The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Ty- are there duck and cover drills at your kids schools now? why not?

No idea if they exist anymore, but if not, my guess as to why would be that we all expect that the terrorists will hit swiftly enough that ducking and covering won't do much good. Is this the correct answer?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
No idea if they exist anymore, but if not, my guess as to why would be that we all expect that the terrorists will hit swiftly enough that ducking and covering won't do much good. Is this the correct answer?

Name 1 movie Kirk Douglas was in. even 1.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Name 1 movie Kirk Douglas was in. even 1.

Was he in some schmaltzy father-son flick with Michael towards the end of his career? Those are de rigeur, no?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think you are confused about what the partisans on both sides are reacting to. The right doesn't love Bush because the left hates him. Bush purposefully governs in a way that polarizes -- the right loves him and the left hates him because he wants it that way, and works for this result. This is how Rove works. It's been very effective for Bush.

And the left doesn't love Hillary. She has her support, but it's not necessarily the lefties among the Dems.

Sometimes I think you and I live on different planets. It seems on your planet that the extremes of the party care more about policy than emotion. Reagan did not do much for the social conservatives, but he said what they wanted to hear so they loved him for it. The elitest conservatives were angry when Reagan cosied up to Gorbachave, but the rank and file stuck by him.

Bush was not a very strong social conservative (the appointment of Alberto Gonzales to the Texas Supreme Court, saying the country was not ready for an amendment banning abortion, in his speeches always mentioning "Churches, Synagogues and Mosques". The Alan Keyes conservatives were not behind him. At the California Republican Assembly nominating convention (the social conservative wing of the CRP) out of 360 delegates, Alan Keys got 185 votes, Gary Bauer got sixty five votes and Steve Forbes got one hundred votes. What did Bush do to get them so solidy behind them. He angered the left. Everytime a Cindy Sheehan gets on TV bitching about Bush the more the right rank and file loves him. Ann Coulter can bitch about Bush's nominations, the other conservatives can talk about his tax and spend policies, or the fact that he never really got behind the defense of marriage act or the flag burning amendment but those weaknesses are drowned out by the screaming of bloody murder by the left.

At any Republican convention, when the social conservatives want to whip up their crowd they just read excerpts of what liberals have said about him (calling him a war criminal, stupid etc). It is a highly effective technique and I have seen it used many times.

And the rank and file far left love Hillary. I have seen the focus groups. The far left leaders, who get interviewed on TV and the ones who are writing to the editor may not be so enamored with her, but the rank and file love her. Dean and Sheehan hate her, but in any focus group the self identified strong liberals all say they love her.

There are three hundred million Americans and you can never know what they are really thinking by listening to the leadership of any group. The only way I know of discerning what the rank and file of any political persuasion really thinks is through focus groups.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I agree completely, assuming sort of divine intervention gets him through the GOP primaries.

eta: Not Bob has my not proxy, apparently.

I don't think the primary will be that tough. McCain almost won the primaries in 2000 when he had no money and almost no endorsements and Bush had sixty million dollars and every endorsement. I was a paid consultant to the Bush campaign in the spring of 2000 and I remember this very clearly.

Everyone assumed Bush had a walk so every politicians, from city councilman to Senator endorsed him early. The unanimity was really shocking. The only people not on the band wagon were the arch conservatives.

Then McCain won New Hampshire quite handily despite no money. McCain barely lost South Carolina and then won Michigan. The entire establishment went into a panic because everyone had endorsed Bush. Almost every politicians endorses based on who they think will win, not who they like. Every Republican politician across the country panicked, because if McCain won they would be on the losing side. After Bush lost the New Hampshire primary almost every Republican office holder in norther California asked "what can I do to help Bush?". Those appointments people had dreamed about were going up in smoke. Moderate, Conservative, it didn't matter. McCain ran out of money, and the local politicians were able to mobilize their employees and Bush took it. McCain got tons of volunteers, but they were all political neophytes. The rank and file came out of the woodwork and they were fanatical. Bush's support was wide but very thin.

But this time around McCain will have the money early, and every politician will not be behind the same man. If McCain seems inevitable, it will be a self fulfilling prophesy, and then unlike Bush, he will not only the endorsement of local politicians but he will also have fanatic grass root support.

But I wouldn't count Hillary out. I have siad this many times on the board, her support in focus groups is amazing. The left loves her and the moderates don't mind her. All feminists love her. Moderate Republican women like her. She is like Reagan in a way. The elite like her but can see she is a typical pandering politician. But the left rank and file have an emotional bond to her. Moderates don't mind her and all moderate women really like her.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Was he in some schmaltzy father-son flick with Michael towards the end of his career? Those are de rigeur, no?

Hah! for those of you who are mostly lurkers, this maybe goes over your head. Some facts- those of us in the in-crowd socialize and hang with each other. This weekend as we counted down to 12, SS, my illegetimate son, wondered if I would do some post with him as my last post when it comes time for me to retire- like the douglas' did. I said no. I never cared for his mom- receptacle.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Name 1 movie Kirk Douglas was in. even 1.

I can name six right of the top of my head. There was a twenty year period where I don't think there were any movies he wasn't in.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
we spend on good stuff that helps.

Then you need a better slogan than "tax and spend." Something like: "Borrowing from future generations so we can give money to the rich and Abramoff's pals." Although that's not very catchy.

[Spanky]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/03/RI....ap/index.html

[Spanky]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/03/RI....ap/index.html

Rhode Island is the eleventh state to legalize medical marijuana. Eventually, pot is going to be legal. At some point I think the laws concerning tobacco use and cannabis use will become the same. Highly restricted but legal. Tobacco use will be reigned in more and more and marijuana use will become liberalized more and more. However, I don't think they will ever change sides - in other words tobacco use becoming more restricted than marijuana use.

It is also interesting to note that the list of states included both red and blue states: Maine, Vermont, Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I never cared for his mom- receptacle.

This is really squicky. Just for the record.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/03/RI....ap/index.html

Rhode Island is the eleventh state to legalize medical marijuana. Eventually, pot is going to be legal. At some point I think the laws concerning tobacco use and cannabis use will become the same. Highly restricted but legal. Tobacco use will be reigned in more and more and marijuana use will become liberalized more and more. However, I don't think they will ever change sides - in other words tobacco use becoming more restricted than marijuana use.

It is also interesting to note that the list of states included both red and blue states: Maine, Vermont, Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington

I really need you to know, for your own good, that it is "reined in" not "reigned in." Like pulling a horse to a stop with reins. It has nothing to do with kings and queens and emperors and stuff.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
This is really squicky. Just for the record.

2.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Then you need a better slogan than "tax and spend." Something like: "Borrowing from future generations so we can give money to the rich and Abramoff's pals." Although that's not very catchy.

Iraq- once Cheney's oil profits trickle down it will all make sense!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How many years of borrow-and-spend Republicans will we have to ensure before this "tax-and-spend" thing no longer has any meaning? I think we're about halfway there.

Agreed. The GOP needs to start actually cutting govt, not creating new entitlements and departments into which to funnel money. I am not suggesting the current admin is better than Hillary on that score. I am advocating us finding a new candidate who is a true moderate Republican/Democrat who is actually committed to shrinking the govt and making it more efficient.

I guess, in sum, I'm looking for someone unlike Hill and W, whose spending habits appear to be equally ambitious.