Lash
 
  1  
Mon 19 Jun, 2006 03:51 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Lash wrote:
Re Clark, it is a cute line, but I don't think people actually vote "no experience."
Perot got 19% of the popular vote with the worst campaign stategy in history. Don't be too sure.

I should clarify--"no experience" in and of itself wouldn't be a vote-getter, responding to soz' comment.

"I think O'Bill was saying that the lack of experience would be a plus (whether for Obama or Clark) among people who are sick of the old guard. I actually do like someone with experience, my favorite politicians tend to be the ones who are both experienced/wonkish and charismatic (see: Bill Clinton)."

I think extreme voter anger toward an out-of-touch George Bush I, who I came quite close to not voting for----and a womanizing pot-smoking applicant, saddled with a collection of attributes never before to make it to the WH----probably provided Perot's votes.

Q: Didn't Perot have a very appealing tax plan? I seem to remember he had some ideas that caused me to consider him.

However, in some way, a protest vote could be considered a vote for inexperience. What I was thinking is you have to provide the two heavily flawed opponents for it to work that way.
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Mon 19 Jun, 2006 06:44 am
Obama can't run on the ticket as VP. Remember what Chris Rock said.

Smile
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Mon 19 Jun, 2006 06:45 am
Lash wrote:
mbna?

Yeah. Re Clark, it is a cute line, but I don't think people actually vote "no experience."


Yeah, like the bank, MBNA. Biden votes in the best interest of big business and the banking industry - some of his primary donors, the banking industry - with regularity. Never get the nom.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 19 Jun, 2006 09:07 am
There's an interesting article in today's San Jose Mercury News on how democrats can retake the presidency and congress; Clintonism. The problem with the democrats of today is that they have no voice. Their silence and voting with republicans have Americans confused about where democrats really stand.

I don't think democrats are capable of rewinning votes with the current leadership; they're doing absolutely nothing to prepare for the next elections.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Mon 19 Jun, 2006 11:33 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
There's an interesting article in today's San Jose Mercury News on how democrats can retake the presidency and congress; Clintonism. The problem with the democrats of today is that they have no voice. Their silence and voting with republicans have Americans confused about where democrats really stand.

I don't think democrats are capable of rewinning votes with the current leadership; they're doing absolutely nothing to prepare for the next elections.


I am curious. What is the definition of "Clintonism?"
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 19 Jun, 2006 11:35 am
Moderate.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Mon 19 Jun, 2006 05:19 pm
Lash wrote:
I think extreme voter anger toward an out-of-touch George Bush I, who I came quite close to not voting for----and a womanizing pot-smoking applicant, saddled with a collection of attributes never before to make it to the WH----probably provided Perot's votes.
I tend to agree with your logic here, but not your conclusion. Hillary is a sorry substitute for Bill, and Frist (just for instance would be even easier to demonize than George (before he took office). What's changed?
Lash wrote:
Q: Didn't Perot have a very appealing tax plan? I seem to remember he had some ideas that caused me to consider him.
Perot's tax plan is part of what cannonball his chances ($1 per gallon gas tax, escalating to $5 then disappearing all together (along with the National Debt). What worked was his scaling attacks on Government wastefulness, money mismanagement and corruption. IMO, still a platform most American's will listen to.

Someone mentioned Chris Rock... and if you take away the comedy aspects of his fictional campaign, it had some merit. No experience at what we've all come to hate about the Democrats and Republicans alike could easily be sold as a tremendous positive. Especially by a man as charismatic and articulate as Obama... or one who's record is as impeccable as the General's.

Lash wrote:
However, in some way, a protest vote could be considered a vote for inexperience. What I was thinking is you have to provide the two heavily flawed opponents for it to work that way.
Agreed... and when's the last time that wasn't the case?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Mon 19 Jun, 2006 05:46 pm
SierraSong wrote:
Obama can't run on the ticket as VP. Remember what Chris Rock said.

Smile


About what? about Powell not running as a mate with someone he could beat?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Mon 19 Jun, 2006 08:02 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Lash wrote:
I think extreme voter anger toward an out-of-touch George Bush I, who I came quite close to not voting for----and a womanizing pot-smoking applicant, saddled with a collection of attributes never before to make it to the WH----probably provided Perot's votes.
I tend to agree with your logic here, but not your conclusion. Hillary is a sorry substitute for Bill, and Frist (just for instance would be even easier to demonize than George (before he took office). What's changed?


just now, Lash wrote:
Hill and Frist aren't shoo in's by a long shot. At least one good candidate that excites a lot of people would be the difference. There are a couple jostling for pole position.

O'Bill wrote:

... or one who's record is as impeccable as the General's.


Lash, perplexed by that characterization, wrote:
Good God, man. I think your benevolent opinion of the General is not widely held.


earlier, Lash wrote:
However, in some way, a protest vote could be considered a vote for inexperience. What I was thinking is you have to provide the two heavily flawed opponents for it to work that way.
and in reply, O'Bill wrote:
Agreed... and when's the last time that wasn't the case?

Lash wrote:
Rudy doesn't seem that flawed. The NEXT time may be 2008.
Very Happy
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Mon 19 Jun, 2006 08:46 pm
Frist was only an example. Hill too, for that matter, as I would be surprised not at all if she found a way to torpedo her current status, long before we go to the polls (lot's of talking in front of Microphones for instance). I would agree on Rudy... if he does indeed get the nomination. However; would I be guessing correctly that you'd have to look all the way back to Reagan before you could name a primary winner you liked as much as Rudy? Plus; the garbage machine hasn't even begun to dump it's loads on Rudy, yet. I am not yet convinced the Republican machine won't pick a Governor to put their giant resources behind, if only to avoid the record-reminders a guy like Frist would bring to the table (Dole). This is where I think McCain is kind of unique in that his record doesn't always reflect the party line, which to me at least, is an indication of strong leadership. At any rate, 2008 is still a long ways off.

Aside: It's not always the most popular guy who get's the job done. (Bush)

It's not always the most popular guy who get's the job. (Rudy)
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Mon 19 Jun, 2006 08:57 pm
I hated Reagan as a nominee. I was a Democrat. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Mon 19 Jun, 2006 09:03 pm
Lash wrote:
I hated Reagan as a nominee. I was a Democrat. Very Happy
Then how far back would you have to go? :wink:
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Mon 19 Jun, 2006 09:10 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
There's an interesting article in today's San Jose Mercury News on how democrats can retake the presidency and congress; Clintonism. The problem with the democrats of today is that they have no voice. Their silence and voting with republicans have Americans confused about where democrats really stand.

I don't think democrats are capable of rewinning votes with the current leadership; they're doing absolutely nothing to prepare for the next elections.


http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/5444/wildeyedkos7cp.jpg
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Mon 19 Jun, 2006 09:18 pm
snood wrote:
SierraSong wrote:
Obama can't run on the ticket as VP. Remember what Chris Rock said.

Smile


About what? about Powell not running as a mate with someone he could beat?


Yeah. Chris said, "Now as you know, there's been alot of talk about a black vice president. And I just wanna tell the world that it'll never happen. As long as you live you will never see a black vice president, you know why? Because some black guy would just kill the president."

Laughing
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Mon 19 Jun, 2006 09:26 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
I don't think democrats are capable of rewinning votes with the current leadership; they're doing absolutely nothing to prepare for the next elections.
I would agree with this assessment completely... but would add the voices they do have; no one outside of the flock want to hear. That's what makes Obama so interesting in the first place. Sooner or later, they'll learn they need someone who can preach to more than the choir, without turning people off. Some are better at faking it than others, but Obama was born with it. I'm becoming increasing convinced his ascendancy to the top of the Party is more a matter of when than if. Charisma-wise, his only real competitor is ineligible, having already won twice. And even Bill wasn't that good before his Presidency. Still, Rudy is probably more than equal to the task, if...
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Mon 19 Jun, 2006 09:31 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
That's what makes Obama so interesting in the first place. Sooner or later, they'll learn they need someone who can preach to more than the choir, without turning people off. Some are better at faking it than others, but Obama was born with it.


Eyup.
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Mon 19 Jun, 2006 09:51 pm
I don't think we'll see a Democrat elected president for quite some time. Neither Obama, nor Biden, nor GoreTheBore.

The Dems simply won't provide for America's security. The reason they won't is because their base on the left doesn't believe that America is worth defending.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Mon 19 Jun, 2006 10:00 pm
SierraSong wrote:
I don't think we'll see a Democrat elected president for quite some time. Neither Obama, nor Biden, nor GoreTheBore.

The Dems simply won't provide for America's security. The reason they won't is because their base on the left doesn't believe that America is worth defending.


Most Americans love their country. Current Democrats don't talk and act like they do. Of course they claim they do, but words and actions give it away. I don't know if its a guilt complex, self hate, or what?
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Mon 19 Jun, 2006 10:18 pm
okie wrote:
I don't know if its a guilt complex, self hate, or what?


Self-loathing.

This pretty much describes them (including some who post here):

Quote:
Self-Loathing and the Denial of Terrorism

BY JAMES LILEKS

You're an enlightened world citizen. Your T-shirt says "9/11 was an inside job." You're pretty sure we're living in a fascist state, that President Bush taps the Dixie Chicks' phones, Christian abortion clinic bombers outnumber jihadis, and the war on "terror" is a distraction from the real threats: carbon emissions and Pat Robertson. Then you learn that 17 people were arrested in a terrorist bomb plot. How do you process the information? Let's take it step by step.

Gosh, that's horrible, you think. But no -- that's what they WANT you to feel. Recall the prime directive: Question Authority (unless he's a college professor). The plotters must have been impoverished olive farmers radicalized by the removal of Saddam Hussein. Why, if someone came in and toppled your president, you'd go to their country and ... well, you'd thank them. Unless they did it for the wrong reasons! Then you'd blow something up. Like an SUV dealership. At night. Anyway, you understand; you care a lot about Iraqis these days. You think about Iraq more than China, to be honest, but it's not as if you'll scrape off your "Free Tibet" bumper sticker -- unless it's to make room for "Free Darfur." Or "Hands Off Darfur," depending.

Wait a minute: The "terrorists" were Canadian? You can understand someone blowing up trains in Spain and London. They sent troops to an illegal war cooked up by neocons who want to kill brown people for Exxon and Jesus, or something. You can understand, reluctantly, blowing up teens in an Israeli pizza parlor, because the Jews took the West Bank from the sovereign, ancient nation of Palestine. (How can a liberal socialist country behave so poorly? The world is full of mysteries.) But Canada? Isn't Michael Moore from Canada? You can get medical marijuana from married gay doctors in Canada, and no one has guns. You console yourself: Maybe they were really planning to attack the U.S.

You realize the suspects were all Muslim, and you dread the inevitable pogroms. Haven't been any yet, but any day now. You read that a mosque was vandalized in Toronto after the arrest, and you feel a certain grim relief. Finally, racism! Banners. If you're going to have a march, you'll need banners.

But wait. You read that the suspects were not connected to al-Qaida, and you're confused for a moment. Maybe it won't be over if they get Osama bin Laden (provided he isn't really in an supersecret Idaho prison). What if the "terrorists" hate you for their own reasons? The evildoer-in-chief said "they hate our freedoms" -- as if we have freedoms, really, just try and get a bike-messenger job that has full health benefits. But what if rights and mixed-sex education and an economy based on sustainable hemp-based art installations mean nothing to them?

Maybe you could convince them to hold off while you fix Amerikkka. At least you can get it down to one k. Maybe if the Democrats take the House back. A 10-seat swing won't make the imams cool down, but 20 seats, in red states? Would that be a good-faith effort?

You worry this will push Haditha off the front page. It's very important that everyone concentrate on the atrocities committed by U.S. troops every day. (It's such a relief not to have to pretend to support the troops anymore.) Anyway, nothing happened. Nothing blew up. If the suspects were planning something, they didn't do it, and this proves we can handle this as a law enforcement matter. Even though the police are racists.

Your head hurts.

You have a friend in Toronto. She's cool. It would kill her if these arrests were made possible by NSA eavesdropping.

You find yourself almost wishing there was another real attack, so people could see the logical consequences of "fighting back" after 9/11. Yes, it would be bad, but sometimes you have to break an egg to show people the health impact of omelettes. Is it wrong to wish the Canadian terrorists might have succeeded?

Shouldn't you know the answer to that question?

June 7, 2006

http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/lileks060706.html
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Tue 20 Jun, 2006 03:01 am
SierraSong wrote:
You're an enlightened world citizen. Your T-shirt says "9/11 was an inside job." You're pretty sure we're living in a fascist state, that President Bush taps the Dixie Chicks' phones, Christian abortion clinic bombers outnumber jihadis

Yeah, that sounds like yer typical Democrat ... not.

Nice straw man. Keep it up if it makes ya feel good. By all means dont let reality get in the way of a grab at feeling superior.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 30
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.21 seconds on 06/18/2025 at 03:29:14