The Impending Democrat Implosion

This thread will be fun on November 5.... I will be back then.

0 Replies

JBrown, the dumbass from the blog, wrote:

Illinois - Almost every political pundit will tell you Illinois, because of Chicago, is a blue state; but this political landscape in Illinois may not necessarily favor the Senator come November. Remember, although both Gore & Kerry won Illinois, their victory was driven by the Chicago Metropolitan Area. Not a day goes by when the Rezko trial and other corrupt ties to Obama are not mentioned in the press. Additionally, the state is troubled by growing dissent toward the Democratic Governor; over 75% of Illinoisans polled would support a recall election, if it were allowed. Come November the states Republican Party will be pushing for the approval of a constitutional convention vote on the ballot which could drive larger turnouts in downstate Illinois.

There are so many things wrong with this paragraph that it is difficult to know where to begin correcting it. Although Chicago provides large margins for Democratic candidates in statewide elections, the election of Melissa Bean and Bill Foster to formerly Republican congressional seats in the suburbs shows that much of the rest of the state is gradually turning blue as well.

The Rezko trial hasn't done any damage to Obama, let alone the Democratic party in Illinois. The most damage has been suffered by Rod Blagojevich, but he has damaged himself in so many ways, and has alienated so many members of his own party, that a proposed amendment to allow for popular recall of the governor nearly passed the Democratic-controlled general assembly. The Democratic Party in Illinois isn't unpopular, it's just Blagojevich -- and that's a bipartisan position.

As for "the states [sic] Republican Party will be pushing for the approval of a constitutional convention vote on the ballot which could drive larger turnouts in downstate Illinois," a few observations. First, the state's Republican Party is in such disarray that it would be hard put to assemble a three-car funeral, let alone a successful drive for a constitutional amendment. Secondly, constitutional amendment referenda in Illinois are completely advisory. Nobody takes them seriously because, in the end, they don't matter. So it's wishful thinking to believe that an advisory referendum (no matter what the subject -- probably gay marriage, which isn't a big issue in Illinois anyway) will drive downstaters to the polls in 2008.

0 Replies

I think it should be called "completelydrunk"

Quote:

In a year that political pundits across the board anticipated the Democrats cruising to executive branch victory, the most recent national polls show John McCain ahead of Obama by 1 to 5 points (Rasmussen Data released yesterday gives McCain 5 point advantage). The Obama campaign continues to propagate that a McCain presidency would be a third Bush term, but the argument may not work out like the DNC and Obama campaign expected. Just 2 weeks ago, Obama led most national polls by up to an 11 point margin. What changed?

Obama had a lead of 11 points in most national polls 2 weeks ago which would be the middle of May? Which ones?

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

0 Replies

As is my custom, I fel there's a thread of truth here. I mean, I know they're both swinging left, but it can't be that simple - I know a lotta you kids like to imitate your mothers and say "it's about time..." - but public sentiment is like anything else - cause-effect wave-nature and such. I mean, I'd say that crap just won't fly, and when the time comes to tell folk what to consume it's not all of a sudden not the country that came up with the 454-lead-gas big block.

Anyway, I could just be projecting, up till recently when the ban sun-setted I didn't care, but I don't remember the parties bleeding and sweating this much in the last few elections. I mean, the Dems think they have it coming, put up some very Dem-ish candidates - the GOP thinks they're going to keep it together and if they don't, with both houses lost - Libertarians coming out of the woodwork... One way or the other, one of the parties is going to get blue-balls.

I'd rather have it be the Dems, stop more undirected energy that way, get a fightin man besides - not sure which would help the cause, there's votes to be liberated from the GOP, points to be proven that way, and we could give the Dems enough rope to hang themselves - but moving in the night is beneath us (LNC), this victory will not be stolen!

0 Replies

hanno wrote:

As is my custom, I fel there's a thread of truth here. I mean, I know they're both swinging left, but it can't be that simple - I know a lotta you kids like to imitate your mothers and say "it's about time..." - but public sentiment is like anything else - cause-effect wave-nature and such. I mean, I'd say that crap just won't fly, and when the time comes to tell folk what to consume it's not all of a sudden not the country that came up with the 454-lead-gas big block.

Anyway, I could just be projecting, up till recently when the ban sun-setted I didn't care, but I don't remember the parties bleeding and sweating this much in the last few elections. I mean, the Dems think they have it coming, put up some very Dem-ish candidates - the GOP thinks they're going to keep it together and if they don't, with both houses lost - Libertarians coming out of the woodwork... One way or the other, one of the parties is going to get blue-balls.

I'd rather have it be the Dems, stop more undirected energy that way, get a fightin man besides - not sure which would help the cause, there's votes to be liberated from the GOP, points to be proven that way, and we could give the Dems enough rope to hang themselves - but moving in the night is beneath us (LNC), this victory will not be stolen!

Obama's a fighting man. McCain had a history of that but is mostly a pussy these days, one who will do whatever the neocon money men in the Republican party say, in order to get elected.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

hanno wrote:
As is my custom, I fel there's a thread of truth here. I mean, I know they're both swinging left, but it can't be that simple - I know a lotta you kids like to imitate your mothers and say "it's about time..." - but public sentiment is like anything else - cause-effect wave-nature and such. I mean, I'd say that crap just won't fly, and when the time comes to tell folk what to consume it's not all of a sudden not the country that came up with the 454-lead-gas big block.

Anyway, I could just be projecting, up till recently when the ban sun-setted I didn't care, but I don't remember the parties bleeding and sweating this much in the last few elections. I mean, the Dems think they have it coming, put up some very Dem-ish candidates - the GOP thinks they're going to keep it together and if they don't, with both houses lost - Libertarians coming out of the woodwork... One way or the other, one of the parties is going to get blue-balls.

I'd rather have it be the Dems, stop more undirected energy that way, get a fightin man besides - not sure which would help the cause, there's votes to be liberated from the GOP, points to be proven that way, and we could give the Dems enough rope to hang themselves - but moving in the night is beneath us (LNC), this victory will not be stolen!

Obama's a fighting man. McCain had a history of that but is mostly a pussy these days, one who will do whatever the neocon money men in the Republican party say, in order to get elected.

Cycloptichorn

Is that the best you've got? Obama's a (one can only assume metaphorically) fightin' man? Or has he raised a hand in anger that I don't know about? Platitudes, platitudes, platitudes - if Obama weren't full of it you could speak plainly.

0 Replies

hanno wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
hanno wrote:
As is my custom, I fel there's a thread of truth here. I mean, I know they're both swinging left, but it can't be that simple - I know a lotta you kids like to imitate your mothers and say "it's about time..." - but public sentiment is like anything else - cause-effect wave-nature and such. I mean, I'd say that crap just won't fly, and when the time comes to tell folk what to consume it's not all of a sudden not the country that came up with the 454-lead-gas big block.

Anyway, I could just be projecting, up till recently when the ban sun-setted I didn't care, but I don't remember the parties bleeding and sweating this much in the last few elections. I mean, the Dems think they have it coming, put up some very Dem-ish candidates - the GOP thinks they're going to keep it together and if they don't, with both houses lost - Libertarians coming out of the woodwork... One way or the other, one of the parties is going to get blue-balls.

I'd rather have it be the Dems, stop more undirected energy that way, get a fightin man besides - not sure which would help the cause, there's votes to be liberated from the GOP, points to be proven that way, and we could give the Dems enough rope to hang themselves - but moving in the night is beneath us (LNC), this victory will not be stolen!

Obama's a fighting man. McCain had a history of that but is mostly a pussy these days, one who will do whatever the neocon money men in the Republican party say, in order to get elected.

Cycloptichorn

Is that the best you've got? Obama's a (one can only assume metaphorically) fightin' man? Or has he raised a hand in anger that I don't know about? Platitudes, platitudes, platitudes - if Obama weren't full of it you could speak plainly.

What platitude did I use?

McCain's 'fighting man' rep is based upon two things:

1, his famous temper. Pardon me, not exactly a quality which I look for in a leader, as it rarely leads to good decisions.

2, his willingness to buck the system and do 'what is right.' Problem for him is that 'what is right' became 'what I must do to be elected.'

On which issue is he a 'fighter?'

Torture - agrees with Bush and the neocons, used to disagree.
Wiretapping - agrees with Bush and the neocons, used to disagree.
Iraq - agrees with Bush and the neocons, used to disagree.
Taxation - agrees with Bush and the neocons, used to disagree.
SC Judges - agrees with Bush and the neocons, used to disagree.

Et cetera. He has repudiated his former position on nearly everything he can find, in order to get support for the election. What kind of 'fighter' is that? Not much of one at all. He didn't give a damn about any of these issues one bit farther then they stood in the way of his ambition.

He doesn't have much of a chance against a younger, stronger, more articulate, better funded, more intelligent, and more pumped up opponent this Fall.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The term neocon, I believe, is misused often. It does not mean right wing conservative. It means new conservative. Someone that used to be left wing, but realized the fallacy of that thinking.

Many of the right wing conservatives were always that way. Neocon is a separate political philosophy.

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

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

The term neocon, I believe, is misused often. It does not mean right wing conservative. It means new conservative. Someone that used to be left wing, but realized the fallacy of that thinking.

Many of the right wing conservatives were always that way. Neocon is a separate political philosophy.

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

I'm well aware of what it means. The bunch who are in power in the Republican party right now are Neocons. It has little to do with realizing the 'error' of left-wing thought and much to do with money and power, and corruption.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foofie wrote:
The term neocon, I believe, is misused often. It does not mean right wing conservative. It means new conservative. Someone that used to be left wing, but realized the fallacy of that thinking.

Many of the right wing conservatives were always that way. Neocon is a separate political philosophy.

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

I'm well aware of what it means. The bunch who are in power in the Republican party right now are Neocons. It has little to do with realizing the 'error' of left-wing thought and much to do with money and power, and corruption.

Cycloptichorn

No. It really does have much to do with realizing the error of lef-wing political thought, since some neo-cons evolved from the early twentieth century leftist Jewish intellectuals. You see, some Jews in the late nineteenth century, and early twentieth century, thought that socialism and/or communism was the panacea to end world anti-Semitism. The holocaust and the Soviet Union taught them that a socialist or communist "utopia" had nothing to do with eliminating anti-Semistism. What does ameliorate anti-Semitism is when everyone else are not starving Gentiles. Thus, the realization that a strong nation state can be good to many people, just not the Jewish citizens. Neo-conservatism really was, in my opinion, an epiphany for many Jews (like Saul getting hit with lightening on the road to Damascus, and then becoming Paul).

Needless to say, in my opinion, there are some liberal Jews today that are following the error of an earlier Jewish generation, since they do not know, or care about, the Jewish European experience with left-wing politics. In my opinion, liberal thinking becomes a sort of substitute religion for some American secular Jews.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

hanno wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
hanno wrote:
As is my custom, I fel there's a thread of truth here. I mean, I know they're both swinging left, but it can't be that simple - I know a lotta you kids like to imitate your mothers and say "it's about time..." - but public sentiment is like anything else - cause-effect wave-nature and such. I mean, I'd say that crap just won't fly, and when the time comes to tell folk what to consume it's not all of a sudden not the country that came up with the 454-lead-gas big block.

Anyway, I could just be projecting, up till recently when the ban sun-setted I didn't care, but I don't remember the parties bleeding and sweating this much in the last few elections. I mean, the Dems think they have it coming, put up some very Dem-ish candidates - the GOP thinks they're going to keep it together and if they don't, with both houses lost - Libertarians coming out of the woodwork... One way or the other, one of the parties is going to get blue-balls.

I'd rather have it be the Dems, stop more undirected energy that way, get a fightin man besides - not sure which would help the cause, there's votes to be liberated from the GOP, points to be proven that way, and we could give the Dems enough rope to hang themselves - but moving in the night is beneath us (LNC), this victory will not be stolen!

Obama's a fighting man. McCain had a history of that but is mostly a pussy these days, one who will do whatever the neocon money men in the Republican party say, in order to get elected.

Cycloptichorn

Is that the best you've got? Obama's a (one can only assume metaphorically) fightin' man? Or has he raised a hand in anger that I don't know about? Platitudes, platitudes, platitudes - if Obama weren't full of it you could speak plainly.

What platitude did I use?

McCain's 'fighting man' rep is based upon two things:

1, his famous temper. Pardon me, not exactly a quality which I look for in a leader, as it rarely leads to good decisions.

2, his willingness to buck the system and do 'what is right.' Problem for him is that 'what is right' became 'what I must do to be elected.'

On which issue is he a 'fighter?'

Torture - agrees with Bush and the neocons, used to disagree.
Wiretapping - agrees with Bush and the neocons, used to disagree.
Iraq - agrees with Bush and the neocons, used to disagree.
Taxation - agrees with Bush and the neocons, used to disagree.
SC Judges - agrees with Bush and the neocons, used to disagree.

Et cetera. He has repudiated his former position on nearly everything he can find, in order to get support for the election. What kind of 'fighter' is that? Not much of one at all. He didn't give a damn about any of these issues one bit farther then they stood in the way of his ambition.

He doesn't have much of a chance against a younger, stronger, more articulate, better funded, more intelligent, and more pumped up opponent this Fall.

Cycloptichorn

How disappointing. Folk take things for granted - people think, take for example, "it's a Chevy Malibu, that's what it is to me, it starts up, takes me places to do what I do, which is really the main event" - it's out of style to consider what something is, in and of itself. A dearth of car-appreciation alone is saddening, but it's just one thing, one way to understand some of reality. And it's not either to say what you do facilitated by the car isn't the main event, but insofar as it is the car ain't just nothing.

In the case at hand, one's a veteran (and how) and one ain't . Yet metaphorically, relative to you and what you want to happen Barack is the fighter. I mean why ain't Barack the hardest-working fresh-scented laundry-detergent as well? Same difference since he's the best right, I mean if he were a laundry-detergent and since we're all tragically at ease with abstract thought?

And on other side of the coin, the lesser realities don't mean much to studs like us. Like, for that beltway sniper, the served-in-the-military-boolean was = 1, one might not want one's sister to marry a combat veteran. We read books, the news gets piped in, we're on another level right? Bullshit. McCain's an American hero - Barack is a social construct. It ain't just nothing, even relative to the issues, we like our consumables don't we? None of it exists independently from the western military tradition, and if it ever shall for us we'll catch a lot of **** from the likes of the EU and China before we get there. And that's assuming there's no higher reality to it - you civic heroes just love to project mundaneness where your understanding fails - I'm picturing a caulk-gun full of human-reproach-ability - as for me I'd liken McCain's experience to the forge of kings...

As for which one has more substance, force of will, willingness to go to extremes or adeptness there-at to make things happen for whatever visionary reason - I question anyone's ability to measure such a thing in politicos. It's unquantifiable - like evangelicals aping science, the garden-variety nuisance-populist is quick to begin assigning value to isolated instances in a convoluted, and at best highly-limited, system - like from this we can determine that - but I'd rather say I don't know with certainty. What I do know with certainty is McCain is a fine example of something or other, and Barack is a moralizing obligate-politic-o-phage. From there, I don't think I'm out of line in assuming a positive correlation to the facets of leadership above.

0 Replies

hanno wrote:

McCain's an American hero -

To wingnut conservatives, whose sense of morality is the equal of this "American hero", he may well be. Let's review:

Quote:

Cy wrote:
Torture - agrees with Bush and the neocons, used to disagree.
Wiretapping - agrees with Bush and the neocons, used to disagree.
Iraq - agrees with Bush and the neocons, used to disagree.
Taxation - agrees with Bush and the neocons, used to disagree.
SC Judges - agrees with Bush and the neocons, used to disagree.

Et cetera. He has repudiated his former position on nearly everything he can find, in order to get support for the election. What kind of 'fighter' is that? Not much of one at all. He didn't give a damn about any of these issues one bit farther then they stood in the way of his ambition.

0 Replies

Before I join you in going off-task, it wasn't my intent to make this about McCain - this thread came out, the replies were to the effect that the DNC won't implode, and I had the idea that implode or not, one party or the other's headed for a worse-than-usual case of blue balls this time. I fixed that sammich, so I ate it, I took the opportunity to say from the blue-balls-inevitable perspective how I'd like to see it go down. And you've apparently got a problem with that. Damn it anyway, you want to take a cheap shot, it ain't my problem you lack objectivity in addition to originality, and it won't run me off either.

Like I said, folk like to whip out the old abstract thought when the literal situation don't please them. It's a specific type of person who does this - the kindof person who has never had to make it or break it for him/herself beyond the beaten paths of society. In my walk of life one does well to give the devil his due.

I'm reading McCain's only an American Hero to conservative wingnuts with bad morals. There's a pre-supposition there, that as many times as I've heard it implied in this case and others, no one wants to own up to. We know such a social construct as an American Hero of the military persuasion exists - another may never be named, but there are, after all, statues and documentaries. We know McCain can't be neatly excluded from he set of things to which the term may be applied. Yet, to your reasoning, the only people who would go so far as to apply the term in his case can be identified by the supposed fallacy. So the set of things heroic by way of war and nationalism can be defined by the set of things politically to your liking and to your mind morally upright. It begs the question - who the hell are you? Who the are the rest of the liberals who'd take the moral highground right up over top of it, deny it to the letter, but would never come out and say 'McCain's veteran/POW status is non-critical to me because...'? Self-righteous, small-minded hypocrites.

0 Replies

hanno wrote:

Who the are the rest of the liberals who'd take the moral highground right up over top of it, deny it to the letter, but would never come out and say 'McCain's veteran/POW status is non-critical to me because...'? Self-righteous, small-minded hypocrites.

Speaking of small minded hypocrites.

Quote:

McCain's Top Strategist Lobbied For Iran-Linked Firm

Sam Stein

...

Flash-forward nearly three years and Black's old client -- which later scored a $16 billion deal with the Iranian government -- could now create major headaches for his current boss. On Monday, McCain, in a speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, called for a broad and aggressive international campaign to divest from Iran.

"We should privatize the sanctions against Iran by launching a worldwide divestment campaign," he said. "As more people, businesses, pension funds, and financial institutions across the world divest from companies doing business with Iran, the radical elite who run that country will become even more unpopular than they are already."

But, as demonstrated by the CNOOC anecdote, if choking off Tehran's economic lifeblood is McCain's goal, he could have personally started down that road years ago -- with his own advisers.

...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/02/senior-mccain-aide-had-cl_n_104696.html

0 Replies

A spin doctor worked for money - wow, where'd you park the squad car, detective?

0 Replies

The Impending Democrat Implosion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know