Meeting today. I have a feeling if the GOP doesn't accept and incorporate
the Tea Party movement there will be a third party.

Whether Dem or Repub, they are in trouble if they don't listen to the people.
I give the Tea Party a lot of credit for getting more people involved in
the governmental process.

There is a lot of incumbant anger and if the GOP can work with the them, it is obviously to their benefit. However, the TP aren't going to walk in step w/them.

The tea party needs to distance itself from the nuts. I agree with what the tea party stands for but you have the Obama = Hitler crowd mixed in and they will diminish any value.

they must eliminate the lunatic fringe, and soon.

The tea party needs to distance itself from the nuts. I agree with what the tea party stands for but you have the Obama = Hitler crowd mixed in and they will diminish any value.

That's what I was thinking. It's hard for them to be considered credible with the wingnuts making all that noise.

What would you guys consider a TP wing nuts philosophy would be?

What would you guys consider a TP wing nuts philosophy would be?

Like Jimmy said, the Obama = Hitler crowd. Along with these people:
http://www.jeffhead.com/912teaparty/912-TeaParty-DC-12.jpg
http://newsbusters.org/static/2009/08/NewsBusters%27%20Sheppard%20Speaks%20At%20San%20Fr ancisco%20Tea%20Party.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2602/3695301543_efecfe9665.jpg?v=0

And my favorite:

http://jgogek.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/tea-party-42.jpg

Thanks, JD. When I read Justplugit's post, the first image that popped into my mind was one of a woman with a "Teabagging for Jesus" sign at one of the prostests. Of course the far right wing extremists, racists and those advocating violence are a very small number in the grand scheme of things, but they get the most attention. That's what I originally meant by "wingnuts".

Thanks, JD. When I read Justplugit's post, the first image that popped into my mind was one of a woman with a "Teabagging for Jesus" sign at one of the prostests. Of course the far right wing extremists, racists and those advocating violence are a very small number in the grand scheme of things, but they get the most attention. That's what I originally meant by "wingnuts".

That's what I figured. The movement *could* be productive but it is overshadowed by people like the morons in the pictures above. However, those idiots are possibly the only reason the movement gets as much press as it does.

spell check needed:
http://wysinger.homestead.com/tex3.jpg
http://www.mathewingram.com/work/wp-content/uploads/morans.jpg

not only needs spell check, but maybe slightly rascist :rolleyes:
http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/files/2010/01/0000dalerobertson.jpg

OK, and that car is US made too?
http://wysinger.homestead.com/610xCAIATMKI.jpg

That's what I figured. The movement *could* be productive but it is overshadowed by people like the morons in the pictures above. However, those idiots are possibly the only reason the movement gets as much press as it does.

Nut cases dominate the Democrats. Ever watch the Democratic National Convention? Pony tails and floppy hats., and that's the "men".

The fruitloop that Delahunt let go to murder 3 people in Alabama was a big time Obama supporter.

The press and JD and the left would like you to believe the Tea Party is all nut jobs (hence the handy pics that JD put up) but it really is a mistake to assume that.

Nut cases dominate the Democrats. Ever watch the Democratic National Convention? Pony tails and floppy hats., and that's the "men".

The fruitloop that Delahunt let go to murder 3 people in Alabama was a big time Obama supporter.

The press and JD and the left would like you to believe the Tea Party is all nut jobs (hence the handy pics that JD put up) but it really is a mistake to assume that.

You only read half of a post before you make a comment, huh?

This isn't like a picture book where you get the whole story by just flipping through the pages and looking at the pretty pictures.

That's what I was thinking. It's hard for them to be considered credible with the wingnuts making all that noise.
Did you see Tancredo's address at the 600 person strong Tea Party rally the other week? :conf:

The problem the Tea Party will have is that the GOP is going to use them publicly, but not really embrace them as a movement within the party.

Their defacto leader, Sarah Palin is...well, enough said :hihi:

-spence

You only read half of a post before you make a comment, huh?

This isn't like a picture book where you get the whole story by just flipping through the pages and looking at the pretty pictures.

I read your post and they show your point clearly.....huh

Did you see Tancredo's address at the 600 person strong Tea Party rally the other week? :conf:

The problem the Tea Party will have is that the GOP is going to use them publicly, but not really embrace them as a movement within the party.

Their defacto leader, Sarah Palin is...well, enough said :hihi:

-spence

I think the GOP is in trouble with the tea party too. They are demanding conservatives, not the GOP cowards we now have.Watch what happens to McCain.

I think the GOP is in trouble with the tea party too. They are demanding conservatives, not the GOP cowards we now have.Watch what happens to McCain.
I don't think they're even demanding conservatives. Some are demanding fiscal conservatism, and others are just kooks. Most are simply rebelling against Government spending which is an issue with both main parties.

I don't see any policy from them though, aside from Palin's "common sense" approach to everything. You know, if you have a problem apply a common sense solution :yak5:

-spence

The same people that overestimated Obama are now underestimating this movement.
People are fed up and though they may not belong to the "Tea Party" they have similar values and motivations when it comes to who they will be voting for or shall I say out.
Give the Dems credit...they sure can eff it up for themselfs when put in charge.

another Dem bites the dust.....so Browns win was not that big a deal, huh?

From what I've seen of the Tea Party gatherings on TV I never saw one
person carrying the signs any thing like JD posted. I'm sure their opposition
went out of their way to snap those.
The majority of what I saw was groups of older Americans demonstrating
peacefully against HC, higher taxes, smaller G and run away spending by both parties over the last few years that would create unpayable debt for their kids and grand-kids for generations. Awakened a lot of people.

Oh yeah and Spence your [QUOTE]:, "if you have a problem, apply a common sense solution.:yak5:. "
What we need really is some theory spun by a bunch of know it all egg head professors with little or no experience that never stepped into the real world, to give us solutions and spend our money.:rolleyes:

:hihi: jpi..all you watch is Beck, Hannity, and O'Really...
on Faux News....
of course they gonna pretty it up for youse...:hihi:
change the channel once in a while, or better yet, get that motorcycle running again!

:hihi: jpi.. or better yet, get that motorcycle running again!

That's the easy part, doing a wheelie up the cellar steps to
get it on the road is a little tougher at my age. :hihi:

That's the easy part, doing a wheelie up the cellar steps to
get it on the road is a little tougher at my age. :hihi:

I'll send clammah to show you how it is done..

I'll send clammah to show you how it is done..

LOL, i said up the cellar steps, not stuck in the cellar door. :doh: :D

here he comes

http://gorilla.coldfusionvideo.com/wp-images/dreamgirl4.jpg

:hihi:

That's what I was thinking. It's hard for them to be considered credible with the wingnuts making all that noise.

I'd certainly agree.

They're the right wing version of Ralph Nader - they will be harmless to the opposition, but split the conservative vote and weaken the base.

They're the right wing version of Ralph Nader - they will be harmless to the opposition, but split the conservative vote and weaken the base.

I don't think they'll be harmless, but they will definitely fracture an already weak GOP.

-spence

I don't think they'll be harmless, but they will definitely fracture an already weak GOP.

-spence

Joe and Spence, what planet are you from? Where you asleep for the last few months? Do you listen to any media outside of network news? Are you paying attention to the dems dropping like flies? A republican replacing Ted Kennedy? Spence, the GOP is weak??? You only had valuable input when you were quoting Tom Friedman, juts another one of teh Monday morning quarterbacks criticizing Bush. We'll there are no books now as history is being made daily, you are out of touch. Look around! A democrtatic held sentate and house CANNOT pass any legislation that was Obama's main priority??? Talk about WEAK!

The majority of Americans are conservative, not wing nuts. America woke up post Bush-sucks to find out that Change means - tax and spend. They want the government out of their lives, they want the government to stop spending, they want a president to stop "selling" and start doing! They dont like to be talked down to! Wake up boys - the times they are a changing. Latest CNN poll - majority of Americans WOULD NOT VOTE TO RELECT OBAMA !

I don't think they'll be harmless, but they will definitely fracture an already weak GOP.

-spence

I don't think so, Spence. The GOP is stronger now than it has been in a while and continues to get stronger. The special elections in NJ and MA have shown that people are fed up with the same old spend, spend, spend tactics of the Dems. The key for the Republicans is to get more moderate candidates to run. That way, they get the independent votes along with the conservative votes. Although the real extremists are very vocal, most people are smart enough to dismiss them as what they are. Just like the liberal moonbats who came out during the Obama campaign. They got a lot of play on some stations, but it didn't hurt the campaign.

let me get this straight...the current President of the United States has had known close associations with a radical domestic terrorist among others and has a plethera of radicals currently strolling the halls of the White House...and that's not a problem?...but a couple of people show up at a Tea Party rally with questionable signs and the entire movement is discredited...this is just like watching MSNBC:uhuh:

Joe and Spence, what planet are you from? Where you asleep for the last few months? Do you listen to any media outside of network news? Are you paying attention to the dems dropping like flies?

Scott Brown was a big win, and while a big deal, I don't think it is the massive landslide some see it as.
But...
how many republicans are retiring or not running for reelection so far in 2010...
I thought I read somewhere it was about 50/50 on the split.

A gauntlet was thrown with the energy legislation Obama is proposing. If the republicans fight what they pushed for just on political prinicipal (Drill baby drill!) then they are are definitely going to look like the party of no. If they do this, then they are going to loose any momentum the party might have gained from Scott Brown...

for the record, I as a tree-hugging, climate change believing sediment worker, am:
1. Pro Nuke
2. anti offshore drilling
3. Undecided on 'clean' coal...

OK, I'm wrong. The Tea Party will not harm repubs by creating a split among hard right conservatives, but rather it will take votes from the democrats.

Are you paying attention to the dems dropping like flies?

This has been mentioned by you a few times in the past couple weeks. You're right that the dems are dropping like flies. However, there are more Republicans at the moment that have declared they will not be running for re-election than there are Dems. Incumbent anger is being felt by both parties.

Also, you (and just about everyone else) have pretty consistently made the Scott Brown vote a "Vote against the Democrats" and I disagree. I think the Scott Brown win included a perfect storm of factors - a weak Dem candidate, a horribly run campaign, Brown's lack of fitting the Washington mold and having that hometown appearance. (and yes, dissent of the Dems but not as the sole reason).

I'm surprised that people are acting like the rise of counter movement in the face of liberal hegemony is something new. That the recent rise of a Tea Party-like organization was not predictable, and that this represents a sea-change in American Politics. Cripes, South Carolina has not even seceded yet.

OK, I'm wrong. The Tea Party will not harm repubs by creating a split among hard right conservatives, but rather it will take votes from the democrats.

wrong - it is made up of primarily independent voters, they are the target for all elections. :uhuh:

Also, you (and just about everyone else) have pretty consistently made the Scott Brown vote a "Vote against the Democrats" and I disagree. I think the Scott Brown win included a perfect storm of factors - a weak Dem candidate, a horribly run campaign, Brown's lack of fitting the Washington mold and having that hometown appearance. (and yes, dissent of the Dems but not as the sole reason).

Johnny - Brown's main FOCUS -

1. I can kill healthcare bill (you remember, Obama's key priority)
2. I am against giving rights to terrorsts (you remember, Obama pushed for trials of 9/11 suspects)
3. Less government (you remember, everything Obama has done in offce)

So in a state that was predominatly for OBAMA, the Brown vote was not a vote against Dems, although he stood opposite EVERYTHING they stood for? :wall:

I'm surprised that people are acting like the rise of counter movement in the face of liberal hegemony is something new. That the recent rise of a Tea Party-like organization was not predictable, and that this represents a sea-change in American Politics. Cripes, South Carolina has not even seceded yet.

do some legwork! So Joe, who is this tea party you speak of? Klans men? baptist ministers? white supremicists?
you do know that many of the key orgainziers are housewives and career women? Uh, yeah, they've been an organized voice in american politics. You guys are blind, blind to the facts cuz your watchin that garbage (bonus points to who can name the source of that quote)

Johnny - Brown's main FOCUS -

1. I can kill healthcare bill (you remember, Obama's key priority)
2. I am against giving rights to terrorsts (you remember, Obama pushed for trials of 9/11 suspects)
3. Less government (you remember, everything Obama has done in offce)

So in a state that was predominatly for OBAMA, the Brown vote was not a vote against Dems, although he stood opposite EVERYTHING they stood for? :wall:

Thus the problem with your argument. You assume that everyone votes based on policy and the issues. If the Presidential campaign taught us anything, it's that many people vote on sensationalism and voting against what's currently happening in the state.

you do know that many of the key orgainziers are housewives and career women?

People with a lot of time on their hands. No wonder the events are so well organized.:morons:

You give the voters alot more credit than they probably deserve.....

Scott Browns votes probably broke down like this

10% Because he drove a Truck
10% Because he's married to Gail Huff
10% Because his Daughter was on American Idol
10% Because he was in Cosmo
30% Because he wasn't Martha Coakley
30% because he Wasn't a Democrat.....

Dale Robertson writes like he was severely concussed.

Joe and Spence, what planet are you from? Where you asleep for the last few months? Do you listen to any media outside of network news? Are you paying attention to the dems dropping like flies? A republican replacing Ted Kennedy? Spence, the GOP is weak??? You only had valuable input when you were quoting Tom Friedman, juts another one of teh Monday morning quarterbacks criticizing Bush. We'll there are no books now as history is being made daily, you are out of touch. Look around! A democrtatic held sentate and house CANNOT pass any legislation that was Obama's main priority??? Talk about WEAK!
The astute observer would recognize that both the Democrats and Republicans are under fire from angry voters who don't feel the government is working effectively.

Look at John McCain, he's in the fight of his life (with a freaking pundit) of all people, and he was the presidential nominee just 15 months ago!

As for the passing of legislation, the Congress has passed more legislation than any in decades, including a 700 billion dollar spending bill for the Stimulus. Obama made mistakes on health care and now he's paying the price...

The majority of Americans are conservative, not wing nuts. America woke up post Bush-sucks to find out that Change means - tax and spend. They want the government out of their lives, they want the government to stop spending, they want a president to stop "selling" and start doing! They dont like to be talked down to! Wake up boys - the times they are a changing. Latest CNN poll - majority of Americans WOULD NOT VOTE TO RELECT OBAMA !
I don't think any poll that projects 3 years into the future is really worth much. If the economy has dramatically improved Obama's chances for reelection are pretty good.

-spence

Johnny - Brown's main FOCUS -

1. I can kill healthcare bill (you remember, Obama's key priority)
2. I am against giving rights to terrorsts (you remember, Obama pushed for trials of 9/11 suspects)
3. Less government (you remember, everything Obama has done in offce)

So in a state that was predominatly for OBAMA, the Brown vote was not a vote against Dems, although he stood opposite EVERYTHING they stood for? :wall:

People voted for Brown out of anti-establishment resentment more than anything else. Coakley had a huge lead in the polls until the voters got the impression she felt entitled to the seat.

Brown simply exploited this opening and she couldn't respond.

Or do you think the Mass voters just changed their opinions on all the issues overnight?

-spence

People with a lot of time on their hands. No wonder the events are so well organized.:morons:

Nice JD,

Housewifes and career women are morons with to much free time. You show your true colors with every post.

People voted for Brown out of anti-establishment resentment more than anything else. Coakley had a huge lead in the polls until the voters got the impression she felt entitled to the seat.

Brown simply exploited this opening and she couldn't respond.

Or do you think the Mass voters just changed their opinions on all the issues overnight?

-spence

You don't have any idea what the hell you are talking about. The Ma. voters sent a clear message. You are in denial.

ok, Dad, Spence and Johnny, if you're right, why has Obama and his entire team been on a mad public relations campaign since the Brown win? Obviously they think its more than what you described.

Spence, the MA voters saw the implications of the Obama admin. So has the rest of the country, hence the polls.

You don't have any idea what the hell you are talking about. The Ma. voters sent a clear message. You are in denial.

seriously, there have been many disagreements out here but these guys are avoiding the blatant facts.....

You don't have any idea what the hell you are talking about. The Ma. voters sent a clear message. You are in denial.
You guys seem to be the ones in denial, or you're just not reading my posts.

I've never said that Brown's victory wasn't a message, in fact I've repeatedly stated that his victory was an anti-government message...but not one that's rooted too deeply in conservative vs liberal ideologies.

It's not like 10+ % of voters changed what they believed in during the last few weeks of the election. Brown ran a great campaign and Coakley made several mistakes...

-spence

ok, Dad, Spence and Johnny, if you're right, why has Obama and his entire team been on a mad public relations campaign since the Brown win? Obviously they think its more than what you described.

I really hope you're right....but I just don't believe it was because all of the voters just became "Enlightened" all of sudden.

And I know everyone just wants to believe Obama is an idiot....but he is smart enough to realize the ramifications of what just happened in Mass....thats why the big public relations campaign.

ok, Dad, Spence and Johnny, if you're right, why has Obama and his entire team been on a mad public relations campaign since the Brown win? Obviously they think its more than what you described.
The Administration has woken up to the fact that they've not done a good enough job controlling the debate.

As a result, people (i.e. mid-term voters) are ignoring the facts that the Government is actually doing some good right now. Little things like helping the US avoid a Depression and killing or capturing a hell of a lot of terrorists.

The issues surrounding spending are very real, but not entirely owned by any one party. The GOP under Bush has no issue doubling the size of the Federal debt.

-spence

Nice JD,

Housewifes and career women are morons with to much free time. You show your true colors with every post.

Good try at vaguely relating me calling the idiots in the photos I posted morons and then making a joke about housewives.

Come back when you have something constructive that can be supported.

do some legwork! So Joe, who is this tea party you speak of? Klans men? baptist ministers? white supremicists?


according to the NY Times and MSNBC...YES!

You guys seem to be the ones in denial, or you're just not reading my posts.

I've never said that Brown's victory wasn't a message, in fact I've repeatedly stated that his victory was an anti-government message...but not one that's rooted too deeply in conservative vs liberal ideologies.

It's not like 10+ % of voters changed what they believed in during the last few weeks of the election. Brown ran a great campaign and Coakley made several mistakes...

-spence


here are the stats - you draw you own conclusion, seems obvious to me

A Final Look at Massachusetts Election Night Poll - Rasmussen Reports (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/massachusetts/a_final_look_at_massachusetts_election_night_poll)

People voted for Brown out of anti-establishment resentment more than anything else. Coakley had a huge lead in the polls until the voters got the impression she felt entitled to the seat.

Brown simply exploited this opening and she couldn't respond.

Or do you think the Mass voters just changed their opinions on all the issues overnight?

-spence

Did you read any of the newspaper or internet articles after the Brown win? Did you listen to Obama's own advisors and Democratic leaders after the MA election? Seriously, Spence you think it was because people got the impression that she felt she was entitled to the seat? She probably did feel that way, but the voters that were interviewed after the election voted for Brown because they are sick of the spending and having health care shoved down their throats, among other things. That is a fact. No matter how you try to spin it, it wasn't due to Coakley feeling entitled. It was due to voters wanting real change, not the crap Obama promised.

oooh look data that supports my argument!

There was a strong correlation between opinions about the president and votes in the Massachusetts race.

· Among those who Strongly Approve of the way Obama is handling the job, Coakley won 96% to three percent (3%).

· Among those who Strongly Disapprove, Brown won 97% to two percent (2%).

· Brown also won the vote from 95% of those who Somewhat Disapprove of the president’s job performance.

well whaty'a know Johnny!

and how about....


Among those who Strongly Favor the plan before Congress, Coakley won 97% of the vote.

· Among those who Strongly Oppose the plan, 98% voted for Brown.

· Coakley also picked up 90% of those who Somewhat Favor the plan while Brown was supported by 78% of those who Somewhat Oppose it.

· One key to Brown’s victory is that 41% Strongly Opposed the plan while just 25% Strongly Favored it.


Nah....nuthin to do with the Dems or Obama. Coakley sucks, Brown has a truck. yeee haw!

Hey, I said 30% was because he wasn't a Democrat....the truck only garnered him 10% :hee:...You've lost your sense of humor with old age

So how are #2 and #3 supported or are you going to vaguely group those in with people that disagree with Obama?
Johnny - Brown's main FOCUS -

1. I can kill healthcare bill (you remember, Obama's key priority)
2. I am against giving rights to terrorsts (you remember, Obama pushed for trials of 9/11 suspects)
3. Less government (you remember, everything Obama has done in offce)

These numbers don't really support your argument much at all aside from the HC part. Oh, so people that don't like Obama and didn't like the HC proposal voted for the guy that's a Republican and against the HC proposal?

And you still haven't address your "Dropping Like Flies" comments that you try to continue making. It would be easy to say that the Dems see the writing on the walls and are jumping ship, if it weren't for the same number of total Republicans, in both the House and Senate combined, that are not running re-election.

Wiki has a clean layout of who's dropping out.
* Retiring Democrats (5 seats)
* Retiring Republicans (6 seats)
* Democratic incumbents (13 seats)
* Republican incumbents (12 seats)

United States Senate elections, 2010 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2010)

Good try at vaguely relating me calling the idiots in the photos I posted morons and then making a joke about housewives.

Come back when you have something constructive that can be supported.

JD, you have lost your mind! My positions are being supported across America. Both sides of you?....not so much.

So how are #2 and #3 supported or are you going to vaguely group those in with people that disagree with Obama?


These numbers don't really support your argument much at all aside from the HC part. Oh, so people that don't like Obama and didn't like the HC proposal voted for the guy that's a Republican and against the HC proposal?

And you still haven't address your "Dropping Like Flies" comments that you try to continue making. It would be easy to say that the Dems see the writing on the walls and are jumping ship, if it weren't for the same number of total Republicans, in both the House and Senate combined, that are not running re-election.

Wiki has a clean layout of who's dropping out.
* Retiring Democrats (5 seats)
* Retiring Republicans (6 seats)
* Democratic incumbents (13 seats)
* Republican incumbents (12 seats)

United States Senate elections, 2010 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2010)

All polls point to a major shift in the 2010 election. I am thrilled that incumbants from both parties are dropping like flies.

JD, you have lost your mind! My positions are being supported across America. Both sides of you?....not so much.

Yeah, we've seen your peers:
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/1398/slide_1398_20093_large.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/1398/slide_1398_20074_large.jpg

So how are #2 and #3 supported or are you going to vaguely group those in with people that disagree with Obama?


These numbers don't really support your argument much at all aside from the HC part. Oh, so people that don't like Obama and didn't like the HC proposal voted for the guy that's a Republican and against the HC proposal?

And you still haven't address your "Dropping Like Flies" comments that you try to continue making. It would be easy to say that the Dems see the writing on the walls and are jumping ship, if it weren't for the same number of total Republicans, in both the House and Senate combined, that are not running re-election.

Wiki has a clean layout of who's dropping out.
* Retiring Democrats (5 seats)
* Retiring Republicans (6 seats)
* Democratic incumbents (13 seats)
* Republican incumbents (12 seats)

United States Senate elections, 2010 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2010)

your combining two concepts/posts. You said very clearly that the Brown win was not a reflection on Dems or Obama, the data draws a different conclusion, you decide.

The points I noted where key points Brown was running on, he was very clearly running on these. the poll data does not address it, however i would infer that less taxes = less government and that was clearly outlined in the poll.

As Far as Dems dropping like flies, I dont know of any high profile Reps dropping out, my ignorance, but the headlines the past few weeks have been filled with dems - Dodd, Dorgan, Kennedy, Bayh, . Bayh is not leaving saying he is to old, he is leaving saying things suck and I want out. I have to say that if you think this has nothing to do with Brown's win, the tea party movement or anti-Obama sentiment. Your nuts. Look at how bad this was for Repubs during the Bush years but you didnt see this kind of Exodus.

your combining two concepts/posts. You said very clearly that the Brown win was not a reflection on Dems or Obama, the data draws a different conclusion, you decide.

I did?

Thus the problem with your argument. You assume that everyone votes based on policy and the issues. If the Presidential campaign taught us anything, it's that many people vote on sensationalism and voting against what's currently happening in the state.

Bayh is leaving to distance himself from Obama's mess.
He will be Obamas opponent come 2012 and may just run as an Independent.

I did?

from Johnny D -
"Also, you (and just about everyone else) have pretty consistently made the Scott Brown vote a "Vote against the Democrats" and I disagree."

The poll data suggests otherwise.

from Johnny D -
"Also, you (and just about everyone else) have pretty consistently made the Scott Brown vote a "Vote against the Democrats" and I disagree."

The poll data suggests otherwise.

Now you're the one combining two different concepts/posts.

Bayh is leaving to distance himself from Obama's mess.
He will be Obamas opponent come 2012 and may just run as an Independent.

Bayh is leaving because he is a moderate in a disgustingly polar Congress. If he tries to reach across the aisle, he had to deal with the fallout from the more senior, and more liberal, Democrats. If I remember correctly, Bayh has the most votes against Obama of all Dems.

He would fail miserably in a run for President though. The way politics are run now, the White House isn't made for a moderate. He probably wouldn't hold up well through the Primaries.

We need more people in Congress like him - somewhat middle of the road representatives that aren't afraid of working with the other side. Right now, the House and Senate are a pathetic political analogy of the Red Sox and Yankees.

Right now, the House and Senate are a pathetic political analogy of the Red Sox and Yankees.

Good analogy of the mess.

I thought Obama was going to bring great unity?

here are the stats - you draw you own conclusion, seems obvious to me
I agree, it does seem obvious...

From your report...

56% of Massachusetts voters named health care as the most important issue. That suggests it was a big issue, but Democrat Martha Coakley actually won among those voters by a 53% to 46% margin.

So it looks like the biggest issue was health care, but Coakley actually won support from those voters....

Here's the stat that I find interesting.

While there was a somewhat similar correlation to views about Democratic Governor Deval Patrick, there was a clear suggestion that perceptions of the governor’s performance hurt Coakley. Among those voters who approve of the president’s job performance but disapprove of the governor’s, Brown won 93% to seven percent (7%). These voters accounted for just over 15% of all voters.

Considering that Brown won with 51.8% to Coakley's 47.1%, there are plenty of stats that can explain the results.

Personally, I think the idea of those liberal Mass voters rejecting "Kennedy's seat" is a bit over rated.

-spence

Bayh is leaving because he is a moderate in a disgustingly polar Congress. If he tries to reach across the aisle, he had to deal with the fallout from the more senior, and more liberal, Democrats. If I remember correctly, Bayh has the most votes against Obama of all Dems.
More importantly he could win his next election easily.

What should be troubling for the DNC is that he announced his plans without informing them first. He wanted out...

-spence

your combining two concepts/posts. You said very clearly that the Brown win was not a reflection on Dems or Obama, the data draws a different conclusion, you decide.

The points I noted where key points Brown was running on, he was very clearly running on these. the poll data does not address it, however i would infer that less taxes = less government and that was clearly outlined in the poll.
I love it...

RIJIMMY sez = the data draws a different conclusion

RIJIMMY sez = the poll data does not address it

So the facts are clear, yet to make his point he relies on his inference :rotf2:

-spence

I love it...

RIJIMMY sez = the data draws a different conclusion

RIJIMMY sez = the poll data does not address it

So the facts are clear, yet to make his point he relies on his inference :rotf2:

-spence

I was too distracted by his inaccurate reference to my position that I missed his comical inference that taxes = less government. So, as long as the government cuts taxes, they should be entitled to regulate every facet of my life?

I was too distracted by his inaccurate reference to my position that I missed his comical inference that taxes = less government. So, as long as the government cuts taxes, they should be entitled to regulate every facet of my life?

They already do. Join the "tea party". Your a better fit then you'll admit

They already do. Join the "tea party". Your a better fit then you'll admit

Are you a member?

-spence

Are you a member?

-spence

Sure, didn't you see me in the pics. JD posted

G.W. Bush's greatest accomplishment was the polarization and division of the people and legislature of the United States. He used it as a tool to get elected, but the division lives on as a cancer that prevents anything positive from getting accomplished in America. So much distrust and hatred has dragged us down to an impotent blustering, fumbling, incompetent caricature of what we once were. Negative is the daily norm, two negatives make a nothing. It's high time to just knock it the hell off and concentrate on the job at hand. That job includes us all. Who wants to live in a country with very rich vs. very poor? Other peoples failure does not make your success greater. In fact, it is to the contrary.

G.W. Bush's greatest accomplishment was the polarization and division of the people and legislature of the United States. He used it as a tool to get elected, but the division lives on as a cancer that prevents anything positive from getting accomplished in America. So much distrust and hatred has dragged us down to an impotent blustering, fumbling, incompetent caricature of what we once were. Negative is the daily norm, two negatives make a nothing. It's high time to just knock it the hell off and concentrate on the job at hand. That job includes us all. Who wants to live in a country with very rich vs. very poor? Other peoples failure does not make your success greater. In fact, it is to the contrary.

How old was GW when he started this polarization? I've been around for a long time, and, as far as I can remember, the legislature has always been polarized. As for the people, when have Democrats and Republicans not hated each other (politically)? I recall my Democrat co-workers hating GW's daddy, who was kind of a nice guy, even saying and making signs at rallies that shouted "Nuke Bush!"

GW Bush was a Unitifier...not a Dividifier...:uhuh:

:rotflmao:

From what I've read, the Clinton Impeachment is what ratcheted up the level of polarization to what it is now.

From what I've read, the Clinton Impeachment is what ratcheted up the level of polarization to what it is now.

I think you could be right Joe but if I recall the Dems effed over GB1 pretty good too.
Remember the good old days, when a lie "no new taxes" could bring down a President.

Don't be too concerned, there was an article yesterday on the front page of the Tea Party website which alluded to the goal of impeachment.

Who was the repub. famous for his dirty tactics who ended up dying of brain cancer about 7 years ago???

I just shook my head when one of the complaints/examples of hypocrisy voiced by Bayh was of the 7 repubs. who co-sponsored the recent deficit reduction bill and then actually voted against it.

Who was the repub. famous for his dirty tactics who ended up dying of brain cancer about 7 years ago???

I just shook my head when one of the complaints/examples of hypocrisy voiced by Bayh was of the 7 repubs. who co-sponsored the recent deficit reduction bill and then actually voted against it.

Reminds me of Obama voting for Bush's budgets and then saying he inherited Bush's deficit. Especially when the Dems controlled things during those years.:smash:

I love it...

RIJIMMY sez = the data draws a different conclusion

RIJIMMY sez = the poll data does not address it

So the facts are clear, yet to make his point he relies on his inference :rotf2:

-spence

F'in stupidity, if you and Johnny cant follow a logical discussion, dont waste my time. Brown had issues he was running on..period. The poll has data...period. Some of Browns running points were addressed as key MA issues in the poll, others were not. I noted which where addressed and which were not. Has nothing to do with my opinion. I clearly separated them. as I said twice, now 3 TIMES. you draw your own conclusion. the data is there......

F'in stupidity, if you and Johnny cant follow a logical discussion, dont waste my time. Brown had issues he was running on..period. The poll has data...period. Some of Browns running points were addressed as key MA issues in the poll, others were not. I noted which where addressed and which were not. Has nothing to do with my opinion. I clearly separated them. as I said twice, now 3 TIMES. you draw your own conclusion. the data is there......

I don't think it's a matter of stupidity with JD and Spence. Spence just likes to play devil's advocate. You know he's actually not all that liberal. He likes a good debate and when proven wrong, he stops visiting the thread. It happens all the time, when he runs out of ways to spin his argument.
With JD, he just can't accept when he's been proven wrong. If he sees that someone's getting the upper hand, he makes personal attacks on their intelligence. I guess when you think you're the smartest person in the room, you feel entitled to act like it. Wait a second, I jsut realized that describes our current President to a tee.:rotf2:

I don't think it's a matter of stupidity with JD and Spence. Spence just likes to play devil's advocate. You know he's actually not all that liberal. He likes a good debate and when proven wrong, he stops visiting the thread. It happens all the time, when he runs out of ways to spin his argument.
This is utter nonsense.

I have demonstrated a consistent ability to keep mindless political threads going longer than perhaps anyone else on the site :fury:

-spence

I think you could be right Joe but if I recall the Dems effed over GB1 pretty good too.
Remember the good old days, when a lie "no new taxes" could bring down a President.
Bush 41 made a massive flip flop and couldn't spin it as he had no charisma...you can't say the Dem's were out of line here, the issue was with the voters.

From what I've read the difference in tone started in the House under Clinton. Certainly there has always been intense partisanship, but pre-Clinton Republicans and Democrats were often friends and would go have a drink after a good fight on the floor.

Today, your party leadership will chastise you for fraternizing with the enemy.

I blame Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich.

-spence

With JD, he just can't accept when he's been proven wrong. If he sees that someone's getting the upper hand, he makes personal attacks on their intelligence. I guess when you think you're the smartest person in the room, you feel entitled to act like it. Wait a second, I jsut realized that describes our current President to a tee.:rotf2:

The irony of the above if amusing. I've yet to make a personal attack that wasn't in reciprocation. I'm sure it'll be easy to quote some of my posts here out of context to 'prove' the contrary. Then there is you who chooses to chime in and make consistent personal attacks and criticisms of me that are completely unprovoked. I guess when you're arrogant, you feel entitled to act however you see fit.

F'in stupidity, if you and Johnny cant follow a logical discussion, dont waste my time. Brown had issues he was running on..period. The poll has data...period. Some of Browns running points were addressed as key MA issues in the poll, others were not. I noted which where addressed and which were not. Has nothing to do with my opinion. I clearly separated them. as I said twice, now 3 TIMES. you draw your own conclusion. the data is there......

A logical discussion? You mean make a point, then find a poll and say that it supports your point, and then say that the poll doesn't address everything and we should draw our own opinions? But then "less taxes = less government" for some reason so the poll did include everything.

However, it all comes down to your original point:
from Johnny D -
"Also, you (and just about everyone else) have pretty consistently made the Scott Brown vote a "Vote against the Democrats" and I disagree."

The poll data suggests otherwise.
...which I still disagree with.

The poll data demonstrates correlation but gives no suggestions for causation. As such, the poll data suggests the tendencies of voters but not the reason behind their votes.

The irony of the above if amusing. I've yet to make a personal attack that wasn't in reciprocation. I'm sure it'll be easy to quote some of my posts here out of context to 'prove' the contrary. Then there is you who chooses to chime in and make consistent personal attacks and criticisms of me that are completely unprovoked. I guess when you're arrogant, you feel entitled to act however you see fit.


Wow, that's even weaker than I expected. I'm not going to waste my time looking for some of your insulting comments. Although I enjoy reading much of what you post, you sometimes come across as an intellectual elitist. You can ask for proof, but I'll just tell you to go back and read your own posts. Or, you can ask others in here how they interpret them. Maybe it makes you feel better if you think I'm singling you out and if it does, continue to believe it. But if you ask Spence, he'd probably tell you that I target him more than anyone. And he doesn't bitch and moan. He usually comes back with some witty retort. And please don't ever call me arrogant. I'm anything but that. In fact, the word I most often hear to descibe me is a-hole and I'm fine with that.

Wow, that's even weaker than I expected. I'm not going to waste my time looking for some of your insulting comments. Although I enjoy reading much of what you post, you sometimes come across as an intellectual elitist. You can ask for proof, but I'll just tell you to go back and read your own posts. Or, you can ask others in here how they interpret them. Maybe it makes you feel better if you think I'm singling you out and if it does, continue to believe it. But if you ask Spence, he'd probably tell you that I target him more than anyone. And he doesn't bitch and moan. He usually comes back with some witty retort. And please don't ever call me arrogant. I'm anything but that. In fact, the word I most often hear to descibe me is a-hole and I'm fine with that.


you mean "pseudo" intellectual elitist :uhuh:

sorry JD...couldn't resist:jump1:

Bush 41 made a massive flip flop and couldn't spin it as he had no charisma...you can't say the Dem's were out of line here, the issue was with the voters.

From what I've read the difference in tone started in the House under Clinton. Certainly there has always been intense partisanship, but pre-Clinton Republicans and Democrats were often friends and would go have a drink after a good fight on the floor.

Today, your party leadership will chastise you for fraternizing with the enemy.

I blame Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich.

-spence

Bush 41 got screwed over by the Dems. Bush 42 worked with the both sides on many issues.
I'm shocked that you don't find the Dems at fault at all.:rotf2:.
The arrogance of that has occured since last Jan. has stunned the nation. To you it's no big deal.

Wow, that's even weaker than I expected. I'm not going to waste my time looking for some of your insulting comments. Although I enjoy reading much of what you post, you sometimes come across as an intellectual elitist. You can ask for proof, but I'll just tell you to go back and read your own posts. Or, you can ask others in here how they interpret them. Maybe it makes you feel better if you think I'm singling you out and if it does, continue to believe it. But if you ask Spence, he'd probably tell you that I target him more than anyone. And he doesn't bitch and moan. He usually comes back with some witty retort. And please don't ever call me arrogant. I'm anything but that. In fact, the word I most often hear to descibe me is a-hole and I'm fine with that.

Like I said, anything I've posted that could be construed as a personal attack has almost always been as a direct response of the same on to me. Quite frankly, I don't care if you single me out or not, nor do I really care about your comments of me. On the other hand, I'm not going to sit idly and accept you chiming in as is so typical and accuse me of making personal attacks on someone, while you're hypocritically in the midst of doing the same.

It must be easy sitting in the shadows, rarely adding anything and then popping in to belittle those that don't stand up to your moral perspicacity.


you mean "pseudo" intellectual elitist :uhuh:

sorry JD...couldn't resist:jump1:
:zup:

I laughed...:smash:

Wow, that's even weaker than I expected. I'm not going to waste my time looking for some of your insulting comments. Although I enjoy reading much of what you post, you sometimes come across as an intellectual elitist. You can ask for proof, but I'll just tell you to go back and read your own posts. Or, you can ask others in here how they interpret them. Maybe it makes you feel better if you think I'm singling you out and if it does, continue to believe it. But if you ask Spence, he'd probably tell you that I target him more than anyone. And he doesn't bitch and moan. He usually comes back with some witty retort. And please don't ever call me arrogant. I'm anything but that. In fact, the word I most often hear to descibe me is a-hole and I'm fine with that.
If you target me so frequently I'd think you'd get a hit at least once and a while :humpty:

-spence

Like I said, anything I've posted that could be construed as a personal attack has almost always been as a direct response of the same on to me. Quite frankly, I don't care if you single me out or not, nor do I really care about your comments of me. On the other hand, I'm not going to sit idly and accept you chiming in as is so typical and accuse me of making personal attacks on someone, while you're hypocritically in the midst of doing the same.

It must be easy sitting in the shadows, rarely adding anything and then popping in to belittle those that don't stand up to your moral perspicacity.



I knew right after I posted the earlier response to your criticism of me that I should have made a comment about your recent lack of a sense of humor. I guess you didn't notice the little emoticon. You take everything way too seriously, kid. Yes, you do sometimes come across as an intellectual elitist. I don't think you really are that way, though. Comments sometimes look worse when read rather than being heard. I interpret your talking down at people who have differing opinions as insulting. Most things that I've seen directed at you by myself and others appear to be busting your marbles and not mean spirited. Maybe you're just overly sensitive when people make fun of Obama.

If you target me so frequently I'd think you'd get a hit at least once and a while :humpty:

-spence

It's hard to hit a spinning target.:jump1: Especially one wearing fancy shoes.

Like I said, anything I've posted that could be construed as a personal attack has almost always been as a direct response of the same on to me. Quite frankly, I don't care if you single me out or not, nor do I really care about your comments of me. On the other hand, I'm not going to sit idly and accept you chiming in as is so typical and accuse me of making personal attacks on someone, while you're hypocritically in the midst of doing the same.

It must be easy sitting in the shadows, rarely adding anything and then popping in to belittle those that don't stand up to your moral perspicacity.



:zup:

I laughed...:smash:

Rings of an internet tough guy to me :rotf2:

perspicacity.



:

how do you pronounce this? I'm really struggling...:confused:

how do you pronounce this? I'm really struggling...:confused:

Sounds like JD's been hitting the thesaurus again :jump1:

-spence

Sounds like JD's been hitting the thesaurus again :jump1:

-spence

It was on my Word-A-Day calendar that I keep on my desk last week. Seemed like a good fit.:devil2:

I started a long defense of my posts but however logical it appears to me, I figured its wasted effort.
I know Fishbones follows it and it has nothing to do with politics, you just pick and choose points out of context to formulate some half witted argument.

I started a long defense of my posts but however logical it appears to me, I figured its wasted effort.
I know Fishbones follows it and it has nothing to do with politics, you just pick and choose points out of context to formulate some half witted argument.

Good Call.

Can someone tell me what perpicacity means? My bachelors is from a state school and they didn't have the funding to teach us words like that.

Can someone tell me what perpicacity means? My bachelors is from a state school and they didn't have the funding to teach us words like that.

JD's looking it up right now:rotf2:

I just looked it up. Obama voters didn't have it :rotf2:

Good Call.

I think Jimmy called you a half wit...

From what I've read, the Clinton Impeachment is what ratcheted up the level of polarization to what it is now.

There was a previous impeachment attempt that had direct bearing on the "polarization." During the inquiry into the impeachment of Richard Nixon, a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham was appointed to the staff of Jerome Zeifman, the House Judiciary Committee Chief Counsel for the proceedings. She was recommended by Ted Kennedy. She played a significant, albeit nasty role, in the inquiry. She, along with others, tried to create a scheme to deny Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation. She endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. Zeifman told her that she was wrong, that there was precedent for such counsel in the impeachment attempt of S.C. Justice William O. Douglas. And he told her that all documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary committee's public file. So, she then removed those files to her offices which were secured and inaccesible to the public. Then she wrote a legal brief arguing that THERE WAS NO PRECEDENT FOR RIGHT TO COUNSEL DURING AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING! The brief, of course, was fraudulent and ridiculous, and Zeifman believes she would have been disbarred if it had been submitted to a judge. He believes the attempt to deny Nixon counsel was to block any attempt to cross-examine Howard Hunt (the Watergate break-in mastermind), who had the goods on nefarious activities of the Kennedy administration that would have made Watergate look "like a day at the beach." There were a couple of other illegal or dirty actions by Rodham during the proceedings. As a result, Zeifman, a life-long Democrat, refused to give her a letter of recommendation "Because she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the constitution, the rules of the house, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality."

Much of the "polarization" that may have surfaced during Clinton's impeachment, certainly was inspired by the actions, not only of the hounding of Nixon for what was no worse than what had gone on in previous administrations (perhaps, less worse--covering up someone else's petty crime in comparison to Clinton covering up his own,) but the fact that Clinton was married to the woman who was instrumental in bringing Nixon down. And she was now "standing by her man" who was, essentialy, guilty of what she had opposed. A lot of payback, political and personal, was involved in the "polarization."

She certainly showed, later on, that same propensity to cover things up and move documents after that early foray into politics and the law. Rather than learning to be better, she learned how to do it better.

There was a previous impeachment attempt that had direct bearing on the "polarization." During the inquiry into the impeachment of Richard Nixon, a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham was appointed to the staff of Jerome Zeifman, the House Judiciary Committee Chief Counsel for the proceedings. She was recommended by Ted Kennedy. She played a significant, albeit nasty role, in the inquiry. She, along with others, tried to create a scheme to deny Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation. She endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. Zeifman told her that whe was wrong, that there was precedent for such counsel in the impeachment attempt of S.C. Justice William O. Douglas. And he told her that all documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary committee's public file. So, she then removed those files to her offices which were secured and inaccesible to the public. Then she wrote a legal brief arguing that THERE WAS NO PRECEDENT FOR RIGHT TO COUNSEL DURING AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING! The brief, of course, was fraudulent and ridiculous, and Zeifman believes she would have been disbarred if it had been submitted to a judge. He believes the attempt to deny Nixon counsel was to block any attempt to cross-examine Howard Hunt (the Watergate break-in mastermind), who had the goods on nefarious activities of the Kennedy administration that would have made Watergate look "like a day at the beach." There were a couple of other illegal or dirty actions by Rodham during the proceedings. As a result, Zeifman, a life-long Democrat, refused to give her a letter of recommendation "Because she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the constitution, the rules of the house, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality."

Much of the "polarization" that may have surfaced during Clinton's impeachment, certainly was inspired by the actions, not only of the hounding of Nixon for what was no worse than what had gone on in previous administrations (perhaps, less worse than covering up someone else's petty crime in comparison to Clinton covering up his own,) but the fact that Clinton was married to the woman who was instrumental in bringing Nixon down. And she was now "standing by her man" who was, essentialy, guilty of what she had opposed. A lot of payback, political and personal, was involved in the "polarization."

She certainly showed that propensity to cover things up and move documents after that early foray into politics and the law. Rather than learning to be better, she learned how to do it better.
You forgot the part about Hillary pulling the trigger on Vince Foster.

-spence

You forgot the part about Hillary pulling the trigger on Vince Foster.

-spence

There sure were alot of dead people around those two...tragic

So, if we were looking at a pie chart of why Clinton was impeached, how big would the "payback for Nixon" slice be?

You forgot the part about Hillary pulling the trigger on Vince Foster.

-spence

Ah . . . good point. But that would not have contributed to the "polarization."

Anyway, Zeifman didn't speak about that.

Is your non sequitur supposed to discredit what he says? He was there. You were not. He was the House Judiciary Committee Chief Counsel. He was her boss, and was speaking of first, hands on, experience. Are you accusing him of, as JohnnyD would say, fabrication?

So, if we were looking at a pie chart of why Clinton was impeached, how big would the "payback for Nixon" slice be?

I would guess, for some of the older hands on the Republican side, it might be a big slice. But, I would guess that for most Republicans, it was pretty much the same political motivation that drove the attempt to impeach Nixon--to win the next election. Politics is a dirty business. It always has been. I pointed out the Nixon thing in response to your suggestion that the Clinton impeachment started the current "polarization." Whatever you read that suggested that to you, may have left out earlier precedents, such as the Nixon thing (which really compares closely to the Clinton impeachment) that contributed to our "polarization." Actually, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, we've always been so. I think it can be traced back to the federalist/anti-federalist debates. There seems always to be a bone of contention in our politcs between a pull toward a strong central government versus more emphasis on local rule. Even now, when both parties have evolved more strongly in the federalist direction, they are ideologically split between those who want the federal government to be more involved in what used to be matters of state, local, and even individual responsibility, and those who, at least pretend to, oppose that intrusion. And the ideological divide is diametric.

I would guess, for some of the older hands on the Republican side, it might be a big slice. But, I would guess that for most Republicans, it was pretty much the same political motivation that drove the attempt to impeach Nixon--to win the next election. Politics is a dirty business. It always has been.
How about the motivation to impeach Nixon because he and his Administration broke the law on multiple occations simply as a matter of doing business?

-spence

The real dirty politics started with Lee Atwater who spawned Karl Rove.

How about the motivation to impeach Nixon because he and his Administration broke the law on multiple occations simply as a matter of doing business?

-spence

As did the Kennedy Administration and just about every administration before that. Nixon was not impeached for that common "matter of doing business." The point is that he was impeached for the same type of thing as Clinton, a cover-up--a "minor" difference being that Nixon was covering up someone else's malfeasance, Cllinton was covering up his own. and lying under oath. And that "polarization" didn't start with the Clinton impeachment, but was certainly evident before that, throughout our history, and the Nixon impeachment process certainly contributed.

The real dirty politics started with Lee Atwater who spawned Karl Rove.

Nah, the real dirty politics (at least in the US) started in the 1800's with the bagmen in Indiana buying votes.

The real dirty politics started with Lee Atwater who spawned Karl Rove.

Good to know. Thanks for the information.

Good to know. Thanks for the information.

anytime

Anyone who really thinks that the Tea-Party is a bunch of right wing loons better take another look. I attended a local tea party a few months back and in attendance were many local professionals, the majority consisted of middle aged working folks, as well as older retired folks, there were very few college aged adults which isn't surprising. These folks are passionate about getting rid of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama as soon as possible. To write these people off as crazy is a huge mistake. There will not be enough ACORN voters to overtake these folks this go around.

As did the Kennedy Administration and just about every administration before that.
As I said to my mom when I was 15, but everybody does it.

Nixon was not impeached for that common "matter of doing business." The point is that he was impeached for the same type of thing as Clinton, a cover-up--a "minor" difference being that Nixon was covering up someone else's malfeasance, Cllinton was covering up his own. and lying under oath.

Never mind that Clinton was trying to cover up a BJ, while Nixon was trying to cover up his staff and associates involved in burglary, theft and misuse of the FBI.

It must have been simple politics that brought Nixon down, because you know, everybody does it.

-spence

As I said to my mom when I was 15, but everybody does it.



Never mind that Clinton was trying to cover up a BJ, while Nixon was trying to cover up his staff and associates involved in burglary, theft and misuse of the FBI.

It must have been simple politics that brought Nixon down, because you know, everybody does it.

-spence

So what's the big deal about a blow job? Why lie under oath about it? Why cover it up? If his staff and associates had gotten a BJ, would he have covered it up, lied under oath to deny it?

And misuse of the FBI? So you want to expand Nixon's cover-up of his staff's crime by stringing a bunch of words: burglary, theft (is that a different kind of burglary?), and misuse of the FBI (was that part of the same operation?). Didn't the Clinton's have their own "misuse" of the FBI in Travel Gate (having the FBI bring false charges against employees of the White House Travel Office to justify their dismissal to make room for Clinton cronies), and Filegate (collecting and storing in the White House FBI background files on hundreds of individuals no longer employed there, in violation of The Privacy Act)? Even David Broder of the Washington Post condemned it as "one of the most flagrant abuses of constitutional authority any president can allow or commit."

The "everybody does it" aspect (as you put it, not me) of my discussion was not to excuse or justify Nixon's cover-up--he deserved what he got. But Clinton deserved as much, and so did, and do, most of the politicians that have made it to the Hill. Of course, the vast majority get away with, and are usually allowed to get away with crap that the rest of us can't. And politics is dirty, has been dirty, and I don't foresee it not continuing to be dirty. And they are famous for lying, abusing, slandering, smearing their way into power. And therein lies the essence of "polarization"--not Bush, not the Clinton impeachment. Claims that a particular President has caused the "polarization" are a manifestation of it, not an explanation. It is, in itself polarizing to point to "Bush" as the cause. Politics, by its nature, is polarizing. Contests of any sort, by definition, are struggles between polar forces. When the prize is as serious as in the political arena, it is naive to think that anything but the "all's fair in love and war" attitude will prevail.

Nice. The interesting things about "scandals" like Filegate and Travelgate are that they were investigated and the Clintons we're found to have done nothings wrong.

Yet you toss them around like they're proven facts.

I guess it makes the argument a lot easier.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Regarding polarization. I don't think anyone is arguing that politics are not polarized. That's the very basis of partisanship. The issue more is if the polarization is different now. Thos who have been in politics for decades seem to think so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is utter nonsense.

I have demonstrated a consistent ability to keep mindless political threads going longer than perhaps anyone else on the site :fury:

-spence


AGREED :)

Regarding polarization. I don't think anyone is arguing that politics are not polarized. That's the very basis of partisanship. The issue more is if the polarization is different now. Thos who have been in politics for decades seem to think so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nice. The interesting things about "scandals" like Filegate and Travelgate are that they were investigated and the Clintons we're found to have done nothings wrong.

Yet you toss them around like they're proven facts.

I guess it makes the argument a lot easier.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you saying that the FBI was not used to falsely accuse former White house staffers to justify replacing them? Are you saying that FBI files on hundreds were not culled and stored? Are you saying, and do you really believe, that the FBI was not misused? What is it that you say I'm tossing around like proven facts?

Regarding polarization. I don't think anyone is arguing that politics are not polarized. That's the very basis of partisanship. The issue more is if the polarization is different now. Thos who have been in politics for decades seem to think so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think it's different now because most of the nation has woken up
to the fact that their lives, and their children's, could be drastically change by the current political decisions being made by the politicians.
Big G vs small G ,debt vs balanced budget ,more taxes vs cutting taxes ,jobs vs no jobs, more freedoms vs less freedoms. just to mention a few.

All these things are hitting home and people's pocketbooks.

Regarding polarization. I don't think anyone is arguing that politics are not polarized. That's the very basis of partisanship. The issue more is if the polarization is different now. Thos who have been in politics for decades seem to think so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What does "seem to think so" mean, or is that vagueness on top of a generality merely an implication? The argument is certainly easier when you don't have to be specific, when you can intimate something that "those" "seem" "to think" (not know for sure) "so."

"Maybe, perhaps, possibly," there are periods of more extreme polarization. But that just means that the political differences are more clearly defined, more clearly recognized, more ardently fought for. And if the agendas are important, more significant than usual, the extreme polarization should not be decried, but welcomed. Perhaps, maybe, possibly those who think they are fighting for resolution of what could be important issues are more willing to battle.

Just, maybe, that leftward trend in politics of both parties has hit a wall where the Republicans have become the Democrats of the 1960s-1970s and the Democrats have become and are about to go past the left of West Europeans. Perhaps, the escalating fiscal profligacy of both parties since the New Deal, has been perceived as a runaway train that needs to be stopped. Perhaps, the erosion of the Constitution from a solid rock to a malleable, changeable, living breathing flow of sand that can sift into whichever drift the current political philosophers deem "good" looks like it has arrived at a tipping point that needs to be strongly resisted. Perhaps what has transformed the normal, polite, and innocuous polarization of parties drifting away from our foundation is not the pols, not Bush, not this or that impeachment, but an injection of political awareness into a growing number of CITIZENS. It had already spread into popular culture via movies, television, radio, and now waves of folks getting angry and not taking it anymore.

Perhaps, for this more polarized duration, politicians who want to politely continue the meaningless squabbles of how much and for whom will have to become extreme and decide yes or no--or opt for a job in the "private sector."

[QUOTE=detbuch;749145]
"Maybe, perhaps, possibly," there are periods of more extreme polarization. But that just means that the political differences are more clearly defined, more clearly recognized, more ardently fought for. And if the agendas are important, more significant than usual, the extreme polarization should not be decried, but welcomed.
QUOTE]

BINGO!:uhuh::uhuh: