New Orleans Sinking Faster Than Thought

[Brent Burns]

The DFL ...

It's only DFL in Minnesota as far as I know (Oh my God, you might be becoming one of us Eric). The rest of the country says Democrat

DFL, huh? What does that stand for? I am honestly quite out of the loop on that one.

Democratic F.... L.... ???

Just cheated through Google that DFL in Minnesota stands for Democrat-Farmer-Labor.

[Zeuslax]

TexOle Stated:

2000: Bush and Gore
This election was close. The Democrats can't figure out how to use Clinton to their advantage, and the Republicans use Clinton to secure support from the Christian Right. While there were other candidates that did not help Gore, we are beginning to see the downfall of the DFL.

I think your Perot analogy is a little overstated. You state Perot's name, but you fail to mention Nadar's in the above. Nadar did more then not help Gore. If Nadar isn't in the race (I'm not saying Nadar shouldn't have been in the Race) Gore wins. I don't think the same can be said for the 1992 election even though Perot received 12% of the vote. Bush should have won that election hands down. He had an approval rating in the 90's after the Gulf War. He blew it with a some major blunders. Looking at his watch during a debate like he had somewhere better to be. Going through a grocery store check out line and not knowing the price of common food products and stating it with cameras running. A bunch of dumb political moves. The back breaker was the "Read my lips, no new taxes!" quote.

In 1996 Dole didn't have a chance in hell. Perot had no impact on that election, and by that time he scared the crap out of most the country. Clinton walked away with the election.

I agree with the statements that the DNC is all over the map right now, but I wouldn't say that the party is highjacked by Micheal Morre and Howard Dean. Most people feel the problem to be that the Democrats are not sticking to thier core values and running to the "right". The leadership is weak and Kerry was a terrible candidate in my opinion. A lot of people didn't vote for Kerry, they voted against Bush.

I wonder........where have all the terror alerts gone?

[TexOle]

Now you see the Texan in me who does not remember Nader on the ballot, but it very well could be true about him leading to the downfall of Gore. Bob Dole was also a terrible candidate, but the goal the was gaining the support of the GOP faithful. The 2008 will be a fun election. Any thoughts on who might be the nominees?

[grinderpete]

Now you see the Texan in me who does not remember Nader on the ballot, but it very well could be true about him leading to the downfall of Gore. Bob Dole was also a terrible candidate, but the goal the was gaining the support of the GOP faithful. The 2008 will be a fun election. Any thoughts on who might be the nominees?

NPR ran a debate between Dean and Nader before the 2004 election in which Dean claimed that Nader cost the Democrats the 2000 election. Nader came back with some pretty sweet numbers showing that a majority of his voters in Florida came from the Republican camp. He claimed that if he hadn't of ran then the Florida ballots would have been more in Bush's favor. I am not sure I believe that, but it was fun to see Dean get all huffy with Nader. I will see if i can find a link to that.

As far as 2008 is concerned, I don't see any candidates that look promising. I was excited to McCain make a run, but I don't see the conservative right allowing him to be thier cannidate. Everyone keeps talking Hillary for the Democrats, but she is so divisive that I cant see her getting nominated either. I would love to see Senator Barack Obama run. I would vote for him in a second.

[StrykerFSU]

Two words: George Allen

[Sonny]

In 1996 Dole didn't have a chance in hell. Perot had no impact on that election, and by that time he scared the crap out of most the country. Clinton walked away with the election.

I disagree. If Dole had Perot's 8.4% of the vote, he would have beaten Clinton in 96. Perot is the only reason Clinton got elected either time.

[Zeuslax]

Sonny Wrote:

I disagree. If Dole had Perot's 8.4% of the vote, he would have beaten Clinton in 96. Perot is the only reason Clinton got elected either time.

I'm not sure if the above was possible. This is why!

Clinton: 379 electoral votes, 47,402,357 votes, 49% of the vote

Dole: 159 electoral votes, 39,198,755 votes, 41% of the vote

Perot: 0 electoral votes, 8, 085,402, 8% of the vote

Even if we give every single one of Perot's votes to Dole (which wouldn't have happened.) Clinton still wins walking away with the electoral college. He still wins the popular vote by 118,200. As we are all aware of, with the 2000 election, the popular vote doesn't mean squat. In addition, many people voted for Perot that were "moderate" to prove a point. The democratic side wasn't energized for that election either. Everyone knew that Clinton was going to win. Perot received the anti-vote vote, to support a 3rd party in this country.

I hate to say things like if so and so wasn't in the election this guy would have one. Nothing is more undemocratic than saying something of this sort. The system is completely rigged for the 2 party system. For GOD's sake, it's illegal in some states to have a 3rd party in debates. That's insane! The democrats and the Republicans have rigged the system so we don't have an honest debate in this country. Are 30 second sound bites debate?

If Nadar was in the debates (Perot was), or if the Republicans (Karl Rove) didn't destroy McCain in South Carolina. Imagine how different our political landscape would look. This is where the focus should be. Ensuring that there's an honest debate with an open and transparent gov't. This is one of the biggest issues I have with the Bush administration. The secrecy, and the classifying of petty documents so they don't reach the public eye. This is very dangerous in my eyes.

[Hackalicious]

President Bush has learned what it takes to win the majority of American voters' opinions.

Military/Government spending- provides jobs to Americans and boosts the economy

Small Government- yes, under him we have lost some rights which I am not happy about, but notice that there is less government. People don't like being told what to do. A huge example is his desire to reform social security to give people options. Many Americans fear government controls that might be brought on by Democrat leaders.

These two points are contradictory. More spending is bigger government.

Non-defense, discretionary spending has gone up under President Bush more than under any president since LBJ's Great Society. He has not vetoed a single spending bill -- or any bill, as far as I know. Of course, the Republican-majority congress controls the purse strings, so they're really the ones to blame.

What's worse, is that instead of fiscal disipline and balanced budgets like we had under that tax & spend liberal Clinton, all this is being financed by borrowing money from people like Japan, China, and Saudi Arabia. Servicing that debt costs almost as much as Social Security annually.


Here's a decent Economist article on it from 2003 entitled "Red George":
http://economist.com/World/na/displaySt ... id=1893625

My favorite quote: "He is governing like a Frenchman"

[sohotrightnow]

Let John Asscroft sum it up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woLQI8X2R6Y

How did he not win a Grammy?

[Hackalicious]

That should be provides tax cuts to those people that actually pay taxes. The upper half of Americans pay over 96% of all federal income taxes. What is fair about that factoid?

First off, you're ignoring sales and payroll taxes, which are not progressive, so take a relatively larger bite out of low incomes.

But, on the topic of fairness..

0.5% of the population accounts for 25% of the cumulative net worth.
5% of the population accounts for 50%
10% account for 82%

Consider this in light of, say, national defense. Half of what we spend protects the assets and livelihood of 5% of the population.
Is it so unfair to ask them to pay their half of the cost of running the country?

I'm blurring income and net worth, but the distribution is the same and you can consider net worth to be accumulated income.

Also, before you go frothing at the mouth, Sonny, I'm not criticizing our current income distribution. I fully intend to be among that 5%, if not 0.5%. I'm just aware how much the system benefits me and provides an environment where I can get into that 5%, and am willing to pay for it.

[StrykerFSU]

Consider this in light of, say, national defense. Half of what we spend protects the assets and livelihood of 5% of the population.

Not to get picky, but I'm pretty sure that national defense protects the lives of 100% of the population.

My biggest problem with the tax system is not how much I pay but where it goes. I'm happy to pay for defense, infrastructure, education, law enforcement, etc. It is when my tax dollars are given to someone who is not working or entered the country illegaly or any other form of income redistribution that I have a real problem.

[Joe Oakland]

sohotrightnow stated:

People should do themselves a favor and read "What's the Matter with Kansas". It is a great book that outlines how Conservatives have won the heart of America through a variety of avenues. Among other things, it outlines how Bush and his team portrayed him during the 2004 Campaign as a working-class man.

One of the best books I read last summer. Basically, it outlines how people vote for things that don't affect them. On both sides of the isle! A few counties in Kansas are highlighted as examples of people voting against thier best interest. As things keep getting worse. They continue to vote with the same pattern. Also, they don't vote for thier pocket books, they vote using their emotions.

This New Orleans situation is a real political quagmire. Damned if you do and damned if you don't for the politicians.

Best book I read last summer too!