The Democrat Thread

[lostfan]

There's been good discussion in the GOP/Republican thread lately. I just skim over the opinionated partisan anti-Obama stuff and talk about what I want to talk about. This is one of the few places I know of that I can take a contrarian stance to a Republican on a single issue, or play devil's advocate, and not have somebody accusing me of being some Obama shill. That s*** is annoying. So, this place is polarized in some ways and open for discussion in others.

[BigSqwert]

My girlfriend asked me why I stopped watching MSNBC when I got home from work. Here's a perfect example why.

Edited July 17, 2008 by BigSqwert

[bmags]

I guess he is the only one allowed to make blatantly partisian posts and have no one speak up about them? It doesn't surprise me at all.

 

I'll be honest, about two people have really made me just dispise Barack Obama anytime he on TV. Being constantly innudated with the constant barrage of garbage attacks has made me actually look for stuff to refute some of the stuff that gets posted here. In that process I have really grown to lose all respect for Obama the candidate and person that I used to have. I never agreed with the guy, but I at least respected what he was trying to do. Because of the ridiculous level of attacks against McCain and pro-Obama postings, I have looked to even things out a little bit, just because the level of one-sidedness here had gotten to ESPN-level proportions, about hearing how great the Yankees and Red Sox are. Anymore I try not to waste my time replying to the inane nature of off-cuff jokes from 20 years ago being pointless anyway. Usually I stick to the GOP thread unless I get stalked there too. Its like being harassed downtown everyday by the damned Greenpeace and EnviornmentIllinois people. It makes me want to empty my gas tank on a baby seal. I probably should just leave the cult-like Obama love mentality alone, but I am weak, what can I say. The forum is plenty active on its own. I'd actually argue that it has been less active as more people have quit posting because of the nature of the beast here lately.

 

yeah it's like an election year or something.

[Balta1701]

Obama hauls in $52M in June.

Hmm, while I was gone, it seems the Wall Street Journal reported that they were hearing Obama's campaign raised $30 million in June. Oops.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Hmm, while I was gone, it seems the Wall Street Journal reported that they were hearing Obama's campaign raised $30 million in June. Oops.

 

Typically when numbers are "leaked" early about Obama's numbers, they are way of. I have two theories on this and both are equally likely.

 

1) People low in the organization see only some of the numbers.

2) The leaks are intended to show how his numbers are way beyond projected numbers and have a "wow" factor.

[BigSqwert]

Typically when numbers are "leaked" early about Obama's numbers, they are way of. I have two theories on this and both are equally likely.

 

1) People low in the organization see only some of the numbers.

2) The leaks are intended to show how his numbers are way beyond projected numbers and have a "wow" factor.

See that you're posting on TPM.

[bmags]

what's everyones names on tpm? Mines the same. Rarely do I post unless I see something stupid.

[HuskyCaucasian]

See that you're posting on TPM.

I've been found! lol

Where did you see that?

 

PS: same on there as on here. I try to keep the same "name" across all boards / websites. SOme sites dont allow a "_", so i drop it. If it is for professional reasons, then I use First Initinal then my Last Name.

Edited July 17, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[BigSqwert]

what's everyones names on tpm? Mines the same. Rarely do I post unless I see something stupid.

I have yet to post but I just browsed through some comments and saw athomeboy_2000 with the Hulk version of McCain avatar that he recently sported on this site.

[BigSqwert]

Where did you see that?

It was in a thread regarding some poll numbers and you were vehemently supporting McCain's case on winning.

[HuskyCaucasian]

It was in a thread regarding some poll numbers and you were vehemently supporting McCain's case on winning.

the NC polls? yea, it's close. But you all will have to wait until my next poll update post next Wednesday.

[HuskyCaucasian]

This made me laugh:

[bmags]

per thecarpetbaggerreport.com (a few months old)

 

"Yesterday, while exploring whether a center-left presidential candidate can win with a progressive policy agenda, the NYT noted:

 

To achieve the change the country wants, [Obama] says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.” But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year? […]

 

“When you’re rated by National Journal as to the left of Ted Kennedy and Bernie Sanders, that’s going to be difficult to explain,” said Danny Diaz, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee.

 

And that came shortly after James Dobson issued an alert to his religious right membership:

 

Sen. Obama was recently named the most liberal U.S. Senator, based on the annual voting analysis by the non-partisan and highly respected National Journal. If he emerges as the Democratic nominee, one of the critical jobs of Focus Action will be to uncover the real Barack Obama — not the feel-good orator who speaks of “change” and “hope,” but the man who would be the most left-wing president in our nation’s history.

 

And that came shortly after Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton’s pollster and strategist, repeated the right’s talking point.

 

“Independent and Republican support is diminishing as they find out he’s the most liberal Democratic senator.”

 

I’d hoped previous efforts to highlight how foolish this might have had an effect, but it appears some highly misleading talking points are harder to knock down than others.

 

Media Matters’ take was especially helpful.

 

As Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, among the votes Obama took that purportedly earned him the Journal’s “most liberal senator” label were those to implement the 9-11 Commission’s homeland security recommendations, provide more children with health insurance, expand federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, and maintain a federal minimum wage.

 

Obama himself criticized the Journal’s methodology by noting that it considered “liberal” his vote for “an office of public integrity that stood outside of the Senate, and outside of Congress, to make sure that you’ve got an impartial eye on ethics problems inside of Congress.”

 

Media Matters has also previously noted that the Journal admitted to having used flawed methodology in the publication’s previous rating of then-Democratic presidential front-runner Sen. John Kerry (MA) as the “most liberal senator” in 2003.

 

This really isn’t complicated. National Journal argues that some senators weren’t given scores if they missed too many votes. Obama missed a full third of the 99 votes used for the ratings, but that wasn’t enough to disqualify him from the rankings. Why not? Because National Journal’s arbitrary standards, known only to the publication’s editors, say so.

 

National Journal argues that Obama took the “liberal” approach on 65 out of 66 key votes. There were other senators who cast more liberal votes on more liberal bills, and senators who voted the party line more often than Obama, but that doesn’t matter. Why? Because National Journal’s arbitrary standards, known only to the publication’s editors, say so.

 

When considering votes, the labels themselves are arbitrary.

 

Why is, for example, requiring 100% inspections of shipping containers for national security threats a “liberal” position? How is establishing English as the official language a “conservative” position? Is a position “conservative” or “liberal” for cutting subsidies to private business to offer student loans? This study says it is “liberal” to do so, although that position is practically of no difference from Ron Paul’s!

 

Any rankings system that insists, right off the bat, that Joe Biden is more liberal than Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders is automatically suspect, but the closer one looks at the process, the more flawed it appears. That National Journal is willing to acknowledge that its John Kerry ranking in 2004 was bogus is hardly reassuring — if the magazine was wrong then, perhaps it’s not quite reliable now?

 

I still think Brian Beutler’s observation is the right one: “[T]his is philistinism masquerading as social science — it’s the U.S. News College Guide of Washington politics. Journalists ought to understand that. And those of conscience ought to ignore it, or lay it bare, but certainly not feed into it.”

 

That was true when Brian said it in January, and the rankings look no better now."

 

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15015.html

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

:notworthy

[southsider2k5]

Obama missed a full third of the 99 votes used for the ratings

 

That is reassuring...

 

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

That is reassuring...

62.6% for McCain should be a little more alarming. That includes important votes that even Ted Kennedy showed up for. And is 12% more than Sen. Johnson who suffered a brain hemorrhage on Dec. 13, 2006.

Edited July 18, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[southsider2k5]

62.6% for McCain should be a little more alarming. That includes important votes that even Ted Kennedy showed up for. And is 12% more than Sen. Johnson who suffered a brain hemorrhage on Dec. 13, 2006.

 

I am glad he is a whole 3.4 percentage points better. Those are both just sad. They both should be embarassed with those kind of numbers, I don't care about campaigning, they do have a job to do. They both seem to have forgotten that. Besides the main point of the article is a joke. Before he started his Presidential run, what was the biggest issue Obama has ever taken a predominantly GOP stance on?

[bmags]

I am glad he is a whole 3.4 percentage points better. Those are both just sad. They both should be embarassed with those kind of numbers, I don't care about campaigning, they do have a job to do. They both seem to have forgotten that. Besides the main point of the article is a joke. Before he started his Presidential run, what was the biggest issue Obama has ever taken a predominantly GOP stance on?

 

but you have to ask yourself since 2004 how many big GOP bills did Bush try and get through? Social Security reform never left committee after he went public right away. Bush's entire second term has been him on foreign policy and little else. So what you have is a large amount of bills that can be owned up to either party. And most bills actually pass with overwhelming #'s. But as for whether Obama has reached across party lines, he's worked with Tom Cobourn (R-OK) to increase government transparency.(link: http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2008/s3077.html ). And he's worked with bills across both party lines with fuel efficiency:

Obama, Biden Sponsor Bill With Tax Breaks for Auto Fuel Gains

Monday, March 5, 2007

 

Printable Format

 

By Gopal Ratnam

 

March 5 (Bloomberg) -- Automakers in the U.S. would get tax breaks for raising fuel economy 4 percent a year under a bill whose sponsors include Senators Barack Obama and Joseph Biden, who are seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

 

The proposal includes ``generous tax incentives'' to retool parts and U.S. plants to meet the tougher standards, Obama, an Illinois Democrat, said in a statement today. The legislation would allow different standards for different types of vehicles, rather than an average for an automaker's entire fleet of models.

 

The bill proposes ``a better system that combines protection for U.S. automobile manufacturing jobs with predictable increases in fuel efficiency standards for cars, SUVs and light trucks,'' Biden, a Delaware Democrat, said in the statement.

 

The proposal joins others in Congress to boost auto fuel efficiency. President George W. Bush, a Republican, called for a similar 4 percent increase in his State of the Union speech in January. A bill similar to what Obama and Biden proposed failed to get through Congress last year.

 

Senator Diane Feinstein, a California Democrat, and 10 other lawmakers are seeking to raise the standard for cars to 29.5 miles per gallon by 2010, from 27.5 mpg now. U.S. Representative John Dingell, the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is considering a climate-change bill that would also address fuel economy.

 

The other sponsors of the bill backed by Obama and Biden are Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican; Gordon Smith, an Oregon Republican; Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican; Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican; and Jeff Bingaman, a New Mexico Democrat.

 

Changes adopted last year for light trucks, which include pickups, minivans and sport-utility vehicles, will boost their required fuel economy to an average 24 miles a gallon starting with 2011 models. The current standard is 21.6 mpg.

 

To contact the reporter on this story: Gopal Ratnam in Washington at gratnam1@bloomberg.net

 

So what's the big GOP issue he should stand with them on? The War? Making the tax breaks permanent? If he did I wouldn't vote for him.

[southsider2k5]

but you have to ask yourself since 2004 how many big GOP bills did Bush try and get through? Social Security reform never left committee after he went public right away. Bush's entire second term has been him on foreign policy and little else. So what you have is a large amount of bills that can be owned up to either party. And most bills actually pass with overwhelming #'s. But as for whether Obama has reached across party lines, he's worked with Tom Cobourn (R-OK) to increase government transparency.(link: http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2008/s3077.html ). And he's worked with bills across both party lines with fuel efficiency:

Obama, Biden Sponsor Bill With Tax Breaks for Auto Fuel Gains

Monday, March 5, 2007

 

Printable Format

 

By Gopal Ratnam

 

March 5 (Bloomberg) -- Automakers in the U.S. would get tax breaks for raising fuel economy 4 percent a year under a bill whose sponsors include Senators Barack Obama and Joseph Biden, who are seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

 

The proposal includes ``generous tax incentives'' to retool parts and U.S. plants to meet the tougher standards, Obama, an Illinois Democrat, said in a statement today. The legislation would allow different standards for different types of vehicles, rather than an average for an automaker's entire fleet of models.

 

The bill proposes ``a better system that combines protection for U.S. automobile manufacturing jobs with predictable increases in fuel efficiency standards for cars, SUVs and light trucks,'' Biden, a Delaware Democrat, said in the statement.

 

The proposal joins others in Congress to boost auto fuel efficiency. President George W. Bush, a Republican, called for a similar 4 percent increase in his State of the Union speech in January. A bill similar to what Obama and Biden proposed failed to get through Congress last year.

 

Senator Diane Feinstein, a California Democrat, and 10 other lawmakers are seeking to raise the standard for cars to 29.5 miles per gallon by 2010, from 27.5 mpg now. U.S. Representative John Dingell, the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is considering a climate-change bill that would also address fuel economy.

 

The other sponsors of the bill backed by Obama and Biden are Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican; Gordon Smith, an Oregon Republican; Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican; Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican; and Jeff Bingaman, a New Mexico Democrat.

 

Changes adopted last year for light trucks, which include pickups, minivans and sport-utility vehicles, will boost their required fuel economy to an average 24 miles a gallon starting with 2011 models. The current standard is 21.6 mpg.

 

To contact the reporter on this story: Gopal Ratnam in Washington at gratnam1@bloomberg.net

 

So what's the big GOP issue he should stand with them on? The War? Making the tax breaks permanent? If he did I wouldn't vote for him.

The fuel economy thing has been a big democratic issue forever. The GOP is just now jumping on it with them needing look like they are doing something about gas prices.

 

You set up my next question, if he isn't working with the GOP on anything of importance, how can you argue when someone calls him a liberal? That would be like me arguing GW Bush hasn't been a conservative. Heck if he is such a leader, why isn't he getting an issue out there that he agrees with the GOP on? God knows he has the whole worlds attention.

 

Reading back the article you posted the thing that really stands out to me the most is that is really doesn't argue the point of how liberal Obama is too much, it just argues that the methodology used to determine it in this one instance was wrong, so therefore it can't be true. Those two things aren't mutally exclusive. The system could be flawed, and Barack is still a left-winger regardless.

[NorthSideSox72]

The fuel economy thing has been a big democratic issue forever. The GOP is just now jumping on it with them needing look like they are doing something about gas prices.

 

You set up my next question, if he isn't working with the GOP on anything of importance, how can you argue when someone calls him a liberal? That would be like me arguing GW Bush hasn't been a conservative. Heck if he is such a leader, why isn't he getting an issue out there that he agrees with the GOP on? God knows he has the whole worlds attention.

 

Reading back the article you posted the thing that really stands out to me the most is that is really doesn't argue the point of how liberal Obama is too much, it just argues that the methodology used to determine it in this one instance was wrong, so therefore it can't be true. Those two things aren't mutally exclusive. The system could be flawed, and Barack is still a left-winger regardless.

I don't think there is any doubt about Obama's liberalness. One can find a few, very few, issues where he isn't lock-step with the Dems. But they are the small minority.

 

McCain is conservative on 95% of issues as well.

 

But there is an important thing to look at here, with regards to centrism, that isn't about the specific issue views of the candidates. Its about their willingness, and ability, to work with people outside their views. This is something that has fallen by the wayside in the last decade, and that's a real shame. Fortunately, both these candidates have better records of doing that than Bush or most of the current Congressional leaders do. UNfortunately, neither of them have that ability as much as they say they do.

 

I see both candidates as making efforts in that direction. We'll see how successful they are at it, when its time to ante up.

 

[bmags]

The fuel economy thing has been a big democratic issue forever. The GOP is just now jumping on it with them needing look like they are doing something about gas prices.

 

You set up my next question, if he isn't working with the GOP on anything of importance, how can you argue when someone calls him a liberal? That would be like me arguing GW Bush hasn't been a conservative. Heck if he is such a leader, why isn't he getting an issue out there that he agrees with the GOP on? God knows he has the whole worlds attention.

 

Reading back the article you posted the thing that really stands out to me the most is that is really doesn't argue the point of how liberal Obama is too much, it just argues that the methodology used to determine it in this one instance was wrong, so therefore it can't be true. Those two things aren't mutally exclusive. The system could be flawed, and Barack is still a left-winger regardless.

 

Obama is a progressive candidate. And what a silly thing to ask of an article. It's frame was to show how silly and dumb those rankings are, misleading and shallow. They have no even pseudo-scientific way of qualifying what their rankings are. They can choose any number of ways to decide whether a bill is liberal or not. It doesn't have to take on the fight over whether Obama is a liberal, which he is, but the most liberal senator, which he's not, because, they are two different topics - and articles have this thing called 'framing'. I'm saying it would be much easier had Obama been in office in 2000-04, when Bush actually used COngress, for his multiple major bills he passed. As it stands, there is no major GOP issue that has been in pushed since 2004 to test your method on, therefore it's a stupid rank anyways. Most of those bills, as the author said, are questionable whether of not either party can claim them exclusively. As I said, most bills pass overwhelmingly, considering they've gone through multiple committees of both Democrats and Republicans.

 

And per the fuel economy thing, so reaching across party lines to get Republicans to sponsor the bill as well, is somehow not a good example. And maybe an example of how fuel efficiency shouldn't be a party issue, but a necessity.

 

My point is the label, as they handed to Kerry (and his they admit was misleading), is damaging. And if they are going to give a rank that is, one, unprovable, and two, as they even have it grossly unscientific. (I'm thinking of ways to this, and think of Schlesinger's popular presidential rankings), then it should be qualified as such if people are to claim it. Especially today as McCain calls Obama an extremist and an "I don't know? wink" socialist, with these rankings as the qualifiers, it is good to debunk this 'most liberal myth'. He isn't the most liberal, many of his plans were less liberal than Clinton's, yet these arbitrary rankings justify it how? Because a journal competing for recognition says so?

[southsider2k5]

Obama is a progressive candidate. And what a silly thing to ask of an article. It's frame was to show how silly and dumb those rankings are, misleading and shallow. They have no even pseudo-scientific way of qualifying what their rankings are. They can choose any number of ways to decide whether a bill is liberal or not. It doesn't have to take on the fight over whether Obama is a liberal, which he is, but the most liberal senator, which he's not, because, they are two different topics - and articles have this thing called 'framing'. I'm saying it would be much easier had Obama been in office in 2000-04, when Bush actually used COngress, for his multiple major bills he passed. As it stands, there is no major GOP issue that has been in pushed since 2004 to test your method on, therefore it's a stupid rank anyways. Most of those bills, as the author said, are questionable whether of not either party can claim them exclusively. As I said, most bills pass overwhelmingly, considering they've gone through multiple committees of both Democrats and Republicans.

 

And per the fuel economy thing, so reaching across party lines to get Republicans to sponsor the bill as well, is somehow not a good example. And maybe an example of how fuel efficiency shouldn't be a party issue, but a necessity.

 

My point is the label, as they handed to Kerry (and his they admit was misleading), is damaging. And if they are going to give a rank that is, one, unprovable, and two, as they even have it grossly unscientific. (I'm thinking of ways to this, and think of Schlesinger's popular presidential rankings), then it should be qualified as such if people are to claim it. Especially today as McCain calls Obama an extremist and an "I don't know? wink" socialist, with these rankings as the qualifiers, it is good to debunk this 'most liberal myth'. He isn't the most liberal, many of his plans were less liberal than Clinton's, yet these arbitrary rankings justify it how? Because a journal competing for recognition says so?

 

In the truest sense, every poll, ranking, statistic, and almost every figure quoted is arbitrary to one extent or another. They all have their biases and methodologies behind them. Everytime you see McCain labeled as Bush III, it is based on a nice narrow and well picked set of time frame, issues, and votes that frame it up as the worst thing possible, yet Obama is out there campaigning on those very things. I'd personally call that just as misleading.

 

I personally put about as much care into that crap as I do this journal article. I need a journal to tell me that Barack is liberal about as much as I need one to tell that Reagan was a conservative.

 

[Balta1701]

So, one of our good friends over in the other thread noted that it'd actually be possible to expand drilling off the California coast more rapidly than most places in the country.

 

This of course...gives me a wonderful opportunity to point out why exactly these drilling moratoria exist in the first place. They actually began after an oil spill from a drilling platform in the very same Santa Barbara channel that we're now so desperate to drill in 1969. 200,000 gallons of oil contaminated long stretches of the expensive coastline along the channel north of L.A. when the drilling caused ruptures along the ocean floor.

 

And, just for some more fun, I'd also like to note that 200,000 gallons of oil isn't all that much for a spill. It is less than 1/3 of what was spilled by Katrina and Rita in 2005 in the Gulf.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Class Act McCain up to it again. I guess the "civilized" campaign promise was just usual McCain double talk:

As Obama prepares to meet a swelled press pack overseas, the McCain camp is doing their part to prod those journalists into making sure the Democratic nominee is held to account.

 

If the newspaper stories and cable news chatter about the three network anchors going abroad for Obamamania weren't enough to guilt them, in other words, there is now a 16-plus-page document of potential questions and oppo to help the cause.

 

The packet is being sent to those reporters meeting Obama abroad.

 

Oh, and note the cover art — Obama's short-lived seal.

 

[lostfan]

That is reassuring...

I don't think there has ever been a time where a Senator or Congressman running for president didn't miss a lot of votes. They do show up for the "important" votes. It's not something I'm really concerned about.