 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: Art Thieme Date: 26 Jan 09 - 02:10 PM In hopes of catching some of that trickle-down, I now wear Depends 24-7. Art |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: Bobert Date: 26 Jan 09 - 07:58 PM Waterboard Rush Limbaugh... He has earned it fair and square... Might of fact, had any "liberal" come close to saying what Rush said during the mad-dask-to-Iraq the conservatives would have been talking about bringing this person up on treason charges and threatened the death penalty... I mean, lets get real here... Alot of us here were against the invasion of Iraq but none ever said, "Geeze, I hope it fails and we get alot of our boys shot up"... But, in essence, this is what Rush Limbaugh had said... He wants the stimulus package to fail... This will mean millions of Americans loosing their jobs... It will mean milliopns of Americans loosing their homes.... It will plunge American into the abyss but... ...at least Rush Limbaug will be happy... This man needs to be deported... The USofA don't need his likes... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: Amos Date: 26 Jan 09 - 08:56 PM Noe, Bobez--we gotta preserve his freedom to be an asshole, too, ya know. It is his most precious right. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: bald headed step child Date: 26 Jan 09 - 09:57 PM Hey, some good might come of it. Even a lot of the "ditto-heads" are running for cover on this one. BHSC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: Richard Bridge Date: 27 Jan 09 - 03:25 AM Maybe an arrangement could be made with the UK government, to try him here for war crimes including torture if he was deported here. Can the US deport a US citizen? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: kendall Date: 27 Jan 09 - 09:12 PM Who are these people who don't pay any income taxes? How many of them are there? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: GUEST,lox Date: 28 Jan 09 - 06:13 AM Obama honeymoon over? Boy oh boy. I'm just starting to get loved up!! Read THIS!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: Peter T. Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:38 AM Obama loves up the Republicans, even has a drinks party. Result at voting time? : zilch. When is he going to get the message: these guys are dinosaurs and morons, they want, love, need to beat up on him. This bipartisanship thing is absurd. yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: CarolC Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:51 AM It's his style, though. I think he understands the concept of instant karma. He keeps to the high road, and he harms no one, and people like that. When they take the low road, they just harm themselves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: Peter T. Date: 29 Jan 09 - 09:57 AM The two extremes towards which Obama is sliding..... Model one: before he was married to her, Richard Nixon used to drive Pat Nixon to dates with other men. Model two: the emperor Augustus let the senate talk away and say what it liked, but eventually he decided they were worthless, and did what he wanted anyway. Which will it be.......? yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: Peter T. Date: 29 Jan 09 - 10:06 AM Glenn Greenwald at Salon has it exactly right: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/29/armey/ yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: CarolC Date: 29 Jan 09 - 10:20 AM I think he understands that he's not playing to the Republicans in Congress. His attempts at bipartisanship and his ability to keep the tone civil and even respectful (at least out in the open), is appreciated by the majority of people who vote. I think that's part of what got him elected. So as I said, he keeps things on the high ground and he comes out smelling good. They take it down into the muck and they come out smelling pretty bad. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the things they gave up in the stimulus package were just put there as bargaining chips, and they didn't really expect those items to get passed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: dick greenhaus Date: 29 Jan 09 - 12:25 PM Kendall- Two basic classes of non-taxpayers: the very rich and the unemployed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: Peter T. Date: 29 Jan 09 - 06:22 PM This is from Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), speaking about the stimulus at the Heritage Foundation: The stimulus bill that is being championed by President Obama, which was passed by Democrats in the House last night, is the worst piece of economic legislation Congress has considered in a hundred years. Not since the passage in 1909 of the 16th Amendment -- which cleared the way for a federal income tax -- has the United States seriously entertained a policy so comprehensively hostile to economic freedom, nor so arrogantly indifferent to economic reality... This bill is not a stimulus, ladies and gentlemen; it is a mugging. It is a fraud. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: Amos Date: 29 Jan 09 - 06:34 PM "Boehner and his colleagues pushed for a return to Bushonomics. "We have said let's do tax cuts, let's let the American people make the decisions on how they'll spend the money," said Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL), on CNBC earlier this week."That will stimulate the economy more than bringing all that money to Washington and then distributing it out in all sorts of government programs." The alternative proposed by House Republicans yesterday, which was defeated 266-170, was composed almost entirely of tax cuts. "These are the same people who told us the Bush tax cuts were going to lead to nirvana," said Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) in response to the conservative focus on tax cuts. On MSNBC yesterday, one of the most prominent proponents of the tax-cut-only approach, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), complained that the Democrats' recovery plan would take "America in a new direction." Though conservatives might be happy to be free from the "burden" of President Bush, they still seem to be longing for his failed economic policies. SAME OLD ARGUMENTS: In 2001 and 2003, Bush pushed massive tax cuts through Congress, claiming that they were "vital" to boosting the economy and creating jobs. Though Bush initially sold his 2001 tax cut by insisting "that the federal government was running an excessive budget surplus," he quickly changed his argument as the economy worsened, claiming they would be "a form of demand-side economic stimulus." "The economy has slowed down, in which case we need to accelerate tax cuts," Bush said in a March 2001 radio address. "You see, tax relief will put money in people's pockets, which will help give the economy a second wind." "By ensuring that Americans have more to spend, to save and to invest, this legislation is adding fuel to an economic recovery," announced Bush in 2003, as he signed his tax cut legislation. "We have taken aggressive action to strengthen the foundation of our economy so that every American who wants to work will be able to find a job." BUSH'S TAX CUTS DIDN'T WORK: Before he left office this past month, Bush told he U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce that "when people take a look back at this moment in our economic history, they'll recognize tax cuts work." But the fact is that they didn't. As Center for American Progress Senior Fellows Christian Weller and John Halpin noted in 2006, the outcome of the 2001 tax cuts was "the weakest employment growth in decades." The 2003 tax cuts didn't fare much better, resulting in job creation that was "well below historical averages." When Bush's White House proposed the 2003 cuts, they promised that it would add 5.5 million new jobs between June 2003 and the end of 2004. But "by the end of 2004, there were only 2.6 million more jobs than in June 2003." As Paul Krugman has pointed out, the belief that Bush's tax cuts successfully stimulated the economy is a form of mythology. CAP's Michael Ettlinger and John Irons wrote in September, "Economic growth as measured by real U.S. gross domestic product was stronger following the tax increases of 1993 than in the two supply-side eras" that followed Reagan's 1981 tax cuts and Bush's 2001 tax cuts. Indeed, employment growth was much stronger post-1993 than post-2001. The average annual employment growth was 2.5 percent after 1993 and just 0.6 percent after 2001. Unfortunately, the supply-side myth that tax cuts cure all still lives on today, as conservatives complain about progressive approaches to fixing the mess left by Bush Administration.: (Progressive) Yes, we're for change!! We want to change back to the fgaile dpolicies of yesteryear again!!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: CarolC Date: 29 Jan 09 - 06:41 PM Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), complained that the Democrats' recovery plan would take "America in a new direction." LOLOL Apparently he wasn't listening to the voters when they spoke in November. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: pdq Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:07 PM "This bill is not a stimulus, ladies and gentlemen; it is a mugging. It is a fraud." Are those words from Mudcat's Peter T. or are they from Senator Jim DeMint? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:09 PM To paraphrase an old adage, "Spend in haste, repent at leisure." Instead of fixing the system, it looks like we're just going to paper it over. Sorry to say, GWB set the example for Pres. Obama. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: Amos Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:31 PM I think on inspection you will find imporant difference, John. Accountabilty, for one; Obama is threatening to make the Wall Street execs refund their bonuses paid for failing; Bush would never have dreamed of such a move. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: Ron Davies Date: 29 Jan 09 - 08:41 PM "This bipartisan thing is absurd". Ah, now it becomes clear. "Obama Honeymoon Lasts 3 Days" should have read "Obama Honeymoon Lasts 3 Days With Me". So the thread title is a bit misleading, to say the least. For the rest of the country, it looks like it will be considerably longer. Bipartisanship--an end to the endless partisan wrangling--and resulting gridlock--was one of Obama's main appeals. If the poster is advocating a return to the GWB approach of only trying to appeal to your own party--stuff everybody else--he is in the distinct minority. Fortunately. Actually, far from ending the Obama honeymoon, even Congressional Republicans are very careful to not blame Obama for what they see as bad policy. They blame Congressional Democrats--in fact they are trying to drive a wedge between the popular President and Congressional Democrats. ( Check the approval rating for the House) Obama's response: I support the House Democrats' plan. In addition, as I pointed out earlier, the originator of the thread shows remarkable political naivete. It never was realistic that Obama would get many Republican votes in the House for the stimulus bill. Primarily because both parties have sought to create safe seats for their members--and been quite successful in this. So in the House, compromise is mainly punished by voters, not rewarded. And the punishment is handed out every 2 years. So Members keep an ear to the ground constantly. In the Senate it's a vastly different story. As we will see shortly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 29 Jan 09 - 08:56 PM Amos, all the executive bonus and perk returns will amount to a thimble full of water from Lake Superior. However, it is a very good symbolic gesture. Makes us prols believe something substantive is being done. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: Peter T. Date: 29 Jan 09 - 10:01 PM the mugging quote is from the Senator.... My naivete is not the issue. Obama's may be.....we will see. Amos' posting makes the eloquent point that the people Obama is trying to be bipartisan with are troglodytic evangelical marketers, and are unreachable. Compromising with them equals losing. yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: Ron Davies Date: 30 Jan 09 - 09:58 PM "troglodytic..." That ain't the way to win friends and influence people. In fact it sounds remarkably like what GWB used to do--demonize the opposition. Obama is smarter than that--and smarter than the true believers on the Left urging that self-defeating posture. As I said, the House is vastly different from the Senate. Compromise is coming. And the final bill may well get House Republican votes--as long as Obama doesn't take the advice coming from the Left on Mudcat on this thread and others. You guys should listen to the Stones more often--specifically "You Can't Always Get What You Want". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: Riginslinger Date: 30 Jan 09 - 10:02 PM Now that Michael Steele is the chairman of the Republican party, who's court is the ball in? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: Ebbie Date: 30 Jan 09 - 10:03 PM In conversation last night we agreed that dubya Bush turned out to be the Uniter after all. 'Most everbuddy is glad he is gone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: Ron Davies Date: 31 Jan 09 - 12:05 AM Ebbie-- Are they glad in Alaska that GWB is gone? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: Ebbie Date: 31 Jan 09 - 03:34 AM I really don't know, Ron. I live in Juneau, and Juneau is much more liberal than most of the state. Suffice it to say that just about everybody I know is ecstatic about it. The other evening, however, in passing the apartment manager (recently from Seattle)I mentioned that I was off to a house party, a 'Going Away' party. She said, Oh, are you leaving? I said, No. But Bush is. She said, Oh, I like Bush. I didn't have time to ask her Why? but just said back breezily, Well, I'm glad that someone does. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: CarolC Date: 31 Jan 09 - 03:41 AM I'm starting to see a certain amount of elegance in Obama's approach on this stimulus bill. He seriously courted the votes of Republicans and he and the House made a lot of concessions as a part of that effort. Not one Republican voted for the bill. This accomplishes two things. One, people can see that Obama did make the effort, and he didn't try to ram the bill down the throats of Republicans without making any compromises, and two, now that the Republicans have shown that they won't vote for it anyway, Democrats are free to change it to be more to their liking before passing it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: Peter T. Date: 31 Jan 09 - 06:16 AM All I know is that it is a dangerous game. The truth is that all this free market, small government, tax cut stuff is over. The people walking around -- like the Wall Streeters giving themselves massive bonuses -- are dead, and they don't know it yet. The next year is going to pulverize them into tiny shards. The only thing between them and being strung up on lampposts will ironically enough be Obama. yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: CarolC Date: 31 Jan 09 - 06:29 AM Maybe. Although I think he genuinely wanted to bring Republicans on board with this legislation. So I don't think he was trying to get the particular outcome that he got. But sometimes a person just sticks to the high road and does what's right, and anyone who tries to take advantage of the vulnerabilities this presents just ends up hurting him or herself in the end. That's one of the things that makes Obama so effective, and is why he has the approval that he does among the electorate in this country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: Peter T. Date: 31 Jan 09 - 05:42 PM The classic American president who tried to save the rich from themselves was Teddy Roosevelt, and they never got the message -- they were Republicans of his own party!! -- and they booted him out the first chance they got. yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: CarolC Date: 31 Jan 09 - 05:54 PM Yeah. It will be interesting to see how the Republicans try to morph themselves into something that can get elected during the next few years, and what form that will take (on the surface). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: Ebbie Date: 31 Jan 09 - 08:49 PM Dang. So often I simply don't understant what people are saying. "Booted him out the first chance they got"? What does that mean? Teddy Roosevelt served as president for two terms. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: Peter T. Date: 01 Feb 09 - 06:56 AM It's true, I was wrong the way I said it. Roosevelt was stupid enough on the evening of his victory to pledge that he wouldn't run again. But the reason he bolted the party was that he could make no progressive headway among his own Republicans. yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: Amos Date: 01 Feb 09 - 09:43 AM "...We also now know conclusively that the larger Bush tax cuts, besides running up record deficits and exacerbating income inequality, were also at best a placebo on our road to ruin. In a January survey of economists, including former McCain advisers like Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Mark Zandi, The Washington Post determined that the job growth the Bush administration kept bragging about ("52 straight months!") was a mirage inflated by the housing bubble. Job growth — about 2 percent — was in fact the most tepid of any eight-year period "since data collection began seven decades ago." Gross domestic product grew at a slower pace than in any eight years since the Truman administration. But even if tax cuts alone could jump-start a recovery, they couldn't do the heavy lifting that Obama has promised and the country desperately needs: a down payment on a new economy to replace our dilapidated 20th-century model and bring back long-term growth. The Republicans don't acknowledge the need for this transformation, or debate it in good conscience, preferring instead to hyperventilate over the contraceptives in a small family-planning program since removed from the stimulus bill. All it takes is the specter of condoms for the party of Vitter, Foley and Craig to go gaga. The Republicans' other preoccupation remains Rush Limbaugh, who is by default becoming their de facto leader. While most Americans are fearing fear itself, G.O.P. politicians are tripping over themselves in morbid terror of Rush. These pratfalls commenced after Obama casually told some Republican congressmen (correctly) that they won't "get things done" if they take their orders from Limbaugh. That's all the stimulus the big man needed to go on a new bender of self-aggrandizement. He boasted that Obama is "more frightened" of him than he is of the Republican leaders in the House or Senate. He said of the new president, "I hope he fails." Obama no doubt finds Limbaugh's grandiosity more amusing than frightening, but G.O.P. politicians are shaking like Jell-O. When asked by Andrea Mitchell of NBC News on Wednesday if he shared Limbaugh's hope that Obama fails, Eric Cantor spun like a top before running off, as it happened, to appear on Limbaugh's radio show. Mike Pence of Indiana, No. 3 in the Republican House leadership, similarly squirmed when asked if he agreed with Limbaugh. Though the Republicans' official, poll-driven line is that they want Obama to succeed, they'd rather abandon that disingenuous nicety than cross Rush. Most pathetic of all was Phil Gingrey, a right-wing Republican congressman from Georgia, who mildly criticized both Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to Politico because they "stand back and throw bricks" while lawmakers labor in the trenches. So many called Gingrey's office to complain that the poor congressman begged Limbaugh to bring him on air to publicly recant on Wednesday. As Gingrey abjectly apologized to talk radio's commandant for his "stupid comments" and "foot-in-mouth disease," he sounded like the inmate in a B-prison-movie cowering before the warden after a failed jailbreak. "It's up to me to hijack the Obama honeymoon," Limbaugh soon gloated, "and I've done it." In his dreams. He has hijacked what's left of the Republican Party; the Obama honeymoon remains intact. The nightmare is that we have so irrelevant, clownish and childish an opposition party at a moment when America is in an all-hands-on-deck emergency that's as trying as war. To paraphrase a dictum that has been variously attributed to two of our most storied leaders in times of great challenge, Thomas Paine and George Patton, the Republicans should either lead, follow or get out of the grown-ups' way...."(NYT) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: Peter T. Date: 01 Feb 09 - 12:10 PM get out of the grown-up's way is right. (Put away childish things....). Years of too much money make you stupid and careless....(the Bible's reason why the rich don't always have it their own way..... my favorite muckraker is at it again today. Glenn Greenwald on the disgusting Tom Daschle: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/01/daschle/ (Just to show we don't play Democratic favorites around here.....) yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: Peter T. Date: 02 Feb 09 - 05:20 PM The Bipartisan Ship continues sinking with each passing day. And this is long before they get to health care! yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: Bobert Date: 02 Feb 09 - 05:50 PM Well, like Carol, I am impressed with the way that Obama is dealing with the Republicans and they absolutely hate it... This is why John "Bonehead" Bayner (sp) told 'um to "jus' say no" before Obama even sat down with them... That was stupid on the Repubs part... It made the Repubs look petty and playin' only to the Rush Limbaugh'ers... Since when was a political party run by a conservative talk show guy... Usually the other way around but seems that the Repubs have relinquished that power to Rush... Meanwhile, Obama rides above all that crap that American peoplesay they are sick of and he looks like the real deal when it comes to changing the tone in Washington... Obama has won this round and the Repubs, at least in the House, have blown an opportunity 'cause if their goal is to get back in power, this dog won't hunt... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: CarolC Date: 02 Feb 09 - 06:47 PM So now I guess we'll get to see how Obama handles Israel's declared intention to attack Iran within the next year... http://news.antiwar.com/2009/01/30/israeli-envoy-attack-on-gaza-a-preintroduction-to-attack-on-iran/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: Ebbie Date: 03 Feb 09 - 12:53 AM "Roosevelt was stupid enough on the evening of his victory to pledge that he wouldn't run again. But the reason he bolted the party was that he could make no progressive headway among his own Republicans." Peter T I still don't quite understand you. The way I remember it is that a couple of years after his two terms T. Roosevelt ran again, this time on the Progressive Party ticket which he formed after the Republican party went with Taft to run against Wilson. Let's see- here is a leading to an article: "In 1912 there were 12 states with Republican direct presidential primaries. Bob LaFollette won North Dakota and his uncontested home state, Wisconsin. President Taft won Massachusetts by a small margin. Theodore Roosevelt won in California, Illinois, Maryland, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, nine out of 12 primaries. Roosevelt's victories in the nine states were landslides , except in Maryland. "TR carried California over Taft by a margin of almost two to one. He swept Illinois by more than two to one, and his margins in South Dakota and Nebraska were more than three to one. In Taft's home state of Ohio, the vote was LaFollete 15,570, Taft 118,362, TR 165,809. The total vote cast in all primaries was LaFollete 351,043, Taft 761,716, Roosevelt 1,157,397. Senator LaFollette won a total of 36 delegates in the primaries; the voters awarded President Taft 48 delegates; and Theodore Roosevelt won 278 delegates in the primaries. "The voice of the people" was clear in the Republican primaries. But the voters were not allowed to "speak" in most states.This was the first year in which there were presidential primaries. The primary system had developed on the state level for state offices from the 1890s on, and in 1912 presidential primaries were introduced, often promoted by supporters of TR. "But some 36 states had no direct popular Republican primary. In these states delegates were chosen by state conventions, and delegates to state conventions were usually chosen in local conventions. It was a system easily dominated by professional politicians, particularly in the South where there were few Republicans but many delegates. Republicans in the South were often simply federal officeholders, such as postmasters and revenue collectors. "Rough politics was nothing new , but in 1912 records were set for riot, rough house, fraud, and dispute. The end result was that in many states contesting delegates claimed the same seats. Some 254 delegate seats to the Republican convention were contested. "The Republican National Committee, dominated by President Taft's supporters, had the power to decide the delegate disputes. Incidentally, of the 53 members of that committee, 15 had not been elected delegates to the convention in 1912, and four came from US territorial possessions and 10 from Southern states, areas where GOP politics was completely controlled by presidential patronage. these three groups accounted for 29 members of the Republican National Committee-- a majority. Of the 254 contested seats, TR was awarded 19 and President Taft was given 235. "About the best that could be said for the GOP adjudication process was that Taft had stolen a majority "fair and square." That is to say, what was done was probably legal , if barely so in many delegate cases. But there were no law suits and trials. The courts seldom got involved in party disputes in those days. "A loss of 22 delegates would have denied Taft the nomination on the first ballot. The conclusion seemed obvious to Roosevelt's supporters at the Republican national convention in Chicago in June 1912. The Chicago Tribune printed a banner headline: "THOU SHALT NOT STEAL." "Most of Roosevelt's delegates walked out of the Republican convention and held a mass meeting, where it was decided to bolt the Republican Party and found a new party. Roosevelt agreed to lead a new party if nominated . In August 1912 the national convention of the new Progressive Party met in Chicago, and nominated TR for President and Governor Hiram W. Johnson of California for Vice President. "In November the Republicans for the first and only time in history came in third in both the popular and electoral vote for President. TR came in second, and because of the split in the normal Republican vote, Democrat Woodrow Wilson was elected. "Never again would any political party decline to nominate the clear winner of the presidential primaries, and by the 1970s the primary system entirely controlled the nominating process. Theodore Roosevelt won the Republican primaries in 1912, and then lost the nomination and the election. Wilson won the election in November. "But the real winner in 1912 was democracy in the form of the presidential primaries. By running and losing, by refusing to be counted out by party leaders when the voters had spoken first, Theodore Roosevelt had firmly established the new primary system." In connection with a history project I used to do a lot of research on Teddy Roosevelt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: Ebbie Date: 03 Feb 09 - 02:07 AM link |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: Peter T. Date: 03 Feb 09 - 04:11 AM Like I said, I was wrong the first time around. Your article confirms what I said the second time around -- he couldn't win his own Republicans because they wouldn't go with him. I didn't say that he had immense trouble throughout his two terms dealing with his own party. He was a Progressive among dinosaurs (progressive in spots). At least Franklin was a Democrat..... yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: Peter T. Date: 03 Feb 09 - 04:32 PM Tom Daschle goes down. To repeat myself, the truth is that all this carelessness, this who gives a shit about the underclass, is over -- maybe not in truth, but in perception. The people walking around -- like the Wall Streeters giving themselves massive bonuses -- are dead, and they don't know it yet. The next year is going to pulverize them into tiny shards. The only thing between them and being strung up on lampposts will ironically enough be Obama. Except that Daschle just got his own lamppost. yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: GUEST,coyote breath w/o cookie Date: 03 Feb 09 - 05:08 PM I love the intelligent level of most of these posts. Thoughtful. Reasoned. So I'd like to interject my usual half-baked take on things. A joke on Leno: "the four words we have all been waiting to hear: Former President George Bush." that sums it up for me. and then this: is TARP an anagram for TRAP? Is any one surprised that some of the "bail-out billions" went to executive bonuses? Long ago, my family was rescued by FDR. I have NEVER considered Republicans to be anything but my enemy, trying constantly, to diminish the quality of life for the average person and advance the fortunes of their friends at our expense. F--K the Bozos! CB |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: Art Thieme Date: 03 Feb 09 - 06:25 PM I'm with C.B. on this. He or she said it all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: Sawzaw Date: 03 Feb 09 - 11:44 PM Come on Amos, you have to put the shine back on your boy's halo. So far the only thing he has come through on is signing an order to close Gitmo. Only problem is he don't know what to do with the detainees and he ain't about to let them go. What is the difference between Obama spending money we don't have to redecorate when America is going broke and John Thain redecorating when BOA is going broke? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: Ebbie Date: 03 Feb 09 - 11:52 PM Sawzaw, where were you and your mouth when the Republicans were spending borrowed money? And tell me, sir, what do we have to show for it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: CarolC Date: 04 Feb 09 - 12:43 AM What did Obama redecorate? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: Amos Date: 04 Feb 09 - 01:51 AM Sawz: You're simply making false satements, not providing sources, and flapping your oversized mouh, as usual. What proposition are you making, if any? What facts are you reporting? Your unreason is beyond dialogue, honestly. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama Honeymoon lasts 3 days From: Nigel Parsons Date: 04 Feb 09 - 02:57 AM Number of days 'Honeymoon' the President should expect? 100 |
