The last Democrat to win 50 percent of the so-called "popular vote"* for President was Jimmy Carter in 1976, with 50.081 percent. Bill Clinton never did: he got 43 and 49 percent, respectively. Before Carter it was LBJ in '64 with 61 percent. Before that, FDR with 53 percent in 1944. Truman and Kennedy never got 50 percent, either.
So two of the five Democrats since FDR did not get 50 percent, but all five elected Republicans got 50 percent of the "popular vote:" Eisenhower twice, Nixon once (second term), Reagan twice, Bush I once, and Bush II once (second term) all got 50 percent.
Also note that of the five, only Clinton was elected for two terms; four of the five Republicans were elected for two terms.
It's a grand total of, since FDR, seven-of-nine terms with more than 50 percent of the vote for Republicans, versus two-of-six for the Democrats.
I looked all this up because I knew Clinton never got 50 percent, but wasn't sure about all the rest before Reagan (only a few, like Nixon in '72). And I was thinking about Clinton, because it is hard for me to see how Bill Clinton could only 49 percent of the vote against Bob Dole in '96, and Hillary could be expected to do much better against John McCain in '08. I know there's 12 years separating the two, but Bill was much more popular than Hillary, and Dole much less so than McCain.
Of course, Obama might win the nomination. He has a chance to win ... unless people actually look at his record and his platform.
Now, granted, the last time a Democrat won with more than 50 percent was when the popularity of the GOP was at a nearly all-time low. And that's the normal story: the last three majority-popular-vote winners for the Democrats were propelled to victory by tragedy: the Great Depression, JFK's assassination, and Watergate. Two of those were blamed directly on the GOP.
And we see some of the same this year: a very unpopular Republican Party. The difference this time is that the Democratic Party today has nowhere near the popularity of '32 or '64. It's a lot closer today to '76, where Carter won not so much because he was a Democrat (who were at the time still viewed negatively largely because of Vietnam and civil rights), but because the Democrats weren't Republicans. But Carter was facing the man who pardoned Nixon, who while well-liked, was not widely respected across the country for many actions taken over the course of his long political career. And it was merely two years after the pardon. And despite all that, Ford still made it a very close election.
McCain is in a very different situation. Voters have already taken out their frustrations on the GOP in 2006, removing them from power in both houses of Congress. And McCain is not viewed as having strong ties to most of the problems of the Bush Administration, except Iraq, and even there, McCain has a strong record of opposing the methods used by Bush, whether on torture or military strategy or troop deployment. Of course, the Democrats are already trying to tie him to Bush as much as possible, but for most people whose votes are available, it won't work.
I've thought for a long time that McCain was the best candidate to face the Democrats, and everything I've seen in the intervening two-plus years has only backed that up, including history. And that's not even including a potential "Nader factor" (who will likely increase his influence over 2004, where he became an essential nonfactor because the anti-Bush factor was much stronger than it will be this time, and drove more people to vote for Kerry).
* Of course, the "popular vote" has no real meaning by itself, so feel free to disregard everything I say about it.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at March 03, 2008 03:24 PM | Email ThisMcCain is running on foreign policy. I don't think he can win on foreign policy. McCain may have opposed Bush on multiple issues, but he's still running the same kind of campaign as Bush '04. I think Americans want to hear about the solutions to problems at home, not just abroad. McCain is going to be hammered in November if he becomes the nominee (yeah, yeah...that's another argument). McCain reminds me SO much of Dole '96, it's uncanny.
McCain vs. Obama? Hands down, Obama would win. (Once again, 1996 ring any bells?)
McCain vs. Hillary? Close, but it would most likely go to Hillary. I could very well be wrong on this, but once again, Hillary's good at what she does, and she will no doubt move center during the general--they all do.
Posted by: Cydney on March 3, 2008 03:35 PMMoonbats hating bush twice as much as middle America likes McCain does not lose the election for McCain.
Posted by: Andy on March 3, 2008 04:09 PMI think McCain is the best of the three, but I am not sure he will get much enthusiasm from "rational" voters I think fund raising could be a serious problem.
The irony is that we Republicans, too, will be repeating history. Just as in 1972, we will probably defeat an exotic extremist from the democrat party's leftist fringe, but we will be electing a liberal Republican who will proceed to compile a long record of personal accomplishment consisting of doing exactly what our democrat opponents want. I believe he will also, just like Nixon, make fatal political mistakes and leave office providing the democrat's with a virtual blank check for winning the next election.
I, on the other hand, think the angry left will just keep going farther left, grow angrier and move farther away from the mainstream, main street America.
While the media may hide the worst of liberalism, the NEW MEDIA of the internet, cable TV and radio will highlight it. More are politically savvy and technologically able. Hells Bells, my 78 yr old dad surfed the net before he died as does my uncle, now in his 80's. The liberals can try to keep their liberal-socialism hidden, but they simply can't hide, anymore.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 3, 2008 04:18 PMThat's another interesting take on it. I'd call that possible if Hillary was the Dem. nominee.
So we're looking at this:
Obama vs. McCain --> Can you say 1996?
Hillary vs. McCain --> Possible 1972...
Posted by: Cydney on March 3, 2008 04:40 PMMcCain would beat Hillary easily too.
And even if the election is all about foreign policy, McCain will STILL win: only the far left who would only vote for Democrats anyway, will think McCain is significantly worse than Obama or Hillary on foreign policy. But it won't be only about foreign policy: McCain will win on small government, will win on low taxes, will win on health care (wait and see), and so on.
Pope doesn't know what he is talking about, as usual. Yes, turnout matters, but a. Republicans WILL turn out, no question, because of the fear of a Clinton or Obama presidency and b. independents will largely go to McCain, not because they love the GOP, but because they hate Hillary, and will recognize Obama as a far left extremist.
Bill and Hillary are mostly right about Obama: he talks well, but there's nothing there.
Posted by: pudge on March 3, 2008 04:43 PMI just spoke to a retired Ohioan (70 years old) who said he had cast his absentee ballot awhile back for Obama from his winter haunts in Florida. He said he had listened to Obama's Wisconsin victory speech and was not keen on all the new spending programs. A month ago he was all enthusiastic. Now he does not seem so sure. The USA Today article on the cost of his proposals versus the small amount he can actually get by letting the tax cuts expire that really went to upper tax brackets from Bushes tax cuts showed a stark contrast between the two. Indeed the amount from expiring tax cuts will be eaten up and more just by the increases in Medicare and Social Security spending which Obama has said he will maintain at benefit levels set by current law even though the retiring baby boomers will soon put them in negative cash flow situations. Where will he get the money for all his new programs? Inquiring minds will start wanting to know and then this guy's balloon is going to bust.
I know lots of Republicans. Who are the Obama Republicans? I do not meet them. Obama says he has reached out to Republicans but noone can point out a major issue in which he did. He says he will reduce earmarks; but McCain says he will veto all of them unless they had an up or down vote on the floor of each body. Since McCain does not seek earmarks, he has a lot more credibility on the issue.
Obama says he will get money out of politics; then reverses his committment to public funding of his campaign. Obama says he will get out of NAFTA but his advisor tells the Canadians that its just politics and not to worry. If you want real straight talk, on reform of government bet on McCain not someone fresh out of the political cesspool of South Chicago like Obama.
Posted by: KW64 on March 3, 2008 06:49 PMAfter 1852 and before 1932, the only Democratic presidential candidate to get over 50% of the popular vote was Samuel Tilden in 1876. He won the popular vote 51% to 48% over Rutherfor Hayes, but Hayes was elected owing to a bitterly disputed electoral vote (185 to 184).
So since 1852 - in the last 156 years - the only Democrats to win the presidency with over 50% of the popular vote were FDR, LBJ in 1964, and Jimmy Carter in 1976.
Posted by: Steve Beren on March 3, 2008 06:52 PMNo.1 radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh went on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" and reiterated his call for Republicans to vote for Hillary Clinton in Tuesday's primaries in Ohio and Texas to keep Barack Obama from wrapping up the race.
If Hillary Clinton does remain in the race and drags the primaries out to June or even to the Democratic Convention in August, Democrats may end up spending $200 million to $300 million more in attacking each other.
The prospect makes the Republican-leaning Limbaugh giddy.
You can stop laughing. I know several people who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 and say they prefer Obama now. Honestly, I'm not sure they'll actually vote for Obama over McCain if McCain runs a good campaign. But at this point many moderate Republicans seem as excited by Obama as many Democrats.
Posted by: Bruce on March 3, 2008 08:00 PMBush: favors war in iraq.
McCain: favors more war in iraq.
Bush: favored limiting political speech.
McCain: Made lmiiting political speech his key issue for years.
Bush: Favors Patriot act.
McCain: Favors patriot act.
Bush: Supportsuncontrolled spending and slightly lower income taxes.
McCain: Supports uncontrolled spending without earmarkes and higher income taxes.
Bush: Supports amnesty
McCain: Supports amnesty
Bush: supports drug war
McCain: supports drug war
You get the idea. If you want to continue the misguided direction we have been headed, vote for McCain.
Posted by: Lysander on March 3, 2008 08:19 PMGeorge W. Bush is not on the ballot in 2008.
I was responding to the Pudges claim, "McCain is not viewed as having strong ties to most of the problems of the Bush Administration"
The only signifigant point he differs on seems to be he is against torture. Good for him!
Posted by: Lysander on March 3, 2008 08:31 PMYes, exactly.
I say, 8 more years!
Posted by: John Bailo on March 3, 2008 08:52 PMDemocrats are great at pouring money down a drain, and this year they will top all their expectations.
It will be a cake walk for McCain, the democrats will devide on racial lines and it will be a blast to watch. Their vicor will overcome them all.
Posted by: GS on March 3, 2008 09:08 PMI still say that the gun-control issue, which hurt Gore & Kerry, will be Obama's undoing. His gun-control views are more extreme than Gore or Kerry ever dreamed. On the other hand he won't be so stupid to pose with a shotgun banned by his own legislation, or to say 'kin I get me a huntin' license?'
Posted by: russell garrard on March 3, 2008 09:21 PMYou say you want 8 more years of what Bush has given us?!?!?
First of all we can not afford 8 more years. We simply did not have the money!
Second, if you have not noticed... Bush is not popular. If you admit Bush and McCain are the same, then you must see the writing on the wall. McCain has no chance.
Posted by: Lysander on March 3, 2008 10:22 PMMcCain: favors more war in iraq.
No, McCain does not "favor more war." He did favor going in, as I did. He was right, and he continues to be right.
McCain: Supports uncontrolled spending
Again, no. You must be trying really hard to be this obviously incorrect. McCain is one of the biggest deficit hawks this country has seen in your lifetime. Even the big economic conservative think tanks and advocacy groups that hate McCain all say he has been a force for good on spending cuts.
Posted by: pudge on March 3, 2008 11:01 PMObama's Complete book on change (12 Chapters)
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Chapter 10
Chapter 11
Chapter 12
It's really a quick read!
Posted by: gs on March 4, 2008 12:17 AMIn a crisis of national defense, no sane person wants a wet behind the ears senator who never even served. They want Ike and McArthur, not some guy who knows nothing about the military.
And for all the liberal bashing of Bush, he HAS kept the terrorists from attacking us at home again.
Posted by: pbj on March 4, 2008 04:38 AMActually McCain has made it clear that he has supported this war from the begining and made many unnecessary comments about attacking Iran. He takes war so lightly that he jokes about 'bombing iran'!
As for his spending... He gets credit for wanting to end earmarks but his overall spending levels are as high or higher than Bush. Look at his voting record and you will see he and Bush both have continually voted for more spending every year. They may have voted for less than Obama but that is what I call setting the bar low! Anyone who advocates any level of spending equal to or greater than the final year of Clinton is in my book a big spender. McCain fits in that category does he not?
Posted by: Lysander on March 4, 2008 05:58 AMHe is a child's pop up book wrapped in a leather bound cover, it's all in the presentation.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 4, 2008 07:20 AMHopefully, Clinton will have flown off into the sunset by the time the Teflon has come off.
With the Teflon on, Obama is invincible; without it, he is, well, like a State legislative Senator, two years removed, running for president.
Let's hope Obama puts the fork into Clinton today because, contrary to the pope's assertions, the presidential election isn't today.
As for Congress, the Rs need to put out another Contract With America. Right now, I couldn't even tell you what they stand for.
Posted by: swatter on March 4, 2008 07:24 AMThere you go again:
"30. @ 27......which is why he earns his status as "an empty suit" and speaking of change, he's changed his last name to Fauxbama."
You couldn't argue an issue if one slapped you. Same question I asked you several threads ago, using your defintion of "empty suit" in comparison to Reagan on the issue of vetos is Bush an empty suit? You never answered because your characterization is not based on issues, but Obama's color. You are like Cindy Sheehan who specifically refers to Bush as dumb simply because she hates him. Bush graduated from Harvard Business school and Sheehan from where? Even if a person doesn't like Bush's politics, he made it to president and most people criticizing him have a hard time making it out of their garage. As I have said before, Obama is a graduate of Columbia and Harvard Law with the editorship of the Law Review. He is a US Senator and you graduated from where, in what? As far as I know you are not a US sentaor from this state because your name is not Patty or Maria. Like Cindy Sheehan who is a bitter bigot, you are simply a bitter racist.
Now, if you care to argue positions or issues there are some legitimate points to be made, but you don't. So, I wonder who is really the troll on the issue of presidential politics?
Posted by: WVH on March 4, 2008 07:42 AMActually McCain has made it clear that he has supported this war from the begining
"Actually"? Huh? Where do you believe I ever said he did not support the war in Iraq? Please, stop and read and think. I wrote: No, McCain does not "favor more war." He did favor going in, as I did. He was right, and he continues to be right.
and made many unnecessary comments about attacking Iran
False. This never happened.
He takes war so lightly
False. He does not take war lightly at all.
his overall spending levels are as high or higher than Bush
Travis, you have no idea what you are talking about. This is simply untrue.
Anyone who advocates any level of spending equal to or greater than the final year of Clinton is in my book a big spender. McCain fits in that category does he not?
He does not. He has continually opposed the high spending levels of the Bush years. You are just making things up.
Posted by: pudge on March 4, 2008 07:44 AMThere you go again:
"30. @ 27......which is why he earns his status as "an empty suit" and speaking of change, he's changed his last name to Fauxbama."
...your characterization is not based on issues, but Obama's color. ...Like Cindy Sheehan who is a bitter bigot, you are simply a bitter racist."
Posted by WVH at March 4, 2008 07:42 AM
WVH (World's most Vacuous Human)~ Do you have any proof of your assertions that I'm a racist? So far, when challenged you can't seem to come up with any clear examples.
As you usually do, you once again destroy a thread with your petty race baiting. Fauxbama earns his title as an empty suit do to his relative scarce resume as it relates to the position of the POTUS...any honest person can see that realityy, but I suspect reality isn't your friend.
Definition of faux :
adjective
not genuine or real; being an imitation of the genuine article; [syn: fake]
Now, Senator Fauxbama certainly qulifies as being not genuine or real, as up till now, he's had a pass in the print and TV media with regard to his qualifications and accomplishments (Community Leader?? Please!).
Your condemnation of me because I'm not drinking the Fauxbama kool aid is an example of why this empty suit gets the preferential treatment....the Fauxbama supporters will label you with the racist tag.
Now, Your mouthbreathing started when I compared his experience to that of a Janitor being propelled to the CEO of a fortune 500 company after working there for a couple of weeks. Anyone with with a room temperature IQ would not see any racism in that comment, but you did.
WVH, you deal with your hang-ups, it's not my job to sort out your identity problems.
I believe Pudge banned the "r" word. On a previous thread, I defined the term and asked you if you denied it. Last time I looked, you didn't deny it, so you accepted the definition as of the last time I looked. Now, here is what you said:
"Now, Senator Fauxbama certainly qulifies as being not genuine or real, as up till now, he's had a pass in the print and TV media with regard to his qualifications and accomplishments (Community Leader?? Please!).
Your condemnation of me because I'm not drinking the Fauxbama kool aid is an example of why this empty suit gets the preferential treatment....the Fauxbama supporters will label you with the racist tag."
Sounds a bit like Cindy Sheehan in her comments about Bush. You call Obama names and label me as a troll simply because of our color.
You have never stated your qualifications. Are you:
a. a high school graduate
b. a college graduate
c. a grad school graduate
d. have any professional licenses
e. have any academic honors
f. hold a professional position
g. elected to any political office
h. running for any federal or state wide office
Unless you have specific answers to the above questions which indicate you have a resume at least as good as Obama's, what right do you have to objectively judge? Your assessment is then solely based on racial characterisitcs, isn't it?
Posted by: WVH on March 4, 2008 10:00 AMMany of the contributors to these comments suffer from Seattle-itis. We have people who claim to be 'independents' and 'moderates' in this state, but who are as blue as the ocean in mainstream America. The 'Independents' in Seattle and Washington are hardly that, and bear no relation to the Independent and Moderate voters throughout the USA.
I know of far more people who voted for and made contributions to John Kerry in 2004 who will vote for McCain, than those who voted for Bush who will now vote for Obama or Hillary.
It just doesn't make any sense. In 2004 the Dems poured all their big guns into Bush-hate and defeating the evil Republicans, and GWB garnered more votes than any candidate in any open election in the history of the world. And the Dems think they can drum up MORE hate against McCain? It's illogical.
WVH,
Calling Obama an 'empty suit' is not racist - it's just a fact. I know high-ranking union officers in Chicago who won't be voting for Obama for that very reason - empty suit. He'll tell you to your face that he won't help your union because it may hurt his Presidential chances - then his office will write a letter to you asking to take credit for the final agreement after all the bitter negotiations. He talks out of both sides of his mouth, he's got no real policies to stand behind because he's a rookie, and he has no experience whatsoever outside of the state of Illinois.
Many Illinois residents can't stand him already - because he was elected to be a Senator and immediately began running for President. He hasn't even fulfilled his fiduciary duty to his home state because he's already looking at the next office he wants to inhabit.
Both Hillary and Obama go down big-time to McCain, who wins 50% of the vote.
And I'm not even a McCain supporter. He was my 3rd or 4th choice. But I'll vote for him before the other choices, gladly.
Posted by: Larry on March 4, 2008 10:07 AMThat brings up another problem with the recent Dem candidates. There's just no way around the fact that Ted Kennedy and Dick Durbin have great influence over John Kerry and Barack Obama, respectively. And those associations will KILL the Dems at the polls in mainstream America.
Posted by: Larry on March 4, 2008 10:14 AM**VICTIM ALERT**
Is there a resident psychologist willing to give WVH some free couch time to sort out her racial insecurities? Wow! Perhaps SP can take up a fund. Thanks WVH, for giving a perfect example of your status as a "permanent victim" in life. Oh, btw, My Mexican wife and our 2 children together wish you godspeed on your future recovery.
Specifically answer the questions about YOUR background, you can't because you would be exposed as the ignorant loser that you are. Did you at leasr get a GED?
Posted by: WVH on March 4, 2008 10:24 AMCareful, at this site if high ranking union officials won't be voting for Obama, that might actually win him votes. Let me tell you why I diagree with you and I am not a supporter of any candidate. You seem to be basing an opinion on what one interest group has told you, which is better than an opinion from some one who won't give details of their background. Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are running mid way through their terms, so I guess that is a problem with both dem candidates.
You said this:
"He'll tell you to your face that he won't help your union because it may hurt his Presidential chances - then his office will write a letter to you asking to take credit for the final agreement after all the bitter negotiations. He talks out of both sides of his mouth, he's got no real policies to stand behind because he's a rookie, and he has no experience whatsoever outside of the state of Illinois."
I suppose what you are telling me is that he is a politician who is used to machine politics. Another politician who was used to machine politics was Harry Truman:
During World War I Truman served as an artillery officer. After the war he became part of the political machine of Tom Pendergast and was elected a county judge in Missouri and eventually a United States Senator. After he gained national prominence as head of the wartime Truman Committee, Truman replaced vice president Henry A. Wallace as Roosevelt's running mate in 1944.
From Wiki,
My point is that using an eptihet is one thing, Truman was specifically selected because he was a lightweight, but what are the issues and policies that are espoused by all candidates. Judge the candidates on those. If you have connections in Chicago you are probably familiar with Operation Greylord and the ongoing scandals with the unions and political system. Chicago is a dirty, corrupt city and the fact that a specific group may or may not like you means nothing unless one knows all the players, their history, and what is at stake.
If the only argument one can make about any candidate is they are an empty suit or in the case of Mc Cain they are too old, you rally aren't working with much.
I will give you credit that you have at least made a rational argument unlike some whose only argument is based on hatred of a particular ethnic group.
That said, you have a credibility problem. Now be a good troll and leave this bridge if you can't post on the topic at hand. Last time I checked this thread was not called "Vent your racial hangups to Rick D."
Posted by: Rick D. on March 4, 2008 10:46 AMYou are just an ignorant nobody who is green with envy that some Black man is doing what you can't do because no one would take you seriously. You hate because of color, you label Obama because he has more education, more status and a better life than you do. You label me because I point these things out. You simply can't abide any Black person and can't get over the fact that some day a Black person will be president whether it is Obama or not. Empty suit or troll, it is you, dude.
Posted by: WVH on March 4, 2008 11:00 AMI long for the day that Dr. Condi Rice is president; or Michael Steele ; or even Colin Powell - But not an empty suit like Barack Fauxbama.....feel better now? Not likely, but I think that's a condition only you can address.
Now, get over your racial hang-ups and join the adult table in discussion please. Your rants are becoming incredibly boring and repetetive, albeit quite revealing of your inner hatred and outward expression of it.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 4, 2008 11:16 AMYou offered no proof nor evidence that Obama was playing 'Machine Politics'. My understanding of machine politics is that it involves making promises to people, and cashing in on those chips.
Obama promises nothing yet wants credit for everything. That's not machine politics - that's plagiarism of ideas. That's an empty suit.
Furthermore, your comparison of Harry Truman and Barack Obama is laughable on its face, especially the portrayal of Truman as an 'outsider'.
Harry Truman was unknown by many people when he was sworn in as President, yet he had accomplished quite a lot. Obama, on the other hand, is known by many and has accomplished nothing compared to Truman.
Are you really attempting to compare a first-term Senate rookie from a priviledged upbringing to a dirt-poor farmer who never earned a college degree, became an artillery officer in WWI, served over a decade as a judge, was elected to the Senate several times, saved the USA $15 Billion in WWII via the Truman Committee, and was 60 years old when he was first sworn into office as President of the United States?
Sheesh, and I thought Obama was an empty suit standing next to Hillary, let alone John McCain. Your comparison of Obama to Harry Truman has added a completely new dimension to the fact that Obama is an empty suit from a priviledged upbringing, who brings nothing to the table but hot air.
Posted by: Larry on March 4, 2008 11:33 AMclinton and obama each have received more votes than all republican voters combined in certain primaries.
voter turnout in the primaries, then, suggests that people recognize that sitting at home may not be a choice (unless you are a disaffected republican).
the republicans chose bush over mccain in 2000. we know that that got us--an incompetent leader who did not act like the conservative he played on tv. voter turnout thus far suggests that this horrible mistake will not be repeated again.
No, it does not suggest that. Our relative lack of enthusiasm for the nominating contest is not necessarily related to enthusiasm in a general election. The overwhelming majority of conservatives and Republicans who sat out the primary will vote for McCain in the general.
Many Democrats believe as you do, but they are, quite clearly, thinking wishfully.
Posted by: pudge on March 4, 2008 12:06 PMObama is counting on voting blocks that have some of the worst records for showing up on election day. It's going to be another exit-poll-election-day-shock for the Dems.
Posted by: Larry on March 4, 2008 12:09 PMI know that Chicago is a corrupt city and if you know anything about Chicago you know that there are machine politics. You are a bit more smoother than Rick D., not by much. I don't care how you spin it and you don't have to vote for either Obama or Hillary, he is not an "empty suit."
Same challenge to you that I gave Rick D which he won't answer:
1. Compared to Reagan's use of a veto to contain the budget, is George Bush an "empty suit?"
2. You have never stated your qualifications. Are you:
a. a high school graduate
b. a college graduate
c. a grad school graduate
d. have any professional licenses
e. have any academic honors
f. hold a professional position
g. elected to any political office
h. running for any federal or state wide office
Unless you have specific answers to the above questions which indicate you have a resume at least as good as Obama's, what right do you have to objectively judge?
You don't have to like his policies or the issues, but he is not an "empty suit" just like Bush is not an "empty suit" because Cindy Sheehan hates him. Hatred does funny things to people. You and Rick D. were never going to vote for either Obama or Hillary, so he doesn't need your votes. If the only thing you can yell is empty suit, he will win.
There you go again. You read racism into places where there is none. Just because you don't like the comparison does not make a statement racist. Please, think, I have told you before that I think you really do have alot to add to discussion, however, when you make these knee-jerk accusations of racism it makes your other statements look less credible.
Your racist charges make you sound as wacky as a conspiracy theorist.
Posted by: REBEL on March 4, 2008 12:27 PMThe empty suit that is Barack Fauxbama has 7 months in which to be exposed to the American electorate- From his Slumlord ties to Tony Rezko, his ties to domestic terrorist William Ayers, to his ties with his pastor/mentor Jeremiah A. Wright and his fellow racist traveller Louis Farrakhan, let alone a non-existent record in the Ill. Legislature or U.S. Senate.
You enjoy the Kool-aid mustache while you can, Republicans will be enjoying the champagne in November when President-elect McCain takes the podium at his acceptance speech.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 4, 2008 12:37 PMYour questions are completely unrelated to the task at hand.
1. Neither Reagan nor Bush is running in 2008. They are not part of the debate, as much as you'd like to bring them into the discussion.
2. a,b,c,d,e,f,g - Yes. h-No.
However, your implication that I need the same credentials as Obama to criticize him are idiotic. What is the matter with your brain?
I am not running for POTUS. Barack Obama IS running for POTUS. Therefore, Obama's qualification are in question - and mine are not. Period.
I have the right to objectively judge EVERY Presidential candidate, as does every other citizen of the United States, regardless of our level of education and current employment status.
Any implication by YOU that this is not the case indicates that you would like to insitute 'poll taxes'. Would you like to enact a requirement that every person who votes needs to have a college degree? If not, why are you attempting to evaluate MY qualifications rather than Barack Obama's?
I'm not running for POTUS, WVH. Neither is Reagan, Bush, nor any other person commenting on this blog. Your attempt to silence us based on OUR qualifications for office begs of the elitism and polling place restrictions that your side of the aisle so frequently complains about every election cycle.
Posted by: Larry on March 4, 2008 12:44 PMIf you insist on comparing Barack Obama's qualification for POTUS to MY qualifications for POTUS - he will lose resoundingly. I'm a pretty low bar to beat, WVH.
You need to worry about Obama's qualifications vis-a-vis Hillary and McCain. Newsflash - he has little or none.
What great legislation that Barack Obama has championed in Illinois or in the Senate has changed your life in a meaningful and measurable way?
I'll bet, living up here in the great Northwest, that I could name some environmental policies championed by McCain that have contributed to my quality of life, let alone all of his other experiences. Has Obama touched your life in the same way??
We're waiting.
Posted by: Larry on March 4, 2008 12:51 PMIf his neo-God gig doesn't work out, there's a job waiting in Seattle. Handbills in the U District pop the question, "Can Obama Deliver REAL CHANGE?" Yes, he can! Seattle's neo-commie homeless "news"paper, for which vendors slice and dice each other in cutthroat capitalist competition, is always looking for Real Change retailers to take the places of the MIAs.
Posted by: No Middle Name on March 4, 2008 03:31 PMDo the words bomb bomb bomb bomb iran get song by people who take war seriously? No. McCain takes war far too lightly.
Does McCain support keeping the troops in the mideast for 100 years? He said he would. Troops in the mideast garauntees war. McCain is in favor of more war.
Has McCain voted against all these spending increases that he appearantly opposes? His record shows him approving all the war funding votes, voted in favor of no child left behind, subsidies for sugar cane farmers, etc... His voting record unfortunately shows someone who supports as much spending as Bush and Clinton.
Posted by: Lysanderq on March 4, 2008 05:50 PM
Do the words bomb bomb bomb bomb iran get song by people who take war seriously?
Yes.
McCain takes war far too lightly.
False.
Does McCain support keeping the troops in the mideast for 100 years?
If necessary.
He said he would.
If necessary.
Troops in the mideast garauntees war.
False. "Troops in Germany guarantees war."
McCain is in favor of more war.
False.
Has McCain voted against all these spending increases that he appearantly opposes?
Some of them yes, some no. The point is not the vote, but what he tried to do -- and DID do -- to change the spending bills in question.
His voting record unfortunately shows someone who supports as much spending as Bush and Clinton.
False.
Posted by: pudge on March 4, 2008 07:35 PMSo your candidate sings a song about bombing Iran and your arguement against my claim that this might be a sign he takes war to lightly consists solely of 'false'? Perhaps you might want to a take a moment to expand on that for others that might require a little more substance?
And you seriously argueing that we should ignore his voting record on spending and instead go by what he says? sorry, i won't do that.
Posted by: lysander on March 4, 2008 08:19 PMMcCain absolutely has to be a better communicator than Bush or he will be defeated. With that said, I think he has shown to be a better communicator and Obama - if nominated will be shown as a far left McGovern that will play to his disadvantage. Hillary Clinton should be seen as tainted - she is more polarizing than anyone and there are a different set of problems that will burden her. Either way it should be a close election and alot could happen in the next 8 months.
Posted by: KS on March 4, 2008 09:11 PMI do not care how many books he has written about how he takes war seriously, you do not joke about bombing people.
Posted by: lysander on March 4, 2008 09:22 PMHow many years since WWI? ... How many of those countries do we still have troops in?
How many years since the Korean War? Dow we still have troops deployed there?
How many years since WWII? ... How many of those countries do we still have troops in?
According to the Dept of Defense the US has troops in 135 countries.
Do you understand the difference between "keeping troops in" for 100 years and troops fighting for 100 years... it is a significant difference... unless, of course, you beleive that we are still fighting the Korean War.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 4, 2008 09:22 PM....ah, that felt good! A little, harmless, stress-relieving fantasy, so good for the mental health... and hells bells, Seattle is not even part of the axis of evil or a declared, avowed enemy... at least I don't think it is....
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 4, 2008 09:28 PMI am surprised that you would present the fact that we have troops in 135 countries as something you think would help convince me McCain is worth supporting. We should have troops stationed in at best 2-3 countries, not 135.
Posted by: lysander on March 4, 2008 09:29 PMThat being said Obama needs the youth vote for victory and 18-25 rarely appear at the ballot box. McCain needs the conservatives, but they may be too apathetic or downright hostile to cast a vote for him.
Posted by: troad on March 4, 2008 09:57 PMNational Taxpayers Union has estimated McCains proposed spending increases at nearly 7 billion more per year. So please forgive me when I say that McCain is a big spender (bigger than Clinton or Bush). He is headed in the opposite direction than I am for spending and can therefore not support him.
Sorry Republicans, but you guys did it to yourselves. If you wanted small government supporters to support your candidate you should have chose Paul.
Posted by: Lysander on March 4, 2008 10:01 PMRick D and Larry
1. You have made my points. According to the defintion of empty suit provided by Rick D which is ineffective manager, Bush can be compared to Reagan on the issue of vetos. It has nothing to do with who is running for president, it is simply a comparison. You don't want to make that comparison, that is all. Incidently, I don't think Bush is an empty suit or dumb. If you set up certain criteria, anyone can qualify, kinda like the Airbus contract.
2. On the issue of questions about your backgrounds, everyone is entitled to an opinion, the only question is how credible is that opinion. I can only assume that your backgrounds are not equal to Obama's in terms of either education or political experience and that neither of you is or was a US senator. Wiki has an interesting article on the backgrounds of most US Presidents, most were lawyers and held a variety of political offices. It is intersting that the US Constitution has an age and place of birth requirement only. So, you are entitled to your opinions, can we conclude that based upon your probable lack of achievement you are empty suits as people? I wouldn't say that even, about you.
I don't plan to vote for Hillary because I feel she is a corrupt individual and would like to have a European style government based upon secular principles. She is not an empty suit. Although, I feel she literally made a bargin with the devil to arrive at this juncture in life she is a woman of accomplishment. She is a lawyer, senator, author, and presidential candidate. I disagree with her on policy, but I would not label her as dumb or an empty suit. Interesting, that you have taken the low road because there are enough actual policy issues to discuss with both Hillary and Obama to really mount a successful campaign. If you want to continue this empty suit dialogue, people who think that both candidates are not given due regard, may vote for them.
Rebel,
Interesting that my comments are valuable except on the issue of race. One of the greatest issues facing this country is the racial divide. This election, whether one supports or votes for either Hillary or Obama has gone a long way to healing some issues. In my opinion, this constant empty suit epithet is something that is a throwback to an earlier earlier. Disagree on policy, diasgree on issues, but empty suit, really. In my opinion and I am entitled to the opinion that one who judges a whole group of people based upon immutable characteristics can be labeled. Whether you chose to make that determination rests on your opinion. In some situations, it is what it is and whether people want to discuss it depends on how comfortable they are feeling with the issue of race. Many people of all flavors who have issues with others not like are actually nice people to people in the tribe. I understand that Duke is a great guy if you are Caucasian and many can't believe all that vile stuff about and similarly Farrakan is thought to be a gentle caring soul as long as you are not Jewish. What you see often depends on where you stand, it is called perspective. What you see as potential unfair labeling of a great guy might not look the same from another corner of the room.
Posted by: WVH on March 4, 2008 10:19 PMIf course, expecting intellectual honesty is far too much to ask.
Whether you think they should be in 135 countries or I think they shouldn't doesn't matter a whit. It's not up to us and frankly it shouldn't be up to a candidate or president except upon advice of military and diplomatic leaders.
By the way... what happened to Vietnam when we bailed out?
~~~
National Taxpayers Union has estimated McCains proposed spending increases at nearly 7 billion more per year.
Hillary Clinton is proposing bankruptcy through Socialism for America. Nearly every week she has proposed massive entitlement programs that will cost the American tax payer $756 billion , (yes billion with a "B"), dollars if they are implemented and she is still proposing so the final price tag will be higher.
What does "change" cost? About a quarter of a trillion bucks a year, according to Barack Obama.
Of course, at the moment the costly unsolvable problem is Medicare... and the dynamic duo won't even discuss it.
~~
A gem from your potential future Fearless Leader!!!!
"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it." -- Barack (middle name fear bomb deleted) Obama
Medicare- The $34 Trillion Problem
I am not taking it out of context. He says he will stay for 100 years if necessary right? He thinks that it will be a peaceful 100 years. Lets assume he is right. Why are we going to be there for 100 years if it is all peaceful? Is it our job to keep peace in the middle east? NO!
But...He is wrong. It will not be peaceful, just look at Vietnam. We will eventually get out when it is realized by people like McCain it is unwinable.
I never heard an answer to how many troops we have in Vietnam. You know the nation where our troops stop dying once our leaders realized the war was not winnable. You know... The nation we now trade with in SE asia. How much do we spend keeping troops there?
Oh, and even if we assume McCain is right and it will be peaceful, and we assume that it is our role to keep peace in the middle east. It still does not matter. WE DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO BE THERE!!!
Posted by: Lysander on March 4, 2008 11:57 PMhttp://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-obama2aug02,0,5330469.story?coll=chi-newsbreaking-hed
Posted by: Rick D. on March 5, 2008 05:11 AMDoes it not concern you that McCain would jokingly sing about bombing people?
Posted by: Lysander on March 5, 2008 05:56 AMIf you are, lys, you can run but you can't hide, dude...I've saved your ugly words to use at will.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 5, 2008 08:46 AMYou obviously don't know the first rule about getting out of a hole - STOP DIGGING. You're only making yourself look more and more foolish.
"2. On the issue of questions about your backgrounds, everyone is entitled to an opinion, the only question is how credible is that opinion. I can only assume that your backgrounds are not equal to Obama's in terms of either education or political experience and that neither of you is or was a US senator. Wiki has an interesting article on the backgrounds of most US Presidents, most were lawyers and held a variety of political offices. It is intersting that the US Constitution has an age and place of birth requirement only. So, you are entitled to your opinions, can we conclude that based upon your probable lack of achievement you are empty suits as people? I wouldn't say that even, about you."
1. Why do you continue to try to compare MY qualifications to Obama's? You're pretty much admitting that he's not qualified by doing that. I admit - I'm not qualified to run for President. Barack Obama should admit that as well, but he won't.
2. My probable lack of achievement? You don't know anything about me. You're not only ignorant, you're offensive as well! You hit the Daily Double!!
3. Why do YOU get to talk about any candidate? Did YOU graduate from Harvard? Are YOU a US Senator?? If not, you're not allowed to have any opinion about any Presidential candidate whatsoever. How do YOU like it? Sounds pretty ignorant, huh?
Barack Obama is an empty suit. I don't care what you think about my opinion or how credible I may or may not be. It will be apparent when Obama has to stand next to McCain at debates. McCain will be talking about being a POW and his 22-year military career, his 2 terms in the House and subsequent 4 in the Senate - and Obama can tell us all about how he ran community meetings for a legislative district in Illinois. Boy, how we'll hang on his every word. I can't wait.
Posted by: Larry on March 5, 2008 12:57 PM
Travis: So your candidate sings a song about bombing Iran and your arguement against my claim that this might be a sign he takes war to lightly consists solely of 'false'?
That is a misrepresentation of what you said. You said not that this is a sign that he MIGHT take war lightly, but that it is a sign he DOES. And yes, it's false, and no, it requires no more refutation than that: your claim has no logical basis, and requires no logical refutation.
Perhaps you might want to a take a moment to expand on that for others that might require a little more substance?
Nope. If you provide some substance to your argument, I will refute that substance. As none has been provided from you, I have no cause to provide any in return.
I do not care how many books he has written about how he takes war seriously, you do not joke about bombing people.
False.
You want substance? Fine: I wrote a song joking about 9/11, and another joking about the Holocaust, and I take both very seriously. I wrote another song joking about a coming war with Iran (called "World War Three"), lamenting the fact that World War Three has not yet begun ("we try and we try but we don't know how ... if it's going to happen, should have happened by now"), and I take all of the above very seriously.
The claim that someone does not joke about something they take seriously has no basis in logic. It is a claim without any merit.
Does it not concern you that McCain would jokingly sing about bombing people?
Not in any way whatsoever.
And you seriously argueing that we should ignore his voting record on spending and instead go by what he says?
No. I am saying you should go by what he DOES: his amendments offered, for example. Look at the spending projects he HAS killed, and the spending he himself has proposed or sponsored.
Most people -- obviously, you are not most people -- recognize that just because you are against a significant part of a bill does not necessarily mean you will vote against that bill: Congressmen don't have a line-item veto. You have to take ALL of his actions into consideration.
National Taxpayers Union has estimated McCains proposed spending increases at nearly 7 billion more per year. So please forgive me when I say that McCain is a big spender (bigger than Clinton or Bush).
No, I won't.
Out of that "proposed spending increases at nearly 7 billion more per year," $1.8b was for a three-year program back in 2000, which would have expired by now, and was largely nullified by NCLB anyway, so is no longer a valid claim og "increase"; $2.856b is for health care TAX CREDITS which are NOT increased spending at all; $1.5b is for border security that is, in fact, the federal government's job, and something more people in here support (and is only over two years: again, not per year, as they claim); $1.917b is for missile defense (again, something most people in here support).
So that's $6.935b, minus $2.856b which is not increased spending: $4.079b. Minus a $1.8b program that is no longer a factor leaves a $2.279b increase: and without $3.417b in national security spending, it would actually be a net spending CUT of over $1b under McCain!
But apart from "excuses" like "national security," McCain still wants a factor of 1/100th the spending increases of Hillary and Obama. Even Ron Paul would say that's pretty damned good, especially since almost the entire net increase of $2.279b is the $1.917b for missile defense, which Ron Paul supports!
And even if you don't buy any of that for some reason but what to stick by that "nearly $7b" figure ... Bush and Clinton both increased spending more than $7b a year. Clinton's spending increases in just DISCRETIONARY spending was more than that: Clinton averaged 2.4 percent per year for discretionary spending increases, and McCain's TOTAL percentage increase would represent 2.4 percent over the FY2008 budget. And Bush had a lot more than that.
So ... nope. McCain's proposed spending increases are not nearly $7b per year; they actually come out to about zero if you take away programs that are a. no longer valid, b. not spending increases, and c. favored by Ron Paul; his spending proposals are 1/100th of Clinton's and Obama's; and even if you take the full $7b figure he STILL has MUCH lower spending than both Clinton and Bush did.
Posted by: pudge on March 6, 2008 05:18 AMShrug. I noted in the original post that it is meaningless. And I told you to feel free to disregard it. I did my part, why aren't you doing yours?! ;-)
Posted by: pudge on March 6, 2008 05:19 AMYou prove my point wonderful. You are able to whittle a 7 billion increase to a 1 billion decrease and think that makes a lick of a difference! When the budget is what it is, that difference of 8 billion in spending is nothing. That is seriously like argueing about increasing or decreasing the budget it by a fraction of a percent. For all inents and purposes he is proposing we keep the budget where it is at which is MUCH HIGHER THAN CLINTON LEVEL SPENDING!!! Now if he was proposing to decrease spending back to clinton levels we would be in the area where I would consider him a supporter of smaller government.
Posted by: Lysander on March 6, 2008 05:41 AMthat difference of 8 billion in spending is nothing
Exactly. So why complain about it?
That is seriously like argueing about increasing or decreasing the budget it by a fraction of a percent.
Exactly. So why complain about it?
For all inents and purposes he is proposing we keep the budget where it is
False.
at which is MUCH HIGHER THAN CLINTON LEVEL SPENDING!!!
False. Perhaps you mean in actual dollars or inflation-adjusted dollars, but not as a percentage of GDP, which is the most accurate comparative measurement of year-to-year budgets.
Posted by: pudge on March 6, 2008 06:24 AMWVH doesn't bother to entertain a debate. She's here to throw out her "Race baiting" banter, then claim victim status, then labels anyone who dares question her premises validity a racist...only to then scurry away until another thread opens up. Much like her candidate,she's an intellectual "empty suit".
Posted by: Rick D. on March 6, 2008 04:23 PMI am not quibling over the 8 billion dollar deficit. I did not think it is worth quibbling over and am willing to concede all your excuses for McCain and will admit he proposes to decrease the budget by 1 billion dollars rather than increase it 7 billion. My point is that even with your assumptions, a 1 billion dollar decrease is not what I call a small government proposal.
A decrease in spending of 1 billion dollars is essentially keeping the budget where it is at. You claim that this statement is false. What is your justification?
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=31
You want inflation adjusted? Go to the link above. Bush has increased spending over clinton by 20-25% inflation adjusted depending on whether you count military.
So McCain if we take your assumption/justifications wants to decrease the federal budget Bush is leaving us with by 1 billion. That means McCains proposed spending level = (Clintons spending X 1.25) - 1 billion dollars.
Wow what a small government Maverick!!!
WOuld you like to admit now that McCain is not good on spending yet? :)
So? Who ever said it was? I suppose McCain could have proposed a budget that never would have passed that cut spending by hundreds of millions of dollars. But that would have been a waste of his time.
I am hopeful his budgets as President will represent cuts in spending, and I think they will.
WOuld you like to admit now that McCain is not good on spending yet?
No, because that would be stupid.
Posted by: pudge on March 6, 2008 06:14 PMYou ask who ever said a 1 billion dollar decrease is a small government proposal.
I think you come awful close when you claim, "McCain is one of the biggest deficit hawks this country has seen in your lifetime. Even the big economic conservative think tanks and advocacy groups that hate McCain all say he has been a force for good on spending cuts.
Why would it be stupid to call a person who proposes a measly 1 billion dollar decrease 'no good on spending' yet appearntly perfectly okay to call him a deficit hawk? Is it maybe that he is the man representing your team and you will support him no matter what?
His 1 billion dollar increase is based on his rpoposals as a presidential candidate not his congressional bills. But if he had no balls to vote no as a congressman why do you think he will as president.
Posted by: Lysander on March 7, 2008 04:12 AMI think you come awful close ...
No, I don't.
And what I said was true.
Why would it be stupid to call a person who proposes a measly 1 billion dollar decrease 'no good on spending' yet appearntly perfectly okay to call him a deficit hawk?
Correct. Because this "proposes a measly 1 billion dollar decrease" -- as I have been saying -- does not represent all of what he has done, and has tried to do, to reduce spending.
Is it maybe that he is the man representing your team and you will support him no matter what?
Ad hominem logical fallacy.
His 1 billion dollar increase is based on his rpoposals as a presidential candidate not his congressional bills.
Right: it has not looked at all that he has actually done. You're making my case. Thanks!
But if he had no balls to vote no as a congressman
False.
Posted by: pudge on March 7, 2008 05:00 AMAnd base everything off of what he guess he might have done behind closed doors in congress?
Nope. I will always base what I expect politicians to do by past voting records unless you can show me some compelling reason to base it on something else. SO far you have not. Instead you have just claimed false whenever anything you do not want to hear is said. You are normally better than this pudge.
Posted by: Lysander on March 7, 2008 04:49 PMWould you support a man who said that the next president will need to "bring the Iraq war to the swiftest possible conclusion."
Posted by: Lysander on March 7, 2008 05:19 PMYour case, if I understand you right, is that you are deliberately ignoring half of what I say to try to misrepresent what I am actually saying.
You can't be misrepresenting me this much by accident. It has to be on purpose, because you are not that dumb. Which means you are being dishonest.
Would you support a man who said that the next president will need to "bring the Iraq war to the swiftest possible conclusion."
Just based on that one statement? Of course not. If you said it, I wouldn't support you for President. What an extremely silly question.
Posted by: pudge on March 9, 2008 09:49 AMI specifically restated your position to make sure I was understanding you correctly. Your response indicates I appearantly don't but you still fail to elaborate how we can evaluate McCain and come to the conclusion he is good on spending.
I have suggested measuring him by his votes as a senator or by his promises as a presidential candidate. THese are two things we can objectively observe and make judgement on.
You however are suggesting we go by what he has done before votes which we do not have really any evidence of. You suggest we ignore his votes for increased spending and ignore his promises to continue that level spending. I am confused how this is an accurate or fair way to judge the man.
Posted by: Lysander on March 9, 2008 02:05 PMI specifically restated your position ...
In a way that contradicted how I stated it.
... you still fail to elaborate how we can evaluate McCain and come to the conclusion he is good on spending.
No, I didn't.
I have suggested measuring him by his votes as a senator or by his promises as a presidential candidate.
No, you didn't. What you looked at were not promises, but proposals, and it was only SOME of those proposals, and only SOME of those votes, and mostly only over the past few years, rather than his entire career, for which he has been lauded by many small government groups.
You however are suggesting we go by what he has done before votes which we do not have really any evidence of.
False.
You suggest we ignore his votes for increased spending and ignore his promises to continue that level spending.
False.
Posted by: pudge on March 9, 2008 02:45 PMOkay lets forget the past. We are obviously having problems understanding each other. Why don't we try starting over with you stating how big you think McCain wants to see our federal government as a percentage of its size today and what specifically you base that estimate on.
If you chose something smaller than 100% also please let me know what areas you think he will make cuts in and why.
Posted by: Lysander on March 9, 2008 03:38 PMI see nothing to start over.
you stating how big you think McCain wants to see our federal government as a percentage of its size today and what specifically you base that estimate on.
A specific percentage is a dumb thing to state.
He wants it to be smaller. I base this on the fact that he has said so many times, and because he has done as much to actually shrink government as anyone in government these past 25 years -- including Ron Paul.
Ron Paul talks a good game. McCain actually accomplishes things. Would he shrink government as much as Paul? No. Would Paul be effective in shrinking government as President? Hell no. Will McCain? Hell yes.
McCain will be better at implementing a Ron Paul agenda than Ron Paul would be, because Ron Paul couldn't work with Congress to get any of it done.