I just listened to the second show, and it was quite interesting. Brought up several points that need discussion. But I'm a bit confused - where do we post questions on shows? In this thread, or someplace else?

Originally posted by xpert11
Dave why not designate a avatar that AP show listeners have pre approved permission to use ?

That way copyright isnt infringed and members can show off the fact that they are proud listeners .

Cheers xpert11.

You are welcome to U2U Skeptic or Springer. I'm just the EP for the show and that is above my pay grade.

Dave

Originally posted by jsobecky

I just listened to the second show, and it was quite interesting. Brought up several points that need discussion. But I'm a bit confused - where do we post questions on shows? In this thread, or someplace else?

Discussion of SHOW TOPICS should be done within the SHOW itself, so HERE.

Dave

Originally posted by jsobecky
Actually there were 3 or 4 points that Justin made that I "disagree" with, such as running mates. Disagree is probably too strong a word, "eager to discuss" is more like it.

You heard the Rabbit. This is the place to "throw down." Post your remarks here, and I'll be glad to discuss, argue, or defend as needed.

We need to avoid running wild with other threads until we know more about where this thing is going. More discussion means more support, and that means more Martin & Justin.

So, tell me jsobecky, what're you so strongly disagreeing with?

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
...is the Above politics shows avatar that damajikninja made availble to any one. I am considering using the avatar one some time. Am i able to, or is it Martain & Justin only ?

Dorian Gray

Anyone that wants to use the avatar has my permission.

Just remember...

Originally posted by Dave Rabbit
You CAN NOT use anything on your avatar that includes intellectual and copyrighted property without the express WRITTEN CONSENT of the Above Network LLC aka the Three Amigos. Period!

-DMN

[edit on 2/10/2008 by damajikninja]

I have to say...for a guy from the UK you hold your own Martin!
Does everyone in the UK keep up with American politics as much as you, or are you just the wiz kid on the block?

I promised Martin that I wouldn't intentionally hurt him...too much.

I look forward to reading your post. I'll see if we can't elaborate on some of those things in the future.

I guess this is a question to both Martin and Justin. I understand how you tend to lean towards the idea that a fresh face in Washington is a good thing. I am sort of up in the air on that one.
A man or woman who hasn't been through the fights, been through the struggles to get something they believe in past into law...will they have the strength to fight a Congress that is against them? And face it, that is a part of every President's term in office. How will they not be bullied into signing bad bill into law?
Now don't get me wrong, I am no fan of blind men with canes being led through the doors of the Capitol, but isn't a good amount of time in DC a good thing...really?
Just a thought...

"Change" in politics is not always what we think it is. A lot ofthe posters on ATS and AP want a lot of change, right now. The terrible truth of the thing is that political change usually happens slowly. Very slowly.

It's been said that if you want new, you have to vote for new. "New blood" is often defined as a person who has not yet been corrupted by the influences of power. On a civic level, we can and we should vote for inexperienced candidates at the local, state, and Federal levels. When we do this, we encourage change. It may not be speedy fast, but it will be change.

"Experience," as we talk about in the context of the AP show, can be a good things when the candidate demonstrates that they aren't just another carpet-bagging power hungry muck raker who would pretty please like another term in office.

Some times, a politician will take such a beating in the public arena that they change their ways. that seems to be the case for John McCain. He got his butt beat like a bongo drum for that Kennedy-McCain immigration "thang," and it forced him to change his position on several key issues.

His biggest challenge now is to convince the majority of voters that he really has learned his lesson. A lot of us would like tosee McCain go to Washington and trim some fat of the Federal bureaucracy. We'd be happy if he managed even a little. He could ben an agent of change if he manages to do even half of what he promises.

Let's be clear on one thing. If Obama wins the White House, he's gonna get a talking to by the people in the shadows. They are gonna tell him just exactly where the bear poops in the woods. His challenge, should he get that far, is to make good on his promises. He might actually bring us some change because he hasn't been bought...yet.

We, as voters, have it in our power to scare the fudge out of these office holders by threatening their jobs. The Republicans messed up, and they got sent packing in 2006. Because it doesn't look like the party (as a whole) has learned its lessons, we can expect more Republican defeats in November.

The Dems are well aware that they ar riding a wave of anti-Bush backlash. If they fail to give us the change we ask for, we might just vote that wascally Republicans back in to office. Or, if there's somebody else out there in 2012...we may give them a closer look.

If we insist that experience be the aboslute litmus test for public office, we will end up with an elite class of career politicians who do ONLY those things which are good for them and bad for us.

Hold on. Wait a minute. Isn't that what we have now?

It's not my job to endorse any candidate. I do think its my job to show you that you've got more options than you may realize. There is more than one way to get change, and you need to know that.

Before we get in to this, I'd like to say thanks to jsobecky for taking the time to express your thoughts. Now, let's get it on.

Originally posted by jsobecky
First off, Justin, you made a case for a McCain-Huckabee ticket. I don't think that will happen, unless it gets to be a brokered convention. Neither of those individuals are what I would call strong conservatives.

The realpolitik of the situation is that NONE of the GOP candidates are or have been the post child for conservatism. Before they ran for President, ALL of these people were moderates. Republican party leaders insisted that the candidates put on ultra-conservative camouflage before they would be "blessed" to run under the GOP's banner.

The hard right is at the controls just now, so they decide where the Republican party goes, and what it does. You are quite right when you say that voters stayed away from the Republican primaries in large numbers.

Having said that, I would point out that the ultra right wing of the part y is on its way out. They were disgraced in '06 and they will be shamed again in '08. It's easy to point figners, throw a fit, and whine that you've been betrayed. It's real easy to do that NOW. How-ever, I have just one question. Where were these whiners when the GOP had near total power in Congress?

"Real conservatives" will suck up the pain, take their medicine, and learn from their mistakes. I am all for low taxes and small government. I'm not for throwing the baby out with the bath water, even if the little feller did poop in it. If we want to rehabilitate the Republican image, we need to admit its failings. Then, we need to can the fools who ruined a good thing.

Originally posted by jsobecky
The fact that the conservatives stayed away from the polls in droves on Super Tuesday should tell us something. McCain will have to choose a more conservative running mate to lure the party base back to the polls.

Now, you're trying to have your cake and eat it. This election boils down to one thing. YOU have make your own choice between the options/candidates you have, instead of the choices you want.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Next, you seem to look at Obama's "newness" as a good thing. I disagree. A seasoned politician like McCain should be able to make mincemeat of that very fact and treat it like the disadvantage it really is.

When it comes to politics, "new" translates in to "hasn't been totally bought just yet." That's the idealistic up side to the thing. The down side is that unbought means untested, which means lacking in experience. I do agree that McCain could easily make Obama look like a novice, if he can say and do the right things.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Fresh ideas are fine, but not in Washington. Obabma will be left holding the bag for the first 3 years of his term, since he doesn't know the machinations of how to get things done.

I agree with your entiment, but I would point out that a Presidency is built on a team. You might be able to hoodwink any President, but you won't always be able to snooker his/her entire team. There are a lot of idealists who went to the polls with the intent of sending a message that un-bought is good.

Originally posted by jsobecky
The "fresh" angle would have been good, if it was Obama against Romney. Then both could play that angle. But age and experience win out over youth and inexperience every time.

Mitt Romney would have been able to make Obama seem like an untested newbie. He's older, and he does have more experience in key areas that Obama does not. Trouble is, teh voters aren't choosing Romney to face off against Obama.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Finally, I was flabbergasted when you suggested that conservative talk radio commentators were what was driving a wedge between voters. I strongly disagree with you, and I would like to hear you expand on that idea.

Grab an extra barf bag. You're gonna need it.

Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. are water carriers for the Republican party. They don't limit themselves to opinion and analysis. They don't just disagree. They attack. I say the same thing about the most well-known left wing show hosts, too.

If you tried to disagree with Limbaugh the way you're taking issue with me, he would not hear you out. He would throw crap at you from high atop his ego fortress until you went away, or he hung up on you. Neither he nor his people would take the time to respond to you like I am now.

This is one of the reasons I jumped at the chance to do THE ABOVE POLTICS SHOW. Martin can speak for himself, but I think I'm here to do what ATS is best known for. I can tell you what I believe and why. I can be entertaining while I do it. I also have an obligation to bring you more than one side of an issue so that you can make up your own mind.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Hannity and Limbaugh are staunch conservatives, and have watched this country and the Republican party stray away from conservative ideals for the past 6 years. They are understandably dismayed. They see McCain and Huckabee for what they really are - soft. And they don't like the fact that those two men are our choice for POTUS.

I sample 5-8 different radio programs each day as part of my 'homework' for the AP show. I've actually been doing that since 1990. I will dispute your claim that Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. have been protesting with all their might fo the last six years. It's only been in last 15 months or so that they've taken to being so down on the candidates. I can't prove that to you with show archives, and Dave would hit me if I tried...but...I can ell you what I think I've been hearing from these guys.

I don't dispute the fact that these guys have a large following. I think its juvenile that they whine for something they can't have. If there was a more conservative candidate to be had, the voters in their wisdom would have turned out to vote for that person.

You and I agree that McCain has the potential to wipe the floor with Barack Obama. Let's urge him to do it, even if he is a less than ideal choice. If we do less, we give up without a fight.

[edit on 11-2-2008 by Justin_Case]