Cynical Nation

I'm especially glad he didn't go with Chet Edwards the Texas Democrat who is a strong Conservative Democrat, in some phoney attempt to curry favor with the rising tide of Conservative (Blue Dog) Democrats...now about 25% of the Democrat's Congressional delegation and growing segment of the Democratic electorate.

At least it does show an independent streak on Obama's part.

If you're a Liberal, embrace it....Jimmy Carter did and even though his policies failed, he's maintained his ideological integrity....such as it is.

Dont forget the bet about the case of beers (Foster's):-)

nice to hear from you again, B.

WoW!

Looks like it's not as popular a choice as some of us initially thought;

"It's a dead heat in the race for the White House.

"The first national poll conducted after Barack Obama publicly named Joe Biden as his running mate suggests that the battle for the presidency between the Illinois senator and John McCain is all tied up.

"In a new CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Sunday night, 47 percent of those questioned are backing Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominees, with an equal amount supporting his Republican opponent, McCain.

"This looks like a step backward for Obama, who had a 51 to 44 percent advantage last month," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Even last week, just before his choice of Joe Biden as his running mate became known, most polls tended to show Obama with a single-digit advantage over McCain."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/24/election.2008.poll/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Who knows? Maybe McCain will pick an equally unpopular running mate, like a Joe Lieberman or (gulp) even worse, a Jeb Bush....

I've said from the start, I think this race will be closer than 2000. On EVERY front this is, at best, a choice of two lesser evils.

Well... yeah. I don't think the Biden pick actually helps him much. In fact, the best you can probably say about it is that it probably won't hurt Obama, unless of course he says something really stupid, which he is wont to do.

The reason I thought it was a "good" pick was because it doesn't seem poll-driven or consultant-driven and seems truly to be based on experience and qualifications.

I guess it's probably also an attempt to bring the Hillary crowd back into the fold, because Biden is, in some sense, HRC in a man's body. I'm not sure it'll work, however, because I think the bitterness of the Hillary crowd is much more rooted in gender than in policy.

"The reason I thought it was a "good" pick was because it doesn't seem poll-driven or consultant-driven and seems truly to be based on experience and qualifications." (BNJ)


I agree with that. It looks like an attempt to maintain the Hillary-vote, while still smacking Hillary.

I can't imagine Hillary and Obama NOT having a problem wih each other! They were brutal to each other during the Primary season.

I see pretty much the same thing with McCain and Romney (bad blood)...I just hope McCain doesn't make a disastrous move like a Huckabee or (and I know you like him) a Lieberman.

Huckabee's a dick and Lieberman's a far left loon socially and economically.

I suppose he could surprse everyone and go with someone like Sarah Palin, the Republican Governor of Alaska...




"I'm not sure it'll work, however, because I think the bitterness of the Hillary crowd is much more rooted in gender than in policy." (BNJ)


I guess that remains to be seen.

The trend seems to be that the under 25 y/o demographic is leaning heavilly Obama's way, while the over 65 y/o demo is leaning equally heavilly McCain's way.

That leaves a vast middle of people who are actually working and living grown-up lives (not that some oldsters don't work....they do), but virtually everyone in that 25 y/o - 65 y/o demo DOES.

A key to that demo will be Barack Obama's ability or inability to keep all those Hillary-women in the fold.

We'll see. He'll need a strong bump from this Convention to look good - at least ten points.

If he's up LESS than 3 or 4 in late October that won't look good, considering that polls have always overestimated Democratic support on election day...Kerry and Gore had polls off by 5 points just days before the election.

Pollsters are expecting that phenomenon to be magnified by the Obama candidacy.

All I know is that I'm really kind of amused by the whole "how could he not pick Clinton" thing from the GOP.

K, that's "politics."

And for better, or worse, it's "brilliant politics" from the McCain camp who's nakedly going after disaffected Clinton voters, because his willingness to compromise with Left-wing dinosaurs like Ted Kennedy (yeah, BOTH Bush's were guilty of it too) has alienated the GOP's Conservative base.

And with the Conservative wing of the Democratic growing (virtuall ALL the gains the Democratic Party has made since 2006 have come from Conservative/"Blue Dog Dems who are now nearly 25% of the Congressional Dems, Conservatives have more choices than they've ever had.

For years people have been claiming, "We need a new political paradigm in this country."

Well, here it is, but like a lot of things, it's not going to be what most of those people expected.

Can we get a list of these Blue Doggers who make up 25% of the Democrats in the House? That list would comprise about 55 or so members.

"All I know is that I'm really kind of amused by the whole "how could he not pick Clinton" thing from the GOP. "

LOL. That shows how desperate and pathetic the campaign of McCain is.

The reality is that McCain is the worst possible candidate the GOP could have. My guess is that they are using him as a scapegoat this year (they know he will lose).

The only reason McCain has a theoretical possibility to win the election is because there is bigotry and a racism in a segment of the population that would never vote Obama. Normally, Obama should win by a landslide. But because of that the election will be closer. But the outcome will be the same: President Barack Obama.

"Can we get a list of these Blue Doggers who make up 25% of the Democrats in the House? That list would comprise about 55 or so members." (Fred)


I know you're asking that question because, as a self-proclaimed "rock-ribbed Conservative Republican" you desperately want "the GOOD news" of Conservatism spread throughout the land.

Me too. I'm with ya brother.

Well, I'm not going to name the Blue Dog coalition for you, but I'll give you this;

"Blue Dog Democrats are a group of 49 moderate and conservative Democratic Party members of the United States House of Representatives. The Blue Dogs promote, among other things, fiscal conservatism and accountability..

(They are overwhelmingly “enforcement first” on the border issue and pro-gun.)

"Many members come from conservative districts, where liberal Democrats comprise a decided minority of the general population. In 2006, Blue Dog candidates such as Heath Shuler and Brad Ellsworth were elected in conservative-leaning districts, ending years of Republican dominance in these districts.

"In 2008, the Blue Dog's prominence as a voting block was highlighted by their support for a FISA compromise that provided immunity to large telecom companies who had been accused of assisting the government in capturing communication involving US citizens."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition

A better question is can ANYONE name a single Liberal Democrat to win a NEW (previously unheld) seat for the Democrats since 2006?

I don't believe there are ANY.

And these Conservative Democrats are here to stay and they intend to take back their Party.

Their website says; "The Democrats do believe in Democracy so they, by definition, MUST follow the wishes of the majority of Democratic voters. So all we need to end abortion and ban gay marriage in America and Secure Second Amendment Rights is for some of you to join with the 45% of Democrats who agree with you on these issues."

http://www.il-democrats.org/conservativedemocrats.html

A recent Rasmussen POll shows that Liberals are a distinct minority within their own Party of choice as "The data shows that 43% of Democrats consider themselves politically liberal."

Next to you Fred, I don't think there's anyone who is more a stalwart advocate and defender of American Conservatism than myself.

In that regard, I take a backseat to ALMOST no one.

"The only reason McCain has a theoretical possibility to win the election is because there is bigotry and a racism in a segment of the population that would never vote Obama." (BW)

Hey! I see you've taken to parroting that retard Keith Olbermann!

Nnnnnnnn, not such a good look for you, I must say. Better to nose dive with your own original thoughts, don't you think?

I say that about the Olbermeister while acknowledging that he was once a hell of a sports caster - he and Dan Patrick formed a great duo....almost as great as the now defunct Mike and the Mad Dog!

I've done my level best to bring Keith back to his working-class roots;

http://workingclassconservative.blogspot.com/2007/03/red-bell-bottoms-or-what-in-hell.html

Still, all those dupes who think "only bigots wouldn't vote for Barack Obama." are some of the dumbest and woefully naive folks on the planet.

Hey! I know that I'm bigotry-free and I wouldn't vote for Obama, UNLESS he had a sudden ideological conversion and became the Second Coming of Walter E Williams.

JMK said

>>A better question is can ANYONE name a single Liberal Democrat to win a NEW (previously unheld) seat for the Democrats since 2006?

Do you mean since 2004? Because last year wasn't a year for congressional elections, was it? Am I completely blanking or something? Because I thought this past year was mainly local elections with relatively few major offices in play.

And have truly conservative, in all senses of the word, picked up new seats since 2004?

I only went back to the 2006 elections, K, as that's the election where the Democrats made most of their recent gains, thanks in large measure to Charles Schumer's and Rahm Emmanuelle's common sense strategy of running Conservative Democrats in Red States.

I have Schumer's recent book, Positively American (every Democrat and especially every "so-called Democrat" - that is, those Left-wing loons who've mistakenly seen the Democratic Party as their "home") should read that book.

In it, Schumer admits that the Democratic Party has been, "...far too Liberal, shamelessly Liberal and Liberal for far too long."

If you DON'T read things like that, you tend to be taken by surprise when paradigm shifts like the one occuring now) take place.

I read Schumer's book, in which he follows the travails of a fictional working class Long Island family, the Bailey's and chronicles their hopes and concerns. I don't agree on most issues with Schumer, BUT I respect the calculus of his reasoning.

It was clearly a wink and a nod to Conservative Democrats and "Reagan Democrats" that this new era would be hallmarked by the Democrat's own "Southern Strategy" - capitulating to Conservatism, rather than futiley fighting against it.

Before that book came out, I'd known about Schumer's realistic vision, because a cousin of mine (a very Conservative Staten Island Democrat) worked on his staff). That cousin is now in the NY State Legislator and fought (and won) AGAINST Spitzer's ill-fated attempt to force ALL hospitals (including religious ones) to offer abortions and to strip physicians of their right to conscientiously refuse to perform that procedure. He also fought (and won) AGAINST Spitzer's initial gay marriage proposal which would've allowed some groups to fight Churches and Synagogues and try to get the courts to mandate their marrying gays in such institutions.

Mike's fight had the wording changed to such an extent that such legal challenges, under the current Bill, would be impossible.

The fact that Chuck Schumer reached out to someone like Mike showed me that he was an ideological realist.

Current polls that show that only 43% of Democrats consider, themselves "Liberal" shows how weak an ideology Liberalism really is. It's a complete validation of the Schumer-Emmaunelle strategy!

As to, "And have truly conservative, in all senses of the word, picked up new seats since 2004?" That's a fair question K, BUT I'm not even a "Conservative in all senses of the word."

I SUPPORT first trimester abortion. I oppose late term abortions once the fetus is fully formed and can exist outside the womb (premies as young as 21 weeks have survived), BUT Conservative Democrats like Heath Shuler and Chet Edwards oppose all abortion as "infanticide."

I can work with people I disagree with over such marginal issues (ie. requiring DNA in Capital Punishment cases and defining when live begins), I can't, for instance, with people who oppose the sacred and most basic RIGHT to the violent self-defense of one's person AND property. I can't with people who don't see how vital EXTREMELY LIMITED government is and WHY government is ALWAYS a part of the problem and rarely if ever part of a solution. I can't work with those who DON'T understand how income tax rate hikes merely incentivize savings (deferring income) among the top 10% of earners, who pay over 80% of the income taxes, thus reducing revenues, while socking those with little or no disposable income (lower wage earners) with the unavoidable tax hikes. I CAN'T work with those who DON'T understand why unregulated, ILLEGAL migrant labor puts a persistent downward pressure on ALL prevailing wage rates, and why that issue has NOTHING to do with the Free Trade issue and I can't work with people who DON'T understand that government spending on criminal justice (domestic security) and military ventures creates jobs and generally ADDS to the nation's GDP, while government social spending does not.

On THOSE issues, I tend to agree with the vast majority of my fellow "Blue Dog"/Conservative Democrats.

K, I know I sometimes put things in what might appear to be a confrontational manner. That is certainly not my intent, although, I guess I do (as in a couple of above posts) get excised over the reality that a Keith Olbermann is still sucking up our airwaves, while one of the greatest sports-radio tandems in history (Mike and the Mad Dog) have split up.....I confess to having had my own, "T.O. moment" the other day, after they broke up - just as Terrel Owens cried, "My team team, my quarterback," after Dallas lost to the Giants in the playoffs last year, I shamelessly cried, "My Doggie, my Mike," after that duo broke up on August 15th.

Both were really heart-wrenching moments, although I'm glad mine wasn't YouTubed or otherwise broadcast to the general public, like T.O.'s was.

So sometimes, I get a little cranky, when I see such apparent injustices, BUT, I think all of us people of good will, want the same things - more proseperity, less government help/intervention and people working and happily being productive for the whole of their lives.

Our disagreements only seem to come over strategies on "How best to get there."

I think Conservatism, as an ideology, has won out because (1) it's rooted in basic common sense and (2) its adherants, including myself, have never shied away from putting forth meticulous and very detailed arguments in its favor, while virtually NONE of the adherants of Liberalism (OK, there aren't many around here) haven't been able to do anything at all like that.

Why is my wife the first women in her family in a thousand generations to have internet access? Was it because all of our predecessors preferred proprietary protocols over http?

Listen, Joe Biden finished in the top half of his class -- or, um, ahead of nine other guys, anyway, in a class of 85 -- and that's good enough for me. I mean look, the Republicans are nominating, what? A former beauty pageant contestant? What else has she done since 1984? Raised a family? Governor of Alaska? I'll bet Joe Biden could do that backwards, wearing high heels!