Politics

Re: FBI files.....

middleview — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:44:18 GMT

Craig Livingstone had the files of 700 people authorized to have access to the White House. Where do you think he got the list of names? It came from a list handed to him by the Bush transition team. They were not political opponents.

The files had previously been pulled by whoever the Craig Livingstone for Bush had been.

Who can say that Bush is not conducting wiretaps of people who are opponents. There is no oversight. That is the problem. There is the possibility that the warrantless wiretaps could be misused. That is the whole reason for the requirement that a court has to issue a warrant.

The fact is that the people on that list of 700 had signed authorization for the White House to review their records or do a background check when they requested access. That would have been a matter of course. The places where I have had to sign such documents do not include an expiration date on them.

Your assertion that the Clinton's did something wrong means that you extend mistakes on the part of any administration member, even the security guard, can be blamed on the Clintons. That is fine as long as you realize how screwed up practically every member of the Bush administration has been. We've had the political appointee who went to jail for shoplifting at the local Target store. Then there is the guy who made the decision to disband the Iraqi army and created an instant recruiting pool of 250,000 armed and trained soldiers for the insurgents to hire from.

Re: POTUS vs Senate

Sawbones — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:53:29 GMT

You choose to see it that way; if Hillary is nominated, you will probably be right, as her presence will certainly energize enough wingnuts to keep those "core" senators in office. I choose the possibility that Obama will bring different people to the polls (already happening), convince at least some Republicans to vote for him (I'm one), and change the political calculus to create something other than gridlock. Incompatible and apparently unbudging positions, both of us, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

POTUS vs Senate

degsme — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:47:27 GMT

Clinton carried those states for POTUS. But voting for POTUS vs voting for a senior senator are two different things - though your point is legitimate.

A block of vocal citizens is not enough. They have to be a danger to the Senator's re-electability. Because for every progressive voice that will be heard, at least 1 conservative "gridlock" voice will be heard as well.

There is no moving the core 35+ conservative Senators to join anything meaningful the Dems would want to do, Obama, Clinton or the return of FDR and JFK notwithstanding.

So you are saying

degsme — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:43:01 GMT

So you are saying that you believe the accusations Bill Clinton's political opponents leveled - even though $millions were spent on trying to uncover anything prosecutable and nothing came out?

Interesting. Aren't you afraid that this makes you very manipulable by simply the loudest accusation in the room?

P.S.

Sawbones — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:04:28 GMT

Your list of states in the "inflexibly conservative" column, and your cavalier dismissal of them, conveniently (for your theory) neglects the fact that several of them were carried by a Democrat in the 90s presidential elections, and that most of them had at least one Democratic senator during that time. I'm afraid that doesn't speak too strongly for your presumption of a monolithic obstructionist Republican bloc. And to assume that you need to unseat them is nonsense - all it takes is enough vocal citizens in those states making it clear that they will not tolerate more of the same gridlock. A little healthy fear of losing re-election (goaded by recent precedents in the last several contests) might go a long way toward moderating some of their positions.

Re: 40% or 20%

Sawbones — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:55:50 GMT

What was the first significant initiative of the Clinton presidency? If I recall correctly, it was an attempt to change military rules to allow homosexuals to serve. As much as I may agree with the idea, proposing that right out of the gate was about as deliberate a slap as he could have delivered to social conservatives, especially after campaigning as a moderate. And the healthcare plan wasn't that far out there, but the fact that it was chaired by Hillary (after they had spent much of the campaign downplaying her "baking cookies" comment and insisting that she wouldn't be a co-president) didn't sit too well with a lot of people.

And no, I wasn't under the illusion that there was no bad feeling before the Clinton era. I know about the history with Nixon and his bunch, but the Reagan era was a relative break from the dirty stuff - Atwater and the race-baiting was Bush I, not Reagan. And even then, it was still based on party, not on person; it wasn't until the last fifteen years that we've seen the bile and the attack machinery of both parties focused on the person of the president rather than his party. That's the part that a Hillary presidency would only perpetuate, and that's the part that Obama would at least have a chance of evading.

Minor agreement

degsme — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:01:05 GMT

Well anyone can put together minor agreements for the "cross the aisle" photoop. But fundamentally there isn't going to be any agreement with the Demints of the world. And frankly there won't need to be.

The only GOP senators HRC or Obama has to deal with are Snowe, Collins, Specter, Murkowski, Smith, Voinovich, Graham, Grassley, Hagel and Domenici.

Figure the GOP is going to lose 3-7 seats in the Senate this election cycle - which puts the Dems at a 54-58 vote majority. Lets say that the Dems pick up 4 seats for a solid 55 majority. Then HRC or Obama only have to get half of the above list to vote on cloture to get a bill through to the floor.

The current GOP Senate leadership has already lost some control of the above senators. But they still have the WH to dispense largess and to rally fundraising. But this time next year, they will not even have that. So the Dems in the WH will be able to provide those carrots to the above, and they only need 5 to jump on any issue. That's neither rocket science, nor expensive.

And the Demints of the world suddenly cease to matter.

Re: FBI files.....

the true conservative — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:33:21 GMT

1. I never said why they had the files. I stated the fact that their adminstration had the files of over 700 of their political opponents. This is undeniable.

2. It is also undeniable that nobody had any legitimate reason to pull the confidential FBI file on, for instance, James Baker or Brent Sowcraft. Just by possessing them, they were mishandled.

3. Starr did not have enough evidence to convict them of a crime. True enough. Then again, nobody is accusing Bush of authorizing warrantless wiretaps for personal gain, either. That hasn't stopped the Clinton campaign from getting all bent out of shape over it.

Re: Cutting off the nose

middleview — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 02:18:46 GMT

There is ample information on Obama's plans on his web site. I have checked his web site and found as much information as is on Hillary's web site.

Is there more value, to you, in a candidate saying in his own words what the details of his health care plan are or would you like to hear if he has passion for his dream for our country?

I've heard him speak and it reminds me of the fire that was in John Kennedy's speeches.

I can read his web site for myself. Would you like a link?

Re: FBI files.....

middleview — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 02:07:50 GMT

1. You implied that the Clinton's had obtained those files because the files were about their enemies. That isn't true.

2. You think that they mishandled confidential information, but Ken Starr says that there was no evidence that the Clintons ever even saw the files.

3. Starr would have been overjoyed if he had enough evidence to indict...he didn't. He didn't even have enough to indict Craig Livingstone and there wasn't any debate over whether or not Livingstone had the files.

Since there weren't any Clinton enemies on the list of FBI files, I trust that we are done with this conversation.

Re: Working with Repubs?

middleview — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 01:33:21 GMT

I'm guessing that Obama will win in a landslide. Republicans who some off as hugely anti-Obama may well find themselves unable to contribute anything at all....remember his ability to persuade a crowd....

This election may well make the democratic hold on Congress even stronger.

Are you aware of the number of republicans who have chosen to retire, rather than run again this year?

40% or 20%

degsme — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:34:00 GMT

40 Senators do not represent 40% of the population. They actually represent something closer to 20%-30% of the population. - And that is roughly the hard intransigent core of the GOP. That isn't being "ignorant" necessarily- rather it is holding a world view that is dramatically different from that held by Obama and the majority.

Places like Idaho - get 2 senators for 1.5 Million of population. If you AVERAGE the US population, you would have 3 Million constituents per Senator. So essentially Idaho is over represented by a factor of 4.

States that are 50/50 are CO, FL, IN, IA, MN, MO, NE, NV, NM, OH, OR, PA, VA. - that's 13 US Senators. So the remaining 36 are from hard-core GOP held states. BTW, in the split states, all they need is a core that is willing to be hardcore activitsts for them to hold their seats.

So while there may be a "lage number of voters" who would "endorse moderate legislation" - there are not ENOUGH of them to displace those from their seats:

Alabama - no you are not going to get moderate views here
Arizona - Maybe some chance but not really
Georgia - ibid Alabama
Kansas - A conservative rural state. Nope no moderates
Kentucky - Ibid GA
Maine - are moderate - they are in my cloture buster category
Mississippi - ibig GA
New Hampshire - odd state but conservatives seem to win regularly
North Carolina - ibid MS
Oklahoma - gun toting rural ranchers. no moderates
South Carolina - ibid NC
Tennessee - ibid Kentucky
Texas - ibid Oklahoma
Utah - wierd blend of Texas and GA. SLC is liberal but the rest of the state swamps SLC
Wyoming - ibid Texas.

So no, you are not going to get any sort of support from ANY of the sitting GOPers unless you bribe them. I prefer consensus building - but I see no evidence that Obama can do that.

Yeah, we ARE going to see another 1992-1993 if Obama wins. And no, Clinton did not "pivot left" when he got elected. The most "lefty" think he did was the healthcare initiative - which in retrospect we realize was a solid, fiscally and politically centrist thing to do.

If you think the nastiness goes back to 1992, then you don't know much about American Politics. Henry Hyde - the House leader on the Clinton Impeachment was asked if the Clinton impeachment was a payback for Nixon - and his response was to the effect of - "you could take it that way - yeah".

This nastiness goes back to McCarthy, for whom Nixon was a bag boy. Then when Nixon lost to Kennedy and Goldwater as well, the GOP decided they were going to win at all costs. So we then had Nixon "dirty tricks". When that backfired and Carter got in, we then had the Lee Atwater visciousness and race baiting that got Reagan elected (and started Rove and Gingrich on their careers).

No, that nasty partisanship goes back to McCarthy and Nixon, and Obama- as good a speaker as he is - isn't going to heal that because the conservatives do not WANT to heal the rift. They recognize that the only way they can be elected (since they comprise roughly 25% of the electorate), is to disgust enough Americans so that they don't turn out.

States that are 100%

Re: On Sincerity

koenraad64 — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:01:12 GMT

how would HRC have to behave to come across to you as sincere?

The short answer is, She would have to behave more sincerely. Many people have posted their opposition to HRC's ambition. The phrase 'win at all costs' appears frequently. I belive many fear HRC's desire to win the presidency is more important than her core beliefs. Personally, I favoure P.J. O'Rourke's line "HRC is America's divorced wife". Certainly, its the funnest.

Maybe, the question should be "Is HRC likable enough to win the presidency?" She can be very off-putting. Especially, that petulant, condescending expression that shows its ugly face during the debates.

Re: Actually there is

Sawbones — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:40:57 GMT

I'm not sure what you mean by "effective legislator," given that only 2 bills she's sponsored have been enacted and only 1 of every 6 actually made it out of committee. While this roughly equates with the numbers for Obama, it doesn't exactly support your argument that she's the master (mistress?) logroller when it comes to getting legislation passed. And the foundering of her healthcare plan during her husband's administration makes the counterargument pretty...um, effectively.

What I find remarkable about your dismissal of any possibility of bipartisanship is your willingness to lump 40% of the nation (if your 40-senator solid-conservative bloc is real) together as ignorant, easily led cattle just because they happen to disagree with your views on some issues. I would suggest that there is a large number of voters in those senators' states who would endorse moderate legislation if passed, and who would put pressure on their legislators if their senator were seen as the obstruction to progress. I think, truth be told, you prefer the nasty and the down-and-dirty of the current partisan climate; it allows more triumphalism when you succeed than does bipartisan compromise. I don't want idealism and winner-take-all politics; I find far more beauty in the muddy gray area, where no one is truly happy but no one is truly shafted, the ugliness that is the essence of good democracy.

And my god, I don't want another 1992-1993 ever again. It's funny how little today's Democrats realize how much of the seeds of today's nastiness were sown then. Clinton campaigned as a centrist, then pivoted hard left as soon as he got elected - coming back to the center only when slapped back there electorally in the 1994 landslide. It was fundamentally a bait-and-switch maneuver (remind you of any current "compassionate conservatives"?), and I think Democrats underestimate how much it primed the pump for(note, I didn't say justify) much of the witch-hunting and bitterness that marked the latter half of his presidency. Politicians lie, that's a given; but not often do they so systematically sell themselves as one thing while being something so completely different.

Re: Working with Repubs?

djyman15 — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:51:38 GMT

You're ignoring the crux of my argument. She can't beat McCain, and that's only going to become more apparent. Furthermore, even if she did, with the way congress' approval looks, how long do you think before one of the houses goes red?

I think Obama's healthcare plan is much more likely to woo over Senate Republicans and pseudo independents, while still achieving the goal of the democrats. Republicans don't like quotas or mandates remember? He has strongly suggested he will initiate more class based affirmative action, again serving the democrats, while not allowing Republicans to call it racist. There won't be the ethics probes there were during the Clinton administration, either.

Above all, I think America will be more on Obama's side, and I think the public pressure on Republicans to cave, especially in the swing states. Going into election with Clinton is kinda like going to into Iraq without the UN on our side