RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes

RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DarkSteven -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 8:03:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave The unknown rookie senator beat McCain in large part imo, because he passes for black and self-identifies as black. I disagree. The blacks have historically voted Democratic and they did so in this case. Sure, the Dem campaign worked to mobilize and register blacks in large numbers, but the newly registered would have voted Dem anyway. IMO, Obama's victory was due to two main factors: 1. The GOP was a damaged brand after Bush. 2. Palin initially fired up the base but then turned into a massive liability, both in her own right and in terms of McCain's judgment in choosing her. A minor factor was that the GOP had been preparing an anti-Hillary campaign for years and then didn't switch gears quickly enough when Obama took the nomination. Edited to add: truckinslave, I also disagree with your implication that having a short record is a liability, In today's political climate, having a record gives more ammunition to vote against than to vote for. Elena Kagan is a prefect example - I believe that Team Obama selected her for (among other things) her lack of a voting record. Even so, the opposition party went over her record with a fine tooth comb and mounted opposition to her on the few minor points they had.

DomKen -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 8:09:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave The unknown rookie senator beat McCain in large part imo, because he passes for black and self-identifies as black. Only if you ignore the better fund raising and better organized campaign. As well as the voters in the center and left McCain lost by embracing the RR during the primaries. The people turned off by the ugly tone of Palin's rallies and by her declaring them to not be "real Americans." Pay no attention to the people troubled by the idea of Palin ever being a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Pay no attention to the damage done to his the perception of his leadership when he suspended his campaign during the financial crisis but failed to get his own party to go along with the bank bailouts.

StrangerThan -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 8:09:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave The unknown rookie senator beat McCain in large part imo, because he passes for black and self-identifies as black. I disagree. The blacks have historically voted Democratic and they did so in this case. Sure. the Dem campaign worked to mobilize and register blacks in large numbers, but the newly registered would have voted Dem anyway. IMO, Obamas vitory was due to two main factors: 1. The GOP was a damaged brand after Bush. 2. Palin initially fired up the base but then turned into a massive liability, both in her own right and in terms of McCain's judgment in choosing her. A minor factor was that the GOP had been preparing an anti-Hillary campaign for years and then didn't switch gears quickly enough when Obama took the nomination. Amen to that. Bush damaged the Republican party enough that Donald Duck could have won the election. Choosing a female vice-president was a master stroke. It gave pause to the legions of people who would vote simply to make history. Choosing Palin however, was not.

tazzygirl -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 8:14:06 AM)
Exactly. When i first heard a woman had been chosen as his running mate, i, along with millions of women, were excited. It was a short lived excitement. Not for the first time, I was eager to vote republican. I liked and admired McCain. Then i listened and watched, as many millions of women did. And the excitement died.

DomKen -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 8:21:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Exactly. When i first heard a woman had been chosen as his running mate, i, along with millions of women, were excited. It was a short lived excitement. Not for the first time, I was eager to vote republican. I liked and admired McCain. Then i listened and watched, as many millions of women did. And the excitement died. When I first heard the announcement I assumed he had chosen Christine Todd Whitman and I thought Obama was in serious trouble. Then I found out it was Palin and the bizarreness started.

Hillwilliam -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 8:24:05 AM)
Yaknow folks, we're getting off topic here. Maybe this should be part of a new topic? Apologies to anyone interested in my part of dragging it away.

TheHeretic -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 9:22:39 AM)
To the OP; It sounds like a really awful idea to me, Sanity. That is not the mandate I want to send to the potential congessional leadership. They should not go there to "get" President Obama. Let's just remember that this are very precarious times, and our President is already in way over his head. Do we need a presumed Repubican congress going above and beyond to push him down further? I'll sometimes ask more extreme Republicans if they think the added pressure of the investigations kept the Clinton administration from focusing more attention on the growing Al Qaeda thing. They don't seem to like that question. Bill denies it, of course. No. There are lots of good reasons to want single-party rule ended. This isn't one of them. Don't get me wrong. This adminstration is from Chicago. There might very well be a need for a congressional investigation or two, but I don't think that should be seen as a plank in the agenda.

rulemylife -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 9:53:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave The unknown rookie senator beat McCain in large part imo, because he passes for black and self-identifies as black. Only if you ignore the better fund raising and better organized campaign. As well as the voters in the center and left McCain lost by embracing the RR during the primaries. The people turned off by the ugly tone of Palin's rallies and by her declaring them to not be "real Americans." Pay no attention to the people troubled by the idea of Palin ever being a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Pay no attention to the damage done to his the perception of his leadership when he suspended his campaign during the financial crisis but failed to get his own party to go along with the bank bailouts. Not to mention that he flip-flopped on numerous issues he had previously supported to appease the far right. Just as he is doing now in his Senate campaign regarding illegal immigrants.

rulemylife -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 10:02:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven There's always been a cordiality between the two parties. It's fast disappearing. The GOP will get investigated thoroughly when it is next in power. And then, things will escalate still more. Imagine getting paid hundreds of thousands a year to sling mud at the other party and accompluish little else. Fast disappearing? It disappeared during the Clinton witch hunts.

truckinslave -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 12:01:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave The unknown rookie senator beat McCain in large part imo, because he passes for black and self-identifies as black. I disagree. The blacks have historically voted Democratic and they did so in this case. Sure, the Dem campaign worked to mobilize and register blacks in large numbers, but the newly registered would have voted Dem anyway. IMO, Obama's victory was due to two main factors: 1. The GOP was a damaged brand after Bush. 2. Palin initially fired up the base but then turned into a massive liability, both in her own right and in terms of McCain's judgment in choosing her. A minor factor was that the GOP had been preparing an anti-Hillary campaign for years and then didn't switch gears quickly enough when Obama took the nomination. Edited to add: truckinslave, I also disagree with your implication that having a short record is a liability, In today's political climate, having a record gives more ammunition to vote against than to vote for. Elena Kagan is a prefect example - I believe that Team Obama selected her for (among other things) her lack of a voting record. Even so, the opposition party went over her record with a fine tooth comb and mounted opposition to her on the few minor points they had. I could quibble with the anti-Palin bit, but certainly I agree that the rest of your points were factors. That doesn't mean I'm abandoning my point though. There were comments to that effect on the national level- G Ferraro for sure, and I think B Clinton himself. There was soooooo much blathering about how great it would be for America to shake off its racist past by electing a black President, how good it would be for America to have a black President, how we could restore our image abroad by electing a black President. Maybe those things were/are true, maybe not (certainly I dont see it). But they were there, and they had a huge effect on the election. He really is a product of affirmative action, and I meant that in the very best sense of the term.

truckinslave -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 12:03:59 PM)
quote: damage done to his the perception of his leadership when he suspended his campaign during the financial crisis but failed to get his own party to go along with the bank bailouts. yeah, that was weird, and hurt him. Did you miss the people who voted for 0bama0 because he was black? There are a million things that go into an election; his race was one of them, and imo it helped him.

truckinslave -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 12:06:56 PM)
quote: Just as he is doing now in his Senate campaign regarding illegal immigrants. I was sorry to see how well that worked. Hayworth was easily my pick in that one- no RINO he. But maybe McCain will stya where he is on the issue for a while.

DomKen -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 1:03:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Don't get me wrong. This adminstration is from Chicago. There might very well be a need for a congressional investigation or two, but I don't think that should be seen as a plank in the agenda. What a boring cliche. Do try and keep in mind the most corrupt Presidency ever was led by a Californian.

TheHeretic -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 1:28:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Do try and keep in mind the most corrupt Presidency ever was led by a Californian. So which is it going to be, Ken? Are you so ignorant of history as to think Ulysses Grant was from California, or do you just use "ever," the same way your climate scientist idols do, meaning, "within a time frame that comfortably fits the data to the socio-political agenda we want to push?"

DomKen -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 2:57:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Do try and keep in mind the most corrupt Presidency ever was led by a Californian. So which is it going to be, Ken? Are you so ignorant of history as to think Ulysses Grant was from California, or do you just use "ever," the same way your climate scientist idols do, meaning, "within a time frame that comfortably fits the data to the socio-political agenda we want to push?" Got a better metric than number of administration appointees imprisoned due to actions taken while working for the administration? Reagan's total far exceeds Grant's.

TheHeretic -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 3:15:16 PM)
Oh, I'm just going by people whose opinion's actually matter in these things, Ken. Your opinions and prejudices may vary. Hell, Glenn Beck thinks President Obama will be the new record holder, and a lot more like his schtick than yours.

DomKen -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 4:09:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Oh, I'm just going by people whose opinion's actually matter in these things, Ken. Your opinions and prejudices may vary. Hell, Glenn Beck thinks President Obama will be the new record holder, and a lot more like his schtick than yours. Typical, facts are less important than your opinions. It's awfully hard to take you seriously when you spout stuff like that.

TheHeretic -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 4:18:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Typical, facts are less important than your opinions. It's awfully hard to take you seriously when you spout stuff like that. Right, Ken. Whatever. It's even harder to take you seriously when you pull a statement out of your ass, and present it as if it is fully deserving a reasoned refudiation ([8\|]). Historians quibble over Grant and Harding. You have fun being impressed with your own opinions though. http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/grant/essays/biography/4

luckydawg -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 4:23:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Do try and keep in mind the most corrupt Presidency ever was led by a Californian. So which is it going to be, Ken? Are you so ignorant of history as to think Ulysses Grant was from California, or do you just use "ever," the same way your climate scientist idols do, meaning, "within a time frame that comfortably fits the data to the socio-political agenda we want to push?" Got a better metric than number of administration appointees imprisoned due to actions taken while working for the administration? Reagan's total far exceeds Grant's. Actually the number would have to be a ratio of number of appointees to number imprisioned. I would guess there were thousands of more appointees in the Reagan Adminstration than the Grant Admin. Several Agencies and circuit courts did not exist at that time. And many that did exist have far more employees. The simple metric you give is meaningless.

DomKen -> RE: GOP plans wave of White House probes (8/28/2010 4:26:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Typical, facts are less important than your opinions. It's awfully hard to take you seriously when you spout stuff like that. Right, Ken. Whatever. It's even harder to take you seriously when you pull a statement out of your ass, and present it as if it is fully deserving a reasoned refudiation ([8\|]). Historians quibble over Grant and Harding. You have fun being impressed with your own opinions though. http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/grant/essays/biography/4 Did you read the article yourself? Grant had a couple of major scandals and he actually implemented a program to improve the situation. Reagan simply lied and delayed prosceutors. Bush I had to save his own ass by pardoning Reagan's former SoDefence.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875