The United States Elections/Political Party Discussion Thread

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by liberalmaverick, Mar 6, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Espaldapalabras Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 25, 2005
    star 5
    Like DM said, we have to create border securty before anything else. Working with the Mexicans isn't a viable solution to the problem, as they have far more to gain by sending their people here than any benefit of stopping the flow. For the Mexican government one of the best things they have is the remitances of their citizens living in the States and the political saftey valve of having the discontented people leaving instead of causing problems at home. It really is amazing that millions of Mexicans stood up for rights and freedoms, it is just they were in someone else's country. Add to that the drug lords that want as unprotected borders as possible, and you see that the best thing the Mexican government can do is give people directions.
  2. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    Anyone interested in making predictions?

    We're less than six months away now... but a day in politics can be a lifetime.

    Depending on any radical world events, I will make a prediction (which is subject to change at any time) that the GOP will retain control of both Houses of Congress.

    I feel this will happen mainly due to redistricting and the immigration issue which the House Republicans are much more in tune with the American public than the Senate or the Democrats in general are.

    If the Dems were tougher on the border issue and offered viable plans to deal with energy prices and inflation, then I would think they'd have a much better chance.

    I do think the GOP will lose seats, but not enough to lose the House or Senate next time.

    As a side issue involving local politics, I have little doubt that the citizens of Orleans Parish will re-elect 'Dollar' Bill Jefferson even after they found 90 grand in his fridge. I hope he and Cunningham can share a jail cell.
  3. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    Upping for the Lamont-Lieberman primary tommorrow.

  4. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    From the looks of it Palpatine is going to lose.
  5. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    wierd, remember when in 2000 we said if Bush gets elected it will be great for oil barrons and war mongers?

    Isn't it crazy that there has been war going on for every election since Bush won the 2000 election?
  6. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Why stop there?

    There's actually been war virtually non-stop on the planet since the US Civil War. The war in Bosnia started in 1992, and continued through all of the elections of Clinton's presidency (to use just one example). The US invaded Panama in 1989/1990, under George H. W. Bush (and there were several other conflicts going on in that time period). The Iran/Iraq war lasted throughout Reagan's presidency.

    Can you name an election in recent times (say, the last 75 years) when there wasn't a war going on involving the US or one of its allies?

    Kimball Kinnison
  7. DeathStar1977 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 31, 2003
    star 4
    I swear OWM, you need to run for office. Your ability to drive conservatives nuts with such ease is legendary.

    Here's to hoping that by the end of the day both Holy Joe and Mad Mckinney are out of jobs.
  8. DeathStar1977 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 31, 2003
    star 4
    Finally, an election day wish of mine comes true (sort of) [face_mischief]

    Looks like Lieberman will run as an independent, hence why I said 'sort of'. But McKinney seems to be done. Good riddance.
  9. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    Meh, Lieberman, I'm curious how that will go. Kimball, educate me please, I am aware that there has been armed conflict going on, but how exactly is our current military situation the same as Clinton in the Balkans, Bush in Panama, or Reagan's military conflicts?
  10. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    It's not, it's called the KJDOB syndrome.

    Any time you point out something negative about Mr Bush, KJDOB (Knee-Jerk Defence of Bush) suffers are compelled by this vile affliction to deflect it by firstly bringing up Clinton, and secondly by acting as if it doesn't really matter.

    For example; "Bush is the most uninspiring President I can think of". "What about (some dude from last century when none of us were alive)? He was uninspiring. Many people think Clinton was uninspiring..."

    And so on.

    Bear in mind, I'm probably in a different boat to most of you because I was not at all a fan of anything Bush did in the first term, but am willing to grant him some appreciation when it comes to the second term. Maybe I just imagine KJDOB Syndrome...

    [face_mischief]

    lub j00 teh KK! [face_love]

    E_S
  11. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    Yeah, I like Bush better in the second term cos he seems more humble, he seems to understand he has no idea what he's doing.
  12. Gallandro Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 4
    For all of those ready to heap dirt on the corpse of the GOP in the Nov 2006 elections.... it's alive!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!


    http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060809/9whisper.htm
  13. Quixotic-Sith Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 22, 2001
    star 6
    Except in Pennsylvania, for instance, where Rick Santorum has managed to alienate people on both sides of the aisle. My conservative, Republican grandmother plans to vote for Casey, precisely because she knows how much of a chucklehead Santorum is. There have been quite a few letters to the editor in the Post-Gazette from Republicans who are planning to support Casey.

    Oh, and there's also this.
  14. Warsie Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 2005
    star 2
    Considering the last "terror" bust, Republicans will again get voted in office. When people are scared, they vote Republican.
  15. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    GOP voters...like a rock....I assume they're talking about their capacity for thought?

    They don't like the media's war stories, thinking that they are too negative. Some 60 percent of the GOP base expresses "extremely high dissatisfaction" with the coverage of the war.


    Here's how I process that. I see some redneck back in the woods of maker knows what southern state (big red stupid country there).

    "I wunt mur wur sturees wit explusions und shuwing uther gudgetree thut the sulders yus. Hyuck hyuck."

    Ah, such an easy target. Any way, if they find the war coverage too negative it's because there's not a lot of good going on that's newsworthy.
  16. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    People will have forgotten about this by November.

    Only what happens in the month leading up to the election will matter.

    It will go right back to partisan politics, as usual.

    I believe the GOP has reason to be worried if a bipartisan center-rightist like Lieberman can get bounced. It may signal a backlash against the establishment in general.

    Peace,

    V-03
  17. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    I think the American people are starting to disassociate pro-War with strong on defense. They are starting to see that simply advocating a military solution doesn't solve the problem; it may actually weaken defense.

    Therefore, I doubt this recent terror plot will produce much of a bounce for Republicans, especially as the fact that it was prevented by law enforcement and intelligence methods and not military means filters into the media.
  18. Gallandro Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 4
    Okay had to jump in. This analysis is waaaaaaaaaaay off for a couple of reasons:

    1) The general public doesn't parse information to that level. To the average American they could care less whether the FBI, NSA, CIA, or militray uncovered the plot... they just care that the plot was uncovered by the government, so credit will of course fall to the Bush administration (here in the US) and its counter terror policies.

    Just like blame was attributed to the Bush administration for the response to Katrina. They don't care that local government response in Louisiana was disasterous, they don't care that George Bush is not the FEMA director... they blame the federal government for dropping the ball... thus they blame the Bush administraion.

    2) Most reporting indicates London had some assistance with this threat via US interceptions of foreign communications. If that's the case then these communications were intercepted by the NSA.... which just happens to be a component of...............

    yup, the Department of Defense, so in other words, yes the military was responsible for the communications intercepts.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA

    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1225453,00.html


    Almost took a position there..... stupid! What was I thinking?!?!?!?!


    Yancy
  19. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    First, I agree that most people do not pay all that close attention to the news. However, they will realize that Republican and administration attacks on Democrats equating their opposition to the administration in Iraq to being pro-terrorism will fall flat.

    Your second point is a semantic one. I was using military as meaning military force, ala Iraq, not military as in the Department of Defense. I'll try to be more clear next time.

    Anyways, I was under the understanding that the British tracking of this group originated in the London Bombings and their attempt subsequent attempt to track home-grown Muslim extremists.

  20. Gallandro Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 4
    As i said the US assisted in communications interception.

    Oh, and Iraq is not how this debate will be framed. Republicans will label Democrats as soft on national defense (a la the 80s). For example I highly suspect Jack Murtha could lose his seat in November, why? Diana Irey is excoriating him for his opposition to the Patriot Act... that will kill him come election time.

    This last week has been a political train wreck for the Dems... Ned Lamont?!?!?! Now this?!?!?! Just Wednesday morning, initial polling after the primary had Lieberman behind Lamont by 5% in a three-way race for the Senate. This morning, a new Rasmussen Poll taken after the terror plot break up puts Lamont down almost 6%. And Lieberman is just killing him with statements like:

    "We are at war with a brutal enemy," Lieberman said. "How the heck can we be in a battle in which we are fighting as Democrats and Republicans against each other when these terrorists certainly don't distinguish based on party affiliation? They want to kill any and all of us."

    "I'm not saying we shouldn't have healthy disagreement and discussions about national security, but to make it into a partisan political football is just unacceptable and in my opinion un-American,"

    "I'm worried that too many people, both in politics and out, don't appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the enemy that faces us -- more evil or as evil as Nazism and probably more dangerous that the Soviet Communists we fought during the long Cold War,"

    Lamont is toast, and notice how Lieberman didn't once mention the "I" word he couches it as part of a larger war on terror... that's how you win.


    Yancy
  21. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    I think your analysis of Lamont is completely backwards. We'll see in the next week or two how Lieberman will be able to campaign without any Democratic support. I have yet to see anything showing Lamont to be "weak on terror" except for the fact that he beat "stay the course" and "you can't critize the president during a time of war" Lieberman. Its all a bunch of smoke and mirrors that will quickly fall flat.

    The public is growing increasingly sour on the war, and Lieberman's attempt to silence criticism of the Iraq war as unacceptable and unamerican will backfire on him.

    Anyways, here is my source for the information I mentioned earlier. I had read it and forgotten where it came from:


    It all began with a tip: In the aftermath of the July 7, 2005, suicide bombings on London's transit system, British authorities received a call from a worried member of the Muslim community, reporting general suspicions about an acquaintance.

    From that vague but vital piece of information, according to a senior European intelligence official, British authorities opened the investigation into what they said turned out to be a well-coordinated and long-planned plot to bomb multiple transatlantic flights heading toward the United States -- an assault designed to rival the scope and lethality of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackings.

    By late 2005, the probe had expanded to involve several hundred investigators on three continents. They kept dozens of suspects under close surveillance for months, even as some of the plotters traveled between Britain and Pakistan to raise money, find recruits and refine their scheme, according to interviews with U.S. and European counterterrorism officials.

    Precise details of the plot -- how many planes, their destinations and the date -- remain unknown. The shape of the operation changed regularly as the would-be bombers considered which transatlantic flights to target and prepared for a practice run, which was expected to take place in the next few days, U.S. law enforcement officials said.

    Investigators eventually pieced together enough information from a blizzard of stakeouts, tips and wiretaps to make clear that something big was in the works, and that the plotters' preparations were nearing an end.





    As you can see, this did not come about from wide ranging wire taps but from investigative police-type work. That is not to say that wide ranging wiretapping and communication processing doesn't have its merits, but that this kind of investigative work is too often ridiculed as part of treating terrorism like a crime than as a war.

  22. Gallandro Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 4
    Lamont has a number of big hurdles to overcome:

    1) He's perceived to have been elected by the more radical/fringe elements of the Democratic Party... even Democratic pollsters are saying this. And unfortunately for him most of Connecticut's electorate are registered Independents.

    2) Lamont is polling very poorly among independents and it is highly likely Lieberman will also get a large portion of Connecticut's Republican vote as well (as the Repub candidate doesn't stand a chance in hell).

    3) Lamont is a one-trick-pony candidate (anti-war) and will be painted as such. That's all that seperates the two candidates. Lieberman is not some DINO (Democrat In Name Only) who's really some uber-conservative. The man is a classic New England liberal and his voting record reflects this, but unlike most of the Democrat leadership (Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, etc) he's a classic old-school Democrat who supports a strong national defense.


    Next subject:

    You continue to misread what I've stated about US assistance in busting up the terror plot:

    "In the two or three days before the arrests, the cell was going operational, and authorities were pressed into action. MI5 and Scotland Yard agents tracked the plotters from the ground, while a knowledgeable American official says U.S. intelligence provided London authorities with intercepts of the group's communications."

    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1225453,00.html

    Yes, most of the work was performed by MI5 and Scotland Yard, but the vast majority of US assistance was directly from US communication intercepts. From the perspective of the American public you are arguing semantics... people don't care who gets credit, they just want to know the government is protecting him.


    Yancy
  23. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    We'll see come November.

    Mods, is there any way we can make a thread (or some kind of outside webpage/calender) that tracks predictions by the posters of this board?

    Maybe something like a Senate Floor Google Calender that contains links to original predictions around the time they are supposed to happen.

    *Edit*

    I've created a rough Senate Floor Google Calender here. I'm not sure what the management settings are right now, but while I'm playing around with them, you should be able to look at the Calender and see what I'm attempting to do.

    Okay, I've been playing around with it some. It appears everyone, regardless of whether or not you have a google account, can see the calender and click on the description. However, in order to post events on the calender you would have to have a google account and the manager of the calender (me, in this case) would have to give you manager powers.

    While I wouldn't expect everyone to get a google account, maybe a few of us that do have one can be managers, and we can be listed at the top of a thread for this purpose so posters who want to put predictions on the calender would simply contact one of us.



  24. Obi-Ewan Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2000
    star 4
    ) Lamont is a one-trick-pony candidate (anti-war) and will be painted as such. That's all that seperates the two candidates. Lieberman is not some DINO (Democrat In Name Only) who's really some uber-conservative. The man is a classic New England liberal and his voting record reflects this, but unlike most of the Democrat leadership (Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, etc) he's a classic old-school Democrat who supports a strong national defense.

    That explains his attack on the patriotism of those who dare question the president, and his involvement in the Schiavo stunt, which was merely a vote-grab that left the Republicans with egg on their face.
  25. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    I feel like US News and World Report just published that to get base voters motivated to vote. Or perhaps that is what the poll was designed to do, that makes more sense...:cool:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.