This is the Presidential Campaign Thread.

Barack Obama Vs. John McCain.

Edited November 6, 200817 yr by Toups

By "conservatives", do you mean fiscal conservatives - the traditional Republican base - or the new Republican base, the Evangelicals? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Reagan-era Republicans were fiscal conservatives and didn't pander so much to the evangelicals. They didn't really carry a whole lotta weight in the party until around 1994 or so, correct? I am wondering which wing will control the direction of the party going forward.

You "detest' moderates? So you don't believe that one could be middle of the road on some issues, but more liberal or conservative on others? Do you prefer a candidate that's more divisive? I'm interested on your opinion on that buddy....

And IA that Obama should move to the center to govern. Congress on the other hand, should all work together - the liberals be liberal, moderates be moderate and conservatives be conservative. Then they can hopefully come up with some good bipartisan compromises to send to Obama. But that's JMO.

How Bachmann could get reelected is just crazy. You make some good arguments, Roman. We'll see what good ol Brian has to say. Or perhaps Casey will come back....

My concern with the insistence on Obama moving to the center is that those calling for it are the very same ones who have defended Bush's at times extreme right-leaning policies, and his complete lack of working with anyone who disagreed with him.

The biggest thing I want him to do is make the correct decisions for Amerians, and to hell with people who want him to govern EXACTLY the way they want him to govern. If that was the case, what was the damn point in electing him?

And, IMO, a Moderate is someone not beholding to an Party, idea or perpective. They can change their mind based on the information they receive. I respect Moderates for having the vision to lokk at things differently and to make decisions based on that type of thinking.

Many Bush rules targeted for swift repeal

By Ceci Connolly, R. Jeffrey Smith

Washington Post

Sunday, November 09, 2008

Washington —- Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, abortion and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and transition workers.

A team of four dozen advisers, working for months in virtual isolation, set out to identify regulatory and policy changes Obama could implement soon after his inauguration. The team is now consulting with liberal advocacy groups, Capitol Hill staffers and potential agency chiefs to prioritize those they regard as the most onerous or ideologically offensive, said a top transition official who was not permitted to speak on the record about the inner workings of the transition.

In some instances, Obama would be delivering on campaign promises. In others he would be embracing Clinton-era policies upended by President Bush.

“The kind of regulations they are looking at” are those imposed by Bush for “overtly political” reasons, said Dan Mendelson, a former associate administrator for health in the Clinton Office of Management and Budget.

An Obama transition spokeswoman said Saturday that no plans for regulatory changes had been finalized. “Before he makes any decisions on potential executive or legislative actions, he will be conferring with congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle, as well as interested groups,” Stephanie Cutter said. “Any decisions would need to be discussed with his Cabinet nominees, none of whom have been selected yet.”

Still, the pre-election transition team, made up mostly of lawyers, has positioned the incoming president to move fast on high-priority items without waiting for Congress.

Obama himself has signaled, for example, that he intends to reverse Bush’s controversial limit on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, a decision that scientists say has restrained research into some of the most promising avenues for defeating a wide array of diseases, such as Parkinson’s. Bush’s August 2001 decision pleased religious conservatives who object to the use of cells from days-old human embryos, which are destroyed in the process.

The new president is also expected to lift a so-called global gag rule barring international family planning groups that receive U.S. aid from counseling women about the availability of abortion, even in countries where abortion is legal, said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. President Bill Clinton rescinded the Reagan-era regulation, known as the Mexico City Policy, when he took office. Bush later reimposed it.

“We have been communicating with his transition staff” almost daily, Richards said. “We expect to see a real change.”

While Obama said at a news conference last week that his top priority would be to stimulate the economy and create jobs, his advisers say that focus will not delay key shifts in social and regulatory policies.

The president-elect has said, for example, that he intends to quickly reverse the Bush administration’s decision in December to deny California the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from cars.

California had sought permission to require that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles be cut by 30 percent between 2009 and 2016, effectively mandating that cars achieve a fuel economy standard of at least 36 mpg within eight years. Seventeen other states had promised to adopt California’s rules, representing in total 45 percent of the nation’s automobile market. Environmentalists cheered the California initiative because it would stoke innovation that could benefit the entire country.

“An early move by the Obama administration to sign the California waiver would signal the seriousness of intent to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and build a future for the domestic auto market,” said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Before the election, Obama told others that he favors declaring that carbon emissions are endangering human welfare, following an EPA task force recommendation in December that Bush and his aides shunned in order to protect the utility and auto industries.

Robert Sussman, deputy EPA administrator during the Clinton administration who is now overseeing EPA transition planning for Obama, wrote a paper last spring recommending such a finding. Others in the campaign say it as an issue on which Obama is keen to show that politics must not interfere with scientific advice.

Some related reforms embraced by Obama’s transition advisers would alter procedures for decision-making on climate issues. A book titled “Change for America,” being published next week by the Center for American Progress, an influential liberal think tank, will recommend, for example, that Obama rapidly create a National Energy Council to coordinate all policy-making related to global climate change.

The center’s influence with Obama is substantial: It was created by John Podesta, co-chairman of the transition effort, and much of its staff has been swept into planning for Obama’s first 100 days in office.

The center’s new book will also urge Obama to sign an executive order requiring that greenhouse gas emissions be considered whenever the federal government examines the environmental impact of its actions under the existing National Environmental Policy Act. Several key members of Obama’s transition team have embraced the idea.

Other early Obama initiatives may address the need for improved food and drug regulation and chart a new course for immigration enforcement, some Obama advisers say. But they add that only a portion of his early efforts will be aimed at undoing Bush initiatives.

Despite enormous pent-up Democratic frustration, Obama and his team realize they must strike a balance between undoing Bush actions and setting their own course, said Winnie Stachelberg, the center’s senior vice president for external affairs.

“It took eight years to get into this mess, and it will take a long time to get out of it,” she said. “The next administration needs to look ahead.”

Greg basically wrote my response for me!

I have stated very clearly that the Republican party needs to go back to being those Reagan-era conservatives. What the party has evolved into (or has embraced as important) is no longer what interested both right-leaning conservatives and conservative Democrats. Remember how Reagan got elected -- and why.

Some may disagree with the method of Reagan's "trickle-down economics" - but history doesn't lie. The success of his economic policies brought prospertity for the 6 remaining years of his presidency and it carried on through Clinton's years. Some even say Clinton rode Reagan's coat-tails. Before one debates Reagan's economic policies... be sure you know your history and have your facts straight. This is all well-documented...

There, I had to put a frowny face in this post because, for some reason, my son wanted me to. Don't ask.

Eh. This is very debatable. One of the biggest problems I have with Republicans is:

1. They never give credit to any Democratic administration. Ever.

2. Claim that previous Dem administrations are the reason for the current Republican administrative failures.

Take the following as an example. When Reagan took office in 1980, the prevailing thought was that Carter had ruined the economy. I wonder why Carter didn't ride the coattails of the previous 8 years of Nixon/Ford "leadership" as Clinton supposedly done with Reagan. Hmm. On the other hand, since Reagan policies were credited to reviving the economy, isn't it possible that some of those were started under Carter before him? Hmmm. Or were his "Voodoo" economics (as Bush 1 called them) that effective that the very first day they were enacted, the economy magically recovered?

This is the problem with the Clinton argument. Reagan had been out of office for 4 years and economy was tanking under Bush 1. If Clinton supposedly rode Reagan's "coattails", then why didn't Bush 1 before him? And it implies that Clinton had no clear economic policy. But he did. A lot of the tax cuts approved under Reagan/Bush were rolled back when he assumed office. With Clinton crossing party lines, he did alot of this economy. He balanced the budget. Unemployment was at record lows. Oh...but wait. If you believe Republicans, it's because of some policy Reagan crafted 10 - 12 years prior.

Clinton presided over 7 years of economic prosperity. Under Bush 2, the economy started tanking again. But guess what - it wasn't his fault but Clinton's before him (or so Republicans claim). It all doesn't add up.

Sorry Brian. I couldn't let that one slip. And let's not forget who rescued the American economy during the Great Depression. A Democrat.

My concern with the insistence on Obama moving to the center is that those calling for it are the very same ones who have defended Bush's at times extreme right-leaning policies, and his complete lack of working with anyone who disagreed with him.

The biggest thing I want him to do is make the correct decisions for Amerians, and to hell with people who want him to govern EXACTLY the way they want him to govern. If that was the case, what was the damn point in electing him?

You are absolutely right. The majority of those that are calling for Obama's move to the center defended Bush's move to the far right. Strange, isn't it?

But IMHO, for Obama to be successful and bring America together, he will have to govern from the center. Mind you, I am happy if he leans to the left but that's just me. If times were better for us - no wars, no economic meltdown - then I would say Obama should govern far to the left. But the country is so divided after the "uniter" assumed the Oval Office, we need a President for everyone. Not one for the left and certainly not one for the right. But someone that is transformational, inspiring.

Will the right wing ever be thrilled with him? I don't think so. But at least they won't HATE him like they would if he starts enacting far-left ideals. JMHO.

Edited November 9, 200817 yr by Greg's GL

Eh. This is very debatable. One of the biggest problems I have with Republicans is:

1. They never give credit to any Democratic administration. Ever.

2. Claim that previous Dem administrations are the reason for the current Republican administrative failures.

Take the following as an example. When Reagan took office in 1980, the prevailing thought was that Carter had ruined the economy. I wonder why Carter didn't ride the coattails of the previous 8 years of Nixon/Ford "leadership" as Clinton supposedly done with Reagan. Hmm. On the other hand, since Reagan policies were credited to reviving the economy, isn't it possible that some of those were started under Carter before him? Hmmm. Or were his "Voodoo" economics (as Bush 1 called them) that effective that the very first day they were enacted, the economy magically recovered?

This is the problem with the Clinton argument. Reagan had been out of office for 4 years and economy was tanking under Bush 1. If Clinton supposedly rode Reagan's "coattails", then why didn't Bush 1 before him? And it implies that Clinton had no clear economic policy. But he did. A lot of the tax cuts approved under Reagan/Bush were rolled back when he assumed office. With Clinton crossing party lines, he did alot of this economy. He balanced the budget. Unemployment was at record lows. Oh...but wait. If you believe Republicans, it's because of some policy Reagan crafted 10 - 12 years prior.

Clinton presided over 7 years of economic prosperity. Under Bush 2, the economy started tanking again. But guess what - it wasn't his fault but Clinton's before him (or so Republicans claim). It all doesn't add up.

Sorry Brian. I couldn't let that one slip. And let's not forget who rescued the American economy during the Great Depression. A Democrat.

You are absolutely right. The majority of those that are calling for Obama's move to the center defended Bush's move to the far right. Strange, isn't it?

But IMHO, for Obama to be successful and bring America together, he will have to govern from the center. Mind you, I am happy if he leans to the left but that's just me. If times were better for us - no wars, no economic meltdown - then I would say Obama should govern far to the left. But the country is so divided after the "uniter" assumed the Oval Office, we need a President for everyone. Not one for the left and certainly not one for the right. But someone that is transformational, inspiring.

Will the right wing ever be thrilled with him? I don't think so. But at least they won't HATE him like they would if he starts enacting far-left ideals. JMHO.

Greg, right on.

I did read this morning that Obama has had a team together for the last 4-5 months looking over many Bush executives orders in the hope of recending them once he takes office.

At this point, he seems to be starting off doing what is best for trhe people, and to [!@#$%^&*] with the polictics. One thing about POTUS.......you will always piss someone off. Just do the best you can for everyone, and it should be ok.

Greg, right on.

I did read this morning that Obama has had a team together for the last 4-5 months looking over many Bush executives orders in the hope of recending them once he takes office.

At this point, he seems to be starting off doing what is best for trhe people, and to [!@#$%^&*] with the polictics. One thing about POTUS.......you will always piss someone off. Just do the best you can for everyone, and it should be ok.

Ah, you two are the voices of reason. I am glad that you are letting Obama's presidency take time to fall into place. What I like about our new POTUS is that he thinks a reasons out situations. He then makes decisions base on careful thought and examination. I believe this allows him to make judgements that are best for our country. We have to move forward, and not try to see whose past policies influenced the ecomony. We can spin it any way we choose.

In terms of Ca's prop 8 and piggybacking and whose fault is it anyway..... The Civil Rights movement was long in the making. It tooks years to get everyone (or a lot of people) on board. The gay civil rights movement is just really getting started. When knowledge is spread and people become more aware of what is really at stake, the movement will grow. Jack Peyton said it best. The margin of defeat this time was significantly less than Prop 22. Time and knowlegde will help this movement.

Keep the faith!! As Gil Scot Heron says "The revolution will be live" And make no mistake there is a revolution happening.

Edited November 9, 200817 yr by UCLAN

I think voting for Prop 8 reflected prejudice regardless of the reason. It is denying a class of people equal rights. There is no way around that. Black voters who supported Prop 8 did it for the same reasons as hispanic, latino, white, Jewish, Catholic or any other voter in my opinion: "moral" arguments. I do not know what is moral about discrimination. I don't think blacks should be held to a higher level of accountability on the issue. To be painfully blunt, I think prejudice that is masked in a moral argument is ignorant.

On Obama, I think the economic conservatives and some of the more moderate Republicans are going to be fair to Obama. I think the governors as well as senators like Chuck Hagle and Richard Luger will be great. I also see Susan Collins and Olympia Dukakis, as well as John McCain taking more of a leadership role and trying to pull the party more toward the middle. I do not think the Rush Limbaughs of the world learn. I also believe that Obama should and will reach out to Republicans.

I just don't think the social conservatives are the base of the GOP. I think the economic conservatives are. That is why so many of the Republican governors are economic conservatives and do so well even in bad years for Republicans.

Hey, how did Scotty do in his re-election bid?

Edited November 9, 200817 yr by Jess

Joe drops the morning F-bomb

http://blogs.kansascity.com/tvbarn/2008/11...n-joe-scar.html

Edited November 10, 200817 yr by Jess

I can tell one thing I hope the press stops doing.

Showing the kids. Obama had a clearly pissed off look on his face this morning when he took them to school and the press was there.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Do you think it's okay that black people vote against gay rights? Because I don't. People who've lived on the receiving end of bigotry have no excuse for inflicting it on others. If I've misunderstood your statement I apologize.

I essentially agree with your saying that that people who've experienced bigotry have no excuse for inflicting it on others. I don't think that all black people have experienced bigotry but even more than that if black people don't all agree on fundamental issues regarding race and racism then why would you think they'd all get on the same page about anything else?

Being black doesn't uniquely qualify a person to speak for all black people.....all that person can do is speak for himself or herself and anyone else he or she happens to know that shares the same opinion.

A couple of years or so ago I watched a panel discussion on TVLand where Wanda Sykes and someone else challenged Al Sharpton on the fact that he doesn't speak for them as black people. They didn't care for the media holding him up to be a black leader and he was somewhat defensive about it. They expressed that they did not always (and maybe more often did not) agree with whatever views he was expressing.

When a black person goes on television and s asked how black people feel about this or that, it would be wonderful if that person says that he or she can't say how all black people feel about anything because that is the truth.

Edited November 10, 200817 yr by Wales2004

I think you're reading too much into what I'm saying when I'm not trying to put that much depth in it. I'm just pointing out the irony, much like how I pointed out the irony in the Christian protestant religion trying to dictate how Americans live when they didn't like it when Catholics tried to dictate their lives 500 years ago. I find a similarity, in this case, with protestants and those who were once discriminated against but now are "accepted."

Maybe I just don't really understand what you're saying. I get the irony of the different religious groups dictating how others live when they didn't want certain rules imposed on them but I don't get how that parallels the initial statement that was made about black people not knowing anything about marriage etc. and voting the way they did and being hypocritical and the irony of that since they've been on the "bad" side of an issue. But it's probably neither here nor there.

And now I'm curious about an issue raised on Lou Dobbs tonight. would Sarah Palin now be considered the front-runner for the Republican party for 2012? They are claiming that she is polling better than Romney and Huckabee combined. Hmmm. She may be popular with what is now considered the Republican "base", but can she attract independents? Should the Republican party now regroup and embrace their traditional base, the fiscal conservatives? Or should the party continue to cater to Evangelicals?

My impression of you, Wales, is that you're very fair in these matters. I would like to know your thoughts on the future of the party.

I'm not sure about being fair but I do kind of sort of try to listen to both sides....even when neither seems to really be saying anything. I don't watch Lou Dobbs since I find him irritating to a degree that I can't get around......more so than O'Reilly and Olbermann combined.

I don't doubt that Palin is probably the most popular person in her party right now and may be for some time to come. That isn't hindering Bobby Jindal or Mike Huckabee for going to Iowa to lay ground work for 2012.

Palin isn't really the answer.....sure she can go study up for a couple of years but unless she can appeal to a wider demographic then I don't think the GOP should push her.

I have to mull over the platform more but off the bat, they need to look at the changing face of the nation and reach out since that island thing isn't going to work.

Eh. This is very debatable. One of the biggest problems I have with Republicans is:

1. They never give credit to any Democratic administration. Ever.

2. Claim that previous Dem administrations are the reason for the current Republican administrative failures.

I minimized your response to these points because ITA here. But I thought Brian was pro-Hillary and took a Republican turn once she was out of the running.....although I think he was saying he was neutral for the longest time while he was ragging on Obama then used the media treatment of Palin as a solidarity moment.....if I recall correctly,

Anyhow, looking at the average annual GDP growth since JFK, it was lowest under Ford (1.8) and Bush (2.2) and this Bush is at 2.3. Nixon was the only Republican since then to have a budget surplus. Carter's deficit was -0.1 which grew to -81.4 under the trickle down plan and jumped to -135.2 with the first Bush so I fail to see how Clinton derived a benefit from Reagan when Clinton ended up at +527.3 meaning he had to overcome Bush's handy work. But nobody tops the current Bush at -691.7 for now. If you look at inflation then it went from 2.6 under LBJ to 5.6 under Nixon. Ford went to 8.2 and Carter had the all time high at 9.7 where it went down to 4.7 under Reagan. Then 4.4 under Bush, 2.6 under Clinton and slightly up to 2.9 currently under Bush. The biggest jump was clearly under Nixon where it went up 3 whole points and then another 2.6 under Ford. Carter really had half the rise of the other two and he did take Ford's -67.1 deficit down to -0.1. The best Dow Jones performance was under Clinton and worst under Nixon.

I essentially agree with your saying that that people who've experienced bigotry have no excuse for inflicting it on others. I don't think that all black people have experienced bigotry but even more than that if black people don't all agree on fundamental issues regarding race and racism then why would you think they'd all get on the same page about anything else?

Being black doesn't uniquely qualify a person to speak for all black people.....all that person can do is speak for himself or herself and anyone else he or she happens to know that shares the same opinion.

A couple of years or so ago I watched a panel discussion on TVLand where Wanda Sykes and someone else challenged Al Sharpton on the fact that he doesn't speak for them as black people. They didn't care for the media holding him up to be a black leader and he was somewhat defensive about it. They expressed that they did not always (and maybe more often did not) agree with whatever views he was expressing.

When a black person goes on television and s asked how black people feel about this or that, it would be wonderful if that person says that he or she can't say how all black people feel about anything because that is the truth.

I'm not speaking for all black people. I'm speaking for myself. I agree that no black person can speak for all black people but as I said I think that anybody who has seen let alone lived the experience of bigotry can inflict it on others. I don't know how anybody grow up in the United States and doesn't "experience" bigotry whether they're on the receiving end or watching it practiced third hand. That's like saying they've never seen hate or fear.

I think its the height of hypocrisy for minorities to deny rights to gay people. But you seem to think I expected a different outcome. Sadly I didn't. The people that voted for that ban are my relatives. I know just how homophobic they can be. They'll celebrate Obama and lock the door on our GLBT brothers and sisters in the same breath all while waving their prayer scarves.

I'm not speaking for all black people. I'm speaking for myself. I agree that no black person can speak for all black people but as I said I think that anybody who has seen let alone lived the experience of bigotry can inflict it on others. I don't know how anybody grow up in the United States and doesn't "experience" bigotry whether they're on the receiving end or watching it practiced third hand. That's like saying they've never seen hate or fear.

People can be fearful of all sorts of things that have nothing to do with bigotry. A lot of people grow up pretty sheltered and oblivious to certain things.

I think its the height of hypocrisy for minorities to deny rights to gay people.

I don't agree with you on differentiating how minorities should feel on any issue at all. I don't find it any more hypocritical for them to feel any differently on this issue than white people. This may seem very simplistic but if no one had gone over to Africa and brought Africans over here in shackles then we probably wouldn't have this issue about racism.

I read an article earlier about black gay people who have been the victims of racism during some of the protests that have been going on around the state regarding the passage of Proposition 8. Some of them have been called the "N" word among other things and have been told that their "black" issues will no longer be supported.

But you seem to think I expected a different outcome. Sadly I didn't. The people that voted for that ban are my relatives. I know just how homophobic they can be. They'll celebrate Obama and lock the door on our GLBT brothers and sisters in the same breath all while waving their prayer scarves.

I hadn't actually given any thought to what outcome you might have expected. I won't comment on your relatives but I do know this caused quite a moral dilemma for a friend of mine. She's not interested in discriminating against anybody but she wants to uphold her convictions as a Christian. It's kind of hard for someone to weigh discrimination against her soul like that. I can't be judgmental about that at all.

Chat LIVE With A Mormon!

I'm speaking with Tyson right now about the issue of gay marriage.

Pretty interesting conversation.

I think Tyson is a moron.

Tyson:

The Bible was "written" by the prophets/apostles, however it was inspired by God.

Kenneth:

Do you believe in the separation of church and state? As an American citizen, do you believe that the separation of church and state should be upheld, or do you believe that the laws of religion should also apply to the laws of America?

Tyson:

Actually the LDS church was within its constitutional rights to do what it did with Prop 8.

Kenneth:

That is not an answer to my question.

Kenneth:

I'm asking if you personally believe in the separation of church and state.

Tyson:

Oh, okay.

Tyson:

Yes.

Kenneth:

Okay. So in other words, you don't believe that the laws of religion should also dictate/apply to the laws of America, right?

Tyson:

I'm sorry Kenneth, however we are asked not to discuss political matters. However, because Proposition 8 determined the outcome of a moral belief of mankind.

Kenneth:

Did you just talk to your supervisor or something?

Tyson:

No.

Kenneth:

Does the Bible condone divorce? For those that are really interested in preserving the sanctity of marriage, wouldn't they also be interested in seeing what they could do about making divorce illegal?

Tyson:

The church does discourage divorce.

Kenneth:

Why do I not see the churches spending millions of dollars on Propositions to ban divorce then? I think it's less about preserving marriage and more about supporting discrimination.

Tyson:

I'm sorry Kenneth. The purpose of this chat site is to answer questions concerning the contents of mormon.org. Your questions would be best answered by a local LDS church authority.

Kenneth:

They speak about homosexuality in the contents of mormon.org. That's what we're discussing, isn't it?

Tyson:

Yes.

Kenneth:

I want to share something with you. It's not political, it's personal.

Tyson:

Ok.

Kenneth:

I want you to know that being gay is not a choice. It is not something that we wake up one day and decide to be. It is something that we simply are. How could something that is not even in our control be wrong? When I was younger, I prayed to God with the sincerest intent. I can't tell you how depressed I was... suicidal even. Just begging God to make me straight. How am I an abomination just for being me?

Kenneth:

Hello?

Kenneth:

Are you there?

Edited November 11, 200817 yr by Kennylicious