a quick question for all those hillary supporters that want florida votes to count

based on your demographics, i assume that most of you hillary supporters that want those florida votes to count are a bit older and a likely parents. so with that in mind i want to ask you a question.

what would you do if your little son or daughter did something you didn’t like. so you tell them not to do it or they will not get any ice cream in the evening. well, the threat didn’t do much the little guy still does it. you then obviously tell them that that means no ice cream. as you sit down for dinner and everyone is about to get their ice cream, with the exception of the little rebel, the little rebel says that he/she wants some ice cream, that it is not fair that they didn’t not get ice cream while all the other members of the family are getting their ice cream.

so let me know what you would do … would you give the rebel some ice cream or be firm?

and then let me know why should the florida votes count?

thanks

what is hillary’s problem? why can’t she say it is over?

i can’t imaging what celebrations must be going on at the mccain’s and the republican party’s headquarters. there they are, an unpopular war which is going nowhere and an economy that is tanking, and a presidential candidate that is the lapdog of the president that has gotten us all into that situation. but, there is a good chance they can win the election. why? because of hillary.because one person in the democratic party thinks that it is ok to keep on running in the primary despite the fact that she will not have enough votes in the end. all along she is discrediting her opponent to a degree that it is helping the republicans while at the same time pissing off voters that would love to vote for the democratic party (but will probably not do so if she gets elected). there is a time when one has to have the guts and the poise to say “this is it, i concede, i gave it all, but in the end the other one won.” especially at a time when you are not even fighting the other team, you are just fighting who will be the head of your own team. i find that hillary’s behavior right now just shows how unelectable she is. the thing she is solely focused on is power. it is not what is better for her party, it is not what is better for her country.  it is only about what is better for her. and i am sorry, but i seen too many presidents over the last 20 years that fit that profile.so to all those people that gave money to hillary (and might still be giving money to her) please stop, send her an email instead and ask her to concede. or take the blame when next january mccain will stand on the stairs of the capitol and be sworn in to be the next president.  

are the democrats on a path to self-destruction?

looking at all the talk shows from this weekend and the news stories from the last couple of weeks, it is becoming very clear that the hillary - obama fight is going to be quite ugly.   i hope that especially the clinton camp (which is behind in the popular vote and as it looks like will also be behind in the popular vote by the convention) will come to the conclusion that it is better for the party to survive and for the party to be the home of millions of new young voters than to “win” the election and in the process lose any respect the party has been able to build up during the last eight years. 

hopefully hillary will get to her senses and not destroy the democratic party just to be the presidential nominee

it seems that it will be very hard for hillary to win the democratic primary by elected votes. tpm has a good analysis of the different number scenarios: what i hope won’t happen is that she does go through and wants to win with the help of the super delegates. if she does that she will maybe win the primary, but will lose the election. by doing so she will have pissed off any independent voter, will have proven the point that washington is all about power and individual enrichment, and will have unillusioned thousands if not millions of young voters who have just gotten into the democratic party (just gotten into politics in a lot of cases).

the fiscal conservatism myth by the republicans

every time there is an election in the US there will be a conversation of which of the two parties is more fiscally conservative. each time republicans complain about the democrats’ fiscal irresponsability complaining about the potential for higher taxes and increased government spending. and each time the press and most of all american voters fall for this myth!

and republicans have already started to ensure the public that they are not going to increase taxes and that the democrats will likely do so. today bush proposed his $3.1 trillion budget. here is what business week has to say about the impact of this budget:

Slumping revenues and the cost of an economic rescue package will combine to produce a huge jump in the deficit to $410 billion this year and $407 billion in 2009, the White House says, just shy of the record $413 billion set four years ago.

but this is not all … the next paragraph in this article shows just how fiscally conservative republicans and bush are:

But even those figures are optimistic since they depend on rosy economic forecasts and leave out the full costs of the war in Iraq. The White House predicts the economy will grow at a 2.7 percent clip this year, far higher than congressional and private economists expect, and the administration’s $70 billion figure for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is simply a placeholder until the next president takes office.

so hiding one of the biggest cost areas (two major wars) and on top of this calculating with the rosiest of economic growth rates available is called conservative? i just want to remind people her that the previous administration (a democratic one) balanced the budget, something which is actually fiscally conservative, and this one squandered all of this. and here is how these fiscally responsible republicans plan to save a little bit:

 Now, he’s [Bush] relying on spending cuts — for everything from transportation to Medicare and Medicaid to nonprofit groups that help the poor — to do the job in order to keep his signature 2001 and 2003 tax cuts intact instead of expiring at the end of 2010. … Bush proposes killing or cutting back sharply 151 programs to save $18 billion next year. Many of those cuts have been proposed and rejected by Congress before, such as moves to eliminate community services grants to nonprofit groups that help the poor, a food program aimed at low-income seniors and grants to help states keep illegal immigrants convicted of felonies in jail. Lawmakers will surely restore proposed cuts to clean water grants, funding for local law enforcement and homeland security grants to states and local governments. … For 2009, that means just a 1 percent boost in a universally supported food program for poor pregnant women and their children, despite rapidly rising food costs. Health research funded by the National Institutes of Health would be frozen, which is likely to mean fewer research grants. …  The budget proposes eliminating the $283 million federal program to help people make their homes more energy efficient and would cut energy aid to poor households by $500 million, a 22 percent drop over this year’s spending.

so much for compassionate. as for fiscally conservative … well it is a joke. none of these little programs makes a dent in the budget. if this administration wants to save money then they have to look at the defense spending, that is where the money goes, at the cost of the millions of poor, uninsured americans. to say that a possible tax increase by a democratic administration is big government or tax and spend is just plain stupid. one can ask anyone, but if one is short of money there are two options:

1. cut spending
2. make more money

there certainly has to be a reduction in spending, but with an economic downturn this can’t be done on the backs of the working poor (because it will only reduce the number of people that can consume), spending cuts have to happen where there is real money and not just pocket change. and if there just is not enough money then those that have a lot have to give a bit more … this is the same logic that bush used when he said there is a budget surplus so the government should give money back to the people.

so when people go to vote for a new president later this year they should ask themselves two questions:

1. when was the last time a republican lead government was really fiscally conservative (cut the budget and reduced spending across all of americans not just the working poor)?
2. were taxes back in the ’90s really unbearably high?