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: 40
12
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 02:47 AM
link   
Phil Graham is no dummy. He knows what he said. He also knows waht the Democrats will do with such a juicy piece of audio. WE don't talk about it that much in this thread, but the GOP is severely divided on a great many issues. The Democrats are not.




posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 02:58 AM
link   
OK Justin I understand how the GOP is divided but I don't understand what McCain could gain politically from Phil comments . To me I don't think what Phil said is the McCain campaign brightest moment.

Surely McCain own staff aren't trying to sabotage his own campaign ?

Cheers xpert11.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Phil Graham is a mlti-millionare in his own right. I'm sure that he knows just exactly how much damage his disagreement will do to the McCain campaign. His sound bite is a gift to the Obama camp, and I'm sure they are working overtime to make use of it.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


I thought the hullabaloo is over the fact Gramm is or was ON McCain's Advisory Board.


Phil Graham is a multi-millionare in his own right. I'm sure that he knows just exactly how much damage his disagreement will do to the McCain campaign. His sound bite is a gift to the Obama camp, and I'm sure they are working overtime to make use of it.


Gramm is accused of slipping into a bill the jumbling of regulations to exclude Enron from FTC jurisdiction at Ken Lay's instigation. Maybe that is how Gramm became a multi-millionaire.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 10:02 AM
link   
I can't help but think that by this time next year, the Phil Graham quote will be a national joke. The looming failure of Fanny Mae and Feddie Mac spell doom for the GOP. It would've been bad for the Dems if it had happened on their watch, too.

I recetnly participated in a panel discussion online. The question put to all of us what the following. Will the next President be able to do anything to slow, or stop the current economic decline? I thought it was such a good question that I'd like to ask you all, here. Whaddya think? In many respects, it doesn't matter who the next President is. The could be limited to just one term due to the forces of a failing economy that is beyond their control.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



The looming failure of Fanny Mae and Feddie Mac spell doom for the GOP. It would've been bad for the Dems if it had happened on their watch, too. Will the next President be able to do anything to slow, or stop the current economic decline? I thought it was such a good question that I'd like to ask you all, here.


The FREE MARKET is the biggest SCAM in the history of the world!

Do taxpayers have a RIGHT to tell lenders how to do it? Well, it looks like lenders are looking to taxpayers for about a HALF TRILLION DOLLARS to clean up their mess. Somebody HAS that money. I'd like to know WHO!

Where is Milton Freidman, Doug Fife, Herr Wolfowitz, Tom DeLay, Newt Gingrich, and that horde of SMALL government types, or Ron Paul and NO government types when the Big Boys go under? OK but when it goes bad, then they are willing to let Franklin Delano Roosevelt come to their rescue. Liar liar pants on fire!

Gimme NO taxes and NO regulators when I’m getting fat, but Sweet Jesus, give me that good old government money when my bubble goes bust!

[edit on 7/14/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Okay, so. Let's change gears. What should the Democrat response be when they have Congress and the White House?



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Okay, so. Let's change gears. What should the Democrat response be when they have Congress and the White House?


The last thing that is needed is rash decisions that come about with the exploitation of popularism . Refinements rather then fundamental change are in order. Certain measures will have to be in place to permit something more akin to free market ideas to operate . IMO speculators cannot be considered a part of a free market economy because they don't represent the wider market or rather people .

The fact that the free market needs a degree of regulation to operate is something that its biggest advocates have failed to grasp . In the future we will a new global body or the expansion of existing to deal with these issues . Globalization is going to step up a notch .



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



Okay, so. Let's change gears. What should the Democrat response be when they have Congress and the White House?


As a minimum we need to staff the various regulatory agencies still extant to the level they can perform their assigned task. I don’t like to learn the FAA has allowed any airline to go 2 years past the manufacturers recommend inspection. Recall the 737 that ripped off its top and pulled a flight attendant out of the plane at 30,000 feet? It had a crack in the fuselage just behind the front door that was plainly visible. That plane had made more than 30,000 cycles. Pressurized, depressurized.

Secondly, once upon a time we had Department of Agriculture inspectors in Peru for grapes, and maybe elsewhere to keep an eye on growers and DDT. We used to have a USDA meat inspector in every meat processing plant. I’m from Louisville where we had 5 commercial meat packers. The plants could not begin work until the USDA man was there.

Congress recently addressed the stripped down Food and Drug Administration by authorizing 2,000 additional staff, 400 of which were to be professional scientists meant to restore some semblance of credibility to the agency, drug-wise. Active ingredients for American medications are produced in 2,000 plants located overseas. First, that sounds like TOO many plants. TOO much competition. Or TOO many "sweetheart" say insider plants. Secondly, the FDA admitted it did not have the addresses of ALL those plants. It also said the plants were set up for ONE inspection per year. Sweet Jesus! If I had not written all this paragraph myself, I’d be disinclined to believe it.

The financial market must be RE-DONE. Ever since we permitted after hours internet trading, we LOST it. We can get it back, but only if we do WISE things like COMPELLING every BUYER and SELLER to be identified by a unique number. We could then (computer) track their “buys” and “sells” to help get a handle on insider trading and on other scams like not meeting the required 50% "pay when you buy" policy. Which payment has been as high as 90% and as low as 10%. This control helps "calm" a runaway market.

The CFTC - Commodities Futures Trading Commission - has but 405 employees per their website in an industry trading tens of thousands of contracts every day. I “know” without knowing that 4,000 would not be too many employees.

We ought to consider banning all non-industry buying of FOOD and ENERGY futures.

I’d like to see a COMMISSION appointed to make recommendations on health care. Ten members. 5 from the retail medical professionals. The doers not the MD who is CEO of some HMO. 1 or 2 from insurers, and 2 or 3 from the public. Give them adequate staffing and a 6 months deadline for a preliminary report and 12 months for a FINAL recommendation.

But for sure, there is enough to be done to make the halcyon days of the New Deal’s “First 100 Days” look like a game of twiddly winks.

[edit on 7/15/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   
In many respects, I think you are right. Too many of the Federal governmetn's old ways of doing things have not been updated. Politics has in fact played too large a role in the un-funding of key public mandates. Real Republicanism would recognize these things. Real Republicans would move to fix them.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



Real Republicanism would recognize these things. Real Republicans would move to fix them.


Eastern Establishment Republicans were never a problem. Sen. Dirksen of IL, or Sen. Howard Baker of TN, his son-in-law. Sen. Taft although he was more anit union than I'd like. Sen. Levrett Saltonstall of MA? Or Sen Ed Brooke of MA? First black senator since Reconstruction. Sen Margret Chase Smith of ME. Millard Tydings of MD. And many many more. They loved America but the current crop has an AGENDA. Frist of TN.

Hatch UT I don't know about. Grassley and Hegel I'd like to see stay on. But time marches on.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   
I note with some interest that a certain magazine's front page cartoon still has many people having fits. I've heard it said that Satire is an acquired taste. Does this stunt do more harm than good?



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
I note with some interest that a certain magazine's front page cartoon still has many people having fits. I've heard it said that Satire is an acquired taste. Does this stunt do more harm than good?


I've seen several different takes on that magazine cover. One writer thought it was the old Democrats taking a shot at Obama, still backing Hillary and with surprises to come at the Democratic convention next month. Beats me. I still think that McCain will win the election by a thin margin.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 11:15 PM
link   
What would be the effect on the Democratic party IF John McCain does win by the slightest margin? Bear in mind that he's likely to face a hostile Congress. Would he Democratic party fragment, or....would it purge its weaker elements to become "stronger" in a way that nobody could anticipate?



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
What would be the effect on the Democratic party IF John McCain does win by the slightest margin? Bear in mind that he's likely to face a hostile Congress. Would he Democratic party fragment, or....would it purge its weaker elements to become "stronger" in a way that nobody could anticipate?


With what congress has done to America for the past two years, I would hope that there would be some changes within their ranks. They are, after all, even less popular than President Bush. I suspect that if McCain wins, the Democratic party will do their best to re-group, and they will eventually be successful. As much as I dislike Al Gore, he would have been a slam dunk this election cycle. One had to wonder why the party didn't run a candidate that was totally unbeatable, as most incorrectly thought Hillary was. To be fair, the Republican party has a myriad of problems also, and I am lukewarm on McCain for President. Since I think that Obama would be a huge mistake, I will do what I usually have to do at the ballot box: Vote for the lesser of the two evils.

Just the opinion of one old man in Oklahoma, where even the Democrats
would elect McCain if we Republicans stayed home.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
Just the opinion of one old man in Oklahoma, where even the Democrats
would elect McCain if we Republicans stayed home.


The GOP stables are empty. They don't have any truly dynamic leaders at this time. I say that as a long time Republican. The last rising star they had cut his own throat. I am , of course, referring to Collin Powell. In retrospect, I t hink knew that his carer ws over when he stepped up to that U.N. podium.

Much of life, as we know it, it cyclic. Today, the Dems have the hot ticket, tomorrow the will not. Republicans need to do a hard re-think before htey can come back asthe force that you and I want them to be. That's why discussions like this one still matter. We need this kind of dialogue.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



What would be the effect on the Democratic party IF John McCain does win by the slightest margin? Bear in mind that he's likely to face a hostile Congress. Would he Democratic party fragment, or .... would it purge its weaker elements to become "stronger" in a way that nobody could anticipate?


Dems are accustomed to losing. I liked the candidates we have lost with. Hubert Humphrey. Knows as the “Happy Warrior.” George McGovern, flew 25 missions in a B24 over Europe. Walter Mondale, still kicking around as an elder statesman. Probably a superdelegate. I liked Dukakis and Kerry, both from MA. Al Gore from TN is a good fellow too and he’s going to be part of the Obama cabinet if Obama is elected.

Dems were pleased ot run Geraldine Ferraro even though that may have cost us votes. Dems are willing to run Obama even if that costs us votes. Dems are funny that way. We enjoy doing the right thing. I don’t think Dems would use the dirty tricks that are stock in trade for the GOP. Dems tried to be nice in ‘04 but this time around, we are ready for the GOP.

I’m sure you noticed J/O, that while it was very impressive to see Obama outdo McCain $52 m. to $24 m. it was also reported that TOTAL collections were $92 m. Dem and $95 m. GOP. As Yogi Berra said, “It ain’t over till it’s over.”



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   
I actually do think tha the Democratic party would purge its more moderate elements if it lost the White House to John McCain. They'd have to, in order to prevent McCain from falling back on his natural tendancy to cross the aisle and compromise. It's the only way they could take that option away from hm.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



The GOP stables are empty. They don't have any truly dynamic leaders at this time. I say that as a long time Republican. The last rising star they had cut his own throat. I am , of course, referring to Collin Powell. In retrospect, I t think knew that his career was over when he stepped up to that U.N. podium. Republicans need to do a hard re-think before they can come back as the force that you and I want them to be. That's why discussions like this one still matter. We need this kind of dialogue.


I wrote elsewhere that Colin Powell was ambitious and with good justification. But, he made the devil’s bargain with Bush43. See Note 1. Bush43 never wanted a secretary of state. He was his own foreign policy maker. Bush43 took Powell onboard to give him cover to the outside world.

Then Bush43 "used him up" in the February 5, 2003 UN speech. Which by the way failed in its assignment. Powell knew in his Goldwater "heart of hearts" that the speech was all wrong. He made George Tenant sit behind him. Powell trusted Tenant. That proved a mistake. Powell was a straight shooter while Tenant is a moral chameleon. Powell's worst mistake was in not refusing to make the speech, resigning and going public. He has really let down 4,400 KIA in Iraq and 600 KIA in Afghan. They deserved better.

If the GOP loses big this year and there is a real potential for that, especially if gas is $4 on November 4. Gas prices may break before election day. If McCain wins and the Dems just hold on to the House and maybe gain 3-4 seats in the Senate - so the loss of Ted Kennedy and Bill Johnson does not return control to the GOP - we’ll be back to mediocre government. Sort of like the years when the Dems held Congress and Reagan was president.

I suppose everyone is now willing to admit the Government has a role in our life. And that oversight in essential places is the price of being big and complex. I see where Wachovia is also skirting the thin edge; Sweet Jesus, when I was a kid, that kind of trick was called a shell game, gambling if you please, but now it's done by our banks!


Note 1.
Daniel Webster (1782-1852) was a brilliant orator from New Hampshire, immortalized in Stephen Vincent Benet's short story "The Devil and Daniel Webster", in which Webster defends a man who has sold his soul to the devil. Elected to both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate, he served in Congress a total of 23 years and served as secretary of state twice.
www.kittytours.org...

[edit on 7/18/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Senator Obama has indeed bet the farm on his overseas trip. He's going around the world with a rock star's entourage and all the big names from U.S. media. It is, in many respects, teh kind of risk that a young man could take. Senator McCaoun would do well to exploit any and all gaffs. If he does not, his opponent will surely "steal a march" on him.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join