States rights are a compelling argument for me. I'm one of the few Democrats you'll ever meet that defends the electoral college and advocates in favor of scrapping the 17th amendment.
That said though I don't see what else Lincoln could have done. The South seceded when Lincoln won the election. They seceded because of what they thought he would do -- not what he actually did (he wasn't even in office yet when South Carolina broke away). They basically pulled the political equivalent of Eric Cartman saying "Screw you guys, I'm going home." In so doing they destroyed any remaining chance of hashing out a compromise within the framework of our Government.
In spite of all of that the war didn't actually begin until they fired on Union troops occupying Union property. They could have decided to keep negotiating over the issue of Federal property/forts on Southern soil but opted instead to settle the dispute on the fields of honor and glory. I don't fault them for that decision -- but they lost fair and square and the rest is history as the saying goes.
Now, if you ask me, my pipe dream is for the GOP to push for nuclear, and at least try to own the GW and oil price issues.
I would consider voting for anyone that advocated nuclear as a solution to our energy woes. It's damn near carbon neutral, it's technology that we already have and it's something that we used to be a global leader at (we invented the damn technology) before we stopped developing it and ceded the intuitive to India, France, China and Canada.
By and large (and I say this as a hard-core Republican, and I think I'm pretty representative), the core right constituency doesn't take issue with GW legislation, and even those who actively disbelieve GW put arguing the issue pretty far down the list
I think the Republican party actually has two "core right" constituencies -- the religious right and the fiscal/small government conservatives. May I ask which one you think of as home?
I think it's something the average Republican is willing to give ground on
The average Republican maybe. But most of your elected officials seem openly hostile to the idea of even acknowledging that GW exists let alone doing anything about it. There are some honorable exceptions. One of my favorite pols of all time was Sherwood Boehlert, my old Congressman and a Republican. I disagreed with him on a lot (voted to impeach Clinton and for the GWB tax cuts) but I had a great amount of respect for him and the work that he did on environmental and scientific/technological issues. He wasn't one to let his ideology override reality and I was pretty sad to hear him announce his retirement even though I no longer lived in his district.
Absolutely no one I know is going to sit out the election because McCain disagrees with the base on GW.
No, but McCain still has a problem. A lot of the true Conservatives that I know are furious with the Republican party for abandoning the principles of small Government. Bob Barr presents a viable alternative for them. In a strange way he also manages to be a viable alternative for some of the neo-cons who distrust McCain -- they remember and respect Barr for leading the impeachment effort against Clinton.
I don't think as many Republicans will vote for him as the media thinks -- but if a few states come down to thin margins he could wind up making all the difference in the World. Obama isn't dealing with anything like this (yet) -- Nader just isn't that exciting anymore and most of the far-left seems to be happy with Obama. I think they are in for a rude surprise because I don't think Obama is as leftist as they think -- but I'm not going to argue with it as long as they are voting for my guy;)
Cheney scares the hell out of me and there is no way in hell that he should have been allowed to set energy policy. He should have been the voice at the table that I described but having decision making power? No way in hell.
I just wanted to make that point because I've seen far too many people that are completely opposed to even consulting with industry while we make policy. They don't seem to understand the difference between mandating something as policy and actually implementing it in the real world.
We can do better than tearing up our natural scenery to keep a dying enterprise (The oil industry) afloat
More to the point, we also need oil for other purposes besides an energy source. The plastics and fertilizer industries come to mind. Pissing away the last remaining reserves of crude oil in the United States for the sake of burning it in our cars seems like a huge waste to me.
Beyond that, there is absolutely no way you can ignore the evidence. I'll say it again. Cheney leaves Haliburton to be VP. Haliburton (like most companies do) gives him a parting gift of over $30 million. Haliburton is an energy company. Cheney now plays an intergral part in establishing our energy policy.
Are you really so dense that you can't see how fucked up that is?
To a certain point I actually think that's ok. You want people who are involved in industry to have a voice at the policy table because it's far too easy for politicians to hand down mandates while having no idea of how hard they will be to actually implement or how much they will cost. Any Geek should be able to appreciate this -- how many times has the PHB handed down an assignment while completely underestimating (or outright ignoring) how much money it will cost or how hard it will be to accomplish?
GWB's administration crossed the line when it gave the industry folks the ONLY voice at the table. This is actually one of the things that I don't think Obama gets enough credit for. He wants the health insurance industry and energy industry to have a seat at the table when policy is being decided -- he just doesn't want them to be able to buy every chair (to use his words). He isn't some kneejerk liberal that's opposed to business and making money -- he's opposed to businesses buying our Government and ramming their agenda down our throats at the expense of the greater good.
And your whole economy isn't dependent upon cheap transportation either, so that comparison is flawed without looking at the whole picture.
Pull out a map of the United States with population density. Now pull out of a map of your typical EU country with population density. Starting to see the problem?
as people like the idea of taxing oil companies, but forget that in the end, it won't lower the cost of gas at the pump
No, but it would be worthwhile if that money was pumped into alternative energy research with the eventual objective of weaning us away from oil and/or gasoline. If that money is pumped into the general fund and used to finance bridges to nowhere then we have a big problem.
One of the more interesting ideas I've heard was allowing drilling in ANWR but requiring the oil companies that win leases there to invest some portion of the profits into alternative energy research. I'm not sure how you'd set that up so the system couldn't be rigged but on balance the idea appeals to me and there might be a way to make it happen in a bi-partisan fashion. Of course I doubt the Democrats (BANANA) or Republicans (don't interfere with the free market dude!) would ever go along with it, but I can dream can't I?
I'm not saying McCain will keep them. I am saying he has an opportunity. I think it's possible to give ground on other issues than RvW, keep the core right, and still appeal to HRC moderates.
I don't think it will be nearly that easy. Did you see the recent flap he had with the base over his position on climate change? I think he could pull it off if the base trusted him (somehow GWB got away with claiming to be a moderate) but the base doesn't trust him and will ream him for any centrist/leftist moves. They also have an acceptable third party guy in Bob Barr, so McCain is really going to have to watch his flank.
Reagan pulled off something akin to this in '80
Yeah, but Reagan had the advantage of a deeply unpopular President who appeared weak on the global stage and got all of the blame (right or wrong) for the failing economy and our weak position in the World. If anything, Obama is in a position to pull off what Reagan did as he has all of the same advantages -- a deeply unpopular President, a failing economy that people are blaming (right or wrong) on the GOP and the perception (correct or otherwise) that Obama hasn't (yet) been tainted by Washington.
so I don't think democrats should dismiss the possibility to easily.
Oh I'd agree. Anyone on either side of the aisle that thinks their candidate is going to have a cakewalk this November is in for a rude surprise. This is going to be a hard fought contest all the way till the end and whomever underestimates the other side is likely to wake up Wednesday morning and find themselves on the losing side.
So you have an issue with $4 gas but you are going to vote for Obama?
No, I don't have an issue with $4/gal gas because I think that in the long run it will be a good thing for us. We aren't going to break away from our dependence on foreign oil if gasoline remains cheap. It's going to be an extremely painful adjustment for the American people and economy but it will ultimately spur innovation and make us more independent and secure.
I only brought up $4/gal gasoline as an example of the bubble that GWB resides in. His response when asked about gasoline approaching $4/gal was something like "I hadn't heard that. Where'd you hear that?"
s the group that is not allowing us to tap into the potential 400 billion, yes billion, barrels in North Dakota and Montana. That is almost double the amount is Saudi Arabia, yet we can't use it
Well, first off, do you have a citation for that much oil existing in CONUS? Second, even if it did why the hell should we use that now? Save it for when oil is $200 or $300 a barrel and Saudi Arabia is running dry.
Obama is the most left voting member of the Senate
Isn't it just amazing how the Republicans always manage to label whomever we run as the most liberal person ever? It's almost as if they are afraid of an honest debate on the issues and feel the need to use the 'L' word to scare people. I bet if we nominated someone like Zell Miller or Joe Libermann they would manage to find some study that showed how they were the most liberal person in the Senate too.
but we don't have to be sending that money to countries that hate us
Actually, Europe sends more money to people that hate us than we do. Our top five oil sources are (in order) Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Nigeria and Venezuela. I only count one country in that list filled with people who hate us. Venezuela is run by a nutjob but I don't think the population hates us -- they aren't flying airplanes into our buildings.
It would be a profound mistake for the democratic party to assume that women democrats are single-issue voters, IMO. Progressive web-sites have been harping on the pro-life aspect of McCain, waring women that Roe v. Wade will be overturned on his watch.
I don't think they are single issue voters. I just think abortion is probably the most effective issue to reach them on. There are many others though -- practically every position that HRC championed is completely opposed by John McCain. Her signature issue was health care -- how well does McCain's plan (or lack thereof) stack up against hers or Obamas? How does McCain feel about taking another look at NAFTA as Hillary wanted to? What about lifting the ban on Federal-funding for stem cell research? How about a moratorium on foreclosures? How about gay rights?
November is a long way away. I just don't see McCain keeping that many of her Democratic supporters. He'll get some of them -- especially the Reagan Democrats that likely would have voted for him anyway even with her on the ticket -- but I think this idea that there is going to be a massive backlash of HRC supporters against Obama ignores political history.
While they don't need to be treated as badly as many of them have treated Democrats, there's a middle ground where Democrats still need to grow a farking spine and stick up for themselves
You'll brook no argument from me here. We do need to grow a spine.
I just think we can be strong and respectful at the same time. Obama seems to be particularly good at this -- my favorite quote from his speech after clinching the nomination was "I honor John McCain for his accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine." That was the perfect attack line, IMHO. Obama stood him for himself and drew a contrast between him and McCain without resorting to loaded words like "cut and run".
But you are mistaken in thinking that this only came about with O'Reilly
I don't think it came about with O'Reilly. Our history is filled with examples of people like him. I think that the 24 hour news cycle and cable networks with airtime to fill have given people like O'Reilly and Olbermann a lot more influence than the vitriolic commentators of the past ever had.
George Will is an example of a Conservative commentator that I have a lot of respect for. He is capable of making an intellectual argument for his position without going out of his way to attack and/or demonize those that disagree with him. I rarely agree with him but I always read his columns when I come across them. We need more people like him on both sides of the partisan debate, IMHO.
The disagreements may be so fundamental that there can be no rational resolution. If that is the case, then there is no way for any side to win except by domination.
The disagreements are that fundamental on MANY issues. Guns, abortion, taxes, the proper role of Government, trade policy, worker vs. corporate rights, etc, etc, etc.
The point that Senator Obama made back in the day is that we are probably going to have to table at least some of those issues if we are going to solve major problems that have been neglected for the last few decades. Issues such as our dependence on foreign oil, climate change, the trade deficit, our failing educational system and the rise of China and India. To solve those issues we are going to need people on both sides of the aisle willing to engage in an honest debate about them and willing to compromise. We can't keep fighting with each other while China and India are laying long term plans to compete in the global economy and undermine our position in the World.
then there is no way for any side to win except by domination
I really hope that isn't the case, because if it is I fear for the long term viability of our Republic.
If everyone who is unhappy with Bush voted democrat(not just refused to vote) and you end up with an overwhelming democratic victory, that sends a very powerful message, namely cross that line and we don't tolerate. Something BOTH parties would remember for a long time.
I don't have a problem with that. What I meant by 'punishing' the Republicans was the community on Dailykos that seems to advocate running the Government in the manner of Tom DeLay or Karl Rove. Demonizing your opponents instead of engaging in a principled debate with them. Calling them "cut and runners" (right-wing attack line used on anyone that advocates changes in our Iraq policy) or "racists" (left-wing attack line used on anyone that disagrees with affirmative action).
Loyalty to a party for the sake of loyalty hurts everybody.
I agree. Now go to Dailykos and suggest voting for a moderate Republican and see what kind of responses you get. Hell, someone wrote a diary the other day about this guy, a Republican running for Senate in Montana. He's in favor of socialized medicine, in favor of withdrawing from Iraq and in favor of replacing our existing system of Government with a Parliamentary system. All laudable progressive goals. Do you think the Dailykos group think allowed a discussion about him or saw past the 'R' next to his name?
Yeah, I don't guess that you tried watching for very long if you're seriously considering him similar to O'Reilly - the two guys are practically mortal enemies that openly mock and belittle [wikipedia.org] each other on national TV and elsewhere. I guess i'm infected with liberal bias, because I've never seen him as a version of O'Reilly, left-wing or otherwise.
I don't think of Olbermann as a complete clone of O'Reilly -- Olbermann seems like a perfectly normal human being that you could probably hold a conversation with if you stayed away from politics -- whereas O'Reilly comes off as a complete asshole ("FUCK IT! We'll do it live! FUCKING THING SUCKS!").
What bothers me about Olbermann is how he always has to interject his own opinions into interviews. He can't just ask questions and get a response. He always seems to manage to end the interview with some remark that is usually a thinly veiled attack on the Republican position for the issue at hand while never giving his guest a chance to respond. I suppose it's ok if you realize that he is a commentator and not a newsman -- but I'm afraid that far too many people fail to see the difference and obtain all their news from him or O'Reilly. Why challenge yourself to listen to an opposing point of view when you can just obtain all of your news from someone who completely agrees with you and wants to push the same agenda?
Don't get me wrong -- I find him much more watchable than O'Reilly and I do find myself laughing with him from time to time. In general he seems to have more class than O'Reilly does -- I'd have a hard time seeing Keith send one of his producers out to ambush someone like O'Reilly recently did.
I'm just concerned that we are dumbing down our political discourse to a left wing vs. right wing shouting match of manufactured anger and offense. I watched Keith for about four weeks before I realized that I was watching him at the expense of seeing less biased coverage -- now I'm primarily watching the Newshour on PBS, BBC America as well as reading the various online news sites. It's pretty sad when the BBC can present a more balanced look at American politics than most mainstream American news networks.
I'm not saying it's right, but expecting a lot of them (myself included) not to feel more than a little bitter and vengeful after the events and treatment of the last 7 years is rather unrealistic.
Dude, I feel bitter and angry too. I just don't want to see us adopt the Republican method of Governing -- blackmailing our own members to vote the party line against their own constituents, demonizing the opposition and locking yourself into a bubble and ignoring all outside influence. We can govern better than that. Indeed, I feel that we have to, because we won't solve major issues like climate change by trying to ram them through Congress with the 50%+1 mentality of Tom DeLay or Karl Rove.
If I was McCain, I wouldn't worry, Obama may have his "blogs", but McCain has an ENTIRE NETWORK! http://www.foxnews.com/ [foxnews.com]
So does Obama. It's called MSNBC and it's downright painful to watch it at times. And I'm a fucking Democrat saying that! I had hoped that we wouldn't go down the road of Bill O'Reilly but it seems that my hope was misplaced.
Experience - Obama's lack of experience is a PLUS. Look at what experience has gotten us the past 7 years. We need someone who KNOWS they can't do it on their own. The president's job is to listen to his advisers and those around him, and based on the information given make a decision...his job is NOT to decide things for himself because he thinks he knows best.
Thank you. This whole experience argument has always seemed like FUD to me. GWB had "Executive Experience" -- how well did he work out again? Lincoln went from a single house term, to private practice to being one of the top three Presidents ever (according to most historical rankings).
I'd rather have a President that is willing to listen to all points of view (including the opposition) and make an informed decision then someone with "experience" who surrounds himself with yes men and lives in such a bubble that he didn't even realize that gasoline was approaching $4/gal.
'Moderation' to me means a willingness to at least listen to other ideas with an open mind. This is not exemplified by Dailykos.
'Moderation' to me means disagreeing with your opponents without being disagreeable. This is not an example of treating your opponent respectfully and trying to encourage a meaningful dialog.
They're mainstream American liberal, which is what the rest of the world calls moderate since the American conservative party is so far right of center.
No, I'm sorry, they aren't 'mainstream American liberal'. They are far-left on the American political spectrum. There's nothing inherently wrong with that and they are certainly entitled to air their opinions -- but I wouldn't call them mainstream.
DKos has been none too kind to Hillary supporters, and the general tone there towards them is one of incredible condescension at best, and mouth-frothing vitriol at worst
They do that to everyone who disagrees with them. IMHO they act more or less like a left-wing Bill O'Reilly.
I think it's a smart move: get moderate Hillary supporters to believe that McCain wants their vote more than Obama does. You saw shades of this in the praise McCain heaped on Hillary in the weeks running up to her exit. It could also be enough to give him the election in November.
I don't think McCain is going to get as many Hillary supporters as you might think. He'll get some of the die-hards but most of her female supporters are eventually going to remember that McCain is staunchly pro-life and will come back to the Democratic Party. He'll get a lot of the working class supporters in places like WV or KT -- but the Democrats were never going to get those votes anyway -- we lost them in the 80s and haven't gotten them back since.
People have short memories.... remember all the McCain voters that swore they wouldn't vote for GWB in 2000? The overwhelming majority of them eventually did. I suspect it will be the same with HRC supporters.
Every single negative stereotype you can think of about Democrats/liberals is exemplified by some of the comments on that site. Pulling out words like "racist" or "homophobe" in the middle of a conversation because someone has a principled disagreement with you. I asked once upon a time why that was any better than Republicans who pull out words like "cut and run" if you disagree with them -- needless to say that didn't win me many friends and I got about 30 replies explaining why it was "different" when Democrats do it as opposed to Republicans.
I consider myself a staunch Democrat and a liberal/progressive in most areas and that site still seems to extreme even for me. Half of the people that contribute there seem more interested in punishing the Republicans for the last seven years then they do in moving forward. They all seem to be extremely pro-Obama yet none of them pay anymore than lip service to the part of his message about disagreeing without being disagreeable and ending the partisan rancor in Washington.
I'm particularly concerned with the O'Reillyization of our political discourse. The manufactured anger. The one-sided reporting. Automatically assuming the absolute worst intentions of your opponents instead of assuming that they just have a principled disagreement with you. I flirted with Dailykos for about two weeks before my head started to hurt and I couldn't take it any longer. Ditto for Keith Olbermann. Tried watching him -- eventually came to the conclusion that he is little better than a left-wing version of Bill O'Reilly.
I would love to see a site where people on the left, right and center could come together to discuss the issues in a calm and principled manner. Hell for that matter, I'd love to see some real journalism that didn't slant to one side or the other. Closest thing I can come up with is the Newshour on PBS.
Slashdot Mirror
States rights are a compelling argument for me. I'm one of the few Democrats you'll ever meet that defends the electoral college and advocates in favor of scrapping the 17th amendment.
That said though I don't see what else Lincoln could have done. The South seceded when Lincoln won the election. They seceded because of what they thought he would do -- not what he actually did (he wasn't even in office yet when South Carolina broke away). They basically pulled the political equivalent of Eric Cartman saying "Screw you guys, I'm going home." In so doing they destroyed any remaining chance of hashing out a compromise within the framework of our Government.
In spite of all of that the war didn't actually begin until they fired on Union troops occupying Union property. They could have decided to keep negotiating over the issue of Federal property/forts on Southern soil but opted instead to settle the dispute on the fields of honor and glory. I don't fault them for that decision -- but they lost fair and square and the rest is history as the saying goes.
I would consider voting for anyone that advocated nuclear as a solution to our energy woes. It's damn near carbon neutral, it's technology that we already have and it's something that we used to be a global leader at (we invented the damn technology) before we stopped developing it and ceded the intuitive to India, France, China and Canada.
By and large (and I say this as a hard-core Republican, and I think I'm pretty representative), the core right constituency doesn't take issue with GW legislation, and even those who actively disbelieve GW put arguing the issue pretty far down the listI think the Republican party actually has two "core right" constituencies -- the religious right and the fiscal/small government conservatives. May I ask which one you think of as home?
I think it's something the average Republican is willing to give ground onThe average Republican maybe. But most of your elected officials seem openly hostile to the idea of even acknowledging that GW exists let alone doing anything about it. There are some honorable exceptions. One of my favorite pols of all time was Sherwood Boehlert, my old Congressman and a Republican. I disagreed with him on a lot (voted to impeach Clinton and for the GWB tax cuts) but I had a great amount of respect for him and the work that he did on environmental and scientific/technological issues. He wasn't one to let his ideology override reality and I was pretty sad to hear him announce his retirement even though I no longer lived in his district.
Absolutely no one I know is going to sit out the election because McCain disagrees with the base on GW.No, but McCain still has a problem. A lot of the true Conservatives that I know are furious with the Republican party for abandoning the principles of small Government. Bob Barr presents a viable alternative for them. In a strange way he also manages to be a viable alternative for some of the neo-cons who distrust McCain -- they remember and respect Barr for leading the impeachment effort against Clinton.
I don't think as many Republicans will vote for him as the media thinks -- but if a few states come down to thin margins he could wind up making all the difference in the World. Obama isn't dealing with anything like this (yet) -- Nader just isn't that exciting anymore and most of the far-left seems to be happy with Obama. I think they are in for a rude surprise because I don't think Obama is as leftist as they think -- but I'm not going to argue with it as long as they are voting for my guy ;)
"It's probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in." -Lyndon Johnson referring to J Edgar Hoover
(another argument in favor of filling your cabinet with your opponents)
Cheney scares the hell out of me and there is no way in hell that he should have been allowed to set energy policy. He should have been the voice at the table that I described but having decision making power? No way in hell.
I just wanted to make that point because I've seen far too many people that are completely opposed to even consulting with industry while we make policy. They don't seem to understand the difference between mandating something as policy and actually implementing it in the real world.
More to the point, we also need oil for other purposes besides an energy source. The plastics and fertilizer industries come to mind. Pissing away the last remaining reserves of crude oil in the United States for the sake of burning it in our cars seems like a huge waste to me.
To a certain point I actually think that's ok. You want people who are involved in industry to have a voice at the policy table because it's far too easy for politicians to hand down mandates while having no idea of how hard they will be to actually implement or how much they will cost. Any Geek should be able to appreciate this -- how many times has the PHB handed down an assignment while completely underestimating (or outright ignoring) how much money it will cost or how hard it will be to accomplish?
GWB's administration crossed the line when it gave the industry folks the ONLY voice at the table. This is actually one of the things that I don't think Obama gets enough credit for. He wants the health insurance industry and energy industry to have a seat at the table when policy is being decided -- he just doesn't want them to be able to buy every chair (to use his words). He isn't some kneejerk liberal that's opposed to business and making money -- he's opposed to businesses buying our Government and ramming their agenda down our throats at the expense of the greater good.
And your whole economy isn't dependent upon cheap transportation either, so that comparison is flawed without looking at the whole picture.
Pull out a map of the United States with population density. Now pull out of a map of your typical EU country with population density. Starting to see the problem?
No, but it would be worthwhile if that money was pumped into alternative energy research with the eventual objective of weaning us away from oil and/or gasoline. If that money is pumped into the general fund and used to finance bridges to nowhere then we have a big problem.
One of the more interesting ideas I've heard was allowing drilling in ANWR but requiring the oil companies that win leases there to invest some portion of the profits into alternative energy research. I'm not sure how you'd set that up so the system couldn't be rigged but on balance the idea appeals to me and there might be a way to make it happen in a bi-partisan fashion. Of course I doubt the Democrats (BANANA) or Republicans (don't interfere with the free market dude!) would ever go along with it, but I can dream can't I?
I don't think it will be nearly that easy. Did you see the recent flap he had with the base over his position on climate change? I think he could pull it off if the base trusted him (somehow GWB got away with claiming to be a moderate) but the base doesn't trust him and will ream him for any centrist/leftist moves. They also have an acceptable third party guy in Bob Barr, so McCain is really going to have to watch his flank.
Reagan pulled off something akin to this in '80Yeah, but Reagan had the advantage of a deeply unpopular President who appeared weak on the global stage and got all of the blame (right or wrong) for the failing economy and our weak position in the World. If anything, Obama is in a position to pull off what Reagan did as he has all of the same advantages -- a deeply unpopular President, a failing economy that people are blaming (right or wrong) on the GOP and the perception (correct or otherwise) that Obama hasn't (yet) been tainted by Washington.
so I don't think democrats should dismiss the possibility to easily.Oh I'd agree. Anyone on either side of the aisle that thinks their candidate is going to have a cakewalk this November is in for a rude surprise. This is going to be a hard fought contest all the way till the end and whomever underestimates the other side is likely to wake up Wednesday morning and find themselves on the losing side.
No, I don't have an issue with $4/gal gas because I think that in the long run it will be a good thing for us. We aren't going to break away from our dependence on foreign oil if gasoline remains cheap. It's going to be an extremely painful adjustment for the American people and economy but it will ultimately spur innovation and make us more independent and secure.
I only brought up $4/gal gasoline as an example of the bubble that GWB resides in. His response when asked about gasoline approaching $4/gal was something like "I hadn't heard that. Where'd you hear that?"
s the group that is not allowing us to tap into the potential 400 billion, yes billion, barrels in North Dakota and Montana. That is almost double the amount is Saudi Arabia, yet we can't use itWell, first off, do you have a citation for that much oil existing in CONUS? Second, even if it did why the hell should we use that now? Save it for when oil is $200 or $300 a barrel and Saudi Arabia is running dry.
Obama is the most left voting member of the SenateIsn't it just amazing how the Republicans always manage to label whomever we run as the most liberal person ever? It's almost as if they are afraid of an honest debate on the issues and feel the need to use the 'L' word to scare people. I bet if we nominated someone like Zell Miller or Joe Libermann they would manage to find some study that showed how they were the most liberal person in the Senate too.
but we don't have to be sending that money to countries that hate usActually, Europe sends more money to people that hate us than we do. Our top five oil sources are (in order) Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Nigeria and Venezuela. I only count one country in that list filled with people who hate us. Venezuela is run by a nutjob but I don't think the population hates us -- they aren't flying airplanes into our buildings.
I don't think they are single issue voters. I just think abortion is probably the most effective issue to reach them on. There are many others though -- practically every position that HRC championed is completely opposed by John McCain. Her signature issue was health care -- how well does McCain's plan (or lack thereof) stack up against hers or Obamas? How does McCain feel about taking another look at NAFTA as Hillary wanted to? What about lifting the ban on Federal-funding for stem cell research? How about a moratorium on foreclosures? How about gay rights?
November is a long way away. I just don't see McCain keeping that many of her Democratic supporters. He'll get some of them -- especially the Reagan Democrats that likely would have voted for him anyway even with her on the ticket -- but I think this idea that there is going to be a massive backlash of HRC supporters against Obama ignores political history.
You'll brook no argument from me here. We do need to grow a spine.
I just think we can be strong and respectful at the same time. Obama seems to be particularly good at this -- my favorite quote from his speech after clinching the nomination was "I honor John McCain for his accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine." That was the perfect attack line, IMHO. Obama stood him for himself and drew a contrast between him and McCain without resorting to loaded words like "cut and run".
I don't think it came about with O'Reilly. Our history is filled with examples of people like him. I think that the 24 hour news cycle and cable networks with airtime to fill have given people like O'Reilly and Olbermann a lot more influence than the vitriolic commentators of the past ever had.
George Will is an example of a Conservative commentator that I have a lot of respect for. He is capable of making an intellectual argument for his position without going out of his way to attack and/or demonize those that disagree with him. I rarely agree with him but I always read his columns when I come across them. We need more people like him on both sides of the partisan debate, IMHO.
The disagreements may be so fundamental that there can be no rational resolution. If that is the case, then there is no way for any side to win except by domination.The disagreements are that fundamental on MANY issues. Guns, abortion, taxes, the proper role of Government, trade policy, worker vs. corporate rights, etc, etc, etc.
The point that Senator Obama made back in the day is that we are probably going to have to table at least some of those issues if we are going to solve major problems that have been neglected for the last few decades. Issues such as our dependence on foreign oil, climate change, the trade deficit, our failing educational system and the rise of China and India. To solve those issues we are going to need people on both sides of the aisle willing to engage in an honest debate about them and willing to compromise. We can't keep fighting with each other while China and India are laying long term plans to compete in the global economy and undermine our position in the World.
then there is no way for any side to win except by dominationI really hope that isn't the case, because if it is I fear for the long term viability of our Republic.
I don't have a problem with that. What I meant by 'punishing' the Republicans was the community on Dailykos that seems to advocate running the Government in the manner of Tom DeLay or Karl Rove. Demonizing your opponents instead of engaging in a principled debate with them. Calling them "cut and runners" (right-wing attack line used on anyone that advocates changes in our Iraq policy) or "racists" (left-wing attack line used on anyone that disagrees with affirmative action).
Loyalty to a party for the sake of loyalty hurts everybody.I agree. Now go to Dailykos and suggest voting for a moderate Republican and see what kind of responses you get. Hell, someone wrote a diary the other day about this guy, a Republican running for Senate in Montana. He's in favor of socialized medicine, in favor of withdrawing from Iraq and in favor of replacing our existing system of Government with a Parliamentary system. All laudable progressive goals. Do you think the Dailykos group think allowed a discussion about him or saw past the 'R' next to his name?
I don't think of Olbermann as a complete clone of O'Reilly -- Olbermann seems like a perfectly normal human being that you could probably hold a conversation with if you stayed away from politics -- whereas O'Reilly comes off as a complete asshole ("FUCK IT! We'll do it live! FUCKING THING SUCKS!").
What bothers me about Olbermann is how he always has to interject his own opinions into interviews. He can't just ask questions and get a response. He always seems to manage to end the interview with some remark that is usually a thinly veiled attack on the Republican position for the issue at hand while never giving his guest a chance to respond. I suppose it's ok if you realize that he is a commentator and not a newsman -- but I'm afraid that far too many people fail to see the difference and obtain all their news from him or O'Reilly. Why challenge yourself to listen to an opposing point of view when you can just obtain all of your news from someone who completely agrees with you and wants to push the same agenda?
Don't get me wrong -- I find him much more watchable than O'Reilly and I do find myself laughing with him from time to time. In general he seems to have more class than O'Reilly does -- I'd have a hard time seeing Keith send one of his producers out to ambush someone like O'Reilly recently did.
I'm just concerned that we are dumbing down our political discourse to a left wing vs. right wing shouting match of manufactured anger and offense. I watched Keith for about four weeks before I realized that I was watching him at the expense of seeing less biased coverage -- now I'm primarily watching the Newshour on PBS, BBC America as well as reading the various online news sites. It's pretty sad when the BBC can present a more balanced look at American politics than most mainstream American news networks.
I'm not saying it's right, but expecting a lot of them (myself included) not to feel more than a little bitter and vengeful after the events and treatment of the last 7 years is rather unrealistic.Dude, I feel bitter and angry too. I just don't want to see us adopt the Republican method of Governing -- blackmailing our own members to vote the party line against their own constituents, demonizing the opposition and locking yourself into a bubble and ignoring all outside influence. We can govern better than that. Indeed, I feel that we have to, because we won't solve major issues like climate change by trying to ram them through Congress with the 50%+1 mentality of Tom DeLay or Karl Rove.
So does Obama. It's called MSNBC and it's downright painful to watch it at times. And I'm a fucking Democrat saying that! I had hoped that we wouldn't go down the road of Bill O'Reilly but it seems that my hope was misplaced.
Please list the 'score' of black bigots that Senator Obama has surrounded himself with.
And? So we should torture to?
Thank you. This whole experience argument has always seemed like FUD to me. GWB had "Executive Experience" -- how well did he work out again? Lincoln went from a single house term, to private practice to being one of the top three Presidents ever (according to most historical rankings).
I'd rather have a President that is willing to listen to all points of view (including the opposition) and make an informed decision then someone with "experience" who surrounds himself with yes men and lives in such a bubble that he didn't even realize that gasoline was approaching $4/gal.
'Moderation' to me means a willingness to at least listen to other ideas with an open mind. This is not exemplified by Dailykos.
'Moderation' to me means disagreeing with your opponents without being disagreeable. This is not an example of treating your opponent respectfully and trying to encourage a meaningful dialog.
They're mainstream American liberal, which is what the rest of the world calls moderate since the American conservative party is so far right of center.No, I'm sorry, they aren't 'mainstream American liberal'. They are far-left on the American political spectrum. There's nothing inherently wrong with that and they are certainly entitled to air their opinions -- but I wouldn't call them mainstream.
They do that to everyone who disagrees with them. IMHO they act more or less like a left-wing Bill O'Reilly.
I think it's a smart move: get moderate Hillary supporters to believe that McCain wants their vote more than Obama does. You saw shades of this in the praise McCain heaped on Hillary in the weeks running up to her exit. It could also be enough to give him the election in November.I don't think McCain is going to get as many Hillary supporters as you might think. He'll get some of the die-hards but most of her female supporters are eventually going to remember that McCain is staunchly pro-life and will come back to the Democratic Party. He'll get a lot of the working class supporters in places like WV or KT -- but the Democrats were never going to get those votes anyway -- we lost them in the 80s and haven't gotten them back since.
People have short memories.... remember all the McCain voters that swore they wouldn't vote for GWB in 2000? The overwhelming majority of them eventually did. I suspect it will be the same with HRC supporters.
Every single negative stereotype you can think of about Democrats/liberals is exemplified by some of the comments on that site. Pulling out words like "racist" or "homophobe" in the middle of a conversation because someone has a principled disagreement with you. I asked once upon a time why that was any better than Republicans who pull out words like "cut and run" if you disagree with them -- needless to say that didn't win me many friends and I got about 30 replies explaining why it was "different" when Democrats do it as opposed to Republicans.
I consider myself a staunch Democrat and a liberal/progressive in most areas and that site still seems to extreme even for me. Half of the people that contribute there seem more interested in punishing the Republicans for the last seven years then they do in moving forward. They all seem to be extremely pro-Obama yet none of them pay anymore than lip service to the part of his message about disagreeing without being disagreeable and ending the partisan rancor in Washington.
I'm particularly concerned with the O'Reillyization of our political discourse. The manufactured anger. The one-sided reporting. Automatically assuming the absolute worst intentions of your opponents instead of assuming that they just have a principled disagreement with you. I flirted with Dailykos for about two weeks before my head started to hurt and I couldn't take it any longer. Ditto for Keith Olbermann. Tried watching him -- eventually came to the conclusion that he is little better than a left-wing version of Bill O'Reilly.
I would love to see a site where people on the left, right and center could come together to discuss the issues in a calm and principled manner. Hell for that matter, I'd love to see some real journalism that didn't slant to one side or the other. Closest thing I can come up with is the Newshour on PBS.
People make a big deal of it because they know that the other side will make a big deal of it when their candidate misspeaks.
It sucks that politics has to be played like that but I suppose that's the nature of the beast.
Well there you go. A difference between the two parties that everyone around here seems to think are exactly the same.
Did I say he was?