![[Masthead]](http://www.t-g.com/images/nameplate.png)
|
|
A Few Clouds ~ High: 85°F ~ Low: 58°F Wednesday, May 16, 2012 |
|
Note on an electionPosted Monday, May 26, 2008, at 10:05 AM
This primary election will undoubtedly go down as one of the strangest in history. One Party has shot itself, probably fatally as far as Nov. goes, and the other just defaulted early on to one who seems far from the quintessential representative one would expect as a candidate from that party.
In the case of the Democrats it seems as though charges of racism and misogyny are let fly with wild abandon and then, later, "clarifying" statements are issued. This sound familiar? Anytime a clarifying statement is thought necessary you can bet one has placed their foot squarely in their mouth and are trying to get out in one piece but at the same time knowing their intended point was made. One is lead to believe Obama cannot get "working white American's" votes and Clinton cannot get black votes. Although there is evidence many blacks vote for Obama simply because he is black, he has won several states with few blacks, Iowa for instance. Hillary seems to have trouble attracting black votes even though she was Deputy President to the first Black President. Go figure. While the ideological bias' of the mainstream press will not allow them to report such, it is clear the Democrats are in serious trouble no matter who wins the Primary. Polls show upwards of 25% of Hillary supporters say they will vote for McCain in November if Obama wins and 17-18% of Obama supporters will vote for McCain if Clinton wins. In either case the Democrats appear to have handed the Presidency to McCain on a platter. I suspect it is the fault of the Party assuming the people-at-large don't have the intellectual ability to know the difference. The candidates espouse long and often they can best unify the Country when the obviously cannot unify their Party. Neither candidate has a record of reaching across the aisle to solve major problems facing the country. McCain does, but it is not proper to point that out. So much for unity. The Democrat's friends in the press have made sure the Gallop poll of mid-May, showing the President's approval rating at 29%, has been widely bannered, but did you know the Congress' approval rating in the exact same poll was 18%! Since both Houses of Congress are Democratic, this need not be distributed to mere citizens. Well, soon both Democratic candidates will find a way to blame their dilemma on Bush, then all will be well. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Near lifelong resident of Bedford County. Will comment on the issues of the day in, hopefully a cogent and certainly an honest manner. Will propose discussions not usually fully addressed in the mainstream media.
Hot topics Narcissism(5 ~ 11:43 PM, Feb 3)
Sentencing
Election 2010
Gambling Update
Gambling Sentence
|
Email link
Read comments (33)
Blog archive
![[Feed icon]](http://www.t-g.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
Carl, I am concerned that the country as a whole is in trouble when it comes to this election. For the first time since I turned 18 I questioned whether or not I will vote!
I will, but not with much enthusiasm.
Maybe it is time for a new type of revolution. Not a violent or bloody one, but one that will TOTALLY replace ALL Congressman and Senators within a four to six year period.
Half of each state in one election and the other half in the next. That gives the new ones a little time to get their feet wet, with some experience still in place, then the other half have to go.
Carl, I'm curious to see how many of these "yellow dog Democrats" will be willing to vote for a black candidate. They may be willing to vote for a "yellow dog" before they would vote for a Republican, but would they vote for a Republican before they would vote for a black man? I cannot vote for any of the three major candidates in good conscience, so I couldn't care less who wins their party's nomination.
As for Congress, I agree with Steve, can 'em all and start over.
Thom . . . not all of those who typically vote Democrat but refuse to vote for Obama are racist. I voted for Ford when he was running for Senate against Corker because I felt he genuinely could make a difference. Obama on the other hand lacks the needed experience and has said many things that shows his inability to lead this country because he has no real vision . . . all he has proven is that he can sugar coat his lack of any real platform with eloquent speeches. I do not like Clinton on several issues but I do feel as though she has a clue as to what it takes to be a president and might be able to clean some of the mess made by Bush. Obama and McCain though will only make the economy and the war on terrorism even worse.
That is why I wont vote for Obama or McCain. . . not because of the color of his skin and anyone that assumes as such are just as ignorant as the accusation of racism.
Carl,
Good to see you back. But I highly doubt the Democrats have shot themselves... If anyone thinks the current world as we know it needs more of the same false promises, blatant lies, and intentional covert operations that generate so much controversy as the Republicans have created, then I feel sorry for this country.
Instead of everyone focusing on Obama and what he supposedly can't do, why don't we look into McCain's record. Is experience all one needs in order to run something? I mean after all, three of the world's largest corporations (Enron, WorldCom, Arthur Andersen) were all ran by highly "experienced" executive teams who, were so good at what they did for so long, but eventually everything they had gained from "experience" ruined them and everyone who worked for them.
And do you want to know what I think about those polls you cite? Why is it that nobody in this state, or in particular, on these blogs ever been included in those? Polls are scare tactics and unrealistic. On either side of the media bias.
The Democrats (as has been the case throughout every state in the primaries) will win by a landslide in November. By the way, how does McCain label himself as a "Reformist" and always being able to give "Straight Talk", yet just look at his lobbyist ridden campaign staff who have given money to the most notorious worldwide criminals in history. And even that doesn't get news, because millions of people don't even know who John McCain is. I don't think many Republicans wish to see a candidate who agrees with Democrats on hundreds of legislative issues. By the way, if the Republicans want to give advice on picking the right candidate, perhaps they should have elected the REAL conservative, the REAL "straight talker", the REAL last honest guy in Congress, Ron Paul....
jaxspike, I do not believe that I referred to those that "typically" vote Democrat. I was talking about those die-hard Democrats that won't vote for a Republican simply because Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. I certainly hope that you are not going to say that you don't know the difference.
darrick_04:
"The Democrats (as has been the case throughout every state in the primaries) will win by a landslide in November"
Still curious as to how they're going to swing that when the "Democrat" controlled Congress has a lower approval rating than the President that everyone's complaining about. Don't get me wrong…I certainly don't want McCain in the White House either. I'm still going to be voting for Dr. Paul in the general election.
Carl,
Great to have you back ole friend! I've been wondering about your thoughts on these candidates and the upcoming election. Keep it coming.
Thom, I don't believe in polls... And how would Congress have high approval ratings, if they can't get anything done due to BUSH having the veto power... Let's just wait and see. I love Dr. Paul, I really really really wish he would win, but I can not waste a vote on him this time...
Though his people have been showing up in droves at Convention meetings trying to get more delegates seated to him. They say he may have a chance at getting "30 times the 21 delegates" he already has. Due to legalities and tons of voter fraud complaints where Dr. Paul was purposely left off the ballot. All in all a Democrat will win. I just don't see how anyone branded "Republican" can renew a tarnished image and undo the last 8 years of complete chaos.
"I love Dr. Paul, I really really really wish he would win, but I can not waste a vote on him this time..."
If everyone that felt this way would simply vote accordingly, maybe we could effect some change.
Ok, let me see if I've got this right. The man that you want to see as President has little chance of getting elected. So you're going to turn your back on him and vote for someone that stands for so many things that are counter to his beliefs? Makes sense to me.
If people do not vote to change the establishment, the establishment will never change on its own. I'm not talking about the catchphrase "change" that Clinton and Obama espouse, I mean REAL change.
Also, as for Bush having the power of the veto, doesn't Congress have the ability to override his veto? I seem to remember them doing this a couple of times. Blame it on what you want, but Congress can't get anything done because the leadership is inept.
Ron Paul will not be running in the general election if he does not get the nomination Thom... Since you're such a fan I unfortunately assumed you' know that already. I'm not turning my back on him... I'm still going to vote, since it is a right and a privilege and I will vote for who I want since Paul may not win the nomination...
We can argue all day about the current Congress and the President's "approval ratings" but the truth of the matter is, in order to override a President's veto 2/3 of the House (435 members) must vote to override it.... The Democrats have a SIMPLE majority in the House of Representatives, 232 member to the Republican's 202... therefore they do not have the ability to completely override every veto the President enacts...
I understand that Ron Paul will not be running if he does not get the nomination. That doesn't mean that I will be unable to vote for him. As someone that seems to be as big of an activist as you, I would have assumed that you would know that.
I still don't understand how you could possibly consider Ron Paul as a candidate, then vote for either of the Marxists on the Democrats' ticket.
You don't have to understand... Just get used to it.
I don't need to explain why I'm voting for either of the Dem's, no more than you should have to explain wasting your vote... It's called a compromise. No I did not want to see Ron Paul lose, No I did not want to see the media be biased towards him, No I would never vote for ANY other Republican than him...
He shares a few core values that I like, such as civil liberties, and getting the hell out of Iraq. He also understands the economy pretty well, but if I remember correctly so do a few other people (1992-2000). Unfortunately it's the lesser of two evils, and I will certainly not vote for McCain no matter WHO he chooses as his VP. Now with that said, did I answer your question about the veto override power, or do we want to skip that lesson learned from a so-called activist?
I still don't understand how you could possibly consider Ron Paul as a candidate, then vote for either of the Marxists on the Democrats' ticket.
-- Posted by Thom on Tue, May 27, 2008, at 11:19 PM
First, I respect your decision to write in Ron Paul in November. As a Ron Paul supporter, I flirted with the idea myself, but I'm not going to take it that far. Ron Paul could have ran as an independant or third party, but he chose not to.
The way I see it, the Ron Paul campaign has been more about campaigning for his ideas than him getting elected President, and I think he has been very successful. Even though he was ignored, and even laughed at by the media and his own party, he has received over 1,000,000 votes in the primaries. Now he has a book on the bestseller list, and is getting more media attention than ever.
I think America is simply not ready for all of the changes that Ron Paul has advocated, at least not in this election. It will a long time to change the establishment, and as Ron Paul has said, real change in government starts from the bottom up, not from the top down. If you look at the appeal that Ron Paul has received from younger voters, among college students, and politicians starting to run for office as "Ron Paul Republicans", the Revolution has just begun.
Having said that, this election is an important one, and I agree with darrick, who also supported Ron Paul, that Obama is the clear choice between him and Mccain. You are right that Obama stands for many things that are counter to Ron Paul's beliefs, but so does Mccain.
The Democrats do not have an overwhelming majority in either the Senate or the House, therefore, both houses are basically gridlocked. This is part of the reason why Congress has a low approval rating than the President. Couple this with the fact that without a two thirds majority to override any of Bush's vetoes, they are by default, powerless.
I will vote for Obama or Clinton simply because I am sure that McCain will continue to follow many of the failed policies of the Bush Administration. We do not need four more years of the pathetic leadership of the Bush Administration and the Republican Party. Bush will go down as one of the worst Presidents in history. He has failed miserably at every turn in foreign policy, domestic policy, disaster relief, energy policy, the environment, the budget and everything in between. McCain will only exacerbate the situation.
darrick, I don't know why I even bother. If you don't consider yourself to be an activist, then STOP ACTING LIKE ONE. Ron Paul completely supports the Constitution. Clinton and Obama have both proposed socialist health-care, as well as a number of other items that run directly counter to the ideas of our Founding Fathers. The ONLY thing the Democrat candidates have in common with Dr. Paul is that they all want out of Iraq. So, that must be the most important issue for you...and I'm betting that you've never even considered serving in the military, so you have absolutely no idea what the service members over there think every time they hear about people like you spouting off about how terrible this conflict is. Basically you're telling them that they're not accomplishing anything. I know that makes them feel really great about the progress that they've made. Wait, according to you people, they haven't made any progress.
And as an answer to my own question, I won't bother any longer.
So in other words you're saying Ron Paul is telling the soldiers that they are not making progress too? Because I was never so gungho about leaving Iraq until RON PAUL started making the news... So, Ron Paul, the candidate that you supposedly support completely contradicts your stance on "the progress being made"... Something doesn't add up with that picture..
I am in staunch support of the soldiers, I am however NOT in support of the lies upon lies upon lies upon lies of why we're there, how we are doing, and what the future holds... So, since I have never served in the military nor would I ever want to (for a president who has never done anything in the military himself) doesn't make me a bad person.
I say, send Bush, Cheny, and every bastard that wanted our country involved in this USELESS war to Iraq, and let them put their action where their mouth is. Nuff said.
I appreciat your comments.
First, Steve .....I like your sentiment of "kick the b....... out" but that as you know is totally impractical and is not going to happen. As you know, we really have term limits every 2 years, but most of the populace is all talk and no action.
Thom......I don't know the answer, but I fear many will not vote for Obama because he is black. A sad commentary, but unfortunately true I think.
Darrick......Still up to your usually tricks I see. I like your statement, "intentional covert operations that generate so much controversy". Another classic oxymoric statement. Also, your reference to the failure of 3 Corps., two of which were related in their downfall is a rather disengenious argument. How about the thousands upon thousands of experienced managers that have had no problem. For your information in general, an anecdotal argument is usually a very weak argument and demonstrates the lack of ability to properly analyze the problem and build a supportive argument.
I will not even stoop to comment on your last comment. I hope you save a copy of your statement until first week in Nov. at least. I will.
I don't need to save it Carl, I have a mind that understands the realization that wars are easy to start so long as you don't have to fight them...
Speaking of "up to your tricks" your large words don't scare me nor do they make you any wiser than the rest of us. Forgive me for having enough decency to understand we went to war based on lies, then once we "toppled the regime" and declared "mission accomplished" THREE YEARS AGO, we have changed our reasons for being there and have yet to accomplish the mission...
And the next time McCain wants to tell Obama he needs to actually GO to Iraq before he makes judgments about the conditions, perhaps McCain should prove that he is a war hero and while he's there, and do more than talk....
"Nuff said." -- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, May 28, 2008, at 9:44 PM
I guess not, huh?
Carl - I think you're right. I really wish that were not the case, but reality has to set in at some point and we have to realize that (all over the country) there are people that do not believe that a black man has the same abilities as a white man. Just like there are people that will vote for him because of his race, there are those that will vote against him for the same reasons.
Same with women. There are people that will vote for or against Clinton for the same reason...well, because she's a woman, not because she's black.
Ron Paul completely supports the Constitution
-- Posted by Thom on Wed, May 28, 2008, at 3:34 PM
Yes, and the War in Iraq is unconstitutional and violates international law as well.
"I'm betting that you've never even considered serving in the military, so you have absolutely no idea what the service members over there think every time they hear about people like you spouting off about how terrible this conflict is."
-- Posted by Thom on Wed, May 28, 2008, at 3:34 PM
There are many service members opposed to the war in Iraq. Go read what these veterans have to say about it http://ivaw.org/view/profiles
I'm sure there are many others just like them. I would also be more concerned about the military experience of those responsible for starting this war, such as our president, and his five draft deferment Secretary of Defense.
Opposing the war isn't being unpatriotic, or not supporting the troops. Maybe you should read Ron Paul's speech "In the Name of Patriotism". I agree with him.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congre...
Why does Obama call himself a black man when he is just as much white. I feel he thinks it to his advantage to stress this part of his heritage over the other.
Because in the "Past" Mixed children/people that are not fully white, were considered the other race. In the past mix children were not accepted by whites so they cling to the other race. All though now days you see alot of mix races, and alot of them are with the white parent.
When filling out paper work, for race what do they mark? Other? "African-American-Caucasian" is not on their. My grandfathers" Dad was white, and his mother black, but he, and all of us thought of him as black. We know we have white ancestors, but we consider us all black. I believe it depends more on which race you feel accepts you more.
Darrick_04
I could not agree more with all your comments!! You never cease to amaze me...I also say send the bastards over there to fight....especially Bush, I have no doubt he would be calling mommy and coming home real quick...sadly WHEN THE RICH WAGE WAR, IT'S THE POOR THAT DIE.
cfder,
Why would he call himself white when he is just as much black as white? I agree with Momof3 about why he chooses black, it's just common knowledge that children of raced mix are normally considered black.
It may be common knowledge, but why is it common? I think it is because they feel they have a better advantage in some situations if they call themselves black.
Yeah right. The only people making skin color an issue are the Political pundits and people like you.
Not from me. I have actually voted for a black man before. I vote issues and who I think is going to do the job the best. The people who are making skin color an issue are the 90%+ black people who will vote for Obama. You can't tell me that the only reason they will vote for him are the issues.
cfder, I think the opposite of you. I believe if he stress his white ancestors he feels he will get more white votes. And if he stresses his African ancestors, then he would get lesser white votes, Even if his ancestor was Black (African-American) he would still get lesser white votes.
"I think it is because they feel they have a better advantage in some situations if they call themselves black.-- Posted by cfder on Sat, May 31, 2008, at 10:44 AM"
And to me I think it is a (Disadvantage) calling themselves Black, or any minority race.
Al Sharpner is black, if you think 90% of blacks voted for him back then because he was black; Think again. Don't mean no offense to anyone, But I don't know why he even tried.
Not all blacks are voting for Obama, and the ones that are voting for him are not doing so just because he is black. You have to think about the other canadates that are running, it does play a large factor in why some of them are voting for Obama. But their are those that are voting for him because he is black too. Just like their are those that are not voting for him because he is black.
So, the delegates from FL and MI were seated today... ALL of them but they each count for 50% (due to a compromise)... This means Obama won't clinch the magic number as easily now... Especially with Hillary poised to win at least 2 of the last 3 primaries.
Maybe so.