The United States Elections/Political Party Discussion Thread

The Democrats, I think its not that they don't agree with one another so much as that too often it sounds like pure criticism with no solutions put forth.

Oh, I'd agree with Arnold being reelected. I mean, the opposition is really weak. The commercials have gotten to the point of "Don't vote for Arnold, because he supported Bush." They've really reached the bottom of the barrel for things to use against him. That, and the governor's election really is just a moderate democrat vs a more radical democrat.

 

If even a piece of this holds out on election day it will be good news!


don't kid yourself. janet will crush munsil, and dem turnout was low because janet was free and clear for the nomination.

 

don't kid yourself. janet will crush munsil, and dem turnout was low because janet was free and clear for the nomination.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. That doesn't explain the record Rep turn out. Even with little coverage of the Republican primary candidates they were motivated to vote. The question remains: Will the Dems turn out in as high of numbers as the Republicans?

Are the Dems even paying attention? What are they listening to on their drive to work? It ain't Air America. They just announced another bankruptcy. It's either music or conservative talk radio.

What are they watching after work? It's either FOXNews or Everybody Loves Raymond, 'cause CNN ain't pulling any ratings.

It could give a person the impression that Liberals would rather be entertained than informed...

 

Will the Dems turn out in as high of numbers as the Republicans?

it won't matter in this state. janet is popular among many moderate republicans here, and has the support of numerous public figure republicans here, including grant woods (a fellow graduate of my high school). plenty of libertarians/actual conservatives also want nothing to do with munsil.

you're looking at the next johnson/nixon/reagan landslide, and there's (thank god) not a thing you can do about it.

ideally, state republicans won't capture a vetoproof majority and she can continue to thwart their foolish, invasive and socially conservative agenda with her veto pen.

 

you're looking at the next johnson/nixon/reagan landslide, and there's (thank god) not a thing you can do about it.

Ya think? How wise is it, do you think, to challenge someone as stubborn as I am?

Bravado aside, I watched FOX 10's coverage of the press conference last week. Had I not actually been there for it I would have thought it went poorly.

[Len Munsil]"Janet says that I'm not qualified to manage a 10 billion dollar budget. It almost seems like she purposely doubled our 5 billion dollar budget just so she can claim that no one else in the state has the experience to manage it."[/Len]

Awesome!

 

I don't think Steele's gonna win. And Erlich...he might pull this one off since most people hate O'Malley outside of Baltimore. But I think Steele's been neutralized if for anything because of this.

 

say what you want, j-rod. it's immaterial in the end. janet will win and that's that. she's an excellent campaigner, masterful politician and top-notch governor, with a smart team around her.

see you in january for her second inaguration . i bet you can watch that on fox 10 news too.

 

see you in january for her second inaguration . i bet you can watch that on fox 10 news too.

That won't happen with screw ups like this. She's so out of touch. The horrible Arizona Republic and the local news' slant are the biggest reasons she's popular.

Notice who covered this story? Hmmmm.....

Hell, show me one parent who thinks that it is invasive to require parental consent for abortion. Ooooops, looks like Janet (unlike most of us) isn't a parent. My. How outta touch.

 

In what way is anything you've posted in reply proof she's 'out of touch'? Now, I'm no citizen of Arizona (thank the maker) but I've seen plenty connies spew this buzzline, prove what it means when one is out of touch and how you can spot this so easily. Prove that they really are 'out of touch' and not just disagreeing with your personal view. Oh, and I like that you blame the media. You really think they're that powerful? Heh..heh...sheesh, what a sore loser.

 

Prove that they really are 'out of touch' and not just disagreeing with your personal view.

Are you suggesting that putting anti-American slogans on a 9/11 memorial is considered proper by a majority of people? Or that doctors should be able to conduct any elective surgery on a minor child without parental notification is also a belief held by most people?

Just asking.

 

You see, you'd have a proper argument if that were the case, but your argument was this:

That won't happen with screw ups like this. She's so out of touch. The horrible Arizona Republic and the local news' slant are the biggest reasons she's popular.

Notice who covered this story? Hmmmm.....

Hell, show me one parent who thinks that it is invasive to require parental consent for abortion. Ooooops, looks like Janet (unlike most of us) isn't a parent. My. How outta touch.

You're attributing the 'anti-American' slogans to one person. And not even the people that inscribed them. Also, believe it or not (see: shocker) some people actually believe that a teen should have control of their body! THE HORROR! TREATING TEENS AS PEOPLE!!!11 Oh the humanity.

 

You're attributing the 'anti-American' slogans to one person. And not even the people that inscribed them.

She had the final sign off for the monument. She personally Ok'd the slogans. Further, she was on the radio defending them the Friday after the "monument" was unveiled.

Also, believe it or not (see: shocker) some people actually believe that a teen should have control of their body! THE HORROR! TREATING TEENS AS PEOPLE!!!11 Oh the humanity.

As people, not as adults. I don't think, for instance, a 13 year old should be able to walk into a tattoo parlor and get a tattoo.

 

you'd love janet, fido. great, great governor.

republicans pass socially conservative/invasive bills, she vetoes them without hesitation. angers the hell out of them. they don't like it when someone stands up to them. imagine the country being run by a socially liberal and otherwise moderate president with the guts to veto all the stupid legislation congress tries to pass and you've got an idea of what it's like here.

she would make an excellent president. if she were a man, she'd probably be considered a favorite for 2008.

oh, and j-rod? the republic endorsed bush in both 2000 and 2004. it's well known as a moderately conservative newspaper. read.

The editorial pages promote a center-right viewpoint on most issues.
The Arizona Republic editorial board endorsed President George W. Bush in both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.

 

oh, and j-rod? the republic endorsed bush in both 2000 and 2004. it's well known as a moderately conservative newspaper.

That belongs in another thread. But "well known as a moderately conservative newspaper"? Get real. Any paper that phrases things in the context of "paying for tax cuts" or prefers to call illegals "undocumented workers" is hardly conservative.

EDIT: And what invasive bills?

 

"paying for tax cuts"

how dare a newspaper frame it truthfully! impeach, impeach!

 

republicans pass socially conservative/invasive bills, she vetoes them without hesitation. angers the hell out of them.

Do you mean the republicans in AZ only, because otherwise, I'm not sure what value your generalization holds.

For instance, it was the Gores, and more specifically, Tipper's PMRC who blamed popular music for rape, teen pregnancy, and suicide.

It was Hillary Clinton who lead a similiar charge regarding video games. Former President Clinton signed the only federal law in exsistance that prohibits same sex marriage.

The Gov of Illinois, a Democrat, tried to make it a crime for stores to sell "violent" games to minors. That was struck down.

How would your gov react to any of those? If she opposed them, she would be in opposition of her own party, if not, she would have to compromise somewhere.

It's not my intent to bash any of the above, and I certainly didn't comment on if any are right or wrong, but what's wrong with simply examining the actual candidate and their political views? What I mean is that it's easy to fall into the trap that "all of one party does or should think one way," when it's not automatically true.

 

Okay, enough Napolitano bashing. She at least had the cahjones to declare a state of emergency along the border and order the national guard to conduct excercises down there.

Where was Bush? Having a siesta in Crawford while the illegals cut his lawn.

Is she perfect? No, far from. She isn't even hard enough on immigration for my taste, but hey......she's better than my governor, Jon Hunstman.

That guy is a GOP insider who used his name to work for the Bush admin and then the state party apparatus.

Party hack.

On another topic:

If I were to bet right now, I'd say the dems add seats in both the house and Senate, but not enough for a majority in either chamber.

My bet: The GOP holds both...barely.

 

Do you mean the republicans in AZ only,

of course. she can't do much about stuff elsewhere.

For instance, it was the Gores, and more specifically, Tipper's PMRC who blamed popular music for rape, teen pregnancy, and suicide.

she'd never make such a stupid statement. she knows that it's about more than just music. anyone with half a mind ought to.

Former President Clinton signed the only federal law in exsistance that prohibits same sex marriage.


she'd veto it. why else would it be on the ballot here and not in the legislature?

The Gov of Illinois, a Democrat, tried to make it a crime for stores to sell "violent" games to minors.

uncertain as to what she'd do.

My bet: The GOP holds both...barely.

i agree.

 

I admire anyone that stands up to the opposition and votes what they feel is right and not just right for their party. There's not a whole lot of that these days on either side. And no, saying, "My religious values brought me to this conclusion," isn't voting what they feel is right. It's voting what they feel is right for their faith.

 

Ok, someone just asked me about my above post, and looking back over it, it wasn't the most clear..

My point was more in line with FID's above. I think political parties have their place, but more as a general guideline, or to promote an overall theme. When KW made his original statement, it looked like she was vetoing legislative items just because they came from the "opposite" party, regardless of their actual content.

What I wanted to illustrate was that either party can propose items that are "invasive" to someone, and that's why the merits should be looked at- not just what party they originate from. I hope this clears up my post above.

 

The NYT is reporting what should be obvious to everyone: low gas prices will benefit Republicans in November:

"Poll numbers show that high gas prices are receding as an issue. Back in May, 14 percent of those surveyed by the Pew Research Center said energy prices were the nation?s most important problem, ahead of terrorism and Iraq, up from 5 percent in March. This month, only 7 percent gave energy prices top billing. Gallup has had similar findings."

On the downside for Republicans, per Reuters:

"Home Prices Show First Annual Fall in 11 Years"

"The U.S. existing home market had not seen a year-on-year price decline since a 0.1 percent drop in April 1995."

Will this counter some of the positive economic effects of lower gas prices? One difference between today and 1995, more homeowners now have additional debt secured through home equity loans. Especially in the last 4-5 years, Americans have been cashing out paper increases in their home values. With housing prices falling, the anchor for some of that debt has been erased.

 

For instance, it was the Gores, and more specifically, Tipper's PMRC who blamed popular music for rape, teen pregnancy, and suicide. It was Hillary Clinton who lead a similiar charge regarding video games.

Most every politician has been against such things, Democrats and Republicans.

Former President Clinton signed the only federal law in exsistance that prohibits same sex marriage

Yet it is mostly conservatives, led by the current President, seeking to amend the constitution, both state and federal.

It is mostly conservative groups that have sought to curb stem cell research, the death with dignity act and medical marijuana acts (judicial activism aside of course). My point being that your examples are exceptions to the rule, and the question would be better phrased as to what exactly is and is not ?socially invasive?, which I see that you did in your follow up post.

How would your gov react to any of those? If she opposed them, she would be in opposition of her own party

Certain members of her own party, but probably not the majority.

What I mean is that it's easy to fall into the trap that "all of one party does or should think one way," when it's not automatically true.

I agree, but for example stating that generally speaking conservatives are more strident in their opposition to gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, death with dignity, medical marijuana, etcetera?is not far off. Its not ?automatically? true, but most of the time it is ?generally? true. The important thing is to be willing to look beyond such generalizations.

Of course there are exceptions, and one could argue that you and I are examples of these exceptions. Neither of us always agree with our party or their general stances, but we do lean that way. That is what makes us so exceptional.

EDIT: And I agreewith ShaneP and KW, the Republicans will lose seats but hold Congress. A silver lining, at least from my POV, would be that hopefully the Democrats will replace Pelosi as their leader in the HoR.

If I get a moment, I'll post my predictions in the appropriate thread.

 

Its not ?automatically? true, but most of the time it is ?generally? true. The important thing is to be willing to look beyond such generalizations.

I believe my second post says the same thing.

Including the exceptional part, of course..

 

DS77
A silver lining, at least from my POV, would be that hopefully the Democrats will replace Pelosi as their leader in the HoR.

Man, I couldn't agree more. I've read Murtha is positioning himself for leadership.

 

Former President Clinton signed the only federal law in exsistance that prohibits same sex marriage.

If you are referring to the DOMA, Mr44, then in all fairness it must be mentioned that the law doesn't "prohibit" anything-least of all same sex marriage.

It simply allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

All things being even, election outcomes will probably come down to local factors in most races, perhaps being swayed by good (or bad) news for either party in the two weeks leading up to November.

Polls now are generally meaningless, as they swing around a great deal; so does public opinion.

Peace,

V-03