Hillary Wins Ohio and Texas
I admit it. I thought that Obama would win Ohio and Texas. This race is fun to watch.
Hillary Rodham Clinton bounced back from 11 straight losses to defeat Barack Obama in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island. Obama won Vermont.
I don’t care what the corporate media say, Texas is still too close to call. Clinton will probably win the popular vote in the primary, but with our cockeyed, two-tiered delegate allocation system with a caucus added in, Obama is almost certain to emerge with more convention delegates from Texas.
Ya got one thing right. though. This is fun.
Posted by on March 05, 2008 at 0959 hrsThere was nervous air all around. Hillary’s loss would have made things much easier. Good she didn’t. This should test Obama all the more.
Posted by JJ on March 05, 2008 at 1050 hrsYou can thank all the Rush listeners in Texas. They all crossed over and voted for Hillary.
And the Drive By’s were pissed last night, and today. they actually said that the Republicans were corrupting the Democrat’s process.
How dare the Republicans use Democratic stratigies..
Its about time..
Posted by on March 05, 2008 at 1803 hrsNonsense. Rush wishes he had that kind of pull. He’s indulging himself in delusions of grandeur if he thinks he had anything to do with the way this turned out and so are the dittoheads who threw away the chance to vote on the down-ballot races in their own party.
Posted by on March 05, 2008 at 1956 hrsTexas is a more complicated story than “Clinton won.” Won what? The primary? The caucus? Overall delegate count? But it’s certainly not accurate to say she lost, either, and thus her campaign will soldier on.
If somehow she were to receive the nomination, I’d support her. I might even volunteer for her campaign. I think she’s incredibly smart, has lots of good ideas and policy positions, and is tough enough to be the leader of the free world. What I would regret, however, is the fact that she is a divisive figure in America. I think some of the reasons are irrational and some are frankly sexist, but it doesn’t change the fact that she is divisive. America doesn’t need divisiveness, especially now after having suffered so much of it under Bush.
Obama isn’t divisive. On the contrary, he’s inspirational and charismatic. He has appeal outside the Democratic base. He has mostly the same ideas and positions that Clinton has. I just think he’s the right person for the job for these other reasons.
One thing that’s really disturbing me right now though is the media. They’re reporting on the Democratic race this week as if the party is on the ropes, our candidates going down the drain, and dark clouds loom on the horizon in the general election. Which is of course absolute nonsense. Our “problem,” insofar as we have one, is that we have two very well-liked candidates. The Republicans have one candidate that they don’t like all that much. Our candidates are raising mountains of cash. Their candidate, not so much. Our campaigns have been noteworthy for the relative dearth of negativity, but the media is doing a lot of hand-wringing about whether their attacks on each other will hurt their chances in the general. It goes on and on and on. And this wasn’t Fox news. This was Tom Ashbrook on NPR last night!
Posted by scott on March 06, 2008 at 0941 hrsDon’t you mean to say the so-called liberal media?
Posted by on March 06, 2008 at 1046 hrsand is tough enough to be the leader of the free world.
less free after she gets done with it
Posted by on March 06, 2008 at 1149 hrsOh, I don’t know. I’ll probably be freer from the government listening to any overseas phone calls I might make.
Posted by scott on March 06, 2008 at 1153 hrswarped
lets see… more money out of your paycheck every week for taxes… government listeining to your overseas phone calls....
Gee Scott, just how many phone calls do you make that would raise red flags?
Cause I gotta be honest with you, I see how much money comes out of my paychecks and I hear what Hillary Clinton wants to do and I know DAMN well how much more of my money is going to be OTD for her purposes.
Not to condone it (listening to phone calls) but how about a littler perspective here?
Posted by on March 06, 2008 at 1223 hrsGee Scott, just how many phone calls do you make that would raise red flags?
Good question! I guess its a matter of opinion isn’t it? I mean in the past a law enforcement agency would have to make a case before a judge if they wanted to search me or wiretap me. Isn’t that how it used to be? But now they can just go ahead and listen, without having to justify their suspicion to anyone. So I guess its the NSA and the FBI who decide how many suspicious calls I make. Perhaps we should ask them.
Posted by scott on March 06, 2008 at 1238 hrsxx, it’ll only be more money out of the paycheck every week for folks in your elevated tax bracket. For us working class types, that almost certainly won’t be true.
Frankly, my perspective is that incursions on liberty like warrantless wiretapping or the removal of habeas corpus or signing statements or any of the other attacks on our Constitution that have come so fast and furious over the last few years are much more serious than any tax could ever be.
Posted by on March 06, 2008 at 1402 hrsxx, it’ll only be more money out of the paycheck every week for folks in your elevated tax bracket. For us working class types, that almost certainly won’t be true.
Interesting… You seem to have no problem with the concept.
You’re a thief apc. You have no morals.
You know, I spent many years paying my dues… And by that I mean learning, and sacrificing my life, and positioning myself to be where I am. Never once in those years did I wish for or expect that any other individual had any more or less obligation to fund the critical role of government than I.
Never once in those years did I think that just because someone earned more than I, that they ought have to pay for my part. One man, one obligation.
But I guess you’re the leeching type. You don’t have a problem with it. You’re as selfish as they come. You want to pay less. And you’ll vote for the guy that will give you more, while taking from others.
I could never do that. Ever.
its not in me.
But I’m an honest man. I paid my own way, and I paved my own way. ymmv
I never
Posted by on March 08, 2008 at 0126 hrsGood question! I guess its a matter of opinion isn’t it? I mean in the past a law enforcement agency would have to make a case before a judge if they wanted to search me or wiretap me. Isn’t that how it used to be? But now they can just go ahead and listen, without having to justify their suspicion to anyone. So I guess its the NSA and the FBI who decide how many suspicious calls I make. Perhaps we should ask them.
Scott, you’re so hollow.
Your selective concern for rights is disturbing. You’re self-centered and a hypocrite. You and APC.
You say you care about rights and freedom but you don’t. You could care less.
You care about the ones that affect you or think affect you, and care-not about any others.
Anyone could stand up for their own interests. Would you stand up for someone elses?
Clearly not.
You throw your vote at the candidate who offers you the most. Thats an easy choice. How much more principled would it be to vote for the candidate who offers you nothing. The candidate that promises you nothing except an open road to go out and acheive for yourself?
Posted by on March 08, 2008 at 0140 hrsI tried to compose a strongly-worded response, xxpilot, but when it came down to it, I could not. The reason is because there’s just not that much to respond to in your comment. Basically you’re accusing me of not caring about rights, which is obviously false and needs no refutation. And then you’re accusing me of choosing my candidate solely based on who serves my own narrow interests, which is also false and needs no refutation. The only way such accusations even make sense is if you have a highly partisan, tunnel-visioned view of American politics in which anyone left of Joe Lieberman is akin to Karl Marx--which is absurd on its face and says more about you than it does about anyone else.
As far as selfishly advocating my own narrow interests, it is one of my core beliefs that people with power or privilege or who are otherwise fortunate, should use their status to lift up those who are less so. In fact any other use of such power and status is fundamentally wrong. Both my politics and my personal life reflect this. It needs no proving.
I find it odd that you accuse me of having selective concern about rights when you yourself are clearly demonstrating that you are unconcerned about the 4th amendment rights I’m discussing above. The fact that my phone conversations can be tapped by law enforcement agents without any judicial oversight is a fundamental violation of that right and it should not stand. Meanwhile, you’re more concerned about the dollar that someone might tax you so that a poor kid can have a hot lunch at a reduced cost. Me, selective? Shyeeah.
Posted by scott on March 08, 2008 at 0949 hrsYou’re a thief apc. You have no morals.
Beleiving in progressive taxation makes one a “thief” now? Do you realize that progressive taxation is one of the cornerstones of western democratic society? I mean I can’t even think of a civilized nation that doesn’t have it.
Never once in those years
Did you ever once in all those years benefit from someone else’s contribution above and beyond your own? Go to a publicly funded school or university? Get an unemployment check? Get a federally subsidized student loan? Collect more on an insurance plan than you paid in?
One man, one obligation.
Otherwise known as the “every man for himself” philosophy. Conservatism really warms my heart.
Posted by scott on March 08, 2008 at 0956 hrsyou yourself are clearly demonstrating that you are unconcerned about the 4th amendment rights I’m discussing above.
Not at all. I’m concerned about both. I said so above #9
As far as selfishly advocating my own narrow interests, it is one of my core beliefs that people with power or privilege or who are otherwise fortunate, should use their status to lift up those who are less so.
It is not for you or anyone else to decide what another person need do.
It is not for you or the government to decide who is the “powerful and privileged”
It is up to each individual to decde what they ought be doing for others.
I can’t speak for you, but clearly APC indicated that he wouldn’t consider himself “one of the powerful or privileged” since his tax bracket isn’t in play to negatively every damn election. Mine is.
So for someone who is lured by the promised of something for nothing that it seems damn near every politician, but especially the democrats promise these days. For that person to make a statement like APC. IN other words “His tax bracket isn’t going to take a hit, so he’s ok with it”
That’s recklessly self-serving and selfish.
“it aint his money”
How you guys can look at yourselves in the mirror when what you want from government is them to take more from someone else and not from you. Shameful.
Otherwise known as the “every man for himself” philosophy. Conservatism really warms my heart.
No Scott, it means one man one tax obligation. I’m sure you probably have little to no experience doing so, but there are many many ways to help your fellow man besides sending your money of to our behemoth government to salt back out as the vote payoffs dictate. (or in your and APC’s case, promoting the concept of government taxing someone else)
For you to sit ant talk about helping other people… While out of the SAME breath believing that OTHERS should bear the greater burden of the help YOU think people need.
WOW.. How do you look at yourself in the mirror?
just unbelievable
Posted by on March 08, 2008 at 1033 hrsHow you guys can look at yourselves in the mirror when what you want from
government is them to take more from someone else and not from you.
Shameful.I’m not ashamed in the slightest. I ask that the government fund its operations based partly on ability to pay, aka progressive taxation. This is not a new or radical idea. It is, as I’ve said, a cornerstone of modern democratic society and it is found all over the world. There isn’t a single civilized democracy on earth which doesn’t rely on it. We could have a great discussion about why that is, but let’s get one thing straight right off the bat: it is definitely not an extreme position. Yours is.
I’m sure you probably have little to no experience doing so,
Personal insults? Is that what we’re down to now?
I think you are making a mistake about apc’s response. He says he’s okay with it because it isn’t hitting his tax bracket but only those above his. Paraphrasing, but that’s what he’s saying. Right? Right. The error you make is this. You think he’s okay with it because he himeslf doesn’t have to pay for it. But what he really means is that his tax bracket doesn’t. Is there a difference? Yes. One is selfish, the other is not. Consider the following scenario. Apc gets a sudden windfall that causes him to be in the top 5% of earners. Does he a) say that he’s not okay with the policy because this time he’ll have to pay for it, or b) say he’s fine with it because the middle-class bracket he used to be in does not have to pay for it? The answer, I would guess, is b.
He’s not protecting his own personal interests so much as the interests of the middle-class. If he were to leave that middle-class he could very well have the same opinion of the policy. See what I mean? Just ask Warren Buffet.
Posted by scott on March 08, 2008 at 1059 hrsWow.
I point out another point of view and I’m an amoral thief whose goal is to elect politicians who will get people more fortunate than me to pay for all my needs?
Your implication that everyone who hasn’t reached your status somehow hasn’t paid their fair share or worked hard enough is absurd on the face of it.
We had a pretty good conversation recently in which you told me you believed in the common good, and mentioned that you gave to numerous charities, which I’m sure is true, and good for you. But for it truly to be the common good, it has to be decided upon by everybody, which like it or not, means the government. You obviously don’t agree with that and don’t want any of your precious money spent where you yourself don’t want it spent.
I’d just expand on a point Scott made. The great middle class expansion of the post-World War II years was fueled in large part by a pair of federal programs, the GI Bill and Interstate Highway program. Our parents (and grandparents, for some) were able to build this society with the help of these programs, programs conservatives fought tooth and nail, by the way.
Posted by on March 08, 2008 at 1101 hrsYes, thank you Scott, it’s b. I’m perfectly happy to pay my fair share of taxes. Look, to use a phrase I’ve used many times here, nobody likes paying taxes, and nobody likes levying them either.
xx: This recklessly self-serving thief has been paying his taxes for nearly 40 years now, thank you very much, and in all those years combined, I’ve never whined about it as much as I’ve seen you do it in the pixels of this blog over the last year or so. Go ahead and think whatever the hell you want, but I’m sick and tired of the insults. Kiss my ass.
Posted by on March 08, 2008 at 1117 hrsBut for it truly to be the common good, it has to be decided upon by everybody, which like it or not, means the government. You obviously don’t agree with that and don’t want any of your precious money spent where you yourself don’t want it spent.
I don’t believe you get to write the definition of common good for me.
Your definition of common good is clearly different than mine.
I believe common good as intuitively stated in our constitution is FAR FAR different what people who want to stretch and blur the basis of our principles of freedom (like you guys) now want to define it as.
Your guys definition of common good leads us directly into socialism. Where do we draw the line guys?
When historically government spending as a percetage of total economic activity was 15-20% and now government spending as a percentage of total economic activity is approaching 50%?
You don’t see a problem with that? You don’t see that as us now being 1/2 socialistic?
Where does it end guys?
If socialized healthcare passes government spending as a percetage of all economic activity will be more than half.
How can you still sall this a free market and a free economy and a free country when over half of the money spent is spent by the government?
That’s not freedom guys. Not in my book.
Posted by on March 08, 2008 at 1321 hrsGovernment spending has never been 50% of GDP and it hasn’t been 15% since 1939. And by the way, it’s been higher than it is right now. in 1945 it was 35%. Today, it’s what? Around 30%? And I’m talking about total government spending. State/local and federal.
Anyway, the question isn’t how scary you do or don’t find the number. The questions are is it so much that it’s hurting the economy? Are we getting a good return on our investment? Are we providing the services that people need?
Obviously there is a point at which the ratio can go so high as to be counterproductive. Its negatives would outweigh any benefit we got from it. Are you making the case that we are there? Go ahead and convince us. But you’ll need to do more than cite a number.
Please do note that I did say there is a limit. There is a limit to how much taxation can occur. There is a limit to how much regulation industry can bear. There are limits to the benefits of a robust social safety net. So don’t go around saying “socialist” and making as if people like myself want the government to own all means of production and use taxation to level out income such that everyone makes the same as everyone else. Stop with the hyperbolic hyperventilation and let’s start having a real discussion.
Take health care. I generally have no interest in raising the federal government’s income. None at all. With one exception. I think the government can do a more efficient job at providing health insurance than private industry has ever done. Were that to occur, the federal budget would grow significantly, but we ourselves would likely end up paying less for our health care. So I don’t see that as a big problem. (Yes, I know you basically think I’m wrong about every single thing I just said, but as an abbreviated pre-rebuttal to your remarks, let me just cite the record of a whole lot of other countries who have very nice health care and who all--all--pay a hell of a lot less for it than we do.)
Posted by scott on March 08, 2008 at 1827 hrsommon good as intuitively stated
xxp, what does that mean?
Are you guessing or channeling the founding fathers?
Posted by on March 09, 2008 at 0014 hrsommon good as intuitively stated
xxp, what does that mean?
If you read our constitution and read other documents writtedn by the men who contributed to it, you would clearly understand that this country was not based on some concept of “common good” or whatever socialists want to call it.
It was based on protection of individual rights and protecting the minority (in whatever deliniation people have differing views and wants) from the tyranny of the majority.
In others words. Its NOT ok that because 51&#xof; the population wants something, the entire population should be forced to go along.
That’s what you guys seem to intimate. That these decisions about what role our government should or shouldn’t be playing should be based on decisions by our legislators and elections there-of.
That’s not true. No politician, no legislator is above the constitution. Just because a large enough voting block gets together and gets someone in office to pass socialized healthcare doesn’t mean its constitutional.
Unfortunately our constitution doesn’t seem to matter anymore, and hasn’t for quite some time, but it was suppose to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Posted by on March 09, 2008 at 1002 hrs
Ol' Army
