Hmmm.. McCain went to Columbia and freed the hostages there. Maybe Obama can free... oh wait. They're all free over there already. Reagan did that 20 years ago.

[tongue firmly in cheek if you can't guess]

Posted at July 11, 2008 11:22 AM in response to More On The Bush Administration's Opposition To Obama Speaking At Brandenburg Gate

No surprise to me either.

Most Dem's who are not active in the party apparatus are feeling disenfranchised. The party has not represented them, going along with approving conservative judges, allowing Bush to do as he pleases, and in general reinforcing the (mis?)conception that they are also a party of the corporations that is ruled top down instead of bottom up. Two years ago when I asked our town Dem Committee chair who she liked for the primary to challenge the incumbernt Repub US Rep she told me "I don't know, 'they' haven't told us yet."

Republicans are under threat. Remember that the repub MO greatest campaign tactic is fear. And it works best on the dopes who usually vote for them. They're being told they're under threat (they are) so they're responding with cash.

My advice to Obama is get on the stick and get the unregistered and registered but non-voting folks. These are the people turned off by the "system" and that you've so successfully motivated in the primaries. By moving to the middle you're alienating your base and guess what - you're not going to get any substantial numbers of disaffeceted Rebubicans. They're going to swallow hard and vote for McSame just as disaffected Dems are going to swallow hard and vore Obama.

And before you go off with the trolling accusations, I am registered to vote with no party affiliation (here in NH that's "unenrolled" not "independent".) I'll vote for Obama if it's close in my state. Otherwise Nader's the one who advocates for most if not all of what I believe. And, if you'll look at his positions, for what the "Democratic" party "stands for." Or "stood for" when they used to actually stand for something. Whoops, I'm venturing into troll territory there.

Posted at July 7, 2008 7:43 AM in response to RNC Retains $50 Million Cash Advantage Over DNC

Gas prices per gallon:

April 2008 = $3.40

June 2008 = $3.80

August 2008 = $4.20

September 2008 = $3.60

October 2008 = $3.00

November 2008 (thru election day) = $2.60

December 2008 = $4.40

Happens every time and we, or a good percentage of us, fall for it.

Posted at April 26, 2008 9:53 AM in response to Hillary Hits Airwaves In Indiana: "With Gas This Expensive, Talk Is Cheap"

The next third party candidate who garners any significant support will be one who provides an alternitive to the Democratic and the Republican wings of the Corporate party. I.e. a candidate who could be loosely be defined as a "populist".

In such a case, several of your proposed platform planks are non-starters, even detriments. For example:

"Tax[ing] consumption and not income," in which the majority of workers will pay taxes on all of their income but the super rich will pay on only a portion of their income, will be perceived (as it actually is) as a shift of the tax burden down.

"Turning illegals into citizens" will be perceived (as it actually is) as giving corporations a new pool of legal (as opposed to illegal) low wage workers, taking more jobs and further lowering wages for the majority of Americans.

"Give all workers wage insurance to mitigate globalization's impacts" will be perceived (as it actually is) as a continuation of the Free Trade policies that are a major cause of American job losses to low wage overseas workers.

Sorry...

Posted at June 14, 2007 9:48 AM in response to Presidential Politics

Sure, but banks make a few percent. Health care insurers make 10 time that. Ya can do without a bank. Not without a doctor.

Posted at April 6, 2007 6:27 PM in response to DO GO ON, CONGRESSMAN

Valdron, YOU'RE the one with the excellent post. Incredibly clear analysis of the DLC proposal. Count me as suitable impressed. My subsequent copying of your agruments will prove that.

Posted at April 6, 2007 6:22 PM in response to DO GO ON, CONGRESSMAN

Personally, although I disagree with almost everything the DLC stands for, I think this is one of the best conversations and opportunities I've seen in a long time.

Sure is. But is seems to be a conversation between us. I thought some guy named Ford was supposed to participate.

And I thank Mr. Ford for exposing himself to the abuse.

If by exposing himself to it you mean reading it two days later, then I agree. Tuesday he posted and never came back. Same today.

-insert witty and snide remark here-

Posted at April 5, 2007 11:18 AM in response to Common Ground Found

And we know how well THAT worked out.

Posted at April 5, 2007 10:38 AM in response to Common Ground Found

Wrong in so many ways... let's deconstruct as an exercise:

Mr. Ford was an elected Congressman. Are there a lot of other elected officials on this thread?

Heck, no. Even Mr. Ford is not on this thread.

The DLC has elected a President. Have you?

No, but we can keep one from being elected. That is something you should keep in mind. It is only due to the monumental incompetence and evil of the current republican party alternitive that we don't.

It is not liberals who have a problem with the DLC it is the far Left.

Somehow I never thought of the TPM community in that way. How about it people, are we the "far Left"?

The society of increasing dependency that Reagan used to bash is way into office is what the DLC opposes.

Individual dependency yes. Corporate dependency, well, honestly, no. When I was born corporate taxes accounted for half of federal taxe income. Today is it about a third of that. When one of the DLC platform planks is "End Corporate Welfare" then you can come back at me with that statement.

Like Clinton the DLC provides a policy forum to support government programs that do not solve lifes great problems but are a catalyst to make people's lives better.

Now you're talking in generalities to obfuscate the issue. Solving an individual's problems IS the responsibility of the individual. Recognize however, that there are problems, both "great problems" and some not, that an individual, or even local or statewide groups, can not solve. Such problems require national (and some international) efforts. I propose that one function of government is precisely that, to solve these types of problems.

Oh yeah, if government ends up also being a "catalyist" that would also be a good thing.

The conduct of the war in Iraq has been mind boggling inept and been accompanied by unconscionable lying and lack of demand of shared sacrifice.

Red herring. Wazzat have to do with this discussion (which I take it is now "DLC - Pro or Con")

However, the DLC recognized that radical Islam both Shiite and Sunni are dangerous, that the U.S. is not to blame for the world's ills, that trade makes poor people better off.

Sure, just not our poor people. And it makes everyone else here (except the multinational corporations) worse off.

Ooops, sorry, now I lied. Trade (more precisely DLC supported "free trade") ALSO makes the poor people in our less economically developed partners worse off. Witness that since NAFTA Mexican poverty has more than doubled. My statement about who the winners are (look at the DNC donor and member list) stands.

The DLC is the Democratic Party as created by Roosevelt and Truman and Kennedy but recognized that we are not in a depression. That most of our people have jobs, houses, even college and health insurance.

"Most of our people... " So THAT makes it OK? Most of our people are treading water or falling behind, economic mobility has all but disappeared (except for downward), the examples go on and on. That's like saying "YOUR end of the boat is sinking" to them. To put in a way that Harold might get behind "What you do to the least of us you do to me".

Posted at April 4, 2007 6:02 PM in response to In Search of Common Ground

Almost three hours and no replies or discussion from our esteemed guest?

[blond holds up hand in phone gesture]
"Harold? Call me!"

Posted at April 3, 2007 10:43 AM in response to In Search of Common Ground