OBAMA FUCKING WON

[Spats]

I'm starting to think the Republicans foresee a recession, and are willing to almost concede to let a Democrat take the hit. Seriously.

Why else would the Republican party let McCain get this far? They've shut him down in previous elections. Why are they running Romney and McCain, two guys who, IMHO, don't have the Republican backing of somebody like Bush?

Because after getting shut down in the primaries eight years ago, McCain has turned into a Bush stooge, and supports everything Bush has done. This is why the neo-con media has backed McCain...because he got with their program of endless war, tax cuts for the rich, and easy illegal immigration to keep wages down, and Giuliani (their previously preferred stooge) went down in flames. Huckabee is more of a centrist-populist -- basically the anti-abortion Republican Bill Clinton) -- and therefore not trustable. (The neo-cons need evangelical support, but they're not willing to let them actually have power.) Romney is both an independent businessman that doesn't depend totally on their money, therefore not trustable, and way too much of a leftist (see: his record in Massachusetts).

Of course, this is what the voters want. You say you want change, but when candidates that advocate actual change come around (Kucinich, Paul), you let the neo-con media scare you into huddling with the herd that calls them "second-tier", "dark horse", and "unelectable". Then you rally around someone like Obama that talks about change in speeches, but when you examine their words and actions, actually stands for the same thing as Clinton or McCain.

Because, really, you're used to big corporations running America -- and given the choice between actual independence and someone who promises to put some padding on the corporate jackboot and paint it friendly clown colors, you'll take the jackboot every time.

[Adolf Allerbush]

Huckabee is more of a centrist-populist

Actually he's a bible toating psychopath that's very far to the right. There is a reason why the whacked religious right is behind Huckabee and it's not because he's a centrist homie. I think Romney is more of a centrist than Huckabee.

Ron Paul is not going to win. Even if he did get the repube nod he'd get pummled in the general election. Sorry, just the way it is.

I agree that McCain is for the status quo.

I am curious if there are any true Huckabee supporters out there. I think he's fucking nuts but I'd like to hear why people actually like him.

that said none of the GOP jokers are getting my vote so I guess it doesn't really matter.

And dood, McCain and Obama do not stand for the same thing. That's just a stupid statement. One difference of many between them is Obama wants to withdraw troops from Iraq and McCain wants to continue the war.

[stupendous man]

plus a vote for change is not a vote for the fringe. kucinich and paul have some intriguing ideas, but 1) they have NO detailed analysis about how their ideas would actually get carried out - especially Paul on this, you don't just dismantle agencies without a plan, and 2) the US govt, like most republics, is a consensus based system. the pres may have a plan, but it has to go through like 600 congressman, several budget offices and vetting agencies and a slew of courts and lawyers to get anything done.

kucinich and paul's ideas would get slaughtered in the court of consensus, and so they are not worth electing on those policies. obama looks like more of a consensus builder, but hillary has better detailed plans. however, I think those plans will also get put through the ringer. that's why I'm leaning toward obama, and I've got 4 hours left to make a decision.

[timvwcom]

I'm starting to think the Republicans foresee a recession, and are willing to almost concede to let a Democrat take the hit. Seriously.

I think there are some previously die-hard Republicans who probably think this way. I'd bet they are thinking more along the lines of "Let these fake-Republicans get ousted, then the real-Republicans can take over again" whatever each of those are. I don't see the Senators, Congressmen, Presidential candidates or the Republican machinery thinking that though?

Why else would the Republican party let McCain get this far? They've shut him down in previous elections. Why are they running Romney and McCain, two guys who, IMHO, don't have the Republican backing of somebody like Bush?

I think on this one, it's just a process they can't control. Also, I wouldn't doubt there was some deal made back when McCain was hugging Bush's arm pit (you'll see that photo a lot the next year!) to call the dogs off so to speak.

In the MA governor election, the Republicans ran Healey vs. Patrick. Patrick won in a landslide. There were other Republican candidates who would have at least made it a race. Feels like the same thing here.

I think the really smart Republicans are staying out of this cycle because they know they are facing anger and backlash... Better to wait a few years and get into the water when It's not so cold to Republicans.

Or, the Republican party is now as out of it as the Democrats were when they ran Kerry.

But I wouldn't really be surprised if we get a Democrat for a president and four years of Republican re-trenching, to emerge in 2012 with a new Republican "candidate for change."

I'm thinking it's more possible we have the Dems take more seats in the House and Senate, but might find a Republican elected President??? Not a preference, but there ARE much worse Republicans than McCain IMHO.

[Spats]

kucinich and paul have some intriguing ideas, but 1) they have NO detailed analysis about how their ideas would actually get carried out - especially Paul on this, you don't just dismantle agencies without a plan

You are 100% factually wrong. As you can easily ascertain after ten seconds of going to amazon.com and typing in his name, Dr. Paul has written six books explaining his policies and their anticipated effects in detail, and co-authored several more.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/se...hor=Ron%20Paul

Now let's look at Kucinich's actual platform. It's pretty much indistinguishable from FDR's. Yet FDR is one of our most beloved ex-presidents, and Kucinich is, according to you and many others, "fringe".

You are a perfect example of someone who has swallowed mainstream propaganda whole, without even realizing it.

the US govt, like most republics, is a consensus based system. the pres may have a plan, but it has to go through like 600 congressman, several budget offices and vetting agencies and a slew of courts and lawyers to get anything done. kucinich and paul's ideas would get slaughtered in the court of consensus, and so they are not worth electing on those policies.

So you think it's better to go quickly in the wrong direction than slowly in the right direction?

Actually he's a bible toating psychopath that's very far to the right. There is a reason why the whacked religious right is behind Huckabee and it's not because he's a centrist homie. I think Romney is more of a centrist than Huckabee.

I'm not talking about the moral sideshow, I'm talking about Huckabee's economic and social policies, which are centrist. This is what the ruling class is concerned about, because it impacts their ability to make and keep money. All the noise about abortion and gays is just a sideshow to them, because laws about morality don't apply to the private lives of the rich. (They don't need Planned Parenthood: they can fly their daughters to European abortion clinics. Also see: Cheney's lesbian daughter.)

McCain and Obama do not stand for the same thing. That's just a stupid statement. One difference of many between them is Obama wants to withdraw troops from Iraq and McCain wants to continue the war.

When asked directly at one of the debates, neither Clinton or Obama were willing to commit to having US troops out of Iraq by 2012 -- the end of the next presidential administration. This is just one of the many awkward facts you have to overlook if you want to cast Obama as an agent of meaningful change.

By contrast, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich would begin withdrawing troops immediately. As Commander in Chief, this is within their power, and unless Congress saw fit to declare war, we could be out of Iraq in a few months if we elected either of them.

[Jer]

Spats - I like Paul too, but you gotta admit that even if he (through some wierd freak) would get elected Pres, he would be mysteriously shot in the head three days later.

[timvwcom]

Spats - I like Paul too, but you gotta admit that even if he (through some wierd freak) would get elected Pres, he would be mysteriously shot in the head three days later.

That "weird freak" would have to be about a half dozen head shots on the other top 6 candidates, well... maybe really a dozen or more?

[Adolf Allerbush]

When asked directly at one of the debates, neither Clinton or Obama were willing to commit to having US troops out of Iraq by 2012 -- the end of the next presidential administration. This is just one of the many awkward facts you have to overlook if you want to cast Obama as an agent of meaningful change.

By contrast, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich would begin withdrawing troops immediately. As Commander in Chief, this is within their power, and unless Congress saw fit to declare war, we could be out of Iraq in a few months if we elected either of them.

Maybe he's not sure if 100% of the troops will be gone but this is quoted directly from Obama's website:

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

[SunCuntry]

So Hillary won NY and NJ, Obama needs to win California or.........uh oh

[RootSkier]

Hey Spats, what do you think of selling off all federal lands to the highest bidder?

[lax]

AGAIN!
AGAIN!
AGAIN!

[Nobody Famous]

Bye Bye Billary and Co. Please exit the world stage quietly and without too much fuss. We'll will get back to you if we need anything else in the way of public service from either of you.

[Albert Gore]

*slow jerk*.....







Oh, didn't see you guys standing there.....



Get off this flavor of the month and get on the Gore/Witherspoon train!

WOO WOO!!!

WOO WOO!!!

[RootSkier]

Obama's the juggernaut, oh yeah.

[timvwcom]

Yep... I've got to say, seeing some of the demographic shifts in who is voting for him change since just last week; I am fully abandoning my pre-Iowa Clinton Democratic prediction, and my subsequent return to the "too close to call" category on that side several days ago. I am however retaining my brilliant (if I say so myself) Republican call from pre-Iowa... This will be a McCain/Obama finals... (Like predicting this NOW impresses anyone )

I hope this isn't like the grocery store; Never, NEVER change checkout lanes in the grocery store!!! Never!

[Benny Profane]

Two sentences to a complete "U-turn"??? Benny, Benny... Post then crack mang, post then crack...

Not really. Governments all over the world subsidize and have subsidized their farming. Many to very poor results, if you measure that by how effectively that food gets to mouths. The starvation in the great communist Maoist China is just one of many examples. I'm just stressing that private enterprise has figured out how to efficiently and cheaply feed most of us, even going too far, if you've been to, ahem, Wal Mart.

[timvwcom]

Whoaa... delayed response. I did know what you meant, but you'd have to admit it was kinda funny how close those two opposing factors were? Right?

You mised my point. The government didn't do this. Private industry driven by the market did. And, well, government farms subsidies helped a lot, too.

And hey, on my other part of that post... You STILL feeling this mang? Really?

So you think that the same voting public that put this moron in office for eight years, the same people who were manipulated with the Swift Boat bullshit (for God's sake, he was a medal recipient, and the other guy was a draft dodger), will vote for a young black male with a muslim name? Dude, you haven't even begun to hear the awful, nasty thngs that Rove and his friends have in their trick bag.

[Benny Profane]

I was skiing all week. And, yes, I am not very optimistic that America is ready for him. Hey, if it happens, cool. But, I doubt it.

[Arty50]

You know why I love Obama? Because he took time off from the campaign trail on a critical day in his candidacy and cast a vote to protect our 4th Amendment rights.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...provision.html

Hillary didn't bother to show up because she's too busy sitting around Texas waiting for her campaign to implode. Meanwhile, McCain voted to keep immunity in the bill. Way to go there John. Thanks for sticking up for the Constitution.

More on the lawsuits here:
http://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying

Basically, the lawsuits against AT&T and Verizon (QWest did not participate because they were not convinced of the legality of the wiretapping) are our last hope to find out just exactly what happened. Congress won't look into it, the FCC refuses to get involved, and the Administration is claiming the state secrets privilege.

But you've gotta ask yourself, why do the telcos need immunity if this wasn't illegal? Especially considering QWest didn't participate for this exact reason. There's also a classified FISA court ruling which basically struck down the program, but since it's classified no one really knows what went on or who was involved. This is serious shit. The 4th Amendment was basically thrown out the window by the Bush Administration and no one is being held accountable. People should be going to jail over this; instead it's just getting swept under the rug.

[char]

I see basically two possibilities:

a) The wiretapping program produced results which saved a significant number of American lives and they were able to convince Congress that these guys needed to be protected.

Or

b) Some seriously shady shit went down, everyone was in on it and they are afraid of the potential backlash from the American public and potential jail time.

I think J. Q. Public doesn't even know what the wiretapping scandal is.

[Arty50]

I see basically two possibilities:

a) The wiretapping program produced results which saved a significant number of American lives and they were able to convince Congress that these guys needed to be protected.

Or

b) Some seriously shady shit went down, everyone was in on it and they are afraid of the potential backlash from the American public and potential jail time.

I think J. Q. Public doesn't even know what the wiretapping scandal is.

While a) is a real possibility, that still doesn't make this right. Warrantless spying on American citizens is directly forbidden by the US Constitution. There's no vague language here and the Founding Fathers would be appalled by this. The really scary thing is that no one knows where all this data is; and that conceivably, lots of people still have access to it.

Oh and there's one more problem with that argument. Previous (and still current) FISA legislation allows the government to conduct surveillance and then seek a warrant retroactively. So the warrantless program was technically unnecessary. This points to b) being the most likely scenario.

[Mathematics]

Looks like Billary's in trouble. Anyone wanna take bets on how many times she turns on the water works until the Texas primary?

I'll take a conservative two times.

[mr_gyptian]

I see basically two possibilities:

a) The wiretapping program produced results which saved a significant number of American lives and they were able to convince Congress that these guys needed to be protected.

Or

b) Some seriously shady shit went down, everyone was in on it and they are afraid of the potential backlash from the American public and potential jail time.

I think J. Q. Public doesn't even know what the wiretapping scandal is.

JQP also might not care because JQP isn't calling the Hamas office in Lebanon to let them know his latest bake sale proceeds are being wired to the Swiss account.

Secondly, McCain was able to make both votes. Obama made one and should have made the other. Hillary? well possibly that loan she made to her campaign should have gone to a plane ticket.

[RootSkier]

Hillary is now flying on the press plane, Mark Penn stole the $$$ for her private jet.

[nealric]

There's no vague language here

Just to play devil's advocate. The language is pretty vauge.

Text of 4th amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

So what does unreasonable mean?
Did the founding fathers intend to stop wiretapping?
What room of Montecello would Thomas Jefferson have put his computer?

See my point?

For the record... I agree with you in principle.