47 Comments

• 1. LiberalMind  |  February 13th, 2008 at 12:49 pm

  This tired old line that Democrats are the party of “tax and spend” will fall flat this election cycle.

  Republicans have no high ground when discussing spending and government expansion. The GOP is the party of “borrow and spend more.”

  But go ahead and use it anyway, while Obama addresses the real issues that we care about.

• 2. Some Assembly Required  |  February 13th, 2008 at 12:49 pm

  And so it begins… I am very interested in how he will react to all the mud which will the thrown at him now. He held to his moral high road so far against Hilliary, I guess I’m just waiting to see if he’ll crack and resort to dirty politics which he’s running against. If not, then I’ll know he is legit and maybe he can make some changes in D.C. like he says he will.

• 3. coulterfan  |  February 13th, 2008 at 12:55 pm

  Funny, there seems to be an endless amount of money for Bush/McCain’s endless wars!

  What was the last budget? 3.1 TRILLION DOLLARS! Bush was not only the first President to break 3 trillion, but was also the first to break 2 trillion!!!

  I don’t think the GOP is in any position to start talking about fiscal responsibility after the past 8 years of reckless deficit spending!

• 4. Darva Conger  |  February 13th, 2008 at 12:59 pm

  The GOP is soiling itself now. They were already to go with the “blue dress” and “Bill back in the WH” plan and then this guy from Chicago shows up.

  Plus they have to back an old guy who appeals more to to independents than it does to the hard core members of their party.

• 5. coulterfan  |  February 13th, 2008 at 1:01 pm

  For comparison’s sake, the Federal budget was 1.4 trillion in 1992 (first Clinton budget). Under the GOP Congress, this grew to 1.8 trillion in FY 2000.

  Bush has DOUBLED THE FEDERAL BUDGET in 8 years! So much for ‘limited government’!

• 6. LiberalMind  |  February 13th, 2008 at 1:02 pm

  Barack Obama must eventually confront the dirty politics of the Republican Party.

  These people even smeared John McCain in 2000 with rumors that he had an illegitimate black child. I don’t know which offended them more, being black or illegitimate.

  But anyway the GOP will start the mud, lies, swift-boating and dirty tricks. Obama must realize who he is dealing with and must maintain his superior moral and ethical standards yet wage an effective defense.

  It’s up to us liberals and progressive to go on the offensive and point out the bankrupt policies of “conservatism.”

  Leave Obama to inspiring America to achieve its best.

• 7. bozo the neoclown  |  February 13th, 2008 at 1:07 pm

  Will Obama top this though?
  http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

• 8. Some Assembly Required  |  February 13th, 2008 at 1:14 pm

  I’m not talking about what happened in the past with other candidates, both sides play dirty. What I’m getting at is whether or not Obama will stand firm and not participate is dirty politics. Hillary was only a warm up, I hope he won’t waver but theres still a lot of time between now and the GE.

  By the way, I thought the Fact Check on his website was a genius move.

• 9. hermie  |  February 13th, 2008 at 1:30 pm

  Dems definition of ‘dirty’: “Confronting his record and his policy positions”

  Obama hasn’t had to defend much of what he proposes because he is pretty much the same as Hillary.

• 10. Bull  |  February 13th, 2008 at 1:42 pm

  “But go ahead and use it anyway, while Obama addresses the real issues that we care about.”

  i’m guessing the only issue you really care about is hope, because that’s all he’s talked about. let me know when he really starts talking about where he stands on real issues.

  hillary can’t campaign on issues so she slings the most mud, while obama can’t campaign on issues so he just talks about hope. strong candidates there.

  meanwhile we got mccain who would rather appease liberals than stick to his guns on anything. so which one is the better candidate? answer: no of them. not by a long shot.

• 11. Some Assembly Required  |  February 13th, 2008 at 2:15 pm

  Dirty “confronting his record and his policy positions”

  See I’d define it more like Dirty “Saying he did not salute the flag or recite the pledge of allegiance” From Hillary’s campaign, or how about “sending false e-mails across the US about his religion and heritage”.(No persons or party were directly linked to this), but I expect much more to be thrown at him from both sides before the convention and even more before the GE.

• 12. sleepygene  |  February 13th, 2008 at 2:28 pm

  Bull-

  Obama does go into specifics on his web site. here is his outline for how he is going to try to change things. You may disagree with them but to say he doesn’ t talk about how he is going change things is just wrong.

  http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

• 13. SteaM  |  February 13th, 2008 at 2:48 pm

  Dang sleepygene, you beat me to it.

  The thing about Obama is he has done a good job of covering his bases.

• 14. coulterfan  |  February 13th, 2008 at 4:08 pm

  What does Alan Greenspan think about Republican ‘fiscal policies’?

  From FauxNews 9/17/2007. Cavuto interviewing Alan Greenspan:

  “CAVUTO: All right, look, I know you want so much to mention the economist (ph) (INAUDIBLE), all of that. I want to touch on the relationship with the Bush family. Bush senior — I know you want — Bush Senior kind of feels that you were slow to cut rates and cost him re- election. And this president obviously feels that you’re kind of bad mouthing him out of office. Do you have a problem with the Bush family?

  GREENSPAN: I certainly do not. I admire both the Senior Bush and the Junior Bush who I’ve gotten along with exceptionally well. My basic problem is my concern about the Republican Party in which I have been brought up. And this is not the fiscal policies of the Republican Party of Goldwater, which I so strongly supported.

  CAVUTO: So, they abandoned you, you didn’t abandon them?

  GREENSPAN: Well, I don’t want to say anybody abandoned anybody, I’m just basically saying that I think we’ve lost our way.

  CAVUTO: But you like Bill Clinton?

  GREENSPAN: I thought Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we’ve had in a while.”

  So, what was that about Republican versus Democratic fiscal policies?

• 15. Kahn  |  February 13th, 2008 at 4:10 pm

  some assembly. So far the only people bringing up race are Democrat. We don’t need mud. All we need to do is listen to him and point out what he actually says and doesn’t say.

  This is admittedly difficult, because he doesn’t say much. But proposing to increase the budget by nearly a trillion dollars in entitlements is kind of a big deal, isn’t it? I mean - just where will that money come from… me?

• 16. Kahn  |  February 13th, 2008 at 4:13 pm

  Oh, as to the cost of the war. It’s resulted directly in two hostile nations stopping nukes aimed at us and indirectly in a third. When did liberals stop thinking that atomic bombs aimed at us were not important?

  How much money is every life in New York City, Boston, or L.A. worth? Not much to liberals I guess.

• 17. Bull  |  February 13th, 2008 at 4:33 pm

  wow, he says it on his web site. GREAT! i think john kerry tried that approach. as a matter of fact, when asked a question on his policies he specifically said, go to my web site and you can read about it.

  i feel better now. the man that might be in charge of our country can say nothing in front of large crowds and when some ask where his stances are he can say, “go to my web site.”

  just can’t wait for the dems to be in charge. sarcasm off.

• 18. Bull  |  February 13th, 2008 at 4:39 pm

  maybe during the debates we can ask him a question and he’ll say, “i’ll send you an email about it.”

• 19. coulterfan  |  February 13th, 2008 at 4:41 pm

  >>Oh, as to the cost of the war. It’s resulted directly in two hostile nations stopping nukes aimed at us and indirectly in a third.

  I hate to break it to you, but Bush himself has admitted that there were no WMDs. As well as the Pentagon, the CIA, and every other reliable intelligence organization in the world. In fact, it looks like ‘Republican’ President Clinton (Greenspan’s words) did quite well at containing Iraq as a threat at VERY limited cost in dollars and lives.

  >>i feel better now. the man that might be in charge of our country can say nothing in front of large crowds and when some ask where his stances are he can say, “go to my web site.

  Well, it’s not quite as detailed as “It’s hard, it’s hard work. . .”, I guess : )

  Remember, Kerry was the detailed policy wonk at the debates and Bush was, well. . . umm. . . embarrassing!

• 20. coulterfan  |  February 13th, 2008 at 4:50 pm

  And if you guys ever bothered to watch the Democratic debates (especially the last two), they were very detailed on the policies. Much more so than the petty bickering all 7 dwarves engaged in at the GOP debates (’I love Gitmo more!’, ‘I love to torture’, ‘I hate illegals more than he does!’, ‘Oh yeah? Well they were working on your house!’, etc, etc)

  Obama is going to wipe the floor with McCain. He has built a HUGE coalition (including disgruntled, fed up Republicans), has the money advantage, addresses the issues most Americans care about, has the policies, and has the ability to inspire Americans to action.

  McCain. . . he’s a hero, but he represents 4 more years of Bush’s policies. His ‘coalition’ are the old, stodgy people who have ALWAYS been in charge of the GOP- there’s not even an attempt at recruiting ‘new blood’.

  And what are McCain’s policies? Well, he’s told us that the manufacturing jobs are gone and that America can’t compete any longer, he’s told us we need to continue the Bush tax cuts (which he originally opposed for being tilted to the wealthy) which have nearly bankrupted America.

  And he’s promised more wars!

  That’s a HELL of a platform, yep. Good luck with that in the GE!

• 21. phil  |  February 13th, 2008 at 5:10 pm

  Deleted - off topic.

• 22. Casper  |  February 13th, 2008 at 5:13 pm

  Kahn,

  “Oh, as to the cost of the war. It’s resulted directly in two hostile nations stopping nukes aimed at us and indirectly in a third.”

  Do you have any proof that any of those countries were ever pointing nukes at us?

• 23. Darva Conger  |  February 13th, 2008 at 5:21 pm

  The bottom line:

  If you like Bush’s war in Iraq, vote for McCain.

• 24. SteaM  |  February 13th, 2008 at 5:46 pm

  Bull,

  We can’t help if you fall alseep when people say more than two big words in their attempt to actually give you details regarding their complicated and complex policies that are needed to solve complicated and complex problems that we face.

• 25. SteaM  |  February 13th, 2008 at 5:51 pm

  “It’s hard, it’s hard work. . .”

  nice!

  And:

  “I hope the message that we fight not a religion, but a group of fanatics which have hijacked a religion is getting through. I understand the propaganda machines are cranked up in the international community that paints our country in a bad light. We’ll do everything we can to remind people that we’ve never been a nation of conquerors; we’re a nation of liberators. And I would ask the skeptics to look at Afghanistan, where not only this country rout the Taliban, which was one of the most barbaric regimes in the history of mankind, but thanks to our strength and our compassion, many young girls now go to school for the first time.”

  What a genius!

• 26. neocon  |  February 13th, 2008 at 6:10 pm

  Is it any wonder why SteaM, coulter, Darva, Phil, etc. are liberals? They obviously don’t have jobs and need government to take care of them, much like their Mommies did, or still do. I can’t think of any other posters on this blog that have all day to spew propaganda.

  Their posts are flashbacks to 2004 when Bush was again raked over the coals for his Iraq policy and the liberals were just beaming, fully convinced that Kerry would win the WH. Then, by more than 3.5 million popular votes, Bush won. That’s gotta sting, and that’s when Bush was actually on the ballot.

• 27. Some Assembly Required  |  February 13th, 2008 at 6:24 pm

  “This is admittedly difficult, because he doesn’t say much. But proposing to increase the budget by nearly a trillion dollars in entitlements is kind of a big deal, isn’t it? I mean - just where will that money come from… me?”

  Kahn, 150 Billion is a far cry from a trillion, but for arguments sake I’ll just go with it. It doesn’t matter who gets elected they will have to spend money in order to Avoid a recession/depression. The question is where do you throw that money to best get out of the pickle. Certainly not a war which has become nothing short of a sinkhole for the economy. So in my mind his plan makes sense. Though I’m no economic expert. I just figure throwing money back into the middle class allowing parents to take their kids out to McDonald’s a bit more or buying them new outfits seems like a way to get the ball rolling. Of course it’s more complicated than that, but I hope you get my point.

  And so ‘rich’ people and corporations get taxed a little heavier personally I think it’s better than a country wide depression… possibly even a global one.

  One more thing, As for the beginning of post 15 all I can do is laugh. I’ve read more racist comments today then… wait are you sure were reading the same blogs?!?!?! And post 16.. come on man, speculation and wild statements like that, your just baiting people. I’ve already eaten today, but I appreciate you trying to feed me, means a lot

• 28. Fmr Marine  |  February 13th, 2008 at 6:30 pm

  Ok
  correct me if i am wrong
  The Presidents discretionary portion of the total budget is 20%
  The rest of the total budget is ENTITLEMENTS, which grow exponentially. Naturally the next president 6-8 years down the road will have “the highest budget ever” .
  Also the congress (democRAT) at the present has to approve or deny it. Seems to me the RAT congress piled BILLIONS of pork on to the budget then approved it.
  amazing the utter stupidity of the marxist moron disruptor’s.

  This is why the left lemmings will possibly give us the first affirmative action POTUS.

• 29. neocon  |  February 13th, 2008 at 6:40 pm

  Some Assembly,

  I will agree, you don’t know much about the economy. US Corporations have the highest tax burden of any corporations amongst industrialized nations, and you advocate taxing them more? This would send many of them overseas, leaving American workers without jobs and less money to go to McDonalds, which was one of your brilliant ideas to stimulate the economy.

  Secondly, many of those you deem “rich” are small businessman and investors who are the backbone of the employment base. Many of them are investors that I work with in offering affordable housing, donating money to charities, and buying small business’s. Increase their taxes and that will dry up, which will in turn create less affordable housing and small business employment.

  So I will agree with you completely. Democrats do not understand the economy.

• 30. Fmr Marine  |  February 13th, 2008 at 6:42 pm

  steam-bath

  How are things at NAMBLA’s hdqtrs. today?
  bashed any Boy Scouts lately?
  earbama certainally will fill your wildest marxist fantacies while our cities become targets for an atomic device detonation.
  Oh and a sidebar;
  with all the entitlement promises, he will make W look like a piker. I love the TAXING the corporations ….a little more ( now the highest in the world ) and the “rich” .
  Dont some of you EVER wonder why EVERYTHING is made in china?
  Oh yeah the “slave labor” mantra…this cant be so as it is a marxist - “peoples” utopia.
  Maybe it is because of the repressive corporation taxes?

• 31. neocon  |  February 13th, 2008 at 6:44 pm

  fmrmarine, you have it absolutely correct. One other thing that is being overlooked and that is, Congress controls the purse strings and the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006. Since then, our economy has been shaky. And instead of wanting to make tax “rate” cuts permanent which would give employers and investors confidence resulting in more jobs and investments, they decided to give everyone “McDonalds” money.

  Brilliant.

• 32. Some Assembly Required  |  February 13th, 2008 at 6:47 pm

  Fmr Marine,

  Lets call a spade a spade, passing the blame from Dem. to Rep. is pointless. It’s almost as pointless as debating religion. Most of what I’ve read on this blog has been a Dem’s done this… but a Rep’s. done that and so on. It really does nothing but just spin in circles. These ‘lemmings’ your referring to live in the same country as you, s*it, you’ve probably shared a beer with them without knowing. The issue now is not How the economy is collapsing but how do we fix it. Not whose to blame, but who can we get on board to turn things around. When the Economy’s back on it’s feet and everythings peachy, then those questions and arguments should surface. To punish but also to learn and hopefully not make that same mistakes. Theres an old saying that seems to be lost today ‘Together we stand, Divided we fall” cliche, yes, but sometimes even old cliches contain nugets of perspective.

  Cheers

• 33. Mark Noonan  |  February 13th, 2008 at 6:49 pm

  SAR,

  But the economy isn’t collapsing - therein lies another problem we have; the left thinks we’re a step away from soup kitchens, the right holds that the economy is fundamentally strong. We don’t need, therefor, an Obama to come along and remake America, certainly not with a lot of socialistic, top-down, Big Government programs…

• 34. Herman  |  February 13th, 2008 at 6:50 pm

  “Oh, as to the cost of the war. It’s resulted directly in two hostile nations stopping nukes aimed at us and indirectly in a third. When did liberals stop thinking that atomic bombs aimed at us were not important?” — Kahn

  Where exactly do you think North Korea’s nukes are aimed??? For you see, Kahn, around the same time Saddam was inviting weapons inspectors back into Iraq to search for phantom WMD, NORTH KOREA WAS KICKING THEM OUT!!!

  Bush didn’t care at all.

  In the “Axis of Evil” North Korea didn’t rank high enough, right, Kahn?

• 35. Some Assembly Required  |  February 13th, 2008 at 7:05 pm

  Neocon,

  Your living in a dream world if you do not know most of these corporations are already overseas where labor is cheap and safety regulations are pretty much non existent. I mentioned “McDonald’s” as a figure head, a symbol everyone can love to hate, you should know these very well I mean GW almost invented the position. Can you please provide me a link to where your getting tax information about these corporations, I’d like to brush up on this myself.

  And just so you know, I’m no Dem. nor am I a Rep.

• 36. Some Assembly Required  |  February 13th, 2008 at 7:13 pm

  Mark,

  If the Economy isn’t collapsing, why is it such a big issue this election, why are people defaulting on their mortgages, etc.

  In addition, the Canadian Dollar is hovering just above the American dollar for the first time since the 70’s. I do understand this can also be attributed to the boom in the Alberta oils fields combined with Hebron off the Shores of Newfoundland and also a New hydro plant expected to begin construction on the Churchill river sometime in the next year.

  I’m not saying you need to go socialist, I’m just saying to ignore the problem would be economic suicide. And as I’ve seen and heard repeatedly, McCain probably knows about as much as I do about the economy.

• 37. neocon  |  February 13th, 2008 at 7:20 pm

  SAR,

  And you want to drive more of them away from America with your desire for oppressive taxation. Not sound policy.

  http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1466.html

  And your sentence about GW and inventing positions of symbolism was completely illogical and reveals your BDS and ignorance. Stop now before you embarrass yourself further.

  And here is another bit of facts that reveal your ignorant assertion of a collapsing global economy. Please educate yourself. Cheers.

  It may surprise readers to learn that this World Economic Outlook sees global economic risks as having
  declined since our last issue in September 2006. Certainly this is at odds with many recent newspaper
  headlines and commentary, which have focused on problems related to U.S. mortgages, the potential
  for “disorderly” unwinding of global imbalances, and worries about rising protectionist pressures.
  Nevertheless, as discussed in Chapters 1 and 2, looking at the big picture, we actually see the continuation
  of strong global growth as the most likely scenario.

  http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/01/pdf/text.pdf

• 38. Mark Noonan  |  February 13th, 2008 at 7:43 pm

  SAR,

  Because gas prices have been high and the housing bubble burst…there’s enough out there to make it seem like there’s a fundamental problem and politicians and the MSM will always go with what seems to be happening. If by October the housing market has turned a corner (and I think it did last month) and the price of gas is down (oil is expected to slide this year) then the economy won’t be all that hot on the list of issues…never, ever predict the outcome of an election based upon what is happening 9 months before the vote.

• 39. neocon  |  February 13th, 2008 at 7:46 pm

  SAR and Mark,

  The other factor to the high amount of pre-foreclosures was the accessibility to money by high risk borrowers. Congress insisted that lending institutions make mortgages available to lower income families, hence many people that normally wouldn’t of qualifed, did and bought more house than they could afford.

• 40. Mark Noonan  |  February 13th, 2008 at 7:50 pm

  Neocon,

  True - though I don’t let the financial industry off the hook entirely; they are supposed to be hard-nosed bankers and whatever Congress intended on easy credit, the banks went on a bonanza of shaky lending practices…

• 41. phnx  |  February 13th, 2008 at 8:30 pm

  No one but the party activists are paying attention to the details of the campaigns yet. Obama has inspired many people talking about HOPE while on the stump, but little substnace has been added to it. Yeah, the website is there, but he never deliniates these programs in his stump speeches.

  FACT: Obama is among the three most liberal Senators in DC.

  There are about 100 million people who have yet to vote in the primaries, but will vote in NOV. Once the euphoria has worn off, and this group starts to compare the candidates their backgrounds, experience and policies, the hot air in Obama’s campaign ballon will deflate.

  A perfect example of this was a interview of a random lunch counter patron this morning on TV. The guy said he liked Obama. When asked what his top issue was, he said taxes. I expected he would say “repeal the Bush tax cuts” which would be in line with Obama’s policies. Suprisingly, he said taxes were too high and he was hoping Obama would not raise taxes!!!

  Clearly he’s not paying attention, but has been swept up in Obamania.

• 42. Some Assembly Required  |  February 13th, 2008 at 8:50 pm

  Neocon,

  From the First link on Tax cuts

  “To be sure, the biggest obstacle to cutting the top corporate rate is its perceived cost to the U.S. Treasury. Calculated on a static basis, almost any cut in the corporate tax rate would certainly be scored as a revenue loss. However, other nations are faring well with their lower rates, so the U.S. might not have the continued luxury of doing nothing.”

  When compared to the rest of the world an increase in corporate tax seems ridiculous I will give you that, however with an unstable economy, a tax cut would do more harm than good right now.

  Your second ink also offers this exert from one of 200+ pages…

  “The risks to the growth outlook are less
  threatening than at the time of the September
  2006 World Economic Outlook, but are still tilted to
  the downside. Particular uncertainties include
  the potential for a sharper slowdown in the
  United States if the housing sector continues
  to deteriorate; the risk of a retrenchment from
  risky assets if financial market volatility were
  to rise from historically low levels; the risk that
  inflation pressures could revive as output gaps
  continue to close, particularly in the event of
  another spike in oil prices; and the low probability
  but high cost risk of a disorderly unwinding
  of large global imbalances.”

• 43. Some Assembly Required  |  February 13th, 2008 at 9:01 pm

  “If by October the housing market has turned a corner (and I think it did last month) and the price of gas is down (oil is expected to slide this year) then the economy won’t be all that hot on the list of issues…”

  The Operative word being ‘if’

  “Clearly he’s not paying attention, but has been swept up in Obamania.”

  From what I understand from all the candidates there is little platform to really pay attention to, most of what’s going on is he/she is worse than I am (with the exception of Obama). So tell me why the average person would not vote for someone who inspires them. Also when you taken into account most people get there information from the news, how does one make up there mind. In short, judging voters as idiots because your candidate doesn’t have the charisma to inspire them won’t win them over. Just a thought.

• 44. Mind Numbed Robot  |  February 13th, 2008 at 9:38 pm

  SAR,

  Based on previous elections, the electorate in general, doesn’t start paying attention until after Labor Day. That’s when the specifics will come out and for many, issues and positions will matter, where, for the majority, they don’t now.

• 45. Mark Noonan  |  February 14th, 2008 at 12:16 am

  SAR,

  Indeed - “if” a lot of things happen…and IF you are saddled with Hillary?

  Muhahahahaha!

• 46. Some Assembly Required  |  February 14th, 2008 at 7:23 am

  Cuddo’s Mark, ‘if’ Bill had to look elsewhere to be satisfied, she sure as hell won’t do the job for me. hahaha

• 47. Almiranta  |  February 14th, 2008 at 4:17 pm

  SAR, you said something very interesting in your post # 32. It may get you kicked out of the New Radical Club House, but it caught my attention.

  Am I imagining it, or did you mean to say that you would like a debate based on issues rather than personality, identity, or political affiliation?

  Because I have been working toward that end as long as I have been posting here, and had just about given up on finding someone with a leftist-leaning approach willing to actually talk about issues.

  So:

  Do you think the Constitution should be the defining rule of the land, or that it can and should be modified without input from the citizenry via judicial fiat?

  Do you think the Constitution allows, much less requires, governmental programs including education, welfare, and health care? If so, why?

  Do you think the interests of the country are best served by a government which is small, which is focused on staying out of the way of its citizens as they pursue their daily lives, or do you think the nation is best served by having a large and powerful government which exerts its controls on every, or nearly every, aspect of our lives?

  Do you feel we should follow a strict isolationist policy, internationally? Under what conditions do you think the US should become involved in, or intervene in, affairs in other nations?

  Do you think we have the right to control our borders?

  If the answer to the above is yes, do you have any ideas for dealing with the current illegal alien fiasco?

  If the answer is no, why not?

  This is a good start. but there is one more that belongs in the first group of questions: Do you think low tax rates stimulate the economy and promote economic growth? And do you think that is a good thing?

  See, if we can drop the R’s and D’s, and forget looking for chances to slam Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld or Kerry or Clinton (B) or Clinton (H) or Obama, we might even have some time and energy left over to talk about the issues that affect our futures.