Mickey

Can you point me to some proof of all the hard work and political capital spent by this President pushing for more nuclear or more coal powered energy sources? I am not aware of a single major initiative announced or realistically pushed by this administration in this regard. No body had to really block such a plan since there wasn't one to block. It may be what he believes and "supports" but unless he is willing to actually use his political power to really push something on those issues through, then his support is nothing but a token, a talking point for when the issue comes up. I have no problem with drilling in ANWR or new Nuke plants providing they are safe and we have a reasonable solution to disposal of the waste. I also have no problem with MPG standards. What Kerry would have done is no longer relevant. He is the President and it is his responsibility to do something, anything that makes the situation better as opposed to worse. I'd bet the house that we are not going to see any major initiative beyond drilling in ANWR which would cover our oil use for about a day and a half.

The left isn't going to pass anything. You ask the driver of the bus to take a short cut, not the passengers in the back. To get anything of what they want, they will have to compromise. That it son obvious, I didn't think it needed to be mentioned. Any proposal they make is dead on arrival unless they get some bi-partisan support so comporomise is about all they will be doing for the next two years. The question is whether or not the President will as he is the one who has a choice, the democrats don't. He basically said one day he will and the next said he wasn't. I don't care which way he goes, just don't pretend to be interested in unity and then pursue a course that guarantees disunity. It is like drinking a toast to sobriety. You can't have it both ways. As for the "why listen to losers" remark from Arnold, that is almost too stupid to even bother responding to. There were 54 million losers who voted and if Arnold thinks it is a good idea to alienate them, ignore them and generally mock them out simply because their candidate didn't win he would do well to realize that today's losers can be tommorows winners. Any one who has read any American history as opposed to Austrian, would know that no party has ever been ascendant for ever. On the issues, Arnold is about 55% Republican and 45% Democrat so apparently he finds many of the "ideas" of the "losers" to be "winners".

Basically an argument I and others have made on the board many times before. Thank God we have a President with a detailed and realistic energy policy. Not that an energy policy is as important as critical issues like gay marriage. Once we get that Constitutional Amendment in place, maybe then he will have the time to come up with an energy policy that deals with the reality that affordable oil is not going to last forever.

He can do whatever he wants, no one is saying anything different. It is just that he said he wanted to reach out to the other side and try and bring the country together. That is what he said he wanted to do, not what we are saying he has to do. The next day, he does a 180 and essentially tells 54 million people to like it or lump it. That is fine if that is what he wants. What is disconcerting and worthy of criticism is that he wants the best of both worlds, the appearance of seeking unity and the reality of doing it his way or no way at all. He can't have both. Either make a genuine attempt at compromise or stop pretending that you have any interest at all in compromising. If what he wants is two years of filibusters followed by two years of lame duckhood, then he need not seek compromise of any sort. If he wants to actually get things passed, then he needs to take the edge off and throw a bone or two to the opposition.

The government can go bankrupt. It doesn't simply print the money it needs whenever it feels like it. If it did we'd be burning dollars for warmth because deflation would wreck the value of our currency. There is a complex and rigid formula governing money supply that the treasury sticks to. When it's obligations exceed its assets, it borrows by selling off notes and bonds to investors, mostly foreign banks. As long as Japanese banks are willing to loan us the money by buying our T-bills, we are fine. If they don't, we literally run out of cash. There comes a point where the interest on the debt soaks up a huge share of tax revenues leaving less and less for everything else from National Parks to new tanks. Moreover, there also comes a point where the US soaks up so much of the available world wide capital that not enough is available for lending to businesses and consumers. Interests rates go up as the available capital to be used to finance industry begins to shrink too much. The next thing you know, a business that needs in infusion of cash to expand so it can produce more and hire more people is unable to get a loan at a rate that allows him to clear a profit. At that point you have a downward spiral where businesses fail leading to lower tax revenues leading to more government borrowing leading to tighter capital markets leading to more businesses failing. And the beat goes on. The red state addiction to both tax cutting and receiving federal largesse is a recipe for disaster.

I read the part where you defended the crass remarks of others: "I purposely stayed out of this thread until I read your post. It's a sensitve subject for me, but I also understand why the other posts were made. Any fool can understand why they were made. Karma can be a biotch sometimes, don't you think?" I also read the part where you said "The subject here is her hubby..." And lastly, I also read the title of the thread "John Edwards Wife has breast cancer". That led me to the astonishing conclusion that the thread was about his wife, not him and that it was inappropriate to be making negative comments about Edwards in a thread dealing with concern for his wife. You defended those crass comments and ignored the subject of the thread. You don't go to a funeral and start bitching about the dead person's wife to the mourners even if she is jerk because that is not the place to do it. This thread was obviously started to inform people of this terrible news and for the purpose of expressing concern for Mrs. Edwards. This is not the place to toss in remarks about Mr. Edwards. It is especially insensitive to do so knowing very well that people who admire the Edwards would be checking in on this thread. Perhaps that was the point.

Even if people had done so and the court stayed out of it, you end up in the same place. Sooner or later a national law is attempted to be passed that tries to force states who allow abortion to prohibit it. That state then files suit to get that law dismissed as unconstitutional and the court is back in the middle of it again. The courts avoided this issue like the plauge for years and finally decided that it could no longer do so, the matter had reached a head. The only thing that prevents a national, federal law being passed by Congress on abortion is that it would be declared unconstitutional by the courts. If the courts had never ruled on it and states did what they wanted, the states that didn't allow abortion would pressure their legislators to try and enacta a law preventing abortion everywhere, not just in their state. I understand that it seems invasive for the court to be involved but there are some controversies so prevalent and so fundamental that federal court involvement can't be avoided. Arguably, Roe is exactly the kind of thorny, pain in the neck issue the court was created to handle.

Those populations increase as people from the "old America" move to the "new America". They bring their politics with them making those states more diverse by increasing the democrats there. Problem is, they are enough to increase the EV of those states but not enough of a political force in terms of numbers to move those states into play. People aren't becoming conservatives and then moving to Alabama as a result. Further, the northern states are predominantly democratic but they have plenty of republicans. They are more diverse than the southern states. When 10 northerner's move south, odds are about 5.3 of them are democrats and 4.7 of them are republicans. In theory then, the southern state they move to only gains about 3/4's of an extra democrat. That won't ever be enough to move a state that has 6.5 republicans for every 3.5 democrats into play. In that way, electoral strength is gained in the south and for republicans but not because anyone's political philosophy has changed. Democratic voters leave the north where they were heard in elections because democrats are the majority there but in the south they are voices lost in the wind. Their presence their however, adds to the political strength of the other party. Population growth in the south and west is in part due to immigration, not just migration from the north and mid west. The political loyalties of these people is more difficult to infer. However, although they play a role in increasing the EV's of the southern states, they have nothing to do with the loss of EV's in the north so they really aren't relevant to this discussion.

Ashcroft did nothing of the kind. Where do you get this revisionist history? He didn't remove his name. He lost to Mel Carnahan whose name could not be removed from the ballot under Missouri law. He was therefore elected posthumously and the governor appointed a successor and he chose Jean Carnahan, Mel's wife. Aschroft did not remove his name from the ballot and in fact, nearly won. It would, as you have stated, been "honorable" for him to have removed his name but instead, he dishonorably refused to do so. Ascroft loses to dead man Story on Ascrofts continued campaigning after Mel Carnahan's death

People were standing in line for over 10 hours to vote in Ohio and were still voting after midnight. That was not the case in Pa. Further, the general perception is that provisionals favor mostly democrats as they are usually the result of a person moving their residence a lot which is more typical of young people and the urban poor both of which went strongly for Kerry. The provisionals in Pa were not likely to favor Bush but instead Kerry would be expected to improve his share. The problem was that no one knew how many provisionals there were so no one could do anything but guess as to whether there was a chance they could help Kerry pass Bush. The republican commissioner gave a short statement where he simply said that last time out they had 135,000 and his estimate that they would have between that and 175k was nothing more than his "speculation". As soon as Kerry was told just how many provisionals there were the next day, he quickly conceded. The networks weren't being partisan, it is just that they weren't all willing to call Ohio in the face of those uncertainties. They did mention ad nauseum that Bush was the likely winner and had the strongest hand etc.

There is no technical definition of "mandate" in a political sense. No politician who was elected ever acknowledged that the margin was so small that his victory was in spite of his policies. There is general agreement that the country is sharply and fairly evenly divided. One can't take the position that the nation is divided and that the people meant to give the President a blanket endorsement for his every policy initiative at the same time. If he received a broad endorsement ie, a "mandate", from the people, we would not be talking about how divided we are and that is just about what everyone is talking about. If the winner took 60% of the vote, we would be talking about how unified the electorate was behind the winner and the broad mandate he had won. If you have to argue that you have won a mandate, you haven't. By their nature, they are obvious.

The subject of this thread is that Mrs. Edwards was diagnosed with cancer. If you feel a need to start another thread being critical of Mr. Edwards, feel free to do so. This is not the place for it.

Precisely the opposite is true. He no longer needs the middle or has to compromise on anything. What little "unifying" he did before the election he did to attract middle of the road voters, he already had his base and fired them up sufficiently with the gay marriage stuff. He has no need now to unify anybody. The Dick Cheney "Go _eff yourself" express can chug down the tracks at full speed. Unless you think rewriting the tax code to favor work over wealth, over turning Roe v. Wade, enacting a constitutional amendment to ban gay unions and gay marriage and maybe an invasion of Iran are designed to "unify" the country, I wouldn't count on a sincere effort to do just that. His history is to do it his way or the highway. Compromise for the sake of unity is what he mocks, not what he believes in.

I spoke to soon. Would it have been so hard to simply express condolences and leave it at that as most did? Was it really necessary to try and spin a shot at Kerry or Edwards out of this awful news?

Perhaps this will silence the fat jokes for awhile.

thanks, fixed it. I hit the "2" instead of the "1" and got 276. That is 44 elections, 80% more than 3% and only 20% closer. That only goes back to 1828. Most of the earlier ones were landslides apart from Adams-Jefferson-Burr.

They danced in the streets in Cuba when Batista was driven out of power. I'll celebrate when I know who replaces him.

I think that Americans understand that we are at war. I don't think they know what it means to huddle in a foxhole wondering if the next snap of a twig will be the last sound you ever hear on earth. I am not sure what you mean about the "concept of war" but I do think that in times of peril, people care less about bread and butter political issues. It is not just history and stats I am citing, its logic. Changing a leader in the middle of a war is a risky enterprise and no one is going to do that without considering the consequences. In the face of such a dangerous choice, it is natural for people to err in favor of the status quo. There is nothing logical to connect Redskin wins or losses to the outcome of an election. There is both logic and history to support the point I was making.

Abortion is never going to be left to the states. If Roe v. Wade were struck down it would clear the way for states to enact laws prohibiting abortion which would happen throughout the south and midwest. It might also happen in a few other states scattered around. Likely, it would remain legal in a few in the Northeast and in the far West. Those seeking an abortion would travel to those places in droves. That would lead to the next step, a national law prohibiting abortion. A constitutional amendment banning abortion would not be necessary. The right has brought this issue up, an amendment, as a possibility repeatedly. It was easy for Republican moderates to talk the radicals in their party out of it with the argument that it would not pass so why spend the time and money on it? They won't be able to make that argument in a post-Roe world. The no-abortion states would quickly attempt to stop abortion in the other states with a national law which would simply need to pass the House and Senate and get a Presidential signature. With Roe gone, there would be no basis at all for striking it down. In short, either the Constitution will keep abortion legal even in states that hate it or Roe will be dumped and abortion will be illegal even in states that would prefer to allow it. This is never going to be an issue left to the states.

Your positon on social issues may be principled but in effect, it is meaningless. You voted for a candidate that is against those very principles. I am glad you hold those beliefs but they are too shallow to mean anything since in spite of them you helped elect a candidate that will over turn Roe v. Wade and try and pass the first Constitutional Amendment in history that takes away rather than extends individual freedom for the benefit of state power. As you say, the controlling issue is fiscal. You voted for Bush even though he cut taxes and increased spending big time. As much as you are concerned about spending, it didn't keep you from voting for Bush despite his profligate ways. The only real fiscal difference between these two candidates was tax cuts for people making over 200K. If the choice were between two parties who cut taxes like crazy and spend like crazy, then your only choice would be on social issues and the democrats are more in line with your beliefs on that score so presumably, you would then vote for the democrat. In terms of spending, democrats need not be any less irresponsible than Bush to get your vote. He was irresponsible and got your vote anyway. I would prefer that they not cut taxes unless they can cut spending but that just isn't ever going to happen. Bush has had majorities in both houses and has done nothing of the kind. He cut taxes and increased spending, arguably the worst of both worlds from your point of view as a fiscal conservative. It did not cost him your vote. Maybe you think democrats would have been even more irresponsible, I don't know. Would they have cut taxes more? Would they have come up with an even larger budget for the No Child thing and the new presicription drug benefit? Maybe so but then again, they would not have cut taxes or have cut them less. I don't claim to have the secret key to anything here, I am just thinking out loud.

Really? Thats 54,996,123 jokes. For a party that is such a joke, there sure are a lot of us.

I disagree. I don't care if Kerry were the charisma king. White evangelical christians are not going to vote for a party that favors gay civil unions and reproductive freedom. It ain't going to happen.

The facts are that over and over in all the polls Kerry did better or essentially even on the issues from the economy to Iraq. Where he lost was so called "moral issues" and that means gay marriage, abortion and "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Economically distressed voters in Ohio especially which has been killed with job losses over the last 4 years did not cast their vote based on that distress. They excused the administration of responsibility for that. Those excuses are so familiar to us all we could recite them by rote: Economic forces are outside the President's control, He inherited a recession and stock Rosen that was Clinton's fault, 9/11 cost us lots of jobs, we had to go to war and that hurt the economy, his tax cuts haven't had time to do their magic, etc, etc. Apart from excuses, he can also blame shift to democrats with oldies but goodies like: tax and spend, overregulation, environment over business, affirmative action, etc, etc. The result is that the Republicans get a pass on responsibity for economic misery. That voter instead votes on social issues just as all the after election polls indicate. Democrats lost because these voters do not vote on economic issues and instead vote based on gay marriage and the like. I say screw them. Let them go to the Republican's begging for an extension on their unemployment benefits. I am tired of them enjoying government programs and then bitching about big government and taxes and labeling the democrats as tax and spend maniacs. If they would rather ban gay marriage then have a job then let them keep voting for republicans. I think we should reward the people who would support us if we did reward them because these people will not. Why fight for a middle class tax cut if the middle class in Ohio is going to screw you over because of gay marriage? Maybe if we were rewarding the wealthy a little more and the upper middle class in places of increasing wealth and population like Arizona, Nevada and the like, we might build some strength in the west to add to our lock on the northeast. These people are socially more in line with our party's position, so much so that Bush even announced that he was pro civil union despite the party plank to the contrary on the eve of the election. He didn't do that out of principle my friend, it was smart, albeit craven, pandering to the moderates in his party. Lets steal those moderates from under his nose because the second they start backing off social issues to keep their moderates they lose their evangelical base. That is the weakness of the republican party and that is where we need to challenge them.

What makes moderate republicans moderate is that they in fact do support abortion rights, reasonable gun control, environmental issues etc, etc. Rudy, Pataki, Whitman hold these views. Democrats are never ever going to be able to out gay bash the right or move to the right of their abortion position. Republicans who like Powell, Whitman, Pataki etc, do not support bans on gay unions, abortion etc. They even support affirmative action in some forms. Both Rice and Powell publicly split with the President on that issue. Democrats can easily be just as pro tax cut and defense as the right, even more so if they choose. It will not offend their core constituency at all. It will leave moderate republicans with no reason not to vote democrat. Why would they vote to lose the reproductive freedom they want if they can keep that and get the tax relief they want?

He is an incumbent and we are at war. Can you name an incumbent voted out of office during a war? I can't think of a single one. Going back to 1828, how many presidential elections were decided by more than 3%? 35. How many by less than 3%? Only 9. That means that this election was closer than 80% of all Presidential elections ever held and only 20% were this close or closer. The only reason it was that close was because of Bush's low numbers. If his numbers were a tiny bit better it would have been a blow out as he would have carried NH, Pa, Minn, Wis. and maybe even NJ.