by Pravin, Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 07:24:33 AM EST
Dean continues to be the epitome of pure class. He was on Chris Matthews and gave such a selfless interview where he declined to take any credit for Obama's performance. His point was that his and the DNC's role was merely to prepare the electoral areas for a good candidate to take advantage of. Their role was to set the ground and the candidate's role was to exploit it for a win. That 50 State Strategy was a long term one that has paid dividends. People like Obama took it to the next level.
But let us not forget Dean who started it all. Dean was the voice that made the Naders insignificant players in the role of spoilers. Let us hope we keep getting more new blood that uses the existing establishment to learn the ropes and then tosses the deadwood aside when the right time comes.
Dean also made a gracious comment about Republicans having good ideas too and that he has no problem sharing that. When was the last time you heard that from an RNC guy with their smug pronouncements about the radical left and those east coast liberals?
Here is a link thanks to Hughsterg. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/27561541#27561541
Even Chris Matthews was so impressed that he felt the need to remind us that Dean was the one that started it all. You rarely see mainstream pundits give Dean that credit.
by Pravin, Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 06:52:25 AM EST
Nearly two years ago, I remember how MYDD would be inundated by frequent discussion of polls as if those numbers should drive the essence of which candidate was the best for us. A lot of candidate supporters(especially Hillary's) would bring up polls and spend most of their time using these numbers in assessing hypothetical McCain-Obama or Hillary-Obama or Guiliani-Hillary or other matchups. A lot of these would favor Hillary as our candidate instead of Obama. People would be touting these polls as some sort of definitive statement as to who we should nominate. A lot of the arguments against Obama would use these useless polls as their main reason.
Two years later, you can see how stupid those discussions were. I have said it before and I will say it again. F*** electability arguments unless you get to the final stage. Do not play amateur pollster because you are wasting my time and your time. The only thing that should have mattered was who was our best candidate. All those numbers touted back then had NO bearing at all on this election. The only time the numbers became interesting was when the campaign started getting to the final stages. We went ahead and nominated Obama anyway and HE TROUNCED MCCAIN. He WON BIG!!!!! All those national poll numbers from a year ago or even 6 months ago?? WHO THE HELL CARES? He won nearly 340 electoral college seats. FL??? He won that decisively. OH? Even that. PA? He gave a McCain-Palin an ass kicking they wont forget.
It's OK to indulge in fun poll watching. They make for fun discussions. But do not make them the focus of the worthiness of a candidate, especially two years in advance. Because it will make you look stupid in the future.
by Pravin, Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 12:00:31 PM EST
I voted in the 2004 elections. I didn't vote in the 2008 primaries because of a last minute scheduling snafu.
I was primed to vote for this historic election. But I just checked my status on the GA site - http://sos.georgia.gov/elections/pollloc
and do not find a match for my information. How the hell did my name get removed from the list? Is there any recourse? I am headed to the poll location anyway. I hope my name is on the list.
Voting should not have to be this hard. If a person can vote without ID, why the hell do I need to keep reregistering even if I have not changed my address in the last 10 years and I continue to pay taxes. Shouldn't they tie the voter registration with our license or some other government card so that we shouldn't have to register more than once?
If I haven't changed my address, and the state and county continues to collect my taxes, but sees fit to remove my name off the rolls, then maybe they think I do not exist anymore. So maybe I should not have to pay their freaking taxes too anymore. But nooo, they will have no problem recognizing me as a taxpayer when it comes to tax time.
by Pravin, Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 11:24:10 PM EDT
I need some clarification on this issue. Obama said everyone making less than $250,000 will get tax breaks. I take this to assume that if you make $260,000, you will still get a tax break on the first 250,000 and will only pay higher taxes on any income greater than that.
So when Joe the Plumber approaches Obama and complains about having to pay higher taxes because the business he is buying makes more than $250,000, is he referring to revenue or net income? If it's just revenue, what does it matter to him? His net income will still be less than $250,000 after paying all salaries.
If Joe does end up earning more than $250,000 net income, that tells me two things:
- Joe will be a rich guy. So why whine like he is some middle class guy.
- Joe will only be paying a higher rate on that part of his net income greater than 250K. Update [2008-10-16 3:43:55 by Pravin]: I just saw some article where they interviewed him. He seems aware of this. Why would he forgo buying a business just because of a 3% marginal tax difference on anything more than 250,000(36% under McCain, 39% under Obama). He is still getting a tax cut on the first 250,000. I think Obama should have made this point clearer in the debate. And Joe obviously has no clue about the difference between revenue and profits.
Am I wrong on both assumptions? Even if I am wrong on one of these two, Joe still ends up with pretty good money.
I just didn't think Obama explained it very well in the debate if I am correct in at least one of these assumptions.
by Pravin, Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 10:13:58 AM EDT
McCain is someone who can be easily baited to bring up certain things. We can be sure that McCain will try to make some kind of reference to Ayers. First Obama should quickly shoot it down by saying that there were republicans associated with him then. And that if he went by every aquaintance or peer in McCain's life whether in the army or in politics, he cannot guarantee he never associated with a racist who condoned Jim Crow laws back in the day and hatred towards a segment of America is hatred of America itself.
Then Obama could just say why McCain selected a VP whose husband was a member of a party that puts Alaska ahead of the nation. And why she gave videotaped speeches for this organization on at least one occasion.
by Pravin, Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 02:27:09 AM EDT
Let's see. I was at Las Vegas and lost $200 while playing blackjack. It doesnt matter in the past that I have won hundreds in blackjack as winnings. I have a right to bank that money. But when I lose, I want to be bailed out too like many other Americans of all income levels, especially the rich CEOs. When I win, I demand the right to spend every dollar of it. But when I lose, I want the government to come in and save me.
My relatives who worked in Lucent lost thousands in Lucent stock 8 or 9 years ago. They need to be compensated too.
I had a buddy who lost 100K in the stock market after the dotcom bubble burst. Where is his bailout?
I had buddy who ditched one nice girlfriend for what ended up being a loser. Can her get a bailout and the government offer him a new improved girlfriend?
by Pravin, Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:27:10 PM EDT
Seriously, this obsession with the war on terror and everyone falling in line is a frckn joke.
Will you seriously feel safe when the economy fails and people are raiding houses for copper or we end up with South American style bandits?
With the flaunting of obscene amount of money by CEOs who are morally much more repugnant than your common looter, will we be surprised if we start getting bandits in the US who threaten the lives of these rich bastards?
So we replace foreign threats with more domestic threats caused by class inequities?
Do you think terrorists will care about America when there are no huge financial symbolic targets?
The analogy for our stupidity as a nation is this : If your neighborhood was hit by burglars once, will you bankrupt your family to set up a superduper security system just to prevent another hit in your entire neighborhood?
People need to prioritize. War on terror is a luxury only when you got your other shit together. We do not. More people will die of inadequate health care, bad infrastructure, inadequate pollution controls compared to possible terrorist victims.
Who cares about the surge when it is depriving us of bigger solutions at home?
by Pravin, Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:33:03 PM EDT
Democrats can say they are better than Republicans as much as they want, but what have they done to put some teeth into the bailout proposals? Some attempts and then surrender. How does AIG get away with an obscenely rich getaway for their execs just days after the bailout? Arent there some conditions made when a bailout is extended to a company? What are the Democratic members of the bailout proposal team doing? yes, the Democrats are better. But they haven't done much to prevent corporate larceny.
There should be laws where bonuses and salaries exceeding a certain amount should be subject to prorated vesting over time. If no law is feasible, shareholders should be allowed to vote on such conditions. It is ridiculous how CEOs make millions when things go good but in the worst case, do not lose any money when things go really bad. And in a lot of cases, they make a lot of money when things go bad.
by Pravin, Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:27:06 AM EDT
I am not optimistic that the current hearings involving the likes of Lehman Bros' head is anything more than show of outrage by impotent politicans who think they are important.
Take a look at these two links.
Here is an excerpt of how corrupt the SEC is and the Democrats did little to punish these bastards. Why don't Democrats use stories like this to fight the Bushies? The Republicans made morons like Paula Jones household names for minor scandals.
In 2006, Gary Aguirre was involved in a flurry of political and media attention following a front page New York Times article detailing Aguirre's investigation of a politically-sensitive insider-trading case. Aguirre is a former Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) lawyer who was dismissed by the agency following his attempt to subpoena John Mack, now the CEO of Morgan Stanley, in an insider trading investigation of Pequot Capital Management, a leading hedge fund. Hedge funds are unregulated private investment funds that typically engage in unconventional investment strategies, such as short-selling. Mack briefly served as the chairman of Pequot before being hired by Morgan Stanley as their CEO. Click here to read the New York Times article! Click here to read GAP's original statement!
In September 2005, Aguirre was fired 11 days after being awarded a two-step pay increase. Since coming to GAP, Aguirre testified at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing entitled "Hedge Fund and Analysts: How Independent Is Their Relationship?" At the hearing, Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa) expressed his outrage at SEC attempts to silence Aguirre, announcing his commitment to investigate further. Aguirre has provided documentary evidence to Congress which support his assertion that Mack should have been subpoenaed to take his testimony.
Aguirre's battle dates back to June 2005, when he suddenly encountered resistance at the SEC during the course of his investigation of Pequot. A $7 billion hedge fund, Pequot's CEO is Arthur J. Samberg, a long time friend of Mack. Prior to that date, Aguirre had been investigating the case for months, issuing over 90 subpoenas without obstruction.
When Aguirre recommended that Mack's testimony be taken under oath, Aguirre was told by his supervisor that it would be difficult to obtain approval for the subpoena due to Mack's powerful "political connections." Over the course of the next two months, Aguirre's supervisors refused to allow him to issue Mack a subpoena. Aguirre questioned this decision at every level up the chain of command (including SEC Chairman Christopher Cox), reporting his superior's behavior and providing evidence supporting his subpoena request.
Considering how persistent politicians are in connecting Obama with Rezko and other shady figures, why don't the Democrats do a better job making the many whistleblowers in the Bush administration the focal point of a campaign against Republican corruption? Or do they refrain from setting a higher priority on such efforts because they are afraid of indicting their own in the process? There are just so many victims of the Bush administration that the Democrats can use in the name of ethics and political opportunism. But they fail to do so.
Personal stories resonate with voters. Democrats need to do a better job helping out these individual whistleblowers and use them to score political points in the process.
by Pravin, Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 05:23:40 AM EDT
Joe Lieberman is on FOX now once again shamelessly shilling for McCain and Palin. He has talked about Obama spreading falsehoods about McCain. Lieberman also repeatedly sidestepped Chris Wallace's questions on Palin's statements about Obama associating with "terrorists" like Ayers.
Lieberman also cleverly words his statements implying McCain is the only one for tax cuts. He then talks about a lot of bullshit about McCain being tested. McCaskill failed to ask Joe lieberman about McCain's history with deregulation and how is that much different from the current policies that led to this mess.
Lieberman also says that Palin passed the test on Thursday of showing she is qualilfied for national leadership. This is the same guy who keeps claiming Obama is not.
Very few politicians have riled me up the way he does. It's predictable that he praises Palin as ready on issues such as national security considering he has been serving as Palpatine to her Vader in recent weeks indoctrinating her blank mind with neocon policies that gave us a 1 trillion debt.