ThinkFast: January 4, 2007
ThinkFast: January 4, 2007
A “wide-open race in both parties sparked a record turnout” in last night’s Iowa caucuses. Turnout for Democrats exceeded 220,000, compared to 124,000 who participated in 2004. On the Republican side, there were approximately 114,000 people, compared to the last contested Republican caucuses in 2000, which drew 87,666.
A new Labor Department report out this morning finds that employers added fewer jobs than expected in December while the unemployment rate shot up to a two-year high. The economic statistics were “much weaker” than Wall Street expectations.
Bloomberg writes that the halting progress of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s (R-CA) $14 billion-a-year plan to provide health insurance to everyone is showing the power of interest groups to resist change. “Businesses are fighting a new payroll tax to fund coverage.”
“The Bush administration is imposing restrictions on the ability of states to expand eligibility for Medicaid, in an effort to prevent them from offering coverage to families of modest incomes who, the administration argues, may have access to private health insurance.” The White House has placed similar restrictions on states for SCHIP.
Attorney General Mike Mukasey announced yesterday “that he’s appointing Chicago federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to the Attorney General’s advisory committee of U.S. attorneys.” As attorney general, Alberto Gonzales “did not re-appoint Fitzgerald to the advisory panel,” which counsels on law enforcement issues.
Yesterday was the last day on the job for Fran Townsend, Bush’s top homeland security advisor. “The White House has not announced any replacement, raising questions about the future of the position.” There is speculation that the office will be folded into the National Security Council.
Three U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq yesterday, making them the first American casualties of the new year. These latest deaths “bring the total number of American soldiers killed since the 2003 US-led invasion to 3,905.”
President Bush told Reuters yesterday that he is “considering whether to propose” a economic stimulus package, “the clearest indication yet of a growing concern inside the White House over rising oil prices, the subprime mortgage crisis and the possibility of recession.”
Pakistan President Pervez “defended his police force and investigators” yesterday, “saying that Ms. Bhutto had defied the government’s warnings when she decided to go ahead with the rally in Rawalpindi.” Musharraf also “denied that he was unpopular in the country.”
And finally: Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Vice President Cheney aren’t the only well-known politicos who are distantly related. The Washington Post reveals that former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee is also ninth cousins with President Bush, and the 10th cousin once removed to his rival, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I am gratified to see a record turnout in the Iowa caucuses. People become activated with they want change, and it looks like apathy is giving way to concern. Good news — and let’s hope that other states follow suit.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:08 amCongratulations to Obama on his Iowa caucus win last night.
I hope he chooses Edwards as his running mate.
Conversely, Mitt how’s it feel to blow $9M & come in second? Get used to it, you’re a dead horse unless you run away with New Hampshire.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:10 amI agree Miss Molly,
It is also good to see Democrat turnout way up and Republican turnout way down, both in cases where there are real matters to be decided. In neither case was this an election with foregone conclusions.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:12 amA new Labor Department report out this morning finds that employers added fewer jobs than expected in December while the unemployment rate shot up to a two-year high. The economic statistics were “much weaker†than Wall Street expectations.
Ruh-roh. There are some pretty scary cracks in the dam. Time to head for higher ground.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:12 am“I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president’s authority,…I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction,…We would once again, rather than attending to the people’s business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, non-stop circus.”
- Barack Obama explaining that lying our country to war, outing an undercover CIA agent, illegally wiretapping its citizens and torturing prisoners denied habeas corpus are not grave offenses.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:13 amBloomberg writes that the halting progress of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s $14 billion-a-year plan to provide health insurance to everyone is showing the power of interest groups to resist change. “Businesses are fighting a new payroll tax to fund coverage.â€
——————————
It’s always amazed me how much money somebody will pay to make sure they don’t have to pay any money to anybody. I’m sure that these “interest groups” are well-funded by corporations that don’t want to fund anything.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:13 am“Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s $14 billion-a-year plan to provide health insurance to everyone is showing the power of interest groups to resist change.”
From the article:
“Supporters of the measure as it’s written include the state’s second-, third- and fourth-largest insurers –nonprofit Kaiser Permanente, publicly traded Health Net Inc. and nonprofit Blue Shield of California — along with labor unions and Steve Burd, chairman of supermarket chain Safeway Inc.”
So, it seems that not-for-profit health care companies have no problem with universal coverage. It seems to only be those people/companies who care more about the dollar then their fellow citizens health that hate the idea of universal health care.
Go figure.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:13 amOf course Bush is planning another economic stimulus program. Here’s a prediction. It will focus on PERMANENT tax cuts for the upper brackets. When it doesn’t go through, Republicans will blame Dems for “doing nothing, just as they did about ending the Iraq way, and just as they will do to protect women and children from evil-minded oil squatters.”
January 4th, 2008 at 9:14 am…Now the people in the Administration of George Bush better remember their Miranda rights, because when I’m elected President I’m going to see that they are arrested. I’m not kidding here! I want to let you to know something; how I feel about what’s happened to our country. We have been led into a war based upon lies — an unjust a war. We’ve seen our civil liberties taken away because of lies. The President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense are all part of this. They’re going to be held accountable under the law. If someone runs a traffic light, they’ll get a ticket here. There are a million dead Iraqis and almost 4,000 dead American soldiers as a result of this war. Where is the accountability?
- Dennis Kucinich 10.07
January 4th, 2008 at 9:14 amIt is also good to see Democrat turnout way up and Republican turnout way down…
Comment by Peter C — January 4, 2008 @ 9:12 am
Ah, but even the GOP turnout is more than it was in 2004. Of course, that might not be concern on their part — it could just be that they had a choice this year, where they didn’t in 2004.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:18 amRegarding the Iowa caucus, I find it very interesting that so many more Democrats showed up than Republicans. If that is a trend across the nation, things will not go well for the Republicans.
On another note, I really do hope that we do something about our primary system soon. There is no reason why 200,000+ people in the heartland should be allowed to make the decision for the remainder of the Democrats who should run and who shouldn’t.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:19 am#2 – “Congratulations to Obama on his Iowa caucus win last night.
I hope he chooses Edwards as his running mate.” Comment by Zimzone — January 4, 2008 @ 9:10 am
Don’t count your chickens before they hatch!
In 1992 Tom Harkin beat Paul Tsongas, Bob Kerrey and Jerry Brown.
In 1988 Bob Dole beat Pat Robertson, George H.W. Bush, Jack Kemp, and Pete DuPont.
In 1980 George H.W. Bush beat Ronald Reagan, Howard Baker, John Connally, and others.
A win in the Iowa caucus does not a candidate make!
A loss in the Iowa caucus does not a loser make!
Personally, I think it’s going to be a race between Sen Obama & Sen. Clinton for the nomination. Also, I think it’s going to be a race between FrmGov. Guiliani & FmrGov. Romney for the Repubs.
FmrGov. Huckabee is just way too radical for many Republicans to stand behind.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:20 am11. There should be a rotating system of primaries/caucuses whereby every state gets a shot to be in the early group of primaries. NY’s is always so late as to be practically meaningless. If the NBA can run a draft lottery, why not a primary lottery held shortly after the previous Presidential election? Every state has a shot at being first, but they could weight it based on how long it has been since the state got to be in the first five spots. Doing the selection immediately following an inauguration would mean that the order is picked even before candidates start declaring for the upcoming election.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:22 am“The Washington Post reveals that former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee is also ninth cousins with President Bush, and the 10th cousin once removed to his rival, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.”
Um…”ninth cousins” just means that they had a common great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparent (that’s 8 “greats”). This common ancestor probably lived a couple of centuries ago. It’s doubtful that Huckabee attends Bush’s or Romney’s family reunions.
I am impressed that somebody had enough time on their hands to research this, though. And it does make a nice little factoid for light conversation.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:23 amComment by Democrat Soldier — January 4, 2008 @ 9:20 am
I agree with you here. Its only one primary.
And I can tell you I surely don’t want the people of Iowa being the only ones who get to determine who my presidental candidates are going to be.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:23 amMy mistake!
FmrMayor Giuliani, not FmrGov.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:24 amim so glad all of you ran out and voted for more bush….
excellent choice iowa….
January 4th, 2008 at 9:24 amCongratulations to Obama on his Iowa caucus win last night.
I hope he chooses Edwards as his running mate.
Comment by Zimzone
Aren’t you rushing things a little. Are you really content to allow 200,000+ heartland Democrats to make the decision for the rest of us who the candidate will be. Personally, I am not willing to do that. Watching TV last night, you would have thought that it was election night, not some rinkey-dink caucus in Iowa.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:24 amAlso, I think it’s going to be a race between FrmGov. Guiliani & FmrGov. Romney for the Repubs.
FmrGov. Huckabee is just way too radical for many Republicans to stand behind.
Comment by Democrat Soldier — January 4, 2008 @ 9:20 am
Just nitpicking here, but Giuliani is a “FrmMayor” not a “FrmGov.”
I agree that Huckabee probably won’t do well in states where the GOP isn’t dominated by the evangelical right.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:25 amThere should be a rotating system of primaries/caucuses whereby every state gets a shot to be in the early group of primaries.
I agree with the rotating system, but not with caucuses. I would do away with caucuses entirely. I don’t like a system where your vote is not private. Because they have to voice their vote, and it is not immediately cast, the caucus system leaves people open to political pressure from friends, neighbors and in some cases employers! Any system of “voting” that is not private lacks integrity in my book.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:27 amYou’re right – I read the numbers incorrectly; Republican numbers were up slightly from 2000.
Here’s something interesting (and encouraging):
In 2006, Democratic candidates for the House got around 490,000 votes. Last nights turnout for a long caucus was 220,000 or about 45% of the 2006 total. This is huge.
Republican candidates got about 520,000 votes, but only 22% of them came out for their (much less arduous) process.
Any way you slice it, the turnnout numbers are good.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:30 am“The Bush administration is imposing restrictions on the ability of states to expand eligibility for Medicaid, in an effort to prevent them from offering coverage to families of modest incomes who, the administration argues, may have access to private health insurance.â€
These families may have access to private health insurance, but many can’t afford private health insurance. Bush is trying to kill all forms of government provided health insurance because he knows that they are an example of how health insurance should be run. Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP all provide healthcare at a much lower rate than for-profit companies. First Bush started to starve Medicare so that doctor’s could not afford to take Medicare patients and now he is trying to do the same thing to Medicaid.
I certainly hope that whomever is elected President on the Democratic side decides to simply cover all Americans under Medicare and fixes the system as far as reimbursement to doctors and hospitals is concerned. Keeping the for-profit health care industry in the mix is always going to be less efficient and cost more. They have had their ride ripping us off, it’s time to cut them off the gravy train.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:33 am“Of course Bush is planning another economic stimulus program. Here’s a prediction. It will focus on PERMANENT tax cuts for the upper brackets.â€
Comment by Daniel — January 4, 2008 @ 9:14 am
You beat me to it. That’s exactly what I thought.
Good morning everyone and a belated happy winter solstice. :)
January 4th, 2008 at 9:37 amMusharaff also “denied that he was unpopular in the country.â€
Sounds like Busharaff lives in the same fantasy world as Bush.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:38 amThere should be a rotating system of primaries/caucuses whereby every state gets a shot to be in the early group of primaries.
Comment by Menehune — January 4, 2008 @ 9:22 am
I agree that the primary system we have now truly sucks. Here in North Carolina, our primary is late enough that we NEVER have a choice in selecting our nominee.
Unfortunately, as long as the states get to pick their own primary date, this will always be the case. I was watching Tom Brokaw’s special on 1968 recently and was rather shocked to recall that the New Hampshire primary that year was in March. MARCH! The primary process didn’t start until March back then! But because other states keep moving their primary ahead in order to gain some influence, Iowa and New Hampshire continue to move theirs to make sure they don’t lose their status of being first. If this continues, the primary process to select the next president could start right after the current one is inaugurated.
I would like to see the entire election process for President nationalized. Primary AND general election. Do away completely with state primaries and caucuses. Do away completely with the electoral college. Do away with national party conventions (nobody watches them anymore anyway, because they have become nothing more than free infomercials for the party).
Have a national primary. Allow people to vote for their favorite and also for an “instant runoff” choice to be used if their favorite doesn’t garner at least 50% of the vote. Do the same for the general election.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:38 am“Allow people to vote for their favorite and also for an “instant runoff†choice to be used if their favorite doesn’t garner at least 50% of the vote”
Comment by missmolly — January 4, 2008 @ 9:38 am
Yes, yes, yes. This would allow you to vote your real choice, then your practical choice.
BTW, I feel your pain about a late primary. I live in Florida and ours has always been really late, too late for any choice. Now that it’s been moved up we don’t get any delegates and the vote won’t count.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:44 amBilbo… I agree with you on the caucuses–all elections should be by secret ballot. No one should be subject to pressure/harassment from their bosses or ministers over how they vote. I can’t see Iowa and New Hampshire ever backing a system where they had to rotate their primaries, however since they like getting all the attention during the campaigns. And it would probably require all the states to agree for there ever to be any kind of rotating primary schedule.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:45 amJobless Rate Hits 5 Percent, 2-Year High- AP
Hiring practically stalled in December, driving the nation’s unemployment rate up to a two-year high of 5 percent and fanning fears of a recession.
Employers last month added the fewest new jobs to their payrolls in more than four years, according to the employment report released Friday by the Labor Department. The report showed that employment conditions are deteriorating, strained by a housing slump and credit crunch that are sapping economic strength.
“The economy is getting hit by some body blows. The big question is whether the economy can withstand it or will it take a fall,” said Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080104/economy.html
January 4th, 2008 at 9:46 amHave a national primary. Allow people to vote for their favorite and also for an “instant runoff†choice to be used if their favorite doesn’t garner at least 50% of the vote. Do the same for the general election.
Comment by missmolly
That would also be my choice. Another benefit of this kind of a system of voting is that it would diminish a political party’s influence on who our candidate will be. It would be strictly up to the voters, which is how it should be.
I wonder what it would take to do away with the electoral college system? Is it in the Constitution?
January 4th, 2008 at 9:46 amYes, yes, yes. This would allow you to vote your real choice, then your practical choice.
Comment by Frosty Cupcake — January 4, 2008 @ 9:44 am
I suspect that Kucinich would get a lot more votes that way. I wonder how many Dems there are out there now who are thinking, “I really like Dennis, but I’m going to vote for Barack because he has the best chance of beating Hillary.”
January 4th, 2008 at 9:48 amMiss Molly… I like the idea of nationalizing the election and primaries to a point. There is something nice about having the party primary system drawn out where you get to see the candidates over a period of time and not having the process distilled down to a single day for the whole country.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:51 amI wonder what it would take to do away with the electoral college system? Is it in the Constitution?
Comment by bilbobaggins — January 4, 2008 @ 9:46 am
Unfortunately, yes. Article Two, Section 1, Sub-Section Three. Also the 12th amendment.
It would take a constitutional amendment to do away with the Electoral College. This is pretty much an impossibility, since it would require 38 states to ratify — including small states that currently benefit from the system because it gives them more influence.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:52 amI wonder what it would take to do away with the electoral college system? Is it in the Constitution?
Comment by bilbobaggins — January 4, 2008 @ 9:46 am
Article II
The founding fathers didn’t want a direct election. They realized there are just too many stupid people out there.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:54 amGood morning missmolly and all, great post’s as usual….I agree with eliminating the electorial college and think if the country went to a simple popular vote and stop all the other crap we would be much better off..In answering your #30 post I’m sticking with Kucinich, he’s not in the insurance companie’s pocket and for the constitution as well as being against the war….Blessings
January 4th, 2008 at 9:54 amWhatever Iowa’s importance to the general election, it will be much harder for Rudy to garner campaign contributions with a sixth-place showing. If he does equally as bad in New Hampshire, Rudy’s toast.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:55 amThe next to go will likely be Hunter, Kucinich and Gravel.
Comment by good_golly — January 4, 2008 @ 9:49 am
I agree that Hunter and Gravel aren’t going to be in the race much longer, but I predict Kucinich will hang around until the last dog dies.
When he ran in 2004, he didn’t drop out, even though candidates with much more support did. When the primary came to North Carolina, all Dem candidates except Kerry and Kucinich were gone. Kucinich said he was staying in the race just on principle — he wanted voters to have a choice.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:58 amI wonder how many Dems there are out there now who are thinking, “I really like Dennis, but I’m going to vote for Barack because he has the best chance of beating Hillary.â€
Comment by missmolly — January 4, 2008 @ 9:48 am
Exactly.
As to the electoral college, as long as we’re wishing…
I would like a parliamentary system where you can get rid of a failing leader. Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to chuck Bush?
January 4th, 2008 at 9:59 am#31 – “The winner of the Iowa Caucus usually doesn’t go on to win the nomination.” Comment by good_golly — January 4, 2008 @ 9:49 am
Untrue.
2004 John Kerry beat John Edwards, Howard Dean, and Richard Gephardt.
2004 George Bush was unopposed
2000 Al Gore beat Bill Bradley
2000 George Bush beat Steve Forbes, Alan Keyes, Gary Bauer, John McCain, and Orrin Hatch
1996 Bill Clinton was unopposed
1996 Bob Dole beat Pat Buchanan, Lamar Alexander, Steve Forbes, Phil Gramm, and Alan Keyes
1984 Walter Mondale beat Gary Hart, George McGovern, and Alan Cranston
1984 Ronald Reagan was unopposed
While winning Iowa isn’t a lock on the nomination, it does sometimes start the dominoes dropping to the eventual outcome!
January 4th, 2008 at 10:01 amI suppose the only take-away from the Iowa caucuses is that both sides are energized, unless there were too many outsiders skewing the results. I wouldn’t be surprised if Hill’reh and Barack used out-of-state caucusers to stuff both their own nominations, but also the nomination of Huckabee, as they are under the delusion that an evangelical can’t be elected.
Careful what you wish for, because gaming a system will always give unintended results. They would be far better off if the simply trusted the system to vet the best candidates.
I still think Hill’reh will be the eventual nomination, and she will select Edwards as her running mate. I have no idea who will be the nominees on the Republican ticket, but they will likely win with Hill’reh on the ticket.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:01 amWhatever Iowa’s importance to the general election, it will be much harder for Rudy to garner campaign contributions with a sixth-place showing. If he does equally as bad in New Hampshire, Rudy’s toast.
Comment by barfly — January 4, 2008 @ 9:55 am
I don’t think Giuliani spend any time or effort on Iowa, and has been placing all his chips in New Hampshire. It will be interesting to see how much bang the Granite Staters will give him for his buck up there.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:02 amNasdaq on Jan 12, 2001 day Bush took office: 2626.50
Nasdaq Today: 2560.35
In nearly seven years under Bush control the Nasdaq has LOST 60 points.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:05 am“Iowa is so small, it’s like a mayor’s race in a medium-sized city.”
– Sen. Hillary Clinton’s press secretary Jay Carson, quoted by the Wall Street Journal.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:07 am” I don’t think that is accurate, although Rudy is likley “toast†if he doesn’t do well in Nevada, South Carolina and Florida where he is focusing his efforts at the moment.”
So, if he finishes sixth again in NH, you think he’ll still stay in? At that point he’ll be damaged goods.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:07 amGood morning, everyone. May not be able to stay around today, so while I have the chance I wanted to wish everyone a belated Happy New Year.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:09 amSen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Vice President Cheney aren’t the only well-known politicos who are distantly related. The Washington Post reveals that former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee is also ninth cousins with President Bush, and the 10th cousin once removed to his rival, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.
But aren’t we all related having come from Adam and Eve? LOL
Seriously, we are all human and it would be nice to have a President who thought that way.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:09 am#35, I wouldn’t say it was so much that as a combination of their desire to have a weak executive, and their notion that the country was a union of sovereign states. The House of Representatives was the most powerful single constitutional body as originally framed, and it was the one directly elected.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:11 amMiss Molly… I like the idea of nationalizing the election and primaries to a point. There is something nice about having the party primary system drawn out where you get to see the candidates over a period of time and not having the process distilled down to a single day for the whole country.
Comment by Menehune — January 4, 2008 @ 9:51 am
I agree – to a point.
When I was younger, I was enchanted by the political process and thoroughly enjoyed watching everything unfold during the primaries in elections in the sixties and seventies. During my childhood, this was probably the best education I got on political campaigns, and I wouldn’t have gotten nearly so much out of it had the primaries been held on a single day.
However, back then candidates hung around. California was the last state on the list and there was still a degree of suspense left because candidates stayed in to fight for that state. The money spent wasn’t as obscene as it is now, and primaries didn’t start in January (!).
Campaigns have now gotten to be so expensive that only the very rich (often corporate-funded) candidates can stay in the race beyond the first few states. They drop out like flies fairly early in the process. The elements that made the “drawn out” effect so appealing are gone.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:11 amBut aren’t we all related having come from Adam and Eve? LOL
Comment by Nature Rules — January 4, 2008 @ 10:09 am
. . . . or the same ancestral primate.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:12 amThe founding fathers didn’t want a direct election. They realized there are just too many stupid people out there.
Comment by dim wit — January 4, 2008 @ 9:54 am
So instead, the stupid people get to directly vote for the Reps and Senators. Heh.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:12 amHmm, strange.
Okay, things TP missed:
North Korea building ’war deterrence’: In essence, remember that whole drama when NK launched a missile and how Condi flew out there and got them to all calm down? Yeah, not quite.
And of course, because there aren’t enough religious nutters with access to nuclear weapons and a God-is-on-my-side complex going, we have Ehud Olmert saying that God is favouring Israel in this current round of peace talks. Evidently, Bush is in power via divine providence, as opposed to more infernal reasons.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:13 amComment by good_golly — January 4, 2008 @ 10:09 am
Thanks for that info. Did you notice that “uncommitted” used to do a lot better than it does now? This year, “uncommitted” only got 3% on the Democratic side and wasn’t even on the list on the Republican side.
I’m amazed that people are more willing to commit to a candidate earlier and earlier in the game than they used to.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:20 amMy TP Friends: I have a dire prediction to make. The Nasdaq is going to CRASH very soon. The other indexes will follow shortly thereafter.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:21 amI would like a parliamentary system where you can get rid of a failing leader. Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to chuck Bush?
Comment by Frosty Cupcake — January 4, 2008 @ 9:59 am
That is one of the advantages of a parliamentary system, to be sure. Although I don’t know how that would work here. The leader would have to be chucked by his own party (unless another party was voted into power). And as far as I can see, our elected Republican representatives and senators still pretty much support Bush and Cheney in lockstep — something that amazes me.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:22 am#53, originally, the Senators were picked indirectly. The idea was that the House, the most powerful body, was picked directly by the people, and represented the people. The Senate represented states (as sovereign entities), and the presidency was a weak office that was chosen by an intermediate process (electoral college).
January 4th, 2008 at 10:26 amComment by good_golly — January 4, 2008 @ 9:49 am
So the press is now in the business of basically controlling who will get the exposure, and who will not. Great. It won’t be long before the networks, as it relates to sponsoring debates, will start eliminating people from the very beginning of a campaign. As most candidates have prior political experience, look for the decisions to be based for the most part on what I’m sure will be an extremely sophisticated process of elimination (similar to college football’s BCS system) based on things such as individuals’ past performance and approval ratings during their political career.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:28 amA direct popular election would result in a president who is nothing more than popular.
Sooner or Later we would end up with a crappy movie star as the President. then again, there was Reagan.
personally, I like Frosty’s parliamentary idea, but that just a pipe dream as well.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:28 am. . . . or the same ancestral primate.
Given any fairly small seed population and enough generations, eventually everyone will share multiple common ancestors. Hence the mitochondrial common ancestor, and the Y-chromosome common ancestor.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:29 amThe Country was already in a recession by January 12, 2001, the day that Bush took office.
Under no definition of “recession” anyone actually uses, liar.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:30 amComment by PeterW — January 4, 2008 @ 10:26 am
Thanks for the correction!
January 4th, 2008 at 10:30 amSo instead, the stupid people get to directly vote for the Reps and Senators. Heh.
Comment by Bad Eye — January 4, 2008 @ 10:12 am
Yep. Thats the way it works. And not only do we vote for Reps and Senators, but we vote for “Electors” who are supposed to (but are not required to) vote for the person we say we want to be President.
I don’t know why people tend to think we live in a direct democracy, when in fact, we live in representative democracy where we elect the people to make decision on our behalf.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:33 amI disagree strongly. The recession was claimed after the fact by manipulating the GDP to negative many months after the usual time frame. It was highly suspicious. Yes, I remember well because I trade the market daily. The market started plummeting well in advance of the end of Clinton’s term. The market feared the end of Clinton presidency (and they were correct to fear it). As the election neared and the dispute over who won took place the market kept falling. The events of 9/11 were entirely the fault of Bushco. He was warned over three times directly. The attack needed never happen and Bush bears the blame for the fall the market took as a result. But you’re welcome to live in your construct of the world if your desire.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:35 amCynthia McKinney ‘08!
January 4th, 2008 at 10:38 amA direct popular election would result in a president who is nothing more than popular.
Comment by dim wit — January 4, 2008 @ 10:28 am
Good point. Although I still think that would be slightly better than our current system, which results in a president who has the most campaign funds.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:38 amgood_golly
Not really. South Africa for example, has a parliamentary system and still has a president.
The real problem is that whatever system you go with, you will end up in the same place you are now if you cannot get your voters actively thinking about politics as opposed to personalities – two parties which are roughly the same running things for their little group as opposed to the whole country.
Until you get people voting, thinking about their votes and taking responsibility for the government that arises from that vote, no matter what system you have it will be stuffed.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:42 am57. Under a pariamentary system, wouldn’t our chief executive likely be Nancy Pelosi?
Comment by good_golly — January 4, 2008 @ 10:31 am
If we switched today, and dealt with the current cast of characters — probably. Either Nancy or Harry.
I suspect that with a parliamentary system, parties would choose their leaders based on what kind of window dressing they would make for maximum national appeal, rather than how well they lead either of the houses of Congress. I think that would let both Nancy and Harry out of the equation. The Prime Minister might even be Howard Dean.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:45 am#59 – “The Country was already in a recession by January 12, 2001, the day that Bush took office.” Comment by good_golly — January 4, 2008 @ 10:26 am
Untrue.
“The National Bureau’s Business Cycle Dating Committee maintains a chronology of the U.S. business cycle. The chronology identifies the dates of peaks and troughs that frame economic recession or expansion. The period from a peak to a trough is a recession and the period from a trough to a peak is an expansion. According to the chronology, the most recent peak occurred in March 2001, ending a record-long expansion that began in 1991. The most recent trough occurred in November 2001, inaugurating an expansion.”
“On November 26, 2001, the committee determined that the peak of economic activity had occurred in March of that year. For a discussion of the committee’s reasoning and the underlying evidence, see http://www.nber.org/cycles/november2001. The March 2001 peak marked the end of the expansion that began in March 1991, an expansion that lasted exactly 10 years and was the longest in the NBER’s chronology. On July 16, 2003, the committee determined that a trough in economic activity occurred in November 2001. The committee’s announcement of the trough is at http://www.nber.org/cycles/july2003. The trough marks the end of the recession that began in March 2001. The 2001 recession thus lasted eight months, which is somewhat less than the average duration of recessions since World War II. The postwar average, excluding the 2001 recession, is eleven months. ”
http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html
January 4th, 2008 at 10:47 am#72, what your link indicates is a willingness in some sectors to jigger the definition to fit a desire to declare the recession earlier.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:48 amI can’t help but think that all of the candidates except Cynthia McKinney (The Green Party) and Dennis Kucinich represent the status quo.
God help US all if Huckleberry, Mitt, Guiliani or McCain get in.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:48 ammissmolly,
January 4th, 2008 at 10:49 amyou’re still going to have the richest candidate win b/c people with little funds won’t be able to compete in every state, and not to the same degree. It’s still going to cost a lot for ads and travel. The field will still be reduced to those candidates who can get their message out.
It would still be a money game.
And a national primary would necessitate either only the very wealthy participate or complete overhaul of the process, as each state requires an often massive fee just to register to campaign for president.
We don’t need the name calling. The issue of when the early 2000’s recession began is open to honest debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession
Comment by good_golly — January 4, 2008 @ 10:41 am
You need TWO quarters of negative GDP to have a recession. The second one (in 2001) was only announced many months after the original report showing positive growth. It was a scam. There was no recession. Except the one that’s coming NOW, brought to you by Regan, neo-conservative economics.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:51 amI’ve read and reread the part of the Constitution that deals with the selection of a President. Based strictly on what was originally written, I can’t for the life of me figure out how candidate names ever made their way on to popular ballots.
One aspect of the primary system that I especially dislike is how many delegates are locked in to vote for specific candidates based on the primary results. That ignores completely the potential for new knowledge of the candidates changing our perception of them after the primary.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:53 amInteresting bit from the troll’s Wiki link:
Using the stock market as a benchmark, a recession began in March 2000 when the NASDAQ crashed following the collapse of the Dot-com bubble. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was relatively unscathed by the NASDAQ’s crash until the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks
Right, so if you use a narrow index of a dubious measure (since stock values are not necessarily broadly indicative of real economic activity) that only follows a small sector of the economy, a recession started when righties wanted it to, but when you use the broader index, oops, no recession until 18 months later.
That’s called “grasping at straws”, with a healty dose of “assuming the conclusion”.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:53 amFrom Raw Story:
Iraq deputy PM blames corruption on UN
Iraq’s culture of corruption stems from the actions of the international community and the controversial UN oil-for-food scheme, the deputy prime minister Barham Saleh said on Thursday.
Speaking at a new anti-corruption forum in Baghdad, Saleh said that the programme, run between 1996 and 2003 while Iraq was under UN sanctions, and what he charged was the body’s wasteful use of money were to blame for the rampant corruption that bedevils Iraq.
“A large responsibility for the outbreak of corruption in Iraq lies on the international community,” said Saleh. “The scandals of food-for-oil and the wasting of public riches by the UN… is evidence of the serious damage that has deepened the problem in the country.”
[...]
So, a Shiite-led Iraqi government is placing the blame for the current corruption in Iraq on a program that was used by Saddam and Sunnis to buy weapons to keep the Shite majority in thrall? Perhaps one of the trolls can explain it to me.
And remember when Bush vetoed the spending bill over provisions that allowed Saddam’s victims to sue Iraq in court, thereby nullifying Americans’ constitutional right to redress?
[from the article]:
“It is necessary to coordinate with the international society.” Saleh said, “But we refuse any foreign mandate on Iraqi resolutions.”
Bush is so committed to making Iraq some sort of sham democracy that he is sacrificing our constitutional rights to do it.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:54 amNasdaq down now almost 3% today. Its not looking good.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:01 am“The Bush administration is imposing restrictions on the ability of states…”
——
Bush tells governors that states’ rights, education will be priorities
January 6, 2001
Web posted at: 6:37 p.m. EST (2337 GMT)
From staff and wire reports
CRAWFORD, Texas — President-elect George W. Bush hosted 18 Republican governors at his ranch Saturday, thanked them for their support, and pledged to make education and respect for states’ rights priorities in his administration.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:01 amComment by Wilco — January 4, 2008 @ 10:49 am
How many people would vote for Britney Spears if she started giving concerts for free and calling them “campaign rallies?”
What about Brad Pitt or George Clooney? They are famous, poplular, and weathly. They could simply keep making movies during the “election season” which would keep their names in the MSM virtually for free.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:01 am#83 – “Nasdaq down now almost 3% today. Its not looking good.” Comment by 2MillionLightYearsToAndromeda — January 4, 2008 @ 11:01 am
Between May 2006 and August 2006, NASDAQ went from 2300’s to almost 2000, a loss of over 10%.
I don’t disagree that we are currently heading into economic hardships brought about by Pres. Bush’s run-away spending and Congresses inability to reign him in, but I don’t believe that we’re looking at a 1930’s style crash.
Can you explain why you feel we’re looking at economic doom?
January 4th, 2008 at 11:09 amWant to see why edwards is trailing obama ….look at the huffpo this morning , it would be hard to tell that edwards was even a candidate .TP moderators seem to have a slight bias but sites like the huffpo are doing exactly what the mainstream media have been doing since he announced his candidacy, either ignore him or talk about his hair . He is without doubt the ONLY progressive candidate in the race and yet the progressive blogs seem to be endorsing the corporate candidates as more electable in the face of the most severe assault on our democracy in our history as a nation .\?
January 4th, 2008 at 11:14 amWill Obama disavow signing statements ? Will he let the insurance industry make our health care policies ? International corporations are the real story behind our difficulties and anyone who is beholden to them IS NOT an agent of change !
I noticed that the evangelicons turned out in force for Chuckleboob last night…and boy, was he pandering to them! He was decked out in his Jesus-y best…
And now, this morning, heading off to New Hampshire, Schmuckabible has dropped his “Christian leader” rhetoric and just become a generic “leader”…(see op ed in The Nation).
Wonder how Jesus feels about being dropped like a hot rock?
January 4th, 2008 at 11:17 amIf obama vows to end signing statements ,domestic spying and reinstate Habes corpus I will probably vote for him , if he is vague on these issues I will consider him a political disaster and do everything I can to stump for a 3rd party candidate .
January 4th, 2008 at 11:20 amThe 2 party system is a sham and unless you have been asleep for the last 50 years you must begrudgingly admitt there is all too much truth in that sorry statement !
The best government money can buy !
On C-Span from the Iowa caucases
The democrats have a question ( among many )that was asked of precinct leaders that I guess will be asked at all primaries across the country , They asked
SHOULD AFFIRMIATIVE ACTION BE REDUCED TO CLASS and INCOME ONLY OR SHOULD IT BE DONE AWAY WITH ALTOGETHER ?
Thank goodness in a state that is 93% white there were 2 black people .Who were able to get the people to shoot that down.
Who What When and how is this coming from Democracts . I thought Republicans would move on this because they want us to turn into France colorblind , we see how well that works.
A nation cant be colorblind reguarless what some may think.
I want to know who is moving this forward ???/
I was so overwwhelmed to see a state thats 93% white vote for a Black man. MY husband and many friends said it couldnt be done. It’s a great start.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:25 pmCongratulations to Obama on his Iowa caucus win last night.
Just out of the blocks in this election year marathon. We’ll know more by mid February regarding who’s running ahead in the race.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:29 pm#89 – “I will consider him a political disaster and do everything I can to stump for a 3rd party candidate .” Comment by freeman — January 4, 2008 @ 11:20 am
So, what you’re saying is that you want a Republican to take the White House in 2008.
Remember that it was Nader that led to Pres. Bush being successfully selected by the SCOTUS.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:07 pmThe U.S economy is tanking and all you guys can talk about is the Iowa caucus??
January 4th, 2008 at 1:14 pm#94 – “The U.S economy is tanking and all you guys can talk about is the Iowa caucus??” Comment by gitrdone — January 4, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
It’s been tanking for a while! Why are you just now waking up to that reality?
January 4th, 2008 at 1:17 pmDemocrat Soldier
Nader didn’t have anything to do with it. Those votes were lost by Gore because the Democratic Party didn’t understand the importance of playing to your base.
Had Nader not been around in 2000 the voting would have looked pretty much the same – except that those who voted for Nader wouldn’t have voted.
The independent vote is not the enemy, the non-vote is.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:19 pmThe U.S economy is tanking and all you guys can talk about is the Iowa caucus??
Comment by gitrdone — January 4, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
The caucuses represent a real hope of putting someone in power who can fix the monumental balls up that is the current situation, so they are kind of linked.
After all, the main reason you are in this mess right now is that you have a president with a penchant for wars you can’t afford and no grasp of basic business management.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:23 pmBuchanan took as many vote as Nader did and it’s an old story by now that this president was most likely NEVER elected . If the country is to become a police state which tortures and spies domestically and the presidency includes the continued use of signing statements I’d rather see the mask removed than vote for a politician that kisses babies and offers political platitudes while cooperating with the forces that are arrayed against democracy in America .
January 4th, 2008 at 1:32 pmThe future history of our planet is all about the rise of the global corporations and their effects on the rights of workers here and evrywhere else .Whether we can remain a viable democracy in the face of such power is VERY MUCH in question .
Progressives must frame the debate and there is no power in assuring democrats of our votes even if the candidate ignores us .The democrats NEED progressive voted to win and I believe the best way to push the progressive agenda forward is to make it clear that we will not accept ANY candidate that will not vow to renounce signing statements war and torture , as well as pushing corporate influence out of Washington !
January 4th, 2008 at 1:38 pmHow are the democrats going to “fix” the economy?
Raising taxes?
January 4th, 2008 at 1:50 pmgitrdone — January 4, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
They will improve the inspection of imported goods. This will be publically touted as not wanting a repeat of last year’s various Chinese goods scandals, which the Chinese will be hard pressed to find a legitimate objection to. Of course the reality is that this will be good old fashioned protectionism.
They will also, provided you don’t get Hillary, get out of Iraq and spending about 10 times as much as you did in Vietnam. While the Republicans are crying for victory in Iraq, that victory could well turn pyrric if your economy continues along its current course/
Further the Democrats will raise taxes in order to pay off America’s debt with China – making it easier to deal with Chinese goods flooding your markets. Right now you have a situation where if you protest too loudly the Chinese will simply stop funding you.
Further, the Democrats have as a mandated issue, healthcare. There are companies which aren’t building factories in America, because healthcare costs so much there that Canada actually looks preferable.
Companies, when they invest don’t just look at low taxes. Sometimes low taxes means spending more on other things and it is pointless spending $200 on health insurance for a worker, when you could just spend the extra $100 in taxes.
And finally, if you get the right Democrat, you will end up with someone who can balance a cheque book and who knows how important record keeping can be. The current administration has wasted billions on its pet projects without bothering to have someone around who knows how to manage the funds involved. This is why Bush, despite spending more on AIDS in Africa then Clinton did, has had less of an effect.
The same is true of Bush’s other adventures in spending money. A lot of that money has simply disappeared via mismanagement.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:04 pmGo to a repub website troll
January 4th, 2008 at 2:51 pmDon’t buy this……prove it……..
You have a right to believe whatever you wish but common sense tells us that Nader did his part in putting bush in office.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:54 pmLook kid, I respect your passion but this is exactly the kind of thinking that gave us the bush administration.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:57 pm“Oh, I know now! They’ll do what they are born to do – RAISE TAXES! Wow! That will help!!”
Comment by John Kerry —
Raise taxes on the wealthy. You got a problem with that? Too bad. Your side lost the debate when you endorsed a unlimited war.
January 4th, 2008 at 3:09 pmI’m not even going to respond to john kerry the troll……
January 4th, 2008 at 3:14 pmI’m not even going to respond to john kerry the troll……
January 4th, 2008 at 4:17 pmJanuary 4 2007? That makes this really old news…
I am happy that there was a large turnout in IA. It shows that people do care about what is happening. Now, we just need to get some af the Republicans away from the Dark Side.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:16 pmLook kid, I respect your passion but this is exactly the kind of thinking that gave us the bush administration.
Comment by Fred — January 4, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
I quess we will never know if Gore actually won in florida because , correct me if I’m wrong , the supreme court (along party lines )stopped the vote count and handed Bush the presidency .
January 4th, 2008 at 8:20 pm