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page and The Weekly Standard and the talk show personalities Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck — took on the Republican nominee, Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, who supports gay rights and abortion rights and had embraced some Democratic economic policies like the federal stimulus package. They labeled her as too liberal.
The attacks on Ms. Scozzafava eventually took their toll, and she stunned her party over the weekend first by withdrawing from the race and then by urging her supporters to vote for Mr. Owens, a 60-year-old lawyer from Plattsburgh.
But the ballots had already been printed, and early results showed her picking up 6 percent of the vote. It was unclear how many of those were protest votes, and how many simply did not know she had left the race.
The White House became closely involved in the efforts to boost Mr. Owens’s candidacy in the final days of the campaign. They orchestrated an effort that persuaded Ms. Scozzafava to endorse Mr. Owens. Vice President Joseph R. Biden rolled through the district on Monday to support Mr. Owens.
But the race was perhaps most notable for the fissures it opened in the Republican Party. Ms. Scozzafava, who was selected as the Republican nominee by the 11 leaders of the county committees that comprise this vast district along the Canadian border, was excoriated by Washington’s conservative establishment almost as soon as she was nominated.
Ms. Scozzafava united social and fiscal conservatives from across the country firmly behind Mr. Hoffman, a previously unknown 59-year-old accountant from Lake Placid — which is not in the district.
The Club for Growth, a group that promotes limited government and lower taxes, spent about $1 million promoting Mr. Hoffman. Social conservative organizations like the Susan B. Anthony List, which opposes abortion, and the National Organization for Marriage, which fights same-sex marriage laws, joined forces in support of Mr. Hoffman. They printed literature, made phone calls and flooded the district with volunteers from across the country.
“This is probably the most amazing coalition-building I’ve seen in a long time — probably decades,” said Marilyn Musgrave, a former Republican congresswoman from Colorado who now works with the Susan B. Anthony List and came to New York to campaign for Mr. Hoffman.
On Tuesday morning, Ms. Musgrave stood in frigid weather for several hours outside a state office building in downtown Watertown with a group of home-schooled students passing out blue fliers that read, “Doug Hoffman shares our values!”
Ms. Musgrave said the overwhelming conservative embrace of Mr. Hoffman would show leaders in Washington that political bases should not be taken for granted. “Don’t just assume we’re yours.”
- JEREMY W. PETERS
many thanks to the 'politically savvy' Sarah Palin.
_
ORIGINAL POST:
I am trying to collect as much of people's thoughts and opinions regarding the NY-23 election as it has so far taken place. A lot of people are theorizing that it represents an early core-vs-moderates schism in the Republican party: the 'New York Conservative Party' appeared as the competitive indie conservative platform after the GOP selected Dede Scozzafava, a Republican Assemblywoman, as its candidate.
Despite Scozzafava having the endorsement of Republican PAC's and people like Newt Gingrich, she was attacked as a 'not conservative enough' candidate. The Conservative Party broke with the Republicans over Scozz and tapped Doug Hoffman, a Lake Placid CPA, who didn't get the Republican nomination.
In this three-way, it was put as a dead heat. Then Palin endorsed Hoffman over the GOP, and Scozzafava has dropped out without endorsing anyone. There isn't enough time to do any meaningful polling for what that means.
The current political observation is coming up with some interesting stuff but I'd like to collect as much of other people's more connected interpretations.
This is kind of like throwing a regular election into a blender. It's a really weird 'big tent folding' event. What do you think is going on?
[ November 11, 2009, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
A lot of influential people are jumping onto the Hoffman bandwagon, now that Sarah Palin led the way. Right now it looks like she is heading a conservative attempt to take over the Republican Party. By 2012, Palin may well be the de facto head of the Republican Party. No one will be able to claim she is not politically savy then.
quote:Ken Spain, a spokesman for the NRCC, said Scozzafava will now release her supporters to vote for Hoffman.
That endorsement will set in motion phone banks, voter e-mails and other NRCC ground operations for Hoffman, GOP sources told Fox News, adding that the NRCC may also provide money for TV and radio ads if any slots are available and the campaign needs them.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia and NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions announced their endorsement for Hoffman shortly after Scozzafava dropped out of the race.
They will if, after hypothetically taking control of the GOP, she leads it to electoral disaster. And demographically speaking...well, frankly, that's likely.
God, even Democrats shouldn't want Palin to head the GOP. Someone that incompetent, partisan, and frankly laughable makes it difficult to compel one's own party to remain honest and keep `em on their toes, after all.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Right now it looks like she is heading a conservative attempt to take over the Republican Party. By 2012, Palin may well be the de facto head of the Republican Party. No one will be able to claim she is not politically savy then.
The only way you can claim that is by ignoring game theory.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rakeesh, you said Sarah Palin is: "incompetent, partisan, and frankly laughable." But what if, in fact, she proves you are wrong (except, of course she is partisan), and that this is just the way Democrats have mistakenly convinced themselves to perceive her as being? A lot of blatant lies were told about Palin as soon as she became a candidate, many of them sexist and muckraking--even in the mainstream media. That was one of the most shameful episodes in American political history.
But by all means, continue to underestimate her. That will be to her advantage, if all her adversaries underestimate her. Once she proves herself to the American public, that approval will be accompanied by laughter at her adversaries--and no political candidates or political party can survive being laughed at for long.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:But by all means, continue to underestimate her. That will be to her advantage, if all her adversaries underestimate her. Once she proves herself to the American public, that approval will be accompanied by laughter at her adversaries--and no political candidates or political party can survive being laughed at for long.
So, why couldn't she have proved herself as a vice presidential candidate instead of driving the ticket into the ground? Or why couldn't she have proved herself as a post-election executive instead of embarrassingly abandoning her post and her duties? I guess she is proving herself now by actively reinforcing a schism in her chosen party that basically benefits progressives! I am sure it will be 'to her advantage!'
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
She did not drive the ticket into the ground. You can't say that and be the least bit impartial. Her opponents were so terrified of her, they sent an army of muckrackers to Alaska and went all out trying to dig up dirt, and did not bother with checking the facts. Mainstream media like the New York Times lied about her and indulged in blatant insults twice as much as they told the truth (if they ever did). Still she added life and appeal to the ticket. Only the blindness of the Obama worshippers and his manufactured "star power" won the election for the socialist fascists.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Once she proves herself to the American public...
Heh. I'm willing to wait. Of course, since you've predicted it, I'm pretty sure that means it will never happen. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ron,
quote:Rakeesh, you said Sarah Palin is: "incompetent, partisan, and frankly laughable." But what if, in fact, she proves you are wrong (except, of course she is partisan), and that this is just the way Democrats have mistakenly convinced themselves to perceive her as being? A lot of blatant lies were told about Palin as soon as she became a candidate, many of them sexist and muckraking--even in the mainstream media. That was one of the most shameful episodes in American political history.
Winning the leadership of the GOP would not prove me wrong, Ron. The only real proof of competence would be winning the leadership and then winning elections, lots of them and more than she loses, for the Republican party.
I would point out her incompetence in the last election, but it very much appears to me as though you're already whitewashing her numerous shortcomings as media attacks and bias. But that's not actually what happened. The truth is, she was simply a mess. She's still a mess. She would be disastrous for both parties. The higher she rises in national politics, the greater a disservice she does to her country, in my opinion.
She had her chance to 'prove herself to the public'. She blew it big time, very likely because frankly she just wasn't very worthwhile in the first place.
quote:She did not drive the ticket into the ground. You can't say that and be the least bit impartial. Her opponents were so terrified of her, they sent an army of muckrackers to Alaska and went all out trying to dig up dirt, and did not bother with checking the facts. Mainstream media like the New York Times lied about her and indulged in blatant insults twice as much as they told the truth (if they ever did). Still she added life and appeal to the ticket. Only the blindness of the Obama worshippers and his manufactured "star power" won the election for the socialist fascists.
OK Ron, though in keeping with your previous style of predictions and stating of facts I very much doubt you can actually cite these lies you're referring to, I'd be grateful if you would. Also, it's pretty self-serving to be calling Obama's appeal during the elections due to blindness of his followers, but Palin's very stark lack of appeal is due to bad journalism that tricked people.
Apparently in the political world you see, Obama's victories were due to his easily duped and blinded followers. Palin's defeats were due to conspiratorial journalism and politics. I'm really not even sure why you're posting about this, Ron. There is literally nothing that can happen that will not support your world view.
If Obama gains popularity, it's due to the stupidity of his 'followers'. If he loses popularity, it's because his followers have 'snapped out of it'. If Palin gains popularity, those who respect her are thoughtful citizens participating in the democratic process. If she loses popularity, they're easily duped suckers tricked by conspiracies.
ETA: Just an anecdote: I was on the fence leaning towards voting for McCain for president, but putting Palin on the bottom of the ticket cost him my vote in about the amount of time it took for me to get to know her.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
And how did you get to know her, Rakeesh? Through the mainstream media that was in love with Obama, and therefore totally determined to destroy Palin? Through the ambush journalism by Katie Couric? You never got to know her, if you think anything negative about her.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wait, if I think anything negative about her, I never got to know her at all? She is so wonderful there is nothing bad to say about her, Ron?
C'mon. That's just absurd. Does Palin really walk on water for you?
Specifically, what part of the Couric interview was 'ambush' journalism? And if Palin can't successfully outwit Katie Couric, how awesome can she be?
I also note with shock - shock, I say! - your lack of citing a time when the mainstream media lied about Palin.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Heh, Ron, revisionist history is a tricky thing. I often find it's most successful when you fuse truth with untruth, to give it a flavor of realness, rather than just replacing all the facts with made up stuff.
Really though, come on, let's go back in time. Actually, go reread the election threads we had going about the time that Palin entered the fray. You don't remember endless coverage from the media on Bill Ayers? On birth certificates? On Reverend Crazyface, or whatever his name was? 24/7 wall to wall coverage, over and over, with free media playing all sorts of damaging things?
And what was the negative coverage of Palin? People asking her perfectly legitimate, fair questions, and her having no earthly clue how to respond! Yes, some unfair stuff followed that, but it didn't start that way. People gave her a chance. She has some folksy, maybe too folksy, charm about her, and the nation didn't know how to respond, but she was the first female VP candidate since Ferraro, and people were excited about that, especially for the GOP, and a lot of people were waiting for her to define herself...and her problem was that she DID define herself: as incompetent. Go back and listen to the things she said. She dodged questions very, very badly, the ones she did answer were non-sensical, and she gave up awful quotes about Putin rearing his head in Alaska's back yard and tons of other things.
People will take you a lot more seriously if you say "I think Palin is great, but yeah, she does have her faults." Otherwise? You come off as a blind fanatic, and people aren't going to take you as seriously. I'm still hanging in there out of Mitten pride; you're from Michigan, and I refuse to believe there isn't more common sense in there.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The problem is, some of you are mischaracterizing everything that was done and said. And the answer that Palin gave Couric was actually correct, it was Couric who did not properly specify what she meant. In fact, it was later pointed out that there were four possible answers to the question Couric asked, and Palin picked the best one, not the one Couric had in mind. But all some people want to remember is Palin's lack of preparation and seeming tentativeness for interviews with folks who turned out not to be just folks (like she was used to in Alaska), but were actually covertly hostile, laying out traps for her. Next time, she will not be such easy prey for the vultures. Sarah Barracuda will be ready for them.
The problem with selecting erroneous statements about Palin by the mainstream press is that virtually everything they said about her was either completely false, or else grossly and spitefully distorted. If you could not see that then, you probably are not willing to see it now. You probably figured that at least half of the bad things had to be true, without doing any real critical analysis and fact-checking from truly impartial sources. Too many of you showed in those past threads that you did not get what was really going on, and blindly denied it even when it was pointed out to you.
If Palin is the person I think she is--smart, decisive, willing to go against corruption even in her own party to clean things up, a natural competitor, and increasingly politically savvy, then this will become undeniably apparent as we approach 2012. YOU. WILL. SEE.
Just like you will see what the dire consequences to the nation will be for voting for a socialist fascist leftwing extremist for president. Many of us saw through the propaganda, and knew better. We feel more and more vindicated every day.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:She did not drive the ticket into the ground. You can't say that and be the least bit impartial.
Yes, yes I can. I follow methodological data. By October 30th, it showed that Palin really only had been a positive polling factor among votes that were nearly assuredly McCain anyway, and a scant handful of independent conservatives while she drove away a larger quantity of moderates and moderate independents. A majority of respondents considered Palin unqualified for the job. She then went awry on her own ticket, dropping the campaign script and causing even more problems for McCain. By the time the dust settled, she had been the largest dog on the campaign short of the economic collapse.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You're being vague again, Ron. Can you point to a specific quote and/or question-answer in which Palin was smeared by some sort of media conspiracy?
You can feel vindicated all you like, but if you can't actually provide evidence for your vindication, you shouldn't expect to persuade anyone. No matter HOW. MANY. CAPS. LOCKED. WORDS. YOU. USE.
quote:
The problem with selecting erroneous statements about Palin by the mainstream press is that virtually everything they said about her was either completely false, or else grossly and spitefully distorted. If you could not see that then, you probably are not willing to see it now. You probably figured that at least half of the bad things had to be true, without doing any real critical analysis and fact-checking from truly impartial sources. Too many of you showed in those past threads that you did not get what was really going on, and blindly denied it even when it was pointed out to you.
You know, on re-reading your post, Ron: up yours, man. I asked you repeatedly for a specific instance of the claim you were making, and instead of doing that, your response was basically, "You're so stupid I don't have to do that."
You're a hack, and in that light, Palin is definitely the candidate for you.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But by all means, continue to underestimate her. That will be to her advantage, if all her adversaries underestimate her. Once she proves herself to the American public, that approval will be accompanied by laughter at her adversaries--and no political candidates or political party can survive being laughed at for long.
Hah. Oh good. The one candidate in the late presidential election who actually managed to end up not only losing the election, but also leaving her elected office in the process. And she's going to have the stuff to take over the republican party! Brilliant! I don't know if it speaks more ill of you for believing this, or more ill of your own party that it might conceivably, though improbably, come to pass.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The problem with selecting erroneous statements about Palin by the mainstream press is that virtually everything they said about her was either completely false, or else grossly and spitefully distorted. If you could not see that then, you probably are not willing to see it now.
CLAIM BY RON LAMBERT: "virtually everything" that the mainstream press said about Palin was either completely false or else grossly and spitefully distorted.
SOURCE: ???
EVIDENCE: ???
VIABILITY: ???
CREDIBILITY: ???
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ron's a primary source, he doesn't need any of that. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Watch and be confounded, Orincoro.
Rakeesh, quit being demanding. I will not obey you. Your debate tactics are petty and petulant. Not to mention sophomoric.
Samprimary, your analysis of the data is mistaken. You are just deluding yourself. And you ignore the fact that Palin only began to be seen in a negative light by many people when the mainstream press--like MSNBC, and The New York Times ratcheted up their brazen slander and muckraking efforts to a feverish pitch. Only the people who watched Fox News got a fairly accurate and honest view of Palin, or at least were alerted to the possibility that what the Mainstream Press was saying about her was questionable. Sometimes it took a couple of weeks for the truth to catch up to the falsehoods, but by then people had forgotten what it was that was being disproven, and just latched on to the general negative feeling about Palin, even thought it was completely unjustified.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The problem is, some of you are mischaracterizing everything that was done and said. And the answer that Palin gave Couric was actually correct, it was Couric who did not properly specify what she meant. In fact, it was later pointed out that there were four possible answers to the question Couric asked, and Palin picked the best one, not the one Couric had in mind.
You're being typically vague here, but I'm guessing you might be confusing the Couric interview with the Gibson interview, the question being about The Bush Doctrine. Even so, there was no "best possible answer" to that question, and though I can agree it wasn't the most well thought out question, had Palin actually been aware of the various meanings of that phrase, she might have been able to get him to clarify it, rather than spewing nonsense.
Now, if we *are* talking about the Couric interview, I would be more than happy to post the inane rambling gibberish that came out of Palin's mouth, for the joy of seeing you defend it.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Gibson too.
I would like to see Palin have new interviews with Couric and Gibson and some others. We will see then who eats whom alive, now that she is familiar with what passes for journalism in the major networks.
I will go even further. I will tell you plainly that I suspect Sarah Palin could very well prove to be the next Margaret Thatcher. And my answer to every carping cavil of you sniveling liberals, is watch and see.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh, quit being demanding. I will not obey you. Your debate tactics are petty and petulant. Not to mention sophomoric.
You won't 'obey' (otherwise known as answer) a direct question that lies at the very heart of the arguments you're making...and you've got the nerve to accuse others of being petty, petulant, and sophomoric?
Your debate 'tactic' in this discussion amounts to being asked a direct question more than once, and refusing to answer it while suggesting the ones asking the question are too stupid to interpret the answer. Your making statements, and aren't backing up any of them with anything except your own claims about what was said.
And that's why Palin is a good candidate for you. I'd say you're welcome to her, but unfortunately the better she does, the worse off the country is.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I will go even further. I will tell you plainly that I suspect Sarah Palin could very well prove to be the next Margaret Thatcher. And my answer to every carping cavil of you sniveling liberals, is watch and see.
:snort: Has someone hacked into Ron's account to screw with all of us? Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hey, now I'm a liberal! Who knew?
I mean, I expected I was carping and sniveling. But liberal? Learn something new every day!
And of course, we'll certainly have to watch and see, because it'll be a cold day in hell before Ron will actually provide current evidence in support of his statements.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm a liberal, and I almost never see Rakeesh at the meetings.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, but are you at the carping sniveling liberal meetings?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yeah, I've seen him there.
You, not so much.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
So, first Ron Lambert tells off Rakeesh for using "petty and petulant, not mention sophomoric" debate tactics.
Then he waves off commentary with stuff like
1. Writing off all dissenting appropriation of Palin as complete delusion. 2. Flaming the other posters as carping caviling sniveling liberals.
Cool, we have a hypocrisy machine.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Congrats on turning my thread into a comedy goldmine by segueing into a sermon of the First Church of the Palinfallibility though!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Isn't this normally where, if it wasn't your thread, you'd chime in with your classic standby line?
"I am posting in this high quality thread!"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That's mainly for threads that should never have been made in the first place!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Interestingly (or sadly enough), Palin is reading as the leading Republican candidate at the Intrade prediction market at 27.0% with Romney and Pawlenty close behind.
Of course, this implies an interesting resolution to this situation. If Ron is serious about Palin, he could put down $27 (or a significant amount more, to make it sweeter) and win $100 if he's right (with the others taking the other side of that bet).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
In all honesty: that would be an expected case, given the self-selection of people who would at all be compelled to bet on that present contract. Reasonably, the call on the nonambiguous conclusion of that event is a longshot and a real flighty gamble — the contract's a fool's playground. You'd have to be just doing it for fun, lottery picking longshot odds, or be the kind of person possessed of remarkably impenetrable early predictive confidence of the outcome based on near-certain faith in a certain candidate. So, it would be people like Ron.
Also, while still nearly impossible to reasonably predict, few personalities give any sort of indication that a chain of events, no matter how presently unlikely, could lead to their success in the 2012 party nomination. Palin, Romney, and Pawlenty fit the present bill.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
So you're writing off Huckabee? If you write him off, why not Romney too, since religion seems to be the hindering factor for both of them in terms of popularity?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Huckabee is at 14.2% roughly tied with someone that I am personally unaware of called Thune.
It is gambling. Although I would note you can hedge your bet by betting on a number of candidates or even by not betting on candidates but by betting against candidates. For example right now, it is a lot safer to bet against Palin than bet for any one individual candidate. (Interestingly, Palin's contracts have roughly a magnitude more volume than the next closest in volume)
The short story, however, is that if anyone can convince Ron to put his money where is mouth is and commit to a 1:1 bet on Palin then you could get quite a steal.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ron won't even go back through his own posts to quote a prediction he's been right about. So I very much doubt that barring hot coals and shackles, anyone would be able to get him to wager on a prediction.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Surely, that speaks to an embarrassing lack of confidence in the next Margaret Thatcher.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, I could just be a sniveling, carping liberal, but it does appear that way to my family-hating pinko eyes.
ETA: Actually, now that I think about it, Ron's lack of verifying his own predictions is as much a case for him being willing to wager on this prediction as it is a case against it. Someone who wouldn't put their integrity where their post is would be...well, let's just say I wouldn't hold my breath waiting to collect on a lost wager from him.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm really hoping that the GOP does nominate Palin for the 212 ticket and some one equally unelectable in 216. McCain committed political suicide when he picked Palin as his VP and as a liberal I'd find it fun to watch the whole GOP make that same mistake again.
Watching the downward spiral of the GOP is quite satisfying. Not sufficiently satisfying to compensate for all the damage they've done to the country, but still watching it does bring some pleasure.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Competent to win elections by appealing to the worst in people is not the same as competent to lead the country.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Ron won't even go back through his own posts to quote a prediction he's been right about. So I very much doubt that barring hot coals and shackles, anyone would be able to get him to wager on a prediction.
You forget, Ron's actual prediction in this thread is that Palin will clinch the nomination *if* the people are not blinded by the cynical and socialist/fascist news media. So he has an out- however silly that kind of reasoning may be... Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Watching the downward spiral of the GOP is quite satisfying. Not sufficiently satisfying to compensate for all the damage they've done to the country, but still watching it does bring some pleasure.
Because if there's one thing the DNC needs, it's to be completely unchallenged by anyone but themselves...
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Competent to win elections by appealing to the worst in people is not the same as competent to lead the country.
Well, the GOP hasn't proved itself competent at winning elections in the last 3 years either. But I disagree with Rabbit only in that I hope some non-tomato-can conservative is nominated so that we don't have to endure another 4 years of total lockstep conservative resistance in the senate. A moderate conservative might encourage moderate conservatives to be elected in congress as well, or at least encourage those who are already there to do their jobs, rather than attempt to stop everyone from doing anything productive. The negative feedback cycle is not going to be helped by continued swings from one side to the other as we've experienced in the last few years.
Personally, I blame the national attention payed to more local political races- particularly the idea that national political figures or parties should control local elections through acclamation by the party, rather than by the locals. What you end up with is national figures like Obama or Palin throwing weight around in races that do not concern them, and getting elected candidates who are beholden to the national parties, rather than the people who elected them. If each senator actually voted according to the genuine interests of the people he or she was actually meant to be representing, I think we'd find a much easier time of legislation in both houses, particularly the senate. But as the current arrangement goes, all we can hope for is increased dependence on the national parties to help elect and then in effect control their members of congress.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
On the original topic,
Scozzafava has endorsed Owens, the Democrat.
EDIT - and according to this, most of her supporters are now undecideds.
[ November 02, 2009, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: Juxtapose ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: ... Ron's actual prediction in this thread is that Palin will clinch the nomination *if* the people are not blinded by the cynical and socialist/fascist news media.
Good point. On the other hand. YOU. WILL. SEE.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I think we should just start a Palin Love thread.
I find some of the theories here interesting, in an attempt to gain the backing of Hillary supporters McCain chose Palin as his VP. Some claim it was suicidal, killing his Presidential bid. Now others are predicting it was political Genocide--for it may lead to her taking over the Republican party, which will doom it. DOOOOOOOOmmmmm I say.
I like the phrase Political Genocide.
Despite Ron's claims, however, she is neither the victim of liberal infatuated press, or the savior of the party. She is a representation of the entire Social Conservative Movement.
It is unfortunate for the Social Conservative movement that they have picked such a difficult representative.
She is a small town politician forced to play in the big time, where people do research your background, your comments, and your associates.
It was not what she was expecting last year and it through her whole game off.
Now she thinks she's ready to take revenge on those who got in the way of her crusade for power and fame.
Since I've never heard her say anything positive that wasn't about herself, conservatives, or those who are paying her, I expect the negatives will just keep on coming and keep on driving people away from the party.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: So you're writing off Huckabee?
Um, no. I'm not writing him off at all. Do you understand what I actually wrote?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Hey Sam, I'm sort of curious whether you think Hoffman and the Conservative party represent a faction that is simply lagging (ETA: perhaps increasingly lagging?) behind the political zeitgeist, or one that is instead actively moving to the right.
I also wonder if there's a practical difference between the two.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
After the Obama victory, some Democrats confidently claimed that America has changed its overall political balance, and is now center-left. But polls show that is not true. America is still center-right. According to Rassmussen, 72% of Americans believe Obama is too liberal, and 51% say Congress is too liberal.
Among the things this means, is that those on the left who think they are in the ascendency are mistaken, and if their candidates emphasize that they are liberal, it will hurt them in elections, not help them.
Another thing this means, is that conservative candidates have a much better chance of capturing the middle than do liberals. Republican candidates who emphasize how moderate to liberal they are, will not attract as many votes as real conservatives. Conservatives like Palin and Hoffman not only have a better chance of taking over the Republican Party, they also stand a better chance of winning elections.
When the Republican Party becomes as much consistently conservative as the Democratic Party is consistently liberal, this will provide American voters with a clearer choice--and it will be the Republicans who attract the majority of votes since voters are predominantly center-right.
Democrats who try to live in denial of this, and suppose that being seen as liberals will give them the advantage in appeal to voters, are dooming themselves.
I am old enough to remember when both parties had liberal and conservative wings. Now there are very few conservative to centrist Democrats (Lieberman might count as one, at least in foreign policy and some other issues), and the liberal to centrist Republicans are under attack and definitely losing ground in their own party.
Contrary to what some liberals here seem to think, this polarization will lead to a Republican landslide in the 2010 midterm elections, when Obama's star power will not be a factor.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Contrary to what some liberals here seem to think, this polarization will lead to a Republican landslide in the 2010 midterm elections, when Obama's star power will not be a factor.
OK, here's a very clear-cut prediction about a clear event that will happen in almost a year to the day. Good.
WE. WILL. SEE. indeed.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
We don't know Ron's definition of a "landslide" though.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, since I don't think the Republicans will actually win at all - much less by anyone's definition of a landslide - I think Ron will eat crow.
Not publicly, of course. A man who makes predictions as authoritatively as Ron does but who doesn't also, y'know, substantiate his authority, isn't the sort to eat crow no matter how much actually gets down his throat.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
When you get into the nuts and bolts of a lot of these races, I think you'll see the Senate more or less stay the same in 2010. The GOP might net a seat or two, but it's really going to depend on what gets passed in the next year. Health care? Climate change legislation? Those are really the two big ones on the burners for the legislative session. Their passage will have an effect.
As for the House, I think the GOP will net a dozen seats. Yeah, the opposition party usually makes a pickup, and yeah, something like less than 20% of Americans are willing to identify themselves as being in the GOP, so that maybe cancels that historic effect out. But, Democrats got their big majority by electing very conservative Democrats in traditionally conservative districts. There are maybe two dozen Democrats that really should be Republicans in the House, and all of them won their seats under special circumstances: Extreme Democratic turnout for Obama in 2008, and some GOP unpopularity. In 2010, those circumstances won't exist, and control will revert.
The result? Not much in the Senate. Dems don't really have the 60 supermajority right now anyway. Filibuster breakers are too much about shifting alliances anyways, not as much about party affiliation.
For the House, GOP picks up 15 seats, and is still way behind. If anything, it might hurt them. Pelosi won't be as beholden to a now weakened Blue Dog bloc, which might result in an ironically more liberal House.
Either way, won't be a sweep, won't be a landslide. People are unenthusiastic about Democrats, but they hate Republicans. We're still a year away with a lot of legislating in between, so keep that in mind, but as things stand right now, we're in for a bland 2010 midterms.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
quote:Republican candidates who emphasize how moderate to liberal they are, will not attract as many votes as real conservatives. Conservatives like Palin and Hoffman not only have a better chance of taking over the Republican Party, they also stand a better chance of winning elections.
Ron, it looks like you are saying there is no such thing as a real moderate Republican. There are only real Conservative Republicans and those that are Moderate-liberals.
Ron, if that is so you are admitting that there is no Moderate--only Liberal and Conservative. That those who are Center-Right are in fact--Liberals since they are not Right.
By that thinking, someone who is Center Right will vote for a Moderate Democrat over a Real Republican because the Moderate Democrat will be in the Center and the Real Republican will be on the Right.
Of course, calling anyone who is center of Right a Liberal may give you hopes of alienating them from that Center Right person, but the issues should solve that.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
What's ironic is that this is exactly the behavior that has people talking about a Republican death-spiral. "Is Candidate X conservative enough" leads inexorably to "Candidate Y is more conservative than Candidate X" and I think what you'll end up with is ideological one-upmanship. (That can't be a real word.)
That this mechanism is occurring, and that it is currently driving away a cross-section of moderates and independents seems plain to me. Whether or not it is widespread or long lasting enough to affect the long-term health of the GOP is, to me, the central question.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Welp, it looks like Sarah "Kiss of Death" Palin strikes again.
Democratic candidate Owens won.
This is a Republican +31 district that the liberals have not held in over a hundred years.
There's more interesting information to be gleaned from the aftermath of this election, but it basically boils down to the fact that the Republicans chased off an electable moderate, eating their own in an internal struggle that's been sparked by an ideological purity crusade by the far right in the G.O.P. — the candidate they propped up in her place has been recently described as a clueless carpetbagger, and his disastrous television interviews sort of reinforced that fact.
More on this later as the data filters in!
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: but it basically boils down to the fact that the Republicans chased off an electable moderate
Dede Scozzafava was not electable.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Not if Governor Palin has anything to say about it!
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
So Scozzafava was doing well before Palin came to town?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: but it basically boils down to the fact that the Republicans chased off an electable moderate
Dede Scozzafava was not electable.
Yeah, right. That's the most straightforwardly untrue thing you've said in quite a while. If Hoffman hadn't run an independent protest campaign after his rejection by the G.O.P., Scozzafava would have absolutely won. She was polled at a virtual dead heat early on in the three way between her, Owens, and Hoffman.
As of October 24, Scozzafava was in second place to Owens only by virtue of the vote split between her and Hoffman, and she had the highest favorability rating of all three candidates.
The notion that she was not electable is a flat-out lie.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: but it basically boils down to the fact that the Republicans chased off an electable moderate
Dede Scozzafava was not electable.
Where are you getting that from? It's totally not true. Without Hoffman's interference, she would have beaten Owens.
Whoever is feeding you that dreck doesn't know what they are talking about.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Hoffman was the one who was unelectable. Quite apart from what an excruciatingly loud, but tinsy tiny minority believes, most people in this country are not interested in candidates who are "pure" as defined by Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well Alcon, I wouldn't say that. There are plenty of people - such as myself - who are very much interested in who folks such as Rush and Palin define as 'pure'.
Then I know never, ever to vote or support them in even the slightest way. To the extent that if someone was unfortunate enough to share the last name with someone enthusiastically endorsed by Rush, well, they'd be a tough sell!
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Doug Hoffman might not be hurting Dede Scozzafava as much as she is hurting herself, according to a new poll out Thursday.
The new poll shows Democrat Bill Owens holds a 35-30 lead over Scozzafava in a special election for New York's 23rd district. The Research 2000 poll for the liberal website Daily Kos echoes a poll from last week that showed Owens leading Scozzafava 33-29. Conservative Party candidate Hoffman was at 23 percent in both polls.
quote: Today's Siena poll of likely NY-23 voters finds GOP Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava has a 7 point lead over her closest contender, the Democrats' Bill Owens, but the presence of the Conservative candidate, Doug Hoffman, complicates the race.
Scozzafava leads Owens, 35-28, with Hoffman pulling 16 percent of the vote despite the fact that 71 percent of poll respondents have no idea who he is.
Months early polling means very little. Her popularity, such as it was, dropped very fast in October once things started to heat up. She would have lost to Owens even if Hoffman had not started campaigning. 71% of the people didn't even know who Hoffman was yet he got 16% of the vote early on. Owens ran a much better campaign than she did and the closer it got to election day the more people simply forgot Scozzafava in favor of anyone else.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
"Stood a less than 50% chance of winning the election" is not the same as "unelectable."
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Actually, if a handful of Republican party bosses in the NY 23rd district had allowed the people to pick their nominee, they would have allowed Hoffman to run as a Republican, instead of as an Independent. Then there is no question Hoffman would have won. Many people prefer the two-party system, and are reluctant to vote for an Independent. Since the candidate they did support was repudiated by the vast majority of the Republican Party, and since that candidate when forced by the clear direction of the polls to withdraw, then cast her support to the Democrat (thus revealing her true colors), it became clear just how wrong those party bosses had been. This is a lesson that will reverbrate throughout the Republican Party. Next time they nominate someone, he or she had better be a real Republican.
Thus even though Hoffman was narrowly defeated, Palin still made her point. Anyone who says she or other conservatives "poisoned" Hoffman's candidacy or forced away voters, are simply refusing to recognize the reality of what actually happened. It was the Republican Party bosses in NY making a wrong choice who "poisoned" their own chances to take over the NY 23 congressional seat.
And isn't it interesting how some Democrats/liberals cling to this one narrow victory for the Democrats, and conspicuously avoid facing the reality of the Republican victories--some of them landslides--in all the other races. Anyone who denies this was a referendum on the Obama Administration and on the Pelosi-led Democrat-dominated Congress, are simply not being honest. Everyone else in the country can see the truth.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Hoffman was the one who was unelectable. Quite apart from what an excruciatingly loud, but tinsy tiny minority believes, most people in this country are not interested in candidates who are "pure" as defined by Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin.
Hoffman was not blown out like Scozzafava would have been. Owens won but it was not a complete overwhelming total victory.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I think Ron is overstating the case for Hoffman, he was a little more than narrowly defeated. Owens absolutely won but Hoffman fared much much better than Scozzafava. Republicans did pick a bad candidate in Scozzafava just like Democrats did with Deeds. Corzine suffered a lot from scandals and I believe a bit from "throw the incumbent bums out".
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Samprimary:
quote:The notion that she was not electable is a flat-out lie.
Come on Sam, you can give DarkKnight more of the benefit of the doubt than that. You can certainly say Scozzafava was unelectable, without being a liar.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: This is a Republican +31 district that the liberals have not held in over a hundred years.
It's also a district that went for Obama 52-47, so you may be overstating the miraculousness of the win just a tad. It's been a persistent demographic shift, and the erstwhile incumbant McHugh was quite moderate (reflecting the moderation of the district as a whole). I imagine that's at least part of the reason he was tapped as the SecArmy, because Obama's political advisors believed the district was winnable, given his positive numbers there.
Really, I think this demonstrates a tactical error on the part of the NY GOP. They failed to recruit a candidate that reflected the ideological values of the party.
I don't think Hoffman would have won if he'd been selected initially as the GOP candidate; too much of his appeal was as a third-party outsider (which is why his support dried up at the last minute, just like the more moderate Daggett in NJ; people like to flirt with "statement" votes in polls, but they seldom bring it home).
I also doubt that Dede Scozzafava stood a great chance of being elected. There was very little ideological room between Owens and Scozzafava, and I would guess the enthusiasm quotient would have favored the Dem. I think it would have been close, but I still think Owens would likely have won.
My interpretation is that the local GOP got so spooked by Obama's numbers in the district that they reached too far to the middle with Scozzafava, leaving their right flank unprotected. I think a solidly Republican candidate (which wasn't Scozzafava or Hoffman, both of whom are ideological outliers within the party locally and nationally) would have walked away with the race.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: She would have lost to Owens even if Hoffman had not started campaigning.
The math of your own first link actually suggests otherwise.
But you aren't even making a case that she was "unelectable" anyway.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
No, Paul. I don't see this day as a referendum for Liberal victory.
I see it as a Moderate victory.
Virginia was won by a Moderate Republican who spoke not of Conservative Lifestyle issues, but on business and pro-business issues. His victory speech was a job application and his victory promise was not to promise a new Christian Era or a return to Old Family Values. It was a promise to help increase the Free Market values.
New Jersey--another moderate Republican won.
New York--a Conservative was defeated by a Moderate.
The lesson to be learned, Ron, is not that only true Lock Step Conservative Republicans will rejuvenate the party. It is that such conservative dogma will stop the Republicans from winning.
Look at what you said Paul. You give explanations and long complicated reasons for the Conservative loss, but chalk up the Democratic loss to an overly simplified, "They hate Obama." You are trying to have it both ways as long as it benefits your cause.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: The math of your own first link actually suggests otherwise.
But you aren't even making a case that she was "unelectable" anyway.
The math shows where she was before the campaigns really started. Once they started she got buried fast. Scozzafava can't even decide if she is a Republican or a Democrat, she ran an awful campaign and was humiliated. If she had run the same campaign against Owens without Hoffman the results would have only been slightly better for her and vastly better for Owens. In early polling 16% of the people chose Hoffman when 71% of them never heard of him.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: This is a Republican +31 district that the liberals have not held in over a hundred years.
It's also a district that went for Obama 52-47, so you may be overstating the miraculousness of the win just a tad.
I don't think this was a miraculous win. I think it was a retarded loss. The district should never have been competitive.
quote:I don't think Hoffman would have won if he'd been selected initially as the GOP candidate; too much of his appeal was as a third-party outsider (which is why his support dried up at the last minute, just like the more moderate Daggett in NJ; people like to flirt with "statement" votes in polls, but they seldom bring it home).
I also doubt that Dede Scozzafava stood a great chance of being elected. There was very little ideological room between Owens and Scozzafava, and I would guess the enthusiasm quotient would have favored the Dem. I think it would have been close, but I still think Owens would likely have won.[/QB]
Hoffman stood at least a chance of winning on his own as the initial pick, just not a pleasant margin. As for Scozzafava, I will reiterate for everyone here (Hi, DarkKnight, you listening?) that she had by far the highest approval ratings of all three candidates and is consistently the winner in all two-party estimates with the most comfortable margins.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Samprimary:
quote:The notion that she was not electable is a flat-out lie.
Come on Sam, you can give DarkKnight more of the benefit of the doubt than that. You can certainly say Scozzafava was unelectable, without being a liar.
Okay, I'll make sure to clarify that if he thinks that, it's probably not because he's lying.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Samprimary:
quote:The notion that she was not electable is a flat-out lie.
Come on Sam, you can give DarkKnight more of the benefit of the doubt than that. You can certainly say Scozzafava was unelectable, without being a liar.
Okay, I'll make sure to clarify that if he thinks that, it's probably not because he's lying.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Hoffman stood at least a chance of winning on his own as the initial pick, just not a pleasant margin. As for Scozzafava, I will reiterate for everyone here (Hi, DarkKnight, you listening?) that she had by far the highest approval ratings of all three candidates and is consistently the winner in all two-party estimates with the most comfortable margins.
Early polls like that are pretty useless. High approval ratings when you are not the incumbent months out from the campaign don't mean much as evidenced by the clear results of this election. Please explain her plummeting loss of support from the voters weeks before the election and her utter humiliation on voting day. It makes no sense to say that Scozzafava was going to be the clear winner when she was the clear loser. Hoffman went from a virtual unknown to close to winning. Owens won the election. Scozzafava went from the most known with a comfortable marging to a laughing stock.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote: I think there are four obvious lessons to draw from tonight's election returns:
1. For [Conservative Republicans: The America people reject Barack Obama and obviously want true conservative leadership. The Governorships of two states have switched to the "R" category, showing a grassroots conservative movement that is alive and well.
2. For Moderate Republicans: The American people obviously want old-fashioned economic conservatives who are moderate on social issues. McDonnell in Virginia and Christie in New Jersey won by downplaying social issues; Hoffman in New York-23 lost because he was too extreme.
3. For Moderate Democrats: The party out of power usually does well in off-year elections like this, and this year was no exception. But obviously there is no sign of any substantial shift in public opinion from the election of 2008.
4. For Liberal Democrats: NY-23 was the race to watch this year, given that right-wing extremists like Palin and Beck threw all their support behind Hoffman. But the district voters rejected the right-wing candidate, sending a Democrat to Congress for the first time in one hundred years. Obviously this shows that the American people reject right-wing extremism.
quote: I think there are four obvious lessons to draw from tonight's election returns:
1. For [Conservative Republicans: The America people reject Barack Obama and obviously want true conservative leadership. The Governorships of two states have switched to the "R" category, showing a grassroots conservative movement that is alive and well.
2. For Moderate Republicans: The American people obviously want old-fashioned economic conservatives who are moderate on social issues. McDonnell in Virginia and Christie in New Jersey won by downplaying social issues; Hoffman in New York-23 lost because he was too extreme.
3. For Moderate Democrats: The party out of power usually does well in off-year elections like this, and this year was no exception. But obviously there is no sign of any substantial shift in public opinion from the election of 2008.
4. For Liberal Democrats: NY-23 was the race to watch this year, given that right-wing extremists like Palin and Beck threw all their support behind Hoffman. But the district voters rejected the right-wing candidate, sending a Democrat to Congress for the first time in one hundred years. Obviously this shows that the American people reject right-wing extremism.
Obviously.
That was awesome Jhai.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: It makes no sense to say that Scozzafava was going to be the clear winner when she was the clear loser.
Are you even listening to what I'm saying? The only way that it "makes no sense" if one completely disregards the compound effect of Hoffman's rebellion as a very significant variable.
What you're saying is equivalent to someone looking at the bull moose debacle and saying "It makes no sense to say that Taft was going to be the clear winner when he was the clear loser."
You're either not getting what I'm transmitting at all, or you don't get game theory, or both.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Are you even listening to what I'm saying? The only way that it "makes no sense" if one completely disregards the compound effect of Hoffman's rebellion as a very significant variable.
Or it could be you are not listening to what I am saying. Scozzafava ran a terrible campaign. She didn't win a primary. She wasn't chosen by the local voters. She was a very poor pick by the Republican party heads and should never have been placed there. Owens would have easily trounced her even if Hoffman had not entered the race. I would have voted for Owens and not Scozzafava.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And isn't it interesting how some Democrats/liberals cling to this one narrow victory for the Democrats, and conspicuously avoid facing the reality of the Republican victories--some of them landslides--in all the other races. Anyone who denies this was a referendum on the Obama Administration and on the Pelosi-led Democrat-dominated Congress, are simply not being honest. Everyone else in the country can see the truth.
Mmmm, no, not so much. True, there are always landslides on both sides- but there's a difference between a landslide and an "upset." Upsets are important- they tell us something important. A landslide in a traditionally Republican district in favor of a republican signifies little that is not already known. An *upset* though, for any party in any district, is important and notice worthy. Can you point out any *unexpected* landslides in favor of either party? Can you point out a Republican favored upset? Because you impress no one by pointing out the obvious- there are always landslides. I suppose to you, a seasonal storm is nature's referendum on humanity, instead of an expected event.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Are you even listening to what I'm saying? The only way that it "makes no sense" if one completely disregards the compound effect of Hoffman's rebellion as a very significant variable.
Or it could be you are not listening to what I am saying. Scozzafava ran a terrible campaign. She didn't win a primary. She wasn't chosen by the local voters. She was a very poor pick by the Republican party heads and should never have been placed there. Owens would have easily trounced her even if Hoffman had not entered the race. I would have voted for Owens and not Scozzafava.
It really isn't possible to predict what might have happened had Hoffman not entered the race. It is, however, fairly difficult to dispute the following.
1. Scozzafava was in the lead before Hoffman entered the race. 2. Fighting within any political party, has a very strong tendency to lead to lost elections. 3. Scozzafava, even after dropping out of the election, got 6% of the vote. If one republican candidate could have garnered all the votes cast for Scozzafava and Hoffman, they would have won. Add in any Scozzafava supporters who voted for Owen's after she endorsed him, and the republicans would have won by a landslide.
None of that is a guarantee that Scozzafava would have won if the national right wing hadn't targeted her or if the republicans had united behind her.
It does however very strongly suggest that the democrats won this election because of republican infighting.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
On a broader note, Presidential politics has very limited influence on gubernatorial elections even in presidential election years. Local issues are simply far more important for Governors. In an off year election like this one, I'd be shocked if it had any influence at all in on Governor's races.
I would expect it would have a bit more influence in a legislative race, and given the high profile issues in Congress right now that influence would likely be much greater than a typical off election year.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Obama did make several campaign visits on behalf of the doomed Democratic candidates. Since he won both Virginia and New Jersey in 2008, these votes represent a radical shift in the opposite direction in voter choices. That makes the landslide victory in Virginia an even bigger landslide. Add 6 to 18 for a 24 point reversal.
If anyone is the "Kiss of Death" to a political candidate right now, it appears to be Obama.
The Omananites of course are claiming that these votes somehow were not a referendum on the administration, and try to make noises about how governor's races are not really affected by presidential politics. But we all know that if the Democrats had pulled out victories, the Obamanites would have trumpeted loudly about Obama's "coattails." Alas, he has none. Rather than coattails, he now appears to have concrete galoshes.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Are you secretly Sarah Palin in disguise?
All this talk about this somehow being a referendum on Obama's administration, about Americans not liking Obama is a load of horse shit.
Your clearly out of your depth and been proven wrong time and again, I wouldn't give a hoot in hell about someone like you who claims otherwise.
I pity you poor bastard, you have no idea of whats going on.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: 1. Scozzafava was in the lead before Hoffman entered the race.
Completely meaningless as evidenced by Clinton\Obama. Polls showed that Clinton was the de facto, can't lose, already has it locked up, nominee before Obama even started to run. Obama was not really even on the map before the campaign had started. In this case, Scozzafava had a lead before the campaigns started. Once started, Owens had a very successful campaign against her and Republicans flocked to Hoffman because he was a much better candidate than Scozzafava.
quote: 2. Fighting within any political party, has a very strong tendency to lead to lost elections.
The fight was quick and swift, a lot like when Lieberman was ousted by the Democrat heads. As exit polls have shown, Scozzafava was almost irrelevant when people voted.
quote: . Scozzafava, even after dropping out of the election, got 6% of the vote. If one republican candidate could have garnered all the votes cast for Scozzafava and Hoffman, they would have won. Add in any Scozzafava supporters who voted for Owen's after she endorsed him, and the republicans would have won by a landslide.
She got 7000 votes as opposed to 62,500ish for Owens and 57,500ish for Hoffman. She took herself out. I have linked to article above which talks about that
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
You gave no counter-arguments at all, Blayne. This seems pretty typical of your kind of responses. Absolutely every statement you made is completely wrong. You just compensate by pounding and shouting vulgarities. If you didn't give "a hoot in hell" as you claim, then you wouldn't do this.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
A fair percentage of people that polled as approving of Obama voted for the Republican candidate. There isn't really a correlation between the outcome of these elections and approval of Obama.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
From the Wall St Journal during the campaign. No one was vetted as much as Palin, although in attempt to dig up dirt. She was smeared but nothing came of anything legally, other than a smear. Unfortunately Obama's background wasn't investigated by the main stream media. Which is odd considering he had less experience than Palin and a whole litany of corrupt associates.
I understand the desire to paint the GOP as being taken over by the extreme right because when the GOP puts up McCain's, they lose. There is a shifting towards the GOP of twenty years ago, a return to core principles. In fact the only party that has been taken over by extremes is the Democratic party, controlled by the extreme left. The current Republican party would probably be to the left of JFK.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: You gave no counter-arguments at all, Blayne. This seems pretty typical of your kind of responses. Absolutely every statement you made is completely wrong. You just compensate by pounding and shouting vulgarities. If you didn't give "a hoot in hell" as you claim, then you wouldn't do this.
Every part of this statement, except the vulgarities, is also true about you, Ron.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: You gave no counter-arguments at all, Blayne. This seems pretty typical of your kind of responses. Absolutely every statement you made is completely wrong. You just compensate by pounding and shouting vulgarities. If you didn't give "a hoot in hell" as you claim, then you wouldn't do this.
I don't need a counter argument, you counter yourself.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The left is very adept at playing word games. They've rebranded themselves and their bills numerous times in an attempt to twist and market the truth. Scozifava is a "moderate" now. I suppose Pelosi is a moderate as well. The true "moderates" like McCain and Leiberman are now considered Conservatives and true conservatives are labeled extreme. When's the last time you heard the media brand any Dem as an extreme left candidate? In their minds, in that direction, there is no extreme, only progress, ie progressive. The followers of our founding principles of individual liberty and limited government may be extremely far to the right of Obama and Pelosi but it isn't the conservatives who have done the shifting. Strange world we live in when people who believe in our founding principles and the constitution are labeled extremists.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The current Republican party would probably be to the left of JFK.
From the "Should there be additional qualifications for the right to vote?" thread: Originally posted by malanthrop: JFK was a tax cutting conservative in comparison todays Dems and GOP. The defenitions have shifted. -------------------------------------------
What's your justification for these claims? [I have asked you before, btw]. When making these claims, did you consider the tax rates during JFK's presidency versus current rates?
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The left is very adept at playing word games.
No... we're really not. That's why we suck at selling legislation. I'm a pretty liberal fellow, and I'll concede that our ads for Health Care reform and other legislative priorities suck. We haven't mastered the sound-bite like the right has. We think too much and try giving too much information. (Or misinformation, if you must.)
I can't attack this tactic too much because, let's face it, it works. While I'd like for us to get away from soundbite politics, it's not going to happen.
quote: They've rebranded themselves and their bills numerous times in an attempt to twist and market the truth. Scozifava is a "moderate" now.
She is. At least relative to Hoffman and many who're active in the GOP. These labels are all relative to who you put them up against.
quote:I suppose Pelosi is a moderate as well.
Nope. Ultra liberal.
quote:The true "moderates" like McCain and Leiberman are now considered Conservatives and true conservatives are labeled extreme.
McCain was a moderate for sure. But his campaign tactic was to invigorate the conservative base and he swung to the right to try to appeal. He stopped being a moderate/maverick when he decided he needed to pander to his own party.
Leiberman is a moderate. I can't stand the guy being the liberal that I am and feelings of betrayal, but I admit he's a moderate. On a host of issues he's a fairly good liberal. On others, he goes to the other side. That balances out to be fairly moderate.
quote: When's the last time you heard the media brand any Dem as an extreme left candidate? In their minds, in that direction, there is no extreme, only progress, ie progressive.
Eh, they call Pelosi liberal fairly often, and with the upsurge in importance the blue-dog democrats have gained, they'll often call senator Schumer liberal. While that's not many democrats, there are some. So I contest your challenge of 'any dem.' And like it or not, FoxNews is mainstream media (given their dominance in market share) and they happily call anyone who breaks from the lockstep of the Republican party a liberal.
quote: The followers of our founding principles of individual liberty and limited government may be extremely far to the right of Obama and Pelosi but it isn't the conservatives who have done the shifting. Strange world we live in when people who believe in our founding principles and the constitution are labeled extremists.
I'm going to take issue with this statement on the grounds that I do support the constitution. This includes the fourth, sixth, fourteenth, and eighth amendments. I am also a fan of the tail-end of Article IV in combination with the first amendment that makes our country a secular state by definition.
My point here is (That I have made poorly because I am, afterall, a liberal) that I don't buy into the monopoly on founding principles that people try to claim. (Whether from the right or left)
And when we call someone extremist, it's because in our current political environment, they are far removed from the center of current political attitudes. This goes for the left or the right. Looking at any time other than the present for definitions of extremism seems kind of arbitrary to me.
[ November 04, 2009, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: Vadon ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You gave no counter-arguments at all, Blayne.
Ron, your response to repeated requests for a verification of your own much-exhibited prognostication abilities was met with: I don't have to back up my own words, you're too much of a carping sniveling liberal to be persuaded by the truth.
You're a hack, Ron.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:The followers of our founding principles of individual liberty and limited government may be extremely far to the right of Obama and Pelosi but it isn't the conservatives who have done the shifting. Strange world we live in when people who believe in our founding principles and the constitution are labeled extremists.
What founding principles are you talking about? We had several founding fathers who favored loose confederacy amongst the states if not total independence from each other, and founding fathers who wanted the states to forge the strong link we have today. This fundamental difference of opinion was not even remotely resolved until the Civil War. The founding fathers agreed on so little I think it's ridiculous we ever say, "The founding fathers said this..." The fact the United States of America today is fundamentally different from the confederated states of the past should be obvious evidence that some things change with the times and circumstances we live in.
Some people feel that a huge chunk of available power should be centralized in the government, and run by the elite and intelligent citizenry. People like John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall, and even George Washington favored that direction. Were they tyrannical? No, they were federalists. Look at Shay's rebellion, it was an armed uprising of farmers who felt crippled by their taxes, sound like today's TEA parties minus the arms (So far). The federalists said the government had the right to disperse the protesters as they were in rebellion, just a few years after their own armed rebellion against Great Britain.
Limited government is NOT a founding principle, if there are really any. Our government started small, and while there are times it has shrunk, the overall trend is more and more power in the hands of the government. Is it possible we may pass a threshold, if we haven't already, and need drastic action to wheel everything back? Maybe. But those who think the government should take over health care, or invest in infrastructural developments, and intervene in the economy, etc, are not imperialists or supporters of tyranny who hate our founding fathers.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Owens would have easily trounced her even if Hoffman had not entered the race. I would have voted for Owens and not Scozzafava.
See, you're saying this, and it's not evidenced at all by the actual outcome of the data. You're just continually repeating 'oh, that doesn't prove anything' and 'no, she would have lost.'
What are you backing this up on? That you individually would have voted to Owens? Great! Now, do you have something stronger than individual anecdote? I do!
The Siena, CFG, R2000 and McLaughlin groups each did tabulations both running up to and after the election that showed that in all likelihood, had there not been a Republican schism, Dede was favored above a margin of error. These are not 'early polls,' you don't get to wave them away in order to continue backpedaling on your original and indefensible sentiment that she was "unelectable."
We also know that Hoffman would have most likely won had Scozzafava not 'spoiled' by vetting for Owens.
tl;dr — you're wrong, she wasn't unelectable.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Also, I'm very glad malanthrop has come to visit this humble thread.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The left is very adept at playing word games. They've rebranded themselves and their bills numerous times in an attempt to twist and market the truth.
Ah, such as the "Clean Air Act." Sure. I'm sure this is primarily a "left" trait.
quote:Scozifava is a "moderate" now. I suppose Pelosi is a moderate as well. The true "moderates" like McCain and Leiberman are now considered Conservatives and true conservatives are labeled extreme.
No, Pelosi isn't a moderate. And McCain is absolutely a conservative. The American Conservative Union consistently vets him at 50+, and his voting record overall is highly conservative. If you don't believe McCain is a conservative, you're an example of the right-shifting-right you refuse to believe exists. One that would hyper-sensitively react to interparty 'dissent' by labeling your own moderates and Newly Unfavored as non-conservatives.
So, go ahead and tell me McCain isn't a conservative.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: The followers of our founding principles of individual liberty and limited government may be extremely far to the right of Obama and Pelosi but it isn't the conservatives who have done the shifting. Strange world we live in when people who believe in our founding principles and the constitution are labeled extremists.
Heh. I'm curious, what violation of individual liberties do you lay at the doors of liberals and not conservatives? Taxation I suppose is one, but then conservatives today - even fiscal conservatives - wanna tax ya a helluva lot more than the Founding Fathers would've even imagined was feasible too.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Please explain her plummeting loss of support from the voters weeks before the election and her utter humiliation on voting day. It makes no sense to say that Scozzafava was going to be the clear winner when she was the clear loser. Hoffman went from a virtual unknown to close to winning. Owens won the election. Scozzafava went from the most known with a comfortable marging to a laughing stock.
DarkKnight you seem to be approaching all of this pretty reasonably but I think you really want to stand back and concede some ground on this one. What you wrote here shows some misunderstanding of how profound an impact a vote split has in a winner take all scenario.
Like
"It makes no sense to say that Scozzafava was going to be the clear winner when she was the clear loser."
Do you see why this statement does not hold much water? You are saying that because the outcome was a Scozzafava loss, it makes no sense to indicate that she could have won.
This completely ignores the changing condition of Hoffman not being in the race, which is what has been talked about.
Right now a lot of conservatives are trying to convince themselves that Scozzfava was "unelectable" in order to convince themselves that this was a triumph after all. It's false. Do not buy into the shoddy reasoning.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: What are you backing this up on? That you individually would have voted to Owens? Great! Now, do you have something stronger than individual anecdote? I do!
The Siena, CFG, R2000 and McLaughlin groups each did tabulations both running up to and after the election that showed that in all likelihood, had there not been a Republican schism, Dede was favored above a margin of error. These are not 'early polls,' you don't get to wave them away in order to continue backpedaling on your original and indefensible sentiment that she was "unelectable."
quote: Among those who’ve seen or heard a commercial for Scozzafava, 45 percent say it makes them less likely to support her, compared to nine percent who say it makes them more likely. Owens’ commercials have had a less negative effect with 28 percent saying it makes them less likely to support him and 20 percent saying it makes them more likely. Hoffman’s commercials have turned on as many voters, 29 percent, as they have turned off, 27 percent.
quote: “A month of campaigning will give the candidates more time to become known to voters and for voters to learn the positions of all the candidates. To date, most voters have not seen or heard commercials for any of the candidates. That will certainly change over the next four weeks. There are many dynamics yet to play out in this race, which is being watched by political insiders across the nation,” Greenberg said.
quote: The poll of 300 likely voters showed Republican Dede Scozzafava at 20%, Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman at 17%, Democrat Bill Owens at 17% and 45% undecided, within the poll's margin of error of +/- 5.66%.
The poll also asked "Would you prefer your next member of Congress be a liberal Democrat, a liberal Republican, or a Conservative party candidate who would align himself with Republicans in Congress?" The Conservative Party candidate was selected by 36% of respondents, compared to 31% for the Democrat and 18% for the Republican.
"Dede Scozzafava's liberal record that includes support for card check legislation, Gov. Paterson's budget and President Obama's stimulus bill makes her very vulnerable," concluded Basswood Research pollster Jon Lerner, who conducted the poll for the group
quote: A recent poll released by Club for Growth shows a statistical three-way tie between Hoffman, Scozzafava, and Owens. When asked, “Would you prefer your next member of Congress be a liberal Democrat, a liberal Republican, or a Conservative party candidate who would align himself with Republicans in Congress,” respondents selected the Conservative by 36%, compared to 31% for the Democrat and 18% for the Republican.
“Doug Hoffman has an excellent chance of winning this race,” concluded Chocola. “He offers New Yorkers a clear choice between electing a typical Albany politician, another liberal Democrat, or a principled leader who will fight for policies that help to grow our economy and put our nation back on the right track.”
quote: Do you see why this statement does not hold much water? You are saying that because the outcome was a Scozzafava loss, it makes no sense to indicate that she could have won.
This completely ignores the changing condition of Hoffman not being in the race, which is what has been talked about.
EDIT: I can see why people would make too much of that statement looking at it as a standalone statement. :EDIT Statements like this also ignore what happened in the race, and how Scozzafava ran her campaign. As quoted above, when your own campaign ad makes 45% less likely to vote for you with only 9% more likely to vote for you then you are running a terrible campaign. I don't understand why people are missing this. The more she campaigned, the more people turned against her.
quote: Right now a lot of conservatives are trying to convince themselves that Scozzfava was "unelectable" in order to convince themselves that this was a triumph after all. It's false. Do not buy into the shoddy reasoning.
Scozzafava was a very poor choice to run against Owens. She was picked because the Republican heads believed she was close in her political beliefs to Owens and therefore she must be close to what the voters want. They failed to understand that Owens is a much better politician and campaigner than Scozzafava. NY-23 was not a triumph for Hoffman supporters. He lost. Had he won then it would have been a triumph but he didn't. The lesson to learn is that the parties should have a primary and allow the voters to choose their candidate.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
DarkKnight, um ..
are you even looking at the quotations you're providing here? Are they supposed to contradict my position? Because they don't. One of them even straight-up shows Scozzafava in a superior position versus both Hoffman and Owens even given Hoffman's vote split of the conservative demographics.
Your counterargument is actually pretty boldly confirming what I'm saying unless, technically, one wants to make the argument that more of scozzafava's votes are being pilfered from owens than hoffman's votes are being pilfered from scozzafava (hint: they are not)
I mean, thanks, it does help me out here, but, I'm pretty sure you're not doing what you think you're doing or intend to do, here.
Also be very careful when relying so heavily on polls and Hopeful Supportive Commentary released by Club for Growth if you otherwise want to invalidate polls and other interpretations for their 'uselessness' on a whim. They don't release their crosstabs and they are an ideological group so their testable utility is limited.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Are they supposed to contradict my position?
I'm using the quotes to reinforce my position. Especially quotes like the one showing the more Scozzafava campaigned, the worse she did. Her ads made 45% of the people who saw them less likely to vote for her. That has nothing to do with Hoffman, or Owens and everything to do with Scozzafava running a terrible campaign. I am reconfirming my position that at the start of the campaign Scozzafava may have held a slight lead in polls but as soon as the campaign started she caused herself to be taken out of the race.
quote: The Siena, CFG, R2000 and McLaughlin groups each did tabulations both running up to and after the election that showed that in all likelihood, had there not been a Republican schism, Dede was favored above a margin of error.
Can you provide links from those four groups that states, before and after the election results, without Hoffman in the race Dede would have won?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
There are three guest blogs by academic political scientists (are there any other kind) over at The Monkey Cage about the NY-23 election (I'd link them each separately, but the blog seems to be strictly in-line).
The division is similar to the discussion here: Marc Heatherington blames clueless movement Conservatives; Hans Noel faults the state GOP for nominating a too-liberal candidate and then Dede Scozzafava for party disloyalty in endorsing Owens; and David Karol blames the GOP for nominating Scozzafava, but then says once the nomination was made conservatives should have respected party unity.
The thing none of them try to do (at least explicitly) is predict how the election would have gone down had Hoffman stayed out, or Scozzafava not endorsed Owens, or if the GOP had nominated Hoffman in the first place. I understand both what Dark Knight is saying (you can't ignore the evidence of Dede Scozzafava's ineptitude and only focus on her pre- and early-campaign position) as well as what Samp and others are pointing out (you can't ignore Hoffman's impact on Scozzafava's support base and pretend that Hoffman's entry didn't affect her eventual loss).
No one can tell what would have happened, which is probably why Jhai's post rings true. We all take the lessons we choose from this. The one I like is the one David Karol gives: parties sometimes flub the nomination process, resulting in candidates you have to hold your nose to support; you should support them anyway.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: The one I like is the one David Karol gives: parties sometimes flub the nomination process, resulting in candidates you have to hold your nose to support; you should support them anyway.
Really? If your party nominated someone who you did not believe would represent your best interests, would you still vote for them out of party loyalty? You might still support your party's candidate because you are choosing the lesser of two evils but I would hope you would not support any candidate simply because they had the correct party affiliation next to their name.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Perhaps Karol is pointing out the difference between personal appeal and the platform. Sometimes the platform is more important. Certainly not always, but perhaps sometimes.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: If your party nominated someone who you did not believe would represent your best interests, would you still vote for them out of party loyalty? You might still support your party's candidate because you are choosing the lesser of two evils but I would hope you would not support any candidate simply because they had the correct party affiliation next to their name.
I would, out of party loyalty, support a candidate I personally opposed. That, to me, seems the point of having parties. If I felt the party had nominated someone I couldn't stomach, I would let party leaders know it not by revolting in the polling booth, but by writing them a letter, or talking to them in person, or attending party meetings, or some other method internal to the party. I think that strengthens the party and results in a better overall (including future contests) outcome, both for the individual and the group.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
quote:The followers of our founding principles of individual liberty and limited government may be extremely far to the right of Obama and Pelosi but it isn't the conservatives who have done the shifting. Strange world we live in when people who believe in our founding principles and the constitution are labeled extremists.
Hmmm. Following 225+ year old policies with out a bit of change is kind of the definition of conservative.
And if you can put Obama and Pelosi in one cubby-hole then yes, you are painting your picture very very right.
Obama is a moderate, which is why the Far Right is in such a state to kill moderation. He is anti-gay marriage, he is pro-war in Afghanistan, he is for many of the War on Terror national security measures that President Bush instituted, he has continued President Bush's efforts to limit the cost of the recession, but added fiscal responsibility to many of those getting the bail outs (which the rightist label as Socialism). He is a good Christian Church Going man, and you flag him as the most heathen of lefties.
And you wonder why those in the middle and the left don't take your arguments seriously.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Are they supposed to contradict my position?
I'm using the quotes to reinforce my position. Especially quotes like the one showing the more Scozzafava campaigned, the worse she did. Her ads made 45% of the people who saw them less likely to vote for her. That has nothing to do with Hoffman, or Owens and everything to do with Scozzafava running a terrible campaign. I am reconfirming my position that at the start of the campaign Scozzafava may have held a slight lead in polls but as soon as the campaign started she caused herself to be taken out of the race.
She "caused herself to be taken out of the race?" Her dropping out of the race was a direct and unambiguous byproduct of the Hoffman campaign. It is hard to contest your position when it does not make any sense.
And, as i mentioned, your quotes do not reinforce your position. They talk about an ad, and then move straight on to reinforcing mine.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I would, out of party loyalty, support a candidate I personally opposed.
I guess this one sentence illustrates the difference in politics partisan types have between some independents. Or me at least.
Because I'm no more loyal to a political party than I would be to an auto mechanic. I vote the one's ticket and patronize the other's business only so long as I feel I'm best served by them. And that's the proper way of things, really. Even though we've gotten locked into this absurd two-party system that, in an odd twist on Cinderella, reverts from glimmering coach, team of horses, gown, and glass slippers into the pumpkin and mice come election season.
If a party wants my loyalty, they have to earn it. If they want my loyalty to the extent that I vote for a candidate I personally oppose? They get it by being extremely persuasive.
If more people did that, this country's politics wouldn't be such a mess.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote: The poll of 300 likely voters showed Republican Dede Scozzafava at 20%, Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman at 17%, Democrat Bill Owens at 17% and 45% undecided, within the poll's margin of error of +/- 5.66%.
The poll also asked "Would you prefer your next member of Congress be a liberal Democrat, a liberal Republican, or a Conservative party candidate who would align himself with Republicans in Congress?" The Conservative Party candidate was selected by 36% of respondents, compared to 31% for the Democrat and 18% for the Republican.
"Dede Scozzafava's liberal record that includes support for card check legislation, Gov. Paterson's budget and President Obama's stimulus bill makes her very vulnerable," concluded Basswood Research pollster Jon Lerner, who conducted the poll for the group
quote: A recent poll released by Club for Growth shows a statistical three-way tie between Hoffman, Scozzafava, and Owens. When asked, “Would you prefer your next member of Congress be a liberal Democrat, a liberal Republican, or a Conservative party candidate who would align himself with Republicans in Congress,” respondents selected the Conservative by 36%, compared to 31% for the Democrat and 18% for the Republican.
“Doug Hoffman has an excellent chance of winning this race,” concluded Chocola. “He offers New Yorkers a clear choice between electing a typical Albany politician, another liberal Democrat, or a principled leader who will fight for policies that help to grow our economy and put our nation back on the right track.”
What you are showing us indicates that Scozzafava would have won the district.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: What you are showing us indicates that Scozzafava would have won the district.
Why do we even have elections then? We should just take one early poll and that is who is elected. Just like Hillary Clinton is now our President because in early polls she had the nomination. Same thing with Corzine because he also lead in the polls in September.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: She "caused herself to be taken out of the race?" Her dropping out of the race was a direct and unambiguous byproduct of the Hoffman campaign.
When your own campaign ads make almost half of the people who view them less likely to vote for you then your opponents do not have to work very hard to beat you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: What you are showing us indicates that Scozzafava would have won the district.
Why do we even have elections then? We should just take one early poll and that is who is elected.
Cool, you've managed to invent an argument that absolutely no one is making.
Please, have fun beating up that strawman. Just go to town on it.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: When your own campaign ads make almost half of the people who view them less likely to vote for you then your opponents do not have to work very hard to beat you.
That really depends on whether those 40% had any inclination to vote for her in the first place.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Cool, you've managed to invent an argument that absolutely no one is making.
No one is making the claim that Scozzafava would have won based upon early polls?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Apparently so. I have mentioned this as well as mentioning that for voters in the NY-23 district, voters had the highest approval ratings for Scozzafava. Pretty much was maintained right up until after her departure (endorsing the democratic candidate will do that, ho ho)
Hoffman's viability vis a vis Scozzafava peaked due to an influx of effective conservative support (Palin did give him a real good boost during the three-way) and he would have won had he not become a 'known quantity' so fast. Some are theorizing that the Glenn Beck taping was enough to axe his chances versus Owens, whose victory was a pretty good demonstration of the median voter theorem: both Owens and Scozzafava were far more representative of the district than Hoffman.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Cool, you've managed to invent an argument that absolutely no one is making.
No one is making the claim that Scozzafava would have won based upon early polls?
No one is making the claim that polls have perfect predictive power and thus can be used in lieu of an election.
I know you were trying to be sarcastic, but the sentiment is boneheaded. Polls aren't elections. Polls can still be utilized to contradict statements like "Scozzafava was unelectable" by offering a methodological analysis of a person's tangible potential in an election.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I used to live in NY-23, from age 6 to 22.
Almost wish I was still there for this one, so I could have voted against Hoffman.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Obama is a moderate, which is why the Far Right is in such a state to kill moderation. He is anti-gay marriage, he is pro-war in Afghanistan, he is for many of the War on Terror national security measures that President Bush instituted, he has continued President Bush's efforts to limit the cost of the recession, but added fiscal responsibility to many of those getting the bail outs (which the rightist label as Socialism). He is a good Christian Church Going man, and you flag him as the most heathen of lefties.
And you wonder why those in the middle and the left don't take your arguments seriously.
Even Obama wouldn't call himself a moderate. He uses the term progressive. In 2007 he was ranked the most liberal senator. National Journal rankings of both sides in 2007, before he even ran for president.
Thank you for proving my earlier point of the name game. He is the most extreme left of the left when it comes to his voting record. You're making the mistake of believing his campaign promises and failing to recognize that he is the president, not a dictator. If he didn't have to deal with the House and Senate, you would see something different.
Democrats run to the middle to win elections because this is a center right country. Obama is not a Moderate in any way. What he is, is a very politically astute person. He'd vote right along with Pelosi as a Senator, but as President he can sign Liberal legislation out of compromise and lay the blame on them. As a vet I understand the game....everyone loves the commanding officer, he's mister nice guy. Everyone hates the Executive Officer, he's a tyrant. What shallow minded sailors don't realize is the XO enforces the CO's policy.
"Good Church Going Man" - Black Liberation Theology is Marxist/Communist.
Continuing Policy? - Realizing that losing a war might be worse for his career than campaigning to end one.
Fiscally conservative? - Don't even go there. 2 Trillion dollar deficit anyone, and pushing for more government spending. Fiscal responsibility for the big/bad bankers? What's a million dollar bonus compared to 8 billion for ACORN or a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit. I suppose you applaud him when he announced he saved 500 million from a 2 trillion dollar debt he's responsible for. I don't fall for the 50% off sales at the jewelry store, one week after they raised prices 400%.
You bought him for the packaging, but have failed to realize what's inside.
[ November 06, 2009, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Democrats run to the middle to win elections because this is a center right country.
You keep saying this, and it's not true. It's based on a restive analysis of a Gallup poll from before the presidential election. Unfortunately, even polls from that time indicate supermajority populous support for progressive platforms. "center right country" hasn't been for a while now, apparently. Not when the median voter is on the progressive side of the platform and centerpieces of conservatism (P.A., bush tax cuts) get support in the mid-20's.
quote:The idea that America is a center-right country whose citizens are skeptical of, if not hostile toward, progressive candidates and policies has long been a staple of political commentary. There would be nothing problematic in journalists' relying on this notion if actual evidence existed to support it. The truth, however, is that in most policy areas, it is progressive ideas that enjoy majority support. At a time when Democrats control not only the White House and both houses of Congress but a majority of governorships and state legislatures, as well, the picture of America as a center-right country has become particularly hard to sustain.
The term "center-right" itself is based on questionable premises. It comes from the notion that combining the "right" -- self-described conservatives -- with the "center" -- self-described moderates (or in a partisan context, Republicans with independents) -- creates the center-right majority of the country. But on issue after issue, and in growing percentages over time, nominal independents or moderates increasingly mirror the opinions of nominal Democrats or liberals. The majority is center-left; it is the right that is isolated.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: "Good Church Going Man" - Black Liberation Theology is Marxist/Communist.
Elaborate please.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:"Good Church Going Man" - Black Liberation Theology is Marxist/Communist.
I'm going to be pretty direct and straightforward about this, because you've been shown wrong on this point before.
Obama isn't an adherent of Black Liberation Theology, and if you think he is, you're being an idiot.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The country is center right...the problem is center right voters aren't politically motivated. It takes a serious overreach to get the middle to the polls. The extremes, right and left, go to the polls. It takes an extreme leftist government that is overreaching to get the center motivated to show up and vote in large numbers. Ever look at the voter turn out? Who do you think normally shows up? The people that are seriously concerned on either edge, the outer quarter of voters. Centrists aren't motivated unless one fringe's belief is beginning to be imposed upon them. There is a historical rejection of those in power (left or right) during the mid term election following a president's first term. Whenever any party in power of all branches goes too far, they are rejected by the center. The center prefers a stalemate, less damage is done that way. How many laws do we need anyway? Do we really need people creating new laws and government organizations on a daily basis? Does our country and human nature change that fast? I think our founders had the right idea and we need to get back to that. Sometimes less is better, especially when it comes to government.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The country is center right...
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: You keep saying this, and it's not true.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:"Good Church Going Man" - Black Liberation Theology is Marxist/Communist.
I'm going to be pretty direct and straightforward about this, because you've been shown wrong on this point before.
Obama isn't an adherent of Black Liberation Theology, and if you think he is, you're being an idiot.
You're right. He isn't a follower of Black Liberation Theology Anymore. He dropped that when he left state politics. It worked well for him in south-side Chicago for 20 years and garnered him a lot of votes there. Once he entered the national stage he realized it wouldn't play. As I said, politically astute. I can't pretend to know what that man really is inside. He's been Muslim, Protestant, Athiest and Black Liberation Theologist....whatever suits the current situation.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:He's been Muslim
Obama has never been a Muslim.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I would, out of party loyalty, support a candidate I personally opposed.
I guess this one sentence illustrates the difference in politics partisan types have between some independents. Or me at least.
Because I'm no more loyal to a political party than I would be to an auto mechanic. I vote the one's ticket and patronize the other's business only so long as I feel I'm best served by them. And that's the proper way of things, really. Even though we've gotten locked into this absurd two-party system that, in an odd twist on Cinderella, reverts from glimmering coach, team of horses, gown, and glass slippers into the pumpkin and mice come election season.
If a party wants my loyalty, they have to earn it. If they want my loyalty to the extent that I vote for a candidate I personally oppose? They get it by being extremely persuasive.
If more people did that, this country's politics wouldn't be such a mess.
I think the reason politics are such a mess is because of independents abdicating their obligations to work within the coalitions that the parties represent. Consider the 1950s, a high point of moderate bipartisanship in the US; it was also a time when proportionally many more people were engaged in the two major parties and were 1) willing to put forth the effort to push the party from within and 2) unwilling to exit the party if they didn't get their way immediately. The rise of the independent voter has exactly coincided with the rise of partisanship and divisiveness.
My statement of willingness to vote for the party regardless of perfect agreement with an individual candidate is a reflection of a long-range view in which I favor the overall health of the party over the outcome of a single race. I think if more people took this view our democracy would become more representative, more moderate, and more reflective of society's true mores and values, because people are better able to affect the actions of the parties from within than from without.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
When he was a child. His school records said he was an a follower of Islam when he went to school in Indonesia and had a Muslim father. I suppose anyone could argue that the child really doesn't believe whatever religion his/her parents follow and force the child to follow.
I hope you are right. I hope that he only played the Black Liberation game and played the extreme left game to get elected. Now he has a different game to play, a national game. He has to play to the middle or he'll be a one term president. I won't deny that I'm on the right but I prefer the middle over what his short record shows up to the election.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: When he was a child. His school records said he was an a follower of Islam when he went to school in Indonesia and had a Muslim father. I suppose anyone could argue that the child really doesn't believe whatever religion his/her parents follow and force the child to follow.
No. Obama was never a muslim.
quote:"The allegations are completely baseless," said Akmad Solichin, the vice principal at SDN Menteng 1, who added, "Yes, most of our students are Muslim, but there are Christians as well. Everyone's welcome here ... it's a public school."
A spokesman for Indonesia's Ministry of Religious Affairs said claims that Obama studied at an Islamic school are groundless.
"SDN Menteng 1 is a public primary school that is open to people of all faiths," said the spokesman, Sutopo, who goes by only one name. "Moreover, he studied earlier at Fransiskus Assisi, which is clearly a Catholic school."
I guess by the logic of the people who still baselessly assert that Obama was a muslim that he must have also once been a catholic.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: [... You're right. He isn't a follower of Black Liberation Theology Anymore. He dropped that when he left state politics.
Oh, I'm less interested in the Obama angle. I want to know how Black Liberation Theology relates to Marxism and/or Communism. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just interested.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Liberation theology in general draws on Marxist social/economic analysis. That is one of it's distinguishing features.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: When he was a child. His school records said he was an a follower of Islam when he went to school in Indonesia and had a Muslim father. I suppose anyone could argue that the child really doesn't believe whatever religion his/her parents follow and force the child to follow.
Please provide your source for that piece of information.
Regardless, and pending my actually seeing your source, I will just add that according to some Islamic theologists and many people, a child born to a Muslim is also a Muslim, the same way a child born to a Jewish woman (or parent, depends on who your listening to) that person is also Jewish. There's (big shocker) some gray area to what people believe is the difference between ethnic and religious heritage. Again, having not seen your information source (which I doubt but will scrutinize), I can't comment on the veracity of that claim, but even supposing it was true, a dozen people including me on this board could tell you that they have been inappropriately labeled members of religions they do not follow. I attended Catholic school, and was wrongly thought to be Catholic. Because I didn't talk that much about my religious views, even many friends who knew I was not Catholic believed I was Christian, which I was not. Hell, I recall several times in grade school being asked "what do you mean you're not Christian... you're white." And this was a school in Indonesia, with the largest Muslim population in the entire world. Think about it. How easy is it for a parent or an administrator to just tick that box out for the sake of convenience? What would be the motivation, living in such a place, to insist upon your individual religious identity at such an early age? So that you can later become President? Is that really what you think was going through little Barry's mind at that time? What exactly do you expect him to do? And do you expect all presidents to simply never have experienced a lifestyle so alien to your own, that you don't understand how or why he could ever be potentially labeled anything other than a Christian? That's lame dude.
That is immaterial to Obama as an individual. The things he actually learned as a child and the things he believes today make him who he is. In fact, I really wish Obama's mom was Jewish, just so that a bunch of conservatives could tie themselves in knots trying to reason out that his parentage didn't matter, because he was a Muslim "in his heart." Or even better, hearing people argue that he was actually a Jewish Muslim. Not that democrats would do much better (though they would do a little better, because the democratic party is on the whole much more up to date and better educated regarding religion and race), because when it comes down to it, your view of the person is going to be shaped by what you *want* to think about him- especially in the absence of a long track record in national politics.
Not so different from G.W. actually, the one term Governor of Texas who got elected POTUS partly because a lot of people felt like he was a guy they could have a beer with- easy to forget that the real seething hatred started round about our entry into an very unpopular war, and was solidified by the mishandling of a major crisis caused by a natural disaster. (Do go on and tell me the dems ever hated Bush in the first three years as much as the GoP hates Obama right now. Do try and convince me of that!)
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I'm sure you can find it elsewhere. Next to "agania" (literally translated nation) it sais Islam on his released school transcript from Indonesia. http://www.daylife.com/photo/01u33pL9Ns06D
Honestly, I absolutely do not believe he is a follower of Islam, nor do I really hold him accountable for what his parents put on the paperwork. I suggest he is simply a chameleon. A person who was raised to be black, white, christian and muslim. Perhaps this is a good thing. He can relate to many yet adheres to none. Personally, I think he has had a life long struggle for acceptance dependent upon wherever he may be at the moment. Muslim in Indonesia, Protestant in Hawaii with white grandparents, Atheist in college, Black Liberation Theologist in Chicago, Liberal Senator, now "moderate" president. Whatever suits the current circumstance. No one can say what he really is. He needed a poll to pick a church for Christmas services.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Liberation theology in general draws on Marxist social/economic analysis. That is one of it's distinguishing features.
I think I got that from the first statement, I guess I just want more. Particularly focusing on communication/influences between Marxism and liberation theology, but not limited to that if you have any special knowledge or interest in the subject.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Liberation theology in general draws on Marxist social/economic analysis. That is one of it's distinguishing features.
I think I got that from the first statement, I guess I just want more. Particularly focusing on communication/influences between Marxism and liberation theology, but not limited to that if you have any special knowledge or interest in the subject.
It's about blame for your unfortunate circumstance. Whether Hitler selling blame of the Jews taking all the money, Stalin sticking up for the prolitariate against the royals, Jeremiah Wright selling blame against the whites or Obama sticking protecting "main street" from "wall street"...or the rich should, "pay their fair share". It's class warfare. The perception that wealth is a zero sum game. The spreading of ideals that someone else is wealthy because and you are poor because they took it from you. The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay 90% of the taxes, yet the the "they should pay their fair share" argument still carries water. The Jews weren't demonized in Germany for being Jews, they were demonized for, as Al Sharpton said, they were "diamond merchants". They had the money when much of Germany was in the grips of a post WW1 depression that made the US depression look like a recession. The typical Jew was good with his money so the starving German blamed them and a leader came along to decimate them. The poor blacks in the US have leaders that blame the white folks and liberals have poor people of all colors who are buying the line that the wealthy have ripped them off in the midst of this recession. I know the rich are the one's who will give me a job. Taxing them more and my neighbor on the left might be pleased while my neighbor on the right will get laid off.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Liberation theology in general draws on Marxist social/economic analysis. That is one of it's distinguishing features.
I think I got that from the first statement, I guess I just want more. Particularly focusing on communication/influences between Marxism and liberation theology, but not limited to that if you have any special knowledge or interest in the subject.
It's about blame for your unfortunate circumstance. Whether Hitler selling blame of the Jews taking all the money, Stalin sticking up for the prolitariate against the royals, Jeremiah Wright selling blame against the whites or Obama protecting "main street" from "wall street"...or the rich should, "pay their fair share". It's class warfare. The perception that wealth is a zero sum game. The spreading of ideals that someone else is wealthy and you are poor because they took it from you. The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay 90% of the taxes, yet the the "they should pay their fair share" argument still carries water. The Jews weren't demonized in Germany for being Jews, they were demonized for, as Al Sharpton said, they were "diamond merchants". They had the money when much of Germany was in the grips of a post WW1 depression that made the US depression look like a recession. The typical Jew was good with his money so the starving German blamed them and a leader came along to decimate them. The poor blacks in the US have leaders that blame the white folks and liberals have poor people of all colors who are buying the line that the wealthy have ripped them off in the midst of this recession. I know the rich are the one's who will give me a job. Tax them more and my neighbor on the left might be pleased while my neighbor on the right will get laid off.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
But the main problem is that no one knows for sure who or what Obama is. It is still not really settled whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya. He was adopted by his Indonesian step father, and assumed the name of Soetoro, and there is no record he legally changed his name back to Obama (he lied about this in papers he signed to run for president). His large list of sinister prior associates have been studiously ignored by most of the media. Few people who knew him at Columbia even remember him, including his classmates. Though he was said to be editor of the university law review, no articles or editorials written by him have been produced. The few items published in his name appear to have been ghost-written by someone fascinated with sailing (Obama has never participated in this sport, but William Ayers is an enthusiast). All his academic records have been suppressed. This leads many people to wonder if he has been "manufactured" as a candidate for many years.
So we do not know what sort of man we have for a president. We are begining to see extreme tendencies toward socialism, even fascism (which is a totalitarian application of socialism), where he dares to attack freedom of the press, and suggests that the multitudes who speak up critical of his policies at town hall meetings "should be silenced."
As a candidate he promised to listen to his commanders in the field. But now that his commanders in the field have said in no uncertain terms that they need 40,000 to 60,000 additional troops in Afghanistan to do their job, he has been dithering and deciding nothing for months.
How long are his deluded supporters going to continue refusing to see anything wrong with him?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Liberation theology is mostly but not entirely a Catholic movement. It addresses issues of social justice and poverty with the idea that oppressive/exploitative Capitalism is sinful - that poverty and oppression are the results of societal sin. It developed in Latin America for the most part. It include the preferential option for the poor - the idea that taking care of poor people is central to the gospel message.
The term is used widely to describe pretty normal Christian social justice theology all the way to fairly radical Marxist concepts. That end of the spectrum is not (to put it mildly) endorsed by the current Vatican*. It tends to be a "bottom up" movement - decentralized authority which is also controversial and is generally more concerned with what people do than with what people believe - practice or action as opposed to ritual or belief.
That is far from complete. Do you want more or is that enough to start with?
*I personally suspect that Pope John Paul II, having experienced the horrors of the post WWII Soviet Union was disinclined to look favorable on anything remotely Marxist.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Though he was said to be editor of the university law review, no articles or editorials written by him have been produced.
:snort: Dude, your list of distortions is truly staggering (...ly pathetic), but seriously, you actually want to cast doubt on the idea that he was ever editor of the Harvard Law Review? I realize you think everyone here is stupid, but how stupid do you actually think we are?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Honestly, I absolutely do not believe he is a follower of Islam, nor do I really hold him accountable for what his parents put on the paperwork. I suggest he is simply a chameleon. A person who was raised to be black, white, christian and muslim.
Yeah, well this is why I think you're a flaming racist. Also, you are a liar, who needs to be confronted with your weasel words and assertions in order to admit that, no, you don't really believe in the implications you had just been trying to make, you believe in other, very similar implications you are now going to make.
Edit: Also, Godwin's law in the next post. You lose. Sorry. Don't play again!
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I absolutely agree with your "bottom up" taking care of your fellow man ideology. American's are the most generous people on the face of the Earth, as a nation and as individuals. In capitalist abundance, we give what we do not need. Why would Obama and Pelosi push for the reduction of the tax deduction for charitable donations? This deduction isn't dollar for dollar from the treasury but based upon your taxable income. For example: I could donate 100k to a charity and avoid 30k in taxes for my contribution. The government would rather take that 30k than let you give 100k to the charity. They could, after paying the system, give 10k to the needy from the same tax payer. It's not about what is best for the needy, it's about the government controlling the needy. If they really cared about the needy, they would let the evil rich guy reduce his taxable income by 100k. What dollar amount can do more good for the needy..100k or 30k? Deductions only reduce your gross taxable income but the government would rather take a slice when you were willing to give the whole pie to the needy.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Say "needy" a few more times so that everyone will ignore the part where the government needs a certain amount of money to pay for all of those pesky little things it needs money to pay for. They're taxes. They're not yours. They're taxes. Say it with me. By all means, go out there and bitch and moan about what the government spends money on. I assure you, there are about a million little stories that will boil your scrotum in oil. But don't forget the part where taxes are meant to be payed, not systematically avoided at all costs. The government *has to* find ways of cutting down on deductions and sheltering of money within a particular person's control because it *needs* that money. Not all of it. Some of it. So you can and are obviously inclined to chalk it up to big bad government control, as you always invariably and inflexibly do, but that's why your points are facile and pig-headed to begin with.
quote: American's are the most generous people on the face of the Earth
Why, because you say so? Because it's convenient for tax reasons? You make an oddly disjointed case here.
Also, please, please remember something: "Americans." No apostrophe. It's plural, it's not possessive.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
-sorry
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Sorry, I was a math major and I'm interacting with writers. It's a strange scenario pitting logic against rules. How is it disjointed? Every single dollar of your tax deduction goes directly to charity while you are avoiding only a percentage of that contribution in taxes. If the rich were truly greedy, they would never give money to charity since taxes are cheaper. Unfortunately, taxes could get extreme enough to reduce charitable deductions. Giving 1 dollar to charity does not reduce your tax liability by 1 dollar. In the top tax bracket, giving 100 to charity reduces your taxes by 40. Why would the greedy rich choose to give 100 to save 40? Does this make mathematical sense? Do the numbers,,,,perhaps the evil rich guy really does care about the needy but doesn't want the government skimming off 70% of the "donations". Believe me, rip off charitable organizations can't hold a candle to the government when it comes to skimming off the top. After all, the average government worker in the US makes $70k per year while the average private sector employee is at $40k. If you want to survive under Obamanation go to USAJOBS.COM. The US government is already the largest employer and lender in the country. Soon they'll be the largest auto maker, banker and health care provider. Too bad the government is always way over budget and never make a profit. Read the tea leaves,....where are we headed. Evil profits pay the taxes to fund the government. How's New York doing lately??
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
-
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Re-posting:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The current Republican party would probably be to the left of JFK.
From the "Should there be additional qualifications for the right to vote?" thread:
quote: Originally posted by malanthrop: JFK was a tax cutting conservative in comparison todays Dems and GOP. The defenitions have shifted.
What's your justification for these claims? [I have asked you before, btw]. When making these claims, did you consider the tax rates during JFK's presidency versus current rates?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
JFK was assassinated Nov 22 1963. The top tax rate for 1963 was 91%.
Top tax rate for 1964 was 77%. Kennedy signed this 14% reduction for the following fiscal year while he was alive.
True, the rates were higher at that time but he was the first to realize (correctly) that a reduction in taxes benefit the US economy (founder of trickle down, ie voodoo economics).
Perhaps you think the government should take 91% of the top earners profit? JFK was right, I never got a job from a poor person.
So, based on this, you conclude that the current Republican party - i.e. the party of the Bush tax cuts, the party for which 36 of the 41 senators voted for this:http://washingtonindependent.com/29076/its-all-part-of-my-stimulus-fantasy - is to the left of JFK?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: When your own campaign ads make almost half of the people who view them less likely to vote for you then your opponents do not have to work very hard to beat you.
That really depends on whether those 40% had any inclination to vote for her in the first place.
It also presumes that she would have run precisely the same ads if she had been campaigning solely against Owens or solely against Hoffman.
That is a particularly bad assumption.
It also presumes that the voters response to her ads was not influenced by her opponents campaigns.
There are a thousand reasons why it is impossible to predict the outcome of a 2 way race based on the outcome of a three way race. Trying to do so is utter non-sense.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I have no idea what that link was all about but I absolutely believe that John McCain is left of JFK. I can only point to man representing the party from the last losing election as representative of the party. The major problem is that both sides are playing to the middle. I would prefer candidates that wouldn't play us but speak the heart. Let us elect them for what they believe inside. While our leaders should represent us, they should also be representative of us. Meaning, a red-neck congressional district should send a red-neck to congress, not a suit who knows how to speak red-neck while at home. Hillary's miraculous ebonics speach while at a black church should be a turn off.
We are yet to realize that politics has become a career option for college freshman. I prefer real people, but some enter college and major in political science, law, govt, etc with no intention of persuing a career in anything other than government. A career in POWER. They have nothing to do with the common man, they studied a way to rule the common man. Maybe I lacked ambition since I focused on career while others focused on ruling. Some seek to be providers for their families while others study for power. Senate and Congress was never intended to be a full time job. Human nature does not change that often...senators and congressmen were suppose to be people representing the average citizen in urgent situations. Now, they only think about reelection for a career they've studied for since graduating from high school.
Why do you think Hillary moved to NY and ran for Senate? She wasn't a New Yorker but she thought they would elect her. She was not a person who rose up amongst them to represent them, nor did she truly understand that district, but she did realize they would give her power. If our representatives truly came from us and represented us, they would rule differently.
[ November 06, 2009, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
McCain planned to extend the Bush tax cuts; JFK lowered the top marginal rate to an amount almost twice what the top marginal rate was under Clinton. Unless you've seen one of JFK's memos detailing further massive cuts, I don't find your belief reasonable. It's also worth noting that Nixon - Nixon! - was open to healthcare reform.
To your other points... There is enough data that one could probably measure whether being a 'hired gun' vs. home-grown is better for their constituency (for some definition of better). Off the top of my head, I can think of some "ethically challenged" politicians from both sides of the aisle who would be considered home-grown. My sense is that competence is a more important trait.
If I'm making a general criticism of Washington, it is the undue influence of special interests. When a democrat (from Arkansas) is a sponsor of a bill that would lower a tax that hits a tiny proportion of Americans, but would significantly widen the deficit, you have to wonder who she's really representing.
Edited to add: I don't live in NY, but my understanding is that Hillary was highly regarded there and New Yorkers were satisfied with her performance.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: That is far from complete. Do you want more or is that enough to start with?
Thanks, and well, both. It a good start, but I do have a few more questions.
quote:*I personally suspect that Pope John Paul II, having experienced the horrors of the post WWII Soviet Union was disinclined to look favorable on anything remotely Marxist.
Were there previous popes that might have been more favorable?
quote:The term is used widely to describe pretty normal Christian social justice theology all the way to fairly radical Marxist concepts. That end of the spectrum is not (to put it mildly) endorsed by the current Vatican
I was previously aware of the social justice end, both offline, and on Hatrack in particular I particularly recall a light-hearted conversation where BlackBlade described a few incidents involving Jesus and satirically noted that Jesus might seem like a socialist today. So that much makes sense to me.
I think I was more interested in the other more radical end, as in whether there were specific incidents where these groups (black or Catholic or otherwise) maybe cited specific Marxist historical figures in speeches, took inspiration from, or communicated with.
I guess I'm interested in specific historical incidents that might show the two are linked rather than just happening upon the same points independently.
(Anything going the other direction might be interesting too)
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:I guess I'm interested in specific historical incidents that might show the two are linked rather than just happening upon the same points independently.
Gustavo Gutiérrez, who is considered the father of Liberation theology, has degrees in (among other things) philosophy. The chance that he had not read Marx is negligible. I have a copy of his A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, Salvation around here somewhere and I'm sure he cites him directly. I'll look for it tonight, if you want explicit quotes.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
That would be appreciated, thank you. (It would also be interesting to see how he reconciled Marxism and its hostility towards religion (if he did) with liberation theology)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There were only two previous Popes that might have had anything to say. It hasn't really been around all that long - only 40-50 years or so. John Paul I who, sadly, didn't have time to say much of anything and Paul VI. I would have to check, but my guess is that Paul VI would have been inclined to "dial it back" with regards to more Marxist ideas like materialism (for example) or the more radical over-throwing of institutions stuff but much of the social justice aspects that were the modern seeds of liberation theology can be found in this encyclical:
Lots of downright socialist stuff in there. For example:
"If someone who has the riches of this world sees his brother in need and closes his heart to him, how does the love of God abide in him?."[21] It is well known how strong were the words used by the Fathers of the Church to describe the proper attitude of persons who possess anything towards persons in need. To quote Saint Ambrose: "You are not making a gift of your possessions to the poor person. You are handing over to him what is his. For what has been given in common for the use of all, you have arrogated to yourself. The world is given to all, and not only to the rich".[22] That is, private property does not constitute for anyone an absolute and unconditioned right. No one is justified in keeping for his exclusive use what he does not need, when others lack necessities. In a word, "according to the traditional doctrine as found in the Fathers of the Church and the great theologians, the right to property must never be exercised to the detriment of the common good". If there should arise a conflict "between acquired private rights and primary community exigencies", it is the responsibility of public authorities "to look for a solution, with the active participation of individuals and social groups".
[ November 06, 2009, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Sorry, I was a math major and I'm interacting with writers. It's a strange scenario pitting logic against rules.
I have a degree in music theory. It's not math, but it's also not rule based. The assumptions you make about the people you are talking to should not change the actual veracity of your statements, nor the quality of your thinking, and I can assure that if your point here was represented as a mathematical proof, anyone here could easily point out why it was incomplete. Such is life- which is not mathematics. However, the quality of your communication ability is reflected in your use of the written language, where a certain arrangement of characters denotes a certain meaning. These are not "rules," but they function for the common understanding, and when you "break" them, out of laziness or ignorance, you foul your ability to complete a comprehensible statement. In all, your use of punctuation is the least of your stylistic woes- and it does matter: it tells that you either care so little for your own words that you fail to take care in writing them, or you are such a poor communicator, that you are unable to write comprehensibly. Considering your reading ability as reflected in your posts over the last several months, I'm leaning towards somewhere right in the middle of those extremes.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: True, the rates were higher at that time but he was the first to realize (correctly) that a reduction in taxes benefit the US economy (founder of trickle down, ie voodoo economics).
And again, you fail to prove a very simple proof for the simple reason that it is incomplete. A 91% nominal tax rate reduced to a 77% nominal tax rate *can* improve the health of the economy for some very obvious reasons. Those reasons become less obvious the lower the nominal tax rate goes, and the effect of further cuts becomes less pronounced. A twenty percent cut from 99%, for example, is a HUGE difference. A twenty percent cut from 79% less so, and so on.Lowering exorbitant taxes is not the same either in name or effect as lowering reasonable tax rates.
On top of that, "voodoo economics" is also based on theories about the effects of government regulation, and how removing government regulation will improve the health of the economy. Now we run into the only real "law" we have to deal with in balancing government involvement in the economy, and that is "The Law of Unintended Consequences." Government deregulation, while it may benefit many businesses in certain ways, can also damage the economy in other ways. One need only look to the time before government regulation to grasp what we're talking about- slavish work hours and pay, usury of employees, child labor, shoddy safety conditions, monopolistic practices which damage the economy, and the list goes on and on. It's a balancing act. There is no "voodoo" economics, but there is bad and rash economic policy, both on the side of over-regulation and under-regulation.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But the main problem is that no one knows for sure who or what Obama is. It is still not really settled whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya.
quote:In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document's authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is "fake."
We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.
Update, Nov. 1: The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu.
Barack.
Obama.
Was.
Not.
Born.
In.
Kenya.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Just because you and some others pompously assert that it was settled, does not mean it really has been. Questions have been raised about all the evidence that has been cited in an effort to "prove" the Obamanite version of reality.
What makes the whole situation so bad for Obama is that everything about his past is concealed under a shroud of secrecy and suppressed records. The more journalists try to practice responsible journalism and ask the routine questions about his past, the more the Obamaneers hunker down and try to stonewall everything and denounce the journalists for doing their jobs. Then when a news network pursues such questions anyway, the Obamanators brazenly attack freedom of the press and decry that network for "not being a real news network," as if they even had a right to pass such a judgment.
When an ABC interviewer asked Obama on air whether he felt it was appropriate for his administration "to try to define what was and was not a news organization," pointing out that members of his own administration have raised this issue concerning Fox News, Obama's response was to say there are more important things for everyone to worry about, like the war in Afghanistan or the economy. That was his whole response.
I beg to differ. Freedom of the press is FAR, FAR more important than what is happening in Afghanistan and even the economy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Just because you and some others pompously assert that it was settled, does not mean it really has been." Ron, it's not because they assert that the issue is settled that the issue is settled. Do you understand the reason the issue is settled?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
You understand you are asking a question about the nature of evidence, of Ron?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Just because you and some others pompously assert that it was settled, does not mean it really has been. Questions have been raised about all the evidence that has been cited in an effort to "prove" the Obamanite version of reality.
The 'questions that have been raised' have all been settled fairly excellently. Let's try you, for example. I've presented a case that his birthplace is unambiguous and that he qualifies as a natural born citizen of the US. How about you do more than sit there and come up with a litany of dumb names for obama supporters as though they were a cultist cabal (Obamanite, Obamaneers, Obamanators) and actually make a case that shows us that Obama's birthplace is credibly in doubt.
Go ahead. Put up or shut up.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Here are some reasons why questions remain:
quote:According to CNN's researchers, the original birth certificate no longer exists, as Hawaii discarded all paper birth records in 2001, and the certification of live birth is the official copy. Contradicting CNN, Janice Okubo, public information officer for the Hawaii DOH, said "We don't destroy vital records.
....
According to UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh, in the hypothetical scenario that Obama was born outside the U.S., he would not be a natural-born citizen since the then-applicable law would have required Obama's mother to have been in the U.S. at least "five years after the age of 14", but Ann Dunham was three months shy of her 19th birthday when Obama was born.
With such contradictions, and with the multiply manifested bad faith of the Obama organization in trying to suppress everything about Obama's past and denouncing any responsible journalist who would persist in their inquiries, it is the height of arrogance to claim that all questions have been "incontrovertibly resolved." That is not true.
It is also "incontrovertibly" true that when Obama was born, his father had British citizenship, thus giving Obama dual citizenship. Natural born citizens cannot have dual citizenship. Theoretically he lost this dual citizenshp authomatically when Kenya declared independence of Britain, and Obama did not renounce his U.S. citizenship. But he did have dual citizenship at one point. The requirements for being a "natural born" citizen are much more stringent than for just being a citizen. Losing his dual citizenship would not logically confer on him the status of "natural born" citizen.
It is also incontrovertibly true that when Obama lived in Indonesia, he went by the name "Barry Soetoro," and later in his applications for candidate, he swore that he had never gone by any other name than Barack Hussein Obama.
Any way you cut it, it is incontrovertible that Barack Obama is a facile liar. (His denials of having William Ayers' and Jeremiah Wrong's support despite extensive documentary and eye-witness evidence to the contrary are more examples of this.) Thus it is probable that he has lied and still lies about everything. Those who doubt this are credulous dupes.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:It is also "incontrovertibly" true that when Obama was born, his father had British citizenship, thus giving Obama dual citizenship. Natural born citizens cannot have dual citizenship. Theoretically he lost this dual citizenshp authomatically when Kenya declared independence of Britain, and Obama did not renounce his U.S. citizenship. But he did have dual citizenship at one point. The requirements for being a "natural born" citizen are much more stringent than for just being a citizen. Losing his dual citizenship would not logically confer on him the status of "natural born" citizen.
Wow, even your own link discusses why this is false reasoning.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Natural-born citizens can indeed have dual citizenship.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Parkour, are you capable of sufficient critical thinking to question what you read? Just because the Wicki article I cited purposes to debunk the questions about Obama's legitimacy, does not mean there are not statements that they do not refute as well as they think they do. For example, they do not even comment on the statement by UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh, that if "Obama was born outside the U.S., he would not be a natural-born citizen since the then-applicable law would have required Obama's mother to have been in the U.S. at least 'five years after the age of 14'", but his mother was not yet 19 when she gave birth to Obama.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tom: No, they can't. Think about what the framers of the U.S. Constitution were concerned about, when they added the stipulation about presidents being "natural born" citizens, as opposed to just being citizens. Don't confuse recent restatements of the requirement with the law as it existed at the time Obama was born, either. The natural born requirement, and not holding dual citizenship, are what keep California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger from running for president (he was born in Austria). To the best of my knowledge, he still has dual citizenship. See: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-01-22-austria_x.htm Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Much as I hate to get in a discussion with someone as blinkered as Ron, I will.
The US does not acknowledge there is any such thing as dual citizenship (for US citizens). In the eyes of US law, no citizen of the US is ever a citizen of anywhere else. The way this is treated is, if a person has "citizenship" somewhere else by their rules at birth, it is irrelevant to someone's US citizenship status. If someone gains citizenship somewhere else by swearing allegiance, the US legally frowns on it, but usually ignores it. If someone swears allegiance to the US, but the other country allows them to retain their citizenship papers, the US doesn't care (this is nearly just a special case of the first case).
Precedent as to what makes a natural born citizen is quite clear: Someone who, when born, was a citizen. Obama was a citizen when born, as confirmed by copious documentation and legal experts. The Schwarzenegger example is less than irrelevant; the reason he is excluded is not because Austria still thinks of him as a citizen (that is irrelevant to his status as a US citizen, since he has not sworn allegiance elsewhere since he swore allegiance to the US), but because he was not born in the US. A qualification stated remarkably clearly by those writing the constitution: "natural born citizen".
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Fugu13, Schwarzy's dual citizenship would NOT be ignored by Democrats if he were to run for president (as a Republican). They would use that to question his undivided loyalty. You know they would.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Parkour, are you capable of sufficient critical thinking to question what you read?
Why do you question everyone's "critical thinking" when they disagree with you using facts? It is what you do every single time there is a contradiction between the facts as they stand and an opinion you have taken.
The fact of the matter is that whether or not Obama has dual citizenship or ever had dual citizenship is irrelevant, because natural born citizens can have dual citizenship.
All of the information you need is right there in the link that you used to present the reasons why you think questions remain.
Are you going to say that because I am pointing out that you are totally wrong, that I am "incapable of critical thought" or that I am "blind" and "misled"?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Here are some reasons why questions remain:
quote:According to CNN's researchers, the original birth certificate no longer exists, as Hawaii discarded all paper birth records in 2001, and the certification of live birth is the official copy. Contradicting CNN, Janice Okubo, public information officer for the Hawaii DOH, said "We don't destroy vital records.
....
According to UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh, in the hypothetical scenario that Obama was born outside the U.S., he would not be a natural-born citizen since the then-applicable law would have required Obama's mother to have been in the U.S. at least "five years after the age of 14", but Ann Dunham was three months shy of her 19th birthday when Obama was born.
So, is this quote supposed to be proof that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii?
really confused there, Ron. if all you're doing is saying that there is a controversy (which is all that page asserts, neutrally) I agree. Of course, there is also a controversy about whether or not we landed on the moon.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ron: he can't run for President (absent a constitutional amendment). He is not a natural born citizen, because he wasn't born in the US. His dual citizenship is irrelevant.
Furthermore, even if people made political hay about a dual citizenship of a Presidential candidate (who would be stupid not to have ditched it long before they thought about seeking such high an office), that does not mean it would be a legal impediment, as you are asserting is present.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Seriously, Ron, you're flat up wrong on that one. Let's just start with that. Can you even back up from the most blatantly incorrect portions of your conspiracy theory?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I just found out from a friend that Obama is a gay Muslim Klingon. I am pissed, I tell you. I cannot BELIEVE he would betray the American people like this.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
What evidence do we have that Ron is a U.S. citizen?
I haven't seen any. Why are we listening to a foreigner again?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
My birth certificate even has my original baby footprint on it.
You might be pleased to know that the doctor who delivered me committed suicide a few months later. (Truth.) Consider that tidbit troll food.
Samprimary, I am not inclined to believe anything that you say. So why do you keep asserting things only on your own say-so? Your opinion has no weight with me at all. Perhaps you are merely posing for the appreciation of your fellow travelers on this board. I hope you enjoy their applause. You will never get any from me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I honestly don't care whether or not I get any applause from you. I'm interested in seeing if you can acknowledge what FactCheck, Fugu, Wikipedia, Tom, etc are plainly asserting to you.
The Birther Conspiracy is pretty laughable on its own, but you're buying into a part of it which isn't even really followed by most of its adherents anymore because it was an even simpler matter of stipulation. You can have dual citizenship and still be a natural born citizen. Clarification is everywhere. But you won't — you can't — allow yourself to be corrected. Not even on such a plainly non-ambiguous point.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Here's my beef: Even if Obama were a muslim born in Kenya--I WOULDN'T CARE. The rules in the constitution, while very well-intentioned, are completely arbitrary in today's world. Obama is qualified to lead and represent this country for all of his LEADERSHIP qualities, not because of his birthplace.
I'm very tired of the treatment of our Constitution as some sort of holy document that must be defended at all costs. It needs to evolve with the times.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Samprimary, I am not inclined to believe anything that you say. So why do you keep asserting things only on your own say-so? Your opinion has no weight with me at all.
Oh, haha. I didn't realize it was this easy to refute someone.
Ron, I am not inclined to buy any of your stupid crap.
There. You are SO VANQUISHED!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm very tired of the treatment of our Constitution as some sort of holy document that must be defended at all costs. It needs to evolve with the times.
Errr...well, this is very strange thought to me, Launchywiggin.
The President is supposed to do, among other things, "...and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," but you think it doesn't matter? Aside from the very obvious problem of not caring if the guy with the launch codes is elected according to the rules or not?
It very, very much matters whether or not* President is a natural-born American citizen because...those are the rules we've all agreed to follow. If you're unhappy with it, the proper thing to do is change the process, not to be apathetic if it's violated.
*Of course, he is, Ron's lunatic fringe protestations notwithstanding.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Rakeesh, I think LW was agreeing with you. It looked like his point was: A: the accusation isn't true, and B: if it *was* true, we should have already changed the constitution.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Launchywiggin, perhaps you do not realize how dangerous the ground is on which you have chosen to tread. You see, we are either a nation ruled by law, or a nation ruled by men. If the latter, then what we have is dictatorship. Only having a law that is above the opinions of any individuals or parties can assure us of any real hope of meaningful freedom.
The talk some people engage in about the U.S. Constitution being "a living document" is utter foolishness. It can be modified by a substantial enough majority to be responsible and respectful of the rights of minorities (hopefully). But the idea that the U.S. Constitution can be set aside and disregarded willy-nilly just because someone thinks it should have "evolved with the times" according to his personal political views, is immensely dangerous.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Like with Georgie W Bush and Cheney?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: My birth certificate even has my original baby footprint on it.
You might be pleased to know that the doctor who delivered me committed suicide a few months later. (Truth.) Consider that tidbit troll food.
Samprimary, I am not inclined to believe anything that you say. So why do you keep asserting things only on your own say-so? Your opinion has no weight with me at all. Perhaps you are merely posing for the appreciation of your fellow travelers on this board. I hope you enjoy their applause. You will never get any from me.
[Removed. --PJ]
[ November 08, 2009, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Gosh, I'm glad in Canada where we couldn't give a flying fish whether someone is a "natural born citizen" or has lived in Canada most of their life. Oh, you spent years clearly dedicated to the wellbeing of the citizens of this country? Nice! Clearly you care a lot about Canada and its people.
quote:Think about what the framers of the U.S. Constitution...
I'm also glad that our constitution's framers were mostly anonymous bureaucrats whose names are forgotten except to the scholar who cares to find out. It means we can change our constitution with just the right amount of hoo-ha, and we do not worship it like some kind of increasingly stagnant and stale religious document instead of a very interesting bit of old paper with some pretty good seedling ideas on it.
Come to Canada! We've got sanity!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Blayne, I don't like Ron much, dislike his politics, and don't agree with just about anything he says most of the time.
But that comment was not cool, not OK, and in complete violation of the TOS and common courtesy.
I thought you were better than that.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Apologies for my lack of clarity--my last post was a short, frustrated rant at the birther movement.
quote:You see, we are either a nation ruled by law, or a nation ruled by men.
Either/Or? Weren't the laws written by men, and aren't they upheld by men? You say I'm on dangerous ground, but isn't questioning authority exactly what the founding fathers were doing?
quote:It very, very much matters whether or not* President is a natural-born American citizen because...those are the rules we've all agreed to follow. If you're unhappy with it, the proper thing to do is change the process, not to be apathetic if it's violated.
So it very, very much matters...because it's in the rulebook? What I'm asking is "don't we have a better reason?"
I hope that doesn't come across as apathetic. I'm just not the type to follow rules only because they're there.
Edit: Because I hadn't addressed it, I don't think we should ignore the constitution, but that it need to be easier to update it. It's very hard to do because of a sort of reverence given to it as if it were from the mouth of God--and that most of the problems of the country could be solved if we could just get back to doing what the holy document of our forefathers tells us to do.
[ November 08, 2009, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: Launchywiggin ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Not only that, Blayne, but he left it dangling and said, "Here's an offensive joke for you trolls to make."
That's what I call low-hanging fruit. Hanging below the belt, even.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Launchywiggin,
quote:So it very, very much matters...because it's in the rulebook? What I'm asking is "don't we have a better reason?"
It being in the rulebook matters very much to the question of whether someone should be allowed to violate the rules. It matters not at all to the question of whether we should change the rules.
Basically, you said that even if it turned out President Obama weren't a natural-born American citizen, it shouldn't matter. That particular statement is what I was objecting to, not suggesting that we shouldn't change the rules just because they're the rules.
[quote]
Edit: Because I hadn't addressed it, I don't think we should ignore the constitution, but that it need to be easier to update it. It's very hard to do because of a sort of reverence given to it as if it were from the mouth of God--and that most of the problems of the country could be solved if we could just get back to doing what the holy document of our forefathers tells us to do.[/quoite]
What problems our country faces do you believe would be more easily addressed if the Constitution were more easily amended?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: ... we couldn't give a flying fish whether someone is a "natural born citizen" or has lived in Canada most of their life.
Mostly, but not totally.
quote: Ignatieff has been razzed in Conservative party advertising for being out of touch with ordinary folk, spending so much time outside Canada and being elitist. ... "I'm much criticized for having been away for a long time, but I think sometimes you see places more clearly from afar than you see them close up."
That said, we definitely have a less pervasive and less virulent strain of the birther insanity (meme?). We sadly still have it though.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Mucus, I had Ignatieff in mind when I wrote: "...or has lived in Canada most of their life."
Obama has lived all his adult years in America and proved his dedication to the country by working their voluntarily. He chose, in his adult years, to live in America.
What happens when you're a child or teenager is much less under your control.
This is not to say that I agree or disagree with the furor surrounding Ignatieff, although I see where it is coming from.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm kinda not following. (Edit to add: I'm tired, so its probably on my end. Actually, did you mean something more like "we couldn't give a flying fish whether someone is a "natural born citizen" *when they have* lived in Canada most of their life"?)
[ November 09, 2009, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Not only that, Blayne, but he left it dangling and said, "Here's an offensive joke for you trolls to make."
And look who snatched it up. Thanks to PJ for removing Blayne's troll-y remark, though it really didn't bother me. (I did see it before it was removed. I didn't even bother to reply.)
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Teshi, I don't consider the work Obama did for Acorn as a "community organizer" to be working for America. And wealthy liberals financed his eduction. No wonder he chose to live in America.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
By that logic, tithes to churches aren't charity. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Acorn recruits liberal voters selectively, and has been shown to be guilty of criminal activity including voter fraud on numerous occasions.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Before we continue, Ron, do you concede the point that, yes, Obama is in fact the constitutionally legitimate president?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
No.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Despite the fact that there is not one single shred of evidence, anywhere, to suggest otherwise? Despite the fact that, after having had this conversation for over a year, you are still no closer to having a valid argument to the contrary?
Reality is not simply what you will it to be, Ron. It makes it mildly exhausting to argue with you when what passes for "evidence" for your claims is an assertion that things are the way you say they are, unsupported by any other sort of logic.
Because when I say "ACORN has not been found guilty of criminal activity," for example, that is -- to the full extent of my knowledge -- literally true. In fact, it's only under investigation in a handful of states, and none of them appear close to anything like an actual trial. This is not a defense of ACORN, mind you; this is merely to indicate that you have a habit of assuming that the facts already justify your prejudices, even if they haven't got around to doing so in the real world just yet.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Ron, I agree that our country is a country of Law. No person is above the law. Whether they are president, or some conservative pundit.
See, high on that list of laws is the idea that a person is Innocent until proven guilty. That is an important part of US law.
Obama is innocent--that means he is a natural born American citizen until someone proves it differently in a court of law. So far every court of law that the birther evidence has been presented too has not been convinced.
This could be a vast conspiracy, or it could be a lack of hard evidence.
You can argue that its a conspiracy. You can claim that all you like. But once you command that the president be removed from office without a court of law agreeing, it is you who are claiming to be above the legal system.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
You assert things that are true only in your own mind, Tom. That things appear that way to you is symptomatic of what is wrong with the liberal mind set. And if you are not by now convinced that Acorn is a criminal enterprise designed to subvert the foundation of American Democracy, then you have truly allowed Obamamania to brainwash you. You probably also believe that Obama was never aware of the outrageous and unamerican statements that Irrev. Jeremiah Wrong was making in OBAMA'S CHURCH FOR 20 YEARS.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Dan_Ravin, I am content if you will acknowledge that, as you said, "This could be a vast conspiracy, or it could be a lack of hard evidence." As you may recall, that was my contention when I said originally that the matter of Obama's status as a natural born citizen has NOT BEEN SETTLED. I did not demand anything else that you are putting into my mouth. I lament that the Obamanites are so secretive about Obama's past--that is much of the problem, setting up a situation where no honest, thoughtful person can trust anything he says. We do not know him, because his past has been studiously suppressed. Everything that has been turned up, such as his very negative past associations, have been incredibly denied, even though they are proven by documents and eye witnesses.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: You assert things that are true only in your own mind, Tom. That things appear that way to you is symptomatic of what is wrong with the liberal mind set. And if you are not by now convinced that Acorn is a criminal enterprise designed to subvert the foundation of American Democracy, then you have truly allowed Obamamania to brainwash you. You probably also believe that Obama was never aware of the outrageous and unamerican statements that Irrev. Jeremiah Wrong was making in OBAMA'S CHURCH FOR 20 YEARS.
Ron, the thing you are implying, that Obama is some kind of extra-excessively-liberal liberal, doesn't wash. He has, time and again, chosen centrists for his administration. Hillary is a centrist, and we both know I could go on and on. I think he even has some people from the first and second Bush administrations in there, in very high positions. How is his plan to force a liberal agenda on America going to work, if he keeps appointing former Bushies? That's right, Ron, it won't work, because there is no such plan. Sure, Obama wants to tax the rich a little more, but, for Pete's sake, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than I do, and...let's just say that Buffett could buy and sell everybody on Hatrack 100 times over. That's just stupid. Why should people making $9 or $10 an hour pay a lower tax rate than a billionaire?
Other than taxing the rich at a more reasonable rate, Obama is very, very moderate. He doesn't even support gay marriage. Of course, compared to you, Obama is a Communist, but then, compared to you, 99.99% of Earth's people are Communists.
Hey! I made a funny!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And if you are not by now convinced that Acorn is a criminal enterprise designed to subvert the foundation of American Democracy...
But this is not what you said. Had you said, "I remain convinced that ACORN is a criminal enterprise," heck, I would have shrugged and said, "More power to you."
But what you said is that ACORN has already been proven guilty of numerous crimes, including vote fraud. This is not true.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Ron, you are a wonderful negotiator. I will agree that the President's past my include a massive hidden conspiracy, and you will agree that there may simply not be enough physical evidence to prove he was born outside this country, but I must insist that you also agree that the reason there is not enough proof is because he was legally born in Hawaii just as his birth certificate, his family, the judges, the courts and the doctors have said.
Of course there was a massive conspiracy to get the President elected. It consisted of over half the people in US, most of home voted for Hope over Fear, Competence over Loyalty, and Honesty over the innuendo and half/truths that make up such groups like the birthers.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: You assert things that are true only in your own mind, Tom. That things appear that way to you is symptomatic of what is wrong with the liberal mind set.
I like how whenever someone's nailed you to the wall on the factuality of a point (in this case, what Tom says is actually true in a non-ambiguous, non-opinion based sense), your immediate response is to accuse them of complete delusion.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
steven, anyone who calls Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton "centrist" has got to be so liberal that Karl Marx looks conservative.
And Sam, what you and Tom say is pure opinion, not fact, and certainly not objective. Face it. You are just as much pundits as I am.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: steven, anyone who calls Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton "centrist" has got to be so liberal that Karl Marx looks conservative.
And Sam, what you and Tom say is pure opinion, not fact, and certainly not objective. You can't even be honest about it.
You just obliterated any use the terms left, center, and right might have had.
Obama and Clinton are so left, that anyone who thinks they are centrists are so much more left that Karl Marx, who is about as far left as you can go is actually to the right.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Apparently, Obama and Clinton are a sort of 'left singularity', so far left that there is no possibility of escape from being so leftist. Astronomical!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
On the other hand, I call Obama and Clinton right wing. And I'm not alone *dun dun dun*
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And Sam, what you and Tom say is pure opinion, not fact...
Ron, it is a fact that ACORN has not been proven guilty of multiple crimes.
It is a fact that Obama has, within both the spirit and the letter of the law, been certified a natural-born citizen. Moreover, it is a fact that natural-born citizens of America can hold citizenship in another country.
I don't know what other facts you would need before you would consider these things to be more than an "opinion."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:On the other hand, I call Obama and Clinton right wing. And I'm not alone *dun dun dun*
Well, if that's the case, clearly you're past the singularity and been sucked into the wormhole. So who knows where you are now. Doubtless some commie-hippie-pinko America-hating dimension. And of course you're not alone, we're positively besieged by you people. You're like the damn Dominion in DS9!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Clearly, changing our name from the Dominion of Canada has not fooled the likes of Ron.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:You're like the damn Dominion in DS9!
Thanks Rakeesh. Someone has to keep the geek cred alive in this thread.
Keep up the good work. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And Sam, what you and Tom say is pure opinion, not fact, and certainly not objective. Face it. You are just as much pundits as I am.
No. You said ACORN has been proven guilty of numerous crimes. Tom points out that they have not been proven guilty of numerous crimes. Insofar as the legal issue is concerned, both of these assertions are statements which can be nonambiguously factual or nonfactual.
Tom's is factual.
Yours is nonfactual.
Think about it!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and predict this little subject - the is it or isn't it question of fact here - will be glossed over at best or never addressed directly again by Ron at worst.
I realize I'm reachin' here, but that's my prediction.
----
quote:Clearly, changing our name from the Dominion of Canada has not fooled the likes of Ron.
Maybe if you'd stop hating America so much, you'd be harder to spot.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm gonna go out on a limb here and predict this little subject - the is it or isn't it question of fact here - will be glossed over at best or never addressed directly again by Ron at worst.
I realize I'm reachin' here, but that's my prediction.
Well to be fair, there are many different standards of "proven". For example (listed in order of decreasing rigor) proven mathematically, proven scientifically, proven legally, proven beyond a shadow of doubt, proven beyond reasonable doubt, supported by the majority of evidence, and proven to Ron's satisfaction.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
quote:The allegations include, among other things, interference with the basic civil right to vote without fear of intimidation or loss of one's job--a Federal crime if proven in a court of law. The allegations are in fact similar to those against ACORN itself, along with ACORN's proven election fraud as shown by guilty pleas by numerous ACORN personnel.
quote:Now that a third ACORN video has surfaced, a pattern emerges of ACORN workers willing to help people engage in prostitution, tax fraud, housing fraud, and even human trafficking. Under federal law, a RICO investigation is now warranted. Three strikes and you're out, ACORN.
Videos show ACORN employees offering to help two undercover reporters/filmmakers posing as a prostitute and pimp in falsifying tax returns and getting a federal loan to buy a house that they could use as a brothel for underage prostitutes smuggled in from El Salvador.
When the first video emerged from such a meeting in ACORN's Baltimore office on Thursday, ACORN fired the two workers involved. When another video surfaced on Friday, this one from ACORN's D.C. office, the two workers involved there were fired as well, and ACORN said that these two reporters had tried and failed to carry out this sting in other offices.
. . . .
These are all implicated on the video tapes. The ACORN workers rattle off their how-to instructions on carrying out these crimes without needing to do more than skim a couple books that they have on hand. The clear implication is that these workers are seasoned pros on how to carry out these crimes, subsidized by federal taxpayer money.
Although everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, a RICO investigation is now warranted. There are already multiple state investigations of ACORN underway, and thirty ACORN workers have already pleaded guilty to committing crimes. Attorney General Eric Holder should immediately order a RICO investigation, while we all wait to see if more footage is forthcoming.
quote:Only four Democrats voted against an amendment last week that would ... allow organizations with a criminal history to receive taxpayer funding. They are: Rep. Bobby Bright (D-Ala.) Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-Ariz.), Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and Rep. Walt Minnick (D-Idaho).
The amendment passed by a margin of 245-176 in an otherwise party line vote just as new criminal charges were filed against the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) in Nevada and Pennsylvania. The group is now under investigation for voter fraud in at least 14 different states.
quote:A leading liberal Democrat in the House blasted the embattled community organizing group ACORN Wednesday and said he is urging the White House to withhold any federal funding for the group.
"I am very disappointed in the actions that were taken by members of ACORN," Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said in a statement Wednesday, "and I do not believe that ACORN's response has been adequate for an organization that has received public funding."
Frank also said in the statement that he is urging the Obama administration to withhold any additional funding for ACORN "at least until there is very firm evidence that the abuses of which ACORN members have been guilty have not only ceased, but that procedures are in place to prevent them from happening again."
quote:In the wake of devastating video reports revealing corruption at local offices of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, the U.S. Census Bureau has cancelled its agreement calling for ACORN to work on the 2010 census.
Is this enough justification yet for saying that ACORN is proven guilty of criminal activity?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Thanks to whoever changed the obnoxious and stupidly wrong original title of this thread.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That was me, but just in honor of you I'll change it back in a couple of days.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
OH HEY IN OTHER NEWS
quote:Politico wrote:
A Florida conservative has registered an official "Tea Party" with the office of the Secretary of State, and is promising to run candidates against Republicans and Democrats in state and national races.
"The current system has become mired in the sludge of special interest money that seeks to control the leadership of both parties. It’s time for real change,” says Orlando lawyer Frederic O’Neal, the new party's chairman, who couldn't be reached immediately by phone, in a press release.
A spokeswoman for the Florida Secretary of State, Jennifer Davis, said the party had registered in August, and that its qualified candidates will appear on the ballot in the state.
O'Neal compared his party's role to that of the Conservative Party in New York's 23rd District. Florida, however, lacks the "fusion" rules that has allowed third parties in New York to amass influence by offering their ballot line to acceptable major-party candidates.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:thirty ACORN workers have already pleaded guilty to committing crimes
Yes. These are, in fact, the only crimes "proven" so far. It's worth noting that these thirty workers were, AFAIK with only two exceptions, turned in by ACORN itself. (The other two were reported by individuals to authorities first, and ACORN then complied with the investigations.)
These are not cases of ACORN as an organization being proven guilty of crime, any more than the occasional case of theft among Girl Scout cookie vendors -- isolated cases of which happen fairly regularly -- "proves" that the Girl Scouts are a bunch of thieves, despite the fact that most of the thieves convicted are in fact reported by the Scouts themselves.
Later in your citation, Frank refers to the "abuses of which these ACORN workers are guilty;" it's worth noting he uses the word "abuses" instead of crimes. That's because the video evidence (which is, I'll note, evidence of something altogether different from voter fraud), while humiliating, is also not proof of crime. (If you would like me to go into this in more detail, I will. To quickly sum up, however, it is a) unlikely that the events caught on tape are actually criminal; and b) the tapes are inadmissible, were available for tampering, and moreover were themselves produced illegally; and c) the motive of the workers in question has already been called into question by at least two of those workers, who have said that they identified it as a joke or college prank early on and were just "playing along" -- meaning that criminal conviction is hardly certain.)
You can say that it is proven that ACORN's written, public policies are not clearly communicated and enforced among the rank-and-file. Use of the word "proven" in other situations -- like, say, that the organization itself has been frequently "proven" guilty of crime -- is remarkably inaccurate.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I think I figured it out.
No matter what President Obama's actions are, his beliefs may be or his goals really are, he must be the ultimate liberal.
Why?
Because he is the biggest threat to the Conservatives. These reactionaries think on a black and white system. It is all about Good/Evil, Us/Them, Christian/Atheists. There is no room for middle ground. So anyone who is not with them must be the polar opposite.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: These are, in fact, the only crimes "proven" so far.
Similar things occurred in Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, and Nevada to name a few. In Nevada the ACORN Director plead guilty to setting a paid quota system for registering new voters.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: These are, in fact, the only crimes "proven" so far.
Similar things occurred in Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, and Nevada to name a few. In Nevada the ACORN Director plead guilty to setting a paid quota system for registering new voters.
Were these similar things accusations or convictions? Please share.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Were these similar things accusations or convictions? Please share.
You can do a google search and find many more examples
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Okay. Looking through that, it seems to fit entirely in with what Tom is saying.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Similar things occurred in Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, and Nevada to name a few.
Those are actually included in the 30 discussed. That's where the number came from.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The first article you cite begins
quote:A high-ranking official at the taxpayer-funded leftist group that conducts fraudulent voter registration drives has pleaded guilty to conspiracy for organizing a scheme that illegally paid workers to register new voters.
After that kind of biased and inflammatory opening, its very difficult for me to trust any "facts" reported in the rest of the article.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: No matter what President Obama's actions are, his beliefs may be or his goals really are, he must be the ultimate liberal.
Why?
Because he is the biggest threat to the Conservatives.
No, Obama has a voting record that has the highest score of being on the liberal side of any member of Congress. Considering that included superlefters like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, he is PROVEN to be "way out there."
quote:Earlier this year, NJ ranked Barack Obama's voting record as the most liberal in the Senate in 2007, a characterization that, not surprisingly, has generated much coverage -- and more than a little criticism.
Unfortunately, much of the criticism has been uninformed. . . . . We sent the votes to the Brookings Institution, which is under contract to National Journal to compute the vote ratings based on a system designed by William Schneider, a CNN political analyst and a contributing editor to the magazine. After Brookings delivers the ratings, we run them in our magazine and post them on our Web site.
The most liberal member of congress in a while is actually Barbara Boxer. Even National Journal isn't making the case you're saying they are. They're saying that by their estimation, Obama had the most liberal voting record in 2007, not that he has the highest overall "score of being on the liberal side of any member of Congress."
So, you're wrong, but oh man let me guess you'll never admit it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's also worth noting that "most liberal" according to the National Journal usually means "voted most consistently along party lines." That's not really what "liberal" should mean.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It's also worth noting that "most liberal" according to the National Journal usually means "voted most consistently along party lines." That's not really what "liberal" should mean.
This man speaks the truth.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hey, lookit Ron not responding to the question of facts!
I tell you had my heart stopped the shock of this would surely jumpstart it!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Has someone hacked into Ron's account to screw with all of us? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)