EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Oct 4, 2008 19:00:59 GMT -5
Back to Tom Davis. Davis is a Congressman who faced defeat because his district is now Democratic. His wife of a few years, Jeannemarie Devolites Davis (don't ask me about that) was a Virginia state senator from the same area who shared Davis's political philosophy and who recently lost to a Democrat. Tom wanted to run for John Warner's seat in the U.S. Senate and wanted the rules changed to have the Republican nominee selected by a primary but the state party decided to go with a convention. So Davis took his ball and went home, blaming anyone but himself. Now I suggest you look for his name among the lobbyists of the world.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Oct 4, 2008 19:36:11 GMT -5
Back to Tom Davis. Davis is a Congressman who faced defeat because his district is now Democratic. His wife of a few years, Jeannemarie Devolites Davis (don't ask me about that) was a Virginia state senator from the same area who shared Davis's political philosophy and who recently lost to a Democrat. Tom wanted to run for John Warner's seat in the U.S. Senate and wanted the rules changed to have the Republican nominee selected by a primary but the state party decided to go with a convention. So Davis took his ball and went home, blaming anyone but himself. Now I suggest you look for his name among the lobbyists of the world. Typical Rovian response- attack the messenger.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Oct 4, 2008 19:41:51 GMT -5
Every poll I've seen this week has given her negative favorability, I think you're misquoting statistics as usual. I think any other ordinary Alaskan could name a Supreme Court case they disagreed with (the Exxon case), but Palin's too far in the bag of the oil companies to use that as an example. She should have been able to name the Exxon case. That was inexcusable on her part. She's not in the bag of the oil companies though. She raised taxes on them in AK, supported the fishermen in the Exxon case, tried to pull BP's lease at Pt Thompson bc they weren't drilling fast enough for her and the oil companies hated her natural gas pipeline legislation so much they didn't even bid. Honestly, if she does all that while being in "the bag" for oil companies, think about what shed do if she wasn't
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Oct 4, 2008 19:46:21 GMT -5
On second thought, I don't think Palin is Esherick. Esherick was not corrupt and Esherick was mediocre. I don't think Palin meets the mediocre bar. Here's one that has Palin at 32% favorable / 33% unfavorable - I have a feeling that her rating will settle above that a bit after the debate, but there's no way she retains a 53% rating. www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/sepd-elec08.pdfAnd here's one that has her at 41% post-debate: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27009491/Palin is 36/29 and Biden is 25/17 at the extremes of favorability for Rasmussen so the CBS News poll makes sense. MSNBC has 67% Biden, 41% Palin and Keith Olberman on 34 hours a week. I'll take those results with a grain of salt. The point is more that she's not as universally panned as you would think. Note that Obama supporters, people under 40, and people making over $100,000 all strongly favored Biden as the debate's winner. Imagine how strongly someone with, say, a profile consisting of all three of those might feel about Palin's performance. I'm not trying to be a jerk about this. I'm just trying to say that there's a part of the voting population that doesn't care for people they think find themselves superior. They're not completely wrong to feel that way. Palin plays into that.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,462
|
Post by TC on Oct 4, 2008 20:55:05 GMT -5
Palin is 36/29 and Biden is 25/17 at the extremes of favorability for Rasmussen so the CBS News poll makes sense. MSNBC has 67% Biden, 41% Palin and Keith Olberman on 34 hours a week. I'll take those results with a grain of salt. So let me get this straight - the MSNBC poll is totally unbelievable due to the fact that the on-air network leans left, but Rasmussen - which statistically leans Republican - totally unbiased. The culture war is divisive bull. Thankfully, it won't last much longer, because demographic trends to urbanization and increasing minority populations will make it a losing strategy to pit decreasing populations of rural whites vs. increasing populations of city-dwellers.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Oct 4, 2008 21:03:52 GMT -5
The culture war is divisive bull Edited. Thankfully, it won't last much longer, because demographic trends to urbanization and increasing minority populations will make it a losing strategy to pit decreasing populations of rural whites vs. increasing populations of city-dwellers. I'm not saying this isn't untrue - but the culture war ploy isn't going to work because the Fiscal Conservatives, Evangelical Conservatives, and Foreign Policy Conservatives are finding it increasingly uncomfortable to be in the same political party. The culture war concept was brilliant in that it allowed the party to unite despite their differences on the issues. However, simply genuflecting to Reaganism rallies the base minimally and doesn't expand the party.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Oct 4, 2008 21:30:30 GMT -5
The culture war is divisive bull Edited. Thankfully, it won't last much longer, because demographic trends to urbanization and increasing minority populations will make it a losing strategy to pit decreasing populations of rural whites vs. increasing populations of city-dwellers. I'm not saying this isn't untrue - but the culture war ploy isn't going to work because the Fiscal Conservatives, Evangelical Conservatives, and Foreign Policy Conservatives are finding it increasingly uncomfortable to be in the same political party. The culture war concept was brilliant in that it allowed the party to unite despite their differences on the issues. However, simply genuflecting to Reaganism rallies the base minimally and doesn't expand the party. Agreed on both counts on the culture war. But I think TC is more correct in that the only thing that changes strategies and platforms is how effective they are in gaining votes. That's the major reason this will change. As for the poll thing, everyone can believe whatever they want. 55% of undecideds in the CBS News poll said the debate changed what they thought of Palin for the better and only 14% said it changed it for the worse. She was at 32/33 prior to the debate. Rasmussen has her at 36/29 at the extremes post-debate. I'll bet given those two pieces of information, that's about where she'll be in the next CBS News poll. But sure, if you want to buy that Biden is +26 in favorability when he was +2 in CBS, +6 in Rasmussen, and MSNBC is wildly biased then have at it. To me that doesn't exactly pass the smell test.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Oct 5, 2008 10:55:42 GMT -5
Back to Tom Davis. Davis is a Congressman who faced defeat because his district is now Democratic. His wife of a few years, Jeannemarie Devolites Davis (don't ask me about that) was a Virginia state senator from the same area who shared Davis's political philosophy and who recently lost to a Democrat. Tom wanted to run for John Warner's seat in the U.S. Senate and wanted the rules changed to have the Republican nominee selected by a primary but the state party decided to go with a convention. So Davis took his ball and went home, blaming anyone but himself. Now I suggest you look for his name among the lobbyists of the world. Typical Rovian response- attack the messenger. But, of course, attacking the other messenger (Palin) is not "Rovian"?
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Oct 5, 2008 12:49:36 GMT -5
Typical Rovian response- attack the messenger. But, of course, attacking the other messenger (Palin) is not "Rovian"? I was referring to Rove's ideas on "party unity". If a member of the party says something contrary to the conservative view of the party goals, simply attack him or her. Ironically, John McCain is familiar with this style of attack since he's been subjected to it in the past.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Oct 5, 2008 13:21:56 GMT -5
Back to Tom Davis. Davis is a Congressman who faced defeat because his district is now Democratic. His wife of a few years, Jeannemarie Devolites Davis (don't ask me about that) was a Virginia state senator from the same area who shared Davis's political philosophy and who recently lost to a Democrat. Tom wanted to run for John Warner's seat in the U.S. Senate and wanted the rules changed to have the Republican nominee selected by a primary but the state party decided to go with a convention. So Davis took his ball and went home, blaming anyone but himself. Now I suggest you look for his name among the lobbyists of the world. From the same NY Times article mentioned above: Davis is one of 26 Republicans who have chosen to retire from the House this year, many of them moderates like him, compared with 6 Democrats. “There’s no question we’re a dying breed,” said Representative Jim Ramstad of Minnesota, who is also giving up his seat. But I have confidence in you Ed. I am sure you will have no trouble coming up with 25 more excuses for Republican Congressmen who have been disillusioned by Bush and the last 8 years of Republican "leadership". Speaking of Bush.... here are a few more things that Davis had to say: As for Bush, Davis long ago lost faith. “He’s a disappointment,” Davis said. “How else do you say it?” In his view, Bush grew isolated and surrounded himself with people who made bad decisions. The president, he lamented, failed to effectively tackle a rising deficit, Medicare and Social Security. He rose to the occasion after terrorists attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, but not after Hurricane Katrina smashed into the Gulf Coast... “I’m disappointed just in terms of his stewardship. I wrote the Katrina report. Just the fact that he wasn’t down there the next day and he flew over it in Air Force One to get a view of it — that, to me, is not leadership.”
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Oct 5, 2008 13:42:34 GMT -5
Because the Republicans are tapping into the underrated cynicism of the middle of the country. Many Democrats act like the country is "too stupid" to vote for their obviously superior ideas. That's simply not true. The middle of the country just wants the coasts to stop dictating to them what they should think. They control their media, their entertainment (Ever hear "Live from Topeka, it's Saturday Night?), the products they buy, their mortgage...everything. GIGA, you can't be serious about the above. Republicans... the RED States, the "middle of the country" have controlled Congress for 10 of the past 12 years and run the White House for the last 8, and and 20 of the last 28. THe middle of the country has been controlling the country, taking us to needless and strategically disatrous wars, spending tax dollars on religious organizations, applying what they believe to be their "moral superiority" on the rest of us, giving huge tax breaks to the most wealthy, and running the country literally into bankruptcy. I would gladly trade "Live from Topeka" for Washington. Now there's a candidate who is a little too much like many regular Americans and the coasters are saying she's "dangerous" and "scary." Do you really wonder why they would be hacked off when a woman who has gone from the PTA to the governorship of a state over 20 years of public service is being summarily discounted by the coasters because she "talks funny and believes in Jesus?" Being an elite is not bad. Being a snob is. How about some "Straight Talk"? Sarah Palin isn't even close to be qualified to be the VP, let alone President. Forcing in as many "doggones" "Gosh darn its" as possible in a desperate attempt to manipulate the TV viewing audience is no substitute for substance. If pointing out the obvious is "snobbish" to you, OK, call me snobbish. I guess it is "snobbish" to expect the major political parties to nominate candidates who are actually qualified for the positions. Giga... I know you enjoy these debates and playing "devil's advocate", but please answer one question for me. Do YOU believe Palin is qualified to be the next President or VP of the USA?
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Oct 5, 2008 15:49:16 GMT -5
Because the Republicans are tapping into the underrated cynicism of the middle of the country. Many Democrats act like the country is "too stupid" to vote for their obviously superior ideas. That's simply not true. The middle of the country just wants the coasts to stop dictating to them what they should think. They control their media, their entertainment (Ever hear "Live from Topeka, it's Saturday Night?), the products they buy, their mortgage...everything. GIGA, you can't be serious about the above. Republicans... the RED States, the "middle of the country" have controlled Congress for 10 of the past 12 years and run the White House for the last 8, and and 20 of the last 28. THe middle of the country has been controlling the country, taking us to needless and strategically disatrous wars, spending tax dollars on religious organizations, applying what they believe to be their "moral superiority" on the rest of us, giving huge tax breaks to the most wealthy, and running the country literally into bankruptcy. I would gladly trade "Live from Topeka" for Washington. Now there's a candidate who is a little too much like many regular Americans and the coasters are saying she's "dangerous" and "scary." Do you really wonder why they would be hacked off when a woman who has gone from the PTA to the governorship of a state over 20 years of public service is being summarily discounted by the coasters because she "talks funny and believes in Jesus?" Being an elite is not bad. Being a snob is. How about some "Straight Talk"? Sarah Palin isn't even close to be qualified to be the VP, let alone President. Forcing in as many "doggones" "Gosh darn its" as possible in a desperate attempt to manipulate the TV viewing audience is no substitute for substance. If pointing out the obvious is "snobbish" to you, OK, call me snobbish. I guess it is "snobbish" to expect the major political parties to nominate candidates who are actually qualified for the positions. Giga... I know you enjoy these debates and playing "devil's advocate", but please answer one question for me. Do YOU believe Palin is qualified to be the next President or VP of the USA? SirSaxa, I precisely agree with your first point. I'm saying that's PRECISELY why you see the red states voting the way they do. That's where they have power: in voting. I think we agree there. As for Palin, no, I don't think she's qualified to be president. To be VP? Maybe. VPs are not supposed to run the country. It's a novel idea after the last 8 years but I don't think VP should be anything more than a stepping stone to the presidency. Yes I know, McCain might die January 22nd and I should be frightened. But really, I'm not. Here's my real problem. There's not a chance that a first-term senator whose job is to vote along party lines 100% of the time is qualified to be president. Obama has zero history that makes me believe he'll be an effective leader. And yes, I think we have another inverted presidency where Biden will be running a lot of the policy decisions. That's not necessarily bad since I trust Biden about (insert number close to infinity here) times more than Dick Cheney. The elitism issue I have is that Obama is an "intellectual" and therefore is qualified. He votes with his party almost 100% of the time. If you're agreeing with a political party platform 100% of the time, I find it very hard to believe you're A) Some special deep thinker, B) Some independent unifying voice or C) A leader and not a lockstep follower. I have no problem with the Palin concerns. I do have a problem with people who belittle Palin as a VP choice but think Obama is truly qualified to be president. Hey, any port in a storm after the last 8 years, but let's get serious about him. If you want qualified people, want them on both sides. Otherwise if being a Democrat and a smart guy who speaks well can replace governing experience, 80% of the people I work with are one senate election away from being qualified to be president. I don't think that's true.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Oct 5, 2008 16:43:48 GMT -5
The thing is that around 90% of Senate votes are non-controversial or procedural. McCain voted along party lines 95% of the time, and he's the one calling himself a maverick.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Oct 5, 2008 16:59:32 GMT -5
The thing is that around 90% of Senate votes are non-controversial or procedural. McCain voted along party lines 95% of the time, and he's the one calling himself a maverick. That number is THIS congressional session ONLY (not coincidentally the one in which he was trying to get the nomination). McCain has had voting records in the 60s and low 70s in the past. Keep in mind, many votes are unanimous so even Obama votes with the president 40% of the time. So yes, McCain does have a record of voting against his party because he has more than one session of Congress in his record. Obama has zip. I don't know if it's because he fundamentally happens to agree with all the Democratic policies or if it's because as a junior senator you just have to vote along with the party. Either way, it doesn't reflect well on his ability to go from party b**** to leader of a superpower.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Oct 5, 2008 18:20:35 GMT -5
"I have no problem with the Palin concerns. I do have a problem with people who belittle Palin as a VP choice but think Obama is truly qualified to be president."
Giga, you got it right.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,462
|
Post by TC on Oct 5, 2008 19:26:35 GMT -5
Whether someone has voted against their party or not in the past is what makes someone qualified to be present? Really? I guess Carter/Reagan/Clinton weren't qualified to be President since they were Governors and didn't have the ability to disagree with their party on the national level.
17 million people voting for him over Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards is what put Obama in the position he is in. We have yet to hear how exactly how Sarah Palin was nominated, but every report has Dobson in on it and McCain only meeting her for 15 minutes and absolutely no vetting going on, but hey we're DEFINITELY not a Theocracy and I'm an elitist for even suggesting it.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 5, 2008 20:47:07 GMT -5
"I have no problem with the Palin concerns. I do have a problem with people who belittle Palin as a VP choice but think Obama is truly qualified to be president." Giga, you got it right. What makes one 'qualified' to be president? Obviously experience counts, but isn't what that person has done with their experience more important? Looking at McCain vs. Obama, wouldn't it be more important to vote based on the policies they'd implement? Just focusing on Obama, he has clear, detailed policy (whether or not you like them or agree with them not being the point). He obviously has the intellect, he has proved to have a strong grasp of domestic and foreign affairs. What exactly is it that makes him 'unqualified?' And this isn't bait, this is a serious question. Comparing Sarah Palin to Barack Obama isn't even close. Call me a snob, call me elitist, but I don't think anyone who is serious about politics on any level can honestly see her nomination as anything more than a cynical joke. She has demonstrated that she's spent her life without any curiosity of the world outside of Alaska. Not just to focus on how little she knew about national politics at the time of her nomination, but I would think that the average 9th grader, given 5 weeks of tutoring under the upper crust of the Republican Party, would have a better understanding of the issues and ability to think on their feet than she has shown. I don't understand the argument that she met expectations therefore she was fine in the debate. She's running for vice president. She could barely answer a single question. She showed contempt for the basic rules of the debate, happy and proud to ignore the rules. If a party had a 5 year old as their nominee, would it be fair to judge them on how well you should expect a 5 year old to do? Her performance should be based on how well she did as someone who would be vice president. If they win, she's going to actually have to perform at her job. Playing culture wars might help you win a campaign, but what do you do when you're actually in the position and have to make the decisions? Can any serious person on the planet think that she's ready to be vice president, let alone president? And fine, go ahead and tie that in with Obama. Why, specifically, do you think he's unqualified to be president?
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 5, 2008 22:12:31 GMT -5
I am often astonished to read these critiques of Obama coming from people who believed that Bush was ready to be President. He's nearly 8 years into his presidency, and he's still not ready.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Oct 5, 2008 22:20:21 GMT -5
"I have no problem with the Palin concerns. I do have a problem with people who belittle Palin as a VP choice but think Obama is truly qualified to be president." Giga, you got it right. What makes one 'qualified' to be president? Obviously experience counts, but isn't what that person has done with their experience more important? Looking at McCain vs. Obama, wouldn't it be more important to vote based on the policies they'd implement? Just focusing on Obama, he has clear, detailed policy (whether or not you like them or agree with them not being the point). He obviously has the intellect, he has proved to have a strong grasp of domestic and foreign affairs. What exactly is it that makes him 'unqualified?' And this isn't bait, this is a serious question. Comparing Sarah Palin to Barack Obama isn't even close. Call me a snob, call me elitist, but I don't think anyone who is serious about politics on any level can honestly see her nomination as anything more than a cynical joke. She has demonstrated that she's spent her life without any curiosity of the world outside of Alaska. Not just to focus on how little she knew about national politics at the time of her nomination, but I would think that the average 9th grader, given 5 weeks of tutoring under the upper crust of the Republican Party, would have a better understanding of the issues and ability to think on their feet than she has shown. I don't understand the argument that she met expectations therefore she was fine in the debate. She's running for vice president. She could barely answer a single question. She showed contempt for the basic rules of the debate, happy and proud to ignore the rules. If a party had a 5 year old as their nominee, would it be fair to judge them on how well you should expect a 5 year old to do? Her performance should be based on how well she did as someone who would be vice president. If they win, she's going to actually have to perform at her job. Playing culture wars might help you win a campaign, but what do you do when you're actually in the position and have to make the decisions? Can any serious person on the planet think that she's ready to be vice president, let alone president? And fine, go ahead and tie that in with Obama. Why, specifically, do you think he's unqualified to be president? A first-term senator with no significant legislation, no decision-making history or authority, and 18 months dealing in national government voting lockstep with his party. He has no executive experience. He has never held a leadership position of any kind. He has never done anything significant where he was the lead. He actually states the leadership experience running his campaign qualifies as executive experience. Oh really? Well I have experience in this job because I'm interviewing for it right now. Try that the next time you're looking to change employers. This isn't a "qualified-off" between Palin and Obama by the way. You're either qualified for this job or not. Palin is not qualified for president. That Obama is smarter and that makes him ever so slightly more qualified does not change the fact that he still is not qualified. This is unfortunately the bar we've set. I actually think McCain is questionable since I really don't like senators in this role at all. That's a different branch of government. Anyone can set detailed policies. There's a whole branch for that (the legislative one where these two lame candidates reside). But when you want someone to be the leader of one of the most powerful nations, you want that person to be exactly that: a leader. Being thoughtful is not leadership. Speaking well is not leadership. Being a veteran is not leadership either, John McCain. Leadership is leadership. If I were Clinton who had 11 years experience as a governor of a state and someone compared Obama to me, I'd be PO'd. Obama votes on stuff. That's cool. That's not what the President does. And this is a pretty important position for a guy who is in the wrong branch of government- and the wrong branch of government for only one term no less- to be taking on. Note to Jersey: Bush was not qualified because he was an idiot. But "smart" as the inverse of Bush is not enough. Smart AND qualified like Clinton? Now you're getting somewhere. Should the American people really have to choose? I have higher expectations of the presidency. To TC: They were executives. The buck stopped there. They had to be leaders and have a mind of their own because they were the last mind making the decision. This is exactly why I question both these candidates but Obama more. He seems like a fine Democratic member of the senate. But making decisions on his own? Setting the agenda for the nation? Sorry, I don't trust him with that. To say he's qualified because he won the primary process, well, Bush won the primary and the election...twice.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Oct 5, 2008 22:40:19 GMT -5
The flip side is that McCain and Obama (and Biden) have experience on the national level, which Palin lacks, and Clinton and Bush 43 lacked when they came into office. I think that's an important thing for a candidate to have.
Experience at the national level and executive experience are both very important things to have, but I don't think the lack of either is a dealbreaker. John Kerry may not have been the best candidate there ever was, but I didn't hear anybody say he shouldn't be President because he lacks executive experience. On the flip side, Clinton didn't suffer too much from his lack of national level experience (although Bush 43 arguably did). It's actually pretty rare for a candidate to have both - the last non-incumbent candidate to have both was Gore, and the last non-incumbent to have both and win was Bush 41 (and that didn't go too well).
It is interesting to note that former governors have beaten former senators in the past 3 Presidential elections.
In the country's early days, the trend was for the Secretary of State to be the stepping stone to the Presidency. I'd sort of like it if that trend returned, since I think it gives somebody the exact sort of preparation they'd need to be President.
|
|