I hear there was this thing in Iowa...

[Andrew_TSKS]

Dudes, but a black man won a Democratic primary by eight percentage points in a state, essentially, without African-Americans. 

i hadn't even thought about the low percentage of black voters in iowa before now. you're right, this is HUGE.

Why is Edwards' speech making people cry?

here's a link to watch it: http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/23356-john-edwards-iowa-speech

but really, if you don't want to watch the speech, let me just say that john edwards talks about issues that affect the working class in ways that a lot of people can see themselves in. he uses the term "middle class" because for some reason americans have decided that the working class ARE the middle class, but still, it's obvious from what he's saying that he's thinking of the average working people of the country. at one point in the speech he starts bringing up examples of people suffering because they don't have enough money and asking why we let this happen. this is the kind of shit i've been wondering about for years, and these questions haven't even been on the table politically until very recently. he has money now because he went to college and became a lawyer, but he grew up dirt-poor in a milltown. i mean, seriously--that's rare for an american politician. and he just seems so sincere--hilary didn't say shit about anything substantive in her speech, but edwards pretty much spent the whole speech talking about issues. maybe i'm crazy but dude looked like jfk up there to me. it was powerful. i was moved.

also, jeb, i think you're probably right about the hispanic vote for george bush, but he sold them down the river the same way he did with the evangelicals, so i would think they're looking for a sincere candidate this time the same way the evangelicals are. i don't know who would represent that for hispanic people, though. obama?

[DCDave]

Andrew, did you see Obama's "Brick by brick, stone by stone, calloused hand by calloused hand" speech?

[Andrew_TSKS]

actually, no, i haven't watched the 11 pm hour of the caucus coverage yet. i take it i should. i'll get right on that.

[hannah]

how did Bush sell the evangelicals short exactly? what about alito and roberts?

and: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20937 gives briefly a good case for why Huckabee is not actually not not pro-business:

As an example of courageous heterodoxy on economic matters, some have pointed to Huckabee, whose record as governor of Arkansas, when he increased some taxes and spending on education, did indeed place him at loggerheads with the Club for Growth, which is distrustful of his record. But this is fantasy. Huckabee -- as he hastens to point out when pressed on this matter -- was compelled by state law to balance the budget (state governments can't run deficits or print money), and he was under court order to increase spending on education.

For the nation as a whole, Huckabee proposes a regressive and onerous national sales tax. Called, with the usual spin, the "fair tax," Huckabee's tax plan would add about 30 percent (by conservative estimates) to the purchase price of durable goods, many household items, and even automobiles. It is arguably the most regressive tax plan put forward by any candidate. It comes as no surprise that despite the Club for Growth's remonstrations, Huckabee is in good standing with Americans for Tax Reform, whose famous "pledge" not to raise taxes under any circumstances he has agreed to.

[DCDave]

actually, no, i haven't watched the 11 pm hour of the caucus coverage yet. i take it i should. i'll get right on that.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQFeature/CxBX

Here's his speech directly.


And here's the crucial part of it

Hope is what led a band of colonists to rise up against an empire; what led the greatest of generations to free a continent and heal a nation; what led young women and young men to sit at lunch counters and brave fire hoses and march through Selma and Montgomery for freedom's cause.

Hope—hope—is what led me here today – with a father from Kenya; a mother from Kansas; and a story that could only happen in the United States of America.  Hope is the bedrock of this nation; the belief that our destiny will not be written for us, but by us; by all those men and women who are not content to settle for the world as it is; who have the courage to remake the world as it should be.

That is what we started here in Iowa, and that is the message we can now carry to New Hampshire and beyond; the same message we had when we were up and when we were down; the one that can change this country brick by brick, block by block, calloused hand by calloused hand – that together, ordinary people can do extraordinary things; because we are not a collection of Red States and Blue States, we are the United States of America; and at this moment, in this election, we are ready to believe again. Thank you, Iowa.

[DCDave]

how did Bush sell the evangelicals short exactly? what about alito and roberts?

and: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20937 gives briefly a good case for why Huckabee is not actually not not pro-business:

As an example of courageous heterodoxy on economic matters, some have pointed to Huckabee, whose record as governor of Arkansas, when he increased some taxes and spending on education, did indeed place him at loggerheads with the Club for Growth, which is distrustful of his record. But this is fantasy. Huckabee -- as he hastens to point out when pressed on this matter -- was compelled by state law to balance the budget (state governments can't run deficits or print money), and he was under court order to increase spending on education.

For the nation as a whole, Huckabee proposes a regressive and onerous national sales tax. Called, with the usual spin, the "fair tax," Huckabee's tax plan would add about 30 percent (by conservative estimates) to the purchase price of durable goods, many household items, and even automobiles. It is arguably the most regressive tax plan put forward by any candidate. It comes as no surprise that despite the Club for Growth's remonstrations, Huckabee is in good standing with Americans for Tax Reform, whose famous "pledge" not to raise taxes under any circumstances he has agreed to.

Yes, but

All of us will get a monthly rebate that will reimburse us for taxes on purchases up to the poverty line, so that we're not taxed on necessities. That means people below the poverty line won't be taxed at all. We'll be taxed on what we decide to buy, not what we happen to earn. We won't be taxed on what we choose to save or the interest those savings earn. The tax will apply only to new goods, so we can reduce our taxes further by buying a used car or computer.

So in terms of national sales taxes it is quite a bit less regressive.

[hannah]

irrelevant, but goddamn I hate Giuliani so much. and at the end... "TESTED"? really? you motherfuck

[Doctor Bob]

Why is Edwards' speech making people cry?

here's a link to watch it: http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/23356-john-edwards-iowa-speech

but really, if you don't want to watch the speech, let me just say that john edwards talks about issues that affect the working class in ways that a lot of people can see themselves in. he uses the term "middle class" because for some reason americans have decided that the working class ARE the middle class, but still, it's obvious from what he's saying that he's thinking of the average working people of the country. at one point in the speech he starts bringing up examples of people suffering because they don't have enough money and asking why we let this happen. this is the kind of shit i've been wondering about for years, and these questions haven't even been on the table politically until very recently. he has money now because he went to college and became a lawyer, but he grew up dirt-poor in a milltown. i mean, seriously--that's rare for an american politician. and he just seems so sincere--hilary didn't say shit about anything substantive in her speech, but edwards pretty much spent the whole speech talking about issues. maybe i'm crazy but dude looked like jfk up there to me. it was powerful. i was moved.

Thanks for the link, but I've no way of watching it as I've no access to a computer with sound.  And anyway, I don't really watch tv, except for the weather and University Challenge.  So your summary is very handy.

Sometimes I think I've a pretty good handle on your country, then I read something like this and realise I'm in the dark.

But I'd caution against thinking any politician is sincere- though you know that already.  Perhaps he is, relative to the others, but that's faint praise indeed.

[DCDave]

irrelevant, but goddamn I hate Giuliani so much. and at the end... "TESTED"? really? you motherfuck

I hate to go back to my man but when he was all

And I'll be a President who ends this war in Iraq and finally brings our troops home; who restores our moral standing; who understands that 9/11 is not a way to scare up votes

I was all "Suck on it, Giuliani."

[Andrew_TSKS]

how did Bush sell the evangelicals short exactly? what about alito and roberts?

oh, i'm sure he didn't completely leave them out in the cold, but if you consider how hard he's worked in the interests of cronyism and tax breaks for corporations and the super-rich, and then compare that to his workrate on things like making abortion illegal, there's a big difference. all the single-issue pro-life voters went for bush, and anything that's made them happy over the last 7 years where that issue is concerned has come from other branches of government. bush doesn't give a shit about those people, and i think that by now, they can tell.

[Doctor Bob]

bush doesn't give a shit about those people, and i think that by now, they can tell.

But like the old left in the UK abandoned by 'New' Labour, where else do they have to turn?

[jebreject]

Well, historically, they haven't been much for voting.

[Andrew_TSKS]

yeah, exactly. there's been a lot of talk amongst that community about how the experiment of getting involved with "worldly"/secular affairs hasn't worked, and they should go back to ignoring such things. i've definitely heard some rumblings that the evangelicals might come back one last time just to vote against hilary, were she to get the nomination, though, which is a big push for the democrats who concern themselves with electability to nominate anyone but hilary. that's also not the only strike hilary has against her, though, and i think the third place finish demonstrates that she's not done nearly as good a job covering up those strikes as she'd like.

[slow west vultures]

the thing that amazes me is that our whole debate on the top contenders on both sides has turned upside down over night because of what 500,000 people in a rural state in the middle of america had to say.  this whole primary process still mystifies me, everything seems so fickle.   i think we should go back to the old days of the conventions, when it was 2,000 white men hollering at each other in a crowded auditorium and making last minute backroom deals on an inoffensive politican that nobody had heard of up to that point.  gentlemen (and women) i ask you, where is today's warren gamaliel harding?

[Andrew_TSKS]

did you just make a post longing for the days of the teapot dome scandal?

[dieblucasdie]

how did Bush sell the evangelicals short exactly? what about alito and roberts?

and: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20937 gives briefly a good case for why Huckabee is not actually not not pro-business:

As an example of courageous heterodoxy on economic matters, some have pointed to Huckabee, whose record as governor of Arkansas, when he increased some taxes and spending on education, did indeed place him at loggerheads with the Club for Growth, which is distrustful of his record. But this is fantasy. Huckabee -- as he hastens to point out when pressed on this matter -- was compelled by state law to balance the budget (state governments can't run deficits or print money), and he was under court order to increase spending on education.

For the nation as a whole, Huckabee proposes a regressive and onerous national sales tax. Called, with the usual spin, the "fair tax," Huckabee's tax plan would add about 30 percent (by conservative estimates) to the purchase price of durable goods, many household items, and even automobiles. It is arguably the most regressive tax plan put forward by any candidate. It comes as no surprise that despite the Club for Growth's remonstrations, Huckabee is in good standing with Americans for Tax Reform, whose famous "pledge" not to raise taxes under any circumstances he has agreed to.

Yes, but

All of us will get a monthly rebate that will reimburse us for taxes on purchases up to the poverty line, so that we're not taxed on necessities. That means people below the poverty line won't be taxed at all. We'll be taxed on what we decide to buy, not what we happen to earn. We won't be taxed on what we choose to save or the interest those savings earn. The tax will apply only to new goods, so we can reduce our taxes further by buying a used car or computer.

So in terms of national sales taxes it is quite a bit less regressive.

yeah but it's still a burden on people who live paycheck-to-paycheck and a boon for people who make 7 figures.

Also it's hilarious because it's a "simplified tax code" but only if you're rich.  If you're poor you've still got to do all the work to get your refund.

[Andrew_TSKS]

yeah, dude, that first-of-the-month refund thing? it's like most of the country would suddenly be on welfare. and think about the increased bureaucracy needed to supply that check for expenses up to the poverty line. as soon as this system was put into place, the "fair tax" would need to be raised to cover its own unanticipated overhead. which would only make everything that much worse.

what this is really a recipe for is an overnight black market for pretty much everything, and a concurrent explosion in organized crime.

[dieblucasdie]

Also (and I can dig up a link if anyone actually cares) Huckabee's own literature claims that his "fair tax" plan is "revenue neutral" ie, *it doesn't lower taxes overall, by his own admission*.  It lowers taxes on the rich and raises them on the poor and middle-class.  Not to mention that the rich wouldn't have to do their taxes at all, but the poor would have to do them every month.

[SPACERACE]

for a while i didn't think anyone actually took huckabee seriously, but i was way wrong.


i'm probably just going to vote for ron paul.

[dieblucasdie]

for a while i didn't think anyone actually took huckabee seriously, but i was way wrong.


i'm probably just going to vote for ron paul.

     Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not
going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities
across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good
sense survives at the grass roots.  Many more are going to have difficultly
avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of
actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color
of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for
many, entirely unavoidable.

     Blacks have "civil riqhts," preferences, set-asides for government
contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black
mayors, black curricula in schools, black beauty contests, black tv shows,
black tv anchors, black scholorships and colleges, hate crime laws, and
public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.

[Andrew_TSKS]

for a while i didn't think anyone actually took huckabee seriously, but i was way wrong.


i'm probably just going to vote for ron paul.

well, uh, he came in fifth place in the republican voting, so it looks like he's got way less support than huckabee at this point.

plus what blucas said, plus paul is like huckabee in that he is a strict creationist, plus he wants to put the country back on the gold standard, plus he's just nuts. really huckabee vs. paul is just a case of six of one half-a-dozen of the other.

[dieblucasdie]

at least Huckabee has enough saavy to try to hide his craziness.

[diesel_powered]

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQFeature/CxBX

Here's his speech directly.

Personally, I found that speech to be emblematic of my entire problem with Obama. Absent of any actual plans or solutions, sentiments such as these come off as nothing but idealistic sunshine-blowing. IMO, that's the difference between Edwards and Obama. Edwards consistently addresses the issues while Obama consistently spouts pointless platatudes. Don't get me wrong, I don't think he's a bad guy and I'm thrilled about the progress he's making and I think he's killer vice-president material, but I just don't think he's quite presidential material yet.

I'm in love with Edwards for precisely the same reason as Andrew. All he talks about are the issues and exactly what needs fixing in this country and that's something I can really get behind. I agree that he really had a bit of a JFK tone up there and as far as I'm concerned, it's high fucking time for someone like that.

And Huckabee's "fair tax" plan is fucking ludicrous. Are we really to believe that even in the absence of all other taxes, a 30% increase in prices could do anything besides doom the already wobbly economy?

[Good Intentions]

Huckabee is just airing out his wishful thinking rethoric like all the other candidates.

We self-select as a group that responds well to the type of rethoric coming from Edwards and Obama. Another group might think that Huckabee is the bee's knees and will make America great again by decree.

[dieblucasdie]

And that group would be "entitled assholes" so I'm not sure what your point is.

I'm not sure what you mean d_p, given that Obama's healthcare platform is just as detailed as Edwards', as is his foreign policy agenda.  Is he supposed to bust out the abacus and tiny glasses every speech?  The criticism you're making invariably comes from people who don't know much at all about Obama.  I guess you could argue that that's his own fault, but at this stage in the election I don't think so.