2008.02.21
Playing politics?
We considered a Republican ticket question last time. This time we turn our attention to the Dems, with their Florida-Michigan delegate debacle.
In short, the race is tight and the candidates are scraping for every delegate they can get. Because Florida and Michigan broke party rules and held their primaries early, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard "The Screamer" Dean said delegates from those two states wouldn't be added to the tally.
Last I heard, Hillary is scrapping to include the delegates and Barack was warm to the idea, too. Mind you, they knew the rules up front. Add to the mix civil rights activists charging that the refusal to seat the delegates alienates a huge swath of black voters.
Dean is getting weak-kneed and considering do-overs in both Michigan and Florida. My question to you:
What to do!?
For more insights on this subject, check out this piece from Forbes online.
s
When it comes to my money the only thing I heard so far and seen in my check is the Democrats constant need to acquire my weekly dividends.
Yet not one of them is talking fair tax. Why the the fair tax in short:
The FairTax:
Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
Allows American products to compete fairly
Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
Abolishes the IRS
Why can't I be in control of my money instead of government something to consider.
Comment by Backlash — February 21, 2008 @ 11:42 am
I must ask a question..
Is the race between Clinton and Obama so tight because:
1) There are two equally-good (to voters that like them) candidates in the race, or
2) The party is split between two ideologies?
Being an "outsider" to a Democrat's way of thinking, I was curious which it is. I'm inclined to believe it is the first option, as it seems they have a lot of the same ideas.
Contrast with the Republican ticket, which has its own interesting points:
1) General "stinkage" of some candidates with respect to the original party ideas (McCain regarded as a "maverick", Guiliani a "RINO" from a liberal city)
2) Media and more liberal folk state how the GOP is ruled by the "Religious Right", yet discussions reign about the "nominability" of some candidates (Romney because of his religion, Huckabee because he is religious).
Comment by Ed S. — February 21, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
A couple of oxymorons in politics: "Political Consistency" and "Old Guard New Change"? The Clinton Candidacy typifies this.
A couple of axioms:
New Guard: Barack Obama
New Leader=New America
Comment by Bobby Buck — February 21, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
New is not always good. New Coke, for example.
I prefer the "old" America. That founded on and abiding by principles set in the Constitution.
Speaking of the hilarity of politics, its funny when any candidate campaigns using the word "change", especially when the sitting person is at the end of their term. Of course there will be "change" no matter who is elected. And they're just setting themselves up for failure the next election. Campaign for "change" now, what are you going to campaign for next term? "Status Quo"? You campaigned for change last year, but now you flip-flopped.
It's such an empty word. Change to what? Something better, or something worse? A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, why not stick with something better if its a gamble. We are talking about serious stakes, after all. If you're going to campaign on a word, why not pick something with more force. "Good". "The Best". Or, given recent lackluster candidates, "The Best We Have to Offer". Just as ambiguous as "change" but with a slightly more positive spin.
That'd be a good one.
"John Doe for President: The Best We Have to Offer"
Comment by Ed S. — February 21, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
Ed,
In this case, we are referring to the destiny of our nation and not the insignificance of a "sody pop". The old, both Republican and Democrat have played their hands... revealing that bluffing just will not cut it anymore. Click on my name and see why America's destiny needs Barack Obama, probably far more than Obama needs the headache of the mantle. Believe me, I don't envy his assuming this serious and defining role, but truly believe he's got the foresight and "intuitive intelligence" to guide us through the potential perils of the future.
Comment by Bobby Buck — February 21, 2008 @ 11:31 pm
Why do people hate change and new ideals is beyond me, yet we let loose of the horse and buggy for motor vehicles. We gave some train and road travel for air travel and still we fear change.
Was it not for mans ingenuity we would still be in the dark ages waiting on the town crier to deliver the news and still we are afraid of change. So each time I hear of a policticians words of new stratagems and new roads for American's growth, but were is this money for growth going to come from?
No one seems to grasp on one basic principle of change, comes with a price tag. Do we have a choice with the money we make. Why is it the government take their "cut" of our money and throw us what's left so we can support our families. I guess we can call that legalized extortion.
Now a real answer is upon us and only one candidate have gravitated to it. The Fair Tax. Regardless of the candidate that runs for President it is out time to take government out of our pockets yet it's that fear of change creeping up our necks again.
LET'S LOOK AT FIVE REASONS FOR THE FAIR TAX AND YOU WE SEE AS I WHY OUR POLITICIANS DISLIKE THIS BOLD AND NEW CHANGE......
1.) The FairTax meets the entire Democratic tax agenda, starting with
progressivity. The FairTax is far more progressive than the current income tax system. Under
the FairTax, low-income households experience five times the benefit increase as compared to
high-income households. And a switch to the FairTax causes real wages to rise.
2.) The FairTax eliminates the highly regressive tax on wages of the working poor
and middle class. The FairTax removes the single most regressive element (the payroll tax) for
wage earners.
3.) The FairTax stops the export of jobs. Our income tax favors imports over U.S.
production by exempting imports from U.S. tax, and we penalize U.S. exports by allowing
foreign nations to impose taxes when our goods enter their shores. This adds up to an average 17 percent price advantage over U.S. produced goods, which greatly depresses U.S. export and costs us jobs. The FairTax stops this abuse by taxing all goods consumed in the U.S. alike and untaxing exports.
4.) The FairTax is the only plan that targets and taxes existing wealth, not the fruits
of labor. The FairTax will tax every dollar of accumulated wealth in the most efficient way
possible – when it is spent. Tax shelters, loopholes, or other gimmicks to shield large wealth
from taxation will be a thing of the past.
5.) The FairTax promotes the American Dream. The FairTax makes home
ownership more affordable because used homes are totally untaxed, and three out of four
homebuyers buy used homes. For new and used homes, the FairTax does not tax the earnings
used to pay mortgages, interest rates will be far lower under the FairTax, and a homebuyer can
save for a down payment faster than under current law.
I guess with genuwinly positive ideals for the future is just truely lost on the old.
Comment by Backlash — February 22, 2008 @ 1:48 am
Doesn't look as if none of the previous posters wants to address your subject matter. The Democrats in Fl and MI were told prior to their decisions that there would be consequences for not following the rules. If one doesn't follow the rules, then the penalties that were outlined prior to the offense should be enforced.
If the civil rights of voters meant anything to those who are complaining, they would have been front and center encouraging the state party officials to not deviate from the established procedures. Then, every vote in Michigan & Florida would have been counted and they would have an opportunity to impact the nomination process. Just like in ever other part of life, when one doesn't follow rules, then they lose certain rights.
Comment by Henry Hale — February 22, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
HA HA HA HA HA
Democrates follow the rules!
Don't see any indication of that on the local level so why hold to rules on the state or national level
The only "clash" in this matter is of gender and race.
Think about it, you old people. How many times has it been a question? When will a black be president? When will a woman be president? Go back just 10 years ago and look at the "leaders" we had in those groups. No offense intended, but it was a pretty sorry lot as far as I'm concerned. NOW come 2008 and we have one of each but unfortunately both in the same party and thus the conflict. What's really sad is that neither one shows the real ability to do the job but yet there is no way a Republican will win this time. What I want to see is how (and if) they make up after the candidate is finally determined.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you're a non-Democrat. You might even be a Republican. If so, your guy in the White House has followed the rules? Do tell. No offense taken, but everyone knew that the previous presidential runs by black "leaders"---whites' designation, not blacks'---were symbolic. Same with previous women candidates---s
Comment by Smoke — February 23, 2008 @ 8:59 am
I'm a moderate Democrate and it's regretfull that Howard Dean is the chairman of the Democrate party. It is a mounmential embarasement to me personaly.
If both political parties would move from the extreme left and right; and move to the center known as moderate idealogy, The president, senate and congress could get more accomplished for every citizen in the good old USA.
Comment by Lowell Burgess — February 23, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
Well, since you ask I'll tell you I've been far more active as a D that an R but I have voted both ways from time to time...so what does that make me? Does not matter and it's totally unimportant for people who have enough of a brian to evaluate the candidtaes. Clinton says she is out "to beat the Republicans". That sure is noble. Obama claims to not want to be pegged quite so firmly on the side of D or R. Sure wish I could recall the exact quote but I think it was on TV about a week ago. THAT IS NOBLE. It's also smart and it's also what we need to make progress on any issue but I still feel he is not ready and way short of the skills needed and he sure does not have much to put on the "accomplishment list", outside of having gotten elected.
George Bush, "my guy"...how did you come to that conclusion my Lady D? And as to the past minority candidates, I absolutely do not agree they were symbolic. The were taking steps that had to be taken to advance in the political arena and because of some of that ground work we have had many excellent minority and female leaders at every level, except this one. But just as we have had bad men and non-minority candidates that were not fit for the offices, we can have some minorities and females that are either not fit or not ready. Clinton is not fit. Obama is not ready.
Comment by Smoke — February 23, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
Lowell, you are so right! But politicians have created this polarity, probably by accident and yet they have now discoverd it works for them. Given a problem affecting all I tend to think reasonable minds can work out a solution...until you introduce "party line thinking". Combined with this the voters want "their" problems solved at the expense of"the other guy" and there we have fragmentation of interest to the degree there is no more "common good". It all about what I want. The good ol' US of A is in pretty bad shape thanks to such events.
Comment by Smoke — February 24, 2008 @ 8:08 am
I do not understand why this is a question. The rules were set, understood, agreed upon. Why bother with rules?
Isn't it rather telling when any candidate seeks to change or bend rules mid-game? It's like a bad game of Liar's Dice or playing in a dirty sandbox. This stuff is getting old.
I just don't get it. Is any politician truly trustworthy? I am hanging my hat on Obama and praying he doesn't catch old-style Washington fever. We desperately need term limits. Washington changes people.
Comment by Goldenwillow — February 24, 2008 @ 10:47 pm