Iowa and the road to the Whitehouse

[rician blast]

Originally Posted by example1

But the reason our campaign has always been different is because it's not just about what I will do as President, it's also about what you, the people who love this country, can do to change it. [/i]"

"We's" everywhere you turn.

Problem is its all very high-level rhetoric. Where's the how? where's the action plan? Its too easy to say "we can do this or that" and not offer an idea of how? Obama is very, very good at espousing his ideals in a very articulate manner...he's polished, he's intelligent, but he isn't giving any indication of how or why we will be able to accomplish these things with him at the helm.

As I watched the debate last night I heard a lot of "We's"...a lot more than I can recall in the past...seems that all the candidates were conscious of using more inclusive words.

McCain was the only candidate I heard state that he was not in this to make friends and he WOULD hold those who stood in the way of getting things done accountable...I think he essentially said he'd make sure they get the negative press they deserve. I believe he cited an example of where he went against the grain and succeeded in this regard...that's more substantial than the high level approach used by many other candidates. Now one could argue that this too is rhetoric.

[rician blast]

Originally Posted by example1

I really respect Ron Paul too. I don't agree with a lot of his stances on domestic policy, but I really appreciate how he challenges that Republican rabble on their absurd beliefs. I respect the libertarian in him, and I understand how a lot of people can support low federal spending.

I don't think it is much of a prescription for the future, but it is certainly a side of the coin that should be in the debate.

Agree. He calls it like he sees it...there may be less BS in his words than any other candidate in either party. If nothing else he opens minds and shows its ok to ruffle some feathers.

I was pissed at Romney when he said that Paul was reading too many articles by the Iranian leader. I think Paul muttered "make fun, buddy"...wish he had come back a little more directly at him.

[One Red Seat]

Originally Posted by example1

I really respect Ron Paul too. I don't agree with a lot of his stances on domestic policy, but I really appreciate how he challenges that Republican rabble on their absurd beliefs. I respect the libertarian in him, and I understand how a lot of people can support low federal spending.

I don't think it is much of a prescription for the future, but it is certainly a side of the coin that should be in the debate.

Where's the non-partisanship? Phucking phony.

[Mr Crunchy]

paul has some great ideas but the reality is...well the reality is he isnt dealing with reality.
libertarians have some solid ideas but they fail to address things like national defense,food inspectors or rebuilding roads
each libertarian i have heard has a different angle
all i want them to do is to show me how they intend to fund their presidency and i may be persuaded to move their way.

what got into gerry callahan this morning?
i despise opie but he and michael holley were having at it big time
i heard what the nitwit from the golf channel said about lynching tiger woods,she got suspended...evidently callahan is comparing that statement to what bill clinton said about obama's campaign being run by a ""kid"" and its a "'fairytale""..
donna brazile took offense to this as a racist remark
callahan thinks the remarks are similar and neither have a bitch?
too bad michael holley looks like webster and not deacon jones
i would say callahans words would be more subdued in that environment

[example1]

Originally Posted by One Red Seat

Where's the non-partisanship? Phucking phony.

Sorry man, but I think that guys like Fred Thompson and Rudy all laughing at guys like Huckabee and Romney and Paul during debartes represents a real split in the Republican party. A few of them are talking about change themselves, indicating that if the Republcians want to have any say they need to acknowledge things that Republicans have been reticant to admit for years. That indicates to me that they would at least be willing to try putting partisanship aside. The rest of them will be lest in the dust, indicative of their lack of utility to the party as it moves forward.

I consider people on the extremes of both parties to be rabble. Much of what makes Kucinich and Paul unique is not important to the majority of Americans, who tend to be centrist. The Center-Left part of the Democratic party and the Center-Left part of the Republican party is going to be those who get it done. It's not partisanship it's calling the race as it clearly is.

I'm not perfect and never said I was fully non-partisan. I certainly invite Republicans and independents to join democrats in a discussion about the future of the country, including important domestic issues. I am mad about how this country has been run into the ground by the last Administration's poor decision making and I admit that I have a hard time finding a lot of respect for those who are willing to go down with the ship without making any changes. That kind of dogmatism will end up with a group being naturally marginalized by the majority who--as indicated by early turnouts and approval ratings--are ready to push them out of power. It is a natural political process, and indicative of the status of our country right now.

[example1]

Originally Posted by rician blast

Problem is its all very high-level rhetoric. Where's the how? where's the action plan? Its too easy to say "we can do this or that" and not offer an idea of how? Obama is very, very good at espousing his ideals in a very articulate manner...he's polished, he's intelligent, but he isn't giving any indication of how or why we will be able to accomplish these things with him at the helm.

The details are in the weeds. There are many potential solutions to health care or welfare or the environment or taxes... Obama has particular views about those approaches, but the differences between democrats on those issues are very technical.

Obama is not talking specifics because they bore people. If you want to know what his stance is then you can look it up online, look at his books, or his group of advisors.

I can't emphasize this enough: Obama is aware that by getting his PARTY elected to a lot of seats he will be able to approach his otherwise lofty goals with the real power of a majority behind him.

Here's his response to Clinton in the NH Debates when she accused him of having lots of words but not a lot of experience:

"I think we're in one of those moments right now. I think the American people are hungry for something different and can be mobilized around big changes; not incremental changes, not small changes.... the truth is, actually, words do inspire, words do help people get involved, words do help members of Congress get into power so that they can be part of a coalition to deliver health-care reform, to deliver a bold energy policy."

"...I actually give Bill Clinton enormous credit for having balanced those budgets during those years. It did take political courage for him to do that. But we never built the majority and coalesced the American people around being able to get the other stuff done."

He's articulating clear arguments that can be used on all levels of government to unite Americans within a narrative of forming a new society to meet the hard times. He's a congressional law professor who understands what is needed to move the government to change and it ALL starts with a majority.

Do people really have such a hard time with national unity focused on overcoming important national issues? Isn't that exactly what should have happened with the unity after 9/11? This is what we've wanted since we were told to go to the malls to keep life normal. We must do something different and to do that we have to put aside the petty stuff.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Originally Posted by example1

The details are in the weeds.

Or, sometimes, in the Constitution.

"...I actually give Bill Clinton enormous credit for having balanced those budgets during those years. It did take political courage for him to do that."

I had thought that those budgets were passed by the Republican Congress...was I misled by the Constitution?

We must do something different and to do that we have to put aside the petty stuff.

Such as claiming credit for the Democratic President for the work of the Republican Congress?

Example1, I think that Obama is one solid candidate of several in the race. With Bill Richardson gone, he's the only tolerable Democratic candidate IMVHO, and I expect to cast my primary ballot for him given the current state of the races. That said, don't kid yourself that he's putting aside all of the "petty stuff." If elected, he'll run a government to the left of any since LBJ, or perhaps even FDR, unless blocked by a Republican Congress. Obama has made no effort to lead Democrats to follow the lead of President Bush. While I understand his reluctance to do so, he's established a track record that he regards conflict with the Executive as acceptable if he does it--he's got no moral high ground, if elected, criticizing Republicans who block his legislation.

***

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Thanks JHB. Our initial contentious less than stellar meetings were more than likely due to my stubborn views on certain things. Passionate Red Sox fan after all. I appreciate the knowledge that you bring. It doesn't mean that I will always agree w/ your analysis. It does seem ultimately that we tend to agree on certain baseball matters if you didn't notice...we just come at it a different way. I apologize for my rudeness at times. We are in fact both Red Sox faithful. We should expend our energy making fun of Yankee fans and not go after each other when all is said and done.

Thank you, Taliesin. It takes more moral courage to write what you did here than it did for me to agree with you on a single position. I'll try to match your example of civility.

[example1]

Originally Posted by Jayhawk Bill

Or, sometimes, in the Constitution.

I'm pretty sure he knows about that document.

I had thought that those budgets were passed by the Republican Congress...was I misled by the Constitution?

He was the first to do it in 30 years, and had the ability to stop it as well as significant input on its contents and priorities. It was by no means solely a conservative venture. Furthermore, given the cuts necesary to balance the budget it was a pretty courageous political move.

Such as claiming credit for the Democratic President for the work of the Republican Congress?

What part of this do you find petty? He was talking about the job that he's applying for and giving credit to the man who was in that position when the budget was, in fact, balanced. Would you have a problem acknowledging any particular senators taking credit for their role in that too, just because they didn't sign the document? I wouldn't. It is all part of the same process and certainly worthy of praise.

Example1, I think that Obama is one solid candidate of several in the race. With Bill Richardson gone, he's the only tolerable Democratic candidate IMVHO, and I expect to cast my primary ballot for him given the current state of the races.

I like Richardson too, and have for awhile.

That said, don't kid yourself that he's putting aside all of the "petty stuff." If elected, he'll run a government to the left of any since LBJ, or perhaps even FDR, unless blocked by a Republican Congress.

In some ways yes, he will undoubtedly be progressive. He will try to get a better health care plan--because we're the only industrialized nation without one and that's a travesty. He will not discriminate against gays or nominate people who will restrict science or abortion. He will address the environment and may have to do so radically.

He's not hiding any of this. He's saying "We have enormous challenges, bigger than at any time in history, and we have to confront them immediately and forcefully."

To combat global warming there will have to be a radical intervention from the Federal government, demanding milage in cars, alternative energy, incentives to green companies, some form of carbon control, etc., People will need to change lightbulbs and recycle more. That movement will be progressive, certainly. We will need a scientific revolution on par with our greatest mobilization movements in history. So in that sense, you're right--people will need to swallow the progressive pill because our society needs to change, badly.

But while he is progressive in that sense, he is not a pacifist hippie. I feel confident that he will redeploy the military as needed, continuing to address the global war on terror.

Obama has made no effort to lead Democrats to follow the lead of President Bush. While I understand his reluctance to do so, he's established a track record that he regards conflict with the Executive as acceptable if he does it--he's got no moral high ground, if elected, criticizing Republicans who block his legislation.

If Republicans are able to articulate themselves well enough to have enough Senators to block legislation, then they are entitled to stand up as much as they want. That's part of the process.

However, if Democrats have enough support to gain a supermajority--which could happen with Clinton or Obama--then Republicans better hope that he's willing to build bridges and extend an arm. I believe he will, the proof will be in the pudding.

Despite your cynicism, I don't hear you saying that you expect Clinton to reach out either. I know it is never a guarantee and that many politicians claim they will do it, but you can't think they are all equally unlikely to try, do you?

[Jayhawk Bill]

Originally Posted by example1

I'm pretty sure he knows about that document.

I'm pretty sure that Obama knows about the Constitution, but his statements regarding Clinton balancing the budget are misleading because...

He was the first to do it in 30 years, and had the ability to stop it as well as significant input on its contents and priorities.

...President Clinton and Vice President Gore had zero votes on the budget. Yes, President Clinton could have vetoed a balanced budget that met his goals. He didn't. If you consider that to be credit, well, your standard is frighteningly low.

It was by no means solely a conservative venture.

Absolutely not! The Republican majority was thin, and several liberal Republicans joined the conservatives to make the balanced budget possible.

Furthermore, given the cuts necesary to balance the budget it was a pretty courageous political move.

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

OK, here are all of the budgets from 1962 through today, including those 1990's balanced budgets you credit to President Clinton. There's no cut in outlays (page 1); there's one cut in discretionary spending of 2.2% (page 5), overcome completely by increased spending the very next year, and composed almost entirely by a cut in defense...a cut in defense less than Bush's cut in defense in his 1992 budget, a cut overcome completely by increased discretionary spending from the Democratic Congress.

Note on page 9 that the mandatory spending (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) has increased by $461 billion since President Clinton left office. The total deficit is only $248.2 billion. Do you consider President George W. Bush $200 billion more "courageous" than President Clinton? If not, what category of mandatory spending should he have worked with a Republican Congress to cut?

***

Try words other than "courageous" if you want to avoid these comparisons.

What part of this do you find petty?

Never used that word.

He was talking about the job that he's applying for and giving credit to the man who was in that position when the budget was, in fact, balanced.

I give President Clinton as much credit for balancing the budget as I give to President Nixon in 1969. I don't hear Obama singing the praises of Nixon. But the times were similar: a divided Government reaped the benefits of a drawdown in conflict, Vietnam for Nixon and the Cold War for Clinton.

Would you have a problem acknowledging any particular senators taking credit for their role in that too, just because they didn't sign the document? I wouldn't. It is all part of the same process and certainly worthy of praise.

I'd happily credit the Republican Congress.

I like Richardson too, and have for awhile.

Common ground. Richardson is very qualified for service as Chief Executive. His positions are well-reasoned.

In some ways yes, he will undoubtedly be progressive.

Progressive? Others see movement to an evangelical Christian nation as "progressive." Try "left-wing," or "socialist."

He will try to get a better health care plan--because we're the only industrialized nation without one and that's a travesty.

"Travesty?" That's an opinion.

My opinion? Means-testing eligibility for Government-subsidized health care is a travesty. If we have Medicaid or a similar system for some, we should have it for all. Private health insurance and such could still be an option for the wealthy.

He will not discriminate against gays...

TELL ME THE NAME OF ONE CANDIDATE WHOSE POSITION IS "I SHALL DISCRIMINATE AGAINST GAYS."

Give a link. Last I checked, such discrimination is illegal.

Barring such a quoted link, you're veering into the range of either libel, absurdity, or irrelevance.

...or nominate people who will restrict science or abortion.

Cool. Gotcha.

He will address the environment and may have to do so radically.

What specific platform items of Barack Obama's do you support regarding the environment?

He's not hiding any of this. He's saying "We have enormous challenges, bigger than at any time in history, and we have to confront them immediately and forcefully."

I rather consider the challenges faced by the Continental Congress to have been greater. Lincoln had a tough moment; so did FDR. While we're at it, Gerald Ford had to handle a nation fractured by Watergate, an environment unrecovered from pre-Clean Air Act/Clean Water Act atrocities, hyperinflation from oil price shocks, a collapsing industrial sector, a peer competitor superpower with ICBMs targeted at our cities and a proverbial finger on a hair trigger, and an opposition Congress that had forced his predecessor into retirement with the viable threat of impeachment.

Can Obama top that?

To combat global warming there will have to be a radical intervention from the Federal government, demanding milage in cars, alternative energy, incentives to green companies, some form of carbon control, etc., People will need to change lightbulbs and recycle more. That movement will be progressive, certainly.

Global warming is global. Does Obama propose to use military force to enforce compliance from China? Failing that, any gesture from the US or the other Western Democracies is pointless and serves only to weaken ourselves relative to China.

If one believes that global warming exists and is manmade.

We will need a scientific revolution on par with our greatest mobilization movements in history. So in that sense, you're right--people will need to swallow the progressive pill because our society needs to change, badly.

Nah. That's your opinion. I disagree.

But while he is progressive in that sense, he is not a pacifist hippie. I feel confident that he will redeploy the military as needed, continuing to address the global war on terror.

Here we reenter common ground. I believe that Obama would be a competent Executive.

If Republicans are able to articulate themselves well enough to have enough Senators to block legislation, then they are entitled to stand up as much as they want. That's part of the process.

Remember that you posted this.

However, if Democrats have enough support to gain a supermajority--which could happen with Clinton or Obama--then Republicans better hope that he's willing to build bridges and extend an arm. I believe he will...

Barring enough Republicans to force cloture, Obama would enact changes comparable in scope to FDR's or LBJ's.

Despite your cynicism...

Me? Cynical?

...I don't hear you saying that you expect Clinton to reach out either. I know it is never a guarantee and that many politicians claim they will do it, but you can't think they are all equally unlikely to try, do you?

I regard these current active Presidential candidates most likely to attempt to "reach out:"

1) John McCain
2) Ron Paul
3) Rudy Giuliani
4) Barack Obama

I'll willingly give credit to Obama for apparent willingness to try to unify this nation...and I really don't object to his candidacy. If elected, I expect that he'd be the best Democratic President since the 19th Century, and that he'd be better than several 20th Century Republicans, too.

I'm just a bit more pragmatic than you are in my support of him, example1.

[CrespoBlows]

Originally Posted by example1

I'm pretty sure he knows about that document.



He was the first to do it in 30 years, and had the ability to stop it as well as significant input on its contents and priorities. It was by no means solely a conservative venture. Furthermore, given the cuts necesary to balance the budget it was a pretty courageous political move.




What part of this do you find petty? He was talking about the job that he's applying for and giving credit to the man who was in that position when the budget was, in fact, balanced. Would you have a problem acknowledging any particular senators taking credit for their role in that too, just because they didn't sign the document? I wouldn't. It is all part of the same process and certainly worthy of praise.



I like Richardson too, and have for awhile.



In some ways yes, he will undoubtedly be progressive. He will try to get a better health care plan--because we're the only industrialized nation without one and that's a travesty. He will not discriminate against gays or nominate people who will restrict science or abortion. He will address the environment and may have to do so radically.

He's not hiding any of this. He's saying "We have enormous challenges, bigger than at any time in history, and we have to confront them immediately and forcefully."

To combat global warming there will have to be a radical intervention from the Federal government, demanding milage in cars, alternative energy, incentives to green companies, some form of carbon control, etc., People will need to change lightbulbs and recycle more. That movement will be progressive, certainly. We will need a scientific revolution on par with our greatest mobilization movements in history. So in that sense, you're right--people will need to swallow the progressive pill because our society needs to change, badly.

But while he is progressive in that sense, he is not a pacifist hippie. I feel confident that he will redeploy the military as needed, continuing to address the global war on terror.




If Republicans are able to articulate themselves well enough to have enough Senators to block legislation, then they are entitled to stand up as much as they want. That's part of the process.

However, if Democrats have enough support to gain a supermajority--which could happen with Clinton or Obama--then Republicans better hope that he's willing to build bridges and extend an arm. I believe he will, the proof will be in the pudding.

Despite your cynicism, I don't hear you saying that you expect Clinton to reach out either. I know it is never a guarantee and that many politicians claim they will do it, but you can't think they are all equally unlikely to try, do you?

Please do not vote. Please....

[Mr Crunchy]

see
it wasnt that long ago that if a party won the whitehouse then the senate and house would give the man some rope as ordered by the american people
in 80 reagan cleaned carters clock taking 49-50 if im not mistaken
the speaker then was tip oneil from cambridge and he had been in the house for 100 years
he and reagan,complete polar opposites politcally,became great friends and as it went congress passed reagans defense spending bills as well as cutting taxes big time.
the senate may have been in GOP hands for a couple of reagans years but the dems owned the house till 00 i think?

it was civility and the politicians had american interests at heart by being bipartisan when it mattered.
theres a reason orin hatch and ted kennedy are close friends and it isnt due to their social habits.
time to bury the hatchets and get down to getting this nation headed right again

[Taliesin]

[quote=Mr Crunchy;312190;]paul has some great ideas but the reality is...well the reality is he isnt dealing with reality.
libertarians have some solid ideas but they fail to address things like national defense,food inspectors or rebuilding roads

What? Food inspectors and rebuilding roads. National defense? I can't wait to hear you defend that argument. Or actually come up with one. Yeah, my primary concern is whether my falafel has worms. Rebuilding roads. Well...the Unions did such a wonderful job w/ that Big Dig. Why don't you espouse how your party will shape the shape of the infrastructure. Also sweetheart, I work w/ the people who "rebuild the roads"...and they ain't workin.

What's your party again..does your party know what it is?

You know what we need. Change. Really SPH...one of your weaker diatribes. I'll make sure to check the civil service lists for a qualified food inspected restaurant next time I go out. Lord knows the FDA is on top of things. As long as the government is protecting you while you go nighty-nite. You'll be just fine.

[Mr Crunchy]

well darlin here in mass we have to fix roads and bridges at a much faster rate than in the warmer areas of the nation because cold and snow and ice really fuck up pavement
but you know that.
i also know in NOVA theyve been doing the same over pass now 15 mi north? of springfield for 10 fucking years...(am i right here?)
union labor wouldve done it cheaper and on time.

i register as an independant because they dont have a patrician party that is ethnically friendly to my kind....
the great minority ..the silent and stoic backbone of this nation
the white dad who is there at breakfast and home at 5 for dinner and turns over every nickel he makes to his houswife of 15 years without battig an eye or bitching about his plight at home....the last of the american heros i am...

you trust this nations food sources as is?
90% of the progressive western world wouldnt buy our beef 3 years ago.
id venture to say that we shouldnt eliminate our lonely and miserable watch dogs in the FDA

or were you making a point about libertarians keeping these departments open?
iraq is 250,000,000.00 a day
cant fund this without revenue....
sometimes youre 3 posts ahead of me in debate so be patient with me
i have documented head injuries and a soft spot for angry women who like a taste now and then..

[example1]

Originally Posted by Jayhawk Bill

I'm pretty sure that Obama knows about the Constitution, but his statements regarding Clinton balancing the budget are misleading because...



...President Clinton and Vice President Gore had zero votes on the budget. Yes, President Clinton could have vetoed a balanced budget that met his goals. He didn't. If you consider that to be credit, well, your standard is frighteningly low.

Seriously man, you're blown this out of proportion. Obama praised Bill Clinton, in a debate with his wife, partly because he liked what happened under his watch (balancing the budget across partisan lines--regardless of how much adding or removing of budgetary materials he actually did) and partly as a rhetorical tool. He didn't say "your husband was the best president ever", he merely was saying "I"m not completely unable to divide you and your husband's public service from this current debate". I thought that was pretty clear.

Nonetheless, as a social worker I can tell you that Clinton's restructuring of welfare was driven by conservative values to trim spending and it was initially unpopular among liberals. Again, as a social worker I have really come to respect the accountability involved and the incentives toward getting off of social welfare. It wasn't popular on the left, he did it anyway. Many adjectives can be used to describe that, Obama used "courageous" and I understand both the intent and the context of that choice to be appropriate.

Absolutely not! The Republican majority was thin, and several liberal Republicans joined the conservatives to make the balanced budget possible.



http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

OK, here are all of the budgets from 1962 through today, including those 1990's balanced budgets you credit to President Clinton. There's no cut in outlays (page 1); there's one cut in discretionary spending of 2.2% (page 5), overcome completely by increased spending the very next year, and composed almost entirely by a cut in defense...a cut in defense less than Bush's cut in defense in his 1992 budget, a cut overcome completely by increased discretionary spending from the Democratic Congress.

Note on page 9 that the mandatory spending (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) has increased by $461 billion since President Clinton left office. The total deficit is only $248.2 billion. Do you consider President George W. Bush $200 billion more "courageous" than President Clinton? If not, what category of mandatory spending should he have worked with a Republican Congress to cut?

Clinton's budgets were much healthier than Bush's and the increased spending in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were not unforseen. It wasn't some hidden trap waiting for Bush and making his job harder. In all fairness, the mandatory spending increased significantly under Clinton as well.

Try words other than "courageous" if you want to avoid these comparisons.

I didn't use the word courageous, other than quoting it. I don't mind the comparisons though. It's always nice discussing things with you.

Never used that word.

I said something to the effect of "he wants us to put those petty disagreements aside" and you said "Such as claiming credit for the Democratic President for the work of the Republican Congress?". I'm sure you can see why I thought you were implying that "claiming credit for the Democratic President for the work of the Republican Contress" was petty, right? Seems obvious to me.

I give President Clinton as much credit for balancing the budget as I give to President Nixon in 1969. I don't hear Obama singing the praises of Nixon. But the times were similar: a divided Government reaped the benefits of a drawdown in conflict, Vietnam for Nixon and the Cold War for Clinton.

If Nixon's wife were on stage then perhaps Obama would have praised her husband for an accomplishment that is, objectively, rare among presidents and praiseworthy. Him NOT acknowleding Nixon for this is not the same