MD: More On Cardin’s Health Care Town Hall
A friend, who sent MD Senator Ben Cardin’s staff an RSVP email to his town hall on Monday, got this response back.
Hello:I received your email RSVP. Please be advised that your RSVP is not a reservation or a guarantee of a seat. The purpose of the RSVP is for the Senator’s office and Towson University to have an idea of how many people to expect. Space is limited in Kaplan Theater to 500 people. In accordance with fire regulations, when the venue is full there will be no standing room available.
Thank you,
Sean F. McKew
U. S. Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
100 South Charles Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
In other words, it will be first come, first serve. Clearly the people running the offices of Congresspeople and Senators are aware that in town hall after town hall, the attendance figures are much higher than have been normal in the past. This is not news. So with that knowledge that has been building for weeks in mind, did Cardin’s staff even think about moving his “town hall” to a larger location that could accommodate more people? My guess is they didn’t even think about it and/or purposely did not move it. The truth is this “town hall” was meant to be more of a photo op for Cardin that he could post on a campaign website showing him talking to a bunch of supporters applauding his every word. And I am sure Cardin and his flacks are going to do everything they can with the help of the local unions, to pack the crowd as much as possible and prevent as many people opposed to socialized health care out of the hall as possible.
At the Happy Hour, it was stated by a person apparently ‘in the know” that they are opening the doors at 6:15pm on Monday and allow people in on a first come, first serve basis.
For an account of the town hall on Thursday on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, check out this account at Red Maryland. Apparently no , but the crowd still was nearly 75%-25% split against Obama’s socialized health care plan.
First!
To think, had Bush not failed as President, then Cardin might not even be in the Senate right now. Steele did run the better campaign but lost beacuse of the backlash against Bush.
Wes, In your opinion, who was worse (as President) Jimmy Carter or George W Bush ?
I’ve already put my top-ten worst Presidents out there, Tim. I’ll repeat if necessary though:
1) Herbert Hoover
William Howard Taft
2) Jimmy Carter
3) Benjamin Harrison
4) Andrew Jackson
5) George W Bush
6) Woodrow Wilson
7) James Buchanan
9) Andrew Jackson
10) Barack Obama (likely to make Number One once he completes his term; it’s too early to list him as Number One at the moment)
Tim, can you honestly say Bush wasn’t a huge disapppointment as President–especially in his second term?
Wes,
Either 4 or 9 must be Andrew JOHNSON, correct?
Wes,
And I probably would replace Andrew Jackson with Franklin Pierce. Other than that, we’re pretty close on this issue.
Actually Four should be Lyndon Johnson. My mistake. Not paying to my own list, I put Andrew Jackson twice. My apologies.
President Bush will be remembered unkindly for the failure of oversight in the financial crisis. However, I believe his tactics in the war on terror will be studied for decades and history will be far kinder to him than the present.
Actually I don’t think Pierce was that bad, but Jackson foud his way onto my list for a few reasons:
1) His treatment of the Indians that led to the Trail of Tears
2) His strongarming of New England and South Carolina to prevent secession that set the template for the excuse Lincoln would need to launch his war in the 1860s
3) His free-money economic policies that led to a massive economic downturn in the late 1830s
4) His overt use of the spoils system that led to all manner fo corruption till Chester Arthur established civil service reform in the 1880s
Pitch, that would have been true had Bush not lauded the disastrous management of the war in 2005 and 2006. He chose to reward failure though and so will be remembered at best indifferently for how poorly he handled the Iraq situation.
#4 Wes,
I would not put President George W Bush in the top ten worst presidents. As time passes, we will look back on the Bush presidency with an entirely different perspective from the one we have now. The evolution of public opinion of President Truman’s years will likely be the model for President Bush.
Frankly, I’ll take both the Bush foreign policy and economy over what I’ve seem of Obama’s approach.
The Bush budget deficits were only approximately 2-3% of GDP. At the current rate of increase in Obama’s budget deficites, we will be at approximately 10% of GDP in a few years.
With Obama as President, I fear for the physical security of the United States and our citizens. I did not have that fear with President Bush.
Marv
Iraq is different from the war on terror. The tactics deployed by his administration both here and abroad kept us safe during those frightful years after 2001. Iraq was an avoidable disaster where he was done in by loyalty to Rumsfeld. Once Obama got to office, he has found out that much of what he opposed Bush for his tactics, have ended up being followed in his administration.
Marv, Bush launched a wholly unnecessary war in Iraq and then pretended everything was going fine till years later he had an epiphany and tried to correct the situation. He imposed tariffs and launched tarp bailots that set the stage for the Obama presidency. I’m sorry, but I don’t see the huge success you seem to envision the Bush Administration to have been.
Pitch, most proponents of the Iraq War say it is inseparable from the war on terror.
I straddle two out of the three countries most hit by Islamic terrror – US and India. The way the Bush administration tracked and followed terrorist cells here and abroad is being studied already in Asia and Europe. They will not admit the genius in some of Bush’s methods; ultimately, history will. If you want to know how good he was in that sphere, just close your eyes and imagine if Gore or Obama were President in 2001.
Wes, I look at Bush as follows: 1. War on terror – excellent 2. Afghanistan: good 3. Iraq: poor until he was saved by Gen. Petraeus. I do agree that this war could have been avoided, but it an argument for another time 4. Economy: considering he inherited a sliding market which then crashed after 9/11 he did great until 2008. In principle, I disagree with the TARP bailouts, however, without stabilising the financial institutions the pain would have been immense.
I’ve already put my top-ten worst Presidents out there, Tim. I’ll repeat if necessary though:
1) Barack Obama
2) Jimmy Carter
3) Benjamin Harrison
4) Bill Clinton
5) LBJ
6) Woodrow Wilson
7) James Buchanan
8. William Howard Taft
9) JFK
10) Andrew Johnson
Pitch, Bush’s policies were the direct precursor of those of Obama. The stock market slid sharply after the bailouts, and the bailouts established a dangerous precedent. Our currency has severed sharp devaluation because of Bush’s and Obama’s policies, and despite what the Administration says, we have not yet seen the end of the recessiion Bush and congressional Dems got us into. I can’t agree with you there, my friend.
Dont get me wrong; I am not arguing Bush is a Raegan or Lincoln, but he does not belong with Carter who was a disaster on all fronts. Before you guys trash him put yourself in his shoes on 9/11/2001. You are the guy that has to decide what to do with an enemy without a face, state or country. He was not fighting Hitler, Stalin, Communist Russia or Nazi Germany. He had to go against a nebulous entity called Islamic terror. They could take 99 defeats in their stride but if they inflicted just one upon Bush, it could be catastrophic for the US.
How can you have Andrew Johnson and John F Kennedy on your list, Eph? Kennedy was the most conservative Dem elected President since Grover Cleveland and advocated both a strong national defense and tax cuts as a way to spur economic growth. Johnson inherited a country in the aftermath of an unnecessary, divisive war and faced a Congress filled with Republicans who wanted his head at the end of a post. By surviving impechment and actually opposing the Radical Republicans, he kept the presidency from becoming a puppet figurehead for Congress’ whims. He was far from great, but I can’t see how he can be considered a failure–unlike George W Bush, whose sole goal as President was to fail.
I dont believe the recession is over either and if Obama has his way wqith tax increases, cap and trade and governemnt health care, we will be miserable for a few more years. However, I do believe without pumping money into the credit system, credit would have completely frozen triggering a depression. As for bailing out GM, Chrysler, Tom, Dick and Harry, I completely disagree with that policy.
Up to that point, I agree with you, Pitch. Bush was exemplary in his response to 9/11. Unfortunately he went too far in launching the Iraq War, which was nothing less than a catastrophic, poorly managed distraction from the War on Terror that ultimately undemrined Bush’s standing as President and led to a Dem resurgence nationally.
I am an ardent conservative but I believe that it is unfair to put Bill Clinton and JFK on this list. They were moderately successful Presidents.
Bush established the template for that, Pitch. Herbert Hoover essentially mirrored the Bush economic policy in 2008 during the 1930-’31 period. We all know how that worked out.
In the spirit of discussing what’s good about America, how about a TOP five:
1. Washington
2. Lincoln
3. FDR
4. Teddy Roosevelt
5. Reagan
I know a lot of people here don’t like FDR for his socialist policies, but he led the nation through a precarious situation where much more radical people could have taken power in a fascist style.
I don’t know how anyone could not put Washington at No. 1. It speaks for itself.
Clinton was an average President. Kennedy had the potential to be great but sadly never lived to see that potential fully realized.
No question Wes, his overreach in Iraq coupled with a stupid handling of resources once the initial war was won led to the democratic resurgence. However, the Republicans helped him with their scandals and terrible spending and deficits. Four years in exile is good for the Repubs; hopefully they have learned their lesson.
Wes,
The Iraq War ended when Bagdad fell in 2003. At the time, Bush was correct in his Mission Accomplished speech. What followed in the years thereafter ultimately proved disastrous for Al-Queda and the insurgents. Once the rules of engagement were changed, the US military turned the battle space into a killing field and the terrorists never recovered.
Iraq was just another battlefield in the war against Islamic terrorists, just as Afghanistan, Somalia, and the Phillipines are now. (Yes, US military operations are in progress on the Horn of Africa and in the PI, as well as elsewhere.)
Iraq is a better place today than under Hussein and President Bush was correct to order the invasion in 2003. You, of course, are free to disagree, but history will likely look favorably on the President’s decision. (Years 2005 and the fist half of 2006 not withstanding.)
Marv
FDR prolonged the Depression, led the country into the only double-dip economic downturn in its history, and tried to seize power by proposing the packing of the Supreme Court. He responded well to the growing threat of Germany and Japan though and led us well in World War II. Him too I would consider to be average.
Again, FDR gets high marks for the war, but his domestic policy along with LBJ has put this country on the track to ultimate insolvency. I believe Lincoln gets the highest spot simply for his courage of conviction and being way ahead of his time.
Playing whack-a-mole while seeing the Iraqi infrastructure routinely undermined by a series of disastrous policy decisions and doing nothing to confront the situation head on and decrease the violence was not the way to effectively prosecute a war, Marv. You are free to disagree, but history will not look kindly on Bush’s decision to invade Iraq.
Seriously, how could anyone not appreciate Andrew Jackson, the Battle of New Orleans for crying out loud saved this country from falling to British rule. Please do your homework. The Trail of tears is just revisionist history being played out. The real story was a bit different. The indians lease ran out and they moved to Oklahoma where the rent was cheaper and the buffaloe roamed. There was no buffaloe in Florida/ Georgia at all. Just squirrel meat.
Lincoln established an unconstitutional income tax, undermined states’ rights, instituted the first welfare system, suspended habeas corpus, curtailed freedom of speech by intimidating newspaper editors who disagreed with the war, and exiled Dem Congressmen who felt he should not be at war. These are the kinds of things Hitler and Stalin did, and we consider them the most evil men in history. Lincoln did them, and we laud him? I don’t get it.
In the country of my birth Gandhi inspired me the most; in the country that adopted me, Lincoln does. However, those of you whose forefathers fought and died for 1776, I understand why Washington is supreme.
Albert, the Battle of New Orleans happened in 1815. Andrew Jackson became President in 1829. I can’t see how winning a battle that took place after the War of 1812 had already ended but years before Jackson became President somehow catapults him into standing as a great President.
Wes, you will argue that the end does not justify the means. However, most of what Saddam and Stalin did was to enhance their power. Almostall of what Lincoln did was for a cause that was morally just by any standards. Please do not mention his name with the other two thugs.
I despise Lincoln because he was the first President to actively work to undermine the delicate balance of states’ rights that ultimately led to the way the US is today. History would have been much better for us had Lincoln lost in 1860.
#32 Wes,
The war in Iraq is largely over, we won. It doesn’t matter that it wasn’t pretty. The only thing that actually matters in the grand scheme of things is that the United States and our allies won and the Islamic jihadists (and Hussein) lost. World War II wasn’t pretty either.
Speaking of FDR and World War II, take a very close look at what happened at the Yalta Conference in 1945. An old and exhausted FDR caved to the Soviets as they divided up post war Europe, which lead directly to the Cold War. It took 45 years and Reagan/Thatcher to clean that mess up.
Marv
Pitch, we have something called the Constitution in this country. Lincoln disregarded it at his will despite clear constitutional prohibitions against such actions. The only difference between him and those others is that they went further than he did. Nothing justifies undermining constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. Nothing.
Roosevelt did grant Stalin concessions he shoudl not have given, Marv. Truman was more responsible for the spread of worldwide communism than Roosevelt though. He should receive the lion’s share of the blame, not an ailing President in the literal last days of his life.
It will be fascinating if we knew what Lincoln’s approval numbers would have been during his presidency. Probably terrible, although he makes the top three with most people (Wes excluded). History will likely judge Bush better.
By the wya, Pitch, despite what revisionist history claims, the war Lincoln launched in 1861 was not fought “to end slavery” or for any othe rnoble cause. It was fought because the Republicans’ political base at the time demanded high protectionist tariffs that would have crippled the southern economy. The South seceded as is their constitutional right under the 10th Amendment, and Lincoln ordered his generals to turn the South into a No Man’s Land. They gleefully complied. Nothing justifies what Lincoln did–especially when launching the war was constitutionally dubious at best.
Historians generally agree Lincoln would have been defeated in 1864 had the war been going as badly for the North as it had till after Gettysburg.
Time to go eat, all. Catch you later.
Wes-it was still on his resume’. As president, he created the transcontinental hiking trail and the Shetland Pony Express(a smaller, miniaturized version), as well as the dredging of one of our most magnificent tourist sites today, the Grand Canyon. Jackson also improved the underground plumbing and the spigots so that Niagera Falls could be a monumental success. Finally, and this accomplishment can not not be ignored: he singlehandedly chiseled the Mount Rushmore one day during a lunch break so please remove Jackson from your list pronto!
Wes, I will not debate you much more on history as it seems to be your field of expertise. On another day, when the focus shifts to medicine, we will debate on my turf. I do respectfully submit that most of history is revisionist all over the world.
#41 Wes,
Truman did not prosecute the Korean War quite as aggressively as he should have. He was, however, hindered by the fact that the US military was a mere shadow of it’s World War II strength. It took us three years to reach a draw with an opponent that fought a largely conventional style war. Sad.
Marv
Wes #41,
Just imagine what would have happened if Henry Wallace hadn’t been supplanted by Truman at the 1944 DNC? The Cold War would have been lost before it even started.
Just for the record, “bonncaruso” is Italian slang for “without a clue.”
# 49 JeffG
Henry Wallace has exacted his revenge in the form of Barack Obama.
Marv
CHANGE:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/07/video-the-two-faces-of-obama/
Worst :
1) Barry Soetero
2) Jimmy Carter
5.Tim, can you honestly say Bush wasn’t a huge disapppointment as President–especially in his second term?
Comment by Wes
Yes.
Bush had bowls and no other pres will ever dodge thrown shoes like he did. That was Sugar Ray fast. The only thing Bush did wrong was not defend his actions,,he let the libs define him and write the narrative. Wes you are falling victim to the lies. Don’t fall for it.
Of course his spending was terrible too.
75-25 against BHOMed plan in MD meeting. I would say there is 25% of this country that are willing to sacrifice their individual rights for the collective.The hard leftist agenda types. HOWEVER, no where in the Constitution are rights given to any particular group… they are individual rights. And Gov’t Helathcare or healthcare Insurance period is not one of them. That is why this socialistic stuff will never be popular with the majority of Americans. This country is very much right of center. Conservatism is not dead or dying. I think the majority of the USA has put pushed enough in the first six months of this administration. Keep shoving this Socialistic/Marxist philosophy on people and you will see blowback like never before in this country since the Civil War.
Just a few months ago, our friends on the left were laughing at us for even suggesting that Obama and the Dems would overreach and be punished for it.
Now, they have only themselves to laugh at.
On worst presidents, here are a few of mine:
Obama- Trillion-dollar deficits, nationalization of private sector industries, rewarding failure with taxpayer dollars and threatening any recovery with crippling tax hikes (to name a few).
Woodrow Wilson- Creating the Federal Reserve and the income tax, both clearly un-American ideals which transferred power over our money from the citizens to the government.
FDR- Sorry, his unconstitutional fleecing of the public with his Executive Gold Surrender Order, which was immediately followed by a massive devaluation of the dollar vs. gold, makes him a statist thief.
LBJ- The many consequences of his drastic expansion of the government welfare state continue today.
George W. Bush and Bill Clinton (post-94), were on the lower side of average. Both of them earned their parties electoral beatdowns for their mistakes.
53.Worst : Revised
1) Barry Soetero
2) Jimmy Carter
3) Billary
I didn’t know that about Woddrow Wilson. Now I hate him.
Benjamin Harrison
Why was he lousy Wes ?
53.Worst :
1) Barry Soetero
2) Jimmy Carter
3) LBJ
Worst Presidents
Those that have trampled on the Constitution…Lincoln, Teddy R, Wilson, FDR, LBJ, GWB, BHO, missing anyone else???
TOP 5
Washington
Adams
Jefferson
Jackson
Reagen
Harrison died on his 32nd day in office[1]—the shortest tenure in United States presidential history
how much damage can one man do in 32 days ?
Tim, You are thinking of William Henry Harrison (1841).
ok thanks
Where are the posters here who attempted to assure us that Obama would govern from the center?
Chirp…chirp…chirp…
The initial Congressional delegations from all six states were solidly Republican.[94] More states were admitted under Harrison’s presidency than any other since George Washington’s.
so… under B Harrison’s term 6 REPUBLICAN states joined the country. That sounds good to me Wes.
Woodrow Wilson- Creating the Federal Reserve and the income tax, both clearly un-American ideals which transferred power over our money from the citizens to the government.-house
Worst :
1) Barry Hussein Obama
2) Jimmy Carter
3) LBJ
4) W Wilson
Worst :
1) Barry Hussein Obama
2) Jimmy Carter
3) LBJ
4) W Wilson
5) FDR
6) Lincoln
…anyone who doesn’t have Lincoln in the top two wasn’t paying attention in reality class.
…..and to put Lincoln anywhere near a bottom five is to forfeit your right to be taken anywhere near seriously.
This nation would not have survived without that president…did he do this by “whatever means necessary”?
Yeah.
Thank God for that.
It survived as a nation that saved mankind from two World Wars and one (even more dangerous) Cold War.
Without Lincoln we would have been just another second rate power riven by inter-continental conflict.
I’ll say it again….Thank God for Lincoln.
….and (whether he set out to do it originally or not) he crushed the institution of slavery that was abhorrent to any civilized nation.
And he did it with an eleqounce that has never been (nor is likely ever to be) surpassed.
Woodrow Wilson did not create the modern Income Tax. The 16 Ammendment did that. It was ratified over a month before he took office.
And, Abraham Lincoln was our greatest President, in my opinion. Washington and FDR were the next two.
The worst? Harding, Buchanan, or Pierce. Take your pick
I am one of the lurkers(viscarious learner) for the past few years and only posted twice before. Didn’t Andrew Jackson start the Democratic Party? And, he told the Supreme Court with there rulings unless they had an army.
…..oh, my…he suspended Habeas Corpus?
Yeah…..while in a capital surrounded by enemies of the most vile sort who were fighting to protect what they called “state’s rights” while really protecting an institution that was vile to its core and a way of life that had already become atavistic.
…and with that………Hellbelly rests!
But first here’s my top five:
Licoln/Washington (1 & 1a – take your pick)
3)Polk
4) Reagan
5) Jefferson (there’s no way to dance around the fact that the Missippi purchase was made on his watch).
I’m a big Polk fan – for similar reasons to putting Jefferson on the list – I feel a bigger US was better for the entire world.
Now I know why I haven’t posted before. I meant to say that Jackson ignored their ruling and said unless they had an army he did not have to comply.
let me respell Mississippi, however!
I mention this because there is another Dem that may ignore rulings.
….bottom five:
1) Buchanan – in a class by himself for “fiddling while the nation burned”
2) Carter – bad president; worse ex-president
3) LBJ – the Great Society was anything but
4) Harding – heart not in job and surrounded himself with corruption
5) I guess Pierce, but not a big fan of Rutherford B. Hayes for bargaining away reconstruction to win a tainted election.
and finally: Most overrated –
1) JFK (he did cut taxes, however)
!
2) Teddy Roosevelt (big trusts never bothered me
Most under-rated
1) Coolidge (the business of America really WAS business); and
2) Mckinley
Lincoln was by members of his own party in 1860 not to accept the nomination knowing that his elevation to the Presidency would cause millions of young men to die in a Civil War.
Lincoln like Obama did not care for what Americans thought.
Many think Lincoln’s death was karma for the blood on his hands.
87. Hellbelly, sadly this country has not had a good President since Reagan.
The last 4 presidents including Obama have sucked.
Most under-rated
2) Mckinley
He is probably on my top 5 list.
Tim , Truman was the best and I say that as a Republican.
He had more guts than any President ever.
FDR was asleep at the Wheel with Pearl Harbor, and these modern media FDR would have been impeached for Pearl and The Phillippines.
Top 10:
1. Jefferson
2. Lincoln
3. Washington
4. Adams
5. McKinley
6. Reagan
7. Coolidge
8. Monroe
9. Truman
10. Teddy Roosevelt
…and if it were not for Watergate, Nixon might break in at 11
When FDR died in Georgia with his Mistress, Truman was thrown into the Fire unlike any other.
His appointment of George Marshall as Sec of State was Brilliant.
In these days of CNN and the Internet, FDR would have been impeached for the deaths at Pearl Harbor and Southeast Asia
Eph think of the Millions of Men who died because of Lincoln.
as a Jew it’s hard to give FDR a lot of credit. Ho knew millions of Jews were dying and did nothing until the nips attacked us!
“95.Eph think of the Millions of Men who died because of Lincoln.”
think of the millions more if it were not for him. The Civil war was inevitable
96. He knew…
What does this sound like, from the WAPO:
Unfortunately, such measures are only stopgaps. In the end, we may be forced to learn to live in a United States where, by stealth, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need†becomes the guiding principle of government — or else confront growing, unattended poverty.
#79:
No. The Democratic Party was founded by Thomas Jefferson and a few other men. Legend has it that they did it under the guise of a bottanical expedition, up the Hudson.
Jackson served as the first Democratic President.
I believe that Jefferson was a “old” dem that eventually became the republican party of today. The “donkey” was originated thru carton for Jackson.
Jefferson was a small Gov’t guy…Heck by todays standards of the rad left…JFK is a moderate Republican….
FDR’s Treasury Secretary Morgenthau pleaded with Roosevelt to bomb Auchwitz, but FDR had his nose so far up Stalin’s butt and did not want to offend the Benevolent Papa Joe.
102. compared to Obama, Bill Clinton is a Libeterian.
The best president would be a frankenstein hybrid of Reagan(the brain), Truman(the balls), Jackson(the courage), Washington(the heart), Jefferson(the brilliance and creativity), Millard Fillmore(the sense of style), Chester Arthur(the anonymity),
Hmmm…I thought that unemployment rate not going down but going up with the quarter million job losses…can’t remember who told me this but they were right. Lots of people coming off the unemployment rolls. Then Dear Leader goes out there and claims that we have reached a turning point. This guy is so full of crap. I got this off of Rush’s website.
RUSH: I must mention this. I finally read the full Associated Press story on the new unemployment numbers, and even the AP admits that unemployment didn’t really dip. “Employers sharply scale back layoffs in July. The unemployment rate dips for the first time in 15 months, sending a strong signal, the worst recession…”
Then you go to the end of the article, buried at the bottom: “The dip in the unemployment rate was the first since April 2008. One of the reasons the rate declined, though, was that hundreds of thousands of people left the labor force. The labor force includes only those who are either employed or are looking for work.” So even AP admits unemployment didn’t really dip. We just had a hell of a lot of people give up looking, and they’re not counted as members of the labor force. That’s what we now know in the BLS figures they put out, Bureau of Labor Statistics. The U6, unemployment 6… Like 9.4% is U3 and that’s people who are employed, looking for work, not employed, on unemployment benefits. U6 is everybody that’s looking for work, on unemployment compensation and those who are no longer looking, they’ve given up, and that rate is 16%. Not 9.4. It is 16, maybe 16.9, but it’s 16 something. And even AP admits unemployment didn’t really dip. It just went off the charts, just went off the unemployment rolls. Well, we have been rescued. See, AP knows people aren’t going to read the bottom of the story. We’ve been rescued from this catastrophe. The president said so today.
President O: “I didn’t realize this. I spoke too soon, stupidly.”
I always considered Linclon one of our greates Presidents because that is what I was taught.
I am wondering if the South should have been allowed to seceed.
At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War, and some experts say the toll reached 700,000. The number that is most often quoted is 620,000. At any rate, these casualties exceed the nation’s loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution through Vietnam.
The best we can do now is fight the north in college football bowl season. The SEC vs the nothern aggressors! I saw a bumer sticker the other day on an old beat up red pick up. On the sticker was a confederate flag and the words “Proudly fighting terrorism since 1861″
The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution states that ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’ Basically, what this amendment is saying is that all rights not surrendered by the states still belong to them. Secession is not mentioned in the Constitution, thus, the States return it. And there you have the single greatest argument for secession.
The economy is bottoming out. The real problem is what will be a source of growth in the future.
I think we are already seeing another bubble as our current level of deficit spending is unsustainable. Roubini is right, a double dip is possible even if the most likely outcome is an incredibly slow few years of growth.
Brandon,
Corzine Seeing Red in New Jersey
Another coward refuses to meet with his district. This was the front-page lead in my hometown Sunday paper:
http://www.dnj.com/article/20090809/NEWS05/908090336/Rep.+Gordon+s+phone+call-in+draws+critics
The comments sent to the newsite are incredible. Gordon is truly in trouble especially because the old folks in this district, who have pulled him across the line so many times, have turned on him.
#112. What a coincidence, I actually was just reading that article before I came here.
I don’t think the base could be more fired up: 69% of the party strongly disapproves of Obama.
84% disapproval among Republicans is Obama’s highest level of disapproval yet among this group.
Brandon good for you. You will finally get a good man as Gov of NJ.
I just hope the IL GOP can win here in 2010 and get rid of the Scum Liberals who have destroyed the Business community here.
#107:
No. The Union had to be saved. I shudder to think what might have happened in the 20th Century, had there been two weak nations here instead of one strong one.
#101:
Say what? Dude, he founded the Democratic Party.
I have also noticed that you folks give no credit to Franklin Roosevelt, at all.
The man who is considered the greatest President of the 20th Century. The man who face a Great Depression, and a World War. The man who inherited a better than 25% unemployment rate, and fully 20% of the banks already failed. That’s what the Republicans left him. He saved the Free Enterprise System. He gave us the great Social Security System, TVA, the FDIC, and the G.I. Bill. The man so beloved that he was elected four times.
But, he was a Democrat, and he just can’t be great. Now, you would all deny that, citing your token Democrat, Truman, on most of your lists.
Roosevelt is definitely one of the top three. Definitely.
You guys do know that Salena Zito is a Conservative Republican, right?
So, I would view her in the same light that you would view a Liberal columnist, like E.J. Dionne.
He saved the Free Enterprise System-Tim
FDR was anything BUT free enterprise. Same with Obama.
FDR was overrated Tim.
In today’s media World he would have been impeached for not anticipating Pearl Harbor. He coddled the Japanese until they snookered him on 12/7/41. He also gave away Eastern Europe to Stalin.
When I was in Prague in the 1990’s, the Czech’s hated FDR.
Dying with your mistress in Warm Springs, Ga?
The depression lasted for over 8 years after FDR was first elected. If not for WW2, FDR would have the next Hoover.
Okay, Tim, what about this article by the not-so conservative Stuart Rothenberg?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/31/four_months_to_learn_to_say_gov_chris_christie__97715.html
WWII got the USA out of the depression. FDR should thank the Japanese for attacking Pearl Harbor.
I won’t defend everything FDR did, but I cannot write him off as a great president. I don’t want to get into specifics because I know many of you out there will have reasons to disagree. As far as “giving away Eastern Europe” is concerned, I will simply say that that is the best argument for presidential term limits. FDR was dying when he was elected to his fourth term and he was too weak to fight for anything from Stalin, especially once Yalta came around in Feb. 1945. The Democratic leaders at the 1944 convention knew full well that the struggle between Wallace and Truman for VP was really a struggle for the presidency. There are many reasons to defend the 22nd Amendment. This is one of them.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/08/gingrich-defends-palins-death-panels-.html
Chamber of Commerce opposed to Obama’s plans
THE INFLUENCE GAME: Chamber of Commerce emerges as leading foe of Obama health, banking plans
* By Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press Writer
With 3 million members, the chamber is working with local and regional affiliates on letter-writing campaigns to lawmakers and plans to track their public appearances to make sure they hear the chamber’s point of view.
The summer effort is just a start.
The group also is readying an ambitious $100 million campaign to advocate for businesses and a free enterprise system, which chamber officials believe is under attack. The chamber is putting lawmakers on notice: the issues campaign will be timed to lead into the 2010 congressional elections.
“You’ve got an administration pushing the federal government into a bigger and bigger footprint,” Bruce Josten, the chamber’s chief lobbyist, said in an interview. “CEOs start to get concerned when they see that. We felt we needed someone to step into this space.”
AP
135- Palin’s “death panel” remarks keep the Dems on defense.
DAVE – CONGRATS ON THE KUDOS AS THE FIRST BLOGGER TO GET THE DELAWARE ELECTION RIGHT!
(It’s kind of funny, since everywhere they refer to Dave they put the name in quotes, “Dave.”)
(and the kudoes come from the primary paper in Delaware, in case anyone’s wondering. They blast the extremist position favored by Steele.)
text:
Several barrels of digital ink have been expended in national political circles on what should have been a relatively obscure, state-level political story: Georgetown Republican Joe Booth’s victory over Democrat Polly Adams Mervine for the state Senate seat left open by the death of Mervine’s father, Bridgeville Sen. Thurman Adams Jr., a Democrat.
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele weighed in on Booth’s lopsided victory, calling it “a sign of additional Republican victories to come, not only in Delaware but nationwide, as we move forward to elections this fall and in 2010.†The Virginia-based Republican State Leadership Committee, which works to elect state-level candidates, trumpeted its “new media strategy focusing on the special elections in state legislatures across the country- including Delaware – to heighten the awareness of the importance of winning these seats.â€
Right-leaning members of the nationwide political blogosphere had a field day with Booth’s victory, viewing it from afar as a stunning upset in a blue state that’s home to the nation’s vice president – and concluding it augurs well for Republicans nationwide.
It took Sean Trende of Real Clear Politics to finally get it right. Trende, crediting blogger “Dave†at the Hedgehog Report for telling the nation what every politically cognizant Delawarean already knew, wrote, “The district did go for McCain/Palin by nine points, indicating that it isn’t as blue as initial reports would indicate. [Dave] also points out the McCain did so against a ticket with Joe Biden in the number two slot, which presumably strengthened the Democratic rival.â€
It was no surprise that voters in a conservative district opted for a well-known, well-liked, experienced conservative over an inexperienced candidate who – despite her lineage – was largely an unknown quantity. In other words, this was no upset.
- Dialogue Delaware
Cheers.
Keeping thinking that way troll, it will make the explosion next November several readings higher on the richter scale, and I for one will have the popcorn out for the show.
40 year hold erased = means nothing!
Rasmussen Trends:
http://www.rightpundits.com
Frank
The Liberals and the MSM continue their lies on the all the sunday shows.
LA Times
Holder to appoint prosecutor on “torture”
but prosecute armed with clubs black panthers at polls? Off limits.
LOL
134. Jeff, for the life of me I cannot figure why any Republican would ever appear on those shows. They only give credibility to the Network bias.
Phil, if Holder does this, there will be many pissed off CIA agents with a grudge towards Obama. Dangerous waters.
If this does occur look for Moderate DEM Senators to break ranks with Holder.
If that is from the Wilmington News Journal you can throw it into the crapper. An awful, useless, lefty paper.
Bio Mom, it amazes me that Liberal posters here think we respect Newspapers.
#122:
I think that one has full credibility, Brandon.
Remember, I never said that Corzine was not going to lose.
I had problems with the messenger. Becuae, she normally trashes on Party, and praises the other, in order to reflect her own bias.
We all get into the habit of quoting like-minded columnists/bloggers/politicians/talking heads; whatever.
We are that polarized.
I certainly don’t think that, Jack. But, I do think that most of you like the WSJ and Washington Times.
You know something? I think it’s illogical to base reading material on whether or not you agree with its’ content.
Don’t you want to know what the other side is thinking?
I do.
Why ignore James Polk, who oversaw the march of American to the Pacific?
Вот Ñто поÑÑ‚! Сильно. СпаÑибо.
Are we still arguing best and worst Presidents? I didn’t realize this debate was going to take on such a life.
yes
125. Great link.
Palin mght have ended Obamacare with her “death panel” comments
Well, i noticed Hellbelly went to greta lengths in an earlier post to justify Lincoln’s unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus. I always knew Hellbelly hated small government. No one who doesn’t can possibly justify Lincoln’s actions.
In respose to some other posts:
Tim V, Ben Harrison was a horrible President because his signature economic issues during his presidency–free money and tariffs–led directly to the Panic of 1893 and undermined the presidency of his successor, Grover Cleveland.
Hellbelyl also said Harding was a horrible President. More proof that Hellbelly can’t stand small government. Harding reversed many of the actions of the progressive Presidents before him, instituted the most seeping tax rate reductions till the 1980s, reduced the size of the government, and ended a deep economic recession. As far as Teapot Dome went, Harding had no involvement, fired the perpetrators, and did nothing to hinder their prosecution.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/08/did-sarah-palin-say-obamas-death-panel.html
Grim wording but very well said. I must applaud the former Governor.
Article I Section 9 of the Constitution states that the “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Note that habeas corpus is a privilege not a right and clearly there was a state of rebellion. However, Article I Section 9 deals with the legislative branch. It is up to Congress to suspend the writ not the Executive as Lincoln did. s
According to Hellbelly though, anything Lincoln did was justified, maelstrom–despite the fact that Lincoln only had to fight the war because he campaigned on massive tariff increases. Tariffs–not slavery–were the reason the South seceded. Unfortunately Hellbelly is so blinded by his love of having the government rule every aspect of American’s lives he can’t see that.
The best presidents were:
1) Barack Obama
2) Andrew Jackson
3) FDR
4) LBJ
5) Woodrow Wilson
Obama’s one because I am either black or I have so much white guilt thinking any critical of this guy sends me into cognitive dissonance and seizures.
Andrew Jackson is second cause he stood for the common (as long as he was a democrat) man and destroyed the nations banks, industry, and trade in order to show that noone was above them. and paid the piper to all poor victims that constituted the base of his party. What a badass.
3) FDR is third because he was in a wheelchair so my bleeding heart can’t feel hatred towards him. He also took money from rich people and undermined our evil constitution, two things which i love as a socialist. He also was a devious bastard handing over half the modern world over to our communist buddies in the USSR. Its so sad that those people still today don’t appreciate the beauty of government control.
4) LBJ is 4th cause he spent a lot on welfare. He made black people and the elderly dependent on government vastly expanding the democratic base.
5) Woodrow Wilson is five cause not only was he a princeton professor type–I outsource all and I mean ALL of my thinking to the Ivory towers–he helped to create a league of naitons which evolved to become today’s united nations: a great organization that puts America on the level with the dictator-run and bigoted governments of most of the world and shows how inferior we are to the majority will of undemocratically elected governments.
If only any one of these presidents could have served for life, our nation would finally be what it deserves to be; a utopia under the control of dear leader.
I know I will do my best to make sure number 1 gets as many terms as he wants.
The unemployment rate is a poor measure of the employment picture especially when comparing month to month. First, as others have noted, it only includes those actively seeking employment. People who have given up are not included in the measures. It is difficult to judge the state of mind of a person. Second, it is seasonally adjusted which introduces another bias error into the the equation. By point is, a .1 change in the unemployment rate (up or down) in successive months doesn’t mean crap and is not an indicator.
Maelstrom, I can hardly imagine I’m the only person to note we dropped from 9.5% to 9.4% despite losing 247,000 more jobs. That strikes me as nakedly cooking the books.
Folks,
I know that Gallup has been diminished in recent years, but this has to indicate a big problem for Obama.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
Marv
Marv,
Wait till tomorrow. If he drops again in gallup, that’s proof that there was no bounce from the unemployment data (if he actually expected one).
Better measures include the labor force participation rate (although it too is seasonally adjusted). Participation dropped from June to July by .2% and is down .6% from a year ago. There are 5.5 million fewer employed than a year ago; 2 million since January.
Another measure is tax revenues. Texas, which is fairing better than most states, say sales tax dollars drop 11% from a year ago. Federal individual income tax receipts are down 22 percent from a year ago.
They can spin 9.4 any way they want but people know better.
During Bush years, we were told to ignore the unemployment rate. We should look at how many jobs were being created to judge. Now, LOSING 277K jobs is not as important as the unemployment rate!!
“Tariffs–not slavery–were the reason the South seceded.”
Oh…my God. This kind of thinking was debunked long ago. All you have to do is read the secession resolutions or arguments at the conventions to see the reasons. It was clearly slavery.
I’ll reference South Carolina commissioner John McQueen, who spoke to the Texas convention on Feb 1st, 1861: “Lincoln was elected by a sectional vote, whose platform was that of the Black Republican party and whose policy was to be the aboltion of slavery upon this continent and the elevation of our own slaves to an equality with ourselves and our children.”
This comes from “Apostles of Disunion” by Charles B. Dew, published 2001, page 48.
The Texas Ordinance of Secession was adopted that same day by a vote of 166-8. It included this: “Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquillity and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, MAINTAINING AND PROTECTING THE INSTITUTION KNOWN AS NEGRO SLAVERY–the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits–A RELATION THAT had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended SHOULD EXIST IN ALL FUTURE TIME.” (emphasis mine)
http://www.lsjunction.com/docs/secesson.htm
Not sure where you got your information that tariffs were the real reasons. Probably a very old history book.
Twenty years ago, I did an econ paper that looked at unemployment rate and labor participation rate. I found that labor force participation rate was a much better measure of the economy than the employment rate. My hypothesis was that an increase in imports cost Americans jobs. Instead I found that there was very strong positive correlation between imports and labor force participation. I concluded that it wasn’t a causal effect, e.g. imports create jobs. I figured it was the other way. If the economy is good, imports go up.
The worst presidents were:
1) Barack Obama
2) Andrew Jackson
3) FDR
4) LBJ
5) Woodrow Wilson
The worst presidents were:
1) Barack Obama
2) Andrew Jackson
3) FDR
4) LBJ
5) Woodrow Wilson
Not too smart, are you, Aaron? Whom am I kidding? Asking if you’re smart is like asking if a frog can develop the Law of Relativity. The Whigs had had nearly identical platforms to the platform Lincoln ran on in 1860, and the South didn’t secede when Harrison and Taylor won. The South had also threatened to secede in the 1830s because of Andrew Jackson–a slaveowner. While the Republicans did win wall-to-wall control of Congress in 1860, their ability to run an anti-slavery agenda through Congress would be hampered because Dems had enough votes to sustain a filibuster. There were, however, many Northern Dems who would have gone along with the increase in tariffs advocted by Lincoln and the Republicans. Republicans had run on the issue of raising tariffs though–the same issue that had very nearly caused a war under Andrew Jackson. Then again you and George W Bush have very nearly the same IQ, so I wouldn’t expect you to actually know what you
Eph,
How’s death panel playing in Arizona?
Good point, maelstrom.
Palin’s “death panel” tweet will win the news cycle this upcoming week. Sheer brilliance. Rush will take it tomorrow and the Dems will be on their heels all week!
Newt destroyed Snuffleupigous re death panel talk,,,even brought up Emmanuels physician brother who basically is the architect behind it…Stephy was speechless
You’re overblowing the nullification crisis. Any war that came from that would only have involved South Carolina. There was no rally of support for SC from other states, so war was very unlikely anyway.
Harrison’s platform in 1840 was very different. The Whig party in 1840 did not have anti-slavery influence in it. Harrison won 5 slave states, for pets’s sake. The free soil and abolitionist parties WERE part of the republican coalition in 1856 and 1860.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1840
Zachary Taylor came from a family of wealthy slaveowing planters. He was headly a whig, and did not even agree on their stand on tariffs.
Neither of those presidents were threatening to the south.
The southerners were afraid of losing their entire way of life and slavery was an integral part of that. They knew the north was growing much faster demographically and economically and also knew that Lincoln’s election symbolized their quickening loss of power.
I provided sources providing evidence for my view that the south seceded because of slavery. You have offered insults and unsupported opinion that it was tariffs.
My prediction: the Dems will have no choice but to try and turn around and use the death panel phrase for their own target “the insurance companies.” I just know how these people think.
Problem is,,,republicans now have the high ground on this issue. The seniors continue to rise up and become agitated,,,healthcare is going down.
Brandon, they are telephone polling in NJ with substitute names for Corzine. One is Richard Codey. I wonder who else they are substituting? Lautenberg? maybe ” Torch”?
Sounds like they are fishing or someone wnats to show Corzine the handwriting is on the wall. any info?
Southerners spinned their reasons for the war as economics and “states rights” AFTER they lost the war, and this was believed by most historians until the late 1950’s. They were grievances, but it all had to do with slavery.
Provide me with a reputable publication from the last 20 years advancing your view or sources from the time where they say tariffs were the primary reason for secession.
Congressmen & senators complained about tariffs for years and did nothing, but when push came to shove it was the fear of potential abolition of slavery that pushed them to secede.
You’re wrong on this.
AAITX,
You are also guilty of oversimplifying things and as a historian you should know better. The FACT is Lincoln did not advocate the abolition of slavory much to the bitter dissapointment of the more radical abolitionist activists in his own party, and had close links (including his wife, Mary) with slaveholders in KY.
Lincoln felt that slavery should be contained. Basically the South did secede in part because of slavery but only in part. It’s more correct to say that the South saw that they would quickly lack congressional clout to protect any of their interests (chief among those was slavery) and understood that Lincolns republicans would lock them out of national power for generations if not effectively forever until and unless they acted right then.
Those are the REAL reasons the south seceded. It wasn’t JUST slavery. Lincoln himself didn’t free a single slave as you should know perfectly well during the Civil War.
-Polaris
AAITX,
I also know that a lot of modern historians aren’t actually historians but history revisionists (as you should also know perfectly well) and in the last 20 years, historians have been overwhelming radical liberals and the radical left has had a lot of political reasons (having nothin to do with history) to try to reemphasize the role of slavery in the civil war (mainly to demonize a largely GOP south that has little to do with the South of history).
If you don’t think that modern historians (by and large) are politcians with an academic degree and an agenda, then I have some Montana coastline I’d like to sell you.
-Polaris
http://ngeorgia.com/history/why.html
I’m currently seeking other links, Aaron-Noriega-Will-Defeat-Cornyn, but this will have to suffice for now.
Wes,
Regarding our disagreement about craig Deeds, I’ll now concede that he’s no longer a good candidate upon learning of this information:
Deeds to Wage Risky Attack On Opponent’s Abortion Views
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/08/AR2009080802533.html?hpid=topnews
Deeds was doing the best he could up to this point but now, it seems that he’s trying to lose the race to spite the guy that is the reason he’s down an average of 12.33 points in the last three polls to McDonnell.
#177 AATX,
Did you honestly predict that Noriega would beat Coryn….in Texas??
Didn’t I just say something about historians with agendas…..there’s no way that any reasonable political analyst (left or right) would have made that prediction (and I know that Carville for one certainly did not).
-Polaris
While I’m looking for other links, I’d like to point out Aaron last year said Rick Noriega would raise huge sums of money and defeat John Cornyn based on Noriega’s ethnicity and name only. He also said he doesn’t want a quote system but wants blacks and other minorities sought out for hiring expressly because if their skin color. Between him and Bush, I’m beginning to wonder if all the people with IQs higher than -175 didn’t leave Texas when my Wife departed the state.
A tale of two professors and Sarah Palin on Obama’s ‘death panels’
By: Mark Tapscott
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/52832687.html
Desperation move
By: Michael Barone
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Desperation-move-52833167.html
Virginia Democratic gubernatorial nominee Creigh Deeds is going to use the abortion issue against his Republican opponent Bob McDonnell. I think this is a desperation tactic. It contradicts Deeds’s statement in a debate two weeks ago that he would not emphasize social issues, but that’s almost beside the point. The main thing is that 2009 is a year of economic distress, and voters’ minds are mostly on economic issues. McDonnell has been campaigning on jobs and economic growth, and in the process has emphasized his opposition to national Democrats’ position on the unions’ card check bill and the various Democratic health care plans.
This has evidently been working. The most recent polls show McDonnell leading Deeds by 50%-40% in the realclearpolitics.com average. The same metric showed the race tied after Deeds’s impressive come-from-behind victory in the June primary.
Putting on my old hat as a pollster, I have some idea of what inspired this move by the Deeds campaign. You ask respondents to indicate their priorities on various issues and you ask them separately which candidate they favor on each of them. You array the results, listing the issues in priority order and then next to each you show whether your candidate is ahead or behind on that issue. I think the Deeds people had to go pretty far down the list before they saw a + next to abortion.
I suspect the percentage indicating a priority for abortion was in single digits. Voters know that if they elect Bob McDonnell he is not going to criminalize abortion. The Virginia legislature has passed limits on abortion which McDonnell has supported, and nothing much changes for most voters. In addition, I think the enthusiastic pro-abortion rights constituency is tilted toward the older end of the age scale. For many Baby Boomer women “choice†(the brilliant euphemism for abortion rights) is a proxy for the personal choices they have made in their lives which go contrary to what they were told when they were growing up—that they should stay home with the children, downplay a career, etc. For Millennial Generation women “choice†resonates less strongly, because they were never told those things. And they don’t see how a Governor Bob McDonnell can prevent them from making the choices that are important for them.
Deeds is not the only Democrat to make this desperation move. New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine has an ad ticking off his and his opponent Chris Christie’s positions on abortion, gun control, global warming and renewable energy. It hasn’t helped much yet; he’s down 51%-38% in the realclearpolitics.com average of recent polls.
Where things stand on Obamacare….
http://www.redstate.com/jeff_emanuel/2009/08/09/what-if-obama-threw-an-astroturf-party-and-nobody-came/
Interesting that Obama/Organizing for America has sent out three letters in FOUR days on this. It might be finally dawning on them that the majority of Americans are really against this. It also shows the increasing desperation. The talking points in the letters are a house of cards that easily gets blown up by opponents who have researched, read, and questioned the bill. Unless the congressional Democrats want to commit political suicide, there is no chance this bill will get passed.
Thanks for finally acknowledging I’m right, Tommy. I told you Deeds was a horrible candidate. Roast him and stuff an apple in his mouth. He and Corzine are done.
“Did you honestly predict that Noriega would beat Coryn….in Texas??”
*Sigh…*
I said that Cornyn was not that popular and Noriega had the potential of getting hispanic votes. I never made a prediction.
Actually you did. You claimed a) Noriega would draw out latinos because of his name and b) he would raise a lot of money–also because of his name. How’d that wet dream work out for you?
Deeds was not a horrible candidate until this recent strategy shift. But I’ll concede now that he’s not a good candidate upon deploying this horrific strategy.
“You claimed a) Noriega would draw out latinos because of his name and b) he would raise a lot of money–also because of his name.”
I said the first part, but never said this would constitute a win. I never said the second part. It doesn’t even make sense, since hispanic groups in Texas are not the ones with deep pockets.
tommy boy good links. personally, i think palin hit a home run with the “death panel” phrase.
I agree, Tim. By the way, Tim, admitting six Republican states into the union can’t make up for the disastrous economic policies Ben Harrison championed that led directly to the Panic of 1893.
AAITX,
You also forgot that:
1. Hispanics tend not to vote in Texas.
2. Those Hispanics that do vote in Texas tend to be more republican (save for Florida’s Cubans) than Hispanic voters nationwide.
That’s been true for at least 20 years and was true last election as well (Obama lost Texas by 20…and the reason Harris Co and others flipped was because of AA turnout in Dallas and Hou rather than the hispanic vote).
-Polaris
wes, while history interests me, i admit i am not a student of it. i certainly have some knowledge but the truth is, i never heard of the panic of 1893.
Ack….#190 Correction. Obama lost Texas by 12. Still a significant margin.
-Polaris
Tim, dollar-for-dollar the Panic of 1893 was either the worst or the second-worst economic downturn in US history. Harrison’s championing of tariffs and free monetary policy sowed the seeds for it. In fact, the early effects of the economic downturn led directly to Harrison’s defeat at Grover Cleveland’s hands and the takeover of the whole federal government by the Dems for the first time since James Buchanan. Things only worsened though with Dems and Republicans both working to undercut Cleveland’s attempts to sort through the economic mess and the Pullman Strike paralyzing the Cleveland Administration, thus leading to the worst loss for any party in congressional history in 1894. That year Republicans pulverized the Dems, picking up 120 House seats and 7 Senate seats. Had the South had two-party politics at the time, then things would have been even worse for the Dems.
“If you don’t think that modern historians (by and large) are politcians with an academic degree and an agenda, then I have some Montana coastline I’d like to sell you.”
Where did you get that? From Bernard Goldberg? I find it funny that the people who accuse academics, etc of having an agenda are those with a very clear agenda.
Mostly, historians are people that have devoted their life to studying a certain subject in a particular era. Usually they give up making more money at better jobs to do this. You’re probably thinking of those whose notoriety is based on their controversial views, like Howard Zinn.
I area of expertise is 17th century New England. There is no credible way to connect this to modern-day politics. There is no agenda, other than producing high-quality research for publication.
From what I do know about antebellum American and the Secession Crisis, the evidence is overwhelming for slavery as the primary reason for secession. Like I said, the secession documents make it very clear. By that time, the southern leaders did not mince words. It wasn’t tariffs, it wasn’t states rights. It was the fear that the federal government might make blacks equal with whites. You can also look at the vote distribution of secession votes. The higher the concentration of slaves, the more the vote was for secession. The poorer, backcountry areas where slavery was not important almost always voted against secession. Southern society was irrevocably tied to slavery. The honor and wealth of the elite and much of the middle class was tied to it.
This is not an agenda to make the south look bad. It is evidence for their motivation behind secession.
Again, Wes, all you provided me was a blog (with a pro-north GA agenda) that cited no sources.
It did have some recommended reading on local heroes, etc…
Rep. Giffords a no-show at her own event due to Tea Partiers — then lies and says she never meant to go.
http://www.tucsonteaparty.org/?p=272
ht: Dr.Dog BJG
AAITX,
Except what you, are IMHO willfully overlooking was that slavery was integral to the southern economy. Asking the South to give up slavery was tantamount to asking them to stop existing economically. In fairness to the south at the time (which none of the historians you mention are including yourself), the Northern states made no effort to head off the disaster either….and that includes Lincoln.
Basically the Civil War was the end result of a political power-play. Was slavery an important compenent? Yes
Was it the ONLY component or even the primary one? Not really….when you take it all in perspective.
I remind you that RI (and possibly Mass, CT, and ME) nearly seceded from the Union around the time of the war of 1812 and the principle state nulification had little to do with slavery in of itself.
As for agendas, the fact you deny it means you are so far into your own personal agenda you fail to see it. I’ve lived near UT Austin for years now and agenda in the social “sciences” departements/humanities are rife at UT…to the point where the profs don’t even recognize it for what it is…and IMHO you are the same.
-Polaris
You should start another poll on which of these posts is the most egregious oversimplification of the Civil War and its causes.
http://www.fox11az.com/video/newsvideo-index.html?nvid=387325
182. GOOD STUFF!!!
AAITX,
I will make you a gentleman’s bet about historians and other “soft” academics.
I would bet that if you asked them who they voted for in the 2000 election, 95% would say Gore and the other 5% would say Nader.
I dare you to show otherwise. If you don’t think that warps their research and their teaching, then you don’t know what you are talking about….because I see it everyday.
I admit to my biases. Please do the same.
-Polaris
where did aama go ? you back in tx now ?
Do you see why I put Harrison’s name on my worst Presidents list now, Tim?
“1. Hispanics tend not to vote in Texas.”
True, but their sheer numbers are already manifesting themselves, even with a much lower turnout rate.
If you look at the vote in the big suburban counties Collin, Denton, Fort Bend, Williamson – there was a significant reduction in the republican margin. Bexar county also flipped from a pretty strong win (10 pt) by Bush in 2000 and 2004. These places are all growing at a fast rate, largely due to increase in hispanic population.
The most republican areas are the ones losing population…But they do vote at a much higher rate as you suggest. However, in 10 years, many of those voters will be dead, replaced by more liberal young people and hispanics (many of those young people ARE the hispanics…something I think many observers miss).
That assumes latinos stay with Dems at high margins or increase the margins they vote for Dems, Aaron. Recent elections indicate they are flexible at least in Texas. I highly doubt the Texas GOP is going to let the latino vote slip away without making a concerted effort to fight for those votes.
“slavery was integral to the southern economy”
Another reason that they didn’t want to get rid of slavery. It’s what I’ve been saying, that all the other justifications lead back to slavery. I think you understand this. Culturally, slavery was much more important by the 1850’s than it was earlier in the century, when people like Jefferson still thought it might die out eventually.
There were economic issues at stake in 1812. And technically, ME was part of MA until 1820, but that’s beside the point.
Wes is correct, AATX as you should know perfectly well. Not only do TX Hispanics tend to be conservative and GOP when compared with National Averages, but they tend to get more GOP and conservative as they grow older and more successful.
Texas remains a solid red state but has been a “white minority” state for almost ten years now.
-Polaris
“I highly doubt the Texas GOP is going to let the latino vote slip away without making a concerted effort to fight for those votes.”
Voting against Sotomayor wasn’t a good start. Also, the GOP seems to be doubling down on immigration. Also not a good start.
203.“1. Hispanics tend not to vote in Texas.â€
Ditto for AZ
#205 You’re right about ME. I was thinking of VT during the same period (that even went to the level of issuing it’s own money and…briefly…calling itself the Rep of VT…at around the time of the war of 1812).
My criticism of you AATX was that saying, “It was all about slavery” has become defacto code for, “It was all the evil southerner’s fault” I have no issue in calling slavery evil. It is.
However, you espoused IMHO a very shallow sense of history. Slavery was important, yes, but it was wrapped out in a LOT of other issues that you grandly swept under the carpet….and I call foul.
I wasn’t saying that you’re wrong. I was acusing your presentation of the material slanted….and I believe that.
-Polaris
Big Pharma to air ObamaCare propaganda in exchange for backroom deal that protects drug profits.
The drug industry has authorized its lobbyists to spend as much as $150 million on television commercials supporting President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul, beginning over the August congressional recess, people briefed on the plans said yesterday.
http://wcvarones.blogspot.com/2009/08/big-pharma-to-air-obamacare-propaganda.html
#207 AATX,
Who is going to care about Sotomayer (hispanic or not) in 2010 and 2012?
No one.
The issue will be the economy. If the economy somehow recovers AND there is job growth AND we somehow avoid inflation, the Dems will continue to dominate.
Otherwise, it could well be (and looks so far) like 1994 redux.
You are grossly overstating a very ancillary issue. Get over it.
-Polaris
I’ll agree with you on this, Aaron: Slavery was an outmoded economic system that needed to follow feudalism into oblivion. There’s no doubt many Southerners supported slavery because they weren’t imaginative enough to come up with a better economic system. It had been on the decline though even before Lincoln assumed office. Fewer than 400,000 of the 7,000,000 people in the South owned slaves, and a wide majority of those who did could afford only one. The slave trade had been outlawed for over 50 years when Lincoln came to power, and the Confederacy continued this ban. Parts of the South had moved at least partly away from slavery. North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia, for example, had very low slave-owning populations. Slavery had often been a hot-button issue–as any system that egregious should have been–but there were other economic forces at work that caused the South to secede. One can argue–rightly–it was beneficial for slavery to end, but to say it was the North’s goal to end it or to endorse the war, especially with all the damage it did to both sides, seems a bit myopic to me.
“Texas remains a solid red state but has been a “white minority†state for almost ten years now.”
It actually only officially happened a few years ago. I think 2007? And the hispanic population pyramid is very bottom heavy. The younger hispanics are far less GOP-friendly than older ones.
I don’t believe that people “get more conservative” as they get older. Marketing and psychological research suggests that by the time you hit your early 30’s your preferences are more or less set.
Tim V, Yes, I finished the internship and returned. The only thing I didn’t miss about TX was the heat, although Boston is a really great place.
#212 Absolutely. In fact slavery including slave auctions remained legal in DC, Maryland, KY, MO, and DE throughout the civil war and remained legal until the passage of the 13th amendment.
Lincoln didn’t free a single slave during the Civil War, and he certainly didn’t run in opposition to slavery itself (much to the disgust of those in his own party).
-Polaris
I could be wrong, but this seems to be how Aaron thinks latinos will vote:
Sour economy: no problem
Vote against Sotomayor: Damn the fact that we’re losing jobs! Throw those Republican bastards out of office!
Actually, Aaron, the report that Texas was the first minority white state was issued in either 2003 or 2004. I’m not sure which year it was, but it was before Bush ran for reelection.
#213 I seem to recall that it happened (at least by some measures by 2000) and certainly long before 2007. Also having preferences set MAKES you conservative (that’s what convervative means!)
In terms of politically what we call conservative, I’ve looked at the various exit polls for the last 30 years, and the trend is always the same regardless of other demographics. The onder you are, the more likely you are to self-identify as a conservative.
Yes, younger latinos are more hostile to the GOP than older ones. Guess what? Younger people in general are right now more hostile to the GOP than older ones.
However, with the economy the way it is…and hitting the younger generation first and worst….that may well change. Economic issues are historically the most important drivers to political preference and right now this well known fact does NOT favor the Dem party right now.
Basically, you haven’t shown that young latinos in TX (or anywhere else) are MORE hostile on a relative scale compared with older latinos, than the same relative difference for all demographics.
In fact the older–>conservative trend is well known in politics. Even Winston Churchill commented on it with a very pithy saying, “If you are young and not a liberal, you have no heart. If you are old and not a conservative, you have no brain.”
-Polaris
“but to say it was the North’s goal to end it or to endorse the war, especially with all the damage it did to both sides, seems a bit myopic to me”
Okay, I think we can end on agreement here. The southerners did misrepresent Lincoln’s position. He never said he wanted to end slavery. But the southerners were afraid he would.
Slavery was not competitive with the more capitalistic system in the north, although it was very profitable internally. The wealth of many plantations was in their slaves themselves, not what they produced.
There is a historical duel over whether or not it was really profitable and whether it would have died economically without a war. I don’t know enough about it to say which is right.
honest liberal ? certainly not keith olberman…
form gateway pundit…
But, that isn’t what Keith Olbermann is reporting…
Olberman ran a recent report on the tea party protests. He compared the tea party protesters to Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists.
He also talked about the St. Louis town hall meeting on Thursday night…
But he forgot to mention that it was SEIU Carnahan supporters who were arrested and it was a black conservative and a woman who were attacked:
since keith is older, he must have no brains…
same with tim in ga.
aatx is young so he has an excuse…
“Basically, you haven’t shown that young latinos in TX (or anywhere else) are MORE hostile on a relative scale compared with older latinos, than the same relative difference for all demographics.”
Right here:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#TXP00p1
Look at vote by age, then vote by age and race. Obama won 18-29 vote by 54-45, but lost whites 18-29 by 30-69.
Younger latinos, the gap was 67-30, older 63-35. There weren’t even enough older than 65 to compute numbers. That shows how lopsided their age distribution is.
Nationally the gap is worse. Young hispanics for Obama 76-19. Young whites 54-44. Huge difference.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p1
McCain only got 54% of the vote in Texas while simultaneously winning 73% of all whites! This doesn’t bode well.
#220 Do these conclusions suprise anyone? Bueller….Bueller….
-Polaris
*oops, McCain got 55%
#221 AATX,
Bull. First you have to mode out the increased AA vote (esp in the Dallas and Hou areas) which are not an overall longterm trend. Even then you are making the mistake that demographic partisan percentages are set in concrete. This is true for AA voters, but emphaically is not true for Hispanic voters.
Now….let’s look at your numbers and MIND you, I was pointing to the RELATIVE difference. I will make this easy. Calculate the ratio of Dem support for Young latinos as a relative measure against older ones, i.e. [Younger Raw %-Older Raw%/2*(Younger Raw%+Older Raw%)] and do the same for whites.
The only thing you’ve proven is that in Texas whites vote more GOP than Hispanics and that’s even more true outside of Texas….which is what I said all along (i.e. Texas Hispanics are more GOP than the national average).
I suggest you put down that book, “The Emerging Democratic Majority” and actually look at how the numbers look NOW.
-Polaris
#224 Ooops. Correct fomula:
2*[Young Raw %-Old Raw %]/[Young Raw % +Old Raw %]
-Polaris
I’m very familiar with Texas voting patterns. Whites are solid GOP. To the tune of 73% against Obama. The counties along the Sabine River actually voted 7 to 10 points more McCain than they did for Bush vs Kerry. Polaris is right, the increases in black turnout in Harris and Dallas counties made the state closer although it was still a blow out. Take Obama off the ballot and that won’t be sustained. Too many whites who hate liberal Democratic socialist policy.
Texas isn’t going to be voting differently for decades and decades.
Well, I showed you the difference based on the exit polls. There’s more of a gap among younger hispanics than older hispanics. It is especially pronounced on the national level.
AA vote was not a part of it. Don’t know why you mentioned it.
Considering the hispanic population is growing much faster than the white population (it is actually declining in many areas), this is a problem for the GOP, unless they miraculously start appealing to hispanics. Historically, they never have. Bush did the best among them.
There is no data now to compare to, because we don’t have any exit polls, and the approval polls are too small of a sample. We won’t know until 2012.
HOW ABOUT SOME CHANGE IN MA:
http://washingtonswake.com/?p=779
Drudge- Pelosi/Hoyer op-ed in Monday USATODAY calls townhall protesters ‘un-American’… Developing…
—-
Stuck on stupid.
Yes Aaron in Tx did predict a Noriega win, without qualifications. I challenged him on the call and gave him every opportunity to back off, after of course ridculing the call mercilessly. He would not. He doubled down.
Rick Noriega only finished second, because it was a 2 man race. It was never a contest and he got thumped lick a bass drum.
Dufus is the word I am thinking of right at the moment.
#227
AATX, and I showed (and Phil who is a local politcal expert in TX agrees) that the numbers you showed don’t mean what you think they do. In the 2008 election the difference between how McCain performed statewide and how Bush did in 2004 was ENTIRELY due to the increase in AA vote in the Dallas and Hou areas.
Furthermore, I’ve never denied that Texas Hispanics were more Dem than Texas whites and that’s all your exit poll data showed. You did NOT do the math I told you to do, i.e. compare the relative difference between young latinos and old latinos to that between young whites and old whites.
All you’ve shown is that young voters are more Dem and that Texas latino voters are more Dem than older voters and Texas Older Latino voters respectively, but we already knew that!
You then make unwarrented and unjustified sweeping linear projections to predict GOP doom in Texas.
AATX…is Ruy Texierana your real name?
Your argument isn’t taken all that seriously by anyone in Texas outside the Greater Austin Area.
-Polaris
good link eph
“The counties along the Sabine River actually voted 7 to 10 points more McCain than they did for Bush vs Kerry.”
Indeed, and yet despite that the republican vote declined. Those counties are not growing.
Let’s compare:
Two of the biggest swings for McCain ocurred in Hardin and Cass counties. Both of these are far east TX. Hardin county went 80-19 for McCain. In 2004, it went 72-27 for Bush. The county grew from 48,000 people in 2000 to 52,000 people in 2008
Cass County had about a 9 point swing toward McCain too. But its population has declined from 30,000 to 29,000.
Let’s look at where Obama gained big.
Cameron county:
Bush won here in 2004 50-49.
Obama won here in 2008 63-35.
Total population went from 335,000 to 392,000. A 17% increase vs. an 8% increase in Hardin and 3% decrease in Cass.
Bexar County:
2004 – 54-44 Bush
2008 – 52-47 Obama
Population increased from 1,393,000 in 2000 to 1,623,000 in 2008. A 16.5% increase.
Obama gained big where the population is growing quickly, and McCain gained big where it’s growing slowly or declining. Whites are not responsible for much of this growth. It is because of latinos.
I know what Polaris is going to say. I’m not taking into account voter turnout percentage.
#235 Got it in one.
You are being inexcusibly sloppy. Look Ruy Texierna…I mean AATX…the data just doesn’t say what you think it does without making grossly unwarrently assumptions about the data and how they project.
-Polaris
But at the very least, I’ve shown how population increase has helped dems in hispanic areas far more than increased republican margin in some areas helped McCain.
There is no AA community in Cameron and relatively small one in Bexar.
AATX,
Compare the AA vote in Texas and the increase for the Dem canditate in 2008 vice 2004. You find that the entire increase in Obama’s percentage over McCain can be accounted for becaue of this increase in AA turnout.
It’s true that Obama drew more hispanic support than Kerry did, but McCain drew more white support than Bush did resulting in a wash.
I’ll tell you (at least in Texas) a phenomena that’s as old as the State (even when it was a republic) with hispanics that AATX is completely ignoring. It’s what I call the “Texican” effect, i.e. those Hispanics that self-identify more and more with the anglo rather than hispanic community.
You see that a LOT in San Antonio for example where you have a lot of Hispanics by US Census standards, but a good portion of them are ‘effectively’ white in terms of associations and outlook.
-Polaris
#237 You showed no such thing. You showed that in one county with a high population growth a change from GOP (Bush) to Obama (Dem).
That’s ALL you’ve shown.
-Polaris
One more thing. You can’t hand select counties where McCain and Obama gained the most and expect a good data projection. If you look at the statewide totals, you find the difference in performance is almost entirely due to the increase in the AA vote.
That means statewide the increase in white support for McCain and hispanic vote for Obama was a wash (meaning that McCain’s gains were smaller overall but considerably more widespread…which matches my read of Texas).
No one takes your demographic argument all that seriously outside of Austin, AATX.
-Polaris
Aaron is making a strategic mistake trying to extrapolate 2008 results to the future. Obama rode the “perfect wave” in a really bad year for Republicans, which is why for example Cornyn only won by 12 pts in Texas. But that same combination of factors doesn’t happen all the time, and Obama has not gained popularity in Texas, much to the contrary. Have that same election today and McCain and Cornyn would do 10 pts better than 2008. It’s like saying wow look how well Democrats did in Virginia in 2008, they are sure to win the governorship…it doesn’t work that way. GHWB only beat Clinton by 3 pts in Texas in 1992, and Dole won by 5% in 1996. Then GWB killed Gore and Kerry. Aaron’s statistics represent a picture of the moment in history, not a trend.
Then how do you account for the counties I cited?
You could look at others, ie: Williamson, Guadalupe, Williamson, Collin, Denton. All of these counties showed a 9% swing toward Obama, yet they all have 8% or less AA percentage of population. The state is 12% black. AA increase cannot be all of it. You have to admit that hispanic increase had to do with it as well.
(All of these have high growth).
#242 Read what Jason had to say.
Also, look up the VEP of AA voters in Texas for 2004 and 2008, AND then look up the amount they supported Kerry over Bush vice Obama over McCain.
You find that in combination it IS enough to make up the difference or at least most of it. Even 12% of a population is enough to make a huge shift if the percentage that votes goes from 25% to over 80% AND the increase for one candidate goes from 9:1 to 19:1 and this did in fact happen in Texas (and in all states in the south).
Look at GA and how Martin did in his runoff.
I was the only one that called the GA Senate Runoff correctly after the 2008 General Election
That’s because I knew what the exit numbers were telling me and more importantly what they were NOT telling me.
You are reading your own desires, AATX into the data and that’s a recipie for disaster (and it’s very easy to do).
-Polaris
The demographic trends are clear. I’m not making that stuff up. Hispanic areas are greatly outgrowing white ones.
Voting trends are not static, that is correct. But I don’t think it’s likely that the GOP will ever do much better among hispanics than Bush did, unless they change their platform. And even with that it was a close win.
Here is the % Republican margin of victory in Texas since 1972
1972 32.96 Nixon vs. McGovern
1976 (3.17) Ford vs. Carter
1980 13.96 Reagan vs. Carter
1984 27.50 Reagan vs. Mondale
1988 12.60 GHWB vs. Dukakis
1992 3.48
1996 4.93
2000 21.32
2004 22.86
2008 11.76
So as we can see, Republican win big with popular Republican candidates, not so big with less popular ones like Dole and McCain and even If the demographic trends Aaron describes are so important, GWB should not have held his own or even expanded his victory from 2000 to 2008. Dukakis in 1988 did as well as Obama in losing by 12 pts, but that was not a trend.
*close win nationally, not in TX.
#243 To clarify why I am bring up the GA runoff, is because it illustrates how huge an effect the universal and monolithic AA vote had in the 2008 general election. Admittedly GA has a huge AA population, but then again, while Obama did better overall than Kerry in Texas, he didn’t do that much better in Tex (it was still easily a double digit loss).
-Polaris
#244 I am not questioning the demographic trends. I am questioning your (IMHO willful) misreading of what they MEAN. You can’t say that the GOP won’t do well with Texas Hispanic voters especially since the GOP has done so at least once in recent political history. You can’t say that Texas Hispanics won’t become more “Anglo” with sucessive generations especially since there is strong evidence in San Antonio and other major Texas Cities that they do!
In short, stop making stuff up. You are making projections you have no business making.
The fact is Obama caught a perfect Dem storm. That’s all.
-Polaris
#245 Jason is correct. Even GWB did not outright win the Hispanic vote which adds to his point that you can’t make linear demographic projections and expect to be taken seriously.
In fact it’s a lot more complicated than that.
-Polaris
“Cameron county:
Bush won here in 2004 50-49.
Obama won here in 2008 63-35.”
So what?
Aaron’s statistic is meaningless.
Here are Cameron county’s results in 1988.
Dukakis 55.8%
Bush (a native son) 43%
#250 You’re right Jason. AATX is making the classic error of trying to make the general case from the specific.
Obama did 10% better (net) than Kerry did in Texas and claims that since the AA vote is only 12% of the state, it couldn’t alone be responsible.
That’s not true. You need to factor in what the VEP (voter per eligble population) was for each demographic in 2004 and 2008. You then need to see how each demographic voted.
In Texas, the voting turnout for AA voters is usually pretty miserable. In 2008 it wasn’t. In addition, the AA vote in Texas is usually a bit more bipartison (a bit mind) than normal nationally…but it certainly wasn’t in 2008. If you combine this effect with a LOWER VEP for white voters, that’s enough.
It’s not enough to look at raw population census figures and growth figures. You also need to look at VEP and voting patterns as well.
-Polaris
Perot got 22% of the TX vote in 1992 and 8% in 1996. Those elections are not comparable. Clinton won a lot of the counties in east TX that were 73% for McCain in 2008.
That alone should prove that states change.
George W. Bush was a hometown boy. A lot of his support among hispanics came from those here. You might consider that 2004 was the aberration, with a larger than normal share of older whites.
I think much of the GOP’s problem is that they misinterpreted the results of that election.
AATX,
Weren’t you the one that also predicted that Martin would do well in the GA Runoff election? That Noriega would do well?
If anyone is misreading the results, it’s you and jason and I already explained where you are making your errors if you’d bother to listen.
-Polaris
“In Texas, the voting turnout for AA voters is usually pretty miserable. In 2008 it wasn’t.”
Exactly Polaris, so a more galvanized conservative base and a more popular conservative candidate vs. a less enthusiastic AA base might make the next election look very different.
#252 Actually the Perot numbers make jason’s point. Perot voters tended to be (per the 1992 exit polls) 2:1 disaffected republicans and likely cost GHWB reelection that year.
Thus the Perot factor especially in Texas likely decreased the GOP numbers making Jason’s point even more valid.
Regardless, look at 2000 vs 2004 and you see that GWB did better in Texas in 2004 when if what you were saying were true, he should have done significantly worse.
That means you are grossly oversimplifying things and making projections that don’t match political reality.
-Polaris
“Clinton won a lot of the counties in east TX that were 73% for McCain in 2008.”
You just eviscerated your own argument. Clinton’s strong showing in Texas was not a democratic trend or wave, it was the fact he was a southern candidate pretending to be moderate and facing weak Republican candidates.
“Here are Cameron county’s results in 1988.
Dukakis 55.8%
Bush (a native son) 43%”
How are election results 20 years apart meaningful? Cameron county in 1988 was a lot smaller too, so it’s result was not very important.
Results 4 years apart are more important, especially when there are clear correlations with demographic changes.
In 2012, 2016, etc… there will be a large new voter universe where millions of people that voted for Bush in 2004 will be dead.
This is similar to the argument Polaris and I had about young voters. I repeatedly argued that the total numbers weren’t important, it was the margin. You are both missing the point.
If trends continue, republicans are either going to have to get the hispanic vote close to parity, or increase their margin among whites to 80% or higher. Perhaps these things will happen, but it doesn’t look that way. I’m aware that this statement starts with *IF.*
“You just eviscerated your own argument. Clinton’s strong showing in Texas was not a democratic trend or wave, it was the fact he was a southern candidate pretending to be moderate and facing weak Republican candidates.”
It very much indicated a trend. Perfectly indicative of the southern transition from Democrat to republican. If you look at maps from when Texas was a democratic state, their stregnth was based in rural areas. Clinton held on to some of these, but they were no longer enough to win. As these places declined vs. suburban areas, they lost importance.
Personally, I feel Clinton’s elections were simply democratic corrections during a greater republican/conservative bull run that started in 1980. They should have chosen a better candidate than Dole. Even with Dole, Perot’s absence would have made things different.
I think that era is in decline now.
Guys, why do some of you still cling to the notion that Perot cost President Bush the election in ‘92?
Exit polling did not indicate that, at all. It indicated that Perot voters were about evenly split.
PLus, you had an incumbent who got 38% of the vote.
I ain’t one to feel the love for Rush Limbaugh. But, he was right when he said that the American People fired Bush ‘41, and President Clinton was the beneficiary.
Deficit grew by $181 billion in July
x12 = over 2 trillion per year
welcome to obamaland
get ready for middleclass tax increases
“Guys, why do some of you still cling to the notion that Perot cost President Bush the election in ‘92?
Exit polling did not indicate that, at all.”
You are confused. While exit polling nationally should a fairly even split, polling in individual states where it would have made a difference show that Perot definitely hurt Bush. THese states were Colorado (Clinton +4), Georgia (Clinton + 0.1) , Kentucky (Clinton +4), Montana (Clinton +3), New Hampshire (Clinton +1), and Nevada (Clinton +2). Four other states were less conclusive, but Bush probably would have won Ohio and New Jersey without Perot. THey were Lousiana (Clinton +5), Maine (Clinton +9), New Jersey (Clinton +2) Ohio (Clinton +2).
jason:
President Bush would have had to have won 2/3 of the Perot vote, and sweep practically every state that Clinton won, in order to be re-elected.
And, there is no way that either of those things was gonna happen.
Almost 2/3 of this Country voted against him. He was not gonna win.
He was beaten in September. You could feel it.
Make that close state that Clinton won
Tim, you’re from GA…Do you think the reason they seceded was slavery or something else?
From Political Geography of the United States by Fred Shelley.
“Perot voters who were asked whom they might have supported were divided roughly even between Bush and Clinton. But amongg 1992 Perot supporters who had voted in 1988, however, former Bush voters were about twice as numerous as former Dukakis voters. Indeed exit poll data indicate that although more than 8 out of 10 Dukakis supporter voted for Clinton in 1992 fewer than 6 out of 10 1988 Bush supporters also supported the Republican ticket in 1992. Most Perot supporter described themselves as moderates or conservatives, and an overwhelming majority were white”.
This suggest that in swing states like Ohio and New Jersey (at the time) Perot hurt Bush more than Clinton, and in non-swing states Perot’s vote did not hurt Clinton because of his large majority. In liberal states Perot voters trended more liberal, as in conservative states they trended more conservative. It made it a wash in national polls, but not in individual states. Most analysts do think that without Perot Clinton would still have won with 281 electoral votes to 255, but it would have been an extremely close election.
Another analysis can be found at
http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/perot.htm
“Almost 2/3 of this Country voted against him. He was not gonna wikn.”
Silly argument, almost 60% voted against Clinton.
“He was beaten in September. You could feel it.”
Actually that is wrong. Bush surged and actually was tied with Clinton 4 days before the election, but then the MSM came up with some last minute bogus “revelations” about Iran-Contra and the special prosecutor indicted Caspar Weinberger in a blatant political act. On December 12 this indictment was thrown out of court but it was too late for Bush.
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/12/us/charge-in-weinberger-case-that-caused-furor-before-election-is-thrown-out.html
ROMNEY CARE: $50 COPAY FOR ABORTIONS.
Scratch Romney off the 2012 list!
Huge AA turnout statewide and particularly in Harris and Dallas Counties
Economy collapses 7 wks before election.
Obama spends almost 10 million in media statewide to zero by McCain
No native son Bush running
…..and Obama still can’t crack 44%.
Outside of Travis County (with it’s lefty UT community and govt workers on the public dole) the Democratic Party in this state is out and out dead in the water for as far as the eye can see.
Democrats had the perfect storm in 08 and got crushed in Texas.
Expect them to get murdered here in 2010.
#269
Why are you back? What happened to HHR RIP? It is so funny to see people who declared HHR dead coming back with their tails between their legs.
Phil
I think Dallas County is lost. The demographics just don’t favor the GOP. Personally, I wish we could do away with straight ticket voting. It is too easy for the Dems to bus people in and pull one lever.
get ready for middleclass tax increases
Comment by Tim V — 8/9/2009 @ 8:18 pm
Of course, there aren’t enough “rich” people to pay for all the programs. Unfortunately, the US seems it needs to learn this lesson every 30 years.
Dallas County is indeed lost. Dems now control local judgeships and county offices there. It’s getting blacker every election. Whites have been fleeing to the surrounding suburban counties (Denton, Collin) in droves. Whatever we lose in statewide totals in Dallas we make up for with overwhelming numbers in the surrounding suburban counties.
I remember in the 60s and 70s when the GOP first began to take root in Texas it was the opposite. The GOP won Dallas and Harris Counties and got killed everywhere else and I mean everywhere.
Of course I can remember when Tarrant county sent Jim Wright to Congress for 32 or 34 years?
Dallas is now probably breakeven GOP at best for statewide offices but the Metroplex is still big time GOP.
Dallas has just spread out.
rdelbov
It is the increase in the Hispanic population that turned Dallas County blue.
“I think Dallas County is lost. The demographics just don’t favor the GOP.”
This is true but misleading, since while Obama did win Dallas County by 422k votes to 310k, for a 110k plurality, here was the vote in the 7 counties that border Dallas county.
Tarrant McCain 348k Obama 274k
Collin McCain 184k Obama 109k
Denton McCain 149k Obama 91k
Johnson McCain 36k Obama 12k
Ellis McCain 38k Obama 15k
Kaufman McCain 23k Obama 11k
Rockwall McCain 23k Obama 8k
271.#269
Why are you back? What happened to HHR RIP? It is so funny to see people who declared HHR dead coming back with their tails between their legs.
Comment by Chekote —
Welcome to the Chekote charm school on “how to win friends and influence people”.Or, is it the school of-”stick your finger in someone’s eye just for the fun of it”
TimV
You weren’t part of the HHR RIP team. Why are you getting involved? Anyway, you are posting regularly so I guess you are feeling better. That’s good to know.
Tim,
You should come over to New Majority. How about that Chek? hahaah
TB
Please leave New Majority. It is not the right place for you. Please take my advice.
“It is the increase in the Hispanic population that turned Dallas County blue.”
That is half of the equation.
“As of July 2005, Dallas County had 130,000 fewer white residents than it did 2000, Census data shows. In the same period, Dallas County gained more than 175,000 Hispanic residents.”
Chek,
Thank you for the advice and I’ll take it. I see that it’s not the best place for me.
New message:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=114912353434&ref=mf
Tomorrow begins an important week for Alaskans.
On Monday, state lawmakers will meet to override my veto of stimulus funds. As Governor, I did my utmost to warn our legislators that accepting stimulus funds will further tie Alaska to the federal government and chip away at Alaska’s right to chart its own course. Enforcing the federal building code requirements, which Governor Parnell and future governors will be forced to adopt in order to accept these energy funds, will eventually cost the state more than it receives. There are clear ropes attached, and Alaskans will soon find themselves tied down by codes which will dictate how we build and renovate homes and businesses. The state has hundreds of millions of dollars already budgeted for conservation, weatherization and renewable energy development. Legislators don’t need to play politics as usual and accept these funds and the ropes that come with them.
Also this week, Alaskans will join Senators Murkowski and Begich in town hall meetings to discuss the current health care legislation. There are many disturbing details in the current bill that Washington is trying to rush through Congress, but we must stick to a discussion of the issues and not get sidetracked by tactics that can be accused of leading to intimidation or harassment. Such tactics diminish our nation’s civil discourse which we need now more than ever because the fine print in this outrageous health care proposal must be understood clearly and not get lost in conscientious voters’ passion to want to make elected officials hear what we are saying. Let’s not give the proponents of nationalized health care any reason to criticize us.
- Sarah Palin
My problem with the Texas analysis is that it doesn’t take into account that one of the primary reasons for McCain’s smaller margin of victory was that the guy who had the previous margin of victory was a native Texan.
There probably wasn’t much of a decline if McCain was being compared to a non-Texan Republican.
There are clear ropes attached,
Shouldn’t that be strings? I am actually amazed that she got through one sentence without “progressing”.
TB
Dallas Country turned blue in 2006. The won all the county offices and the GOP was left in shock. The excuse then was that we didn’t get our vote out. Well, we got the same results in 2008. An incompetent Sheriff got re-elected by beating a extremely qualified candidate. It is the straight ticket voting that is killing us.
tommy boy, do you think palin will get a bounce from the next poll for “death panel” ?
Gingrich/Palin 2012
http://WWW.AFTERABORTION.COM
#290
That’s the extent of your contributions.
“288.tommy boy, do you think palin will get a bounce from the next poll for “death panel†?”
After discovering Romney care covers abortions then probably yes, there are not enough RINO’s in the GOP to save Romney. He’s going to get clobbered in the primaries – again!
SENATE DEM LEADER MAY REVOKE FILIBUSTER AGAINST PRO-ABORTION HEALTH CARE BILL
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — In a Thursday interview, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid would not rule out using a special parliamentary process to prevent pro-life advocates from stopping the pro-abortion health care bill with a filibuster. The filibuster could be the only option to prevent a huge expansion of abortion funding.
CONGRESSIONAL HEALTH
CONGRESSIONAL HEALTH CARE BILL COULD TRUMP MISSOURI LAW AGAINST ABORTION FUNDING
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — When it comes to the health care bills in Congress and the issue of abortion funding, the bills could have federal taxpayer dollars paying for abortions. But, as one Missouri pro-life advocate tells LifeNews.com, the health care bill could also trump state laws that prevent abortion funding.
NEW MICHIGAN STATS DISPROVE NOTION OF HIGH NUMBERS OF INSURANCE-PAID ABORTIONS
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — Part of the current debate on health care and abortion revolves around a phony argument from pro-abortion groups that most insurance plans pay for abortions. If that is true, then there is little change by having Congress either force insurance providers to cover abortions or having abortion in a national plan.
MICHIGAN ABORTIONS INCREASE IN 2008 IN BAD ECONOMY, HAD HISTORIC LOW IN 2007
Lansing, MI (LifeNews.com) — The number of abortions in Michigan rose in 2008 after posting historic lows in 2007, and a statewide pro-life group is disappointed by the news. According to statistics from the Michigan Department of Community Health released this week, the number of abortions increased 5.2 percent in 2008.
KANSAS PRO-LIFE ADVOCATES PRESS STATE OFFICIALS TO PROBE ABORTIONIST LEROY CARHART
Wichita, KS (LifeNews.com) — Kansas pro-life advocates are, once again, asking state officials to move forward with a probe of late-term abortion practitioner LeRoy Carhart. They say the investigation is more important now than before because Carhart is advancing plans to open a new late-term abortion business in the state.
tom harkin healthcare townhall video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdj8aSHpoHw
Tim,
There’s no Palin tracking poll, so it’s tough to say.
There really doesn’t appear to be any bounce for Obama from the numbers on Friday. Tomorrow’s rasmussen and gallup should tell the story. If there’s no bouce, we can all breathe a little easier.
290- why provoke eph ?
I’m done playing hall monitor…
go ahead trash eachother…
“300.290- why provoke eph ?”
hahahahahahahahaha
I actually point out a serious law in Romney and the KOS plants go nuts. Why???
SARA PALIN IS OUR GAL IN 2012!!!!
#298
I just can’t believe that Dems are still sticking to the line that townhall protesters are part of an insurance companies cospirancy. Dumb sods.
TB,
Why would we see a bounce? I dont understand your logic. We lost another 250,000 jobs and you see a bounce????
301. …serious flaw…
Eph,
It’s the way the media reported the 9.4% figure that I was nervous about. I’m glad that at least according to the polling we have available up to this point, that they didn’t buy the spin.
Chek,
Palin was right by using the term rope instead of strings. Any reasonably intelligent person with 2 brain cells to rub together would understand that the rope metaphor was used as a more foreceful description of what would occur if her state accepted the funds. A string, unlike a rope is easily broken. You on the other hand must have 1 brain cell.
eph, the after abortion link is being provacative and you know it. why not just make your points and turn the other cheek if she attacks.
im NOW done ( i hope ) getting in the middle of this
and the term “kos plant” is also inflamatory
Eph,
Maybe “death panel” stepped on his bounce, hahahahaha.
TimV,
And he was “behaving” so well lately too I actually thought about being nice. Oh well. Maybe tomorrow.
my last post didnt take, ticks me off
#306
Why is she speaking out? She quit her job as governor. It would be like you still telling your ex-employer what to do after you quit. Oh well, she is just not my cup of tea.
And he was “behaving†so well lately too I actually thought about being nice. Oh well. Maybe tomorrow.
Comment by Eph Rove
Only in your sick mind a man can have an abortion.
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/08/09/an-inconvenient-truth-about-the-death-panel/
i wonder if trig has a “poor prognosis”
dr emanuele= dr death panel chief
rahm’s brother is not concerned with the individual but rather the socialist “greater good”
311- she is running for 2012. doing it her way.
she just hit a home run on her first at bat.
that has gotta really rub salt in your wound eh chek ?
Only in your sick mind a man can have an abortion.
Comment by Chekote
perhaps you had the abortion and THEN a sex change operation.
ok, you owe me 1 chek- but just 1.
nite all. ill check back in the mornin for any insults
#314
What wound? I don’t care what she does. It would be nice to see her actually go toe to toe with an opponent on policy instead of just posting on Facebook or sending Tweets.
Eph, I had no clue there was a $50 co pay for abortions in Romneycare. That is going to slaughter him in the primaries once that gets brought to light.
perhaps you had the abortion and THEN a sex change operation.
LOL. Good one. Goodnight TimV.
#318
Why is this a surprise? It was brought up during the primaries. Geez. Romney was pro-choice at the time. Why are people wasting time on Romney? He is a fraud. If he didn’t have any money, he would have been out of contention after Iowa.
Why is Rim the Dim allowed to post nonsense?
Chek, I have to be honest. I never have researched Romneycare. Maybe I’ll have to now
Sorry, that was supposed to be Tim the Dim.
#322
Let me save you time. IT IS A DISASTER.
Chek,
That’s what sullivan proposed today though. he seems to embrace Romneycare.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/08/conservatism-and-healthcare.html
Chek, that’s probably why I never researched it anyway. Anytime government creates programs that the private sector should deal with, they always are a disaster.
How’s this for a lib hater ticket?
Palin-Gingrich ‘12
I would pay to see Biden go up against Gingrich in a debate just for the entertainment value.
According to Politico:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25923.html
Gingrich has quite the powerhouse PAC already in place. Palin and Romney are doing quite well too. Huck isn’t looking too good.
Knighthawk, when you put up the Drudge headline about the USA Today op-ed about Pelosi/Hoyer calling protesters of Obamacare un-American, words fail me. Are they trying to destroy their party or are their egos so massive to the point of insanity? Good grief!
Phoenix,
That’s not a PAC. That’s a 527, which is a huge difference because it lacks contribution limits.
aAAAHHH, sorry Tommy. I misplaced that. Oops
FYI: get ready for some bogus polling data out in four hours. Gallup is releasing Obama’s approval rating for all 50 states.
http://twitter.com/gallupqueue/status/3219932807
“In the queue for 5aET Monday: Obama’s job approval within each state at the mid-mark of the year.â€
Why do we care about his job approval rating at the mid-mark of the year? His approval rating dropped dramatically in July and now August.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/08/unamerican-attacks-cant-derail-health-care-debate-.html
pelosi’s un american op ed
i read many comments- NOT A SINGLE 1 supports obamacare
Everyone,
http://www.newmajority.com/what-if-we-win-the-healthcare-fight
Given this in “The New Majority” Frum (and Chekote and those that follow Frum) should rescind their self-identification as conservatives and republicans right now! It’s bad enough to bad-mouth fellow republicans, but then to gripe and SUPPORT OBAMACARE is contrary to every conservative (and most libetarian) principles that I am familiar with and agree with.
-Polaris
#323:
Who are you even talking about? If it was Tim V, he’s not a Democrat.
If it was me, then take a hike. Nobody forces you to read it.
#268:
The Main Stream Media? Ah, gee….
And, you were doing so well, with good rebuttals, until that….
And, my argument about the President getting only 38% of the vote was not silly. He was the incumbent.
http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm
The VRS exit polls from that year clearly showed what would have happened without Perot.
Why has this myth come about, anyway? Can’t you just say the guy lost? No one else cost him the Election. He did it, himself.
Temper, temper, Tim the Dim. What’s the matter, you can’t take a little innocent ribbing? Weren’t you tyhe one complaining a few threads ago abou the GOP being able to dish it out but not take it? May I respectfully suggest a place where you can post your comments? You’ll have to get your head out of the way first, though.
Had Perot not been on the ballot in ‘92, the race would have probably been a lot closer, but I suspect Slick Willie would still have won. It was, indeed, the economy, Stupid.
Love the cherry picking Polaris. Frum is also proposing conservative reforms. The current system is unsustainable and we need reform. Obama’s proposals are not the answer. But doing nothing is not the answer either. Anyway, Frum is more moderate than I but I do like his blog. The discussions are generally very civil.
Tim the Dim, having demonstrated that he could dish it out but not take it, is missing in action.
“Can’t you just say the guy lost? No one else cost him the Election. He did it, himself.”
There’s plenty above to refute this dim witted comment, you can read it or you can stay ignorant. I am more worried right now about the Messiah than I am about GHWB.
“Obama’s proposals are not the answer. But doing nothing is not the answer either.”
Who is proposing doing nothing? Frum thinks he is God’s gift to moderation, but all he is doing is providing convenient cover for Obama. I consider myself a moderate Republican, but the stakes are too high for fence sitting. Let’s make sure our country is not destroyed and THEN we can argue what kind of Republican government we want.