Tonight's Democratic debate--no buttock content

[Booker Floyd]

It's been known to happen...often.  To my knowledge, none of the contenders for 2008 have resigned from Congress.

 

Isnt that a bit specious since you acknowledged that many of the contenders seats arent up for election?

You then named the ones whose are:

Joe Biden: One of the safest Senate seats in the country.  With that said, theres still rumors about him stepping down soon, allowing his son to run to succeed him.

Duncan Hunter: He is retiring at the end of his term, allowing his son to run to succeed him.

Dennis Kucinich: Congressional seats are quite different from Senate ones.  Aside from that fact, this is another safe seat.

Ron Paul: Another safe seat.  Also, hell likely be out of the race before winter of 2007. 

Its also of note that the last three candidates arent the most serious contenders. 

Should he run, as has been discussed, Chuck Hagel's seat in the Senate will be up for election.

Hes not running now, and hes unlikely to, so thats not a very good good example. 

I'm also fairly certain that John Kerry is still in the Senate, despite having run for President.

Again, this is specious.  Im fairly certain he wasnt up for reelection in 2004. 

As around 90% of incumbent Senators are reelected, Edwards could have cruised to a victory, and resigned had he been elected to either office in the executive.

This isnt true.   First, running for two offices betrays a lack of confidence in a candidates chances of winning one, in addition to selfishness.  Lieberman was wrong to do it in 2000, but he at least had the luxury of holding a safe seat.  Do you really think Edwards would have "cruised to a victory" without running an active campaign (because running a serious presidential campaign and serious Senate campaign simultaneously is impossible and thus an absurd expectation)?  North Carolina tends to vote Republicans to federal office, and Richard Burr had already announced he was running and had White House support, as well as a good amount of money.  He wasnt cruising to a victory under any circumstances.  His seat was very much competitive.  I strongly doubt the DNC and DSCC would have supported such a decision. 

[Drew]

? Delaware Sen. Biden was "on fire" Democratic strategist Donna Brazile says

On fire? She would think that.

His comment about a fence stopping 22 kilos of cocaine but it wouldn't stop illegals from climbing or going around the fence proved how dumb Biden is. Yeah right, I'm sure none of those criminals would ever think of carrying cocaine on their back while crossing the border. 

[freedom78]

It's been known to happen...often.  To my knowledge, none of the contenders for 2008 have resigned from Congress.

 

Isnt that a bit specious since you acknowledged that many of the contenders seats arent up for election?

Not really.  I said it happens "often."  And then gave five examples of it happening currently.  Five out of 18 is often enough to indicate that this isn't so far outside the realm of possibility that John Edwards couldn't have done it in 2004. 

Of course, some of the candidates aren't current members of Congress, so it's actually five out of ten.  So, yeah, that's "often."  Half of the candidates who are members of Congress are up for Congressional reelection.   

You then named the ones whose are:

Joe Biden: One of the safest Senate seats in the country.  With that said, theres still rumors about him stepping down soon, allowing his son to run to succeed him.

Duncan Hunter: He is retiring at the end of his term, allowing his son to run to succeed him.

Dennis Kucinich: Congressional seats are quite different from Senate ones.  Aside from that fact, this is another safe seat.

Ron Paul: Another safe seat.  Also, hell likely be out of the race before winter of 2007. 

Its also of note that the last three candidates arent the most serious contenders. 

Should he run, as has been discussed, Chuck Hagel's seat in the Senate will be up for election.

Hes not running now, and hes unlikely to, so thats not a very good good example. 

I can't imagine why in the world I'm not allowed to speculate about Hagel, yet you're allowed to speculate about who'll be retiring and who'll be out of the election. 

Also, the entire point of this is that most are safe seats!

I'm also fairly certain that John Kerry is still in the Senate, despite having run for President.

Again, this is specious.  Im fairly certain he wasnt up for reelection in 2004. 

No, he wasn't.  My point was simply that, whether they're up for election or not, many candidates still retain the option of returning to their old jobs in Congress.  Some resign after their run, but they're usually not young men like Edwards. 
Bob Dole springs to mind.

As around 90% of incumbent Senators are reelected, Edwards could have cruised to a victory, and resigned had he been elected to either office in the executive.

This isnt true.   First, running for two offices betrays a lack of confidence in a candidates chances of winning one, in addition to selfishness.  Lieberman was wrong to do it in 2000, but he at least had the luxury of holding a safe seat.  Do you really think Edwards would have "cruised to a victory" without running an active campaign (because running a serious presidential campaign and serious Senate campaign simultaneously is impossible and thus an absurd expectation)?  North Carolina tends to vote Republicans to federal office, and Richard Burr had already announced he was running and had White House support, as well as a good amount of money.  He wasnt cruising to a victory under any circumstances.  His seat was very much competitive.  I strongly doubt the DNC and DSCC would have supported such a decision. 

Hmm...no, it's 100% true.  Here ya go.  The last 25 years are particularly telling.



He still had incumbent advantage, and I'd put my money on him winning, had he run.  But he didn't and now he's neither President of the United States, nor Senator from North Carolina.  You say his seat wasn't safe?  Fair enough.  But by not running, he practically gave the seat to Burr and the Republicans.  Yet, he has the gumption to criticize others in the Senate for their leadership.

I don't think it disqualifies him from running or being nominated, but Obama was in the right when he delivered that verbal bitch-slap.   

[freedom78]

? Delaware Sen. Biden was "on fire" Democratic strategist Donna Brazile says

On fire? She would think that.

His comment about a fence stopping 22 kilos of cocaine but it wouldn't stop illegals from climbing or going around the fence proved how dumb Biden is. Yeah right, I'm sure none of those criminals would ever think of carrying cocaine on their back while crossing the border. 

I, too, was confused by his cocaine comments.  I'm pretty sure I paused the debate, to consider how a fence would stop a 22 kg bag of coke, but not a 70 kg person.   

[Booker Floyd]

I can't imagine why in the world I'm not allowed to speculate about Hagel, yet you're allowed to speculate about who'll be retiring and who'll be out of the election. 

Also, the entire point of this is that most are safe seats!

Who said you cant speculate?  The bottom line is that hes not running at the moment, and hes unlikely to.  I didnt say definitively that he wasnt.  But since hes not, hes not a very good example.

No, he wasn't.

Then its an irrelevant comparison.  If Edwards wasnt up for reelection, this would be a different discussion, but he was and I explained why a run for both offices wouldnt be feasible.

Hmm...no, it's 100% true.  Here ya go.  The last 25 years are particularly telling.

I was referring to Edwards "cruising to victory" without running an active Senate campaign.

He still had incumbent advantage, and I'd put my money on him winning, had he run.

Yes, he had an incumbent advantage in a competitive race, just as the senator whom he defeated in 1998 had.  George Allen, Conrad Burns, Jim Talent, Mike DeWine, Lincoln Chaffee, and Rick Santorum had that advantage as well.  That advantage will only go so far, especially in absence of a serious campaign.  Ill say it again: you cant run both a serious Senate race and a serious presidential/VP race at the same time.

But by not running, he practically gave the seat to Burr and the Republicans.

No.  He gave another Democrat the opportunity to win the seat and that person lost.  He was running a credible campaign for president (and then vice president) so he could have greater influence than he had as a senator; explain how he can actively run a competitive campaign in North Carolina at the same time. 

[freedom78]

I can't imagine why in the world I'm not allowed to speculate about Hagel, yet you're allowed to speculate about who'll be retiring and who'll be out of the election. 

Also, the entire point of this is that most are safe seats!

Who said you cant speculate?  The bottom line is that hes not running at the moment, and hes unlikely to.  I didnt say definitively that he wasnt.  But since hes not, hes not a very good example.

I agree that he's not as good an example as the others, but since his name has been floated about, I thought I'd include him.  Whether he runs or not doesn't affect my larger point, which is that this does happen often.

No, he wasn't.

Then its an irrelevant comparison.  If Edwards wasnt up for reelection, this would be a different discussion, but he was and I explained why a run for both offices wouldnt be feasible.

It is an irrelevant comparison, but it wasn't a comparison, so much as a parallel thought.  As you said, "running for two offices betrays a lack of confidence in a candidates chances of winning one, in addition to selfishness."  Surely if that applies to running for two offices simultaneously, knowing that you can only hold one, then it should apply to being in office and running for another.  After all, Kerry (or any other candidate) can't possibly do his full duty as a Senator while running for President.  But we don't expect that they will resign from one just to RUN for the other.   

Hmm...no, it's 100% true.  Here ya go.  The last 25 years are particularly telling.

I was referring to Edwards "cruising to victory" without running an active Senate campaign.

Wasn't certain, so I went after both. 

He still had incumbent advantage, and I'd put my money on him winning, had he run.

Yes, he had an incumbent advantage in a competitive race, just as the senator whom he defeated in 1998 had.  George Allen, Conrad Burns, Jim Talent, Mike DeWine, Lincoln Chaffee, and Rick Santorum had that advantage as well [...]

...meaning that in what was clearly a horrible year for Republican incumbents, there were 27 races in which an incumbent was not defeated.  I THINK four of those races had no incumbent running, but that's still about 80% of incumbents being reelected.  Of course, 2006 doesn't matter a lick, here.  When he would have run for reelection in 2004, 25 out of 26 running incumbents were reelected, including eleven of twelve Democrats. 

But by not running, he practically gave the seat to Burr and the Republicans.

No.  He gave another Democrat the opportunity to win the seat and that person lost.  He was running a credible campaign for president (and then vice president) so he could have greater influence than he had as a senator; explain how he can actively run a competitive campaign in North Carolina at the same time. 

An incumbent in the national spotlight had a better chance than anyone else the Democrats could have run.  And Bowles wasn't as strong a candidate as everyone expected him to be.

But, at the end of the day, this is really all a matter of opinion.  You and I can throw facts, figures, and logic at each other until the cows come home, and it won't make a bit of difference.  Again, though, I'm not saying it disqualifies him from being a strong candidate.  I just think it's a fair criticism, primarily because he's criticizing others' leadership.     

[The Dog]

Edwards is the last person to be talking about leadership.  he served what, one term in office, has done very little politically the last 4 years!?!?!?  And people give Obama shit about being "inexperienced"??

So I assume you agree with those that use the "Obama isnt experienced enough" argument?  After all, youre referencing Edwards' one term to question his leadership ability.  To my knowledge, Edwards hasnt made any criticisms about Obamas experience.

As for doing "very little politically" for the last four years, perhaps you can expound.  Id like to know how youll dismiss his work regarding poverty as director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at UNC, multifarious speeches across the country, work with Jack Kemp for the Council on Foreign Relations, and College for Everyone program.  No, he didnt make much of an impact on legislation; as you might know, hes no longer able to vote in the Senate.  However, he has used his position to reach out to supporters on many issues (volunteering, Supreme Court nominees, Iraq, etc.). 

he just comes across to me as very whiny.  Obama's comment exposed him for the joke he is.  i'd much rather see Biden or Richardson as the 3rd guy on the 1st tier....

That makes sense since you seem to share their penchants for reinforcing Republican narratives. 

You disagree with Edwards (presumably since you havent referenced anything other than his criticism of Obama), but why do you believe that hes a joke?

Obviously, you dislike the fact that Edwards has criticized your preferred candidates.  Thats perfectly fine, but your attempts to discredit him are bogus. 

Whoooaaaaa.  To quote Sadamm Hussein "reellaaaaxxxxx guuuuyyyy".

wasn't trying to discredit anyone.  It's just my opinion of him, nothing more.  And no, you assume wrong, I DO think Obama is experienced enough.  Edwards was talking about leadership, my point was I don't know how he can criticize others when he doesn't really have much experience leading or legislating (hence my reference to very little politically - your examples are fine, but they don't do much for me - actual legislating/governing is more important to me when deciding who i want to elect for president - to each their own right?) 

[freedom78]

Edwards is the last person to be talking about leadership.  he served what, one term in office, has done very little politically the last 4 years!?!?!?  And people give Obama shit about being "inexperienced"??

So I assume you agree with those that use the "Obama isnt experienced enough" argument?  After all, youre referencing Edwards' one term to question his leadership ability.  To my knowledge, Edwards hasnt made any criticisms about Obamas experience.

As for doing "very little politically" for the last four years, perhaps you can expound.  Id like to know how youll dismiss his work regarding poverty as director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at UNC, multifarious speeches across the country, work with Jack Kemp for the Council on Foreign Relations, and College for Everyone program.  No, he didnt make much of an impact on legislation; as you might know, hes no longer able to vote in the Senate.  However, he has used his position to reach out to supporters on many issues (volunteering, Supreme Court nominees, Iraq, etc.). 

he just comes across to me as very whiny.  Obama's comment exposed him for the joke he is.  i'd much rather see Biden or Richardson as the 3rd guy on the 1st tier....

That makes sense since you seem to share their penchants for reinforcing Republican narratives. 

You disagree with Edwards (presumably since you havent referenced anything other than his criticism of Obama), but why do you believe that hes a joke?

Obviously, you dislike the fact that Edwards has criticized your preferred candidates.  Thats perfectly fine, but your attempts to discredit him are bogus. 

Whoooaaaaa.  To quote Sadamm Hussein "reellaaaaxxxxx guuuuyyyy".

  

Yeah, after all, this is really just a bunch of people who won't be voting Republican nit-picking about which Democrat to vote for.

[freedom78]

Did anyone catch tonights Republican debate?

I saw about 45 minutes of it, which was enough to see that, unlike earlier debates, they now appear to believe Bush is acceptable cannon fodder, and slamming him might help their political goals.

The crowd seemed more raucous than the Dems' crowd, a few night ago.  Perhaps they were trying to convince us that people still like Republicans?

I still appreciate Ron Paul for taking such principled stances, even when I disagree with him, and on the Daily Show, Monday night and again in the debate, he was more than candid about both why using force to spread democracy is a bad policy, and also how the two party system (of which he is a part, albeit on the fringes) conspires to prevent any legitimate third party competition.   

I do like seeing that the less conservative Republicans (Romney and Guiliani) talked seriously about energy independence, though Guiliani's comment that the military needs to be restructured (I agree with that part) and that they need to be trained in "nation building" (I heartily disagree with that part!  ). 

McCain did pretty well, though he kept saying "my friends" and it seemed contrived, after a while.

I appreciated Rep. Tancredo's assertion that Bush wouldn't be someone he'd "use" during his term.   

I'm not sure why they keep asking all these stupid religion questions of the candidates.  As it relates to policy (prayer in school, Ten Commandments in a courtroom, etc.)?  That's fine.  But personal beliefs about God don't strike me as important matters in a debate. 

[polluxlm]

Did anyone catch tonights Republican debate?

I saw about 45 minutes of it, which was enough to see that, unlike earlier debates, they now appear to believe Bush is acceptable cannon fodder, and slamming him might help their political goals.

Yeah, we know what they say about loyalty and politics...

I still appreciate Ron Paul for taking such principled stances, even when I disagree with him, and on the Daily Show, Monday night and again in the debate, he was more than candid about both why using force to spread democracy is a bad policy, and also how the two party system (of which he is a part, albeit on the fringes) conspires to prevent any legitimate third party competition.? ?

It's men like Paul that should sit in office. Sadly they're too conscious for their own good. Voters don't like it when their neurons are required to do some work.

I do like seeing that the less conservative Republicans (Romney and Guiliani) talked seriously about energy independence, though Guiliani's comment that the military needs to be restructured (I agree with that part) and that they need to be trained in "nation building" (I heartily disagree with that part!? ).?

They might need to start work in their own backyard first, yeah

I'm not sure why they keep asking all these stupid religion questions of the candidates.? As it relates to policy (prayer in school, Ten Commandments in a courtroom, etc.)?? That's fine.? But personal beliefs about God don't strike me as important matters in a debate.?

The religious conservatives are a large group, they 'won' Bush' election, and appealing to them is essential.

[SLCPUNK]

I still appreciate Ron Paul for taking such principled stances, even when I disagree with him, and on the Daily Show, Monday night and again in the debate, he was more than candid about both why using force to spread democracy is a bad policy, and also how the two party system (of which he is a part, albeit on the fringes) conspires to prevent any legitimate third party competition.   

I was very impressed with him in that interview. Too bad I'll never have a chance to vote for him-doubtful anyway.

[freedom78]

I still appreciate Ron Paul for taking such principled stances, even when I disagree with him, and on the Daily Show, Monday night and again in the debate, he was more than candid about both why using force to spread democracy is a bad policy, and also how the two party system (of which he is a part, albeit on the fringes) conspires to prevent any legitimate third party competition.   

I was very impressed with him in that interview. Too bad I'll never have a chance to vote for him-doubtful anyway.

He impresses me, too.  I'm hopeful that he'll be like Kucinich, and really stick it out, even if he's losing.  I honestly believe (or hope...) that there's a big chuck of Republicans hiding in the closet in embarrassment over the Bush Presidency.  If they group around him, he could do much better than people expect, though I still doubt he'll win.

[Mal Brossard]

Ron Paul will still get a nomination in 2008.  If not as a Republican, he'll be on the ballot as a Libertarian.