It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Clinton? Obama? or Edwards? Who Will It Be?

page: 39
12
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 06:53 AM
link   

My prayer: IF there is a GOD in Heaven, PLEASE GOD if YOU truly LOVE us, don't give us another FAITH BASED president EVER!


He isn't faith based. That is a term applied to GWB as an underlying way to continually bash religion. He is as much faith based as Obama and McCain who are also trying to use religion to win. It's really quite simple that saying, "I love God" gets you votes, and it has nothing to do with faith whatsoever.

It frustrates me to no end when I see these cliche statements being used without thought by educated people that I enjoy from a writing standpoint.

[edit on 24-6-2008 by Bugman82]




posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Bugman82
 



He isn't faith based. That is a term applied to GWB as an underlying way to continually bash religion. He is as much faith based as Obama and McCain who are also trying to use religion to win. It's really quite simple that saying, "I love God" gets you votes, and it has nothing to do with faith whatsoever. It frustrates me to no end when I see these cliche statements being used without thought by educated people that I enjoy from a writing standpoint.


I get your drift. But Bush43 opens his day with prayer and bible reading. That is bad enough but then he has said more than one time that he does not consult his father Bush Sr but his Father in Heaven. He has staid he gets his guidance from Heaven. He has appointed all too many people around whim who knew nothing about governance but are graduates from diploma mills like Liberty College and the 700 Club U. He chose first John Ashcroft then Alberto Gonazles to be his attorney general neither of whom was qualified beyond their religion. He has stated more times than I can count that we are in a war of cultures and a few times he says we're in a war of religions.

I don't blame anyone from wanting to disassociate themselves from Bush43. But he is a FAITH BASED PERSON. He believes the Biblical necessity of the return of the Jews to Israel. He believes in the Battle of Armageddon. Religion is OK if you keep it to yourself but we cannot run a country on it.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   
I note with some interest that the Obama camp is fumbling its energy message. McCain's surrogates aren't pushing very hard, and yet they are making headway. With gasoline at $4.25 and rising, the average voter is more willing to entertain the notion of drilling here in the U.S.

We should expect to see Republicans make more headway on the energy issue as s the price of diesel reaches $6.00 per gallon. I choose this one thing becuase it alone will play a big role in the transport costs that affect the prices of our food.

This can be a real problem for Obama. If he remains too closely wed to Green interests, he may do more harm to his campaign (by his own hand) than any Republican could hope to, under the current circumstances.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



I note with some interest that the Obama camp is fumbling its energy message. This can be a real problem for Obama. With gasoline at $4.25 and rising, the average voter is more willing to entertain the notion of drilling here in the U.S. If he remains too closely wed to Green interests, he may do more harm to his campaign (by his own hand) than any Republican could hope to, under the current circumstances. We should expect to see Republicans make more headway on the energy issue as s the price of diesel reaches $6.00 per gallon. I choose this one thing because it alone will play a big role in the transport costs that affect the prices of our food. McCain's surrogates aren't pushing very hard, and yet they are making headway.


Keen observations Mr J/O. Obama ought to regard the GREENS as “in the bag.” They have no where to go but to the Dems. I can’t see Ralph Nader breaking the 7 figure barrier this year. In 2004 Bush43 polled 62 million votes, Kerry received 59 million and Ralph Nader 465,650 votes, 0.38% of the total votes cast. Nader barely beat out Michael Badnarik of TX on the Libertarian ticket who managed to get 397,265 votes.

After Green leaning Dems realized they gave the 2000 election to Bush43, they have been staying “home.” This problem is akin to my earlier assertion that NO politician can tell the truth and be elected. Obama must get over his natural tendency to face up to reality.

So far McCain is looking very bad to me when he speaks “off script” or outside his planned message. He fumbles, he mumbles and his syntax is no better than Bush43's which makes me say again, “As you think, so you speak, as you speak, so you think!”

But being SMART does not necessarily win elections as Bush43 can vouch. And you don’t tell the guy who is hurting - as Huckabee did in Michigan - that your jobs are NOT coming back! You’ve got to play a game, hold out enough hope to get the slob to vote for you, then throw a few earmarks his way. That’s politics in the FAST lane. And the voters will not let it be any other way.

[edit on 6/24/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Speaking of Libertarians, I think it might be THEM who gets to play 'spoiler' in this election cycle. Nader is not going to be a factor. Becasue Libertarians run candidates at all levels, it could be that they MIGHT take just enough from the Republicans or the Democrats to change the out come of the Presidential contest. That would be ahistoriacal first for them. It would also back up my thesis that third parties are starting to matter.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



Speaking of Libertarians, I think it might be THEM who gets to play 'spoiler' in this election cycle. Nader is not going to be a factor. Because Libertarians run candidates at all levels, it could be that they MIGHT take just enough from the Republicans or the Democrats to change the out come of the Presidential contest. That would be an historical first for them. It would also back up my thesis that third parties are starting to matter.


Well, if this board is any indicator, there are a lot of “out of the closet” libertarians and a lot more who share their POV on politics and government. If I was advising Obama, I’d try to find some way to appeal to them. I suspect if they cannot see a reduced size of government, they would still like to see more fiscal transparency and more people held responsible in a meaningful way - like getting fired! Libertarians are like 100% of American voters, they want at least an HONEST government.

As for the time for 3rd parties, I don’t see that this year. The only 3rd party in the 20th century that had a memorable effect was Teddy Roosevelt’s 1912 Progressive “Bull Moose” Party which caused William Howard Taft, Teddy’s hand picked successor, to lose to Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt got 88 electoral votes to Taft’s 8. The unintended consequences of that proved to be a very BAD day for America’s blacks.

Ross Perot’s run in 1992 gained nearly 20% of the total vote but he failed to carry a single state. In 1996 Perot polled 8% of the total vote and again, no electoral votes. The constitutional convention I’m calling for must address that defunct system. The least action to take is to abolish the electoral college. It's no more useful than the teats on a boar hog!

On House districts, I have heard not more than 20-30 are really competitive. The Dems must get 55% of the popular vote to get a 1 seat majority in the House. The House is currently 236 to 199 in favor of the Dems.

The gerrymander schemes don’t matter in the Senate. 35 senate seats are up this November 4. The Dems must count on Joe Lieberman to have the thinnest majority of 51 to 49. You know Joe would shift to the GOP side in a heartbeat. I expect that has already been discussed in the Oval Office and the decision was to let the Dems stay in power in the Senate as they can’t do anything anyway with the 60 votes to stop debate rule. That way the Dems can share the blame for the Iraq debacle. Of the seats up for election in 2008, 23 are held by Republicans and 12 by Democrats.

[edit on 6/24/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



Speaking of Libertarians, I think it might be THEM who gets to play 'spoiler' in this election cycle. Because Libertarians run candidates at all levels, it could be that they MIGHT take just enough from the Republicans or the Democrats to change the out come of the Presidential contest. That would be an historical first for them. It would also back up my thesis that third parties are starting to matter.



Louisville, Ky. Sonny Landham carved out a tough-guy reputation in a series of big-screen roles, from roughing up Sylvester Stallone to getting tossed out a window by Carl Weathers. He pulls no punches in his newest role: Libertarian challenger to a man known for political toughness, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell Now 67 and living in northeastern Kentucky, the man who played Billy Bear in "48 Hours" and was killed by an alien in "Predator" admits his action-movie days are behind him.

Landham refers to McConnell, a four-term Republican, as "Boss Hogg" after the corrupt politician from "The Dukes of Hazzard" TV show. He bluntly called Democratic candidate and millionaire businessman Bruce Lunsford an "elitist." Even President Bush is a target: "He took us into a war on lies," Landham said, claiming the actual intent was "to put 'Big Oil' back into Iraq."

To qualify for the November ballot, Landham must collect at least 5,000 valid petition signatures by Aug. 12. State Libertarian Party Chairman Ken Moellman said the petition drive began recently and he believes Landham will make it.

But the bid includes some campaign baggage that seems scripted for Hollywood, instead of socially conservative Kentucky. Early in his acting career in the 1970s, Landham bared it all in adult films. Landham also served more than 2 1/2 years in federal prison after being convicted of making threatening and obscene phone calls to his ex-wife. The conviction was thrown out by a federal appeals court that found he committed no crime.

Libertarians, with their "live and let live" philosophy, look past his history. This isn't the first dabbling in politics for Landham, who struggled to get odd jobs after being released from prison. Now he still dabbles in acting, but Social Security checks and an acting pension are his main income.

Landham is as blunt on issues as he is skewering rivals. He equates abortion with murder. He supports scrapping the North American Free Trade Agreement. As for political correctness, he said, "PC is BS. Say what you mean, mean what you say." Moellman said such unscripted frankness will grab voter attention.

"Sonny is very upfront," he said. "You ask Sonny a question, he'll tell you the answer. He isn't going to pull any punches, which is why I know this race is going to be a lot of fun." news.yahoo.com...


This certainly backs up your perceptive grasp of the 3rd party scene, Mr J/O. As a native of KY and a life-time resident until '03 when I removed to FL, I was there when County Executive Mitch McConnell unexpectedly won his senate race against a 2 years appointee Senator Walter Dee Huddleston. It became famous because Huddleston had a bad habit of not attending the Senate when it was in session. McConnell "hired" a bloodhound and appeared over and over again on the tv screen "searching" for the missing Dee Huddleston.

The voters liked him and the rest is history. I detest him politically. His wife, Elaine L. Chao is Secretary of Labor. I'm surprised Bush43 has not renamed the Labor building the Chao Buildling, tearing down the Frances Perkins name as Ms Chao has worked tirelessly to tear down the labor advocacy department first led by Mrs. Perkins.

[edit on 6/25/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 01:37 AM
link   
I'm going to be out of town all of next week, but I hope you will keep this topic going. Keep your eyes open. We may see some new VP "stuff" next week. Also, watch for the Clintons to make nice with Obama. It WILL happen. See you all again in one week.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


The House is currently 236 to 199 in favor of the Dems. The Dems having won the last 3 special elections to fill dead or resigned seats. That’s a roll (or role) the Dems can truly enjoy!

In the Senate. 35 senate seats are up this November 4. The Dems have the thinnest possible majority of 51 to 49. Of the seats up for election in 2008, 23 are held by Republicans and 12 by Democrats. Normally 33 seats would be up but Wyoming and Mississippi are holding special elections to fill out existing terms.

If the Dems win the presidency it is hard to imagine the Dems losing any seats in the House. Play like the Dems gain another 5-10 House seats. It is very unlikely the Dems could get to the mythical 2/3rds, 290 seats.

In the Senate, assume the Dems hold 10 of their 12 seats up for election. And assume the Dems win HALF of the GOP’s 23 seats up for grabs. Say 11. A net gain of 9. But that is a big assumption. The new alignment in the Senate would be 60 Dem and 40 GOP. The Dems could then pass any bill they wanted without much compromise with the GOP especially items on the Dem's bread and butter list.

Of course you know not ALL Dems are liberals. In fact, I’d guess that “Liberal” Dems do not even make up a majority in the Dem caucus. That is, I’m saying fewer than 30 of my hypothetical 60 votes are liberals. Liberals controlled Congress from 1932-1938. Maybe 1964-1966. That’s it, GOP mantra to the contrary notwithstanding.

Will 2008 be a cliff-hanger close election? Harken back to 1960. That’s the one where JFK won the presidency by less than ONE vote per precinct. 112,827 votes. Every person's vote really does count. I admit it's unfortunate but with all the ineptness and some of the corruption in US elections, when one gets that close you cannot really know who won.

JFK polled 34.2 million votes (303 EV) to Nixon’s 34.1 million (219 EV). JFK carried 22 states to Nixon’s 26. Remarkable! Note: Harry Flood Byrd (VA) and J Strom Thurmond (SC) carried 1 state - MS - and split 2 others - AL and OK - for 15 electoral votes. As 'Independents' they garnered 286,359 votes. (One elector in OK jumped ship to vote for Byrd/Thurmond. A closet Libertarian I’d betcha.).

Even iF all the Independent votes had gone to Nixon - probable - he still would have lost in the Electoral College despite then winning the popular vote. Well, I say that but SC (D) MS (I) FL (R) and NC (D) were each carried by less than 5% margins. NC had 14 EV, SC and MS had 8 EV each. Deduct their combined 30 EV and JFK still has a barely winning 273 EV. (270 needed to win). Therefore, it is reasonable to say the Byrd Thurmond 3rd party had NO effect on the outcome of the razor thin 1960 election. en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 6/29/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


As I wrote elsewhere to Mr X11, quoting the immortal and entirely logical NY Yankee’s catcher Yogi Berra, “It aint over till it’s over.”

The Dems presumptive nominee has opted for a FIFTY STATE strategy. I assume the last two presidential elections were not. www.cnn.com...

That in turn is made possible only by the money Obama can raise outside the Federal funding. He’ll have to take his licks on that one but as we Dems fully expect, McCain will be “covered” by the usual 527s who will shovel tons of mud and BS against Obama.

The CNN map shows Obama (including “leaning” status in both cases) to have a narrow lead in the electoral college of 231 to 194. That leaves the tossup states totaling 113 electoral votes from which to raise the needed 270 votes to win. Black or white, I’d rather have Obama’s job of “catching” 39 votes than what looks to be McCain’s task - to catch 76 votes!

The tossup states are, reading from West to East, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Delaware and New Hampshire.

Of the “leaning” states, McCain has Montana, New Mexico, Arkansas, Louisiana, Indiana, West Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia. Similarly “leaning” for Obama, are the upper northwest, Washington and Oregon, along with Minnesota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maine.

The last Poll of Polls by CNN shows a narrow lead for Obama at 48% and McCain at 42%. www.cnn.com...

If the election was held tn Europe, Obama would be a “walk-in” leading over there by double digits in the mid-teens. But alas, the race is not “over there” but “over here.” The Republicans will roll out all their usual mud slingers, this time castigating BLACKS but oh so subtly for that is like throwing a lighted stick of dynamite, you better have the fuse timed just right!

Add to that the HATE Islam crowd of which there is no shortage starting with Bush43. Oh yes, “Big John” McCain will occasionally “reject” that extremism in his own party, but he will prove to be unable (say unwilling) to bring it to a halt.

Face it, this is his ONLY chance! Racism and anti-religionism are the only two tools that hold the remotest potential to turn a sows ear into a silk purse.

If you think the 1928 Herbert Hoover vs. Al Smith election was a dirty race you “ain’t seen nuthin’ yet!”

[edit on 7/5/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:30 PM
link   
In recent days, Barack Obama has gone back on his pledge with withdraw completely from Iraq. This move, no matter how centrist it may be, is a priceless gift for Johyn McCain. When Obama caves in on the matter of domestic drilling...which he must....we could see a new strategy from the McCain camp. Once again, I says, Obama is his own worst enemy in a race that is his to lose.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Although I haven't found a source I believe that Nixon was quoted as saying that to win a primary a Republican had to move to the right and in order to win an election a Republican had to move towards the centre . My main concern with Obama continuing the war in Iraq is that in order to appease his supporters his admin interfere in the running of the war just like Rumsfeld did .



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



In recent days, Barack Obama has gone back on his pledge with withdraw completely from Iraq. This move, no matter how centrist it may be, is a priceless gift for John McCain. When Obama caves in on the matter of domestic drilling ... which he must .... we could see a new strategy from the McCain camp. Once again, I says, Obama is his own worst enemy in a race that is his to lose.


T. Boone Pickens says “this is one crisis we cannot drill our way out of” on Tuesday’s CBS Evening News. Pickens went on to say Bush43 focused Federal efforts on ethanol instead of natural gas. Pickens announced he is planning to construct a 4 megawatt power plant in Texas powered by wind. That in turn will free up that much natural gas to be used in lieu of foreign oil in other generating plants. Pickens denies he is supporting any candidate, but says he will vote for John McCain.

reply to post by xpert11
 



Although I haven't found a source I believe that Nixon was quoted as saying that to win a primary a Republican had to move to the right and in order to win an election a Republican had to move towards the center . My main concern with Obama continuing the war in Iraq is that in order to appease his supporters his admin interfere in the running of the war just like Rumsfeld did .


That is not a new observation. That comes from people’s habits. The political enthusiast tend to take the trouble to go out and work and vote in primaries. These are the party’s BASE. So GOPs talk right, move center and Dems talk left and move center.

The HOT news out of Iraq today is THE Iraqi government wants a definite American withdrawal date. That will solve the Iraq problem. But it leaves America’s private oil interests high and dry!



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 11:19 PM
link   
It would go a long way towards saving the GOP a lot of pain and time in the wilderness...if...the Bush administration would push the Iraqis to ask us to leave on a timetable. The next President will get most of the credit for that departure, but it would 'heal' some of the Republican wounds. I don't see that happening becuase, as Don says, GOP oil interests are not satisfied.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



It would go a long way towards saving the GOP a lot of pain and time in the wilderness ... if ... the Bush administration would push the Iraqis to ask us to leave on a timetable. The next President will get most of the credit for that departure, but it would 'heal' some of the Republican wounds. I don't see that happening because, as Don says, GOP oil interests are not satisfied.


J/O, there are 2 more relevant factors that you should take into account and which may contribute to - facilitate? - an Iraqi settlement this summer. 1) Iraqi are exhausted with endless internecine killing. 2) An Iraqi doctor on PBS news complained he had not even the minimal medical supplies in the BEST Iraqi hospital in Baghdad while the Oil Revenue Trust has over $10 b. in it. He said at the current price for oil, the Trust is receiving more than $100 m. a day. The size of that windfall BONANZA is bound to be tempting to every the most ardent murderer.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
It would go a long way towards saving the GOP a lot of pain and time in the wilderness...if...the Bush administration would push the Iraqis to ask us to leave on a timetable. The next President will get most of the credit for that departure, but it would 'heal' some of the Republican wounds. I don't see that happening becuase, as Don says, GOP oil interests are not satisfied.


According to my newspaper today this is exactly what has occurred. It seems
your crystal ball is working very well.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Hello Avenger. It/s good to see you in here again. In spite of the many mistkes he's been making latley, I doubt very much that Obama's rookie rampage will be checked by John McCain this Fall. The price of gas by itself might be enough to turn out Democrats in force. GOP voters will be down in the dumps,and willing to stay home. I am no fan of Obama, but I am willing to call 'emn as I sees 'em.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



The price of gas by itself might be enough to turn out Democrats in force. GOP voters will be down in the dumps,and willing to stay home. I am no fan of Obama, but I am willing to call 'emn as I sees 'em.


You and I know that the economy goes its own way. It’s sort of like people trying to turn the Titanic using oars found in the lifeboats. It is theoretically possible but realistically improbable. Yet we keep funding economists who foretell the future and even though they are almost 100% wrong - hey chance says they should hit it sometimes - they have learned how to couch their predictions in ways that are pleasing to us so we treat them as we treat religionists: we know they are full of hokum but it’s the only hokum we have.

We can tweak it but even that has unpredictable outcomes. MOST of our tweaking actually involves granting special access to Federal funds by the select few. Oddly enough, by the same people who routinely DENOUNCE big government except when it comes their turn to eat at the trough. Hmm?

The price of gasoline is emblematic of the failed economic polices we have indulged since 1980. We wanted the dollar to be “weak” as against other currencies. That improves our export side. That means jobs in the US. On the downside it means essential commodities bought from abroad will cost more. You cannot have a weak dollar and a strong dollar at the same time.

Running a half trillion dollar annual Federal deficit for 8 years. Add to that another half trillion dollar trade deficit and you are spending 7%-8% more than you are making every year. Lenders do not like that. This can be disconcerting to lenders. So far it has not been. But at some point in time, it will be.

The primary reason I oppose the current spate of deficit financing is because it is OPTIONAL. By 2020 or so, as Baby Boomers begin to retire - 2010 to 2040 - the SS Trust Fund will be broke. The US will not have an option about borrowing to sustain the payouts promised. Lenders will have us between a rock and a hard place. Sure, the demographers say by 2050 we’ll be back in the BLACK as far as Social Security is concerned.

The impending financial crisis is at Medicare and Medicaid. Borrowing will not resolve the predictable shortfalls in revenue against outgo. Although we spend 16% - depends on who is speaking how much - of GDP for health care, more than any other country - yet we have 20% of the population left outside the system.

All of us being decent CHURCH-GOING people - I won’t say GOD fearing - we say we want to cover everyone. You could argue our practices gives that the lie, but it is what we say publicly. Germany is second at 12% of GDP by the same speaker. As you'd expect the Germans have for a very long time had 100% coverage. From the cradle to the grave. The Germans would not even consider not having 100% coverage. That is ONLY possible in America. At least 15,000 to 30,000 people die annually for lack of medical care in the US. Even Mexico has better coverage if not better treatment. But alas, America is under the ownership and control of the EVIL FIVE, the AMA, AHA, PMA, Health Insurers and the GOP. My dire prediction is it will have to get worse before it gets better. God Bless America! Land of the Free; Home of the Brave.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Everyone's talking about the remarks made by retired Senator Phil Graham. We've said many times in this thread that there's a very real psychological component to the economy. Even so, I suspect that he Obama camp will be a ble to exploit this division in the GOP ranks to good effect. hate to say it, but this is just one more sign of the times. Even if tehre was no war, the economy itself would doom John McCain to failure.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


Graham is playing a dangerous game all right . If McCain wins the election in part due to having convinced voters that the economy isnt as bad as it is made out to be he will face a backlash from the electorate when they finally wake up to the music . Graham comments might have held some weight if our economic woes were caused by a single factor rather then cumulative as they are .



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join