What stupid wedge issue will the Republicans employ in 2006?

They will continue to trample you and your rights as a citizen for their own personal gain. They have no moral fortuitude as evidenced by the last 5 years. Past performance is a guarantee of future intent.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ May 14 2006, 08:59 AM) [snapback]255154[/snapback]</div>

[attachmentid=3441]

 

What stupid wedge issue will the Republicans employ in 2006?

Liberals.

Someone please explain to me how the price of gasoline is a wedge issue? :huh:

When the free market raise the price of a product to correct an imbalance between supply and demand, it's funny how liberals start yelling about it being some vast right wing conspiracy.

So, would you liberals like to remove the taxes on gasoline?
OH, NOOOOO! That would favor the rich because they use more gas.

So why not raise the tax on gasoline . . . wouldn't that, by comparison to the above, tax the rich?

Get over it people. It's the free market.

I know, I know . . . “what about Exxon/Mobil.â€
If their profits are a vast right wing conspiracy, why don't liberals start their own Exxon/Mobil and rake in the bucks for the cause . . . or better yet, lower the price for the little guy and hurt Big Oil in the process?

THOUGHT SO!

Me personally, I like the high gas prices, less people on the road, no more Hummer H1s, and greater emphasis will be placed on producing and buying high MPG cars . . .. which is good for the environment.

Besides, I drive a Prius. I look at the price of gas and, in my head, I divide it in half. That is what I am paying for gas compared to the car the Prius replaced.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ May 14 2006, 10:14 AM) [snapback]255223[/snapback]</div>

to answer your second question first, there *was* a conspiracy relating to high gas prices in the last summer, but it wasn't the government behind the scenes... the oil execs (and you) will argue that the imbalance between supply and demand raised prices to what they are today, and it's absolutely true that there is high demand for oil. HOWEVER, oil companies posted record profits during this time of "increased demand." read this article at abc news, for example. and don't anybody for a minute start the "liberal media" conversation. if you want to see actual liberal media, message me.

on the one hand, there's nothing wrong with it. as you say, free market. every company has the right to try to get the most for their product. it's the LYING about it that i can't stand. and that is why liberals are so angry, because we're being deceived.

and now your first question, which is why gasolene is a wedge issue. bush will argue that instability in the middle east will cause oil shortages and therefore higher gasolene prices. therefore, we can't elect a democrat to the white house who will only pull our troops out. that could be dangerous for the american economy.

*that* is the argument. i think it's bullsh*t, i think it's a weak line of reasoning, and i think bush is a completely unmotivating speaker. but somehow, he fools just under 50% of the country, and then steals votes from around another 10%.

 

I think they'll use what they've been using as it's worked so well the last two times. Homophobia, Patriotism (with attacks on the Liberals for being traitors of course), and Democrats will be blamed for everything.

And they'll rely on the short attention span and limited memory of the voting public.

Didn't they say McCain was too mentally unstable to be President? I think there was some other mudslinging as well. Watch them flip-flop on that and suddenly McCain is the golden boy, perfect candidate. And the sheeple will swallow it, like KoolAid.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ May 14 2006, 10:14 AM) [snapback]255223[/snapback]</div>

How can anyone in his/her right mind argue that there's anything close to a "free market" in petroleum? (Hmm-guess I already answered my own question. )

The international petroleum market is the most finely-tuned and tightly-controlled commodity on earth. A relatively small number of MEN communicate DAILY to determine what price we'll pay at the pump a couple of months down the road. Those MEN (not some mythical "unseen hand") are those in OPEC who call the shots and those in the U.S. oil industry who call the shots. The real shot-callers are the MEN of OPEC who, in true oligopoly fashion, control most of the world's oil supply.

These MEN decide how much and how fast they will make available their precious commodity. They can ramp it up and cut it back almost instantly. Sure, once in a while a key OPEC maverick will make a little noise about striking out on their own; all families have squabbles. Otherwise, why would U.S. Presidents routinely beg Saudi Arabia to ramp up production? The code of honor among thieves has its own rules.

Based on how much crude these MEN decide to make available---and HOW MUCH PROFIT American oil companies desire to make---prices are set.

The ONLY element of the supply-and-demand model that applies is that of "how much can they afford, and are they willing, to pay?" Americans, the pre-eminent consumers of oil in the world, are in the process of demonstrating how much we'll pony up before giving serious consideration to the issue of brazenly taking control of the oil supply. My guess, and it's only a guess because we're almost in uncharted waters relative to the previous high prices of 25 years ago, is that we'll pay---can afford to pay--- up to $7 per gallon before oil becomes an inflation factor that's more than annoying. And maybe it's really $10. After all, it's a given in our equation that the poor and lower middle class can "make other arrange-ments". After all, cars and gas are "luxuries" for THEM.

There are other blips that occasionally affect this controlled picture, most often temporary disruptions in the otherwise smooth delivery of oil. But the bottom line is that we could still be paying the $.99 per gallon of only 7 years ago (or less!) or it could be upwards of $10. Since we are basically being held hostage to OPEC and the U.S. oil giants---who work largely in collusion---it mostly depends on the RATE AT WHICH THE OIL-RICH COUNTRIES WISH to meter their product to us.

And you all think it's horses**t "factors" such as rising Chinese and Indian industrialization that has kicked us up to $3+, not the coincidence of our having invaded and conquored a Muslim country over the last three years, that has got us where we are?

 

And what wedge issue will democrats use

Republicans want to starve our old and young
Republicans want to invade everyone
Republicans want to give all the money to the rich
Republicans want GOD to run the country
Republicans want to return to slave days


Hmmmmmm????????

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ May 14 2006, 04:24 PM) [snapback]255335[/snapback]</div>

Sounds about right. Except that Republicans don't want God to run the country; God is a God for too many religions. They only want the Christian God to run the country, but not Christ himself. Christ would be giving too much oil money to the poor--something that the GOP could never support.

I am going to guess that Gay Adoption is going to be the wedge issue. And once again, I bet that the Dems let the Reps pull them into this terribly framed argument with thoughts of gay pedophiles manhandling some poor inner city children, with the term "family values" stamped all over it.

These wedge issues make me sick. People voting against their own self-interest kill me.

Pleasepleaseplease can the Democrats identify their values (which they have) and frame the discussion this time instead of being on the defensive and speaking the stupid language of the GOP?

 

Taken from the net:

Handicapping the Democratic Field - the Top 40:

1) New York Senator Hillary Clinton Draft site.
As much fun as it is to look at the 2008 Primaries, Hillary sucks all the fun out of speculating. She is going to be the Democratic nominee. Her fundraising reach is unparalled. She rides the top of the polls. The Clintons dominate the Democratic Party. They have for over a decade now. (Example: How did a battered 1994 Bill Clinton avoid a Primary Battle? The answer to that question also answers why Hillary will be the nominee.) Hillary is going to trounce a respected GOP opponent in the 2006 Senatre race in a campaign with unparalled national attention, then be the nominee.


Yes, there is a vocal part of the Democratic Party that does not want Hillary, worried that she is not electable. However, the only sliver of chance a Democrat has to beat Hillary would come from her opposition coalesing around one moderate candidate. We are years from seeing if that will happen, but what are the chances a single challenger to Hillary will emerge before the primaries? More likely four or five candidates will divide the Hillary opposition until she has secured the nomination.

2) Indiana Senator Evan Bayh
By far the best chance of beating Hillary. He is everything Hillary is not: highly electable.

3) Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards
The most charismatic of any potential Democrat.

4) Former Vice-President Al Gore
Many Democrat insiders think that Gore has grown the past five years. He will add strength from lingering doubts about the 2000 election. Granted those doubts only linger amongst the most rabid of left-wing Democrats, but hey, who do you think runs these Primaries?

5) Massachusetts Senator John Kerry
Every indication is that Kerry will run again in 2008. But hey, even Nixon sat out an election before making his come back.

6) Virignia Governor Mark Warner
(Big Mover #1) You can't throw a stick in the blogosphere without hitting a Mark Warner fan club. A charismatic Southern Governor with fundraising potential and rabid supporters.

7) Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean
Dropping like a rock. His muddled play for DNC Chair leaves you anything but impressed by him. Also, won't he be hurt by his stated preference to be DNC Chair rather than President?

8) Retired General Wesley Clark
We are a year from the skipping-Iowa mistake and Clark's supporters still spend way to much time fighting amongst themeselves. But, at least he has supporters.

9) Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold
He is an ideal candidate for the Democrats. To bad we don't live in an ideal world.

10) Delware Senator Joe Bidden
(Big Mover #2) Biden is gathering the troops already. Ok, I admit I plagerized that comment from another web site. Sorry. ;>

11) Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack
Skipping the DNC battle was the right thing to do become President. Being uncharismatic, with limited fundraising potential is the wrong thing to do.

12) New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson
Potential VP at best.

13) New York Senator Charles Schumer
If Hillary every got hit by a bus....

14) Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln
Another Ideal world candidate. How could the GOP beat Feingold/Lincoln?

15) Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell
Right about here, we are entering the part of the list thats says, "Come on, do you really see one of these guys beating Hillary?"

16) Illinois Senator Barack Obama
Barack's wife recently registered Obama2012.com ;>

17) Conneticut Senator Joseph Liberman
He was 2004's version of the "ideal world candidate."

18) Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano

19) Former Senator Bill Bradley

20) Florida Senator Bill Nelson

21) Lousianna Senator Mary Landrieu

22) New Jersey Senator Jon Corzine


23) Chicago Mayor Richard Daly

24) Illinois Senator Richard Durbin

25) Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford Jr.
Dropped because he let a Blog push him around. If he can't stand up to a little Social Security heat without back tracking, he surely ain't going to like the Primaries.

26) House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi
27) Indiana Governor Joe Kernan
28) Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich
29) Tennesee Governor Phil Bresden
30) Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich
31) California Senator Barbara Boxer
32) Washington Governor Gary Locke
33) Washington Senator Patty Murray
34) Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius
35) Former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey
36) Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr.
37) North Caroline Governor Mike Easley
38) Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer
39) Senate Minorty Leader Harry Reid
40) Michael Moore


2008 Presidential Election - Home
Compiled by David Pakman





Here are the probabilities of each party winning the 2008 presidency, as well as the most likely candidates to be nominated by their respective parties, based on futures trading and overall media and public opinion:



2008 Republican Presidential Nominee
John McCain 27.10%
George Allen 15.10%
Rudy Giuliani 15.00%
Mitt Romney 8.00%
Condoleezza Rice 5.00%
Bill Frist 4.00%
Jeb Bush 4.00%
Chuck Hagel 4.00%
Newt Gingrich 3.30%
Haley Barbour 3.00%
Mike Huckabee 2.80%
Sam Brownback 2.50%
Dick Cheney 2.20%
George Pataki 1.00%
Colin Powell 1.00%
Rick Santorum 1.00%
Tim Pawlenty 1.00%
Tom Ridge 0.70%
Bill Owens 0.60%
Tommy Thompson 0.50%
Arnold Schwarzenneger 0.50%
Mark Sanford 0.40%
Michael Bloomberg 0.30%
Elizabeth Dole 0.20%
Lindsey Graham 0.20%
Tommy Franks 0.20%

2008 Democratic Presidential Nominee
Hillary Clinton 45.50%
Mark Warner 19.90%
John Edwards 6.40%
Al Gore 5.60%
Joe Biden 4.50%
Bill Richardson 4.00%
Evan Bayh 3.90%
John Kerry 3.40%
Russ Feingold 3.20%
Wesley Clark 2.30%
Brian Schweitzer 2.00%
Barack Obama 2.00%
Phil Breseden 1.70%
Tom Vilsack 1.40%
Howard Dean 1.30%
Joseph Lieberman 1.00%
Jon Corzine 0.60%
Ed Rendell 0.50%
Tom Daschle 0.40%
Chris Dodd 0.30%
Mike Easley 0.20%
Pat Leahy 0.20%
Colin Powell 0.20%
Harold Ford 0.20%
2008 Election Favorites - 02.16.2006
Hillary vs. Giuliani or McCain - Quinnipiac survey showing how Hillary Clinton would fare against either Rudy Giuliani or John McCain in the 2008 presidential election.

Hillary Clinton's Favorability - A slight majority would consider voting for Hillary Clinton as of June 2005.

Zogby Candidate Rankings

Trial Heats 08.03.2005 - Potential 2008 Presidential candidates lined up against each other in trial heats.

Gallup Survey of Presidential Field - An August 11th, 2005 survey of the frontrunners for each party, and an analysis of Hillary Clinton.

Senator John McCain - Survey on McCain's favorability and appeal from Gallup on 08.18.2005.


2008 US Election Winner

Republican
50.5%

Democrat
49.3%

Oh you can bet the Dems will turn to thier tried & true smearing and throwing poo.....

 

As Al Franken says in his latest book (the reasons why Bush won in 2004, in his opinion):

<div align="center">Fear, Smear and Queer</div>

Fear-remind us of 9/11 repeatedly. War time president, etc...

Smear-turn Karl Rove loose on any close contest (remember, he's off policy in the White House and onto the midterm elections)

last but not least, Queer-bring up the gay issue..... again...and throw in abortion too...why not?

You have to mobilize the ignorant masses somehow. Maybe the latest 70 billion tax cut voted by the Senate last week will help out the working/middle class? (joking of course)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eyeguy13 @ May 14 2006, 08:48 PM) [snapback]255448[/snapback]</div>

Fear-remind us of 9/11 repeatedly. War time president, etc...

Smear-turn Karl Rove loose on any close contest (remember, he's off policy in the White House and onto the midterm elections)

last but not least, Queer-bring up the gay issue..... again...and throw in abortion too...why not?

You have to mobilize the ignorant masses somehow. Maybe the latest 70 billion tax cut voted by the Senate last week will help out the working/middle class? (joking of course)
[/b][/quote]
I didn't know anyone besides Franken himself read his book. What a losser he is. He hates anything American.He worships at the feet of Ted Ill have another drink Kennedy

 

Burning the Flag that has served well is the proper, and legal way to dispose of a used Flag. It should be done with "proper ceremony". I am a Flag burner. I have disposed of a number of Flags. I also am a confirmed liberal, effete, hippy, snob! I had an upside down flag in my apartment window from 67- 71. We were in distress and are now! Impeach the president! Long live the USA. I protest therefore I am! And as always Peace.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hdrygas @ May 14 2006, 09:21 PM) [snapback]255471[/snapback]</div>

Did you guys see V for Vendetta?

It was a powerful movie with correlation to today. A government in the distant future, fear gripping the nation, a crack down on civil liberties, a powerful egocentric leader....and the people's choice to protest and take back their government.

The point is...I wish there was more organized mass protest. It worked in the 1960's but not working now. Maybe it can't. But if millions of Mexican/Americans can rally together to protest, why can't we rally against the war in Iraq, health care for all, a rise in minimum wage, a balanced budget, etc...

America deserves more than what it has right now.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ May 14 2006, 12:11 PM) [snapback]255286[/snapback]</div>

Second time you've mentioned this, so I'll comment on it.

There are different "wings" in the two major political parties. The Republicans have the social conservative/religious right wing and also the limited government/libertarian wing. George Bush is from the social conservative/religious right wing, and Senator McCain is from the limited government/libertarian wing. They do fight among each other, but the Republicans who have been most successful in winning the primaries are the social conservatives. The "base" they keep talking about are a minority of Americans who are very active in the primaries and usually get their social conservative candidate through on the early primaries and, being established as a "front runner", that candidate then takes the rest of the primaries.

The Democrats have different groups too, and the activists in their base that ends up taking the primaries have produced very weak candidates that don't appeal to the middle road. The last northern liberal that won a Presidential election for the Democrats was .... John F. Kennedy (and he was a "hawk", so in today's liberal circles, he would be anathema). Yet the party continually puts up leftist leaning liberals for their candidates like Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry. Vice President Gore, who appealed to both the liberals and social conservatives in his party (remember the senate hearings on his wife's organization, the censorship-minded "Parents Resource Council?), and he was in a virtual tie with the current President, winning the popular vote and losing out on the Electoral College division.

The real successful democratic candidates, both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, ran as moderate/conservatives; Jimmy Carter was the first "born again" candidate. Bill Clinton was a "New Democrat".

A Republican candidate has to run from the right into the middle to get elected. A Democrat candidate has to run from the left into the middle to get elected.

If McCain is able to get past the early primaries, he may be the candidate, but he won't be the "golden boy" for the social conservatives/religious right ... they don't even like President Bush right now because of his "liberal ways" in regards to immigration issues. Guilliani has the same problem. Both are electable in the general election, but probably not in the Republican primaries, where in effect, Iowa and New Hampshire decide the "front runner".

The Republicans will put up someone like Mitt Romney, and the Democrats will end up with someone like Hillary, and we'll once again have a choice between bad and worse.

 

Go Hillary all the way! Imagine...a smart caring woman leader. What a concept! and 2 for the price of 1...we get Bill back for 8 more years which should leave the neocons twisting in their panties. They've divided and derided us for too long. They will get their comeuppance in spades. We either take a page from their playbook and grind them into a froth or hand them the election again. Progressives must learn to play as nasty and underhanded as they have been played. What goes around comes around. They're begging for it as evidenced by any number of neocon mouthpieces who taunt and tease with their lies, unmorality and blind support of criminals.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ May 14 2006, 09:59 AM) [snapback]255154[/snapback]</div>

You miss the mark entirely I think. The wedge issue will be the democrats themselves.

As a Pro-Abortion Stem Cell research supporter I view the current democratic party as factionated, rudderless, leadersless, and being forced farther and farther to the left.

Amazing how the republicans rid themselves of the gerry farwell group and the radical radical right knowing they had their vote no matter what while the democrats have not done the same.

The democrats are blinded by hate - and hate is a terrible emotion to suffer under while trying to win anything much less an election.

 

"Republicans want to starve our old and young
Republicans want to invade everyone
Republicans want to give all the money to the rich
Republicans want GOD to run the country
Republicans want to return to slave days"

Hmm, seems that's all happening right now. Wake up. Impeach Bush.