It has been 24 hours and I have received no responses to this offer. Which, if I say so myself, is quite generous. In effect, I am offering to post a free advertisement here for any of the three leading Democratic candidates for president.
It can't be that first condition that's holding them back, can it?
(Incidentally, if any of the area's leftist web sites make a similar offer, please let me know. I would jump at a chance to list the accomplishments of several of the Republican candidates.)
Posted by Jim Miller at December 13, 2007 07:14 AM | Email ThisOf course, I can find this inconsistency in all the major candidates (please Bruce G/Travis, I know Ron Paul has stuck to his guns all along).
As we have seen through history, however, most Presidents, especially if their is a split between the administration and congress, move towards the center in order to get things done.
Posted by: tc on December 13, 2007 07:35 AMGood offer! Keep up the good work. Goldy and his five regular posters over at horsesass don't have the balls it requires to post themselves or take you up on your offer.
Posted by: Mark1 on December 13, 2007 07:40 AMi notice not a lot of talk about w's accomplishments amongst the r candidates. why could that be? (rhetorical question).
Posted by: dinesh on December 13, 2007 08:19 AMJim requested summary postings lauding the accomplishments of Democrat candidates. The president was not the issue.
There are plenty of moonbat leftist trolls who read SP and post here regularly, as well as a few self-proclaimed "independents" and "moderates". Most, in the free market of ideas, should revel at the chance to highlight Democrat Party candidates. Why not? Afraid of constructive criticism outside your usual echo chambers? Afraid your candidates' "accomplishments", "principles" and "ideals" won't hold water?
Posted by: Saltherring on December 13, 2007 09:09 AMWhy would you post something like that on here?
2. I am an independent and I am researching most candidates, but I think the best way to get a response is simply to e-mail the respective campaigns. Most people I know aren't working for a particular campaign, but are just watching, reading, and listening.
Posted by: WVH on December 13, 2007 09:55 AMLike Wilda, I've also found that going directly to campaigns is a good way of getting information. Most campaigns assume that undecided/independent voters contacting them are not idiots who simply want to hear about the [audacity/strength/power] of [hope/leadership/compassion]. And for those candidates who do assume that, well, their loss of my potential vote.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on December 13, 2007 10:08 AMJim, I understand you're trying to get Democrats to think clearly about their candidates and I applaud this. Still, I have to play devil's advocate a bit.
I think your constraints are overly rigid - the lives, demeanor, and accomplishments outside elected office of candidates are entirely relevant to the office of the President.
The Great Communicator is the obvious example in recent history. What were his primary accomplishments as governor of California? Legalizing abortion and deploying the national guard to take on a bunch of hippies in Berkeley. Not much of a record to stand on, but I don't think many people would disagree that the man looked good, talked pretty, had an interesting life, and oh yes, he did a mostly bang-up job as president (that Iran-Contra business notwithstanding.)
Compare to GWB, who accomplished quite a lot as governor of Texas (passed tort reform, criminal-justice reform, and meaningful educational reform) but who hasn't in all honestly done a hot job as President, IMO. (Others may disagree on this point, but I don't know many who would say he's been a better president than Reagan.)
I'm not really interested in the accomplishments of the candidates in prior elected office as the be-all and end-all of choosing a candidate. Maybe the Democratic faction agrees?
Posted by: hang on a sec on December 13, 2007 10:48 AMSP attracts maybe 15,000 - 20,000 readers that are well set in their ways in a continually trending blue state that went for Kerry, Gore and Clinton twice.
How is this generous again?
Why don't you write a compelling essay on which candidates in the GOP field resembles change instead of usual old tired wedge issues, fear mongering and the status quo? Now, there's a challenge...
Thanks for the link... Looking at what Senator Obama has accomplished in the 110th Congress, we see that exactly TWO bills that he sponsored or co-sponsored made it to the desk of the President:
1. S-5: A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research; VETOED
2. S.1352 : A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 127 East Locust Street in Fairbury, Illinois, as the "Dr. Francis Townsend Post Office Building"; signed into law.
So in the 110th Congress Senator Obama has succeeded in getting the name of a building changed. That's quite a record there!
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on December 13, 2007 11:09 AMHe had none his first year...5 the second year...the only one he actually sponsored renamed a courthouse in Tennessee. Seems like Fred was doing some heavy lifting in Congress as well.
Thank-you for a classic demonstration of ignoratio elenchi.
By attempting to change the subject, you are conceding the point, which is that the Dem candidates have no accomplishments worthy of mention.
Posted by: ewaggin on December 13, 2007 11:59 AMIf your talking about lack of accomplishments in the Senate it only seems fair to compare Thompson's record as a Senator to Obama's record as a Senator.
Not my fault that you can't handle the truth about the sheer lack of accomplishments put forth by the "new Reagan".
Well, if you want to play the game of "hey, ignore the failings you pointed out about my candidate, look at THIS GUY!", well we shall...
Take a look at the 107th Congress, Fred's last: SJ Res 6, SJ Res 22, S1202 (and for 1202, note that only Fred and Joe Lieberman - no other Senators - sponsored the bill which ultimately became law).
In the 106th, there's 9 bills, exactly one is the fluff of "name a building for person X", except in this case it was naming a building for Senator Moynihan.
In the 105th Congress, there's 5 bills - none are fluff - and all became law.
In the 104th Congress, there's 5 bills, one was a "name a building" fluff bill. All became law.
I think Fred's got a bit more Gravitas than Barak... Not to mention an actual TRACK RECORD of working in a bipartisan manner. You sure you want to go down this path?
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on December 13, 2007 12:31 PMKeep up the good face for Billary, but if you notice her numbers are dropping and look how she attacking Obama.
Then she turns around and says sorry.
Not looking good buddy, not at all!
LOL
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on December 13, 2007 12:35 PM(-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on December 13, 2007 12:39 PMTwo commenters have said that the original post had no contact information. I am embarrassed to mention this, but there are two links on this site that will give you the answer immediately. I had not thought -- and still have trouble believing -- that my Democratic friends would not be able to find those links without my help. (And I am a little hurt to learn that they do not visit my site regularly.)
As for evaluations of Bush, I did one when he was running for president in 2000. (The comparison to Gore was written before I had my web site, which is why it looks different.) If Bush runs again, I'll do another.
And I am doing my own evaluations of the presidential candidates, giving them what I call Vilsack ratings. (I've gotten behind on that, but hope to catch up after Christmas.) I asked for supporters to provide their own descriptions of what the top three Democratic candidates had accomplished in part to get a view from the other side, in case I missed something.
Finally, for the record, I have already emailed one prominent Obama supporter asking him to take the challenge, and I plan to email others who support Obama, Clinton, and Edwards. I tend to avoid R-rated sites, but if Goldstein were to point out my challenge, I would be happy to link to his post. (Or, if he were to accept my challenge and write a post at his own site, I would be happy to link to that, too.)
Posted by: Jim Miller on December 13, 2007 01:01 PMMeanwhile Hillary in the 109th has co-sponsored 2 fluff bills, 2 real bills of which 1 was vetoed & 1 became law. While in 108th she has 20 bills, 8 of them are fluff, and all became law.
Wow, looks like Clinton and Obama both have done a whole lot more than Thompson did during his time in office. Considering 110th Congress only started on Jan 3rd, 2007 and goes till Jan 3rd, 2009 it stands to reason that they have plenty of time to put forth more bills for the President to sign.
That's fine Joe, we don't want you anyway!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on December 13, 2007 01:29 PMAh, I see that "your" (did you mean you're?) attempting to change the subject again.
So, thank-you for conceding the point...again.
Posted by: ewaggin on December 13, 2007 09:19 PMHomer called; he said that if you're done looking at the world through a drunk's eyes, he wants his BeerGoggles back.
Posted by: ewaggin on December 13, 2007 09:22 PMI find they're not even known for "big talk". What they seem to be best at is attacking the current administration (in between attacking each other, that is).
While I don't agree with everything that Bush and company have done, I feel they've done a good job in some very difficult times. The dem contenders can, and do, choose to latch on to some perceived shortcomings. They attack, demean, accuse and complain. They almost never offer up any substantial suggestion as to how they would do things any better. I find it very frustrating to listen to them, as anyone who is paying attention is going to naturally expect some idea of a plan.
If they replaced all the attacks and negativity with even a few original, bold, creative or really ANY ideas of their own they might see their precious poll numbers increase. On that front, the Republican candidates at least seem willing to address the issues and have some constructive discussion.