SDS

If the charge about Republicans being "stupid" has merit - this is where it has some traction. As soon as W said he wanted to be prez - someone needed to pull him aside and tell him "no". Instead, they put all their political capital behind this guy. If the party wanted a family insider then Jeb was the guy. Jeb was Micheal. George was Fredo. Even then - after all the anger, after all the money, after the fall of the stock market, after running a terrible campaign - McCain may only lose by 4-7 points in the popular vote. Truly remarkable.

I could write for hours on this particular subject, but I doubt I could capture my thoughts eloquently and sufficiently enough to truly reflect my viewpoint. Given that - I'll just throw out some scattered thoughts. 1. The problem was W should have never have been nominated in 2000. It was widely regarded that if a Bush boy was going to run for office, Jeb Bush was the one that was presidential material. When W disclosed to the family that he wanted to run, Jeb stepped aside out of respect for him. Of course, the way the party nominates its candidates is backasswards. The whole "next in line" philosophy pisses me off. 2. It is impossible to know what Gore would have done during 9/11. Obama's victory will be painted in many ways, but I think once you dive into the numbers - you will see this to be an anger vote. This vote was against W and not for Obama's policy positions. The public could be just as angry with the way Gore handled the situation as the way W handled it. Any rationale analysis of this election cycle, given the war, given the economy, given an absurdly unpopular president - and John McCain was actually winning this race about 6 weeks ago is utterly astounding. If the credit crisis started next week, you may be looking at an entirely different outcome. I think it speaks to the weakness of a victory that on paper is very impressive. This ocean is wide, but an inch deep right now. To answer your question - I'm not sure it was worth it, but it was inevitable. The Republican Party has lost it's way and I look forward to it's re-emergence as a stronger party based upon it's governing principles. The electorate is with them on the issues. The internals will bear this out. America just elected an undefined candidate that ran on Reaganesque rhetoric and a tax cut. Obama out Republicaned the so-called Republican. W ushered in the house cleaning sooner than normal, but that is what happens to all politicians - they get corrupted. It was only 4 years ago when we talked about the permanent Republican majority. The country has not changed that much in 4 years. I look forward to saying goodbye to the republican leadership just as I looked forward to saying goodbye to them back in 1994. The party will get back to basics and continue to win the debates our country engages in.

This actually has more value than the similar any thread that Molson posted.

Stojan

Same here... Been waiting for the notice since I got a notice, then had it taken back, back in May.

Shameless plug: We have redesigned SabreSpace, so that TBD & SS have the same feel. It should make your Buffalo sports reading a little more familiar. http://www.sabrespace.com/

No - he didn't. He made a handful of bad plays that cost us 13 points and probably the game. However, there was an awful lot of good in there. The passing game moves very well - even w/o a running game.

Actually, more for a party. It is fairly well established that the more local the election the more the individual matters and the more national the election the more that the party matters. Voting for Obama means voting for 10,000's of people you probably never heard of. It means appointing justices radically different if the other party was in control. The list goes on and on.

Dude - that's not 9/11 - that's herpes. Go get some Valtrex.

Obama - the silly puddy of national politics. He's everything you want him to be and nothing that he he really is.

friggin' moderates.

1) Constitution Party 94% 2) Libertarian Party 78% 3) Republican Party 56% 4) Reform Party 56% 5) Natural Law Party 22% 6) Green Party 22% 7) Democratic Party 11% The problem is most people wouldn't know the correct answer to some of those funding questions. So, it is hard to say whether there should be any movement one way or another.

It is very unfortunate that people will dismiss this. I understand the frustation of wanting Bush out of office and seeing your guy in there, but what has gone on in the Obama financial department is !@#$ed up. Can you just imagine the complete sh---storm that would occur if McCain had raised this much money - with a great deal of it suspected to be illegal contributions online? "Republicans try to steal the election!" "Republicans trying to buy the presidency!" "Republicans thwart democracy!" The Washington Post decided to run an article on page 2. Gee thanks. Nothing like the week before the election to scratch your head over a trillion dollars given in $25 amounts.

HEY! That's my autoresponder to anyone who emails me!

The Rich Stadium South comment was much more biting. Jim was mentioning home field advantage and how Buffalo and Elway in Denver really wanted it in the playoffs, when he said the Bills didn't care if they played in Miami because they just destroyed them every time they played there. Then he said they used to call it Rich Stadium South. It was quite the Miami smackdown.

As I stated in my other post in this tread - he was complicit. But to say "Bush raised taxes" is utterly disingenuous with respect to what happened during that budget showdown. George Mitchell threatened to shut down the govt. if Bush didn't cave into his tax increase proposals. Bush blinked. He tried to work with Democrats and was forced out of office because of it. How the democrats got off the hook for that tax increase is beyond me. From the NYTimes: Instead, they savaged Bush for breaking his pledge...

No, but look for a push to have DC become the 51st state (or an entity with all the political power of a state w/o the official designation).

My images are being served very slowly in FF on my mac. Is anyone else experiencing this?

BE SURE TO DRINK YOUR OVALTINE

I suppose it could have been my "change you can believe in line", but I was just borrowing the line, not actually referring to Obama.

oh, and for what's it's worth - I fully expect that any nickel I get from the feds will be a down payment on what Gov. O'Malley will do to us in MD.

Ummm, who said anything about Obama anywhere in my post? Seriously...

Why? Because the democrats that rule Howard County in MD raised our taxes the same year. When challenged on this tax increase - their response was (I can't remember if it was the County Exec or a board member): "Don't complain because your federal taxes are lower, so you really aren't paying any more in taxes..." Now THAT is the kind of change you can believe in! That dude deserved a beer for saying that.

No, I think congressional democrats are going to raise them and Obama is not going to stand in their way. Some would argue there isn't a difference, but I think there is. Personally, my opinion is that this is what is going to happen. Obviously, I don't know that to be the case. But my point still stands, the fact that we have Republicans and Democrats arguing over who will cut taxes more is a victory for those praying for some sort of governmental restraint. It's now just a matter if they are willing to walk the walk...

yeah, I'm not sure what that has to do with my post... but, please don't compare Bush2 to Reagan. I doubt anyone on the right puts them in the same category. And one correction - Bush1 didn't raise taxes. At best he was complicit with George Mitchell and the Democrat congress in agreeing to a budget written by George Mitchell - Democrat Majority Leader of the Senate. George Mitchell was responsible for that tax hike and Bush1 didn't realize that his willingness to compromise with congressional democrats was what they needed him to do to ensure his defeat in 1992.