[QUOTE=Liberal]
No, actually I’ve already announce my plan to vote for Obama if he runs. But not because I think my vote would otherwise be wasted. It’s wasted anyway since it is so dilluted. As I said before, if Obama is not on the ticket, I won’t bother voting at all.
I think that despite Obama’s left-leaning tendencies, I feel the same way about him that I did about Reagan who had right-leaning tendencies. There are times when the nation needs leadership and inspiration. Now is such a time. Only one candidate can supply that, and that’s Obama.
[/QUOTE]
TY. Quite the reasonable response. Politis aside – if possible – I feel the same way. And my son and nephew, first time voters, are on the same boat.
Although I’ll freely admit my pinko-commie tendencies and my willingness to spout them (aka, European Social Democrat) have had a tiny bit of influence in their choice.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
I dunno, but since he’s already being compared to JFK, some pundit is bound to point out at some point – and the meme will pick up steam – that JFK didn’t have much more experience when he took office than Obama has now.
[/QUOTE]
Hope so. The sooner the better. Like I said, whole lot of ignorance out there. Specially from what I saw in Florida last week…which may be the outlier and not the norm. Or I sure hope so.
[QUOTE=panache45]
Hey, we’ve had some mighty fine presidents who were womanizing drunks. :dubious:
[/QUOTE]
I just look at his voting record. I will take a womanizing drunk over a hypocrite any day and Sunday.
The Kennedy endorsements are significant and indicate support of the establishment. It will particularly impact older Democratic voters who are reluctant to step outside of their comfort zone. And, as already mentioned, Toni Morrison’s endorsement will only help Senator Obama.
I will be extremely surprised if HRC wins the nomination.
[QUOTE=RedFury]
Hope so. The sooner the better. Like I said, whole lot of ignorance out there. Specially from what I saw in Florida last week…which may be the outlier and not the norm. Or I sure hope so.
[/QUOTE]
Lemme clue you in: In America, Florida is typical of nothing. There’s the pre-WWII Cracker families and African-Americans; and the far more numerous Yankee immigrants who flooded the state after electricity and air conditioning became widely available; and the Cubans and other Latinos (when I lived in Miami-Dade County – 55% Latino – there seemed to be a lot more Mexicans than Cubans around, not to mention the Haitians); and of course the vast number of retirees from all over the country. A very weird, schizo state culturally, and it’s not surprising that it’s a “purple state” politically.
I just look at his voting record. I will take a womanizing drunk over a hypocrite any day and Sunday.
The Kennedy endorsements are significant and indicate support of the establishment. It will particularly impact older Democratic voters who are reluctant to step outside of their comfort zone. And, as already mentioned, Toni Morrison’s endorsement will only help Senator Obama.
I will be extremely surprised if HRC wins the nomination.
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
I think Lind is wrong on this one. I think that by the time he became president, and probably before that…probably by Eddie’s death, Lincoln started having some idea of a divine plan in the world…certainly by Willie’s.
[/QUOTE]
Well, you can (like Jefferson and Ben Franklin) believe in that sort of thing without believing in Christ as the son of God and redeemer of humanity’s sins.
Anecdote: While in Florida recently I got to speak to a number of the hotel staff and by and large, no matter race, they mostly had a huge distrust of Obama’s credentials. Namely, most said in some words or another “he wasn’t ready.” I just hadn’t the time or willpower to fight all that ignorance. Think it’s a national occurrence?
[/QUOTE]
I am sure this is where the Republicans will focus their criticism. The swift boaters are probably working diligently at this very moment. All the time and money spent to take down HRC will now be shifted.
I’ve taken note that the conservative pundits are already spinning the JFK comparison as inaccurate because JFK was actually a conservative/centrist, incase anyone on the board didn’t know. Obama is much more liberal than Kennedy. sigh
I am always impressed with the radical right’s ability to rewrite history.
[QUOTE=unconventional]
I am sure this is where the Republicans will focus their criticism.
[/quote]
Especially if McCain gets the nod – nobody can call him “inexperienced.”
[QUOTE=unconventional]
I’ve taken note that the conservative pundits are already spinning the JFK comparison as inaccurate because JFK was actually a conservative/centrist, incase anyone on the board didn’t know. Obama is much more liberal than Kennedy. sigh
I am always impressed with the radical right’s ability to rewrite history.
[/QUOTE]
A nitpick from an earlier post: LBJ rose to the post of Senate Majority Leader, but while in the House never became Speaker. He was a protege of Speaker Sam Rayburn, though.
As to JFK’s effectiveness in getting his program passed - I remember a Congressional Quarterly analysis from the mid-1980s that actually put him in the upper third of Presidents in terms of the bills on which his administration had taken a position. His record on Capitol Hill from 1961-63 was respectable, but yes, LBJ got a lot more stuff through from 1963-69, initially because of the “Let us continue” vibe after Dallas and his own mastery of the legislative process.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
Considering America’s most popular living former President amongst Europeans is Jimmy Carter (easily the worst President of the past fifty years–and Nixon was a crook and was still better) tells me I really shouldn’t care too much about what Joe Europe thinks, either.
[/QUOTE]
I notice the use of the phrase “former President” to carve out Bush jr.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
The Bush tax cuts have actually helped middle income families immensely and stimulated the economy. While the tax cuts that happened during Kennedy’s administration (and to a much larger degree during Reagan’s) were entirely necessary, I do not think they have had as much economic impact because studies have historically shown very few people were actually paying the top marginal rates when they went as high as 90%–tax revenues have tended to increase from the top bracket as the rate has gone down (I’d say the equilibrium for this is down near 45% or so–at a 90% rate you’re going to have people intentionally keeping their “income” low.)
[/QUOTE]
The Bush tax cuts reduced everyone’s tax bill at the expense of HUGE budget deficits. Those deficits translate into huge national debt which translates into huge interest payments going forward. While those tax cuts reduced taxes for everyone, they reduced taxes for the ultra rich a LOT more than they did for anyone else.
The top marginal rate has been as high as 92%. The Bush tax cut reduced the top marginal tax rate from 39.6% to 35% (and a significant reduction in investment income tax, which is what people mean when they talk about tax cuts for the rich). How the heck do you figure that the cut in the marginal tax rate from 39.6% to 35% had more economic impact than the redutcion from 92% to 28% by JFK and Reagan?
There may be a disincentive effect when the marginal tax rate is 92%, I doubt there is any marginal difference between productivity between a 39.6 top marginal tax rate and 35%.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
Look, you clearly were talking out of your ass when you called him the youngest President. This isn’t a matter for debate, Roosevelt was younger than Kennedy, period. You clearly and unequivocally stated the Kennedy was the “youngest President” this is factually false no matter what caveats you want to add to it…
Abraham Lincoln …
[/QUOTE]
Talking out of his ass nis a bit extreme. JFK was our youngest elected President and that gets shorthanded to “our youngest president” And being the youngest elected Preident is an accomplishment (not a particularly notable on in my mind, but you are quibbling).
I think JFK was one of the minor presidents. He achieved very little, and his accomplishments were mostly failures. The “Bay of Pigs” was a good example-he went ahead with the CIA invasion, yet baqcked away from supporting the Cuban freedom fighters. The end result: Castro was firmly established as a dictator for life-and we betrayed hundreds of anti-Castro Cubans. The same with the Cuban Missile crisis-Kennedy almost launched WWIII.
Vietnam is another enigma-while JFK fans insist he wanted out of Vietnam, he actually did a lot to insure our getting mired there-he encouraged the coup against Diem, and backed the thugs who took over the government.
Morally, the man was rotten-he carried on sexual affairs with two White House whores/secretaries (“Fiddle and Faddle”), and indulged in an extramarital affair in Italy-while his wife was in childbirth (the baby was stillborn). Pretty admirable guy!
[QUOTE=ralph124c]
The same with the Cuban Missile crisis-Kennedy almost launched WWIII.
[/quote]
Kennedy stopped WWIII. Thank Og Nixon wasn’t in his seat at that time.
[QUOTE=ralph124c]
Morally, the man was rotten-he carried on sexual affairs with two White House whores/secretaries (“Fiddle and Faddle”), and indulged in an extramarital affair in Italy-while his wife was in childbirth (the baby was stillborn). Pretty admirable guy!
[/QUOTE]
Well, you are certainly describing things for which he is admired. (By guys, anyway. No, heck, not just by guys, it’s just only the guys who’ll admit it.)
[QUOTE=ralph124c]
The same with the Cuban Missile crisis-Kennedy almost launched WWIII.
[/QUOTE]
LeMay and others (on the US side. The majority of blame lies with the Cubans and Russians) almost started WWIII. The Kennedy’s stopped it with diplomacy . I’m not saying that other presidents wouldn’t have handled it the same but the fact remains that JFK was there at the time. To say that he nearly started WWII is way off the mark.
So will Caroline and Ted’s endorsements mean anything?
[/QUOTE]
Apparently it did to Elizabeth Moynihan, widow of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who Senator Clinton succeeded into the Senate.
