News-Record.com

Agreed:

The Democrats ...

... pretty much a bunch of flakey losers.

Instead of constantly telling us how bad the Democrats are and how incapable Clinton and Obama are, I would appreciate some comments on how many wonderful things the Republicans have done since put in office and the wonders of McCain. Convince me that I should vote for him.

Carol,

As I have said many times here, the repubs are just as much politicians as dems when it comes to spending and making careers out of politics.

As to why you should vote for McCain...Islamic Terrorism. Surely you trust a man who was held and tortured by the Vietcong for 5 years to keep you safer against threats to our freedoms than you do the Hillster or Obama.

A simple look at the Clinton Presidency will show you Hillary's idea of a strong military. Each branch of the military saw personnel cuts of at least 30% in the 8 years the Clintons were in the White House. Buzz Patterson's book "Dereliction of Duty" gives a pretty good insight into the Clinton's perspective of the military also.

As far as Obama, well just watch the clip on You Tube Buz posted in the voting on race thread today. His kumbayah foreign policy would certainly increase the threat of another 9-11. We learned in the 80s that it is good to walk softly and carry the biggest stick. The problem is that Obama wants to walk softly and throw away the stick. I can guarantee you that the Chinese and the Russians would laugh their butts off if they saw that Obama clip and hope that Obama wins. Don't do the Chinese, the Russians or the islamic terrorist a favor by voting for Hillary or Obama.

Well there is my effort to convince you Carol. Have a nice day.

Carol,

"Convince me that I should vote for him."

Handily, regardless of which (D) ends up on the ticket, anyone voting for either of the two major parties will still be choosing between democrats.

That's why I'm interested in what happens next. I think third party and write-in votes are going to be over 30% of the total cast in this election. I think Huckabee and Thompson supporters will surprise folks by actually sticking with a moral compass. I think Ron Paul will make a decent showing, too.

What I'm really interested in, though, is Hillary getting the nod from the super delegates. If Obama believes his momentum is strong enough he can say "here's the change we need hope from" and go out on his own, fracturing one of the big parties and carrying a large block of assumed votes away with him.

I'd love to see it.

I don't know if he's got it in him, though.

I guess my answer is stop voting for the incapables. If you don't have faith in them, (D) or (R), don't keep them there.

Roger

Man, John really nailed this one. What a farce. Super delegates? Caucuses? They should just do a simple primary like the Republicans have done, count the votes, and go home. All this other crap is a 3-ring circus and it's going to hurt the party in the long run.

Carol, your response was pretty close to a someone in pre-k saying "I know you are but what am I?"

John isn't attacking the ideals or the candidates of the Democratic party. He's attacking an inept election process.

With McCain, I see a never-ending war in Iraq, alienation of the whole middle east, and as far as "Islamic Terrorists", they were small in number on 9/11. Our unwarranted war on Iraq has been their greatest recruitment program. I just see more of the same with McCain.

I also don't like his "flip-flop" on abortion. I also don't like his statement that economic policy is not his strong suit. With the economic mess the USA is in, I would like someone who has an idea or two. I don't expect miracles, on the economic or war situations, from the Democrats. I do have a little "hope" that there will be a "change"...and for the better.

Do you who would choose McCain think the USA has been improved or weakened with the current administration...and Bush supports McCain...another reason I would never vote for him.

"I would like someone who has an idea or two. I don't expect miracles, on the economic or war situations, from the Democrats."

Interesting point, Carol. It will come across a bit abrasive, but I don't mean it to be:

Who has had an idea? Did someone else announce they were running this morning?

Democratic debates at Dartmouth, September 2007
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_War_+_Peace.htm

Q: Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, there will be no US troops in Iraq?

Obama: I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there.

(his answer was "no")
-----

I know it won't ever be asked, but I would love to hear an exit poll on who voted for which candidate and whether that voter played the lottery.

Hope in one hand, spit in the other...

Roger

Florida and Michigan signed a contract that they would not hold their primaries before a certain date. Then they proceeded to hold their primaries before that date. Their votes should count but they should also be held accountable.

I really don't know how I feel about the super-delegates, but it's similar to the Electoral College. I sort of think that if the race is within 100 regular delegates that it'd be ok for the supers to steer the nomination, but any more than that and it would be ridiculous.

As for Clinton military cuts, consider the context. We had just gotten out of the 80's --Reagan's Star Wars and the Cold War (anybody remember that?). Of course he cut the military, there was a recent major decrease in military attacks on US interests.

" Their votes should count but they should also be held accountable."

The DNC made it clear in the "contract" that MI & FL votes wouldn't count if they held their primaries early. You say the votes should count rahrah, but Obama's name wasn't even on the Michigan ballot, so do you feel the MI delegates should simply go to Hillary by default?

Not to worry, the Clintons will find a way for FL & MI to count. If not they will figure out a way to jury-rig the delegates. They are the Clintons after all.

I really hope this will come down to the super delegates to decide. I hope a scenario will arise where they select Hillary and Obama has more delegates and popular votes. Oh the drama that will ensue. Election 2000 will be a Sunday walk in the park compared to this scenario.

Perhaps only then will Democrats reform their convoluted nomination process.

"As for Clinton military cuts, consider the context. We had just gotten out of the 80's --Reagan's Star Wars and the Cold War (anybody remember that?). Of course he cut the military, there was a recent major decrease in military attacks on US interests."

Oh thank you for proving my point Rah. Any cut in military strength is a bad decision. Let's look at what the cuts got us when our enemies realized there was a wimp in the White House. World Trade Center 1, Embassy attacks worldwide, USS Cole, Bosnia/Herzegovina, etc.

Thank you so much for pointing out what pacifist sissy foreign policy get us Rah. To think that any "context" is a reason for limiting our military capacity shows how inept people like you are. THANKS!

Unlike Madam Albright, I have absolutely no problem with the US being the world's sole superpower. You should not either unless you plan to learn another language RAH!

I guess I meant that those people should have a voice, preferably through another primary. I read that they might do a mail-in vote, which sounds a bit fishy. I think that might better than just counting the votes already cast, even though Obama did campaign in Michigan for folks to vote uncommitted (and I think around 40% did).

My point is that terrorist attacks are generally foiled by the FBI and CIA and less the military. That's why I said the end of the Cold War lessened the chances of military attack. Besides, there were terrorist attacks in the 80's. In fact, there was more international terrorism in the 80's. As far as I can tell more died in the 80's than the 90's. What we're seeing now and in the 90's is a shift from incidents that target 10's of people to incidents that target 1000's of people.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june00/terror_6-6.html
http://afghanlaw.de/The%20Declining%20Terrorist%20Threat.htm

I meant to post those with that last post.
They links are a little dated, but it was a little harder to find articles referencing terrorism in the 80's.

"I think that might better than just counting the votes already cast, even though Obama did campaign in Michigan for folks to vote uncommitted (and I think around 40% did)."

Repeat, Obama wasn't on the ballot in MI, so it would be difficult to include him.

Another primary? Perhaps, but again the DNC will have some 'splainin to do in backtracking on their own rules.

Like I said this is going to be fun. Even "mainstream" ABC news is playing up the division in this campaign.

"Not to worry, the Clintons will find a way for FL & MI to count. If not they will figure out a way to jury-rig the delegates."

Perhaps they could ask George and Jeb how they did it, Dan.

Just watch and see Yvonne. This will be a Democrat pulling all stops on another Democrat, totally different story. It's gonna be fun, never underestimate a Clinton.

Another primary would be best because those people need to be counted and it needs to be fair. All in all, if there is another primary in each state then it would be under the rules set by the national party since its after that date. I don't know. It sucks.

I could care less if they have 20 more votes I as a taxpayer do not want to pay for it. Both of them signed a agreement. Now Clinton is on the short end of the stick, she want to change the rules. Sounds more like a spoiled brat. Dan you are right this is fun, watching the LIBERAL media trying to spin this. Have you folks noticed that the LIBERAL media has not once mention that Spitzer is a democrat?

Taxpayers won't being paying for another primary, it'd have to be paid for by private donations.

As for the media and Spitzer:

"Ashley Alexandra Dupre, reportedly identified in court documents as a call girl known as "Kristen," appeared in court on Monday as a witness against four people accused of operating a high-class prostitution ring allegedly used by the disgraced Democrat."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/13/spitzer.kristen.intl/index.html?section=cnn_latest

"Prosecutors are more likely to consider going after Spitzer, a Democrat, for money laundering or misusing his office..."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080313/pl_bloomberg/apdwvju1hdq_1

"Mr. Spitzer, a Democrat, has championed a campaign finance reform proposal..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/nyregion/14spitzer.html

"Taxpayers won't being paying for another primary, it'd have to be paid for by private donations."

This may interest you rahrah, from that conservative bastion NPR:

If Florida and Michigan Vote Again, Who Pays?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88132194&ft=1&f=1001

One very notable paragraph about private funding of the "re-election".

"But Democrats are lining up an alternative: private financing. The Democratic governors of two other states, Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania and Jon Corzine of New Jersey, say they're willing to raise half the money — as much as $15 million. Both governors support Hillary Clinton in the nomination race."

So the governors of PA & NJ want to get their fingers into the affairs of MI & FL, and just by sheer chance they happen to support Hillary? Yes this is fun watching the Democratic party implode from within.

As mentioned prior, never underestimate the Clintons.

"Instead of constantly telling us how bad the Democrats are and how incapable Clinton and Obama are, I would appreciate some comments on how many wonderful things the Republicans have done since put in office and the wonders of McCain."

Carol,
I sat back, waiting patiently, for as long as I could, but no one took you up on your challenge. Says a lot about the depth of that group. I will hand it to Dan, he at least cites reputable source in NPR.