Go vote.

[Evan]

And the Republicans blame everything on "liberals" and the "liberal media". It goes both ways. "Vote for us because the liberals will mess things up." Pick your poison.

other way around. didnt you see Billy Clinton's interview a few weeks ago where he blamed all his problems from his presidency on the media and the Vast Right Wing ConspiracyÔäó ?

Republican voters may bring up the liberal media (its a documented fact over and over) but the politicians themselves pander and try to appease the media more than anything.

[Andy]

It goes both ways. "Vote for us because the liberals will mess things up." Pick your poison.

Yes, it does go that way, but much less - the Repubs (in general) pick real issues to found their campaigns and ideals on - Although I am a bit dissapointed that the repubs have dropped the ball on the promised healthcare and social security reforms.

RJ, come on.
Gay marriage, Flag Burning. Xenophobic public policy.
Both parties pick wedge issues to draw out their supporters. Let's be honest.

[Evan]

Andy identify one solid platform plank the dems are hanging their hats on this go-around.

The only one that they have pounded into my head is "Iraq sucks and Bush sucks and we are better, honest" (never mind we voted for iraq too)

[CaptainHenreh]

Andy identify one solid platform plank the dems are hanging their hats on this go-around.

The only one that they have pounded into my head is "Iraq sucks and Bush sucks and we are better, honest" (never mind we voted for iraq too)

I'm with Evan here.

Maybe if the democrats had a platform something other than "We aren't republicans" I might be inclined to vote that direction.

[G.Irish]

Andy identify one solid platform plank the dems are hanging their hats on this go-around.

The only one that they have pounded into my head is "Iraq sucks and Bush sucks and we are better, honest" (never mind we voted for iraq too)

Absolutely. The Democratic party has been criticizing Bush in particular and Republicans in general for the situation in Iraq, and they are correct that it is a mess and the Bush administration has done a poor job. But I haven't seen anyone step forth with a comprehensive plan to do any better.

Pulling out is going to have negative consequences and sending more troops would be very unpopular so instead no one is really saying what they would do differently.

Just more of the same. On one hand 'staying the course' is very unlikely to produce any different results. On the other hand...what's on the other hand?

[Kaan]

Andy... during reagans years we were in the cold war. a completely different economic and polictical time. a plan for the cold war isnt the best idea for a country in a different political and economical climate.

we were supposedly prospering under clinton... which might have been true during the begining and middle of this combined 8years... but toward the end he made policy choices that most people will blame on the beinging years of bush and the poor economy that Bush has attempted to correct.... and done a pretty good job at it.

no matter who is elected in 2008... their first couple of years and their economy is going to be part of the transition from the previous administration.

[.RJ]

but toward the end he made policy choices that most people will blame on the beinging years of bush and the poor economy

Like the rising gas prices?

Imagine that.

[Andy]

Why in the world am I the standard bearer for the Dems?

They don't have a platform. The Dem leadership seems to have correctly gauged that they could only hurt themselves by having a platform so they are anti Bush initiatives which are currently unpopular.

Some of the Reps' positions are problematic as well. Rejecting fed funding for stem cell research because a fraction of their base is against it, is terrible for medicinal/economic purposes.

Some of the Dems positions are unresponsible. Pulling out of Iraq seems to be a risky move. Failed states leads to instability and the middle east is a really important region for us. Pandering to their base isn't the way to do figure out Iraq.

Everyone is bitching about Iraq but no one wants to do anything about it. If we're really in a "war on terror," lets have a proper draft where everyone has to sacrifice and put their ass on the line.

Also, lets put things on the table. President Bush did make a mistake on the war. If he would admit that, then we can move past the blaming/bickering and work together on a proper solution. Also, Afganistan is going to hell pretty quickly and the Taliban is running the western chunk of that country. Zawahiri, 2nd in Al Qaeda, lives in the borderlands Waziristan under their protection.

Things are getting really bad and we should honestly address those things and not bitch back and forth about who is on the better team.

I'll get off my soapbox now.

[G.Irish]

but toward the end he made policy choices that most people will blame on the beinging years of bush and the poor economy

Like the rising gas prices?

Imagine that.

How does the president affect gas prices? Seriously? Does he bargain for lower prices or what? I honestly didn't understand how people were mad at Bush for higher gas prices earlier this year. What did he do (or not do) to bring that on?

Does anyone really know what role the president plays (if any) in gas prices?

[Kaan]

Economic policy and how "our" trade is vs the country we trade with can greatly effect how OPEC opperates. OPEC watches the US policy, economic plans, and our stock markets carefully and sets their own price accordingly.

[.RJ]

Does anyone really know what role the president plays (if any) in gas prices?

One of the contributing factors to the rising gas prices during the past few years is environmental controls placed on refineries during the previous administration. The new regulations made it hard for refineries to upgrade to meet the new standards and still remain financially viable, so many of them shut down. Supply & Demand at work.

Just one factor - I am sure there are plenty of others as well.

[Mike]

from what i've read, our gas prices are primarily high due to environmental concerns... now that the hurricane season is gone and was a slow one, prices are dropping.

[Apoc]

I'm sure Clinton getting a BJ had something to do with it too.

[Evan]

and this is the slow season for oil usage. OPEC announced a few weeks ago they were cutting production, so I dont think we are going to see sub $2 / gal gas. I think $2.20+ is here for the long term.

My psycho liberal ex-gf actually told me that the republicans cut gas prices recently to get more votes. How exactly they did that in a multi-trillion dollar global market she couldnt tell me. Just that its a Vast Right Wing ConspiracyÔäó
I laughed at her. hard.

Does anyone really know what role the president plays (if any) in gas prices?

Only thing I know of is the federal reserve, which isnt released by the president anyway, its released by congress (IIRC) and it isnt enough to affect the price of gas more than .02 anyway

[.RJ]

I donkey punched her. hard.

Fixed that for you.

[G.Irish]

Does anyone really know what role the president plays (if any) in gas prices?

One of the contributing factors to the rising gas prices during the past few years is environmental controls placed on refineries during the previous administration. The new regulations made it hard for refineries to upgrade to meet the new standards and still remain financially viable, so many of them shut down. Supply & Demand at work.

The problem with environmental regulations is that no one wants them until something is really f'ed up because it costs money in the short run. But in almost every case it is exponentially harder and more expensive to clean up destruction/pollution than it is to prevent it.

Part of the reason Americans in particular are this way is because we seldom experience (or perceive) the negative effects of environmental destruction directly. This ties into the whole negative externalities concept. From a post from someone else here awhile ago:

The production and consumption of oil creates negative externalities including but not limited to; air polution, noise pollution, water pollution, light pollution, unsightlyness, increased run-off, heat pollution...... As individuals it is impossible for us to collect compensation from each of the consumers and producers. Therefore, those that produce and/or consume the most end up relatively better off than those who consume the least because they get to enjoy all of the benefits while only suffering a portion of the total costs---pollution or otherwise.

[.RJ]

Part of the reason Americans in particular are this way is because we seldom experience (or perceive) the negative effects of environmental destruction directly. This ties into the whole negative externalities concept. From a post from someone else here awhile ago:

I didnt say the regulations were a bad thing. Just a contributing factor to the rise in prices.

I dont know enough about the regulations, and the facts on the pollution to say one way or the other. It could be necessary - or it could be like the people's republic of Arnold where they are trying to force regulations on the auto manufacturers that have exponentially high costs to them with very limited return in environmental aspect. Or it could be somewhere in the middle - I dont know.

[Apoc]

Interesting side note:

People were willing to wait 15-20 minutes to use the sole electronic voting machine rather than no wait for a paper ballot. Laziness? Distrust? Convienence?


FBI looking into possible Va. voter intimidation

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15603344/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15603344/</a><!-- m -->

[Evan]

..aaand all the democrats cards come out.
Accusations of voter intimidation, racisim, bad polling equipment, voter suppression, etc etc. Every fucking year.

[.RJ]

Accusations of voter intimidation, racisim, bad polling equipment, voter suppression, etc etc. Every fucking year.

Where's Cynthia McKinney when you need her to champion the disenfranchised?