United States Presidential Election 2008

[ExRoadie]

Then you blame all of our current problems on the Democratically controlled Congress for the past two years. Actually, you specifically stated the Senate in your post, so either you don't know that the House exists or that the Senate is the only half of Congress we should worry ourselves with. Anyway, back to the two year thing. Yes, the Democrats have a majority in the House, but there is a very slim margin in the Senate. Add that to a Republican President hell bent on vetoing anything the Democrats will pass by the slimmest of majorities, it's no wonder the Democrats haven't done anything publicly substantive in the last two years. So they've been working to clean house, modifying rules and other non-glamorous things.

Sorry Kash, wrong here again.

 

This two year term of the Senate was touted as being the best Senate session ever by Harry Reid Majority Leader. In fact, they ended up in session just a few more days than the most recent Republican Senate.

 

Additionally, Democrat Senators controlled every single committee within the Senate and therefore controlled the number of items up for vote by the body.

 

The President could only veto bills that were sent to his desk. If the legislation was important enough, they could have voted on the bill and let the President look bad for vetoing it.

 

But you're exactly right about the behind the scenes machinations of the Democrat controlled Senate. They have used "pro-forma" sessions to block the President from using his power for recess appointments.

 

Instead of allowing simple "up" or "down" votes on appointments, they held them open for over a year denying a sitting President the rights and privileges of the office.

 

This was never done during the time President Clinton was in office and the Senate was controlled by Republicans.

[Compxpert]

Kash are you now realizing that democrats will have complete control over everything? This is a problem regardless of whether democrats or republicans are capable of it. We need checks on legislature and you won't get them if majority in house, senate, and white house are either republican or democrat. This is one of the major reasons I'm not voting Obama. Its not entirely his fault I don't plan to vote for him... if it was anyone else besides him as democratic front runner I would also have this reason to not vote for them. Likewise if it would be republican majority to vote for McCain I also would not vote for him unless he had some really good plans as president. As it is I only agree with maybe 1/4 of what Obama plans to do and perhaps 2/4ths of what McCain plans to do.... (IMO I would pretty much have to agree with a candidate on 75% of what he/she says or I would not vote him/her into majority) On the flip side I agree with 4/4 of what Ron Paul plans to do... I'm writing in Ron Paul and that's it... I'm curious. Are any of you planning to vote for someone who's not Obama or McCain?

 

In closing: we need a president that will disagree with the house and senate... or on the flip side a house and senate that will disagree with the president.

[LoArmistead]

I'm writing in Ron Paul and that's it... I'm curious. Are any of you planning to vote for someone who's not Obama or McCain?

 

If this election wasn't as important as it is, I'd be voting for Ron Paul in a heartbeat. If this were 1996 and life was good, and no matter who was elected we'd be just fine, I would most definitely be writing Ron Paul in on my ballot, but we have too much to lose with an ultra-leftist supermajority at the helm. The world economy is more competitive than ever. With their majority, we will enact protectionist policies that limit the inflow of brains into our nation from eastern countries. With the false premise that we need to save the jobs of American engineers of all fields (even though we already have a void in demand that Americans can't fill because most American students nowadays are too stupid), they will further limit access to H1B visas for highly skilled foreigners who want to live and work in the US. So what do these bright foreign minds do? They go back to their home country and set up shop there, and compete with us. The rest of the world is catching up, and I fear that if we allow ourselves to fall behind in the race through protectionist policies that simply allow a high school dropout in southern Alabama to keep his unskilled factory job making $30 an hour for a few more years, we may very well not be able to catch back up once we figure out how big a mistake we made.

 

The facts are, NAFTA has benefited everyone involved. Alabama, one of the states most opposed to NAFTA back when it was drafted, now has a lower unemployment rate and higher productivity than it did before NAFTA. The leftists in DC want to change it to "protect American jobs." The broom makers who were laid off because of NAFTA are now working in the sprawling auto manufacturing industry that has poured into Alabama over the last 15 years.

 

Government expenditures can be slashed. Programs to an extent can be repealed and reformed. Defense funding can be reinstituted. But one thing that can not be fixed is if our economy falls behind in the world game, and please believe me when I say it is a very real threat. Our competition is implementing proven methods of economic growth through consumption and flat taxes, and low corporate taxes and regulation. Europe and Asia's economies are moving towards free trade and pro-growth measures. Meanwhile, the US's leading candidate is running on increased corporate scrutiny and regulation, increased progressive, anti-growth income taxes, and is vowing to change NAFTA and the free trade that has benefited us so very much. We are moving in the wrong direction, and the world economy is advancing quickly around us, both east and west.

 

I like Ron Paul and almost everything he stands for. I want a reinstated gold standard and sound money policy. I want to abolish the Dept. of Education and the Federal Reserve. I want to limit US involvement in the middle east and concentrate on domestic sources of energy. I want a flat tax structure, and a drastic cut in government size, expenditures and unconstitutional entitlement programs. I like Ron Paul. But I like America more. And I would not be able to sleep at night knowing that I willingly threw my vote away to Ron Paul and allowed Barry Obama to waltz into the White House and do irreparable harm to our economy. We are a resilient society that up to this point has been able to battle its way through oppressive governments and come out on top, but the third world is no longer third world, and we have a lot to be concerned with in regards to foreign competition.

 

That being said, I voted early, and I plugged my nose and pressed the button for McCain/Palin. I didn't like it at all, but I knew that at least with McCain in charge, the populist liberals wouldn't be able to squeeze all of their protectionist legislation through. It's not a great relief, but it's the best choice I had at the time.

[Kash]

Sorry Kash, but it's not the same situation.

 

During the time that the Republican Party controlled the President, House and Senate, they did not have a filibuster proof majority.

 

This is why the Democrat Party was able to tie up Judicial appointments for almost three years forcing President Bush to fill posts with "recess appointments" as a stop gap measure.

 

cloture - The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes.

 

This means that the minority party still has power, albeit limited, up until the point of cloture is reached, after that point the majority party can force the legislation to a floor vote without further debate and the bill can pass with a simple majority which isn't a problem if you already have 60% of the vote.

 

The Republican Party only had simple majorities during the six years due to the defection of Senator Jim Jeffords in 2001 which left a split of 49 Republicans, 50 Democrats.

 

Since 2001 the US Senate has been under Republican control only during the term of Bill Frist as Senate Majority Leader from 2003 to 2007.

 

Once again I want to be clear on the point that just having a simple majority of 50% plus 1 is not like having a super majority of 60% control even if you are the Majority Party.

 

The last two times the Democrat Party had filibuster proof control of the House and Senate we ended up with "The New Deal" and "The Great Society" and we both know how that turned out for the country.

 

Yes, I am well aware that it wasn't a super majority. However, having a simple majority is still enough to get many things passed, and the Republicans certainly did. I am also aware of what a cloture motion is, but thanks for the "clarification"

 

New Deal and the Great Society created Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Millions of old people aren't living sick abject lives anymore and millions of sick people who can't afford healthcare can now receive medical care. Yea, we both can see that they were great for the citizens of this country

 

Sorry Kash, wrong here again.

 

This two year term of the Senate was touted as being the best Senate session ever by Harry Reid Majority Leader. In fact, they ended up in session just a few more days than the most recent Republican Senate.

 

Additionally, Democrat Senators controlled every single committee within the Senate and therefore controlled the number of items up for vote by the body.

 

The President could only veto bills that were sent to his desk. If the legislation was important enough, they could have voted on the bill and let the President look bad for vetoing it.

 

But you're exactly right about the behind the scenes machinations of the Democrat controlled Senate. They have used "pro-forma" sessions to block the President from using his power for recess appointments.

 

Instead of allowing simple "up" or "down" votes on appointments, they held them open for over a year denying a sitting President the rights and privileges of the office.

 

This was never done during the time President Clinton was in office and the Senate was controlled by Republicans.

 

The Democrats knew that they couldn't get anything passed with Bush waiting to veto anything, so why waste the effort when you can devote resources to cleaning house and working to gain more seats during the next election. Yea, it may have been a "do-nothing Congress" but the Democrats couldn't do anything that would involve Bush except told tight till the next round of Congressional elections and pray for more seats and a Democratic President. That way they could get the bills the way they wanted instead of compromised bills they would have been forced to settle on with a Republican President.

 

And are you kidding about the Republican Congress under Clinton? They forced a government shutdown, they passed the stricter CRA, forced Clinton on moderate judicial appointments, and impeached him for a blowjob! The Democrats in power right now are absolutely benign in comparison.

 

Kash are you now realizing that democrats will have complete control over everything? This is a problem regardless of whether democrats or republicans are capable of it. We need checks on legislature and you won't get them if majority in house, senate, and white house are either republican or democrat. This is one of the major reasons I'm not voting Obama. Its not entirely his fault I don't plan to vote for him... if it was anyone else besides him as democratic front runner I would also have this reason to not vote for them. Likewise if it would be republican majority to vote for McCain I also would not vote for him unless he had some really good plans as president. As it is I only agree with maybe 1/4 of what Obama plans to do and perhaps 2/4ths of what McCain plans to do.... (IMO I would pretty much have to agree with a candidate on 75% of what he/she says or I would not vote him/her into majority) On the flip side I agree with 4/4 of what Ron Paul plans to do... I'm writing in Ron Paul and that's it... I'm curious. Are any of you planning to vote for someone who's not Obama or McCain?

 

In closing: we need a president that will disagree with the house and senate... or on the flip side a house and senate that will disagree with the president.

 

Yes, I'm realizing that there is a possibility of a super majority right now because I'm a total idiot who hasn't been following the news <_<

 

You guys think the Democratic and Republican parties are the same when it comes to party politics. You're wrong. Democrats don't vote the same way Republicans do. Not all Democrats tow the line and vote with the party platform like Republicans do. Look back at when we had a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President, there were many Democrats who would be thorns in the sides of the President, questioning him on everything he wanted. You've only seen Republicans start to do it once they lost the majority, but before that they were in lock step with what the party leaders wanted. You guys are seriously over estimating what a super majority means for this country, not to mention also falling for the hype that a super majority will actually happen. If it does, I'm still not as worried as I would be if the Republicans ever got a super majority.

[Rehit]

they did not impeach him for a blowjob.

they impeached him for perjury in federal court.

he was also disbarred for the same offense...

it is amazing how much like zombies democrats are.

[Kash]

they did not impeach him for a blowjob.

they impeached him for perjury in federal court.

he was also disbarred for the same offense...

it is amazing how much like zombies democrats are.

 

Don't give me that nonsense. You know as well as I do that the Republicans were on a witch hunt and tried to nail him for anything, and being all "morally superior" that they claimed to be, fixated on the man's promiscuity. Yes, he perjured himself and that was what they ultimately impeached him for, but had the Republicans not gone on their moral crusade, we wouldn't have had to go through that national embarrassment hosted by the Republicans.

 

And please, Democrats are just as zombie-like in their fervor as Republicans. Both sides have idiots and both sides have made mistakes. The Republicans were the ones who made the mistakes over the last couple of years, and now they're paying for those mistakes. I'm sure that in about eight to sixteen years we'll be playing the blame game again, but this time against the Democrats. The American people are idiots, they keep voting in extreme left and right wing politicians instead of voting in level headed moderates who tend not to screw up the country with their radical agendas.

[j2t]

I think you have me wrong a bit...I honestly dislike both candidates and like the others would much rather have Ron Paul on the ticket. Like the others mentioned I may end up voting for McCain for the the reasons of checks and balances...then again I should vote where I want to vote and write in Ron Paul...either way I don't think my conscious will be clear.

 

What I mean by sheep, is that all the people that just listen to the crap that spills out of the candidates mouths and vote by that. If there is one thing you shouldn't go by is what they are spouting out in all of the ads or even speeches. Or how about the number of people at my work I have literally heard say that they are voting for Obama because of the color of his skin. Too many people don't actually vote on candidates positions on issues but rather on a few personality traits, ads or something equally as pointless IMO

[LoArmistead]

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.

--John Quincy Adams

 

I've read that quote time and time again. It inspires me, it really does. I want to go out there and vote my true beliefs, but I just can't relish the satisfaction when the government is continually sticking their hand deeper and deeper into my wallet. Sure, 10 guys voted their beliefs, but 10 million other guys voted for a guy who is going to take the other 10 guys' money.

 

So, some would call me a sheep.

 

In a sense, I guess I am. But I'd rather be one of the sheep than the shepherd that the other sheep eat piece by piece.

[LoArmistead]

No sooner did I put Free Trade as one of my top voting concerns this election than the WSJ posted an article expounding on my concerns in that area. If someone wasn't sure what I was getting at in my last post, this may help dissect it from another perspective:

 

Mood Shift Against Free Trade Puts Republicans on Defensive

By GREG HITT and BRAD HAYNES

 

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. has led the way in efforts to lower barriers to global trade since World War II, despite opposition from unions and voters hurt by foreign competition. This election could put trade-liberalization on ice for a while.

 

A slumping economy, years of stagnating wages for many workers and unease about the rise of China as an economic power are fueling popular skepticism toward free trade and buoying Democratic candidates who are seizing on anxieties about globalization.

 

One Republican free trader feeling the heat is Oregon Sen. Gordon Smith, who likes to remind voters that one in five jobs in the state depends on overseas trade. He has supported the North American Free Trade Agreement and voted for the Central American Free Trade Agreement. "Oregon is probably the most trade-dependent state in America," Sen. Smith said. "Portland is called Portland because it's a port."

 

Now Sen. Smith is scrambling to hang on to his seat, as his Democratic opponent, Jeff Merkley, hammers on the trade issue.

 

"They call it free trade," a recent Merkley ad says, "Problem is -- there's nothing free about it." Mr. Merkley wants legislation that would inject strict workplace safety, labor and environmental standards into future trade agreements, while requiring a review of all existing trade deals. Polls show Mr. Merkley running closely with Sen. Smith.

 

From Oregon to Georgia to upstate New York, skepticism about the benefits of free trade is rippling through campaigns for several House and Senate seats, many of them races where Democrats are running strong. Lawmakers elected on promises to slow down on trade could find it hard to walk back from those pledges once in office -- particularly if labor unions (who more or less own the Democratic party - my opinion of course) and other Democratic constituencies critical of the Bush and Clinton Administrations' open trade policies keep a focus on the issue.

 

President Bush's efforts to win passage of trade deals with South Korea, Panama and Colombia stalled after trade concerns helped to put Democrats in charge of the House and Senate in 2006.

 

Most Democrats don't call for blatant protectionist measures such as steep tariffs, or a return to import quotas such as those that governed automotive trade in the 1980s. Instead, Democrats, starting with Presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, talk about the need for trade to be fair, and insist that trading partners be required to meet higher standards for environmental controls and workers' rights to unionize.

 

Republican candidate Sen. John McCain is a free trader and has surrounded himself with like-minded advisers such as Stanford University economist John Taylor. Mr. Taylor headed international economic policy in President Bush's first-term Treasury Department and is a candidate to be Treasury Secretary should Mr. McCain win the White House.

 

Other McCain economic advisers, such as former Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former eBay Chief Executive Meg Whitman and former Hewlett-Packard Chief Executive Carly Fiorina, are longstanding proponents of open markets.

 

Sen. Obama has hedged his bets on trade. On the stump, Sen. Obama talks about leveling the playing field on trade, hitting South Korea often for tight import quotas on U.S. automobiles. He opposes the free-trade agreement with Colombia that is awaiting ratification, saying the Latin American country is still hostile to organized labor leaders. This week, he pledged to pressure China to loosen control of its currency. During the primary, he suggested he would support strengthening labor and environmental requirements in Nafta.

 

But Sen. Obama's chief economic adviser, Jason Furman, is a former aide to Bill Clinton's free trade Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin. Mr. Rubin, as well as Clinton Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, have become much more involved in the Obama campaign since Sen. Clinton was vanquished. And the campaign has played down the primary talk of reopening Nafta.

 

Some Democratic congressional leaders and key committee chairmen, such as Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat, remain supporters of free trade.

 

But free-trade critics like Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown are sure to be emboldened if they have a big new bloc of trade skeptic votes to work with.

 

"Americans are anxious about job losses," says the Ohio Democrat, who was elected to the Senate in 2006 after running a populist-tinged campaign. "Most Americans, not just in my state, understand intuitively that it has been government policy that has enabled, and pushed, many companies to go overseas."

 

The threat of jobs moving offshore is an issue in a close race in central North Carolina. Democratic House candidate Larry Kissell, a mill worker for 27 years who became a teacher after his plant closed, blames Rep. Robin Hayes, a Republican, for tens of thousands of lost jobs in the local textile industry.

 

In 2005, after Rep. Hayes declared himself "flat-out, completely, horizontally opposed to Cafta," he reversed his vote on the House floor, delivering the deciding margin for the trade agreement. "That is the ultimate betrayal," said Mr. Kissell. "To know you are voting against the interests of people in your district."

 

Mr. Hayes, a textile-mill owner, says he won crucial last-minute concessions on Cafta to prevent the dumping of Chinese textiles in American markets.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122540791863086061.html

[Kash]

I'm with you on the free trade thing. Why Democrats, of all people, are looking to scale back our trade agreements is absolutely bewildering. Free trade = raise standards of living across the world = freedom for the entire world (the fact that we're making a hefty profit is just icing on the cake)

[Compxpert]

You guys think the Democratic and Republican parties are the same when it comes to party politics. You're wrong. Democrats don't vote the same way Republicans do. Not all Democrats tow the line and vote with the party platform like Republicans do. Look back at when we had a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President, there were many Democrats who would be thorns in the sides of the President, questioning him on everything he wanted. You've only seen Republicans start to do it once they lost the majority, but before that they were in lock step with what the party leaders wanted. You guys are seriously over estimating what a super majority means for this country, not to mention also falling for the hype that a super majority will actually happen. If it does, I'm still not as worried as I would be if the Republicans ever got a super majority.

When it comes to politics both parties are the same when fighting over the oval office. Their only differences are in their platforms. In the case of Obama a super majority is a problem especially with all this money spreading he wants... It seem that everyone is eager to let this country become socialistic... I guess if that's what they want then they are about to get it... I will just have to get away from it when it does because I'm not working for those people who are perfectly able bodied and yet refuse to work. If we have super majority for republicans I'd be a bit less worried but would be worried none the less.

[Kash]

With all the damage they wreaked with just a simple majority, you're less worried if the Republicans were to get a super majority? Man, you must have some weird notions of what the Republican Party is.