I guess "drivel" is any article that dares criticize or exposes the truth about Dear Leader (even if it written by a gay Liberal). Sums up Obama sheep perfectly.
Seriously? First, I said "since Reconstruction." That means we start in 1957. Here's what your horribly simplistic reference says about that: We'll take them one at a time. 1. Yes, it was signed by Eisenhower. Let's go to #3 next. Yes, it was filibustered by some Democrats. In fact, the longest individual filibuster in the history of the Senate was conducted against the act by that erstwhile Democrat and paragon of Liberal virtues, one Strom Thurmond. Before that, it was passed out of a Dem House and LBJ brokered a deal that passed a watered down bill, which was better than the nothing that the soon-to-be Repubs like Thurmond wanted. As for 1964, a similar story. Introduced by Emmanual Celler, a Dem who chaired the House Judiciary Committee in response to one of JFK's last speeches where he called for a such a law. Obstructed by yet another Dixiecrat who chaired a House committee, there were several parliamentary exceptions that got the bill to the floor and passed. In the Senate, even with LBJ twisting as many arms as possible in the memory of JFK, the Dixiecrats led a filibuster which lasted weeks until Hubert Humphrey and LBJ made a deal with Repub Dirksen (vocal in his opposition early on), who until then, had not wanted to bring northern Repubs along in a cloture vote. The most important number is not Dem vs. Repub, but South vs. everyone else: Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%) Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%) Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%) Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%) (Incidentally, all 6 Repubs voting against the bill supported Goldwater for President, including Goldwater himself and young Senator from Texas named John Tower.) For all his faults, LBJ was a true civil rights champion and a brilliant politician. He said to Bill Moyers the night the bill passed: That was correct, as the Dixiecrats that opposed the bill morphed into Republicans over the next decade or two. Within hours after (if not before) the 1964 election, national Republicans started making appeals to the Dixiecrats to team up and oppose LBJ's policies. Strom's switch to the Repubs weeks after the 1964 Act and weeks before the election certainly helped spur that alliance. Thus was born the modern Republican Party and over the next 10 years, such notable Democrats as Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, and Bob Barr all switched from Dems to Repubs while Nixon implemented the Southern Strategy. #2. There are two trains of thought as to why JFK voted against the 1957 bill. The first is that it was indeed a watered down bill with few substantive provisions, so he may have voted against based on that. The other, which is probably more valid is that he was looking to run for President and he would not be able to secure the nomination if he had taken a forthright stance on the bill. In other words, for that vote, he was a politician and not a statesman. Still, you cannot look at his deeds and words as President and questions his civil rights record, much less lump him with the Southerners who not only opposed civil rights but actively supported segregation.
I'm curious to see how Republicans will attack Obama on these issues. Obama will say he cut taxes, but he also raised them (part of HCR), and tried to raise them further. Still the tax cuts/increases made by the President were in line with what he said from Day 1. Raise tax on the rich, and cuts for the middle class/poor. He will run on getting out of Iraq. Will the Republicans focus on what Republican President signed off on a withdrawal from Iraq? Will they focus on our troops still being in Afghanistan? Will Republicans mention Bush's role in saving the auto industry and financial industry? I don't think Romney has a chance. He would desperately need the economy to start trending downward again.
HCR will, of course, be easy. I think on the auto bailout, they'll focus on the idea of bailouts in general, and probably focus more on the banks than the autos - no mention of Bush IMO. War-wise, I think they'll avoid Iraq and focus on Afghanistan as well as the threat from Iran. That tends to be my view. I put Obama as a solid, though not prohibitive, favorite. His biggest weakness from 2008 - lack of experience - is gone, but his greatest strengths - disaster of Bush and agent of change - are also gone. So he has to write a whole new script for the campaign. Until I see what that is, I can't really count Romney out. That said, I think there are still all sorts of potential shocks out there that could change the campaign. Number one being Spain and it's potential implosion right now. For the last year, I thought Greece would decide Obama's fate, but somehow they seem to have contained that for a while - the question now is whether someone can put a lid on Spain as well.
Obama will win because he is more likeable and brighter than Romney. Thus far I have seen nothing he is more skilled at than Obama. Romney is stiff when trying to appeal to minorities and blue collar workers, and is just awkward when dealing with the South. His religion doesn't even help him as a vast majority of Mormons already vote Republican. That leaves him basically in John Kerry limbo.
Nope. I'm saying Obama will crush Romney in this year's Presidential election like LBJ crushed Goldwater in 1964.
If the GOP were rational and not a blind flock of overzealous sheep, then they would support Paul. Paul is probably the cleanest candidate in this election not to mention because of his relatively liberal social policies he'd get some support from the left too. Its ridiculous how they don't realize this. (Of course the only thing keeping me from voting for him would be his want to return to the gold standard)
Paul is too extreme. For a large country like the US, you need a big government to run it. Most of the discretionary spending are not the problem. Take care of Defense, Medicare/Medicaid and you solve the budget problem. The trouble is no one really want to tackle these two issues. It should be fun in about 20 years when we have defense and health care make up 60% of the GDP.
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/jboTeS9Okak" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
So if they were smart, the voters in the GOP would vote for a guy that doesn't believe in the things they believe in and wants to take the country in a direction they don't want it to go? If they don't actually care about the views of their candidate and just want to win, they might as well nominate Obama - that way, they are guaranteed to win in an Obama vs Obama matchup.
Tony Robbins did a nice job here of showing how incredibly enormous a hole we have dug ourselves....and are continuing to dig. The scariest part of that presentation was the part that stated from Aug 2009-Aug 2011 (2 years) we spent as much as a nation as we did from 1789-1988. Our government (Republicans and Democrats alike) is out of control. Period.
Now THAT would be an entertaining election. And interesting debates. And very weird D&D threads with everyone switching sides on alternating posts.
