U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 26, 2008 08:23 PM UTC
81 Comments
No problem. We have lots of pro-choice people in the party. We may disagree but think of it this way, are there pro-life people who are Democrats? Sure. Well, works both ways.
John McCain may be the most “green” of any Republican candidate in a long time. Stop listening to the rabid talk show hosts and chat with the average Republican. We think we should be extremely responsible with our planet’s resources, particularly those damn non-renewables. There is a middle ground on this issue between razing every forest and razing every high-rise. I want a common sense approach to this issue and I think a lot of people feel the same way.
Well that may be the biggest obstacle you have to adopting an “R” after your name. But here’s my advice. Go create a non-profit and go after the millions of dollars these huge corporations annually donate… then do something good with that money. Redistribute it wherever you desire. Let’s go hog wild here and say that approximately half of the big corporations are owned by people who share this viewpoint… well that would be a lot money and a starting point, no?
There are gay Republicans so no problem here. Most Americans (according to the polling anyway) aren’t in the mood to change the definition of marriage so until that changes you can be an advocate within the party for reasonable changes in the tax code to accommodate gay partnerships.
Welcome to the party?! 🙂
For what it’s worth…
While you covered a lot of the big areas, you should also consider your stance on some other things like the 2nd Amendment, eduacation choice, the war on terrorism, the role of America in the world (is America the problem with the world, or are we overall a source of good?), and the role of individual freedoms verses letting the government play a large roll?
All of the issues you listed aren’t big obstacles. There are prominent Republicans who feel the same way. But if the issues outside of what you listed drew you towards the Democrats in the first place, then why jump ship over one rough spot?
So I guess I’m curious about your views outside of what you listed.
Thanks though, good post!
The Clintons are definitely repellent-but no more so than the Bushes. McCain has gotten a little bump in the polls, but I doubt whether that will last. He’s basically an old fool-and I’m close to his age, so I feel perfectly comfortable in pointing this out-who has neither physical stamina nor the mental acuity to deal with the demands of the presidency. If you’re uncomfortable with the Dems, leave-unaffiliated voters in Colorado outnumber either D’s or R’s. But you don’t have to join the GOP. Living in CS as I do, you have an opportunity to interact daily with the farther shores of the Republican party-looney ideologues of all stripes. It’s disheartening to listen to the three candidates for CD-5 fight over which one is a “true conservative”-that is, most stridently anti-abortion, pro-gun, pro-war, anti-tax, anti-gay, and anti-government generally. As these destructive ideas have infected Colorado politics, they’ve given us Doug Bruce, Tabor, Amendment 2,and notably nasty, toxic public discourse. I’m still a Republican-a lonely pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-gun fiscal conservative/social liberal. Sadly, the R’s are now as bad as/maybe even worse than the D’s in the fiscal realm-but that’s another post. I hope/pray that Obama will be our next president. Absent that happy outcome, we’ll have McCain-welcome to perpetual war, and a government run by the same bozos who have so screwed up the country for the last eight years.
I disagree with you on 1, 2, and most definately 3. But I don’t care too much about 4 as long as it isn’t rubbed in my face on tv, ya know?
But how can anyone think that 3 is the way to go? I mean, why would ANYONE want their hard earned income/money taken away and given to those that feel they don’t have to or don’t want to work for it themselves? (Unless of course you are talking about spending OTHER people’s wealth and not your own. And I disagree with that too.)
I’m not talking about those that are down and out due to situations out of their control. There are more than enough charities and government funded socialist welfare programs to help them. I’m talking about the other, what, 75% that stand there with their collective hands outstretched waiting for me/you/us to GIVE them something.
Anyone that has followed this blog for more than a year or so knows my opinion on this subject.
Please tell me how you think “wealth distribution” is a good idea.
I seriously would like to know.
Gecko
he has. I certainly can’t find it on my TV and I’ve looked.
… by news reports about repressed-homosexual Republican legislators breaking laws to try to get their rocks off.
Until Republicans get out of our bedrooms, respect citizens’ privacy rights, and reject their unhealthy prurient interest in others’ sex lives, I have little use for the party.
out of our bedrooms and out of public rest rooms
Well here is what I am concerned about. Don’t claim to know the solution.
One of the historic firsts of this country was that when it was first founded their was a huge opportunity for everyone to have land, be self-sufficient, and self-reliant. For the first time in history people were able to transcend their birth class within a generation.
Today many CEOs and corporate higher-ups make over 100 times what the average worker in their company makes. I find it awful that the rich can have summer homes that stand empty 9 months out of the year while their are hard working folks loosing their homes, or going bankrupt because of medical bills.
The average persons sons and daughters are born with a decided disadvantage for success in life. Why is it unfair for the rich to pay more taxes than the middle class?
Do we really want a repeat of the French Revolution in this country? When the people of France woke up one day and realized that the aristocracy owned all the land, and that most of them were starving? That their leaders were so hopelessly corrupt that they needed to be beheaded?
I would hate to see this happen. I see the American people getting more and more desperate and I think that wealth and power have a way of conglomerating in dangerous ways.
Maybe wealth re-distribution is not the answer. But how do you equalize opportunity for all?
But what do you consider “Rich” and what do you consider “Middle Class”?
I consider “Rich” as maybe $1,000,000.00+ a year net income.
I consider say $60,000.00 – $150,000.00 a year as “Middle Class”.
And anything in between that and a million as “Upper Middle Class”.
And anything below 60K as struggling.
I fall into the under 100K area so I’m Middle Class I guess.
But what scares me is actually in the words of the song I posted Saturday I think…..the one by Ten Years After…….
‘….tax the rich, feed the poor, till there are no rich no more….”
So the “middle class” in your eyes consists of people whose income ranges from the 90th to 97th percentile of Americans? Must be some new-fangled definition of “middle”.
I think the “Rich” means making 1 mill a year or more.
What is your definition of poor, middle class, upper middle class, and rich?
is simply that “middle” means middle. I don’t object to your use of “rich” to mean whatever you want it to mean; people mean widely differing things by the word. But “middle class” carries at least some implication that you aren’t talking about the top 10% of American incomes.
just under 100K. Does that mean I am rich? Poor? Middle Class? Or Upper Middle Class?
Your thoughts? Where is the breaking point from Upper Middle Class and Rich?
(My opinion is I am smack in the middle of Middle Class.)
of the middle class. What you call yourself is up to you; but “middle class” is quite misleading there.
I make a little over half what you do, just short of the bottom of your “middle class” range. I am relatively well to do, all things considered. My income is in the top 15% of Americans. I can afford to buy my own health care, and to make about $10,000 a year or so of donations to charitable organizations, social justice groups, and my church. I own a house. I could support a small family on my current income, even without a second income in the household. I’d have to back off some of leisure activities and donations… but that would be a natural thing for me to do if I found myself with a small family.
that Colorado Springs is flat loaded with rich people then, if I am to be considered on the verge of, or actually over being the same.
I don’t know the exact statistics but most of the houses in this town cost more than I could ever afford. And in most every driveway there are two new or at least newer cars. And inside from what can be seen from the streets is very nice newer expensive furniture.
I am not saying every single house in town is like this but many many many are. I know. I have been in quite a few of them in my 24 years in the same job.
I own my own house, or should I say I pay the bank that owns my house. It was built in 1956. I know I could never afford these places I see all the time, but they get bought up as fast as they can be built.
So who is buying them? Most cost close to, or well over 300K. That plus the new cars and fancy furniture and I would have to say we are either loaded with rich people here, or your scale of what is considered rich is quite a ways off.
IMHO
about what I consider rich. That’s quite intentional. The word “rich” carries a lot of different implications for different people. Some people find it offensive, so I make a point of never using the word to describe anyone except myself (and only then in appropriate conexts… e.g., I know a girl in Chile who would definitely say I’m rich, since I have an indoor toilet.)
I also live in Colorado Springs, as it turns out. Yes, we are a relatively wealthy city, overall, especially if you venture north of Woodmen, or north of Garden of the Gods and west of I-25, or east of Powers, or near the Cheyenne Mountain neighborhood. We are thankfully exempt from some of the worst of conditions in other communities. So far, I’m just giving you facts about income distributions. Very few personal opinions here. If you conclude that Colorado Springs is a wealthy city, you will be right; but it’s your own conclusion.
Incidentally, this is part of my point. Intentionally or not, we’ve managed to build a society where you in your income bracket are blissfully unaware of the average living conditions in this country. Practically every aspect of our daily lives is designed to keep us in our own little bubble, around people of the same income and education as ourselves. This is why poverty persists in the United States; because people who can’t see it don’t find it so urgent a problem, and because people who can’t see out of it don’t learn (and more to the point, their kids don’t learn) how to be a part of any other world except the one that they are born into.
that the numbers I was looking at are per-capita. If you look at per-household income, things change a little; but I can only find that data in very coarse divisions. But to give an example, median household income increases from $38,000 to $48,000, but still doesn’t come near your “middle class” range.
Welcome back, rider!
It’s an interesting quirk of American mythology that everyone thinks themselves middle class. Really.
It’s easy to define in the oft used quintile system. Five, being an odd number gives us a middle and two upper and lower ranges. And it’s all based on basic statistical analysis. No smoke and mirrors.
I’m not up to speed on the latest demographics, but I would guess that you are either at the top end of the middle, or maybe bumped into the sixth percentile.
Since you asked. I think it makes sense to classify things as most social justice organizations do. Roughly speaking, a family making below 200% of federal poverty level is what you’d call “struggling” or “working poor”. Above that, people are basically fending for themselves… except for health care, which is a problems for families up to about 300% of federal poverty level.
The median income for full-time employees in the United States is about $40K. That’s a good picture of middle class. I’d call someone upper middle class from, say, $60K to $90K. Above that, you’re certainly doing well. The word “rich” is so loaded that I’d never presume to categorize anyone as rich or not, except to say that from the eyes of most of the rest of the world, any American living above poverty level is rich.
You are right about a lot. There are far too many people who, when faced with the tragedy of income distribution in the U.S., conclude that the solution is to take money away from the most wealthy and give it to the poor. They are generally people who haven’t formed long-term relationships with the people they are trying to help.
Throwing money recklessly at the problem just makes things worse. That’s not something that people who are out there on the streets trying to help people say out loud very often, mainly because policy dialogue is so dumbed down by 30-second sound bites and partisanship that saying this risks giving shelter to those who demonize the poor to try to protect their own personal wealth. But it’s still the truth; the last thing we need is for families in poverty to get bigger checks.
There are many steps to changing this. Some are immensely personal, such as developing relationships between families in poverty and those who aren’t, so that kids grow up knowing that going to prison isn’t normal. Another part of it is to recognize the blatant and unconscionable segregation along income that we’ve built up and institutionalized in the basic fabric of society via property taxes, school district boundaries, real estate markets, homeowner’s associations, and so forth. We need to recognize pre-natal and early childhood health care as a fundamental right, regardless of income level of the parents. We need to fix schools instead of trying to destroy them. We need to build more infrastructure that helps break the generational consistency of poverty.
Unfortunately, it’s a lot easier to imagine that giving money to poor people will solve the problem; and it’s easy for wealthy people to protect their wealth by looking at these half-assed efforts and proclaiming that since they have failed, we may as well just give up and protect the wealth of the wealthy few. So I predict we’ll have worsening poverty off into the future until the world collapses in a heap of filth, while a few thousand businessmen sit back and make annoyed noises because the stench of death on the streets interrupts their enjoyment when they venture outside of their mansion gates to the local prostitution ring.
but if it was possible to change our society, in such a way that self reliance is instilled in people, and welfare socialist programs are not seen as an option, maybe, just maybe, EVERYONE could thrive. Welfare would not be needed, and our once great society would be on top of the world again.
But since it is much easier to have someone else pay their way, and striving for success is harder than going to the county building for handouts, this pipe dream will never ever be realized. We have doomed ourselves for what seems like forever.
…effort put into effective education pays big dividends both in terms of upward mobility and increased self-reliance.
To do that requires 2 things, which unfortunately hit the sacred cows of both parties.
1) Require measurable increased performance from the schools year over year.
2) Fund the schools adequately, including free college.
The combination would address a lot of what we face. But try to find a voter, much less a politician, who will support both.
The years of the greatest overall economic strength in this nation came when the rich were taxed at high incremental rates. (Seldom mentioned is that a dollar of deduction at those high rates is equally untaxed.)
Corporations supplied about 35% of the federal income tax, now it’s about 7%.
Those, and that includes corporations, who benefit the most from our social structure should pay the most.
from those who are filthy rich. I’m just arguing for investing it in infrastructure instead of direct benefits.
money is so very fungible. (sp?)
Israel may not get a lot of direct military subsidies, but what it doesn’t have to spend from within for anything then can get to spend on the military.
What’s wrong with direct benefits? Maybe not Sit On Your Ass subsidies, but nursing homes? Education? Section 8 rent subsidies? Etc, etc.
I recently read of a Pakistani in Britain that quit his computer job because he could make MORE sitting at home. Actually, not just sitting, he has eleven kids. Nice house, car, medical care. Now, THAT is way over the line.
Economics professor Emmanuel Saez has studied long-term trends in income inequality in the United States. Tax records that go all the way back to 1913 show an extraordinary increase between 1993 and 2006 in the share of income in the United States taken in by the top 1% (incomes above $382,600). The bottom 99% saw real income grow a total of 15% over those 13 years, while the top 1% grew 105%. According to Saez, the top 1% now capture about the same share of national income as they did in the years preceding the Great Depression.
Saez summarizes his findings:
Emphasis mine.
Given the abomination that is the current tax system, if the McBush plan to eliminate the estate tax succeeds, the top 1% will have the final tool they need to reestablish the Gilded Age plutocracy.
So Druid, if you’re not in that top 1% making over $382,600 a year, or you don’t care about $6 a gallon gasoline, going bankrupt if you get really sick, China owning 75% of the U.S., and the Supreme Court deciding that you can go to prison for using a condom, then go ahead and vote Republican. But don’t say you weren’t warned.
(The top 1% pay more than a third: 34.27%)
Not you, Newsie, but the source you quote:
What’s happening here is not that “the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.” The numbers prove it.
Exactly wrong as pointed out above WITH NUMBERS.
Goebbels would be proud of that idiot.
…you can see why some many of us are going to do nothing more than vote for BHO in Nov., if that much.
Change, you can Xerox!
will do more than just vote for Senator Barack Obama!
The Xerox line always made me laugh more at Clinton. Think about it. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton… if you don’t think that’s a copy of the past well you’re living in Hillaryland.
Speaking of Hillaryland, check out Carl Bernstein new article; Hillary Clinton: Truth or Consequences, about her problem with openness, transparency and the truth.
I must respectfully question one of your assumptions. Sigh.
I’ve heard of that word and I have vague recollections……
.
There are other political parties.
Check them out, and affiliate with the one that comes closest to your values.
I know, that’s hard to do. Takes courage to take a stand outside the well-worn path beaten by the lemmings who have gone before. There will be costs.
But, if you think about it, the whole country is just waiting for you and about 10,000 others to take that step.
Get better candidates for offices at all levels on the ballot.
If things are going to get better, we need people like you to take the lead.
.
If there was a test that helped you determine which political party is the closest match to you?
Or maybe it was a test to see which candidate you were closest to on issues.
I haven’t seen a party test yet…not a good one anyway
Work from within.
And RELAX!
In a few more weeks Hillary Clinton will lose and be history. The stir about Obama’s minister will be old news. (Remember McCain talking about Robertson, Falwell, etc. as “agents of intolerance”?)
In a few weeks or months after that, the news media will be baying like frenzied hound dawgs about the next big distraction. Caplis, Silverman and Boyles will be jabbering about something else they think will get ’em better ratings for a while.
Your views are still far more in alignment with Democrats on all levels – locally, statewide, and nationally – than the out-of-touch Republican Party.
could start by working on his own church’s problem with pedophile priests instead of trying to fix any perceived problems with my church.
If you want to redistribute wealth, you need to go somewhere else – you won’t be happy with most Republicans.
AGW study is being hijacked by folks that are trying to accomplish #3, and it’s creating backlash on the studying that will end up making it a big fat footnote. The Chinese aren’t going to do anything that even mildly encroaches on their economic growth, and that means we could stop driving cars, eating beef, and belching tomorrow, and it won’t matter one bit.
I really think it’s only a small minority of Republicans who really care who sleeps with whom. I don’t. It’s none of my business, and a gay marriage does nothing to degrade mine.
Many R’s are pro-choice, just like many D’s are pro-life.
#3 is going to get you, though. I work hard for my family’s money, and I don’t want to give a bunch of it to someone who doesn’t share my work ethic.
minority of Republicans who cares about who sleeps with whom seem to be nearly all of the party’s elected officals.
The Republican Party platform has a plank that declares life begins at conception. Individual Republicans may consider themselves pro-choice, but the party itself is not.
Many, like me, think (correctly) that Roe is bad law, and that the Federal Government has no business maintaining it.
It should be a States’ rights issue.
Like Jim Crow laws?
Some states recognize that a woman’s body is her own and some states see a woman’s body as an incubator. What would that make them 3/5 human?
No-state’s rights, as in states having the right to determine things for themselves-without having the Feds do it for them.
Glad we could clear that up for you!
How about personal freedom as in letting individuals having the right to determine things for themselves without having government at any level deciding for them?
Did you vote in the Roe v Wade case?
That’s my point. Let the people decide what they want – I think it’s the only way to really settle it, and it works much better Constitutionally than the Roe decision.
I don’t think I should be asked to vote on what another individual does with their own body. I don’t want women to have to seek permission from you, their neighbors or the people of the State of Colorado before giving birth or having an abortion.
..the child get a vote?
Until then it is a potential child, so no.
Birth?
given that everything that is based on age in our legal system measures age based upon date of birth, (voting age, drinking age, elegibility for social security, child labor laws, etc.) I’d say yes.
And it’s overreaching for a privacy law. It’s in direct opposition to how the founding fathers wanted the federal government to work in our lives.
I don’t live and die by it, and I think CO would end up being a pro-choice State. I’m just trying to be consistent.
There’s been some good discussion that Roe should have been argued under equal protection vs the penumbra of privacy, but the most recent case they had at the time was Griswold. So, that’s what they went with.
The whole idea was that privacy rights – like the 2nd Amendment to some – is not subject to state-by-state interpretation. They are so all-encompassing that they override local consideration.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, btw, has made some excellent arguments that Roe was decided on the wrong basis.
CO was pro-choice before Roe and would probably stay that way. We’re a pretty libertarian state in that regard, and I hope that doesn’t change.
Is that the Democratic party (including Hillary) is very supportive of every one of your issues.
So why are you considering leaving the Democratic party? It’s not perfect? It compromises? Advances are incremental? That’s what you get a a democracy. Any party faces those issues.
Progress in a democracy is hard work. Especially in a country as large and diverse as this one. But the fact that it is hard work is not a reason to give up.
If you’re more comfortable as a Republican, go for it. They definitely need additional moderate voices. But face the fact that it will be hard work on that side too.
I am just so sick of seeing Clintons and Bushs running their mouths off on TV. I do not see a lot uniting the party right now, and have been very impressed at how quickly the Republican party got behind John McCain.
This primary is getting nasty, and folks like me are partly to blame. I admit. I am beginning to be bale to talk to conservative friends of mine about how much we both cringe whenever the Clintons speak.
We have some very serious problems in this country. The oil economy is coming to a close, we have a health care crisis, global warming etc etc. I am really starting to have trouble sleeping at night, worrying about my three kids.
And what do we see on TV? Bullshit. Endless clips of Wright foaming at the mouth, McCain stumbling on the Al Qaida and Iran connection, Clinton saying she would not be a part of Obama’s church.
When are we going to start acting like adults? When are we going to stop tearing down each other and seeing what we agree on?
in an election year, especially this one.
Don’t leave, crack a brew, turn off the TV and let things play out for awhile longer.
The parties aren’t perfect, the Democracy isn’t perfect and things move way too slowly.
We are, however, reaching a point in our country’s modern history where we will face another deciding moment (the points you spelled out in your post and some more). In my mind, although I dislike some of my fellow Dems and think them pansies, I would rather have them in office to face these challenges than the Republicans.
It is easy to forget what our fathers faced when America’s fabric was torn apart in the late 60’s. Or our grandfathers facing the Depression and two world wars.
The pettiness of the process is mind numbing but the process works and your children will grow up enjoying an America that will be different than our generation’s, but not necessarily worse than our generation’s.
Miles to go before [we] sleep…:)
Druid,
While you haven’t asked for any Democratic response, I feel compelled.
I am waaaay less than thrilled with Hillary (and her husband) right now and I started this election as a strong Hillary supporter. But, as I share your values, I also know that I cannot leave the party.
The primary reason:
The Supreme Court.
John McCain has pledged to appoint justices in the mold of Scalia, Thomas and Alito. You may well be pro-choice and think that us gays folks should have lots of sex and get married (thank you, by the way), but if you vote pro-life and anti-gay, what value are your personal feelings?
The next President will likely be making at least two appointments in the next 5 years. One additional vote is all that is needed to undo Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas (which found sodomy laws unconstitutional). Further, the makeup of the court as it is heading (replace both Bader-Ginsburg and Stevens with a Scalia/Thomas/Alito clone) could even undo Griswold v Connecticut in which the court found a right to privacy regarding birth control.
Now, granted, there are a number of Republicans (not as many as the republicans on this board are trying to present, by the way) who don’t want this to happen, but they are not in control of their party. Look at their leadership in Congress: McConnell and Boehner–both strongly pro-life and anti-gay. Look where pro-choice and pro-gay Guiliani’s presidential campaign ended up—right wing-nut Mike Huckabee outlasted him. Wait and see who McCain picks as his running mate. It will be a pro-life/anti-gay candidate.
I strongly encourage you to reconsider defecting.
that should have been “…appointments in the next 4 years”.
Sorry about that.
I share your concerns. In fact they resonate with me strongly. But I cannot shake the feeling that I am being duped. That the Clintons really want to run against McCain in 4 years.
I do not believe that Hillary intends to withdraw from Iraq, after all Nixon ran against Vietnam. I see a win at all costs strategy that really leaves the Democratic party the looser in the general. In which case we still loose the Supreme Court.
We cannot seem to come together as a party. Obama makes me believe, again, in this kick ass country of ours. His integrity in his speech on Wright really showed me what kind of man he is. I want a President like that! Badly.
But I am beginning to have serious doubts about Obama winning the general. Once the Clintons are through with him, and the press plays the Wright clips a thousand more times, what will the general attitude of the voter be?
Why is Hillary still in the race? I cannot explain it any other way except that she wants McCain to win.
Am I crazy?
like I said, I’m certainly not thrilled with Hillary and I’ll reiterate–I supported her through the caucuses. I’m particularly annoyed at her recent attack on Obama’s Trinity Church–an church affiliated with my own church in the United Church of Christ. I don’t think that she will be the nominee in November (the numbers just don’t add up). I am fairly confident that it will be Obama. She may well be trying to torpedo Obama and hand the presidency to McCain (although she is gradually learning that it isn’t hers do anything with).
But if you are angry at what Hillary is doing to the party and/or Obama, do you really think that McCain and his operatives are going to be any nicer in the general?
The one thing that I think Clinton was correct on is that the press had been giving a free pass to Obama. If anything, the stuff that is coming out now will make him stronger in November…by then it will be old news. Sort of like Clinton’s womanizing in 1992. It came out in the primary and by November, no one cared. They knew it. Would you rather have seen Wright’s sermons now or in October? You can bet Obama’s people are happy that if it had to come out, better now than two weeks before the general election.
Bottom line. Don’t throw in the towel.
The Supreme Court is too important. John Paul Stevens has been there since Richard Nixon. Alito will likely be there for 30 years. I’d rather have Hillary/Obama or Gore (yes, there’s even rumblings on some other sites that he could be a consensus candidate) pick out the next one than John McCain.
The N.Y. Times has a story today about polling numbers re: disgruntled Obama and Clinton supporters, and what they’re threatening to do in Nov. (I think someone else referenced the report on another thread.)
Nearly one out of five Obama supporters are threatening to vote for McCain if Clinton is the nominee, and 30 percent of Clinton supporters are threatening to vote Repub if Obama is the nominee. (Usually, a major party candidate can afford to lose no more than 10 percent of members of his or her own party in a general election, and still pull out a win.)
The Dems need to work on Plan “B:” increase the majority in the House and get 60 Senate seats.
Similar argument I had with a Nader supporter in 2000 with a twist. Then, the issue was voting for a pro-choice, pro-gay-rights individual knowing full well it would take votes away from the other pro-choice, pro-gay-rights candidate, Al Gore. So we ended up with W–and Alito and Roberts. That’s not working so well for choice or GLBT folks. If we McCain wins, we can kiss those rights goodbye for a generation or more.
to the Republican party, things (money, power, oil, weapons) are more important than people. Thus they appoint Chief Justices that could give a crap about the environment or the people it supports.
from the Washington Post:
At the High Court, Damage Control
By Dana Milbank
Thursday, February 28, 2008; A02
Chief Justice John Roberts was pained.
Exxon Mobil, the giant oil corporation appearing before the Supreme Court yesterday, had earned a profit of nearly $40 billion in 2006, the largest ever reported by a U.S. company — but that’s not what bothered Roberts. What bothered the chief justice was that Exxon was being ordered to pay $2.5 billion — roughly three weeks’ worth of profits — for destroying a long swath of the Alaska coastline in the largest oil spill in American history.
“So what can a corporation do to protect itself against punitive-damages awards such as this?” Roberts asked in court.
The lawyer arguing for the Alaska fishermen affected by the spill, Jeffrey Fisher, had an idea. “Well,” he said, “it can hire fit and competent people.”
The rare sound of laughter rippled through the august chamber. The chief justice did not look amused.
It’s the age old argument. That Roberts apparently didn’t even snicker says a lot about his philosophies.
People do best when property is respected, but when it comes to huge profits (burp) vs. struggling fishermen, (Little people), there is no question of moral correctness.
Both R, D, and U have all given me some food for thought.
I was a Republican up until eight years ago. And I left the GOP because of the nomination and subsequent election of George W. Bush. What I saw then, and is still true today, that that there are a lot of good people who honestly believe in either the possibility of reforming the Republican Party or that other issues come first.
The problem with this is that almost none of them are in the leadership of the Republican Party. And even when one of the reformer ‘get government out of private bedrooms’ types get elected they move the country in the wrong direction rather than in the right one. Because they caucus with a group that moves us in the wrong direction.
I can imagine cases where I would vote for a solitary Republican for one office, I am not blind to the problems of the Democratic Party. However, I think my energy is better spent on being involved in the Democratic Party where I don’t need to change positions as I would with the Republicans. I just need to support better candidates to carry out the platform.
And if it came down to it I would vote for Clinton over McCain. She is less corrupted by big business than him and, unlike George W. Bush’s natural successor, she’ll do what we the public want rather than bullheadedly continuing with failed policies. Not only that I think it will be good for the Republican party to spend some years in the political wilderness. Hopefully they will spend the time ridding themselves of the corrupt members of their party so that they might actually be the party of small government rather than the party of big government handouts to corporations.
but if you’re bummed about HRC and think that Obama is going to lose, I’d first say, hang on – the convention is a long way off still, never mind the general. Right now I like Obama’s chances to unify the party should he get the nomination. Secondly, if intraparty warfare is that big a deal, think about being unaffiliated. Things surely are more unified in the GOP now but they have their egomanacs too. You’ll ultimately sour on that, if not on being a member of the tiny minority of moderates in the party.
On item 3 I think you’re talking about the ability to earn a better life through work, not really re-distribution. As a former Democrat I can see where the typical term is re-distribution. However, I like to think more about “economic mobility.” This is a principle that most Republicans (and Americans) believe in. Checkout the Economic Mobility Report (a non-partisan report on this subject: http://www.economicmobility.or…
The news is actually pretty good, with some issues to address as well, e.g., “Two out of three Americans have higher incomes than their parents, while one-third are falling behind.” Don’t listen to the media and get some facts on this subject. BTW, if you do believe in honestly earned wealth, as well as social freedom, there is a significant libertarian wing within the Republican Party. Or go the next step and register Libertarian
That report is essentially saying, “See, things aren’t so bad.” The same report, if issued in 1960 would be cause for great concern.
Meanwhile, the EU has much great economic mobility and is creating millionaires much faster than us. The Horation Alger of our myth and reality can’t get his boots on now.
Sorry I don’t have sources handy.
That’s a good suggestion. Say Hi to Ron Paul, he should be in line in front of you just behind Mike Gravel.
…than a lib-leaning Republican.
Wishy washy Dems will tolerate you longer than those cranky Neo-cons.
are why there are so many wishy washy Dems.