SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: RetiredNow who wrote (46214)12/3/2008 9:51:03 PM
From: manalagi1 Recommendation  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 149317
 
Bush blamed the "faulty intelligence" for telling him that Saddam Hussein had WMD, and thus his war on Iraq. What a big liar. The neocons had already dictated Bush that the US should invade Iraq because of oil. The WMD was just an excuse, and now he blames the CIA.



To: RetiredNow who wrote (46214)12/3/2008 10:10:21 PM
From: koan  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 149317
 
Reagan and bush: Had their democratic opponents been elected they would have done better.



To: RetiredNow who wrote (46214)12/4/2008 12:47:45 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 149317
 
How To Right The GOP

nationaljournal.com

Two Top Republican Strategists Offer Their Advice To Get The Party Back On Track

by Charlie Cook

Tuesday, Dec. 2, 2008

The single most important factor that determines where American politics will go over the next two years is how President-elect Barack Obama fares in office. If he makes more than a few strategic or tactical miscues, his honeymoon will be abbreviated and Republicans will have the opportunity to bounce back from two consecutive disastrous elections. If the Obama administration does well, things obviously won't look so good for the GOP.

A key question to consider is whether Republicans can quickly address the fundamental problems facing their party, or whether they ignore or misdiagnose their problems and wait for Democrats to self-destruct. In several conversations with some of the smartest Republican pollsters and strategists, it's clear that many have a good fix on the problems of their party. However, there is considerable concern that many elected officials and constituent groups within the GOP are reluctant to hear the advice these consultants feel they need.

I have offered several top Republican consultants the opportunity to speak candidly, and without attribution, to their party's elected officials. Here are the views of two, with over 50 years of professional campaign experience between them, edited only for clarity:

"The temptation among Republicans will be to blame this on a variety of factors that are temporary in nature and will go away. By concluding this, it will not force them to rethink how Republicans are perceived and as a result they will conclude they do not need to change.

"For instance, they will blame this election on George Bush. They're not entirely wrong about this of course, but the fact of the matter is that post-election surveys show more voters who chose Obama were voting against John McCain than were voting against Bush.

"They will also blame this election on the economy. In this too, they're not entirely wrong, and certainly as the Dow went crashing in September, McCain's numbers came down as well. But I really think this election was much more generically about change than it was specifically about the economy.

"The key conclusion is that the desire for change is driven much more by damage to the Republican brand than by anything else, including the president. I think there are a number of reasons for this (in addition to Bush fatigue and the war). To me, these are the two big ones: first, deep disappointment in Congress and with individual members. This is driven in part by the corruption scandals, in part by profligate spending and in part by Republicans' failure to address the problems people are really concerned about.

"Second, the shallowness of our policies. Republicans are a whole lot better at being against things than at being for things. That's a problem if you're in the majority. On topics that the center really cares about, such as education and health care, we do one of two things. We either avoid them like the plague and are scared to talk about them or, if we say anything at all, it is to propose a tax cut or a tax credit.

"The Republican coalition has been a three legged stool: social conservatives, defense hawks and fiscal conservatives. With regard to social conservatives, there is nothing to suggest we're losing ground here. They showed up in the same numbers as before and voted only slightly less Republican than they used to. With regard to defense hawks, the issues of the war in Iraq and terrorism have disappeared. They were not quite, but almost, irrelevant on Election Day.

"With regard to fiscal conservatism, taxes and spending have declined as concerns and we've hurt the party brand. Moreover, Republicans have never understood the difference between being punished for a tax increase and rewarded for a tax cut. The first hurts, and the second does not help.

"Many Republican commentators point out that, even though we lost, this is still a center-right country. It seems to me that statement misses the point. People have changed, although they have not changed the labels they use. There are clearly more people now who want government to address the problems they have to deal with than used to think so in the past. Conversely, there are fewer people now who do not want government involved.

"This goes to the long-term trend of Republican losses in the suburbs. This is a trend that has been more than 20 years in the making and seems to be moving from the Northeast in a westerly direction. It's no longer just New Jersey and the Philly suburbs, but also the Denver suburbs, Maricopa County, Clark County, Orange County, etc. To me, the core reason we're losing them is that, as Republicans, we're not promising to fix the problems they're concerned about, including health care, education and retirement.

"So when I hear people say it is still a center-right country and that we need to return to our conservative roots, I think that is a long-term strategy to do nothing and a strategy that will keep us in a permanent minority. Here is another point from the post-election data: People really don't want to pay higher taxes. So, on the one hand, they want to have government address their problems and on the other hand they don't want to pay for it.

"This should be our niche: find solutions to problems like education and health care that spend government funds more efficiently, without spending more. That sounds much more like a winning strategy to me."

A second, equally experienced Republican pollster put his four tough-love suggestions like this:

"First, walk the walk on the ethics stuff. Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Ted Stevens, Vito Fossella -- these guys seem to think they are entitled. We ought to be the ones cleaning house.

"Second, Republicans ought to be the ones really starting to get creative on the energy issue. We ought to be putting our best thinking into coming up with strategies and new ideas on this issue. It isn't going away, and we have to get out in front on it.

"Third, focus on regaining our advantage on technology. We had our heads handed to us on the Internet campaign, e-campaigning, etc. We need to focus on developing new technological methodologies for communicating with voters.

"Fourth, stop being [misguided] on immigration. We are alienating huge parts of the electorate, we are turning our primaries into single issue 'hate' contests and ignoring the single fastest growing bloc of voters in the country."

There will be several more of these, offered to Republicans as food for thought. For Democrats, it's a little glimpse into how some of the best Republican minds are diagnosing their own party's problems.



To: RetiredNow who wrote (46214)12/4/2008 7:38:51 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 149317
 
Dang. We thought we had neo problems.

Canada halts parliament amid row

Stephen Harper: "On my advice, the Governor-General has agreed to prorogue Parliament"

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has won a bid to suspend parliament, blocking an opposition attempt to topple his minority government.

The governor general agreed to Mr Harper's request, unprecedented in the country, after talks.


If the request had been rejected, he would have had to step down or face a confidence vote he was sure to lose.

Opposition parties had called the vote for Monday, accusing the government of failing to shore up the economy.

Governor General Michaelle Jean agreed to prorogue - or suspend - parliament until 26 January when the government is set to present its economic plan.

Ms Jean - the representative of head of state Queen Elizabeth II - has the right to make a final decision on such matters.

"Today's decision will give us an opportunity - I'm talking about all the parties - to focus on the economy and work together," Mr Harper said after the two-and-a-half-hour private meeting.


The Conservatives immediately shut down parliament, ending all debate.

The head of the main Liberal opposition party, Stephane Dion, said he was still committed to bringing down Mr Harper's government unless he makes a "monumental change" in dealing with the economy and other parties.

"For the first time in the history of Canada the prime minister is running away from the parliament of Canada," Mr Dion was quoted as saying by AP news agency.

Opposition New Democrat leader Jack Layton called it a sad day.

"He's trying to lock the door of parliament so that the elected people cannot speak," Mr Layton said. "He's trying to save his job."

Political drama

A prime minister's request to temporarily suspend parliament had never been turned down, but nor had such a request been made when the government was certain to lose a confidence vote.

"There is no precedent whatsoever in Canada and probably in the Commonwealth," constitutional expert Ned Franks told AP news agency. "We are in uncharted territory."

The prime minister's manoeuvre comes at the end of a week of unprecedented political drama, says the BBC's Lee Carter in Toronto.

The constitutional crisis was triggered last week after the Conservatives presented a fiscal update that was angrily rejected by the opposition parties for not including an economic stimulus package and for proposing cuts to the public financing of political parties.

The Liberals and New Democrats signed a deal to defeat Mr Harper in a confidence vote scheduled for Monday and to form a coalition government.

Mr Harper's Conservatives won a strengthened minority in the 14 October election but are outnumbered in parliament by the combination of the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Quebecois.

'Backroom deal'

In a televised appeal on Wednesday, Mr Harper said the opposition pact was a threat to the country's democracy and economy.


Acting head of state Michaelle Jean makes final decisions on such matters

"At a time like this, a coalition with separatists cannot help Canada," he said, referring to the Bloc's desire for independence for Quebec.

"Tonight, I pledge to you that Canada's government will use every legal means at our disposal to protect our democracy, to protect our economy and to protect Canada."

Mr Harper called the opposition parties' power-sharing agreement a "backroom deal".

Ms Jean cut short a trip to Europe on Wednesday and flew back to Ottawa in an effort to deal with the growing political crisis after the three opposition parties formally advised her of their plan.

Ms Jean's other options were to have called a general election if the confidence vote went ahead and Mr Harper lost, or to have asked the opposition to form a new government.

news.bbc.co.uk



To: RetiredNow who wrote (46214)12/5/2008 1:18:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor4 Recommendations  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 149317
 
I'm afraid Obama and dems are going to swing too far left and startup a bunch of things like 10 billion dollar early childhood education programs and stuff like that. Maybe I'm reading this thread too much. I hope Obama is more like Clinton and not Carter (or what I have read of Carter). Clintonomics was the best equation. Pay down debt, costs under control, business doing well, strong dollar. Fortunately Obama is hiring a lot of Clinton economic people so things might go in that direction.

Without Reagan we never would have had a new company boom or a stock market boom that allowed the US to destroy japan inc. I have no desire to return to massive liberalism, I don't think anybody else does either, if Obama interprets his win that way he will lose reeleciton.