Obama General Discussion

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
MOST ABSURD THING EVER SAID ON INTERFERENCE IS YOUR ASSERTION THAT THE MURDER RATES IN IRAQ AND THE US ARE EVEN COMPARABLE: FOXNews.com - Iraq Homicide Rate 10 Times New York City's - U.S. & World
Informed Comment
Iraq Body Count

HELLO, EARTH TO U2387, I'M comparing January 2010 murder rate for civilians in Iraq to the average murder rate for any given month in the United States!!!

The links you just posted are from 2004, YES THAT WAS THE CASE IN 2004, the murder rate was 10 or 15 times higher in Iraq. BUT I'm TALKING ABOUT JANUARY 2010 IN IRAQ!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Here are the number of civilians murdered in January of 2010 from www.icasualties.org:

118 civilians murdered in Iraq in January 2010.

ON AVERAGE IN THE UNITED STATES, over 1,000 people are murdered EVERY MONTH

Even when you adjust to a per capita basis, this is roughly the same murder rate for Iraq in 2010 as the United States! No matter how you stack it, violence in Iraq has been heavily reduced thanks to the policies of George W. Bush!


Take the total number of 2008 murders, divide by the population of Iraq: .012 The US: .0054: No time to work out the exact per/100,000 rate, but it is clear from this that the murder rate is exponentially lower here.

Common sense, Strongbow, is America a war zone? Do you need a tank to go down any streets here? Do we have a functioning government with the capacity to defend and enforce its laws, or are we like Iraq? Are we the most dangerous place in the world for any religious group? Iraq: The most dangerous place in the world for Christians – Telegraph Blogs

You really show your ignorance when you make statements like this. If you really think Iraq is safer than here, maybe you should go live there! You'd want this country back pretty damn quick.

Common sense is using sources from 2010 to study the murder rate in Iraq VS the murder rate in the United States currently. You don't go back to 2004 and look at the murder rate in Iraq then and compare it to now! IN 2010, you want to use sources about Iraqi casualties THIS YEAR, NOT from 6 years ago, to assess whether the US or Iraq has the larger murder rate TODAY! Yep, common sense.

I'm not sure if you actually know what I tank is, because the vast majority of Iraqi military and police patrols throughtout Iraq are done without any tanks at all. Most US tanks sit on the big bases as they are usually not needed these days. The operations to search for remaining insurgence and Al Quada resemble more the situation in Northern Ireland back in the 1980s than they do what is typcially regarded or refered to as a war zone.

Guess what Iraq today provides for all of its security. The US although still having combat forces in Iraq, is in and advisory/training mode as well as providing logistical support for the Iraqi military. The Iraqi government does today provide the services you claim it does not. Its time that you fast foward to the present, THIS IS NOT 2004, IT IS 2010, WELCOME TO THE NEW IRAQ!

Also, according to the figures from the latest UN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT, Iraq has a standard of living now higher than Morocco!

When it comes to "ignorance" your the one that is using figures from 2004 to make a comparison on the homocide rate between Iraq and the United States in 2010!
 
My parting suggestion to you before I add you to my ignore list as I should have done before: Stop the cutting and the pasting of material you clearly do not understand from discredited Republican sites.

I fully understand the material I have posted even though it appears that you do not. NONE OF IT WAS TAKEN FROM ANY SORT OF A REPUBLICAN WEBSITE!


Step away from the propaganda, pick up an intelligence report, pick up Congressional hearings testimony, google intelligence officials and world leaders who have testified to Bush's lying or blatant misrepresentation of Iraq intelligence, read the transcript of the 2003 State of the Union address and Bush getting called out by Tenet for this, etc.

GUESS WHAT, I don't use propaganda, and the information that I report comes from intelligence reports, has been used in congressional hearings, is factual and sourced, has come from US CENTCOM and reported by the US military.

Also, www.icasualties.org is NOT A REPUBLICAN WEBSITE. IT IS AN UNBIASED WEBSITE USED TO REPORT CASUALTIES, MILTARY AND CIVILIAN AS WELL AS NEWS ON IRAQ!

The professor I qouted is not from Liberty University. He is from DUKE UNIVERSITY which most people would LOL if you suggested it was a bastion of REPUBLICAN PROPAGANDA!

There has never been any evidence presented to conclusively prove that Bush lied about anything. If there had been, it would have been easy to impeach the president. Nearly all of the information both pro and con about the run up to the Iraq war, was presented to the public BEFORE the NOVEMBER 2004 election. The Public looked at the information, and re-elected GEORGE BUSH by the first majority popular vote since 1988! Just goes to show that the claims and accusations against Bush for wrong doing did not amount to a hill of beans.

Oh and by the way, it was Tenet who cleared the state of the union speech for Bush. It had a mistake in it, but it was still cleared by Tenet. Tenet admitted it was his fault. No matter, that was already MONTHS after the US congress had give Bush authorization to use military force against Saddam as well as months after the United Nations approved military action against Iraq with resolution 1442.



Long story short, look in the real world where the one man you are manically defending regardless of the facts has been repudiated many times over by credible people(not just liberal zealots) all across the political spectrum

Actually, the evidence has vindicated him time and again! He was re-elected by a majority of people in the United States. There are intelligent people all across the political spectrum that to this day still believe that removing Saddam was the right thing to do. He was a threat regardless of what you think his WMD capacity was in the year 2003.

Whats really strange is the people who manically defend keeping SADDAM in power after 2003. More and more people every day agree that he had to be removed, and as the years go by, the number of people defending keeping somewhat like Saddam in power will decline.

 
Of course it did. He accepted minimum wage, 9/11 recommendations and a time line. The Democrats did not get their way on the surge, which was a 23% increase, not 33 as you say. I'm not wrong here.
.

I'm not talking about domestic policy, I'm talking about policy on Iraq. Bush increased the number of US combat brigades in Iraq in 2007 by 33%. There were 15 US combat brigades on the ground in Iraq in January 2007, and by the end of the summer of 2007 there were 20. THATS A 33% INCREASE IN COMBAT STRENGTH!!!!!!!! The Democrats along with Barack Obama proposed withdrawing ALL US COMBAT BRIGADES by MARCH 31, 2008.

So, Bush increases the number of combat brigades by 33% while the Democrats in congress try to withdraw 100% of the combat brigades by March 31, 2008!

They went in to completely different directions and BUSH GOT WHAT HE WANTED WHICH IS WHY IRAQ TODAY IS IN RELATIVELY SUCH GREAT SHAPE!

On to the ignore feature, Strongbow

I think this is like the 5th time you have stated this. The last time you made a promise never to respond to not only Strongbow but also STING2, LOL!

Trust me, I don't think this is ever going to happen. :wink:
 
Here is some more video on OBAMA ON THE SURGE:


Funny to see that Obama and Biden are now eating their words spoken in this video:

YouTube - Obama Troop Surge Vs Bush Troops Surge



In this video, Obama claims that instead of reducing the violence in Iraq, that the surge will actually do the reverse and make things worse! LOL

YouTube - Obama Said The Surge Would Actually Worsen Sectarian Violenc



YouTube - Obama VS. David Axelrod on the surge




YouTube - Obama VS. Robert Gibbs on the surge



Barack Obama was qouted just recently in the run up to his surge of troops in Afghanistan that the Iraq surge was a "GOOD THING".

Afghanistan has also been refered to as a "Civil War" and Obama is following Bush's Iraq strategy in Afghanistan with a surge in troops there.
 
desperation is a tender trap.

The only thing that is desperate here, are people that are willing to twist and contort themselves in order to defend something that has been factually proven false.

"The surge can't ever work because George Bush was the one who decided on that policy. We can't have George Bush succeeding in any policy, because after all he opposed Gay Marriage. He has to be the worst president ever in history. Who cares about the facts, he opposed Gay Marriage."

What could be more desperate than defending Saddam Hussian against George Bush. :wink:
 
I almost regret posting what I did about Biden's Iraq spin on Larry King, because it doesn't move the discussion forward. The politicians' evolving positions have been pretty well documented on foreign policy. My thoughts have changed too over time.

The big thing is that Iraq seems to be slowly improving, and that's good for everyone. Left, right, center, and all the Americans stationed there who want to come home. We should try to look ahead, not backwards.
 
Well it would be easier than answering your "all over the place" posts. I applaud you for taking the time but there is something to be said for concise answers as well.
And your tone. Maybe it's just me but when you write "I think it was Bush who did whatever the f he wanted at all costs, pal," I feel like you're pushing me in the chest trying to provoke a bar fight or something. Are you auditioning to be spokesman for the "angry-Left" or something?

So now explaining myself instead of just going with general talking points is "all over the place" I admit, I struggle to be concise, I really should be more concise.

This is going to sound stupid, I know, but , I honestly try and work on my tone as well. I am far from an angry person, I know you are probably the same. You have my honest word now that you have brought it up that I will not take any kind of provocative tone in the future. I know you don't know me, but in person, I would be the last person to start a bar fight or even argue face to face about politics. When I find someone I disagree with, I usually just say "you'll agree with me that neither party really represents the people now."

I have no desire to be any kind of spokesperson for the angry left, they substitute foam flying for reason and facts.

As much as we can disagree, know this, I always appreciate the discussion and people who care about the country. It is not personal and I am sorry if it has looked that way.

Dems held up what was to be a center piece of Bush's 2nd term. Social security reform. They also stymied banking reform. We're paying for both of those now.

All polls taken at the time showed overwhelming opposition around the country to Bush's plan. Even among many Republicans. It was the event that started to unravel Bush's Presidency. There was never a bill introduced to privatize social security in Bush's second term, therefore, there was no filibustering by Democrats. Democrats were uniformly opposed, but then again, so were a good amount of Republicans. Bush's privatization was not "reform" it would have gutted Social Security and put a good amount of it in the stock market(if you retired now, you'd be screwed). It messed with the guaranteed benefit, and that was something the country could not go for. I am all for people saving in the stock market and government incentives to do so, but it should not take away from the SS trust fund.

Banking reform, I assume you are talking about Barney Frank and regulation of Fannie and Freddie. Perhaps a link? Frank never opposed reform, Dems just had a different bill.

You completely misread the internal fight in the GOP. The rebellion is against the "go along with big govnt, just get along" moderates, not the "extreme right wing," whatever that is.

I remember we discussed what big government was, and we could not come up with a workable definition of it that Republicans did a better job on. The extreme right: the Grover Norquist drown the government crowd, the GW Bush "cut taxes and spend wildly" group, the Santorum-Palin extreme social conservatism. This is what drove moderate Republicans completely out of the party- Lincoln Chaffee, Arlen Specter, Jim Leach,etc.Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon even were put off by the chest beating, budget busting ideologues taking over the party in the last 30 years. This is not only reflected in individuals but in election trends. States and districts that were solidly Republican have been electing more and more Democrats to Congress, accounting for the large majorities we see now. The more competitive a district is between parties, the less extreme the representative from the district will be. The far left Reps in Congress come from districts where the Democratic Primary is the de facto election, same with the far right Reps and the Republican primary. The difference is most Dems are from competitive districts while most Republicans represent strong Republican districts and need only run to the far right to get re elected. The Dems have a built in bulwark against extremism here, while the Republicans are inviting it by becoming a regional, special interest party. The South is a very federal government dependent region, as is most of the Plains. Now that Republicans in Congress mostly represent these states, you see record amounts of pork when they are in power. Any fiscal responsibility that was ever present is gone due to regional interests of the people who control the party. A perfect example was Bush's 2002 farm bill. With Democrats, regional differences will work to counter act this kind of tendency to break the bank to satisfy the base. They have to speak to a broad cross section of the country to stay in power. Will they? Stay tuned.

You see very few Republican moderates in office these days, they have become an extreme conservative regional fringe, and that is reflected in who they have leading the party: Palin, DeMint, Cantor, et al. The whole tea party movement is extremely disingenuous, as they are supposedly against big government but where were they when Bush was in office? They pick a time when we literally had to spend money to avoid a depression to all of a sudden speak up? They are against a Democratic President.
So can I. You have the socialists, the progressives, the liberals, the anti-capitalists, the militants, the radicals, the hyphenated caucuses, the truly unhinged and a few moderates on abortion or out-of-control spending.

The Democratic caucus has no Socialists, and no anti capitalists. Bernie Sanders is an independent. No one who's political views could be considered "radical" either. Radicals want to scrap the whole system. Republicans have hyphenated caucuses as well. The truly unhinged: Democrats:Barbara Lee, Pete Stark, Jim McDermott. The Republcians: anyone who has called Obama a socialist or attacked him for prosecuting terrorists in our courts like every other President. That's alot more.

Abortion we have flat out pro lifers(Stupak amendment), moderates and alot of Pro Choice. Republicans have some moderates, few pro choices and a bunch of extreme pro life, against rape and incest exceptions even.

Out of control spending: Again, look at the Democratic Party's overall history on spending. They spend less than Republicans, have since WW II. Obama represents no departure from this, it is just he had to come in and spend money to avoid a depression. His 10 year spending proposals, and those of the caucus are actually less than Republicans were proposing. The Democrats just voted for pay as you go, Republicans against it. The Democratic party has no more out of control spenders than Republicans.


"We" have fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, hawk conservatives, squishy moderates, the Maine gals, a maverick, a terminator, a Palin and of course an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, sexist, ex-nude model, tea-bagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees, aka Scott Brown.

Who in your caucus is truly fiscally conservative? How many people who buy the Grover Norquist idea actually take it through to its logical conclusion and propose to get rid of education, medicare, social security, the SEC, The Fed, you name it. None, so we have record deficits because they do the tax cutting and not the spending cutting. The Maine girls are moderates, but unlike Democratic moderates, they've gone right along the party line on any number of issues. They are not a pain in the ass to McConnell like Ben Nelson is to Reid or the Blue Dogs are to Pelosi. Not much maverick in John McCain these days, never really was absent on campaign finance reform and torture, things you all hate him for. The terminator is damn near out of the party he is so disgusted with the global warming deniers and stimulus opponents. Palin is an extreme conservative like the rest of them.

Keith Olbermann took many things out of context in that rant, I don't watch the man's show, I liked him years ago but prefer Matthews now. The only thing Brown can be accused of there is not knowing Obama's mother was married. Maybe he should not have sneered " I don't know about that" but it is in no way an indication he is racist. No big deal, I don't care about family history. However, Scott Brown has so far been, beside the fact that he is pro choice(which I don't consider abortion a deciding issue in the least, btw) a party line vote. His whole campaign was to be #41, so he is just like the rest of them.

The Republicans only threatened the "nuclear option" in response to the Democrat's before unknown filibustering of judicial nominees. Republicans have respected the senate's advise and consent role whereas Democrats act more to block or embarrass. You can point to no Republican senate doing to a Clinton or Obama selection what Democrats did to Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas or judge Alito. The last 3 Democratic appointees to the Supreme Court passed with an avg of 14 no votes. The last 3 nominees of Republican presidents got an avg of 37 no votes.

That's fine, I never said they used it, just that they threatened it.

Bork, Thomas and Alito are all far outside the mainstream of American judicial thinking, by any metric. The national bar association, etc. The simple fact is that these guys are strong, pro executive power conservatives while Breyer, Sotomayor and to a lesser extent, Ginsburg, are moderates. It is a simple reflection of the fact that Republicans have nominated ideologues while Democrats have nominated moderates. Today's Republican party would not have given a good amount of votes to Breyer and Sotomayor if they were far left nuts. Clinton would actually go to Orrin Hatch with who he was considering and ask who was acceptable and who was not. Obama did the same thing with Republican judic committee members. It is the Democrats who have respected the advice and consent role by not nominating in the first place people many Republicans would deem unacceptable. It is Bush who tried to push anyone and everyone through, even people who were on record saying the civil rights acts and social security should be struck down.

Bork and Thomas did it to themselves through their views and personal shortcomings.

Plus, it is the Republicans now holding up routine appointments and legislation at a record pace. That is not advice and consent, that is pure obstruction, and they have admitted as much. They are taking a gamble that "no" will work in November.





All I remember in detail is that the 2003 Democratic Drug Benefit was much more expensive and was to be government-managed whereas the final bipartisan bill passed in the Republican congress was much less expensive (400 billion) and insisted on private insurance plans.

What emerged was no bipartisan by any means. In the Senate, Baucus was the only Democrat they even let in, and he tried to work in good faith. Delay's house gutted the provisions Baucus put in and hijacked the entire bill. There was no Democratic representation in the house legislation, none whatsoever, that was the big controversy.

The Democratic plan was first floated by Gore, and the 2003 version was not going to be government managed any more than the current version is government managed. It was going to give subsidies to private companies. The difference is the huge "donut" hole put in the coverage by the Republicans in order to pay for huge direct payments to the pharmaceutical industry plus the banning of reimportation from Canada. As a final kick, they banned medicare from negotiating with companies from lower prices. All of these provisions were written back room by lobbyists in the House. This has been extensively documented.

The hand outs to pharma, ban on re importation and barring of negotiation combined helped to get us to the real cost, $1.2 trillion. Medicare Drug Benefit May Cost $1.2 Trillion (washingtonpost.com)
 
I think it can get better, but we'll probably have to wait until the shenanigans of an election year are over. The jury is out on Scott Brown, but he has the chance to be an independent-minded guy. I was watching a little Meet The Press this morning, former Congressman Harold Ford was on, and he would be an excellent Senate candidate out of NY. Ford's on the Morning Joe show pretty often too, he makes a lot of sense and has a great presence.

Well, I do hope you are right! I'll watch Brown closely, I have commented on what he has done so far, but ultimately, who knows?

I like Harold Ford alot. I thought he was a great candidate in 2006, I just can't understand why he is making it so hard for himself by running in NY, where he just moved and doing so against Gillibrand, who is a moderate Democrat similar to himself. He'll have an uphill fight against Schumer and the establishment, and that would be a waste because he could go back to TN or somewhere else and be the establishment again. They need a guy like him up there.

I agree, presidents can't push a button and magically create or destroy jobs. And that goes for the economy under Clinton, Bush, and Obama (since that's argued in here all the time). It's so much more complicated than simply attributing success or failure to the White House.

This is quite possibly the one thing I agree with the most that I say the least on here! Very true.:up::up:

It is just like the mortgage crisis, you can pick out, based on your own political beliefs of course, a time where Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton or Bush II were supposedly asking for this crisis through their actions. That would of course be subjective and useless, so whenever I argue with anyone about it I always say it was largely a set of economic trends and financial tools that were long emerging independent of who was in office.
 
I almost regret posting what I did about Biden's Iraq spin on Larry King, because it doesn't move the discussion forward. The politicians' evolving positions have been pretty well documented on foreign policy. My thoughts have changed too over time.

The big thing is that Iraq seems to be slowly improving, and that's good for everyone. Left, right, center, and all the Americans stationed there who want to come home. We should try to look ahead, not backwards.

Agreed. Regardless of what Strongbow is probably saying about me even though I added him to my ignore list, I have no interest in seeing the country fail in Iraq.

Given everything else we have to deal with, in Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen and domestically, moving away from Iraq and leaving it somewhat stable can only be viewed as a positive.
 
STING are you like this in real life too?

What is this hero still saying things about me even though I made clear to him I was putting him on the ignore list?

Drop it, Sting, and add me to your ignore list as well, please. No more interest in having another word to say to you.
 
What is this hero still saying things about me even though I made clear to him I was putting him on the ignore list?

Drop it, Sting, and add me to your ignore list as well, please. No more interest in having another word to say to you.



good luck with that. i continue to get trolled, taunted, etc. :shrug: i just feel sorry for everyone else who has to suffer through it.
 
Maybe if everyone actually did ignore him - including not reading, not responding, not getting sucked in when others replied to him, not even mentioning him, it would help.

In other words, actually ignoring him instead of just putting him on your ignore list.
 
good luck with that. i continue to get trolled, taunted, etc. :shrug: i just feel sorry for everyone else who has to suffer through it.

Great.

Any moderators reading this find this to be acceptable behavior?

I mean, the guy has proven himself to be an unreasonable troll, yet people I find far more reasonable and not trolls have been suspended and banned.

I am not completely free of my moments where I say things I should not, but as a consistent pattern.... Sting clearly has shown this.

All I know is I better not continue to get trolled or taunted by him.

Strongbow: SHUT UP, IGNORE MY POSTS AS I HAVE IGNORED YOURS AND REALIZE THAT THERE IS MORE TO LIFE THAN CONTINUING TO PROVOKE PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO DESIRE TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOU OR YOUR IRRATIONALITY. YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ME, PM ME. DONT PUT IT ON THE BOARD WHERE I CAN NOT SEE IT AND ACT LIKE YOU HAVE REBUTTED ME SOMEHOW.
 
ultimately, that feeds the best. i argued, for years, and nothing has gone anywhere. and in opposition to pretty much everyone else i've had a disagreement with, there was no sense of mutual respect or fun or fair play or wit. i genuinely like INDY. i genuinely like(d) NBCrusader. and Diamond has a huge crush on me. however, in this case, it was just on-and-on-and-on and pointless and had nothing to do with reality, and it got nastier over the years, which is why i did my best to stop.

but it's hard to stop. this isn't like talking about Radiohead or the Oscars. these are real life issues that have life-or-death consequences, so it's often hard to simply let things go by when you care passionately about things because it does seem like the end of the world at that moment in time. so it's hard, i understand.

ultimately, i don't think that this is much of a mod issue. if you post, someone can respond. you can ask that they not, but they are free to do so. you can ignore them, but they can still respond, and you can still read what they wrote. the poster in question might qualify as a troll, and i think with me it's extremely deliberate and competitive, but as has been noted, there's nothing defamatory or obscene or threatening (and i have been threatened by people).

so keep on doing what you're doing, U2387, and do your best to resist reading the ignored post. i don't think your requests are going to be respected, and while that is asshole behavior, that is not bannable behavior.
 
varv01292010a20100129053434.jpg

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) confirmed on Monday that he will not be running for re-election in 2010, citing a overly-partisan climate in Washington. The departure of Bayh, a two-term Indiana Democrat who has never lost an election either on the state or local level, leaves a gaping hole for national Democrats to fill.

How big is this? Even Indy, Mr. Partisan, voted for Evan Bayh; twice for the U.S. senate and once for governor. I'm stunned. He's a man of great integrity, who served his state well, I wish him the best and I'm glad he jumped before the canoe crashes over the falls.
 
How big is this? Even Indy, Mr. Partisan, voted for Evan Bayh; twice for the U.S. senate and once for governor. I'm stunned. He's a man of great integrity, who served his state well and I wish him the best.



what's your read on this? everyone seems flummoxed.

he was going to win reelection in a landslide. this isn't someone jumping ship so as not to suffer defeat. he left, and in a manner that absolutely screwed the state's democratic party.

what's going on? something with Mrs. Bayh? is he looking at 2016?
 
varv01292010a20100129053434.jpg



How big is this? Even Indy, Mr. Partisan, voted for Evan Bayh; twice for the U.S. senate and once for governor. I'm stunned. He's a man of great integrity, who served his state well, I wish him the best and I'm glad he jumped before the canoe crashes over the falls.

Who would step up for the Democrats? Any ideas?

Republicans: Coats have it in him? Mitch Daniels? Do you take him at his word that he'll only be governor?

To me, he seems exactly what the Republicans would want to counter someone like Palin.

I read something that said Bayh was just genuinely sick of the whole climate in Washington and that it was no secret that he has not been happy since 2006. They talked about him spending time with his wife and kids, etc and feeling that 2 terms as Governor and Senator was enough.

It looks like, as Irvine said, he would have been re elected, which the same can't be said for certain with Dodd, Reid, Lincoln, et cetera. I know Bayh has broad appeal, and I like him alot just as you do.

I know it sounds like spin, but there is precedent for this. Mark Warner was highly popular in moderate and conservative Democratic circles, as well as in the money sector of the Democratic party. He was widely viewed as a good Presidential candidate and he just all of a sudden said "absolutely not" after visiting colleges with his daughter and realizing the impact being President would have on his family.

I think good, results focused people on both sides(Hagel, Bayh, Mel Martinez, Dennis Deconcini in the 1990s) genuinely get fed up with the hyper partisanship and lack of progress. I have never worked in Congress, but I know plenty of people who have for various people in both parties. It has always seemed to me that if you or I came in from our jobs or anyone else from their own jobs, they would be shocked by how petty things are and how little gets done. This must be tough to take for someone who was a successful executive as Governor(Bayh) or a successful business person(Deconcini) or a successful prosecutor and military person(Warner). Most jobs and their previous jobs have one thing in common: you get results or you get fired.

Indy, you and I will not agree on who is to blame for this partisanship and gridlock, but we can agree that it is present and that it is unfortunate when it drives away people like Evan Bayh.
 
he was going to win reelection in a landslide. this isn't someone jumping ship so as not to suffer defeat. he left, and in a manner that absolutely screwed the state's democratic party.

Maybe Indy knows more.

Some speculated that he may have had a score to settle with someone in the Democratic Party(state or national) and so he did this abruptly and just before the filing deadline. Who knows, its politics.
 
just heard a short clip on NPR


he indirectly took a shot at Reid, complaining about the Jobs bill that just got gutted

Reid gutted it, chopping from 85 billion to 15 billion (I think) in an effort to appear more fiscally responsible, he is in a tight race himself in Nevada.

and so it goes
 
SCANDAL: Evan Bayh Admits All-Consuming Addiction


WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) -- Just hours after rocking the political world with his surprise retirement announcement, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind) said that he would undergo treatment for an "all-consuming addiction" to the popular Facebook game Farmville.

"I realized that I had to make a choice between being a United States senator and tending my imaginary farm," a tearful Mr. Bayh told reporters. "I had to look at myself in the mirror and acknowledge that I had a problem."

Majority Leader Harry Reid said that he was shocked by Sen. Bayh's admission, adding, "This is all the more surprising because he hails from a farm state, where there are plenty of actual farms he could take care of."

.
 
Deep, I was just wondering. . .I remember that you were very concerned about Obama's readiness for office and didn't want to vote for him because of that. A year in, do you find your fears were confirmed or unfounded or something in between.
 
Obama has tried much too hard to be moderate, if you ask me. He should have been more succinct and forward with the health care bill. It would have led to more clarity. Instead, he allowed a lot of exaggeration and paranoia by one side to ruin the perception of it, and thus, ruin the bill altogether.
 
Deep, I was just wondering. . .I remember that you were very concerned about Obama's readiness for office and didn't want to vote for him because of that. A year in, do you find your fears were confirmed or unfounded or something in between.


What you expressed were my feelings before the Democratic Primary was concluded.


To sum it up, he has done a little better than I expected.
I think it is becoming increasingly more difficult to govern. This is true at every level of government.

Most of my left leaning friends are less than enthused with Obama.

I think things would be in worse shape if McCain had won the election.
 
What you expressed were my feelings before the Democratic Primary was concluded.


To sum it up, he has done a little better than I expected.
I think it is becoming increasingly more difficult to govern. This is true at every level of government.

Most of my left leaning friends are less than enthused with Obama.

I think things would be in worse shape if McCain had won the election.


I don't think your left-leaing friends should be surprised. I always felt Obama was more centrist than the partisans on either the left or right believed him to be.

Hmmm. . .if McCain had been president? Well there would be no push for health care reform so he wouldn't have that albatross around his neck. I don't think he would have handled the economy any differently. He would have supported the stimulus package I think. I think the real arena where we'd see some big differences woudl be foreign policy. Obama made an effort to change the tone and earned a lot of political capital with the rest of the world. McCain would not have done that.
 
there are a lot of appointments, inspectors general and things like that
not to mention Sotomayor would not be on the bench

aside from those things I don't regret even 1 per cent voting for Obama
even with the partisan stale mate we find ourselves in,
the country is better off with his election

I saw or heard of a survey somewhere recently where many Africa Americans believed that the country would not elect a black president,
they believed it would take 30 - 50 more years.

But with the Obama election they now have more hope and believe that race relations, whatever are much better.
For me, that is a huge bonus with his election
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom