State of The Union play by play

[Larry Gude]

Frankie...

So far, so good....



Ok, this was hard to believe that it was the VERY NEXT SENTENCE.

Geez, Larry, you were doing so well.........

...if I said 'not all SOMD 'ers suck at golf' people would say "yeah, how fair, how open minded."

Now, if we had an SOMD open and everyone was there, watching the SOMD golfers, somewhere around the 6th tee people would say...

"Not all SOMD er's suck at golf....we just haven't seen a good one yet."

See my point?

 

[ylexot]

I have posted thoughts on specific items/issues...and will continue to do so if I feel the urge.

Really?

Can't say that I've seen any thought...unless...nevermind.

 

[Larry Gude]

No...

As far as the "advise and consent" thing, are you speaking specifically of the Bush "terrorist surveillance program" subject?

I am speaking about the Senates roll in confirming Supreme Court Justices.

I thought it would be a good, topical and timely question because we were speaking about Alito.

 

[Kerad]

Can you tell me with honesty that the behavior and frothing of Mukluski, Hoyer, Pelosi, Kerry, Biden, Durbin, Schumer or Ried makes them a better alternative to voting Republican?

I wouldn't put ALL Democrats in the same category as some of them. Even in that list...Kerry is not qutite the same as Pelosi, etc...

The Democratic party has SERIOUS leadership issues....everyone knows that. Hell, Bill Clinton was the last true leader they had.

Honestly...do you look at the Republican leadership and see that all is well???

 

[Kerad]

I am speaking about the Senates roll in confirming Supreme Court Justices.

I thought it would be a good, topical and timely question because we were speaking about Alito.

Gotcha.

Yes. 51 votes would do it for me. Once again, I had no real problem with Alito. (Well...except that he was a Bush nominee... )

 

[SamSpade]

Honestly...do you look at the Republican leadership and see that all is well???

No - but - some of the best Republicans probably don't have pockets deep enough to take the lead. No one sticks out, in my mind. None of the current leadership holds the respect and charisma to be President. Condi does, but she's made it abundantly clear she doesn't want the job.

I actually DO think Cheney has the intellect and gravitas to take the job - but not with a bad ticker, a lack of charisma and an undeserved bad reputation among his detractors.

The most charsimatic of the bunch I've seen is probably Brownback - but he is probably less electable than Bush was. I suspect that after eight years of Bush, the only Republican that can get elected is a moderate. This isn't an indictment of Bush - but rather of the American voter. The pattern appears to be to shift back towards the center every couple of terms. (Just as there are other patterns in voting - mid-term elections *tend* to favor the party out of the White House, most times - Bush broke this pattern, because the pattern also follows another trend - Congressman riding on coattails. When a new party takes the White House, it tends to ride a "wave", drawing votes to Congressman and Senators that they probably wouldn't have received in a re-election year - they're riding in on a "popularity" wave that wipes them out in just two short years. Bush squeaked in on the narrowest possible win in 2000, and thus it was unlikely that he "carried" anyone).

Barring that, the next most likely person to be elected is a moderate *Democrat*. I've mentioned a few of those before. This is why the Republicans would LOVE to have Hillary win the nomination - despite all the polls, she's sure to lose to a moderate Republican.

Trends are fairly reliable in politics - how was it said in "Men In Black"?
"A *person* is smart. People are dumb."

 

[Kerad]

I certainly hope Hillary isn't the Democratic nominee in 2008. That would really piss me off.

 

[Toxick]

I certainly hope Hillary isn't the Democratic nominee in 2008. That would really piss me off.

If Hillary is elected president, I'm moving to...

Hmmm - I would say Canada, but that might not be an improvement...

not Canada - not France or Spain.
... not Brazil or Venezuela or Iraq.


I might move to Australia.

Yeah - Australia.



If Hillary Clinton becomes president, I'm moving to Australia.

 

[2ndAmendment]

If Hillary is elected president, I'm moving to...

Hmmm - I would say Canada, but that might not be an improvement...

not Canada - not France or Spain.
... not Brazil or Venezuela or Iraq.


I might move to Australia.

Yeah - Australia.



If Hillary Clinton becomes president, I'm moving to Australia.

The conservatives just won big in the latest Canadian elections. The electorate got tired of the liberal snow job, the anti-gun, the social that stuff and basically tossed the government.

 

[Kerad]

The conservatives just won big in the latest Canadian elections. The electorate got tired of the liberal snow job, the anti-gun, the social that stuff and basically tossed the government.

It was my understanding that the liberal party lost primarily due to the public's dissatisfaction with the corruption of the sitting administration. Not true?

 

[Larry Gude]

There are a number...

It was my understanding that the liberal party lost primarily due to the public's dissatisfaction with the corruption of the sitting administration. Not true?

...of articles stating that, in addition to the corruption, many Canadiens have grown tired of what was described as knee jerk US bashing.

 

[Pete]

I wouldn't put ALL Democrats in the same category as some of them. Even in that list...Kerry is not qutite the same as Pelosi, etc...

The Democratic party has SERIOUS leadership issues....everyone knows that. Hell, Bill Clinton was the last true leader they had.

Honestly...do you look at the Republican leadership and see that all is well???

The democrats choose their leaders, Ried, Pelosi, Dean. They ARE the direction the democrats are going. No one shoved Dean, Pelosi and Ried to the front of the class and said "Here are your leaders now S T F U" THEY are driving the bus.

Kerry is just as vitriolic as Pelosi and the rest.

Now again what have these banner carriers for the Democratic party done to convince YOU, the intelligent voter, that they are a good alternative to Frist, Hassert, Chenney, Rove, Bush, and hell even Tom Delay?

 

[SamSpade]

It was my understanding that the liberal party lost primarily due to the public's dissatisfaction with the corruption of the sitting administration. Not true?

Mostly true. I visit a conservative Canadian blog every couple of days - proudtobecanadian.ca - and some of that is true. Canadian politics is interesting, to say the least, and after years of reading about it, I still don't understand it. But the bulk of the Liberal vote in Canada is right around Toronto and in Quebec - the rest of the nation is more "conservative" (which in the United States would probably translate into "moderate Democrat").

The Conservative Party also gained by merging with another conservative party not too long ago. Try to imagine what might happen in this country if the Greens, Libertarians, Reforms and a few others merged, although what happened in Canada wasn't as drastic as THAT would be.

(I've often wondered what the US would be like, if they had five major parties like Canada does. We only have two in this country, because each of the major parties is too strong to challenge without one of them on your side).

And the Liberal Party really just blew it in their campaigning. You should have seen some of their commercials. If you'd been serving in the Canadian military, you'd have been FURIOUS.

I think, as in other nations that elected more conservative parties, they just got tired of years of promises and no delivery. You can only brag so much about socialized medicine for so long when people KNOW that it doesn't do what they claim it does.

 

[Kerad]

Mostly true. I visit a conservative Canadian blog every couple of days - proudtobecanadian.ca - and some of that is true. Canadian politics is interesting, to say the least, and after years of reading about it, I still don't understand it. But the bulk of the Liberal vote in Canada is right around Toronto and in Quebec - the rest of the nation is more "conservative" (which in the United States would probably translate into "moderate Democrat").

The Conservative Party also gained by merging with another conservative party not too long ago. Try to imagine what might happen in this country if the Greens, Libertarians, Reforms and a few others merged, although what happened in Canada wasn't as drastic as THAT would be.

(I've often wondered what the US would be like, if they had five major parties like Canada does. We only have two in this country, because each of the major parties is too strong to challenge without one of them on your side).

And the Liberal Party really just blew it in their campaigning. You should have seen some of their commercials. If you'd been serving in the Canadian military, you'd have been FURIOUS.

I think, as in other nations that elected more conservative parties, they just got tired of years of promises and no delivery. You can only brag so much about socialized medicine for so long when people KNOW that it doesn't do what they claim it does.

Thanks for the info. I had heard some of that before...but not too many specifics.

I think America would certainly benefit from at least one more legitimate political party. Call 'em the "Centrist" party or something. Most of my friends, Republican and Democrat, are more moderate than the hardcore extremes of both sides. However neither party is willing to let THAT happen...so we're stuck with trying to choose the lesser of two evils, in most cases.

 

[SAHRAB]

Bush, 56 million votes. The second time. Huge growth in federal budget. Medicaire drug benfit. Conducting nation building war. Far right? OK.

You may 'know' far left/right when you see it. I'm merely trying to get you to share your clairvoyance with us less enlightened folk.

The vast majority of left or left leaning people that come on this site leave because they can not or will not make an argument for their point of view.

They throw bombs, call people names, say vauge, meaningless things like 'we all KNOW this or that when we see/hear it' and...still don't engage in debate. That doesn't make this 'far right' dominated. There's atheists in here that post alot, pro abortion people, I'm pro drug legalization and some folks devoutly religious in their views. There are Independents and Democrats.

Thing is, in pretty much every case, every issue, they know WHY they have the opinion they have because they've thought about and enjoy talking about it. Some people change their opinions. Some people are set in stone.

But they still KNOW and will tell you WHY.

On the other hand, our lefty friends, just about without exception, will NOT discuss their beleifs, will not explain their opinions, will not engage in debate.

They all throw up their hands and say things like 'bunch of right wingers'...'religious freaks'...'hard core conservatives...'

All we see is people who don't or can't or won't explain themselves.
Whether you fit that pattern or not is up to you.

What dominates in here is thinkers.

You forgot:
Bush Lied
Bush AWOL
Bush knew about/was involved/planned 9/11
Haliburton
ChickenHawk
Taxbreaks for the Rich
Haliburton
Bush chimpy Hitler
Rove
Haliburton
Blood for Oil
For the Children
Haliburton (lol)

 

[Kerad]

The democrats choose their leaders, Ried, Pelosi, Dean. They ARE the direction the democrats are going. No one shoved Dean, Pelosi and Ried to the front of the class and said "Here are your leaders now S T F U" THEY are driving the bus.

Kerry is just as vitriolic as Pelosi and the rest.

Now again what have these banner carriers for the Democratic party done to convince YOU, the intelligent voter, that they are a good alternative to Frist, Hassert, Chenney, Rove, Bush, and hell even Tom Delay?

Honestly, it's not that they (current Democratic leadership) have done anything in particular to stand out in my mind as anything special. It IS that the current Republican leadership repulses me to the point that I'd vote for ANYONE but them.

That's what the problem has been with the Dems. They need to find the candidate who can get people strongly behind him, specifically. Once again...Bill Clinton was the last one.

It'll be interesting to see if the Dems can get their act together in time for 2008. They can get a good start with this year's elections. Maybe.

 

[ylexot]

It IS that the current Republican leadership repulses me to the point that I'd vote for ANYONE but them.

I've never understood what is about the Bush administration that repulses some people so much. Could you explain, or is it one of those irrational fear things?

 

[2ndAmendment]

I've never understood what is about the Bush administration that repulses some people so much. Could you explain, or is it one of those irrational fear things?

Thank you!!!!!!

 

[Trunk Monkey]

You all had an incestuous orgy watching the "Prime Time Lies Special"..didn't you???

Admit it..you did.

One day Vrai is going to push the Trunk Monkey button on you and you will feel my monkey wrath.

 

[vraiblonde]

They need to find the candidate who can get people strongly behind him, specifically. Once again...Bill Clinton was the last one.

How can you say that when many people absolutely loathed Bill Clinton and, under him, the Republicans took over the House for the first time since 1955?

That does not sound like "behind him" to me.