Obama '08?

maporsche wrote:

Please show me any schedule of campaign stops, or public gatherings, or town hall meeting, or anything that would show that she is campaigning there. Her being in FL is not equalivant to campaigning in FL.

And back to my other question;

With ALL 3 major candidates on the ballot in Florida, and no one campaigning in FL until Obama's adds started to air, and all of this talk going on BEFORE the vote. What do you have against allowing FLORIDA's (not Michigan's) votes to count in the primary?

B/c they broke the rules the DNC set. Simple as that. And all the candidates agreed to honor the rule. Now some desperate campaigns don't want to do so. How hard is that to understand?

If Florida's Dems have a problem, maybe they should take it up with their local Dem party. They knew what the consequences for breaking the rules would be.

B/c they broke the rules the DNC set. Simple as that. And all the candidates agreed to honor the rule. Now some desperate campaigns don't want to do so. How hard is that to understand?

If Florida's Dems have a problem, maybe they should take it up with their local Dem party. They knew what the consequences for breaking the rules would be.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

maporsche wrote:

Please show me any schedule of campaign stops, or public gatherings, or town hall meeting, or anything that would show that she is campaigning there. Her being in FL is not equalivant to campaigning in FL.

And back to my other question;

With ALL 3 major candidates on the ballot in Florida, and no one campaigning in FL until Obama's adds started to air, and all of this talk going on BEFORE the vote. What do you have against allowing FLORIDA's (not Michigan's) votes to count in the primary?

B/c they broke the rules the DNC set. Simple as that. And all the candidates agreed to honor the rule. Now some desperate campaigns don't want to do so. How hard is that to understand?

If Florida's Dems have a problem, maybe they should take it up with their local Dem party. They knew what the consequences for breaking the rules would be.

ALL the candidates HAVE followed the rules EXCEPT OBAMA!

Clinton and Edwards MUST have taken the extra steps that OBAMA CHOSE NOT to take to keep their ads of the air there. Is that dirty?

Would it be dirty if Clinton did that?

And I guess your concede my point that Clinton is not campaigning in FL, simply meeting with the delegates in PRIVATE meetings, NO PUBLIC events. Is BEING in FL against these rules Cyclo?

Do you believe the DNC should have the power to disenfranchize the Democrat voters of Florida, merely because of the date they chose for their primary?

The truth is, based on the past history of such shenanigans in the Democrat party, the delegations of both Florida and Michigan will almost certainly be seated and approved by the convention -- all this has happened many times before .

I don't know about your 'must have' but that's hardly definitive evidence that Obama did something wrong.

cyclo

Fair enough on your reply. We're not so far apart and where we are it can be damned difficult to say anything with certainty.

Let me add two peripheral thoughts. First, though our little crowd here is experiencing a level of contentiousness I've never seen before, along with that comes the participation of a bunch of folks who were previously leaving all this loud and unruly axe-murderous terrain to the junkies. I like the interest level a lot, if not the other part.

Second, a couple of weeks past I was watching an ex Clinton cabinet chap (can't remember his name though I knew it well enough) speaking. A very careful and intelligent fellow he was. He didn't entertain even slightly any aspect of the Dem contest but rather just spoke on what has gone on over the last few decades (the last seven years most acutely) and he forwarded his view that this election was the most important in American history, sitting as we are upon the cusp of many significant possibilities. Even if that is merely close to being an accurate estimation (say its the third most important) then, along with the race, gender and generational components here, that might help to understand why this race and election are proving as volatile as they are.

Let me add two peripheral thoughts. First, though our little crowd here is experiencing a level of contentiousness I've never seen before, along with that comes the participation of a bunch of folks who were previously leaving all this loud and unruly axe-murderous terrain to the junkies. I like the interest level a lot, if not the other part.

Yes, if he'd just stayed in his place instead of having the impertinence to challenge Hillary, she wouldn't have had to go negative! You're so right, it's all his fault... how could I have missed it?

sozobe wrote:

Yes, if he'd just stayed in his place instead of having the impertinence to challenge Hillary, she wouldn't have had to go negative! You're so right, it's all his fault... how could I have missed it?

I think his point was that he hasn't even been able to bring a civility to his own party (whether it was Clinton or him causing it is irrelevant), yet many hope that he can bring civility to the entire nation.

Thomas wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

The facts of history are not with you.

I would also be intrested in the facts of history that you think contradict Cycloptichorn's story. Wasn't the capital gains tax one of the few taxes that Reagan raised? My recollection is that the rate was 20% in the Carter presidency, and that Reagan raised them to 28% -- the same level to which Obama now wants to raise them, too.

Your recollection is largely correct. The Reagan administration inherited a 20% capital gains tax rate enacted by the Carter Administration in 1978. The first of the Reagan era tax reforms in 1981 reduced and simplified the income tax schedules and simplified the capital gains tax structure, holding the rate at 20%. In the second Reagan era Tax reform, in 1986 - a bill sponsored by the Democrat Congress - the top marginal income tax rate was reduced from 50% to 35% and, in a compensation demanded by the Democrats, the capital gains rate was raised to 28% - where it stayed until the current administration came into power.

The facts of history to which I referred Cyclo reflect the effects of high capital gains taxes on capital markets. They are just as I described them. The U.S still has a much higher tax on corporate profits than nearly all developed countries. This and the increases in the tax rates on both corporate profits and capital gains (and very likely qualified dividends as well) will have a very negative effect on business investment.

If this is the case, what is the explanation for so many successful dot.com businesses and millionaires that now head publically traded corporations such as Yahoo, Google, Ebay, Amazon etc. during the era of 28% capital gains tax?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Did you read the article?

Quote:

SARASOTA, Fla. (AP) - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she was going to Florida to assure Democrats that "their voices are heard" and to underscore her commitment to seeing the state's delegation seated at the national convention.

Though the Democratic presidential candidates largely have heeded the national party's request that they not campaign publicly in Florida, Clinton said it's time to pay attention to voters there who are showing heavy interest in Tuesday's primary. Early voting is under way and drawing strong interest, she said.

She's going to go campaign there. When I said she's planning on breaking the rules, that's what I meant.

I suppose it's possible that Obama's camp is lying, but I have little doubt that MSNBC and CNN would quickly confirm to the Clintons that they never said any such things to him. That hasn't happened though. If I were you I'd take my beef up with them.

What do you think of someone who looks to change the rules in the middle of the game, Ma? Sound fair to you? Not I. If Obama were ahead in FL and were trying to do this you'd be screaming bloody murder.

Cycloptichorn

Please show me any schedule of campaign stops, or public gatherings, or town hall meeting, or anything that would show that she is campaigning there. Her being in FL is not equalivant to campaigning in FL.




And back to my other question;

With ALL 3 major candidates on the ballot in Florida, and no one campaigning in FL until Obama's adds started to air, and all of this talk going on BEFORE the vote. What do you have against allowing FLORIDA's (not Michigan's) votes to count in the primary?

I don't support any of their plans. I think they are all too piecemeal. That said, I don't see how you can mandate that someone must buy health insurance. How will you enforce that? What happens if I don't buy it? It seems absurd to me to say you're going to provide universal health coverage, then do so by basically saying "I now command you to have health insurance". Voila! Success! You're covered! Whew, that was easy. I was skeptical when it was Romney's idea, and I'm still skeptical.

Of course, I accept that it will be very difficult to get anything at all so I suppose I'll be happy for whatever we can get.

Since we are talking about doing things right, what's wrong with postponing the Florida Democratic vote for several months to give ALL the candidates time to campaign there before a vote is counted?

If we are going to be fair and allow the delegates to the DNC then let's be completely fair and allow all the candidates the time to campaign there.