Politics: A new beginning

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic

This just doesn't worry me much - perhaps it's just my practice area or something, but clients don't hire me to find out if a reg applies, they hire me to find out how to get around it.

A lot of loopholes and angles can be reused again, and again. The big accounting firms collect these things in a database. Of course, it does take expertise to have a sense for what works and what doesn't in a given situation.

Maybe strictly cookie-cutter banking types would worry a bit, but, again, this just doesn't strike me as a huge threat,

Computer programs pose a threat to people doing middle market transactional work. For many of these deals, the agreements and customization simply aren't that complicated.

Long term, I see technology slowly reducing the need for juniors at BIGLAW.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me [stuff]

I think a Kerry-Edwards ticket might give GWB-Cheny a good fight, although it wouldn't be a winner when all was said and done. Edwards is all over the southern white males and the ladies seem to dig him, too. But, since he would only be the VP, his union-smooching wouldn't be that harmful. Kerry does have that war hero thing going on and, with Dean out of the picture, the liberals will be licking his hinny.

Clark is a loser. The average American paid ZERO attention to Bosnia and they won't be impressed by him being the Supreme Allied Commander of Europe for Nato. The average American doesn't even know what Nato or Bosnia are. Hell, the average American thinks New Mexico is part of another country, but I digress. Basically, people are stoopid. I mean people other than people like me when I say people.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Bush is leading both Dean and Kerry.

In California.

http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs...es/001023.html

Bush must be doing poorly in other states, then, because in the most recent CBS/NYT poll: "On the generic horse race question for 2004, 43 percent say they'd vote for Bush, while 45 percent say they'd support the Democratic candidate."

linky (sixth paragraph)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Bush must be doing poorly in other states, then, because in the most recent CBS/NYT poll: "On the generic horse race question for 2004, 43 percent say they'd vote for Bush, while 45 percent say they'd support the Democratic candidate."

linky (sixth paragraph)

"Someone else who isn't Bush" isn't an acceptable candidate. You'll have to name someone. I believe SEWIB had a 10% lead over Bush last summer.

By the way, the Dems need to get Teddy K. out of the spotlight as a national leader. When the camera went to him yesterday, grimacing and scowling, I was reminded of Jabba, or maybe the bad guy in Power Rangers.

as to the value of the poll in question, you really only need look to this "finding":

Note also that the Democratic party now has a substantially higher favorability rating than the Repoublican party. The public's view of the Democratic party is 54 percent favorable/36 percent unfavorable, while the public's view of the Republicans is 48 percent favorable/43 percent unfavorable.

Anyone aware of contrary evidence, say from a building on TV recently?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Me
Clark is a loser. The average American paid ZERO attention to Bosnia

Careful. You don't want to take a position equating being ignored with lack of merit.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Bush is leading both Dean and Kerry.

In California.

http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs...es/001023.html

Lots of military families in Cali -- which may explain why the linked polls show Clark as the best Dem. candidate against Bush in a California general election (running second to Dean in the primary). Those polls suggest that Bush v. Clark is a toss-up, while Bush is ahead of Dean by just over the margin of error.

The Cali polls also say that 47% are inclined not to re-elect Bush while 46% are inclined to reelect him (of course within the MOE), but the hard-core (i.e. will vote for/against Bush "no matter who the Democrats nominate" is much higher on the "not inclined to reelect" side).

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Lots of military families in Cali -- which may explain why the linked polls show Clark as the best Dem. candidate against Bush in a California general election (running second to Dean in the primary). Those polls suggest that Bush v. Clark is a toss-up, while Bush is ahead of Dean by just over the margin of error.

The Cali polls also say that 47% are inclined not to re-elect Bush while 46% are inclined to reelect him (of course within the MOE), but the hard-core (i.e. will vote for/against Bush "no matter who the Democrats nominate" is much higher on the "not inclined to reelect" side).

S_A_M

All true, but . .. California?

This is like quibbling over whether David Duke is polling at 48% or 49% amongst Black Muslims.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Basically, Bush's speech said, Iraq is all about 9/11 and terrorism, and everything I'm doing is about the war on terrorism.

Now, there have been many discussions on why we went into Iraq on this board, with the right-wing consensus now seeming to be that we did it for humanitarian reasons, not to combat terror, find weapons of mass destruction or position ourselves geopolitically. In other words, the thinking right has abandoned the "war on terrorism" and "find WMD" approaches to justifying the war in Iraq, but Bush hasn't.

So, does anyone thing that when the debates come and a Democrat with a record of actual service in the military makes these points that Bush will take a hit? Or will he just say "terrorism" ten times fast and get away with it?

Is Bush going to take a hit in the media (one anchor last night: "he was careful to avoid the unsupported statements of last year, but stuck to the rhetoric") for the continued use of rhetoric which doesn't seem to have a basis in fact?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Now, there have been many discussions on why we went into Iraq on this board, with the right-wing consensus now seeming to be that we did it for humanitarian reasons, not to combat terror, find weapons of mass destruction or position ourselves geopolitically. In other words, the thinking right has abandoned the "war on terrorism" and "find WMD" approaches to justifying the war in Iraq, but Bush hasn't.

Thanks for the simplistic, skewed and totally fucked up spin.

I'm assuming that the point of your post was to be able to say that, and you have, so . . . is there anything else?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
All true, but . .. California?

This is like quibbling over whether David Duke is polling at 48% or 49% amongst Black Muslims.

And Dukakis was leading at this time in the polls. And Dean was way in front in Iowa last month.

Polls serve a lot of purposes, but predicting outcome ten months in advance is not one of them.

Expect to see Bush's numbers rise during the nastiness among the Dems that is about to happen. He gets to look Presidential for a few months while they squabble. Then as the Dems message coalesces and sharpens, expect to see a fall. If Bush's numbers begin rising right after the Democratic convention and stay up, he wins. If he struggles to get them back up after the Democratic convention, we've got a fight on our hands.

At this stage, the cross-tabs are more interesting than the bottom line numbers, and you have to pay to get all the good cross tabs. If you tell me the hispanic vote is greatly moved by his immigration position, that is interesting because it gives him a campaign theme that, if it resonates, will get him votes in California and Florida that otherwise might not be his.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by bilmore
Thanks for the simplistic, skewed and totally fucked up spin.

I'm assuming that the point of your post was to be able to say that, and you have, so . . . is there anything else?

Terrorism terrorism terrorism. Scared yet? In Minnesota? Those Iowans are. Someone could come in and terrorize their farms.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
Thanks for the simplistic, skewed and totally fucked up spin.

I'm assuming that the point of your post was to be able to say that, and you have, so . . . is there anything else?

So you still think the war was justified by the search on WMD?

Or is it the fight on terrorism?

(I do have family members over there, I would like to know why they are there).

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So you still think the war was justified by the search on WMD?

Or is it the fight on terrorism?

(I do have family members over there, I would like to know why they are there).

Instead of the "start with the knowingly dishonest opening statement" theme, ("Now that all of the liberals on the board have agreed that they enjoy sex while inserting gerbils up their butts, . . ."), you could read the approximately eight million posts on the subject before characterizing them.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
Instead of the "start with the knowingly dishonest opening statement" theme, ("Now that all of the liberals on the board have agreed that they enjoy sex while inserting gerbils up their butts, . . ."), you could read the approximately eight million posts on the subject before characterizing them.

I've read many of them, probably five or six of the eight million. My honest characterization of these posts (the most recent being the exchange involving Mr. Club, Ms. fringe and I) is that the principal CURRENT defense of the war that I see from the right on this board is that it is humanitarian, and sought to remove Saddam because he was a repressive and murderous leader.

Yes, there was a time when I heard you and others justify it on the grounds of WMD and anti-terrorism, but frankly it's been a while since I've seen those rationales proffered. I've seen Club, for example, note that the humanitarian rationale is sufficient even if it was the third or fourth on the list back at the time the war was started.

I repeat, do you disagree with this characterization, and, if so, what justification of the war do you think you and your breathern proffer -- terrorism? WMD?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I've read many of them, probably five or six of the eight million. My honest characterization of these posts (the most recent being the exchange involving Mr. Club, Ms. fringe and I) is that the principal CURRENT defense of the war that I see from the right on this board is that it is humanitarian, and sought to remove Saddam because he was a repressive and murderous leader.

Yes, there was a time when I heard you and others justify it on the grounds of WMD and anti-terrorism, but frankly it's been a while since I've seen those rationales proffered. I've seen Club, for example, note that the humanitarian rationale is sufficient even if it was the third or fourth on the list back at the time the war was started.

I repeat, do you disagree with this characterization, and, if so, what justification of the war do you think you and your breathern proffer -- terrorism? WMD?

still yes on all reasons*. the cool thing is the kicker of Libya coming clean, perhaps in part because W called bullshit. I once offered that as a possible outcome (generically, not specific to Libya), but I didn't really think it would happen. A lot of the humanitarian arguments that have popped up lately were due to you guys trying to dance on Dean's Bosnia good war/ Iraq bad war distinction.

*notably I do have foxnews for my homepage, so I am probably grossly misinformed.