DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BT on January 25, 2008, 08:25:21 PM
-
This from my old buddy Jayc28 at his blog (http://www.popandsports.com/?p=1082):
10 years ago, you couldn?t get me to vote for a Democrat and now I am on the verge of supporting Barack Obama. It?s not because I see eye to eye on him politically. For the most part, I don?t. But we?re in a time where we need a shake-up in Washington DC. Nobody on the Republican side will do the trick and neither will Hillary.
-
This from my old buddy Jayc28 at his blog (http://www.popandsports.com/?p=1082):
10 years ago, you couldn?t get me to vote for a Democrat and now I am on the verge of supporting Barack Obama. It?s not because I see eye to eye on him politically. For the most part, I don?t. But we?re in a time where we need a shake-up in Washington DC. Nobody on the Republican side will do the trick and neither will Hillary.
Looks like Jayboy picked up some good sense along with those extra pounds he has packed on.
-
...neither will Hillary.
Good to know he's still brilliant.
-
While I don't see myself voting for a democrat, I may not vote for a Republican.
I understand Jay's pain, but voting for Obama? He must be joking.
-
I think he is dissatisfied with the entire spectrum of candidates and probably looking at his kids getting older and wondering what kind of world they will grow into. I doubt it is Obama as much as it is a general unease.
Change is coming. What shape it takes, who knows.
-
I don't know. I think the change we're seeing in the Republican Party will be rejected. I don't believe any of the potential Republican nominees can win in the general. After they lose, Republicans will realize that we can't win being democrat lite.
Which is what Jay is thinking too ... imo
-
Maybe he will pop in and clarify.
Strange to think we have been at this close to 10 years.
-
10 years ... with short intermissions.
I remember finding the original ... what was it? Politically Incorrect Cafe .... and chicky had a place .... and there was The Spin Cycle ...
Anyway ... I was in Florida ... and Tennessee, and now Ohio ... you sure its only been 10 years?
-
I joined yahoo chat the day the Lewinsky scandal broke, January 17, 1998
-
I see Knute is still as classy as ever. Cmon Knute, call me a 'rat fink Republican' for old time's sake! ;D
As for the whole Barack Obama thing, it would provide a shake-up in Washington that is sorely needed. Don't get me wrong, if Hillary is the nominee, I'll do what it takes to make sure the Republican candidate wins. I don't want her getting anywhere near the White House.
But McCain, Romney and Huckabee? That's the best the GOP can do? It's pathetic.
A win by Obama would send shockwaves through DC. It would be the start of a new era where hopefully we'll start getting rid of the fossils who have completely lost touch with what it is like to live outside of DC.
10 years......wow.
-
I agree we are on the cusp of a generational thing. Where that gets us , who knows.
-
I think we are on the cusp of a generational thing.
I've been considering this election, recently, in that vein as well. Prior to the internets-as-communication-device-explosion, which was post-1996, the last democrat victory(all hemming and hawing over supreme court presidential appointments aside), it was evident that the support of the Southern Democrats was necessary to win in an election, and correct me if I'm wrong but all winners since around Wilson's time were southerners and/or had the overwhelming support of the Southern Democrats. The only exception was JFK, and he was savvy enough to have LBJ as his running mate because of that fact.
I've been saying for some time now that there is /no way/ that the Hildebeast or Obama will get the overwhelming support of Southern Dems. Even Sam Nunn, who the Southern Dems listen to as if he were Jesus, has kept quiet in endorsing a democrat. But is any of that a factor anymore, given that voters-particularly the youth vote-will look less to endorsements and more to the media and the internet for their information?
-
I think Obama has a better chance in the South than Hillary. Tomorrow in SC will speak volumes.
-
http://www.peoplenewspapers.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=0DC0ACBC546640A5A35C2882881EA4CB&AudID=DA7D68F24889442D98449D08560D8327
I'm not so certain, but we'll see. I know in the richest zip codes in Texas, as of a few months ago, Giuliani had the most money for republicans(ecch)and Edwards followed in second place.
My dayjob is a strategist and I work on a project-basis with the government frequently. I've yet to encounter too many dems in Texas who really believe in Barak or the Hildebeast.
I will say this, though: there is a LOT of guilt-tripping going on the current democratic party primaries. No matter the state I am in, when a Hillary or Barak supporter finds out I back Edwards they begin to try to play on "white guilt" or "liberal guilt" to try to appeal for their candidate. THANKFULLY I was raised in a secular household by socially liberal, fiscally conservative wasp's, so I feel no guilt :P ::)
10 years ago, you couldn?t get me to vote for a Democrat and now I am on the verge of supporting Barack Obama. It?s not because I see eye to eye on him politically. For the most part, I don?t. But we?re in a time where we need a shake-up in Washington DC. Nobody on the Republican side will do the trick and neither will Hillary.
I don't think Hillary or Obama could cause a "shake-up" in DC, as evidenced by their http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/03/compare_and_contrast_hillary_and_obamas_votes_on_iraq.php (http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/03/compare_and_contrast_hillary_and_obamas_votes_on_iraq.php) voting records.
-
Is Edwards still running?
-
::)
You wouldn't know it by watching the news.
-
>I see Knute is still as classy as ever. Cmon Knute, call me a 'rat fink Republican' for old time's sake! <
You were far worsen that, old pal. But as I always say- Time wounds all heels.
-
>>But McCain, Romney and Huckabee? That's the best the GOP can do? It's pathetic.<<
Agreed. A generational change may be in order. After all, is a 72 year-old John McCain going to bring in the 18-30 year-old voters with his brand of change? I seriously doubt it. The NYTImes endorsed McCain for the Republican side, that in itself is enough to disqualify in.
Long time Jay.
-
>>But McCain, Romney and Huckabee? That's the best the GOP can do? It's pathetic.<<
The NYTImes endorsed McCain for the Republican side, that in itself is enough to disqualify in.
Well, he did push the anti 1st amendment law into fruition that gives both himself (incumbants) and the MSM much more ability at remaining in power and dictating the bias in their political coverage, respectfully. Why wouldn't they endorse him?
oh, and "HI" to Jay as well :)
-
This from my old buddy Jayc28 at his blog (http://www.popandsports.com/?p=1082):
10 years ago, you couldn?t get me to vote for a Democrat and now I am on the verge of supporting Barack Obama. It?s not because I see eye to eye on him politically. For the most part, I don?t. But we?re in a time where we need a shake-up in Washington DC. Nobody on the Republican side will do the trick and neither will Hillary.
Looks like Jayboy picked up some good sense along with those extra pounds he has packed on.
extra pounds?
-
While I don't see myself voting for a democrat, I may not vote for a Republican.
I understand Jay's pain, but voting for Obama? He must be joking.
Rich, I can see his point. Why do you think most the ones who really wnat change are voting for Obma? And the yuppies and...
Hillary is backed by the traditional Democratic estalbishment and its powerful apparatus, a major reason she will win. I doubt she will espouse or push any revolutionary agendas as Obama might do.
-
I think we are on the cusp of a generational thing.
I've been considering this election, recently, in that vein as well. Prior to the internets-as-communication-device-explosion, which was post-1996, the last democrat victory(all hemming and hawing over supreme court presidential appointments aside), it was evident that the support of the Southern Democrats was necessary to win in an election, and correct me if I'm wrong but all winners since around Wilson's time were southerners and/or had the overwhelming support of the Southern Democrats. The only exception was JFK, and he was savvy enough to have LBJ as his running mate because of that fact.
I've been saying for some time now that there is /no way/ that the Hildebeast or Obama will get the overwhelming support of Southern Dems. Even Sam Nunn, who the Southern Dems listen to as if he were Jesus, has kept quiet in endorsing a democrat. But is any of that a factor anymore, given that voters-particularly the youth vote-will look less to endorsements and more to the media and the internet for their information?
Hillary can win the Party's nomination even without the South.
-
The difference being (between Obama, Clinton, and Hillary).........largely nothing. It's the same rhetoric, just being promoted in 3 different variations.....bigger government, more bureacracy, higher taxes for 'the rich", Corporations are all bad, (except for those that donate to Democrats of course)....oh, and the Republicans want women to die of cancer. Oh wait, lemme get back on the last one
-
>>Rcih, I can see his point. Why do you think most the ones who really wnat change are voting for Obma? And the yuppies and... Hillary is backed by the traditional Democratic estalbishment and its powerful apparatus, a major reason she will win. I doubt she will espouse or push any revolutionary agendas as Obama might do.<<
Don't kid yourself Professor. Obama is an empty suit. He differs little, if at all, with Mrs. Clinton. If he represented something, anything, I might agree that he could be an agent of change, but unless you can point out one thing he's supporting that means anything, I believe he's just another liberal spouting the tired old liberal, "hate the rich," line. Also, I believe he's more than a little bit racist. Nobody wants to address his church and the racist pastor he admires. God forbid a Republican speak at Bob Jones University and liberals have Republicans all over the country hooking up Black folks to their bumpers. But Barack Hussein Obama BELONGS to a church that calls America "The United States of WHITE America," and claims you can't really understand God unless you're black.
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/152/415413428_e05238d668_o.jpg)
-
The difference being (between Obama, Clinton, and Hillary).........largely nothing. It's the same rhetoric, just being promoted in 3 different variations.....bigger government, more bureacracy, higher taxes for 'the rich", Corporations are all bad, (except for those that donate to Democrats of course)....oh, and the Republicans want women to die of cancer. Oh wait, lemme get back on the last one
LOL
What a joke!
There is more distance between Hillary and Edwards than there is between Hillary and McCain or Romney.
You really haven't been reading the fine print.
-
Crane, in the past you have indicated you are black. What is your take on Rich's previous post, if I may be so bold to ask?
-
Hillary can win the Party's nomination even without the South.
I'm not concerned about her winning the party nomination, with or without the south.
I'm concerned about her winning the presidency *if* she is the nominee, same as I worry about Obama winning the presidential race if he is the nominee.
Don't kid yourself Professor. Obama is an empty suit. He differs little, if at all, with Mrs. Clinton. If he represented something, anything, I might agree that he could be an agent of change, but unless you can point out one thing he's supporting that means anything, I believe he's just another liberal spouting the tired old liberal, "hate the rich," line. Also, I believe he's more than a little bit racist. Nobody wants to address his church and the racist pastor he admires. God forbid a Republican speak at Bob Jones University and liberals have Republicans all over the country hooking up Black folks to their bumpers. But Barack Hussein Obama BELONGS to a church that calls America "The United States of WHITE America," and claims you can't really understand God unless you're black.
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/152/415413428_e05238d668_o.jpg)
I agree that he differs little from the Hildebeast. If either of them become the party nominee, I will be begging for a Nunn-Bloomberg ticket. While I can't say *he* is racist-I don't know his history with the church, maybe he didn't care and his wife started dragging him there, for instance-I can say some of his supporters are whether they realize it or not. Ten months ago I would gladly go on&on about the guilt-tripping his supporters indugle in-Hilde's as well-to appeal for their candidates, but now I just want the campaigning to be over with. I did start countering with "Well, how do you think poor Edwards feels? You assume he's status quo because he's white and successful? Isn't that reverse dicrimination?", though haha ;D
LOL
What a joke!
There is more distance between Hillary and Edwards than there is between Hillary and McCain or Romney.
You really haven't been reading the fine print.
Agreed! Thats why Hillary or Obama would lead the Southern Dems to vote for McCain. Not so sure about Romney.
-
The difference being (between Obama, Clinton, and Hillary).........largely nothing. It's the same rhetoric, just being promoted in 3 different variations.....bigger government, more bureacracy, higher taxes for 'the rich", Corporations are all bad, (except for those that donate to Democrats of course)....oh, and the Republicans want women to die of cancer. Oh wait, lemme get back on the last one
What a joke! There is more distance between Hillary and Edwards than there is between Hillary and McCain or Romney. You really haven't been reading the fine print.
You're right.......I read their voting records, and listened directly to their rhetoric. What was I thinking? And suffice to say, the Dem's options are pretty much the same, just in different packages. UHC, against the war, against Bush, taxes on "the rich", immigration, corporations as evil, Unions as heavenly, etc., etc., etc. Any substantive differences are largely cosmetic.
But by all means, Crane, demonstrate these HUGE differences, as you see them, between Obama, Clinton, & Edwards. Different levels of UHC doesn't quite cut it, I'm afraid