Tom Daschle considers bid for president

[stuckincincy]

Then don't criticize Mickey for being hypocritical either.  One could (and many do) make the same "wag the dog" arguments about Bush's use of military power.  You want Mickey to consistently paint people with the same brush...do it yourself.

573264[/snapback]

A difference, if I may say.. Billie-Boy launched rockets as he he faced a tribunal of impeachement. Georgie was the sitting CIC when 3K or so citizens were murdered on American soil...

[Chilly]

A difference, if I may say.. Billie-Boy launched rockets as he he faced a tribunal of impeachement. Georgie was the sitting CIC when 3K or so citizens were murdered on American soil...

573656[/snapback]

 

That might be the dumbest argument I've heard all day.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

That might be the dumbest argument I've heard all day.

573678[/snapback]

 

Particularly since Clinton was president when Americans were killed on American soil in the very attack that prompted the missile attack...

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I think the best of the early Dem candidates is Joe Biden. I've always liked his appearances on Meet the Press. He's got the plagarism thing in his background, but that was pretty bogus (not that it will stop the Right from bringing it up).

Wiki on Biden

572846[/snapback]

 

Biden's a flaming liberal who will NEVER be elected. So please, by all means, pick Biden, Democrats.

[Alaska Darin]

Biden's a flaming liberal who will NEVER be elected. So please, by all means, pick Biden, Democrats.

573799[/snapback]

Great, so we can get another 4 years of tax cut and spend. Go America!

[JimBob2232]

Great, so we can get another 4 years of tax cut and spend. Go America!

 

 

Please check to see how federal revenue has changed with regard to the tax rate, then come back here and try to prove your argument.

 

If you cant see how federal revenue could increase with a tax cut, and how that would indicate we are overtaxed as a society...sorry.

[Alaska Darin]

Please check to see how federal revenue has changed with regard to the tax rate, then come back here and try to prove your argument.

 

If you cant see how federal revenue could increase with a tax cut, and how that would indicate we are overtaxed as a society...sorry.

574809[/snapback]

Oh, I'm all for cutting taxes but that doesn't absolve the Republican "leadership" of their responsibility to not increase frivous spending by continuing to add socialist programs that are going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars more annually than initial estimates. Prescription drug benefit, anyone? In fact, I'd go so far as to completely repeal the 16th Amendment so that they'd have almost nothing to get their greedy paws on.

 

But thanks for being on their side and pretending they're different than the Democrats. They appreciate your stupidity.

[JimBob2232]

Oh, I'm all for cutting taxes but that doesn't absolve the Republican "leadership" of their responsibility to not increase frivous spending by continuing to add socialist programs that are going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars more annually than initial estimates. Prescription drug benefit, anyone? In fact, I'd go so far as to completely repeal the 16th Amendment so that they'd have almost nothing to get their greedy paws on.

 

But thanks for being on their side and pretending they're different than the Democrats. They appreciate your stupidity.

 

I dont know how you can read into my post and infer than I am pro-spending and pro-big government, but I can clearly see in your post where you infered that the problem was cutting taxes and increasing spending, which is a completly asinine thing to allege because one has nothing to do with the other. It is a common left wing talking point which, as usual, has no basis in reality.

 

But I dont think you and I disagree as much as you would like us to. I agree with you on one half your argument. Spending is out of control. Bush had some extenuating circumstances over the last 5 years, but that does not obsolve him of any responsibility in controlling spending. Its like saying a child molester was abused as a child. It may help to explain why the situation occured, but it does not make what was done acceptable.

 

We are severly overtaxed as a society, even with the recent tax cuts. I would call for even more tax cuts at regular intervals, and monitor federal revenues. Once federal revenues are actually begin to decline with decreasing taxes, keep going. Take some of the money out of politics. Let people keep their own money, and decrease the "need" for goverment handouts. Let people invest. Let companies afford to do business in america again. If the top marginal tax rate in this country was 20%, I think we would be going in the right direction.

[Alaska Darin]

I dont know how you can read into my post and infer than I am pro-spending and pro-big government, but I can clearly see in your post where you infered that the problem was cutting taxes and increasing spending, which is a completly asinine thing to allege because one has nothing to do with the other. It is a common left wing talking point which, as usual, has no basis in reality.

 

But I dont think you and I disagree as much as you would like us to.  I agree with you on one half your argument.  Spending is out of control.  Bush had some extenuating circumstances over the last 5 years, but that does not obsolve him of any responsibility in controlling spending.  Its like saying a child molester was abused as a child.  It may help to explain why the situation occured, but it does not make what was done acceptable.

 

We are severly overtaxed as a society, even with the recent tax cuts. I would call for even more tax cuts at regular intervals, and monitor federal revenues.  Once federal revenues are actually begin to decline with decreasing taxes, keep going.   Take some of the money out of politics.  Let people keep their own money, and decrease the "need" for goverment handouts.  Let people invest.  Let companies afford to do business in america again.  If the top marginal tax rate in this country was 20%, I think we would be going in the right direction.

574949[/snapback]

If you did a search on my diatribes on the subject you'd find that I think the tax cut didn't go far enough. When I repeated the "rhetoric" of "Tax Cut and Spend" it's because that's exactly what they have done since taking over. If you think it's clear that I think tax cuts are the problem, then you are quite wrong. Spending has always been the problem.

 

I don't disagree with any of the rest of your post, though I'd go even further than that. I'd eliminate all tariffs on everything (like gasoline for example) because I think everyone should know EXACTLY what they are paying for government. My current rate, after adding everything up, is nearly 50%. Ridiculous.

 

What we have to look forward to after the next election is 4 more years of horrible fiscal management, regardless of which of these parties has the con. That was the point of my initial post.

 

Hey look everybody, someone on the right compared me with the liberals!

 

Example 1

 

Example 2

 

Example 3

[KRC]

Hey look everybody, someone on the right compared me with the liberals!

575069[/snapback]

 

 

We know that the Libertarian streak you display is just for show. Deep down, we know you are a Liberal.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Great, so we can get another 4 years of tax cut and spend.  Go America!

574802[/snapback]

 

Better than 4 years of TAX RAISE and spend, I think.

[Taro T]

Better than 4 years of TAX RAISE and spend, I think.

575121[/snapback]

Joe, it's the same thing, just presented differently.

 

Every $ spent by government is a tax that you and I will have to pay. If the taxes are raised, you pay it today and the economy takes the hit today. If taxes are cut, you pay it later and hopefully the economy has grown enough to cover that $ down the road.

 

Every time government spends an additional $, your taxes just went up.

[JimBob2232]

Hey look everybody, someone on the right compared me with the liberals!

 

 

Sorry

 

I try as best I can not to play this "liberal vs. conservative" label game. Also, although i read and post in this forum fairly often, I dont really keep up with who says what, and whos opinion is what on what. I have to take every post at face value or I will go crazy. There are much more important things in my life than remembering where everyone here stands on every issue.

 

Since we evidently agree on this issue, I would hope that you could see where I was coming from when i jumped on ya! I just go crazy when i hear rhetoric which is factually incorrect spewed forth like its common knowlege.

 

Both political parties are hurting america. I tend to side with the republican side of things, because I expect more of them. They typically run on morality, fiscal responsibility and accountability, but then they do the opposite. The vast majority of democrats havent run on anything since at least 1996.

 

Since I dont trust republicans anymore to be fiscally responsible, acconutable and moral, I would consider voting for a democrat who claims to be.

 

Unfortunatly this democratic candidate would need to also have some credibility that they would uphold these promises. Hillary, Biden, Daschle...good night.

 

MARK WARNER. End of Story. I WILL vote for mark warner if he runs unless the republican candidate knocks me away...

 

but unfortunatly it will be hillary clinton vs. some crazy right winger and we are back where we started. Its time for a real 3rd party.

[/dev/null]

If the Democrats are serious about taking back the White House, they should nominate a lesser known candidate from the South or Midwest.

 

Someone like Daschle or Hillary has no chance in the South or West. Thats a large chunk of Electoral votes, which will only get bigger after the next Census, that the Democrats are writing off

[JimBob2232]

If the Democrats are serious about taking back the White House, they should nominate a lesser known candidate from the South or Midwest.

 

MARK WARNER...I cant yell any louder...MARK WARNER

[Chilly]

Hillary will win the nomination.

 

http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08dem.htm

 

Not only that, but she will snatch up all the good democratic too when she declares and starts putting together a staff. I think that the *only* way someone has a shot at usurping her is if they declared for the primaries way early, and took some good strategists with them, similar to the way Bush did it in 99 by declaring so early.

[/dev/null]

Hillary will win the nomination.

 

http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08dem.htm

 

Not only that, but she will snatch up all the good democratic too when she declares and starts putting together a staff.  I think that the *only* way someone has a shot at usurping her is if they declared for the primaries way early, and took some good strategists with them, similar to the way Bush did it in 99 by declaring so early.

576048[/snapback]

 

Hillary as nominee = Republican win

 

With the disgustingly high Congressional re-election rate, that means the GOP will hold the White House, Congress, and most likely the Senate during the next Congressional redistricting

[JimBob2232]

Hillary will win the nomination.

 

http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08dem.htm

 

Not only that, but she will snatch up all the good democratic too when she declares and starts putting together a staff. I think that the *only* way someone has a shot at usurping her is if they declared for the primaries way early, and took some good strategists with them, similar to the way Bush did it in 99 by declaring so early.

 

First of all, you cant go by this. If you found this same poll in 2001, the top name would be Al Gore. Its a name recognition contest at this point. Everyone knows who hillary is. Same with John Kerry and John Edwards. Same poll in 2001 would show them both in the 1-3% range.

 

2nd issue is that she is imploding right now. Plantation, Belafonte, etc. She keeps this up she will be hurting not only in the general electoin but the primaries as well. Long way to go, but she is really going out on a limb to make herself appear crazy.

 

The biggest mistake democrats made in 2000 and 2004 is putting up horrible national candidates. Bush is a below average candidate, but he could run circles around kerry and gore. It was so easy to do. A chimp could have beaten bush in 04, but they dug up kerry.

 

IF the democrats get their act together and put up someone good for national debate, a likeable candidate with a history of bipartsan support, they can beat a decent republican candidate. And I would be happy to support him/her. All im asking for here is a chance to not pick between two horrible candidates interested in political power and instead focus on the future of america.

[Alaska Darin]

Sorry

 

I try as best I can not to play this "liberal vs. conservative" label game.  Also, although i read and post in this forum fairly often, I dont really keep up with who says what, and whos opinion is what on what.  I have to take every post at face value or I will go crazy. There are much more important things in my life than remembering where everyone here stands on every issue.

 

Since we evidently agree on this issue, I would hope that you could see where I was coming from when i jumped on ya!  I just go crazy when i hear rhetoric which is factually incorrect spewed forth like its common knowlege.

 

Both political parties are hurting america.  I tend to side with the republican side of things, because I expect more of them.  They typically run on morality, fiscal responsibility and accountability, but then they do the opposite.  The vast majority of democrats havent run on anything since at least 1996.

 

Since I dont trust republicans anymore to be fiscally responsible, acconutable and moral, I would consider voting for a democrat who claims to be.

 

Unfortunatly this democratic candidate would need to also have some credibility that they would uphold these promises.  Hillary, Biden, Daschle...good night.

 

MARK WARNER.  End of Story.  I WILL vote for mark warner if he runs unless the republican candidate knocks me away...

 

but unfortunatly it will be hillary clinton vs. some crazy right winger and we are back where we started.  Its time for a real 3rd party.

575903[/snapback]

Cool.

[Chilly]

First of all, you cant go by this.  If you found this same poll in 2001, the top name would be Al Gore.  Its a name recognition contest at this point.  Everyone knows who hillary is. Same with John Kerry and John Edwards.  Same poll in 2001 would show them both in the 1-3% range.

 

I think you're comparing apples and oranges between these two elections.

 

US politics is candidate-driven, not issue driven like in other countries, so the candidates become the core of the issue.

 

The US primary system is heavily paritsan driven - in many places anyone thats not a partisan doesn't get a chance to have a say.

 

This means that since the primary is relatively low turnout, it takes an energizing candidate that many people are passionate for if its going to be an obvious win.

 

In 2004, there really wasn't any such candidate. No, Howard Dean isn't one.

 

However, in the 2008 primaries, there IS such a candidate, and that is Hillary. The people that support her will turnout at the primaries at a much higher rate then a candidate who people are less passionate about in the party.

 

Unless some big things change, its gonna happen.

 

2nd issue is that she is imploding right now.  Plantation, Belafonte, etc.  She keeps this up she will be hurting not only in the general electoin but the primaries as well.  Long way to go, but she is really going out on a limb to make herself appear crazy.

 

I haven't seen any latest polls, but I actually don't think its going to hurt her too much. The people that love her, love her, and the people that hate her, hate her. It will in the general election, but I don't know about the primaries.

 

The biggest mistake democrats made in 2000 and 2004 is putting up horrible national candidates.  Bush is a below average candidate, but he could run circles around kerry and gore.  It was so easy to do.  A chimp could have beaten bush in 04, but they dug up kerry. 

 

Don't take any credit away from the Bush campaign team - they're damn good at what they do.

 

IF the democrats get their act together and put up someone good for national debate, a likeable candidate with a history of bipartsan support, they can beat a decent republican candidate.  And I would be happy to support him/her.  All im asking for here is a chance to not pick between two  horrible candidates interested in political power and instead focus on the future of america.

576064[/snapback]

 

But it won't happen due to the nature of the primary system.