[connandoilee]

Originally posted by GePap

Well, from 2002 to 2006 we had a completely "Fiscally conservative" Republican government, and the chart shows what happened then. Anyone who has even a shred of honesty will admit that Republican rule hasn't just been a dismal failure but an absolute failure.

[Auzuigcx]

Originally posted by DanS


Let's see if Obama can start polling in the 50%+ range. If I were a Dem, I would be worried that with so much exposure, Obama is still polling sub-50%. If by "sub-50%" you mean 53.2% (which is about where he has always polled) then yes but other wise this is just another stupid and verifiablely wrong post by DanS.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

[Lictimind]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Anyone who has even a shred of honesty will admit that Republican rule hasn't just been a dismal failure but an absolute failure. Dismal? Yes.

Absolute? No, we're still here ain't we?

ACK!

[fkjghfg]

In answer to the thread question. Yes.

They have squandered the future.

Both from an environment perspective but also from a war perspective.

[Pharmadryg]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What part of Obama's history would lead one to believe that he would have been conservative at any point in time? Please consider more than just selected positions such as abortions because I'd like a more broad based answer. There's his support for FISA, as well as support for school vouchers even in religious schools.
Aside from that what che said sums it up. Yesterday's conservatives would be today's liberals.

PS That's not what he said though. Neoconservatism is foreign policy ideaology who's supporters can be either liberal or conservative which is why his statement made no sense. Are you on crack? 1st of all, my jibe was at the current neocon admin, which I thought was obvious. 2nd, neocons are a branch of conservatism so it's impossible to be liberal and neocon.

BK-
Notwithstanding the fact that the voters of Florida voted for Bush. Sore-Loserman anybody?

Aside from the well-documented fact that enough blacks were not allowed to vote that would've made Gore the prez. My concern at this late stage isn't that, it's that you cons(ervatives) don't seem to give a **** about this slap in the face to democracy b/c your guy won. Truth is after that we all lost.
And yes I would've been just as pissed had the dems done the same thing. Probably not in the future tho. I'd call it just desserts.

Well sure. Saddam Hussein is still rattling his sabres. Oh no, wait, no he isn't.

Which is of course totally irrelevant to my point.

There's a record number of judicial emergencies. That's completely unacceptable when they are qualified nominees. I don't care if they obstructed 1 or 2 Clinton nominees, that doesn't justify retaliation by shutting down the whole process.
~~
Thank you. Ideology trumps competence. If they are competent, they should be appointed, period. Ginsburg got appointed unanimously, why did they reject Bork.

Since when did you care about personal agendas interpreting the constitution? Isn't the constitution a living tree?

1st of all, they didn't reject "1 or 2" Clinton nominees. If you want to read about "shutting down" the process, read up on the repugs handling of Clinton appointees.
2nd, if a candidate puts ideology above the Constitution and precedents of law, I'd say he or she isn't qualified. Alito and Scalia, FE, didn't seem to care about precedent wrt the recent ruling on the 2nd Amendment.

That's what happens when you tack on domestic pork onto a bill for funding the troops. No one likes that stunt.

Sad strawman, espec since both sides do this. But it doesn't refute my point. Plz try again.

You'd take high taxation over economic prosperity?

As I said, I'd take both at the same time.

Pelosi et al is far more authoritarian. Bush will be remembered as Bush the Good, while his father will be Bush the lesser.

Please re-enter our universe.

[Dodoerabe]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles
He's saying that 30 years ago, Obama would be considered conservative, but in today's environment, old-style conservatism is considered liberal, while out and out reactionary politics is what now passes for conservative. Oh give me a break! 30 years ago Obama would have been run out of politics for being a communist. 50 years ago the CIA would have blown up his house.

It is fantastic that his viewpoints are getting an airing, but there is nothing conservative about the man by any definition I have ever heard. Socialist, yes...Conservative, no.

[6Rexw51X]

Well he's not Jesse Helms. That's for sure.

[GlarlraTpople]

"Hard liberalism" makes no sense.

[XinordiX]

Republicans should be punished (by their voters) for running our country into the ground the last 8 years & they have been across the country... losing election after election. But it shouldn't affect how we select our next President. McCain is NOT Bush, if you're concerned with some of McCain's endorsements of Bush's policies by all means vote Obama but i personally don't expect McCain to run the country with the same failed policies of the last 8 years. I am an independent (leaning Republican) & i was wowed early on by Obama & his inspiring speeches but the more you saw of Obama the more you noticed that his speeches were lacking in substance & lacked solutions to Americas problems. I'm currently (heavily) leaning McCain but (i won't lie) part of me wants to give Obama a chance to bring "change" to America. I was happy with Biden as his VP pick. Personally if Biden was the one running for President the Democrats would have had a much better chance of getting my vote. Although i do have serious concerns over McCain as well. If you watched his debates vs Romney then you have to be incredibly concerned over his understanding of how to handle our economy. He came across as a complete moron on the issue, some one who has ZERO understanding of how the economy works. That is pretty scary but i feel he is stronger then Obama on the majority of other important issues. He is also the more likely of the two to go against his party to get things done which would benefit America.

I am hoping Romney is selected as his VP, even though something about Romney screams lying scumbag/typical politician... i am trying not to judge a book by its cover. Romney simply has the qualifications & understanding of the economy to help fix it & the economy needs all the help it can get. McCain needs that on his ticket. If Romney is not on the ticket i will have a hard time coping with voting for a Republican ticket that i fear might not fix our economy & has the potential to make it worse. I will follow the conventions & the rest of the race closely & vote for what i feel America needs right now. It's hard to see how McCain will not be whats best for the country. I understand many of you are anti Bush, well Bush was inexperienced & not as qualified as Al Gore. Yet he was elected & that inexperience/incompetence led us to where we are today. Why are some of you so eager to possibly make the same mistake again?

I wished most Americans would vote that way & not blindly give away their votes to the party they are a part of. If that was the case George W. Bush would not have been reelected & America would be in better shape because of it (well maybe). He proved he wasn't a good President yet some how found his way back in office. Granted the Democrats have a way of nominating some incredibly bad candidates. Who honestly felt Kerry & Edwards were a strong ticket? I dislike Bush as much as any one else but i couldn't even bring myself to vote for either of those two. I didn't vote at all, the options were equally disappointing. Some times you have to put your ideology aside & do whats best for our Country. I don't see how any one could honestly justify Obama being better prepared then John McCain to lead our country. Just as it was clear George W. Bush was not qualified 8 years ago. It isn't a popularity contest or which candidate would be the most fun to sit back & have a beer with. You vote for who is best equipped to lead the country. Barrack Obama was the least qualified Democrat in the primaries yet here he is. Words are nice, actions are greater & what change a country. Barrack Obama has been everywhere on his policies & the ones he has not switched on have been described incredibly vaguely. You're voting for speeches, you're voting Democrat because you're disenfranchised with the Republican party. You're NOT voting for Barrack Obama because you feel he is truly stronger then John McCain.

[QEoMi752]

Originally posted by Kidicious


What makes you believe that? John McCain has proven more then just about any one that he is capable of bipartisanship. He will do what needs to be done to get things done even if it upsets the radical neocons of his party.

[sesWaipunsaws]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What part of Obama's history would lead one to believe that he would have been conservative at any point in time? Please consider more than just selected positions such as abortions because I'd like a more broad based answer. You're not that stupid, and I wasn't that vague, therefore, you're being disingenuous. Both Theben are and I were very clearly pointing out that the politics of modern "liberals" and conservatism from 30 years ago, is largely indistinguishable. While modern "conservatism" has gone off into what would be consider the extreme far right.

[Donadoni1809]

Originally posted by Zenn-La
He will do what needs to be done to get things done even if it upsets the radical neocons of his party. Oh don't even try that line around here... it's a beginning assumption he's being led around by a leash, so why bother.

[excholza]

Originally posted by Arrian
To answer the OP: absolutely. I believe that firmly. When a party ****s up as badly as they've ****ed up, they need to be punished.

That said, I also believe the Dem candidate to be the better choice - punishment is simply an extra incentive.

Neither Obama nor McCain is a loon. They're not fringe guys. I will be disappointed if McCain wins, of course, but I'll be able to cling to some small hope that John McCain v.2000 still exists somewhere in there...

-Arrian That's basically it. If he's elected I'll have to hope the McCain from 2000 was the real McCain and he's just been lying for the last 8 years to get the Republican nomination.