MattZ Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 The less government does, the better. Especially with some of these bills that have come down the pipeline recently. Windfall profits tax??? Ridiculous. That's just one example. That bill was proposed precisely so that it would fail (or the president would veto it). Dem strategy to paint the Republicans as the party of Big Oil. Of course, I am not sure which way that cuts in this argument. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 The less government does, the better. Especially with some of these bills that have come down the pipeline recently. Windfall profits tax??? Ridiculous. That's just one example. Okay. Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 That bill was proposed precisely so that it would fail (or the president would veto it). Dem strategy to paint the Republicans as the party of Big Oil. Of course, I am not sure which way that cuts in this argument. Right. Because the obvious solution to our rising fuel costs is to punitively punish and vilify the one industry that actually provides the fuel we need. Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 Right. Because the obvious solution to our rising fuel costs is to punitively punish and vilify the one industry that actually provides the fuel we need. No, I think you missed the point. The point is that this was never meant to be a solution to anything. The Dems knew they didnt have the votes to get the law passed. And Bush would have vetoed it if they did have the votes. So, this entire exercise was academic. The Dems knew they wouldn't be punishing or vilifying the oil companies. They were punishing and vilifying the Republicans. Again, in the context of whether this is a good or bad or inept Congress, I don't know which way this cuts. Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 No, I think you missed the point. The point is that this was never meant to be a solution to anything. The Dems knew they didnt have the votes to get the law passed. And Bush would have vetoed it if they did have the votes. So, this entire exercise was academic. The Dems knew they wouldn't be punishing or vilifying the oil companies. They were punishing and vilifying the Republicans. Again, in the context of whether this is a good or bad or inept Congress, I don't know which way this cuts. No, I understand what you're saying. I just think it's stupid either way. The political gamesmanship of it all added to the fact that any way you slice it, the Dems are trying their hardest to blame the oil companies for all that ails us (whether through the Republican party or not). Punishing and vilifying the Republicans for "supporting" oil companies means the same thing. Link to post Share on other sites
fatheadfred Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 Who on this mofo thinks Hillary will not be the VP, why? I don't think there is a way they can lose with her, but without her the chances are much slimmer? She can tap the lower SES white vote, female vote, hispanic vote. Done. Stick a fork in McCain. Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 Who on this mofo thinks Hillary will not be the VP, why? I don't think there is a way they can lose with her, but without her the chances are much slimmer? She can tap the lower SES white vote, female vote, hispanic vote. Done. Stick a fork in McCain. Social critic Camille Paglia summed it up (sort of amusingly) thusly: Link to post Share on other sites
Moe_Syzlak Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 I think it might bring in SOME Hillary supporters (I think most will get on the Obama bandwagon soon enough anyway), it would do FAR MORE, imo, to mobilize the opposition to get out and vote for McCain. While support for McCain on the right is luke warm, hatred for Hillary is scalding hot. Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 Who on this mofo thinks Hillary will not be the VP, why? I don't think there is a way they can lose with her, but without her the chances are much slimmer? She can tap the lower SES white vote, female vote, hispanic vote. Done. Oh please, oh please, oh please. Link to post Share on other sites
ih8music Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 Hillary as VP might be a good move for winning the presidency - no question that she has many, many supporters - but it would be a horrible move IMO for Obama w/rt running his presidency. As stated above, she's not the type to play 2nd fiddle... and Bill would undoubtedly stick his nose in places where it doesn't belong. (get your head out of the gutter) Link to post Share on other sites
fatheadfred Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 Hillary as VP might be a good move for winning the presidency - no question that she has many, many supporters - but it would be a horrible move IMO for Obama w/rt running his presidency. As stated above, she's not the type to play 2nd fiddle... and Bill would undoubtedly stick his nose in places where it doesn't belong. (get your head out of the gutter) Totally agree. Feel bad for the Obama to be put in that box, but it may be inevitable. Link to post Share on other sites
ih8music Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 I find it pretty amusing that Hillary might be disqualified as a VP candidate because of the vetting process that Obama's team is putting her & Bill through. So Bill's recent business dealings were perfectly fine when he was the spouse of the presidential candidate, but they're now an issue that might prevent him from being the spouse of the vice-presidential candidate? Link to post Share on other sites
fatheadfred Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 I find it pretty amusing that Hillary might be disqualified as a VP candidate because of the vetting process that Obama's team is putting her & Bill through. So Bill's recent business dealings were perfectly fine when he was the spouse of the presidential candidate, but they're now an issue that might prevent him from being the spouse of the vice-presidential candidate? Never thought of it that way. Good point. I forgot to add the old Dems. to the population of voters for Hillary. And come to think of it, Hillary probably doesn't want the VP. Her shot at president could only be after 4 years. If she waited 2 terms she would be 69-70 y.o. I recall her wanting McCain to win, to enable her next bid in 4. It comes down to a decision of ego or the party's needs. Link to post Share on other sites
Beltmann Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 Who on this mofo thinks Hillary will not be the VP, why? I don't think there is a way they can lose with her, but without her the chances are much slimmer? She can tap the lower SES white vote, female vote, hispanic vote. Done. Stick a fork in McCain.I think Clinton does bring in votes (probably substantially more than any other potential choice), but it still comes at a very large cost: Selecting her would undercut Obama's entire reason for running in the first place. I'd be shocked if Obama agrees to this particular political calculation rather than take his chances without her, even if they are slimmer chances. Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 Key member of Obama's VP committee steps aside http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/11/obama.vp/index.html http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/?last_story.../james_johnson/ It Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cousin Tupelo Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Key member of Obama's VP committee steps aside I think the giant talking tree from the Lord of the Rings came closest to the truth when he said - "I am on nobody's side, because nobody is on my side." Agreed. Theres nothing like getting political wisdom from scraggly piece of wood. ... and I don't mean Ann Coulter. Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/11/w...n_n_106511.html Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 I think Clinton does bring in votes (probably substantially more than any other potential choice), but it still comes at a very large cost: Selecting her would undercut Obama's entire reason for running in the first place. I'd be shocked if Obama agrees to this particular political calculation rather than take his chances without her, even if they are slimmer chances.Yea not going to happen. The VP is going to be some establishment figure, maybe even someone with a military background.... LouieB Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 The obvious choice for VP is Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN). Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Any particular reason you say that other than latent racism? Just wondering. Link to post Share on other sites
Dreamin' Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/11/w...n_n_106511.html! Love the comments. Link to post Share on other sites
Garp Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 this is all very complicated (the posts, that is) Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 The VP is going to be some establishment figure, maybe even someone with a military background.... LouieBThere's a lot of yapping from the 'experts' about Wesley Clark, but I dunno. Someone like him would probably be a better choice as Sec. of Defense. Jim Webb intrigues me - he seems to be pretty solid, and could possibly help turn VA blue....which brings about a whole 'nother train of thought - the redrawing of the electoral map with these 2 candidates (Barack and McCain). Things could look a whole lot different this next time around (I hope). If Gore had thrown his hat in the ring 6 months ago this whole campaign would look vastly different right now. Carville was calling for him to get the VP nod today but that seems like an extremely remote possibility to me. Who knows? The talent pool is really high this time around me thinks. This really is Barack's first big decision - I'm betting it will be an informed, responsible one. Link to post Share on other sites
mfwahl Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 I think it might bring in SOME Hillary supporters (I think most will get on the Obama bandwagon soon enough anyway), it would do FAR MORE, imo, to mobilize the opposition to get out and vote for McCain. While support for McCain on the right is luke warm, hatred for Hillary is scalding hot.agreed Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts