In December, I made this offer to supporters of the three leading Democratic candidates.
If you are a local supporter of any of the three leading Democratic candidates, Clinton, Edwards, or Obama, I'll give you a chance to put up your argument here. There are three conditions: First, your argument should be limited to what they have accomplished, especially as elected officials. I do not care whether they look good in a swimming suit (or bad in a pants suit), or whether they have had interesting lives, or whether they can talk really pretty. I want to know what, if anything, they have done. Second, each entry should be no more than a thousand words long. Third, you should email it to me no later than the end of the year, so that I can post it before the Iowa caucus on January 3rd.
In effect, I offered supporters of the three candidates a chance to put up a free ad for their candidate at one of the most widely read political blogs in the Northwest.
There were no takers.
Let me repeat. There were no takers. Not a single supporter of any of the three leading Democratic candidates was willing to tell us what their candidate had accomplished.
To fully appreciate this, imagine your reaction if you received a résumé with a blank space after "Accomplishments". Would you be inclined to give that applicant a job that requires great experience? I wouldn't.
This is even stranger considering that the three candidates belong to the more activist party, the party that wants the government to do something about almost everything. And that the three candidates are promising to do all kinds of things — even though none of them has accomplished much as an elected official. However, Democratic voters mostly seem satisfied with their top three choices. I guess some people are just easy to please.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(Is it even possible to write a decent statement of accomplishments for Clinton, Edwards, and Obama? I could write honest, but weak, statements for Clinton and Obama, though writing one for Clinton would be tricky. I could write deceptive, but somewhat stronger, statements, for those two. But for Edwards? I can't even imagine how to write a statement about his accomplishments as an elected official. But he is still one of the three leading Democratic candidates.
Incidentally, I think the three have protected each other on the issue of accomplishments. Since all three are weak, none of the three wants to call attention to the weakness of the other two. Some of the minor Democratic candidates have discussed this, but our frivolous "mainstream" reporters have not given them much coverage.)
Posted by Jim Miller at January 03, 2008 04:49 AM | Email ThisYour point is well-taken Jim. The Democrats will pick their candidate based upon emotion and not substance. I find myself agreeing with the Democrat position on almost every issue from an emotional standpoint. I differ though in the implementation and the realization ivory towers only exist in the game- Dungeons and Dragons- and in fantasy books.
Posted by: swatter on January 3, 2008 06:54 AMa. The democrat's state office
b. Specific campaigns
c. Green Party headquarters
d. Libertarian Party headquarters, although I know that many of the extreme rightwingers who post here are libertarians.
Debate is good and it is great to get people on the record.
2. Just curious, why doesn't Duffman have electricity and a computer?
Posted by: WVH on January 3, 2008 07:27 AMI can't speak for anyone else, but I was concerned about the qualifications, or lack thereof, of our current President's past opponents. Hey, you got someone worth voting for, you let me know.
Posted by: NW Denizen on January 3, 2008 07:57 AMthe handful of regular posters here would never consider voting for a democrat. remember, in the guise of being a conservative, many people here supported bush, who 1) has failed upward at everything he has ever done; 2) is likely to be considered a war criminal for his support of illegal torture techniques; 3) led a republican party that added $32 trillion to the national debt(not a fiscal conservative); 4) mired the country in an unnecessary war.
so, really, why should any democrat take you up on your offer? b/c you asked nicely? please.
some would argue this site is an echo chamber.
Posted by: dinesh on January 3, 2008 07:59 AMBut, you already know that. SP is not really the echo chamber that you emotionally attach posters to this blog. My issue is national security and usually national security alone when I make my decisions.
Posted by: swatter on January 3, 2008 08:13 AM1. controversial NG Service
2. worked in 'family's' oil business
3. alcohol affliction - threatened out of it by wife
4. unsuccessful run for US House of Rep
5. co-owner TR baseball team
6. Governor of Texas
7. Elected Pres (electorially); lost popular vote
Gee, do you think any one running might compare?
Posted by: Simon on January 3, 2008 08:18 AMBORN with a silver foot in his mouth!
Posted by: Simon on January 3, 2008 08:30 AMKey Questions:
1. Has the candidate faced a crisis or overcome a major setback in his or her life?
2. Has the candidate had a variety of life experiences?
3. Can the candidate tell the difference between a foreign enemy and a political opponent?
We should all be able to answer these questions about the candidate we are supporting
1. NO military service. Actually a letter on file with him saying he "loathed the military"
2. Only worked in lawyer biz. No comment
3. Widely reported drug addictions and medical records conveniently burned with doctors office.
4. Unsuccessful run for congress in 74
5. cant throw a baseball from the mound to the plate but plays a mean sax
6. Gov of Arkansas (want to compare size of duty)
7. Didn't achieve majority vote in either presidential election.
At least with Bush, he had some accomplishments as Texas Gov. What has Edwards, Obama, or Hillary ever done as elected officials?
Posted by: AP on January 3, 2008 08:41 AMWant to do John Kerry?
1) Traitor to his country.
2) Gigolo.
3) Born with a silver spoon in his mouth.
I'll take Bush any day of the week and twice on Sunday over this guy.
Posted by: NW Denizen on January 3, 2008 08:47 AMEveryone one a senator, which, as history has shown, rarely gets elected president: In a paper published two years ago in Political Science Quarterly, Barry C. Burden, a professor at Harvard University, laid out the long odds: Of the 54 presidential elections since 1789, 15 saw current or former senators win; from 1868 to 1972, 16 percent of senators who sought their party's nomination got it, compared with 48 percent of governors; and from 1960 to 1996, while sitting senators made up more than a third of those running for president, just 11 percent won party nods and 2 percent the general election.
Not one has the faith or confidence in him/herself (except Prissy and I'm not sure it was actually his choice) to give up his/her current job because of firm beliefs in their own electability.
Re your Bush screed: GW never claimed to be more than a C student, yet his test scores and grades outshine both Kerry and Gore, who regularly brag about their "intellect". Graduating with any post secondary degree is an accomplishment; from Harvard Business School is especially impressive.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 3, 2008 08:55 AMI voted for Bush Jr. twice. The first time I saw a Republican who defeated an incumbent governor and after four years he received more percentage than the first time. He was shown to be effective in dealing with the opposition party and he showed an affilation to the Hispanics. Besides that, he governed very conservatively. Period.
Now then, as President, he and we all found out that no one can work with the Democrats. We found that they were unwilling to work with the Republicans to solve major problems, such as Social Security. It seems the Democrats in Texas were a different breed than the Democrats in DC.
Simon, you still haven't answered the question.
Posted by: swatter on January 3, 2008 09:05 AMOh yes... the dems top 3 are their target and favorite special rights pandering focus groups: women, blacks and homosexuals.
For the dems, it's not what they stand for, it's what they stand against; it's not what they have accomplished, it's about their intentions and wish lists, how they feel about things.... kinda like the mindset of 5 yr olds.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 3, 2008 09:07 AMAnd you can be darn sure he won't either.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 3, 2008 09:09 AM1. There were no takers because you never posted you email address.
2. You did not allow commenting on your initial request.
3. This is a Republican oriented website. I bet if you posted on Horses Ass you would get a reply.
Knowing these facts it's quite clear why no one has responded since December.
Well John for our state, not much is going on right now. Sorry it's not a 27/7 game for you. But I don't think SP is boring.
All news has it's ups & downs!
I had the impression that you are a tech person. I found the email address in about three seconds. So how about posting your pick?
Posted by: NW Denizen on January 3, 2008 09:45 AMSo Ragnar you saying that all special rights should go to white male property owners? Or maybe the GOP has their own special right focus groups: Oil companies, Wall Street, and Religious Groups.
Now how is this different Ragnar? Are those groups any more or less important than Women, Blacks, or Homosexuals?
And open myself up for more s**t than I already get, no way.
No. Nobody should get special rights. Why is that so difficult for people like you to understand?
Posted by: jimg on January 3, 2008 10:01 AMOh come on, Cato. That's just an easy cop out. Besides, being on the receiving end of s**t has never bothered you before. Here is your chance to sell your candidate of choice. Go for it. You might even sway me.
Posted by: NW Denizen on January 3, 2008 10:04 AMHow funny that again Cato would miss the point.
But as usual, these groups don't want just rights. NO they want their own SPECIAL rights.
this seems to be largely a group that could not and cannot see the faults in bush, jr., but can bring down every dem without any effort.
have fun with huck, romney or mccain. looks like the reagan re-incarnate thompson is a bust and 9/11 rudy is imploding.
Posted by: dinesh on January 3, 2008 10:08 AMI guess the same can be said about the Clintons.
Hillary is not having a good time of this, is she!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 3, 2008 10:12 AMDid you even read jimm initial request? Can't you even give some good points on your people? For example, does Edwards very successful ambulance chasing profession qualify him to be president? Did his work require any special qualities except to make money when tragedy strikes one party or the other? Edwards was a very, very successful trial attorney; how does that relate to being a president? Forget the other nonsense he does or doesn't do.
Posted by: swatter on January 3, 2008 10:17 AMCan you tell me how that differs from those of religious groups who already have special rights?
Hey Army M/V, everyone wants SPECIAL rights, for corporations they're called tax cuts and subsidies. How about religious groups who already benefit from their own SPECIAL rights.
Let's talk about paid college education for Veterans courtesy of the US Govt, some might consider that a special right.
ROFL!! Of course they are (except of course when it comes to their own district/pet cause).
So Cato don't tell me about special rights bud!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 3, 2008 10:57 AMWell yeah, same in the Military. What's different here? Nothing. Oh yeah, do you expect the 63 year old fat ass fire chief to pass the same physical requirements that a 25 year old trainee does?
"I can't tell my fellow fire fighters or medics so they can put on extra protection!"
Maybe you should develop a hand signal or something, I'm sure there are plenty of subtle ways to get around this law without actually "publicly disclosing" they have AIDS.
I would agree with you on this one, if someone has AIDS, The Plauge, SARS, Bird Flu, etc, the emergency medical personnel should be informed.
Now given that you work with wide swath of random people everyday, how many medical personnel a year actually contract AIDS through their job? Very few if any I'd imagine.
Cato. You know ZIP about the armed services,
so leave that alone.
Fire Chiefs don't fight fire you dummy. They are the head of the fire dept and there to direct incoming rigs and other fire fighters.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 3, 2008 11:21 AMIn case you missed it, it has been reliably reported that Bush won't be running for reelection.
And yet you keep trying to change the subject, which is the accomplishments (if any) of the Dems running for president.
Your refusal/inability to address the subject suggests that, in fact, the Dems have no accomplishments.
Posted by: ewaggin on January 3, 2008 11:23 AMWhen I look at the current laws, it seems to me that religion is actually specifically excluded from doing things that just about every other group is allowed to do. (that "seperation of church and state thing.)
Yes, they are tax exempt, but so is the Sierra Club and they get to participate in politics without everyone getting their panties in a wad. What special rights am I missing here?
Posted by: johnny on January 3, 2008 11:30 AM
1. I want competition in education. I know that that is primarily a local issue, but federal policies do affect state choices. Speed limits and other traffic laws to get fed highway funds, for example.
2. I want to see some plan for making health care available and affordable for most people.
3. I just read that the Taj Mahal will no longer accept American dollars because they consider them worthless. I want a candidate to improve our economic situation.
4. Earmarks, pork, whatever, all candidates no matter their philosophy shovel dollars to their supporters. I want some accountability and responsibility in government spending.
Those are my issues and I don't care whether the individual who addresses them is a republican or democrat, what their religion or color is, I just want some answers.
Posted by: WVH on January 3, 2008 11:33 AMAnother dumb remark by a person who know ZIP.
Cato the college you get from the government is NOT a freebe.
Your sent anywhere in the world at anytime, your pay is dang low for what you do, you live is sub std buildings.
Cato you want to talk about women police who weight all of 140lbs and have to take on guys who can take them in a second. Unless they use their guns. And we know you libs hate cops using guns!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 3, 2008 11:33 AMThank you for proving my point.
"Given a choice of a 140 pound female firefighter carrying my dead weight out of a fire or dangerous situation, or Army/Medic Vet."
If your dead, why would it matter who carries you out? =P
"Fire Chiefs don't fight fire you dummy."
Ok then, how about you? Are you required to pass the same physical requirements as the 23 year old trainee?
You two are truly from the same mold as the Dem presidential candidates.
You (and they) never respond to the subject/question at hand, but always attempt to change the subject by spouting irrelevancies, and never contributing anything of value.
You (and they) are prime examples of one of my grandfather's sayings: "Ten pounds of manure in a five pound sack".
Posted by: ewaggin on January 3, 2008 11:45 AMI did answer the question by proving that the so called 'accomplishment' is a moot point. They (top three Dems) [and Republicans, for that matter] are all accomplished, educated individuals with the better of America in mind, and with the ability to discern whom to surround themselves with.
If you'd like me to be specific, I will point this out. Unlike our current President (who, not 'won't' but can't run again) Obama, Clinton & Edwards are accomplished orators/speakers and can articulate clearly. I believe as a world leader this is an important (if not critical) attribute. Surely you must be embarrassed at the way our current President 'not speaks'. Indeed his legacy may sadly be - one of the most 'UN' articulate of all American presidents.
His only redeeming quality (IMHO) is his ability to somehow find and keep such a gracious wife.
I asked the same question of Goldy yesterday at HA after he came out in support of Edwards.
I knew what I was in for, but it's fun to tweak the libs once in a while.
http://www.horsesass.org/?p=4057#comment-725269
Did I get an answer? Not any more than Jim did here.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 3, 2008 11:53 AMNot bad for a guy in his late 50's.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 3, 2008 11:58 AMNot really, the Sierra Club still has to pay for their offices. Non-Profits can't build their offices and parking lots over wetlands. They also can't put up huge blinking neon crosses on their churches to annoy their neighbors with. NP's can't exempt their employees salaries/housing from taxes (how many TV Preachers live in tax-free mansions). Not "officially" endorsing a candidate is a small price to pay for the SPECIAL rights that churches enjoy.
Are you sure cato is just fooling around. LOL
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 3, 2008 12:04 PMFrankly I am far more impressed by the business acumen of Romney, or even the acting career of Fred than I am of the lawyers-turned-politicians that the Democrats generally field. Edwards has been successful, but I think most understand that Ambulance Chasers and Celebrity lawyers, while they might be successful, really are not respected.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 3, 2008 12:10 PM
Yeah there you go. So when Bill Clinton and so many other Dems kept poping into a church, you and your demms said NOTING and just went OOOOOOOO, such good people. But let Rep do it AND YOU GUYS FREAK OUT.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 3, 2008 12:10 PMI think all of the candidates, regardless of party affiliation, have made a signficant accomplishment just being elected to the position they are in today. Be it Governor, Senator, Representative or CEO, they have all had to show a fairly decent amount of savvy to make it this far.
Personally, I could give a rat's ass how long a list of 'things accomplished' a candidate has. I'm more concerned about the persons' leadership style, overall intelligence and his or her ability to guide us out of the giant mess the current Administration has created.
On the Republican side, I like the leadership style of McCain. On the Democratic side, I like Obama.
Huckabee is another "think from the gut" guy that has very little knowledge of the world he lives in. Hillary and Romney both make my skin crawl. Rudy would be one more step down the road to totalitarianism and Edwards would be another step down the road of even more partisan politics. That's my two cents. :)
Posted by: Splinter on January 3, 2008 12:15 PMFunny, we on the right. Feel the same way about the left and maybe you too!
Jim, I bet that left a mark didn't it.
What a dumb statement by thehim.
The Catch 22 aspect of this is simple: for a simonsez type, it doesn't matter only because the democrat candidates getting all the media have accomplished nothing. All 3 are empty suits, about as qualified to be president as they are to perform brain surgery.
Most of the candidates in the GOP primary have lists of accomplishments as long as your arm. Because of that fact, to the simonsez types, accomplishments are meaningless.
Therefore, we shouldn't vote for the person with the best positions and achievements, because in simonsez's stilted little world, achievement is meaningless... no doubt a product of the affirmative action generation, where what you've actually done pales in comparison to the genetics of your birth.
It is, perhaps, the most cowardly, inept and intellectually bankrupt political position I've ever seen (and I've seen a few) but when you're stuck with the utterly empty-suited candidates the democrats have, there is really little choice BUT to attempt to spin your way out of it, no matter HOW nauseating your effort might be... and simonsez's effort actually is.
Posted by: Hinton on January 3, 2008 12:19 PM
Re: someone (Simon... again) was whining about our little conservative blog here... Once again, Spree does the heavy lifting Thanks babe... you're a great weapon against the moonbats, the sillies and the just plain obstinate.
Edwards was a Senator, Clinton and Obama are current Senators. They are all spouting off about healthcare, insurance, homeless, etc., etc.
What legislation have they introduced, sponsored, or passed in their time in office to alleviate the problems these issues cause? They have the power right now to directly put their ideas into play, why do we need to wait until 2009 for them to put forward this legislation?
No guts to actually fight for their beliefs by writing and pushing legislation when they have the Constitutional power to do so?
Yeah, I'm picking on the Dems, but the same question goes for any sitting legislator - if you believe in it enough to push it if you are elected to higher office, why not push it now?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on January 3, 2008 12:36 PMChurches aren't exempt from environmental laws and I believe they have to conform to signage laws as well. I can't remember the last time I saw a "blinking cross to annoy neighbors" unless the neighorhood was in Las Vegas, Carson City or other venue where blinking lights are common for signage.
A few "megachurches" aside (which are no uglier or imposing that your average manufacturing business) churches in general are usually the most conservative in a neighborhood.
(Or the most beautiful. Hate the cross if you want, but theres' some amazing architecture represented in church building.)
As for the tax-free mansions for pastors, first off the number of mansions lived in by pastors is probably fewer than tax free mansions lived in by King County executives in this state, and I can document a lot of companies that fully or at least partially pay off their CEO's residence. It's not that uncommon as CEO's often use their residence for business as well. Any church large enough to put their pastor in a large hom elikely has an organization that brings in millions a year - why should the "leader" of that business not be fairly compensated?
Since you obviously have contempt for the church you probably don't know this, but a religious leaders residence is often also used for meetings, events, etc. (I wasn't a preachers kid but my parents were missionaries. Privacy wasn't something we enjoyed in my house what with people coming over all the time and all the planning meetings, etc. )
I once worked for a church as a janitor while attending collage and I paid taxes on my wages and contributions were also made to the government for SSI, etc. Church employess are not a tax exempt class.
(Given the amount that 99.9% of employees in a church situation make, they probably end up getting it back at the end of the year just as any other employee in the same economic strata would.)
But that all aside, is your argument that since preachers skate on property taxes, they should have to give up a right to participate in politics that even groups like NAMBLA enjoy?
If that's the case, I guess school teachers and goverment workers should also lose their vote as last time I checked schools and government buildings also didn't pay taxes.
Posted by: Johnny on January 3, 2008 12:45 PM*
*
Barry Hussein O's and WhoriBILLary's resume
*
More... er, LESS WhoriBILLary experience
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 3, 2008 12:46 PM1. Had you ever paid attention here, you would know your error.
2. You betray yourself with "properly schooled"
3. Should I ever be in need of getting "properly schooled" you can be assured it would be from/with someone I respect and whose opinion I value. If I could choose only from the locals here, I would choose WVH or Army Medic.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 3, 2008 12:53 PMSo let me get this straight, you only listen to the people who are as loony as you are? I have great respect for Army M/V, I'd hate for you to lump him in the same category as WHV and yourself. I think Michelle would be a better choice for you than someone like Army M/V who actually uses his brain.
Do yourself a big favor. Sometimes it's just better to say nothing at all.
_____________________
Ragnar.
Thank you.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 3, 2008 01:37 PMI thought you were smarter than that, I guess I was genuinely mistaken. My bad.
1. Please avoid personal attacks.
2. Please stay somewhere close to, if not on, the topic.
And just to give you a little more to think about, I'll add this example: It would be easy to list accomplishments for Bill Richardson. (I'm not saying that I agree with everything he has done, just that he has done things.) But for some reason, he has drawn very little support from Democrats.
And this comment about speaking ability: It is easy to find motivational speakers who are better than any of the candidates in either party. But almost no one thinks their ability qualifies them to be president.
Being a good speaker is a powerful tool for a politician. But I am not sure that it is as important for an executive as being a good listener. That, unfortunately, is much harder to judge in campaigns.
Posted by: Jim Miller on January 3, 2008 02:13 PMActually, you see-only-Darwin, hear-only-Darwin and speak-only-Darwin monkeys are the ones living in a fairy tale when you have faith that life occurred on planet Earth through random chance, and not only survived as a single cell but thrived, somehow finding sustenance and living for vast periods of time before "learning" to multiply
What skin comes off your hide when we believe in that which we do? Perhaps YOU should examine why it bothers you so.
What you don't seem to understand cato, is that we don't particularly care (at least I don't) whether or not you believe in anything.
We do however care that you want to prevent anyone else from believing. We do care that you attempt to cheapen it with what you perceive t be insults because of your own irrational fears. I guess that pretty much destroys the claim of tolerance you like to wave like a cheap trophy.
I don't think you will find many Republicans or Democrats that would disagree that having healthy, educated and economically self-sufficient citizens is good for our security. We all agree on that. The question is, how do we achieve that? Do we rely on the Government to mandate our health plans, education and career paths? Or do we expect each individual to be responsible for themselves and leverage our free-market economy to assist?
The answer is somewhere in the middle I think. We rely on the Government to protect us (police, Army, etc), and to put out fires and to manage a basic infrastructure. When it comes to healthcare, I think it could be argued that our free-market system is responsible for many of the medical miracles we live with today. It could also be argued that a basic level of medical care for everyone is fiscally prudent, in that preventing future medical problems is much less expensive than treating them. It could also be argued that we value a society where we don't have to see people digging through garbage dumps for food, or step over the bodies of dead people in the streets (and both of these do exist in other less fortunate contries).
In other words, there is a lot of room for discussion, but when you really get down to the bottom line, we mostly agree on the goal, it's just a matter of deciding how we get there.
Posted by: Splinter on January 3, 2008 03:02 PMMaybe you should go back to our argument last year. I read what you thought, it was quite clear then you believed in.
Darwin monkeys are the ones living in a fairy tale
So you admit to believing that Man was created by magical fairy dust. Your own words seem to implicate you. Looks like you are guilty as charged.
What skin comes off your hide when we believe in that which we do?
I don't care what you personally believe, in fact I fully support your right to do so. Want to vote based on your faith, no problems with me. I do care when you try to pass your creation myth off as actual science. I also care when you try to get the Govt. to endorse your creation story as the one based in fact. You keep your myths and stories in your home, private schools, and churches and we'll be fine.
We do however care that you want to prevent anyone else from believing.
No, you clearly dislike other people who do not believe what you believe. So much so that you want the state to endorse your myths and fantastic stories above others myths and fantastic stories. I'm of the opinion that religion is a personal thing. I don't believe the Govt. should be in the business of endorsing any religions belief over anyone else's. For that reason I believe the Ten commandments should be kept out of Govt buildings. I am in NO WAY suggesting that the Govt. discourage people from believing your myths and fantastic stories. As long as your not hurting anyone performing exorcisms and stealing money from old ladies your fine.
I guess that pretty much destroys the claim of tolerance
I have plenty of tolerance for you and everyone else. I just politely disagree with you and your beliefs (as well as your myths and fantastic stories). I'm just exercising my right to do so under the 1st Amendment.
Dinesh, our economy is in good shape, and if it wasn't for the Democrats we could have had health care reform AND educational reform.
Maybe, just maybe, it's the Democrats that are holding things up? Seems to me that any of the social changes that the President has proposed have been spiked immediately by the Dems. So what do they offer?
Simon,
President Bush isn't running again. If being charismatic and a good speaker are most important to you, then why not push for Tony Robbins? He seems to have both in spades.
Of the Democrat contenders, I'd say Bill Richardson has the best CV, and actually accomplished a few things... John Edwards I would say is second, because at least he's made it to the "big show" once before, albeit as a VP.
Hillary? Nothing so far - her one big push (nationalized healthcare) was a flop even on the Left side of the spectrum.
Obama? How about completing at least ONE term in Congress before aspiring for higher positions?
But then again what do you expect from the party of hate?
Anyway, it's a beautiful, sunny, clear-sky morning but cold (around 0 deg C). It's going to be a great Friday!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 3, 2008 03:36 PMThanks for putting it so well. One of my most sincere hopes is for the left to honestly begin to examine its own intolerance. A pipe dream to be sure, but I am an optomist.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 3, 2008 03:42 PMWhen the Ds were fighting out 'experience' v. 'change', Clinton was claiming the 'experience' mantle but when you look at it, Dodd and Biden are better and more experienced.
Posted by: swatter on January 3, 2008 03:58 PMFirst and foremost rule: you cannot, under any circumstances, vote for the Republican. In the cato/simonsez triumpherant, it's simply impossible that the Republicans can offer anyone for anything.
So, forget comparing these people: the history and experience of their first tier candidates (or their absolute and indisputable LACK of experience compared to the Republican first tier candidates) are meaningless and off the table in the left's political equation. (Setting aside the fact that if they had a top tier candidate with any of those things superior to the Republicans, that's all you'd hear about, day in, day out)
Vote for them because one of them is "slick." Vote for them because of their "delivery." Ignore their positions. Ignore their history. Ignore their plans. Vote for ANY of THEM, ONLY because they're not Republican.
Because folks, that's the only thing they've offered up here, from lying about being unable to figure out HOW to provide the information Jim asked for to telling us that the information he's asked for doesn't matter.
Well, good luck with that. Because accomplishment and positions and ability DO matter. And I, speaking for myself, of course, could GIVE a RAT'S ASS how the rest of the world views our choice for president. That this leftist is SOOOO concerned about how Zimbabwe, Pago Pago, Yemen, Tibet or French Guiana view our President. And that the left trots out that concern shows the intellectual bankruptcy of their position generally, and simon's specifically.
Posted by: Hinton on January 3, 2008 04:04 PM"If you'd like me to be specific, I will point this out. Unlike our current President (who, not 'won't' but can't run again) Obama, Clinton & Edwards are accomplished orators/speakers and can articulate clearly."
And here is the only qualification, apparently, required to be a Democrat candidate for president. In fact, Simon may have touched on the only qualification any Democrat candidate really has to have; the ability to convince the weak-minded into supporting them, without taking any real positions or proposing any real solutions to anything. Throw some other peoples' money at them, some big-government programs, and they're nothing short of piglets on the teet.
Says an awful lot about the people who support Democrats who offer nothing but slick talk, doesn't it?
Combine the easily swayed with tons of negative news and charges promoting hatred of everything and everyone to the right of center, and you've got today's Democrat "progressive" "move-on.org" base, driven by that hatred and willing to destroy America if they can't have what they want.
And all the banter back and forth with these nut-cases serves only to give them a purpose in life, albeit warped and delusional. Check out the Seattle Times Letters to the Editor today for the daily crop of impeach-Bush fanatics who live in this sick world where Bush is the enemy.
Posted by: Reality on January 3, 2008 04:06 PMObama? How about completing at least ONE term in Congress before aspiring for higher positions?"
Romney? How about completing more than one term as a Governor in a liberal state before running? Scared of re-election? Or know that you will get your ass handed to you in a crushing defeat? Can you hold a single position for more than a year or two? Guess not.
Giuliani? How about talking about something other than 9/11? I mean it's great that you were there and all but they were scheduled to vote for your replacement on that very day. BTW, who's dumb idea was it to build an Emergency Command Center inside the Twin Towers? Yours, oh yeah, nice one bro.
Thompson? Did you actually do anything while you were in the Senate? Sure doesn't look like it. Besides appearing in Law & Order and Die Hard, what have you done for America since leaving office? Nope, so much for the second-coming of Reagan.
Huckabee? I guess its bad to practice compassionate conservatism, especially when someone dies as a result. Sux 2BU. That's ok, keep preaching to the GOP choir and you'll be singing with them when you get the nomination.
McCain? Remember your buddy Bob Dole? He was old and irrelevant too.
Do you understand the difference between us? One of us is open to and unafraid of intellectual freedom and the other is not.
One can't help but wonder why you are frightened by the thought of an Intelligent Design... "If I told you the computer I am using was plucked fully developed from a field in Silicon Valley, you would declare me mad, yet the difference in complexity between the machine and life borders on astronomical. Life not only cries out for a designer, it demands one."
"This quite simply is a matter of rationality and, conversely, irrationality. It is rational to think that something with a seemingly infinite complexity required intelligent guidance. It is irrational to think that perfect order came unguided out of utter chaos, that something came from nothing."
You might care to visit here, but like those famous monkeys, I suspect you'd rather cover your eyes and ears... and have us close our mouths.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 3, 2008 04:17 PMYou want to take cheap shots at Romney, but he has the balls to place it all on the line, as opposed to the cowardly bet-hedgers on the other ticket.
Ditto, Guiliani. You seem to want to intimate he he would have been voted out of office but for 9/11. Nothing could be further from the truth: due to term limits Giuliani could not run for a third term as Mayor.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 3, 2008 04:30 PMHence an absolutely dismal approval rating for congress under dem rule ... and the Rasmussen Report saying Republicans in the US increased in Dec 2007 while the dems decreased... and then the gift the Battleground pollsters gave us: people who call themselves either "conservative" or "very conservative" constitute the overwhelming majority of all Americans.
Try not to weep all over your keyboard... we want you to remain with us here at SP... I'll leave it to you to imagine why.
Oh hells bells, I'll tell you why: your self-delusion is just so darn amusing!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 3, 2008 04:51 PMWhile were at it maybe we should teach several versions of why objects fall to the ground. After all Gravity is just a theory. Our DNA seems to support the theory that we are descended from a single gene pool and through millions of years of mutation and evolution we became what we are today.
Our DNA does not support the idea that Man in its current form appeared on earth one day after being created by an omnipotent being. It also does not support the idea that Man in his current form was created from "dust of the ground" and that the original Woman was created from the rib of Man.
I can look under a microscope and can watch cells divide, mutate, evolve. Can tell me where I can go watch omnipotent beings blow dust and create living beings.
Ditto, the Bible being taught (or even mentioned as a historical document or even the Bible in the context of history
Again, why should your myth and fanatical stories take precedence over others? I mean every civilization has their own version of Creation. I'm fine with Bible being mentioned in the context of history, I'll just don't believe it's version of Creation should be taught as a valid scientific theory in public schools.
John Edwards, walked away from the the Senate in 1994.
"You want to take cheap shots at Romney"
Don't have to, it's obvious to the informed. Romney was elected 50% to 45%, odds are he would not stand a chance against a new Dem. competitor in a Democrat heavy state (especially since he flip-flopped while in office).
"You seem to want to intimate he he would have been voted out of office but for 9/11."
Your right, his term was up. He also had two...no three...wait, four wives. Not only do his ex-wives hate him, his kids do to. I mean you though Bill Clinton getting a BJ in office was bad, just imagine what Guiliani might do in office based on his past behavior. I bet these good quality moral values will really appeal to the average family values voter.
I agree. The content has become extremely boring. Damn it WHERE IS STEFAN????
Posted by: pbj on January 3, 2008 05:48 PMThis is further evidence that this was a ridiculous post since its original inception and that in this election experience (or past accomplishments) will not prevail as voters' main concern when they go to the polls.
So for all of the right tilted club-goers that post here and that think things have been particularly rosy for the past 7 years you might want to look beyond your venomous and divisive little club and try to gain an understanding of what the majority of people feel and want and maybe you wouldn't continue to be in an ever-increasing minority.
The majority of voters won't care about past accomplishments in this election, they're fed up.
Next topic please.
Romney completing a successful term in a liberal state as governor is not good enough for you? Sure, programs were cut and unpopular taxes were put in place to stop the bleeding caused by previous Dem. administrations. Romney's ability to be re-elected could be questioned, but is not a fact. If only those same "facts" could apply to Gregoire ...
Reality Check: American's want to elect someone that has the same problems they have experienced or created in their own lives: Debt, Divorce, Drugs, Infidelity, Division.
You hold Romney to a higher standard. I expect we should, because he holds himself to a higher standard.
It appears most Americans can't or don't want to elect someone who has been so successful in business, family and marriage. With today's relative values most citizens can't comprehend someone holding themselves to a higher standard, and simply assume they're a wolf in sheeps clothing or a fake.
Because "While were at it" can't come up with real accomplishments they point out the negative one's of others. That's the American way. Of course, when Romeny points "compares" the negatives of others - he can't do it without getting slammed. Why? Can you say higher standard?
By supporting the policies that Huckabee's supporters insist on, Romney is dogmaticly proven to be evil and unacceptable. While on the other hand, Huckabee's track record in consistent opposition to his base's position proves their premise of "he's one of us".
It's a fairly easy conclusion. Romney by birth and deliberate choice is inherently evil and is not allowed a Savior or Redeemer. Therefore, any good policy from him must then be for evil purposes. Huckabee on the other hand admits he is a fallen man. Therefore, all of his bad policy must then be supported, solely on the basis of his confessing the negotiated Jesus-figure-symbol-something.
If however America's faith is found wanting, and Huckabee is defeated, then whatever bad policy from Pres. Clintons or Obama is ok, because it is only bad policy, and not evil policy. This justifies abortion, excessive taxation, establishment of state religion of anti-theism, and any number of other abominations, solely on the basis that Mitt Romney is The Evil One and therefore any works of his must be evil.
Posted by: Mogura on January 3, 2008 07:56 PMa. makes sense
b. is practical
c. can get through the political/sausage-making process
I don't vote for candidates on the basis of party.
Posted by: WVH on January 3, 2008 09:37 PMhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html
Posted by: kk on January 4, 2008 10:11 AMThanks for the article. I just finished reading it. It was very informative. I certainly hope that the supporters of the other candidates take up the offer. This election is about cobbling together a coalition, as many are like me and indie. This is the new public square and if one can't hold their own at a blog like this, good luck in governing.
Posted by: WVH on January 4, 2008 12:31 PMSeriously though, if you can't do the leg work by looking yourself with the hundreds of options available to you at your fingertips via serach engines, maybe you should consider sitting out this round.
Or go on one of the suggested sites and try simple searches like:
Huckabee +Family Values
Romeny +(insert your issue here)
Hillary Clinton +(insert important issue to you here)
Obama +Immigration
Ron Paul +viability
hiding behind the your KKK sheet address for today:
cmon@already.com
I use the google quite effectively to uncover info about your candidate and that pisses you Paultards off, doesn't it?
Guess what loser, your candidate is a loser and who do you support next, David Duke?
Posted by: WVH on January 4, 2008 01:08 PMMan, you sure are a giant a-hole. You can go take your wacky conspiracy laden paranoia and shove it up your poop-shoot for all I care.
And because I have to leave for an overseas trip in less than 48 hours and I don't have time to monitor the comments.
Posted by: Jim Miller on January 4, 2008 01:59 PM
